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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1034-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fcykliqj fLFkr NRrhlx<

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 fd'kksj HkknqMh]

vf/koDrk 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

[Qkñlañ 225@16@2012&,ñohñMhñ&II]

vftr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2015

S.O. 1034.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Chhattisgarh High

Court at Bilaspur for conducting the prosecution appeals,

revisions or other matters arising out of the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).

[F.No. 225/16/2012-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

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

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1035-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn la'kks/ku

v/;kns'k] 2013 dh /kkjk 3d dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn

dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k%

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e]

1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds

vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa

}kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus

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- 21]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 17—ebZ 23] 2015] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 27—T;s"B 2] 1937

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 17—MAY 23, 2015, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 27—JYAISTHA 2, 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)

2078 GI/2015

(2229)

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ds lnL; ds

:i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gSA

vr% vc mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds mica/k

ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu LokLF;

ea=ky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ138

esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd, tkrs gSa( vFkkZr%—

Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; dh fnukad

06 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 3325 ¼v½ vkSj

mlds la'kks/ku esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/kh izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr

dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%

Ø-la-

fo'ofo|ky; dk uke

fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k pquko dk rjhdk

44-

ckck Q+jhn ;wfuoflZVh

izksñ ¼MkWñ½ jkt cgknqj]

lsusV }kjk

vkWQ+ esfMdy lkbalst+]

ckbZl pkalyj] ckck Q+jhn

fuokZfpr

QjhndksV iatkc

;wfuoflZVh vkWQ+ esfMdy

lkbalst+] QjhndksV]

iatkc

[lañ ohñ 11013@02@2015&,e bZ ih&I]

vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo

ikn fVIi.kh% fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds lkñdkñ 138 ds rgr

Hkkjr ds jkti= esa eq[; vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn ¼la'kks/ku½] f}rh; v/;kns'k] 2013 ¼2013 dk

11½ ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k x;k FkkA

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2015

S.O. 1035.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the

Medical Council of India was reconstituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of

the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by

the respective universities/health science universities, the

following has been elected to be a member of the Medical

Council of India for four years with effect from the date of

issue of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby makes the following amendment in the

Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry

of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960,

namely:

In the notification of the Government of India in the

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E)

dated the 6th November, 2013 and amendments thereto,

after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following

shall be inserted, namely:

S.No.

Name of the

Details of the Elected

Mode of

University

Member

Election

44.

Baba Farid

Prof. Dr. Raj Bahadur,

Elected

University of

Vice Chancellor, Baba

unanimously

Health Sciences,

Farid University of

by Senate.

Faridkot,

Health Sciences,

Punjab

Faridkot, Punjab

[No. V. 11013/02/2015-MEP-I]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note: The principal notification was publish in the

Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January,

1960 and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council

(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1036-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 'kgjh fodkl ea=ky;

ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu dsUnzh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy;] ftlds 80% ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa us

fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½

ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds varxZr vf/klwfpr djrh gS%

eq[; vfHk;ark ¼iwñvñ½&2 dk dk;kZy;]

dsanzh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx]

thñihñvksñ ifjlnu] jktho uxj Fkkuk ds fudV

vkf'k;kuk nh?kk jksM]

iVuk&800 025

[Qkñ lañ bZ&11017@1@2013&fgUnh]

nqxkZ 'kadj feJk] vij lfpo ¼'kgjh fodkl½

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2015

S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of

Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notified the

following office of the Central Public Works Department,

Ministry of Urban Development, where more than 80% of

officers/employees have attained working knowledge of

Hindi:

Office of the Chief Engineer (EZ)-II

Central Public Works Department,

GPO Complex, Near Rajiv Nagar Police Station,

Ashiyana Digha Road,

Patna-800 025

[F. No. E&11017@1@2013&Hindi]

DURGA SHANKER MISHRA, Addl. Secy. (UD)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2231

dkjiksjsV dk;Z ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1037-—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds

vuqlj.k esa dkjiksjsV dk;Z ea=ky; ds varxZr izfrLi/kkZ vihy

vf/kdj.k dks] ftlds 80- ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk

dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ bZ&11016@1@2010&fganh]

lqjs'k iky] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language (use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Competition Appellate Tribunal, under Ministry of

Corporate Affairs, wherein more than 80% staff members

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11016/1/2010-Hindi]

SURESH PAL, Jt. Secy.

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1038-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ fgUnqLrku

bUlsdVhlkbM~l fyfeVsM ¼lHkh izfr"Bkuksa@bdkbZ;ksa½ ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfu;e ds

izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] 30 ebZ] 2015 ls ,d o"kZ dh

vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%—

¼1½ iwokZsä LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mä vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mä dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mä vf/kfu;e ¼ftls

blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk

,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950

ds v/khu mls mä vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkh(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mä deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45

dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mä vofè dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mä vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks

;k ugha( ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k

ds nkSjku] tc mä dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e

ds mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kä gksxk%—

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd

og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksä fujh{kd

;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk/khu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj

mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/kr

,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa

vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

ik;k tk,] og fo'okl djus dk ;qfä;qä dkj.k

gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(

¼M-½ ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh

vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh

gksxhA

[lañ ,lñ&38014@12@2013@&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2015

S.O. 1038.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948(34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of M/s Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (All

units) from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective w.e.f. 30.05.2015 for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

period under the Employees' State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of:—

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or imediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as be may consider

necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

document maintained in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automoatically cancelled

and then the new entity will have to approach the

appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/12/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1039-—dsUnzh; ljdkj deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ bafM;u QkjelZ QfVZykbtj

dkWijsfVo fyfeVsM ¼bZQdks½ ¼lHkh ;wfuV@dk;kZy;½ ds fu;fer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2233

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] 27 twu] 2015 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%—

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku

Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950

ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh

Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk

izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

¼i½ /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x, Fks

;k ugha( ;k

¼iii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

¼iv½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e

ds mica/k esa izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%—

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd

og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd

;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds] vf/kHkksxk/khu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj

mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/kr

,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka] vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa

vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;Fkkfuf/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@05@2014&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2015

S.O. 1039.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

estibalishments of M/s. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-

operative Ltd. (IFFCO), (All Units/offices) from the

operation of the said Act.

The exemption shall be effective w.e.f. 27.06.2015 for a

period of one year.

(2) the above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designation of the

exempted employees';

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from in it respect of the

said period under the Employees' State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of:—

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-Section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and king being

benefits in consideration of which exemption

is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal of immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has resonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establishment

office, or other premises;

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled

and then the new entity will have to approach the

appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/05/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1040-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;- 2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 385@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@31@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the award (I.D. NO. 385/2005) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in replation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on14/5/2015.

[No. L-40012/31/2005-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 385/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Sarabjit Singh. S/o Sh. Gurdip Singh, resident of Village

Chahal, P.O. Tehna, Distt. Faridkot.

...Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2235

Versus

1. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Ferozepur.

2. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of

Communications, Deptt. of Telecom Services, Sanchar

Bhawan, New Delhi.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 13.4.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/31/

2005 IR(DU) Dated 22.7.2005, 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

adjudicaiton to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Telecommunication known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Ferozepur in the terminating the services of

Sh. Sarabjit Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdip Singh, Ex-Driver,

w.e.f. 1.6.1999 by violating the provisions of ID Act

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed

as Driver from 2.3.1998 to 31.5.1999 in the Office of SDO(T)

Faridkot on Vehicle No. PB-04D- 7558 and was paid

Rs. 1560/- per month. He was issued identity card and paid

wages on ACG-17. His attendence was marked in the

attendance register. His services were terminated on

31.5.1999 without service of notice or payment of any

retrenchment componsation. After termination of his

services, new hands were employed. His termination being

illegal, he be reinstated in service.

The respondent department did not file written

statement but filed a reply which it earlier filed in an

application under Section33(c) (2) of the Act. It is pleaded

that the workman was not directly engaged by the

management nor was paid any wages. Department entered

into a contract with the contractor for managing the petty

jobs on need basis and the department used to make the

payment to the contractor. That the workman may have

been engaged by the contractor.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

withness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management has examined Shri

Shamsher Bahadur, who filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken in its reply filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the

Act.

It may be added that the respondent management moved

an application seeking permission to replace the written

statement and its application was declined vide detailed

order dated 20.5.2014.

I have heard Sh. Arun Batra, counsel for the workman

and Sh. G.C. Babbar for the management.

It was argued by Mr. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the

management that there was no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties and the management

has given a contract to the contractor for managing the

petty jobs and the workman was never its employee and

therefore he is not entitled to any relief.

It may be added that the case of the workman is that he

was employeed by the management as driver for the period

2.3.1998 to 31.5.1999 and this fact is denied by the

respondent management. In order to prove his case, the

workman has relied on photocopy of the identity card

WW2/1 which is issued by the DET Faridkot mentioning

therein the date of issuance on 1.4.1999 and expiry on

31.3.2000. It is in the knowledge of the management who

was posted as DET in the days when this identity card was

issued but no one has been examined by the department to

belief the issuance of the identity card. It is clearly

mentioned therein that the workman was working as a lorry

driver. The workman has again placed on record a

photocopy of the logbook from 2.3.1998 to 7.5.1999 and

the vehicle number mentioned therein PB04D7558 and it

bear initial of officers of the respondent management. But

again the respondent management did not dare of examine

any of the persons who were posted at the relevant time to

establish that the workman was working with the

department as an employee of the department, or the

contractor. Again the definite case of the respondent

management is that it has given a contract to the contractor

to provide labour for petty jobs and the payment was

directly made to the contractor but again the management

has failed to examine the contractor to establish that the

workman was the man of the contractor and not of the

department. In view of the identity card Exh bit WW2/1

and the copy of the logbook WW2/2, it was incumbent

upon the respondent management to lead cogent evidence

to prove that the workman was not its employee but was of

the contractor and the bare statement of Sh. Shamsher

Bahadur who was not posted at the relevant station at the

relevant time is of no help to the department. Rather the

documents placed on the file coupled with the statement

of workman probablize his case that he was employed by

the respondent department where he worked from 2.3.1998

to 31.5.1999 and his services were terminated on 31.5.1999

without payment of any retrenchment compensation.

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The respondent department is a statutory body and

has its rules and regulations for employing the persons

but nothing has come on the file that the workman was

employed by following any procedure by the department.

Therefore, in the circumstances, reinstatement of the

workman cannot be ordered. However he is to be given

compensation for termination of his services which were

terminated without payment of any retrenchment

compensation. He worked for more than a year with the

department and according to him, as deposed during cross-

examination, his salary was Rs. 1200/- per month. The

workman has to be given compensation in lieu of one

month's notice and 15 days' salary for each completed year.

The services of the workman were terminated in the year

1999. Considering the entirety of the circumstances and by

doing the guess work, the workman is awarded Rs. 50000/-

as just compensation.

In result, the reference is answered holding the action

of the management in terminating the services of the

workman is not legal and justified and he is awarded Rs.

50000/- as compensation and the respondents shall pay

the same to him within two months of the publication of

the award filing which workman shall be entitled to 9 per

cent interest from the date of the award till realization on

the awarded amount. 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] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1041-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM 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 ,oa@Je U;k;ky;&2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 384@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@32@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 384/2005) of the

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. No.

2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workmen, which has received by the Central

Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-40012/32/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 384/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Sarwan Kumar, s/o Sh. Amar Nath, resident of Village

Jalowal, P.O. Bhunga, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

...Petitioner

Versus

1. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Ferozepur.

2. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of

Communications, Deptt. of Telecom Services,

Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. G. C. Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 13.4.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/32/

2005 IR(DU) Dated 22.7.2005, 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

Telecommunication Known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Ferozepur in the terminating the services of

Sh. Sarwan Kumar, S/o Sh. Amar Nath, Ex-Driver, w.e.f.

16.4.1999 by violating the provision of ID Act is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared and

submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed

as Driver form 16.5.1995 to 31.3.1997 in the Office of SDO(T)

Kotkapura on Vehicle No. PB-04D-7558 and from 1.4.1997

to 15.4.1999 in the Office of SDO(T), Muktsar on vehicle

No. PB30A0576 and was paid Rs. 1560/- per month. He was

issued identity card and paid wages on ACG-17. His

attandance was marked in the attendance register. His

services were terminated on 16.4.1999 without service of

notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation. After

termination of his services, new hands were employed. His

termination was illegal, he be reinstated in service.

The respondent department did not file written

statement but filed a copy of reply which it earler filed in an

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2237

application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act as its written

statement. It is pleaded that the workman was not directly

engaged by the management nor was paid any wages.

Department entered into a contract with the contractor for

managing the petty jobs on need basis and the department

used to make the payment to the contractor. That the

workman may have been engaged by the contractor.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

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.

On the other hand the management has examined Sh.

Gurdeep Singh and Sh. P.D. Kansal who filed their affidavits

reiterating the stand taken in their reply filed under Section

33(c)(2) of the Act.

It may be added that the respondent management moved

an application seeking permission to replace the written

statement and its application was declined vide detailed

order dated 20.5.2014.

I have heard sh. Arun Batra, counsel for the workman

and Sh. G.C. Babbar for the management.

It was argued by Mr. G.C. Babbar, counsel for the

management that there was no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties and the management

has given a contract to the contractor for managing the

petty jobs and the workman was never its employee and

therefore he is not entitled to any relief.

It may be added that the case of the workan is that he

was employed as Driver by the management for the period

16.5.1995 to 31.3.1997 at Kotkapura and then from 1.4.997

to 15.4.1999 at Muktsar for driving different vehicles. The

workman while appearing in the witness box has supported

these assertions. He has also relied on the certificates dated

31.3.1997 WW1/2, dated 17.4.1998 WW1/3 and a certificate

WW1/4 being issued by the SDO concerned wherein, it

was certified by them that the workman worked as Lorry

Driver at Kotkapura from 16.5.1995 to 31.3.1997 and at

Muktsar from 12.5.1997 to 15.4.1999. The department has

examined Sh. P.D. Kansal who did not identify the signature

of officer of the department appearing on the certificates.

But it is in the knowledge of the department who were

posted as SDO during the relevant period at Kotkapura

and Muktsar and they have not been examined by the

department to controvert the authenticity of the said

certificates. These certificates gone a long way to prove

that the workman worked as a lorry driver during the

period in question.

Again there is a certificate WW1/9 issued by the Junior

Telecom Officer, Kotkapura for having received logbook

for the period 16.11.1995 to 31.3.1997 from the workman.

Again a certificate dated 2.9.1998 Exhibit WW1/6 shows

that logbook was received for the period 31.3.1998 to

31.8.1998 by the SDO (Phone), Muktsar and a logbook for

the period 9.5.1997 to 31.1.1998 was received by the SDO

as per certificate Exhibit WW1/5 from the workman. These

documents were proved by the workman while appearing

in the witness box but the department did not dare to deny

the correctness of these documents by examining any of

the persons who were posted in the office at the relevant

time. These documents further prove the case of the worker

that he was engaged as a driver by the respondent

department during the period in question, and otherwise,

logbook would not have been received from him.

No doubt, Gurpreet Singh and P.D. Kansal have

reiterated the stand of the management but their statements

are of the no help to the department as they were not posted

at the relevant station at the relevant time. The case of the

management is that they have given the work to the

contractor and the workman may be a person of the

contractor. The fact is not again proved by the management

by examining the contractor and in the absence of this

evidence, it cannot be said that he was the man of the

contractor much less in the presence of the certificates

discussed above. Thus, it is to be held that he was engaged

by the respondent management.

The workman was engaged as driver by the respondent

management from 16.5.1995 to 15.4.1999. His services were

terminated with serving any notice or payment of any

retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination

of his services are not legal.

The respondent department is a statutory body and

has its rules and reglations for employing the persons but

nothing has come on the file that the workman was

employed by the following any procedure by the

department. Therefore, in the circumstances, reinstatement

of the workman cannot be ordered. however he is to be

given compensation for termination of his services which

were terminated without payment of any retrenchment

compensation. He worked for several years with the

department and according to him. as deposed during cross-

examination, his salary was Rs. 1560/- per month. The

workman was to be given compensation in lieu of one

month's notice and 15 days' salary for each completed year.

The services for the workman were terminated in the year

1999. Considering the entirety of the circumstances and by

doing the guess work, the workman is awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-

as just compensation.

In result, the reference is answered holding that action

of the management in terminating the services of the

workman is not legal and justified and he is awarded

Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and the respondent shall

pay the same to him within two months of the publication

of the award filing which workman shall be entitled to 9 per

cent interest from the date of the award till relization on the

awarded amount. Let hard and soft copy of the award be

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sent to the Central Government for information and further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1042-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xYQ flD;ksfjVht]

xqM+xkao ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

241@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@5@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@18@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 241/2012) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Gulf Securities, Gurgaon and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-14012/18/2011-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENRTAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 241/2012

Registered on 23.4.2012

Shri Karnail Singh, R/o Village Syamtoo, PO Rattewali,

Tehsil and District Panchkula, Haryana.

...Petitioner

Versus

The Propreitor/Manager M/s Gulf Securities, W-112

Regency Parki-4 DLF Ciry, Gurgaon, Haryana.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. P.K. Longia, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 28.4.15

Central Government vide Notification No. L-14012/18/

2011-IR (DU) Dated 6.2.2012, 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 M/s Gulf

Securities, Gurgaon, a contractor of TBRL(DRDO)

Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Karnail

Singh S/o Sh. Chajju Ram w.e.f. 17.4.2011 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman submitted statement of claim pleading

that he was engaged by the respondent on 22.5.2010 and

he performed his duties successfully. His pay was Rs. 6111/

- per month. He asked for leave which annoyed the Senior

Security Officer, TBRL, Ramgarh Range who refused to

allow him to work on 18.4.2011. Thereafter he was not

allowed to perform his duties and thus his services were

terminated without paying him any retrenchment

compensation as well the persons junior to him were

retained in service. Since his termination is illegal, he be

reinstated in service.

Respondent No. 1 filed written statement pleading that

it was given contract for maintaing security for a period of

one year from 17.5.2010 to 16.5.2011 which was to be

extended for three years and the contract has come to an

end on 16.5.2003. That the workman was engaged on

contract basis on 22.5.2010 for less than one year. However,

he abandoned the job on 17.4.2011 and never reported for

duty.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

The workman availed several opportunities but did not

lead any evidence. He was proceeded against ex parte

vide order dated 26.2.2015.

Counsel for the respondent closed his evidence.

I have heard Sh. P.L. Longia, counsel for the

management.

It may be added at the outset that workman earlier also

agitated the matter and the Government referred the dispute

vide Notification [No. L-14012/19/2011 (IR(DU)] dated

8.2.2012. This reference was dismissed by the Court vide

order dated 10.10.2012 as workman failed to appear there

as is clear from the copy of the order placed on the file.

When the dispute between the parties had already been

referred and decided by the Court, the present reference is

not maintainable.

It is the case of the workman that he was not allowed to

do his duty on and after 18.4.2011 but no evidence has

been led by him in support of his issue and in the view of

the definite case of the respondent that he abandoned

the job after 17.4.2011 cannot be disbelieved and it cannot

be said that it is a case where retrenchment compensation

was to be paid to the workman.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2239

It result, the reference is answered holding that the

services of the workman were not terminated by the

respondent and he is not entitled to any relief. 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] 11 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1043-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gSoh ,yk; isusVªsVj

¼fefuLVªh vkWQ fMQsUl½ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 13@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@133@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015

S.O. 1043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 13/2015) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (MoD)

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 8/05/2015.

[No. 42011/133/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 27th April, 2015

Present : K.P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 13/2015

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Heavy Alloys Penetrator Project

(Ministry of Defence) and Two Others and their workman]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, HAPP

1st Party/

Contract Thozhilalar Sangam

Petitioner Union

1/594, Pallivasal street,

Poolangudi Colony, HAPP Post

Trichy-620025

AND

1. The General Manager

2nd Party/1st

Heavy Alloy Penetrator

Respondent

Project (MoD)

Trichirappalli-620025

2. Sri Palanivel (Contractor)

2nd Party/1st

M/s Vannam Contractor

Respondent

H-91, Anna Nagar

Trichy 620026

1. Sri S. Ramachandran

2nd Party/3rd

(Contractor)

Respondent

M/s Sree Security Services,

Pudukottai Main Road

Anna Nagar, Mathur Post,

Pudukottai District

Tamil Nadu-622001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Sri D. Muthukumar,

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent : Sri A Ashok Kumar

ACGSC

For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent : Set Ex-parte

For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent : Set Ex-parte

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/133/2014-IR (DU)

dated 19.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of the Union seking higher

wages to the contract labourers working in the

establishment of HAPP is legal and justified? If so,

to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 13/2015 and notice was issued to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel.

3. The dispute has come up for hearing for the first time

on 12.02.2015. The petitioner has entered appearance on

the that day itself. After the first hearing date the case was

repeatedly posted for filling Claim Statement and

documents on the side of the petitioner. In spite of six

postings and two and half months having lapsed the

petitioner has not filed even the Claim Statement. The

Petitioner seems to be too negligent in proceeding with

the case. In the absense of any material the case is to be

disposed without considering it on merits.

The reference is answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 27th April, 2015.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd and

3rd Management

None

Document Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1044-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ef.kiky ;wfuoflZVh

ef.kiky 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSsaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhvkj ua-

49/2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@31@2009&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015

S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D CR No.49/2009) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employees in relation to the

management of the Manipal University, Manipal and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 08/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/31/2009-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 13th April, 2015

Present : Shri S N Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 49/2009

I Party

II Party

The President

Registrar,

Manipal University Mazdoor

Manipal University,

Union, C/o BMS Office, Felix

Madhav Nagar,

Pai Bazar,

Manipal - 576 104

Mangalore - 575 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Smt. H. Mangalamba Rao

Authorised Representative

II Party

Sh. K S Bhat

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/31/

2009-IR(DU) Dated 06.10.2009 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 has

made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the

Registrar, Manipal University in terminating the

services of their workman Smt. Sabitha Poojarthy

w.e.f. 28/07/2006 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

49/2009 when notices were issued to both the parties the

I Party entered appearance through Smt. H Mangalamba

Rao, President, MAHE Mazdoor Union and II Party entered

appearance through Sh. K S Bhat, Advocate and I Party

filed claim statement on 03.11.2009, whereas, the II Party

filed the counter statement on 23.06.2010.

3. The I Party in her claim statement besides contending

that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not based on

evidence and that the punishment imposed is

disproportionate since also contended the enquiry

conducted was bad for non-payment of full subsistence

allowance while raising a Preliminary Issue as to "Whether

the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II

Party is fair and proper?" after receiving the evidence

adduced by both the sides and hearing their learned

advocates by Order dated 04.07.2012 the said issue came

to be answered in favour of the II party i.e., the Domestic

Enquiry held against the I Party by the II Party is fair and

proper. Then the I Party Authorised Reresentative while

filling the affidavits of the Sabitha/I Party workman and

Sh. Purushotam, General Secretary of the I Party Union on

the Point of Victimization and unemployment examined them

on oath as WW 1 (V) and WW 2 (V) and arguments

addressed by both the sides were heard.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2241

4. The briefs facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

5. Smt. Sabitha Poojarthy (hereinafter after referred as

I Party Workman) who was appointed as Junior General

Worker by order dated 24.08.2001/Ex P-6 on complaint by

Warden of the Hostel and others while issuing a Show

Cause Notices, on her reply of denial being not satisfied

with the same the Chief Warden while issuing a Memo/Ex

P-24 on her reply of denial keeping her under suspension

through Memo dated 28.01.2004/Ex P-25 by appointment

Sh. K S N Adiga as Enquiry Officer and Sh. Suresh Shetty

as Presenting Officer a Domestic Enquiry was held and

Enquiry Officer while observing the formalities of

preliminary hearing recording evidence of Prof. Dr. Annie

Shirwaiker and Sh. A S Sohal as PW 1 and PW 2 exhibiting

Ex P-1 to ex P-28 the detailed description of which are

narrated in the annexure and recording statement of CSE

and exhibiting Ex D-1 to Ex D-14 the detailed description of

which are narraged in the Annexure when submitted the

enquiry finding Charge No. 1 as partly proved; Charge

No. 3 Proved; Charge No. 2 and 4 as Not Proved, the

Disciplinary Authority while issuing a show cause notice

to give explanation to the enquiry finding after she giving

her explanation affording her an opportunity of hearing by

order dated 28.07.2006 Dismissed her from services. Since

the Appeal of the I party workman the Appellate Authority/

Registrar since dismissed saying that there were no merits

by his order dated 26.10.2006 the I Party Union approached

the ALC(C), Mangalore and on his submission of FOC

dated 27.04.2009, this reference came to be made for

adjudication.

6. According to the I Party its workman who was though

initially appointed as Junior General Worker after putting

number of years service she was promoted as Telephone

Attender and later the Warden of Hostel when insisted her

to do the work of cleaning the Toilet she denied as such

her denial was not insubordination and that the

management was not justified in asking her to clean the

toilet as such the finding Charge No. 1 is partly proved and

Charge No.3 is proved is not justified and same is perverse

and the punishment imposed on such finding is not

sustainable, therefore, the Point that revolves for my

consideration is whether the I party workman was promoted

as Telephone Attender as such after serving as Telephone

Attender for a period of 9 years she was not liable to work

as Junior General Worker one of whose is cleaning the

Toilet. Ofcourse, there is no dispute that for some time the

I party workman was asked to work as Telephone Attender

in the Hostel but there is nothing to show that the Post of

a Telephone Attender is superior to the work of the Junior

General Worker. There is no dispute that the I Party workman

was appointed as Junior General Worker by order dated

24.08.2001 the copy of which was produced as Ex P-6 in the

enquiry and there is also no dispute as to the duties of the

General Worker deputed to Hostel as detailed in Ex P-7

produced in the Domestic Enquiry which reads as under

"Duties of General Workers deputed to Hostels

a) A general worker deputed to hostels will work

under the directions of Block Supervisors.

b) They shall be directly responsible to the block

supervisor as for as their employment attendance

etc.

c) They shall carry out all the work as detailed by

block supervisor.

d) The following are some such duties

i) Cleaning of hostel area both outside and

inside.

ii) Cleaning of corridors and students living

rooms.

iii) Cleaning of bathrooms and latrines.

iv) Work as room boys and telephone

messengers".

7. Since as per Sub-Clause (d) of Clause 4, a General

Worker deputed to Hostel is to do the duties (No. i) Cleaning

of hostel area both outside and inside; (ii) Cleaning of

corridors and students living rooms; (iii) Cleaning of

bathrooms and latrines and (iv) Work as room boys and

telephone messengers, if for some time the I party was

entrusted with the work of Telephone Messenger/Attender

she cannot claim that she was promoted to the post of

Telephone Messenger/Attender because this was also one

of the duties of General Workers deputed to Hostels. The

warden for the Hostel looking to the needs may assign the

Junior General Duty Workers any of the duties described

in Sub-clause (d) to clause 4. Since the duties of the General

Workers deputed to Hostels was cleaning of Hostel area

both outside and inside; cleaning of corridors and students

living rooms; cleaning of bathrooms and latrines; work as

room boys and telephone messengers, the I party workman

who was for some time asked to attend the work of

telephone messenger/attendant could not have denied the

work of cleaning Bathrooms and Latrines as admittedly

done by her, which do amount to Commission of Acts

subversive of discipline by not attending to work though

being present in premises and wilful insubordination and

disobedience to lawful and reasonable orders of the

superiors by not attending duties assigned. Therefore,

absolutely I find no reason to say the finding of the Enquiry

Officer the Charge no. 1 and 3 being proved. Since the

I party workman appointed as a Junior General Worker and

deputed to work at Hostel since admittedly denied to clean

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Bathroom and Toilets which was one of her duties as

defined under sub-clause (d)(iii) to clause 4 of Service

conditions and even now she tried to justify her denial to

work which she was bound to do the Disciplinary Authority

had no other choice except to dismiss her from Service as

such I also do not find any reason to say that the

punishment of dismissal being disproportionate. In the

result having arrived at conclusion the action of the

management of the Registrar, Manipal University, in

terminating the services of their workman Smt. Sabitha

Poojarthy w.e.f. 28/07/2006 is legal and justified, I pass the

following.

ORDER

The action fo the management of the Registar, Manipal

University, in terminating the services of their workman

Smt. Sabitha Poojarthy w.e.f. 28/07/2006 is legal and justified

and that she is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

Annexure-1

Doemments exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry

Ex P-1

Complaint letter dated 04.07.2003 by the

Warden of Sonia Block

Ex P-2

Letter by the Warden of Sonia Block in reply

to the management Letter dt. 09.08.2003

Ex P-3

Letter of the management dt. 09.08.2003

Ex P-4

Show-Cause Notice dt. 30.08.2003

Ex P-5

Explanation dt. 02.09.2003 by the delinquent

to the show cause notice dated 30.08.2003

Ex P-6

Appointment Order dt. 24.08.2001

appointment the delinquent as Jr. General

Worker in MAHE Hostels

Ex P-7

List of duties of General Worker published

by the Management

Ex P-8

Letter of the delinquent dt. 01.01.2003

Ex P-9

Explanation dt. 18.04.2003 by the delinquent

to the show-cause notice dt. 12.04.2003

Ex P-10

Original of Ex P - 5

Ex P-11

Transfer Order dated 21.06.2003 by the

management transferring the delinquent

from Chandra Shekara Hostel to Sonia Block

Ex P-12

List of ladies, posted to the hostels as per

the transfer order

Ex P-13

Letter of the management dt. 19.01.2004 sent

to the delinquent

Ex P-14

Letter of the delinquent dt. 08.09.2003

Ex P-15

Warning letter by the management dt.

26.04.2003 to the delinquent

Ex P-16

Copy of Ex P 1

Ex P-17

Memo dt. 06.09.2003 issued by the warden

to the delinquent

Ex P-18

Original of Ex P 14

Ex P-19

Memo dt. 16.09.2003 issued to the delinquent

by the management

Ex P-20

History of the delinquent in respect of her

irregularities prepared by the chief warden

Ex P-21

Memo of Non-performance dt. 20.01.2003

issued by the Chief Warden to the

delinquent

Ex P-22

Copy of Ex P 16

Ex P-23

Memo/Charge sheet dt. 16.02.2004

Ex P-24

Suspension Orders dt. 28.01.2004

Ex P-25

Explanation dated 28.01.2004 to the

suspension order

Ex P-26

Explanation dt. 24.02.2004 to the Memo/

Charge Sheet

Ex P-27

Notice of Enquiry dt. 01.09.2004.

Documents exhibited on behalf of the CSE in Domestic

Enquiry

Ex D-1

Copy of the attendance register for the month

of August 2001

Ex D-2

Copy of the Bio-data submitted by the

delinquent to the management

Ex D-3

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

August 1999

Ex D-4

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

September 1999

Ex D-5

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

October 1999

Ex D-6

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

November 1999

Ex D-7

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

June 2000

Ex D-8

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

February 2000

Ex D-9

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

March 2000

Ex D-10

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

April 2000

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2243

Ex D-11

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

May, 2000

Ex D-12

Copy of the Duty Roster for the month of

September 2000

Ex D-13

Mahe Madicare Membership card valid from

01.07.2001

Ex D-14

Mahe Madicare Membership card card valid

from 01.07.2002

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1045-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ctkt bysfDVªdYl

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy baMfLVª;y

fVªC;wuy] eqcabZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ,uVhch-3 dk 2013) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@42@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2015

S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. NTB-3 of 2013) of the

Central Government National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 08/05/2015.

[No. L-42012/42/2013-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI

Present :

Justice S.P. MEHROTRA,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. NTB-3 OF 2013

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of

Bajaj Electricals Limited

And

Their workmen

Appearances :

For the first party/Management

Mr. M.S. Paranjpe,

Adv.

For the second party/workmen

Mr. A.K.

Muraleedharan,

General Secretary

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 13th day of April, 2015

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section

(1-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter to as "the Act"), the Central Government has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bajaj

Electricals Limited, Mumbai, in not considering the charter

of 20 demand (as per Annexure), is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entittled

to?"

2. By the Order dated 27.6.2013, Notices were directed

to be issued to the Parties.

3. Mr. M.S. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the first party/

Management, who has filed his Authority today, is present.

Mr. Sanjay Gurav, Chief Manager, Human Resources in

Bajaj Electricals Limited is also present on behalf of the

first party/Management.

Mr. A.K. Muraleedharan, General Secretary, All India

Bajaj Electrical Emplyees' Federation i.e. second party/

Union is also present.

4. No statement of Claim has as yet been filed in the

present case.

5. A Joint Application has been filed today on behalf of

Bajaj Electricals Ltd., i.e. first party/Management and All

India Bajaj Electricals Employees' Federation, i.e. second

party/Union. The said Joint Application is signed by the

aforesaid A.K. Muraleedharan, General Secretary, All India

Bajaj Electricals Employees' Federation (second party/

Union) and Mr. Atul Sharma, President-Human Resource

and Administration, Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

The said Joint Application is further signed by Mr. P.J.

Sarfare, learned counsel for the second party/Union and

Mr. M.S. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the first party/

Management.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Joint Application that

the parties to the present Reference have signed an

amicable Settlement on 9.9.2014, and consequently, very

"cause of action" pertaining to the Reference has come to

an end. A Photostat copy of the aforesaid Settlement has

been annexed with the aforesaid Joint Application.

8. Mr. M.S. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the first party/

Management and Mr. A.K. Muraleedharan, General

Secretary, All India Bajaj Electricals Employees' Federation

(second party/Union) state that in view of the averments

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made in the aforesaid Joint Application, the Industrial

Dispute forming the subject-matter of the present Reference

no longer survives, and the Reference be decided

accordingly.

9. Having regard to the averments made in the aforesaid

Joint Application and in view of the statements made above

on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the Industrial

Dispute forming the subject-matter of the present Reference

no longer survives.

10. Reference is therefore, answered by stating that the

Industrial Dispute forming the subject-matter of the

Reference no longer survives.

11. Award is passed accordingly.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1046-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe

fyfeVsM] x;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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22 dk

2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@05@2015 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@29@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Ref. No. 22 of 2011) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Gaya

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 13/05/2015.

[No. L-40011/29/2011-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Dest Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 22 OF 2011

PARTIES :

The General Secretary,

Gaya Zila Adhyogic Kamgar Union, Gaya,

UO-Kachari

Compound, Gaya

Vs.

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Gaya.

Order No. L-4011/29/2011-IR(DU)

dt. 04.08.2011

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the :

Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the :

Mr. Sushil Prasad,

Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Telecommunication

Dhanbad, dated the 30th April, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

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

I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-40011/29/

2011-IR(DU) dt. 04.08.2011.

SHCEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of BSNL,

Gaya in not regularizing the 51 workers (List enlcosed)

out of a total of 97 casual workers engaged by them

while regularizing the remaining 20 such casual

workers is legal and justified? What relief the

workmen are entitled to?

On receipt of the Order No. L-40011/29/2011-IR (DU) dt.

04.08.2011. of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 22 of 2011 was registered on 23.08.2011 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their

pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Workmen and the O.P./Management through their Ld.

Advocates appeared respectively, and contested the case.

2. The case of workman Rajvansh Kumar and others

total 51 (as per List enclosed) as sponsored by the General

Secretary of the Union concerned is that the Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) is a

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2245

Government of India Enterprises having a Corporate Office

at Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. The BSNL has

established several Telecom districts all over India for the

purpose of administrative convenience. The Telecom

District Gaya is one of them under the General Manager for

the control of its entire affairs. Every Telecom district is

heavily loaded with much work due to evolutionary change

in the fields of the telecommunication. The casual labourers

as per the need of telecom were engaged by the Authorities

of BSNL at their different branches. The casual labourers

have been working in such working conditions at the

different branches of GMTD, Gaya from 1993 to 2004; they

have been deprived of even minimum wages and other

service benefits. The BSNL Management repeatedly gave

the casual workers false assurance for the regularization,

by adopting the tactics of delayed discrimination for actual

verification of payment register. On the demand of the

casual workers for regularistion, the GMTD., Gaya as per

the letter No. E-292/Casual Labour/104/dt. 30-05.2001 had

initiated a process for grant of their temporary status

Mazdoor and Daily Rated Mazdoor commonly known as

TSM and DTM respectively. The General Manager as per

the letter No. E. 292/TSM/5 dt. 10.9.2002 sent a Performa

for submission of detailed report over the casual workers

working in different area of GM, TD, Gaya. The S.D.E.

(Admn.) of the GM, TD, Gaya. The S.D.E. (Admn.) of the

G.M, T.D,Gaya by the letter No. E-292/Rectt/11/RM/49 dt.

20.09.2002 lnvited application for grant of temporary status

Mazdoor from the casual workers completing 240 days in

any year, forwarding its copies to the Higher Authorities,

Patna and the concerned Authority of GM, TD, Gaya for

needful. Even after expiry of about ten years, no workers

except 20 ones out of total 97 ones were regularized by the

Management in spite of their continuously working as per

their duty charts already submitted before the A.L.C.(C),

Patna Despite all the steps of the Management, the workers'

engagement, was denied by the Management as per the

letter No. GTD/Lab/06-07/12 dt. 14.07.2008.

Further alleged on behalf of the workers is that the

Management without maintaining any seniority list

regularized only 20 workers illegally and motivatedly. Such

acts of the management are totally unjustified and prejudicial

to the interest of the 51 workers. So the Management

concerned be directed for the regularization of these

workers with their salary, arrears with all benefits from the

date of 20 workers' regularization.

No rejoinder filed to behalf of the sponsoring Union for

the workmen

3. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the

reference in law and facts, the counter case of the OP/

Management is that the present case of the 51 workmen

does not come under the purview of Sec. 25 of the Industrial

Dispute Act. They never worked against any permanent

vacancy. Neither any vacancy was advertised nor the

names of the workmen were forwarded by the Employment

Exchange concerned. The workmen tried to enter in the

Government Company through back door illegally. The

conciliation proceeding failed for the reason.

4. Further the OP/Management in their simultaneous

para-wise rejoinder has denied all the allegations of the

workmen as incorrect, stating that the entire affairs of the

BSNL, Gaya, controlled by the Corporate Office of BSNL

and the Ministry of Communication. Neither the BSNL is

loaded with work nor work is being taken from casual

labourers. The Management has not engaged any casual

labour since 1986. The TSM/DRM who were engaged prior

to 1986 were given temporary status as per the order and

directions of the Government, so only they were regularized.

The GM, TD, Gaya, had only asked about casual labour if

any, working in his telecom district. Since not any casual

labour was working in the Telecom district under any SDE,

hence the report was accordingly sent to the GM, TD,

Gaya. Not a single person as per list of the present

proceeding was ever appointed by or ever worked under

the Management directly. The statement of their

engagement by and that of their working under the

Management is totally false and fabricated. Neither the

persons as per their list were engaged as casual labourers

nor they had fulfilled the required eligibility criteria, so

there is no reason for their regularization. Thus, the claim

of the person for their regularization entirely wrong. They

are not entitled to any relief.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant reference, WWI Shyam Lal Prasad as

the General Secretary of the Union, WW2 Virendra Kumar,

one labourer for the Union concerned, and MW1 Prakash

Mandal, the SDE (Legal) for the OP/Management of BSNL,

Gaya, have been respectively examined.

Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Union/

workmen has submitted that in pursuance of the GM, TD,

Gaya's letter No. E. 292/Casual Labour/103 dt. 31.05.2001

(Ext. 3 with objection), the SDE (Admn.) O/o the GM, TD,

Gaya as per his letter dt. 10.09.2002 (Ext. 3/1 with objection)

had sought from (GOS) of the 531/The S.D.E. (10B) for

submission of report in the Peforma as required within a

week; the SDE (Admn.) of GM, TD, Gaya as per his letter

dt. 20.09.2002 with copies to all Higher Authorities (Ext.

W.3/2 with objection) invited application in prescribed

Performa from amongst the casual labourers/DRMs having

completed 240 days in any one year as on 31.03.2002 for

grant of temporary status of Mazdoor, and lastly as per the

letter dt. 28.023.2003 of the Account Officer (C), O/o the

GM, TD, Gaya to the SDE (Admn.) concerned with

reference to the latter's letter dt. 24.12.2002 (Ext. W.1 with

objection), the applications of 97 persons received for

verification were returned with report partially. Further Mr.

Sharma emphatically submitted that the Notice (Letter) dt.

24.01.2006 of the SDE (Admn.), O/o the GM, TD, Gaya,

2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certifies that out of the applications received in the office

from the people who were reportedly engaged by the Field

Officers of the SSA, for regularization, only the nine

applications of the persons were found complete in all

respect, but the rest applications were advised to take back

and submit their applications after competing all entries

within three weeks times; and thereafter as pe his letter dt.

07.06.2006 of the SDE (Admn.) to the Chief Accounts Officer

concerned (Ext. W.1/2 with objection) 37 (thirty-seven)

applications as Annexure-I were sent to verify the mandays

of the persons from the ACE-2 vouchers etc., and to return

the same with number of days in each year for which

payment made as per records concerned. It is also submitted

by Mr Sharma that only 20 workers, junior to the instant

workmen, out of total 97 workers were regulrised, but these

instant workmen each in spite of their continuous working

for more than 240 days in each of the years from 1993 to

2004 as evident from their documents (Extt. 2 Series) as

also proved by both the witnesses WW1 Shyam Lal Pd.,

the General Secretary of the Union, and WW2 Virendra

Kumar, one of the workmen, have not been regularized by

the OP/Management, so the OP/Management can not deny

their regularization, and thus they are entitled to it.

6. Whereas Mr. Sushil Prasad, Learned Counsel for the

OP/Management has categorically contended that all the

alleged workers had no employer-employee relationship

with the Management, as none of them was appointed or

engaged as casual workers by the Management and all the

alleged documents including Annex II (Ext. W.1/2) seem

nothing except fabrications as asserted by MW1 Prakash

Mandal, the Sub-Divisional Manager (Legal) with intent to

get the relief, as the WW2 Virendra Kumar, one workman,

has admitted all the applications along with the period of

the engagement after fulfilling themselves under their own

signatures. Further it is contended that the OP/Management

has certain procedure for appointment of any person under

the Management of the Post Office such as publication of

a vacancy in the Daily News paper against the specified

sanctioned post, forwarding the names of candidates

through the Employment Exchange concerned etc., then

issuance of appointment letter subject to the observation

of the constitutional guidelines over the reservation of the

posts for SC, ST and Backward classes of the Society;

thus the reference devoid of any merits in liable to be

rejected.

7. On persual of the materials available on the case

record, I find that these 51 casual Laborers (as the list

enlosed with the Reference) claimed having been included

in the list of total 97 Labourers as per the letter dt. 28.02.2003

of Accounts Officer (C) O/o the GM, TD, Gaya (Ext. W.1

with objection) related to verification of thier application

about their names, mandays and working under Gaya SSA.

But out of the total instant 51 alleged casual workers, only

20 workers' names appear to be included in the list of

97 workers as such:

Sl.

Of 51 workers' List of the

Sl. No. Of 91

No.

instant Reference

workers' List (Ext.

W.1 with objection)

Virendra Kumar

Arjun Kumar Roy (Ram)

Ranjit Prasad

Dinesh Kumar

Sita Ram Rajak

Indradeo Rajak

Siya Ram Bhagat

Sadhu Saran Yadav

Ajay Kumar

Suresh Kumar

Birendra Chaudhary

Pramod Das

Bali Ram Prasad

Naresh Kumar

Raj Kishor Kumar

Lallu Prasad

Satyendra Prasad

Dilip Kumar

35.

Raj Kumar

Shashank Shekhar Bhatt

Total 20 workers including twice named five workers

namely S/Shri Ramjee Pradad, Arjun Kumar Ram (Roy),

Sita Ram Rajak, Dinesh Kumar and Shashank Shekhar Bhatt

under Sl. Nos. 13, 14, 18, 30 and 34 of the Annex I. Rest

workers' names are beyond the aforesaid list of 97 (Ext. W.1

with objection), out of which 19 + 1 outsider Ramnath

Prasad were verified of their names and mandays. But the

instant workmen failed to prove the earlier appointment of

aforesaid 20 labourers by the OP/Management. Apart from

it, further out of total nine persons as per the photocopy of

the SDE (Admn.): O/o the GM, TD, Gaya letter dt. 24.01.2006

(Ext. W.1/1 with objection), only the names of five persons

S/Sri Lallan Pradad, Lallu Pd., Smt. Rekha Devi, Birendra

Kumar and Shankar Ram under their Sl. No. 95, 26, 71, 23

and 93 respectively of aforesaid list of 97 workers appear

to be included, but rest four ones not. the SDE (Admn.),

BSNL O/o GM, TD, Gaya's letter dt. 7.6.2006 (Photocopy

Ext. 1/2 with objection) refers to the enclosure of 37

applications as Annex-I which contains the names of only

five workers noted above under the list of 97 persons. In

the instant reference, the claim of the total 51 workmen

appears to be mainly based on the list of 97 workers as

enlisted according to the letter dt. 28.02.2003 of the

Accounts Officer to the SDE (Admn.) (Ext. W.1 with

objection) But unfortunately, the base letter nowhere else

mentions the names of rest 31 workers as noted in the List

enclosed with the Reference under adjudication. Under

such circumstances the Reference is taken up for

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2247

consideration of the issue of regularization concerning only

aforesaid 20 workers as named in the present list of the

Reference as noted in the aforesaid base letter. On

verification of the Xerox copies/documents of aforesaid 20

workers, it is also evident that out of these twenty workers,

four ones, namely Shri Suresh Kumar, Birendra Choudhary,

Bali Ram Prasad and Raj Kumar under Sl. Nos. 13, 14, 20

and 35 respectively have not produced or proved any of

their documents in support of their claim.

8. So far as the regularization of rest sixteen of the

aforesaid original 20 workers concerned as noted in the

aforsaid chart is concerned, none of them as casual workers

had been in continuous service for a period of 240 days in

any other case during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with the reference to which calculation

is to be made as required as pre requisite to it under Sect.

25(a)(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. As all of these

original workers have no specific their working days during

the last calender years proceding the date of the reference

in compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provision of the

I.D. Act.

9. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the workmen

has further submitted that in the case of denial of

absorption or regularization in service to petitioner who

was inducted into service of State Bank of Mysore as a

temporary staff in 1985 and he was also intermittendly

employed on need based for such staff; in 1994-95, he

claimed to have rendered more than 240 days of service in

a calender year, claiming to be included in "protected

category", and applied for absorption as a permanent

employee; in the peculiar facts and circumstances,

respondent Bank was directed to absorb the petitioner as a

permanent employee in the sub-staff on the basis of having

rendered service for more than 240 days during the said

years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

H.R. Rajashekhara Vs. State Bank of Mysore & other

reported in 2012 (132) FLR 528 (DB). But in the instant

reference, none of 16 original workers, namely, S/Shri

Virendra Kumar, Arjun Kumar Roy (Ram), Ramjee Prasad,

Dinesh Kumar, Sita Ram Rajak, Indraodeo Rajak, Siyaram

Bhagat, Shadu Saran Yadav, Ajay Kumar, Pramod Das, Raj

Kishor Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Lallu Prasad, Satyendra

Prasad, Dilip Kumar and Shashank Shekhar Bhatt under

Serial Nos. 2, to 7, 10 to 12, 18, 23, 21, 25 to 27 and 45

respectively of the List enclosed with the Reference has

any crystal clear of their continuous services during the

period for 1993 to 2004 as per their pleaded evidence as

contrasted with their xerox documents.

Referring to 2012 (133) FLR 463(All HC) (SB), Ram

Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors Mr. Sharma submitted

that in reference to Rule 4 of the UP Regularization of Daily

Wages appointment on Group D Post Rules 2001, the claim

of petitioner for regularization in service, being appointed

on 1.1.1987, was rejected, then it was held by the Hon'ble

High Court, Allahabad, that the petitioner was appointed

on the said date and aforesaid rules clearly applied to him;

the petitioners should have continued in service on the

date of commencement of the rule; persons who were

continuously working though with breaks were required

to be given the benefits of regularisation; Rule does not

contemplate uninterrupted continuous service; petitioner's

continuance in the department from 1991 to 2001 even with

break itself indicated the requirement of his service by the

department; in facts and circumstances of the case,

Respondents were directed to issue order for regular

appointment in favour of petitioner (Para 5 to 7). Whereas

in the present reference, none of the workers was appointed,

neither any has continuance in the department from any

specified period.

Further the plea of Mr. Sharma is that an Award was

passed by Industrial Tribunal, directing the Management

to treat the respondent as its regular employee from

1987-88, when admittedly juniors had been regularized; as

the workman himself in his claim statement stated that he

had been discriminated against by the Management by

not regularizing him w.e.f. 01.04.1991—hence the Writ

petition was disposed of by modifying the Award to the

extent that then the workman was granted the relief of

regularization with that date, and not from 1987-88 as held

in the case of Horticulature Deptt., Delhi Vs. Rajinder Prasad

& Qrs., reported in 2013 (132) FLR 926 (Delhi. H.C.) But the

instant Reference has no proof of admittedly junior having

been regularized, so no question of ay discrimination

towards the casual workmen arises.

None of the aforesaid rulings appears to be applicable

to the factum of the case as its stands before me.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Prasad, Ld. Advocate

for the OP/Management has contended that any aforesaid

casual workers has though no period of working for 240

days in a calander year, yet he can not claim any right of

automatic regularization of their service-even in cases

where there are regular posts and vacancies, procedure

laid down for appointment has to be followed as held by

the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand in the case of Eng. In re.

Mgt of Food Corp of India Vs. Union of India reported in

2008 (4) (L) (Para 14).

11. In view of the aforesaid factual findings, I find the

reference is devoid of any merits worth calling any.

Therefore, it is, in the terms of the references hereby

responded and accordingly awarded that the action of the

Management of BSNL, Gaya, in not regularizing the alleged

51 workers (list enclosed) out of total 97 casual workers

engaged by them is quite legal and justified, and there is

no proof of regularization of remaining 20 such casual

workers earlier. Hence the alleged workmen, if any, are not

at all entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

List of the working Mazdoors

Sl.No.

Name

Father's Name

From

Rajbansh Kumar

Sri Sukdeo Verma

03.01.1987

Birendra Kumar

Late Lakhan Pd.

01.01.1993

Arjun Kumar Roy

Late Radho Ram

01.04.1995

Ramjee Prasad

Late Bhagwan Pd.

17.06.1997

Dinesh Kumar

Sri Kailash Pd.

17.06.1997

Sitaram Rajak

Sri Babulal Bhatha

17.06.1997

Indradeo Rajak

Sri Ram Lakhan Rajak

17.06.1997

Dev Saran Rajak

Sri Ram Bhikari Rajak

17.06.1997

Satrudhan Kumar

Sri Nandlal Bhagat

01.01.1998

10.

Siyaram Bhagat

Sri Jagdish Bhagat

10.05.1999

11.

Sadhu Saran Yadav

Sri Ram Bishun Yadav

01.03.1999

12.

Ajay Kumar

Late Anil Pd.

14.04.1999

Suresh Kumar

Sri Mohan Paswan

10.05.1999

14.

Birendra Choudhary

Sri Sadhu Choudhary

24.04.1999

15.

Nasib Lal Pandit

Sri Sabir Pandit

14.04.1999

16.

Rakesh Ranjan Roy

Sri Dashrath Yadav

14.04.1999

17.

Ashok Kumar

Sri Ram Jatan Pd.

21.04.1999

18.

Pramod Das

Sri Chandweshar Das

24.04.1999

19.

Yadhu Prasad

Sri Banshi Saw

31.10.1999

20.

Baliram Prasad

Sri Yadhu Prasad

24.04.1999

21.

Naresh Kumar

Sri Badree Das

10.05.1999

22.

Ram Kumar Verma

Sri Rameshwar

24.04.1999

Pd. Singh

23.

Raj Kishor Kumar

Late Lal Chandra Singh 01.05.1999

24.

Navneet Ranjan

Sri Munshi Prasad

01.01.1999

25.

Lallu Pd.

Sri Jai Mangal Pd.

01.07.1999

26.

Satendra Prasad

Sri Shiv Nandan Prasad 17.03.2000

27.

Dilip Kumar

Sri Ram Lakhan Singh

01.01.2000

28.

Pramod Kumar

Sri Jairam Singh

01.01.2000

29.

Anuj Kumar

Sri Saryu Thakur

22.01.2000

30.

Vivekanand Kumar

Sri Tulsi Prasad

01.05.2000

31.

Sanjeev Kumar

Sri Damodar Lal

01.01.2000

32.

Shashi Bhushan

Late Mahendra

01.01.2000

Kumar

Kr. Singh

33.

Ram Chandra

Sri Munilal Choudhary

01.01.2001

Choudhary

34.

Md. Saifi Alam

Md Sarraju Diddan

04.01.2001

35.

Raj Kumar

Sri Sadhu Saran Yadav

01.01.2001

36.

Sunil Kumar

Sri Uday Bhangi

02.02.2002

37.

Dharmendra Kumar

Sri Birendra Singh

14.04.2001

38.

Arun Kumar

Sri Ram Sawarup

01.01.2004

Mahato

39.

Yamuna Yadav

Sri Ram Jatan Yadav

01.01.2000

40.

Anuj Kumar

Sri Jay Prakash

01.02.2003

Narayan

41.

Praveen Kumar

Sri Avinash Saw

01.01.2003

42.

Pappu Ram

Late Surendra Ram

25.10.2001

43.

Arun Kumar

Sri Mahadev Mahato

08.08.2002

44.

Lal Keshar Paswan

Sri Sitaram Paswan

01.01.2001

45.

Shashank Shekhar

Sri Shambhu Nath

01.01.2001

Bhatt

46.

Sanjay Kumar

Sri Mundrika Ram

01.01.2001

47.

Santosh Kumar

Sri Basant Prasad

09.09.2002

48.

Arun Kumar

Sri Umesh Sinha

06.04.2002

49.

Pintu Kumar

Sri Bindeshwari Prasad

15.02.2005

50.

Uday Kumar

Sri Ram Baran Bhagat

01.01.2000

51.

Sudama Rajak

Sri Bhikari Rajak

01.01.2000

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1047-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ

iksLV~l] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

13-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@144@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 26/2002) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Department of Posts, Swai Madhopur and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 13.05.2015.

[No. L-40012/144/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdkj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lhthvkbZVh izdj.k lañ 26@2002

Hkjr ik.Ms;

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl uañ ,y&40012@144@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½

fnukad 13-09-2002

Shri Chhotey Lal Chhipi S/o Shri Moti Lal Chhipi,

Vill: & PO Wajirpur, The. Gangapur

Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

V/s.

1. The Supdt. of Post Offices,

Deptt of Posts,

Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan)-322001

Sl.No. Name

Father's Name

From

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2249

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh vkjñ lhñ tSuµizfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh czgekuUn lkUnwµ,MoksdsV

iapkV

fnukad 29-04-2015

1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh

/kkjk 10 mi&/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds varxZr fnukad 13-09-2002 ds

vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS%—

2. "Whether the Extra Departmental Mail Career is a

"Workman" as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947? If yes, whether the action of the management of

Postal Department in terminating the services of Shri Chotey

Lal Chhipi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is

entitled to?"

3- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr%

;kph dk dFku gS fd mldh fu;qfDr czkUp iksLV vkWfQl] xzke ifjrk

eas fnukad 30-08-1991 dks bZMh,elh ds in ij dh xbZ vkSj fnukad

31-07-1992 dks mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;kA fnukad 30-08-1991

ls fnukad 31-07-1992 rd fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds og fujUrj fu;ksftr

jgkA ml lsok vof/k ds nkSjku izkFkh fdlh vkjksi ls vkjksfir ugha jgk

rFkk mldh lsok ls lacaf/kr dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh] vkSj mldh lsok

iw.kZ :i ls larks"ktud jghA vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd viuh fu;qfDr

dh frfFk ls lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dh frfFk 31-07-1992 rd dh vof/k

esa ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k

vkSj yxkrkj dk;Z djrs jgus ds dkj.k vkS|ksfxd deZdkj gks x;k

rFkk foi{kh dk laLFkku m|ksx gksus ds dkj.k vkS|ksfxd laLFkku jgk gSA

izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ds fu;kstu eas izfrfnu yxkrkj 8 ?k.Vs rd dk;Z

djrk jgk gSA izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa fu;fer lsok dk ykHk

izkIr u dj lds blfy, cnfu;rh ls foi{khx.k us fnukad

01-08-1992 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr djus ls iwoZ foi{kh us izkFkhZ

ln`'k dk;Zjr nSfud osru Jfedksa dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha tkjh

dh vkSj u gh bldh dksbZ lwpuk uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dhA bl izdkj

foi{khx.k us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1957 rFkk jktLFkku jkT;

la'kks/ku fu;e] 1958 dh /kkjk 77 ,oa 78 dk mYya?ku fd;kA

4- ;kfpdk ds izLrj 5 esa dgk x;k gS fd lsok ls eqDr djrs le;

ofj"Brk lwph u tkjh dj /kkjk 25 ch vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS vkSj lsok ls eqDr djus ds iwoZ foi{kh

us izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dh uksfVl vFkok uksfVl ds cnys ,dekg dk

osru vkSj NVuh eqvkotk ugha vnk fd;k] bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh

lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25,Q ds

mYya?ku esa dh x;h gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh txg foi{kh

}kjk ubZ fu;qfDr dh x;h vkSj izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z foi{kh laLFkku esa

miyC/k jgrs gq, Hkh izkFkhZ dks csjkstxkj djus ds fy;s izkFkhZ dks lsok ls

i`Fkd fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us dbZ ckj foi{kh dks iqu% fu;kstu gsrq

fyf[kr izfrosnu fn;s vkSj foi{kh ls feydj ekSf[kd :i ls Hkh dgk

ysfdu fu;kstu esa ugha fy;k x;k bl izdkj /kkjk 25,p dk mYya?ku

Hkh fd;k x;k gSA

5- izLrj 8 eas dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us vius vf/koDrk ds ek/;e

ls foi{khx.k dks fnukad 18-02-1994 vkSj 02-01-1997 dks dkuwuh

uksfVl iaftd`r Mkd ls Hkstk ysfdu dksbZ tokc izkIr ugha gqvk ftlls

foi{khx.k dh cnfu;rh Li"V tkfgj gksrh gSA

6- foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh fnukad 18-02-1994 vkSj fnukad

02-01-1997 dh uksfVl dks fnukad 26-09-1997 dks [kkfjt dj

fn;k x;k vkSj iqu% lsok esa ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k ftlds ckn izkFkhZ

us fnukad 12-02-1998 dks dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds

le{k ekeyk mBk;k ysfdu dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj us

fnukad 24-11-2000 dks izkFkhZ dh vkosnu [kkfjt dj nhA izkFkhZ us

dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2000

ls O;fFkr gksdj ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds le{k

fnukad 24-11-2000 ds vkns'k ds fo#) ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA ekuuh;

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj us fnukad 17-01-2001 ds vkns'k ls

izkFkhZ dks viuk fookn l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds le{k mBkus dh jk; nh]

ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ekeyk mBk;k x;k gSA

7- vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd foi{kh ds ;gka izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z

jgrs gq, Hkh cnfu;fr ls foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k

rkfd izkFkhZ fu;fer lsok dk ykHk izkIr u dj lds] bl izdkj foi{kh

dk dk;Z vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 5oha vuqlwph

ds vuqlkj Jfed fojks/khuhfr dk ifjpk;d gSA izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr dh

frfFk ls vc rd csjkstxkj gS vkSj dgha dk;Zjr ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ us

izkFkZuk dh gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr vkns'k fnukad 31-07-1992 fujLr

dj leLr ykHk lfgr mls lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir fd;k tk;sA

8- foi{kh dh rjQ ls oknksÙkj izLrqr dj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds

izLrj 1 fo#) ;g dgk x;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u

ds fy, izsf"kr gksuk Lohdkj gSA Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls

vkPNkfnr ugha gSA bZMh,elh (Extra Department mail carrear) dh

lsok,sa Post and Telegraph Extra Departmental Rules, 1964

}kjk fu;af=r gksrh gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds

izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSA izkFkhZ LVkWi xSi vjsUtesaV ds varxZr ,oth

¼izfrgLr½ ds :i esa yxk;k x;k Fkk rFkk mldh fu;qfDr iznÙk izfØ;k

ds varxZr ugha dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

esa ifjHkkf"kr ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS tSlk fd

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us flfoy vihy la[;k 3385&86@1996]

lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj iksLV vkWfQlst oSde ,oa vU; cuke Fks;~;ke

tkslQ ,oa vU; esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gSA mDr flfoy vihy ds fu.kZ;

dh izfr vkj&1 oknksÙkj ds lkFk layXu gSA

9- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds iSjk la[;k 2]3]4]5]6]8]9]10]11]12

o 13 ds dFku dks fof'k"V :i ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr

dFku esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vkosnd deZdkj ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dks LVki

xSi vjsUtesaV ds varxZr Jh mejko 'kkg }kjk viuh ftEesnkjh ij

2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vodk'k vof/k ds fy, yxk;s tkus ds dkj.k j[kk x;kA Jh mejko

'kkg us izkFkhZ dks fnukad 30-09-91 ls 7-11-91 rd rFkk mlds ckn

fnukad 31-07-92 rd ,oth ds :i esa j[kok;kA izkFkhZ dks vodk'k

vof/k ds fy, j[kokdj Jh mejko 'kkg vodk'k vof/k ds ckn Hkh

vuqifLFkr jgdj fnukad 07-11-91 dks vodk'k ls okil ykSVsA

,oth dh ;g O;oLFkk fu;fer bZMh,elh] ifjrk dh foHkkxh; fu;eksa

ds vuqlkj fu;fer fu;qfDr ds mijkUr lekIr dj nh xbZA

10- izLrj 3 esa ;g dFku gS fd lgh rF; ;g gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg]

bZMh,elh] ifjrk fnukad 01-08-1991 ls vodk'k ij x;s vkSj viuh

ftEesnkjh ij mUgksusa izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky dks viuh txg vodk'k dh

vof/k esa ,oth ds :i esa dk;Z djus gsrq ekSdk izLrqr fd;k vkSj Jh

NksVs yky dks bZMh,elh ifjrk ds :i esa fnukad 30-08-1991 ls

,oth ds :i esa j[kk x;kA Jh NksVs yky ,oth ds :i esa iksLV ,.M

VsfyxzkQ E.D.A. (Conduct and Service Rule, 1961) ds v/khu

,oth ds :i esa j[ks x;sA mDr fu;e oknksÙkj ds lkFk vkj&2 ds :i

esa layXu gSA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg] vodk'k ij

vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgs ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i mUgsa lsok

eqDr dj fn;k x;kA vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd Jh NksVs yky ,oth ds

:i esa fnukad 31-07-1992 rd lsokjr jgsA bZMh,elh] ifjrk dh

fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k izkjaHk dh x;h vkSj varr% Jh eqjkjh yky 'kekZ

p;fur gq, ftUgsa bZMh,elh] ifjrk ds :i esa fnukad 06-11-1993

dks fu;qDr fd;k x;kA

11- vkxs oknksÙkj ds izLrj 4 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vkosnd

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 esa ifjHkkf"kr deZdkj ugha gS vkSj

jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e] 1958 ds fu;e 77 o 78 ykxw ugha

gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ LVkWi xSi vjsUtesaV esa j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj ;g vLFkk;h

O;oLFkk bl laca/k esa foHkkx ds fu;e ds vuqlkj lekIr dj nh x;hA

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ E.D.A. Service and conduct Rules

1964 ds varxZr ,oth ds :i esa j[kk x;k Fkk ftlesa uksfVl fn;s tkus

dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa /kkjk 25 vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e dk izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd og ,d fu;fer

deZpkjh }kjk viuh ftEesnkjh ij ,oth ds :i esa yxk;k x;k Fkk

rFkk foHkkx }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj tc fu;fer bZMh,elh

dh fu;qfDr gks xbZ rks ,oth ds :i esa izkFkhZ dh lsok Lor% lekIr gks

x;hA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd bl ekeys esa fu;fer fu;qDr bZMh,elh

Jh mejko 'kkg lsok ls vuqifLFkr jgs ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i fu/kkZfjr

izfØ;k viuk dj mls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k vkSj bl izdkj fu;fer

bZMh,elh }kjk yxk;h x;h ,oth bZMh,elh dh lsok Hkh lekIr dj nh

x;hA

12- izkFkhZ ,oth ds :i esa fu;fer bZMh,elh dh vuqifLFkfr esa

dke fd;k gS vr% izkFkhZ ,oth dh lsok lekfIr ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½ ¼chch½ dk izkfo/kku vkdf"kZr

gksrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dks NaVuh ugha dgk tk ldrk gS

D;ksafd /kkjk 25 ,Q dk dksbZ mYya?ku ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrk gSA

13- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj

us xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh vkosnu fuf.kZr dh gS vkSj ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; us Hkh izkFkhZ dh fjV ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k fd;k gS vr%

izkFkhZ dks fof/k ds vuqlkj l{ke U;k;ky; esa viuk ekeyk mBkuk

pkfg,A

14- iSjk 10 esa dFku gS fd vkosnd ,oth ds :i esa fu;fer

bZMh, }kjk yxk;k x;k Fkk vkSj tc fu;fer bZMh, yEcs le; rd

vuqifLFkr jgs rks mUgsa fu/kkZfjr dkuwuh izfØ;k viukdj lsok ls gVk;k

x;k vkSj fu;fer ,oa u;s bZMh, dh fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj dh x;hA uo

fu;qDr O;fDr bZMh, ifjrk ds :i esa dke djus ds fy ck/; Fkk ,oa

mDr fLFkfr esa vkosnd dks dksbZ uksfVl nsus dk iz'u ugha mBrkA izkFkhZ

dh vkosnu dsUnzh; iz'kklfud vf/kdj.k] t;iqj }kjk lkjs fcUnqvksa

ij fopkj.k ds ckn fnukad 24-11-2000 dks [kkfjt dh x;h vkSj

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj esa izLrqr dh x;h ;kfpdk Hkh fnukad

17-2-2001 dks fujLr dj nh x;hA izkFkh E.D.A. (Conduct &

Service Rules 1961) ds vuqlkj fdlh Hkh vuqrks"k dk gdnkj ugha

gS D;ksafd og fu;fer deZpkjh dh ftEesnkjh ij mlds ,oth ds :i

esa mlh }kjk yxk;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd bl rF; dk

mYys[k egRoiw.kZ gS fd lhthvkbZVh t;iqj ds dsl ua- 10@96 jktsUnz

flag cuke ,l-,l-ih-vks- vyoj ,oa vU; esa fnukad 29-1-98 dks

ikfjr vokMZ esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd vkosnd us fu;fer

deZpkjh ds vodk'k ij tkus ij ,oth ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k vkSj

,slk ,oth deZpkjh dk ekeyk vk|kSfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

ds v/khu ugha vkrk gS vkSj ,slk ,oth deZpkjh fdlh vuqrks"k dk

gdnkj ugha gS D;ksafd ,slk ,oth deZpkjh dk ekeyk vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½ ¼ch-ch-½ ds varZxr vkrk gSA

Jh NksVh yky dkekye jktsUnz flag cuke ,l-,l-ih- vyoj ds

ekeys ls iw.kZ :i ls vkPNkfnr gSA lhthvkbZVh dsl ua- 10@96 jktsUnz

flag cuke ,l-,l-ih-vks-] vyoj ,oa vU; ds ekeys ls lacfU/kr

fu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkj&3 oknksÙkj ds lkFk layxu gS] var% izkFkZuk

dh x;h gS fd izkFkh dh ;kfpdk fujLr dh tk; vkSj ea=ky; }kjk

izsf"kr lanHkZ ¼jsQjsUl½ dk tokc udkjkRed :i esa fn;k tk,A ;g

Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj

ugha gSA

15- izkFkh dh rjQ ls tckcqytckc izLrqr dj cknksÙkj ds izLrj

1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 8] 10] 12 vkSj 13 dk vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS izLrj

7 vkSj 9 ds laca/k esa dgk x;k gS fd tokc nsus dh vko'drk ugha gSA

izLrj 11 ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj vfrfjDr dFku esa

;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh LVki xSi vjsUtesaV ij ugha j[kk x;k

cfYd Jh mejko 'kkg] bZ-Mh-,e-lh- ifjrk ds vodk'k ij pys tkus

ds QyLo:i fnukad 30-8-91 ls izkFkh dks ekSf[kd fu;qfDr nsdj mls

bZ-Mh-,e-lh- ds in ij j[kk x;kA izkFkh us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls

fnukad 7-11-1991 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA fnukad 8-11-91 dks Jh

mejko 'kkg] bZ-Mh-,e-lh- vk, Fks fdUrq mUgksaus dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha

fd;k vkSj izkFkh fujarj igys dh rjg dk;Z djrk jgkA izkFkh us fnukad

30-08-1991 ls 7-11-91 rd ,oa 8-11-91 ls 31-7-92 rd fcuk

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2251

fdlh f'kd;kr ds bZ-Mh-,e-lh- ds in ij dk;Z fd;kA fnukad 8-11-91

dks Jh mejko 'kkg] vk, fdUrq dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k vkSj okil

pys x,A izkFkh Jfed us bl laca/k esa fujh{kd]eq[; Mkd?kj] fgaMksu

flVh] dks crk;k rks mUgksaus dgk fd vki yxkrkj dk;Z djrs jgs gSa

blfy, nks ckj fdlh fu;qfDr i= dh vko';drk ugha gS] bl izdkj

izkFkh fuf'pUr gksdj fnukad 31-7-92 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrk jgk

vkSj bl laiw.kZ lsok vof/k dk iw.kZ osru] cksul lfgr izkFkh dks

Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA foi{k }kjk vkS|kSfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku

,oa jktLFkku vkS|kSfxd fookn fu;e 77 o 78 dk ikyu ugha fd;k

x;kA izkFkh dks NaVuh ls iwoZ fdlh izdkj dh uksfVl ugha nh x;h vkSj u

gha uksfVl ds cnys osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA Jh mejko 'kkg] }kjk

dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u djus ds ifj.kkeLOk:i izkFkh dks bZ-Mh-,e-lh- ds

in ij fujarj dk;Zjr jgus ds fy, dgk x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

us izkFkh dh fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt ugha dh cfYd l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds

le{k viuk ekeyk mBkus ds fy, izkFkh dks funsZ'k fn;kA

16- izkFkh Jfed }kjk ,d dsysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

djus ds dkj.k izkFkh vkS|ksfxd deZdkj gks x;k rFkk vizkFkh laLFkk ij

vkS|kSfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSa ftldk izkFkh us

mYya?ku ugha fd;k] vr% oknksÙkj [kkfjt fd;k tk, vkSj izkFkh dk

Dyse Lohdkj dj lsokeqfDr vksn'k fnukad 31-7-92 fujLr dj leLr

ykHk lfgr izkFkh dks iqu% lsok esa LFkkfir fd;k tk,A

17- fnukad 18-7-2003 dks mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij

rRdkyhu fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fuEu okn fcUnq fojfpr fd,

x;s%—

(1) Whether the workman was appointed by the non-

applicant management to the post of EDMC on

30-8-91, who continuously worked up to 31-7-92

and whose service was terminated in violation of

the provision under Section 25-F of the ID Act?

(2) Whether the non-applicant management after the

termination of the service of the workman has

made fresh appointments of the employees in

violation of the provision under Section 25-H of

the ID Act?

(3) Whether the Postal Department does not fall

within the definition of the 'industry' under the

provision of the ID Act?

(4) Whether the applicant — workman is not covered

within the definition of the 'workman' under the

provision of the ID Act?

(5) Relief, if any.

18- ekSf[kd lk{; esa ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls Jh NksVs yky izkFkhZ dh

'kiFk&i= fnukad 23-12-2014 dks izLrqr dh x;h rFkk foi{k }kjk

mudh izfrijh{kk fnukad 13-1-2015 dks dh x;hA foi{k dh rjQ ls

Jh xtkuUn tksxh] v/kh{kd] Mkd?kj dh 'kiFk&i= fnukad

15-1-2015 dks izLrqr dh x;h rFkk izkFkhZ i{k }kjk budh izfrijh{kk

fnukad 10-2-2015 dks dh x;hA

19- ;kph i{k }kjk izys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa lwph ds lkFk fnukad

18-7-2003 dks fQgfjLr ds lkFk vfHkys[k Aw-1 yxk;r Aw-10

izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa Jh mejko 'kkg dh vodk'k vkosnu] pktZ

dh cnyh ij pktZ dh fjiksVZ vkSj udnh vkSj fVdVksa dh jlhn dh

QksVksizfr] Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk Mkd foHkkx dks

Hksth xbZ uksfVlksa dh QksVksizfr;ka rFkk vU; vfHkys[k 'kkfey gSA izys[kh;

lk{; ds :i esa foi{k dh rjQ ls oknksÙkj ds lkFk ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; ds le{k flfoy vihy la[;k 3585&86@96 lc&fMfotuy

bUlisDVj vkSj iksLV oSde ,oa vU; ----- vihykFkhZx.k cuke Fks;e

tkslQ ,oa vU; --- izR;FkhZx.k] esa fu.kZ; fnukad 2-2-96 dh izfrfyfi

dh QksVksizfr R-1, E.D.A. Conduct & Service Rules 1964 ls

lacfU/kr iqLrd dh i`"B 34 dh QksVksizfr R-2 izLrqr gSA foi{k }kjk

oknksÙkj ds izLrj 13 esa vafdr vfHkys[k R-3 ¼okn la[;k 10@96]

jktsUnz flag cuke ,lñ,lñihñvksñ] ds fu.kZ; fnukad 29-1-98 dh

izfrfyfi½ ugha izLrqr gSA dksbZ vU; izys[kh; lk{; i{kdkjksa dh rjQ

ls i=koyh ij ugha izLrqr gSA

20- ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls vius leFkZu esa fuEu fof/kd n`"VkUr

izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa%—

(1) 1984(48) F.L.R. Page-310, S.C. (F.B.) xSeu bfUM;k fyfeVsM

& vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ------- fujUtunkl & izR;FkhZ

(2) 1991(2) R.L.R. Page-158, (JAIPUR BENCH) vksfj;UVy

cSad vkQ dkelZ & ;kph cuke ------- fizlkbfMax vkfQlj]

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ ,oa 23 vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(3) 1993(3) W.L.C. (Raj.) Page-54, jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;

¼t;iqj ihB½ fNn~nh flag & ;kph ------- cuke ------- tt yscj

dksVZ] t;iqj ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(4) 1991(1) L.L.J. (Suppl.) Page-848, xqtjkr jkT; e'khu Vwy

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM&vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ---- nhid tsñ nslkbZ &

izR;Fkh

(5) 2003(3) (Raj.) R.L.W. Page-1966, jktLFkku jkT; ,oa vU;

& vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- Jh egsUnz tks'kh ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(6) 2003 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC, Page-727,

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) jktLFkku jkT; ,oa

vU; & vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- jkts'k dqekj oksjk ,oa vU; &

izR;FkhZx.k

(7) 2005 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC, Page-737,

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) Mk;jsDVj nwjn'kZu dsUnz &

vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- n tt lsUVªy bUMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy ,oa

vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(8) 2008 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) Page-702, Rajasthan

High Court (Jaipur Bench), E;wfufliy cksMZ] y[ksjh] fMfLVªd &

cwanh & ;kph ----- cuke ----- Jherh eaxyh ckbZ ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(9) 2008 (118) FLR Page-950, S.C. jktLFkku yfyrdyk

,dkMseh & vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- jk/ks';ke & izR;FkhZ

(10) 2010 (125) FLR Page-187, S.C. d`".k flag & vihykFkhZ -

---- cuke ----- ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j] ¼gfj;k.kk½ & izR;FkhZ

(11) 2010 (125) FLR Page-629, S.C. vuwi 'kekZ & vihykFkhZ

----- cuke ----- ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j] ifCyd gsYFk fMfotu]

,d] ikuhir & izR;FkhZ

(12) 2010, LAB. I.C. Page-1039, S.C. jes'k dqekj & vihykFkhZ

----- cuke ----- gfj;kuk jkT; & izR;FkhZ

(13) 2011 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) Page-446,

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) lqjs'k pUnj & ;kph -

---- cuke ----- uxj ikfydk jktleUn ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(14) 2012 W.L.C. (Raj.) U.C. Page-663, Rajasthan High

Court (Jaipur Bench) vkjke lSuh & vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- n

fizlkbfMax vkfQlj] lhñthñvkbZñVhñ ,oa yscj dksVZ] t;iqj vU; &

izR;FkhZx.k

(15) 2012 (134) FLR Page-217, fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; U;w

nsgyh E;wfufliy dkSfUly & vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- izohu pUn

'kekZ & izR;Fkh

¼16½ flfoy vihy la[;k 10353&10354@14] loksZPp U;k;ky;]

fuf.kZr fnukad & 18&11&14 lqn'kZu jktiwr & vihykFkhZ cuke ;wñihñ

LVsV jksM VªkaUliksVZ dkjiksjs'ku & izR;Fkh

¼17½ flfoy vihy la[;k 346@15] loksZPp U;k;ky;] fu.kZ;

fnukafdr & 13&1&1985 tlesj flag & vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ------

-- gfj;kuk jkT; ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k

(18) 1998 I.L.L.J. S.C. page - 57 (F.B.) tujy eSustj] nwjlapkj

--- vihykFkhZ ----- cuke ----- Jh fuokl jko ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZ

21- eSaus pkph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh _"kHk tSu rFkk foi{k dh

rjQ ls muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh czgekuUn lU/kq] ,MoksdsV dh cgl

lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;~d voyksdu fd;kA

22- Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g cgl izLrqr dh

x;h gS fd izkFkh dh Mkd foHkkx }kjk bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij fnukad

30-08-1991 dks fu;qfDr dh xbZ vkSj izkFkhZ us fnukad 31-7-1992

rd fuckZ/k :i ls Mkd foHkkx ds v/khu mDr in ij dk;Z fd;k vkSj

fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;sa vkSj fcuk uksfVl fn;s vFkok uksfVl ds ,ot

esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk Hkqxrku fd;s ,oa fdlh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ

vnk;xh fd;s fcuk crkSj NaVuh fnukad 1-8-1992 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekIr dj nhA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ

esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr

crkSj NaVuh /kkjk 25 ,Q ,oa /kkjk 25 ch rFkk /kkjk 25 ,p vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h gSA ;g

cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd izkFkhZ fu;fer lsok dk ykHk u izkIr dj ys

blfy;s cnfu;rh ls mldh lsok lekIr dh x;h gS vr% izkFkhZ ds

fo#) lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k fujLr dj leLr ykHk lfgr izkFkhZ dks

lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk;A

23- foi{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd

izkFkh Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks Mkd foHkkx }kjk dHkh dksbZ fu;qfDr iznku

ugha dh x;h vr% mldh lsok lekIr djus dk iz'u ugha mBrkA ;g

cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd Mkd foHkkx ^m|ksx* dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkSj ^izkFkhZ

deZdkj* dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS blfy;s vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izkfo/kku izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA ;g

cgl Hkh dh x;h fd izkFkhZ dks ,oth ds :i esa Jh mejko 'kkg]

bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ifjrk dh txg muds vodk'k ij gksus ij dsoy vodk'k

vof/k ds fy;s j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj Jh mejko 'kkg us gh viuh ftEesnkjh

ij vodk'k vof/k ds fy, Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks j[kok;k FkkA ;g

Hkh dgk x;k gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg fnukad 01-08-1991 ls fnukad

7-11-1991 rd vodk'k ij tkus ds mís'; ls vodk'k vof/k ds

fy, j[kok;s Fks ysfdu vodk'k ds nkSjku fnukad 7-11-1991 ls

fnukad 31-7-1992 rd vuqifLFkr jgs ftlds dkj.k ,oth ds :i esa

Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks fnukad 31-7-1992 rd j[kk x;k vkSj fu;fer

fu;qfDr ds mijkUr ,oth ds :i esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA

;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg fnukad 1-08-1991 ls

vodk'k ij x;s Fks ijUrq Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks crkSj ,oth fnukad

30-08-1991 ls j[kk x;k FkkA foi{kh dh mDr cgl ds fo#) izkFkhZ

i{k }kjk ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg fnukad 01-08-1991

dks vodk'k ij pys x;s Fks vkSj Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks Mkd foHkkx

us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls lsok esa j[kk Fkk blfy;s Mkd foHkkx dk

dguk xyr gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks ,oth ds :i esa j[kk x;k Fkk

cfYd mldh Mkd foHkkx us ubZ fu;qfDr fnukad 30-08-1991 dks dh

Fkh] ;fn ,oth ds :i esa izkFkhZ fu;qDr gqvk gksrk rks og lsok esa fnukad

1-08-1991 dks j[kk x;k gksrk ftl fnu Jh mejko 'kkg vodk'k ij

x;sA

24- mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr mDr cgl ds lUnHkZ esa i{kdkjksa }kjk

izLrqr lk{; dh leh{kk okn fcUnqvksa ds fuLrkj.k ds lUnHkZ esa dh

tkuh vko';d gSaA

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq

25- U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 18-7-2003 dks dqy ikap okn&fcUnq

l`ftr fd;s x;s gSa ftudk mYys[k mij fd;k x;k gSA bu ikap

okn&fcUnqvksa esa okn&fcUnq la[;k rhu ,oa pkj izkjfEHkd okn&fcUnq

gSa ftudk fu"d"kZ vU; okn&fcUnqvksa ds fuLrkj.k esa egRoiw.kZ gksaxs

vr% okn&fcUnq rhu ,oa pkj dks fuLrkj.k gsrq igys xzg.k fd;k tk

jgk gSA

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k & 3

26- ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k Mkd foHkkx vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼J½ esa ifjHkkf"kr ^^m|ksx** dh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2253

ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS\ foi{kh Mkd foHkkx ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx**

dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vkSj bldk mYys[k oknksÙkj ds izLrj 1

esa fd;k x;k gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku orZeku ekeys esa

ykxw ugha gksrs gSa] foi{k }kjk vius leFkZu esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

}kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 3385&86@1996] lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj]

iksLV vkWfQlst] cS;de ,oa vU; cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; esa

ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 2-2-96 dh QksVksizfr vkj@1 izLrqr dh x;h gSA

blds fo:) izkFkhZ i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ;g cgl dh gS fd Mkd

foHkkx ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSa vkSj vius dFku ds

leFkZu esa n`"Vkar 1998 I.L.L.J. S.C. Page-57 (F.B.) . tujy eSustj]

nwjlapkj ---- vihykFkhZ --- cuke---- Jh fuokl jko ,oa vU; &

izR;FkhZ dk n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;k gSA

27- eSaus mDr nksuksa n`"VkUrksa dk orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa

ds ifjis{; esa lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj

vkQ iksLV] cS;de ,oa vU; & vihykFkhZ cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ

,oa vU; izR;FkhZx.k] esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;y; us fu.kZ; ds i`"B

4 ij ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx**

ugha gSA tujy eSustj Vsfydke cuke Jh fuokl jko ,lñ ,oa vU; esa

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g iz'u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd

VsfydE;wfuds'ku foHkkx ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gS ;k

ugha] ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ ihB us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 5 esa

;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj vkQ iksLV cuke

n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; esa ^^m|ksx** ds lEcU/k esa vfHkfu?kkZfjr

O;oLFkk dkuwu dh lgh fLFkfr ugha n'kkZrh vFkkZr Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx**

dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA Vsfydke foHkkx ds lEcU/k esa Hkh iw.kZ

ihB us ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gksus dh vo/kkj.kk O;Dr

dhA mDr O;k[;k o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd

Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA okn fcUnw la[;k 3

rn~uwlkj foi{k ds fo:) udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k & 4

28- ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k vkosnd Jh NksVs yky

Nhih vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS\ foi{kh ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky

Nhih dk ekeyk lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj vkQ iksLV cuke n Fks;ke

tkslQ ,oa vU;] ds ekeys ls fHkUu ugha gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj ugha gS vkSj

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku orZeku ekeys esa

ykxw ugha gksrs gSA blds fo:) izkFkhZ deZdkj ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh

rjQ ls ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj vkQ

iksLV cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; ds fu"d"kZ dks tujy eSustj

Vsfydke cuke Jh fuokl jko ,lñ ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa fujLr

fd;k x;k gSA blds fo:) foi{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g

cgl dh x;h gS fd tujy eSustj Vsfydke cuke Jh fuokl jko ,lñ

,oa vU; ds ekeys esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkh ds ^^deZdkj**

gksus ;k u gksus lEcU/k esa tks O;oLFkk nh x;h gS mls foLFkkfir (Displace)

ugha fd;k x;k gS dsoy ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gksus ;k

u gksus ds lEcU/k esa ;g O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS fd lc fMfotuy bUlisDVj

vkWQ iksLV cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; esa ^^m|ksx** ds lEcUè

esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk dkuwu dh lgh fLFkfr dk fu:i.k ugha djrh gSA

29- eSaus mHk;i{k ds mDr cgl ds lEcU/k esa nksuksa gh n`"Vkarksa dk

lE;d~ ,oa lw{e voyksdu fd;kA tujy eSustj Vsfydke cuke

Jh fuokl jko ,lñ--- ds lE;d voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd bl

ekeys esa fo'kq) :i ls Vsfydke foHkkx ds ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls

vkPNkfnr gksus ;k u gksus dk ekeyk fopkjk/khu Fkk tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2(J) esa ifjHkkf"kr gSA lc fMfotuy

bUlisDVj vkQ iksLV---- cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; ds ekeys

ds lw{e voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izR;FkhZ ds deZdkj gksus vFkok

u gksus dk ekeyk Hkh fopkjk/khu Fkk vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g voèkfjr

fd;k Fkk fd Mkd foHkkx ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gS vkSj

izR;FkhZ deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gS ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

ds fu.kZ; ds i`"B 8 ij ;g mYys[k gS] "........It would thus be

seen that the method of recruitment, the conditions of

service, the scale of pay and the conduct rules regulating

the service conditions of ED Agents are governed by the

statutory regulation. It is now settled law of this Court that

these employees are civil servants regulated by these

conducts rules. Therefore, by necessary implication, they

do not belong to the category of workmen attracting the

provision of the Act. The approach adopted by the tribunal,

therefore, is clearly illegal." mDr fLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gS fd ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd izR;FkhZ@Fks;e tkslQ

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSA bl izdkj izR;FkhZ dks

^^deZdkj** gksus ;k u gksus ds lEcU/k esa fMfotuy bUlisDVj vkWQ

iksLV cuke n Fks;ke tkslQ ,oa vU; esa nh x;h O;oLFkk tujy

eSustj Vsfydke cuke Jh fuokl jko ,lñ ,oa vU; esa nh x;h

O;oLFkk ls foLFkkfir ugha gS D;ksafd tujy eSustj Vsfydke okys

ekeys esa dsoy ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNknu dk ekeyk

fopkjkèhu FkkA Jh NksVs yky Nhih dk ekeyk Fks;e tkslQ ds ekeys

ls fHkUu ugha gS] vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSA

okn&fcUnq la[;k 4 rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:) ldkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k

tkrk gSA

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k & 1

30- ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k deZdkj Jh NksVs yky

Nhih dks fnukad 30-08-1991 dks foi{kh izcU/ku }kjk bZñMhñ,eñlhñ

2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlus yxkrkj 31-07-1992 rd

dk;Z fd;k vkSj ftldh lsok,a vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh

/kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dj nh x;hA

31- tgka rd izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZ deZdkj dks fnukad 30-08-1991

dks bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] bl rF;

dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ i{k ij gS D;ksafd foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dks

fu;qDr fd;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g dgk x;k gS fd

Jh mejko 'kkg us Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks viuh ftEesnkjh ij vodk'k

ij tkrs le; dsoy vodk'k dh vof/k gsrq yxk;k FkkA foi{k dh

rjQ ls i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[k Ex. M-1 dk lgkjk ;g n'kkZus

ds fy, fy;k x;k gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg us Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks

viuh vodk'k Lohd`r djkus ds fy, Mkd foHkkx fujh{kd ds le{k

izkFkZuk&i= Ex. M-1 izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k

Ex. M-1 esa fuEu mYys[k gS%—

lsok esa

Jheku fujh{kd egksn;

Mkd foHkkx mi [kaM

fgUMkSu flVh

fo"k; fnñ 1 vxLr 1991 ls 30-9-91 rd dk vodk'k Lohd`r

djus ds Øe esa

Jheku th]

mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr uez fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ?kjsyw ifjfLFkfr ds

dkj.k Mkd dk;Z djus esa vleFkZ gwaA blfy, esjs LFkku ij Jh NksVs

yky Nhih Mkd dk;Z djsaxsA

vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd izkFkh dk vodk'k Lohd`r djus

dh d`ik djsaA

vkidk

1-8-91

mejko 'kkg ¼gLrk{kj iBuh;½

NksVs yky Nhih

bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ijhrk

¼gLrk{kj iBuh;½

32- izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih us lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esa ;g

dgk gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr 'kk[kk Mkd ?kj ifjrk esa fnukad

30-08-1991 dks bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij gqbZ Fkh vkSj fnukad

31-07-1992 rd mlus fujUrj dk;Z fd;k vkSj ;g dguk iw.kZr;k

vlR; gS fd bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij mldh fu;qfDr esa fu/kkZfjr

izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in

ij fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ izfØ;k fu/kkZfjr ugha Fkh ijUrq izfrijh{kk ds i`"B

rhu ij Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl in ij fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k dh mls

tkudkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa bl lq>ko ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd

mlus mejko 'kkg dh txg dsoy mudh NqV~Vh dh vof/k ds fy, dk;Z

fd;k gSA vkxs 'kiFk&i= esa izkFkhZ@lk{kh us dgk gS fd mls fnukad

1-08-1992 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ us ;g

Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls foHkkx ls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vFkok lsok ls

gVkus dk i= ugha feyk Fkk rFkk mls Jh txnh'k pUnz lSuh] bUlisDVj

iksLV vkWfQl esa yxk;k Fkk vkSj dgk Fkk fd og izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h dj

nsaxs ysfdu fyf[kr esa dksbZ i= mUgksaus ugha fn;k FkkA Jh mejko 'kkg ds

lEcU/k esa lk{kh us ;g dgk gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg uke ds O;fDr dks

lk{kh tkurk gSA lk{kh ls igys mldh txg Jh mejko 'kkg dke djrs

Fks vkSj Jh mejko 'kkg dks lk{kh blh otg ls tkurk gS fd og bl

lk{kh ls igys dke djrs FksA izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku lk{kh ds le{k

mijksDr vafdr Ex. M-1/Aw-1 Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks n'kkZ;k x;k

ftldks i<+dj lk{kh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl ij vafdr bckjr

lgh gSA Ex. M-1 ij lk{kh us vius gLrk{kj dh igpku dh gSA lk{kh

ls tc ;g iz'u fd;k x;k fd mls Jh mijko 'kkg dh txg dsoy

Jh mejko 'kkg dh vodk'k vof/k ds fy, dk;Z ij j[kk x;k Fkk] bl

lEcU/k esa lk{kh dks D;k dguk gS rks mlus ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd

mlus fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992 rd Mkd foHkkx

dk dk;Z fd;kA Jh txnh'k pUnz lSuh] bUlisDVj lkgc us mls xyr

vkosnu fy[kokbZA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ,d&nks fnu NqV~Vh dh txg

dke djok;k tkrk gS] yEch vof/k rd NqV~Vh dh txg dke FkksM+s gh

djok;k tkrk gS A izkFkhZ dh eq[; ijh{kk vkSj izfrijh{kk ds mDr

dFku ,oa Ex. M-1 mijksDr ds voyksdu ls ;g HkyhHkkafr Li"V gS

fd izkFkhZ dh Mkd foHkkx esa izfof"V Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg muds

vodk'k ij tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZA Mkd foHkkx ds Jh txnh'k

pUnz lSuh] bUlisDVj }kjk izkFkhZ ls dksbZ xyr vkosnu fy[kokbZ xbZ]

bldk mYys[k izkFkh dh ;kfpdk vFkok 'kIkFk&i= esa ugha gS vkSj Ex.

M-1 ij izkFkhZ dks /kks[ks esa j[k dj gLrk{kj djok;s x;s] bl ckr dk

Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA i=koyh ij bl ckr dk Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA

fd Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k ij tkus ds le; ds vfrfjDr fdlh

vU; le; ij izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vyx izfØ;k

viukdj mls Mkd foHkkx esa j[kk x;kA tgka rd foi{kh lk{kh

Jh xtkuUn tksxh] Mkd vf/k{kd ds lk{; ls izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fdlh

leFkZu dk iz'u gS vius 'kiFk&i= esa Jh xtkuUn tksxh us ;g mYys[k

fd;k gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks Mkd foHkkx }kjk dHkh bZñMhñ,eñlhñ

ds in ij fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ vkSj u gh fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk

dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k bl lEcU/k esa tkjh fd;k x;kA vkxs 'kiFk&i=

esa lk{kh us ;g dgk gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k ij gksus ds

dkj.k foHkkxh; fu;e ds vuqlkj Jh mejko 'kkg bZñMhñ,eñlhñ }kjk

gh viuh tksf[ke ,oa ftEesnkjh ij ,oth ds :i es Jh NksVs yky

Nhih dks LVki xSi vjsUtesUV ds vUrxZr dk;Z ij yxok;k x;k Fkk

ftlds foHkkx fdlh rjg ls mÙkjnk;h ugha gSA bZñMhñ,eñlhñ dh fu;qfDr

ds lEcU/k esa lk{kh us 'kiFk &i= ds izLrj 4 esa dgk gS fd dsUnz

ljdkj }kjk Mkd foHkkx esa bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq

fuf'pr izfØ;k fu/kkZfjr gS ftlds vuqlkj gh bZñMhñ,eñlhñ dh fu;qfDr

dh tkrh gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds ekeys esa ,slh fdlh

izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k ugha gqvk FkkA Jh xtkuUn tksxh dh izkFkhZ i{k

}kjk yEch izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA iwjh izfrijh{kk ds ,dhd`r voyksdu

ls ,sls fdlh fu"d"kZ ds fy, vk/kkj ugha curk gS fd izkFkhZ Jh NksVs

yky Nhih dks Mkd foHkkx us bZñMhñ,eñlhñ ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k

FkkA izfrijh{kk dk vf/kdka'k Hkkx bl fcUnq ls lEcfU/kr gS fd

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2255

Jh mejko 'kkg fdruh ckj NqV~Vh x;s vkSj dc okil ykSVs vkSj okilh

ij mUgksaus dc dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k fd;k] ftu fcUnqvksa dk okLRo esa Jh

NksVs yky Nhih dh Mkd foHkkx ls LorU= fu;qfDr ls dksbZ rkyesy

ugha curkA mDr O;k[;k o fo'ys"k.k rFkk Ex. M-1 ds

vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd izkFkh i{k bl rF; dks fl) djus

esa vlQy gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks fnukad 30-08-1991 dks Mkd

foHkkx us bZ-Mh-,e-lh- ds in ij fu;qDr fd;kA blds fo:) Loa;

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[k Aw-1/Ex-M-1 ls ;g lkfcr gS

Jh NksVs yky Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg dk;Z djus ds fy, NqV~Vh dh

vof/k gsrq yxs FksA bl vfHkys[k ij izkFkhZ dh Lohd`fr ds :i esa

gLrk{kj gS rFkk blds fo:) izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls dksbZ fof/kekU; [k.Mu

ugha gS fd mDr vfHkys[k QthZ gS ;k ml ij mlds gLrk{kj /kks[ks esa

djk;s x;s gSA ekSf[kd o izysf[k; lk{; ds vkoyksdu o mDr fo'ys"k.k

ls ;g fu"d"kZ Hkh fufoZokn gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih Mkd foHkkx esa

Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k ij tkus ds dkj.k mudh txg bZ-Mh-,e-

lh- dk dk;Z djus ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ,oa izcU/ku }kjk mUgsa dksbZ

fu;qfDr iznku ugha dh x;h FkhA

33- tgka rd fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992 rd

izkFkhZ }kjk yxkrkj dk;Z fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS foi{kh lk{kh us izfrijh{kk

ds i`"B 2 ij dgk gS Jh mejko 'kkg us vkosnu fnukad 01-08-1991

ls vodk'k ij tkus dks izLrqr dh Fkh ijUrq fnukad 30-08-1991 dks

vodk'k ij x;s tks fnukad 6-11-1991 rd Fkk vkSj mldk foLrkj

fnukad 31-07-1992 rd jgkA oknksÙkj ds izLrj nks esa foi{k us Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ NksVsyky fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad

31-07-1992 rd Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k ds nkSjku dk;Z ij jgs

vkSj Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg Jh NksVsyky }kjk dk;Z djus dh O;oLFkk

fu;fer bZ-Mh-,e-lh- dh fu;qfDr ds ckn lekIr gks x;hA mDr Lohd`r

rF; ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd Jh NksVsyky us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls

fnukad 31-07-1992 rd Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg dk;Z fd;k ijUrq

Aw-10 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg ds NqV~Vh ls

okil vkus ds dkj.k fnukad 7-11-91 dks Jh NksVs yky dk;ZeqDr gks

x;s gSa vkSj bl lEcU/k esa R-4 ds ek/;e ls pktZ Hkh rS;kj fd;k x;k

gS tSlk fd Aw-10 ds iSjk ,d ls tkfgj gSA fnukad 7-11-91 ds

nks&rhu fnu ckn iqu% Jh mejko 'kkg ds NqVVh pys tkus dk mYys[k

gS ftl ds vk/kkj ij Jh NksVs yky iqu% dk;Z ij yxs gSa vkSj fnukad

31-7-92 rd mUgksaus dk;Z fd;k gSA

34- tgka rd ;kph i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk fu;qfDr dh frfFk

ds lEcU/k esa dh x;h cgl dk iz'u gS ftlesa mUgksaus dgk gS fd izkFkhZ

dh fu;qfDr frfFk fnukad 30-08-1991 dk Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k

ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS D;ksafd Jh mejko 'kkg ds vodk'k ij tkus ds

dkj.k vodk'k vof/k ds fy, izkFkhZ dh ;fn fu;qfDr gqbZ gksrh rks og

fnukad 01-08-1991 dks fu;qDr gksrk D;kasfd vodk'k vkosnu esa ,d

vxLr ls vodk'k ;kfpr gS tcfd fu;qfDr 30 vxLr dks dh x;h

gSA bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHkys[k Aw-10 esa vodk'k

izkjEHk gksus dh vafdr frfFk dk mYys[k vko';d gS ftlds i`"B

,d ij vafdr gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls

fnukad 30-09-1991 rd vodk'k ekaxh gS u fd 1 vxLr ls ekaxh gSA

Ex-M-1 esa fnukad 30-08-1991 dks dkVdj ,d vxLr n'kkZus dk

iz;kl fd;k x;k gS tks fn'kkHkzfer djus ds fy, fdlh us fd;k gS vkSj

ml ij fnukad 01-8-91 Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS tks vyx ls vafdr gSA

35- Aw-10 ds vuqlkj fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad

30-09-1991 rd NqV~Vh ds fy, Jh mejko 'kkg us Jh NksVs yky Nhih

dks ,oth ds :i esa lqiqnZ fd;kA fnukad 30-08-1991 ds ckn vFkkZr

fnukad 1-10-1991 dks Jh mejko 'kkg NqV~Vh ls okil u vkdj

fnukad 7-11-91 dks vk;s vkSj Jh mejko 'kkg us pktZ fjiksVZ rS;kj dh

tks Aw-10 ds lkFk layXud R-4 FkhA blds ckn Jh NksVs yky Nhih

dk;ZeqDr dj fn;s x;s ysfdu 2&3 fnu ds ckn gh Jh mejko 'kkg us

iqu% Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks viuh txg 31-7-92 rd ds fy, viuh

txg dke ij yxk;k ftlds lEcU/k esa fdlh ofj"B vf/kdkjh dks

vuqefr ugha FkhA mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa Jh xtkuUn tksxh dk

lk{; esa dFku xyr gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg fnukad 30-08-1991 ls

fnukad 6-11-1991 rd vodk'k ij x;s Fks tks fnukad 31-07-1992

rd foLrkfjr jgkA fnukad 07-11-1991 dks Jh NksVs yky Nhih ls

pktZ ysus vkSj mls dk;ZeqDr gksus ds rF; dk leFkZu Jh xtkuUn

tksxh us Hkh fd;k gSA blh dk;Z vof/k dks foi{k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k

x;k gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad

31-07-1992 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA okLro esa ;g foi{k dh Lohd`fr gS

ftlds vk/kkj ij bl rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih us

Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992

rd dk;Z fd;k gS vU;Fkk okLro esa ;kph i{k }kjk dsoy dFku ,oa

'kiFk&i= izLrqr gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa okLro esa dksbZ Hkqxrku ;k

gkftjh dk fooj.k tSlk iqf"Vdkjd lk{; ugha izLrqr gSA vr% ;kph

i{k ds bl cgl esa dksbZ cy ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dh foi{kh foHkkx esa

LorU= fu;qfDr Fkh ftldk Jh mejko 'kkg ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS

cfYd blds fo:) ;g rF; lkfcr gS fd Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg

vodk'k dh vof/k gsrq gh izkFkhZ yxk;s x;s Fks vkSj blh :i esa foi{kh

foHkkx esa fnukad 30-08-1991 dks yxs FksA

36- mDr fLFkfr ls ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr gksrk gS Jh NksVs yky Nhih

dh fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992 rd dh lsok esa

fujUrjrk dk Hkh vHkko gS tks fnukad 7-11-91 dks Jh mejko 'kkg dh

mifLFkfr ,oa pktZ ysus ds dkj.k gqbZ gS vkSj iqu% Jh mejko 'kkg dh gh

igy ij Jh NksVs yky Nhih fnukad 31-07-1992 rd dk;Z esa layXu

gq, gS vkSj fnukad 31-7-92 dks iqu% muls pktZ Jh jk/ks';ke us xzg.k

fd;k gSA fnukad 31-07-1992 dks dk;Z eqfDr dk dkj.k foi{k }kjk

;g n'kkZ;k x;k gS fd mUgsa blfy, dk;ZeqDr fd;k x;k D;ksafd og

lekpkj&i= esa rFkk dkaxzsl ikVhZ ds lfØ; dk;ZdÙkkZ ds :i esa Hkh

lekukUrj :i ls dk;Zjr FksA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd okLro esa izkFkhZ

ds lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds dkj.k dk mYys[k u rks ;kfpdk esa gS vkSj u

gh oknksÙkj esa gS vkSj u gh i{kdkjksa ds 'kiFk&i= esa gSA Jh xtkuUn ds

lk{; esa Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds Vh-ch- ls ihfM+r gksus dk mYys[k M-2

vfHkys[k ds ek/;e ls crk;k x;k gS ftlds lEcU/k esa iwNus ij

izfrijh{kk esa Jh xtkuUn us vufHkKrk tkfgj dh gS vkSj dgk gS fd

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bls M-2 dks ys[kd Mkd fujh{kd egksn; gh crk ldrs gSaA mDr

leLr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ

Jh NksVs yky Nhih us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992 ds

chp dh vof/k esa nks vyx&vyx VqdM+ksa esa dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj nksuksa

gh VqdM+ksa dh vof/k ,d dys.Mj o"kZ ls de gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd

foHkkx esa izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ugha fl) gS tSlk mlus ;kfpdk esa dgk gS

,oa foi{k }kjk mlds ,oth gksus ds dFku dh iqf"V gksrh gS ftldh

izd`fr vLFkk;h ,oa Jh mejko 'kkg dh NqV~Vh dh vof/k rd lfefr

FkhA izkFkhZ us fnukad 30-08-1991 ls fnukad 31-07-1992 rd yxkrkj

dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

37- ;gka ij bl rF; dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk egRoiw.kZ gS fd

foi{k }kjk oknksÙkj esa Jh jktsUnz flag cuke ,l-,l-ih-vks-] vyoj

dk ftØ bl rF; ds fy, fd;k x;k gS fd bl ekeys esa udkjkRed

,okMZ ikfjr djrs gq, U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS

fd fu;fer deZpkjh ds vodk'k ij tkus ij j[ks x;s ,oth deZpkjh

dk ekeyk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gS vkSj

,slk ,oth deZpkjh fdlh vuqrks"k dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd okn la[;k 10@96 ds fu.kZ; dh izfr R-3 ds :i esa layXu

gS ijUrq mYys[kuh; gS fd oknksRrj ds lkFk ,slh dksbZ izfr layXu ugha

gSA cgl ds nkSjku ;g dgk x;k Fkk fd foi{k }kjk fu.kZ; dh izfr

izLrqr dj nh tk;sxh ijUrq bl fu.kZ; ds fd;s tkus rd izfrfyfi

izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ryk'k fd;s tkus ij fyfid

ds dFkukuqlkj ,slk dksbZ fu.kZ; bl U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fd;k

tkuk ugha ik;k x;kA

38- tgka rd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr esa /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku dk

iz'u gS foi{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd

izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25&,Q dh lqj{kk miyC/k ugha gS rFkk /kkjk 25&,Q ds

izkfo/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gS ,oa izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa /kkjk

2(oo) (bb) ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSa] blds fo:) izkFkhZ ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd /kkjk 25&,Q ds

izkfoèku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkdf"kZr gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ }kjk vius dFku

ds leFkZu esa dbZ n`"VkUrksa dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ;kph i{k }kjk izLrqr

n`"VkUrksa dk eaSus lE;d ,oa lw{e voyksdu fd;k gS A /kkjk 25&,Q

ds lEcU/k esa O;k[;k ds iwoZ izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr n`"VkUrksa esa D;k rF; gS

rFkk D;k vo/kkj.kk O;Dr dh x;h gS mldk mYys[k ;gka ij djuk

vko';d ,oa izklafxd le>rk gwa tks fuEuor gS%&

1- xSeu bfUM;k fyfeVsM cuke fujUtu nkl esa izR;FkhZ ofj"B

fyfid ds in ij fu;qfDr i= fnukad 10-4-62 ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ

ds ;gka fu;qDr FkkA fnukad 14-9-67 rd izR;FkhZ vihykFkhZ dh lsok esa

jgkA fnukad 14-9-67 dks vihykFkhZ us mls uksfVl nh fd eUnh ds

dkj.k dEiuh ds dk;Z esa deh dh otg ls dEiuh dks izR;FkhZ dh

lsokvksa dh vko';drk lekIr gks x;h gSA 14-10-67 ds ckn izR;FkhZ

dh lsok dh dEiuh dks vko';drk ugha jgsxh vkSj izR;FkhZ bls ,d

ekg dh lsok lekfIr dk uksfVl le>sA izR;FkhZ bl vof/k esa 'ks"k

vodk'k dk miHkksx Hkh dj ldrk gS tks uksfVl dh vof/k ds lkFk

lekukUrj pysxhA izR;FkhZ ds vkosnu ij fuEu fjQjsUl U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq izsf"kr gqvk%—

"Whether the retrenchment of Shri Niranjan Dass is

unjustified or illegal and if so, what directions are

necessary in this respect."

mHk;i{k ds lk{; ds voyksduksijkUr vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k us

;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh NaVuh vuqfpr o voS/kkfud Fkh

rFkk izR;FkhZ dks lsok esa losru iqu% LFkkfir djus dk funsZ'k fn;kA

vihykFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr dh

ftls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dy ihB us Lohdkj dh rFkk ekeys

dks iqu% fuLrkj.k gsrq U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;kA ekuuh; ,dy

ihB us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok eqfDr dk ekeyk /kkjk

25 ,Q,Q,Q ls lEcfU/kr gS D;ksafd dEiuh dk fnYyh d;kZy;

cUn gks x;k Fkk vr% izR;FkhZ dk izdj.k /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ls

fu;fU=r gksxkA ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ysVlZ vkQ iSVsaV

vihy esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ;

dks fujLr fd;k rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh ftlls {kqC/k

gksdj vihykFkhZ@dEiuh us vihy izLrqr dh ftls ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us vLohdkj dhA ekuuh; [k.MihB us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k

fd ,dy ihB dks ;g fof/kd :i ls vuqeU; ugha Fkk fd og

vo/kkfjr djs fd izR;FkhZ dk ekeyk /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds vUrxZr

cUnh dk ekeyk Fkk D;ksafd fjQjsUl esa ;g tkfgj Fkk fd ekeyk NaVuh

dk Fkk vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k dks dsoy ;g fuf.kZr djuk Fkk fd NaVuh

vuqfpr ;k fof/kµfo:) FkhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g

iz'u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; lgh gS ;k ekuuh;

,dyihB dk fu.kZ; lgh gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k fd uksfVl ds voyksdu ek= ls ;g tkfgj gS fd

izR;FkhZ dk ekeyk NaVuh dk FkkA rn~uqlkj U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa [k.MihB

ds fu.kZ; dh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us iqf"V dhA

2- vksfj;UVy cSad vkQ dkWelZ o vU; cuke fizlkbZfMax vkWfQlj]

lhthvkbZVhµdeµyscj dksVZ] t;iqj ,oa vU; esa izR;FkhZ ¼2½

Jh xksiky yky 'kekZ ;kph cSad ds v/khu 23-5-85 ls 20-8-85 rd

yxHkx 79 fnu dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dsoy vodk'k vof/k

ds fy, Fkh vkSj le; dh lekfIr ds lkFk Lor% lekIr gks x;hA nks

lky ckn izR;FkhZ us /kkjk 25µth ,oa 25µ,p dk fookn mBk;k tks

U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lqiqnZ gqvkA mHk;i{k ds lk{;ksijkUr

U;k;kf/kdj.k us /kkjk 25µth ,oa /kkjk 25µ,p dk mYya?ku ij izR;FkhZ

dks lsok esa foxr osru jfgr iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k fn;kA izR;FkhZ dgha

vU;= dk;Zjr Fkk vr% ;g Hkh funsZ'k fn;k fd ftl fnu ls cSad dh

lsok esa izR;FkhZ iqu% lfEefyr gksxk ml fnu ls osru dk gdnkj jgsxkA

U;k;kf/kdj.k us lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g ik;k fd izcU/ku ;g ugha

n'kkZ ldk fd fdldh txg vodk'k vof/k esa izR;FkhZ fu;qDr Fkk

ftldh okilh ij lsok lekIr dh x;hA vr% U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g

rF; vLohdkj fd;k fd izR;FkhZ vodk'k vof/k ds fy, fu;qDr FkkA

izcU/ku ds lkf{k;ksa us gh Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd tc izR;FkhZ gVk;k x;k

rks dfu"d deZpkjh Jh fojsUnz flag dk;Zjr FksA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2257

Fkk fd izR;FkhZ ds gVkus ds ckn pijklh ds in ij Jh eqyu jlwy ,oa

Jh ujsUnz HkV~V yxk;s x;s Fks ijUrq izR;FkhZ dks volj ugha fn;k x;k

D;ksafd ,slh Practice ugha FkhA fdlh dehZ dk uke jkstxkj dk;kZy;

ls ugha Hkstk x;k FkkA U;k;kf/kdj.k us rn~uqlkj /kkjk 25&th ,oa

25&,p dk mYya?ku ikdj izR;FkhZ dh vkosnu Lohdkj dhA cSad us

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

le{k izLrqr dh ftls ekuuh; [k.MihB us fujLr dh vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k

ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V ;g dgrs gq, fd dh U;k;kf/kdj.k us lgh vo/kkfjr

fd;k Fkk fd /kkjk 25&th ,oa 25&,p ds mYya/ku esa izR;FkhZ dh lsok

lekIr dh x;h FkhA

3- fNn~nh flag cuke tt] yscj dksVZ] t;iqj ,oa vU; esa

;kfpdkdÙkkZ fNn~nh flga ds dFkukuqlkj Mkyfe;k Msjh b.MLVªht esa

og fnukad 6-1-78 dks ,d deZdkj ds :i esa fu;qDr gq,A mudh lsok

2-4-79 dks lekIr dj nh x;hA mUgksaus lsok lekfIr ds fo:) vkS+|ksfxd

fookn mBk;k tks U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj dks lqiqnZ

fd;k x;kA mUgksaus ;kfpdk esa ;g dgk fd lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ds

Bhd iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa mUgksaus 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k gS mudh

lsok /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dh x;h gSA mUgsa uksfVl

vFkok uksfVl ds cnys dksbZ osru vFkok NaVuh lEcU/kh {kfriwfrZ ugha

iznku dh x;hA ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dk ;g Hkh dguk Fkk fd ,d lky dh

lsok ds ckn mls vius in ij LFkk;h gksus dk vf/kdkj Fkk ijUrq izcU/ku

us mldh lsok lekIr djds vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;kA izkFkhZ us dbZ

yksxksa ds uke dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k ftUgsa mls gVkus ds ckn lsok esa

yxk;k x;kA tokc esa izcU/ku us ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dks

vkdfLed@vLFkk;h rkSj ij fnukad 9-10-78 dks j[kk x;k vkSj mldh

fu;qfDr LFkk;h in ij ugha FkhA og ,d fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds fy,

fu;qDr Fkk ftldk foLrkj ugha fd;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd dk;Z ugha miyC/k

FkkA izcU/ku us bl rF; ls bUdkj fd;k fd izkFkhZ us 12 ekg lsok dh

vkSj mlesa 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd /kkjk

25&,Q ds vuqikyu dh vko';drk ugha FkhA izkFkhZ dks fo'kq) :i

ls vLFkk;h dk;Z ds fy, vLFkk;h rkSj ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izcU/ku ds

dFkukuqlkj nw/k dh ek=k ds c<+us ij vLFkk;h etnwjksa dh la[;k c<+

tkrh gSA mUgsa MsjheSu ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA ftu O;fDr;ksa dks ;kph

us viuh fu;qfDr ds ckn yxk;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gS os izkFkhZ dh

txg ugha yxk;s x;s gSA mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ rFkk muds }kjk izLrqr

lk{; ds voyksduksijkUr Je U;k;ky; us ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dh vkosnu

[kkfjt dh vkSj vo/kkfjr fd;k fd ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks"k dk gdnkj

ugha gSA Je U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izkFkh us 240 fnu

dk;Z ugha fd;k FkkA

izkFkhZ us Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

ds le{k Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 o 227 ds v/khu fjV

;kfpdk izLrqr dj ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ us 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;k gS vkSj Je U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; lk{; ds foijhr gSA izR;FkhZ dh

rjQ ls ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a 9-10-78 dks

fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu izLrqr dh Fkh ftl ij vLFkk;h fu;qfDr izkFkhZ dks

bl 'krZ ds lkFk nh xbZ dh mldh lsok,a fcuk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl ds

cnys Hkqxrku ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd

vLFkk;h deZpkjh dks lsok esa cus jgus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk 25&,Q ¼a½ vkSj ¼b½] 2 ¼vksvks½ 25B ¼1½

vkSj ¼2½ dh foLr`r O;k[;k ,oa fofHkUu n`"VkUrksa ds vk/kkj ij Je

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;k vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k dh

izkFkhZ dh lsok /kkjk 25&,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dh

x;h ,oa fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA

4- xqtjkr LVsV e'khu VwYl dkjiksjs'ku fyñ cuke nhid tsñ

nslkbZ esa izR;kFkhZ us ;g vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;k fd mldh lsok;sa fof/kd

izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k fd;s fcuk lekIr dj nh x;h gS vr% iw.kZ foxr

osru ds lkFk mls lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk funsZ'k fn;k tk;sA izR;FkhZ ds

dFkukuqlkj mlus 12-10-82 ls 11-4-83 rd dEiuh dh lsok dh rFkk

mls LFkk;h deZpkjh ekuk tkrk FkkA vihykFkhZ us oknksÙkj esa U;k;kf/kdj.k

ds le{k ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ fo'kq) :i ls vLFkk;h

fu;qfDr ij Fkk] mldh lsok lgh lekIr dh x;h rFkk og lsok esa

iquLFkkZiuk ;k foxr osru ds lkFk iquLFkkZiuk dk gdnkj ugha gSA

fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ekMy LVSfUMx vkMZj vkSj /kkjk 25 ,p ds

izkfo/kku dks n`f"Vxr j[k vihykFkhZ dh vkosnu Lohdkj dh rFkk

v[kf.Mr lsok ijUrq foxr osru fcuk iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k fn;kA

Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) vihykFkhZ dh ;kfpdk esa ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh

rFkk vihy [kkfjt dhA ekuuh; [k.MihB us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k

Je U;k;ky; dh vo/kkj.kk lgh Fkh fd izcU/ku }kjk /kkjk 25&,p

dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA

5 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ,oa vU; cuke Jh egsUnz tks'kh ,oa vU; esa

izR;FkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj mlus ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa lkoZtfud ,oa

jfookjh; vodk'kksa dks NksM+dj dqy 229 fnu dk;Z fd;k Fkk ysfdu

mldh lsok,a /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dj nh x;hA mlus

240 fnol dk;Z iw.kZ fd;sA mls ,d ekg dh uksfVl vFkok mlds

cnys osru dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k rFkk {kfriwfrZ Hkh ugha iznku dh

x;h ,oa mlds dfu"B dks lsok esa j[kk x;kA mldh lsok fnukad

16-10-85 dks lekIr dh x;hA vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls vkifÙk esa ;g

dgk x;k fd izR;FkhZ us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dk;Z ugha fd;kA 229 fnu

vodk'k ds fnuksa ds vfrfjDr dk;Z djuk Lohdkj fd;k x;kA dfu"B

dehZ dks lsok esa j[kuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k ijUrq ,slk U;k;ky; ds

vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa gksuk crk;k x;k ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk

x;k fd U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ,slk gksus ls /kkjk 25&,Q

dk mYya?ku ugha gqvkA

lk{; ds vk/kkj ij U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g ik;k fd izR;FkhZ us ,d

dys.Mj o"kZ dk;Z fd;k rFkk 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k ftlds vk/kkj ij

lsokeqfDr /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku esa ik;h x;hA izcU/ku }kjk izLrqr

i;kZIr lk{; ds vHkko esa U;k;kf/kdj.k us /kkjk&25 th dk Hkh mYya?ku

ik;kA ijUrq /kkjk 25&,p dk mYya?ku ugha ik;kA U;k;kf/kdj.k us 50

izfr'kr foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk gsrq vkns'k fn;kA

2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vihykFkhZ] jkT; }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) izLrqr

;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,dyihB }kjk [kkfjr dh x;h ijUrq

foxr osru dsoy 40 izfr'kr rd Lohdkj dh x;hA vihykFkhZ }kjk

,dyihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) izLrqr vihy ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk

[kkfjt dh x;h vkSj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd fdlh deZdkj us

,d o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj yh gS bl ij fopkj djus ls iwoZ ;g n'kkZuk

vko';d gS fd mls 12 dyS.Mj ekg ls de vof/k gsrq jkstxkj ugha

fn;k x;k Fkk] fQj ;g fd mlus bl vof/k esa 240 fnu ls de dk;Z

ugha fd;kA ;s nksuksa phts lap;h :i ls iw.kZ gksuh pkfg,A

6 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ,oa vU; --------------- vihykFkhZx.k cuke

jkts'k dqekj oksjk ,oa vU; ------------------ izR;FkhZx.k esa vihykFkhZ

nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa 23-1-92 dks fu;qDr Fkk ftldh lsok;sa

16-2-93 dks /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dh x;h vkSj lsok

lekfIr ds vxys gh fnu /kkjk 25&,p ds mYya?ku esa nwljs O;fDr dks

fu;qfDr dj nh x;hA

lsok lekfIr ds fo#) ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds

vUrfje vkns'k ls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa izR;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr

vkxkeh vkns'k rd ds fy, dh x;hA og fnukad 18-2-96 rd

dk;Zjr jgkA fjV ;kfpdk fnukad 8-1-96 dks bl vk/kkj ij fujLr

dh x;h Fkh izR;FkhZ Je U;k;ky; ls vuqrks"k izkIr djs ftlds

ifj.kkeLo:i fnukad 18-2-96 dks lsok lekIr dh x;hA Je U;k;ky;

ds le{k bl fcUnq ij fookn ugha Fkk fd /kkjk 25&,Q rFkk /kkjk

25&,p dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k Fkk vr% U;k;kf/kdj.k us izR;FkhZ ds

i{k esa fu.kZ; 25 izfr'kr foxr osru ds lkFk ikfjr fd;k ftlds

fo#) pqukSrh ekuuh; ,dyihB }kjk fujLr dh x;hA ,dyihB ds

fu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk fujLr dh x;hA

7 Mk;jsDVj] nwjn'kZu dsUnz cuke n tt lsUVªy bUMLVªh;y fVªC;wuy

,oa vU; esa izR;FkhZ deZdkj dh fu;qfDr fnukad 3-1-87 dks gqbZ FkhA

mlus 31-10-87 rd lsok dh vkSj fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s mldh lsok

fnukad 1-11-87 dks lekIr dj nh x;hA U;k;kf/kdj.k us ;g ik;k fd

izR;FkhZ dh lsokeqfDr esa /kkjk 25&,Q dk mYya?ku ugha Fkk D;ksafd

mlus dsoy 96 fnu lsok dh Fkh ijUrq /kkjk 25&th vkSj 25&,p dk

mYya?ku Fkk D;ksafd mlds dfu"B lsok esa j[k x;s Fks tc mldh lsok

lekIr gqbZ rFkk u;h fu;qfDr fd;s tkus ij mls volj lsok esa vkus dk

ugha fn;k x;k vr% lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k fujLr dj U;k;kf/kdj.k

us lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk ,oa vU; ykHk gsrq vkns'k ikfjr fd;k ftlds

fo#) ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dh x;hA

8 E;wfufliy cksMZ] y[ksjh] tuin cwanh cuke Jherh eaxyh ckbZ

,oa vU; esa izR;fFkZuh dh water server ds :i esa fu;qDr Fkh ftldh

lsok;sa vihykFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 25&,Q dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk fnukad

12-12-95 dks lekIr dj nh x;hA Je U;k;ky; ds le{k lsfodk

}kjk ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k fd lsfodk us dys.Mj o"kZ es 240 fnu ls

T;knk dk;Z fd;k Fkk fQj Hkh mldh lsok fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s

lekIr dj nh x;hA Je U;k;ky; us lk{; ds voyksduksijkUr ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k fd lsfodk us 240 fnu lsok iwjh dj yh Fkh vr% /kkjk

25&,Q dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk lsok lekIr ugha gksuh pkfg, FkhA

Je U;k;ky; us izkfFkZuh dh ;kfpdk lsok esa fcuk foxr osru dsoy

iquLFkkZiuk gsrq Lohdkj dhA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k Je

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ;kfpdk esa foi{k dk dFku Fkk fd

lsfodk dh fu;qfDr fu;fer izfØ;k viukdj ugha dh x;h Fkh vr%

foi{k }kjk lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k U;k;laxr FkkA ;kfpdkdÙkkZ

E;wfufliy cksMZ }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd tc lsfodk ds dk;Z dh

vko';drk gksxh rks izR;fFkZuh dks iqu% dk;Z ij ys fy;k tk;sxkA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us E;wfufliy cksMZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh ,oa

Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku ds vk/kkj

ij dhA

9 jktLFkku yfyr dyk ,dsMeh cuke jk/ks';ke esa rF;kuqlkj

izR;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 7-6-80 dks dfu"B DydZ ds in ij 300

#i;k ekfld osru ij gqbZ FkhA mldh lsok,a 4-4-81 dks lekIr dj

nh x;hA vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k us fnukad 24-9-83 ds fu.kZ; ds

vkns'k ls lsok lekfIr vkns'k fujLr fd;k ,oa 24-9-83 ls 50 izfr'kr

foxr osru ds lkFk iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k Hkh fn;kA izR;FkhZ us 25-09-83

dks gh lsok esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq vihykFkhZ ds ;gka vkosnu izLrqr dh

ysfdu og lsok esa ugha fy;k x;kA ,okMZ dk izdk'ku 17-4-84 dks

gksus ds ckn izR;FkhZ us iqu% lsok esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq vkosnu lfpo]

jktLFkku yfyr dyk ,dkMeh dks izLrqr fd;k ysfdu mls lsok esa

ugha fy;k x;kA

vihykFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) ;kfpdk izLrqr dh

ftlds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us 50 izfr'kr

foxr osru Hkqxrku ij jksd yxk;h ijUrq iquLFkkZiuk ij dksbZ jksd ugha

yxhA izR;FkhZ mDr fLFkfr esa Hkh lsok esa ug… fy;k x;kA vUrr%

vihykFkhZ dh fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt gqbZA lsok esa lfEefyr u fd;s tkus

ls {kqC/k izR;FkhZ us /kkjk 29 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr

vkosnu izLrqr dhA izR;FkhZ us iqu% lsok esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq 17-11-84

dks iuq% vkosnu izLrqr dh ysfdu vihykFkhZ us vquefr ug… nh vkSj

fnukad 31-1-85 dks izR;FkhZ dh lsok iqu% lekIr dj nhA

izR;FkhZ dh 31-1-85 dh lsok lekfIr ds fo#) Je U;k;ky; esa

fjQjsUl U;k;kf/kdj.k gsrq iathd`r gqvkA izR;FkhZ us nwljk okn /kkjk 33

lh ¼2½ ds vUrxZr 24-9-93 ls 17-11-84 dh vof/k ds fy, osru

dh x.kuk ,oa Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr fd;k] tks iathd`r gqvkA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vihykFkhZ dk dFku Fkk fd izR;FkhZ dh

fu;qfDr xSyjh vVsUMsUV ds :i esa rhu ekg dh vof/k gsrq gqbZ Fkh

ftlus Lor% dk;Z NksM+ fn;k rFkk fjV ;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; ds ckn lsok esa

iqu% lfEefyr gqvkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok dh vko';drk

u jgus ds dkj.k mldh lsok /kkjk 25&,Q dk vuqikyu djrs gq,

lekIr dj nh x;h vkSj #ñ 1800@ fMek.M Mªk¶V ds ek/;e ls mls

vnk fd;k x;kA izR;FkhZ us fMek.M Mªk¶V ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku ls

bUdkj fd;kA fdlh izdkj dh uksfVl u nsus ,oa uksfVl ds cnys dksbZ

eqvkotk u nsus rFkk lsok lekfIr dk dkj.k u crkus dk Hkh vfHkdFku

fd;kA U;k;kf/kdj.k us /kkjk 25&,Q ds vuqikyu dk lk{; ug…

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2259

ik;k fd dksbZ Mªk¶V 1800 #i;s dk izR;FkhZ dks fn;k x;k Fkk vr%

U;k;kf/kdj.k us fnukad 26-4-87 ds vkns'k ls 31-1-85 dh lsokeqfDr

dk vkns'k 25 izfr'kr foxr osru ds lkFk izR;FkhZ dh lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk

gsrq ikfjr fd;kA izR;FkhZ 4-9-83 ls 17-11-84 rd osru dk gdnkj

Hkh ik;k x;kA

iquLFkkZiuk ds fo#) ikfjr vkns'k dks vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk izLrqr dj pqukSrh nhA vihykFkhZ dh

;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dy ihB }kjk [kkfjt dh x;h

ftldh iqf"V ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk dh x;h ftlls {kqC/k gksdj

vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh A

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa eas izR;FkhZ

dh lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk ds cnys 3 yk[k #i;s {kfriwfrZ iznku dhA

vihy rn~uqlkj fuLrkfjr dh x;hA

10- d`".k flag cuke ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j] esa vihykFkhZ fnukad

11&6&88 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dke ij yxk vkSj fnlEcj

93 rd dk;Z fd;kA fnlEcj 93 esa mldh lsok fcuk uksfVl ds lekIr

dj nh x;hA /kkjk 25&,Q ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku ikdj Je U;k;ky;

us 50 izfr'kr foxr osru ,oa v[kf.Mr lsok ds lkFk deZdkj dks lsok

esa iquLFkkZfir djus dk funsZ'k fn;kA Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo#)

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ,oa 227

ds vUrxZr izLrqr ;kfpdk esa Je U;k;y; ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr dj

vihykFkhZ dh lsok es iquLFkkZiuk dh txg 50]000@& #i;s {kfriwfrZ

iznku djus dk vkns'k fn;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds

fo#) vihy esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g iz'u fopkjk/khu

Fkk fd D;k vuqPNsn 226 ,oa 227 ds vUrxZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

}kjk Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr djuk lgh FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us vius fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa dh O;k[;k dj vo/kkfjr fd;k fd

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; vuqPNsn 226 ,oa 227 dh vf/kdkfjrk ds

vUrxZr Je U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kksa esa gLr{ksi ug… djsxhA ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; ds rn~uqlkj vihy Lohdkj dhA

11- vuqi 'kekZ cuke vf?k'kklh vfHk;Urk esa vihykFkhZ vuwi

'kekZ fnukad 11-10-95 dks ekyh&lg&pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qDr

gqvk ftldh lsok;sa 25-4-98 dks lekIr dj nh x;…A Je U;k;y; ds

le{k vihykFkhZ dk dFku Fkk fd mldh lsok;sa] fcuk uksfVl ds cnys

osru ,oa fcuk NaVuh eqvkotk ,oa /kkjk 25&,u ds vkKkid izkfo/kku

dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk lekIr dj nh x;hA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd

ofj"Brk lwph rS;kj ug… dh x;h vkSj mldh rqyuk esa mlls dfu"B

vf/kdkjh lsok esa cus jgsA foi{k dk oknksÙkj dFku ;g Fkk fd vkfFkZd

dkj.kksa ls jkT; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vihykFkhZ vkSj mlds ln`'k vU;

dfeZ;ksa dh lsok;sa lekIr dh x;hA ;g Hkh dFku Fkk fd vihykFkhZ dh

lsoklekfIr vkns'k ds lkFk {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k Hkh nh x;h Fkh ftls

vihykFkhZ us Lohdkj ug… dh ,oa M~;wVh LVs'ku NksM+dj pyk x;k

ftlds ckn 4591@ #i;s dk Mªk¶V ?kj ds irs ij Hkstk x;kA ekSf[kd

lk{; esa izR;FkhZ }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd fnlEcj 95 ls 25-4-98 rd

[kf.Mr lsok vihykFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka dh rFkk ?kj ij lsoklekfIr

lecfU/kr jkf'k Mªk¶V ds ek/;e ls Hksth x;h FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd

dksbZ vihykFkhZ ls dfu"d lsok esa ug… jksds j[kk x;kA dksbZ ,slk lk{;

ug… izLrqr Fkk tks bl dFku dh iqf"V djs fd Mªk¶V ?kj Hkstk x;k FkkA

Je U;k;ky; us foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k

ikfjr fd;k ftldh vihy ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Lohdkj dh

ijUrq ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy eas ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

ds fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr

fd;k fd Je U;k;ky; ds ikl bl fu"d"kZ ds fy, dkj.k ug… Fkk fd

NaVuh ds le; vihykFkhZ dks eqvkotk ug… izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ dh

fu;qfDr vuqeksfnr ij ug… Fkh vkSj fu;qfDr esa fu;qfDr gsrq fufgr

izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu ug… fd;k x;k FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us

;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd bl ekeys esa Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vUrxZr

izLrqr ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk

iznÙk fu"d"kZ ds gLr{ksi esa tks n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k og ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; dh U;kf;d :i ls LFkkfir izfrekuks ,o avf/kdkfjrk dh

lhek ls ckgj FkkA ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ ds ln`'k

nf'kZr ekeyksa esa Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ Fkh ftu ekeyksa

ds lEcU/k esa tkuus dk d"V mBk;k x;k gksrk rks ekuuh; mPp U;k;y;

}kjk iz'uxr vkns'k ikfjr gh ug… gqvk gksrkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

us ;g Hkh ik;k fd /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh;

mPp U;k;y; us dksbZ fu"d"kZ ug… fn;k fd Je U;k;ky; dk bl

fcUnq ij fu"d"kZ fof/k fo#) FkkA Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa

16 dh vogsyuk vihykFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; }kjk ik;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd bldk dksbZ mYys[k izR;FkhZ ds oknksÙkj esa ug…

Fkk vkSj u gh ;g ekeyk Je U;k;ky; ;k mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k

mBk;k x;k Fkk fd vihykFkhZ dks fufgr izkfo/kku dk vuqlj.k fd;s

fcuk vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 ds mYya?ku esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk blfy,

mls gVk;k x;kA bl n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa dksbZ enn ug… yh tk

ldrh gSA

12- jes'k dqekj cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; esa vihykFkhZ ekyh ds :i esa

eq[; ea=h ds vkokl ij fnlEcj 91 esa dk;Z 'kq: fd;k vkSj

31 tuojh 93 esa fcuk uksfVl ,oa dkj.k crk;s mldh lsok lekIr dj

nh x;hA Je U;k;ky; ds le{k vihykFkhZ us /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku

ds dFku ds lkFk lsokeqfDr vkns'k fujLr djus dh izkFkZuk dhA foi{k

dk dFku Fkk fd o"kZ 1992 ds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ us 240 fnu dh lsok

fdlh o"kZ esa ug… iwjh dhA Je U;k;y; us mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ ds ckn

;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa ;kph us lsoklekfIr dh

frfFk ds Bhd iwoZ 240 fnu ls T;knk v[kf.Mr dk;Z fd;k gSA Je

U;k;ky; us /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku ds ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ

dks lsoklekfIr dh frfFk ls 50 izfr'kr fiNys osru ds lkFk v[kf.Mr

lsoklfgr iquLFkkZiuk dk funsZ'k fn;kA bl fu.kZ; ds fo#) jkT; dh

;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj dh x;h ftlds fo#)

;kph us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa vihy izLrqr dh tks Lohdkj dh

x;hA

2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13- lqjs'k pUnj cuke uxjikfydk] jktleUn ,oa vU; ds ekeys

esa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj us vihykFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr esa /kkjk 25&,Q

dk mYya?ku ikdj lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k ijUrq lsok esa

iquLFkkZiuk dh txg 15]000@& #i;s {kfriwfrZ iznku dhA Je U;k;ky;

ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) vihykFkhZ@deZdkj dh vihy esa ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; us {kfriwfrZ fu/kkZj.k ds ekudksa dh O;k[;k dj vihy Lohdkj

dh ,oa {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf'k 1]16]666@& #i;s iznku dhA bl ekeys

esa deZdkj yxHkx N% lky dh lsok ds ckn 25 o"kZ dh mez esa lsok ls

vyx dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;g n`"VkUr {kfriwfrZ dh ek=k ij dsfUnzr gSA

Jh NksVsykyk fNih ds ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g n`"VkUr

izklafxd ug… gSA

14- vkjke lSuh cuke n fizlkbfMax vkfQlj

lhthvkbZVh&de&yscj dksVZ] t;iqj esa vihykFkhZ prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh

ds :i esa 28-6-89 ls fu;qDr Fkk ftldh lsok,a 08-09-1992 dks

lekIr dj nh x;hA vihykFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 25&,Q ds mYya?ku dk

vk/kkj fy;k x;kA izR;FkhZ us le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k fd

mDr vof/k esa vihykFkhZ 78 fnu iw.kZ fnol rFkk 'ks"k fnu vk/kk fnol

dk;Z fd;kA 1996 esa le>kSrk okrkZ izkjaHk gqbZ tks vlQy gksus ij

1998 esa fjQjsUl ij U;k;kf/kdj.k esa fu.kZ;kFkZ ntZ gqbZA mHk;i{k ds

lk{; ds vk/kkj ij U;k;kf/kdj.k us fu"d"kZ fn;k fd vihykFkhZ us

dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu lsok iznku dh FkhA U;k;kf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ

dh v[kf.Mr lsok ekurs gq, 50 izfr'kr foxr osru ds lkFk vihykFkhZ

dh lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k fn;k ftlds fo#) ;kfpdk ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dy ihB }kjk Lohdkj dh x;h vkSj ;g

vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj ug… Fkh

blfy, lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ikfjr ug… gks ldrk FkkA ekuuh;

,dyihB us ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd 240 fnu yxkrkj lsok

lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vihykFkhZ ij Fkk ftls mlus ug… fuHkk;k gSA

,dyihB ds fu.kZ; ls {kqC/k gksdj vihykFkhZ us vihy izLrqr dh ftls

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us Lohdkj dh vkSj vihykFkhZ

}kjk fd;s x; foyEc dks n`f"Vxr j[k 50 izfr'kr foxr osru dh

Lohd`fr lsokeqfDr dh frfFk ds ctk; ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh frfFk

ls Lohdkj dhA U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; rnuqlkj la'kksf/kr fd;k

x;kA ,dyihB ds fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g

vo/kkfjr fd;k fd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dks iyVus esa tks dkj.k

ekuuh; ,dyihB us n'kkZ;h gS ;g fof/kd :i ls lgh ug… gSA

15- U;w nsgyh E;wfufloy dkSfUly cuke izohu pUnz 'kekZ] eas

izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ ds ;gk¡ fnukad 12-5-87 ls 5-3-88 rd] 240 fnu

ls vf/kd dh vof/k rd yxkrkj nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z

djus ,oa /kkjk 25 ,Q ds mYYa?ku esa viuh lsok lekIr gks tkus ds

dFku ds lkFk vkosnu izLrqr dj lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk rFkk foxr osru

dh ekax dhA vihykFkhZ us dsoy 236 fnu rd lsok djus dk dFku

fd;k vkSj eLVj jksy dh dkMZ dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dhA ewy eLVj

jksy u izLrqr gksus ds dkj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k us izR;FkhZ dh vkosnu 2-8-96

dks Lohdkj dh vkSj osru lfgr iquLFkkZiuk ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;kA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh

,dyihB us vLohdkj dh rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dhA

,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy esa ekuuh; [k.MihB ds

U;k;kfèdj.k ds losru iquLFkkZiuk ds fu.kZ; dks la'kksf/kr dj yxHkx

24 lky ds yEcs vUrjky ds n`f"Vxr j[k izR;FkhZ dks 5 yk[k #i;s

{kfriwfrZ iznku djrs gq, vihy fuLrkfjr dhA

16- Jh lqn'kZu jktiwr cuke ;wñihñ LVsV jksM VªkUliksVZ dkiksZjs'ku

ds rF;kuqlkj Jh lqn'kZu jktiwr pkyd ds in ij fnukad 11-3-97

ls dk;Zjr Fks vkSj lsok ds nkSjku fnukad 7-6-99 dks tc og jksMost

dh cl nsofj;k ls dkuiqj ysdj tk jgs Fks rks vpkud fLV;fjax Qsy

¼vfu;fU=r½ gksus ds dkj.k cl nq?kZVukxzLr gks x;hA bl nq?kZVuk esa

lqn'kZu dh nksuksa Vk¡xs VwV x;h ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i y[kuÅ esfMdy

dkyst esa og 9-8-2010 rd fpfdRlkjr jgsA fnukad 10-8-2000 dks

tc og LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds lkFk lsok esa 'kkfey gksus gsrq vius

dk;kZy; mifLFkr gq, rks mUgsa jksMost }kjk ekSf[kd :i ls ;g dgk

x;k fd pkyd dh lwph ls mudk uke dkV fn;k x;k gS rFkk mudh

lsok lekIr dj nh x;h gSA ml fnu Jh lqn'kZu dks lsok lekfIr dk

dksbZ vkns'k Hkh ug… fn;k x;kA

fnukad 29-7-2000 ds lsok lekfIr vkns'k dks izkFkhZ us ;wñihñ

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr pqukSrh nhA fuEu fookn

U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq Je U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k%& Whether the

termination of services of the appellant workman by the

respondent-Corporation vide order dated 29.7.2000 is proper

and valid? If not then whether the concerned appellant-

workman is entitled to receive interest/compensation?

mHk;i{k dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;s tkus ds i'pkr~ Je U;k;ky;

us lsokeqfDr vkns'k fujLr djrs gq, ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd lsokeqfDr

ds iwoZ dksbZ tk¡p ug… dh x;h Fkh fd nq?kZVuk pkyd dh ykijokgh ls

gqbZ Fkh tSlk fd lsokeqfDr vkns'k esa dFku fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k Hkh ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA

Je U;k;ky; us jksMost ds bl dFku dks Hkh [kkfjt fd;k fd Jh

lqn'kZu dh lsok lafonk ij FkhA Je U;k;y; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k

fd ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu ls T;knk lsok dh Fkh

vkSj fcuk oS/k dkj.k ds mldh lsok lekIr dh x;hA lsok lekfIr dk

vkns'k fujLr djrs gq, Je U;k;ky; us funsZf'kr fd;k fd deZpkjh

dks lsok esa leLr osru lfgr pkyd ds in ij iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk,

rFkk lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls leLr ykHk iznku fd;k tk;s rFkk mls

Hkfo"; esa Hkh osru lsok iznku dh tk,A

Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k

pqukSrh nh x;h fd fu.kZ; lk{; ij vo/kkfjr ug… gS fd deZpkjh

dkiksZjs'ku dk LFkk;h deZpkjh FkkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd vLFkk;h

lafonk dehZ FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Je U;k;ky; ds vkns'k

dks fujLr fd;k vkSj vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ Jh lqn'kZu jktiwr

lsok esa izos'k dh frfFk ls lsokeqfDr rd ,dhd`r NaVuh HkÙkk ds

gdnkj FksA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k deZpkjh@vihykFkhZ dh vihy

esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk lgh gksuk fopkj.kh; Fkk

ftldks fofHkUu fof/kd fcUnqvksa ij pqukSrh nh x;h FkhA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2261

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 17 esa i{kdkjksa ds

lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ lafonk

deZpkjh ugha Fkk cfYd LFkk;h deZpkjh FkkA mlus lk{; esa ;g Hkh

dgk Fkk fd mlds dfu"d deZpkjh mldh lsokeqfDr ds le; LFkk;h

:i ls dk;Zjr FksA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS

fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vkns'k fujLr gksus ;ksX;

gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh rFkk ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks fujLr fd;kA

lqn'kZu jktiwr cuke ;wñihñ LVsV jksM VªkUliksVZ dkiksZjs'ku ds ekeys

ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ enn ugha nh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd lqn'kZu jktiwr ds

ekeys ds rF; ,oa izkFkhZ NksVsyky ds ekeys ds rF; esa dksbZ lkE;rk

ugha gSA

17- t'kesj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; ,oa vU; esa vihykFkhZ ,d

nSfud osru dehZ ds :i esa lc fMfotuy bUthfu;j] fMfotu 3]

ikuhir ds v/khu fnukad 1-1-93 ls fnlEcj 93 rd dk;Zjr FkkA

mlus 240 fnu ls T;knk vof/k rd ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z fd;k

FkkA deZdkj dk dFku Fkk fd mldh lsok /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th ,oa

25 ,p ds mYya?ku esa lekIr dh x;hA mls uksfVl] uksfVl ds cnys

osru vFkok NVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk mldh lsok lekIr dh x;hA

deZdkj us lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dh ekax foxr osru rFkk vuqxkeh ykHk

ds lkFk dhA jkT; Je ea=ky; us ,okMZ gsrq fookn vkS|ksfxd

U;k;kfèdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; dks izLrqr dh tks deZdkj ds i{k esa

fuf.kZr gqvkA fu;ksDrk us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ,dyihB ds

le{k ,okMZ ds fo#) ;kfpdk izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k

fd fjQjsUl esa lc fMfotuy bUthfu;j 8] djuky i{kdkj ugha Fks

rFkk ,okMZ le; lhek ls ckf/kr Fkk] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds

izko/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrsA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd 1-1-

93 dks izkFkhZ fMfotuy 8 esa dk;Zjr Fkk tgka ls Lor% NksM+dj vxLr

1993 esa pyk x;k] bl izdkj mlus 240 fnu lsok ugha dh FkhA ;g Hkh

dgk x;k izkFkhZ ds lkFk dk;Zjr dqN vU; nSfud osru Hkksxh dehZ

flrEcj 1993 esa Hkh dk;Zjr jgs vr% izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij ugha j[kus dk

dksbZ iz'u ugha Fkk vxj og Hkh flrEcj 93 esa dk;Z djrk jgrkA ;g

Hkh dgk x;k fd vDVwcj 1993 esa izkFkhZ@vihykFkhZ vU; lc fMfotuy

vkfQlj] 6] ds ;gka pyk x;k tgka dksbZ nwljk dk;Z pyk jgk FkkA ogka

ij mlus u;h fu;qfDr izkIr dh rFkk fnlEcj 1993 rd dk;Zjr jgk

vkSj ogka ls iqu% mlus LosPNk ls dke fnlEcj 1993 esa NksM+ fn;kA bl

izdkj foi{k }kjk dksbZ lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ us ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu lsok iwjh ugha dh] bl izdkj

èkjk 25 ,Q (a) ,oa (b) dk vuqikyu vko';d ugha FkkA foi{k ds

dFku ds fo#) vihykFkhZ us tckcqytckc Hkh izLrqr fd;kA i{kdkjksa

ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij ikap okn fcUnq l`ftr fd;s x;s FksA izkFkhZ

us flrEcj 1993 dh eLVj jksy ;g n'kkZus ds fy, izLrqr dh fd mlus

240 fnu dk;Z fd;k ftlds vk/kkj ij U;k;kf/kdj.k us izkFkhZ ds i{k

esa okn&fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k fd;kA izkFkhZ ds lk{; esa bl dFku ds

vk/kkj ij fd izkFkhZ 1240@& #i;s ekfld osru ij fu;qDr Fkk]

U;k;kf/kdj.k us okn fcUnq la[;k ,d izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k FkkA

izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj fMfotu 3 vkSj 6 esa mlus la;qDr :i ls 31-12-93

rd 310 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k Fkk ,oa nksuksa fMfotuksa ds vf/k'kklh

vfHk;Urk ,d gh FksA flrEcj 1993 esa eLVj jksy ds vuqlkj mlus 22

fnu dk;Z fd;k FkkA izcU/ku }kjk crk;s x;s dk;Z fnolksa dks n`f"Vxr

j[k vkSj deZdkj }kjk crk;s x;s dk;Z fnolksa dks n`f"Vxr j[k izkFkhZ us

240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k FkkA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB ds U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ;

fnukad 27-7-2000 ds fo#) ;kfpdk fnukad 7-4-2010 dks Lohdkj

dh ftldh iqf"V ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us fnukad

19-9-13 dks dhA fnukad 19-9-13 ds fu.kZ; ls {kqC/k gksdj izkFkhZ@

vihykFkhZ us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA

flrEcj esa dk;Z djus ls lEcfU/kr izkFkhZ ds vfHkys[k dks foi{k us

;kph dh izfrijh{kk esa lgh u gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh

FkhA foi{kh lk{kh us Hkh nksuksa fMfotuksa esa izkFkhZ }kjk dk;Z djuk Lohdkj

fd;k Fkk vkSj vDVwcj 1993 ls fnlEcj 1993 rd fdlh vU;

fMfotu esa dk;Z djuk Lohdkj fd;k Fkk tks jk"Vªh; jktekxZ fMfotu

dk fgLlk ugha FkkA bl rF; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fd nksuksa fMfotuksa

ds vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ,d gh Fks rFkk vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fu;ksDrk

vf/kdkjh Fks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; dh

iqf"V dh rFkk vihy Lohdkj dhA

39- tgka rd /kkjk 2 (oo)(bb) esa fofgr O;oLFkk dk iz'u gS blds

izko/kku fuEuor gSa%µ

¼.k.k½ ^^NaVuh ls fu;kstd }kjk fdlh deZdkj dh lsok dk ,slk

i;Zolku vfHkizsr gS] tks vuq'kklu laca/kh dk;Zokgh ds :i esa fn, x,

naM ls fHkUu fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls fd;k x;k gks] fdUrq blds vUrxZr

fuEufyf[kr ugha vkrs%µ

¼[k[k½ ^^fu;kstd vkSj lEi`Dr deZdkj ds chp gqbZ fu;kstu

lafonk ds lekIr gks tkus ij mldk uohdj.k u fd, tkus ;k fu;kstu

lafonk esa ml fufeÙk vUrfoZ"V fdlh vuqcU/k ds v/khu ,slh lafonk

dk i;Zolku fd, tkus ds QyLo:i fdlh deZdkj dh lsok dk

i;Zolku(

40- /kkjk 25&,Q dk izko/kku vkdf"kZr gksus ds fy, ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,yñ,.M ,lñ½] 38] lqjsUnz

uxj ftyk iapk;r&vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag&izR;FkhZ esa

izLrj 8 i`"B 43 esa nh x;h O;oLFkk /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½] /kkjk 25 ¼ch½

,oa 25 ¼,Q½ ds lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS tks fuEuor gS%µ

"To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman

claiming protection under it, has to prove that there

exists relationship of employer and employee; that

he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)

of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed

is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he

must have put in not less than one year of continuous

service as defined by Section 25-B under the

employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of

these conditions is missing the provisions of Section

2262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court

the workman has to establish that he has right to

continue in service and that his service has been

terminated without complying with the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act.

The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled

by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—

(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 day's average pay for

every completed year of continuous service or

any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner."

41- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h mDr O;oLFkk ls ;g

tkfgj gS fd vU; ckrksa ds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds chp

^^deZdkj** vkSj fu;kstd dk fj'rk gksuk pkfg,A okn fcUnq la[;k 4

ds fuLrkj.k ls ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ^^deZdkj** ugha

gS blfy;s /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkdf"kZr ugha

gksrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr leLr n`"VkUrksa ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds

rFkk izkFkhZ NksVs yky ds ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds voyksdu

ls ;g Li"V gS fd muesa ijLij dksbZ lkeUtL; ugha gS vr% izkFkhZ ds

ekeys esa fdlh n`"VkUr ls enn ugha yh tk ldrh gSA mDr leLr

O;k[;k o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd foi{kh

izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih dh fu;qfDr fnukad 30-8-91 dks

ugha dh x;h Fkh vkSj mUgksaus dsoy Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg mudh

vodk'k dh vof/k esa dke fd;k rFkk mUgksaus fnukad 30-8-91 ls

31-7-92 rd yxkrkj dke ugha fd;k rFkk mudh lsok;sa /kkjk 25&,Q

ds mYya?ku esa lekIr ugha dh x;hA okn fcUnq la[;k ,d rn~uqlkj

izkFkhZ ds fo#) udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k&2

42- ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k foi{k us Jh NksVs yky

Nhih dh lsoklekfIr ds ckn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25&,p ds mYya?ku esa u;h fu;qfDr dh gS\ ;kfpdk ds izLrj lkr esa

u;h fu;qfDr dk mYys[k ;kph i{k us fd;k gS ijUrq uo fu;qDr O;fDr

ds uke dk mYys[k ugha gSA foi{k us u;h fu;qfDr ds rF; ls bUdkj

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih }kjk lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds

izLrj N% esa ;g mYys[k gS fd mudks lsokeqDr djrs le; muls

dfu"d vusd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks ysfdu fdlh ds uke dk mYys[k

ugha gSA Jh eqjkjh yky 'kekZ dh fu;qfDr izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fd;s tkus

dk ckn fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gS ysfdu rkjh[k dk mYys[k ugha gSA

izfrijh{kk esa lk{kh Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds le{k iz'u j[kk x;k gS fd

mUgsa dsoy Jh mejko 'kkg dh vodk'k vof/k ds fy, Mkd foHkkx esa

j[kk x;k Fkk bl lEcU/k esa mUgsa D;k dguk gS rks lk{kh us mÙkj fn;k gS

fd ,d nks fnu NqV~Vh dh txg dke djok;k tkrk gS yEch vof/k

rd NqV~Vh dh txg dke FkksM+s djok;k tkrk gSA bl tokc ls

Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds i{k esa dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkfjd gd bZñMhñ,eñlhñ

ds in ij cus jgus dk ugha curk gSA ;g rF; lkfcr gks pqdk gS rFkk

bldh O;k[;k okn&fcUnq la[;k ,d ds fuLrkj.k esa gks pqdh gS dh

Jh NksVs yky Nhih foHkkx esa fu;qDr dehZ ugha Fks cfYd Jh mejko

'kkg dh txg ,oth FksA Jh xtkuUn tksxh foi{kh lk{kh us 'kiFk&i=

ds izLrj 4 esa dgk gS fd bZñMhñ,eñlhñ dh fu;qfDr ds fy, dsUnz

ljdkj }kjk fuf'pr izfØ;k fu/kkZfjr gSA Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds ekeys

esa ,slh fdlh izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k dj fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h FkhA

i=koyh ij miyC/k ,oa ;kph }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k Ex-M-3 ds

voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd vijkUg~ fnukad 31-7-92 dks Jh NksVs

yky Nhih us Jh jk/ks';ke dks dk;ZHkkj lkSaik gS ftldh iqf"V i`"B 7 ij

Jh xtkuUn tksxh ds lk{; ls gksrh gSA jk/ks';ke ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh

lk{kh us vufHkKrk tkfgj dh gSA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls Hkh izLrqr

lk{; esa bl ckr dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS fd jk/ks';ke iqjkus deZpkjh

gS fd pktZ vUrj.k ds fnu gh mUgsa j[kk x;k ysfdu Jh d`".k eqjkjh ds

lEcU/k esa fLFkfr Li"V gS fd mUgsa Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks gVkdj ukSdjh

ugha nh x;h gS cfYd Jh mejko 'kkg ds yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr jgus ds

dkj.k vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh esa mUgsa vkjksfir dj lsok ls gVk;k x;k

gS ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i mudk in fnukad 28-10-95 dks fjDr ?kksf"kr

gqvk gSA rRi'pkr jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls Jh mejko 'kkg ds fjDr in ij

fu;qfDr gsrq uke ekaxs x;s gSaA bl chp Jh NksVs yky Nhih dks foHkkx

}kjk i=kpkj ls ;g lq>ko Hkh fn;k x;k gS fd og viuk uke jkstxkj

dk;kZy; esa ntZ djkosA jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls ekaxs x;s ukeksa esa Jh NksVs

yky Nhih dk uke ugha jgk gS bl dkj.k mldh fu;qfDr ij fopkj ugha

fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 6-11-1995 dks Jh d`".k eqjkjh dh fu;qfDr

jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls uke izk;ksftr gksus ds ckn dh x;h gSA mDr

dk;Zokgh ;kph }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k Aw-10 ds voyksdu ls gksrh gSA

mDr fLFkfr ls ;g tkfgj gS fd Jh d`".k eqjkjh dh fu;qfDr gksus esa vkSj

Jh NksVs yky Nhih dh fu;qfDr u gksus esa fdlh izfØ;k dk mYya?ku

ugha gS u gh fdlh i{kikr dk va'k n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gS D;ksafd mudk

uke jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls ugha Hkstk x;k gSA vr% ;g rF; lkfcr gS

fd Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds fnukad 01-8-92 ls lsok ls gVus ds ckn

Jh d`".k eqjkjh dh fu;qfDr gqbZ gSA

43- tgka rd /kkjk 25&,p ds mYya?ku dk iz'u gS lqyHk lUnHkZ

gsrq /kkjk 25 ,p dk izkfo/kku vafdr fd;k tk jgk gS tks fuEuor~ gS%&

^^/kkjk 25&t- NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu&

tgka fd fdUgha deZdkjksa dh NaVuh dh tkrh gS vkSj fu;kstd

fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks vius fu;kstu esa j[kus dh izLFkkiuk djrk gS] ogka

og mu NVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dks] tks Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gSa] ,slh

jhfr ls] tSlh fofgr dh tk,] ;g volj nsxk fd iqu% fu;kstu ds

fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vkSj NVuh fd, x, mu deZdkjksa dks tks

iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vU; O;fDr;ksa ij

vf/keku feysxkA**

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2263

44- mDr izkfo/kku esa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd ;fn fdlh deZdkj dh

NaVuh dh tkrh gS vkSj mlds ckn fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks vius

fu;kstu esa j[kuk pkgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa NaVuh fd;s x;s deZdkj

dks iqu% fu;kstu dk volj iznku fd;k tkosxk vkSj ;fn NaVuh fd;k

x;k deZdkj iqufuZ;kstu dk bPNqd gS rks mls vU; O;fDr;ksa dh

rqyuk esa ojh;rk nh tkosxhA

45- Aw-10 ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ dks lq>ko

fu;qfDr izfØ;k djus ls igys fn;s x;s Fks fd og Hkh viuk uke

jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa ntZ djkosA jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds izsf"kr ukeksa esa

izkFkhZ dk uke ugha FkkA foi{k ds fy, fu;qfDr gsrq jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls

uke ysuk vfuok;Z FkkA vr% izkFkhZ Jh NksVs Nhih dks vU; O;fDr;ksa ds

fo#) foi{k }kjk ojh;rk rHkh nh tk ldrh Fkh ;fn mudk uke Hkh

jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds izk;ksftr vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa gksrkA

46- vc egRoiw.kZ iz'u ;g gS fd D;k Jh d`".k eqjkjh dh fu;qfDr

ls /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA bl

rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih ij gS fd ;g

lkfcr djs fd /kkjk 25&,p dk ykHk ikus ds os gdnkj gSaA

47- Jh NksVs yky Nhih us viuh ;kfpdk esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS

fd og Mkd foHkkx }kjk fnuakd 30-8-91 dks fu;qDr fd;s x;s gS tks

muds gh ekSf[kd lk{; ls rFkk izLrqr vfHkys[k ls ;g ;g lkfcr gqvk

gS fd og fu;qDr ugha fd;s x;s Fks cfYd Jh mejko 'kkg dh txg

vodk'k vof/k gsrq yxk;s x;s Fks vr% mudk lsok esa cus jgus dk gd

vf/kd ls vf/kd Jh mejko 'kkg dh vodk'k vof/k rd curk gS

ftUgsa vodk'k ls okil u vkus ds dkj.k vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dj

lsok ls gVk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds ekeys esa /kkjk

2 (oo) (bb) dk izko/kku vkdf"kZr gksrk gS /kkjk 25&,p dk izko/kku

dsoy ml fLFkfr esa vkdf"kZr gksrk gS tc ;kph laLFkku }kjk fu;qDr gks

vkSj mldh NaVuh dj nh x;h gksA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd okn&fcUnq

ds fuLrkj.k esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS izkFkhZ deZdekj ugha gS bl

vk/kkj ij Hkh Jh NksVs yky Nhih /kkjk 25&,p dke dke ikus ds

gdnkj ugha gSA

48- mDr leLr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij esa bl

fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd izkFkhZ Jh NksVs yky Nhih ds lsok ls eqDr gksus ds ckn

Jh d`".k eqjkjh 'kekZ dh fu;qfDr foHkkx }kjk dh x;h gS ijUrq ekeys

dh rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

dk mYya?ku ugha gSA okn&fcUnq la[;k nks rn~uksuqlkj udkjkRed fuf.kZr

fd;k tkrk gSA

okn&fcUnq la[;k ikap

49- ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd ;kph fdl vuqrks"k dk

gdnkj gS\ okn&fcUnq la[;k ,d yxk;r 4 ds fu"d"kZ ls ;g izdV gS

fd izkFkhZ /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku

ds vuqlkj ^^deZdkj** ugha gSA Mkd foHkkx ds izcU/ku }kjk Jh NksVs

yky Nhih dh lsok lekfIr fof/kd ,oa mfpr gSA ;kph fdlh vuqrks"k

dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA okn&fcUnq la[;k ikap rn~uqlkj udkjkRed

fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

50- okn fcUnq la[;k ,d yxk;r ikap ds izkIr fu"d"kZ ls eSa bl

er dk gw¡ fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ,l ds

vuqlkj ,DlVªk fMikVZesUVy esy dSfj;j ^^deZdkj** ugha gS] Jh NksVs yky

Nhih dks izca/ku }kjk lsokeqDr djus dh dk;Zokgh fofnr ,oa mfpr gS

rFkk ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

izsf"kr funsZ'k dk mÙkj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkaV rn~uqlkj ikfjr

fd;k tkrk gSA

51- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1048-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ctkt bysfDVªdYl

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy baMfLVª;y

fVªC;wuy] eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k NTB-9 of 2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@02@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the award (I.D. No. NTB-9 of 2003) of the

Central Government National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai

now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Bajaj Electricals Limited and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-42025/02/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

Present :

JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. NTB-9 OF 2003

(Arising out of Reference NTB-1 of 1997)

Parties:

V. Subramanian

...

Complainant

And

Ms. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. ...

Opponent

2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Complainant

Mr. A. Mathew, Adv.

For the Opponent

Mr. M.S. Paranjpe, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 5th day of May, 2015

AWARD

1. V. Subramanian, Complainant filed the present

Complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 making the following prayers:

"(a) holding and declaring the Chargesheet-cum-

suspension dated 9th March 2000 issued to the

Complainant at Annexure-'A' as illegal and void

ab initio;

(b) directing the Opponent Company to pay full

wages treating the Complainant as if working w.e.f.

the date of suspension, i.e. 9th Mach 2000;

(c) directing the Opponent Company to pay

adequate compensation for having meted out social,

physical and mental torture to the Complainant;

(d) to grant any other relief the Hon'ble Tribunal

may deem fit and proper; and

(e) to direct the Opponent Company to pay cost of

this Compaint."

2. The Complaint pertains to Reference No. NTB-1 of

1997 which was pending before this Tribunal when the

Complaint was filed. In the said Reference No. NTB-1 of

1997, Award was passed by this Tribunal on 20.2.2004. The

said Award was challenged by the Opposite Party herein

before the Bombay High Court by filling Writ Petition being

Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2004. The said Writ Petition was

disposed of by the Bombay High Court by the Order dated

14.12.20004.

3. As regards the present Compaint, Pleadings were

exchanged between the parties. Evidence on behalf of the

parties was also led. The case is at the stage of arguments.

4. The case was lastly listed on 7.4.2015 by the Order

dated 7.4.2015, the case was directred to be put up on

5.5.2015. Accordingly, the case is put up today.

5. Mr. A Mathew, learned counsel for the Complainant

and Mr. M.S. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party are present. Both the learned counsel for the parties

state that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings which

commence with the Chargesheet-cum-Suspension Order

dated 9.3.200, as mentioned in the aforementioned

Complaint, the services of the Complainant were terminated.

Both the learned counsel for the parties further state that

in regard to the termination of services of the Complainant,

the Opposite Party herein has filed Approval Application

No. 15 of 2005 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Both the learned counsel for the parties

further state that the said termination is also the subject-

matter of Complaint No. 1 of 2005 filed by the Complainant

herein.

6. In the circumstances, learned counsel for both the

parties state that so far as the present Complaint namely,

complaint No. NTB-9 of 2003 is concerned, the same has

become infructuous, and the same may be dismissed as

such.

7. In view of the Join Statement made by the learned

counsel for the parties, the aforementioned Complaint No.

NTB-9 of 2003 is dismissed as having become infructuous.

8. Award is passed accordingly.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1049-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 1546@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@12@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the award (I.D. No. 1546/2008) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-40012/12/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1546/2008

Registered on. 20.6.2008

Sh. Harmesh Singh, S/o Sh. Dilip Singh, R/s 86, Moga,

Village and PO Bhirdana Dhani, Fatehabad.

...Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2265

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd., Telecom Haryana Circle, Ambala

Cantt.

2. The Divisional Engineer, Telegarph, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Fatehabad.

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the workman

Sh. Raj Kaushik, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Kailash Sharma, Adv.

Award

Passed on 9.4.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/12/

2008-IR(DU) dated 2.6.2008, by exercising its power 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 Chief

General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Ambala Cantt.

Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, BSNL, Fatehabad, in

terminating the services of their workman

Sh. Harmesh Singh w.e.f. 15.4.2004 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

According to the workman, he was appointed as Peon

on 7.9.2001 in the Office of SDO(T), Fatehabad on daily

basis and he worked till 30.10.2002. He was shifted to

Accounts Branch where he worked till 15.4.2004 and also

used to do the work of a Clerk. His services were terminated

on 15.4.2004 without serving any notice or payment of

retrenchment compensation and therefore his termination

is illegal.

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and pleaded that workman

was engaged occasionally on availability of work by the

AO (TRU) Fatehabad and he did not work continuously.

Since he was not engaged, he was not to be paid any

retrenchment compensation.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit along with the documents

Exhibit W1 to W133.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Mahesh Rana, who filed his affidavit reiterating the

stand taken by the management in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Raj Kaushik, counsel for the workman

and Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the management

that there was no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties and the workman was engaged

occasionally on job basis and as such he cannot claim

himself to be the employee of the management.

It may be added that claimant has specifically pleaded

that he was appointed as Peon on 7.9.2011 at Fatehabad

where he worked till 30.10.2002 and was then shifted to the

Accounts Branch. Though this fact is denied by the

respondent department but it has pleaded that the workman

was engaged occasionally on job basis. Thus the

respondent management itself admits that the workman

was engaged for doing certain jobs in the department but

occasionally. Sh. Mahesh Rana, examined by the respondent

management has admitted that workman was employed

earlier by the DETC, then he was engaged by the SDO and

thereafter he (witness) engaged the workman. Thus the

engagement of the workman is admitted. It was for the

management to prove by way of documentary evidence

that the workman was engaged occasionally and on job

basis but the department did not choose to produce any

record to establish that the workman in fact worked

occasionally and not regularly as pleaded by him. Thus

taking the pleadings and the statement of Mahesh Rana

into account, the case of the workman stands probablized

that he worked with the department from 7.9.2001 to

15.04.2004 and it is the case of the workman that he was

drawing wages as per DC rates. Since the workman worked

from 7.9.2001 to 15.4.2004, it is to be held that he worked

continuously for 240 days prior to the termination of

services and since his services were terminated without

service of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation

and as such, the termination of his services is not legal and

valid.

The respondent department is a statutory body and

have its rules and regulations for making the appointment.

Nothing has come on the file that any procedure was

followed while appointing the workman but the fact remains

that he was engaged by the respondent management, may

be without following the rules. Since the appointment is

not as per rules and regulations, his reinstatement cannot

be ordered. In the circumstances, he is to be paid

compensation. Though nothing has come on the record

that what was being paid to him but he worked for more

than two-and-a-half years with the department. Considering

the totality of the circumstances and by guess work, he is

to be awarded Rs. 1 lac by way of compensation.

In result, the reference is answered holding that workman

is entitled to get Rs. 1 lac as compensation from the

respondent management who shall pay the same within

two months from the publication of the award failing which

the workman will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6

per cent per annum from the date of the award till realization.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1050-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj QsMjy cSad ds

izcaèra= 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

v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@26@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1050.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2011) of the

Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Federal Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/05/2015.

[No. L-12011/26/2010-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

Shri D. Sreevllabhan, B.Sc., LL.B., Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 16th day of April, 2015/26th Chaitra, 1937)

ID 5/2011

Union

The General Secretary

Federal Bank Employees Union

Central Office

Aluva

By Adv. Shri C Anil Kumar

Management :

The Chairman

Federal Bank Limited.

Aluva

By M/s B.S. Krishnan Associates

This is case coming up for final hearing on 30.03.2015

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 16.04.2015 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 Central

Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12011/

26/2010-1R(B-1) dated 08.03.2011 referred the industrial

dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Federal

Bank Limited, in imposing a penalty of reduction of

basic pay by one stage in the scale of pay on Shri T.

Shanmughavelu, the erstwhile Typist-cum-clerk, is

legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?"

The workman, while working as typist-cum-clerk in the

Chaliyam Branch of the management bank, was issued with

a chargesheet dated 12.05.2007 for the acts of gross

misconducts of (a) willful insubordination or disobedience

of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or

of a superior (b) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of

the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss and (c) misbehavior

towards customers arising out of bank's premises along

with the order placing him under suspension with immediate

effect. An enquiry was ordered to be conducted by

appointing Shri P.K. Satheesh, the then Senior Manager as

the enquiry officer. After conducting enquiry he had

submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority

after finding that all the charges levelled against him were

proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings

after hearing the workman and imposed the penalty of

'reduction of basic pay by one sage.' The appeal filed by

him before the appellate authority was dismissed confirming

the order of the disciplinary authority. Hence this industrial

dispute was raised by the union which resulted in this

reference.

4. Union filed claim statement challenging the validity

of the enquiry, the findings of the enquiry officer and the

penalty imposed on the workman. The issuance of a

composite order placing him under suspension, ordering

an enquiry and appointing an enquiry officer to conduct

the enquiry along with the charge memo without waiting

for his explanation would reveal that the management was

predetermined in the matter of disciplinary action against

him. The enquiry was conducted in violation of the

principles of natural justice without affording sufficient

opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence. The

evidence tendered by him was not considered by the

enquiry officer in the right perspective. The enquiry was

only a farce and the findings of the enquiry officer are

totally perverse and not based on any legal evidence. There

was no legally acceptable evidence before the enquiry

officer to prove the alleged misconducts. He was victimized

by the management for the claim made by him for higher

post. The punishment imposed on the workman is too harsh

and is disproportionate to the charges found to have been

proved in the enquiry. Hence it is prayed that an award be

passed setting aside the order of imposition of penalty and

directing the management to restore the benefits denied to

him consequent to that order.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2267

5. Management filed written statement denying the

allegations in the claim statement challenging the validity

of the enquiry, the findings of the enquiry officer and the

proportionality of the punishment imposed on the workman.

It is further contended that after allotting him with the work

in the main cash section in Chaliyam branch he used to

pick up quarrels with customers by deliberately delaying

service to them. In the morning on 11.05.2007 the manager

handed over a cash remittance of ` 7 lakhs to the case

officer Shri Abdul Khader, Manager (Administration) for

entrusting it to the workman who was the then main cashier

for accounting. Without following the normal procedure of

transferring cash balance to the other cash counters he

started counting the cash remittance of ` 7 lakhs. In spite

of the repeated oral instructions he was not prepared to

transfer the cash to the other cash counters but he continued

to count the cash. At about 10:20 AM on that day the

Manager issued an office order to him to transfer cash to

the other cash counters immediately. He had

acknowledged the office order by writing in the office order

book that "I am receiving 7 lakhs deposit. He must wait till

them". He transferred the cash balance to the other cash

counters only at 10:35 AM after counting the cash of ` 7

lakh and thereby he had deliberately delayed the normal

functioning of the branch. On 05.05.2007 at around 11:00

AM he had misbehaved towards an old lady customer

who came to his counter for the release of some of her gold

ornaments pledged with the bank. Disciplinary action was

initiated against him after placing him under suspension

for the acts of gross misconducts of.

(a) willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable order of the management

or of a superior;

(b) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the

bank or gross negligence or negligence involving

or likely to involve the bank in serious loss and

premises.

Considering the seriousness of the charges an enquiry

was conduct against him by appointing Shri P.K. Satheesh,

the then Senior Manager as the enquiry officer. He was

defended in the enquiry by Shri K. Abdussalam, Advocate,

Calicut. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry as per

rules and by complying with the principles of natural justice

by affording him every opportunity to prove his innocence.

After conducting the enquiry the enquiry officer found

him guilty of the acts of 'wildful insubordination or

disobedience of any lawful or reasonable orders of the

management or of a superior', 'doing any act prejudicial to

the interest of the bank' and 'misbehavior towards

customers arising out of bank's premises'. The disciplinary

authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer after

affording an opportunity of hearing him and imposed the

punishment of 'reduction of basic pay by one stage in the

scale of pay'. The appeal filed by him before the appellate

authority challenging the imposition of penalty was

dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2009. The allegations as

till treatment by the management are made without any

basis or bonafadies. He was earlier dismissed from the

services of the bank after conducting an enquiry. But he

was ordered to be reinstated by the tribunal on the ground

that the punishment imposed on him was disproportionate

to the gravity of misconduct without interfering the findings

as to his misconducts proved in that enquiry. After

reinstatement there was no improvement in him and hence

disciplinary action was initiated against him for the alleged

misconducts. The enquiry officer entered into the findings

against him after having a proper appreciation of the

evidence in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority imposed

the penalty after having due regard to the gravity of the

proved misconducts. It is neither disproportionate nor harsh

or excessive. It is just, legal, proper and valid and hence

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of the

opportunity given for that purpose.

7. As the validity of the enquiry was under challenge

the same was dealt with treating it as a preliminary issue.

For the purpose of deciding that issue the enquiry officer

was examined as MW1 and the enquiry file was marked at

Ext. M1. The enquiry was found to be valid by this tribunal

as per the preliminary order dated 06.02.2015. Since the

enquiry was found to be valid the ID was posted for final

hearing and the arguments for both sides were heard.

8. The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against

the workman was fair and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice?

(ii) Whether the findings entered into against him in

the enquiry call for any interference by this

tribunal?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed on him is

disproportionate to the misconducts?

(iv) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

9. Point No. (i):— As per the preliminary order dated

06.02.2015 it was found that the enquiry was conducted in

a fair and proper manner after affording reasonable

opportunity to the workman and 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 regards to it and the same form part of the

award.

10. Point No. (ii):— The allegations in the chargesheet

based on which the charges as to the three gross

misconducts levelled against the workman reads thus:

"11(a). Shri Shanmugavelu T was allotted with main

cash section with effect from May, 2007. Ever since

2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he took charge of the section, there have been

complaints from customers on the delay and

deficiency of service on the part of Shri

Shanmugavelu.

(b) In the morning of 11.05.2007, the Manager had

handed over a cash remittance of Rs. 7 lakh to the

cash officer Shri Abdul Kader, Manager (Admn) for

entrusting the same to the main cashier for

accounting. Shri Shanmugavelu started counting the

cash remittance of Rs. 7 lakh without following the

normal procedure of transferring cash balance to

other cash counters. The cash officer had told Shri

Shanmugavelu that there was no hurry to account

the cash remittance of Rs. 7 lakh since the same was

checked by him an could be accounted at his

convenience. But Shri Shanmugavelu was adamant

and not willing to obey the instruction of the cash

officer under the plea that he would transfer the cash

only after counting Rs. 7 lakh handed over by the

cash officer. By that time several customers were

waiting at the counter. On seeing the customers

accumulated at the counter, the Manger enquired

about the matter with Shri Abdul Kadar, Manager

(Admn.) and he personally went to the cash cabin

and instructed Shri Shanmugavelu to transfer cash

balance to other cash counters. Since Shri

Shanmugavelu did not comply with the oral

instruction of the Manager, by 10.20 AM the Manager

issued officer order to Shri Shanmugavelu to transfer

cash balance to other cash counters immediately.

Shri Shanmugavelu acknowledged the office order

by writing in the office order book that "I am receiving

7 lakh of deposit. He (other cashier) must wait till

then". Finally he transferred the cash balance to other

cash counters only at 10.35 am after completing the

counting of the cash of Rs. 7 lakh.

11.00 AM, an old lady customer Smt. Pathumakutty

approached the counter of Shri Shanmugavelu for

releasing some of her gold ornaments pledged with

the Bank. She was waiting for her turn for quite some

time and when she asked him to accept the cash, he

retorted "Now no convenience for me. Go away for

other work." The lady then broke out in front of the

customers on hearing the words."

11. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer

without violating the principles of natural justice and after

affording sufficient opportunity to the workman to adduce

evidence. During the course of enquiry MW1 to MW3

were examined and Exts. ME-1 to ME-10 were marked from

the side of the management to prove the charges levelled

against him. From the side of the workman he got himself

examined as a witness and produced Exts. DE-1 and DE-2.

After having a detailed consideration of the evidence the

enquiry officer found that there is sufficient evidence to

prove the acts of misconduct and entered into the finding

that all the charges levelled against the workman were

proved. Those findings were accepted by the disciplinary

authority and thereby he was imposed with the penalty of

'reduction of basic pay by one stage in the scale of pay'.

The findings of the enquiry officer as well as the penalty

imposed by the disciplinary authority were upheld by the

appellate authority.

12. The enquiry is found to be valid and there is no

perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer. He had

entered in to the findings after having a careful analysis of

the evidence. Except the reinstatement of the workman in

service pursuant to the order in ID 749/2001 no other

circumstances is brought to the notice of this tribunal to

satisfy that it is as a part of victimization the disciplinary

action was initiated against him which resulted in the

imposition of penalty. It is not in dispute that the findings

in the earlier disciplinary proceedings as to the misconducts

of the workman were not interfered with by the tribunal in

that case.

13. As this industrial dispute does not relate to the

discharge or dismissal Section 11A is not applicable in this

case. 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.

14. 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 2008 it was held that

if the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in the

absence of any allegations of victimization or malafides or

unfair labour practice the Labour Court has no power to

interfere with the punishment imposed by the management.

Therein it was held:

"if enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any

allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice,

the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the

punishment imposed. Section 11A of the Act gives

ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the

evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in

appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing

punishment. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes

Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2269

discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the

Section itself - When enquiry was conducted fairly

and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations

of victimization or malafides or unfair labour practice,

Labour Court has no power to interfere with the

punishment imposed by the management. Since

Section 11A is not applicable Labour Court has no

power to re-appraise the evidence to find out whether

the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not

or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or

not. Of course, Labour Court can interfere with the

findings if the findings are perverse."

15. Here in this case there is no reason to hold that the

finds of the enquiry officer are perverse. The

acknowledgement in Ext. ME-6 itself is sufficient enough

to prove that he was disobeying the order of the superior

officer. There is also the evidence of MWs 1 to 3 coupled

with documentary evidence to prove the alleged

misconducts. It cannot in any way be said that it is a case

of victimization in view of the facts and circumstances in

the case.

16. The enquiry officer after analyzing the evidence in

the enquiry entered into the findings after assigning valid

reasons. Conclusion reached by the enquiry officer cannot

be said to be of such a nature as no reasonable person

would have reached. The enquiry was conducted in a fair

and proper manner. The findings of the enquiry officer are

based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse.

Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings

of the enquiry officer which was accepted by the

disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority.

17. Point No. (iii):— The penalty imposed by the

disciplinary authority cannot in any way be said to be

shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconducts.

In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan Vs.

Mohammed Ayub Naz 2006 (1) KLT 581 (SC) it was held:

"In determining the quantum, 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

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."

18. There is no reason to interfere with the findings

against the workman as to the charge levelled against him

and the imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority

which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence the

penalty imposed on the workman does not call for any

interference by this tribunal.

19. Point No. (iv):— In the result an award is passed

holding that the action of the management in imposing the

penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the scale

of pay on the workman is legal and justified and hence 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 Assistance, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 16th

day of April, 2015.

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

—

NIL

Witness for the management

MW 1 11.06.2013

Shri Satheesh P.K.

Exhibits for the union

—

NIL

Exhibits for the management

—

Enquiry file.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INUDSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present :

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

(Friday the 06th day of February, 2015/17th Magha,

1936)

ID No. 5/2011

Union

The General Secretary

Federal Bank Employees Union

Central Office

Aluva

By Adv. Shri C Anil Kumar

Managment :

The Chairman

Federal Bank Limted

Head Office

Aluva

By M/s. B S Krishnan Associates

The case coming up for preliminary hearing on

22.01.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

06.02.2015 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 dispute referred for adjudication is whether the

action of the management of Federal Bank Limited imposing

the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the

scale of pay on the workman is legal and justified.

2270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The workman was an employees of the management

bank. While he was working as typist-cum-clerk in the

Chaliyam Branch of the Bank he was issued with a

chargesheet dated 12.05.2007 for the acts of gross

misconducts of (a) willful insubordination or disobedience

of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or

of a superior; (b) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of

the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss and (c)

misbehaviour towards customers arising out of bank's

premises as per Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on

Disciplinary Action and Procedure.

4. He was placed under suspension with immediate

effect on 12.05.2007 and an enquiry was ordered to be

conducted as to the charges levelled against him by

appointing Shri Santheesh P. K, Senior Manager, PIR

Department.

5. After conducting enquiry the enquiry officer submitted

the enquiry report dated 31.05.2008, with the findings that

the charges are proved, to the disciplinary authority. The

disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry

officer after hearing the workman and imposed the penalty

of ‘reduction of basic pay by one stage'. Against that

order the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate

authority and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated

10.02.2009 after confirming the order of the disciplinary

authority. Hence the union raised this industrial dispute

and the same has resulted in this reference.

6. Union after appearance before this tribunal filed claim

statement challenging the validity of the enquiry,

thefindings of the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed

on the workman. The validity of the enquiry was challenged

alleging that the enquiry was conducted by a loyal official

of the management bank in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The enquiry was only a farce and the

findings of the enquiry officer are totally perverse and not

based on legal evidence. The evidence adduced by the

workman was not considered by the enquiry officer in the

right perspective. Crucial documents which would prove

the innocence of the workman were not produced in the

enquiry despite of the specific request made by the

workman. Clerical staff in the branch who were prepared to

give evidence in favour of the workman was prevented by

the senior manager and other officers from tendering

evidence by threatening them as to the dire consequences.

The enquiry was not fair and is vitiated due to non-

compliance of principles of natural justice.

7. In the written statement management would deny the

allegations in the claim statement challenging the validity

of the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer. It is

contended that the enquiry officer conducted the

proceedings as per rules and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. The workman was given

permission to be defended in the enquiry by an advocate.

The workman was afforded with the opportunity to cross

examine all the management witnesses. The workman was

examined as a defence witness and two documents were

marked. The findings were entered into by the enquiry

officer after a judicial appraisal of all the evidence adduced

in the enquiry and also considering the written arguments

submitted by the workman. The findings of the enquiry

officer were accepted by the disciplinary authority after

considering the reply of the workman. The enquiry was

conducted in an impartial manner affording every

opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence. The

workman had participated in the enquiry all throughout

without any demur and the allegations raised against the

proceedings of the enquiry are not correct. There is no

illegality in conducting the enquiry or imposing the

punishment on him.

As the validity of the enquiry is under challenge it was

being heard treating it as a preliminary issue. One witness

was examined form the side of the management as MW1

and the enquiry file was marked as Ext. MI for that purpose.

9. At this stage it is only to be considered whether the

enquiry is vitiated due to any bias or non-compliance of

the principles of natural justice. There are specific

allegations in the chargesheet dated 12.05.2007 as to the

misconducts of insubordination, doing act prejudicial to

the interest of the bank and misbehaviour towards

customers in the bank's premises. After receipt of the

detailed reply from the workman enquiry was conducted

by appointing MW1 as the enquiry officer. Workman was

allowed to be represented by an advocate in the enquiry.

Three witnesses examined from the side of the management

were allowed to be cross examined by the defence

representative. The workman was also afforded the

opportunity to adduce evidence. After considering the

evidence the enquiry officer found that the charges levelled

against the workman were proved. There is no reason to

hold that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse or

based on no evidence.

10. The failure of the management to produce some of

the documents sought to be produced by the workman is

the only reason pointed out by the learned counsel for the

workman to invalidate the enquiry. It is true that some

documents were not produced by the management as per

the request of the workman for the reason that those were

not relevant for the purpose of the enquiry. The enquiry

officer declined the request of the workman for production

of those documents since the same were found not very

material. The non- production of the documents which are

found to be not relevant by the enquiry officer is not a

ground for the invalidation of the enquiry. If those

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2271

documents were relevant for the purpose of the enquiry

only an adverse inference can be taken while appreciating

the evidence. As the findings were entered into by the

enquiry officer after having a detailed discussion of the

evidence and the same were accepted by the disciplinary

authority after affording an opportunity for hearing to him,

the enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated for the mere reason

of declining the request of the workman for production of

some documents which were found not relevant for the

purpose of the enquiry.

11. There is no reason to invalidate the enquiry

conduced by MW1 against the workman. The findings of

the enquiry officer cannot be held to be perverse. Hence

the enquiry is found to be valid.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 06th day of

February, 2015.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Union

NIL

Witness for the Management

MW1

—

11.06.2013

Shri Satheesh P K

Exhibit for the Union

NIL

Exhibit for the Managaement

—

Enquiry file

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1051-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tEew ,aM d'kehj

cSad fy- izca/k r= 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] p.Mhp<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 63@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 12012@93@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2009) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No. 1,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Jammu and Kashmir

Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/93/2009 - IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURNDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 63 of 2009. Reference No. L-12012/93/2009-

IR(B-I) dated 21.01.2010

Mohd. Abdul Majid Wagey son of Shri Ghulam Rasool

Wagey, resident of Hilal Abad Sonawari, District Baramula

(J&K)

...Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Corporate Headquarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar

Kashmir.

2. The Branch Manager, J&K Bank Ltd. Regional

Engg. Branch, Hazratbal, Srinagar (J&K)

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman:

ShriP.K. Longia Advocate

For the Mangement:

Shri N.K. Zakhmi Adovocate .

Award Dated: 07.05.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

. L-12012/93/2009-IR(B-I) dated 21.01.2010 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of J&K Bank

Limited in imposing the penalty of discharge of

services of Shri Abdul Majid Wagay, S/o Shri Ghulam

Rasool Wagay, w.e.f. 7.11.2005 is justified? If not,

what relief he is entitled to?"

3. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Parties appeared. Workman filed claim statement is

which he pleaded that workman applied for the post of

orderly on 10.12.1987 with the management and workman

specifically mentioned in the application that he was middle

pass and could not continue his study further as his parents

could not finance due to meagre source of income. On his

application in January 1988 he was appointed with the

management peon-cum-watchman and vide order dated

14.10.1988 the workman was permanent appointed as peon-

cum-watchman and confirmed as such w.e.f. 14.4.1989 on

completion of probation period. Since then workman was

performing his duty honestly and diligently.

3. It is pleased by the workman that there was no

occasion for him to submit such certificate as he was not

matric pass as submitted by him in his initial application

when he was appointed as peon-cum-watchman. He

2272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted reply to the charge sheet denying the charges

of producing/submitting any matriculation certificate.

Management feels dissatisfied and enquiry was ordered.

Shri Altaf Ahmad Kachkar, Chief Manager was appointed

as enquiry officer and Shri Gulam Hussan was appointed

as presenting officer. It is submitted that enquiry was

conducted in a slip shot manner and without taking into

consideration the evidence produced during the

departmental enquiry, gave his enquiry report proving the

charges against the workman. The equiry officer failed to

consider the fact that one of the witnesses was the attesting

officer of the documents and the other one was the writer

of forwarding letter while forwarding the certificate in

question to the head office. The enquiry officer failed to

appreciate that the alleged certificate came into the

possession of the bank in the year 1995 and the management

choose to verify the same in the year 2003-204 which is

highly objectionable. It is further submitted by the workman

that as per version of the witnesses produced by the

management during enquiry, the original certificate handed

over to them by the workman which was forwarded to the

head office in the year 1995. But surprisingly the personal

department writing letter on 19-11-2003 to the branch office

for obtaining the original certificate which was never

submitted by the workman. The workman from the very

beginning submitting that he is middle pass but without

any record the enquiry officer travelled extra mile to prove

the charges. It is also the case of the workman that he was

neither under consideration for any promotion and no such

communication was ever made. to the workman. It is prayed

by the workman that the workman made to suffer without

any fault on his part and he may be reinstated in service

with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4. Management filed written statement in which it is

submitted by the management that workman submitted a

document purportedly a matriculation certificate and mark

sheet EXPT/P-2 on 21-2-95 to Zahur Hussian who was a

senior functionary of the branch with a request to forward

the same to personnel department Central Office for

considering his promotion and on the basis of said request

the certificate forwarded to the CO Personnel Department

vide letter Ex. PT/P-1. The said functionary instructed the

coneerned clerk Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad to prepare the

forwarding letter and put before Zahur Hussain along with

the certificate furnished by the said Adbul Mazid Wagey

who signed the letter and sent to personnel department

Central Office, Srinagar vide letter dated 29-4-2004. Personnel

Department forwarded the same to Joint Secretary

(verification) J&K State Board of School Education Lal

Mandi Srinagar who returned the verification report vide

letter dated 15-7-2004 with the report ‘fake and fraud’. On

the basis of said verification report, the disciplinary

proceedings were started against the workman which led

the passing of the order of discharge since the said action

constituted to be a grave misconduct in terms of Bipartite

Settlement para 5(m) which is reproduce below:—

5. By the expresion gross misconduct shall be meant

any of the following acts of omission on the part of an

employee:—

(m) Knowingly making a false statement in any

document pertaining to or in connection with his

employment in the Bank.

6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may

(a) be dismissed without notice or

(b) have his misconduct condoned and be merely

discharged.

5. In written statement it is further submitted that

management has acted with due diligence, caution and

restraint while imposing the punishment of discharge under

clause (g) instead of dismissal under clause (a) taking a

lenient view. It was also averred in written statement that

filing a forge documents with the bank expecting to seek

promotion on that basis is a most unwated tendency

amongst the staff and until and unless the management

deals with the same with an iron hand, otherwise the process

of promotion is bound to be polluted and many deserving

candidates bound to be adversely effected leading to

Industrial unrest. The workman held to be guilty of forging

and submitting the forge document to the management for

promotion to the next cadre. The inquiry was conducted in

a fare impartial and lawful manner. Workman cross examined

the management's witnesses Zahur Ahmad as well as

Muzaffar Ahmad in departmental enquiry. At no stage the

workman expressed any feeling of enmity in between him

and aforesaid witnesses. The punishment of discharge his

commensurate with the misconduct.

6. The charge sheet dated 11-08-2004 was issued to the

workman containg the following charges:—

"Article-I

That you, Mr. Abdul Mazid Wagay (7870) Peon-cum-

Watchman were appointed in the services of the bank vide

order no. Per/Estt/88-7925 dt. 14-10-1988 and at the time of

appointment, your educational qualification was middle

pass. Subsequently you submitted a matriculation

qualification certificate bearing S.No. M 142884 dt.

31-10-1990 purportedly issued by the Chairman, The J & K

State Board of School Education, Srinagar, under the

covering letter of B/O: Sumbal bearing no. SBL/95-738 dt.

21.2.1995, claiming to have passed the matriculation

examination held in Oct-Nov. 1989 under Roll No. 333232.

The said matriculation certificate submitted by you after

verification by the J & K State Board of School Education,

Srinagar has been detected by them as absolutely fake and

fraud and communication to this effect has been sent vide

their letter no. F(JS-VER) B/KD/RV-269 dt. 15-7-2004.

Therefore it is, obvious that in order to further your

interests, you have acted deceitfully and dishonestly by

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2273

submitting a fake certificate, This amounts to cheating the

institution that provides you bread and butter.

You are thus charge sheeted for the following acts of

omission and commission:

(i) Knowingly making a false statement in connection

with his employment in the bank.

Amounting to 'gross misconduct' in terms of Clause 5

(m) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-4-2002."

7. So far the issue of fairness of enquiry is concerned,

this issue has already been decided by learned predecessor

vide order dated 22-10-2010. The relevant part of order

mentioned above is as under:-

"Both of the contents, meaning thereby, procedural

lapses and compliance of principle of natural justice

have been conceded by learned counsel for the

workman in presence of the workman. Meaning

thereby, there was no procedural lapse while

conducting the departmental proceedings. It is

contended by the workman that opportunity of

personal hearing was not afforded by the appellate

authority. The affects for non-providing the

opportunity of personal hearing by the appellate

authority shall remain open for the workman to

adjudicate in future proceedings."

8. It is further held in the order as under:-

"Thus, as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, it is my

duty to afford the opportunity for adducing evidence

to the parties on the following two issues:-

1. Perversity, if any, in decision making of the enquiry

officer and the disciplinary authority:-

2. On quantum of punishment.

The affects of non-affording the opportunity of

personal hearing by the appellate authority shall also

remain open to adjudicate for the workman."

9. On the issue of perversity workman examined himself

as WW1 in evidence. On the other hand management on

both issues examined MW1 Fida Hussain Shah. So far the

contention of the workman regarding personal hearing is

concerned, the statement of the workman recorded in this

Tribunal is very significant. He admitted in his statement

that 'I had personally requested the disciplinary authority

only once for right to hearing.' On a question whether he

requested the disciplinary authority in person for right to

hearing on the date fixed in the case. In answer the workman

after 45 second replied that he does not know whether the

case was fixed for hearing on that date. Workman also

stated that 'No dates were fixed by the disciplinary authority

in my case. I received the notice to appear before the

disciplinary authority. I personally appeared before the

disciplinary authority after receiving notice. I have informed

the disciplinary authority my view point. Thereafter no

date was fixed. I have stated every thing to the disciplinary

authority and I do not want to say in addition and new

before this Tribunal.

10. Management's witness MW1 Fida Hussain Shah

stated before this Tribunal during evidence in cross-

examination that 'Workman was not due for his promotion.

If any peon pass 10th standard even during his service he

is eligible for internal process for promotion. At present I

have no notification which envisages the internal process

of promotion on passing 10th standard. Whenever an

employee who has passed any educational qualification

during his service wants to get his qualification mentioned

in his service book he may applied for the same to the head

office for up gradation of record. I do not know whether

any application for up gradation of record was given by

the workman or not but workman got forwarded

matriculation certificate through proper channel to the

Central Office for up gradation of record. Letter dated

21-02-95 annexed in enquiry file has been attested by me.

Its original not before me at present. This letter has been

forwarded by manager branch Sumbal. This letter does not

contain the signatures of the workman. I do not remember

whether workman applied for up gradation of record on

the basis of matric qualification. Had the workman applied

with the upgrade qualification he would have been given

promotional post and other benefits. Workman submitted

his matriculation certificate on 21-02-95. This certificate

got verified in the year 2004 when the vacancies arises.'

This witness MWI voluntarily stated in cross-examination

that employee can get his service record up gradation the

basis of qualification at any time. This witness also stated

that there was sufficient evidence to hold that certificate

was forget.

11. Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances and evidence of the parties on the point of

perversity and quantum of punishment, as the domestic

enquiry has already been held to be fair and proper vide

this Tribunal order dated 22. 10.2010, the issue of providing

personal hearing to the workman is also clear from the

evidence of the workman recorded in this tribunal in which

it is clear that the workman was afforded personal hearing

also. On the point of perversity and quantum of punishment,

it is not disputed that it was the workman only who can be

benefited by fake and forged certificate. There was no

occasion for any body else to prepare, forged the

matriculation certificate. It was only in 2004, this certificate

was got verified and found to be fake and forged, Therefore,

no perversity is found and workman is also not entitled to

any relief on the point of punishment as the punishment is

commensurate to the misconduct of the workman.

12. The learned counsel for the workman in written

arguments relied on the case laws 2014(1) SCT 28 Revinder

Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2009 (1) SCT 768

2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad and

another, 2012(3) SCT 742 Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.

Shyam Singh, and 1995(3) PLR 603 Municipal Corporation

Amritsar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and

another. The facts and circumstances are different from the

facts and circumstances of the case in hand, therefore,

these case laws are not applicable in the case in hand.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and on the basis of above findings, the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

14. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central

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

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

07.05.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1052-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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;&1] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@34@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Chandigirh

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-41012/34/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 119 of 2013 Reference No. L-41012/34/2013-

IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013. Shri Mithu Singh son of Shri

Barathi, resident of SAS Nagar, Gali No. 1, House No. 28773,

Pratap Nagar, Bhatinda-151001 (Punjab)

...Workman

Versus

1. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,

Ambala Division, Ambala (Haryana).

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

: None

For the Management

: Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.

Award Dated: 27.4.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

L-41012/34/2013-IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 has referred the

following disput to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Northern

Railway, Ambala division, Ambala (Haryana) for not

given the benefits of Mason Pay fixation w.e.f.

14.06.1979 onwards as per the order of Labour Court

Bhatinda (Lok Adalat) dated 29.8.1992 as well as

MACP (6th pay Commission) in the pay grade pay

of Rs. 4200/- is just, valid and legal? If not, to what

benefits the workman entitled for and what directions

are necessary in the matter?"

2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Earlier the parties were appearing. Workman filed

the statement of claim to which the management filed

written statement.

3. The case was adjourned for filing the affidavit in

evidence by the workman. The workman attending hearing

and did not file any affidavit in evidence. For the last about

four hearing the case was adjourned time and again for

filing of affidavit in evidence by the workman. None is

appearing on behalf of the workman from the several dates.

It appears the workman is not interested to pursue the

present reference. As the workman is not appearing,

therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the case

pending. In view of the above, the present reference is

returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution.

4. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central

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

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

27.04.2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1053-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bUVxjy dksp QSDVjh

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]

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2275

psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@42@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1053.—In pursance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Integral Coach Factory and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-41012/42/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 23rd April, 2015

Present :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 1/2014

(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 Integral Coach Factory, Chennai and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Shri Abhishek Kumar Thakur:

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Integral Coach Factory

Southern Railway

Chennai-600003

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Sri R. Lawrence,

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

M/s P. Srinivasan,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-41012/42/2013-IR (B.I)

dated 11-12-2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Management of ICF,

Chennai regarding termination of service of Abhishek

Kumar Thakur, Lascar is justified or not? To what

relief the workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 1/2014 and notice was issued to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner has entered service under the Southern

Railway as Lascar on 21.08.2007. He was transferred to ICF

in June 2009 and he was posted as Lascar in Chief

Engineer's Bungalow. The petitioner was charge sheeted

for unauthorized absence for 69 days from 16.12.2010 to

22.02.2011. An enquiry was conducted. Based on the report

of enquiry the petitioner was removed from service by order

dated 07.10.2011. The order of the Disciplinary Authority

is illegal. At the relevant time, the petitioner was having

fever. The Chief Engineer had sent the petitioner to

Lucknow to fetch his mother from Lucknow. On 15.12.2010

the petitioner had come back with high fever. He had

requested for leave and he was granted leave from

15.12.2010 to 19.12.2010. The petitioner had gone for work

on 20.10.2010 but he was not allowed to enter the bungalow

of the Chief Engineer or do any work. The petitioner had

filed revision petition against the order of removal from

service but this was dismissed. The enquiry against the

petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. An order may be passed

directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in

service with back wages, continuity of service and other

benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in

compliance with the procedure and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. At the time of removal from

service the petitioner has been working as Lascar attached

to Rajendra Prasad, Chief Engineer of ICF. Based on the

complaint given by Rajendra Prasad, disciplinary action

was initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized

absence from duty for 69 days continuously from 16.12.2010

to 22.02.2011. The petitioner has submitted his written

statement of defence and copies of documents relied upon

by the Management was sent to him as requested by him.

The petitioner has defended his case through a Defence

Helper. The Enquiry Officer has entered a report finding

that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Based on

2276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the report of the enquiry the penalty of removal from service

was imposed on the petitioner w.e.f. 07.10.2011. Absence

from duty for a long period is a grave misconduct and is

indicative of negligence and lack of interest in duty. The

petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.

5. The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W15 and Ext. M1to Ext. M10. No

oral evidence was adduced on either side.

6. In the claim Statement the petitioner has raised a

contention that the conduct of domestic enquiry was not

in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This

was heard as a Preliminary Issue and this Tribunal has

entered a finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair

and proper manner. So what remains to be considered is

the case on merits only.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Respondent is justified in terminating

the service of the the petitioner?

(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner had entered service of the Southern

Railway on 24.08.2007 as Substitute Bungalow Lascar.

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him

for his alleged unauthorized absence for 69 days from

16.12.2010 to 22.02.2011. The proceedings had been initiated

on the basis of the report given by the Chief Engineer that

the petitioner has been unauthorizedly absent during the

period in question. After departmental enquiry the petitioner

was removed from serivce. In the Claim Statement the

peitioner has taken the stand that he has availed leave for

few days on account of fever and thereafter he had report

for work but he was not allowed to join duty. He has got a

further case that he was all along undergoing treatment for

fever. Thus he has tried to advance a case that his absence

was for valid reasons.

9. The charge against the petitioner states that while

working as Sub-Bungalow Lascar to Chief Engineer in the

ICF he has committed the misconduct of unauthorizedly

absenting from duty for 69 days continuously from

16.12.2010 to 22.02.2011 and has failed to maintain devotion

to duty and thereby violated rule 3(1) (II) of Railway

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

10. Ex.W4 is the explanation given by the petitioner to

the Charge Sheet dated 26.02.2011, on 07.03.2011. He had

stated in this that he was having fever from 02.10.2011

itself and he had taken treatment from a Private Doctor at

Nungambakkam. He had gone again to the Doctor on 10th

According to him on 10th he was feeling too unwell and

had asked for permission for rest and to approach the

Doctor and this was given. It was after this he had gone to

the Doctor. On the same day he is said to have been

contacted by his Officer and instructed to bring his mother

at Lucknow to Chennai. He had gone to Lucknow and had

come back on 15th. His fever continued and he had asked

for leave for a few days and this was allowed. He availed

leave upto 19th and went for work on 20th, but he was not

allowed to enter the Bungalow of the Chief Engineer. He is

said to have taken treatment from ICF hospital after that as

his fever subsisted.

11. The report of Rajendra Prasad, the Chief Engineer

given on 19.02.2011 (Page-31 of the typed set of the

petitioner) states that the Lascar attached to him is

unauthorizedly absent continuously from 16.12.2010 to

19.02.2011 and continued to be on unauthorized absence.

It is also stated that he was absent without intimation and

without prior sanction of leave. The Chief Engineer has

been examined as PW1 in the disciplinary proceedings. He

has maintained his stand that the petitioner was

unauthorizedly absent for the period in question. The copy

of the Muster Roll which is being maintained at the

Bungalow of the Chief Engineer exclusively for the Lascar

was produced in the disciplinary proceedings and is

available for perusal. The petitioner is recorded as absent

for the days in question. It has come out during cross-

examination of the Chief Engineer that the petitioner had

been to Lucknow to bring his mother to Chennai. A copy of

the railway ticket for travelling from Lucknow to Chennai

(Page-57 of the typed set) would show that the petitioner

came back on the morning of 15.12.2010. The evidence

given by PW2 is only to state that he had initiated

proceedings based on the report given by PW1 regarding

the unauthorized absence of the petitioner.

12. The petitioner has produced two prescriptions one

from a General Practitioner at Nungambakkam and another

issued by the ICF Hospital. Though there is no date in the

first one (Page-52 of the typed set). In the latter one the

petitioner seems to have been to ICF Hospital complaining

of fever on 23.12.2010 and again on 31.12.2010. Some

medicines are seen prescribed. These documents are of a

time when no action has been proposed up against the

petitioner. In the explanation to the Charge Sheet itself the

petitioner has stated that he was continuously suffering

from fever. As seen from explanation, since the Railway

Hospital was some distance away he was asked to approach

private doctor nearby and this is said to be reason for

going to the private doctor first. There seems to be some

basis in the case of the petitioner that he was ill and this

was the reason for his absence for some days. When the

petitioner was questioned by the Enquiry Officer he has

stated that Chief Engineer's spouse did not allow him to go

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2277

to the Railway Hospital as it would take more than an hour

to go and come back. He has further stated that on

24.12.2010 he had gone to the Bungalow was requested for

leave but this was turned down by the Chief Engineer. He

has also referred to the removal of the Laskar who worked

with the Chief Engineer prior to him, for the same reason.

That removal was challenged and reinstatement was

ordered as seen from Ext.W2. Again he has stated that

subsequently also he was not able to take treatment from

ICF Hospital as his wife was pregnant and the Hospital

was far away from the residence.

13. The Disciplinary Authority does not seem to have

considered the question whether the absence of the

petitioner was on account of any valid reason. As could be

seen the petitioner has been trying to justify his case

through out in his explanation and during his examination

in the enquiry proceedings stating that the was ill and for

other reasons also he was not able to do the work. If a

person is to be turned out from service for unauthorized

absence it is not enough that the Management proves that

he was absent but it should also be shown that the absence

was without any valid reason.

14. On going through Ext.M5 one could find that the

Chief Engineer has been ratifying the leave of the petitioner

as leave without pay through letter frequently addressed

to the Bill Section. Ext.M5 is the advise rendered by the

Railway Rates Tribunal in the revision petition filled by the

petitioner against the order of removal. As seen from this

the Chief Engineer had addressed to APO (Bills) of ICF on

24.12.2010, 05.01.2011, 19.01.2011 and 15.02.2011 to ratify

the absence for the period from 16.12.2010 to 24.12.2010,

16.12.2010 top 05.01.2011, 16.12.2010 to 19.01.2011 and

16.12.2010 to 15.02.2011 respectively. As seen from the order

giving advise the period from 06.12.2010 to 09.12.2010 and

16.12.2010 to 30.06.2011 also were ratified by the Chief

Engineer. The Tribunal has stated that since the leave was

ratified as leave without pay, the charge itself is not

sustainable. The General Manager, the revising authority

has not considered this advise as seen from his order

attached to Ext.M5. The stand of the Management is that

the order of the Railway Rates Tribunal is only advisory in

nature. It is also their case that ratification of the leave as

leave without pay is only to keep the records straight and

this will not absolve the petitioner of his guilt. Whatever is

this, the fact remains that the Chief engineer was throughout

on intermittent days requested the Billing Section to treat

the absence as leave without pay.

15. Even assuming that the absence of the petitioner

was unauthorized, the punishment imposed on him is not

in proportion to the misconduct attributed to him. It would

have been sufficient if some other penalties were imposed

on him retaining him in the post. Now the petitioner is out

of service for more than 4 years and he is sufficiently

penalized. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in

service.

The Respondent is directed to reinstate the

petitioner in service with 50% back wages, continuity of

service and other attendant benefits. If back wages is not

paid within a month of the award, the amount will carry

interest @ 9% per annum.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 23rd April, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2st Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

24.08.2007

Appointment Order

Ex. W2

15.11.2010

Similar case award by Tribunal

Ex. W3

26.02.2011

Charge Sheet

Ex. W4

07.03.2011

Ex. W5

29.04.2011

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex. W6

05.08.2011

Enquiry

findings

and

documents filed in enquiry

Ex. W7

17.08.2011

Second Show Cause Notice

Ex. W8

15.09.2011

Ex. W9

27.09.2011

Additional Reply

Ex. W10

07.10.2011

Final order of removal by APO

Ex. W11

23.11.2011

Appeal

Ex. W12

09.11.2012

Appeal disposed by Dy. CE

(Appeal)

Ex. W13

23.02.2012

Revision Petition

Ex. W14

29.06.2012

Revision Rejection order by

GM (ICF)

Ex. W15

29.08.2013

Conciliation failure report

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

15.06.2009

Copy of the Office Order

2278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M2

26.02.2011

Copy of the Memorandum

Ex. M3

—

Copy of the Rule-9 of Railway

Servants (disciplinary and

Appeal) 1968

Ex. M4

09.01.2012

Copy of the letter

Ex. M5

27.04.2012

Copy of the letter

Ex. M6

12.03.2011

Copy of the letter

Ex. M7

09.05.2001

Copy of the Railway Board's

letter

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1054-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d

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 psUubZ

ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼45@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@26@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. 45/2014) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/26/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 29th April, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 45/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

Management of State Bank of India and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri V. Chandiran

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent

State Bank of India

Local Head Office

College Road,

Chennai-600006

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Sri M. Baskaran, N.

Deepanandh,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/26/2014-IR (B-I)

dated 29.05.2014 referred the following industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of State of

Bank of India, Chennai regarding non-absorption

of the petitioner Sri V. Chandiran is justified or not?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 45/2014 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 was first engaged by the Respondent as

Substitute Messenger/Watchman from the year 1979. Since

then he was working as such continuously with usual break.

The petitioner had worked in the Respondent institution

for 461 days altogether. He had worked for more than 340

days in the NRI Branch of the Respondent during the year

1995-1997. There was an agreement on 17.11.1987 between

the Management and employees. A petition was filed by

the temporary messengers before the Supreme Court on

the basis of this agreement. As per the agreement temporary

messengers who have been sponsored by Employment

Exchange were recruited as messengers against regular

time-scale of pay. By agreement dated 17.10.1989 the

management took steps to regularize the casual labourers

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2279

also. The name of the petitioner is also included in the list

of candidates interviewed pursuant to the Direction given

by the High Court in a Writ Petition field by the Union. He

is assigned the S. No. 716 in the list of persons interviewed.

So he is also entitled to be absorbed in the regular vacancies

alongwith other employees whose names are found in the

list. The petitioner had approached the Respondent

requesting to absorb him in the regular vacancy. His request

was turned down by the Respondent. The petitioner filed a

Writ Petition before the High Court after this. This Writ

Petition was dismissed with a direction to raise the issue

before the appropriate forum. The Industrial Dispute is

raised accordingly. An order may be passed directing the

Respondent to appoint the petitioner as Messenger in

accordance with the list for absorption of Temporary

Messengers published by the Respondent.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The claim of the petitioner is that he was last engaged in

March 1997. He had acquiesced to the cessation of his

engagement as a temporary messenger and was pursuing

his claim for absorption and regularization in terms of the

settlements. The present dispute raised in 2011 should not

be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. The

issue referred for adjudication is not about termination of

employment. So the dispute raised by the petitioner in his

individual capacity is not maintainable. Certain settlements

were entered between the Respondent and All India State

Bank of India Staff Federation regarding permanent

absorption of temporary employees in the service of the

Bank. The last settlement in this respect was made on

30.07.1996. The petitioner was one of the Temporary

Messengers engaged by the Nanganallur Branch and the

Air Cargo complex Branch, Meenambakkam. He was also

empanelled for absorption and regularization and his name

appeared as S.No. 716 in the list. Out of the waitlisted

categories, candidates upto 357 were absorbed in the

vacancies that arose upto 31.12.1994 before the list lapsed

on 31.03.1997. With the lapse the engagement of all the

candidates in the panel also ceased. The claim of the

Temporary Messengers whose names are included in the

list is pending in a matter before the Supreme Court. The

petitioner cannot make any claim beyond the scope of the

settlements entered into between the Respondent and the

Staff Federation. In any case, the issue cannot be canvassed

before this Court as it is beyond the purview of Section-2A

of the ID Act.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext. W13

and Ex. M1 to Ext. M8.

The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Respondent is justified in not

absorbing the petitioner in service.

(ii) What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

7. The claim of the petitioner is that he had worked as

Temporary messenger with the Respondent Bank for a total

number of 461 days, that his name was also included in the

panel of Temporary Messengers prepared for absorption

in the Bank and he is entitled to absorption in the regular

service of the Bank.

8. In the Counter Statement the Respondent has raised

a contention that the dispute having been raised by the

petitioner in his individual capacity, it is not maintainable.

Before going into the merits of the case this contention

raised by the Respondent is to be examined.

9. Under Section-2A of the ID Act a dispute raised by an

individual workman shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman or any

union of workman is a party to the dispute if the employer

has discharged, dismissed or retrenched or otherwise

terminated the service of the individual workman and

dispute or difference is between the Workman and his

Employer and is connected with or arising out of such

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination.

10. In the present case the petitioner has raised the

dispute in his individual capacity. He is not supported by

any union or any group of workmen in his cause. His

grievance is not that he was discharged, dismissed,

retrenched or otherwise terminated from service by the

Respondent. On the other hand his case is that his name

also appears in the panel for absorption prepared by the

Respondent and therefore he is entitled to be absorbed in

the service of the Respondent. The petitioner is not seeking

reinstatement in service on the ground that he was illegally

discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated from

service. In fact he has not questioned his cessation of

engagement as a Temporary Messenger in the year 1997.

In that case the dispute would come under Section-2K of

the ID Act in which case the petitioner could not raise the

dispute in his individual capacity. So, as contended by the

Respondent the dispute raised by the petitioner in his

individual capacity is not maintainable. For this reason

itself the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

11. Even on merits the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief. The case of the petitioner is that his name also

appears in the panel of Temporary Messengers for

absorption prepared by the Respondent and therefore he

2280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is entitled to be absorbed. It is not disputed by the

Respondent that the petitioner's name also appears in the

list. The petitioner has produced Ext. W1 to Ext. W5, the

certificates issued by different Officers of the Respondent

which would show that he had worked intermittently with

the Respondent as Messenger. As seen from Ext. W5 his

last engagement was in the Year 1997. Ext. M8 is the list

containing the names of Temporary Messengers for

absorption. However, it is not that all the persons named in

the list are to be absorbed as a must. The temporary

employees were classified into A, B & C depending on the

duration of their service. As per the last settlement dated

30.07.1996 between the Staff Federation and the

Respondent the vacancies that will be arising before

31.03.1997 were to be filled up from the panel of employees.

However, the Respondent had absorbed only 357 persons

from the panel before the panel lapsed on 31.03.1997.

12. The petitioner has been claiming absorption based

on the different settlements and because his name figured

in the panel. However as per the settlement itself vacancies

upto 31.03.1997 only could have been filled-up from the

panel. So, as per the very settlements on the basis of which

the petitioner is claiming absorption, he is not entitled to

absorption. As seen from the Counter Statement of the

Respondent the claim of the Temporary Messengers whose

names lapsed on 31.03.1997 is pending before the Supreme

Court also. For this reason also the petitioner will not be

entitled to any relief.

In the result, the reference is answered against the

petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 29th April, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri V.

Chandiran

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1, Sri R.

Christopher

Devavaram

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

02.08.1988

Certificate from the 2nd Party

Ex.W2

10.08.1988

Certificate from the 2nd Party

Ex.W3

26.08.1991

Certificate from the 2nd Party

Ex.W4

13.03.1995

Certificate from the 2nd Party

Ex.W5

13.05.1998

Certificate from the 2nd Party

Ex.W6

14.03.1992

Selection list published by 2nd

Party

Ex.W7

12.01.2009

Order in WP No. 24685/2003

and batch

Ex.W8

08.07.2009

Lawyer's notice to 2nd Party

Ex.W9

01.10.2009

Acknowledgment Card

Ex.W10

25.02.2010

Further representation by 1st

Party

Ex.W11

Acknowledgement

Ex.W12

08.04.2011

Claim Petition filed before the

Conciliation Officer

Ex.W13

01.01.2013

Reply by 2nd Party

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

17.11.1987

Settlement

Ex. M2

16.07.1988

Settlement

Ex. M3

27.10.1988

Settlement

Ex. M4

09.01.1991

Settlement

Ex. M5

09.06.1995

Settlement

Ex. M6

30.07.1996

Settlement

Ex. M7

07.11.1984

Circular No. PER-IR-CIR-161

from Central Office, Bombay-

Subordinate Staff Guidelines

issued for engagement of

temporary employees—and

for creation of such a list

Ex. M8

05.02.1992

Staff: Subordinates absorption

of temporary messengers

bipartite agreements dated

17.11.1987, 27.10.1988 and

09.01.1991 candidates found

suitable

for

permanent

absorption in the bank against

vacancies arising till December

1994-Madras.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1055-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947

dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

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]

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2281

psUubZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼87@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUæh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@21@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Southern Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-41012/21/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 30th April, 2015

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 87/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d)

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

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

Management of Southern Railway Employees Cooperative

Credit Society Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri T. Thandesan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2nd Party/Respondent

Southern Railway

Employees Cooperative Credit

Society Ltd.

No. 1, Dindigul Road, Rail Coop. Mansion

Post Box No. 9

Trichirappalli-620001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s. N. Balakrishnan,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

M/s. T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

A W A R D

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-41012/21/2013-IR (B.I)

dated 27.09.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Southern

Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Society

operating under Divisional Railway Manager/Trichy,

in dismissing Sri S. Thandesan is legal and justified?

To what relief the concerned workmen is entitled?

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 87/2013 and issued notice to both sides.

The petitioner and the respondent has appeared through

their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter

Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed in reply to

the Counter Statement.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner has been appointed by the Respondent

as Junior Clerk in 1985. He was later promoted as Senior

Clerk, Head Clerk and Accounts Assistant. In 2009 he was

reverted as Junior Accounts Assistant on false charges.

The Assistant Secretary who was later promoted as

Managing Director started ill-treating the petitioner on

account of his Trade Union activities. Vindictive

disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in

the year 2000 and he was reverted to the post of Junior

Accounts Assistant. The petitioner was transferred to

Coimbatore vindictively w.e.f. 19.09.2003. After four months

he was transferred to Trivandrum. While at Trivandrum his

punishment of reversion was set aside. The petitioner was

again transferred to Trichy on 22.11.2006 on his sustained

plea. But he was again transferred to Coimbatore on

16.09.2008. Before transfer to Coimbatore he was not allowed

to work in one seat by transferring him from Loco-I Section

to Engineering-IV Section and from there again to Loco-I

Section, all within a period of 11 months. While at

Coimbatore the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated

07.10.2008 containing false allegations. The petitioner has

submitted explanation denying the charges. The petitioner

was not given opportunity to peruse the relevant records.

Without considering the explanation of the petitioner an

additional memo was issued on 09.06.2009 alleging that he

has divulged official matters to others. The petitioner was

not shown any registers or records connected with and

relevant to the allegations in the first charge memo except

the loan ledger. The petitioner was not served with the list

2282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of documents relied on by the Management also. An

enquiry was conducted against the petitioner against the

principles of natural justice. After farce of an enquiry the

Enquiry Officer Submitted report against the petitioner and

the disciplinary sub-committee issued an order removing

the petitioner from service w.e.f. 26.08.2010. The appeal

submitted by the petitioner was dismissed. The Board has

modified the order of removal to order of dismissal. The

order of dismissal is without any basis. The petitioner is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service,

back wages and all other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The object of the Respondent Society is to raise funds,

lend money to its members at interest with security, invest

the surplus money in funds, encourage thrift, self-help and

cooperation among the members. The members of the

Society consists of the employees of Southern Railway

covering the staffs of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry and

part of Karnataka. Once an employee is admitted to the

membership of the Respondent Society, a fixed percentage

of his basis salary is deducted every month towards

Compulsory Monthly Thrift Deposit. When a member

applies for loan, he should procure security by means of

two sureties from co-employees. The employees of the

Respondent attend to the work relating to processing of

loan application, arranging for sanction of loan and also

monitor the recovery of loans. The Respondent has issued

office orders specifying how the issue of non-recovery of

loans should be dealt with. The petitioner had joined the

Society as Junior Clerk in 1985. In 1993 he was subjected to

disciplinary action and was demoted Earlier his increment

was withheld for one year without cumulative effect for

leaving his place of work without permission. On 23.01.2009

he was reverted as Junior Accounts Assistant for

unauthorized absence. On his representation, the

punishment was rescinded and he was restored to the

position of Senior Clerk. In the year 2000 he was

reprimanded for misbehaving with a Chief Executive. The

petitioner was by nature negligent in the discharge of his

work. He was defiant to his superiors also. The Respondent

used to issue Office Order periodically on matters pertaining

to collection of overdue arrears. Between 23.11.2006 and

August 2008 the petitioner was assigned the work of

monitoring of Ledger Folio of 500 members of Loco-I

Section. In the middle of September, 2008 a Senior Section

Officer under whom the petitioner was working made a

complaint of neglect of duties on the part of the petitioner

in respect of 19 instances. In the case of Joseph Regina,

the petitioner had failed to take action by sending revised

Debit Statement to the pay-bill preparing authority. He failed

to send letters to the concerned member and the sureties

also. In the case of Gopi who left service under VRS the

petitioner failed to send settlement advice in time to the

Railway Authorities and thereby the Society's loan due

amounts were not recovered at the time of settlement of

the loanee. In the case of Clifford D'Souza the petitioner

failed to make recovery from May to October, 2008. The

petitioner failed to send the Revised Debit Statement to

pay-bill preparing authority in time in the matter of

Karuppan, Bhuvanesan, R. Subramanian and Pradeep also.

In the case of M. Subramanian who expired the petitioner

failed to take action to settle his account. In the matter of

Revindran no recovery was effected from February to

August, 2008 and no Revised Debit Statement was sent to

the pay-bill preparing authority also. Letters were not sent

to the member and sureties also. In the case of Jagannathan

recovery was not made from June to August, 2008 and no

action was initiated for recovery of the loan also. In the

case of Sekar who expired no follow-up action was taken to

settle the dues for a long time. In the case of Sukumaran

and Anil who were removed from service action was not

taken to settle the dues, for a long time. In the case of

Munirathnam, recovery of loan instalments were not

effected from May to September, 2008 and no action was

taken also. In the case of Saravanan who had taken loan in

January 2008 no recovery was effected from April to

August, 2008 and no intimation was given to pay-bill

preparing authority or member or sureties also. In the case

of Rajan and Hasan Sharif who had availed loan and

defaulted in loan payments also no steps were taken for

recovery. In the case of P. Balasubramanian who voluntarily

retired from service no action was taken to settle the dues

till September, 2008 even though settlement amount was

received from the Railway in February, 2008. As a result of

inaction on the part of the petitioner, apart from other

consequences a sum of Rs. 1,07,259/- could not generate

any income to the Society. A charge sheet was issued to

the petitioner listing out the above 19 instances and

charging him with the misconduct of neglect of work and

violation of Office Orders. He did not give any satisfactory

explanation for the lapses on his part. An enquiry was

conducted against him and the disciplinary committed had

passed orders awarding punishment of removal from

service. The order of the committee is perfectly justified

and is valid in law. Enquiry against the petitioner was

conducted in a fair and proper manner and is not any way

vitiated. Without prejudice to this stand, the Respondent

also seeks leave to lead evidence on merits of the charges.

An order may be passed upholding the punishment of

removal awarded to the petitioner.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2283

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying each of the

19 charges given in the Counter Statement and also

reiterating his case in the Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1, MW1 and also documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M39.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in

dismissing the petitioner from service is legal and

justified?

(ii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner who had joined the service of the

Respondent as Junior clerk was working as Accounts

Assistant when disciplinary proceedings had been initiated

against him and he was dismissed from service on the basis

of the report of the Enquiry conducted against him. The

dispute is raised challenging the order of dismissal.

9. The Respondent is a Society with the employees of

Southern Railway as members. The Society raise funds,

lend money to its members at interest with security and

invest the surplus money in funds. An employee of the

Southern Railway gets membership in the Society by

deposit of Rs. 10/- as Share Capital. Once he is admitted

as a member a fixed percentage of his basic salary is

deducted every month towards Compulsory Monthly

Thrift Deposit. A member will be given loan on furnishing

security by means of two sureties who are co-employees.

The member will be authorizing the Railway to recover

loan in monthly instalments by deduction from the salary

and directly remitting it to the Society. The work of the

employees of the Society include processing of loan

application, arranging for the sanction, monitoring the

recovery of loans, etc. The petitioner has been attending

to the issue of loans and recovery in the Society.

According to the Respondent the Society used to issue

Office Orders on matters pertaining to collecting of

overdue arrears as well as duties and responsibilities of

staff on overdue collection.

10. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has

failed to note the overdue cases in the OD Register in

13 cases, he has failed to send registered notices and

revised debits, failed to take action in the VRS cases, failed

to take follow-up action on receipt of settlement amount

from the department and also failed to take further action

after the papers were sent to settlement section in the case

of some employees removed from services. The names of

the concerned employees in whose case default has been

committed by the petitioner and the nature of default or

omission amounting to misconduct have been detailed in

the Charge Memo given to the petitioner. The petitioner

had submitted his explanation for the Charge Memo.

11. In the Claim Statement the petitioner has contended

that the departmental enquiry has not been conducted in a

fair and proper manner. In view of this contention, the

Respondent has taken the stand that even while justifying

the departmental enquiry he may be permitted to adduce

evidence before this Tribunal in support of the charges

framed against the petitioner and this has been allowed. It

is accordingly the evidence was let in before this Tribunal.

The counsel for the Respondent has stated that he is not

relying upon the enquiry proceedings but only on the

evidence adduced before this Tribunal only to justify his

case. This amounts to implied admission that domestic

enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner.

Only the evidence let in before this Tribunal is referred to

for adjudication of the dispute.

12. Ext.M5A is the Charge Memo that has been issued

to the petitioner on 07.10.2008. Prior to this Charge Memo

on 02.09.2008 another Charge Memo seems to have been

issued to the petitioner, also on account of his alleged

failure to take action on overdue cases and this Charge

Memo is marked as Ext.M8A. It has been pointed out by

the counsel for the petitioner that several of the instances

given in Ext.M5A have not been given in Ext.M8A though

these instances also were there even on the date of Ext.M8A

if the case of the Management is taken into account.

According to the counsel, it is possible that manipulation

has been done for the purpose of Ext.M5A. It has also

been pointed out by the counsel that two instances of

failure shown in Ext.M8A has been shown again in Ext.M5A

which according to him is not legal or justifiable. Ext.M8A

gives 10 instances of failure to take action in overdue cases.

Ext.M8E is the explanation given by the petitioner in this

respect. Ext.M8C is the order stating that the explanation is

not satisfactory and the Disciplinary Sub-Committee for

Staff have decided to award "severe warning" to the

petitioner for failing to take proper action in overdue cases

and failure to send registered notices to the members and

the sureties in many cases. There is also a direction to

record the action taken, in the Service Book of the petitioner.

S.No. 6 in Ext.M8A is in respect of one M Subramanian and

S.No 9 in the same is in respect of one K. Sukumaran. The

names of these persons appear as S.Nos. 9 and 13 in

Ext.M5A. Thus it could be seen that though the petitioner

was proceeded against for the failure to take action in

respect of these persons by Ext.M8A action has been

initiated by Ext.M5A also regarding these persons. It is on

account of this it has been pointed out by the counsel for

the petitioner that it is not proper. The argument that is

advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that warning is

not punishment at all and therefore the Management was

justified in referring to the instances of failure regarding

the above two persons in Ext.M5A. I do not think there is

any merit in the argument advanced. It is after the

consideration of explanation given by the petitioner to

Ext.M8A, Ext.M8C order has been issued by the Managing

2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Director on behalf of the Disciplinary Sub-Committee.

Severe warning given by the Managing Director to the

petitioner amounts to punishment itself, the same having

been recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner. So the

action taken by the Management by Ext.M5A in respect of

M. Subramanian and K. Sukumaran is not proper and need

not be considered. S.No. 7 in Ext.M5A is one Devadas. The

allegation is that the petitioner has entered in the OD

Tabbal Register he has not mentioned the same. However,

it was later noticed that this allegation is without basis and

the charge in this respect has been dropped. So there is no

necessity to look into this allegation also. Apart from the

three mentioned above there are sixteen cases of failures

referred to in the Charge Memo. Each of these allegations

are to be examined separately to find out if the charges

have any foundation or not.

13. Before examining the instances of failures referred

to in the Charge Memo the argument advanced on behalf

of the petitioner that the petitioner was not sure under

which provision he has been proceeded against is to be

examined. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner has been supplied with copies of old bye-laws

relating to service conditions and he was not in a position

to know under which bye-law he has actually been

proceeded against. On going through the Charge Memo it

could be seen that the petitioner is proceeded against under

Special Bye-law No. 12. The petitioner seems to have been

supplied with the Special Bye-laws also as seen from the

set of documents produced.

14. MW1 who was working in the Respondent Society

has given evidence to prove the charges against the

petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner who was

working in the Ledger Section at Head Office, Trichy was

looking after about 500 accounts of Loco Section A Section

Officer in the Ledger Section has to monitor the Overdue

Account Statement prepared by the concerned Ledger Clerk

and if any of the Overdue Accounts are omitted to be

mentioned in the statement he will have to prepare the

statement of such OD Accounts and take further action.

MW1 who was the Senior Section Officer-Incharge of Loan

Ledger Section had prepared a statement of Omitted

Overdue Accounts on 08.05.2008. It was on the basis of

the said report disciplinary action was initiated against the

petitioner. In his affidavit the MW1 has referred to each of

the Omitted Overdue Accounts.

15. The first reference is in respect of account of

one Joseph Regina who is referred to as S.No.1 in the

Charge Memo. This employee was sanctioned a loan of

Rs. 90,000/- on 07.02.2008. As per the Charge Memo and

the Proof Affidavit of MW1 the petitioner has not effected

any recovery and also failed to make Non-Credit Entry in

the Loan Account from May 2008 to December 2008. It is

further stated that the petitioner has failed to take action

by sending revised debit statement to the Pay Bill Preparing

Authority besides failing to send letters to the concerned

member as well as the sureties and the Pay Disbursing

Officers demanding reasons for non-recovery. In his Proof

Affidavit the petitioner examined as WW1 has stated that

when recovery postings pertaining to June 2008 were

completed before his transfer to Coimbatore recoveries of

May and June only were not made and there was no

necessity for sending registered notices to the sureties or

to make entry in the OD Note.

16. During his cross-examination the petitioner has

admitted that the circulars issued by the Society on recovery

of loan will be given to each section. He also admitted that

he had occasion to see the circulars marked as Ext.M5(o),

Ext.M6 and Ext.M7. All these circulars are issued pointing

out the importance of overdue collection. Ext.M7 is the last

of the series and is repetition of Ext.M5(o). Duties and

responsibilities of staff on overdue collection are

specifically given in this. As per this the Staff should send

a registered letter to the member concerned and sureties

alongwith intimation letter to the Pay-Bill Preparing Officers

for effecting overdue recoveries through their salaries when

12 consecutive recoveries are not made from a member. If

no recovery was made even after a registered notice is

served, the staff will send another registered notice after

three months or six months time as the case may be for

effecting recovery from members or sureties, alongwith

intimation to Pay-Bill Authority. It is further stated that on

going through the ledgers on completion of recovery

postings if any non-recovery is found the employee should

take immediate action by way of sending revised debit

statements to the concerned Pay-Bill Preparing Authorities

to effect recovery from the salary and if no recoveries were

made and credited towards loan for a period of three or

four or six or eight months, the staffs would send revised

debit and the reason for non-recovery alongwith intimation

to the party. The petitioner having occasion to go through

these circulars certainly must have been aware of the

manner in which the action was to be taken for recovery of

the dues.

17. During his cross-examination the petitioner has

admitted that if there is no recovery in respect of loan of

any member in any month a revised debit advice will be

sent to the Railways. He further stated that whenever revised

debit advise is sent it will be recorded at the right hand top

corner of the ledger folio of the member. The petitioner has

admitted that Ext.M25 is the copy of the Ledger Folio in

respect of Joseph Reino. He also admitted that on 07.02.2008

Joseph Reino has taken a loan of Rs. 90,000/- and no

recovery was made during May 2008, but he did not make

any endorsement in the Ledger Folio of having sent any

revised debit note. He further stated that he has not taken

any steps for recovery of the amount until he was

transferred on 19.09.2008.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2285

18. The name that figures next in the Charge Memo is

that of Gopi who had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/-. It is

alleged that the petitioner failed to close the account of

this member though he retired on VRS on 19.12.2007. MW1

has stated in his Proof Affidavit that it was noted in letter

that Gopi retired on VRS. However, the petitioner failed to

send settlement advice to the Railway authorities and so

Society's loan amounts were not recovered from the loanee

and the amount had to be recovered from the sureties.

Referring to Gopi what the petitioner has stated in the Proof

Affidavit is that MW1 received Office Order regarding

termination of Gopi only on 04.01.2008 but on hearing about

the VRS from Gopi's colleagues he had sent letter of dues

and status to Consumer Loan Section on 31.12.2000 itself

and on receipt of details from the Section he had sent

settlement advice on 17.01.2008. According to him awaiting

receipt of settlement amounts from Railways till his transfer

he could not close the account. He admitted during

his

Cross-Examination that at the time of closing of accounts

of Gopi after adjusting compulsory thrift deposit and share

capital the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 8,800/- and the

un-cleared amounts were recovered equally from the two

sureties. So it is clear that in this matter also there was

lapse on the part of the petitioner.

19. The next lapse alleged is that of Clifford D'Souza

who had availed loan of Rs. 90.000/-. It is alleged that no

entry was made in the OD Register and the petitioner \failed

to send revised debit advise to the department and notices

to the sureties. MW1 has stated that no recovery of loan

instalment was made from May 2008 to October 2008 and

yet revised debit statement was not sent to the Pay-Bill

Preparing Officer. According to the petitioner, at the time of

completion of recovery postings of June 2008 recoveries

for May and June alone remained and so action was not

required. He admitted during cross-examination that

recoveries were not made from May to October 2008 but

only in November 2008. The petitioner has not taken any

action prior to November 2008, thus justifying the charge

in this respect.

20. Karuppan, another member has taken loan of

Rs. 75,000/- and recovery was not effected from September

2007. The petitioner is said to have failed in sending the

revised debit statement to the Pay-Bill Preparing Authority

in time and he sent it only on 18.03.2008. Even in his Proof

Affidavit the petitioner has stated that though Karuppan

died in August 2007, Office Order of termination dated

20.09.2007 was received by the office only later. During

cross-examination he admitted that revised debit advise

was sent on 18.03.2008 only and the account was closed

only on 24.11.2009. It was the duty of the petitioner to send

the revised debit statement to the Pay Bill Preparing

Authority if he was not aware of the death of the member.

However, this was not done.

21. In the matter of Bhuvanesh who had taken a loan of

Rs. 50,000/- recovery was not effected from May 2008 to

September 2008. The petitioner is said to have failed in

sending revised debit statement to the Pay Bill Preparing

Authority. According to the petitioner, recoveries for May

and June alone remained and the revised debit statement

was sent on 18.03.2008. However, during cross-examination

he admitted that though there was no recovery from May

to September 2008 revised debit statement was sent only

on 15.09.2008. Thus the charge in this respect also is

justified.

22. In the case of R. Subramanian who had taken a loan

of Rs. 90,000/-, the charge is that no entry was made in

the OD Register and the petitioner had waited for

11 months to send revised debit statement. It is stated

that he did not send letters to the concerned member or

the sureties also. As seen from the Proof Affidavit of the

petitioner revised debit statement was sent on 05.04.2008

immediately after completion of recovery postings for

December 2007. According to him, at the time of completion

of June 2008 recovery postings, only seven months have

lapsed. According to him, he had time till September for

follow up action but he was transferred in the meanwhile

so there was no lapse on his part. He admitted during

cross-examination that no recovery for the period from

December 2007 to November 2008 was made and no

revised debit statement was sent till he was transferred

on 19.09.2008.

23. S.No. 10 in the charge is K.P. Ravindran who was

given loan of Rs. 85,000/-. It is alleged that no entry was

made in the OD Note Register and though there was no

recovery from February 2008, revised statement was sent

only on 16.06.2008, 17.06.2008 and 24.07.2008. It is stated

that not only the petitioner had failed to send revised debit

statement but failed to send letters to the concerned

members as well as sureties and the Pay Disbursing

Authority requesting reasons for non-recovery. As could

be seen from the admission of the petitioner in cross-

examination though there was no recovery from February

to August 2008 revised debit statement was sent only on

16.06 2008 followed by two more such statements.

24. In the case of P.K. Pradeep who was granted loan of

Rs. 65,000/- it was alleged that no entry was made in the

OD Note though recovery was not effected from November

2006 to September 2007. Revised debit statement is said to

have been sent only on 05.04.2008 after a lapse of 11 months.

No letters were sent to the concerned member, sureties or

the Pay Disbursing Authority also. The petitioner has

explained in his Proof Affidavit that he had sent revised

debit statements on 12.01.2007 and 08.02.2007 since there

was no recovery from November 2006 to January 2007. He

is said to have sent letter on 13.04.2008 since there were no

recoveries from December 2007 to March 2008 also. Thus

he seems to have acted in time in this respect. In fact the

counsel for the Respondent did not challenge the

explanation given by the petitioner in his Proof Affidavit.

2286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25. In the matter of K.P. Ravindran who had availed loan

of Rs. 85,000/- recovery is said to have been not effected

from February to August 2008. It is alleged that the

petitioner had failed to send revised debit statement to the

Pay Bill Preparing Authority or to send letter to the

concerned member or the sureties and the Pay Disbursing

Authority. The petitioner has explained in his Proof

Affidavit that he had sent revised debit statements on

26.06.2008, 17.06.2008 and 24.07.2008. It is clear that the

statement was sent with much delay only.

26, In the case of Jagannathan the allegation is that

there was no recovery towards his loan of Rs. 85,000/- from

June 2008 to August 2008 and yet revised debit statement

was not sent and letters were not sent to the member,

sureties and Pay Bill Preparing Authority also. According

to the petitioner, recovery postings for July 2008 would

commence after Septembers 2008 only and so there was no

lapse on his part. It is clear from the Proof Affidavit as well

as from the cross-examiantion that he did not send revised

debit statement though there was no recovery for the period

from June to August 2008.

27. In the case of Sekar who expired on 27.02.2008 though

steps for settlement was taken on 26.03.2008, the petitioner

had failed to take further action until 19.09.2008. According

to the petitioner Office Order of termination dated 28.04.2008

was received by the Society only after his transfer and so

there was no lapse on his part. There is no challenge to his

explanation given by the petitioner. There seems to be no

lapse on the part of the petitioner in this respect.

28. In the matter of T.P. Anil who was removed from

service on 11.02.2006 the petitioner is said to have not

taken any action for settlement of the loan account till

19.09.2008 though the petitioner joined Tiruchirappalli on

28.11.2006. According to the petitioner the loan file was

with another Section Officer who was close acquaintance

of T.P. Anil. The petitioner has claimed that he was not able

to pursue the matter on instruction from the said Section

Officer. It is clear from the Proof Affidavit and admission of

the petitioner during cross-examination that he did not take

any action for recovery of the amount. The explanation

given by him for failure to take action is not satisfactory.

29. In the case of Munirathnam in respect of whose loan

there was no recovery from May 2008 also the petitioner is

alleged to have failed to make entry in the OD Note and to

take any action. The petitioner had admitted during his

cross-examination that there was no recovery from May to

September 2008 and yet revised statement was given only

on 15.09.2008 thus admitting that there was lapse on his

part in taking action.

30. In the matter of R. Saravanan who had availed loan

of Rs. 75,000/- it is alleged that there was no recovery from

April to August 2008 and yet revised debit statement was

not sent to the Pay-Bill Preparing Authority and letter was

not sent to the borrower and the sureties also. The petitioner

had admitted that in spite of absence of recovery from

April to August 2008 revised debit statement was sent

only on 15.09.2008.

31. In the matter of A. Raja who had availed loan of

Rs. 75,000/- also absence of action is alleged against the

petitioner in spite of non-recovery from May 2008. The

petitioner had admitted during his cross-examination that

there was no recovery from May to August 2008 and yet

he did not send any revised debit statement at all. Thus it

is clear that there was lapse on his part.

32. In the case of Hasan Sharif who had taken a loan of

Rs. 1,00,000/- and there was no recovery from May to

October 2008 also absence of action is alleged against the

petitioner. The petitioner had admitted during his cross-

examination that he did not send any revised debit

statement in spite of non-recovery.

33. In the matter of Balasubramaniam who had left the

service on Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 15.12.2007 it is

alleged that no action was taken to settle the account.

Settlement was effected on 03.11.2008 only though

settlement amount was received from Railway in February

2008. So in this respect also there is delay.

34. Out of the 19 instances of failures mentioned in the

charge, one was dropped by the Management itself and

three are matters for which action was already taken by the

management. Regarding two matters there was no failure

on the part of the petitioner in taking action. In the remaining

13 cases the petitioner had failed to take action in time or

no action was taken at all as discussed above.

35. The Respondent had produced certain documents

to prove that the past conduct of the petitioner while he

was in office also was not satisfactory. Ext.M1 is the order

dated 05.11.1993 withholding increment of the petitioner

for a period of one year for remaining outside the office

during working hours. Ext.M2(c) is the order reducing the

scale of pay of the petitioner for negligence in discharging

his duties. Ext.M2(a) is the charge memo on the basis of

which the punishment was imposed. The charges include

failure on the part of the petitioner to take steps to close

the account of a retired member, failure to take action on a

loan application and wrongly noting the amount in the

case of an account while closing the same and also failing

to make payment to the actual person by paying to the

wrong person. By Ext.M2(d) order the punishment as per

Ext.M2(c) was reduced to one of censure. Ext.M3(a) to

Ext.M3(d) are documents pertaining to the charge of

habitual absence of the petitioner. He is seen reverted to

the post of Junior Accounts Assistant by Ext.M3(c) order

on account of his habitual absence. By Ext.M3(g) order the

punishment of reversion was cancelled after he had

undergone punishment for 11 months. It could be seen

that the finding of negligence was retained even though

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2287

punishment was cancelled, the petitioner having undergone

the punishment for some months. Ext.M4(a) and Ext.M4(b)

are the Charge Memos for unauthorized absence. By

Ext.M4(c) order the petitioner was again reverted to Junior

Accounts Assistant. Thus it could be seen that the

petitioner had undergone disciplinary proceedings earlier

also and was punished on several occasions. Out of this

those that are more relevant are Ext.M2(a) and Ext.M3(c) in

which the punishment was imposed on the petitioner for

his negligence in duties. As could be seen from the enquiry

report which is marked as Ex.M3(c) there was failure on the

part of the petitioner on earlier occasions to complete

recovery postings in time and this charge was also found

proved as seen from the report of enquiry (Page-46) of the

typed-set of the Respondent. It was on account of this

also the punishment of reversion was imposed on him as

per Ext.M3(e) order. Thus, it could be seen that on earlier

occasions also the same kind of lapses were noticed on the

part of the petitioner and he was proceeded against and

punished also for such lapses.

36. By Ext.M22 order the petitioner was removed from

service as the charges were found proved. The Appellate

Authority had modified the punishment to one of dismissal

from service. Having found that there were lapse on the

part of the petitioner, that most of the charges except a few

are proved, what is left to be considered is whether the

punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the

petitioner is proper and commensurate with gravity of the

misconducts alleged. It is to be noticed that there is no

case for the Management that there was any

misappropriation on the part of the petitioner. The charge

is that he had been so negligent in his duties that he had

failed to take action in several of the accounts handled by

him. There is the fact that on previous occasions also there

were such lapses on the part of the petitioner and he was

punished. But in spite of that the punishment of dismissal

from service seems to be one not in proportion charge

alleged. So I am inclined to modify and reduce the

punishment.

Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the petitioner

is modified and reduced to Compulsory Retirement from

service with all the benefits attached to the same.

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 30th April, 2015)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW 1, Sri T.

Thandesan

For the 2nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri A.

Elangovan

Documents Marked

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

14.12.2009

Show Cause Notice issued by

the Respondent Society to the

petitioner

Ex. W2

22.12.2009

Explanation submitted by the

petitioner

Ex.W 3

06.09.2010

Letter of the petitioner

addressed to the Chairman of

the Respondent Society

requesting supply of a copy of

updated Special Bye-Law and

payment of T.A. and D.A. to

enable him to attend the

enquiry.

Ex. W 4

06.09.2010

Notification circulated by the

Respondent Society

Ex.W5

08.09.2010

Paper publication made by the

Respondent

Society

"Dinamalar" Trichy

Ex.W6

04.08.2011

Notice to all staff members and

other members of the Society

circulated by the Managing

Director of the Respondent

Society

Ex.W 7

2002-2008

Frequent transfer orders issued

to the petitioner-6 in number

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

05.11.1993

Office

Order

No.

70-

Punishment — Increment

withheldfor one year (Non-

Recurring) for remaining

outside office during working

hours on 01.04.1993 (On Memo

dated 01.04.1993 and Charge

Memo dated 12.04.1993—

Explanation and Enquiry

conducted — Enquiry Report

dated 18.09.1993 (copy

attached)

Ex.M2(a)

12.04.1993

Charge Memo to the Petitioner

for negligence in discharge of

his duties

Ex.M2(b)

—

Findings of the Enquiry

Officer —Mr. V. Sundaram

(Deputy Registrar— Retired)

2288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M2(c)

31.12.1993

Office Memo No. 101 — for

proven charges of misconduct

in respect of Charge Memo

dated

12.04.1993

—

Punishment—Demoted from

Sr. Clerk to Clerk and with

reduction of pay in Clerk's

scale for three years

Ex.M2(d)

01.07.1994

Office Order No. 22 — On

Appeal dated 19.01.2014 by the

petitioner the punishment

awarded in O/O 101 dated

31.12.1993 was cancelled and

reduced to one of "Censure"

Ex.M3(a)

14.03.2000

Charge Memo — habitual

absence — and failure to

complete recovery postings

Ex.M3(b)

27.04.2000

Charge Memo — Misbehaviour

with Chief Executive on

25.02.2000 and placed under

suspension and on 26.04.2000

on the petitioner's instigation

two unknown person entered

the Chief Executive's room and

threatened him to put the

petitioner back on duty

Ex.M3(c)

17.10.2000

Findings of the Enquiry

Officer—Mr.

Shanmughasundaram—

Advocate—Tiruchirapalli —

on the Charge Memo dated

14.03.2000 for (i) absent from

duty and (2) failure to complete

recovery postings in time and

on the Charge Memo dated

27.04.2000 for indecent

misbehavior on 25.02.2000 and

26.04.2000

Ex.M3(d)

18.10.2000

Memo—No. CCS/Admn./10/

2000— proposing punishment

of termination of service and

calling for the petitioner's

representation

Ex.M3(e)

20.12.2000

Office Order No. 127 —

Punishment — Petitioner

reverted to as Junior Accounts

Assistant and fixing him in that

scale —effective — 15.12.2000

Ex.M3(f)

05.12.2001

Appeal/Representation of the

petitioner to cancel the

punishment etc.

Ex.M3(g)

07.12.2001

Punishment awarded by O/O

127 dated 20.12.2000 cancelled

and designated the petitioner

as Accounts Assistant duly

fixing his salary in that pay-

scale — w.e.f. 10.12.2011 (after

undergoing the punishment for

IIMS)

Ex.M4(a)

26.12.2008

Memo for unauthorized

absence — CCS/Admn./12/08

(23.12.08 and 22.12.08)

Ex.M4(b)

02.01.2009

Additional Charge Memo —for

unauthorized absence—CCS/

Admn./1/2009

Ex.M4(c)

23.01.2009

Office Order No. 236—

Punishment —Reversion as

Junior Accounts Assistant —

w.e.f. 23.01.2009 and re- fixing

his salary

Ex.M4(d)

21.09.2010

WP No. (MD) No. 5r000/2009 —

filed by petitioner—common

Order bythe Hon'ble Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court

dated 21.09.2010 —Extract of

Page No. 1, 13, 19, 20 and

24 —W. P. — Stand dismissed

Ex.M5(a)

07.10.2008

Charge Memo issued to the

petitioner for failure to take

action on overdue cases and

failure to send notice to non-

recovery cases and to sureties

etc.

Ex.M5(b)

—

Complaint of Sr. S.O. — Ledger

Ex.M5(c)

23.02.2010

Notice of Enquiry — Posting

the enquiry on 04.03.2010

Ex.M5(d)

16.02.2010

Memo from the Respondent to

the petitioner — re-enquiry —

Appointment of EO; M.R.

Ex.M5(e)

04.03.2010

Reply from petitioner to the

Respondent for letter of

16.02.2010

calling

for

documents —etc.

Ex.M5(f)

18.03.2010

Reply memo from the

Respondent to the petitioner

furnishing documents called for

in the letter of 04.03.2010

Ex.M5(g)

24.03.2010

Letter from petitioner to

Enquiry Officer — to allow to

engage a Defence Helper — a

Retired Railway Co.Op. Society

Employee

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2289

Ex.M5(h)

31.03.2010

Reply of Enquiry Officer to the

letter dated 24.03.2010 of the

petitioner —reg. — Defence

Helper and— postponing the

enquiry to 12.04.2010 from

09.04.2010

Ex.M5(i)

04.04.2010

Letter from the petitioner to

Enquiry Officer to postpone

domestic enquiry till receipt of

details

Ex.M5(j)

19 04 2010

Reply from EO to the petitioner

— Enquiry postponed from

12.04.2010 to 26.04.2010 —cb

requested by the petitioner

Ex.M5(k)

30.04.2010

Reply of the Respondent to the

petitioner furnishing SPL Bye-

Law copy

Ex.M5(I)

03.05.2010

Letter from Respondent to

Petitioner and E.O.—informing

change of Management

Representative (since earlier

M.R. had retired from service)

Ex.M5(m)

10.05.2010

Petitioner's letter addressed to

E.O. — furnishing certain

details—approaching RTI—

requesting to postpone the

enquiry

Ex.M5(n)

04.03.2010

Proceedings of enquiry (EO.,

and

M.R; CSE.) (Internal Pages 1

24.03.2010

to 12) ù Continuation on

12.04.2010

09.04.2010

and

Enquiry on 09.04.2010 —

26.04.2010

adjourned to 12.04.2010

(Internal

Page—12)

Continuation

the

proceedings of enquiry

(Internal Pages 13 to 14) —

Documents called for by CSE

already furnished—but still to

give a further opportunity to

the CSE — Enquiry adjourned

to 10.05.2010 (EQ. MR, CSE—

Present)

10.05.2010

Since raised some issues—

enquiry adjourned to 21.03.2010

(Intl. Page 15-16) —Enquiry

adjourned to 21.05.2010 (EO.,

MR., C.S.E., Present)

21.05.2010

In enquiry CSE raised further

issues (Intl. Pages 17-20)—

However, enquiry continued

on (Intl. Page—20 to 21).

Further issues raised by CSE

— Enquiry adjourned to

10.05.2010 (EO, MR, CSE —

present)

28.05.2010

Proceedings of Enquiry — Intl.

Page 22 to 35 (EO, MR,CSE—

Present)

Ex.M5(o)

08.04.2002

Office Order No. 3—Detailing

importance

overdue

collection,

duties

and

responsibilities of staff on

overdue collection

Ex.M6

12.10.2004

Office Order No. 49—issued by

Respondent

Ex. M7

14.10.2004

Office Order No. 50 —issued

by Respondent

Ex. M8(a)

02.09.2008

Charge Memo issued to the

petitioner—CCS/Admn./

2008—Failure to take action for

overdue casers — etc.

Ex. M8(b) 16.09.2008

Explanation of petitioner — and

assuring to be more careful in

future duly initiating prompt

action and to excuse him this

time

Ex.M8(c)

11.12.2008

Office Order No. 222—

Awarding punishment of

"Severe Warning" for failure to

take action on overdue cases—

and failed to send notices to

members and sureties

Ex. M9

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd.,

Thiruchirapalli —Special Bye-

Laws relating to Service

Conditions (Pages 1 to 32)

Ex.M10

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd.,

Thiruchirapalli —Special Bye-

Laws relating to S.Rly. ECCS

Staff of the Society Regulations

governing the Disciplinary

Proceeding Pages 1 to 14) with

the endorsement of the

petitioner as "Naangavathuaha

Thabal Mulam Anupiyadu"

(unauthorized) — Sd. T.

Thandesan

(Forth

time

received

through

post

(unauthorized — Sd. T.

Thandesan)

2290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M11

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd.,

Thiruchirapalli —Special Bye-

Laws relating to S. Railway

ECCS Staff or the Society

Regulations governing the

Disciplinary Proceedings

(Pages 1 to 14) with the

endorsement of the petitioner

as True Copy Attested —

Signed T. Thandesan (Fifty

time properly issued to me —

True copy attested)

Ex. M12

12.08.2010

Application by petitioner T.

Thandesan — under RTI To

CPIO, New Delhi-for Bye Law

of SRE Coop. Credit Society,

Trichy

Ex. M13

26.10.2009

Letter from Petitioner to

Chairman —SRE Coop. Credit

Society

Ex M 14

11.12.2009

W.P. (MD) No. 11890 of 29009

& M.R.1 of 2009 filed by

petitioner

Ex. M 15

28.05.2010

Reply from Respondent to

Petitioner's letter of 26.10.2009

addressed to Chairman for

change of Enquiry Officer

Ex. M 16

28.05.2010

Explanation of the Petitioner—

T. Thandesan — to the

Respondent's Charge Memo

dated 07.10.2008

Ex. M 17

11.02.2010

Advocate

Mr.

Subramaniam's notice to the

petitioner and two others on

behalf of Mr. S. Ramalingam,

M.D. of the Respondent

Society

Ex. M 18

25.11.1990

Pamphlet issued by AITU

Ex. M19(a) 30.06.2010

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Mr. Raja Ram — in Tamil Liberal

Ex. M 19(b)

—

translation of the findings—

Tamil to English

Ex. M20

10.08.2010

Second Show Cause Memo

enclosing finding of the

Enquiry Officer and calling for

explanation from the petitioner

within a week of receipt of the

notice

Ex. M 21

23.08.2010

Reply of the petitioner to the

Second Show Cause dated

10.08.2010

Ex M 22

26.08.2010

Office Order No. 37 —

Awarding punishment — In

respect of ChargeMemo dated

07.10.2008 — Terminated from

the service of the Respondent

Society— effective 26.08.2010

Ex. M 23

13.10.2010

Appeal letter of the petitioner

to reconsider the punishment

imposed

Ex. M 24

22.07.2011

Order of M.D. of the Society

communicating the Board's

decision confirming the

dismissal from service

Ex. M 25

—

19 instances of Negligence in

work

Ex. M 26

19.07.2011

Paper publication —Land grab

In Tamil

case—Involving T. Thandesan

—Ex. Railway Credit Member

(i.e. the Petitioner in this ID)

Ex. M 27

13.07.2011

Petition by Inspector of Police

of Somarasampettai Police

Station —before Judicial

Magistrate No. 5 —Trichy—

Opposite Party T. Thandesan

Ex. M 28

13.07.2011

FIR— No. 209/2011

Ex. M 29

02.05.2014

Copy of letter from Assistant

Secretary,

Disciplinary

Directorate of Institute of

Chartered Accountants of India

addressed to M/s A.V. Devan

& Co., Chartered Accountants,

Chennai-17 —(Auditors for the

Respondent Society) — In the

matter of complaint by the

Petitioner against the Auditor's

firm—Holding the Firm NOT

GUILTY and closing of the

complaint

Ex.M30

—

Specimen forms of — (a)

Application for Loan (b) Pay

Order advise, Debit Statement

and Particulars of deduction.

— on case of failure of

Recovery

Ex.M31

07.11.2012

2A Petition filed by the

Petitioner before the ALC (C)

—Puducherry

Ex.M32

22.01.2013

Counter of the Society —

submitted to the ALC (C) —

PDY—to the 2A Petition

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2291

Ex.M33

19.02.2013

Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner

before ALC (C) PDY

Ex M34

10.04.2013

Conciliation Failure Report

Ex.M35

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd. "Pay

Order Advise and Debit

Statement".

Ex.M36

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd. "Pay

Order Advice and Debit

Statement" —as a "Revised

Debit Advise"

Ex.M37

—

Southern Railway Employees

Coop. Credit Society Ltd.

regarding — Loan overdue

advise "CCS/OVERDUE"

Ex.M 38

—

Southern Railway Employee's

Coop. Society Ltd. —Printed

Notice with Proforma

Ex.M39

—

Southern Railway Employees'

Cooperative Society Ltd. "CCS/

Overdue"

Advise

Registered Post

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1056-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj diqjFkyk

Qhjkstiqj {ks=h; xzkeh.k 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 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

292@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@248@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 292/2005), of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management of Kapurthal - Ferozepur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/248/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 292/2005

Registered on 10.8.2005

Sh. Sukhjit Kumar, C/o Sh. Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Sant

Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

...Petitioner

Versus

Kapurthala-Ferozepur Kshetriya Gramin Bank The

Chairman, Head Office, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Tek Chand, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.4.2015

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/248/

98-IR (B-1) Dated 7.1.1999, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub section (2-

A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of the

Kapurthala-Ferozepur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, H.O.

Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala in dismissing the

services of Sh. Sukhjit Kumar is just and legal? If not

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date?"

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim to which written reply was filed by the

respondent management. The facts emerging therefrom are

that workman was posted as Cashier-cum-Clerk at

Sodhinagar Branch and he was served a following charge-

sheet:—

CHARGES

Charge No. 1:— Sh. Sukhjit Kumar was handed over

Cash Rs. 1,30,000 on 6.5.1992 for depositing this amount in

the CA 38 with Punjab National Bank, B.O. Sandhe Hasham.

He deposited Cash Rs. 1,20,000/- thereby misappropriating

Rs. 10,000/-.

Charge No. 2:—To conceal the above misappropriation/

embezzlement of funds, he made credit entry of Rs. 1,30,000/-

in the passbook issued by PNB Sandhe Hasham in his own

hand writing on 6.5.1992. On return to the branch, he

confirmed having deposited this amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-

2292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by putting his signatures on the voucher crediting the

Head "Remittance in transit." To avoid this

misappropriation/embezzlement being detected, he

tampered with the balance in the pass book issued by PNB,

Sandhe Hasham on 22.5.1992 and 14.7.1992 by inflating the

balance by Rs. 10000/-. The Banker Reconciliation

Statement for May, 1992, June, 1992 and July, 1992 was

prepared by him with the inflated balance under his

signatures.

He filed reply and after considering the same, an Inquiry

Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry. He

submitted report dated 12.7.1994 finding that the charges

are proved against him. Considering the Inquiry report and

other relevant circumstances and affording an opportunity

of personal hearing to the workman, he was dismissed from

service. Now the workman challenged his termination on

the ground that the inquiry conducted is not fair and proper

and he was not given an opportunity of defending himself

and the Inquiry officer based his report on inadmissible

evidence. That the appeal preferred by him was wrongly

dismissed.

On the other hand the bank pleaded that the workman

embezzled Rs. 10,000/- as find mentioned in the charge-

sheet and this embezzlement was later on detected and the

workman himself confessed his mistake and deposited the

amount on 26.8.1992 which he deposited less on 6.5.1992.

He was allowed to cross-examine the witness and he

tendered 43 documents in his defence. That the Inquiry

Officer based his finding on the evidence led before him

and there is no defect in the conduct of the inquiry and the

punishment awarded on its basis, is legal and valid.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the inquiry

was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 26.5.2014

and the said order has not been challenged and has attained

finality.

Now, the only question to be seen is whether the

punishment awarded is excessive. It was vehemently argued

by learned counsel that no loss is caused to the bank who

did not suffer in any way due to the alleged conduct of the

workman and therefore, the punishment by dismissing from

service is unwarranted. This contention is devoid of any

force. The banks deal with public money and its officers

are supposed to work with due diligence showing high

standard of integrity and honesty. In the present case, a

sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was handed over to workman for

depositing in the bank and he deposited only Rs. 1,20,000/-.

In order to conceal the fact for depositing less amount, he

made false entries in the relevant records and later on when

the embezzlement was detected, he deposited the amount.

Thus, he committed not only breach of trust but made false

entry in the record and considering the act and conduct

the punishing authority rightly ordered the punishment

which do not call for any intereference.

In result, it is held that the action of the management in

dismissing the workman is just and legal and he is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered

against the workman.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the

Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1057-—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

p.MhxM+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@224@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2006),

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/224/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 30 of 2006. Reference No. L-12012/224/2005-

IR(B-1) dated 05.06.2006.

Sh. Lakshmi Narain Nagpal S/o Sh. Amar Nath, H.No. 140,

Patel Nagar, Hissar.

...Workman

Versus

1. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of

India, Region-III, Zonal Office, Panchkula

(Haryana).

...Respondent

Appearances

For the Workman:

None

For the Management:

Shri S.K. Gupta Advocate.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2293

AWARD

Dated : 12.5.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification. L-12012/224/2005-IR(B-1) dated 05.06.2006

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India in removal from services of Shri Laxmi Narain

Nagpal son of Shri Amar Nath Senior Assistant w.e.f.

2.3.2004 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman filed claim statement in which it is

pleaded that he joined the service of State Bank of India as

Typist Clerk on 05.05.1981 in District Hissar and he was

promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1997. He later on

transferred to Patel Nagar Branch, Hissar in the year 1999.

There was no complaint from any corner about the work

and conduct of the workman. On 28.02.2002, he was

transferred from Patel Nagar Hissar Branch to Bawal Branch

of State Bank of India without assigning any reason. Three

charge sheets dated 18.07.2002, 05.03.2003 and 17.09.2003

were issued to him after a lapse of 9 months of joining at

Bawal Branch which were related to Patel Nagar Hissar

Branch and all these charges were contained in the charge

sheets correlated to each other. The charges were leveled

against the workman in charge sheet dated 17.02.2002 is

vague, does not fall as charges which are stale and

manufactured related to the incidents of the year, 2001 which

smell the evil design of the management. The management

violated the provisions of bipartite settlement. The whole

exercise of the management was to prepare ground for his

transfer, victimize, harsh, spoil his image in the eyes of the

staff, higher authorities of the bank, the general public so

as to remove him from bank service. Indquiry was ordered.

The inquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed

by the AGM Region-III whereas disciplinary authority

would have made these appointments. All the witnesses

were officer of the bank who got loan from the bank. The

inquiry officer allowed the presenting officer to produce

W10 through the course of cross-examination of PW1

despite the repeated objection. The workman was not

allowed to complete the cross-examination of PW10. The

inquiry officer was prejudiced and acted with biased attitude

being partial to the management. The workman was not

allowed proper hearing and principle of natural justice was

not adhered to by the inquiry officer. Inquiry officer

submitted his report to the AGM Region-III. His findings

were based on conjectures, surmises and on suspicion

who fully dependent upon the presenting officer and not

applied its judicious mind. Disciplinary authority also did

not take different view and did not consult the record of

inquiry proceeding before awarding the punishment of

removal of petitioner which deprived of the legitimate right

of the workman. The workman was not allowed to take

along with his defence representative during the personal

hearing by the disciplinary authority. Appellate authority

also did not consult the record of the inquiry and did not

apply his independent mind and confirmed the illegal and

unlawful decision of removal from service which is illegal,

unjustified, arbitrary, ultravires and against the principle of

natural justice and in violation of the bipartite settlement.

The workman prayed that the inquiry may be vitiated and

order of removal from Service may be set aside and the

workman may be reinstated in service with all benefits

including back wages.

3. The management filed written statement. It is pleaded

by the management that workman while working as Senior

Assistant at Patel Nagar Hissar Branch committed certain

acts of misconduct for which the charge-sheet dated

17.07.2002 was served upon him by his disciplinary authority

who is AGM Region-III State Bank of India General officer

who was the controller of Bawali Branch. As his reply was

not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority ordered for

departmental inquiry and Sh. P.C. Mutrega, Senior Officer

of the bank was appointed as inquiry officer who conducted

the inquiry in a fair manner. The workman was given full

opportunity to produce witness in his defence. On the

findings of the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority

decided to impose punishment of removal from service

after affording him personal hearing. The appeal filed by

the workman was also dismissed vide order 02.03.2004.

4. It is also pleaded by the management that the charges

which were proved against the workman were of very serious

nature. Thus the punishment of removal from service was

commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved in

the departmental inquiry. The transfer of the workman from

Hissar Branch to Bawal Branch was as per the transfer

policy of the bank. As the workman was given full

opportunity during inquiry and inquiry was conducted

adhering to the principles of natural justice and punishment

was also proportionate with the gravity of misconduct.

Therefore, the punishment of removal from service of the

workman is not against the law, and it is prayed that

reference may be rejected.

5. The workman was served with charge sheet containing

5 charges which are as under:—

"1. You on 02.11.2001 at about 6.30 P.M. entered the

branch premises in a drunken state, shouting and

abusing. You abused the Branch Manager, used filthy,

derogatory and un parliamentary language. When

you were asked to leave the Branch Manager's cabin

by Branch Manager, you not only refused to leave

the room but also tried to man-handle the Branch

Manager. You created unruly scene for about 15-20

minutes and finally left the Branch Manager's cabin

after spiting on the floor in front of the Branch

Manager's table.

2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.While leaving the branch premises, you pulled down

shuter and bolted the shutter from outside, thereby,

confining the officers' staff sitting inside the branch

premises. The shutter was subsequently got opened by

the neighboring shop keepers.

3. You are habitual of using unparliamentary and filthy

language with general public and customers.

4.You did not perform allotted duties fully. You are

habitual late comer and normally come to office around

10.30 A.M. and leaving in between unauthorisedly and

arriving after lunch break. On 18.01.2002, you had reported

late marked your attendance time as 09.45 A.M. on a cross

in red marked by Branch Manager on the attendance

5. You remained on leave/absent for a number of times

without sanction of leave and without any leave application

even as per detail given below:

Period

Total Days

From

13.01.2001

15.01.2001

07.12.2001

10.02.2001

03.03.2001

04.03.2001

04.04.2001

11.04.2001

27.05.2001

28.05.2001

02.06.2001

03.06.2001

07.07.2001

09.07.2001

22.07.2001

22.09.2001

23.09.2001

26.09.2001

28.09.2001

10.11.2001

10.112001

15.11.2001

21.11.2001

30.11.2001

01.12.2001

02.12.2001

09.12.2001

30.12.2001

31.12.2001

12.01.2002

13.01.2002

19.01.2002

10.02.2002

10.02.2001

6. You had raised loans from various under noted co-

operative societies and your total borrowings are in excess

of permissible limit.

(I) The Bank Staff Coop. Urban Se Thrift & credit

Society Ltd. Hissar

(II) The Hissar Gramin Kshetriya Bank Employees Co-

op. Salary Earned T & C Society Ltd. Hissar.

(III) The Hissar Haryana Bank Employees Cooperative

Urban (SE) T & C Society Ltd. Hissar.

(IV) The Hissar Bank Employees Coop. Se T & C

Society. Hissar.

The above acts of omissions and commissions on your

part, if proved, would amount to gross miconduct under

the provisions of Para 521(4) (c), (e) & (j) of the Sastry

Award and the 6th Bipartite Settlement."

6. So far the issue of fairness of enquiry is concerned,

this issue has already been decided by this Tribunal vide

vide order dated 26.02.2015. The relevant part of order

mentioned above is as under:—

"From the record, it is revealed that charge sheet was

received by the workman. He replied to the charge sheet.

Finding the replies unsatisfied. Sh. S.S. Mutreja was

appointed as inquiry officer. Management examined

witnesses during the departmental inquiry. The workman

was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the

management and the workman in defence also produced

witnesses in departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer

submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The

disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated

27.08.2003 to the workman. The workman was allowed

personal hearing on 01.11.2003 by the disciplinary authority

and upon considering the submissions of the workman,

inquiry report and inquiry proceedings, the order of removal

from service was passed by the disciplinary authority. The

workman also filed appeal on 21.04.2004, and the appellate

authority also provided personal hearing to the workman

on 13.02.2004. After applying its mind, the appellate

authority rejected the appeal of the workman on 04.03.2004.

There is nothing on the record to show that the workman

was not allowed any opportunity during the inquiry. The

workman was allowed full opportunity to produce his

evidence and to examine the witnesses of the management.

The workman was also given personal hearing both by the

disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and

speaking order was passed by both of the authorities. The

workman failed to point out any infirmity in the inquiry and

in which way he was prejudiced by any action of the inquiry

officer. Therefore, it is held that inquiry was conducted

fairly and properly."

7. On the issue of perversity and on quantum of

punishment, despite opportunity, workman failed to lead

any evidence. During proceedings, the learned

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2295

representative of the workman earlier appearing pleads no

instructions. The representative of the management also

made at statement that the management does not want to

lead any evidence on perversity and quantum of

punishment.

8. As none appeared for the workman, the case was

adjourned for arguments. Arguments of the learned

representative of the management heard as none appeared

for the workman.

9. The learned representative of the management

submitted in arguments that workman was charge sheeted

on various counts for gross misconduct which includ

entering the branch premises at 6.30PM in drunken state,

shouting and abusing the branch manager using filthy

and derogatory and un parliamentary language and creating

unruly scenes and finally left the cabin of the manager

after spitting on the floor in front of the branch manager

and while leaying pulled down the shutter and bolter the

shutter from outside confining the officers and staff sitting

inside which was subsequently opened by the neighboring

shopkeepers, workman was charged for not performing

allotted duties and remaining on leave/absent the detail of

which has been given in earlier paras for which the workman

was charge sheeted. Enquiry officer was appointed and

detailed enquiry was conducted in which the workman was

given full opportunity of defence. Vide this Tribunal's

order dated 26.2.2015 the enquiry was held to be fair and

proper. From the record it is revealed that enquiry officer

conducted the enquiry and on charge No. 1 management

produced as many as four witnesses who deposed that the

workman entered the branch on 2.11.2001 at 6.30PM

shouting and abusing in drunken state and used

unparliamentary language, creating unruly scene in the

branch and tried to manhandle the branch manager and spit

on the floor in front of the branch manager's table. In defence

the workman produced as many as two witnesses and

himself. One of witness stated that he examined the workman

at 5.30PM in his clinic and the workman was running

temperature of 104 degree and he was advised rest but the

above witness failed to show any entry in his register stating

that the register was burnt by this rivals. This witness also

admitted that he gave some medicines which smell like

alcohol. It is stated by the witnesses that went to Patel Nagar

branch to take leave. There is no reason to disbelieve the

version of witnesses of the management during enquiry

proceedings. Therefore, the enquiry officer rightly held the

charge No. 1 proved against the workman.

10. As regard the charge No. 2 is concerned the

management during enquiry produced four witnesses who

have deposed that it was workman who while leaving the

branch pull down the shutter and bolted it from outside

and Mr. Sanjay Kumar who appeared as PW-5 in enquiry

proceedings categorically stated that it was the workman

who pull down the shutter and bolted it from outside and

later on this PW-5 Sanjay Kumar opened the shutter. From

the above the charge No. 2 was rightly proved against the

workman by the enquiry officer.

11. As regard the charge No. 3 is concerned the

management produced PW-10 Sushma Rani and workman

produced DW-1 to DW-18 in his defence who are the

customer of the bank and DW-19 who is the official of the

bank. The workman during the proceedings before this

Tribunal produced Smt. Sushma Kumari who was also bank

witness W/o Sudharshan Kumar who appeared as PW-10

during enquiry. The above Smt. Sushma Kumari appeared

as WW1 in this Tribunal stated in cross-examination that

she does not know about the case and the son of workman

asked her to come to the court. She stated that she did not

read the affidavit dated 12-8-2005 before signing it. She

never gone before any authority to verify and attested the

affidavit. In view of the above the enquiry officer rightly

proved the charges against the workman.

12. As regard the charge No. 4 is concerned the

management produced documents P-15, 16, 17, 18 and P-1,

6, 8 to proved the charges. Ex. P-15 to P-18 are the office

order. The DW/22 during cross-examination confirmed

having posted the vouchers of the previous day left by the

workman. The management also produced Ex. P-6 which is

memo No. 4 dated 18.10.2002 in which the workman was

charged for generally come late in office, leave in between

and take lunch up to 4 P.M. The management also produced

Ex.P-5 which is a complaint against the workman by some

customer of the branch. Ex. P-8 is memo dated 5-11-2001

serve to the workman to which neither workman replied

nor refuted the charges DW-19 who is a part time sweeper

of the branch also deposed during enquiry that workman

used to come office at 10/10-30 a.m. The workman failed to

produced any documents/witnesses to deny the charges.

Therefore, the enquiry officer rightly held that charge No.

4 proved against the workman.

13. As regard the charge No. 5 is concerned the management

during enquiry produced leave record of the workman which

revels that workman proceeded on leave without application

for 22 times from 13-1-2001 to 10-2-2002. The enquiry officer

fairly observed that as branch manager despite workman going

on leave without any application for 22 times never delivered

any letter pointing his misconduct, the charge was partially

proved by the enquiry officer.

14. As regard charge No. 6 is concerned the management

produced Ex. P-9 to P-12 which are deduction list from salary

of the four societies. And P-19 shows total deductions of

various loans raised by the workman. The workman

produced two letters but it is clear from the above documents

that percentage of deduction each much more to which the

workman not refuted the charge and the enquiry officer

rightly proved the charge against the workman.

15. From the above it is revealed that all the charges

from 1 to 4 and 6 were fully proved against the workman

and charge No. 5 was partially proved. All these charges

were serious is nature.

2296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16. The learned counsel for the management relied on

the case laws 2008(5)SLR 214 Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh

Vs. Management of M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. And another,

2006(4) SLR 47 P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India (SC),

2005(2) RSJ 542 (SC) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.

Naravade, 2008(3) RSJ 15 Roop Chand Verma Vs. Industrial

Tribunal.

17. From the facts and circumstances of the case and

taking into consideration the discussion in forgoing paras,

all the charges except charge No. 5 proved against the

workman. The workman was guilty of serious misconduct

and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and Hon'ble High Court, on the basis of above

findings, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

18. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central

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

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

Dt. 12-05-2015

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1058-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds

izcaèra= 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@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ 8@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@184@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2015

S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.8/2003) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneshwar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/184/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 8/2003

L-12012/184/2002-IR(B.II) dated 17.03.2003

Date of Passing Award-9th Day of January, 2015

Between:

The Regional Manager,

UCO Bank, Ashok Nagar, Unit-2,

Bhubaneswar(Orissa)-751009 ... 1st Party-Management.

And

Shri Benudhar Behera,

At-Krushnakumarpur,

PO-Kaimati, Dhenkanal, Orissa ... 2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

1. None

...

For the 1st Party-

Management

2. Shri Benudhar Behera

...

For the 2nd Party-workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour &

Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employer in relation to the Management of

UCO Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Bhubaneswar, Odisha,

and their workman Shri Benudhar Behera in exercise of the

powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act vide their Letter No. L-12012/184/2002 - IR(BII), dated

17.03.2003 to this Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as

referred to has been mentioned under the schedule of the

order of reference which is quoted below.

"Whether the action of the Management of UCO

Bank, in relation to their Rasol Branch, Dhenkanal in

imposing the punishment of Dismissal from services

of Shri Benudhar Behera, Clerk-cum-Cashier, w.e.f.

4.6.1999 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

2. The 2nd Party workman Shri Benudhar Behera (herein

after referred to as "the workman") who happened to be an

employee of the UCO Bank, Rasol Branch, Dhenkanal has

filed his Statement of Claim and rejoinder along with certain

documents detailing therewith the illegality committed by

the 1st party management Bank (hereinafter referred to as

"the management") in conducting a departmental

proceeding against him on the charges of misappropriation

of public money and imposing the punishment of dismissal

from services of the workman by keeping a blind eye and a

deaf year towards the plights of the workman. The workman

also received the same result when he made an appeal

before the appellate authority. The workman pleaded for

his innocence as he had never misappropriated the

depositors money. The workman has further stated that

the real culprit of this issue is the then branch manager

Late Shri Sankarsana Maharana, who was committing all

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2297

such crimes through the workman by threatening him of

serious actions if the workman did not co-operate him.

3. The workman as stated in his plaint had intimated the

fact of irregularities committed by Shri Maharana to the

higher authorities. The workman also intimated this fact to

one Shri Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, the then Branch Manager

of Rasol Branch. Shri Patnaik undertook the verification of

the matter and found the complaint of the workman to be

genuine. Accordingly, Shri Patnaik intimated the fact to the

vigilance cell of the bank basing upon which a vigilance

enquiry was conducted by the bank in respect of the

misappropriation and found that late Shri S. Maharana to

be the real culprit in the matter. The workman therefore,

prayed for an order of his reinstatement with full back wages

w.e.f. 4.6.1999 by declaring the punishment imposed upon

him as illegal and unjustified and to treat his suspension

period as on duty.

4. The management on the other hand filed his written

statement countering therewith the statements made by

the workman in his statement of claim. On finding the

workman involved in the misappropriation of depositors

money, he was charge sheeted and a departmental

proceeding was conducted against him fairly and properly.

At last, the workman was dismissed from services by the

disciplinary authority. The management also further stated

that since the management had taken proper action against

the workman after following due procedure, this Tribunal

has no scope to interfere into the same and accordingly

the reference is to be answered in favour of the management

by disentitling the workman for any relief.

5. The management further contended that the bank

has lost confidence on the 2nd Party for his proved

misconducts for which the management had rightly

punished the workman with his dismissal from services.

Accordingly, the same does not call for the interference of

this Tribunal in exercise of it's powers conferred under

Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. The following issues were framed by my predecessor:–

(a) Whether the reference is maintainable?

(b) Whether the domestic enquiry held by the

Management against the 2nd Party Workman was

fair and proper?

dismissing the workman Shri Benudhar Behera is

justified?

(d) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

7. The 2nd party examined himself as the workman

witness No. 1 and Shri Rabindra Kumar Pattanaik as

workman witness No. 2. The management examined Shri

Arun Kumar Misra as the management witness No. 1 and

exhibited 09 (nine) documents. The workman relied upon

the documents filed by him alongwith his statement of

claim. The management had already filed it's written notes

of arguments. Since the representative of the management

did not appear for oral arguments, I have heard oral

arguments from the side of the workman only.

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

8. The Admittedly, the establishment of the management

is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as

"the Act") and the dispute of illegal punishment of dismissal

of the workman by the management as alleged is an

industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the

Act. The work performed by Shri Benudhar Behera in the

bank prior to his dismissal was clerk-cum-cashier, which

satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2(s) of the

Act to treat Shri Behera as a workman. Upon aggrieved

with the imposition of alleged illegal punishment, the

workman raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar for an amicable

settlement of the matter. Since no settlement could be arrived

at, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central,

Bhubaneswar referred the matter to the Ministry of Labour

& Employment, Government of India, New Delhi being the

appropriate Government for consideration and hence this

reference. Hence, on the above counts, it is a established

fact that the reference is maintainable. Issue No. 1 is

answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2

9. In so far as the procedure followed in the conduction

of the domestic enquiry against the workman, the same

has been done fairly and properly. But, it appears that

neither the report of the enquiry officer not the action of

the disciplinary authority in the dismissal of the workman

is fair and proper and hence not justified as the statement

made by the witnesses of the management during the

departmental proceedings have not been considered or

interpreted properly. Thus, this Tribunal is compelled to

invoke Section 11-A of the Act in this matter to deal with

the actions of the management. The management witness

No. 1 and the customers of the bank whose money is

misappropriated, during the course of departmental

proceedings have stated that Shri Behera (the workman) is

innocent and the act of misappropriation was actually done

by late Shri Sankarsana Maharana, then Branch Manager

of the bank. Late Shri S. Maharana also wrote the bank

management about his direct involvement in the act of

misappropriation and termed the workman as innocent. The

enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have

overlooked the same and punished the innocent workman.

Therefore, it is crystal clear to say that the domestic enquiry

conducted against the workman by the management is not

fair and proper. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

2298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 3

10. It is an admitted fact that the alleged act of

misappropriation of depositors money was duly

investigated by the vigilance cell of the management on

the report of Shri Rabindra Kumar Jena, then Branch

Manager of Rasol Branch of the bank. The vigilance officers

in their report have stated the involvement of late Shri S.

Maharana, then branch manager for misappropriation of

public money and declared Shri Benudhar Behera as

innocent. The workman was the management witness in

the CBI Case bearing No. R.C. - 12/99 which was instituted

against the above matter of misappropriation. The learned

CBI court in his judgement declared Shri S. Maharana to be

the real culprit andShri Benudhar Behera as innocent.

11. Also, the management witness and othe witnesses

have clearly stated in their deposition before the enquiry

officer in the departmental proceedings about the innocence

of the workman. There were also supportive documents

lying with the management which proves the innocence of

the workman. But, it appears that the management

suppressed those materials and imposed the punishment

of dismissal of the workman which is a clear act of

victimization done vindictively. The act of the management

is a clear act of colourable exercise of the employer's rights.

The management is therefore, not justified in imposing the

punishment of dismissal of the workman Issue No, 3 is

answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4

12. The management is therefore, ordered to reinstate

the workman back into his services with the payment of

full wages to him since the date of dismissal of the workman,

that is from 04.06.1999 till the date of reinstatement of the

workman treating the period of suspension periods of the

workman as on duty. It is also further ordered that the

entitled amounts of back wages are to be paid to the

workman within a period of 03 (three) months from the date

of publication of award in the Gazette of Inddia failing which

the management shall pay interest @ percent simple interest

per annum till the date of such disbursements. Issue No. 4

is answered accordingly.

13. The reference is answered accordingly against the

1st party management Bank.

Dictated and corrected by me.

PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 15 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1059-—dsUnzh; ljdkj]deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lsy ds fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfu;e ds

izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus ds

rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk, tk,axs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh dEkZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuks ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½

izorZeku Fkk ,sl foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chEkk ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e]

1950 ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèd`r

dksbZ vU; in/kkjh %&

(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkk

visf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy,

j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfu'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds

mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd

og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd

;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2299

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstud ds vfèHkksxkèhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj

mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/kr

,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa

vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jn~n gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@7@2013&,l,l&I]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2015

S.O. 1059.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Bhillai Steel Plant of SAIL from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

from the date of issue of notification for a period of one

year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:–

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of contributions paid prior to the

date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees' State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of:–

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under Sub-Section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Empoloyees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employes continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:–

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

2300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained

such

factory,

establishment, office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/7/2013-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1060-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;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 vks|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼4@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@187@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.4/2004) of the Cent.Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-Bangalore 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 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/187/2003-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE—560 022

DATED

18th February, 2015

PRESENT

Shri S.N. Navalgund

Presiding Officer

C R No. 04/2004

I Party

II Party

Sh. K. Satishchandra Shetty, The Deputy General

Kamala Nivas, Majeela

Manager,

Colony, Jeppur Seminary,

Union Bank of India, Zonal

Kankanady,

Office, Chandrakiran, 10/A-

Mangalore- 575002

Kasturba Road, P.B. No.

5179,

Bangalore—560 001

Appearances :

I Party

Shri M Keshavayya,

Advocate

II Party

Shri T Thippesh,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/187/

2003-IR(B-II) dated 19.01.2004 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-

Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following

Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in dismissing the service of Shri

Satishchandra Shetty, workman of Union Bank of

India, Bunder Branch, Mangalore w.e.f. 13.7.1999 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

04/2004 when notices were issued to both the sides, they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I party filed claim statement on 18.06.2004

asserting that there was gross-violation of princples of

natural justice in conducting the Domestic Enquiry and

that the enquiry finding charge is proved is not based on

any evidence and that the punishment imposed is also

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. inter-alia, the

II Party filled its counter statement on 10.02.2005 asserting

that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted following all the

principles of natural justice and as the CSE/I Party

voluntarily confessed to the charges the Enquiry Officer

was justified in submitting his finding the charge as proved

and for such misconduct the punishment of dismissal being

just and proper there is no need to interfere either in the

finding of the Enquiry Officer or in the punishment imposed.

3. My learned predecessor having regard to the certain

allegations made in the claim statement touching the

Domestic Enquiry by framing a Preliminary Issue as to :

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the

I Party by the I Party is fair and proper?"

receiving the evidence of both sides and hearing arguments

by his order dated 19.01.2007 held the Domestic Enquiry

conducted against the I Party by the II Party is not fair and

proper called upon the II Party to substantiate the charge

levelled against the I Party. Persuant to the said order the

learned advocate appearing for the II Party while filling the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2301

affidavit of Sh. Chandrashekar Moolya who was the Branch

Manager of Mangalore Bunder Branch at the relevant time

of the incident covered in the charge sheet and examined

him on oath as MW 2 and in his examination he referred to

the Charge Sheet issued to the I Party dated 19.03.1998;

Complaint allegedly received from Sh. Kunhi Monu the SB

Account holder No. 6160 dated 10.02.1998; ledger extract

of the SB Account; Passbook pertaining to that SB Account

Report given by MW 1 to the controlling office; three letters

written by MW 1 to the Regional Office dated 11.02.1998,

13.02.1998 and 09.05.1998; FD receipt issued in favour of

Mr. Kunhi Monu for a sum of Rs. 22000.00 allegedly by I

Party with a forged signature of the Branch Manager;

receipt regarding remittance of the Rs. 25000.00 allegedly

by the I Party; debit slip in respect of that remittance;

Cheque returned memo in respect of Cheque allegedly

issued by the I Party dated 04.03.1998; extract of SB account

No. 2799 of the I Party which were marked as Ex M-6, Ex M-

13, Ex M-14, Ex M-15, Ex M-16, Ex M-17, Ex M-18, Ex M-19,

Ex M-20, Ex M-21, Ex M-22, Ex M-23, Ex M-24 and Ex M25

respectively while recording the evidence on the Preliminary

issue. INTERALIA, the learned advocate appearing for

the I Party after cross-examining MW 2 while filling the

affidavit of the I Party workman examining him on oath as

WW 1 closed his side without getting any documents

exhibited. Subsequently, the learned advocate appearing

for the I Party by filing an application seeking permission

to lead further evidence when it was allowed filed the

affidavit of Sh. Kunhi Monu, the SB Account Holder No.

6160 but failed to bring him and examine as such his

evidence is not available either to the I Party or the II Party.

4. With the above evidence, the learned advocates

appearing for both sides filled their written arguments.

5. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

6. The I Party while serving as Sub-staff/Attender at

Bunder, Mangalore Branch of the II Party was served with

charge sheet as under:

"Charge Sheet

It is reported that Shri Satish Shatty has committed the

following act of omission and commission while working

as Sub-staff, Mangalore (M) Branch.

Shri M. Y. Kunhi Monu one of the customer is

maintaining a SB a/c No. 6160 which was opened on 2-7-94

with Managalore (M) Branch. This account was introduced

by Satish Shetty.

On 10-2-98 Shri Kunhi Monu had remitted Rs. 500/- to

his SB Account and produced his pass book for updating

the entry. On verifying the pass book/record of the branch

it has been observed that many entries appearing in pass

book have not been reflected in the ledger account. On

verifying the records it is observed that the party had

remitted small amount on various dates on 112 occassions

to the said account and the party used to make payment to

Shri Satish Shetty at his house and at times in the branch

and Shri Shetty himself used to make relevant entries in the

passbook. However, as per the branch ledger account there

are only 13 entries. The balance outstanding in the account

as of 10-2-98 was Rs. 540.21 whereas there were 112 entries

in the pass book showing the balance outstanding as

Rs. 2141/- after transaction made from the date of the

opening of the account. It has also been observed that the

lumpsum amount was transferred to term deposit on 3

occassions. Shri Shetty used to make relevant entries in

the pass book of the customer. However, remittances were

not accounted for in the books of the branch. When the

balance was accumulated in the pass book Shri Shetty

induced the party to transfer the amount to fixed deposit in

order to get advantage of higher interest for which he has

unauthorisedly taken some of the bank leaves of the fixed

deposit receipts block and issued a fixed deposit receipt

for a amount of Rs. 10000/- on 14-8-95. the said deposit

entry does not figure in the books of the branch. The

proceeds of the said FDR on maturity aggregating to

Rs. 11100/- was transferred to SB Account on 12-8-96 and

on the same day an amount of Rs. 18000/- was transferred

to FDR Account. An amount of Rs. 18900/- being the

proceeds of FDR + interest was credited to the SB Account

and the deposit for Rs. 22000/- was issued on 17-11-97 for

6 months. It is also observed that Shri Shetty had also

issued forged and unauthorised FDR.

It is also reported that he has issued a cheque bearing

No. 134013 dated 3-3-98 for Rs. 3450/- favouring Tyre Trely

without maintaining sufficient balance in account with

Magalore (M) Branch. Therefore, the cheque was returned

from Mangalore (M) Branch on 4-3-98 for the reason

"Insufficient Funds".

The aforesaid acts on the part of Shri Shetty amounts to

the following misconduct:

Gross Misconduct

1. Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank

involving seniours monetary loss to the Bank.

Minor Misconduct

1. Branch of any rules of business of the Bank.

Shri Shetty is further informed that Shri S. N. Mehra,

Deputy Manager (P), Regional Office, Bangalore is

authorised to initiate further disciplinary action including

that of departmental inquiry into aforesaid charges levelled

against him. The date, time and place of the inquiry will be

intimated directly by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary

Authority in due course. If Shri Shetty so desires he may

submit his explanation in the matter directly to the Enquiry

Officer/Disciplinary Authority .

Sd/-

Disciplinary Authority"

2302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and being not satisfied with the reply Domestic Enquiry

was initiated by appointing Sh. S.N. Mehra as Enquiry

Officer and Sh. S. Ramaswamy, Deputy Manager as

Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer stating that CSE/I

Party voluntarily made confession of the charges gave his

findings the charge being proved. On the basis of that

finding the Disciplinary Authority affording an opportunity

of hearing to the CSE/I Party by his order dated 07.04.1999

imposed the punishment of Dismissal from Service and on

appeal by the CSE to Appellate Authority/Deputy General

Manager(P) since he confirmed the same by his order dated

12.11.1999, the CSE approached ALC(C), Mangalore and

he submitted FOC dated 29.08.2003 it resulted in this

reference.

7. Since this tribunal has held the Domestic Enquiry

conducted by the II party by the 1 Party is not fair and

proper and received the evidence of both the sides on

merits, the points that now arises for my consideration are:

Point No. I: whether the II party proved the charges

levelled against the I Party?

Point No. II: If yes, whether the punishment of Dismissal

from service is disproportionate?

Point No. III: What order/Award?

8. According to the management II Party it received a

complaint from Sh. Kunhi Monu the SB Account Holder

No. 6160 at its Bunder, Mangalore Branch dated 10.02.1998

alleging that since 02.07.1994 he has been maintaining SB

Account No. 6160 and that he used to send amount through

Mr. Satish Shetty (CSE/I Party) to credit into his account

and when there was much balance in his account as per

advise of Sh. Satish Shetty he requested to transfer Rs.

10000.00 to Fixed Deposit Account and subsequently on

12.08.1996 he was informed by Mr. Satish Shetty that the

FD of Rs. 10000.00 being renewed for Rs. 11100.00 and

subsequently by Rs. 18000.00 on 17.11.1997 and he also

informed that a sum of Rs. 22000.00 being credited to his

SB Account on 17.11.1997 and on that day when he verified

his passbook entries with the ledger entries he could not

see any debit or credit in his account and on verification of

that complaint since it was observed that 112 entries of

payments being made in the handwriting of the I Party in

the passbook but as per the ledger entries there were only

13 transactions and on enquiry with the I Party he refunded

Rs. 25000.00 through Sundry Deposit Credit voucher dated

14.02.1998 and thereby admitted having issued forged FDs

etc. The I Party except that he did introduce Sh. Kunhi

Monu at the time of opening the SB Account having denied

all other allegations the evidence of Sh. Kunhi Monu alone

could have established the charges alleged against the I

Party. The II Party did not make any attempt to examine him

and rest contended on the evidence of the then Branch

Manager Sh. Chandrasekhar Moolya. Even the II Party

failed to bring on record the evidence of handwriting expert

to substantiate/prove the allegation that the entries in the

pass book issued to Sh. Kunhi Monu and the FD receipts

issued his favour were being in the handwriting of the I

Party/CSE. Of course, the I Party who filed the affidavit of

Sh. Kunhi Monu on 29.08.2012 though failed to examine

him on oath that cannot go to the rescue of the II Party on

whom the burden of proving the charge was lying heavily.

Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that

II Party miserably failed to substantiate the first charge.

9. As far as Charge No. 2 that I Party had issued a Cheque

bearing No. 134013 for Rs. 3450.00 favouring Sh. Tyre Trely

and the same returned for not maintaining sufficient balance

on 04.03.1998 rest contended by producing a memorandum

of Union Bank of India dated 04.03.1998 for returning

cheque bearing No. 134013 for Rs. 3450.00 and extract of

SB Account No. 2799 standing in the name of K Satish

Chandra Shetty/I Party but on reading these two

documents it is not possible to make out the Memorandum

being in relation to the cheque issued by I Party on his

account No. 2799 with Union Bank of India. Under the

circumstanes, I am also of the opinion that II Party failed to

substantiate the second charge as well.

10. In view of my finding that II Party failed to

substantiate the charges levelled against the I Party the

punishment of Dismissal imposed do not sustain and he is

entitle for reinstatment. Since the evidence of I Party that

he is not gainfully employed after his dismissal from service

by the II Party being not rebutted by placing any positive

vidence except making bald suggestions in his cross-

examination that he is gainfully employed he is also entitle

for full backwages, continuity of service and all other

consequential benefits that he would have received in the

absence of the impugned punishment order of Dismissal.

In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

The action of the management of Union Bank of India in

dismissing the services of Shri Satishchandra Shetty,

workman of Union Bank of India, Bunder Branch,

Mangalore w.e.f. 13.07.1999 is not legeal and justified and

that he is entitle for reinstatment with full backwages,

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits

that he would have been entitle in the absence of the

impugned punishment order of Dismissal.

(Dictated U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 18th February, 2015)

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1061-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2303

U;k;ky; cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 25@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@90@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/90/2010 - IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560022

Dated

7th April, 2015

Present :

Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 25/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. Ravish Kumar,

The Manager (HR),

S/o K. V. Satyanarayana,

Synidicate Bank,

No. 1031/A, 8th Cross,

Nodal IR Cell,

K. R. Puram,

Regional Office,

Hassan-573201

Udupi

Appearances

I Party

Self

II Party

Sh. Ramesh Upadhayay

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/90/

2010-IR(B-II) Dated 27.05.2011 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section

2(A) of Section 10 Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on

Shri S Ravish Kumar, E. No. 431950, Stenographer by

the management of Syndicate Bank vide order No.

2521/ROM/PC/JBG dated 08/09/2008 is legal and

justified? What are the reliefs/compensation the

workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

25/2011 when notices were issued to both the parties, I

Party entered his appearance and filed claim statement on

22.06.2011 and II Party entered its appearance through Sh.

Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate and filed its counter

statement on 30.08.2011

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. Sh. S. Ravish Kumar (hereinafter referred as I Party)

while serving as Stenographer as Syndicate Bank

(hereinafter referred as II Party) Hussan (Main) Branch

was served with charge sheet dated 12.03.2007 as under:

"Charge Sheet

Your attention is drawn to letter No. 3243/ROM/COMP/

JBG dated 28.09.06 calling for your remarks on certain

iregularities/lapses observed against you and your letters

in response dtd. 8.11.2006 and 23.11.2006.

It has been now decided to proceed further in the matter

by charge sheeting you as under:

That you have been working as a Stenographer at our

Hssan (Main) Branch from 11.12.2000 to 05.09.2006. During

the period of your working as such there have been certain

serious allegations against you indicating that you resorted

to acts/omissions detrimental to the interst of the Bank in

addition to violating your duty/service conditions.

The following are athe circumstances appearing against

you in the matter.

1. That you were entrusted with the following duties in

the Office Order dated 16.04.2003.

From 10.30 AM to 2.30 PM

(a) Attending at May I

Help you counter

(b) Issue of withdrawal

slip

Opening forms

From 3.10 PM to 4.30 PM

(a) Typing

(b) Statements and any

other duties allotted from

time to time.

From 4.30 PM to 5.30 PM

(a) Outside duties for

canvassing business.

That you have maintained two accounts in the branch

i.e., SB a/c No. 34128 OD A/c 1193; that your wife Smt.

Gayathri K S has maintained a SB A/c bearing No. 43677 at

Hassan Main Branch; that your Co-brother Sri Shivaprakash

has maintained SB A/c No. 42322 at Hassan Main Branch.

II. That there has been a complaint from one Sri Deva

Gowda, customer of the branch (SB A/c No. 13335) on

27.04.2005 and thereafter a statment on 08.11.2005 alleging

2304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against you that—when he approached the branch on

07.09.2004 for making a FD on Rs. 32000/- in the name of his

grand daughter you told him not to invest in FD Scheme of

the Bank in the Branch as he would be getting monthly

income of Rs. 2000/- if he invests the said amount in a

scheme called National Federation of the Blind (NFB); You

prepared a challan for purchasing a Drat for Rs.31581/-

favouring NFB and ontained his signature for registering

his name with the Federation; he did not receive any

receipt either from you or from NFBI As he did not get any

money/receipt he approached/enquired with you about

refund of the money and you advised him not to talk about

the investment and sent him out of the branch: It had come

to his notice that you had sent the draft to NRF in your

wife's name instead of sending the same as per the scheme

by filling registration from in his name; when he met you

after five months again to clarify his Dounts you took him

to your house and opened your computer to show him his

name in the books of account of NFB but you could not

show him his name nor could get his name registered in

the NFB; you have been inducing Hassan Branch

Customers in the above said scheme in which you wife is

also one of the members and getting lakhs of rupees as

income and that you are resorting to mis-deeds and illegal

business as a Bank employee.

That there has been another complaint dtd 9.11.2005 by

one Smt. Nagamma (SB a/c No. 41347) alleging against

you that-she had availed a loan of Rs. 40000/-from the

branch under PDS on the basis of her salary; you assured

her that if she invests Rs. 31581/- out of the loan amount in

NFB, in which you wife is a member, she will get Rs. 15.00

lakhs from NFB; you sent the draft yourself to NFB assured

her that you will get the amount multiplied as stated above

but she did not get any money and thereby cheated her;

when she approached you, you also threatened her of dire

consequences.

That it has been informed by Sri C. B. Byre Gowda, SB

A/c No. 43754 that you canvassed him to be a member and

in turn Sri Byre Gowda had canvassed Donations from

Dr. R. Nagendra, Dy. Director, Veterinary Science, Hassan

and Sri S. P. Lakshme Gowda working at Veterinary Hospital,

Hassan and that Sri Byre Gowda closed his SB A/c as there

was some pressure from you to invest his savings and

earnings in in which your wife is involved; that you have

reportedly visited Nursing College at Hassan, Rajeev

Nursing Home and Many others such As Dr. Rajiv, Dr.

Rathna, Sri Manjunath, Sri Ghouse Khan, Sri C Byre Gowda,

etc., at their place and collected the Donation amounts.

III. As against the above it has been observed that:

(i) You have utilized the period of work not only for out

Door duties entrusted to you but used business/office

hours for canvassing business Donations from the branch

customers to NFB on behalf of your wife.

(2) SB A/c 43677 of your wife is briskly operated and

credit to the extent of Rs. 19.17 lakhs were received during

2004-05; almost all credit slips are in your handwritting

indicating that you are going business of canvassing

Donations to NFB from the customers of our Hassan

Branch in the name of your wife and crediting the amount

collected from the sutomers to your wife's account first

and then sending the DDs to the NFB your wife is operating

a SB a/c bearing No. 1164 at UTI, Bank, Hassan for receiving

commissions from NFB. As many as 148 DD challans are

found to be in your handwritting which account for DDS

worth Rs. 33.08 lakhs for a period of 16 months from Sept.

2003 to Dec. 2004 as furnished hereunder:

Sl.No.

No. of

Year

Month

Amount of DD

Slips

(Canvassed)

(Rs. in Lakhs)

2003

September

0.32

2003

October

1.16

2003

November

0.24

2003

December

0.94

2004

January

1.16

2004

February

3.10

2004

March

3.03

2004

April

1.21

2004

May

0.63

2004

June

0.47

2004

July

0.60

2004

August

0.81

2004

September

16.88

2004

October

0.65

2004

November

1.52

2004

December

3.36

Total

33.08

(3) You have mainly induced the existing as well as

prospective customer of the branch along with your co-

brother Sri Shivaprakash to purchase Drafts out of the

funds lying in SB/CA A/c or by tendering cash on reflected

in the monthwise remittance particulars furnsihed below

which amount to huge value of Rs. 56.68 lakhs within a

period of twenty months from September 2003 to July

2005:

Sl.No.

Year

Month

Amount of DD

(Canvassed)

(Rs. in Lakhs)

2003

September

1.39

2003

October

1.82

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2305

2003

November

0.65

2003

December

4.53

2004

January

1.96

2004

February

4.53

2004

March

5.43

2004

April

2.52

2004

May

1.48

2004

June

2.02

2004

July

2.13

2004

August

2.09

2004

September

21.80

2004

October

0.80

2004

November

2.63

2004

December

0.55

2005

January

0.21

2005

February

0.12

2005

June

0.02

2005

July

0.02

Total

56.08

(4) From the above it has been revealed that you have

been doing business of canvassing Donations of NFB in

the name of your wife in association with your co-brother.

There have been also withdrawals by transfer entries.

Cheques from the account of the customers for purchasing

drafts in favour of NFB. Sir Shivaprakash, your co-brother

has also been depositing huge amounts and purchasing

DDs in favours of NFB. The account numbers noted in the

draft issued challans were those pertaining to him (SB

42141) or to his wife Smt. Latha (SB A/c 42322) and you

used to introduce Branch customers to Smt. Latha for

canvassing Donations of NRF. In the process huge cash

and cheques were deposited in her account also.

(5) As per the correspondence relating to sharing the

commission received from NEB for the Donations

canvassed, it has been observed that your wife Smt.

Gayathri K.S. has received commission of Rs. 1035485/- for

the period from 01.09.2004 to 31.10.2004, Rs. 1035485/- for

the month of November 2004 and Rs. 116386/- for December

2004. She had been given Industrial Dispute No. 1092534

while you Industrial Dispute No. being 48130, your father's

(Shri Sathyanarayana) as 95256, you brother's (Shri Ambika

Prasad) as Industrial Dispute No. 100485 and your sisters

(Ms. Sudha) Industrial Dispute No. as 100404 thereby

showing that all your family members were doing the same

business.

(6) From the foregoing, it is also observed that your

wife has been maintaining the SB A/c in which huge cash

amounts were deposited apprently canvassed from the

Branch customers/outsiders, and DDs were sent to NFB

either by debiting her account or out of cash collected/

remitted to the branch with her name/account numbers in

the DD Slip, you were also depositing huge cash/cheques

in both your accounts other than the salary apparently

being the money collected from the customers/outsiders

for credit to you/your wife's account as a first step, to be

withdrawn later for purchase of DDs in the name of NFB in

which you wife is a member; Your family member i.e., wife

co-brother, father, brother and sister are doing this business

either independently or in the name of other family members

and sharing the commission; you had prepared DD

Challans, drafts (A/c. withdrawal slip) in respect of Sri Deva

Gowda/Smt. Nagama but instead of sending DD purchased

in their name, sent the same to NFB in the name of your

wife and thereby abused your official position and acted

detrimental to the interest of the Bank.

IV. The following are the irregularities/lapsed observed

against you in the matter:

a. You have been doing the business of collecting

Donations from the through the customers of our Hassan

Branch and earned incentive/illegal income of Rs. 2.71 lakhs

which is outside the scope of your employment/service

conditions.

b. There were unusual transaction in your SB and OD

A/cs and the amount transacted were huge and beyond

your salary and known source of income.

c. You prepared the loan Documents of Smt. Nagamma

(borrower) and lured her to invest the loan proceeds in the

scheme formulated by NFB and prepared a Demand Draft

of Smt. Nagamma (Loanee/complainant) and Shri Deve

Gowda (Depositor/Complainant) and sent the DDs to NFB

either to register the amount in your own name or in the

name of Smt. Gayathre K S your wife.

d. You have been doing the business of collecting

donations from the through the customers on behalf of

your other family members more particularly in your wife's

name who received huge incentive on Rs. 17.13 lakh till

date through she is basically a housewife without having

any specific/confirmed job or business to earn such huge

amount.

e. By doing the business of collecting the Donations

you have missed the official position/duties as marketing

staff of the Branch and diverted more than half a crore of

business of the Bank to NFB, an act which is not only

detrimental to the interest of the Bank but also violative of

your duty/service conditions.

Sl.No.

Year

Month

Amount of DD

(Canvassed)

(Rs. in Lakhs)

2306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The above lapses/irregularities being serious in nature

and the acts/omissions being highly objectionable amount

to misconducts under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement

(MOS) dtd. 10.04.2002.

You are therefore charged with the commission of gross

misconducts of—

"engaging in any trade or business outside the scope

of your duties except with the permission of the Bank"

vide clause No. 5(a) of MOS dt. 10.04.2002.

AND

"Doing any act prejudical to the interest of the Bank"

vide clause No. 5(i) of MOS dt. 10.04.2002.

A list of Documents and witness relied uponare annexed

hereto and copies of such Documents are enclosed.

You are requested to submit your explanation, if any, to

this charge sheet within 7 days of its receipt.

Your faithfully,

Sd/-

Asst. General Manager &

Disciplinary Authority"

5. Being not satisifed with the reply of the 1 Party dated

04.04.2007 the Disciplinary Authority while appointing Sh.

P Jagannatha Rao as Enquiry Officer and Sh. S. Sridhara

Rao as Presenting Officer vide order dated 21.04.2007

ordered to face him Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer

while securing the presence of CSE who appeared along

with Sh.S. B. Saiprakash as Defence Representative after

observing the formalities of preliminary hearing by consent

marked MEx- 1 to MEx - 257 the detailed description of

which are narrated in the Annexure, recorded the evidence

of Sh. H.D. Sherigar, Investigating Officer as MW 1 for the

management and marked DEx - 1 to DEx - 27 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure in the

cross-examination of MW 1 and statement of CSE

concluding the enquiry receiving the written briefs of both

the sides submitted his enquriy report dated 12.11.2007 all

charges are being proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority

while affording the opportunity of hearing imposed the

punishment of Dismissal from service and on appeal the

Appellate Authority as well giving an opportunity of

hearing confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority

and dismissed the appeal. Then the 1 Party approached

the ALC(C), Hubli and as he submitted FOC dated 23.08.2010

it resulted in this reference.

6. On completion of the pleadings having regard to the

certain allegations made in the claim statement while raising

a Preliminary issus as to

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"

after receiving the evidence of both the sides the same has

been answered in Affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry

held against the I Party by the II Party being fair and proper

by order dated 12.09.2012 and thereafter the I Party by

filing his affidavit led evidence being not gainfully employed

after his Dismissal from Service the points that now arises

for my consideration are:

POINT NO. I: Whether the I Party demonstrates the

finding of the Enquriy Officer the charge are proved being

perverse necessitating the interference of this tribunal?

POINT NO. II: If not, whether the punishment of

Dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and

affirmed by the Appellate Authority are proportionate to

misconduct proved agaisnt I Party?

POINT NO. III: What Order/Award?

7. After the I Party led evidence being not gainfully

employed and counsel for II Party submitted that he has

no rebuttal evidence, I Party filed his written arguments

whereas the learned advocate appearing for the II Party

addressed his oral arguments.

8. On appreciation of the charges levelled against the I

Party with the oral and Documentary evidence placed on

record in the Domestic Enquriy and the evidence of the I

Party being not gainfully employed in the light of the

arguments put forward by both the sides, my finding on

Point No. 1 is in the affirmative and Point No. II and III are

as pre final order for the following

REASONS

9. POINT NO. I: It is the specific case of the II Party that

on a complaint dated 27.04.2005 received from

Sh. Devegowda an SB Account Holder bearing No. 13335

alleging that when he had been to the Bank for making a

Fixed Deposit of Rs. 32000.00 in the name of his Grand-

Daughter the I Party telling him not to invest in FD with the

II party Bank and that the would be getting monthly income

of Rs. 20000.00 if he invests the said amount in a Scheme

called National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and prepared

a challan for purchasing a draft for Rs. 31581.00 in his name

favouring NFB and obtained his signature for registering

his name with NFB and as he did not receive any receipt

either from I Party or from NFB he asked the I Party to

refund the money and inturn he advised him not to talk

about the investment and sent him out of the branch and

that it has come to his notice I Party had sent the draft to

NFB in his wife's name instead of sending the same as per

the scheme by filling the registration form in his name and

again met the I Party after five months to clarify his

doubts he took to his house to show him in

the books of account of NFB in his computer but

did not show him his name in the books of account

of NFB in his computer but the I Party could not show

him his name nor his name registered in NFB and

he has been inducing Hassan Branch customers to invest

money in the said Scheme wherein his wife is also one of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2307

the member and getting lakhs of Rupees as income and

subsequently another complaint dated 09.11.2005 of Similar

nature by Smt. Nagamma SB Account Holder No 41347

and another SB holder Sh. C. Byregowda, A/c No. 43754

also informed that being canvassed by I Party he arranged

for Donations from Dr. R Nagendra, Deputy Director,

Veterinary Science, Hassan; Sh. S P Lashme Gowda, working

at Veterinary Hospital and he too closed his SB Account

and invested his savings in that Scheme, getting

investigated through Sh. H.D. Sherigar, this charge sheet

came to be issued, the Enquiry Officer only on examination

of Sh. H.D. Sherigar, Investigating Officer and with consent

of the Defence Representative exhibiting 257 documents

as MEx-1 to MEx-257 for the management which do consist

of several alleged complaints and statement of the Bank

Customers complaining inducement by the I Party to divert

their investment in the NFB Scheme without the

examination of the primary witnesses concluded the charges

being proved. When it is the case of the II party that initially

on a written complaint received from a SB Account Holder

Sh. Devegowda they started investigation and later another

complaint dated 09.11.2005 by Smt. Nagamma and oral

information by Sh. Byregowda, holder of SB A/c No.45334

were recived in the absence of the examination of such

primary witnesses i.e., complainants and the other

customers said to have came out with a version that they

were induced by the I Party to divert their investment and

investment to be made in the II Party Bank towards NFB

Scheme being not at all testified only on the statement of

the Investigation Officer they have stated before him in

such a fashion ought not to have been relied upon. The

fact that certain bank customers were induced by the

I Party to divert their investment and investments to be

amde in the II Party bank towards NFB Scheme by the

I Party it is a matter that could be spoken to only by such

customers and the evidence of the Investigating Officer

that they have confirmed before him during the

investigation being induced to divest their investment

cannot be a primary evidence and could not be believed in

the absence of such complainants and informers testified

themselves in the enquiry. Only because some of the

challans for obtaining the DD, loan Documents of some of

the customers are in the handwriting of the I Party it cannot

be concluded that he induced such customers to divest

their investment and investments to be made in the II Party

bank towards NFB Scheme. Since it is the version of the II

Party itself he who was entrusted with the duties of

attending at 'May I Help You counter, issue of withdrawal

slip, filling SB a/c opening forms in the first hour of the

bank it is natural when customers approach him at the Help

Desk he may have helped them in filling the challans for

DD; account opening forms etc., as such because certain

withdrawal slips, challans for obtaining the DD, loan

documents of some of the customers are found in the

handwriting of I Party the same cannot be made use of to

conclude that he induced them to divert their investment

or investment to be made in the II Party towards the NFB

Scheme. In the present case though the CSE/Defence

Reprentative made a request to make them available the

alleged customers for cross-examination it was denied by

the Enquiry Officer, therefore, he proceeding to hold the

charge as proved based on the sole version of Sh. H.D.

Sherigar claims to have investigated into the matter is

baseless and perverse. In the result, I arrive at conclusion

of answering this point in the Affirmative.

10. POINT No. II & III: In view of my finding on Point

No. I, the punishment of Dismissal imposed against the

I Party based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer since

DD not sustain the I Party is enttitle for Reinstatement into

Service. The I Party having given evidence that he is not

gainfully employed after his Dismissal from Service, except

bald suggestion in his cross-exmination that he has been

gainfully employed no Positive evidence being brought

on record either circumstantial or direct to believe that he

has been gainfully employed in my opinion he is entitle for

full backwages and all other consequential benefits his

reinstatement. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The Punishment of Dismissal imposed on Shri S. Ravish

Kumar, E. No. 431950, Stenographer by the management of

Syndicate Bank Vide order No. 2521/ROM/PC/JBG dated

08.09.2008 is not legal and justified and that he is entitle for

reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of Service

and all other consequential benefits that he would have

been entitle in the absence of the impugned punishment

order.

(Dictated to U.D.C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 7th April 2015)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE

MANAGEMENT IN DOMESTIC ENGUIRY

MEx-1

Personal profile of Sri S. Ravish Kumar

MEx-2

Certified Xerox copy of Attendance

of November, 2005 in respect of officer

employees

MEx-3

Certified Xerox copy of Attendance

of November, 2005 in respect of workman

employees

MEx-4

Certified Xerox copy of Staff Card of

Sri S. Ravish Kumar, Stenographer, Emp.

No. 431954 of Hassan Branch

2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-5

Certified Xerox copy of Office Order

book-Part III dt.16.4.03

MEx-6

Xerox copy of hand-out regarding

National Federation of the Blind

MEx-7

Original deposition dt. 8.11.2005 of Sri

Dave Gowda

MEx-8

Statement of SB A/c No. 13335 of Sri

Dave Gowda

MEx-9

Certified Xerox copy of OD slips dt.

8.9.04 for-Rs. 15670/-, 2DD slips dtd.

9.9.04 of Rs. 31646/- and Rs.285843/-

respectively favouring The National

Federation of the Blind and cheque No.

92933 dt. 9.9.04 for Rs. 285843/- of

Smt. Gayathri and DD slip dated 13.9.2004

for Rs. 24196/- favouring The National

Federation of the Blind

MEx-10

Original deposition dt. 9.11.2005 of Smt.

Nagamma

MEx-11

Certified Xerox copy of letter dt. 6.9.04

of Hassan Branch to UES PU College,

Hassan along with Salary Certificate dt.

1.9.04 of Sri. Ganesh A.H., Lecture, AHG

PU College, Hassan and Certificate dt.

1.9.04 of Smt. Nagamma, letter employer's

letter regarding Smt. Nagamma, Process

Note dt. 7.9.04 application for advance

of Sri Ganesha, Annexure 2 from Sri A.H.

Ganesha dt. 9.9.04, ASD-6 dt.9.9.04

executed by Sri Ganesha, Annexure 1 of

Smt. Nagamma dt. 9.9.04:-80, Schedule

III, loan Documents executed by Smt.

Nagamma, OG-28 of Smt. Nagamma, BCS

MEx-12

Certified Xerox copy of Office order

book-Page 73 (w.e.f. 16.9.05)

MEx-13

Statement of SB A/c No. 41347 of

Smt. Nagamma

MEx - 14

Certified Xerox copy of withdrawal slip

no. 770839 dt. 7.9.04 for Rs. 31651/- of Sri

Dave Gowda of 2 DD slips dt. 7.9.04 for

Rs. 31651/- and Rs. 7072/- respectively

favouring The National Federation of

the Blind

MEx - 15

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

29.10.03 for Rs. 1064/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dtd.

29.10.2003

MEx - 16

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

18.3.2004 for Rs. 2630/- (iii) slip dtd. Nil

for Rs. 21196/-, (iii) slip dtd. 18.3.2004 for

Rs. 42392/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dt. 18.3.2004

MEx - 17

Statement of SB A/c. No. 34128 of Sri

Ravish Kumar S. with Hassasn Branch

MEx - 18

Statement of OD A/c 1193 of Sri Ravish

Kumar, Hassan Branch

MEx - 19

Orgl. deposition dt. 12.11.2005 of Sri

Ravish Kumar, Emp. No. 431954,

Stenographer

MEx - 20

Joint Visit report dated 12.11.2005

MEx - 21

Statement of SB A/c. No. 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri with Hassan Branch

MEx - 22

Certified Xerox copy of credit slip dt.

29.1.2004 for Rs. 40000/- to SB A/c No.

43577 of Smt. M.S. Gayathri

MEx - 23

Certified Xerox copy of OG 72/73 dt.

22.1.04 for Rs. 29222/- to of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 24

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dt.

NIL for Rs. 25600/- to SB 43677 of

Smt. K.S. Gayathri

MEx - 25

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dt.

12.2.2004 for Rs. 3000/- to SB 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 26

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dt.

9.3.04 for Rs. 20000/- to SB 43677 of

Smt. K.S. Gayathri

MEx - 27

Certified Xerox copy of OG 72/73 dt.

10.3.04 for Rs. 21,564/- to SB 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 28

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dt.

5.4.04 for Rs. 13000/- to SB A/c. 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 29

Certified Xerox copy of Credit Slip dt.

27.04.2004 for 11000/- to SB A/c. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 30

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

28.04.2004 for Rs. 10,000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 31

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

30.4.2004 for Rs. 20,000/- to SB A/c. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 32

Certified Xerox copy of OG 72/73 dt.

8.6.04 for Rs. 50886 to SB A/c No. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

Mex-33

Certified Xerox copy of Credit Slip dt.

9.6.04 for 55000/- to SB A/c No. 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2309

MEx - 34

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

9.8.04 for 32220/- to SB A/c No. 43677 of

Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 35

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

9.6.04 for Rs. 30,000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 36

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

23.6.04 for Rs. 40000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 37

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

28.7.04 for Rs. 40000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 38

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

Nil for Rs. 49900/- to SB A/c. No. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 39

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

2.9.04 for Rs. 40000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 40

Certified Xerox copy of OG/19 dtd.

15.9.04 for Rs. 18149/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 41

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

20.9.04 for Rs. 85,000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 42

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

Nil for Rs. 45000/- to SB Ale. No. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 43

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

Nilfor Rs. 45000/- to SB A/c. No. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 44

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

20.9.04 for Rs. 115000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 45

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip No.

21.09.04 for Rs. 47000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 46

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

21.9.04 for Rs. 40000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 47

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

28.9.04 for Rs. 20000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 48

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

30.10.04 for Rs. 20000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 49

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

10.11.04 for Rs. 40100/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 50

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

10.11.04 for Rs. 49900/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 51

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

29.11.04 for Rs. 73,000/- to SB Alc. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 52

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

Nil for Rs. 830001/- to SB A/c No. 43677

of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 53

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

15.3.05 for Rs. 100000/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 54

Certified Xerox copy of Credit slip dtd.

31.3.05 for Rs. 10600/- to SB A/c. No.

43677 of Smt. Gayathri

MEx - 55

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

11.9.03 for Rs. 1064/- favouring National

Federation of the Blind along with extract

of DDs issue register dt/ 11.9.03

MEx - 56

Certified Xerox copy of OD slip dtd.

19.09.03 for 48432/- and DD slip dtd.

19.09.03 for Rs. 481201/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind-along

with extract of DD issue Register dtd.

19.9.2003

MEx - 57

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

22.8.03 for Rs. 271.00 favouring National

Federation for the blind along with DD

Issue Register dt. 22.9.2003

MEx - 58

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

24.09.03 favouring National Federation

for the blind for Rs. 4979/- along with

Certified Xerox copy of DD Issue

MEx - 59

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

26.09.03 for Rs. 316611-Fvg National

Federation for the Blind along with OD

Issue register extract dtd. 26.9.03

MEx - 60

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

27.09.2003 for Rs. 1,325/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with Certified Xerox copy of Demand

Draft Issue Register dt. 27.9.2003

MEx - 61

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

29.09.2003 for Rs. 3152/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with Certified Xerox copy of DD issue

MEx - 62

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

01.10.2003 for Rs. 14654/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

2310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with Certified Xerox copy of Demand

Draft Issue Register dt. 1.10.2003

MEx - 63

Certified Xerox copy of Demand Draft

Issue Register dt. 8.10.2003 together with

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

8.10.03 for Rs. 105081- and DD Slip dt.

8.10.2003 for Rs. 783/- favouring National

Federation of the Blind

MEx - 64

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

9.10.2003 for Rs. 1064/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

9.10.2003

MEx - 65

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

11.10.03 for Rs. 28422/-favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dated

11.10.2003

MEx - 66

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dtd.

20.10.03 for Rs. 95 196/- (2) DD slip dtd.

20.10.2003 for Rs. 7163/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind and (i)

cheque No. 76395 dtd. 20.10.03 for Rs.

95196/- and (2) cheque No. 76396 dtd.

20.10.2006 for Rs. 7163 favouring

"yourselves " along with DD issue

MEx - 67

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

23.10.03 for Rs. 6811/- favouring National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dtd. 23.10.2003

MEx - 68

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

NILfor Rs. 5245/-favouring National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dtd. 27.10.2003

MEx-69

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

28.10.03 for Rs. 11248/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with, withdrawal slip dt. 28.10.2003 for

Rs. 12565/- of Smt. Sujatha N along with

DD Issue Register extract dtd. 28.10.2003

MEx-70

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

4.11.2003 for Rs. 5767/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

4.11.2003

MEx-71

Certified Xerox copy of (a) Withdrawal

slips dt. 6.11.03 for Rs. 3152/- Smt.

Kumudha S (b) DD, slips dated 6.11.03

for Rs. Rs. 4196/-. (c) slip dt. 6.11.2003

for Rs. 3152/- and (d) slip dtd. 26.11.03

for Rs. 3152/- favouring National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dtd. 6.11.2003

MEx-72

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

11.11.2003 for Rs. 10467.50/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

11.11.2003

MEx-73

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

13.11.2003 for Rs. 94211- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

13.11.2003

MEx-74

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

15.11.2003 for Rs. 4457/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

15.11.2003

MEx-75

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

17.11.03 for Rs. 4718/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

17.11.2003.

MEx-76

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips (I)

dated 14.11.03 for Rs. 3152 and (ii)

18.11.2003 for Rs. 15700/- favouring

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD ISsue Register extract dtd.

18.11.2003

MEx-77

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

05.12.20003 for Rs. 31661 favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

5.12.2003

MEx-78

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dated

06.12.03 for Rs. 7067/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

6.12.2003

MEx-79

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd. Nil

for Rs. 7072 and (ii) slip dtd. 8.12.2003

for Rs. 6207/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dtd. 8.12.2003

MEx-80

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

12.02.2003 for Rs. 2103/- and (ii) slip dtd.

9.12.2003 for rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dtd.

9.12.2003

MEx-81

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd.

10.12.2003 for Rs. 9682/- favouring the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2311

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

10.12.2003

MEx-82

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

12.12.2003 for Rs. 14126/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

13.12.2003

MEx-83

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

13.12.2003 for Rs. 14132 and slip dt.

13.12.2003 for Rs. 5245 favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

15.12.2003

MEx-84

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

15.12.2003 for Rs. 10478/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

15.12.2003

MEx-85

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

16.12.2003 for Rs. 5245/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

16.12.2003

MEx-86

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

17.12.2003 for Rs. 5245/- and (ii) Slip

dated 17.12.2003 for Rs. 7072/- favouring

the National Federation of the Blind

along with DD Issue Register extract dt.

17.12.2003

MEx-87

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

19.12.2003 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

19.12.2003

MEx-88

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

22.12.2003 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

22.12.2003

MEx-89

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

23.12.2003 for Rs. 11514/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

23.12.2003

MEx-90

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- and (ii) Slip dated

27.12.2005 for Rs. 17532/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

27.12.2003

MEx-91

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

30.12.2003 for Rs. 7855/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

30.12.2003

MEx-92

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 2630/- and slip dt. 31.12.2003 for

Rs. 7855/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dt. 31.12.2003

MEx-93

Certified Xerox copy of DD Issue

MEx-94

Certified Xerox copy of DD Issue

MEx-95

Certified Xerox copy of DD Issue

MEx-96

Certified Xerox copy of DD Issue

MEx-97

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

01.01.2004 for Rs. 5245 favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

01.01.2004

MEx-98

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 20933/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

Issue Register extract dt. 3.1.2004

MEx-99

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 1064/- and (ii) slip dtd. Nil for

5.1.2004 Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD Issue Register extract dt.

3.1.2004

MEx-100

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 1064/- and (ii) slip dtd. Nil for Rs.

3679/- and (iii) Slip dtd. No. for Rs. 7047/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD Issue Register

extract dt. 6.2.2004

MEx-101

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

14.1.2004 for Rs. 35307/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

14.1.2004

MEx-102

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

19.1.2004 for Rs. 15436/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

19.1.2004

MEx-103

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 28768/-, (ii) slip dt. 23.1.04 for

2312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs. 20933/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind, (iii) withdrawal

slip dt. 23.1.2004 for Rs 28768/- of SB

A/c No. 41436 along with DD issue

MEx-104

Certified Xerox copy of DD Ssip dt. NIL

for Rs. 2108/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 27.2.2004

MEx-105

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. NIL

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 28.1.2004

MEx-106

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. NIL

for Rs. 18308/- (ii) slip dtd. Nil for

Rs. 793/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind (iii) withdrawal

slip dtd. 29.1.2004 for Rs. 18308/- of SB

A/c. No. 41436 along with DD issue

MEx-107

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

05.12.2003 for Rs. 31661/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

5.12.2003

MEx-108

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. NIL

for Rs. 21185/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind (ii) withdrawal

slip No. 112368 dt. 31.1.2004 for

Rs. 21185/- of SB 42141 along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 31.1.2004

MEx-109

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

05.02.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

05.02.2004

MEx-110

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. NIL

for Rs. 41805/- (ii) slip dtd. NIL for Rs.

10729/- (iii) slip dt. Nil for Rs. 41865/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 9.2.2004

MEx-111

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

10.2.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

10.2.2004

MEx-112

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. NIL

for Rs. 20922/- (ii) Slip dtd. 11.2.2004 for

Rs. 1064/- (iii) withdrawal slip dt.

11.2.2004 for Rs. 20922 of SB A/c No.

32246 favouring the National Federation

of the Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 11.2.2004

MEx-113

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

12.02.2004 for Rs. 10468/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

12.02.2004

MEx-114

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

17.2.2004 for Rs. 798/- (ii) slip dtd.

17.2.2004 for Rs. 28261/- (iii) slip dtd.

17.2.2004 for Rs. 10465/- (iv) slip dated

17.2.04 for Rs. 7072/- (v) slip dated nil for

Rs. 1325/- (vi) slip dated 17.2.04 for Rs.

1586/- favouring the National Federation

of the Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 17.2.2004

MEx-115

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 28261 (ii) slip dtd. Nil for Rs.

42392/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 19.2.2004

MEx-116

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

20.2.2004 for Rs. 28261/- (ii) slip dt.

20.2.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (iii) slip dt. 20.2.04

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 20.2.2004

MEx-117

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

23.4.2004 for Rs. 21196/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

23.2.2004

MEx-118

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

25.2.2004 for Rs. 28261/- (ii) slip dtd.

25.2.2004 for Rs. 14654/- and (iii) slip dtd.

25.2.2004 for Rs. 35307/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

25.2.2004

MEx-119

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

26.2.2004 for Rs. 1064/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

26.2.2004

MEx-120

Certified Xerox copy of DD Slip dt.

27.2.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (ii) slip dtd. dtd.

Nil for Rs. 2630/- slip dtd. 27.2.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (iii) slip dt. 27.2.2004 for Rs.

7072/- favouring the National Federation

of the Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 27.2.2004

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2313

MEx-121

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 28.2.2004

MEx-122

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 1.3.04

MEx-123

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

03.04.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (ii) slip dated

3.4.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (iii) slip dtd.

3.3.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract

dt. 3.03.2004

MEx-124

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 1064/- (ii) slip dated 05.03.2004

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 05.03.2004

MEx-125

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

05.03.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (ii) slip dated

5.3.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract

dt.05.03.2004

MEx-126

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

06.03.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract

dt. 06.03.2004

MEx-127

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip No.

107382 dt. 03.03.2004 for Rs. 42368/- of

SB A/c No. 4241, DD slip dt. 09.03.2004

for Rs. 49429/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 09.03.2004

MEx-128

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip No.

107256 dt. 09.03.2004 for Rs. 49429/- of

SB 42141, DD slip dt. 09.03.04 for

Rs. 49429/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 09.03.2004

MEx-129

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 10.03.2004

MEx-130

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 21196 (ii) slip dt. 11.03.2003 for

Rs. 7072/- and slip dtd. Nil for Rs. 14132/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 11.03.2004

MEx-131

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

13.03.2004 for Rs. 35307/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

13.03.2004

MEx-132

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 2108/- (ii) slip dtd. 15.03.2003 for

Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 15.03.2004

MEx-133

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

05.12.2003 for Rs. 31661/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

5.12.2003

MEx-134

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dtd. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- (ii) slip dtd. 19.3.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (iii) slip dtd. 19.03.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (iv) slip dtd. 19.03.2004 for

Rs. 7072/-(v) slip dtd. 19.3.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (vi) slip dtd. 19.3.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (vii) slip dtd. 19.3.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 19.03.2004

MEx-135

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip

dt.22.3.2004 for 14132/- and Rs. 7072/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 27.03.2004

MEx-136

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

23.3.2004 for Rs. 7072/-, Rs. 803/- Rs. 1325

and Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 23.03.2004

MEx-137

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

24.3.2004 for Rs. 1064/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

24.03.2004

MEx-138

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

25.3.2004 for Rs. 7072/- and 21196/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 25.03.2004

MEx-139

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

26.3.2004 for Rs. 4196/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

26.03.2004

2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-140

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

30.3.2004 for Rs. 21196 and Rs. 1520/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 30.3.2004

MEx-141

Certified Xerox copy of DD issue

MEx-142

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- (ii) slip dt. 02.04.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (iii) slip dtd. 19.03.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (iv) slip dtd. 19.3.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- (v) slip dt. 2.4.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 2.4.2004

MEx-143

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

3.4.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt. 3.4.2004

MEx-144

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

10.04.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

10.04.2004

MEx-145

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

12.4.2004 for Rs. 7072/- (ii) dtd. Nil for

Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 12.04.2004

MEx-146

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

16.4.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

16.04.2004

MEx-147

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 17.04.2004

MEx-148

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 1064/- (ii) slip dt. 20.04.2004 for

Rs. 7072/-, (iii) Rs. 494449/- (iv) Rs. 7072/-

respectively for Rs. 31661 favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

20.04.2004

MEx-149

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

21.4.2004 for Rs. 7072/- and slip dtd. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 21.04.2004

MEx-150

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- slip dtd. 22.04.2005 for

Rs. 3935/- and slip dtd. Nil for Rs. 42390/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 27.04.2004

MEx-151

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072 (ii) slip dtd. Nil for Rs. 7072/-

and withdrawal slip dtd. 24.4.2004 for

Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 24.04.2004

MEx-152

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- cheque dtd. 27.4.2004 for

Rs. 14124/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 27.04.2004

MEx-153

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

05.05.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt. 5.5.2004

MEx-154

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 7.5.2004

MEx-155

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt. Nil

for Rs. 7072/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 10.05.2004

MEx-156

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

11.5.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

11.05.2004

MEx-157

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

13.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

13.05.2004

MEx-158

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

14.5.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favaouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

14.05.2004

MEx-159

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

15.05.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

15.05.2004

MEx-160

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

18.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2315

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

18.05.2004

MEx-161

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slip dt.

20.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

20.05.2004

MEx-162

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

24.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

24.05.2004

MEx-163

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

25.05.2004 for Rs. 21196/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

25.05.2004

MEx-164

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

26.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

26.05.2004

MEx-165

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

27.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

27.05.2004

MEx-166

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

28.05.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

28.05.2004

MEx-167

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

03.06.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

03.06.2004 of Arasikere Branch

MEx-168

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

5.06.2004 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

05.06.2004

MEx-169

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

10.06.2004 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

10.06.2004

MEx-170

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

15.06.2004 for Rs.7855/- (ii) for Rs. 28261/-

and Rs. 21185 respectively, favouring

the National Federation of the Blind

Cheque No. 85770 dt. 15.6.2004 for Rs.

21185/- along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 15.06.2004

MEx-171

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

16.06.2004 for Rs. 15700/- and Rs. 7072/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 16.06.2004

MEx-172

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

18.06.04 for Rs. 7850/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

18.06.04

MEx-173

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

21.06.04 for Rs. 10470/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

21.06.04

MEx-174

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

22.06.04 for Rs. 5245/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

22.06.04

MEx-175

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

23.06.04 for Rs. 2630/- (ii) for Rs. 3674/-

and (iii) for Rs. 7072/- respectively

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 23.06.2004

MEx-176

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

24.06.04 for Rs. 2630/- (ii) for Rs. 3674/-

and (iii) for Rs. 7072/- respectively

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 24.06.2004

MEx-177

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

25.06.04 for Rs. 5245/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

25.06.04

MEx-178

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slip dt.

26.06.04 for Rs. 7072/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

26.06.04

MEx-179

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

28.06.04 for Rs. 7072/- of SB A/C No.

41436, DD slid td. 28.06.04 for Rs. 7272/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 28.06.04

2316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-180

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

29.06.04 for Rs. 7072/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

29-6-04

MEx-181

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

02.07.04 for Rs. 7072/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

02.07.04

MEx-182

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

06.07.04 for Rs. 7072/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

06.07.04

MEx-183

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip

dt. 07.07.04 for Rs. 28261/-each (ii)

Rs. 21196/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 07.07.04

MEx-184

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slip dt.

08-07-04 for Rs. 7072/-favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

08.07.04

MEx-185

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

12.07.04 for Rs. 2630/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

12.07.04

MEx-186

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

13.07.04 for Rs. 1325/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

13.07.04

MEx-187

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slip dt.

15.07.04 for Rs. 5245/-, Rs. 7072/- and

Rs. 13085/- respectively favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

15.07.2003

MEx-188

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

17.07.04 for Rs. 2108/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

17.07.04

MEx-189

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slip dt.

19.07.04 for Rs. 2603/- and Rs. 21196/-

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind along with DD issue Register

extract dt. 19.07.04

MEx-190

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

20.07.04 for Rs. 4457/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

20.07.04

MEx-191

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

21.07.04 for Rs. 11775/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

21.07.04

MEx-192

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

24.07.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

24.07.04

MEx-193

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

26.07.04 for Rs. 2630/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

26.07.04

MEx-194

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

29.07.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

29.07.04

MEx-195

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

30.07.04 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

30.07.04

MEx-196

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

03.08.04 for Rs. 21196/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt. 3.8.04

MEx-197

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

04.08.04 for Rs. 314132/- 1661 favouring

the National Federation of the Blind

along with DD issue Register extract dt.

04.08.04

MEx-198

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

5.08.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

05.08.04 certified Xerox copy of 4 DD

slips dt. 09.08.04 for Rs. 21936/-,

Rs. 40100/-, Rs. 12233/- and Rs. 2630/-

respectively favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue register extract dt. 9.8.2004

MEx-199

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

10.08.04 for Rs. 5240/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

10.08.04

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2317

MEx-200

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

12.08.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

12.08.04

MEx-201

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

16.08.04 for Rs. 14132/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

16.08.04

MEx-202

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

18.08.04 for Rs. 30873/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

18.08.04

MEx-203

Certified Xerox copy of cheque No.

862654 dtd. 21.08.04 for Rs. 16694/- of

Sri Manjunath, DD slip dt. 21.08.04 for

Rs. 16694/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind along with DD

issue Register extract dt. 21.08.04

MEx-204

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

23.08.04 for Rs. 2630/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

23.08.04

MEx-205

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

25.08.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

25.08.04

MEx-206

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

31.08.04 for Rs. 7072/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind along

with DD issue Register extract dt.

31.08.04

MEx-207

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

2.09.04 for Rs. 16774/- (ii) slip dt. 6.9.04

for Rs. 31621, (iii) withdrawal slip No.

7700641 dt. 6.9.04 for Rs. 31651/- of SB

34750 of Sri H.G. Guruprasad favouring

the National Federation of the Blind

MEx-208

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

13.09.04 for Rs. 21196/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind

MEx-209

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

15.09.04 for Rs. 5245/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind

MEx-210

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slip dt.

15.09.04 for Rs. 14915/- (ii) 20.09.2004 for

Rs. 31661/- and 9943/- respectively

favouring the National Federation of the

Blind

MEx-211

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slip dt.

15.09.04 for Rs. 10468/- (ii) Rs. 200326/-

and Rs. 52305/- respectively and

withdrawal slips No. 573300 dt. 20.9.04

for Rs. 200326/- and Cheque No. 085487

dt. 20.9.04 for Rs. 52305/- of SB 31105 of

Sri Manjunath

MEx-212

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

20.09.04 for Rs. 110417/- fvg. the National

Federation of the Blind

MEx-213

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

21.09.04 for Rs. 404316/-, Rs. 580056/-,

Rs. 31661/- fvg. the National Federation

of the Blind

MEx-214

Certified Xerox copy of cheque No.

092934 dtd. 21.09.04 for Rs. 404316 issued

by Smt. Gayathri

MEx-215

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slip dtd

22.09.04 for Rs. 52305/-, (ii) Rs. 10465/-,

(iii) Rs. 28261/- favour the National

Federation of the Blind

MEx-216

Certified Xerox copy of Chqeue No.

092104 dt. 22.09.04 for Rs. 52305/- of SB

29548

MEx-217

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slip dt.

22.09.04 for Rs. 31661/-, Rs. 20850/-

favour the National Federation of the

Blind

MEx-218

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slip dt.

23.09.04 for Rs. 7078/- and Rs. 31669/-

favour the National Federation of the

Blind

MEx-219

Certified Xerox copy of 3DD slip dt.

23.09.04 for Rs. 2632/-, 31669/-, Rs. 33275/-

favour the National Federation of the

Blind

MEx-220

Certified Xerox copy of 3DD slips dated

Nil for Rs. 52305/- (ii) Rs. 10468/- and

slip dated 28.09.2005 Rs. 23033/- favour

the National Federation of the Blind.

MEx-221

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt. Nil

for Rs. 10471/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind with extract of

DD issue Register dt. 1.10.04

MEx-222

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

4.10.04 for Rs. 28269/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 04.10.04

2318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-223

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

6.10.04 for Rs. 26175/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 06.10.04

MEx-224

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

16.10.04 for Rs. 10471/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 16.10.04

MEx-225

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

18.10.04 for Rs. 4710/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt.

18.10.2004

MEx-226

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slips dt.

2.11.04 for Rs. 15921/-, (ii) Rs. 10179/-

and Rs. 52317/- respectively favouring

the National Federation of the Blind

along with extract of demand draft issue

MEx-227

Certified Xerox copy of 3 DD slips dt.

13.11.04 for Rs. 7075/- and slip dated

28.09.2005 Rs. 23033/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue register dt. 13.11.04

MEx-228

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

17.11.04 for Rs. 10471/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 17.11.04

MEx-229

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

19.11.04 for Rs. 7075/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 19.11.04

MEx-230

Certified Xerox copy of DD slip dt.

22.11.04 for Rs. 7858/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 22.11.04

MEx-231

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt. NIL

for Rs. 10471/- favouring the National

Federation of the Blind with extract of

DD issue Register dt. 23.11.04

MEx-232

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

26.11.04 for Rs. 9946/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 26.11.04

MEx-233

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

27.11.04 for Rs. 15704/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 27.11.04

MEx-234

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

29.11.04 for Rs. 116140/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind and

cheque No. 96323 dtd. 29.11.04 for

Rs. 116140/- of SB A/c No. 43677 along

with extract of DD issue register dt.

27.11.04

MEx-235

Certified Xerox copy of extract of DD

issue register dt. 18.12.04

MEx-236

Certified Xerox copy of extract of DD

issue register dt. 20.12.04

MEx-237

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

27.01.04 for Rs. 21202/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 27.01.05

MEx-238

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

01.02.05 for Rs. 7075/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 01.02.05

MEx-239

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dt.

23.02.04 for Rs. 5248/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 23.02.04

MEx-240

Certified Xerox copy of 2 DD slips dt.

20.06.05 for Rs. 2633/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue Register dt. 20.06.05

MEx-241

Certified Xerox copy of DD slips dtd.

14.07.05 for Rs. 2372/- favouring the

National Federation of the Blind with

extract of DD issue register dt. 14.07.05

MEx-242

Statement of SB A/c No. 42141 of

Sri Shiva Prakash M R

MEx-243

Statement of SB A/c No. 42322 of

Smt. K S Latha

MEx-244

Original deposition dt. 12.11.2005 of

Sri C B Byregowda

MEx-245

Xerox copy of letter regarding expenses

amount paid to partners for development

for the period from 1.9.2004 to 31.10.2004

MEx-246

Xerox copy of details of profits shared

between three partners

MEx-247

Xerox of details of profits shared

between three partners-Dec. 2004

MEx-248

Copy of statement showing details of

incentive for Payout Generated on

15.12.2004 (Page 1 of 4)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2319

MEx-249

Copy of statement showing details of

incentive for Payout Generated on

15.12.2004 (page 2 of 4)

MEx-250

Copy of statement showing details of

incentive for Payout Generated on

15.12.2004 (Page 3 of 4)

MEx-251

Copy of statement showing details of

incentive for Payout Generated on

15.12.2004 (Page 1 of 1)

MEx-252

Copy of statement showing details of

incentive for Payout Generated on

15.12.2004 (Page 4 of 4)

MEx-253

Xerox copy of address & Contact No. of

Smt. Gayathri K S and Sri K Venkat Rao

MEx-254

Original deposition 12.11.2005 of

Sri Lakshminarayana Rao, Senior Branch

Manager,Hassan Branch

MEx-255

Original letter No. 018 dated 30-01-06 of

Vigilance Unit, Delhi to Shri H.D.

Sherigar, Senior Manager (Vig),

Bangalore

MEx-256

Original letter No. HFB/SPWB dated

23.01.06 of National Federation of the

Blind to Sri Y H R M Prasad, Senior

Manager (Vig) Delhi

MEx-257

Copy of the complaint dt. 27.04.2005 of

Sri Byare Gowda

Documents exhibited on behalf of the CSE in Domestic

Enquiry

DEx-1

Photostat copy of receipt dt 25.09.2004

issued by National Federation of the

Blind

DEx-2

Photocopy of letter No. NFB/SPWB/

2007/B-1264 dt 25.07.2007 of NFB

DEx-3

Photocopy of Statement of Account of

SB No. 2888 of Sri Deve Gowda (Old No.

13335).

DEx-4

Photocopy of Statement of Account of

SB No. 13335 of Sri Deve Gowda

DEx-5

Photocopy of letter No. NFB/SPWB/

2007/B-3003 dt. 28.10.2006 of NFB

DEx-6

Photocopy of Ch. No. 256219 dt.

16.11.2005 of UTI Bank

DEx-7

Photocopy of Statement of Account of

SB No. 13335 of Sri Deve Gowda

DEx-8

Photocopy of letter No. NFB/SPWB/

2007/202 dt. 6.9.2007 of NFB

DEx-9

Photocopy of print out of Web site of

Syndicate Bank with complaint form

DEx-10

Photocopy of particulars of incentive

earned in the name of Sri S. Ravish

Kumar along with enclosures

DEx-11

Photocopy of particulars of incentive

earned in the name of Sri Satyanarayana

K V Along with enclosures

DEx-12

Photocopy of particulars of incentive

earned in the name of Smt. Sudha along

with enclosures.

DEx-13

Photocopy of particulars of incentive

earned in the name of Sri Ambika Prasad

along with enclosures

DEx-14

Photocopy of letter dt 4.12.2003 of

Sri S. Ravish Kumar regarding Low Cost

Deposit Campaign

DEx-15

Photocopy of letter dt. 05.12.2003 of

Hassan Branch regarding Low Cost

Deposit Campaign

DEx-16

Photocopy of letter dt. 14.05.2003 of RM,

RO: Mysore regarding deposit

canvassed

DEx-17

Photocopy of letter dt. 5.7.2004 of

Hassan Branch forwarding the

application of Sri S. Ravish Kumar

DEx-18

Photocopy of letter dt. 18.07.2002 of

Hassan Branch regarding recovery

recognition

DEx-19

Photocopy of letter dt. 10.11.2001 of

ZO: Bangalore to Sri Ravish Kumar

DEx-20

Photocopy of letter dt. 10.5.2004 of

Hassan Branch—Performance Report of

Sri Ravish Kumar.

DEx-21

Photocopy of letter dt. 27.12.2005 of

Sri S. Ravish Kumar regarding business

canvassed

DEx-22

Photocopy of letter dt. 25.11.2005 of

RO: Mysore regarding Deposit

Mobilisation

DEx-23

Photocopy of letter dt. 24.03.2006 of

Hassan Branch regarding business

canvassed by Ravish Kumar

DEx-24

Photocopy of letter dt. 6.3.2006 of

Sri S. Ravish Kumar regarding Low Cost

Deposit Campaign

DEx-25

Photocopy of letter dt. 15.7.2007 of

Sri S. Ravish Kumar regarding

convassing of business as on 31.03.07

2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

DEx-26

Photocopy of letter dt. 25.4.2007 of

Br. Manager of Hassan Branch

addressed to Sri S. Ravish Kumar

DEx-27

Photocopy of letter dt. 1.9.2007 of Sri S.

Ravish Kumar regarding special

Campaign of Deposit Mobilisation.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1062-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa dks chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Je

U;k;ky; cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 147@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@82@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 147/2007) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/82/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022

DATED

: 31st MARCH 2015

PRESENT

: SHRI S N NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

CR No. 147/2007

I Party

II Party

Shri L Shivanna,

The Dy. General Manager,

No. 35, Nagaraholenagar,

Syndicate Bank, Regional

Mahadeswara Main Road,

Office, Nodal Industrial

Sunkadakatte,

Relations Cell,

Viswaneedam Pt.

No.69, 9th Main, 3rd Block,

Bengaluru-91

Jayanagar, Bengaluru-11

Appearances :

I Party

Shri M T Nanaiah,

Advocate

II Party

Sh. Ramesh Upadhayay,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/82/

2007-IR(B-II) dated 24.10.2007 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-

Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following

Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate

Bank in dismissing Shri L Shivanna, Ex-Employee

(Employment No. 310358) is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

147/2007 when notice were issued to both the sides, I Party

entered his appearance through Sh. MT Nanaiah, Advocate

and filed his claim statement on 25.01.2008 and II Party

entered its appearance through Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya,

advocate and filed its counter statement on 11.10.2010.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be as under.

4. The I party while working as Attender at the II Party

Wilson Garden Branch was issued with Charge Sheet dated

02.05.2000 as under:

"Charge Sheet

You were working as an Attender at our Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore from 25.07.1979 to 29.04.1982 before you

were suspended from the services of the Bank vide

Proceedings No. 630/Da/65 DT 29.04.1982 of the Competent

Authority. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked vide

the Competent Authority's letter No. 272/S/DA/65/82 DT

29.01.1998 informing you that the revocation of suspension

is without prejudice to the right of the Bank to proceed

against you with disciplinary action.

While functioning in your position as such, during the

period between November 1981 and April 1982 with a

fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the Bank you

issued 37 cheques for a total amount of Rs 267500/- in the

names of various persons including yourself, even though

there was no sufficient funds in your Savings Bank Account

to honour the cheques. These persons deposited these

cheques in their Savings Banks Accounts in various Banks

in Bangalore. These Banks presented these cheques to

our Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore through clearing for

realization of the amounts. After the clearing operations,

the cheques were sent to the clearing section at our

Central Accounts Office, Bangalore for sorting out and

despatch to our various branches. During the material

period, you were representing out Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore at CAD in the clearing work. At CAO, you

pilfered these cheques and destroyed the same and thus

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2321

prevented out Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore from

verifying these cheques.

Since the cheques presented through clearing were not

returned, the various presenter banks allowed the

wirthdrawal of the amounts by the depositors. You

subsequently received these amounts from these persons,

and thus you cheated the Bank to the extent of

Rs. 267500/-.

Further, you with a fraudulent and dishonest intention

to cheat the Bank, had issued one Ch. No. 427321 dt.

10.04.1982 for Rs. 15000/- in your own name and signed by

you under a fictitious name and presented this cheque for

collection through your own SB A/c 9001 in Vijaya Bank,

Palace Guttahalli Branch Bangalore. You also issued another

CH No. 427323 Dt. 13.04.1982 for Rs. 11600/- in the name of

one Sri Y R Muniyappa, who presented this cheque

through his SB A/c 5633 in the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Rajajinagar, Bangalore. In both the above cases, the

cheques were detected and hence, no payment was made.

Thus, you have attempted to cheat the Bank to the extent

of Rs. 26600/-

Following circumstances appear on record in respect of

the above transactions:

I. In the matter of issuing Two cheques amounts

aggregating to Rs 26600/- in your name and in the name of

Y.R. Muniyappa drawn on Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore.

That you were entrusted with the duties connected to

the clearing work at the Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore

viz. carrying clearing outward cheques to CAO Bangalore

and bringing inward cheques drawn on the said branch.

Apart from these duties, you were assisting sorting of

cheques branch wise at CAO Bangalore.

While working as such, on 13.04.1992 you collected the

inward cheques drawn on our Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore along with the tape prepared by CAO Bangalore.

While handing over the said cheques at Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore along with the tape, two cheques, i.e.

CH No. 427321 Dt. 10.04.1982 FG yourself for Rs 15000/-

and CH No. 427323 Dt. 13.04.1982 FG Y.R.Muniyappa for

Rs 11600/- drawn on our Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore

were found lying on the floor near the clearing department

at the branch. The amount of these two cheques were not

included in the tape sent by CAO, in respect of inward

clearing cheques brought to the branch by you.

Both the above referred cheques were drawn on your

SB A/c 15533 at our Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore and

there was no sufficient balance in your SB A/c on that

date, i.e. Balance of Rs. 27.66 only was available. The CH

No. 427321 dt. 10.04.1982 for Rs. 15000/- signed by you

under a fictitious name was sent for collection through

your own SB A/c 9001 at the Vijaya Bank Palace Guttahalli

Branch Bangalore 560 003. The other CH 427323 dt.

13.04.1982 for Rs. 11600/- was issued by you in favour of

Y.R. Muniyappa, who presented this cheque through his

SB A/c 5635 at the Karnataka Bank Ltd., Rajajinagar Branch,

Banglore.

The above circumstances go to indicate that you with a

fraudulent and dishonest intention of deriving undue

pecuniary benefit at the cost of the Bank pilfered these two

cheques while sorting the cheques at CAD Bangalore.

thereby the above two cheques were not included in the

tape and thus, the total amount of presentation of cheques

on Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore was reduced by

Rs. 26600/- on 13.04.1982.

II. In the matter of issuing Cheques amounts aggregating

to Rs. 267500/- in the names of various persons including

yourself, even though there was no sufficient funds in

your SB A/c in other's SB A/c to honour these Cheques:

That you were entrusted with the duties of carrying

outward and inward clearing cheques of the branch to CAO

and vice versa during the period between November 1981

and April 1982. You were also assisting sorting of Cheques

Branch-wise at CAO Bangalore during the said period.

While working in your position as such, you with a

fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the Bank issued

37 cheques amounts aggregating to Rs. 267500/- in the

names of various persons including yourself even though

there was no sufficient funds in your SB A/c 15533, in SB

16765 of Shri L Ravindra, Attender of Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore, in SB A/c 17185 of Chikasiddiah, Attender of

Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore, SB A/c 13963 of

Mrs. Ashwathamma which was closed on 21.06.1980, 16230

of Sri Srikantegowda and SB 15754 of R Narasinga Rao, as

some of the cheques were pilfered by you from the cheques

books issued to the above-said account holders of Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore. The persons to whom the

Cheques were issued including yourself, deposited these

cheques in their SS accounts in various Banks/Branchs in

Bangalore and the same were presented in clearing by the

respective Banks/Branches through CAO Bangalore.

As you were sorting the cheques received in clearing at

CAO Bangalore, you with a dishonest intention of cheating

the Bank and to have wrongful gain at the cost of the Bank

surreptitiously removed these cheques and destroyed the

same. With the result, the said cheques were not included

in the inward clearing schedule (amount of cheques taped

at CAD) pertaining to Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore.

As such, the said branch was prevented by you from

verifying these cheques. Since the said cheques presented

through clearing could not be returned to the respective

presenting branches/banks, because you pilfered the same,

the concerned presenting banks allowed withdrawal against

the credit of these cheques. You received the amounts of

such cheques subsequently from the persons to whom

you fraudulently issued the cheques and thus cheated the

Bank to the extent of Rs 267500/- and derived pecuniary

gain at the cost of the Bank.

2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The details of the Cheques fraudulently issued by you

in favour of various persons known to you including

yourself are as under:

Sl.

Name of the Payee

SB A/c Amounts of Name of the

No.

of the Cheque

Bank/Branch

payee

L Shivanna (Yourself) 9001

15000.00

Vijaya Bank, P G

Halli Bangalore

B K Shivanna

18420 37000.00

Canara Bank

Vyalikaval

Branch

Bangalore

Srikantegowda

18495 11000.00

Canara Bank

Vyalikaval

Branch

Bangalore

-do-

6058

31000.00

SBM Vyalikaval

Branch Bangalore

H K Bettaiah

13942 13000.00

Canara Bank

Vyalikaval

Branch

Bangalore

H K Puttamadaiah

3338

20000.00

SBM

Madhavnagar

Branch

Bangalore

B K Mangalamma

4621

25000.00

Indian Bank,

Chamrajpet

Bangalore

Y R Muniyappa

5635

20000.00

Karnataka Bank

Rajajinagar

Bangalore

T Devendra Reddy

8942

51500.00

Canara Bank,

Byatarayana-

pura Bangalore

10.

N Thas

551

39000.00

Bank of Baroda

Sadashivnagar

Bangalore

11.

C K Channaiah and

842

5000.00

New Bank of

Smt. Narasamma

India

Malleswaram

Bangalore

Total

267500.00

Following circumstances appear on record in respect of

the above transactions:

1. In the matter of issuing a Cheque for Rs. 15000/- in

your favour and lodging the same for collection at Vijaya

Bank P G Halli Branch Bangalore for the credit of SB A/c

9001 opened with them:

You pilfered a Cheque leaf bearing No. 438607 from the

Cheque Book 438601 to 610 issued to SB 16765 of Sri L

Ravindra on 28.12.1981, Attender working at Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore and fraudulently issued the same in your

favour and lodged the same for collection at Vijaya Bank

Palace Guttahalli Branch Bangalore for the credit of your

SB A/c 9001. The said Cheque was presented through

clearing on 08.04.1982 by the said Bank, crediting Rs. 15000

to your said SB A/c. Since you were assisting sorting the

cheques at CAO Bangalore, you surreptitiously removed

the cheque and destroyed the same before the same was

listed at CAO Bangalore for presenting the same to Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore. In the normal course, the said

Cheque would have been returned for want of sufficient

funds by Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore on presentation,

and Vijaya Bank would not have given credit to your A/c.

But since you pilfered the cheque, the same could not be

returned to Vijaya Bank.

Thereafter, on 10.04.1982 you withdrew Rs. 1000/- from

Vijaya Bank P G Halli Branch through cheque No. 796451.

Again on 11.04.1982, you withdrew Rs. 5000/- through CH

No. 796452. Thus, you fraudulently gained pecuniary

benefit of Rs. 15000/- at the cost of the Bank.

2. In the matter of issuing 4 Cheques aggregating to

Rs. 37000/- in favour of Sri B K Shivanna, SB 18420 opened

with Canara Bank Vyalikaval Branch Bangalore.

That Sri B K Shivanna working at Tata Institute, No. 2,

Bungalow, Bangalore 3 opened SB 18420 with Canara Bank

Branch Bangalore on 02.01.1982.

a. That on 04.02.1982, a CH No. 433400 pilfered by you

from the Cheque Book bearing No. 433391 to 433400 issued

to Sri S Chikkasiddaiah to his SB 17185, Attender of Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore on 07.11.1981 fraudulently issued

by you in favour of Sri B K Shivanna for Rs. 10000/- was

lodged for collection by him through his a/c at Canara

Bank. When the cheque was presented to CAO Bangalore

on 04.02.1982 through clearing you pilferred the same. Thus

the amount was credited to SB A/c of Sri B K Shivanna.

b. That on 09.02.1982 a CH No. 253207 issued by you

fvg. Sri B.K. Shivanna for Rs. 10000/- drawn on SB 15533

maintained at Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged

for collection at Canara Bank and the same was presented

to CAO Bangalore in clearing. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above, the amount of the cheque

was credited to SB a/c of Sri B.K. Shivanna on the same

day.

c. That on 23.02.1982 a CH No. 253209 for Rs. 10000/-

issued by you drawn on your SB A/c maintained at Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection at

Canara Bank and the same was presented to CAO Bangalore

in clearing. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above the amount was credited to the account of Sri B.K.

Shivanna on the same day.

d. That on 16.03.1982, a Ch No. 438499 issued by you

favouring Sri B.K. Shivanna for Rs. 7000/- pertaining to

your SB. A/c 15533 maintained at Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore was lodged for collection at Canara Bank and

the same was presented in clearing. By your resorting to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2323

the malpractice as explained supra, the amount was credited

to the SB A/c of Sri B.K. Shivanna.

The amounts in respect of cheques mentioned above

were withdrawn by Sri B.K. Shivanna on various dates and

handed over the same to you.

3. In the matter of issuing 2 Cheques amounting to

Rs. 11000/- in favour of Sri Srikantegowda, your brother-

SB A/c 18495 with Canara Bank Vyalikaval Branch

Bangalore.

That Sri Srikantegowda, your brother residing at

209/59, 12th B Cross, Vyalikaval Bangalore opened SB A/c

18495 on 05.03.1982 with the introduction of Sri B. K.

Shivanna (Ref. S. No. 2) at Canara Bank Vyalikaval Branch

Bangalore.

(a) That on 11.03.1982, a Ch No. 438498 issued by you

for Rs. 10000/- favouring Shri Sriknategowda drawn on

your SB A/c 15533 maintained at Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore was lodged for collection at Canara Bank for

credit of the said SB A/c. The same was presented to CAO

Bangalore on 11.03.1982. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above the amount of this cheque

was credited to his SB A/c on the same day.

(b) That on 12.04.1982 a Ch No. 154446 pilfered by you

from the Cheque book bearing No. 154441 to 450 issued to

Sri L. Ravindra on his SB A/c 16765, and fraudulently issued

by you for Rs. 1000/- in favour of Sri Srikantegowda your

brother, was lodged for collection by him at the said Bank.

The same was presented on CAO Bangalore on 12.04.1982

through clearing. By your resorting to the malpractice as

explained supra, the amount was credited to the account of

the payee.

The amounts so credited were withdrawn on different

dates and were handed over to you.

4. In the matter of issuing 5 Cheques aggregating to

Rs. 31000/- to Shri Srikantegowda, SB A/c 6058 with State

Bank of Mysore, Vyalikaval branch, Bangalore.

That Sri Srikantegowda, your brother residing at D 209,

12th B Cross, Vyalikaval Bangalore (as mentioned in

Sl. No. 3) opened SB A/c 6058 on 30.12.1981 at the above

said branch/Bank.

(a) That on 05.01.1982 a Ch No. 145007, pilfered by you

from the Cheque book bearing Nos. 145001 to 145010 issued

to SB A/c 16230 of Sri Srikantegowda fraudulently issued

by you for Rs. 6000/- was lodged for collection and the

same was lodged for collection at State Bank of Mysore

and the same was presented bythe said Bank in clearing to

CAO Bangalore on 05.01.1982. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above, the amount in respect of

this cheque was credited to the SB A/c of Sri Srikantegowda.

(b) That on 12.01.1982, Ch No. 145908, pilfered by you

from the Cheque book containing Nos. 145001 to 145010

issued to SB A/c 16230 of Shri Srikantegowda fraudulently

issued by you for Rs. 5000/- which was lodged for collection

at State Bank of Mysore and the same was presented by

the said Bank in clearing to CAO Bangalore on 12.01.82. By

your resorting to the malpractice as explained above the

amount was credited to the SB A/c of Sri Srikantegowda.

from the Cheque book containing Nos. 145001 to 145010

issued to SB A/c 16230 of Sri Srikantegowda fraudulently

issued by you for Rs. 6000/- lodged for collection at State

Bank of Mysore and the same was presented by the said

Bank in clearing to CAO Bangalore on 24.01.82. By your

resorting to the malpractice as explained above, the amount

in respect of the cheque was credited to the SB A/c of

SriSrikantegowda.

(d) That on 27.01.1982 Ch. No. 435069 pertaining to your

SB A/c 15533 issued by you favouring Sri Srikantegowda

for Rs. 7000/- was presented by State Bank of Mysore in

clearing to CAO Bangalore. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above the amount in respect of

the same was credited to the SB Account of Sri

Srikantegowda.

(e) That on 01.04.1982 a Ch. No. 798692. Which was

pilfered by you from the Cheque Book 798691 to 798700

issued to Smt. Ashwathamma on 28.05.1980 pertaining to

her SB A/c 13963 closed on 21.06.1980 fraudulently issued

by you favouring Sri Srikantegowda for Rs. 7000/- was

presented in clearing to CAO: Bangalore. By your resorting

to the malpractice as explained above the amount in respect

of the same was credited to the SB A/c of Sri Srikantegowda.

The Cheques issued in Sl. No. a to c are from the Cheque

book containing leaves from 145001 to 145010 obtained by

you, issued to Sri Srikantegowda on 12.03.1981.

The amounts in respect of the aforesaid Cheques lodged

for collection at the above said bank were withdrawn by Sri

Srikantegowda on various dates and the same were handed

over to you.

5. In the matter of issuing 3 Cheques amounting to

Rs. 11000/- to Sri H.K. Bettaiah SB A/c 13942 with Vijaya

Bank, K.G. Road Bangalore.

That Sri H. K. Bettaiah working as an Attender at

Inspection Department Vijaya Bank K.G. Road Bangalore

opened SB A/c 13942 on 29.03.1977 with that branch.

(a) That on 26.11.1981 a Ch. No. 145004 pilfered by you

out of the Cheque book containing cheque leaves from

145001 to 145010 issued to Sri Srikantegowda, fraudulently

issued by you for Rs. 5000/- favouring Sri H.K. Bettaiah

was lodged for collection at Vijaya Bank. The said cheque

was presented to CAO: Bangalore, in clearing, on

27.11.1981. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above the amount was credited to the SB account of Sri

H.K. Bettaiah on the same day.

2324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

b. That on 02.12.1981 a Ch.No. 145005 pilfered by you

out of the Cheque Book containing cheque leaves from

145001 to 145010 to issued to Sri Srikantegowda, for his SB

16230 fraudulently issued for Rs. 4000/- by you favouring

Sri H.K. Bettaiah was lodged for collection at Vijaya Bank,

and the same was presented to CAD Bangalore in clearing

on 3.12.81. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above and the amount was credited to the SB A/c of

Sri Bettaiah on the same day.

c. That on 05.12.1981 a Ch. No. 145006 pilfered by you

out of the Cheque book containing cheque leaves from

145001 to 145010 issued to Sri Srikantegowda, fraudulently

issued for Rs. 4000/- by, you favouring Sri H.K. Bettaiah

was lodged for collection at the Vijaya Bank by the payee

and was presented to CAD in clearing on 07-12-1991. By

your resorting to the malpractice as explained above the

amount of the Cheque was credited to the Payee's SB A/c

the same day.

The aforesaid Cheques are out of the Cheque Book

containing leaves from 145001 to 145010 issued to

Sri Srikantegowda, your Brother on 12.03.1981 to his SB

A/c 16230 at Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore and the

said Cheque book was taken delivery by you.

The amounts of the said Cheques credited to the SB

A/c were withdrawn by the account holder on various dates

and were handed over to you.

6. In the matter of issuing 3 Cheques amounting to

Rs. 20009/- in favour of Sri H. K. Puttamadiah SB A/c 3338

with State Bank of Mysore Madhavnagar Branch Bangalore.

That Sri H.K. Puttamadiah employed in KEB ITC

Sri R.C. Road Bangalore opened SB A/c 3338 on 13.02.1981

at State Bank of Mysore Madhavnagar Bangalore.

a. That on 16.12.1981 a CH No. 372909 for Rs. 4000/-

issued by you pertaining to your SB A/C 15533 at Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection by the

payee at State Bank of Mysore and same was presented in

clearing to CAD Bangalore on 17.12.1981. By your resorting

to the malpractice as explained above the amount was

credited to the said SB A/c on the same day.

b. That on 28.12.1981 a CH No. 435064 for Rs. 6000/-

issued by you pertaining to your SB A/c 15533 at Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection by the

payee at State Bank of Mysore and the same was presented

in clearing to CAD Bangalore on 29.12.1981 by the said

Bank. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above the amount was credited to the SB A/c of the payee

on the same day.

c. That on 18.03.1982 a CH No. 438500 for Rs. 10000/-

issued by you pertaining to your SB A/c 15533 at Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection by the

payee at State Bank of Mysore and was presented in

clearing to CAD Bangalore on same day. By your resorting

to the malpractice as explained above the amount was

credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the same day.

All the amounts so credited were withdrawn by Sri H K

Puttamadiah on different dates and were handed over to

you.

7. In the matter of issuing 3 Cheques amounting to

Rs 25000/- to Smt. B K Mangalamma SB 4621 with Indian

Bank, Chamarajpet Branch Bangalore:

That Smt. B K Hangalamma residing at No. 19, Gavipuram

Guttanalli Bangalore opened SB A/c 4621 on 06.01.1981

with Indian Bank Chamarajpet Branch Bangalore.

a. That on 04.03.1982 CH No. 438494 issued by you for

Rs. 10000/- pertaining to your SB A/c 15533 at Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection at

Indian Bank and the same was sent for collection through

clearing to CAO Bangalore 05.03.1982 by Indian Bank. By

your resorting to the malpractice as explained above the

amount was credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the

same day.

b. That on 10.03.1982 CH No. 438496 issued by you for

Rs. 5000/- pertaining to your SB A/c 15533 at Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore was lodged for collection at Indian Bank

and the same was sent for collection through clearing to

CAO Bangalore on 11.03.1982. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above the amount was credited to

the SB A/c of the payee on the same day.

c. That on 02.04.1982 CH No. 798693, pilfered by you

out of the Cheque book No. 798691 to 798700 issued to

Smt. Ashwathamma pertaining to her SB A/c 13963 issued

on 28.05.1980 fraudulently issued by you for Rs. 10000/-

favouring Smt. B.K. Mangalamma was lodged for collection

at Indian Bank for credit of SB 4621 with them. The said

Bank presented the said cheque in clearing to CAO

Bangalore on 05.04.1982. By your resorting to the

malpractice as explained above the amount was credited to

the SB A/c of the payee on the same day. The SB A/c 13963

of Smt. Aswathamma was closed on 21.6.1980 at our Wilson

Garden Branch, Bangalore.

That the amounts in respect of above mentioned

Cheques credited to SB A/c 4621 were withdrawn by

Smt. Mangalamma on different dates and she handed over

the amount to you.

8. In the matter of issuing Cheques amounting to

Rs. 20000/- in favour of Sri Y R Muniyappa SB 5635 with

Karnataka Bank Ltd 6th Block Rajajinagar Bangalore:

That Sri Y.R. Muniyappa residing at No. 26, I Main Road

Cholurapalya, Magadi Road, Bangalore opened SB A/c

5635 on 25.04.1980 at the above Bank.

That on 03.03.1982 CH No. 438493 issued by you for

Rs. 10000/- another CH No. 438495 for Rs. 10000/- issued

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2325

by you on 10.03.1982, both pertaining to your SB A/c 15533

at Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore were lodged for

collection at Karnataka Bank for the credit of SB A/c 5635

of Sri V.R. Huniyappa at that Bank and the same were

presented in clearing to CAO Bangalore on 03.03.1982 and

10.03.1982 respectively. By your resorting to the malpractice

as explained above the amounts were credited to the SB

A/c of the payee on the respective days.

The said amounts have been withdrawn by the party

and handed over to you.

9. In the matter of issuing Cheques amounting to

Rs. 51500/- in favour of Sri T. Devendra Reddy SB 8942

with Canara Bank, Bytarayanapura, Bangalore:

That Sri T Devendra Reddy an employee of Jayaramdas

Udyog Limited Mysore Road Bangalore has opened SB

8942 on 15.03.1979 in the above Bank.

a. That on 10.12.1981, 16.12.1981 and 22.12.1981 Cheques

bearing Nos. 372908 for Rs 2500/- 372910 for Rs 6000/- and

435063 for Rs 3000/- all issued by you in favour of Sri T

Devendra Reddy drawn on Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore pertaining to your SB 15533 were lodged for

collection at Canara Bank. The said Bank presented these

cheques in clearing to CAO Bangalore on the dates

mentioned above. By your resorting to the malpractice as

explained above the amount was credited to the SB A/c of

the payee on the respective days.

b. That on 06.01.1982, a CH No. 433398 pilfered by you

from the Cheque book 433391 to 433400 issued on 7.11.1981

to SB A/c No. 17185 of Sri Chikkasiddiah, Attender of Wilson

Garden Branch Bangalore,issued by you for Rs. 6,000/- in

favour of Sri T Devendra Reddy and the same was lodged

for collection at Canara Bank on 06.01.1982. The said Bank

presented the cheque to CAO Bangalore on 6.1.82. By

your resorting to the malpractice as explained above the

amount was credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the

same day.

c. That on 13.1.1982, 20.01.1982 and 02.02.1982, you

issued Cheques bearing Nos. 435067, 435068, 435070 for

Rs. 10000/-, Rs. 10000/- and for Rs. 7,000 respectively in the

name of Sri T Devendra Reddy drawn on our Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore pertaining to your S/B A/c 15533. These

cheques were lodged for collection at Canara Bank

Byatarayanpura on the afore said dates and the said Bank

presented the same in clearing to CAO Bangalore on the

said dates. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above the amounts were credited to the SB A/c of the

payee on the respective days.

d. That on 02.03.1982 CH No. 253210 issued by you for

Rs. 7000/- favouring Sri T. Devendra Reddy, drawn on our

Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore pertaining to your SB

A/c 15533 was lodged for collection by the Payee at Canara

Bank and the said Bank sent the same for collection to

CAO Bangalore on 03.03.1982 in clearing. By your resorting

to the malpractice as explained above the amount was

credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the same day.

All the amounts in respect of Cheques issued by you as

mentioned above were credited to SB A/c 8942 and were

withdrawn by Sri T Devendra Reddy and handed over to

you.

10. In the matter of issuing Cheques amountin to

Rs. 39000/- in favour of Sri N Thas SB 551 with Bank of

Baroda, Palace Orchards, Sadashivanagar Bangalore:

That Sri N. Thas, residing at No. 215, Bellary Road,

Bangalore has SB 551 with the said Bank since 09.01.1979.

a. That on 01.01.1982, 02.03.1982 and on 11.03.1982

Cheque Nos. 435066, 438492 and 438497 issued by you for

Rs. 2000/- Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 7000/- respectively in favour

of Sri N Thas drawn on Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore

pertaining to your SB 15533 were lodged for collection by

him at Bank of Baroda. The said Bank presented these

Cheques on the dates mentioned above to CAO Bangalore

inclearing. By your resorting to the malpractice as explained

above the amounts were credited to the SB are of the

payee on the respective dates.

b. That on 29.03.1982, CH. No. 438608 pilfered by you

from the Cheque book 438601 to 438610 issued to SB A/c

16765 of Sri L Ravindra, Attender, Wilson Garden Branch

Bangalore fraudulently issued by you for Rs. 10000/-

favouring Sri N. Thas was lodged for collection by the

Payee on 29.3.1982. The said Bank presented the cheque in

clearing to CAD Bangalore on 29.3.1982. By your resorting

to the malpractice as explained above the amount was

credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the same day.

c. That on 07.04.1982, CH. No. 788352 issued by you for

Rs. 10000/- favouring Sri N. Thas drawn on Wilson Garden

Branch Bangalore pertaining to your SB 15533 was lodged

for collection by the Payee at Bank of Baroda and the same

was presented in clearing to CAO Bangalore on 7.4.1982.

By your resorting to the malpractice as explained above

the amount was credited to the SB A/c of the payee on the

same day.

All the amounts mentioned above in respect of various

Cheques issued by you credited to SB 551 were withdrawn

by Sri N Thas on various dates and the said amounts were

handed over to you subsequently.

11. In the matter of issuing a Cheque for Rs. 5000/- Joint

SB 842 of Sri C K Channiah and Smt. Narsamma with New

Bank of India, Sampige Road Malleswaram, Bangalore:

That Sri C K Channiah and Smt. Narasamma W/o C K

Channiah part time sweeper New Bank of India Sampige

Road Malleswaram Bangalore opened SB 842 with the

above Bank on 12.01.1981.

2326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That on 12.04.1982, a CH. No. 427322 pilfered by you

out of the Cheque book bearing Nos. 427321 to 427330

issued on 31.8.1981 to Sri R P Narasinga Rao to his SB A/c

15754 favouring Sri C. K. Channaiah and Smt. Narasamma

for Rs. 5000/- was lodged for collection at New Bank of

India and the said Bank presented the cheque through

clearing to CAO Bangalore on 12.04.1982. By your resorting

to the malpractice and explained above the amount was

credited to the Jt. SB A/c of the payees on the same day.

The amount so credited was withdrawn by the said parties

and handed over to you.

The persons named is S. No. 2 and 5 to 11 are well

known to you and the person named under S. No. 3 & 4 is

your own Brother. Wilson Garden Branch Bangalore

received none of the Cheques mentioned above through

clearing. If these cheques were received in the inward

clearing at the branch, they ought to have been returned to

the presenting Banks, as on all the said dates, there was no

sufficient funds in your a/c or in the SB A/c of the persons

referred therein, to pass these cheques, which you are aware.

During the relevant period, you were carrying clearing

cheques, both inward and outward, to CAO Bangalore and

was also assisting to sort the Cheques at CAO Bangalore.

While sorting the cheques, you stealthily removed the

Cheques under reference and destroyed the same, before

they were listed at CAO Bangalore on respective dates

mentioned as above.

The above circumstances go to indicate that with a

dishonest intention of deriving undue pecuniary benefit at

the cost of the Bank, you fraudulently issued the Cheques

mentioned as above on various dates in favour of yourself

and also in favour of persons mentioned therein and

destroyed the same at CAO Bangalore when they were

presented in clearing to them. you thereby resorted to

fraudulent acts and acted in a manner detrimental to the

interest of the Bank. Your above fraudulent acts constitute

Gross-Misconduct as per Clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite

Settlement.

You are therefore charged with Gross Misconduct of

"doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank" under

Clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

You are advised to submit your written statement of

Defence, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of

this Charge Sheet.

Your faithfully,

SD/-

[V. Ganeshan],

Asst. General Manager."

since the I Party failed to avail the opportunities given to

him for giving reply/explanation to the charge sheet the

Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 14.06.2000

appointing Sh. M.S. Dwarakanath as Enquiry Officer and

Sh. M. Uampathy as Presenting Officer ordered for holding

Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while causing notice

to the CSE/ I Party to appear for enquiry on his appearance

along with Sh. K. Srinivas Babu, State Secretary, SBSU, as

his Defence Representative after observing the formalities

of the preliminary hearing recording the evidence of Sh. M.

S. Bhat, Retired Manager, Wilson Garden Branch,

Bangalore; Sh. Jayaram Shenoy, Manager, Kumta Branch;

Sh. S S Navada, Retired Assistant Manager, Wilson Garden

Branch; Sh. Stanley Maben, Clerk, Russel Market Branch,

Bangalore; Sh. T.K. Ramakrishnan, Vigilance Officer, Kochi

Port Trust, Kochi as MW 1 to MW 5 and exhibiting 313

documents the detailed description of which are narrated

in the annexure as the CSE/I Party and the Defence

Representative failed to attend the enquiry from 10.07.2000

onwards while discharging the management witnesses from

cross-examination and taking that CSE/I Party has no

evidence to adduce submitted his report dated 30.12.2000

all charges being proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority

while forwarding the copy of the enquiry finding to CSE/I

Party and giving an apportunity of hearing imposed the

punishment of dismissal from Service by his order dated

07.02.2001. The said order of the Disciplinary Authority

was when challenged by the CSE/I Party before General

Manager (P)/Appellate Authority he too after affording

opportunity of hearing confirmed the order of the

Disciplinary Authority and Dismissed his appeal by order

dated 03.07.2001. Then the I Party when approached the

ALC(C), Bellary and he submitted FOC dated 16.07.2007 it

resulted in this reference.

5. The I party in his claim statement asserting that he

who was appointed as Attender in the year 1979 having

worked honestly for more than 22 years and on the same

set of charges he was being prosecuted in CC No. 1782/

1985 on the file of V. Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate wherein he came to be acquitted through

Judgement dated 16.05.1998 and though his Defence

Representative gave representation to the effect that as

per Para V of the Shastri Award the Award of acquittal

passed by the competent court of law should not be lightly

thrown aside, by holding an eye wash Domestic Enquiry

he being imposed with punishment of Dismissal the same

is liable to be set aside with direction to the II Pary to

reinstate him with full backwages and other consequential

benefits. INTERALIA, the II Party in its counter statement

contended the I Party who was placed under suspension

by order dated 29.04.1982 while revoking the same vide

order dated 29.01.1998 without prejudice to the rights of

the bank to proceed against him with Disciplinary Action

depending on the outcome of the criminal case and that

after the outcome of the order of the criminal court he was

issued with charge sheet and as he failed to give any reply/

explanation a Domestic Enquiry was held by appointing

Sh. M.S. Dwarakanath as Enquiry Officer and Sh. M.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2327

Umapathy as Presenting Officer and in the said Domestic

Enquiry the Enquiry Officer affording all fair and proper

opportunities to the CSE/I Party through his enquiry finding

dated 30.12.2000 held the charges as proved after affording

him an opportunity of hearing having regard to the grave

miscounduct proved against him the Disciplinary Authority

by his detailed order dated 07.02.2001 imposed the

punishment of dismissal and when same was challenged

by CSE/I Party before the Appellate Authority he too after

affording opportunity of hearing by his detailed order dated

03.07.2001 having Dismissed the Appeal confirming the

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority there

being no reasons to hold the finding of the Enquiry Officer

being perverse or the punishment imposed being

disproportionate the reference by rejected.

6. Since after completion of the pleading by raising a

Preliminary Issue as to.

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

party by the II party is Fair and Proper?"

and receiving the evidence of both sides by order dated

10.08.2012 the said issue has been answered in the

Affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry conducted against

the I Party by the II party is Fair and Proper, after receiving

the evidence of I party on the Points of Victimization and

not being gainfully employed the arguments on merits

being heard the Points that arises for my consideration are:

Point No. I : Whether the I Party able to demonstrate

the finding of the Enquiry Officer the charges are proved

being perverse necessitating the interference of this

tribunal?

Point No. II:

If not, whether the punishment of

Dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and

affirmed by the Appellate Authority is disproportionate to

the misconduct alleged and proved against the I Party?

Point No. III: What Order/Award?

7. On appreciation of the pleadings, Oral and

Documentary Evidence brought on record in the Domestic

Enquiry and also in this proceedings by the I Party on the

Point of Vctimization and also not being gainfully employed

in the light of the arguments put forward by their learned

advocates my finding on Point No. I and II are in the

Negative and Point No. III is as per the final order for the

following

R E A S O N S

8. Point No. I: The only trump card of the I Party through

his claim statement and the evidence lead on the Points of

Victimization and not being gainfully employed and through

written arguments of his counsel is that in respect of these

very charges he being acquitted in the criminal case before

the V Additional CMM Bangalore in C C No. 1782/1995

through judgement dated 16.05.1998 he ought to have been

exonerated from the charges. But with due respect to the I

Party and his learned advocate as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC

vs. M G Vittal Rao reported in (2012) I SCC 442 question of

considering reinstatement after decision of acquittal or

discharge by a competent criminal court arises only if

dismissal from service is based on conviction by criminal

court in view of provisions of Article 311(2) second

provision(a) of Constitution or analogues provisions in

statutory rules and where inspite of acquittal by a criminal

court Domestic Enquiry is held it has to be seen whether

finding of the Enquiry Officer charges are proved is perverse

and punishment imposed is disproportionate his only

contention that because he was acquitted in the criminal

case the management/II Party ought not to have proceeded

with the Domestic Enquiry and punished him is

unacceptable. Since it is borne out from the proceedings of

the enquiry the CSE/I Party by remaining absent failed to

challenge the evidence of MW 1 to MW 5 by their cross-

examination whose evidence corroborated by the

documentary evidence substantiate the charges levelled

against him there was no other go for the Enquiry Officer

except to say that the charges are proved. Here also in

view of the said fact the learned advocate appearing for

the I Party simply in his written arguments reiterated the

averments made in the claim statement without making any

effort to demonstrate or satisfy me how the finding of the

Enquiry Officer charges being proved is either baseless or

perverse. Therefore, I have no reasons to say the finding

of the Enquiry Officer charges are proved being baseless

or perverse necessitating my interference. In the result, I

arrive at conclusion of answering this Point in the Negative.

9. Point No. II: The grave allegations proved against

I Party of 37 Cheques for total amount of Rs. 267500.00

without balance in his account and further making attempts

to see that they are however passed for payment taking

disadvantage of being an employee in the Bank do not

deserve any sympathy as such I have no reason to say the

punishment of dismissal imposed being disproportionate.

In other words having regared to the grave misconduct

committed by the I Party the punishment of dismissal

cannot be termed as disproportionate. In the result while

arriving at conclusion of answering this Point as well in the

Negative, I pass the following.

ORDER

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank in

dismissing Shri L Shivanna, Ex-Employee (Employment

No. 310358) is held legal and justified and that he is not

entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 31st March 2015)

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Annexure-I

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry

MEx-1

Letter No. Gen. 7/350 dt. 10.09.1982

from Manger, BOB, Bangalore to

Inspector of Police, CBI, Bangalore

MEx-2

Account opening form with specimen

signature card in respect of SB

account No. 551 in the name of

Sri N Thas

MEx-3

SB Pay in slip No. 313938 dt.

01.01.1982 for Rs. 2000/-

MEx-4

SB Pay in slip No. 64394 dt. 02.03.1982

for Rs. 10000/-

MEx-5

SB Pay in slip No. 643096 dt.

11.03.1982 for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-6

SB Pay in slip No. 643097 dt.

29.03.1982 for Rs. 10000/-

MEx-7

SB Pay in slip No. 643098 dt.

07.04.1982 for Rs. 10000/-

MEx-8

SB withdrawal slip dt. 04.01.1982 for

Rs. 2000/-

MEx-9

SB withdrawal slip dt. 04.03.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-10

SB withdrawal slip dt. 06.03.1982 for

Rs. 200/-

MEx-11

SB withdrawal slip dt. 11.03.1982 for

Rs. 1500/-

MEx-12

SB withdrawal slip dt. 22.03.1982 for

Rs. 800/-

MEx-13

SB withdrawal slip dt. 25.03.1982 for

Rs. 1000/-

MEx-14

SB withdrawal slip dt. 25.03.1982 for

Rs. 500/-

MEx-15

SB withdrawal slip dt. 29.03.1982 for

Rs. 6700/-

MEx-16

SB withdrawal slip dt. 01.04.1982 for

Rs. 3000/-

MEx-17

SB withdrawal slip dt. 03.04.1982 for

Rs. 3000/-

MEx-18

SB withdrawal slip dt. 07.04.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-19

SB withdrawal slip dt. 13.04.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-20

SB withdrawal slip dt. 15.04.1982 for

Rs. 300/-

MEx-21

Certified extract of ledger in respect of

SB A/c No. 551 of Sri N Thas from

01.01.1982 to 16.6.1982

MEx-22

Letter No. Court Cases/2402/BRKB/

82 dt. 10.9.1982 from the Manager,

Canara Bank, Vyalikaval Branch,

Bangalore addressed to Sri T K

Ramakrishnan

MEx-23

SB Account opening form dt.

02.01.1982 in respect of SB Account

No. 18420 of Sri B K Shivanna

MEx-24

Specimen signature card dt. 02.01.1982

in respect of the above

MEx-25

SB Pay in slip dt. 04.02.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-26

SB Pay in slip dt. 09.02.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-27

SB Pay in slip dt. 23.02.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-28

SB Pay in slip dt. 16.03.1982 for

Rs. 7000/-

MEx-29

Ch. No. 926121 dt. 08.02.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-30

Ch. No. 926122 dt. 11.02.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-31

Ch. No. 926123 dt. 25.02.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-32

Ch. No. 926124 dt. 26.02.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-33

Ch. No. 926125 dt. 18.03.1982 for

Rs. 7000/-

MEx-34

Account opening form dt. 05.03.1982

in respect of SB Account No. 18495 of

Sri B K Srikantegouda

MEx-35

Specimen signature card dt. 05.03.1982

in respect of the above

MEx-36

SB Pay in slip dt. 11.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-37

SB Pay in slip dt. 12.04.1982 for

Rs. 1000/-

MEx-38

Ch. No. 934140 dt. 16.03.1982 for

Rs. 6000/-

MEx-39

Ch. No. 934581 dt. 22.03.1982 for

Rs. 1100/-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2329

MEx-40

Ch. No. 934582 dt. 31.03.1982 for

Rs. 3000/-

MEx-41

Ch. No. 934585 dt. 15.04.1982 for

Rs. 13000/-

MEx-42

Letter No. Court Cases/2402 dt.

10.09.1982 from the Manager, Canara

Bank, Viyalikaval Branch, Bangalore

addressed to Sri T K Ramakrishnan

MEx-43

CXC of SB ledger sheet No. 021461 in

respect of SB account No. 18420 of

B K Shivanna

MEx-44

CXC of SB ledger sheet No. 834939 in

respect of SB account No. 18495 of

Sri Srikantegouda

MEx-45

Letter dt. 10.09.1982 from the Manager,

SBM, Vyalikaval Branch, Bangalore,

addressed to the Inspector of Police

MEx-46

SB Account opening from dt. Nil in

respect of SB Account No. 6058 of

Sri Srikantegouda

MEx-47

SB account pay in slip dt. 05.01.1982

for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-48

SB account pay in slip dt. 12.01.1982

for Rs. 5000/-

MEx-49

SB account pay in slip dt. 16.01.1982

for Rs. 5040/-

MEx-50

SB account pay in slip dt. 24.01.1982

for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-51

SB account pay in slip dt. 27.01.1982

for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-52

SB account pay in slip dt. 01.04.1982

for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-53

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

07.01.1982 for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-54

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

15.01.1982 for Rs. 5000/-

MEx-55

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

27.01.1982 for Rs. 5000/-

MEx-56

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

28.01.1982 for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-57

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

30.01.1982 for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-58

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

03.04.1982 for Rs. 5000/-

MEx-59

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

07.04.1982 for Rs. 1305/-

MEx-60

SB Account withdrawal slip dt.

07.04.1982 for Rs. 1000/-

MEx-61

Certified extract of SB ledger folio of

SB a/c 6058 from 30.12.1981 to

07.04.1982 (4 sheets)

MEx-62

Letter No. OR/Misc./NSR/11775/82 dt.

13.09.1982 from the Sr. Manager, Vijaya

Bank, KG Road, Bangalore addressed

to Sri T K Ramakrishnan

MEx-63

Acount opening form dt. 29.03.1977

in respect of SB Account No. 13942 of

Sri H K Bettaiah

MEx-64

Specimen signature card dt. 02.01.1982

in respect of the above

MEx-65

Pay in slip dt. 26.11.1981 for Rs. 5000/

MEx-66

Pay in slip dt. 02.12.1981 for Rs. 4000/-

MEx-67

Pay in slip dt. 05.12.1981 for Rs. 4000/-

MEx-68

Ch. No. 485008 dt. 30.11.1981 for

Rs. 4600/-

MEx-69

Ch. No. 926121 dt. 01.12.1981 for

Rs. 200/-

MEx-70

Ch. No. 926121 dt. 04.12.1981 for

Rs. 4000/-

MEx-71

Ch. No. 926121 dt. 01.12.1981 for

Rs. 200/-

MEx-72

Ch. No. 926121 dt. 08.12.1980 for

Rs. 4000/-

MEx-73

Statement of account in respect of SB

Account No. 13942 from 01.01.1981 to

02.12.1981 in the manuscript and from

02.12.1981 to 01.09.1982 xerox copy

(5 sheets)

MEx-74

Letter dt. 20.2.1982 from the Manager,

Indian Bank, Camarajpet Branch,

Bangalore, addressed to Sri T K

Ramakrishnan

MEx-75

SB Account opening form cum

specimen signature card dt. 06.01.1981

in respect of SB Account No. 4621 in

the name of Smt. Mangalamma

MEx-76

SB challan dt. 04.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-77

SB challan dt. 10.03.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

2330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-78

SB challan dt. 02.04.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-79

Ch. No. 670201 dt. 09.03.1982 for

Rs. 65000/-

MEx-80

Ch. No. 670202 dt. 13.03.1982 for

Rs. 8100/-

MEx-81

Ch. No. 670205 dt. 07.04.1982 for

Rs. 9900/-

MEx-82

Certified extract of SB ledger folio of

SB A/c 4621 from 06.01.1981 to

04.05.1982

MEx-83

Letter No. 4058/82 dt. 20.09.1982 from

the Manager, Karnataka Bank,

Rajajinagar, Addressed to Sri T K

Ramakrishnan

MEx-84

SB Account opening form dt.

23.04.1980 in respect of SB Account

No. 7635 of Sri Y R Muniyappa

MEx-85

Specimen signature card dt. 02.01.1982

in respect of the above

MEx-86

Pay in slip dt. 03.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-87

Pay in slip dt. 10.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-88

Pay in slip dt. 13.04.1982 for

Rs. 11600/-

MEx-89

Ch. No. 150140 dt. 05.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-90

Ch. No. 157501 dt. 12.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-91

Certified extract of SB ledger folio of

SB a/c 5635 from 28.04.1980 to

20.09.1982 (2 sheets)

MEx-92

Letter No. KRR/82 dt. 24.09.1982 of the

Manager, Vijaya Bank, P G Halli,

Bangalore, addressed to Sri T K

Ramakrishnan

MEx-93

SB Account opening form cum

specimen signature card dt. 31.03.1982

in respect of SB Account No. 9001 in

the name of Sri L Shivanna

MEx-94

SB credit challan dt. 08.04.1982 for

Rs. 15000/-

MEx-95

SB credit challan dt. 10.04.1982 for

Rs. 15000/-

MEx-96

Ch. No. 796451 dt. 10.04.1981 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-97

Ch No. 796452 dt. 11.04.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-98

Letter No. 259/128/259/Gen dt.

15.04.1982 of Syndicate Bank, Wilson

Garden Branch, Bangalore, addressed

to the Manager, Vijaya Bank, P G Halli,

Bangalore

MEx-99

Written Memo dt. 15.04.1982 from

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, regarding Ch. No. 427321 dt.

10.04.1982.

MEx-100

Statement of account in respect of SB

A/c No. 9001 of Sri L Shivanna from

31.03.1982 to 09.06.1982.

MEx-101

Letter No. Gen/4293 dt. 24.09.1982 of

the Manager, New Bank of India,

Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore,

addressed to Sri T K Ramakrishnan

MEx-102

SB Account opening form in respect

of Jt. SB Account No. 842 in the names

of Sri C K Channaiah and

Smt. Narasamma

MEx-103

Specimen signature card dt. 12.01.1981

in respect of the above

MEx-104

Pay in slip dt. 12.04.1982 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx-105

Order form dt. 15.04.1982 for

withdrawal of Rs. 500/-

MEx-106

Orde form dt. 15.04.1982 for withdrawal

of Rs. 500/-

MEx-107

Order form dt. 16.04.1982 for

withdrawal of Rs. 3500/-

MEx-108

Order form dt. 01.05.1982 for

withdrawal of Rs. 500/-

MEx-109

Extract of SB ledger folio of SB A/c

842 from 12.01.1981 to 15.01.1982

MEx-110

Letter No. Misc./953 dt. 29.09.1982 of

the Manager, SBM, Madhavanagar,

Bangalore addressed to Sri T K

Ramakrishnan

MEx-111

SB Account opening form dt.

13.02.1981 in respect of SB Account

No. 3338 in the name of Sri H K

Puttamadaiah

MEx-112

Specimen signature card in respect of

the above

MEx-113

Credit challan dt. 16.12.1981 for

Rs. 4000/-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2331

MEx-114

Credit challan dt. 28.12.1981 for

Rs. 6000/-

MEx-115

Credit challan dt. 18.03.1982 for

Rs. 10000/-

MEx-116

Withdrawal form dt. 18.12.1981 for

Rs. 3975/-

MEx-117

Withdrawal form dt. 01.01.1982 for

Rs. 6000/-

MEx-118

Withdrawal form dt. 19.03.1982 for

Rs. 7100/-

MEx-119

Withdrawal form dt. 20.03.1982 for

Rs. 2600/-

MEx-120

Extract of SB ledger folio of SB A/c

3338 of Sri H K Puttamadaiah from

13.02.1981 to 31.03.1982 (2 sheets)

MEx-121

Acknowledgement dt. 05.10.1982 for

taking over records

MEx-122

SB account pay in slip dt. 10.12.1981

for Rs. 2500/-

MEx-123

SB account pay in slip dt. 16.12.1981

for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-124

SB account pay in slip dt. 22.12.1981

for Rs. 3000/-

MEx-125

SB account pay in slip dt. 06.01.1982

for Rs. 6000/-

MEx-126

SB account pay in slip dt. 12.01.1982

for Rs. 10000/-

MEx-127

SB account pay in slip dt. 02.02.1982

for Rs. 10000/-

MEx-128

SB account pay in slip dt. 02.03.1982

for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-129

SB account pay in slip dt. 05.01.1982

for Rs. 7000/-

MEx-130

Ch. No. 697761 dt. 14.12.1981 for

Rs. 2490/-

MEx-131

Ch. No. 698451 dt. 18.12.1981 for

Rs. 6000/-

MEx-132

Ch. No. 698453 dt. 26.12.1981 for

Rs. 3000/-

MEx-133

Ch. No. 698455 dt. 12.01.1982 for

Rs. 4500/-

MEx-134

Ch. No. 698457 dt. 13.01.1982 for

Rs. 1000/-

MEx-135

Ch. No. 695458 dt. 15.01.1982 for

Rs. 75/-

MEx-136

Ch. No. 698460 dt. 15.01.1982 for

Rs. 400/-

MEx-137

Ch. No. 700562 dt. 16.01.1982 for

Rs. 500/-

MEx-138

Ch. No. 700983 dt. 18.01.1982 for

Rs. 130/-

MEx-139

Ch. No. 701131 dt. 20.01.1982 for

Rs. 5100/-

MEx-140

Ch. No. 701132 dt. 20.01.1982 for

Rs. 3200/-

MEx-141

Ch. No. 287069 dt. 02.08.1981/

20.01.1982 for Rs. 600/-

MEx-142

Ch. No. 701133 dt. 21.01.1982 for

Rs. 250/-

MEx-143

Ch. No. 701134 dt. 23.01.1982 for

Rs. 9100/-

MEx-144

Ch. No. 701135 dt. 25.01.1982 for

Rs. 75/-

MEx-145

Ch. No. 701136 dt. 27.01.1982 for

Rs. 1000/-

MEx-146

Ch. No. 701137 dt. 28.01.1982 for

Rs. 100/-

MEx-147

Ch. No. 701138 dt. 05.02.1982 for

Rs. 300/-

MEx-148

Ch. No. 703139 dt. 05.02.1982 for

Rs. 5200/-

MEx-149

Ch. No. 703140 dt. 09.02.1982 for

Rs. 1320/-

MEx-150

Ch. No. 703101 dt. 10.02.1982 for

Rs. 200/-

MEx-151

Ch. No. 703103 dt. 26.02.1982 for

Rs. 200/-

MEx-152

Ch. No. 703104 dt. 01.03.1982 for

Rs. 100/-

MEx-153

Ch. No. 703107 dt. 05.03.1982 for

Rs. 500/-

MEx-154

Ch. No. 703106 dt. 05.03.1982 for

Rs. 3200/-

MEx-155

Ch. No. 703108 dt. 06.03.1982 for

Rs. 2700/-

MEx-156

Ch. No. 703109 dt. 18.02.1982 for

Rs. 590/-

MEx-157

Xerox copy of ledger sheet No. 519755

in respect of SB Account No. 8942

2332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-158

Letter No. BRP/Fraud/1572/82/MRM

dt. 05.10.1982 of the Sr. Manager,

Canara Bank, Byatarayanapura,

addressed to Sri T K Ramakrishnan

MEx-159

Xerox copy of specimen signature card

dt. 15.03.1979 in respect of SB account

No. 8942

MEx-160

True extract of the clearing waste sheet

(subsidiary) of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-161

Xerox copy of account opening form

dt. 15.03.1979 in respect of SB Account

8942 of Sri T Devendra Reddy

MEx-162

Letter dt. 11.10.1982 of New Bank of

India, Malleswaram, Bangalore

MEx-163

Receipt dt. 12.11.1982 for taking over

record.

MEx-164

Statement made by Sri L Shivanna in

his own handwriting and signed on

20 paise revenue stamp on a white

paper regarding 3 cheques for Rs.

4000/-, Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 10000/-

MEx-165

Receipt dt. 16.11.1982 for taking over

record

MEx-166

Statement made by Sri L Shivanna in

his own handwriting and signed on

20 paise revenue stamp on a white

paper regarding 3 cheques for Rs.

5000/-, Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 4000/-

MEx-167

Receipt dt. 16.11.1982 for taking over

record

MEx-168

Stamp paper (No. 174 for Rs. 7/- issued

to Sri L Shivanna on 05.04.1982) signed

by Sri L Shivanna, Syndicate Bank,

Wilson Garden on 05.04.1982 for

having received Rs. 20000/- from Sri Y

R Muniyappa

MEx-169

Letter No. 2557 dt. 15.04.1982 of the

Manager, Karnataka Bank, Rajajinagar,

regarding return of Ch. No. 427323 dt.

13.04.1982 for Rs. 11600/-

MEx-170

Receipt dt. 19.01.1983 for taking over

record

MEx-171

Inward schedule dt. 13.04.1982

received from Syndicate Bank, Central

Accounts Office, Bangalore (Original)

MEx-172

Xerox copy of SB ledger in respect of

SB Account No. 13963 of Smt.

Aswathamma

MEx-173

SB Account ledger extract (original)

in respect of SB A/c No. 15533 in the

name of Sri L Shivanna from 27.07.1979

to 13.04.1982 (7 sheets)

MEx-174

Ch. No. 435066 dt. 01.01.1982 for Rs.

2000/-

MEx-175

Ch. No. 421236 dt. 01.01.1982 for Rs.

200/-

MEx-176

Ch. No. 421237 dt. 01.02.1982 for Rs.

200/-

MEx-177

Withdrawal slip No. 522144 dt.

04.02.1982 for Rs. 50/-

MEx-178

Withdrawal slip No. 522514 dt.

10.02.1982 for Rs. 250/-

MEx-179

Withdrawal slip No. 522579 dt.

12.02.1982 for Rs. 150/-

MEx-180

Withdrawal slip No. 522604 dt.

12.02.1982 for Rs. 10/-

MEx-181

Withdrawal slip No. 523464 dt.

02.03.1982 for Rs. 100/-

MEx-182

Withdrawal slip No. 185026 dt.

30.03.1982 for Rs. 100/-

MEx-183

Withdrawal slip No. 195180 dt.

01.04.1982 for Rs. 200/-

MEx-184

Withdrawal slip No.185256 dt.

02.04.1982 for Rs. 200/-

MEx-185

Withdrawal slip No. 185396 dt.

03.04.1982 for Rs. 200/-

MEx-186

Pay in slip dt. 04.02.1982 for Rs. 30/-

MEx-187

Pay in slip dt. 03.02.1982 for Rs. 150/-

MEx-188

Pay in slip dt. 05.01.1982 for Rs. 200/-

MEx-189

Pay in slip dt. 01.01.1982 for Rs. 400/-

MEx-190

Clearing schedule dt. 05.01.1982 for

Rs. 87809.08

MEx-191

Clearing schedule dt. 07.01.1982 for

Rs. 51673.23

MEx-192

Clearing schedule dt. 13.01.1982 for

Rs. 176675.95

MEx-193

Clearing schedule dt. 21.01.1982 for

Rs. 205195.14

MEx-194

Clearing schedule dt. 25.01.1982 for

Rs. 259,947.71

MEx-195

Clearing schedule dt.27.01.1982 for

Rs. 143139.57

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2333

MEx-196

Clearing schedule dt. 03.02.1982 for

Rs. 222168.76

MEx-197

Clearing schedule dt. 04.02.1982 for

Rs. 110733.55

MEx-198

Clearing schedule dt. 09.02.1982 for

Rs. 83307.97

MEx-199

Clearing schedule dt. 23.02.1982 for

Rs. 93974.32

MEx-200

Clearing schedule dt. 02.03.1982 for

Rs. 107115.18

MEx-201

Clearing schedule dt. 03.03.1982 for

Rs. 537043.18

MEx-202

Clearing schedule dt. 05.03.1982 for

Rs. 39263.60

MEx-203

Clearing schedule dt. 10.03.1982 for

Rs. 92027.10 (5 Nos.)

MEx-204

Clearing schedule dt. 11.03.1982 for

Rs. 40781.66 (4 Nos.)

MEx-205

Clearing schedule dt. 12.03.1982 for

Rs. 61361.87 (4 Nos.)

MEx-206

Clearing schedule dt. 16.03.1982 for

Rs. 65038.18

MEx-207

Clearing schedule dt. 18.03.1982 for

Rs. 215057.41

MEx-208

Clearing schedule dt. 29.03.1982 for

Rs. 116546.65

MEx-209

Clearing schedule dt. 01.04.1982 for

Rs. 96751.83

MEx-210

Inter Branch pass book from 11.07.1981

to 23.04.1982

MEx-211

Clearing Schedule dt. 27.11.1981 for

Rs. 429258.41 of Vijaya Bank, K G

Road, Bangalore

MEx-212

Clearing Schedule dt. 03.12.1981 for

Rs. 36,082.31 of Vijaya Bank, K G

Road, Bangalore

MEx-213

Clearing Schedule dt.07.12.1981 for

Rs. 128127.88 of Vijaya Bank, K G

Road, Bangalore

MEx-214

Clearing Schedule dt.11.12.1981 for

Rs. 5231.95 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-215

Clearing Schedule dt.16.12.1981 for

Rs. 483711.43 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-216

Clearing Schedule dt.23.12.1981 for

Rs. 36900.54 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-217

Clearing Schedule dt. 29.12.1981 for

Rs. 152919.68 of State Bank of Mysore,

Madhavanagar, Bangalore

MEx-218

Clearing Schedule dt. 01.01.1982 for

Rs. 2000.00 of Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

MEx-219

Clearing Schedule dt. 05.01.1982 for

Rs. 16700/- of State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-220

Clearing Schedule dt. 07.01.1982 for

Rs. 8078/- of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-221

Clearing Schedule dt.12.01.1982 for

Rs. 5000/- of State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-222

Clearing Schedule dt.12.01.1982 for

Rs. 19894.48 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-223

Clearing Schedule dt. 21.01.1982 for

Rs. 20356.74 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-224

Clearing Schedule dt. 23.01.1982 for

Rs. 9317.01 of State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-225

Clearing Schedule dt. 27.01.1982 for

Rs. 7119.16 of State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-226

Clearing Schedule dt. 03.02.1982 for

Rs. 36389.66 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-227

Clearing Schedule dt. 04.02.1982 for

Rs. 51961.01 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-228

Clearing Schedule dt. 09.02.1982 for

Rs. 115619.10 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-229

Clearing Schedule dt. 09.02.1982 for

Rs. 11399.00 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-230

Clearing Schedule dt. 23.02.1982 for

Rs.50537.40 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-231

Clearing Schedule dt. 02.03.1982 for

Rs. 14300.00 of Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-232

Clearing Schedule dt. 03.03.1982 for

Rs. 34273.89 of Karnataka Bank,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore

MEx-233

Clearing Schedule dt. 03.03.1982 for

Rs. 30518.89 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-234

Clearing Schedule dt. 05.03.1982 for

Rs.

11346.80

Indian

Bank,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore

MEx-235

Clearing Schedule dt. 10.03.1982 for

Rs. 10830.06 of Karnataka Bank,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore

MEx-236

Clearing Schedule dt. 11.03.1982 for

Rs. 60093.86 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-237

Clearing Schedule dt. 11.03.1982 for

Rs. 7793.26 of Indian Bank,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore

MEx-238

Clearing Schedule dt. 12.03.1982 for

Rs. 7000.00 of Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

MEx-239

Clearing Schedule dt. 16.03.1982 for

Rs. 59066.15 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-240

Clearing Schedule dt. 18.03.1982 for

Rs. 48702.55 of State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-241

Clearing Schedule dt. 29.03.1982 for

Rs. 10100.00 of Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

MEx-242

Clearing Schedule dt. 01.04.1982 for

Rs. 8428.63 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-243

Clearing Schedule dt. 05.04.1982 for

Rs. 10729.40 of Indian Bank,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore

MEx-244

Clearing Schedule dt. 07.04.1982 for

Rs. 74906.25 of Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

MEx-245

Clearing Schedule dt. 08.04.1982 for

Rs. 19485.00 of Vijaya Bank, K G Road,

Bangalore

MEx-246

Clearing Schedule dt. 12.04.1982 for

Rs. 24312.85 of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore

MEx-247

Clearing Schedule dt. 12.04.1982 for

Rs. 5656.59 of New Bank of India,

Malleswaram, Bangalore

MEx-248

Clearing Schedule dt. 13.04.1982 for

Rs. 15270.00 of Karnataka Bank,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore

MEx-249

Clearing Schedule dt. 13.04.1982 for

Rs. 36098.12 of Vijaya Bank, K G Road,

Bangalore

MEx-250

Clearing Cheques Register of Canara

Bank, Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-251

Branch Clearing Register of Vijaya

Bank, K G Road, Bangalore, for

1981-82

MEx-252

Local drafts book of Indian Bank,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore for 1982

MEx-253

Clearing Ledger of Vijaya Bank, Palace

Guttahalli, Bangalore for 1982

MEx-254

Outward clearing scroll of SBM,

Madhavnagar, Bangalore for 1981-82

MEx-255

Karnataka Bank, Rajajinagar for 1982

MEx-256

Outward clearing scroll of SBM,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-257

CC Waste of Canara Bank,

Byatarayanapura, Bangalore for

1981-82

MEx-258

Clearing register of New Bank of India,

Malleswaram, Bangalore for 1985

MEx-259

Outward clearing register of Bank of

Baroda, Palace Orchards, Bangalore

for 1982

MEx-260

Cheque Books issued register of

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden,

Bangalore

MEx-261

Attendance Register of Syndicate

Bank, Wilson Garden Branch,

Bangalore

MEx-262

Clearing voucher ledger of Syndicate

Bank, Central Accounts Office,

Clearing Section Bangalore for 1981-

MEx-263

Confession letter dt. 13.04.1982 of

Sri L. Shivanna addressed to Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-264

Ch. No. 427321 dt. 10.04.1982 for

Rs. 15000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank,

Wilson Garden Branch, in favour of

Sri L. Shivanna

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2335

MEx-265

Office Order Book of Syndicate Bank,

Wilson Garden Branch

MEx-266

Clearing inward register for the period

from Feb 1981 to 24.04.1982 of Wilson

Garden Branch, Bangalore

MEx-267

Cheque Returned Register folios of

Wilson Garden Branch, Bangalore

MEx-268

Account opening form dt. 27.07.1979

fo Sri L. Shivanna and Speciment

signature card in respect of SB 15533

MEx-269

Specimen writings of Sri L Shivanna -

15 sheets

MEx-270

Copy of FIR in RC No. 22/82 dt.

24.07.1982 - 4 sheets

MEx-271

GEQD opinion No. CH. 444/3 dt.

06.06.1993

MEx-272

Statement of B.R.K. Bhat, Manager,

Canara Bank Vyalikaval Branch

MEx-273

Statement of Sri N. Shankar Alva, Sr.

Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chamarajpet

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-274

Statement of Sri T.R.S. Dave,

Manager, Indian Bank Chamarajpet

Branch Bangalore

MEx-275

Statement of Sri K.V. Shetty, Manager,

Vijaya Bank , K.G. Road, Bangalore

MEx-276

Statement of Sri K. Rajkumar,

Manager, State Bank of Mysore,

Madhavnagar, Bangalore

MEx-277

Statement of Sri T.M. Heramba,

Manager, Karnataka Bank, Rajajinagar,

Bangalore

MEx-278

Statement of Smt. Usha Sunder Raj,

Manager, State Bank of Mysore,

Vyalikaval, Bangalore

MEx-279

Statement of Sri S.M. Shenoy,

Manager, Canara Bank, Cottonpet

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-280

Statement of Sri V. Murali, Accountant

& Incharge, NBI, Malleswaram

MEx-281

Statement of Smt. Jacqueline Colaco,

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Palace

Orchards, Bangalore

MEx-282

Statement dt. 11.11.1992 of Sri T.

Devendra Reddy, S/o Sri Papi Reddy

MEx-283

Statement of Sri K.H. Puttamadaiah,

S/o Kalaiah, dt. 16.11.1992

MEx-284

Statement of Sri M.K. Bettaiah, S/o

Kataiah dt. 16.11.1992

MEx-285

Statement of Sri Y.R. Muniyappa, S/o

Rangaiah, dt. 16.11.1992

MEx-286

Statement of Sri N. Thas, S/o late Nalla

Thambi, dt. 06.01.1993

MEx-287

Statement of Smt. Narasamma, W/o

Sri C.K. Channaiah, dt. 06.01.1993

MEx-288

Statement of Sri C.K. Channaiah, S/o

Late Chelvaiah dt. 06.01.1993

MEx-289

Statement of Sri Shankaranayarana

Navada, Asst. Manager, Syndicate

Bank, Wilson Garden Branch,

Bangalore

MEx-290

Statement of Smt. K. Rama, Special

Assistant, Syndicate Bank, Wilson

Garden Branch, Bangalore

MEx-291

Statement of Sri D. Sethuram, Clerk,

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-292

Statement of Smt. Mangalamma, W/o

Krishnappa dt. 13.01.1993

MEx-293

Statement of Sri L. Srikantegowda, S/o

Karegouda dt. 13.01.1993

MEx-294

Statement of Sri Stanley Maben, Clerk,

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-295

Statement of Sri M.S. Bhat, Manager

(Inspection), Syndicate Bank,

Regional Inspectorate, Bangalore

MEx-296

Statement of Smt. Kala Lakshman

Hegde, Special Assistant, Syndicate

Bank, Bangalore

MEx-297

Statement of Smt. Mukta G., Officer,

Syndicate Bank, Tumkur

MEx-298

Statement of Sri S.R. Prahladachar,

No. 16, Raghavendra Colony Bangalore

MEx-299

Statement of Smt. Shanti S. Rao, Clerk,

Syndicate Bank, City Market Branch,

Bangalore

MEx-300

Statement of Smt. M. Shantakumari,

Clerk, Syndicate Bank, J.C. Road,

Bangalore

MEx-301

Statement of Smt. Padma Prasad, Clerk,

Syndicate Bank, Shoolay Branch,

Bangalore

2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-302

Statement of Smt. Joyce Ammanna,

Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-303

Statement of Sri C.C. Devaiah, Clerk,

Syndicate Bank, Wilson Garden

Branch, Bangalore

MEx-304

Statement of Sri Chickasiddaiah,

Attender, Syndicate Bank, Wilson

Garden Branch, Bangalore

MEx-305

Statement of Sri Jayaram Shenoy,

Asst. Manager, Clearing Section,

Syndicate Bank, CAO: Bangalore

MEx-306

Statement of Sri P. Nityananda Prabhu,

Asst. Manager, CAO: Bangalore

MEx-307

Statement of B.S. Mathurkar, S.I. of

Police, Bangalore

MEx-308

Statement of Sri K. Vittal Shetty,

Officer, Vijaya Bank, DO : Bellary

MEx-309

Acknowledgement dt. 22.01.1983 of

the Investigating Officer for having

received certain records

MEx-310

Statement of Sri B.K. Shivanna dt.

31.01.1983

MEx-311

Statement of Sri L. Shivanna dt.

08.01.1983 and 02.02.1983

MEx-312

Statement of Sri B. Krishnappa dt.

21.02.1983

MEx-313

CBI letter dt. 12.05.1983 addressed to

GEQN, Hyderabad along with a list of

questioned documents.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1063-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj U;q eaxyksj iru

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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 13@2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&45011@2@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2009) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of New Mangalore Port Trust and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/05/

2015.

[No. L-45011/2/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022

Date

31st December, 2014

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 13/2009

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary, New

The Chairman,

Mangalore Port & General

New Mangalore Port

Employees Assn, Behind NMP

Trust, Panambur,

Co-op Canteen, Near AO Bdg,

Mangalore

Panambur, Mangalore

Appearances :

I Party

Shri I T Poojary

Advocate

II Party

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-45011/2/

2008-IR (B-II) dated 24.2.2009 in excercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of New Mangalore Port

Trust is justified in not promoting Shri Raju Poojary,

Wireman (HS Gr. II) to the post of Electrician (Crafts)

by amending the Recruitment Rules or by relaxing

clause 31 of New Mangalore Port Trust Employees

(Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations,

1980’ what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

13/2009 when notices were issued to both sides I Party

entered his appearance through Sh. I T Poojary, advocate

and filed his claim statement on 25.08.2010, whereas, the

II Party appeared through Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya,

Advocate and filed his counter statement on 22.12.2010.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2337

3. After II party leading its evidence of Sh. Prem Kumar,

Law officer as MW 1 (M) and the matter was at the stage of

cross-examining him by the I Party Counsel the workman

covered in this reference by filling a copy of the Order

dated 26.11.2014 of Assistant Secretary, Marine Department

of the II Party company appointing him as Wireman, HSG-

II EC No. 1010 by promotion to the post of Electrician

(Crafts) to the pay scale of Rs. 21000-53500 on regular basis

with an option to exercise for fixation of pay in terms of FR

22 (1) (a)(1) within one month from the date of issue of the

Order since submits that matter is settled and it may be

closed the reference came to be closed. In view of the

submission of the workman covered in this reference that

his claim has been settled by virtue of the order dated

26.11.2014 copy of which is referred to above since

reference dosen’t survive, I pass the following.

ORDER

The reference is Rejected by virtue of the submission

made by the workman covered in this reference in view of

Order dated 26.11.2014 being appointed as Wireman, HSG

II, EC No. 1010 by promotion to the post of Electrician

(Crafts) to the pay scale of Rs. 21000-53500 on regular basis

with an option to exercise for fixation of pay in terms of FR

22 (1)(a)(1) within one month from the date of issue of the

Order.

(Dictated to U D C transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 31st December, 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1064-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSk|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caSxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 3@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@121@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 3/2006) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-Bangalore 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 14-05-2015.

[No. L-12011/121/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022

Dated

25th November, 2014

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 03/2006

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Regional Manager

Canara Bank Employees,

Central Bank of Inda,

Union No. 24, Crescent

Regional Office, P B

Road,

No. 5129, 24 Crescent Road,

Bangalore-560001

Appearances :

I Party

Shri A. J. Srinivasan, Advocate

II Party

Shri Pradeep S. Sawkar,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/121/

2008-IR (B-II) dated 05.01.2006 in excercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Central Bank

of India in discharging Shri B V Raghavendra, Part-

time Safaikarmachari, Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore

from the services of the bank with superannuation

benefits of the bank with superannuation benefits

without disqualification from future employment

w.e.f. 03.07.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief hs is entitled and from which date?”

2. On receipts of the reference while registering it in CR

03/2006 when notices were issued to both the sides, they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on 30.10.2006

and II Party filed its counter statement on 19.01.2007.

3. The I party in his claim statement since contended

the Domestic Enquiry conducted was not fair and proper,

the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and that the

punishment imposed is disproportionate while framing a

Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the

I Party by the II Party is fair and proper?’’

2338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides

and hearing their learned advocates the said issue was

being answered in the affirmative holding that the Domestic

Enquiry conducted against him was fair and proper by

order dated 21.01.2011, the learned advocates appearning

for both sides addressed their oral arguments on merits.

The brief facts leading to this reference and award may be

stated as under.

4. The I party who was appointed by II Party as Part

Time Sweeper on one third wagaes on probation for a

period of 6 months from 13.05.1996 at CSI Extension Counter

attached to Bangalore City Branch and was confirmed w.e.f.

13.11.1996 and was later elevated to Part Time Safai

Karmachari (PTSK) on half wages w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and was

transferred to Its JC Road Branch was served with Memo

dated 20.03.2002 as under:

“Mr. B V Raghavendra, PTSK, on 1/2 of scale of pay

and allowance, while working at J C Road Branch has

committed the following lapses:—

1. On 19/1/2001, Mr. Raghavendra had given a

withdrawal No. 25177 dated 19/9/2001, on account No. 7919

for Rs. 5000.- of Basavangudi Branch, Pertaining to B S

Vasudeva Rao. Immediate credit was afforded to his

account. Mr. Raghavendra removed the relevant withdrawal

from the home clearing M F 12845 for Rs. 5000/- from the

clearing bag. No balance was available in HSS A/c 7919 of

Mr. V S Vasudeva Rao at Basavanagudi Branch.

2. Mr. Raghavendra further had discounted a cheque

No. 85406 for Rs. 2500/- on 07/10/2001 at Katriguppa Branch,

drawn on his personal account No. 7990 of J C Road Branch,

without keeping sufficient balance in his personal account.

When Katrigupap Branch sent the withdrawal to J C Road

Branch, through NBO, vide Home Clearning M F No. 6559,

dated 09/10/2001, raised by NBO on J C Road Branch he

has managed to removed M F from clearning bag. The M

F for Rs. 13953.88/- was inclusive of his discounted cheque

alongwith other instruments.

Mr. Raghavendra, has altered the manifold on

11/10/2001, and re-inserted the removed Manifold on

11/10/2001 only to make it appear that the MF does not

pertain to the previous date.

You are advised to give a written explanation and show

cause why disciplinary action for your misconduct as

defined in 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement should not be

initiated within 7 days from the date of receipt of the memo.

If your written explanation is not received within the

time stipulated, we will presume that you no explanation

to offer and we will proceed accordingly.”

Though the I Party admitted the charges qualifying

that the said action on his part was due to paralytic stroke

suffered by his father for which he was in need of funds

for medical treatment he was served with the charge sheet

dated 22.05.2002 as under:

“Charge sheet

Attention of Mr. B V Raghavendra, PTSK (on 1/2 of

scale of pay and allowances) presently working at

Malleswarm Branch, Bangalore, is drawn to the Memo

bearing No. MVM/2001-02 dated 20.3.2002, wherein he

was asked to submit his explanation within 7 days from the

receipts of said memo asking him why disciplinary action

should not be initiated against him for lapses/commission

and omissions mentioned therein.

Mr. Reghavendra has submitted his reply to the Memo

dated 20.03.2002 and his reply has been found

unsatisfactory. As such it has been decided to conduct

Department Enquiry against him for the following lapses

which constitute gross misconduct under para 19.5.(j) of

Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

On 19.09 2001 Mr. B V Reghavendra lodged with out J C

Road Branch a withdrawal bearing No. 25177 dated

19.09.2001 for Rs. 5000/- drawn on HSS A/c No. 7919 of

Mr. B.S. Vasudeva Rao, with our Basavanagudi Branch.

Immediate credit was afforded to his account.

Mr. Reghavendra removed the relevant withdrawal from

the home clearing Manifold No. 12845 for Rs. 5000/-

available in HSS A/c 7919 of Mr. B S Vasudeva Rao at

Basavangudi Branch to meet the said withdrawal form. Thus

Mr. Reghavendra derived a pecuniary benefit from the bank

which was not due to him.

On 07.10.2001 Mr. B V Reghavendra got discounted at

our Katriguppa Branch a cheque bearing No. 85409 for

Rs. 2500/- drawn on his HSS A/c No. 7990 with our J C

Road Branch, without keeping sufficent balance in the said

account. When Katriguppa Branch sent the withdrawal to

J C Road Branch through NBO vide home clearing Manifold

No. 6589 dated 09.10.2001 for Rs. 13,953.88 raised by NBO

on J.C. Road Branch, he was managed to remove from the

clearing bag the said Manifold which contained the

discounted cheque besides other instruments.

Mr. Reghavendra has altered the date of the manifold

No. 6589 dated 09.10.2001 as 11.10.2001 to make it appear

that the manifold does not pertain to previous date. Thus

Mr. B V Reghavendra has committed the following

misconduct:-

1. He has derived pecuniary benfits from the Bank by

discountin the cheques/withdrawals when sufficient

balance to meet the said instruments was not available in

the respective accounts.

2. He had indulged in removing/retaining manifolds

containing the cheques and also in materially altering one

of the manifolds in order to conceal his act detailed under

para (1).

Thereby Mr. B V Reghavendra has acted in a manner

which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank as defined in

chapter 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement 1966.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2339

Mr. B V Raghavendra is further informed that the

department enquiry against his will be held by Shri C R

Ananthanarayanan, Senior Manager, Brigade Road Branch.

He should note that if he fails to appear before the Enquiry

Officer on the date, time and place that is indicated to him,

the enquiry will be liable to be held ex-parte by the Enquiry

Officer and such orders as may be deemed fit, just and

proper will be passed and such orders will be conclusive

and binding on you.

Mr. B V Raghavendra should also note that he will be

permitted to be defenced of registered Trade Union of the

Bank Employees of which he is the member. At the enquiry,

he should also keep ready with him all oral and documentary

evidences, which he wishes to produce or tender on his

behalf and he will also be allowed to cross-examine the

witnesses which he may be produced by the Management

during the enquiry proceedings and also he should inform

the Enquiry Officer the name of the representative and

name of the witnesses he intends to produce at the enquiry

on his behalf.

Sd/-

B N S Rathnakar

Disciplinary Authority”

and ordered to face disciplinary enquiry by appointing

Sh. C R Ananthanaryan as Enquiry Officer and Sh. D S Vijaya

Bhaskar Char as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer

while scheduling the first date of enquiry on 26.12.2002

causing notice to the I party securing his presence

observed the formalities of preliminary hearing and there

also he since pleaded guilty referring to his reply to memo

dated 26.03.2002 on submission by the Presenting Officer

that in view of the admission of charges by the CSE/I Party

the enquiry may be concluded received the documentary

evidence that management intend to reply on the charges.

Accordingly the Enquiry Officer on that day while receiving

the certified copies of the MF No. 12845 dated 19.09.2001

for Rs. 5000/- originated from J C Road Branch; Withdrawal

form No. 25177 dated 18.09.2001 for Rs. 5000/- drawn on

HSS 7919 of Basavangudi branch; Withdrawal form dated

15.09.2001 for Rs. 5000/- drawn on HSS 7990 of JC Road

Branch; Letter dated 16.10.2001 written by Mr. B V

Raghavendra addressed to Branch Manager JC Road

Branch; MF No. 6567 dated 09.10.2001 (altered as

11.10.2001) for Rs. 13953.88; List of Cheques/instruments

attached with the above said MF 6567; letter dated

02.11.2002 written by Mr. B V Raghavendra addressed to

the Manager Branch office, JC Road; Paying in slip for Rs.

2500/- dated 07.10.2001 on HSS 8598 of branch office

Katriguppa; Paying in slip for Rs. 5000/- dated 16.10.2001

on HSS 8598 of branch officer Katriguppa; MF No. 2735

dated 16.09.2001 for Rs. 5000 originated from Katriguppa

branch; Statement of A/C of Mr. B V Raghavendra of HSS

7990 with branch office JC Road for the period from

01.09.2001 to 02.11.2001 and letter dated 26.03.2002 written

by Mr. B V Raghavendra addressed to the Manger, Central

Bank of India, Malleswaram Branch and marking them as

Ex-1 to Ex-13 as requested by CSE/ I Party for his say

adjourned to 04.01.2003 and on that day on the submission

made by CSE admitting the charges as stated in his reply to

the Memo requesting to condone the lapses on his part

and produced Letter dated 26.12.2002 written by CSE to B/O

JC Road; letter dated 26.03.2002 written by CSE to B/O

Malleswaram; Medical Certificate dated 18.09.2001 and

countrerfoil dated 12.10.2001 marking them Ex D-1 to D-4

directed the Presenting Officer and the CSE to file the

written briefs within a period of 10 days and on Presenting

Officer filing his written brief on 05.01.2003 and failure of

the CSE/I Party to file his written brief he submitted his

enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.01.2003

the charges being proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority

while forwarding the copy of the Enquiry Officer and show

cause notice proposing the punishment of discharge from

service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and or

Provident Fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise

under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant

time and without disp\qualification from future employment.

On receipt of the reply similar to his reply to the Memo with

request to condone the lapses on his part after affording

opportunity of his personal hearing passed the order of

punishment of discharge from service with superannuation

benefits i.e. Pension and or Provident Fund and gratuity as

would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations

prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification

from future employment. On appeal by the CSE/I Party to

the Assistant General Manager, the Appellate Authority

affording him an opportunity of hearing since dismissed

the appeal confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority the CSE/I Party approached the ALC(C) with

conciliation petition and as he submitted FOC Dated

18.07.2005 the ministry made this refernce for adjudication.

5. Since by raising a preliminary issue touching the

fairness of the Domestic Enquiry same has been held in

favour of the management and arguments have been

addressed on merits by the learned advocate appearing for

both the sides the points that arises for my consideration

are:

Point No. 1: Whether the I Party demonstrates the

enquiry finding on charge being proved is perverse

necessitating the interference of this tribunal?

Point No. 2: If not whether I Party demonstrates the

punishment imposed is disproportionate to the said

misconduct proved against him?

Point No. 3: What order/Award?

6. On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence brought

on record in the Domestic Enquiry with the arguments put

forward by the learned advocates appearing for both sides

my finding on Point No. 1 and 2 are in the Negative and

Point No.3 is as per the final order for the following :

2340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

7. The learned advocate appearing for the I Party urged

that the admission of charges is due to an understanding

given to the I Party that if he admits the lenient view will be

taken the Enquiry Officer relying on such admission and

giving his finding is unsustainable but the same being

considered and rejected while considering the Preliminary

Issue touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry now

that plea is not available to the I Party. Moreover, besides

reply to the Memo the CSE/I Party having unequivocally

admitted the charges during the preliminary hearing by

Enquiry Officer while referring to his reply to the memo the

contention that such admission was made because he was

given to understand that a lenient view will be taken is

unacceptable. In view of such unequivocal admission of

the charges submitting that the same was done as he was

in financial need to meet the medical expenses of his father

who had suffered paralytic stroke there was no need for

the Enquiry Officer to record evidence of the management

and rightly receiving the documentary evidence tendered

for the management and exhibiting them by way of consent

of the CSE after affording opportunity to file written brief

which was availed only by the Presenting Officer he rightly

proceeded to submit his enquiry report and as the charges

were unequivocally admitted and same were also supported

by documentary evidence tendered for the management,

absolutley, I find no reason to say the finding of the Enquiry

Officer the charges being proved as baseless or perverse.

Since to the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary

Authority the CSE/I Party having admitted the charges

and pleaded for mercy on the ground that he did this

impugned actions as he was in financial difficulties to meet

the medical expenses of the paralytic stroke of his father

the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the admitted

action/misconduct by the CSE/I Party of discounting/

removing/retaining of cheques/withdrawals found him not

suitable to continue in service by his detailed order in which

I find no infirmity and even the learned advocate appearing

for the CSE/I Party could not demonstrate how it could be

termed as disproportionate to such admitted misconduct

on the part of the I Party. In the result, I arrive at conclusion

that there are no reasons to interfere either in the enquiry

report holding the I Party as guilty of the charges or to term

the punishment being disproportionate. In the result while

answering Point No. 1 and 2 in the Negative, I pass the

following

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of India

in discharging Shri B V Raghavendra, Part Time Safai

karmachari, Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore from the

services of the Bank with superannuation benefits without

disqualification from future employment w.e.f. 03.07.2003

is legal and justified and that he is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1065-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj l®Vªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufn"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16@2010½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@17@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2010) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore 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 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/17/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Officer Desk

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022

Dated

27th April, 2015

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

CR No. 16/2010

I Party

II Party

Smt. Vanitha S. Rao,

The Regional Manager,

U1, 4th Floor, “Sai

Central Bank of India,

Venkateshwara”, Ganesha

Bangalore Regional Office,

Block, 1st Main Road,

P B No. 5129, 24, Crescent

Bengaluru - 560 020.

Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Sh. K. Srinivasa,

Advocate

II Party

Sh. Pradeep S. Sawakar,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/17/

2010-IR(B-II) dated 05.05.2010 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 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2341

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Bangalore regional office, Karnataka

in inflicting the punishment of dismissal to Smt.

Vanitha S Rao, Ex-Head Cashier II from the Services

without notice w.e.f. 28.09.2007 is justified and legal?

What relief the applicant is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

16/2010 when notices were issued to both the sides, I Party

and II Party entered their appearance through their

respective advocate and I party filed her claim statement

on 16.08.2010 and II Party filed its counter statement on

15.12.2010.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. Smt. Vanitha S Rao (hereinafter referred as I Party)

while working as Head Cashier II at Central Bank of India,

Nanjangud Branch (hereinafter referred as II Party) was

issued with charge sheet dated 02.02.2007 as under:

“Charge Sheet

Mrs. Vanitha S Rao, Head Cashier II (Emp. No. 041545)

working at Nanjangud Branch was served with a Memo

RO: HRD:2006-07/2910 dated 02.02.2007 on 07.02.2007

wherein she was called upon to submit her reply within

3 days. Mrs. Vanitha Rao requested for extension of time

by one week, which was granted by the Competent

Authority. But she has not submitted her reply till date.

Hence it has been decided to initiate Disciplinary Action

against her for the following lapses:

CHARGE

Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on

28.02.2002 from UCO bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore under

their “Mega Cash Scheme” by mortgaging a flat on the 4th

floor of the premises bearing New Corporation No. 1 and

its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J Block, Ist Main, Pipeline,

Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560020 which was gifted to here

by her husband Mr. K. Srinivas vide gift deed dated

22.12.2001. She has given a notarized undertaking to UCO

Bank that should produce the Originals of the Gift Deed

dated 2.12.2001, Khata Certificate, latst Tax Paid Receipt,

Sanction Plan and license to UCO Bank, Pennya Branch,

Bangalore. But Mrs. Vanitha Rao failed to deposit the said

original Gift deed to the Bank.

Mrs. Vanitha Rao has, extended Personal Guarantee in

favour of UCO Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore on

31.12.2001 for the credit facility of Rs. 37.00 lacs (-CC-Rs.

32 lacs and Term Loan - Rs. 5.00 lacs) sanctioned to

M/s. Urethane India, a partnership firm run by her husband

Mr. K. Srinivas and sons, which facility was sanctioned

against the security of the entire building belonging to Mr.

K. Srinivas and situated at New No. 1 and its adjacent No.

2/5 situated at J Block, Ist Main, Pipeline, Seshadripuram,

Bangalore 560 020 which includes the flat on the 4th floor

of the premises bearing New Corporation no. 1 and its

adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J Block, Ist Main, Pipeline,

Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020 which was already gifted

to Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao. Since the firm had defaulted in

repayment a recovery suit has been filed against the

borrower and the guarantor.

Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao has availed a Mortgage loan of

Rs. 5.50 lacks on 26.04.2004 from the Grain Merchants Co-

op Bank Ltd. Chamrajpet, Bangalore against the deposit of

Original Gift Deed dated 22.12.2001 covering the property

viz. a flat on the 4th floor of the premises bearing New

Corporation No. 1 and its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J

Block, Ist Main, Pipeline, Seshadripura, Bangalore 560 020.

Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao has stood as guarantor for the credit

facility availed by M/s Urethane India from Indian Bank,

Benson Town Branch, Bangalore by creating an Equitable

Mortgage on the property gifted to her by her husband

vide Gift Deed dated 22.12.2001 covering the property viz.

a flat on the 4th floor of the premises bearing New

Corporation No. 1 and its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J

Block, Ist Main, Pipeline, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020.

Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao has committed the acts of

misconduct as under:

1. She has not obtained prior permission from the

Competent Authority when she was borrowing such huge

loans from other financial institutions or guaranteeing huge

financial liabilities.

2. She has cheated the said financial institutions by

fraudulently mortgaging the same property as security for

different loans availed by her and her relatives.

3. She has defaulted the said financial institutions in the

capacity of borrower and guarantor.

Thus Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao has committed fraudulent

acts her acts constitute a gross misconduct in terms of

para 5(j) of the memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary

Action Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

Mrs. Vanitha S Rao is hereby informed that Mr. Rajan

Venkatraman, Senior Manager, Peenya Branch will be

holding the enquiry against her. Date, time and place of

enquiry will be communicated to her by Enquiry Officer.

She will be given full opportunity in the enquiry to inspect

the documents which will be field by the Management and

to produce evidence, documentary as well as oral. Mrs.

Vanitha S. Rao, if she so desires, may take the assistance of

a representative of the Registered Trade Union of Bank

2342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Employees of which she is a member for representing her

case of defence.

Sd/-

(N SANKARANARAYANAN)

Disciplinary Authority/Chief Manager

Corrigendum

Attention of Mrs. Vanitha S. Rao, HC-II, Nanjangud

Branch is drawn to the Charge Sheet No. BASAVA/HRD/

2006-07/1000 dated 22.02.2007 served on her. She is hereby

informed that in Para 1 of the second page of the Charge

Sheet:

Gift Deed date should be read as “20.11.2003” instead

of 22.12.2001"

“Flat on the 4th Floor” should be read as “Flat on the

third floor”

All other things remain unchanged.

Sd/-

(N Sankaranarayanan)

Discipilinary Authority/

Chief Manager”

5. Since the I party did not give any reply the Disciplinary

Authority while appointment Sh. Rajan Venkatraman as

Enquiry Officer and Sh. A Srinidhi as Presenting Officer

asked the I party to face Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer while securing the presence of both the parties

after observing the formalities of perliminary hearing

receiving the evidence of Smt. Gayathri Gangoli, Senior

Manager, Malleswaram Branch; Smt. Vijayakumari, Senior

Manager, Indian Bank, Malleswaram Branch; Sri Ramkumar,

Superintendent, Grain Merchants Co-op Bank,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore and Sh. M Ragunath, DCO, UCO

Bank, Regional Office, Bangalore as MWI to MW4

exhibiting MEx-1 to MEx-91 and DEx-1 to DEx-12 on behalf

of defence the detailed description of which are narrated in

the Annexure after submission of written brief by both the

sides submitted his report dated 16.06.2007 charges as

proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority after issuance of

Show Cause and affording opportunity of hearing to CSE

imposed punishment of Dismissal from Service by order

dated 28.09.2007, on appeal by the I party to the Appellate

Authority, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of

the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 08.09.2008 and

then the I party approached ALC(C), Bangalore in

conciliation and as it ended in failure vide his report dated

16.02.2010 it resulted in this reference.

6. Having regard to certain allegations made in the claim

statement touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry

while raising a Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

party by the II Party is fair and proper?”

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides the

said issue has been answered in the affirmative i.e., the

Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party is fair and

proper by order dated 22.05.2013. Thereafter, when the

matter was posted for Evidence of I party on the point of

Victmization and being not gainfully employed counsel for

I Party while filling the affidavit of I Party examining her on

oath as WW 1(V) and as counsel for II Party submitted

that he has no evidence to lead the said points. The matter

stood thus arguments addressed by counsel for both sides

were heard.

7. Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II party

against the I Party has been held as Fair and Proper by

order dated 22.05.2013, the points that now arises for my

consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer

the charges are proved is perverse necessitating the

interference of this tribunal?

Point No.2: If not, whether the punishment imposed is

disproportionate to the proved misconduct?

Point No. 3: What Order/Award?

8. On appreciation of the charges with the pleadings

and evidence brought on record in the Domestic Enquiry

with the enquiry report and the orders of Disciplinary

Authority and the Appellate Authority imposing the

punishment of Dismissal from Service in the light of the

arguments put forward by both the sides my finding on

Point No. 1 is in the Affirmative and No. 2 and 3 as per the

final order for the following

REASONS

9. The charges against the I party being that she availed

a loan of Rs. 3,00,000.00 on 28.02.2002 from UCO Bank,

Peenya Branch under the Mega Cash scheme by

Mortgaging a Flat on the third floor on the premises bearing

New Corporation no. 1 and its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at

J Block, Ist Main, Pipeline, Seshadripuram, Bangalore by

furnishing notarised undertaking that she would produced

the originals of the gift deed in her favour dated 22.12.2001,

khata certificate and latest Tax Paid Receipt, Sanction Plan

and licence to UCO Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore but

failed to deposit the original gift deed to the Bank; secondly

she extended personal guarantee in favour of UCO Bank,

Peenya Branch, Bangalore on 31.12.2001 for the credit

facility of Rs. 37,00,000.00 sanctioned to M/s. Urethane

India a partnership firm run by her Husband and Sons

which facility was sanctioned against the security of the

entire building standing in her Husband’s Name and the

firm having defaulted in repayment a recovery suit has

been filed against the borrower and the guarantor; thirdly

she availed a mortagage loan of Rs. 55,00,000.00 from Grain

Merchants Co-op Bank Limited Chamrajpet, Bangalore

against the deposit of Gift deed on 22.12.2001 covering the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2343

property a flat on the third floor on the New Corporation

no.1 and its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J Block, Ist Main,

Pipeline, Seshadripuram, Bangalore; and that she has stood

as guarantor the credit facility availed by the Urathane

India from Renson Town Branch Bangalore by creating an

equitable mortgage of property gifted to her by her husband

vide Gift Deed dated 22.12.2001 covering the property New

Corporation no.1 and its adjacent No. 2/5 situated at J Block,

Ist Main, Pipaline, Seshadripuram, Bangalore and that it

has been alleged by UCO and Indian Banks that she has

colluded with her family members in defrauding them and

on these facts it is stated she has not obtained prior

permission from the competent authority when she was

borrowing huge loans from other financial institution and

financial liabilities and that she cheated the said financial

institution by fraudulently mortgaging the same property

as security for different loan for her and her relatives and

has also defaulted the said financial institutions in the

capacity of borrower and guarantor and thereby she

committed fraudulent acts and her acts constitute gross

misconduct in terms of Para 5(j) of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Since there is no much dispute

about the facts of borrowing and standing as Guarantor

and defaults in repayment of the loan the Point that arises

for the consideration is whether these acts do amount to

gross-misconduct by the I Party under Para 5(i) of

Memorandum of Settlement. In order to appreciate whether

these facts alleged and almost admitted by the I Party

amount to gross misconduct as per Para 5(j) of the

Memorandum of Settlement I wish to quote here Para 5 (j)

of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002/27.05.2002

copy of which has been produced by the counsel for the

II Party with memo dated 02.04.2014

“Para 5 : By the expression “gross misconduct” shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part

of an employee:

(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or

gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to

involve the bank in serious loss”.

On plain reading of the facts of charges levelled against

the I Party they do not constitute acts prejudicial to the

interest of the bank or gross-negligence or negligence

involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss,

therefore, the alleged facts do not constitute gross-

misconduct as defined under Para 5(j) of Memorandum of

Settlement. The learned advocate appearing for the II party

who could not substantiate these acts do amount of gross-

misconduct as envisaged under Para 5(j) of the

Memorandum of Settlement tried to convince the court

that the alleged acts amount to engaging in any trade or

business outside the scope of her duties except with the

written permission of the Bank which is gross misconduct

as envisaged under Para 5(a) of Memorandum of Settlement.

First of all it is not the charge that the alleged facts do

amount to engaging in any trade or business outside the

scope of her duties except with the permission of the bank,

therefore, now there is no scope for the II Party to take

such a stand that the alleged acts amounts to engaging in

trade or business outside the scope of her duties as such,

such a argument does not hold any water. Moreover, only

because she stood guarantor to a firm run by her Husband

and sons and also borrowed some money from the other

banks it cannot be said straight away without any evidence

that it amounts to engaging in trade or business outside

the scope of her duties. Moreover no provision is pointed

out from the memorandum of Settlement to stand as

guarantor or to borrow money from other financial

institutions the employee of the II Party is required to take

written permission of the Bank. Under these circumstances

though the facts of borrowing standing guarantee and

committing default in payment of the loans are proved being

not disputed the finding of the Enquiry Officer that charge

of gross misconduct as envisaged under Para 5 (j) of the

Memorandum of Settlement is proved is baseless and

perverse. Under the circumstances, I have arrived at

conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer the

charges of gross-misconduct levelled against the I Party

are proved are perverse and consequently the punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the

Appellate Authority on such findings are unsustainable.

10. In view of my finding that the findings of the Enquiry

Officer charges are proved is perverse and the punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by

the Appellate Authority on such enquiry finding are

unsustainable the I Party is entitled for reinstatement. Since

the evidence of the I Party that she has not been gainfully

employed after her dismissal from service being not rebutted

by any evidence acceptable to the conscience of this

tribunal she is also entitled for full backwages as well as

continuity of service being dismissed from Service without

proof of any misconduct on her part. In the result, I pass

the following

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of India,

Bangalore regional office, Karnataka in inflicting the

punishment of Dismissal on Smt. Vanitha S Rao, Ex-Head

Cashier II from the services without notice w.e.f. 28.09.2007

is not justified and legal and that she is entitle for

reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of Services

and all other consequential benefits that she would have

received in the absence of the impugned punishment of

dismissal.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed byt me on 27th April 2015)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

2344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Annexure-I

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry

MEx-1

Letter No. Malleshwararn Branch:

2006:290:STAFF dated 22-09-2006

MEx-2

Letter dated 22-09-2006 addressed to

Malleshwaram Branch.

MEx-3

Letter from Malleshwaram Branch No.

Malleshwaram Branch : 2006 : 292 :

STAFF dated 22-09-2006

MEx-4

Letter No. RO; HRD: 2006-07:1568

dated 14-09-2006 from Regional Office,

Bangalore

MEx-5

Letter dated 22-09-2006 addressed to

Malleshwaram Branch

MEx-6

Letter No. MALLES:2006:309;HRD

dated 30-09-2006 Of Malleshwaram

Branch

MEx-7

Letter dated 30-09-2006 addressed to

Regional Office, Bangalore,

MEx-8

Letter No. RO:HRD;2006-07: 1754

dated 05-10-2006 of Regional Office,

Bangalore

MEx-9

Letter No. 2006:321:STAFF dated

11-10-200 of Malleshwaram Branch

MEx-10

Letter No. RO:HRD: 2006-07: 1754

dated 05-10-2006 of Regional Office,

Bangalore

MEx-11

Letter NO. 2006:363:HRD dated 07-1-

2006 of Malleshwaram Branch

MEx-12

Letter No. RO:HRD:2006-07:2138 dated

02-11-2006 Regional-Office, Bangalore

MEx-13

Letter No. RO:HRD:2006-07:2150

Dated 03-11-2006 of Regional Office,

Bangalore

MEx-14

Letter No. MISC:PEN:2005-06:351

dated 21-12-2005 of UCO Bank

MEx-15

Letter No:2006:156:staff dated 30-05-

2006 of Malleshwaram Branch

MEx-16

letter No. MISC:PEN: 2006-07:70 Dated

29-05-2006 of UCO Bank

MEx-17

Letter No. UCO Bank:Peenya:06-

07:166 dated 23.01.2006 of UCO Bank

MEx-18

Agreement relating to loan under UCO

MEGA Cash Scheme of UCO Bank

MEx-19

From No a-21a (3000) of UCO Bank

MEx-20

Letter of waiver dated 28-02-2002 of

UCO Bank

MEx-21

DP note for Rs.300000/-

MEx-22

Letter dated 11-01-2002 addressed to

UCO Bank.

MEx-23

Salary slip of Smt. Vanitha S Rao for

Dec 2001.

MEx-24

Salary slip of Smt. Vanitha S. Rao for

January 2002.

MEx-25

Affidavit Dated 07-01-2002

MEx-26

Draft of Letter of Deposit of title deeds

to be obtained

MEx-27

Gift Deed dated 22-12-2001

MEx-28

Guarantor’s Statement of UCO Bank

MEx-29

Guarantor’s Statement of UCO Bank

31-12-2001

MEx-30

Acknoledgement to Debt/Securities

31-03-2005

MEx-31

Agreement for A21A of UCO Bank

singned by Arua Rao Vanitha Rao

MEx-32

Agreement form A-21 of UCO Bank

and Vanitha Rao

MEx-33

Agreement form A-21 A pf of UCO

Bank signed by Arun Rao

MEx-34

Letter No. MALLLES:2005-05: STAFF

dated 03-01-2006 from Malleshwaram

Branch

MEx-35

Letter dated 12th Dec 2005 of Indian

Bank

MEx-36

Letter dated 10th March 2006 of Indian

Bank

MEx-37

Letter NO:CO:VIG:2749: 2006-07 dated

21-07-2006 of Indian Bank

MEx-38

Letter No. IBBT:CR:NPA:UI:2006-07

dated 18th Jan 2007 of Indian Bank

MEx-39

Details of Assets and Liabilities of

Indian Bank

MEx-40

: Consent Letter from the guarantor

for disclsoure of Information dated

21-06-2004

MEx-41

Agreement of guarantee form D-57

MEx-42

Gift Deed dated 20-11-2003

MEx-43

Letter of acknowledgement dated

30-06-2004 addressed to Indian Bank

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2345

MEx-44

Application by Mrs Vanitha Rao for

loan under UCO MEGA Cash Scheme

MEx-45

Letter dated 01-01-2002 regarding

confirmation of deposit of Title Deeds

by Sri Srinivas

MEx-46

Letter for extension of EM created on

31-12-2001

MEx-47

Circular on UCO Mega Cash of UCO

Bank

MEx-48

Sanction Advice of UCO Bank, dated

28-0202002 for sanction of loan of Rs.

3.00 to Smt. Vanitha Rao

MEx-49

Sanction letter of UCO Bank, for

sanction of facilities to M/s Urethene

India

MEx-50

Guarnatee agreement in form A-21 of

UCO Bank dated 04-04-2002 for

facilities to M/s Urathane India

MEx-51

Acknowledgement of Debt dated

31-03-2005 for Rs. 58,19,193/- in respect

of Urethane India

MEx-52

Letter dated 04-04-2004 addressed to

UCO Bank for extension of EM

MEx-53

English Version of Sale deed dated

28-01-1980

MEx-54

Statement of Account of Loan

Account No.LN 8223 with UCO Bank

MEx-55

Statement of Account of CC a/c CC

No. 1047 in the name of Urethane India

MEx-56

Statement of Account of CC a/c CC

No. 1047 in the name of Urethane India

MEx-57

Statement of Account of Loan ale

No.LN8223

MEx-58

Sale Deed dated 28-01-1980

MEx-59

Auction Sale Notice by UCO Bank

dated 20-02-2006

MEx-60

Possession Notice dated 13-09-2004

MEx-61

Postal Receipts and acknowledgement

MEx-62

Notice dated 25-06-2004 by UCO Bank

addressed to Smt. Vanita S. Rao

MEx-63

News Paper Publication in the paper

Indian Express dated 13-09-2005

MEx-64

Notice dated 19-04.2005 addressed to

Mr. K. Srinivas

MEx-65

Auction Sale Notice by UCO Bank

dated 28-11-2005

MEx-66

Auction Sale Notice dated 28-11-2005

by Indian Bank publiched in Vijaya

Kamataka dated 29th November 2005

MEx-67

Letter dated 27-12-2005 by Indian

Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore

addressed to RM, RM UCO Bank,

Bangalore

MEx-68

Letter dated 28-02-2006 by UCO Bank,

RO, Bangalore to UCO Bank, Peenya

Branch

MEx-69

Letter dated 09-05-2006 from Police

Inspector, JC Nagar Police Station,

addressed to UCO Bank, Peenya

MEx-70

Branch Wise Instrument List for

18-10-2003 & Copy of Voucher dated

20-0-2003 for Rs. 93405/-

MEx-71

Cheque No. 87921 for Rs. 93405/- dated

17-10-2003 fvg UCO Bank & Return

Memo dated 18-10-2003

MEx-72

Letter dated 26-11-2004 of Vanita S.

Rao addressed to UCO Bank

MEx-73

Application for Credit Facilities by

Urethane India

MEx-74

Sanction Letter dated 21-06-2004 by

Indian Bank, Benson Town Branch to

Urethane India

MEx-75

Notice under Sec 13(2) of SARF AESI

act from Indian Bank, Beson Town

Branch

MEx-76

Possession Notice for Immovable

property by Authorised Officer of

Indian Bank

MEx-77

Building Plan in respect of Site No. 1,

Ist Block, Pipe Line, Ward No. 6,

Banglaore

MEx-78

EC dated 24-11-2005 for the period

from 01-04-1990 to 31-03-05

MEx-79

Application by Indian Bank before the

Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate

MEx-80

Statement of Account of Indian Bank

in respect of A/c Urethane India

MEx-81

Statement of Account of Legal

expenses and Memorandum of

Interest by Indian Bank

2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx-82

Memorandum relating to the Deposit

to Title Deeds by Vanitha S. Rao in

favour of Grain Merchants co-op Bank

Ltd.

MEx-83

Gift Deed dated 22-12-2001 executed

by Sri K. Srinivas in favour of Vanitha

S. Rao

MEx-84

EC dated 15/03/2002 for the period

from 14-01-1998 to 14-03-2003

MEx-85

Khata Certificate dated 05-01-2004

issued by Bangalore Mahanagara

Palike

MEx-86

Tax Paid Receipt dated 05-01-2004

MEx-87

EC dated 03-02-2003 for the period

from 01/02/2001 to 27/01/2003

MEx-88

MR for 2002-03 dated 05-01-2004 from

BMP (Revenue Dept.

MEx-89

Salary Slip of Vanitha S. Rao for the

month of Feb. 2004

MEx-90

Form 16 issued to Vanitha S. Rao for

the period from 01-04-2002 to

31-03-2003

MEx-91

Statement of Account of Grain

Merchant’s Co-Op Bank Ltd. In

respect of Loan a/c ML090/174 of

Vanitha

Documents exhibited on behalf of the CSE in Domestic

Enquiry

DEx-1

Letter dated 04-01-2006 from Lal

Associates, addressed to the Senior

Manager, UCO Bank, Peenya

DEx-2

Letter dated 21-02-2005 from Lal

Associates, addressed to the Senior

Manager, UCO Bank, Peenya

DEx-3

Reply by Smt. Vanitha S Rao dated

28-02-2007 to the RO memo

No:RO:HRD:2006-07:2910 dated

02-02-2007

DEx-4

Application for loan under Mega Cash

Scheme by Sri K Srinivas

DEx-5

List of new advances sanctioned

during the course of day-Mega Cash

Scheme of Sri K. Srinivas

DEx-6

Application of credit facilities by

M/s. Urethane India

DEx-7

Copy of recommendations for

financing M/s. Urethane India

DEx-8

Statement of A/c of SBI39475 of Smt.

Vanitha S. Rao

DEx-9

Statement of Account of Current A/c

CA14895 of M/s. Urethane India

DEx-10

Statement of Account of Loan No.

6972 of Sri K. Srinivas

DEx-11

Statement of Account of Loan A/c

7669 of Smt. S. Vanitha S. Rao

DEx-12

Statement of Account of CC A/c 1947

of M/s. Urethane India

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1066-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vk|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k Je

U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 50@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@73@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2001)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/05/2015.

[No. L-12011/73/2001-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022

DATED

3rd February, 2015

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 50/2001

I Party,

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Regional Manager,

Vijaya Bank Workers

Vijaya Bank,

Organisation, 37/1, I floor,

Head Office, 41/2, M. G. Road,

Car Street, Ulsoor,

Trinity Circle,

Bangalore - 560 008.

Bangalore - 560 001.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2347

Appearances

1 Party

:Shri B D Kuttappa

Advocate

II Party

Shri Udayshankar Rai

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12011/73/

2001-IR(BII) dated 20.07.2001 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank to dismiss Shri N Shankare Gowda, Special

Assistant from service is justified and legal? If not,

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

50/2001 when notices were issued to both the sides they

entered their appearance through their respective advocate

and I party filed his claim statement on 14.12.2001 and II

party file counter statement on 03.09.2002.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. Sh. N Shankare Gowda (herein after referred as I Party)

while serving as Special Assistant at doddamage branch

of Vijaya Bank (herein after referred as II Party) was served

with charge sheet dated 17.11.1999 as under :

“Charge Sheet

You were working as Special Assistant at Bank’s

Doddamagga branch from 24.11.97 till the date of your

suspension i.e., 20.7.99.

It is reported against you as under:

Smt. Saroja, a customer of Doddamagge Branch

maintaining SB a/c No. 4392came to the branch on

24.05.1999 for the purpose of withdrawal of Rs. 1800/- from

her SB a/c. You had issued a loose cheque bearing No.

224875 to her and obtained her signature on the said cheque.

In the said loose cheque, you had written for withdrawal of

Rs. 6,800/- and the said amount was withdrawn from the SB

a/c of Smt. Saroja. However, you had paid only Rs. 1,800/-

to the customer and to suppress your said fraudulent acts,

entered her ass boo in your own handwriting, stating the

withdrawal as Rs. 1,800/- only in her SB a/c and mentioning

the balance as Rs. 5087/- on the above date. Subsequently,

when the customer had come to the branch on 28.06.1999

for the purpose of conversion of Rs. 5000/- lying in her SB

a/c to term deposit account, it was revealed that the

actual balance in her S.B. a/c ledger sheet was only Rs. 87/-

and the amount withdrawn on 24.05.1999 was Rs. 6,800/-.

An investigation conducted into the matter revealed that

you had written the loose cheque for Rs. 6,800/- in your

own handwriting and also made the debit entry of Rs. 1,800/-

in the pass book on 24.05.1999. Hence, it is clear that

you have deliberately written Rs. 1,800/- as withdrawal

amount and misappropriated Rs. 5000/- being the customer’s

money and thus committed fraudulent acts and cheated

the customer of the bank.

It is revealed during the investigation that, on 03.06.1999

you made a false credit entry of Rs. 25,000/- to the SB a/c

No. 1601 maintained by Shri. G. Bhupathi without the

support of any valid voucher or paying-in-slip.

Subsequently, the account holder Shri Bhupathi had

withdrawn the said amount on the same date. Further, it is

also observed that the entry made by you as above was

neither reflected in the cash scroll nor in the SB sub- day

book of the branch s on 03.06.1999 and the relevant credit

paying-in-slip is not available on record. Hence, it is very

clear that the entry of Rs. 25,000/- made by you in the SB a/

c ledger sheet of Shri. Bhupathi is a fraudulent transaction.

The hand writing in the ledger sheet of SB a/c No. 1601 for

the false credit entry of Rs. 25,000/- was yours only and the

subsequent withdrawals in the said account were also

checked and passed by you.

During the absence of Branch Manager between the

last week of May and first week of July 1999, Shri.B.V.

Poojary, Asst. Branch Manager, was in charge of the

branch and you were supervising the operations of SB,

Current and Overdraft accounts and you were also

maintaining the officer’s cash scroll. It is observed that the

extraction of balancing of SVB a/cs was not done on second

Friday of June 99 i.e., on 11.06.1999, but was done on

18.06.1999. 1In order to suppress your fraudulent acts and

the above said fraudulent entry of Rs. 25,000/- in the SB

a/c No. 1601 on 03.06.1999, you had obtained a self cheque

bearing No., 0089341 for Rs. 25,000/- from Shri. M.T. Range

Gowda, a customer of the bank maintaining SB a/c No.

3695 on 18.06.1999. Shri. Bhupathi had prepared a credit

paying-in-slip for the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- for credit

of the proceeds of the above cheque No. 2289341 to his SB

a/c No. 1601 on 18.06.1999. The said amount was withdrawn

from SB a/c No. 3695 and credited to the SB a/c No. 1601 of

Shri. Bhupathi as on the said date. This paying-in-slip to

SB a/c No. 1601 of Shri. Bhupathi was not entered in the

ledger sheet of his said account, but recorded in the cash

scroll, SB sub-day book etc. From the above transactions,

it is revealed that the motive behind the said transaction

was to suppress the effect of the false credit entry of Rs.

25,000/- made on 3.6.1999. From your above acts, it is

construed that you have committed fraudulent acts to

derive pecuniary benefit for yourself.

Smt. Puttamma, an illiterate depositor maintaining SB

a/c No. 2037 at Doddamagge Branch had remitted an

amount of Rs. 10,000/- to her SB a/c on 28.5.99. It is reported

that, on 29.5.99, you had withdrawn the amount of

2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs. 10,000/- from her said account by forging her left hand

thumb impression in the loose cheque No. 224966. The

said loose cheque was written by you in your own

handwriting and was also passed by you. The Left Hand

Thumb Impression of Smt. Puttamma, on the loose cheque

in question, does not tally with her Left Hand thumb

impression in the specimen signature card held by the

branch. The cash handling clerk, on the said day Shri. N.

Shivaramu, code No. 10375, vide his written statement dt.

6.7.99 has confirmed the fact that the payment of cash of

Rs. 10,000/- was made directly to you. By your above acts,

you have cheated the customer and committed fraud for

personal gain.

Shri. Malaiah, a customer of the branch has availed a

production loan of Rs. 25,000 /- (A/c No. 25/98), for raising

tobacco crops during 1997-98. He is maintaining SBV a/c

No. 624 at Doddamagge Branch. As per the arrangement

made with the Tobacco Boards, the sale proceeds of

tobacco was sent to the branch directly by the Tobacco

Board and accordingly the branch had received a total

amount of Rs. 36,359.40 to the credit of shri. Malaiah’s SB

a/c No. 624. On 1.2.99 Malaiah’s wanted to withdraw a sum

of Rs. 21,000/- from his said SB a/c and credit the same to

his production Loan a/c No. 25/98. You had issued a loose

cheque bearing No. 223639 to the customer on 1.2.99 and

obtained his signature on both the sides of the cheque for

withdrawal of Rs. 21,000/- and informed him that the amount

would be directly credited to his production loan account.

However, it is observed that you had neither handed over

the amount to Shri. Malaiah nor credited the same to his

production loan a/c No. 25/98. It is also observed on

verification of the relative cheque that, the date of the

cheque was altered and the drawer’s authentication for the

alteration in daze was not obtained. The cash handling

clerk on the said day Shri. N. Basaye Gowda, [code No.

9458], in his letter dt. 13.7.99 had mentioned that the amount

of Rs. 21,000/- drawn from the account of Shri. Malaiah

was handed over to you 01.02.1999.

In this Bank In this regard the customer, Shri. Malaiah

has also lodged a complaint vide his letter dated 10.7.1999.

By your above said acts you have cheated the customer

for your personal benefit, committed fraud and

misappropriated customer’s money.

It is reported that, Shri. M.K. Ranganath, who is

maintaining SB a/c No. 2111 at Doddamage Branch had

deposited an amount of Rs. 5000/- in his SB a/c paying-in-

slip to the customer in respect of the above deposit affixing

the case received seal of the branchy and duly putting

your signature for having received the amount of Rs. 5,000/-

on 4.5.99. However, the relevant pass book, cash scroll and

SB Sub-day book for 4.5.99 do not reveal the said

transaction. On verification, it is also revealed that no such

voucher/paying-in-slip was prepared and entered in the

SB a/c ledger sheet of Shri M.K. Ranganath. it is also

revealed that, in order to suppress your above fraudulent

acts and not to give scope for any suspicion, on 18.5.99

you have made a fraudulent credit entry for Rs. 5,000/- in

the SB a/c No. 2111 of Shri M.K. Ranganath. The said

fraudulent entry in the ledger sheet of the Said SB A/c was

made by you in your own handwriting. The fraudulent

entry of Rs. 5000/- entered in the relevant pass book of

Shri. M.K Ranganath was also made by you only. However,

the said entry raised you on 18.5.99 was not found in the

cash scroll and SB Sub-day book as on the said date, except

the entry made in the SB ledger sheet of SB a/c No. 2111. It

is further observed that the said entry was checked and

initiated by you only. By your above said acts, you have

defrauded the bank and cheated the depositor. Actuated

by the malafides, you have committed fraud in the SB a/c

No. 172 of Shri. Hanumantha Reddy by fraudulently

withdrawing Rs. 12,000/- from his SB a/c No. 172 maintained

at Doddamagge Branch. On 3.4.99, you have fraudulently

withdrawn Rs. 12,000/- from the SB a/c No. 172 of Shri.

Hanumantha Reddy by loose cheque No. 221294. The said

entry in the ledger sheet of the SBV a/c No. 172 was made

by you and the transaction was also checked by you in the

ledger sheet. The said entry of Rs. 12,000/- was also recorded

in the token register, cash scroll and SB Sub-day book. On

8.4.99, you have prepared a cash paying-in-slip for Rs.

2000/- and remitted Rs. 2000/- to the credit of SB a/c No.

172. On the same day, you have made a false credit entry of

Rs. 10,000/- to the said account without the support of a

valid credit paying-in-slip. This fraudulent credit entry of

Rs. 10,000/- made by you on 8.4.99 to the account of Shri.

Hanumantha Reddy was not reflected in the cash scroll

and SB Sub-day book as on the said date. It is also

observed that the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 12,000/- on

3.4.99 and the fraudulent credit entry of Rs, 10,000/- on

8.4.99 were Written by you in the relative ledger sheet of

SBV a/c No. 172 in your own handwriting. It is amply clear

that to camouflage your fraudulent acts of withdrawal of

cash of Rs. 12,000/- on 3.4.99, you had deposited Rs. 2000/

- on 8.4.99 and made a fraudulent credit entry of Rs. 10,000/

- on the said day in the SB a/c No. 172 of Shri. Hanumantha

Reddy. From your above acts, it is evident that you have

committed fraudulent acts by withdrawing Rs. 12,000/- from

the SBV a/c No. 172 of Shri. Hanumantha Reddy on 3.4.99

and making a false credit entry of Rs. 10,000/- in the said

account on 8.4.99.

By your various acts as narrated above, It is evident

that you have committed fraud and misappropriation in

various deposit accounts of the customers at Doddamagge

branch, thereby cheating the customers and exposing the

bank to financial loss, which constitute gross misconduct

under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement, 1966.

The Bank therefore charges you as under:

“Your acts of fraud and misappropriation in the

deposit accounts of the customers as narrated from

(1) to (6) above amount to acts prejudicial to the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2349

interest of the bank, which constitute gross-

misconduct under sub-clause(j) of clause 19.5 of

Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966.”

You are, therefore, required to submit your written

statement setting forth your defence, if any, in triplicate to

the undersigned within 7 days of receipt of this charge

sheet and show-cause as to why appropriate disciplinary

action should not be taken against you, falling which it will

be deemed that you have no statement of defence to submit

and the matter will be proceeded with accordingly.

Sd/-

(K. Amarnath Shetty)

Deputy General Manager

(Disciplinary Authority)”

on reply of the I Party denying the charges as false and

baseless the Disciplinary Authority appointing Sh. K

Venkataramanayya as Enquiry Officer and Sh. B Narasimha

Achary as Presenting Officer ordered him to face the

Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while securing the

presence of the CSE who appeared along with Sh. Suresh

Kamath, Special Assistant as Defence Representative after

observing the formalities of preliminary hearing receiving

the evidence of Sh. M Vasanth Kumar Shetty, Manager,

Regional Office, Hassan; Sh. A U Poojary, Assistant Branch

Manager, Doddamagge Branch; Sh. B N Shivasubramanya,

Branch Manager, Doddamagge Branch, Sh. A Basave

Gowda, Clerk, Doddamagge Branch and Sh. N Shivaramu,

Clerk, Doddamagge Branch as MW 1 to 5 and exhibiting

Certified copies of the investigation report dated 16.07.1999;

SB Account opening form pertaining to SB Account No.

4392 of Smt. Saroja; loose cheque no. 224875 for Rs. 6800.00

dated 24.05.1999; abstract copy of pass book pertaining to

SB Account No. 4392; kedger extract pertaining to SB

Account No. 4392; token register as on 24.05.1999; cashier’s

cash scroll as on 24.05.1999; Officer’s Cash scroll as on

24.05.1999; SB sub-day book as on 24.05.1999; compliant

given by Smt. Saroja with regard to fraudulent withdrawal

of Rs. 5000.00; specimen signature card in respect of SB

Account No. 1601 of Sh. G Bhupavathi; token register as

on 03.06.1999; Officer cash scroll as on 03.06.1999; cashier’s

cash scroll as on 18.06.1999; SB ledger sheet extract of SB

A/c 1601; SB Account sub- day as on 03.06.1999; SB ledger

extract of SB a/c 3695 of M T Range Gowda; SB account

deposit balancing register extract; SB sub-day as on

18.06.1999; SB Account No. 2037 of Smt. Puttamma; SB

account pass book pertaining to SB a/c no. 2037; complaint

letter of Smt. Puttamma; sheet showing the LHTI of Smt.

Puttamma; ledger extract pertaining to SB a/c No. 2037 of

Smt. Puttamma; token register as on 29.05.1999; extract copy

of Cashier’s cash scroll as on 29.05.1999; extract copy of

officer’s cash scroll as on 29.05.1999; SB sub-day as on

29.05.1999; written statement of Sh. N Shivaramu dated

06.07.1999; loose cheque No. 223639 for Rs. 21000.00 dated

01.02.1999; SB account ledger sheet pertaining to SB a/c

624; extract copy of SB pass book pertaining to account

No. 624 of Sh. Mallaiah; Token register as on 01.02.1999;

cashier’s cash scroll as on 01.02.1999; officer’s cash scroll

as on 01.02.1999; SB sub-day book as on 01.02.1999;

complaint letter dated 12.07.1999 given by Sh. Mallaiah;

written statement of Sh. A Basave Gowda dated 13.07.1999;

SB account opening card pertaining to SB a/c No. 2111;

specimen signature card of SB a/c No. 2111; complaint

letter received on 15.07.1999 from Sh. MV Sampath; extract

of officer’s cash scroll as on 04.05.1999; extract of cashier’s

cash scroll as on 04.05.1999; SB account ledger extract

pertaining to a/c No. 2111; SB sub-day book extract as on

04.05.1999; cashier cash scroll as on 03.04.1999; officer’s

cash scroll as on 03.04.1999; extract of SB sub-day book

(debit Slip) as on 03.04.1999; token register (folio 120 and

121); SB sub-day (debit slip) as on 08.04.1999; officer’s

cash scroll as on 08.04.1999; cashier’s cash scroll as on

08.04.1999; extract of SB sub- day book (credit slip) as on

08.04.1999; ledged extract of SB account No. 172 of Sh.

Hanumantha Reddy; pay in slip of SB account No. 172

dated 08.04.1999; SB account pay in sip dated 08.04.1999;

complaint letter of Sh. Hanumantha Reddy received on

13.07.1999; pass book in respect of SB a/c No. 172;

complaint of Sh. K Venakata Gowda dated 09.07.1999;

extract of Attendance Register for the months of April,

May and June 1999; compliant of Sh. M V Sampath dated

15.07.1999; reply of CSE to the charge sheet dated 09.12.1993;

report of Assistant Manager, Doddamagge Branch dated

02.07.1999; report of the Assistant Manager, Doddamagge

branch to AGM, RO, Hassan; letter dated 15.07.1999 from

Branch Manager to AGM, RO, Hassan; letter dated

12.07.1999 from branch Manager, Doddamagge Branch to

AGM, RO, Hassan; letter dated 12.07.1999 from Branch

manager Doddamagge Branch to Taluk, Sanchalak,

Karnataka Dalitha Sanghasha Samithi, letter dated

12.07.1999 from Karnataka Dalitha Sangharsha Samithi to

Branch Manager, Doddamagge; Particulars of

overdrawings dated 13.07.1999 of SB a/c Nos. 172, 1601,

2111, extract of Job rotation from 01.02.1997 to 31.07.1997

and Registered AD dated 11.01.2000 MEx 1 to 73 and the

statement of the CSE It Party concluding the enquiry

receiving the written briefs of both the sides submitted his

enquiry report dated 09.03.2000 all charges are being

proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority while affording

the opportunity of hearing imposed the punishment of

Dismissal from Service and on appeal the Appellate

Authority as well giving an opportunity of hearing

confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and

dismissed the appeal, then the I Party approached the

ALC(C), Hubli and as he submitted FOC dated 08.03.2001 it

resulted in this reference.

5. The I Party in his claim statement asserted that the

Domestic Enquiry was in violation of the principles of

natural justice and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer

2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on all the six charges is baseless since the concerned

complainants were not at all examined and testified the

alleged allegations made by them in their respective alleged

complaints and even otherwise the punishment imposed is

disproportionate etc. INTERALIA, the ll Party in the

counter statement contending that since the I Party

prevented the complainants from appearing before the

Enquiry Officer they could not be examined but inspite of it

from documentary evidence the charges levelled against

the CSE could be appreciated the Enquiry Officer while

appreciating the charges with the documentary evidence

placed before him coupled with the evidence of the bank

officials has rightly come to the conclusion of charges

being established and for such misconduct he was not

eligible to be continued in the service of the Bank as such

the punishment of dismissal is also proportionate supported

the Domestic Enquiry as fair and proper, the enquiry finding

as based on the evidence of the Bank officials and the

documents produced in the enquiry and punishment

imposed is proportionate and thus supported all of them.

6. My learned predecessor while raising a Preliminary

Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper?”

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides

and hearing the arguments of the learned advocates by

order dated 04.07.2007 held the Domestic Enquiry being

fair and proper and the learned advocates appearing for

both the sides addressed their arguments on merits, the

points that now arises for my consideration are :

Point No. 1: Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer

all the six changes are established is perverse necessitating

the interference of this tribunal?

Point No. 2: If not, whether the punishment of dismissal

imposed is disproportionate?

Point No. 3: What order/award?

7. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence placed on record in the Domestic

Enquiry with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the

arguments put forward by the learned advocates for both

the sides my finding on Point No. 1 is in the Affirmative,

point No. 2 as does not survive for consideration and Point

No. 3 as per final order for the following

REASONS

8. Point No. 1: The main contention of the I Party being

in the absence of examining the six complainants whose

complaints are exhibited as MEx 10, 27, 37, 42, 61 and 63

without their examination he having been deprived of

testifying their version and even whether they had filed

such complaints the finding of the Enquiry Officer all these

charges are established is perverse, during the course of

arguments when the learned advocate appearing for the II

Party was posed a question whether such charges based

on the alleged complaints of the customers without their

examination can be accepted he fairly conceded that charges

under 1, 3, 4, 5 may not be accepted but for charges 2 and

6 as customers are not losers their examination was not

necessary and from documentary evidence they can be

appreciated as such as far as the charges 2 and 6 are

concerned there is no reasons to say the finding of the

Enquiry Officer being perverse.

9. As per Charge No. 1 Smt. Saroja, SB Account holder

bearing No. 4392 lodged a complaint alleging that on

24.05.1999 she came to the Doddamagge branch for the

purpose of withdrawal of Rs. 1800.00 from her SB Account

and I Party issued her a loose cheque bearing No. 224875

and obtained her signature on the said cheque and paid

her only Rs. 1800.00 and now it has come to her notice that

he altered the figure of amount of Rs. 1800.00 to Rs. 6800.00

and in order to suppress withdrawal of Rs. 6800.00 he

entered in her pass book withdrawal as Rs. 1800.00 only

and subsequently when she came to branch on 28.06.1999

for the purpose of conversion of Rs. 5000.00 lying in her

SB Account to term deposit account it was revealed to her

that the actual balance in her SB account ledger being only

Rs. 87.00 as the amount withdrawn on 24.05.1999 was

written as Rs. 6800.00. When according to the alleged

complaint filed by Smt. Saroja she approached the I Party

for withdrawal of Rs. 1800.00 and he/I Party who issued a

loose cheque obtained her signature and gave her

Rs. 1800.00 and subsequently when she came to the branch

to convert Rs. 5000.00 from her SB Account on 28.06.1999

she learned the I Party writing withdrawal as Rs. 6800.00

same being entered in the ledger she has been deprived of

Rs. 5000.00 it is for her to testify as to such allegation and

no amount of other evidence could fill in the same. If at all

the customer had approached the I Party for withdrawal of

Rs. 1800.00 only and he who issued a loose cheque and

after obtaining her signature incorporated the amount of

withdrawal as Rs. 6800.00 and gave her only Rs. 1800.00 it

is only she who could speak about it and any amount of

the evidence like that of MW1 the investigating officer

that she has confirmed the allegations made in the complaint

before him etc., could not have been placed reliance by the

Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in my considered view the

finding of the Enquiry Officer charge No. 1 is established is

baseless and perverse.

10. As per charge No. 2 on 03.06.1999 the I Party gave a

false credit of Rs. 25000.00 without preparing any pay in

slip to the SB Account of Sh. G Bhupathi which entry is not

available on any other records or corresponding ledger

and when MW1 enquired the SB account holder Sh. G

Bhupathi in the presence of the Branch Manager he stated

that I Party had owed certain amount to him and in order to

make good the same he may have made this false entry. In

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2351

respect of this version of MW1 and the Branch Manager

in the absence of Sh. G. Bhupathi the I Party had owed him

money and in order to make the same good he must have

made this entry in his SB account ledger could not have

been accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in my

considered view the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge

No. 2 is established is baseless and perverse.

11. As per Charge No. 3 the I Party had withdrawn a sum

of Rs. 10000.00 on 29.05.1999 from the SB Account of Smt.

Puttamma bearing No. 2037 by forging her Left Thumb

Impression (LTM) on a loose cheque and she made a

complaint on 05.07.1999 and on verification of the LTM

with that of her specimen signature it did not tally as such

he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10000.00 from the SB

Account of Smt. Puttamma by forging her Left Thumb

Impression on the loose cheque. Only because the Thumb

Impression on the cheque and the specimen signature of

the customer did not tally it is not possible to jump to a

conclusion that I Party had withdrawn the amount in

question by forging left thumb impression of the customer

on a loose cheque. It is for the customer to testify that

though she did not come to the Bank on 29.05.1999 and

obtaining a loose cheque presented it for withdrawal of Rs.

10000.00. In the absence of the evidence of the account

holder in such type of allegation it is not possible to hold

the charges as proved on any amount of other evidence of

the bank officials. Therefore, in my considered view the

finding of the Enquiry Officer charge No. 3 is established is

baseless and perverse.

12. As per Charge No. 4 one Sh. Malaiah had availed a

production loan of Rs. 25000.00 under Account No. 25/98

for raising Tobacco Crop during 1997-1998 and had also

maintained an SB Account bearing No. 624 and as per the

arrangement made by him with the Tobacco Board the sale

proceeds of Tobacco used to be sent to the Doddamagge

branch directly by the Tobacco Board and accordingly the

Branch had received a total sum of Rs. 36359.40 paise to

his credit and on 01.02.1999 he came to the branch to

withdrawn a sum of Rs. 21000.00 from his SB Account and

to credit the same his production loan account No. 25/98

and I Party while issuing a loose cheque bearing No. 223639

to him obtained his signature on both the sides of the

cheque for withdrawal of Rs. 21000.00 and informed him

that the said amount will be directly credited to his loan

account but he failed to do so. As far as this charge is

concerned unless the customer testifies by examining

himself it is not possible to accept the allegations made

against the I Party on any amount of the evidence of the

Bank Officials. Therefore, in my considered view the finding

of the Enquiry Officer charge No. 4 is established is baseless

and perverse.

13. As per Charge No. 5 Sh. M. K. Ranganath who had

SB Account at Doddamagge branch bearing No. 2111 gave

a complaint alleging that he came to the branch on

04.05.1999 to deposit an amount of Rs. 5000.00 in his SB

Account and I Party who received the said amount issued

a counterfoil of the SB Account pay in slip to him affixing

the cash received seal of the Branch and duly putting his

signature for having received the amount of Rs. 5000.00

and on verification it is found that no such voucher pay in

slip was prepared and entered in the SB Account ledger

sheet and thereby he defrauded that customer by an amount

of Rs. 5000.00. Unless the complainant testified himself to

these allegations any other evidence of bank officials that

he confirmed before them these allegations is of no avail to

the II Party to prove this charge as such the finding of the

Enquiry Officer this charge is proved without the evidence

of Sh. N. K. Ranganath in my opinion is baseless and

perverse.

14. As per Charge No. 6 one Sh. Hanumantha Reddy

had SB Account No. 172 at Doddamagge branch and that I

Party on 03.04.1999 through a loose cheque withdrew a

sum of Rs. 12000.00 from that account and made entry in

the ledger sheet, token register, cash scroll and SB sub-

day book and on 08.04.1999 remitted a sum of Rs. 2000.00

through cash pay in slip to that account and also made a

false credit entry of Rs. 10000.00 to the said account without

a valid credit pay in slip. Unless the customer testified

himself that he did not withdraw a sum of Rs. 12000.00 on

03.04.1999 taking a loose cheque from the Branch withdrawal

of that amount by the I Party cannot be inferred as such in

the absence of his evidence the Enquiry Officer holding

this charge as established as well in my opinion is baseless

and perverse.

15. In view of my detailed discussion made above in

this case the evidence of complaints on all the six charges

was very much essential and in the absence of their

evidence the charges incorporated in them could not have

been believed. Ofcourse there is a observation by the

Enquiry Officer based on the statement by the Presenting

Officer that I Party was preventing the complainants from

appearing before the Enquiry Officer but in the absence of

any evidence to corroborate or support the statement made

by the Presenting Officer such statement could not have

been believed by the Enquiry Officer. Even otherwise when

the party making charge i.e. the management failed to

secure the presence of customers alleged to have made

such complaints the Enquiry Officer ought not to have

accepted such charges made against the I Party. Hence, I

am of the considered view the finding of the Enquiry Officer

all the six changes are established are baseless and perverse

and accordingly I answer this issue.

16. Point No. 2: In view of my finding on Point No. 1 this

issue does not survive for consideration.

17. Point No. 3: In view of my finding on Point No. 1

since the I Party has been dismissed from service on an

enquiry report which is found baseless and perverse the I

Party is entitle for reinstatement with full backwages,

2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits

that he would have received in the absence of the impugned

order of Dismissal. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the action of the

management of Vijaya Bank dismissing Sh. Shankare Gowda

from service is not legal and justified and that he is entitle

for reinstatement with full backwages, continuity of service

and other consequential benefits that he would have

received in the absence of the impugned order of dismissal.

(Directed to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 3rd February 2015)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1067-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV 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;] c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 66@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@149@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2002) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court - Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/149/2002-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022

DATED

1st JANUARY 2015

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 66/2002

I Party

II Party

Sh. R. Shanmukhappa,

The Assistant General Manager,

Telegadi mani, Mudgal,

Syndicate Bank,

Raichur-584125.

Zonal Office, P B No. 9947,

Karnataka

Gandhinagar,

Bangalore - 560009.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri A. J. Srinivasan,

Advocate

II Party

Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/149/

2002-IR(B-I) dated 11.12.2002 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the mansagement of

Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Gandhinagar,

Bangalore is justified in imposing the punishment of

dismissal from service in respect of Shri R.

Shanmukhappa, Ex-Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Hutti

Branch, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur Dist. Karnataka

State w.e.f. 31.8.1999? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

66/2002 when notices were issued to both the parties, I

Party entered his appearance through Sh. A J Srinivasan,

advocate and II Party through Sh. Ramesh Udadhyaya,

advocate but inspite of providing sufficient opportunity

both since did not care to file either claim statement or

counter statement my learned predecessor by award dated

13.12.2004 had rejected the reference for non prosecution

and after its gazette notification and service on the I party

since I Party came with an application in Misc. 01/2005

under Section 11 of ID Act to recall the Award my learned

predecessor after causing notice of the same to the

management and giving opportunity to file objection,

recording the evidence of the I Party after hearing

arguments addressed by the learned advocates by order

dated 29.07.2005 allowed the said application and set aside

the award dated 13.12.2004 and taken the reference in its

original number the I Party filed his claim statement on

15.12.2005 and II Party appeared through Sh. Ramesh

Upadhyaya, Advocate and filed their counter statement

on 12.05.2006.

3. The brief facts that leads to this reference and Award

may be stated as under.

4. The I Party who was appointed as clerk in the II Party

Management and was temporarily was entrusted with the

duties of Special Assistant during the period 09.07.1987 to

06.07.1998 was issued with charge sheet dated 14.10.1998

as under:

“That you were working as a clerk at Mudgal Branch

during the period between 09.07.1987 and 06.07.1998

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2353

during which period you were also temporarily

entrusted duties of a Special Assistant from time to

time. While functioning in your position as such, it

is alleged against you:

a) that you did not account for remittance of Rs.

5,000/- each deposited by Sri Nagappa and Smt.

Subhadramma, towards their respective SB Accounts

at the branch on the date on which the remittances

were made.

b) that a cheque issued by you for Rs. 50,000/-

favouring KSFC drawn on your SB Account at the

branch was dishonoured for want of funds.

The following circumstances appear on record in respect

of the above transactions:

I. In the matter of Rs, 5,000/- deposited by Sri Nagappa:

That Sri Nagappa, S/o Gundappa Badiger is maintaining

SB Account No. 13418 with the branch since 28.1.1993.

That in the pass book issued for his account a credit entry

of Rs. 5,000/- is appearing on 6.1.1998. The date “6.1.1998”

and the entry as “By Cash” was made and initiated by you.

However, the branch records to not indicate of any such

credit received for the said amount on 6.1.1998.

That on 27.4.98 the depositor withdrew Rs. 8,000/- in

cash from his SB Account through a withdrawn slip No.

414130. The withdrawal slip was entered, checked and

passed for payment by you. The opening balance in the

account on that date was Rs. 3,608/- only. However, the

debit entry in the ledger folio was shown as Rs. 3,000/-

instead of Rs. 8,000/- and the balance was shown as Rs.

608/-. The entry in the pass book was made and initiated

by you.

That on 30.04.1998, Rs. 5000/- was credited to the account

by cash. The credit slip is in your handwriting. The credit

entry was made, checked and initiated by you. This entry

was inserted in the ledger folio before the debit entry of Rs.

3,000/- dt. 27.04.1998 and the debit entry of Rs. 3,000/- dt.

27.4.98 is found altered to Rs. 8,000/-.

The above circumstances indicate that you have

misappropriated Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the customer on

6.1.98 towards his SB Account and when there was no

sufficient balance in the account, you passed for payment

a withdrawal slip for Rs. 8,000/- on 27.4.98. You falsified the

bank records by entering the withdrawal slip as for Rs.

3,000/- Later you reimbursed the amount on 30.4.98 by

crediting to SB Account and made alterations in the SB

ledger folio.

The above acts on your part constitute gross

misconduct within the meaning of clause No. 19.5 of

Bipartite Settlement. We therefore charge you with gross

misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank vide clause No. 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

II. In the matter of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by Smt.

Subhadramma:

That Smt. Subhadramma W/o Sri Guruswamy Iligar, is

maintain SB Account No. 15070 with the branch since

24.5.1996.

That in the pass book issued to the customer, the

following transactions are appearing:

i) a credit entry of Rs. 5,000/- as on “9.11.96” and

particulars as “By cash”.

ii) a debit entry of Rs. 5,000/- as on “17.12.96” and

particulars as “To self”.

iii) a credit entry of Rs. 10,400/- as on “16.8.97” and

particulars as “By cash”.

The above entries were made and initiated by you.

However the branch records do not indicate of any such

credits and debit to the said account on the mentioned

dates.

That the depositor has informed that she had deposited

Rs. 5,000/- to her SB a/c on 9.11.96, withdrew Rs. 5,000/- on

17.12.96 but denied having deposited Rs. 10,400/- on

16.8.1997.

The above circumstances indicate that you

misappropriated Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the customer on

9.11.96 towards her SB Account and reimbursed the amount

on 17.12.1996 by paying her cash, made a fictitious credit

entry of Rs. 10,400/- in her Pass Book with ulterior motive

and in the process you falsified the Bank’s records.

The above acts on you part constitute gross misconduct

within the meaning of clause No. 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement.

We therefore, charge you with gross misconduct of

doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank vide clause

No. 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

III. In the matter of returning of cheque for Rs. 50,000/-

That a chargesheet cum show cause notice No. CGS/

BNG/96/88 dt. 23.7.96 was issued to you by the Disciplinary

Authority for the alleged misconduct of issuing cheque

No. 0525404 dt. 5.2.1996 for Rs. 10,000/- favouring Sri

Veerabhadra Shetty which when presented through clearing

was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in your

SB Account No. 11211 at Mudgal Branch. The charge was

held as proved during the departmental enquiry. During

the Personal Hearing given by the Disciplinary Authority,

you had assured that you will not given scope for such an

act in future. Hence the matter was viewed leniently and

you were “warned” by the Disciplinary Authority.

That despite the above, your cheque No. 625577 dt.

20.12.97 for Rs. 50,000/- favouring KSFC Raichur on your

2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SB Account No. 7626 at the branch was dishonoured on

1.1.1998 for want of funds, contravening the guidelines

issued vide HO Cir. No. 90/94/BC dt. 16.4.1994.

Your above acts constitute gross misconduct within

the meaning of clause No. 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement.

We therefore charge you with gross misconduct of

doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank vide clause

No. 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

Pending such enquiry/initiation of such enquiry into

the above serious allegations, you are suspended from the

services of the Bank with immediate effect in terms of clause

No. 19.12(b) of the Bipartite Settlement.

During the period of Suspension, you will be paid

Subsistence Allowance at the following rates:

A) Where the enquiry is departmental by the Bank:

1) Where the investigation is not entrusted to or taken

up by an outside agency:

a) for the first three months of suspension, 1/3rd of

the pay and allowances which you would have

got but for the suspension:

b) for the period of Suspension, if any, thereafter,

1/2 of the Pay and Allowances which you would

have got but for the suspension, provided that

after one year of suspension, fully pay and

allowances will be paid if the enquiry is not delayed

for the reasons attributable to you or any of your

representatives.

2) Where the investigation is done by an outside agency

and such investigation is followed by a departmental

enquiry by the Bank and by prosecution:

a) For the first three months of Suspension, 1/3rd of

the Pay and Allowances which you would have

got but for the Suspension;

b) For the period of suspension, if any, thereafter,

1/2 of the Pay and Allowances which you would

have got but for the suspension.

Provided that, full pay and allowances will be payable

after six months from the date of receipt of report of the

investigation agency that, it has come to the conclusion

not to prosecute the employee or one year after the date of

suspension, whichever is later;

AND provided further that the enquiry is not. delayed

for reasons attributable to you or any of your

representatives.

B) Where the enquiry is held by an outside agency

including a trial in a criminal court:

a) for the first six months of suspension 1/3rd of the

Pay and Allowances which you would have got,

but for Suspension;

b) for the period of Suspension, if any, thereafter,

1/2 of the Pay and Allowances which you would

have got but for the Suspension, until the enquiry

is over.

You are required to furnish your postal address forthwith

for the purpose of future communication with you. You

should not enter the branch premises during the period of

suspension except for the purpose of operating your own

account. Further, for that purpose, you should obtain

specific permission of the Branch Manager, by sending a

note with the Attender at the cabin. If it is found that your

are misusing the above facility, in any way, your account is

liable to be closed and the balance sent to you by a Pay

Order.

We advise you to submit your written statement of

defence, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of

this Chargesheet cum Suspension Order.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Asst. General Manager.”

and appointed Sh. K P Acharya, Chief Officer(P) as Enquiry

Officer and Sh. M J Sudhakara as Management

Representative and initiated the Domestic Enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer while securing the presence of the I Party

and the Management Representative observeing the

formalities of preliminary hearing and receiving the evidence

of Sh. M Prabhakar, Chief Officer, Vigilance Office and Sh.

K K Somaiah, Manager, Yedrami Branch as MW 1 and MW

2 for the management and got exhibiting MEx-1 to MEx-30,

as the CSE/I Party did not appear before the Enquiry Officer,

the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and submitted his

enquiry report dated 28.06.1999 holding him guilty of the

charges and Disciplinary Authority after affording

opportunity of hearing passed the order of Dismissal from

Service and on appeal by the I Party the Appellate Authority

affording opportunity of hearing confirmed the order of

the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 20.12.1999

and then the I party approached the ALC(C), Bellary and

on his submission of FOC report dated 19.08.2002 this

reference came to be made for adjudication.

5. The I Party in his claim statement asserts that he who

was appointed as Clerk though worked excellently,

unblemishedly, honestly and diligently the management

issued him a charge sheet and without affording him an

opportunity to take the assistance of Defence

Representative hurriedly closed the enquiry and dismissed

him from service and on his appeal to the Disciplinary

Authority and the Appellate Authority without considering

his request and without giving proper and valid reasons

dismissed his appeal and that enquiry finding being biased

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2355

is perverse and even otherwise the punishment of Dismissal

imposed for such trivial alleged misconduct is

disproportionate etc. INTER ALIA, in the counter statement

filed by the ll Party it is contended that the I Party was

entrusted with the work of Special Assistant at the relevant

point of time misappropriated the amounts of the customers

and therefore he was issued with the charge sheet and that

the Domestic Enquiry being conducted after affording all

reasonable and fair opportunity finding of the Enquiry

Officer is being based on the material placed before him,

the same cannot be held as perverse and as the I Party did

not avail the services of Defence Representative though

was afforded with several opportunities and as he was not

found fit to continue in the service being dismissed from

service the action of the management is just and proper.

6. After conclusion of the pleadings by raising a

Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper?”,

on the consent of I Party counsel marking the enquiry file

segregated into 11 heads as Ex M-1(DE) to Ex M-11(DE)

the detailed description of which are narrated in the

annexure hearing the arguments addressed by both the

sides, the Preliminary Issue being held in the Affirmative

holding that the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party

by the II Party being fair and proper vide order dated

16.07.2010 and then receiving the Evidence of I party on

the point of victimization and being not gainfully employed,

the arguments addressed by both the sides were heard on

merits, the point that now remain for my consideration are:

Point No. 1 : Whether the I party is able to demonstrate

the finding of the Enquiry Officer being perverse

necessitating the interference of this Tribunal?

Point No. 2 : If not, whether the punishment of Dismissal

imposed against the I party is disproportionate to the proved

misconduct?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award ?

7. It is borne out from the proceedings of the Enquiry

Officer that on behalf of the management Sh. Prabhakar M,

Chief Officer, Vigilance Unit, Bangalore and Sh. K K Somaiah,

Manager, Yedrami Branch formerly working as Manager,

Mudgal Branch being examined as MW 1 and 2 and

MEx 1 to MEx-30 the detailed description of which are

narrated in the annexure got exhibited and I party left the

said evidence unchallenged either by their cross-

examination or leading any rebuttal evidence. Further as

submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the II

party in the written statement submitted by the I Party

dated 19.06.1998 exhibited as MEx-29 he has practically

admitted both the charges levelled against him as such the

Enquiry Officer did not commit any error in answering the

charges being proved. Moreover the learned advocate

appearing for the I Party failed to demonstrate how these

findings of the Enquiry Officer could be termed or stated

as baseless or perverse. Under the circumstances, I arrive

at conclusion of answering the Point No.1 in the Negative.

8. Since as per the finding on Charge No. 1 the I Party

who received Rs. 5,000.00 each from Sh. Nagappa and Smt.

Subhadramma towards their respective SB Accounts and

failed to account the same in the records of the Bank being

a grave misconduct which disentitles him to continue in

the bank service absolutely I find no reason to say the

Disciplinary Authority deciding him to Dismiss him from

Service as disproportionate or excessive to the misconduct

proved against him. Accordingly, having arrived at

conclusion of answering the Point No. 2 as well in the

Negative, I pass the following

ORDER

The Reference is rejected holding that the action of the

management of Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Gandhinagar,

Bangalore is Justified in imposing the punishment of

dismissal from service in respect of Shri R. Shanmukhappa,

Ex-Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Hutti Branch, Lingasugur Taluk,

Raichur Dist. Karnataka State w.e.f. 31.8.1999 and that he is

not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 1st January, 2015)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

Nil

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party:

WW 1 - R Shanmukhappa, I Party Workman

Documents exhibited in the Domestic Enquiry:

MEx - 1

Certified copy of OG 14, account

opening form in respect of SB 13418

of Sri Nagappa

MEx - 2

CC of OG 5 of SB 13418 of Sri Nagappa

MEx - 3

Ledger sheet No. 0731026 pertaining

to SB 13418 of Sri Nagappa

MEx - 4

Withdrawal slip 414130 dated 27/4/98

for Rs. 8000/- drawn by Sri Nagappa

MEx - 5

Credit Slip OG73 dated 30/4/98 for

Rs. 5000/-

MEx - 6

Pass Book of SB 13418 of Sri Nagappa

MEx - 7

Certified copy of Manager’s Scroll

dt. 27/4/1998

2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MEx - 8

Certified copy of Manager’s Scroll dt.

30/4/1998

MEx - 9

Certified copy of Manager’s Scroll dt.

6/1/1998

MEx - 10

Certified copy of OG 141 in respect to

of SB 15070

MEx - 11

Certified copy of OG 5 of SB 15070

MEx - 12

Pas book of SB 15070 of Smt.

Subhadramma

MEx - 13

Ledger Sheet No. 0245069 of SB 15070

MEx - 14

Certified copy of Manager’s scroll dt

9/11/96

MEx - 15

Certified copy of Manager’s scroll dt.

17/12/96

MEx - 16

Letter dated 20/6/1998 of Smt.

Subhadramma

MEx - 17

Certified copy of OG14 I and OG 5

pertaining to SB account of Smt.

Rajeshwari

MEx - 18

Certified copy of Office Order book

page No. 17 of Mudgal branch

MEx - 19

Certified copy of Attendance

MEx - 20

Certified copy of Attendance Register

of Nov’96, Dec’96 and August 1997

MEx - 21

Certified copy of subday sheet dated

6/1/1998

MEx - 22

Certified copy of subday sheet dated

9/11/1996, 17/12/1996 and 16/8/1997

MEx - 23

Certified copy of subday sheet dt

27/4/1998 to 30/4/1998

MEx - 24

Certified copy of cheque returning

7/10/97 to 4/2/98

MEx - 25

Certified copy of SB ledger sheet No.

207567 pertaining to SB 7626 of Sri R

Shanmukappa

MEx - 26

Certified copy of Manager’s scroll dt

16/8/97

MEx - 27

Mudgal Branch letter No. 1804-MDL/

STF/98 dated 17/7/1998

MEx - 28

Statement given by Sri K K Somaiah,

Manager, Mudgal Branch

MEx - 29

Statement

given

Sri

Shanmukhappa, dated 19/6/98

MEx - 30

Letter dated 16/12/1998 of Sri R

Shanmukappa

Documents exhibited by consent on Domestic Enquiry

issue:

Ex M - 1

Office copy of the charge sheet cum

suspension order dated 14.10.1998

Ex M - 2

Office copy of the letter dated

22.12.1998

Ex M -3

Office copy of letter of appointment

of Enquiry Officer dated 27.01.1999

Ex M - 4

Original Enquiry Proceedings dated

22.03.1999 & 23.03.1999

Ex M - 5

Original Enquiry Report dated

28.06.1999 along with appendix of

Evidence and list of documents marked

in the enquiry

Ex M - 6

Office copy of the letter dated

13.07.1999

Ex M - 7

Office copy of the letter dated

12.08.1999

Ex M - 8

Original Personal hearing of

Disciplinary Authority

dated

27.08.1999

Ex M - 9

Original Proceedings of the

Disciplinary Authority

dated

31.08.1999

Ex M - 10

Proceedings of the Appellate

Authority

Ex M - 11

Exhibited marked in the enquiry.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1068-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV cSad ds

izcaèra= 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 13@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@121@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.13/2008) of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2357

management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12011/121/2007- IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022

DATED

9th February, 2015

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 13/2008

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Regional Manager,

Syndicate Bank Staff

Syndicate Bank,

Association, Anand

Regional Office, Manvi

Plaza, II Floor,

Building,

Near Anand Rao Circle,

No. 144, Neeligin Road,

BANGALORE - 560 009.

HUBLI.

Appearances

I Party

Shri A Srinivasa Alse

General Secretary

II Party

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12011/121/

2007- 1R(B-11) dated 15.02.2008 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule

SCHEDULE

“Whether, the punishment of compulsory retirement

from service with all superannuation benefits imposed

on Sri M B Laxmeshwar, clerk of Syndicate Bank is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

13/2008 when notices were issued to both the parties, I

Party entered his appearance through Sh. A Srinivasa Alse,

General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and

filed his claim statement on 10.02.2010 and ll Party entered

its appearance through Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate

and filed counter statement on 19.08.2011.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. Sh. M B Laxmeshwar (hereinafter referred as I Party)

while working as Clerk at Laxmeshwar Branch of the

Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred as II Party) was served

with charge sheet dated 27.09.2006 as under :

“Charge Sheet

That you are working as Clerk at Laxmeshwar Branch

since 19.7.2004. While working as such the following

circumstances appear against you in the matter of your

frequent absence without leave and irregular attendance.

1. That you are in the habit of absenting from duties at

frequent intervals without submission of leave application

and without sanction of leave from the competent authority

and thereby cause great inconvenience to the functioning

of the Branch/Bank.

The Competent Authority has treated your following

absence as Unauthorised with consequent cut in wages.

Sl.

Period

No. of

days

17.05.06

31.05.06

01.06.06

14.06.06

16.06.06

30.06.06

01.07.06

31.07.06

01.08.06

06.09.06

Your total unauthorized absence had reached 1344 days

as on 6.9.2006.

The above circumstances got to how that you are

frequently absenting from duties unauthorisedly.

II. That your services are sparingly available to the Bank

during the period April 2006 to September 2006 (upto

6.9.2006) and the details of your attendance are as under:

Month

No. of Days

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

Nil

August 2006

Nil

September 2006

Nil (upto 6.9.2006)

The above circumstances go to show that you are

highly irregular in attending the office. Your irregular

attendance has caused great inconvenience to the

functioning of the Bank.

That reference is drawn to following Chargesheets/

Showcause Notices/Chargesheet cum Showcause Notices

issued to you for minor misconducts of “Absence without

leave” and “Irregular Attendance”.

2358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Proceedings No. PRS/BGM/DGM/92/35 dated

28.12.1992 - “WARNING”

Proceeding No. PRS(W)/ZOM/DGM/98/5 dated

9.2.1998 - “WARNING”

Proceeding No. PRS(W)/DGM/ZOU/99/83 dated

27.10.1999 - “WARNING”

Proceedings No. PRS/ROH/RM/1/2006 dated

26.6.2006 - “WARNING”

That inspite of ample opportunities given to you, you

continue to violate the leave rules and absented from duties

at frequent intervals unauthorisedly.

The above circumstances got to show that you have

been absenting from duties unauthorisedly at frequent/

regular intervals without submission of leave application

and without sanction of leave from the competent authority

and violated the leave rules. Your said acts are highly

objectionable and amount to misconduct under the

provisions of Bipartite Settlement.

In terms of Clause No. 5(f) of Bipartite Settlement dated

10.4.2002 habitual doing of any act which amounts to minor

misconduct will become a gross misconduct if the same

misconduct is committed on three previous occasions and

awarded with punishments. The details furnished in the

earlier paras show that the Bank initiated Disciplinary

Authority against you for the minor misconducts of

“Absence without leave” and “Irregular Attendance” on

above occasions and awarded punishments.

I. Therefore for your absence without leave (as referred

above), you are charged with the commission of gross

misconduct of “Habitual doing of acts of absence without

leave” vide Cl. No. 5(f) of the Memorandum of Settlement

dated 10.4.2002.

II. For your irregular attendance (as referred above),

you are charged with the commission of gross misconduct

of “Habitual doing of acts of irregular attendance” vide

clause No. 5(f) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated

10.4.2002.

The documents in support of the above charges are

listed in the Annexure and their copies are enclosed.

You are requested to submit your written statement of

defence within 15 days of receipt of this Chargesheet.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(VIJAY S PRABHU)

Asst. General Manager/

Disciplinary Authority”

being not satisfied with the reply of the I Party the

Disciplinary Authority appointing Sh. R P Yaji as Enquiry

Officer and Sh. K S Surya Prakash as Presenting Officer

ordered him to face the Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer while securing the presence of the CSE who

appeared along with Sh. A Srinivasa Alse, General Secretary,

SBSA as Defence Representative after observing the

formalities of preliminary hearing receiving the evidence of

Sh. H A Kharate as MW 1 for management and exhibiting

Attendance register of Laxmeshwar Branch for the period

April 2006 to September 2006; staff card of Sh. M B

Laxmeshwar for the year 2006; Ltr. No. 136/1215/UAA/2006

dated 25.05.2006 of Laxmeshwar Branch; Ltr. No. 168/1215/

UAA/2006 dated 19.06.2006 of Laxmeshwar Branch; Ltr.

No. 210/1215/UAA/2006 dated 20.07.2006 of Laxmeshwar

Branch; Ltr. No. 333/1215/UAAl2006 dated 06.09.2006 of

Laxmeshwar Branch; proceedings No. PRS/BGM/DGM/92/

35 dt. 28.12.1992; proceedings No. PRS(W)/ZOM/DGM/

98/5 dt. 09.02.1998; proceedings No. PRS(W)/ZOU/DGM/

99/83 dt. 27.10.1999; and proceedings No. PRS/ROH/RM/

1/2006 dt. 26.06.2006 as MEx 1 to 10 and the statement of

the CSE /I Party concluding the enquiry receiving the

written briefs of both the sides submitted his enquiry report

dated 06.02.2007 all charges are being proved. Then the

Disciplinary Authority while affording the opportunity of

hearing imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement

from Service with superannuation benefits and without

disqualification for future employment and on appeal the

Appellate Authority as well giving an opportunity of

hearing confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority

and dismissed the appeal, then the I Party approached the

ALC(C), Bangalore and as he submitted FOC dated

19.11.2007 it resulted in this reference.

5. The I Party in his claim statement without disputing

he remaining absent for the relevant period covered in the

charge sheet contending that since his son is Polio striken

and ailing to attend him to get medical treatment he was to

remain absent and same being minor the punishment of

warning being inflicted in 1992, 1998, 1999 and early part of

2006, similar punishment for the alleged absence for the

latter part of 2006 also ought to have been inflicted and the

punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service

imposed is excessive and prayed for direction to reinstate

him with full backwages, continuity of service and other

consequential benefits. INTER ALIA, the II Party opposed

the claim of the I Party contending that since he had made

a habit to remain unauthorised absent without applying

for leave causing inconvenience in the functioning of the

bank transactions and inspite of viewing leniently on several

occasions since he did nolt improve the punishment of

compulsory retirement being imposed there is no need to

interfere in the same.

6. As usual a Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II party is fair and proper”

was raised and as the authorised representative of the I

Party filed a Memo conceding the fairness of the Domestic

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2359

Enquiry with further request to permit him to lead evidence

on victimization the said issue came to be answered in the

affirmative i.e. Domestic Enquiry being fair and proper on

12.12.2011 and thereafter the Authorised Representative

of the I party taking several adjournments to lead evidence

on victimization ultimately on 12.06.2012 submitted that he

has no evidence on victimization and may be posted for

arguments. Accordingly, when the matter was posted for

arguments the authorised representative of the I party filed

his written arguments practically reiterating the assertions

made in the claim statement and II party counsel submitted

his oral arguments supporting the punishment imposed.

7. In view of the facts narrated by me above since the I

party has not disputed his absence for the period covered

in the charge sheet and failed to substantiate having applied

any kind of leave either before proceeding on leave or after

resuming to duty the said absences have to be treated as

unauthorised absences, and as such intermittent absences

were frequent and on four occasions though it was viewed

leniently by warning since he did not improve in his

regularity in attending the duties and again in the latter

part of 2006 he remained absent 15 days in the month of

May, 29 days in the month of June, full month of July,

August and six days in the month of September it do

suggest that practically he had no mind to continue in

service which also definitely, must have affected the

functioning of the Bank Branch where he was serving as

such absolutely, I have no reason the II party management

treating it as gross misconduct as defined under clause

No. 5(f) of Memorandum of Settlement wdated 10.04.2002

of habitually remaining unauthorised absence and imposing

the punishment of compulsory retirement. Under the

circumstances, I have no reason to interfere in the

punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against the

I party workman. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the punishment

of compulsory retirement from service with all

superannuation benefits imposed on Sri M B Laxmeshwar,

Clerk of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified and that he is

not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 9th February 2015)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1069-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

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;] cSxyksj ds iapkV ¼3@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@88@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2010) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/88/2009-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.

DATED

16th APRIL 2015

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 03/2010

I Party

II Party

Smt. Selve Purushotham,

The Chief Manager

W/o Shri Purushotham,

(Disciplinary Authority),

No. 13, 14th B Cross,

Punjab National Bank,

Seshadri Rd,

Circle Office, Raheja

Chinnappa Gdn,

Towers, 26-27,

Benson Town,

M G Road,

Bengaluru-560 046

Bengaluru-560 001

Appearances :

1 Party

Sh. Muralidhara,

Advocate

II Party

Sh. T R K Prasad,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/88/

2009-IR (B-II) Dated 18.01.2010 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank, Bangalore in discharging Smt. Selvi

2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Purushottam, Ex-clerk cum Cashier w.e.f. 09.11.2005

is legal and justified? What relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

03/2010 when notices were issued to both the parties, they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I Party filed claim statement on 26.05.2010,

whereas, II Party filed its counter statement on 22.11.2010.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. Smt. Selvi Purushottaman (hereinafter referred as I

Party) while working as Clerk at Punjab National Bank,

Indiranagar Branch (hereinafter referred as II Party) was

issued with charge sheet dated 21.07.2004 as under:

“Charge Sheet

While you were working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at BO:

Indiranagar, Bangalore, you are alleged to have committed

following major misconduct.

1. You unauthorisedly removed the title deeds and other

documents, in respect of immovable property located at

site No. 11, new Municipal No. 13, 14th B cross, Chinnappa

Garden, Seshadri Road, Bangalore 560 046, deposited by

you on 17.06.03 with an intention to create equitable

mortage for the housing loan sanctioned by Regional Office

on 09.06.03 to the extent of Rs. 4.50 lacs and additional

housing loan of Rs. 3.00 lacs on 04.09.03.

a) It is further reported that you have executed a General

Power of Attoney on 18.08.03 III favour of one Shri Vanaraj.

S/o. Late Shri E. Narasimhulu Naidu residing at No. 220,

MM Road, Cox Town Road, Bangalore-560005 appointing

him as your true and lawful attorney to enter into any

agreement to lease, to sell or otherwise transfer, to conveyor

otherwise dispose off the properly, vesting him with all

powers to deal with the above property. You have executed

this General Power of Attorney with ulterior motive, when

EM on the said property has already been created in the

bank’s book on 17.06.03 for the housing loan availed by

you from the bank.

b) During October 2003, while taking physical stock of

all the title deeds at the branch, it was found that title

deeds and other documents deposited by you are missing.

The bank registered a memorandum of deposit of title deeds

with the sub Registrar Office, Gandhinagar on 07.11.03 in

respect of said property and also issued paper publication

on 13.11.03 in a local daily “Vijay Karnataka” in this regard.

You have submitted a letter dated 06.11.03 to the bank,

authorizing to debit charges for registration of the

memorandum of deposit and paper publication to your

account. You have also given an undertaking to accept the

certified copies of title deeds in lieu of original on full

adjustment of your housing loan account.

c) It is further reported that on 16.12.03, Shri Vanaraj,

Power of Attorney holder executed a sale deed in favour of

one Smt. Radhamma, residing at No. 220, MM Road, Cox

Town Bangalore-5, alienating the said property for a sale

consideration of Rs. 4.50 lacs.

Thus, you have defrauded the bank by unauthorizedly

removing title deeds and other documents deposited with

the bank by you and alienated the property through the

GPA holder for sale consideration, when you have already

deposited said title deeds and other documents with an

intention to create EM for the Housing Loan availed by

you and knowing fully well that the bank has registered

memorandum of deposit of title deeds with the Sub

Registrar’s Office, Gandhinagar, Bangalore for the said

property after the same has been reported as lost by the

branch.

2. You have withdrawn cash through PNB ATM as per

details given below, without maintaining adequate credit

balance in the deposit accounts or making proper

arrangement in your COD account, thus you have

misutilised the said facility for your personal gains.

Date of

Withdrawal No.

Amount

Date when

Transaction

A/c

debited

25.10.03

7008, 7009, 7044, 7045 10000

11.11.03

04.11.03

7183, 7184

5000

11.11.03

03.11.03

7136, 7137

5000

11.11.03

06.11.03

7210, 7211

5000

11.11.03

7279, 7280

5000

19.11.03

TOTAL

30000

3. You have availed suspense advance of Rs. 4500/- on

01.08.03 to attend CBS Training Programme at Mumbai from

10.09.03 to 20.09.03. Further, you did not attend training

programme and adjusted the suspense entry on 8.9.03. You

have again availed another suspense advance of Rs. 4500/-

on 3.10.03 for attending training from 27.10.03 to 7.011.03 at

RSC, Belapur, Mumbai. Further you have neither booked

tickets nor attended the training programme, thus, you

misutilised bank’s funds for your personal gains.

4. You have availed non-refundable PF loan of Rs.

1,03,700/- from the bank during February, 2003 for purchase

of a site at Plot No. 34, Khatha No. 121/5/49/2 New

Manjunatha Layout, Rammurthy Nagar, Bangalore-16:

However, you have not deposited title deeds of the said

property despite reminder from the Senior Manager, BO:

Indiranagar Bangalore, whereas, you have availed a loan

from ICICI Bank against the said property without obtaining

prior permission from the bank.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2361

5. It is observed from your SF Account No. 107948 and

COD No. 11301, maintained at BO: Indiranagar Bangalore

for the period 01.01.03 to 22.10.03 that the total debit

summations are at Rs. 642248/- and Rs. 333496/- respectively

against your take home pay of Rs. 7600/- to Rs. 8500/-, on

monthly average and further it is observed that cheques

are being issued to various finanical institutions towards

your financial commitments, which is beyond the known

means of your income.

Your above acts tantamount to major misconduct in

terms of Para 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated

10.04.02.

You are hereby advised to submit your comments within

7 days on receipt of this letter, failing which, it will be

presumed that you have nothing to submit in your defence

and appropriate action, as deemed fit will be initiated against

you in terms of provisions of Memorandum of Settlement

dated 10.04.02 without any further communication to you.

Sd/-

Disciplinary Authority and

Senior Regional Manager”

5. The I Party gave her reply dated 28.07.2004 and being

not satisfied with the reply the Disciplinary Authority while

appointing Sh. A.K. Munshi as Enquiry Officer and

Sh. L V Nayak as Presenting Officer asked the I party to

face Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while securing

the presence of both the parties after observing the

formalities of preliminary hearing receiving the evidence of

Sh. N Jayaprakash as MW 1 exhibiting Ex-1 to Ex-31 and

Ex D-1 to Ex D-22 by consent the detailed description of

which are narrated in the Annexure after submission of

written brief by both the sides submitted his report dated

09.05.2005 charges as proved. Then the Disciplinary

Authority affording opportunity of hearing to CSE imposed

punishment of Discharge from Service by order dated

17.12.2005, on appeal by theI Party to the Appellate

Authority, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of

the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.04.2006 and

then the I Party approached ALC (C), Bangalore in

conciliation and as it ended in failure vide his report dated

20.10.2009 it resulted in this reference.

6. Having regard to certain allegations made in the claim

statement touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry

while raising a Preliminary Issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II Party is fair and proper?”

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides the

said issue has been ansered in the affirmative i.e., the

Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party is fair and

proper by order dated 07.09.2012. Thereafter, when the

matter was posted for Evidence of I party on the point of

Victimization and being not gainfully employed counsel

for I Party while filing the affidavit of I Party examining her

on oath as WW 1 (V) got marked copies of death certificate

dated 09.11.2011 in respect of her husband; judgement

dated 08.12.2009 in OS No. 8588/2004 passed by XII Addl.

City Civil & Session Judge, Bangalore; judgement dated

08.01.2010 in OS No. 7271/2004 passed by XII Addl. City

Civil Judge, Bangalore; application filed by I Party seeking

information under RTI Act; Original letter dated 27.12.2012

issued by CPIO, PNB and cross-examined by counsel for

II Party and as counsel for II Party submitted that he has

no evidence to lead on the said point and when the matter

was posted for arguments counsel for both sides addressed

their oral arguments.

7. Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II

Party against the I Party has been held as Fair and Proper

by order dated 11.08.2011, the points that now arises for

my consideration are:

POINT No. I : Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer

Charge Nos. 1 to 5 are proved is perverse?

POINT No. II : If not, whether the punishment imposed

is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the I

Party?

POINT No. III : What Order/Award?

8. On appreciation of the charges with the evidence

brought on record in the Domestic Enquiry by the

management and I Party and the one brought on record by

the I Party while leading evidence on the point of

victimization and being not gainfully employed with the

arguments put forward by the learned advocates appearing

for both the sides, my finding on Point No. I is in the

Affirmative, Point Nos. II and III as per final Order for the

following

REASONS

9. According to Charge No. 1 the I Party who had availed

housing loan to the tune of Rs. 4.50 lacs creating equitable

mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds of her immovable

property located at Site No. 11, New Municipal No. 13, 14th

Cross, Chinnappa Garden, Seshadri Road, Bangalore on

17.6.2003 and later availed additional housing loan on

Rs. 3 lacs on 04.09.2003 and during October 2003 while

taking physical stock of all the little deeds of the branch as

it was found that the title deeds and other documents

deposited by her were missing the bank registered a

Memorandum of deposit of title deeds with Sub Registrar

Office, Gandhinagar on 07.11.2003 in respect of the said

property and also issued paper publication in local daily

Vijaya Karnataka and that I Party inspite of the same with

an intention to dispose off the property executed a General

Power of Attorney on 18.08.2003 in favour of Sh. Vanraj,

S/o Late E Narasimhulu Naidi appointing him as her true

and lawfull attorney to enter into any agreement to lease,

2362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to sell or otherwise to transfer to convey or dispose off the

property vesting him with all the powers to deal with the

above property and manage to execute the sale deed in

favour of Smt. Radhamma through Registerd Sale Deed

dated 16.12.2003. The I Party without disputing availing of

the initial loan of Rs. 4.50 lacs and additional loan of Rs. 3

lacs on 04.09.2003 by creating equitable mortgage on her

propety bearing Site No. 11, New Municipal No. 13, 14th

B Cross, Chinnappa Garden, Seshadri Road, Bangalore -

560 046 by way of deposit of title deeds and later when

the little deeds were said to have been found missing

registering Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds with the

Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhinagar on 07.11.2003 as well as

Paper Publication on 13.11.2003 being made denied removal

of title deeds and other documents by her as well as

execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.

Vanraj further contending that she who had borrowed a

sum of Rs. 25,000.00 from Sh. Vanraj in the year 1999 was

since not able to repay the same he initially had taken her

signature on some blank cheques also later obtained her

signautre on blank paper and by creating a false and

fabricated General Pwoer of Attorney in his favour executed

the alleged sale deed dated 16.12.2003 in favour of Smt.

Radhamma who is other than his own wife and managed to

file a suit through her in OS No. 7271/2004 and that he has

also managed to receive the title deeds of her property

deposited with the bank in connivance with the Branch

Manager of the Bank Sh. Jayaprakash who has been

examined as MW 1 in the enquiry. The similar defence was

pur forward by the I Party in the suit filed by Smt. Radhamma

in OS No. 7271/2004 on the file of XII Addl. City Civil Judge,

Bangalore and the Hon’ble Court appreciating the evidence

adduced by both the sides fully agreeing with the defence

put forward by I Party dismissed her suit through

Judgement dated 08.01.2010 the certified copy of which

has been produced at Ex W- 3(v). It is pertinent to note that

the II Party bank after coming to know the filing of suit by

Smt. Radhamma in OS No. 7271/2004 had filed a Suit against

the I Party in OS No. 8588/2004 on the file of XII Addl. City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for a preliminary decree

against the I Party for recovery of the dues against her

Home loan and for sale of mortgaged propety towards

recovery of the same and that suit was also disposed off

by the Hon’ble XII Add. City Civil and Sessions Judge on

the same day of disposal of suit in OS No. 7271/2004 filed

by Smt. Radhamma and decreed that suit. In view of a

peculiar defence put forward by the I Party in respect of

the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 18.08.2003 in

favour of Sh. Vanraj, in the Domestic Enquiry the

management ought to have lead any direct or cicumstantial

evidence to prove execution of such General Power of

Attorney in his favour as well as the allegation of removal

of title deeds by the I Party herself towards creating

equitable mortgage but no such evidence being on record,

only because Smt. V Radhamma had alleged in her plaint

that she was furnished with original title deeds of the

property by the I Party the Enquiry Officer ought not to

have believed such fact. It is borne out from the Judgement

of the XII addl. City civil judge in the suit filed by Smt. V

Radhamma against the I Party the Hon’ble Court having

regard to the defence put forward by I Party while raising

along with other issues two specific issues i.e. issue Nos.

4 and 5 as whether the defendant i.e. I Party proves that

she has taken loan of Rs. 25000.00 from the Plaintiff and her

husband? Whether defendant proves that she is owner of

the scheduled property while accepting the plea put forward

by the defendant I Party answered those issues in the

Affirmative and ultimately dismissed that suit. When as

admitted by MW 1 Sh. Jayaprakash, Branch Manager the

documents were kept in Joint Custody and somewhere

doing September 2003 when physical checking of tilte deed

were done the title deeds of the I Party being missing when

admittedly these documents were in the joint safe custody

of MW 1 and another officer absolutely there is no direct

of circumstantial evidence to believe the allegation agianst

the I Party that the same were removed by here. Therefore,

the finding of Enquiry Officer the I Party by removing the

title deeds of her property deposited with the bank executed

the General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Vanraj and

managed to sell the property under those title deeds in

favour of his wife Smt. Radhamma is baseless and perverse.

Hence, accoroding to me the finding of the Enquiry Officer

charge no. 1 has been proved is perverse.

10. According to Charge No. 1 the I Party without

maintaining adequate credit balance in the deposit accounts

or making proper arrangement in COD account drawn a

sum of Rs. 10000, 5000, 5000, 5000 and 5000 on 25.01.2003,

04.11.2003, 03.11.2003, 06.11.2003 and 11.11.2003

respectively through its ATM. I fail to understand how

this fact even assuming that I Party without balance in her

account drawn the alleged among through ATM how it

amounts to misconduct on her part. Though the I Party

happens to be the employee of the II Party bank as any

other bank customer having a ATM facility swiped her

ATM for particular amount and it dispensed that amount

how can it be attributed to her that she knowingly that she

had no balance in her account having taken that money. If

at all there was no balance in the Account of the I Party and

even her withdrawal had exceeded for COD limit the ATM

ought not to have dispensed the amount. Even assuming

that she had no balance in her account and she had also

reached the COD limit it is the fault of the ATM machine to

dispense the amount asked for by swiping her ATM Debit

Card and on coming to know the same fault having occurred

the bank is at liberty to recover the amount and in my

opinion this fact of overdrawing the amount cannot be

attributed with any intention or misconduct on the part of

the I Party. Hence only becuase the I Party admitted these

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2363

withdrawals alleged in this charge the charge cannot be

held proved for misconduct. Even either in the charge sheet

or in the counter statement it is high lighted under what

rules of the Bank this alleged act on the part of the I Party

amounts to grave misconduct under Para 5(j) of the

Memorandum of Settlement. Under the circumstances, the

finding of the Enquiry Officer charge No. 2 has been proved

is perverse.

11. As per Charge No. 3 I Party had availed suspense

advance of Rs. 4,500.00 on 01.08.2003 to attend CBS training

programme at Mumbai from 01.09.2003 to 20.09.2003 and

did not attend that training programme and adjusted the

suspense advance on 08.09.2003 and again availed another

suspense advance of Rs. 4500.00 on 03.10.2003 for

attending training from 27.10.2003 to 07.11.2003 at RSC,

Belapur, Mumbai and did not attend that training as well.

Her reply to this charge is that due to her husband’s ill

health she could not attend the training and had requested

the Senior Manager to debit her account and adjust the

entry and Mr. H R Prabhu, Cashier was nominated in her

place to attend the training and that she was not aware of

the fact that suspense entry was outstanding as she was

posted at HAL extension counter. However, the suspense

entries stand adjusted in normal course. Since this fact is

not contraverted by the management by leading any

evidence and only because after availing advance she did

not attend the training it is not a ground to attribute any

misconduct on her part because such amount is recoverable.

In this regard as well neither in the charge sheet or counter

statement it is highlighed how the act on the I Party violated

any conduct rules amounting to major misconduct as per

Para 5(j) of memorandum of settlement the finding of the

Enquiry Officer this charge is also proved is baseless and

perverse. Hence, according to me the finding of the Enquiry

Officer charge No. 3 has been proved in perverse.

12. As far as Charge No. 4 I Party had availed non-

refundable PF Laon of Rs. 103700 from the bank for purchage

of plot at Site No. 34, Khata No. 121/4/49/2 new Manjunath

Layout, Rammurthy Nagar, Bangalore-16 and did not deposit

the title deeds of the property despite reminder from the

Senior Manager and availed a loan from ICICI Bank against

the property without obtaining prior permission from the

Bank. As far as this charge is concerned the I Party has

admitted availment of non-refundable loan from PF

department for purchage of site and contended that as the

said PF loan was not sufficient to meet the cost of the site

she availed laon from ICICI bank for purchage of the site

and same was brought to the notice of the Senior Manager

and later since she got a different property in the heart of

the city and within the eligible amount of the Staff Scheme

she requested the authorities to sanction loan to built

house and for repairs and renovations, which the authorities

were kind enough in sanctioning the loan and that the site

which was purchased out of the PF amount was given as

security to ICICI Bank and not for any other speculative

purpose. This defence of the I Party also being not rebutted

and niether in the charge sheet nor in the counter statement

it is highlighted how the act on the I Party violated any

conduct rules amounting to major misconduct as per Para

5(j) of memorandum of settlement the finding of the Enquiry

Officer this charge is also proved is baseless and perverse.

13. According to Charge No. 5 in her SF account

No. 107948 and COD No. 11301 maintained at BO:

Indiranagar Bangalore for the period 01.01.2003 to

21.01.2003 it was observed the total debit summation was

Rs. 642248.00 and Rs. 333496.00 respectively against her

take home of Rs. 7600 to Rs. 8500 and cheques are being

issued to various financial institutions to her financial

commitments being the beyond known means of income.

In respect of this charge I Party claims that as her husband

was chronic patient with multi health problems and she

was also an acute asthamtic patient certain amounts were

availed from outside sources and were repaid through her

account without any deliberate intention on her part to

misuse the channel. The Enquiry Officer on management

producing the statement of her SF Account at Ex E-18

observing that since it indicates that her income for the

period for 01.01.2003 to 21.01.2003 is approximately Rs. 80000

whereas the debit summation is Rs. 642248.00 and

Rs. 333496.00 cheques were drawn in favour Sriram Chits,

Deepak Sahakari Bank, AFSI Pvt. Ltd, Citibank Credit Card,

Motilal Sahayani, T E hotel Industrialist Co-Op Bank Ltd.,

HSBC Credit Card, Vinod Cringe, SBI Credit Card, Standard

Chartered Bank Credit Card. etc., it proves that CSE/I Party

was in deep financial problems and her financial

commitments were beyond known means of income as such

held this charge as proved. As far as this charge is also

concerned neither in the charge sheet nor in the counter

statement it is highlighted how this act on her part amounts

to violation of any rules of the Bank and amounts to major

misconduct as para 5(j) of MOS. Hence, according to me

the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge No. 5 has been

proved is perverse.

14. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion

that the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge Nos. 1 to 5

are proved do not sustain. Since on the basis of such

finding the Disciplinary Authroity has imposed the

punishment of discharge from service and same is upheld

by the Appellate Authroity they also do not sustain. Since

the evidence of the I Party that she is not gainfully

employed after her discharge from service being not

rebutted by any direct or circumstantial evidence and she

is imposed with such punishment of discharged from

service for no fault of her she is entitle for reinstatement

with full backwages, continuity of service and other

consequential benefits. In the result, I pass the following

2364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

O R D E R

The action of the management of Punjab National Bank,

Bangalore in discharging Smt. Selvi Purushottam, Ex-clerk-

cum Cashier w.e.f. 09.11.2005 is not legal and justified and

that she is entitle for Reinstatement with full backwages,

continuity of Service and other consequential benefits that

she would have received in the absence of her discharge

from service.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

Annexure-I

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management in

Domestic Enquiry

Ex-1

Criminal compliant filed by Smt. Selvi

Purshotaman in PCR No. 301/2004

Ex-2

Legal notice dated 10.07.2004 issued

to Smt. V. Radhamma by Bank’s

Advocate

Ex-3

The Deed Register for creating EM to

property EM of property dtd.

17.06.2003 and 06.09.2003

Ex-4

Letter dated 21.10.2003 issued by

Senior Manager to CSE

Ex-5

Leave Record in respect of CSE

Ex-6

Letter of authority dtd. 06.11.2003 from

Smt. Selvi Purushotaman addressed

to Senior Manager, BO, Indiranagar

debit

charges

towards

Memorandum of Deposit Title Deed

and publication in newspaper

Ex-7

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed

dtd. 07.11.2003

Ex-8

Paper publication dtd. 13.11.2003 in

“Vijay Karnataka”

Ex-9

Letter dated 20.11.2003 issued by

Senior Manager to CSE

Ex-10

Letter dated 07.02.2004 issued by

Senior Manager to CSE

Ex-11

Reply to CSE dated Nil addressed to

Senior Manager to his letters dated

21.10.2003, 20.11.2003 and 07.02.2004

Ex-12

Letter dtd. 10.06.2004 of Smt. V.

Radhamma addressed to Asstt.

General Manager of the Bank

Ex-13

Sale Deed dated 16.12.2003 executed

by Sri N Vanaraj Power of Attorney

holder on behalf of Smt. Selvi

Purushotam in favour of Smt. V.

Radhamma for sale consideration of

Rs. 4,50,000.00

Ex-14

GPA dtd. 18.8.2003 executed by Smt.

Selvi Purushotam in favour of Mr.

Vanaraj

Ex-15

Plaint copy of OS No. 727/2004 filed

by Smt. Radhamma against Smt. Selvi

Purushotaman in the Court of City

Civil Judge Bangalore

Ex-16

Lease Agreement dtd. 15.04.2004

exected by Smt. Selvi in favour of Mr.

A. J. Susairaj and Mr. Celina

Ex-17

Office Order No. 66/2002 dated

04.11.2002

Ex-18

Statement of SB Account No. 107948

in respect of CSE

Ex-19

OD Account Statement in respect of

CSE

Ex-20

Loan application from dated 23.01.2003

in respect of CSE

Ex-21

Encumbrance

certificate

dtd.

15.09.2004

Ex-22

Sale Deed dated 16.12.2003 executed

by Sri N. Vanaraj Power of Attorney

holder on behalf of Smt. Selvi

Purushotam in favour of Smt. V.

Radhamma for sale consideration of

Rs. 4,50,000.00

Ex-23

Khata endorsement dtd. 23.12.2003 in

the name of Smt. V. Radhamma

Ex-24

Tax paid receipt dtd. 02.04.2004 in the

name of Smt. V. Radhamma

Ex-25

Encumbrance

certificate

dtd.

29.12.2003

Ex-26

State Deed dated 13.06.2003 executed

by Smt. Balkhis Begum in favour of

Smt. Selvi Purushotaman

Ex-27

Sanction plan dated 18.08.2003

Ex-28

Agreement of sale dtd. 18.08.2003

executed by Smt. Selvi Purushotaman

in favour of Smt. V. Radhamma for sale

consideration of Rs. 4,50,000.00

Ex-29

GPA dtd. 18.08.2003 executed by

Smt.Selvi Purushotaman in favour of

Mr. Vanaraj

Ex-30

Copies of notice dtd. 08.06.2004

issued to BESCOM and BWSSB by

Smt. V. Radhamma

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2365

Ex-31

Endorsement dtd. 19.06.2004 issued

by BESCOM to Smt. V. Radhamma

Documents exhibited on behalf of the CSE in Domestic

Enquiry

Ex-1

Xerox copy of ED dtd. 13.08.2004

Ex-2

Xerox copy of electricity bill dtd.

18.09.2004

Ex-3

Xerox copy of agreement of sale

executed by Smt. Balkhis Begum in

favour of Mr. Peter Rosario

Ex-4

Xerox copy of agreement of sale deed

executed on 23.05.2003 by Sri Peter

Rosario in favour of Smt. Selvi

Purushotaman

Ex-5

Xerox copy of sale deed dtd. 27.0.1978

executed by Sri M. K. Seshadri in

favour of Balkhiz Begum

Ex-6

Xerox copy of sale deed dtd.

26.11.1943 executed by Sri Michael in

favour of Smt. Ramakka

Ex-7

Xerox copy of sale deed dtd.

13.06.1951 executed by Sri Michael in

favour of Smt. Ramakka

Ex-8

Xerox copy of sale deed bearing No.

3014/2003-04 executed by Smt. Balkhis

Begum in favour of Smt. Selvi

Purushotaman

Ex-9

Xerox copy of Khata dtd. 26.02.2003

in the name of Smt. Selvi

Purushotaman

Ex-10

Xerox copy of tax receipt dtd.

11.06.2003 in the name of Bhalkis

Begum

Ex-11

Xerox copy of EC dtd. 29.01.2003 EC

dtd. 20.10.2003 ED dtd. 19.12.2003 and

ED dtd. 13.08.2004

Ex-12

Xerox copy of approved plan dtd.

18.08.2003 issued by BMP

Ex-13

Xerox copy of police complaint dtd.

03.06.2004

Ex-14

Xerox copy of FIR dtd. 03.06.2004

against Sri Vanaraj filed by Smt. Selvi

Ex-15

Xerox copy of complaint dtd.

03.06.2004 against Sri Vanaraj

addressed to Inspector, JC Nagar,

Bangalore and acknowledgement of

inspector of Police dtd. 17.06.2004 and

22.07.2004

Ex-16

Xerox copy of BESCOM electricity

meter sanctioned receipt dtd.

18.07.2004 in the name of Smt. Selvi

Ex-17

Xerox copy of Electricity bill dtd.

18.10.2004 in the name of Smt. Selvi

Ex-18

Statement of houseing loan a/c of Smt.

Selvi

Ex-19

Acknowledgement from bank dated

21.06.2003 for having deposited

original titled deeds dtd. 17.06.2003

Ex-20

Copy of Khata dtd 27.06.2003

Ex-21

Acknowledgement dtd. 10.06.2004

addressed to Smt. Selvi by BESCOM

Ex-22

Copy of water supply bill dtd.

06.01.2005.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1070-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; cSad ds

izcaèra= 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 02@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@107@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2008) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Banglore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/107/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022

Dated

9th April, 2015

PRESENT

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND

Presiding Officer

C R No. 02/2008

2366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

II Party

Sri V.C. Augustine,

The Deputy General Manager,

Door No. 16-63/3,

Vijaya Bank,

Jayashree Gate, Kulshekar,

Head Office, M.G. Road,

Mangalore-575 005.

Bengaluru-560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri K. M. Paul,

Advocate

II Party

Shri B. C. Prabhakar,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/107/

2007-IR(B-II) dated 31.01.2008 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the punishment of dismissal of Sri V. C.

Augustine, clerk by the management of Vijaya Bank

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

02/2008 when notices were issued to both the sides. I Party

entered his appearance through Sh. K. M.Paul, Advocate

and filed his claim statement on 28.03.2008 and II Party

entered its appearance through Shri. B. C. Prabhakar,

advocate and files its counter statement on 25.08.2010.

3. The brief facts leading to this case are as under.

4. Sh. V C Augustine (hereinafter referred as I Party)

while serving as Clerk at Vidyanagar branch of Vijaya Bank

(hereinafter referred as II Party) was served with charge

sheet dated 02.01.2006 as under:

“Charge Sheet

You were working as Clerk at Bank’s Vidyanagar Branch,

Hubli from 30.05.2003 till the date of your suspension from

the services of the Bank on 20.07.2005.

During you tenure as above, you were entrusted with

the duties of Single Window Operator at the branch. While

working as Single Window Operator at the branch, you are

alleged to have committed serious lapses/irregularities such

as misappropriation of customer’s money by using the

withdrawal slips by forging the signature of the customers

and not entering the withdrawal slip numbers to the

computer.

The modus operandi adopted by you in connection

with the above mentioned fraudulent transactions at

Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli and the details of other

irregularities allegedly committed by you are furnished

hereunder:

1. On 17.06.2005, a customer of the branch, Shri K.

Prabhakaran, who was maintaining SB A/c No. 23556 and

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by using a withdrawal

slip bearing No. 281525. Subsequently, you have

fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the

said SB A/c No. 23556 of Shri K Prabhakaran by using

another withdrawal slip bearing No. 281537 by forging the

signature of the subject customer on the said withdrawal

slip. Further, you had wrongly entered the withdrawal slip

Number to the computer as ‘281538’ instead of ‘281537’:

When the aforesaid fraudulent transanction came to light,

you issued an undated cheque bearing No. 0049142 drawn

on you SB A/c No. 230036 maintained at Vidyanagar Branch,

Hubli drawn in favour of Shri K Prabhakaran and handed it

over to Shri K Prabhakaran alongwith the letter dated

11.07.2005. Shri K. Prabhakaran lodged a complaint dated

12.07.2005 with the Branch Manager, Vidyanagar Branch,

Hubli regarding unauthorised withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-

by you from his above deposit account had also the fact of

issuing a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- by you in his name. Hence,

it is evidence that you have misappropriated customer’s

money and derived undue pecuniary benefits for yourself.

2. On 20.06.2005, a customer of the branch, Shri

Dundappa Irappa Angadi, who was maintaining SB A/c

No. 24862 had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,000/- by using

a withdrwal slip bearing No. 281573. Subsequently, you

have fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/-

from the said SB A/c No. 24862 of Shri Dungappa Irrappa

Angadi using another withdrawal slip bearing No. 282204

by forging the signature of the customer on the said

withdrawal slip. It is evidence from the above that you

have misappropriated the customer’s money.

3. On 05.07.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amoung of Rs. 15,000/- from SB A/c 23872 of

Shri V. G. Kakareddi by using a withdrawal slip bearing No.

283134 and by forging the signature of the customer in the

said withdrawal slip. You have also failed to enter the

withdrawal slip number to the computer. By such acts you

have committed fraud and misappropriated the customer’s

money, thereby derived undue pecuniary benefits for

yourself.

4. Shri Vijayakumar C. Patil, a customer of the branch is

maintaining an SB A/c bearing No. 20715 at Vidyanagar

Branch, Hubli. While working as Single Window Operator

at the branch, you had fraudulently withdrawn the following

amounts from the said SB A/c No. 20715 of Shri V. C. Patil

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2367

by using withdrawal slips and forging his signature on the

said slips on the below mentioned dated:

Date

Amount Rs.

Withdrawal Slip No.

22.06.2005

10,000/0

282282

02.07.2005

15,000/-

283020

With regard to the misappropriation of the amount of

Rs. 15,000/- you have also failed to enter the withdrawal

slip number to the computer system. By such acts, you

have misappropriated the customer’s money and derived

undue pecuniary benefits for yourself.

5. On 21.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fradulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the SB A/c No.

22879 of Shri Sangappa M. Naragund by using a withdrawal

slip bearing No. 282243 and by forging the signature of the

customer in the said slip. Thereby, you have

misappropriated the customer’s money and derived undue

pecuniary benefits for yourself.

6. On 08.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you have

fraudulently withdrawan an amount of Rs. 2,500/- from the

SB A/c No. 24417 of Shri Shantaram V. Bhandiwaddar by

using a withdrawal slip bearing No. 281480. You have also

failed to enter the withdrawal slip number to the computer.

Subsequently, on 13.06.2005, you have remitted back Rs.

2,500/- to the SB A/c No. 24417 of the customer without

signing as ‘remitter’ in the Pay-in-slip. It is evidence from

such acts that you have temporarily misappropriated the

aforesaid amount belonging to the customer.

7. On 09.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 2,500/- from the SB A/c No.

24567 of Shri F. Y. Bhajammanavar by using a withdrawal

slip bearing No. 281668 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawl slip. Subsequently, on

15.06.2005, you have remitted back Rs. 2,500/- to the said

SB A/c No. 24567 of the customer without signing as

‘remitter’ in the Pay-in-slip. Thereby, you have temporarily

misappropriated the above amount belonging to the

customer.

8. On 10.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amout of Rs. 3,000/- from the SB A/c No.

24112 of Shri Murigeppa B. Kalaghatgi by using a

withdrawal slip bearing No. 281756 and by forging the

signature of the customer on the said withdrawl slip.

Subsequently, on 14.06.2005, you have remitted back Rs.

3,000/- to the SB A/c No. 24113 of the customer without

signing as ‘remitter’ in the Pay-in-slip. Thereby, you have

temporarily misappropriated the amount belonging to the

aforesaid customer.

9. On 15.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the SB A/c No.

14312 of Shri S. S. Pujar by using a withdrawal slip bearing

No. 281949 and by forging the signature of the customer

on the said withdrawal slip. Subsequently, on 05.07.2005,

you have remitted back Rs. 10,000/- to the SB A/c No.

14312 of the customer withouy signing as ‘remitter’ in the

Pay-in-slip. Thereby, you have temporarily misappropriated

the amount belonging to the aforesaid customer.

10. On 15.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the SB A/c No.

22220 of Shri Sunil V Dongre by using a withdrawal slip

bearing No. 281945 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawal slip. Thereby, you have

misappropriated the customer’s amount and derived undue

pecuniary benefits for yourself.

11. On 17.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the SB A/c No.

18520 of Smt. Jayasheel M Kori by using a withdrawal slip

bearing No. 281539 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawal slip. Subsequently, on

21.06.2005, you have remitted back Rs. 15,000/- to the SB

A/c No. 18520 of the customer without signing as ‘remitter’

in the Pay-in-slip. Thereby, you have temporarily

misappropriated the amount belonging to the aforesaid

customer.

12. On 20.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the SB A/c No.

23942 of Shri L. K. Kayasakki by using a withdrawal slip

bearing No. 282209 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawal slip. Thereby, you have

misappropriated the customer’s money and derived undue

pecuniary benefits for yourself.

13. On 23.06.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the SB A/c No.

23149 of Shri Irappa B Halemani by using a withdrawal slip

bearing No. 282283 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawal slip. Thereby, you have

misappropriated the customer’s money and derived undue

pecuniary benefits for yourself.

14. On 04.07.2005, while working as Single Window

Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you had fraudulently

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the SB A/c No.

16501 of Shri K. M. Nargundkar by using a withdrawal slip

2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bearing No. 283081 and by forging the signature of the

customer on the said withdrawal slip. You have also failed

to enter the withdrawal slip to the computer. Thereby, you

have misappropriated the customer’s money and derived

undue pecuniary benefits for yourself.

It is evidence from the above that while functioning as

Single Window Operator at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli, you

have committed serious misdemeanour by indulging in

fraudulent transactions, creation of fictitious entries and

falsifying the Bank’s records, which are ostensibly in order

to misappropriate the customer’s money and to derive

undue pecuniary benefits for yourself. Due to the aforesaid

acts on you part, Branch has lost its image with the valued

customers of the Bank and by such acts, you have failed to

protect/safeguard the interest of the Bank.

Your above mentioned acts constitute misconduct under

the provisions of Memorandum of Settlement of

Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen dated

10.04.2002.

The Bank, therefore charges you as under:

1. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 23556 of Shri K. Prabhakarn by forging

his signature and subsequently wrongly entering

withdrawal slip number to the computer as mentioned above

constitutes fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts

to an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and

constitutes gross misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause

5 of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

2. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 24862 of Shri Dundappa Irappa Angadi

by forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

3. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 23872 of Shri V. G. Kakareddi by forging

his signature as mentioned above constitutes fraudulent

acts on your part, which amounts to an act prejudicial to

the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross misconduct

under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of Memorandum of

Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen

dated 10.04.2002.

4. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 20715 of Shri Vijayakumar C Patil by

forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross-

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

5. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 22879 of Shri Sangappa M Naragund

by forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross-

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

6. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 24417 of Shri Shantaram V

Bhandiwaddar by forging his signature as mentioned above

constitutes fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts

to an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and

constitutes gross-misconduct under sub-clause (j) of

Clause 5 of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary

Action Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

7. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 24567 of Shri Bhajammanavar by forging

his signature as mentioned above constitutes fraudulent

acts on your part, which amounts to an act prejudicial to

the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross misconduct

under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of Memorandum of

Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen

dated 10.04.2002.

8. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 24113 of Shri Murigeppa B Kalaghatgi

by forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fraudulent acts on your part, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

9. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 14312 of Shri S. S. Pujar by forging his

signature as mentioned above constitutes fraudulent acts

on your part, which amounts to an act prejudicial to the

interest of the Bank and constitutes gross misconduct

under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of Memorandum of

Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen

dated 10.04.2002.

10. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 22220 of Shri Sunil V. Dongre by forging

his signature as mentioned above constituted fradulent

acts on your part, which amounts to an act prejudicial to

the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross misconduct

under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of Memorandum of

Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen

dated 10.04.2002.

11. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 18520 of Smt. Jayasheel M. Kori by

forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fradulent acts on your pact, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2369

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

12. Your action of fradulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB A/c No. 23942 of Shri L. K. Kayasakki by forging

his signature as mentioned above constitutes fradulent

acts on your part, which amounts to an act prejudicial to

the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross mosconduct

under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of Memorandum of

Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen

dated 10.04.2002.

13. Your action of fraudulently withdrawing the amount

from the SB S/c No. 23149 of Shri Irappa B. Halemani by

forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fradulent acts on your part, which amounts an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of Clause 5 of

Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplnary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

14. Your action of fradulently withdrawing the anount

from the SB A/c No 16501 of Shri K. M. Nargundkar by

forging his signature as mentioned above constitutes

fradulent acts on you part, which amounts to an act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and constitutes gross

misconduct under sub-clause (j) of clause 5 of

Memorandum of the Settlement on Disciplinary Action

Procedure for workmen dated 10.04.2002.

You are, therefore, required to submit within 7 days of

recept of the Charge Sheet your written setatement of

defence, if any, in triplicate to the undersigned and show

cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken

against you, failing which, it will be deemed that you have

no statement of defence to submit and the matter will be

proceeded with accordingly.

Sd/-

(M. Rathnakar Shetty)

Deputy General Manager

(Disciplinary Authority)”

5. Being not satisfied with the reply of the I Party denying

the charges as false and baseless the Disciplinary Authority

while appointing Sh. U. M. Shettigar as Enquiry Officer

and Sh. Harishchandra Hegde as Presenting Officer ordered

him to face the Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer while

securing the presence of the CSE after observing the

formalities of preliminary hearing receiving the evidence

of Sh. A. Nagabhushan Rao, Senior Mnanager, Regional

Office, Hubli; Sh. S. S. Pujar, SB A/c 14312 holder of

Vidyanagar Branch; Sh Murigeppa B. Kalaghatgi, SB A/c

24113 holder of Vidyanagar Branch; Sh. Dundappa irappa

Angadi, SB A/c No. 24862 holder of Vidyanagar Branch;

Sh. S. M. Naragund, SB A/c No. 22879 holder at Vidyanagar

Branch; Sh V.C. Patil, SB A/c No. 20715 holder at Vidyanagar

Branch and Sh. Sh. H. Reghuram Shetty, Senior Branch

Manager, Vidyanagar branch as MW 1 to 7 and exhibiting

Investigation Report alongwith enclosures; Certificate

dated 07.04.2006 issued for payment under Payment

Pending Investigation Account in respect of various SB

Accounts where frauds committed by CSE have been

detected to the tune of Rs., 92000.00; Certificatte dated

08.04.20 06 issued for paymet under Payment Pending

Investigation Account in respect of various SB Accounts

where frauds committed by CSE have been detected to the

tune of Rs. 68000.00 copy of stamped receipt dated

30.08.2005 issued by Sh. S. M. Naragund for Rs. 20000.00

towards payment made to him by the branch reimbursing

frudulent withdrawal in his SB A/c 22879; copy of receipt

cum undertaking letter dated 21.09.2005 issued by Sh. K.

M. Mulagundmath for Rs. 2000.00 towards payment made

to him by the branch reimbursing fradulent withdraw in his

SB A/c 16501 and undertaking no further claims against

the Bank; copies of all the statement pertaining to user

creation/correction/deletion; cash all the combined debit

cash paid scroll for June and July 2005 and cash all combine

cash received scroll for June and july 2005 as MEx 1 to 8;

the enclosure along with Investigation Report are marked

as MEx 1A, 1B1 to 1B68, 1B69(a) to 1B69(ab), 1B70 to

1B74(a) to 1B74(m), 1B75 to 1B77, 1c1 and MEx 1D1 and as

the CSE/I Party submitted he has no evidence to lead nor

any statement to be given concluding the enquiry receiving

the written briefs of both the sides submitted his enquiry

report dated 08.06.2006 all charges are being proved. Then

the Disciplinary Authority while affording the opportunity

of hearing imposed the punishment of Dismissal from

Service and on appeal the Appellate Authority as well giving

an opportunity of hearing confirmed the order of the

Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal, then the

I party approached the ALC(C), Hubli and as he submitted

FOC dated 07.10.2007 it resulted in this reference.

6. The I party in his claim statement asserted that he

submitted an application to retain him in any of Managalore

branches as he was suffering from Mental Depression for

the past 15 years and his wife was working at Managalore

itself, II Party transferred him to Regional Office, Hubli on

23.04.2003 and then posted him at Vidyanagar Branch, Hubli

to attend the duties of Cashier and though he submitted

his resignation letter dated 28.10.2004 and submitted that

he could clear all the liabilities after obtaining loan from

Syndicate Bank, Mangalore. He also asserts that though

Police Complaint was filed and case was filed till date

change sheet has not been filed in the JMFC Court, Hubli

and Domestic Enquiry was in violation of the principles of

natural justice and that the finding of Enquiry Officer on all

the fourteen charges is baseless without examining the

hardwriting expert and even otherwise the punishment

imposed is disproportionate etc. INTER ALIA, the II Party

2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the counter statement contending that since the I Party

himself preferred to defend himself in the enquiry and all

other opportunities were given to defend himself in the

enquiry. Enquiry Officer while appreciating the charges

with the decoumentary evidence placed before him coupled

with the evidence of the bank officials and SB account

holders has rightly come to the conclusion of charges

being establishmed and for such misconduct he was not

eligible to be continued in the service of the Bank as such

the punishment of dismissal is also proportionate supported

the Domestic Enquiry as fair and proper, the qnquiry

finding as based on the evidence of the Bank officials and

the documents produced in the enquiry and punishment

imposed is proportionate and thus supported all of them.

7. After completion of the pleadings having regard to

certain allegation made touching the Domestic Enquiry in

the claim statement while framing a Preliminary issue as

“whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I party by

the II party is fair and proper?” after receiving the evidence

adduced by both the sides hearing the arguments of the

learned advocates the said issue has been answered in

Affirmative i.e., the Deomestic Enquiry held against the I

Party by the II party is Fair and Proper by oder dated

08.12.2011 receiving the evidence of the I Party on the

point of Victmization fnd Being not gainfully employed

written arguments submitted by the learned advocates

appearing for both sides are received, the point that now

arises for my consideration are:

POINT No. I : Whether the I Party demonstrates the

enquiry finding charges as proved is perverse necessitating

the interference of this tribunal?

POINT No. II : If not, whether the punishment of dismisal

imposed is disproprotionate to the proved misconduct/

POINT No. III : What Order/Award?

8. On appreciation of the charges levelled against the

CSE/II Party, oral and ducomentary evidence placed on

record by the management with the arguments put forward

by their learned advocated by finding on Point No. I and II

are in the negative and Point No. III is as per final order for

the following

REASONS

9. On careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary

evidence adduced by the management in the Domestic

Enquiry with the written submissions given by the

Presenting Officer and the CSE/I Party before the Enquiry

Officer and the report of the Enquiry Officer, I find that the

Enquiry Officer and taking into consideration the totality

of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record

by the management and the defence put forwqard by the

CSE and the circumstances giving raise to from the said

evidence coupled with the admissions made by the CSE

having rightly come to the conclusion charges being proved

through his detailed enquiry finding submitted to the

Disciplinary Authority dated 08.06.2006. When this is the

fact it was for the learned advocate appearing for the I

Party to highlight how the finding of the Enquiry Officer

may be termed as baseless or perverse but no such attempt

is made in the written arguments submitted by him. Out of

the fourteen customers from whose SB Accounts allegedly

on forged withdrawal slips amounts were drawn by the

CSE while he was on duty as Single Window Operator at

Vidyanagar branch of the II Party the management examined

five of them and could not examine the remaining five

because they did not co-operate being made good of their

lost amounts. The CSE has no at all challenged the evidence

of those five account holders examined as MWs 2 to 6

whose evidence point to him having made false withdrawals

from their respectively accounts. Under the circumstances,

I have no reason to come to any other opinion on the

finding of the Enquiry Officer charges being proved.

10. Now coming to the punishment of Dismissal imposed

both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority

after detailed discussion having come to the conclusion

that he is not fit to continue in service, I too having regard

to the grave misconduct committed by the I Party

withdrawing amount from the SB accounts of the customers

through forged signatures in the withdrawal slips when he

was on duty as Single Window Operator he deserves no

lesser punishment than the dismissal. Therefore, I also do

not find any reason to say the punishment of Dismissal

imposed being Disproportionate necessitating my

interference. Under the circumstances, in my opinion the

punishment of Dismissal imposed by the management on

Sh. V.C. Augustine is legal and justified. Hence, I pass the

following

ORDER

The Punishment of Dismissal imposed on Sri V.C.

Augustine, Clerk by the management of Vijaya Bank is

legal and justified and that he is not entitle for any relief.

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2015

dk-vk- 1071-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds

izcaèra= 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 31@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@05@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@4@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2371

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2015

S.O. 1071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2004) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court - Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of Canara Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/05/2015.

[No. L-12012/4/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560 022.

DATED

13th NOVEMBER 2014

Present :

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 31/2004

I Party

II Party

Sh. H.B. Prakashkumar,

The General Manager,

Sh. Byraveswara Krupa,

Canara bank, Personnel Wing,

Behind Police Quarters,

Head Office,

Malavalli,

No. 112, J.C. Road,

MANDYA DIST. - 571 430. BANGALORE - 560 009.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri V.S. Naik

Advocate

II Party

Shri T.R.K. Prasad

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/4/

2004-IR (B-II) dated 01.06.2004 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Canara Bank is justified

in dismissing Sh. H.B. Prakashkumar, Clerk from

service w.e.f. 28/8/2002? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

2. On receipt of the reference and registering it in C.R.

31/2004 when notices were issued to both the sides, they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on 06.08.2004

and II party filed its counter statement on 10.06.2005.

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

may be stated as under.

4. While the I Party was serving as Clerk in Talagavady

Branch of the II Party having noticed certain misconduct

getting an investigation report dated 15.03.2001 from

Sh. H.D. Venkatesh and Sh. A.S.P. Sastry, Officers of II

Party calling upon him to give explanation and being not

satisfied with his explanation served on him the charge

sheet dated 10.07.2001 and later the same came to be

amended on 03.09.2001 when the enquiry was pending as

under:

“CHARGE I

You were enjoying OD limit of Rs. 40500/- on the security

of Five LIC policies having total surrender value of Rs.

42594. You OD limited was sanctioned by Regional Office,

Mysore and was tenable till 06-08-2000.

You have submitted NF 425 dtd 21-08-2000 requesting

for maximum limit under OD on the security of same 5 LIC

policies pledged to the Bank and you have furnished the

surrender value of five policies as below:—

721568263

Rs. 8484-70

610257650

Rs. 13953-60

721577194

Rs. 24409-50

721587087

Rs. 3964-10

610266380

Rs. 16428-50

Total SV

Rs. 67240-40

Talagavady Branch recommended for OD limit of Rs.

63000/- after keeping a margin of 5% of Surrender value of

Rs. 67420-40 duly mentioning in the application as “copy

of surrender value certified from LIC enclosed”. The

recommendations columns were also filled up by you.

Photo copies of surrender value certificate were not attested

by Manager of Talagavady branch as you have failed to

produce original certificate & undertook to produce the

same to RO Mysore/to the branch at the time of availing

renewed/enhanced limit.

After affixing your signature in the Tappal register you

have personally carried the credit report to RO: Mysore &

handed over the same to Sri K.J. Naik, Officer/Sri S.S.

Vadueva, Officer, who were handling Advances Department.

Upon your showing the original surrender value certificate

Sri S.G. Vadueva, Officer, enquired about the alterations in

the surrender value certificate to which you have replied

that he would get the same authenticated by LIC, Maddur.

However, you have failed to produce the original surrender

value certificate.

Upon insisting for the original surrender value certificate

by RO: Mysore you have submitted two letters dtd.

09.09.2000 (where date is wrongly mentioned as 09.08.2000)

2372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 14.10.2000 stating that you do not required

enhancement and want only renewal of the existing OD

limit only. In terms of your request in NF425 dtd. 14.10.2000

branch recommended afresh for renewing the existing limit

and the same was renewed.

However, the surrender value obtained by the branch

from LIC, Maddur on 30.08.2000 in respect of LIC policies

pledged by you reveals the following:—

Policy

Actual Surrender

Surrender Value

No.

Value in Rs.

altered by you

721568263

5484-70

Rs. 8484-70

610257650

10953-60

Rs. 13953-60

721577194

14409-50

Rs. 24409-50

721587087

3964-10

Rs. 3964-10

610266380

12428-50

Rs. 16428-50

Total SV

47240-40

Rs. 67240-40

It is clear from the above that you had deliberately

withheld the original LIC surrender Value Certificate while

seeking renewal of your OD limit with enhancement and

produced Photocopies of Surrender Value Certificate after

fraudulently altering the values with a view to mislead

recommending/sanctioning authority to obtain/avail

enhancement in the OD limit against 5 LIC policies already

pledged by you.

Our Staff Section (W), Circle Office, Bangalore, had

called for an explanation from you vide their letter

BLSW:40357:EP:MISC:2001 dated 13-02-2001. Reply dtd.

24.02.2001 submitted by you is found to be not satisfactory.

CHARGE - II

While working at Hittanahalli Branch, you have claimed

reimbursement of Rs. 900/- vide your declaration dtd.

31.07.1996 under Bank’s Staff Welfare Measures in respect

of your two daughters, Viz., Kum. H.P. Prakruthi, studying

in 5th Std., and Kum. H.P. Roopashree, Studying in LKG.

You have enclosed Photocopies of “Fee Card” issued to

“Anitha Primary & High School, St. Anns Convent,

Malvalli” issued for 1996-97. On a close scrutiny of the

same following discrepancies are observed.

In both the fee cards, number is mentioned as 48. The

Card pertaining to Kum H.P. Prakruthi has been used in

taking in photo copy fraudulently by affixing while paper

on the name of Kum. H.P. Roopashree written to claim the

amount in respect of Kum. H.P. Roopashree.

On 30-06-1997 you have been a declaration under Staff

Welfare Measures Scheme claiming Rs. 900/- in respect of

your two daughter, i) Kum. H.P. Prakruthi studying in 6th

Std. ii) Kum. H.P. Roopashree studying in LKG enclosing

the fee card issued by Anitha Primary & High School/St.

Annas Convent of Malavalli as proof.

Kum. H.P. Roopashree, was admitted to Anitha Higher

Primary School, Malavally in the year 1997-98 to LKG on

05.06.1997 and she was not studying in their school during

1996-97.

Thus you have indulged in giving a false declaration

duly supported by a fabricated document with regard to

Kum. H.P. Roopashree to gain undue pecuniary benefit

from the Bank while claiming educational expenses on

31.07.1996.

Our Staff Section (W), Circle Office, Bangalore, had

called for an explanation from you vide their letter

BLSW:40527:EP:Fraud:2001 dated 30.03.2001. Reply dtd.

11.04.2001 submitted by you is found to be not satisfactory.

CHARGE-III

Sri Channe Gowda, Village Accountant, staying in NFS

extension, Malavally, has informed that he has opened LLD

Account at our Talagavady branch during 1990 with a

monthly instalment of Rs. 250/- each. He had opened the

LLD account through you and monthly instalments were

also paid through you only. Sri Channe Gowda has informed

that you have obtained his signatures subsequently on

some forms stating that the same are required for getting

accounts transferred to Hittanahally Branch. When the

maturity of LLD amount was nearing Sri Channe Gowda

requested you to deposit the entire maturity proceeds in

KDR for 66 months in his name. You have given him KDR

No. 19/96 for Rs. 20000/- with maturity value of Rs. 40042/-

maturing on 20.07.2001.

Upon verification of records at our Talagavady Branch,

it is revealed that Sri Channe Gowda had opened LLD No.

33 on 20.10.1990 with monthly instalment of Rs. 250/-. The

same was closed on 30.11.1990 and fresh LLD No. 43 was

opened on 30.11.1990 with monthly instalment of Rs. 250/-.

The LLD No. 43 was also closed before maturity on

07.08.1993 and Rs. 7304/- is paid in cash. One more LLD

No. 92/93 was opened on 07.08.1993 in the name of Sri

Channe Gowda with monthly instalment of Rs. 750/-. The

same was closed before maturity on 31.08.1994 and

proceeds on Rs. 3789/- was paid in cash. All these accounts

are introduced by you. The request letter dated 29.08.1984

for closure before maturity are in your handwriting. But Sri

Channe Gowda maintains that he had opened only one

LLD account with monthly instalments of Rs. 250/- and

monthly instalments were paid regularly.

Application for KDR 19/96 dtd. 20.01.1996 is in your

handwriting and account is also introdeuced by you. In

the application the portion showing the amount in figures

in torn (holed), so that exact amount cannot be made out.

However, in the words it is written as ‘Two Thousand only’.

You have drawn cash of Rs. 10000/- from your SB

Account No. 4017 and on the reverse of the cash slip there

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2373

is a quotation KDR for Rs. 2000/- and net amount paid is

only Rs. 8000/- as per the cash denomination noted. The

paying in slip for depositing the cash towards KDR 19/96

does not bear signature but a mention is made of SB

Account No. 4017. KDR 19/96 is written by you and delivery

of deposit receipt is also taken by you.

In the Kamadhenu Deposit Receipt 19/96 intentionally

some space was left while writing the deposit amount in

words in between ‘two’ and ‘thousand’ so as to facilitate

subsequent alternation of ‘two’ into ‘twenty’ thousands

(“0” has been altered to “e” and “nty” has been inserted).

In figure column the amount of deposit, total interest and

maturity value were altered by adding “0” (Zero) after “2”

(in deposit and interest column) and “4” in maturity value.

From the above it is clear that you have indulged in

fraudulent activities for gaining undue monetary benefits

by defrauding the Bank and its customer.

Our Staff Section (W), Circle Office, Bangalore, had

called for an explanation from you vide their letter

BLSW:EP:Fraud: 2001 dated 30.03.2001. Reply dtd.

11.04.2001 submitted by you is found to be not satisfactory.

CHARGE-IV

Sri Channe Gowda, had deposited Rs. 20000/- on

19.09.1997 through you in KDR 321/97 for 39 months in his

daughter’s name Kum. C.M. Hamsavathy maturing on

19.12.2000. As per Branch records you have taken delivery

of the said KDR on behalf of the party and handed over the

same to Sri Channe Gowda. During Jan 2001, you had been

to the house of Sri Channe Gowda and gave him Rs. 29900/- in

cash stating that the same in the maturity proceeds of the

deposit. You have taken the original deposit receipt KDR

321/97 duly signed by Kum. C.M. Hamsavathy. When

Channe Gowda asked you how it was possible for you to

bring the deposit proceeds in cash while you were working

in Talagavady branch and whereas the deposit was in

Hittanahally, you have given him a vague reply.

Upon verification of Hittanahally Branch records it is

revealed that the deposit was only for Rs. 2000/- and not

Rs. 20000/-. The deposit has already matured and not yet

encashed but kept in overdue deposit ledger KDR 321/97

was introduced by you and pay in slip of the deposit bears

your signature only. As per the record of deposit receipt

issued, you have taken delivery of KDR 321/97. Even

though KDR 321/97 has matured for payment on 19.02.2000

the amount is not claimed from the branch and is transferred

to overdue deposit register.

From the above, it is clear that you have indulged in

malpractice for monetary gain by defrauding the Bank and

its customer.

Our Staff Section (W), Circle Office, Bangalore, had

called for an explanation from you vide their letter BLSW:

40527:EP:Fraud:2001 dated 30.03.2001. Reply dtd. 11.04.2001

submitted by you is found to be not satisfactory.

By your above actions you have failed to take all

possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of

the Bank and discharge your duties with utmost

integrity, honesty devotion and diligence and thus

committed a misconduct within the meaning of

Chapter XI Regulation 2(A)(i) of Canara Bank Service

Code.”

and by appointing Sh. R. Parthasarathy as Enquiry Officer

and Sh. P. Shivaramu as Presenting Officer directed him to

face the Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer Securing

the prsence of the CSE/I Party observing the formalities of

preliminary hearing while recording the evidence of 14

management witnesses and exhibiting 75 documents as

MEx-1 to MEx-75 and the one document produced by the

CSE/I Party as DEx-1 the detailed description of which are

narrated in the annexure after receiving the written briefs

he submitted his enquiry finding to the Disciplinary

Authority dated 25.04.2002 as the charge being proved.

Then the Disciplinary Authroity while affording an

opportunity of hearing imposed the punishment of

Dismissal from service and even the Appellate Authority

after affording opportunity affirmed the same the I Party

filed conciliation petition before the ALC(C), Bangalore

and as it ended in his submission of failure report the

ministry made this reference for adjudication.

5. The I Party in his claim statement while contending

that the enquiry conducted as a farce and he was not given

fair and proper opportunities and that the enquiry finding

is perverse and the punishment imposed is also

disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him

and INTER ALIA the II Party contended in the Domestic

Enquiry all fair and proper opportunities were given to the

I Party and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer being

based on the material placed before him cannot be termed

as perverse and the misconduct proved being unbecoming

of an official working in the Bank the punishment imposed

is just and proper and my learned predecessor while framing

a Preliminary issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party

by the II Party is fair and proper?”

After receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides

and hearing the learned advocated by his order dated

20.11.2006 answered the said issue in the affirmative holding

that the Domestic Enquiry conducted is fair and proper,

the learned advocate appearing for the I Party while filing

the affidavit of I Party being not gainfully employed after

his dismissal from service examined him on oath as WW 1

and as counsel for II Party did not lead any rebuttal evidence

the I Party being gainfully employed the arguments

addressed by the learned advacates by both sides were

2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

heard. Since the Domestic Enquiry is held fair and proper

the points that now arises for my consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether I Party demonstrates the finding

of the Enquiry Officer charges being proved is perverse

necessitating the interference of this tribunal?

Point No. 2: If not, whether the punishment of dismissal

imposed is disproportionate?

Point No. 3: What Order/Award?

6. On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence brought

on record in the Domestic Enquiry with the arguments put

forward by the learned advocates appearing for the parties

my finding on Point Nos. 1 and 2 are in the Negative and

Point No. 3 is as per the final decision.

7. The I Party has not disputed the charge and evidence

adduced by the management that he has enjoying the OD

limit of Rs. 40500.00 on the security of his five LIC Policies

bearing No. 721568263, 610257650, 721577194, 721587087,

610266380 surrender value of which were Rs. 8484.00

Rs. 13953.00, Rs. 24409.50, Rs. 3964.10, 16428.50

respectively till 06.08.2000 and later submitting letter dated

21.08.2000 requesting for maximum limit of OD on the

security on the same five LIC Policies actual surrender

value of which were Rs. 5484.70, Rs. 10953.60, Rs. 14409.50,

Rs. 3964.10, 12428.50 respectively making them to read as

Rs. 8484.00, Rs. 13953.00, Rs. 24409.50, Rs. 3964.10, 16428.50

enclosing the photocopies of the policies and managed to

get the recommendation for OD Limit of Rs. 63000.00

keeping a margin of 5% and also having personally carried

the credit report to Regional Office, Mysore and handing

over the same to Sh. K.J. Naik, Officer and Sh. S.B. Vasudev,

Officer who were handing advances department and Sh.

S.B. Vasudev, Officer on showing the alterations in the

Surrender Value Certificate saying that he would get the

same authenticated by LIC, maddur failed to produce the

Original Surrender Value Certificates and on the other hand

filed an application to continue the old OD Limit as per his

letters dated 09.09.2000 and 14.10.2000 the charge that he

tried to get the OD Limit enhanced tampering the Surrender

Value Certificates do not require any other evidence to

prove the Charge No. 1. Therefore, absolutely I find no

reason to say the finding of the Enquiry Officer on Charge

No. 1 as proved being baseless or perverse.

8. Similarly the I Party having not disputed that he

claimed reimbursement of Rs. 900.00 through his declaration

dated 31.07.1996 under Banks Staff Welfare Measures in

respect of his two daughters namely Kum. H.P. Prakruthi

showing that she is studying in 5th Std. and Kum. H.P.

Roopashree showing that she is studying in LKG affixing

the photocopies of fee card issued by Anitha Primary and

High School, St. Ann’s Convent, Malavalli issued for 1996-

1997 and he also does not dispute as reported by the School

Officials that his second daughter Ku. H.P. Roopashree

was admitted to Anitha Higher Primary School, Malavalli

in the year 1997-98 to LKG on 05.06.1997 and she was not

studying in the said school during 1996-1997. Therefore, it

is crystal clear that he taken the photocopy of the fee receipt

in respect of his first daughter Kum. H.P. Prakruthi and

manipulated the name of Kum. H.P. Roopashree and in

place of the standard showing it as LKG which is also

supported by the documentary produced at MEx-31.

Thereby the second charge that he have a false declaration

supported by a fabricated document to claim reimbursement

of education expenses for his second daughter Kum. H.P.

Roopashree for the year 1996-1997 who was not at all

admitted to the school during that year and was admitted

in the next academic year i.e., 1997-1998 to gain undue

pecuniary benefit from his employer. Thus, I find no reason

to say the finding on the Enquiry Officer the Charge No. 2

as well either baseless or perverse.

9. As far as the Charge Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned the

evidence of customer Sh. Channe Gowda, Village

Accountant MW 2 Smt. B.K. Ganga Devi, the Cashier at

the relevant time which disclose through the I Party the

customer Sh. Channe Gowda having opened an LLD

Account at Talagavady Branch during 1990 with a monthly

instalment of Rs. 250.00 and made payments of some

instalments through the I Party itself and I Party having

made payment of the maturity value to the customer on

20.07.2001 whereas it discloses the I Party having closed

that account on 30.11.1990 and opening a fresh account on

the same day and receiving the then value of Rs. 7304.00

which indicates that he closed the account well before the

maturity and taken the then balance and utilised it for

himself and by opening fresh account crediting the

instalments received from the customer at the end making

him the payment of the maturity value. Though this act on

the part of the I Party has not caused financial loss either

to the Bank or to the customer his action misutilising the

amount of the customer is unbecoming of an employee of

the Bank. Therefore on this aspect of the charges as well

the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be termed as

baseless or perverse.

10. Under the circumstances having found the finding

of the Enquiry Officer is based on the available evidence

and admissions of the I Party, I find no reason to say any of

the finding of the Enquiry Officer being baseless or

perverse necessitating my interference.

11. Though by the alleged actions of the I Party no

financial loss either to the Bank or to the customers of the

Bank as far as charge Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned and as

far as false claim of education expenses of his second

daughter could be recovered from the I Party by the II

Party his attempt to get higher OD Limit by manipulating

the Surrender Value of his LIC Policies being a grave

misconduct the decision of the Disciplinary Authority that

he is unfit to continue in the Bank Service being just and

proper, I also find no reason to say that the punishment

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2375

imposed being disproportionate to the misconduct proved

against the I Party. in the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The Action of the management of Canara Bank is

justified in dismissing Sh. H.B. Prakashkumar, Clerk from

service w.e.f. 28.08.2002 is legal and justified and he is not

entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Witnesses examined on behalf of Management in Domestic

Enquiry:

MW 1-Sh. Chenaigowda, Customer of II Party

MW 2-Smt. B.K. Gangadevi, Clerk

MW 3-Sh. P. Krishnappa, Retd. Clerk

MW 4-Sh. A.S.P. Shastry, Officer

MW 5-Sh. G.S. Ravi Sudhakar, Officer

MW 6-Sh. H.D. Venkatesh, Retd. Officer

MW 7-Sh. K. Jagannath Nayak, Officer

MW 8-Sh. S.G. Vasudueva, Officer

MW 9-Sh. M.R.Dhruva, Manager

MW 10-Sh. A.R.S. Bhatta, Manager (Ex)

MW 11-Sh. S. Manjunath, Manager

MW 12-Sh. Shamsuddin, Manager

MW 13-Sh. N. Nanjunda, Clerk

MW 14-Sh. M. Mahadev, Manager

Witnesses examined on behalf of CSE/I Party in Domestic

Enquiry:

Nil

Documents exhibited in the Domestic Enquiry:

Ex M-1

Investigation Report dt. 02.02.2001 of

Sh. H.D. Venkatesh

Ex M-2

Statement of Shri H.B. Prakash Kumar,

Clerk, Talagawadi Branch

Ex M-3

Statement of Shri S. Manjunath,

Manager, Talagawadi Branch

Ex M-4

Statement of Shri K. Jagannath Naik,

Officer, RO, Mysore

Ex M-5

Statement of Shri S G Vasudeva,

Officer, RO, Mysore

Ex M-6

NF 425 dt. 21.08.2000 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-7

Surrender Value Certificate of LIC of

India dt. 10.08.2000 in respect of LIC

Policy No. 721568263

Ex M-8

Surrender Value Certificate of LIC of

India dt. 08.08.2000 in respect of LIC

Policy No. 610257650, 721577194,

721587087 and 610266380

Ex M-9

Letter dt. 09.08.2000 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-10

Letter dt. 14.10.2000 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-11

NF 425 dt. 14.10.2000 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-12

Surrender Value Certificate of LIC of

India dt. 30.08.2000 in respect of

LIC Policy No. 610257650, 721577194,

721587087 and 610266380

Ex M-13

Surrender Value Certificate of LIC of

India dt. 30.08.2000 in respect of

LIC Policy No. 721568263

Ex M-14

Certified copy of Surrender Value

Certificate dt 08.08.2000 of LIC of India

Ex M-15

Certified copy of Letter dt 03.08.2000

of Shri H B Prakash Kumar addressed

to LIC of India, Maddur

Ex M-16

Letter No. PS/61N dt. 30.01.2001 of LIC

of India, Maddur

Ex M-17

Tappal/Courier Book & Ledger with

printed Sl. No. 34 of Canara Bank,

Talagawadi Branch

Ex M-18

Letter No. CR 22/2000 dt. 17.10.2000

of Canara Bank, Talagawadi Branch

addressed to RO Mysore

Ex M-19

Letter No. BLSW:40357:EP:MISC:2001

dt. 13.2.2001 of SS (W), CO Bangalore

addressed to Shri B. Prakash Kumar

Ex M-20

Letter No. 8:HO:staff:33/2001 dt.

24.02.2001 of Talagawadi Branch,

Addressed to SS(W), CO Bangalore

Ex M-21

Letter dt. 24.02.2001 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar, addressed to SS(W),

Co Bangalore

Ex M-22

Master Sheet and Ledger Sheet in

respect of OD A/c of Shri H B Prakash

Kumar for the period August 2000 to

October 2000

Ex M-23

Saction letter of RO Maysore for OD

Limited of Rs. 40500/- tenable till

2376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 23, 2015/JYAISTHA 2, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

06/08.2000 sanctioned to Shri H B

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-24

Letter No. Cr 15735/7186/SGV dt.

24.08.2000 of RO Mysore

Ex M-25

Letter No. ADV:RR:8394:KNS dt.

19.09.2000 of RO Mysore

Ex M-26

Letter No. 15375/CR/8475SGV dt.

21.09.2000 of RO Mysore

Ex M-27

Letter No. 15735/8857/SGV dt.

05.10.2000 of RO Mysore

Ex M-28

Investigation Report submitted by Shri

H D Venkatesh and A S P Shstry,

Officers of RO Mysore

Ex M-29

Letter dt. 23.02.2001 of Anitha Higher

Primary School addressed to Canara

Bank, Talagawadi Branch

Ex M-30

Declaration dt. 31.07.1996 of Shri H B

Prakash Kumar addressed to Canara

Bank, Hittanahalli Branch

Ex M-31

Free Card for 1996-97 submitted by

Shri H B Prakash Kumar

Ex M-32

Relative slips for Sanctioning of Staff

Welfare Expenses to Shri H B Prakash

Kumar for the year 1996-97

Ex M-33

Declaration dt. 30.06.1997 of Shri H B.

Prakash Kumar, addressed to Canara

Bak, Hittanahalli branch

Ex M-34

Free Card for 1997-98, submitted by

Shri H B. Prakash Kumar

Ex M-35

Relative Slips for sanctioning of Staff

Welfare Expenses to Sr H B. Prakash

Kumar for 1997-98

Ex M-36

Letter

No.

BLSW:40527:EP:

FRAUD:2001 dt. 30.03.2001 of SS (W),

CO Bangalore, addressed to Shri H B.

Prakash Kumar

Ex M-37

Letter No. 8:HO: Staff 79: 2001 dt.

04/.04.2001 of Canara Bank,

Talagawadi Branch, addresed to

SS(W), CO Bangalore

Ex M-38

Letter dt. 11.04.2001 of Shri H B.

Prakash Kumar addressed to DGM, SS

(W), CO Bangalore

Ex M-39

Letter No.8:HO: Staff: 083:2001 dt.

12.04.2001 of Canara Bank, Talagawadi

Branch addressed to SS (W), CO

Bangalore

Ex M-40

Investigation Report dt. 15.03.2001 of

Sh. H D Venkatesh and Sri A S P

Shastry

Ex M-41

Statement of Sri Shamuddin, Manager,

Canara Bank, Hittanahalli Branch

Ex M-42

Statement of Sri N Nanjunda, Clerk,

Canara Bank, Hittanahalli Branch

Ex M-43

Statement of Sri P Krishnappa, Clerk,

Canara Bank, Hittanahalli Branch

Ex M-44

Statement dt. 20.02.2001 of Sri

Channegowda, Customer

Ex M-45

Paying in slip dt. 07.07.1993 in respect

of LLD 33 of Sri Channegowda - Cash

Received seal of 07.08.1993

Ex M-46

Ledger sheet pertaining to LLd No. 33

Ex M-47

Discharge for closure of LLd No. 33

Ex M-48

Relative slips for closure of LLD No.

33 dt. 30.11.1990

Ex M-49

Discharge for LLD No. 43 dt. 30.11.1990

Ex M-50

Ledger Sheet pertaining to LLD No.

Ex M-51

Application for closure of LLd No. 43

dt. 07.08.1993

Ex M-52

Relative slips for closure of LLd No.

Ex M-53

Application for LLD no. 92/93 dt.

07.08.1993

Ex M-54

Ledger Sheet pertaining to LLD No.

92/93

Ex M-55

Application for closure of LLD dt.

28.04.1994 of Sri Channegowda

Ex M-56

Relative sloips for closure of LLd 92/

93 dt 17.05.1994

Ex M-57

Application for LLD No. 95 dt.

25.03.1994

Ex M-58

Ledger Sheet pertaining to LLD No.

Ex M-59

Application for closure of LLD No. 95

dt 29.08.1994

Ex M-60

Relative sloips for closure of LLD 95

dt. 31.08.1994

Ex M-61

Xerox copy of KDR No. 19/96

Ex M-62

FD/KD Paying in slip dt. 20.01.1996

for Rs. 2000/- in respect of Sri

Channegowda

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 23] 2015@T;s"B 2] 1937

2377

Ex M-63

Ledger Sheet in respect of KDR 19/96

of Sri Channegowda

Ex M-64

F 108 dt. 20.01.1996 in respect of KDR

19/96 of Sri Channegowda

Ex M-65

SB Withdrawal Order form for Rs.

10000/- dt. 20.01.1996 in respect of SB

a/c 4017 of Shri H B Prakash Kumar

Ex M-66

Record of Deposit Receipts issued of

Canara Bank, Hittanahalli Branch for

delivering Deposit Receipts — entry

pertaining to KDR 19/96

Ex M-67

Cash shroff book dt. 20.01.1996 of

Hittanahally Branch

Ex M-68

KDR Subsidiary Sheet of Hittanahalli

Branch for 20.01.1996

Ex M-69

Cash shroff book dt. 20.12.1995 of

Hittanahalli branch

Ex M-70

KDR subsidiary sheet of Hittanahally

branch for the period 18.12.95 to

22.12.95 with printed serial number

501415

Ex M-71

Paying in challan in respect of KDR

321/97 dt 19.09.1997

Ex M-72

Application for KDR (NF 108) dt.

19.09.1997 in respect of KDR 321/97

Ex M-73

Ledger Sheet in respect of KDR 321/

Ex M-74

Record of deposit receipts issued of

Hittanahalli Branch - entry pertaining

to KDR 321/97

Ex M-75

Paying in slip in respect of LLD 95 of

Sri Channegowda dated 25.03.1994

Documents exhibited on behalf of the I party:

Ex D-1

Attendance Register (folio No. 109)

pertaining to Aug. 94 of Mandya

Branch relating to Shri H B Prakash

Kumar.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.