2962 GI/2015
(2997)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1410-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk
vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds lkFk
ifBr èkjk 5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, fcgkj ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ foHkkx dh lgefr ls fnukad 21-01-
2015 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 1@lhchvkbZ&80&02@2013 ,p¼ih½@495
vkSj blds fnukad 25-06-2015 ds 'kqf)i= lañ 1@lhchvkbZ
80&02@2013 ,p ¼ih½ n~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa
dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèdkj dk foLrkj ,rnn~okjk iVuk tUd'ku
jsy ih,l iVuk esa ntZ fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa ds iz;kl] nq"izs"k.k vkSj
"kM~;a=] Mkd pksjh lfgr tkap&iM+rky djus ds fy, laiw.kZ fcgkj
jkT; ij djrh gSA
¼i½ 241@94] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 255@256@257@258@259@
260@380 ds vèhuA
¼ii½ 131@98] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 468@379@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼iii½ 240@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼iv½ 242@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼v½ 243@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼vi½ 244@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼vii½ 245@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼viii½ 246@01] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 380@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
¼ix½ 162@07] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 379@409@34@120 ¼[k½ ds
vèhuA
¼x½ 343@08] vkbZihlh dh èkjk 468@409@120 ¼[k½ ds vèhuA
[lañ 228@19@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1410.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
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- 29]
ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 12—tqykbZ 18] 2015] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 21—vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
No. 29]
NEW DELHI, JULY 12—JULY 18, 2015, SATURDAY/ASADHA 21—ASADHA 27, 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)
2998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Central Government with the consent of the Govt. of
Bihar, Home (Police) Department, vide Notification No. 1/
CBI 80-02/2013 H(P)/495 dated 21.1.2015 and its
Corrigendum No. 1/CBI-80-02/2013 H(P) dated 25.6.2015,
hereby extends powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the
State of Bihar for investigation of the following Cases:
(i) 241/94, u/s 255/256/257/258/259/260/380 IPC.
(ii) 131/98, u/s 468/379/120(b) IPC.
(iii) 240/01 u/s 380/120(b) IPC.
(iv) 242/01 u/s 380/120/(b) IPC.
(v) 243/01 u/s 380/120/(b) IPC.
(vi) 244/01 u/s 380/120/(b) IPC.
(vii) 245/01 u/s 380/120/(b) IPC.
(viii) 246/01 u/s 380/120/(b) IPC.
(ix) 162/07 u/s 379/409/406/34/120(b) IPC.
(x) 343/08 u/s 468/409/120(b) IPC.
registered at Patna Junction Rail PS Patna, related to Postal
theft including attemps, abetments and conspiracies in
relation to the above mentioned offences.
[No. 228/19/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh-ih-oh izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1411-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalwyh; vfèdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh èkjk 2 ds [kaM
¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsanz ljdkj ds }kjk Jh dYyksy eq[kthZ] lgk;d
dks 08 tqykbZ] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] ekys esa lgk;d dksalqyj
vfèdkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèd`r djrh gSA
[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1411.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section
2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)
Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby
authorize Shri Kallol Mukherjee, Assistant, in High
Commission of India, Male to perform the duties of
Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 8th July, 2015.
[No. T. 4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
vk;q"k ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1412-—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksfèr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] vk;q"k ea=ky; ds
iz'kklfud fu;a=.kkèhu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 95-45 izfr'kr
deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—
1- ^^jk"Vªh; Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku laink laLFkku] gSnjkckn**
2- ^^jk"Vªh; ekSfyd vk;qosZfnd foKku vuqlaèku laLFkku ] iq.ks**
[lañ bZ 11018@1/2013&vk;q"k ¼jkñHkkñ½]
dqanu falg Vaxf.k;ka] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2015
S.O. 1412.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Langauge (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central
Government hereby notifies the following offices under
the administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, where
95.45% staff have acquired the working knowledge of
Hindi:—
1. "National Institute of Indian Medical Heritage,
Hyderabad"
2. "National Research Institute of Basic Ayurvedic
Sciences, Pune."
[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.]
KUNDAN SINGH TANGANIYA, Jt. Director (O.L.)
okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;
¼okf.kT; foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1413-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj
fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr
fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vfèfu;e] 1963 ¼1963
dk 22½ dk èkjk 7 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] eSllZ fe=k ,lñ dsñ izkbosV fyfeVsM] gkmflax cksMZ dkyksuh]
,p ch&44] eèqcu] ikjknhi ftyk txrflaxiqj] vksfM'kk&754142]
dks bl vfèlwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh
vofè ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vfèlwpuk
lañ dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 vkSj la[;k dkñvkñ
3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj 1965 ls vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfutksa vkSj
v;Ldksa ¼lewg&I½ vFkkZr~] ykSg v;Ld] eSaxuht v;Ld] Qsjks
eSaxuht] Qsjks eSaxuht ykok lfgr vkSj lewg&II eSaxuht MkbvkWDlkbM]
Økse v;Ld Økse dsafnzr lfgr] fujh{k.k ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krks±
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
2999
ds vèhu jgrs gq, Øe'k% mDr [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk ikjknhi esa]
fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk
nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
(i) eSllZ fe=k ,lñ dsñ izkbosV fyfeVsM] gkmflax cksMZ dkyksuh]
,pch&44] eèqcu] ikjknhi] ftyk txrflaxiqj] vksfM'kk&754142]
[kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&I dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 vkSj
[kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&II dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds
fu;e 4 ds vèhu muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap
djus ds fy,] bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V
vfèdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lfoèk,a nsxh vkSj(
(ii) eSllZ fe=k ,lñ dsñ izkbosV fyfeVsM] gkmflax cksMZ dkyksuh]
,pch&44] eèqcu] ikjknhi] ftyk txrflaxiqj] vksfM'kk&754142]
bl vfèlwpuk ds vèhu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k
vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn le;≤ ij fyf[kr
esa fn, x, ,sls funs'kksa ls vkc) gkasxsA
[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015& fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
larks"k dqekj lkjaxh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1413.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes
M/s. Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Housing Board Colony,
HB-44, Madhuban, Paradip, Dist. Jagatsingpur, Odisha-
754142, as an agency for a further period of three years
with effect 27th July, 2015, for inspection of Minerals and
Ores (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore, Manganese Ore,
Ferromanganese including Ferromanganese Slag and
Group-II Manganese Dioxide, Chrome Ore including
Chrome Concentrates, specified in the schedule annexed
to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Commerce vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th
December, 1965, and S.O. 3978, dated the 20th December,
1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and
Ores at Paradip subject to the following conditions,
namely:—
(i) that M/s. Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Housing Board
Colony, HB-44, Madhuban, Paradip, Dist. Jagatsingpur,
Odisha-754142, shall give adequate facilities to the officers
nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf
to examine the method of inspection followed by them in
carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and
the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-II (Inspection)
Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Housing Board
Colony, HB-44, Madhuban, Paradip, Dist. Jagatsingpur,
Odisha-754142, in the performance of their function under
this notification shall be bound by such directions as the
Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection
Council may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/2/2015-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1414-—dsanzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=.kkèhu lkoZtfud {ks= ds miØeksa ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa
dks] ftuds 80 ;k vfèd izfr'kr deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—
1- Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM
(i)
Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dksydkrk]
Hkkjr Hkou] fizal xqyke eqgEen 'kkg jksM]
dksydkrk&700095
(ii)
Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyñ
flojh laLFkkiu] flojh QksVZ jksM]
flojh ¼iwoZ½] eqacbZ&400015
(iii) Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyñ]
,yihth ukf'kd]
IykWV uañ ,Q&5 ekysxkao ,evk; Mhlh
{ks= flUuj]
flUuj@ukf'kd&422113
(iv) Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyñ]
dks;kyh laLFkkiu]
iksñ tokgjuxj] oMksnjk
2- bafM;u LVªsVsftd isVªksfy;e fjtoZl fyñ
(i)
bafM;u LVªsVsftd isVªksfy;e fjtoZl fyñ]
¼vksvkbZMhch dh ,d iw.kZ LokfeRo okyh lgk;d daiuh½
isVªksfy;e ,oa izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;]
vksvkbZMhch Hkou] rhljk ry]
IykWV lañ 2] lsDVj&73] uks,Mk&201301 ¼mñizñ½
[lañ&11011@1@2015 ¼fgUnh½]
Mhñ ,lñ jkor] la;qDr funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
3000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1414.—In pursuance of sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the
following offices of the Public Sector Undertakings under
the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum &
Natural Gas, in which 80 or more per cent of the staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
(i)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Regional Office, Kolkata,
Bharat Bhawan,
Prince Gulam Mohammad Shah Road,
Kolkota-700095
(ii)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Siwari Installation, Siwari Fort Road,
Siwari (East) Mumbai-400015
(iii)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
LPG Nashik,
Plot No. F-5, Maalegaoun MIDC,
Area-Sinaar,
Sinaar/Nashik-422113
(iv) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Koyali Installation,
PO. Jawaharnagar, Vadodara
2. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited
(i)
Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited
(A wholly owned subsidiary of OIDB)
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
OIDB Bhawan,
3rd Floor, Plot No. 2 Sector-73
Noida-201301 (U.P.)
[No. 11011/1/2015 (Hindi)]
D.S. RAWAT, Jt. Director(OL)
oL= ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1415-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds
fy,½ jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e] ¼4½ ds
vuqlj.k esa] oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;
dks ftlds 80- ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—
{ks=h; funs'kd ¼mÙkjh {ks=½
fodkl vk;qDr ¼gLrf'kYi½ dk;kZy;]
if'peh [k.M&8] jkekd`".kiqje]
ubZ fnYyh&110066
[lañ bZ&11016@1@2015&fganh]
,ñ eèqdqekj jsM~Mh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2015
S.O. 1415.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies
the following office of the Minsitry of Textiles, more than
80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of
Hindi.
Regional Director (NR),
Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
West Block-8, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi -110066
[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi]
A. MADHUKUMAR REDDY, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1416-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh
Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 2015
esa ftls Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk n~okjk dkñvkñ
la[;kad 805¼v½rkjh[k 19 ekpZ] 2015 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr
vfèlwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr 410-47 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k
1014-27 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ¼ftls blesa blds
i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ ;k ml ij ds lHkh vfèdkj] mDr
vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa
ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS] fd osLVuZ
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj] egkjk"Vª ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krksZa dk ftUgsa dsUnzh;
ljdkj bl fufeRr vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu ds fy;s
jtkean gSa(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj
fodkl½ vfèfu;e] 1957 dh èkjk 11 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3001
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS] fd 410-47 gsDVj
¼yxHkx½ ;k 1014-27 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
lHkh vfèdkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,]
rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 2015 ls fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu
jgrs g,] mDr ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~µ
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu ;Fkk
voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh eanksa dh ckcr~
fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls
fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa
ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs
vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds fy, ;k
muds lacaè esa vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr]
lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh] ,sls
fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr
Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds ckjsa esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds
inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa vko';d
gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk
mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa
dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krksZa dk ikyu djsxh] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V
{ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñlañ 43015@29@2012&ih vkjvkbZMCY;w&1]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015
S.O. 1416.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 805(E), dated the 19th March, 2015,
published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section, 3 Sub-
section (ii), dated the 20th March, 2015, issued under sub-
section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land measuring
410.47 hectares (approximately) or 1014.27 acres
(approximately) and the all rights in or over the land
described in the Schedule appended to the said notification
(hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested
absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
said Act;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that
the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Maharashtra
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central
Government hereby direct that the 410.47 hectares
(approximately) or 1014.27 acres (approximately) and all
rights in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect
from 20th March, 2015, instead of continuing to so vest in
the Central Government, shall vest in the Government
Company, subject to the following terms and conditions,
namely:—
1. the Government Company shall reimburse to the
Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined
under the provisions of the siad Act;
2. a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of
the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the said Government
Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred
in connection with any such Tribunal and persons
appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said
Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred
in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in
connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so
vested, shall be borne by the said Government Company;
3. the said Government Company shall indemnify the
Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any
proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so
vested.
4. the Government Company shall have no power to
transfer the said land and the rights in or over the said land
so vested to any other persons without the prior approval
of the said Central Government; and
5. the Government Company shall abide by such
direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands,
as and when necessary.
[F.No. 43015/29/2012-PRIW-I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
3002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k iVuk ds iapkV
[lanHkZ la[;k 02 (c) of 2011] dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 06@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@58@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 02 (C) of 2011] of the
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna 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 06/07/2015.
[No. L-12011/58/2009-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Before the Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:—02 (C) of 2011
Between the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, PATNA (BIHAR)-1
and Their workman represented by President, National
Confederation of Bank Employees, C/O-Dubey Niwas,
H.No.-18A New Yarpur Road, PATNA (BIHAR)-800001.
For the management
: Shri Deepak Kumar Sinha,
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Birpur.
For the workman
: Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary.
Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.
Present
: Bipin Dutta Pathak.
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated the 20th March, 2015
By notification order No.-L-12011/58/2009-IR(B-I)
New Delhi, dated-27.01.2011 Govt. of India, Bharat Sarkar,
Ministry of Labour, Shram Mantralya, New Delhi referred
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Sub-Section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") the following
dispute between The Chief General Manager, State Bank
of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, PATNA
(BIHAR)-1 and Their workman represented by President,
National Confederation of Bank Employees, C/O-Dubey
Niwas, H.No.-18 A New Yarpur Road, PATNA (BIHAR) -
800001 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of SBI, Patna
in treating the date of confirmation as 14.03.1988 and instead
of 20.11.1984 in respect Shri Ram Prasad Saha, Ex-Security
Guard who was retired on 31.12.1997 and denying him
pensionary benefits, is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the employee are entitled to?"
2. The case of the workman, in short, in the written
statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman stating is
that an Industrial Dispute for adopting unfair labour practice
and refusal to give pensionary benefits to Shri Ram Prasad
Saha, (delinquent workman), Ex-Security guard and Birpur
Branch of State Bank of India has been raised on 15.04.2009
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)
cum-conciliation officer, which subsequently referred for
adjudication to this Industrial Tribunal. The reference deals
with the action of the management of SBI, Patna in treating
the date of confirmations as 14.03.1988 instead of 20.11.1984
of Shri Ram Prasad Saha and denying from pensionary
benefits shows any justification or not.
Workman was appointed as permanent security guard
against sanctioned post and vacancy in the Birpur Branch
of the bank on 14.03.1984 and worked on the same post
without any break in service continuously till his
superannuation on 31.12.1997. But the management of the
bank refused to give pensionary benefits to the applicant
on the guard that he was confirmed in service on 14.03.1988
and as such he was not entitled for the same. Workman
had worked continuously without any break in service
against a permanent post. Association of the workman is
an affiliate of National confederation of Bank a Employees
(in short N.C.B.E.) which is a major signatory of the Bipartite
Settlement in banking industry.
The workman served in the Army as sepoy (Shipahi)
and joined the service of State Bank of India as security
guard of Birpur Branch of S.B.I. vide letter No.: RM-11/939
dated 14.03.1984. The post of security guard was a
permanent post and on which one Mr. S.B. Limboo was
posted, who was on long leave on Medical ground on
account of illness, died soon after the workman joined the
post of security guard. The workman continued to work
against the permanent vacancy caused due to death of
Sri Limboo and he worked without any break in service and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3003
superannuated from the service w.e.f. 31.12.1997. The
management of the bank for all practical purposes treated
him as permanent employee. Workman was asked to
produce satisfactory medical certificate before his
appointed. Bank provided him "fire Arm" to perform duties
of security guard w.e.f. 20.03.1984. He was made retainer of
the bank's licence gun. He was deputed to training along
with gun at Ranchi and Patna training centres.
Paragraph 493 of "Shastri Award" provides that for a
permanent appointment the candidate must produce
satisfactory medical certificate for medically fit before the
appointment. Only permanent security guard is provided
with "gun" of the bank to perform official duties. Only a
permanent employees is made retrainer of the gun of S.B.I.
and is deputed for training at staff training centres.
Employers deputed the workman to staff training centres
Ranchi with the gun of the bank from 21.08.1986 to
23.08.1986. He was also deputed for training with gun at
staff training Patna from 15.06.1987 to 17.06.1987.
Paragraph No.- 508 of Shastry Award provides that
temporary employee means an employee who has been
appointed for a limited period for work i.e. 90 days.
Mr. Saha was never appointed for a limited period. He was
entrusted with the responsibilities of a permanent security
guard. But no formal letter of absorpiton/confirmation was
issued despite several respresentation made by the
workman which was duly recommended by the concerned
branch. Workman was absorbed in the permanent cadre
vide letter no. RM-II/21/7198/139 dated 10/14.09.1987. He
was superannuated from service while working at sone-
deep branch on 31.12.1997, and he applied for grant of
pension as the bank arbitrarily did not grant him pensionary
benefits. Workman filed representation for pensionary
benefits treating him as permanent employees of the bank
w.e.f. 20.03.1984 in pursuant to letter of appointment. His
claim was duly recommended by the concerned branch as
well as by the Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Purnea,
vide his letter No.- PER/PU/Ho/2004 dated- 29.01.2004. In
reference for query made by the Head Office of the bank,
further clarification were given by the D.G.M., Zonal office,
Purnea vide his letter No.- PER/PU/HO/579 dated-
27.06.2005.
Shri Bishwanath Mahto was confirmed in service with
retrospective effective from 10.09.1987 vide letter No.-RM-
II.21/382/11 dated-13.02.1988 and his case was similar to
that of Shri B.N. Mahto and required consideration in the
same light but it was turned down without assigning any
reason how his case was different than that of Shri B.N.
Mahto. Order was passed by the bank if arbitrarily and
without consideration the claim of the employee. No reason
has been assigned distinuguishing the case of Shri B.N.
Mahto. The action of the bank is discrimination and unfair
labour practice. A letter No.- R.M.III dated-14.03.1984
(Annexure-I of the W.S. of claim of the workman) is letter of
appointment of Shri Ram Prasad Saha in which it has been
written that Shri B.B. Limboo guard is availing medical leave,
please engage Shri Ram Prasad Saha temporarily in place
of Shri B.B. Limboo till further instructions. In this
connection, please not that Shri Saha is in the panel of
temporary employees prepared at our Balua Bazar Branch.
Please advice them that you have engaged him temporarily
in place of Shri Limboo.
Another letter annexed with written statement of claim
is R.M.II/No.- 21/9107/126 dated-31.07.1986 (annexure-2).
This letter is in respect of Refresher Training of Bank Guard
from 21.08.1986 to 23.08.1986 of Shri Ram Prasad Saha bank
guard in which is has been stated that guards must carry
their gun and cartridges to the training centre.
Next letter No.- R.M.II/ No.-21/12581/69 dated- 25.05.1987
(annexure-3) is also in respect of Refresher Training of
Bank Guard of this workman from 15.06.1987 to 17.06.1987.
Another letter is R.M.II/7/198/139 dated-10th September,
1987 letter indicates that management had decided to absorb
Sri Ram Prassad Saha, temproary bank guard in permanent
cadre as guard-cum-messenger with immediate effect on 6
months probation provided he is otherwise found suitable
after observing all formalities.
Next letter (annexure-5) with the written statement of
claim is No.-PER/PU/HO/2004 dated- 29.01.1004. This letter
was sent by Dy. General Manager to Zonal Office, Purnea.
This letter is respect of letter dt-08.11.2002 of the Joint
Secretary, SBI Pensioner's Association regarding the
shifting of date of confirmation of Shri Ram Prasad Saha.
Dy. General Manager has stated that Shri Saha was posted
at Birpur Branch as a temporary guard vide letter No.-
AGM-II/22/77 dated- 14.03.1984. He was joined on
20.03.1984. He absorbed in permanent capacity as Bank
Guard-cum-messenger and was palced on 6 months
probation from 14.09.1987. He attended training
programme with gun at STC, Patna from 15.06.1987 to
17.06.1987. He deputed to STC Ranchi with fun from
21.08.1986 to 23.08.1986 i.e. much before the date of his
permanent absorpiton. Further it has been stated para-4
“in view of what have been stated in the proceeding
paragraphs we are of to opinion that though Shri Saha
was not confirmed on the Schedule date, he was allowed
to perform his duties with gun and he had attended the
training programmes along with his gun. This implies that
he was treated as a full-fleaged permanent employee of
the bank, through, he was not advised in time. This
reflects an inadvertent error of omission on the part of
the Bank, which could be condoned by treating Shri Saha
was a confirmed guard from the due date i.e. from
20.09.1094. We therefore, recommend that Shri Saha's
representation for considering his case may be acceded
to sympathetically so that the is rendered eligible for
receiving person from the Bank from the retrospective
date i.e. from 01.01.1998.’’
3004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Another letter Annexure-6 has been also sent by
Dy. General Manager, please refer to you letter No.- PER
CBK 5178 1801 dated- 15.02.2005, which bears a reference
to our letter No.- PER PU HO 2004 dated-29.01.2004.
In this connection, we advice in seriatina as under:—
(1)
Shri Saha joined the bank as band guard
(temporary) at Birpur branch on 20.03.1984 as
per the branch letter No.- 21107 datd-06.08.1985
addressed to RM-II Z.O. Purnea (copy
enclosed for year ready reference) Shri Saha's
name was included in the temproary employees
panel prepared at our Balua Bazar Branch, in
terms of then RM-III's letter No.- 93923
dt- 14.03.1984 (copy enclosed). It is therefore,
presumed that the mentioned as 16.07.1979 in
his service sheet relates to the date prior to the
preparation of the panel.
(2)
Shri Saha's scheduled date of confirmation
would accordingly, be 20.09.1984 i.e. after
5 months from the date of joining.
(3)
Another guard, Shri Biswanath Mahata, was
also appointed as temporary basis on
06.12.1980 as per Balua Bazar branch letter No.-
2127 dt- 10.03.1983 (copy enclosed).
Another letter Annexure-7 is dt.1st January, 1988
(annexure-7) of Written statement of claim indicates that
one B.N. Mahto was confirmed in his present appointment
w.e.f. 10.09.1987.
Last leter Annexure-8 with the written statement of claim
is letter sent to office the Dy. General Manager, SBI, Zonal
Office, Purnea stating therin that “an employee cannot be
made permanent in a post from a retrospective date when
the appointment letter specifies the date of probation and
confirmation. The period spent by an employees as a
temporary appointee does not make it obligatory for the
Bank of regularize an employee's service retrospectively in
order to grant him pension.”
3. Written statement cum rejoinder on behalf of the bank
(Management) to claim statement of Shri Ram Prasad Saha,
Ex-security guard has been filed. In which it has been
submitted that u/s 2(g) (i) of Industrial Disputes (Central
Rules) provides that a in relation to an industry carried on
by or under the authority of the Central Government, the
office-in-charge of the concerned established shall be
employer. At the industrial dispute is between Shri Ram
Prasad Saha and Birpur Branch of SBI from where he retired.
The name of the Chief General Manager be expunged and
the name of the Birpur Branch SBI be substituted.
Competency of raising the dispute and also representation
of the workman through Shri Tej Narayan Debey said to be
President of National Federation of Bank Employees (Birpur
State) is also seriously disputed.
Cause of action arose when he was confirmed on
14.03.1998 but no dispute was raised either at that point of
time or within a reasonable period thereafter. Workman
retired from service on 31.12.1997 and received all his retiral
benefits but even then nothing was done. He filed C.W.J.C.
No.-800 of 2007 which was disposed of by an order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.01.2009. It is therefore, it
is the case of no action by the workman for a long period.
Shri Saha was absorbed in permanent cadre on 6 months
probation on 14.09.1987 and was confirmed in service after
sixe month w.e.f. 14.03.1988. His age as on the date of
confirmation was 50 years 03 months and 06 days. Central
Board of the State Bank of India under clause (o) of the
subs-section (2) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 had framed "State Bank of India Employees
Pension Fund Rule." Rule 07 read with 8 provides that no
employee shall be eligible to become a member of the
pension fund if he is more than 38 years of the age
(subsequently increased to 48 years w.e.f. 01.11.1993 on
the date of confirmation. Shri Saha age on the date of
confirmation was 50 years, 03 months and 06 days, he was
not made a member of the Pension Fund and accordingly
not entitled to get pension. Submission that Shri Saha had
worked for 240 days as alleged; it does not entitled him to
be a permanent employee. Letter of initial appointment was
in temporary capacity. Shri Saha temporary guard, was in
the panel of temporary employees. The Branch Manager is
advised to inform Shri Saha that he had been engaged
temporarily in place of Shri Limboo. Shri Saha was put in
permanent cadre on 14.09.1987.
The Regional Manager vide letter -14.03.1984 intimated
to engaged Shri saha temporarily plalce of Shri S.B. Limboo
till further instruction as Shri Limboo was availing sick
leave and the branch was running unguarded and he was
appointed by the bank on 20.11.1984 and was posted at
Birpur Branch. Temporary engagement was never objected.
He was deputed of refreshing training to "staff training
centre Ranchi and again at Patna do not speak that he was
treated or made permanent. This also does not show that
such training is given to permanent security guard and not
temporary guard. A person cannot be deemed to be
confirmed unless it is done and informed in writing and
there is no rule and/or any judicial pronouncement holding
that continuous working of 240 days will be automatically
make a temporary employee confirmed. Shri Saha is not
entitled to any relief. Other settlement of the workman has
been denied.
4. Rejoinder on behalf of the workman to written
statement of the workman have also been filed stating
theirin that written statement of the bank is incorrect and
misleading.
5. Two witnesses has been examined on behalf of the
workman W.W-1 Shri Ram Prasad Saha and W.W-2
Shri Deota Singh one affidavit was filed on behalf of Ram
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3005
Prasad Saha on 31.05.2011 and affidavit of Deota Singh
was also filed on the same date. Copies of both deposition
on affidavit was not served to the other sides and both
witnesses were not cross-examination at that time. Again
on 19.07.2012 deposition on affidavit in Hindi was filed on
behalf of the both the witnesses.
W.W.-1 Ram Prasad Saha has stated in his affidavit dated-
16.07.2012 that he is Ex-serviceman and he was appointed as
guard on temporary basis on 16.07.1979 at Balua Bazar
Branch. On 14.03.1984 vide letter No.-RM III-939/23 he was
deputed at Birpur branch as bank guard and he joined there
on 20.03.1984. He has stated that letter was issued by from
Regional Office, Bhagalpur of bank of India by Regional
Manager be marked as Ext.-W/1. He worked regularly since
20.03.1984 without break in service but by mistake of bank
he was not made permanent in time. Bank guard Sri S.B.
Limboo was on permanent basis and he was on long leave
due to illness. This witness joined as bank guard on
20.03.1984 and since thereafter, Sri S.B. Limboo died. This
witness worked from 31.12.1997. After the death of Sri Limboo
from August 1984 process started for permanent appointment
and name was called from local employment exchange and
interview was taken and this witness was selected. He was
asked to deposit fitness certificate of Doctor. No formal
information was given to him from bank as such this witness
felt that he has been selected permanently. No appointment
letter at temporary guard was given to him. Bank never
informed about the letter dt. 19.09.1987 for permanent
appointment so this witness though himself that after
selection he has been made permanent in the year 1984. Fire
gun was given to this witness from 20.03.1984 for bank duty.
He was made retainer of licence of gun in the year 1984 and
this witness also deposited fitness certificate in the year
1984. He was sent for training in staff training of the bank
from 31/04.07.1986 and 25.05.1997 at Ranchi and Patna
respectively. Prior to probation he was sent for training. He
has proof the letters for training marked as Ext.-W/2 and Ext.
W/3. During 1984 he worked for more than 240 days in one
calendar year. Bank included his name in the category of
protected employee. He applied in the year 1984 for
appointment as permanent employee. Even after completion
of service of 240 days employees union informed the bank
for permanent appointment. He was appointed on probation
from 14.09.1987 for bank guard cum-messenger vide letter
No.- RM II/G/7198/139 dt.-10/14.09.1987. He without
interruption worked at Birpur branch from 20.03.1984 to
14.03.1988 and after four year he was made permanent. Bank
deprived him from benefits of pension. Letter No.-RM II/G./
7198/139 dt.-10/14.09.1987 has been marked as Ext.-W/4.
Dy. General Manager, Purnea of Regional Office sent
letter to local head office, Patna vide letter No. - PER/PU/
HO/2004 and PER/PU/HO/579 dated- 29.01.2004 and
27.06.2005 recommending to make permanent to consider
this witness as permanent employee from 20.09.1984 so
that this witness may get benefits of pension. This letter
has been marked as Ext.-W/5 and Ext.-W/6 respectively.
On Sri B.N. Mahto, bank guard was appointed at Balua
Bazar branch was confirmed as permanent employee from
beginning. This letter has been marked as Ext.-W/7. Head
Office, Patna vide letter No.- HR/CBK/682/253 dt-22.05.2006
returned back the recommendation of Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India at Purnea this letter has been marked as
Ext.-W/8. He has been discriminated.
In cross-examination this witness has stated that he
has not filed his joining letter from 16.07.1979 from Balua
Bazar branch. This witness denied that he was appointed
temporarily due to long leave of Sri S.B. Limboo due to
illness. This witness was appointed permanently so he did
not made protest. This witness has no knowledge that
after death of Sri Limboo bank, sent letter that his service
became permanent. This witness has got no list that he
was employee of reserved categories. He has got no letter
that on the basis of 240 working days, he was made
permanent.
7. W.W-2 Deota Singh stated that he was appointed on
permanent basis on 23.10.1959 as Assistant and he was
posted at Purnea Branch. He was Dy. General Secretary of
Bhartiya State Bank Union, Patna circle. He further stated
that Ex-serviceman Ram Prasad Saha was empanelled on
temporary post for Balua Bazar Branch in 1979. In the year
1983 he was empanelled in the month of December for the
permanent post at ADB, Dumdaha Branch. Ram Prasad
Saha was appointed on 14.03.1984 on temporary post in
place of Sri S.B. Limboo. Post was permanent and
sanctioned. Sri Limboo died due to illness in the year 1984,
immediate after joining the post by Ram Prasad Saha. Ram
Prasad Saha without break in service remain in the same
post of Sri Limboo till 14.03.1988. He retired on 31.12.1997.
Ram Prasad Saha is permanent employee from the date he
joined at Birpur Branch and it appears from the fact that
from 20.03.1984 bank provided him gun which is given to
permanent employee and Bank made him retainer of gun in
the year 1984 which is given to only permanent employee.
He was sent for training at Ranchi and Patna with gun
which is permitted to permanent employee and Ram Prasad
Saha was directed to submit fitness certificate which was
submitted by him. He has worked for 240 days so his name
was included in the category of protected employee. Union
also informed bank to absorb to Ram Prasad Saha permanent
from 1984. Even Dy. General Manager has recommended
for consideration of Sri Saha as permanent employee from
20.09.1984. Sri Saha was made permanent on 14.03.1988
which is against the rule, Shastri award and settlement.
Even one employee Sri Viswanath Mahto was confirmed
from beginning date.
In cross-examination this witness stated that pension is
given to those employee who remains his service for
3006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10 years. This witness was confirmed six months after the
appointment. Union made protest that temporary employee
who worked at permanent post, be empanelled and Ram
Prasad Saha was empanelled permanently in the year 1983.
Arm is given to permanent employee.
8. Ten documents has been exhibited on behalf of the
workman. Ext.-W/1 is letter No. R.M-III 939/23 dt.
14th March, 1984 by Regional Manager intimating that Sri
S.B. Limboo guard at your branch is availing on sick leave
and your branch is running unguarded. Engage Shri Ram
Prasad Saha temporarily in place of Shri S.B. Limboo, till
further instruction. He has also been stated that Sri Saha is
in panel of temporary employee prepared at our Balua Bazar
Branch. It appears that even prior to 14th March, 1984 Sri
Saha was in the panel of temporary employee.
Ext.-W/2 is letter No. R.M II/No. 21/9107/126 dated
31.07.1986 which is in subject matter of refresher training
of Bank guard and Sri Saha was sent for training from
21.08.1986 to 23.08.1986 and it has been stated that guard
must carry their gun and cartridges and in proper uniform.
Ext.-W/3 is letter No. R.M II/ No. 212581/69 dated
25.05.1987 is also the similar letter like Ext.-W/2 for refresher
training of bank guard with gun.
Ext.-W/4 is letter No. R.M. II/No. 21/7198/139 dt.
10/14.09.1987 sent by Regional Manager to absorb Sir Ram
Prasad Saha, temporary bank guard in permanent cadre as
Guard-cum-Messenger with immediate effect on 6th months
probation provided he is otherwise found suitable.
Ext.-W/5 is the letter No. PER/PU/HO/2004 dated
29.01.2004 by Dy. General Manager to Zonal Office, Purnea
in regard to shifting of date of confirmation of Shri Ram
Prasad Saha (Retired Bank Guard). In which it has been
sated that Saha has worked as a temporary guard before
being posted at Birpur Branch on 20.03.1984. He was
confirmed in his service on 14.03.1988. He was deputed to
traning centre for training on two occasions. The request
was made from association to treat to Shri Sahas
confirmation at an earlier date as was done in case of Shri
B.N. Mahto. Bank Guard appointed with him at another
branch i.e. Balua Bazar Branch. The observation of Dy.
General Manager was that Sri Saha was posted at Birpur
Branch as temporary guard, he joined on 20.03.1984. He
was absorbed in permanent capacity as bank Guard-cum-
Messenger and was placed on 6 months probation from
14.09.1987. He attended the training programme with gun
at STC, as permanent employee from 15.06.1987 to
17.06.1987 and even from 21.08.1986 to 23.08.1986 much
before the date of his permanent absorption. Shri Saha was
allowed to perform his duties with gun and he has attended
the training programmes along with gun. This implies that
he was treated as a full-fledged permanent employee of the
bank; though he was not adviced in time. This reflects an
inadvertent error of omission on the part of the bank which
could be condoned by treating Shri Saha as a comfirmed
guard from the due date from 20.09.1984.
Ext.-W/6- is letter No.- PER/PU/HO-579 dt. 27.06.2005
sent by Dy. General Manager in which it has been stated
that shri Saha joined the Bank as Bank Guard (temporary)
at Birpur Branch. His name was included in the temporary
employee panel at our Balua Bazar Branch. Shri Sahas
scheduled date of confirmation would accordingly be
20.09.1984 i.e. after 6 months from the date of joning.
Another guard, is Shri Viswanath Mahato was also
appointed as temporary basis on 06.12.1980 and it has been
stated that Sahas representation for considering his case
may be acceded so that he is rendered eligible for receiving
pension from the bank from the retrospective date i.e. from
01.01.1998.
Ext.-W/7 is in respect of Shri B.N. Mahto Guard-cum-
Messenger, who was confirmed with effect from 10.09.1987.
Ext-W/8 is dt 22nd May, 2006 sent by Circle
Development Officer to Dy. General Manager in which it
has been stated that an employee conn't made permanent
in a post from retrospective date when the appointment
letter specifies the date of probation and confirmation. Ext.-
W/8 is the letter sent to Dy. General Manager.
9. One witness M.W-1 namely Deepak Kumar Sinha was
examined on behalf of the management he is Branch
Manager at Birpur Branch of State Bank of India he knows
Ram Prasad Saha on the basis of documents available in
the bank. It has been stated that by him that dispute has
been raised belately. Dispute for his confirmation arose on
14.03.1988 the date of confirmation but at that time no
dispute was raised. He has knowledge about the pension
rule of the bank. He was acquainted that he will retire and
how much confirmed service period is considered for
pensionable service. Even on 14.03.1988 as per rules he
was not entitled to get pension. When he retired on
31.12.1997 then he was not entitled to get pension because
he has not completed pensionable service. He was
appointed temporarily in place of Sri Limboo on 14.03.1984
because Sri Limboo was on leave due to illness. This
temporary appointment was for the period till further order.
He was sent to staff centre Ranchi at the time of training
and even thereafter his appointment was as temporary
guard and his service was not confirmed. Vide letter
dt. 10.09.1987 bank has directed to appoint in permanent
cadre as Guard-cum-Messenger of probation for the period
of 6 month. After completion of 6 month of probation he
was confirmed on 14.03.1988. Prior to 14.03.1988 he was
working as guard on temporary basis. After completion of
period of probation his service was confirmed from the
date 14.03.1988 and age on 14.03.1988 was 50 years 03
months 06 days. His date of birth was 08.12.1937. Bank has
got State Bank Employees Pension Fund Rules and on the
basis of rules pension is fixed. The person who is aged
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3007
48 years or more on date of confirmation will not be entitled
to get pension. That provision has not been denied by the
workman in his written statement. Pension rules is effective
all over in State Bank and its employees. It is wrong to say
that employee who works regularly for 240 days will be
confirmed automatically. It has been stated in the letter
dt.14.03.1984 it has been clearly written that appointment
was made temporarily and he never made protest to be an
temporary employee. No dispute was raised for date of
confirmation and date of birth. There is no rule that only
permanent employee is sent for training. Branch Manager
or any officer has no power to recommend for confirmation
and it is legally not valid. Regional Manager was appointing
authority of the workman. It was beyond jurisdiction for
Dy. General Manager to recommend for confirmation. No
appeal has been filed against confirmation order. He
accepted date of confirmation and after considering the
claim of workman was rejected legally. Workman receive
retirement benefit without protest.
In cross-examination this witness stated that he knows
the workman on the basis of documents. He has no
personnel knowledge about him. Further he stated that
there is provision to send even temporary employee for
training. Service of Sri Saha was without break from
14.03.1984 to 14.03.1988. There is no provision to confirm
temporary employee as permanent employee. But after
six month permanent employee is fully appointed
permanently. Circular of Chief Regional Manager, Bhagalpur
bearing No. 1108/1984 (Ext.-W/1) is not all India circular. In
this circular there are some direction on the basis of other
circular and the direction given in this circular may be
direction for the workman of that time.
This witness have no knowledge when Shri Limboo
died and how died the post of Sri Limboo was permanent.
Appointment of Sri Saha was accordingly to process of
1984. Earlier permanent and temporary appointment was
made. Even at the time part time appointment was made but
since long there is no appointment and now temporary
appointment is not made. This witness has no knowledge
of about the period to make temporary employee as
permanent and this witness has no knowledge that guard
Sri B.N. Mahto was confirmed. This witness have no
knowledge that name of Sri Saha was in protected employee.
This witness has also no knowledge that Sri Saha has
applied to make him permanent after inclusion of his name
of protected categories of employees. This witness has no
knowledge that employee union have demanded to confirm
Mr. Saha. He further stated that is not possible for him to
give entire knowledge for employment process.
10. Six documents has been filed on behalf of the
management. Ext.-M/1 is letter No. R.M. III. No. 939/23
dt.14th March, 1984 by which Sri Saha was engaged
temporarily in place of Sri S.B.Limboo who was on sick
leave till further instruction. It has also been stated that Sri
Saha in the panel of temporary employees prepared at Balua
Bazar Branch.
Ext.-M/2 indicates that it was decided to absorb of Sri
Ram Prasad Saha, temporary bank guard in permanent cadre
as Guard-cum-Messenger with immediate effect on 06
months probation. This letter No. R.M. II/No.-7198/139
dt. 10th September, 1987.
Ext.-M/3 is letter No. HR/CBK/682/253 dt. 22nd May
2006 sent by Circle Development officer to Dy. General
Manager, Stating therein the an employee can not be made
permanant in a post from a retrospective date when the
appointment letter specifies the date of probation and
confirmation. The period spent by an employee as a
temporary appointee does not made it obligatory for the
bank to regularize an employees service retrospectively in
order to grant him pension.
Ext.-M/4 is order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in
CWJC No. 800 of 2007. Ram Prasad Saha was the petitioner.
In this case, it has been stated that these question can be
only be settled in a proceeding duly constituted in terms of
Industrial Dispute Act, who may take appropriate action
for quantification of his entitlement and writ petition was
disposed of.
Ext.-M/5 is letter dt. 19.09.1987 sent to Sri Ram Prasad
Saha by Branch Manager by which it has been stated that
it has been decided to absorb him in permanent cadre as
Guard-cum-Messenger with immediate effect on 6 month
probation provided you are otherwise found suitable, after
observing all formalities.
Ext.-M/6- is the letter No. R.M. II/No.7198/139 dt.10th
September, 1987 stating that it has been decided to absorb
Shri Ram Prasad Saha, temporary bank guard in permanent
cadre as Guard-cum-Messenger with immediate effect on
6 month probation he is otherwise found suitable, after
observing all formalities.
11. The written argument has been filed on behalf of the
State Bank of India stating therein that terms of reference
is "Whether the action of the management of SBI, Patna in
treating the date of confirmation as 14.03.1988 and instead
of 20.11.1984 in respect of Shri Ram Prasad Saha, Ex-
security Guard who has retired on 31.12.1997 and denying
him pensionary benefit is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the employees are entitled to?" It has been stated
that Shri Saha was confirmed in service on 14.03.1988 and
retired on 31.121997. Shri Saha at the time of retirement,
denied pension on the ground that his absorbtion in the
Bank's service was done at the age of 49 years and 9 month
(his date of birth was 08.12.1937) and till 01.11.1998 upper
age limit of pension funds was 48 years.
Purnea zone vide letter No.-PER/PU/HO/2004 dated-
19.01.2004 and PER/PU/HO/579 dated 27.06.2005 sent their
recommendations to the Head office for confirmation of
3008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Saha's service in the Bank from retrospective date so
that he can became eligible for receiving pension. Competent
authority turned down the recommendations vide their
letter No.-HR/CBK/682/253 dated-22.05.2006 on the ground
that an employee cann't be made permanent in a post from
a retrospective date when the appointment letter clearly
specifies that date of probation and confirmation. Further
submission has been made:-
Central Board of the State Bank of India under clause (o)
of the sub-section 2 of Section-50 of the State Bank of
India Act, 1955 has framed "State Bank of India Employees
Pension Fund Rules". Rule-7 of pension fund rules provides
that any employee shall be eligible to become a member of
the pension fund if he is not more than 38 years of age
(subsequently increased to 48 years w.e.f. 01.11.1993) on
the date of confirmation. Shri Saha's age on the date of his
confirmation was 50 years 03 month and 06 days, and he is
not entitled to get pension. It has also been stated that
claim of Shri Saha's is not only state but is also hit by the
principles of estoppels. Clause 20.7 of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 19.10.1966 is not applicable to State Bank
of India. Memorendum of Settlement dated-31st October,
1979 clearly specific in para-IV of the terms of settlement
that in respect of State Bank of India, the provisions of the
Sastry Award and Desai Award as modified by the MoS
dated 31.03.1967, 24.02.1970 and 15.09.1970 shall govern
the service conditions of the workman except to the extent
that the same are modified by this settlement.
12. Written argument of the workman is that workman
was termporarily appointed as Armed Guard at Balua Bazar
Branch of State Bank of India. w.e.f. 16.07.1979. Thereafter,
vide letter No.R.M.III No. 939/23, dated-14.03.1984 he was
appointed as temporary Guard at Birpur Branch of S.B.I.
where he joined on 20.03.1984. He worked from 20.03.1984
to 31.12.1997 uninterruptedly as Armed Guard. Instead of
confirming the services of the Armed Guard, after a lapse
of six months of his service, he was confirmed w.e.f.
15.03.1988. workman was supplied Bank's gun and his name
was entered as a retrainer of said gun viz. SBBLB/8-2423
w.e.f. 20.03.1984. He was supplied Bank's uniform and was
asked to produce Medical Fitness Certificate at the time of
reporting for duty on 20.03.1984. He submitted Medical
Fitness Certificate. He was sent for training at Ranchi in
the year 1986 and staff training centre Patna. Only
permanent member of staff are supplied Bank's gun and are
made retainer of the gun, and are supplied uniform and are
imparted training in the bank's training centre and are
required to submit Medical Fitness Certificate. Reliance
has been placed on all the Exts. exhibited on behalf of the
workman.
It has been submitted that by examination of W.W-1
and W.W-2 the claim of the workmen was substantiated.
Management committed error for not confirming him after
expiry of a period of 06 months i.e. after 20.09.1984.
Bipartite Settlement-"In suppression of paragraph 21.20
and Sub-clause (C) of paragraph-23.15 of Desai Award"
Temporary Employee" will mean a workman who has been
appointed for a limited period for work which is of an
essentially temporary nature or who is employed
temporarily as an additional workman in connection with a
temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and
includes a workman other than permanent workman who is
appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence
or a particular permanent workman.
Para-8 of Ist Bipartite Settlement records as under. "A
temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a
permanent vacancy provided that such temporary
appointment shall not exceed a period of three months
during which the Bank shall make arrangement for filling
up the vacancy permanently. If such a temporary workman
is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period
of such temporary employment will be taken into account
as part of his probationary period."
FINDINGS
13. Reliance has been made also Exts.- M/6 and workman
also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India H.S. Rajashekara Vs. State Bank of Mysore and Anr.
In this case there was discrimination because one of the
employee Shri Devaraju was absorbed and as permanent
employee and there were discrimination in case of the
petitioner. Who had worked more than 240 days in a
calendar year. As such bank was directed to absorb the
petitioner as permanent employee. This is clearly similar as
the case of the petitioner because as per Ext.-W/7 one B.N.
Mahto was confirmed w.e.f. 18.09.1987. Bank in its written
statement have relied that Shri Shah's age on the date of
confirmation was 50 years 03 months and 06 days, he could
not became a member of pension fund and he is accordingly
not entitled to get pension. State Bank of India Employees'
Pension Fund Rules, Rule-7 of the said pension fund rules
provides that any employee shall be eligible to become a
member of pension fund put if he is not more than 38 years
of age (subsequently increased to 48 years w.e.f. 1.11.1993).
14. In this contest it is paertinent that terms of reference-
"Whether the action of the Management of SBI, Patna in
treating the date of confirmation as 14.03.1988 and instead
of 20.11.1984 in respect of Shri Ram Prasad Saha. Ex-
Security Guard who has retired on 31.12.1997 and denying
him pensionary benefits is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the employee are entitled to?" Bank has admitted that
regular bank guard was sick and branch is running
unguarded. Therefore, Shri Saha's who was in the panel of
temporary employee may be engaged temporary in place
of Sri Limboo.
15. Shri Ram Prasad Saha has stated in his evidence that
he was appointed as temporarily on 16.07.1979 at Balua
Bazar Branch as guard. This fact has not been challenged
though he had not filed that appointment letter. Thereafter.
he was deputed as bank guard on 14.03.1984 and he joined
on 20.03.1984 this fact is admitted by both the parties. Shri
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3009
S.B. Limboo died due to illness in the year 1984. Shri S.B.
Limboo was permanant bank guard and after his death that
post remained vacant. No interrupten in service has been
brought on record by the Bank. On the other hand Ram
Prasad Saha in para-4 of the evidence has stated that in
one calendar year he worked for more than 240 days. Ext.-
W/1 it has been stated that Shri S.B. Limboo guard was
availing sick leave and Regional Manager of the bank
directed to engage Shri Ram Prasad Saha temporarily in
place of Shri S.B. Limboo till further instruction. As such
petitioner was engaged from 14.03.1984 and he was sent
twice for training. In Ext.-W/2 and W/3 it has been stated
that guards must carry their gun and cartridges to the
training centre and must be proper uniform. Dy. General
Manager vide letter Ext.-W/5 stated that request was made
to treat Mr. Saha confirmation at an earlier date as was
done in case of Shri B.N. Mahto Bank Guard appointed
with him at another Branch i.e. Balua Bazar Branch. So
bank cann't discriminate Shri Ram Prasad Saha without
any reason. Vide Ext.-W/6 Dy. General Manager had stated
that Shri Saha schedule date of confirmation would
accordingly be 20.09.1984 i.e. after 06 months from date of
joining. So bank cann't discriminate Shri Ram Prasad Saha
and there is one decision of Hon'ble S.C. which support
the case of Shri Ram Prasad Saha.
AWARD
16. As such action of the management of SBI, Patna in
treating the date of confirmation as 14.03.1988 and instated
of 20.11.1984 in respect of Shri Ram Prasad Saha, Ex-
security Guard who has retired on 31.12.1997 and denying
him pensionary benefits is not legal and justified.
When the action of the management (Bank) is not legal
and justified and the date of confirmation should be
20.11.1984 in respect of Shri Ram Prasad Saha. Ex-Security
Guard who has retired on 31.12.1997 and should be given
pensionary benefit and other benefits of which he will be
entitled to get because he will be entitled to be a member of
SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules. In the result, it is hold
that Shri Ram Prasad Saha, Ex-security guard who had
retired on 31.12.1997 will be given pensionary benefits and
all ther benefits, from the date of retirement. Management
(Bank) is directed to pay all benefit including the pensionary
benefit to the said workman. This award is effected after
date of publication and gazette.
This is my award accordingly
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 64@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 06-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@80@1995&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 64/07) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexue, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 06/07/2015.
[ No. L-12012/80/1995-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/07
Shr Prakash Chand Raikwar,
S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Raikwar,
Resident of Itwari Touri,
In front of Master Hari Ram,
Post Sagar,
Tehsil and Distt, Sagar (MP)
Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Gopal Ganj,
Sagar (MP)
Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 5th day of June, 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-7-2007 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
80/1995-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the State
Bank of India, Sagar (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri Prakash Chand Raikwar S/o Shri Ganesh
Prasad Raikwar w.e.f. 23-8-2004 (corrected as 23-8-1994
vide Ministry's corrigendum dated 9-9-2014) is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned
is entitled?"
3010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. After receiving refernce, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was working as
messenger in Gopalganj Branch, Distt. Sagar from 1-7-74 to
4-7-94. He was paid wages by cheque. Workman was called
for interview on 7-10-92, he was interviewed on 5-11-92 at
Gwalior. His wife Kanta bai had written letter dated 4-7-95
to the General Manager. She had complained about less
salary paid to workman and how she will manage family
expenses. His wife and requested to increase salary of
workman. IInd party annoyed by letters sent by his wife,
dismissed workman from 4-7-94. He was not served with
any chargesheet. No enquiry was conducted. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Notice of termination was
not issued to him. Workman reiterated that his services are
terminated by IInd party after receiving letter from his wife.
Workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
the workman. IInd party submits that workman was
engaged on daily wages on temporary basis as casual
labour. His engagement was as per exigencies. The details
of his working are given in Para-1 of the written Statement.
That workman was working less than 5 hours in a week. He
was paid consolidated amount Rs. 190/- per month.
Workman was again engaged during the period February,
1991 to October, 1993. Workman was not continuously
working. During July, 1979 to November, 1989, workman
worked for total 269 days. Workman had not completed
240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of his
non-engagement. IInd party has raised objection that as
per order of reference, termination of workman is shown
23-8-04. As per his own pleadings, workman was not
working after 23-8-94, the reference is not tenable. It is
reiterated that workman has not completed 240 days
continuous service preceding alleged termination of
workman. There was no question of issuing chargesheet
or conducting enquiry. It is denied that workman is
terminated by management for being annoyed by letters
sent by his wife. Workman was not continuously working
from 1974 to 1974. Workman is not entitled to any reliefs.
4. Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim. That workman was
rendering continuous service more than 240 days during
each of the calendar year. Non-engagement of workman is
retrenchment under Section 2(oo) (bb) of ID Act.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of the State Bank of
India, Sagar (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Prakash Chand
Raikwar S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad
Raikwar w.e.f. 23-8-94 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
REASONS
Workman is challenging termination of his services for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. IInd party submits that
workman was not continuously working. He was engaged
on daily wages as per exigencies. His discontinuation does
not amount to retrenchment.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions in statement of claim. That he was working
as messenger in Gopalganj branch from 1-7-75 to 4-7-94.
He was working continuously as messenger. He was called
for interview as per letter dated 7-10-92. That one Raju
Rikwar and Ramcharan Raikwar working with him from 1979
on daily wages were regularized. That he completed 240
days continuous service during each of the year. In his
cross, workman says he worked in Gopalganj, civil line
branch, Tatavani branch, MRC and Thana branch during
the period February, 75 to 1994. The certificated about his
working are produced. He was working as messenger,
appointment letter was not issued to him. He was paid Rs.
190/- per month. Subsequently he was paid Rs. 12/- per
day. He did not recollect whether he was paid Rs. 12/- per
day from 1989 onwards. He was filling water, distributing
letters and also did cleaning work. He was doing work of
distribution of letters in 1994. His wife had written letter for
increasing his salary. He produced all certificates about his
working on record. The document produced by workman
Exhibit W-1 is copy of Writ Petition filed No. 270/97. Said
Writ Petition was decided on 31-1-2007 after almost 10 years
issuing direction to appropriate Government Thereafter the
dispute was referred as per order dated 17-7-07-Exhibit W-
4. The application submitted by workman for absorption is
admitted by management counsel but its contents are not
eligible. Exhibit W-3 is letter issued to workman calling for
interview on 5-11-92. Exhibit W-4 is letter issued by ALC,
Sagar. In Exhibit W-5(a), 15 working days of workman are
shown in November, 1982. Exhibit W-5(b) 20 working days
of workman are shown in 1989. In exhibit W-5(c), 6 working
days of workman in August, 1989. In exhibit 5(d) shown 24
working days of workman during 27-7-89 to 26-8-89. In
Exhibit W5(c) 4-working days in 1980 and 137 days in 1989
As per final
order.
In affirmative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3011
are shown the cocuments discussed above do not disclose
that workman was continuously working.
8. The evidence of management's witness Premchand
shows working days of workman in Para-2 of his affidavit.
In Para-8 of his cross-examination, management witness
says that during 1991 to 1993, workman was working as
waterman. The documents related to said work was letter
issued by Branch Manager. Management's witness was
unable to tell whether workman worked till 3-7-94.
Management's witness says that payment was made to
workman till October 1993. The suggestion is denied by
management's witness that additional work of waterman
was extracted from workman. The application for
production of documents was submitted by Ist party
workman dated 8-11-90. Though IInd party received copy
of the application, it failed to produce original Banker's
cheque payment vouchers, attendance register relating to
workman. When management's witness admits that
workman was working as watchman, IInd party pleaded
that workman was engaged as daily wager as per exigencies.
Workman was called for interview, IInd party with hold
material documents. Workman had produced some
documents which corroborates about his working in the
Bank. Record about his working maintained by IInd party
is not produced. Therefore I donot find reason to disbelieve
evidence of the workman.
9. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri Shroti relies on
ratio held in Case of Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd
versus Harmesh Kumar reported in 2006(13)-SSC 28. Their
Lordship held Section 25-G,H have no application in case
whether Section 2(oo)(bb) is attracted. Their Lordship
dealing with Section 10 and 25-G held compliance under
Section 25-G without reference was only as to whether
termination of service was justified.
The ratio cannot be applied to present case at hand as
the evidence of workman corroborated by certain
documents. IInd party has with held attendance register,
muster roll of workman. The ratio held in the case cannot
be beneficially applied. The evidence on record sufficiently
prove that workman completed 240 days continuous service
preceding 12 months of his termination. The non-
engagement of workman without issuing notice or paying
retrenchment compensation is in violation of Section 25-F
of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my inding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2-in view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of workman is illegal, question arises whether
workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The
documentary evidence produced on record shows
engagement of workman. Management's witness in his
cross-examination admits that workman was working as
waterman during 1991, 1993. Payment was made to workman
in October 1993. Management has not produced
documents'Attendance Register, muster roll despite
applications submitted by workman. The evidence of
workman that he was working in IInd party from 19-7-75 to
4-7-94 is not shattered. The evidence shows workman was
intermittently engaged. Workman was not appointed as
employee of the bank during all those years. Considering
the facts of the case, reinstatement of workman would not
be appropriate.
11. Learned counsel for workman Shri Pranay choubey
relies on ratio held in Case of Harjinder Singh versus
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in 2010-
Legal Eagle (SC)s. Their Lordship dealing with
modification in Labour Courts award, Single Judge
substituted the award or reinstatement of the appellant
with compensation of Rs. 87582/- by assuming that the
appellant was initially appointed without complying with
the equality clause enriched in Articles 14 & 16 of the
constitution of India and relevant regulations while doing
so, learned single Judge failed to notice that in the reply
filed on behalf of the corporation before the Labour Court,
the appellant's claim for reinstatement with back wages
was not resisted on the ground that his initial appointment
was illegal or unconstitutional and that neither any
evidence was produced nor any argument was advanced
in that regard.
The facts of the present case are not comparable
therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at
hand.
12. Considering the workman was working in the IInd
party Bank during 1975 to 1994, compensation Rs. 2 Lakh
would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of the State Bank of
India, Sagar (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Prakash Chand Raikwar S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad
Raikwar w.e.f. 23-8-04 is not legal and proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2
Lakhs (Two Lakhs) to the workman within 30 days
from the date of publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
3012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k iVuk ds iapkV
lanHkZ la[;k 03(C) of 2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 6@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 03(C) of 2011 of the Indus-
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna as shown in the
Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
reveived by the Central Government on 06/07/2015.
[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Industrial Dispute Case No.—03(C) of 2011
Between the management of Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India. Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan,
Patna-800001/The Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of
India, Zonal Office Khanjarpur. At & P.O. Bhagalpur. Dist.
Bhagalpur and their workman Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad,
S/o-Late Bhola Mandal, VIll.-Durgasthan Tilakpur, P.O.
Tilakpur, P.S. Sultanganj, Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar.
For the workman
: Shri B. Prasad, General Secretary,
Bank Employees Federation,
Bihar.
For the management : Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha,
Branch Manager, ADB,
Ghogha, Bhagalpur.
Present
: Bipin Dutta Pathak
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, the 22nd June, 2015
This case has been filed u/s- 2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010. Over denial of
regularization of the services as a messenger/peon and
wrongfull termination from services of a temporary
Messenger/Peon w.e.f. 06.03.2009 while working at State
Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Ghogha,
Dist. Bhagalpur.
2. The statement of claim of workman Sri Shashi
Bhushan Prasad is that he has raised an Industrial Dispute
before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Patna against
his termination from services of the bank w.e.f. 06.03.2009.
Dispute has been raised on 19.06.2009. Conciliation
proceedings ended in failure on 27.08.2010. Dispute has
been raised within stipulated period and that remained
pending over an year with no solution. Workman preferred
an application under the following terms:—
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Ghogha Branch in denying regularization of
services of Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad as a
Messenger/Peon and terminating his services in
violation of section-25F of the I.D.Act, is legal and
justified? If not, what relief (S) the workman is entitled
to?"
The facts of the case is that workman was appointed by
the management of State Bank of India to discharge the
duties of a messenger/peon w.e.f. 30.04.2000. He discharged
his duties:—
(i)
Taking out Register from Almirah and placing the
same on table/counters;
(ii)
Preparation and posting of mails to post office.
(iii)
Distribution of notices relating to loans/recovery
etc to parties through peon's book.
(iv) To accompany the Recovery Team during the
course of recovery of loans;
(v)
To accompany the bank officers to Lok Adalat
Camps;
(vi) Filing of letter/circular and arrangement of
stationary;
(vii) Brining stationary article from the Branches/
officers;
(viii) Serving water, tea to the members of staff and
customers;
(ix)
Other sundry jobs of a Messenger/Peons;
He used to work on 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. regularly and
same times even beyond that as per requirement of the
Bank. He was initially paid wages @Rs. 15/- per day which
was raised to @ Rs. 25/-, Rs. 40/- and lastly Rs. 50/- per day.
Payment was made through vouchers. He used to discharge
all the duties as per the instruction of the Branch Manager
and other superior officials of the Bank. He worked from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009. His services stand terminated. As
usual he went to discharge of duties on the following day,
he was stopped from working and was again informed of
termination of his services from evening of 06.03.2009. He
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3013
was neither given any notice pay nor retrenchment
compensation preceding his termination. He was paid his
wages regularly from 30.04.2000 to 31.08.2008 and on
01.09.2008, he was instructed by the authority to take
payment in different names to which he did not agree. He
was not made payment of his wages from 01.09.2008 to
06.03.2009. His duties were perennial in nature. He used to
perform some clerical duties as per instruction of the
management from time to time. His duties were identical
with other permanent staff of the Bank. The termination of
the workmen is covered u/s-2(oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
After termination he is facing starvation as he has no any
alternative means of livelihood. Action of the management
is not considering regularization but terminating the
services of the workman is neither legal nor justified.
(i) The management violated the mandatory
provisions as contained in section-25F of the I.D.
Act.
(ii) Management being a public sector Bank and a 'State'
within the meaning of Article 12 of the India
Constitution resorted to unfair Labour Practice as
per Schedule V of the I.D. Act.
(iii) Management failed to follow the principle of 'Equal
pay for Equal work' as per Article 39 (d) of the Indian
Constitution.
(iv) Management has violated section 25(H) of the I.D.
Act.
Leter dt-25.11.2010 sent by Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Patna to the Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi indicates that conciliation
proceeding ended in failure on 27.08.2010.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
Bank (Management) stating therein application filed by
the claimant u/s-2A (1) & (2) of the amended I.D. Act, 2010
is neither maintainable in law nor on fact. It is not a case
where an Industrial Dispute has been referred under section
10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 mentioning therein any term
of reference. It has been stated that Shri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad has filed the application under reply under section-
2A (1) & (2) of the I.D. Act as amended by Act No. 24 of
2010. Bank in his regards raised certain preliminary question
relating to the maintainability of the reference in the present
form, but as it appears that no order rejecting the
contentions rose by the Bank therein has been passed.
The term of reference has been framed by the workman
himself. Under the Industrial Dispute Act, it is only the
appropriate government which is competent to frame the
term of reference. Amendment does not seize or supersede
the power of the appropriate government conferred under
section 10 of the Act. The term of reference as framed by
the workman is not only illegal but also contradictory.
Section 2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is
confined to termination of service and not regularization in
service. These two issue are quite different. If the complete
term of reference is read as it cannot be an Industrial Dispute
under section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. Dispute raised by an
individual for regularization is not an Industrial Dispute.
Selection tests required for regularization in service are
quite different and various factors are required to be
considered which has no bearing with the termination of
service. It is submitted both the issues cannot be decided
in the same proceeding. The conciliation officer is a
necessary party and the learned Tribunal should hear his
views also as he has dealt with the dispute. The person
has been filed a writ application before the Patna High
Court bearing C.W.J.C No. :- 5287 of 2009 which was
dismissed by order dated 27.04.2009 in which the Hon'ble
High Court held the person concerned is a daily wager
who holds no regular/Permanent post.
It has been further submitted that the concerned person
was engaged as and when exigencies of work arose on
daily basis and whenever work was taken from him, he was
paid his wages as agreed between the parties. He has
performed works in the SBI, ADB Ghogha, Bhagalpur as
and when instruction was given by the Branch Manager. It
is submitted that his claim that he had worked since
30.04.2000 till August, 2008 continuously, is totally baseless
and denied. His claim that he had also worked 240 days in
every calendar year in also incorrect.
The Bank has its own rules of recruitment for
appointment of subordinate cadre staff satisfying the
requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. He was not issued any appointment letter even to
work as temporary staff. His engagement was purely as a
casual worker on daily wages engaged as and when
required. Payment were made to him through petty cash
which means payment against some expenses which are in
petty nature and that cannot be termed as regular payment
of wage or other benefit. He used to discharge his duties
on the days he was engaged on the instruction of the
Branch Manager. Such discharge of duties were of casual
nature and it cannot be said to be permanent and / or
perennial in nature to discharge regular duties. Regular
appointments are made who work as regular staff of the
Bank. Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad was fully aware of the
fact that the Bank has its own rules of recruitment and his
casual engagement as daily wager as and when required,
was not incompliance of the rules of recruitment of the
Bank. During the whole period of his work as claimed by
him never demanded for his regularization in service. It is
only when he could not get any engagement from the Bank
even as casual daily wager, he started demanding
regularization. Neither any vacancy was advertised nor
any requisition to the Employment Exchange was sent nor
the Branch Manager had any power to appoint subordinate
staff. His engagement was totally non-est. The Bank is
legally bound to follow of the equality in compliance of
Article 14 and 16 of that Constitution of India in the matter
of appointment. Merely because a daily wager as such a
temporary employee is continued for a long time he would
not be entitled to absorbed in service or made permanent.
3014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
His claim that he had worked from 2000 to 2008 and that too
continuously is wholly baseless. In this contest reference
has been made about the decision of State of Karnataka
Vs. Uma Devi [2004 (4) SCCI] has been mentioned. Other
decision and also been mentioned and it has been hold
that "the appointment made in total disregard to the
constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed
by the employer, which is stated within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would
be illegal one." An illegal appointment cannot be legalized
by taking recourse to regularization. Vide order dated-
27.04.2009 in case of C.W.J.C. No.:- 5287 of 2009 filed by
the petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court has held that person
concerned is a daily wager. As there is no provision in the
Bank of regularization of a daily wager, the person concerned
cannot be regularized. Engagement of Shri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad as daily wager is illegal. He submitted that a school
transfer certificate dated 26.07.2006 from Government High
School. In that certificate his date of birth has been shown
to be 31.03.1988. He has claimed that he has started working
in the Bank from April, 2000. Therefore, in April 2000 he
was merely a child of about 12 years. Engagement of a 12
years child in the Bank, even as casual daily wager, was
nothing but an impossibility and illegal. Comment has been
made about the statement made by the Shri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of the Bank has
been filed mainly stating that workman on worked for more
than 240 days in 12 calendar months as per section-25B of
the I.D. Act. The retrenchment has been covered u/s - 2
(oo) of the I.D. Act. Management violated the provision of
section-25F of the I.D. Act. It is also been stated that the
services of workman were utilised as a radice workman for
over 8 years. He discharged the duties of a messenger from
30.04.2000 to 06.09.2000 uninterruptly.
5. Management of SBI has also filed a petition dated
03.052011 raising question of maintainability and further
steps in the aforesaid case.
Mentioned objection has been raised that application
was filed u/s 2A (1) and (2) of the I.D. Act which has been
added vide Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010. A
Gazette notification which brought amendment in to force,
has not been annexed with the application. In this contest
when the amendment has been made then there is no need
to file Gazette notification became amendment has already
got statutory force. Other objection has been made that
amendment Act is not enforceable unless Industrial Dispute
(C) rules are accordingly amended or separate rules are
framed. This petition has got no force itself and is
accordingly rejected.
6. A petition dated-04.08.2014 was failed on behalf of
the workman, Shashi Bhushan Prasad stating therein that
dispute has been referred for adjudication by Ministry of
Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide order no.-L-12012/
102/2010-IR (B-1) dated 26.05.2011 before the Hon'ble CGIT
No. - 1 Dhanbad. Workman was not in a position to bear
the traveling expenses for attending the proceedings at
Dhanbad, an I.D. Case was filed before the Hon'ble
Industrial Tribunal, Patna as per the provisions of Section
2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act,
2010.
7. It is also appears that the dispute was referred for
adjudication "Whether the action of the management of
State Bank of India, Patna in terminating Shri Shashi
Bhushan Prasad, S/O Shri Bhola Mandal from service with
effect from 06.03.2009, is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled?"
It appears that award was passed stating therein that
on 30th November: 2011. Registered letter duly signed by
Shashi Bhushan Prasad was received that the same case
has been already filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Patna
under the provision of section 2A (1) & (2) of Industrial
Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010. In the same has been
registered as I.D. Case No.-3(C) of 2011 and the same is
pending for the adjudication. In such circumstances he
has prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw case before
this tribunal. In view of such prayer Tribunal passed no
dispute award which was already notified on 08.12.2011.
From this it appears that matter has not been adjudicated
earlier.
8. Workman has examined only one witness W.W.-1
Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad who has stated in his evidence
that he worked in SBI Branch Ghogha, Bhagalpur on the
post of messenger/peon from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 on
daily wages. He worked like taking out of ledger, cash box,
peon register and going to post office, bringing stationary
etc. He used to serve notice in villages. He used to served
water to the staffs. He worked from 10 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. In
the begining he got Rs.15/- per day which was inhanced to
Rs. 50/- per day.
Payment was made to him from petty cash, he worked
like permanent messenger. He worked for 240 days regularly
in one calendar year. He has filed details of his working.
Duly signed by him which has been marked as Ext.-W/4.
He has also proved Ext.-W/5 which is in respect of the
payment of Rs. 890/- paid to him by Vishwajeet Kumar the
then Branch Manager. He has also proved Ext. W/6 online
statement print of Rs. 890/- in his name. He has also proved
Ext. W/7 letter dated-04.10.2005 signed by Chief Officer of
SBI, ADB, Ghogha Branch Bhagalpur by Janardhan Prasad
Pandey, addres to Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
ADB, Ghogha Branch.
He has also been proved Ext.W/8 letter dt.-04.08.2005
signed by Janardhan Prasad Pandey and addressed to
Branch Manager State Bank of India, ADB, Ghogha.
He has also proved Ext.-W/9 the letter dt-02.12.2008
given to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for bringing K.V.P.
payment. Similarily Ext.W/10 is letter dt. 08.11.2008 to bring
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3015
payment of N.S.C. signed by Ajit Vishal incharge Branch
Manager.
Ext.W/11 is the leter dated 03.10.2002 signed by Rabindra
Kumar Pandey Branch Manager and Ext.W/12 is letter dt.-
15.12.2006 signed by Branch Manager to the Secretary
Special Lok Adalat, Bhagalpur. Ext.-W/13 series is
description of payment of wages for working of records.
He further stated that voucher was prepared for payment
of his work and he has proved photo stat of 64 pages for
the period 31.12.2006 to 31.12.2007. Further payment was
made through register it has been marked as Ext.-W/14
with objection. There is signed on payment voucher and
also signed of the then Branch Manager Sri Anil Kumar
Ambastha, Anil Kumar Singh marked as Ext.- W/15. He has
also proved Bank circular dated-02.01.2003 and 23.12.2002
marked as Ext.-W/16 and Ext.-W/16-A with objection and
Ext.W/17 with objection and stated that according to
circular the Branch Manager has sent letter the Zonal
Office, letter no.- 21/178 dated-21.03.2003 marked as Ext.-
W/18. He has also stated that his date of birth is 05.09.1981
but by mistake he submitted in the bank his date of birth is
31.03.1988. Prior retrenchment no notice or compensation
was made to him.
In cross-examination he stated that the filed Ext.-W/14
Payment was made to him for serving water Ext.-W/14 at
page 11 is letter to cheque collection which was given to
him for depositing in another branch. He also identified
Ext.-W/14 page 12 which was of 31st March, in respect of
closing report. There is initial at page 12 of Ext.-W/14 of
Manoj Kumar Singh. There is not his signature on Ext.W/
14 at page 12 but one of its copy is Bank office which bear
his signature. Payment was made to hime on the same date
when he served water. He used to daily for serving water.
Bank has never told him not to serve the water. He further
stated that Ext.-W/16, A page 66 is the circular for temporary
appointment. Ext.- W/17 page 68 is the circular in respect
appointment of temporary employee who complete 240 days.
Ext.W/6 relates to crediting of Rs. 890/- for distributing
letter in villages. Ext.-W/9 is the letter of the bank for K.V.P.
which was extra work done by him and no separate payment
was made to him. A single payment he used to do all the
workers.
He denied that he never worked for 240 days. He did all
the workr as done by permanent messenger. He does not
remember the name of messenger of that time.
On recall in further examination-in-chief he stated that
Ghogha Branch, of the Bank Janardhan Prasad Pandey
was cash officer. In certificate of date of birth was year-
1981 and in another certificate of School Leaving Certificate
by mistake year 1988 has been mentioned which was later
on corrected. He regularly worked for 240 days.
In cross-examination he stated that it is wrong to say
that he himself left to going in the bank. He also denied
that he was called in Bank on the day but work in bank and
he called for that he daily used to go to bank.
9. 18 documents has been exhibited on behalf of the
workman. One document marked X-for identification which
is School Transfer Certificate of Shashi Bhushan Prasad
dt.-26.07.2006 and date of birth is 05.09.1981 which is also
written in the word.
Ext.-W/1 is the letter sent by Branch Manager which is
reminder letter for advising facts of instrument (s) forwarded
to Manger Branch for collection. In which signature of Sri
Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested by Branch
Manager. This is dated 23.02.2007.
Ext. W/2 is the letter dated 10.03.2006 for supply of
stationary. Letter was sent to Branch SBI Zonal stationary
department,Bhagalpur. This letter bears attention of
signature of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
Ext.-W/3 is also for delivery for some items. This letter
was sent by Branch Manager to Manager Regional and
stationary department Bhagalpur. In this leter signature of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad been also attested.
Ext.-W/4 is chart signed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad
stating his working days from the year 2002 to year 2009, in
year 2000 he worked for 196 days and from the year 2001 to
the year 2008 he worked for more than 240 days in each
year and till March, 2009 he worked for 57 days.
Ext.-W/5 is the receipt signed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad
in regard to payment of bill Rs. 890/- on 01.10.2005.
Ext.W/6 is the computer print in respect of above
payment.
Ext.-W/7 is the letter sent to Branch Manager, SBI, ADB,
Ghogha Branch by Janardhan Prasad Pandey cash officer
in which it has been stated that Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has been working at this branch from 30.4.2000 as daily
wages worker. Payment in petty cash book has always
been segregated in labour charges column.
Ext.-W/8 is also letter sent by Janardhan Prasad Pandey
cash officer SBI, Bhagalpur to the Branch Manager SBI,
ADB, Ghogha stating therein that Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has been working at this Branch from 30.04.2000 as daily
wages.
Ext.-W/9 is the letter sent for payment of K.V.P. in favour
of Branch Manager, SBI, Ghogha and signature of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
Ext.-W/10 is the letter sent to SBI, ADB, Ghogha by
Branch Manager in respect of submits the mentioned N.S.C.
for payment in favour of Branch Manager. Signature of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
Ext.-W/11 is the also letter sent to SBI, ADB, Ghogha
for personal attention in the subject mentioned, in this
signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad is also attested.
Ext.-W/12 is the letter sent to the Secretary Special Lok
Adalat by ADB Ghogha in which in respect of details of
certificate cases Borrowers.
3016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.-W/13, W/13-1 to W/13-20 series is the receipt of
payment to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for working in respect
of working in record room etc.
Ext. W/14 & W/15 series is the same 64 pages are in
receipt of payment of serving water from November, 2006
to 31.12.2007.
Ext.-W/16 is the photostat copy of Local Head Office of
letter in respect of letter dated-2nd January, 2003 in respect
of sub-ordinate temporary employee.
Ext.-W/16-A is letter dated 23.12.2002 in this letter it has
been stated that in terms of extant instructions, temporary
employment in the sub-ordinate cadre strictly prohibited
and it has been observed that inspite of our unquivocal
instruction many branches/office have engaged workmen
or continued to engage the temporary employees who
worked prior to 1997 in the subordinate cadre on temporary
basis. It has also been observed that, in many branches/
offices, whenever a need arises for the services for watch
and ward staff to fill temporary vacancies, instead of
seeking fresh names of candidates from Zila Sainik Board,
services of ex-temporary watchman are utilised and these
workmen are allowed to exceed the minimum number of
day. Required for becoming protected employees under
the I.D. Act, 1947 resulting in legal complications for the
Bank. Such action is highly irregular and should be avoided
at all costs. Similar situation may be obtaining in the
category of messengers/sweeper also.
Para-3 in order to enable us to assess the gravity of the
situation, please furnish the following information/
particulars:-
(i)
How many temporary daily wage employees have
completed 240 days service in a calendar year or
any continuous period,.of 12 calendar months at
branches and offices under your control as on
30.09.2002
(ii) Details of month-wise and year-wise temporary/
daily wage service in each case.
(iii) A statement indicating their names as well as rank
in terms of the qualifying temporary service
(aggregate) daily wage service put in as on
30.09.2002.
Ext.— W/17 is dated 22.05.2002 in respect of absorption
of temporary employee in bank permanent service of all
such employees who have put in more than 240 days
continuous service in terms of section 25(B) of the I.D.
Act.
Ext.- W/18 is details of temporary employees sent by
Branch Manager to Asst. General Manager, reason
Bhagalpur. It appears that name of Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has been mentioned in the above mentioned report and it
has been stated that he is working since 30.04.2000 as water
boy.
10. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the management. M.W-1 Sri Anil Kumar Singh, M.W-2 Sri
Shambhu Prasad Srivastava. and M W-3 Sri Ajay Kumar.
M.W.-1 Anil Kumar Singh in his examination-in-chief
on affidavit as stated that he was posted at State Bank of
India, ADB, Ghogha branch from August, 2007 to
Septemeber, 2008 as branch manager. He is acquainted with
Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad. He worked on totally temporary
basis at daily wager when required. He has not worked
regularly. Further he has stated that case has filed is not
maintainable. Order has been not been passed in this case
the objection made in written statement. The case has not
been referred to this tribunal by the Govt. Claim for
regularisation for service is wrong. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has filed C.W.J.C. No:- 2587 of 2009 which was dismissed
vide dated- 27.04.2009 clearly stating that workman is daily
wager worker and he has no right for regularisation. When
there was need Shashi Bhushan Prasad worked as daily
wager worker and the wages was fixed and was paid to him
at the time of receiving payment but never raised dispute
for being regular or permanent. It is wrong to say that he
worked each year from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 for more
than 240 days in each year. He was terminated on 06.03.2009.
He has not filed any authenticated documents that he
worked more than 240 days. He was filed photostat petty
cash book which is maintained for payment of wages of
daily wages of daily worker. There is rules for employment
in of subordinate cadre in Bank. Bank has not issued any
appointment letter to him. He worked as and when required
and payment was made to petty cash book. He worked as
per order of branch manager as casual nature. No work was
taken from him as regular nature. Mainly he worked as
water boys. Seldem other work was taken from him and
payment was made at fixed rate. He seldem distributed letter
of bank. In case of vacancies, it is informed to the
employment exchange after arrival of candidates regular
appointment is made. Certificate of bank officer is not
recognized according to the rules of bank. Any officer of
branch manager of officer has no power to give such
certificate. There is no provision to regularise daily wager
worker, who worked for long period. Appointment of
subordinate staff was used to be done according to the
seniority from panel. Now any appointment has not been
done since several years. Shashi Bhushan Prasad has filed
transfer certificate of Govt. High School in which date of
birth has been mentioned on 31.03.1988 and he is working
since April-2000, it means that at the time he was aged of 12
years. Taking working from such boy is not possible and is
illegal. It is wrong to say that his service has been terminated
and no compensation has been made to him u/s- 25(F) of
the I.D. Act, 1947. He was not entitiled to any compensation
or notice. Management has not terminated his service and
the when required work as taken from him and now there is
no need to his work. Chart of working filed by the workman
in totally wrong and baseless and the documents does not
indicates that preceeding 12 month's from termination he
worked for 240 days. It is the responsibility to prove that in
preceeding 12 months he worked for more than 240 days.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3017
Other statement of the workman has been denied. It is
wrong to say that he worked from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009
regularly. Management has never terminated him and he is
not entitled for equal pay for equal work, which is given to
regular employee. Bank never did unfair labour practice.
This witness as exhibited photo stat of petty cash book.
He further stated that claim of workman is baseless.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was posted
at ADB, Ghogha from August, 2007 to September, 2008. He
does not know first working day and last working day of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad. He was not paid regularily on
daily, weekly or monthly basis. Rather he used to submit
bill after two month and two and half month and then
payment was made. During the working day of this witness
payment was made @ 50% per day for work he did on the
respective day. He does not know he Shashi Bhushan
Prasad had not worked 240 days in preceeding one year.
He has worked less than 240 days. He could not say that
how many days he worked preceeding one year from
06.03.2009 and that working day is how much less than 240
days. In calculation of 240 day's he has not included
sunday, leave days and 11 days of casual leave. In bank
record will be available of the payment made to him. He
does not know that branch manager has asked for school
leaving certificate which ws submitted by the workman.
After seeing the school transfer certificate which has been
marked as X-for identification. This witness submitted that
this certificate was not produced in the bank rather another
certificate was produced which was defective and photostat
of that certificate has been filed by the bank. Certificate
was filed by preceeding branch manager which was
defective. When Shashi Bhushan Prasad was sent out side
for distributing letter then travelling expenses was paid to
him. Witness further stated that one Janardhan Prasad
Pandey ws working at ADB Ghogha who has retired and
died. This witness does not identify his writing. He
(workman) was authorised to receive on maturity cheque
of K.V.P. from Bhagalpur post office. He further proved the
authority letter which bears signature of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad but this witness did not identify the signature of
concerned officer. He (workman) was sent for advice of
cheque collection from Munger. This witness further stated
that authority letter was signed by Anil Kumar Ambastha,
Branch Manager. Which also bears signature of Shashi
Bhushan marked as Ext. W/1 Further he stated that he sent
once to bring stationary from Bhagalpur Zonal Stationary
Department. This witness identified authority letter signed
by Shashi Bhushan Prasad and then branch manager Sri
Shambhu Prasad Srivastava which was marked as Ext. W/2.
It is the duty of messenger to bring advice of cheque
collection and stationary. The duty of messenger is to take
out and keep register, voucher and to help in another work.
It further duty to messenger to distributes local letter and
to post letters. His duty is not to serve water. He denied
that he is not acquainted with the facts of this case.
M.W-2 is Shambhu Prasad Srivastava this witness is
desk officer is State Bank of India Zonal Office, Bhagalpur.
He stated that he was branch manager at ADB Ghogha
from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006. He is acquainted with
workman Shashi Bhushan Prasad. He was permanent
manager at Ghogha branch. He never permanently took
work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
was working to serve water at different rate and payment
was made from petty cash. Shashi Bhushan Prasad never
raised dispute of being regular or permanent employee. No
appointment letter was issued to him.
In cross-examination this witness stated that he used to
take work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad to take water and
payment was made to him. Seldom payment was made to
him @ Rs. 30/- and seldom @ Rs. 40/-. Shashi Bhushan
Prasad working in the branch before joining of this witness
in that branch. Details of payment from petty cash is
maintained in a register which used to be cheque once in a
month by branch manager. This witness posted in that
branch for about 2 years and Shashi Bhushan Prasad
worked in that branch irregularly. This witness never took
work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad to bring stationary or
cheque from other branch.
He further stated that on 10.03.2006 he has given order
to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for bringing stationary and
another order dated 23.02.2007 is to bring cheque but this
witness could not say that order is under signature of then
branch manager. Letter dated-14.09.2002 has been signed
by then branch manager Sri R.K. Pandey which has been
marked as Ext.-W/3. He denied that Shashi Bhushan Prasad
also worked as messenger apart from bringing water.
M.W.-3 is Ajay Kumar, Branch Manager, in SBI at
Ghogha Branch. He has proved photostat of petty cash
register for the period from 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009.
In cross-examination this witness stated that for the
period from 30.04.2004 to 31.08.2008 he was at Dhamsain
branch, Dist. Godda, P.B. branch, Bhagalpur town,
Bhagalpur city branch Bhagalpur, Zonal office, Bhagalpur.
Some where he was posted as branch manager and some
where he was posted as accountant, field officer. This
witness identified Shashi Bhushan Prasad from face but
not by name. When he was joined at Ghogha branch, Dist.
Bhagalpur, then he learnt that Shashi Bhushan Prasad has
filed case before this tribunal. This witness has brought
photostat of concerned ledger, petty cash register which
has been attested by him marked as Ext.-M/10. He further
stated that he had seen the document filed by him. He had
seen the related documents of this case but this witness
has not details knowledge of first working day and last
working day. Before termination notice, notice pay and
compensation was not paid to the workman and there is no
mentioned of these matter in the ledger.
11. Documents exhibited on behalf of the management
Ext.-M/1 is order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in
C.W.J.C. No.-5287 of 2009 dated-23.04.2009. Writ was
dismissed as withdrawn with a direction that in proceeding
before Industrial Tribunal is to be decided in accordance
3018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with law uninfluenced by the refusal by the Hon'ble Court
to interfere only because of the availability of an alternative
statutory remedy to the petitioner.
Ext.-M/2 is School Transfer Certificate of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad in which date of birth of certificate in
31.03.1988.
Ext.-M/3 to M/9 is photo stat of petty cash register of
the concerned year 2000-2009.
Ext.-M/8 it appears from Ext.-M/8 that cost of labour
charge was paid regularly from 01.08.2007 to 13.09.2008
and thereafter only cost of has been written. Cost of what
purpose has been made has not been maintained in cost
register.
Ext.-M/9 cost of conveyance charge etc. has been
mentioned.
Ext.-M/10 is the also photo stat of petty cash register
for the period April, 2002 in which cost of water has been
mentioned. Cost of water and cost of labour charge has
been mentioned.
12. Written argument has been filled on behalf of the
management stating therein application filed by the claimant
is not maintainable in law nor on facts. Terms of reference
is not only illegal but also contradictory. Section- 2A (1)
and (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is confined to
termination of service and not regularization of service.
Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad was engaged as and when
exigency of work arose on the daily basis and whenever
work was taken from him, he was paid his wages as agreed
between the parties. He performed works in the State Bank
of India, ADB. Ghogha Branch as and when instructions
was given by the Branch Manager. He claimed that he
worked since 30.04.2000 till August, 2008 continuously is
totally baseless and false. Claim that he worked
continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year is
also false. He used to discharge his duties on the days he
was engaged on the instructions of branch manager. Such
discharge of duties were casual nature and it cannot be
said to be termination or perennial nature to discharge
regular duties. Regular appointment are made who work as
regular staff of the bank. Sri Prasad was wholly aware of
the fact that the bank has its own rules of recruitment and
his casual engagement as daily wager as and when required
therein no compliance of the rules of recruitment of the
Bank. During the whole period of his work as claimed by
him, he never demanded for regularization of service. When
he could not get any engagement in the bank even as
casual daily wager, he started demanding regularization.
Regularization in service is not a mode of appointment.
Neither the Government nor their instrumentality can make
appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of public
appointment. Neither any vacancy was advertised nor any
requisition to the Employment Exchange was sent nor the
Branch Manager had any power to appoint subordinate
staff. His engagement was totally non-est. Merely because
a daily wager as such a temporary worker is continued for
long time, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent. In the instant case, case, his
claim that he worked from 2000 to 2008 and that too
continuously is wholly baseless. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma devi [ 2004(4)
SCC 1 ] has held that merely because a temporary or casual
employee has continued for a long time, he would not be
entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent. In view of decision State of MP Vs. Lalit Kumar
Verma [ 2007 (1) SCC 575] "the appointment made in total
disregard to the constitutional scheme as also the
recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is state
within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India,
the recruitment would be illegal one. ''Another decision
referred is M.L. Jain Vs. Indore Development Authority
[2005 (1) SCC 639]" Regularization cannot be claimed as
matter of right. An illegal appointment cannot be legalized
by taking to regularization. The constitutional scheme
whicn the country has adopted does not contemplate any
back door appointment.
It has further been submitted that section 2 (oo) of the
Industrial Dispute Act says that retrenchment means
termination by the employer of the service of a workmen
for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment
inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The case of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad clearly follows u/s 2(oo) (bb) there was an
implied agreement between the parties that his engagement
comes to an end as soon as he leaves the bank meaning
thereby that there was an oral agreement between the parties
regarding this typy of engagement. Even decision of
Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and others [ 1997 (11)
SCC 521] has been referred for the purposes that termination
of service of the workmen does not constitute retrenchment.
Further decision has been referred again it has been
submitted that "the distinction between "irregular
appointment" and "illegal appointment" is apparent. In the
event appointment is made in total disregard of the
constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed
by the employer, which is a part of the "State" within the
meaning of article 12 of the constitutional, the recruitment
would be an illegal one. The respondent was not appointed
in terms of the statutory rules. He was not entitled to any
regular scale of pay attached to any post. Therefore, he
could not have been directed to be regularised in service
having regard to the Constitution Bench. Hence, the Labour
Court or Industrial Tribunal as also the High Court were
not correct in directing regularization of service of the
respondent." The appointment of Sri Prasad was not made
in terms of statutory rules. Original appointment of
Sri Prasad being illegal and not irregular. Therefore, no
question arises of regularization of Sri Prasad.
The decision of ESCORTS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING
OFFICER AND ANOTHER has been filed in which it has
been held that "Temporary appointment for a specified
period (2 months in this case )—Terms of appointment
enabling the employer to terminate the service at any stage
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3019
without assigning any reason—In such circumstances,
termination of service under the said terms even though
effected before the expiry of the specified period, held, did
not amount to retrenchment. But in this case it has not
been demonstrated the temporary appointment for a specific
period of 2 months or for any specified period.
Next decision is reported case of "MAHENDRA L. JAIN
AND OTHERS Vs INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND OTHERS" In which it has been hold that irregular
appointments, not illegal appointments, held, can be
regularised-Sub-Engineers (appellants) appointed on daily-
wage basis under a project to be executed by respondent
Development Authority—No appointment letters issued—
Posts not sanctioned by Govt. Appointment not in
compliance with the requirements of Act and Rules which
were applicable in absence of any direction to the contrary
contained in Standing Orders—Held, such illegal
appointment were void ab initio.
In the case of STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Vs. LALIT
KUMAR VERMA it has been held that Necessity of initial
appointment being "irregular" and not "illegal". Respondent
not having appointed as per the rules, nor being entitled to
any regular scale of pay attached to any post, his
appointment was illegal and not irregular. Continuous work
for more than six months on daily wages without more,
held, is not sufficient to entitle workman concerned to
status of permanent employee.
13. Wriiten argument has been filed on behalf of the
workman stating therein that subject matter of the
adjudication before this tribunal is "Whether the action of
the management of State Bank of India, Ghogha Branch in
denying regularization of services of Sri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad as a Messenger/Peon and terminating his services
in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D .Act is legal and
justified? If not, what relief (S) the workman is entitled to?"
It has been stated that workman was appointed as a
messenger/peon w.e.f. 30.04.2000. He used to work from
10 AM to 6 P.M regularly for which he was paid wages
initially @ 15/- per day which was raised to @ Rs 25/-, Rs.
40/- and lastly @ Rs. 50/- per day. Payment was made
through vouchers. He worked continuously from 30.04.2000
to 06.03.2009 and was informed at the closing hour on
06.03.2009 that his services stood terminated. When the
workman went to attend his duties on the following day, he
was stopped from working and was informed that his
services stood terminated after the working of 06.03.2009.
Neither notice, nor any notice pay nor any retrenchment
compensation was given to him. But duty was perennial in
nature. Case of the workman is covered under Section
2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the management violated
the mandatory provisions as contained in section 25 F of
the I.D. Act, 1947. Workman prays for reinstatement of his
services as a messenger with back wages. Substance of
written statement of the management has been delt. Further
in reference of the evidence it has been stated that Ext.-
W/1 to W/3 supported of the work of the workman. Ext.-
W/4 is details of work of the workman. Ext.- W/5 is proof of
payment of sum of Rs. 890/-. Ext -W/6 is the on live statement
and Ext.-W/7 and Ext.-W/8 are the certificates of
Sri Janardan Pandey, Chief Cashier, SBI, ADB, Ghogha
Branch. In support of work of Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
Ext.-W/9, W/10, and W/11 are the authorization for
performing certain works. Ext.W/12 is the letter dt- 15.02.2006
addressed to Secretary, Lok Adalat, Bhagalpur. Ext.-W/13
is the proof of payment in 20 pages. Ext.-W/14 & W/15
relate to payment of wages. Ext.-W/16, W/17, W/18 relates
to formulation of a scheme by State Bank of India for
absorption of daily rated/temporary workers performing
the jobs as a messenger. The workman was covered under
the scheme and accordingly his application for absorption
was forwarded by the Branch Manager to Regional Office
and other higher offices.
MW-1 Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Branch Manager, SBI, ADB
Ghogha submitted that he knew Shashi Bhushan Prasad
who worked as temporary daily rated worker as per
requirement and did not work continuously. In cross-
examination he admit that his services were utilized for
bringing cheque collection advice, distribution of letters,
bringing stationary from Zonal Stationary Deptt. Bhagalpur.
He further admits that the work of messenger relates to
bringing cheque collection advice, bringing stationary etc.
in cross-examination he had deposed that workman did
not work for 240 days proceeding his termination but failed
to submit the actual number of days he worked.
MW-2 is Sri Shambhu Prasad Srivastava, he worked as
Manager from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006 and also admitted
that the workman at SBI ADB Ghogha Branch. In cross-
examination he admitted that the workman was working
prior to his posting at Ghogha Branch.
MW-3 Ajay Kumar is the present Branch Manager of
SBI, ADB, Ghogha Branch and admitted in cross-
examination that he does not know the first and last working
day of the workman. He was neither given any notice, notice
pay or retrenchment compensation preceding his
termination.
WW-1 Shashi Bhushan Prasad stated that he worked
from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 at SBI ADB Ghogha Branch
as messenger/peon. He used to discharge the duties such
as taking out ledger, cash box, peon book, attending post
office work, bringing stationary, distribution of notice in
the village, serving water to the members of staff. His duty
hour ranged from 10 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. His duties were
identical to that of a permanent messenger. He identified
the letter of Sri Janardan Prasad Pandey, Chief Office
(Ext. W/7 & W.8)
Further submitted is that on the basis of material on
record the workman worked from 30.4.2000 to 06.03.2009;
(ii) The workman discharged all the duties of a messenger;
(iii) He used to discharge his duties from 10 A.M. to
5.30 P.M.; (iv) He was being paid his wages through petty
cash vouchers; (v) The Bank formulated a scheme for
3020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
absorption of temporary/daily rated workers as
messengers; (vi) The name of the workman had been
forwarded by the Branch Manager to Regional/Zonal
Office, Bhagalpur which are Exts.-W/16, W/16/A, W/17 &
W/18; (vii) The termination of the workman is covered under
section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act; (viii) Management violated
the mandatory provisions as contained in section 25F of
the I.D. Act; (ix) Management resorted to unfair labour
practices as per schedule V of the I.D. Act; and did not
follow the principles of equal pay for equal work;
Relief (S) (i) Reinstatement as a temporary messenger;
(ii) Payment of back wages from the date of termination;
(iii) Absorption as messenger as per Bank's circular dated
2.1.2003, 23.12.2002 and as per Exts. W/17 & W/18; (iv)
Payment of Rs. 10000/- as cost for contesting the dispute.
Some decisions has been cited on behalf of the workman.
Out of which the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in
Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. In which
petitioner was a workman in working in the work department
of Public Works Department Building Circle, Purnia in this
case reference was made "Whether the termination of
service of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Treasure Guard,
Public Works Department, Building Circle, Purnia, by the
management from December, 15, 1992 is proper and justified?
If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or any
other relief?
In this case petitioner was initially appointed on-muster
roll as a daily wager. He continuously worked for over three
months and thereafter he was appointed in a regular time-
scale of pay as Treasure Guard on a temporary and ad-hoc
basis. But on August 26, 1992 he was asked to file a show
why his appointment may not be terminated. In written
statement of the management it was stated that initially
appointment/engagement was illegal and invalid and did
not confer any right upon him and, hence, it could be
terminated without a month's notice or payment in lieu of
notice and without paying the retrenchment compensation.
Labour Court in the impugned award upheld the management
contention that petitioner appointment was illegal and invalid
and was made without any advertisement or any selection
process. There was no sanctioned post against which the
appointment could be made. Labour Court relied upon the
decisions reported in 1986 PLJR 873 and 1987 PLJR 1090 in
this decision it was held in case of initial appointment was
invalid the concerned employee could not claim a writ of
mandamus for payment of salary for the period he actually
worked under the invalid appointment. These two decisions
also do not even refer much less consider the mandatory
nature of Section 25-F and have absolutely no relevance to
the case in hand. The idea of illegal or invalid appointments
in quite foreign to the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act.
For application of section 25-F is that the concerned workman
should have been in continuous service for 240 days in a
calendar year. In fact, the termination of employment of a
workman on the ground that his initial appointment was not
legal and valid itself qualifies as retrenchment within the
meaning of Section 2(oo) as termination for illegal and invalid
appointment has not been made an exception to the definition
of retrenchment. This aspect of the matter has been
considered in a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan
High Court in the case of Prabhudayal Vs. Alwar Sahkari
Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. and Ors., in which it has been held
that "The definition of retrenchment as given in the Act is
wide and comprehensive to include all types of terminations
of service unless the termination falls within any of the
excepted categories and it was held that termination of service
of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment and was statutorily
required to be in compliance with the provision of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act.
Another decisions is of the Supreme Court of India in
Mineral Exploration Corporation Vs. Mineral Exploration
Corporation which was decided on 26th July, 2006 in Appeal
(civil) 2027-2028 of 2000. In this case according to the union
workman engaged in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" have completed
minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they
were not regularized nor paid regular wages as per the
revision of pay scales. The workman started demanding
regular pay scale and their regularization, corporation
resorted to retrenchment of workmen which caused serious
industrial unrest. Reference was made "Whether the action
of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S/Shri A. K.
Janson 2144 others (as per Annexures 'A' attached) and
depriving them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from what date? The tribunal after recording
the evidence of the both parties and considering the
arguments vide its award dated 24.03.1998, held that all the
workman in dispute, workman be regularized in the service.
The corporation preferred writ petition before the
High Court which was allowed and award was set-aside.
The High Court affirmed the findings of the Tribunal. It has
been stated that all the time of hearing, our attention was
drawn to the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs.
Umadevi, 3 and Ors., [2006]4 SCC and it has been held that
the said case deals with public employment, absorption,
regualrization, or permanent continuance of temporary
contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad-hoc employees
appointed/recruited and continued for long in public
employment de hors the constitutional scheme of public
employment. Further it has been stated that one aspect
needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in
S. V. Narayanappa [1967]3 SCR 128, R. N. Nanjundappa
[1972] 2 SCR 799, and B.N. Nagarajan [1979]3 SCR 937, of
dully qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts
might have been made and the employees have continued
to work for ten years or more but without the intervention
of order of the courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularization of the service of such employees may have
to be considered on merit in the light of the principles
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3021
settled by this Court in the case above referred to and in
the light of this judgement. The Union of India, the State
Government and their instrumentalities should take step to
regularize as a one time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed. who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts. It has also been stated that
respondent an industry governed by I.D. Act, 1947 as well
as the provision of Industrial Employment Standing Order
Act, 1946 the standing order define contigent/temporary
and casual employee as under the temporary workman as
one who has been engaged for work which is of an
essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a
limited period. The casual workman is a workman whose
employment is of casual labour. Therefore it will be clear
that employees engaged and continued together cann't be
termed as temporary or casuals.
Another decisions is the decision of Hon'ble S.C. in case
of Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. State of U.P. which was
decided on 5 August , 1985 in citation 1986(52) FLR147,
(1986)ILLJ134SC, (1986)I SCC 637. The Writ petition the
complaint made is that there are a number of person who are
engaged by Nehru Kendra as casual workers on daily basis
and though they are doing the same work as is performed by
class IV employees appointed on regular basis, they are not
being given the same salary and allowance as are being paid
to class IV employee. In this case writ petition were allowed
and rules was make absolute and directed the Central
Government to accord to these person who are employed
by the Nehru Kendras and who are concededly performing
the same duties as class IV employees, the same salary and
conditions of service as are being received by class IV
employee, except regularisation which cannot be done since
there are no sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that
posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in die
different Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so these persons can be
regularised. It is not at all desirable that any management
and particularly the Central, Government should continue to
employ persons on casual basis in organisations who have
been in existence for over 12 years. The salary and allowance
of class IV employees shall be given to these persons
employed in Nehru Yuvak Kendras with effect from the date
when they were respectively employed. Another decision
has been referred of the Supreme Court of India, in Harjinder
Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. decided on 5th
January, 2010, in civil appeal No.-587 of 2010 in which
termination of the service of the workman was found
incontinuous verson of section 25(G) of the Industrial
Dispute Act. But impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Another decision is also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur which
was decided on 11th April, 2011 in this case service was
terminated without holding any enquiry and without giving
him notice and compensation and that persons junior to him
were retained in service. Respondent pleaded that the
appellant was engaged on contract basis and his service
was terminated because the Director, Local Self Government
did not give approval to the resolution passed for his
employment. The Labour Court held that the appellant had
worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding
the termination of his service. Writ petition reliance was
based on the judgement in Secy.. State of Karnataka Vs.
Umadevi (2006) SCC 1; State of M.P. Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma
(2007)1 SCC 575; Uttaranchal Forest Development
Corporation Vs. M.C. Koshi (2007(2) SCC (L&S) 813; M.P.
Administration Vs. Tribhuban (2007)9 SCC 48; and others
decision are the found adopted that Labour Court should
not have ordered reinstatement of the appellant because his
appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules and
articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and it would not be in
public interest in sustain the award of reinstatement after
long lapse of time. In para 13 it has been stated that source
of employment the method of recruitment, the terms and
conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum
of wages/pay and the mode payment are not at all relevant
for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Further in para 14 it has
been stated that it is apposite to observe that the definition
of workman also does not make any distinction between full
time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract
basis. In the result the appeal was allowed and award passed
by the Labour Court for reinstatment of the appellant is
restored and it was also directed that respondent shall be
entitled to wages for the period between the date of award
and the date of actual reinstatement.
Another decision reported in 2014-III-LLJ-772 Calcutta
High Court. Another decision is Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case of Hari Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer I/R to
Mangmt. of FCI & Anr. In which the tribunal found that
termination of the applicant was illegal they were directed
to be reinstated with 50% back wages. FCI filed writ petition
were dismissed. LPA was allowed by Division Bench. In
this case reference was that "Whether the action of the
management of Food Corporation of India, in retrenchment
Shri Hari Nandan Prasad, Ex-Casual workman, in
contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
denying reinstatement with full back wages and
regularization of his service is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" In this
case deicsion of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees
Union Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1992 SC 789 and
constitution bench judgement in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SSC 1 has been
dealt. In this case contention raised by the appellant before
the High Court was that the ratio of Uma Devi's case had
no relevance in the cases of industrial adjudication by the
Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals and this submission
that found to be meritless by the Hon'ble High Court taking
support of the judgment of this Court in U.P. Power
Corporation Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC
755. In this case which was found that appellant no.- was
not in service on the date when scheme was promulgated
i.e. as on 6.5.1987 as his services were dispensed with 4
years before that circular saw the light of day. Therefore, in
the result of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement
3022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
would be more Apropriate in his case but in case of
appellant no.2 which was hold that CGIT rightly held that
he was reinstate with 50% back wages.
FINDINGS
14. The relief claimed in this case is against the
management of State Bank of India over denail of
regularization of the services as a messenger/peon and
wrongfully termination for the service of a temporary
messenger/peon w.e.f 06.03.2009 while working at State Bank
of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Ghogha, Disrt.
Bhagalpur.
15. Dispute has been raised on 19.06.2009 and the
conciliation proceedings ended in failure on 27.08.2010.
Question formulated and by the petitioner in this case is
"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of
India, Ghogha Branch in denying regularization of services
of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad as a Messenger/Peon and
terminating his services in violation of Section 25 F of the
I.D. Act is legal and justified? If not, what relief(s) the
workman is entitled to?"
16. The workman was working from 30.04.2000 to
06.03.2009 and was informed at the close of office hour on
06.03.2009 that his services stood terminated. When the
workman went to discharge his duties on the following
day, he was stopped from working and was again informed
of termination of his services from the evening of 06.03.2009.
Neither he was given any notice nor notice pay no
retrenchment compensation precreding his termination. He
was paid his wages regularly from 30.04.2000 to 31.08.2008.
On 01.09.2008, the workman was instructed by the authority
to take payment in different names to which the workman
did not agree. He was not made payment of his wages from
01.09.2008 to 06.03.2009. The termination of the workman is
covered under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Relief
claim is (i) Reinstatement, as a temporary messenger with
back wages; (ii) Regularization of services as a messenger;
(iii) Payment of due wages for the period of working; (iv)
Payment of wages from 31.08.2008 to 06.03.2009; (v)
Payment of a sum of Rs. 10000/- for contesting the dispute.
17. Written statement of the management stating that
therein that application filed by the claimant u/s 2A (1) and
(2) of the amended Industrial Dispute Act, 2010 is neither
maintainable in law nor on fact. Dispute have not been
referred u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Terms of
reference has framed by the person is not only illegal but
also contradictory. Section 2A (1) and (2) is confined
termination of service and not regularization in service.
It appears from perusal of Section-2A of the Industrial
Dispute Act, it appears that this relates to dismissal etc. of a
individual workman to be deemed to be an Industrial Dispute.
18. Section-2(A) Where any employer discharges,
dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services
of an individual workman, any dispute or difference
between that workman and his employer connected with,
or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of
workman is a party to the dispute.]
19. This section also provide that workman mny make
an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for
adjudication to the dispute is referred therein after expiry
of forty five from the date he has made the application to
the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government.
This case has been filed on 18.03.2011 as such as the case
maintainable.
Section-2A relates to discharge, dismisses, retrenches
or otherwise terminates the services of an individual
workman. So far the matter is concerned for regularisation
that will be discussed later on. Further it has been stated
that it is totally baseless and denied that workman had
worked continuously 240 days in every calendar years.
20. Further it has been stated that bank has its own
rules of recruitment for appointment of subordinate cadre
staff satisfying the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. He was not issued any appointment
letter even to work as temporary staff. His engagement
was purely as a casual worker on daily wages engaged as
and when required. Payment were made to him through
petty cash which means payment against some expenses
which are in petty nature and that cannot be termed as
regular payment of wages or other benefit. Had therein
appointment letter then it would proof terms of appointment
of the workman. Further it has been stated that during the
whole period of his work as claimed by him, he never
demanding for regularization in service. It is only when he
could not get any engagement in the Bank even as casual
daily wager, he started demanding regularization. Another
contention is that merely because a daily wager as such a
temporary worker is continued for long time, he would not
be entitled to be absorbed in regular serivce or made
permanent. His claim that he worked from 2000 to 2008 and
that too continuously is wholly baseless.
About the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi
reported in [2004(4) SCC 1] has been stated but this case
only relates to Government service and it cannot said that
bank is not an industry. When bank is an industry then the
dispute will be governed under the provision of the
Industrial Dispute Act. In this contest several decision has
been filed on behalf of the workman which are Mithilesh
Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Ors reported in 1994
(42) BLJR 1300. (1995) 1 LLJ 973 Pat. On the Mineral
Exploration Corporation Vs Mineral Exploration Corporation
by Hon'ble Supreme court of India. Further the case of
Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs State of U.P. decision by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and reported in 1986 (52)
FLR 147, (1986) 1 LLJ 134 SC, (1986) 1 SCC 637 and other so
many decisions in which several decisions has been
discussed. Other case is Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal
Council, Sanaur decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in which case of Uma Devi has also been dealt and other
decision cited by the management bank has been dealt.
Further it has been stated that by order date 27.04.2009
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3023
case of C.W.J.C. No. - 5287 of 2009 filed by the petitioner,
the Hon'ble Court hold that the person concerned is daily
wager. As there is no provision in the bank for regularization
of such a daily wager.
21. In the rejoinder of the workman in para-13 it has
been stated that workman discharged the duties of a
messenger from 30.04.2000 to 6.03.2009 uninterruptedly.
To continue a workman for a longer period without any
service condition is a act of unfair Labour Practice on the
part of the management as per schedule V of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. Further it has been stated that remedy
of Indusutrial worker is under Industrial Dispute Act.
22. In the evidence of Shashi Bhushan Prasad has stated
that he worked in the State Bank of India, ADB, Ghogha
Branch, Dist.- Bhagalpur as a messenger/peon from
30.04.2000 to 6.03.2009. He worked from 10 A.M. to 5.30
P.M. He worked like a permanent messenger in one year.
He worked for 240 days regularly. He has proved Exts.-W/
5 & W/6 regarding his payment by then branch manager of
Rs. 890/-. He has also proved Exts.-W/7 and Exts.-W/8 and
other documents filed by him. He has also proved photo
state of vouchers in 66 pages for the period from 31.12.2006
to 31.12.2007 he has also proof ciruclar sent by branch
manager to Zonal office on 21.03.2003 and dated 02.01.2001
and 02.01.2002. He has stated that his date of birth is
05.09.1981 but by mistake that was written 31.03.1988 which
was rectified. He has also stated that no compensation and
no payment was made to him before removal from service.
In cross-examination he has stated that Exts.-W/14
relates to the payment for serving water and for cheque
collection. In para-2 of the cross-examination he has stated
that Janardhan Pandey was cash officer of Ghogha branch.
In certificate his date of birth is mentioned year 1981 but
his another certificate by mistake it was written year 1988
and that mistake was corrected. He regularly worked for
240 days. In further cross-examination he stated that it is
wrong to say that he himself left to come to bank. He daily
used to go bank. Nothing was challenged in the cross-
examination that this workman was not working for 240
days in a calendar year or he did not work in the bank from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009.
23. Management witness M.W-1 Anil Kumar Singh who
is Dy. Manager in SBI Bhagalpur branch. He has stated
that he was posted at ADB Ghogha Branch for the period
August-2007 to September-2008. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
was temporary daily wager. He did not work regularly. He
further stated that claim for regularisation his service is
wrong. In view of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.-2587 of
2009 by Hon'ble Patna High Court. He has also stated that
photo stat of petty cash book has been filed by the bank.
There is rule for recruitment of sub-ordinate cadre staff. No
appointment letter was issued. He worked as per order of
Branch Manager and work was casual in nature. There is
no provision to regularise a daily wager, who worked for
the long period. He was not entitled for any compensation
or notice.
In cross-examination he has satted that he posted at
ADB Ghogha Brnach for the period from August-2007 to
September-2008. He does not know first working day and
last working day of Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Payment was
made after two or half month on submitting the bill. He
does not know in preceeding period counted from
06.03.2009. Shashi Bhushan Prasad had not work for 240
days. He could not tell in year prior to 06.03.2009 for how
many days Shashi Bhushan Prasad had worked. There will
be record in bank for the payment made by the bank to him.
He has also stated about the authority letter given to him
Shahsi Bhushan Prasad for receiving maturity cheque of
K.V.P. from Bhagalpur post office. He proved authority letter
given to him for receiving advice of cheque collection from
Munger which was signed by branch manager namely Anil
Kumar Ambastha. He has also proved contents of Ext.-W/
2. Duty of messenger is to distribute local letter and to go
to post office for dispatching the outside letter.
24. Next witness on behalf of the management Shambhu
Prasad Srivastava who was posted at ADB Ghogha Branch
from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006 he is acquainted with Shashi
Bhushan Prasad. He stated that he did not took work from
Shashi Bhushan Prasad for the whole day mainly.
In cross-examination he has stated that Shashi Bhushan
Prasad was working in the branch prior to joining this
witness. Payment of petty cash is entered in one register
which is checked once in a month by branch manager.
During the period of two years Shashi Bhushan Prasad
irregularly attended the branch. He has given work on
10.03.2006 to Shahsi Bhushan Prasad to bring stationery.
25. Management witness No.3- is Ajay Kumar, Branch
Manager in SBI Ghogha Branch who deposited pohto stat
of petty cash register from 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009. He
stated that for the period from 30.04.2004 to 31.08.2008 he
was posted at Ghamsain branch Dist.-Godda, PB Branch,
Bhagalpur city branch and Zonal office Bhagalpur. He
identify the Shashi Bhushan Prasad but was not acquainted
with his name. Prior to remove from the service workman
was not given notice, notice pay and retrenchment
compensation.
26. Ten documents has been Exhibited on behalf of the
mangement. M.W-1 is photostat of the order passed in
C.W.J.C. No.-5287 of 2009 filed by Shahi Bhushan Prasad.
In which it has been stated that in his own plea as para-8
involved the question of facts and claim under the Industrial
Dispute Act. Where a daily wages post cannot lay out his
claim in a writ petition. Learned council of the petitioner
press for leave to withdraw this petition to persue his
remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act.
It is for the petitioner to choose his remedy after writ
court declined interference. This court makes no
observation with the regards to the case. The writ is
dismissed as withdrawn. The proceeding before Industrial
Tribunal is to be decided in accordance with law
uninfluenced by refusal by this court. So mater is to be
3024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
decided by this tribunal. Ext.-M/2 is SLC in which date of
birth has been mentioned as 31.03.1988. This has got no
relevency when corrected SLC has been submitted by the
Shahsi Bhushan Prasad. Ext.-M/3 to M/9 is photo stat of
petty cash register.
In the written statement the management bank, claim of
the workman that he worked since 30.04.2000 to August-
2008 worked continuously 240 days in every calendar year,
have also denied. Management witness no.-1 Anil Kumar
Singh, in cross-examination in para-29 could not say the
first working day and last working day of Shahsi Bhushan
Prasad. But during the period of post of this witness he
was paid Rs. 50/-. This witness also could not tell prior to
06.03.2009 for how many days workman worked and what
period of less than 240 days. This witness in para-32
identified the authority letter given of Shahsi Bhushan
Prasad when he was sent for work to post office etc. As
such it is apparent that Shahi Bhushan Prasad working in
the bank. M.W-2 Shambhu Prasad Srivastava was posted
at Ghogha Branch from the period from 17.07.2004 to
16.06.2006 and he identified workman Sri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad. He further stated that in para-7 in cross-examination
that prior his posting on that branch Shashi Bhushan Prasad
worked there.
27. M.W-3 Ajay Kumar has identified petty cash register
from the period 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009. This witness
identified Shashi Bhushan Prasad by face but this could
not tell first and last working day of Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
From petty cash register counting from March-2008 only
cost of labour, tea, labour charge and etc. shown, but two
whom payment was made has not been shown. So it could
not be gather to whom payment it was made.
28. From evidence of W.W-1 Shashi Bhushan Prasad it
appears that he was working on the post of messenger/
peon from the period 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009. He has stated
that payment was made to him from petty cash. He has
exhibited details of his working day vide Ext.W/4. From
which is appears that he worked for 295 days in the year
2008 and 57 days in the year 2009 this documents has been
exhibited without objection. He has also exhibited print
out of online statement Ext.-W/6 which is in name of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad which is dated 24.12.2008. Ext.-W/2 is the
letter sent to S.B.I Zonal Stationery Deptt for bringing
stationery dated 10-03-2006 and signature of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
29. Ext. -W/7 is the letter sent by Mr. Janardhan Prasad
Pandey, cash Oficer S.B.I. ADB, Ghogha Branch, Bhagalpur
to branch manager SBI that Shashi Bhushan Prasad has
been working at this branch from 30.04.2000 as daily wager
worker. His payment in petty cash book has always been
segregated in labour charges. This letter was sent
information and needful. From this letter it appears that
Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working from 30.4.2000 and
letter is dated 04.10.2005 from it appears that he was still
working there. Ext.-W/8 is another letter sent by same
Janardhan Prasad Pandey to Branch Manager, SBI, ADB,
Ghogha Brnach. From which it appears that Shashi
Bhushan Prasad was working since 30.4.2000 in the bank
as daily wages this letter is dated-04.10.2005 Ext.-W/9 is
letter sent by Branch Manager from Ghogha branch to Sub
post master, Bhagalpur for payment of KVP this letter is
dated 02.12.2008 and signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has been attested from which it appears that till 02.12.2008
Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working there. Another letter
was sent by the Branch Manager vide Ext.-W/10 in which
signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad was attested in which
it has been stated that NSC payment in favour of Branch
Manager has been captioned. Ext.-W/11 has also been to
Chief Manager, SBI, Bhagalpur in which signature of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad has been attested. Ext-W/12 is the letter
sent through Shashi Bhushan Prasad whose signature was
attested as such Shashi Bhushan Prasad working regularly.
Ext-W/13 series is regard to the payment receipts by Shashi
Bhushan Prasad on 24.12.2000, 15.02.2002, 22.12.2001 and
several dates working in records shows.
30. Exts.-W/14 series is the details of payment paid to
Shashi Bhushan Prasad from the period 23.01.2007 to
31.12.2007 this indicates that Shashi Bhushan Prasad was
working in the bank for the period 240 days in the year
2007. Exts.-W/15 is the letter sent by A.G.M, Circle Office,
Bhagalpur in regard to subordinate temporary employee
and Exts.W/16 is also letter to Circle Development office. It
is observed that in spite of instruction some workman are
working and legal complication arising if on becoming them
protected employee under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Exts.W/17 in which it has been stated that please arrange
to submit full particulars of all such employees who have
put in more than 240 days continuous service in terms of
Section 25(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act together with
your reasoned recommendation for their absorption or
otherwise on enclosed proforma immediately. It means that
the bank was aware of provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. From
Exts.-W/18 it appears that branch manager has sent letter
to A.G.M, Bhagalpur stating therein that Shashi Bhushan
Prasad was working there from 30.04.2000 as water boys to
from there Exts, it appears that he was also doing other
work because his signature is attested when he was sent
to another place and from Exts. W/14 it appears that he
regularly worked for the period from 31.12.2006 to
31.12.2007. This documents has not been challenged.
Apparently Shashi Bhushan Prasad worked for more than
240 days in the year 2007 as such he became protected
employee under I.C. Act. From Exts.-W/9, 10, it appears
that he was sent for receiving payment of K.V.P. on
02.12.2008 and for receiving payment of NSC on
08.11.2008.In cross-examination M.W-1 has stated that
regular payment was not paid to the workman because bill
was being submitted after two and half months then
payment was made. So it may be gathered that he was
working always in the bank. Bank has not submitted the
vouchers of payment of Shashi Bhushan Prasad and has
not demonstrated that how many less date counting from
240 days Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working. In para 34
he has stated that advice cheque of collection and to bring
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3025
was duty of messenger and from this evidence it appears
that Ext. demonstrate that Shashi Bhushan Prasad even
working like messenger.
31. From definition of 25(B) and photostat of payment
vouchers it appears that in the year 2007 there was
inuninterrupted service though this workman was working
since 30.04.2000 and even becoming in continuous service
from him till 06.03.2009. So prior to his removal compliance
of section-25F of the I.D. Act must have been done. Even
from Exts.-M/10 it appears that counting from 06.03.2008
labour charge was regularly paid till 28.02.2009. Which is
clearly apparent, so inference may be gathered that payment
was made to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for the period more
than 240 days in a calendar year last preceding from the
date of his removal because bank could not demonstrate
who was another or other workman working in the bank
and this case relates to Shashi Bhushan Prasad
32. In view of the decisions of Hob'ble S.C. in case of
Hari Nandan Prasad & Another Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI & Another when retrenchment is bad
then service be regularised. In that view of the matter Shashi
Bhushan Prasad had became in the category protected
workman. Hence, the case of the workman is allowed.
Management is directed to reinstate and regularise the
service of workman from the date 06.03.2009 on which he
was removed from service. Further,management is directed
to give all consequential benefits to the workman and all
due wages from the date of his removal from service and
upto the date of his reinstatement.
Accordingly the order is being given.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼180@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-07-2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@52@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.180/93) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of S.E. Railway and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 06.07.2015.
[No. L-41012/52/92-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC/R/180/93
Shri Haridin,
S/o Shri Kalloo,
C/o Mandkur Baig,
Khalipadao, Birsinghpur,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
... Workman
Versus
Chief Engineer (Construction),
S.E. Railway,
Bilaspur
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of May 2015
1. As per letter dated 8-9-93 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/52/92-IR(DU).
The dispute under reference relates:
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer
(Construction), South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Haridin, S/o Shri
Kalloo, Casual Labour under PWI(C), Manendragarh
w.e.f. 24.3.83 is justified? If not, to what relief he is
entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, noticeswere issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as casual Trolleyman under PWI Manedragarh
from 18-6-76. He was working as casual Trolley man from
18-6-76 to 15-7-76 and watchman from 15-7-76 to 9-1-77, as
trolleyman from 10-1-77 to 15-7-78 as gangman from 24-3-
81 to 19-4-83. That he fell sick and was on leave from 20-4-
83 to 30-4-83. He reported on duty on 13-5-83 submitting
medical certificate. He was not allowed on duty, his services
were terminated from 20-4-83 without any notice. He was
not paid retrenchment compensation. Any kind of enquiry
was not held against him. Show cause notice was not
issued. Termination of his service is in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. The other employees junior to him were
taken in service. IInd party did not consider his case for
reinstatement therefore he raised the dispute. Workman
prays for retinstatement with backwages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/3
opposing claim of the workman. IInd party in para-3 of
Written Statement has also shown working days of
workman from 18-6-76 to 15-7-78. Workman had abandoned
the job. Thereafter he was given fresh appointment from
3026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24-3-81 to 16-4-83. Thereafter workman did not turnup. He
cannot blame management when he voluntarily abandoned
the job. IInd party submits that as workman himself
abandoned job, notice was not required to be given. IInd
party reiterates that workman was working as casual labour
from 18-6-76 to 14-10-78, thereafter he was reappointed on
24-3-81 and he worked upto 15-4-83. Workman did not turn
up for duty after 15-4-83. Those contention have nexus
with the dispute under reference as workman was not
terminated by IInd party management.
4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/2
reiterating his contentions is statement of claim. Workman
further submits that he had submitted complaint before
ALC in 1984, conciliation proceeding was registered, Chief
Engineer, Bilaspur was advised to reinstate workman as
per letter dated 10.6.86. The evidence was not adduced by
Chief Engineer. Process for reappointment was not followed
by IInd party.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the Chief
Engineer (Construction), South Eastern
Railway, Bilaspur (MP) in terminating
the service of Shri Haridin, S/o Shri
Kalloo, Casual Labour under PWI(C),
Manendragarh w.e.f. 24-3-83 is justified.
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. That he was not served
with notice, retrenchment compesation was not paid to
him before terminating his service.
7. IInd party contented that the service of workman
were not terminated, workman himself abandoned his
service. As per pleading of parties, there is no dispute
about working by workman from 18-6-76 to 15-7-78 and his
fresh engagement from 24-3-81 to 16-4-83. Parties are in
dispute that IInd party submits workman ways not
terminated. He himself abandoned the job whereas
workman says he was not allowed on duty.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating the
period of his working from 18-6-86 to 15-7-78, 24-3-81 to
19-4-82. He was on sick leave from 28-4-83 to 30-4-83. He
had submitted medical certificate for joining duty on
13-5-83. He was not allowed to join. He worked for total
1570 days. In his cross-examination, workman says
appointment letter was not given to him. When he was
working, he was engaged for a period on 2-3 months. He
was appointed on 18-3-76. He worked till 20-9-78 and again
from 24-3-81 to 19-4-83. Thereafter he had to leave the work,
he had submitted application for leave. On 13-3-83, he was
told that he was terminated from service. He denies that he
was habitually remaining absent therefore he was terminated
from service. The evidence of workman about his working
days is not challenged. The evidence of workman is
supported by the witness Mr. Balaji. Evidence of witness
Balaji about working of workman with IInd party from 1976
is not shattered.
9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Ram Bhusan Mishra contending that workman himself
left the job and delay in raising dispute. In his cross-
examination, management's witness denies that workman
was not allowed to work with object of giving break in
service. Management's witness denies suggestion that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service. The
evidence on record is clear that in first spell of his working
from 1976-78, workman had completed 240 days service. In
IInd spell from 1981 to 1983, he completed 240 days
continuous service. The conciliation proceedings failed. It
shows that management did not pursue its contentions
that wotkman had left the job. If it would have been true,
there was no hurdle in allowing him to join duty. Though
workman completed 240 days continuous service during
both spell of his working, his services are terminated without
notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid to him. The
termination of his service is illegal for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 2 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2— workman was worming as casual
employee in two spells during 1976 to 1978 and 1981 to 83.
IInd spell of workman was for about 2 years. The services
are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.
Considering workman was engaged as casual labour and
short spam of his working in the IInd Spell, relief of
reinstatement with backwages would not be appropriate,
compensation Rs. 40,000/- would be justified. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 2.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Chief Engineer (Construction),
South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Haridin, S/o Shri Kalloo w.e.f. 24-3-83 is not
leagal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 40,000/-
to the workman within 30 days from the date of notification
of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
In Negative
As per final
order.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3027
ubZ fnYyh] 6] tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkju {ks=h;
xzkeh.k cSad izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k iVuk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@(C) of 2009] 02 @(C)
of 2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@07@2015
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@148@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2015
S.O. 1421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of1947), the Central Government
hereby Publishes the Award Ref. 04(C) of 2009, 02 (C) 2003
of the Indus.-Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Patna as shown
in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of Saran Keshetriya Gramin Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
06/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/148/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-
04(C) of 2009
02 (C) of 2003
The management of the Chairman, Saran Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, chapra and their workman Sri Shatrughan Prasad
Sah, Nandanpur, Gawandari, Chapra.
For the management : Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the workman:
Sri B. Prasad, President,
Bihar Provintial Gramin Bank
Employee Association.
Present
: Bipin Dutta Pathak
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
A W A R D
Patna, Dated the 2nd June, 2014.
By Notification order No. 12012/148/2001-IR (B-I) dated-
11.12.2001 which was received on 24.12.2001/01.07.2003,
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
has referred under clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-
Section (2A) of Section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), the following
dispute between the management of the Chairman, Saran
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chapra and their workman
Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah, Nandanpur, Gawandrari Chapra
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Saran
Kshetriya Gramin Bank Saran is terminating the
services of Shri Satrughan Prasad Sah, Sweeper-Cum-
Messenger is justified? If, not what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. It appears that vide order sheet dt. 30.07.2007 matter
referring fairness of domestic enquiry was decided by
reasoned and details order and it was hold that allegation
of assault and abuses by the worker to the Branch Manager
and domestic enquiry was neither fair nor as per principles
of natural justice. Any order including punishment to the
worker on basis of above enquiry was held not tenable
Management was directed to come with the evidence if
they so desire establishing the charge.
3. It appears from the order dt. 29.12.2005 that award
was directed an signed and was sent to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, Sharam Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New
Delhi for information and necessary action. Publication of
award was received. Further it appears from the order sheet
dt. 28.07.2009 that the petition along with photostat of
certified copy of the order dt. 27.04.2009 passed in L.P.A
No. 213 of 2009 by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna had been
filed on behalf of the workman Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah
with a prayer to answer to reference in the light of direction
of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna in L.P.A No. 213 of 2009.
The Hon'ble High Court, Patna remanded back for deciding
the dispute.
4. It appears that earlier award was given on 29.12.2005
directing the management (Bank) to reinstate the workman
w.e.f.28.11.1985 in bank service and regularies his service
in the subordinate staff cadre of the bank service with
entire benefits admissible to his rank and post within a
period of one month from the date of publication of the
award.
5. The order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4814 of 2006 is not
available on the record. But from the petition filed by the
workman Shatrughan Prasad Sah, from order sheet
dt. 28.07.2009 it appears that management bank was
preferred C.W.J.C. No. 4814 of 2006 against the award dt.
29.11.2005 and award passed by this tribunal was set-aside
by the single bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna. Then
workman preferred L.P.S. No. 213 of 2009 in the Hon'ble
High Court which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High
Court, Patna on 27.04.2009 with a direction for remitting
back to this tribunal for deciding the main issue on the
point of working days in the last preceding 12 months.
6. Photo copy of the certified copy of the order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna in L.P.A No. 213 of 2009
has been filed. From perusal of the order it appears that
3028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from the award dt. 29.12.2005 it is clear that the appellant
sought an adjudication on the issue "whether the action of
the management of Saran Kehetriya Gramin Bank Saran is
terminating the services of Shri Shatrughan Prasad Sah,
Sweeper-Cum-Messenger is justified? If, not what relief
the workman is entitled to?" The management denied
relationship of employer and employee as well as existence
of any Industrial Dispute between the parties. Tribunal
had decided in favour of the workman by holding that the
attendence sheet from December, 1983 to Feb. 1985 show
that workman worked in the Bank during the relevant period
and although he could not produced copy of attendence
sheet till the date of his retrenchment. Further it appears
that matter has been remitted back to this tribunal for
deciding the main issue as to whether the workman had
worked for more that 240 days in the last preceding
12 months. There is no dispute that last preceding 12 months
period would have to be counted backwards from
27.11.1985. It has also stated that it goes without saying
that the parties will be at liberty to advance all their
arguments and points including the points whether in view
of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India, a direction for
regularization of service can be given by the tribunal even
if it is found that the workman a casual daily wager was
wrongly retrenched. Reinstatement and regularization may
have different connotation in law. The Tribunal shall decide
the issue if raised before if by the management in
accordance with law.
7. Written statement has been failed on behalf of the
both the management and workman.
8. In the written statement of the management it has
been stated that there is no relationship of employer and
employee between the management of Saran Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and the said Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah and
as such no Industrial dispute exists between the parties.
Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah was never an employee of
the bank and he is not a worker of the within the meaning
of section-2(00) of the I.D. Act. As such claim of
Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah is not entertainable and fit to be
dismissed. Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah was intermittendly
given contractual work by the branch manager as per need
on a particular day in between December, 1981 to November,
1985 on payment of Rs. 2.31 to 8.52 per day. Thereafter he
did not offer himself for such work on any day in the bank.
As such the claim of the workman in any event is stale and
not maintainable in view of voluntary abandonment from
even the contractual work of the bank. He was not under
any disciplinary control of the bank for the period he did
the aforesaid contractual work in the bank. Claim of
Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah that he worked for 240 days in a
calendar year is emphatically denied by the management.
During the period the services of Sri Shatrughan Prasad
Sah was taken, there was not sanction of vacany in the
branch and at present also there is no sanctioned vacancy.
He was never appointed by the bank for any post in the
bank and as such his claim is not maintainable. The
appointment in the bank is made according to the rules as
per laid down recruitment policy following articles 14 & 16
of the constitution of India and that too when a post is
sanctioned.
Shatrughan Prasad Sah was never appointed in the bank,
the question for termination of his service does not arise.
In any case raising an Industrial Dispute after a lapse of
15 years is hopelessly barred by limitaion/dela, latches and
as such the claim is fit to be dismissed on this ground. It
has been stated that the witnesses and/or documents in
support of this written statement will be produced before
this Hon'ble Tribunal at the time of hearing of this case.
9. In the written statement on behalf of the workman it
has been stated that he was appointed by the authorities
of the Gramin Bank in the year 1981on the post of Sweeper-
cum-Messenger on the pay scale of Rs. 60/- P.M. It has
also stated that in the year 1981 a branch of Saran Kshetriya
Gramin Bank was started and there was vacancy in it for
the post of Sweeper-cum-Messenger. The workman applied
for the said post and having found suitable was appointed
on the pay scale of Rs. 60/- per month. Payment has been
made to him in the said scale till 22.06.1982 and thereafter
he was allowed Rs. 3/- per days as wages from 23.06.1982
as per instruction of the Head Office vide letter No.-82/69/
2/56. He was removed from the service on 28.11.1983 without
any notice and without any opportunity of hearing.
10. Since earlier Award had been passed which was set-
aside and this tribunal has only to decide the matter in the
light of the direction given in the L.P.A has mention earlier.
11. In reply to the written statement of the management,
workman had stated that he continuously worked till
27.11.1985 and all of sudden on 28.11.1985 he was removed
from service.
The main points for consideration whether the workman
worked for 240 days in the last preceding 12 months
backward from 27.11.1985.
12. It appears that on 08.09.2009 management filed written
statement after remand of the matter from the Hon'ble High
Court stating therein that on remand besides other following
issues are involved in the case.
(i)
"Whether the workman has discharged his onus of
proving that he had worked for 240 days in the last
preceding 12 months which would be counted
backwards from 27.11.1985?"
(ii) "Whether any direction can be issued by the
Tribunal in the present reference for regularization
of service even if it is found that the workman, a
casual daily wager was wrongly retrenched?"
(iii) "Whether the workman concerned can not claim to
be retrenched in view of sub-section-(bb) of section-
2(oo) of I.D. Act?"
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3029
It has been stated that it is settled law that the onus is
upon the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days
preceding alleged termination. In view of the decision
reported in (2002) 35 SCC page 25 followed by (2002)8 SCC
page 400.
It has also been stated that even in case of finality of
non-compliance of section-25 the direction of reinstatement
in absence of work/post ought not be granted as held in
(2005)12 SCC 25 and in any case there could be no order of
regularization in view of the decision reported on (2005)7
SCC 100. No back wages be awarded to the workman even
in case of illegal termination.
It has also been submitted that workman in no case can
claim regularization in the bank as per decision (2007)3 SC
417. It has been submitted that Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank is
a public sector bank and no regular appointment could be
made in the bank without following article 14 & 16 of the
constitution of India. No such decision have been filed as
stated in the written statement dt.-08.09.2009.
13. Further in written submission on behalf of the
management on 12.02.2014. The same points has been raised
as stated in the written statement dt. 08.09.2009.
14. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
workman on 12.02.2014 stating therein the subject matter
for adjudication is confined is two issues.
(i)
First issue relates to working for a period of 240
days in 12 calendar months preceding 27.11.1985.
(ii) Second issues relates to the direction of the Hon'ble
Tribunal for regularization of the service of the
workman in view of Article 14 & 16 of the Indian
constitution of India.
The first issue is required to be examined in the light of
documentary and oral evidence of the witnesses. During
the deposition of the workman as W.W.-1, he stated that
he worked with the bank from 16.12.1981 to 27.11.1985.
Copy of attendence sheet is being enclosed for ready
reference. The attendence sheet amply proves that the
workman has worked with the Bank from 01.12.1983 to
27.11.1985. Accordingly the first issue is substantiated.
As regards second issue, it is submitted that the Regional
Rular Bank were in corporated as per provision of RRB
Act, 1976 with three Shareholders-Central Govt. Sponsor
Bank and State Govt. with 50%, 35% and 15% in the total
authorized share capital of Rs. 1 Crore. Regional Rural Bank
were opened having no uniformity in pay structure of
officers and clerical staff. Their pay structures differed from
state to state. There was no permanent subordinate staff.
Members of class IV staff had been engaged as part time
sweeper-cum-messenger with wages @ Rs. 2/-, Rs. 3/- per
day.
After 1980, NABARD issued guidelines for having a
permanent messenger at Head Office and in branches
having over is 30 Lac of business. Demanding equal pay
for equal work, writ petition (civil) No.- 7149-50 of 1982 &
1984 were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The Hon'ble Apex Court directed to Union Govt. to
constitute a National Industrial Tribunal with a retired Chief
Justice of a High Court as its Presiding Officer who gave
award on 30.04.1990, known as National Industrial Tribunal
Award (NIT AWARD).
According to the all the officers and clerical employees
were brought on par with the pay scale of sponsor Banks
and daily rated, part-time-messenger were regularised as
full time regular messenger. Some paras of NIT AWARD
are relied upon for the sake of regularization. "In the case
of Jaipal Vs State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1505, the
Supreme Court held that "the doctrine of equal pay for
equal work has been implemented by this court in Ranbir
Singh Vs Union of India, Dhirendra Chomoli Vs State of
U.P. and Surendra Singh Vs Engineer-in-Chief CPWD. In
view of their authorities, it is too late in the day to disregard
the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of
an employee being temporary and the other being
permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee
performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the
same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
Para No.-4, 140 (page-337) of NIT Award.
Para No.-4. 141, 4.142. 4.143 (Page 338) of NIT Award.
Para Nos 4.405 (Page 446), 4.407 (page 447) & 4.410
(page 449) of NIT Award. Last para reads as under:—
"The management can not extract full time work and
even beyond the working hours from the so called
part time messengers by merely showing them in the
acquaintance rolls as part-time employees paid on
either daily wages; or some other basis or on some
proportionate basis. Their services shall be
regularized with effect from the date of their
continuous engagement. If deemed necessary it will
be opened to the Govt. or the RRBs as the case may
be, to sanction the required number of posts to
accommodate the writ petitioners and all those
belonging to their class."
Under the foregoing, the workman is entitled for
regularization of his services as a full time messenger/peon
under the subordinate cadre.
It has been stated that the management terminated the
service of the workman in violation of section-25F of the
I.D. Act and orally appointed another person Awadhesh
Prasad Singh who was regularised as a messenger/peon.
Photostat of attendence sheet right from December, 1983
to January, 1985 has been filed. Photostat Attendence sheet
of Messenger-cum-Sweeper Shatrughan Prasad Sah has
also been filed along with time to arrival and departure for
the period Mach 1985 to November, 1985 that has not been
controverted by the management....
3030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
15. After the order on fairness of domestic enquiry
Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
management and Shri Shatrughan Prasad Sah witness on
behalf of the workman. Witness examination on behalf of
the management M.W.-1 (Mithilesh Kumar), M.W.-2 (Indra
Narain Singh), M.W.-3 (Dilip Kumar Sinha), M.W.-4
(Raghunath Prasad Yadav), M.W.-5 (Dinesh Kumar), M.W.-6
(Awadhesh Kumar Singh). Witness examined on behalf of
the workman W.W.-1 Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah himself.
16. It is pertinent to note that evidence is to be
considered in the light of judgement passed on 27.04.2009
in L.P.A. No. 213 of 2009 in which it has been stated that
matter remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding the
main issue as to whether the workman had worked for more
than 240 days in the last preceding 12 months. There is no
dispute that last preceding 12 months period would have
to be counted backwards from 27.11.1985.
17. M.W.-1 (Mithilesh Kumar) in this respect has stated
that he was posted in Nandanpur Branch of Saran Kshetriya
Gramin Bank during the period March 1984 to June 1986
and workman was posted their. He has stated about the
report of equiry committee which was submitted and
workman left to attend the duty. Later on he arrived and
received payment through vouchers which has been
marked as Ext.-M/8. He further stated that he was daily
wages worker. He further stated that payment was being
made from Monday to Saturday. On cross-examination he
has stated that prior to joining of this witness which was
march 1984, workman worked in the branch and no
complaint was received against him. He further stated that
since 1981 to 27.11.1985 workman was in the bank. During
interval when the workman did not remained present then
some other did the work. From his evidence it appears that
workman was working since 1981 to 27.11.1985.
18. M.W.-2 (Indra Narain Singh) this witness was enquiry
officer in his he has stated that part time messenger used
to be appointed as per requirement. That was according to
circular marked as Ext.-M/10, 11 & 12.
19. M.W.-3 (Dilip Kumar Sinha) was also a member of
enquiry committee. He has not stated anything relevant to
be considered in the light of judgement of aforesaid L.P.A.
20. M.W.-4 (Reghunath Prasad Yadav) this witness is in
respect of the enquiry. Nothing is to be gather in the light
of decision of L.P.A.
21. M.W.-5 (Dinesh Kumar) he has stated nothing
relevant to be considered.
22. M.W.-6 (Awadhesh Kumar Singh) he has stated that
he was appointed as messenger. This witness was
appointed on 29.11.1985.
23. W.W.-1 (Shatrughan Prasad Sah) himself he has
stated that he was working in Saran Keshtriya Gramin Bank,
Nandanpur Branch since 16.12.1981. From the period
16.12.1981 to 22.06.1982 he was getting Rs. 60/- per month
as his pay. Thereafter from the period 23.06.1982 to
25.09.1982 he was getting remuneration @ Rs. 3/- per day.
Thereafter from the period 26.09.1982 to 01.01.1984 he was
getting Rs. 5/- per day. From 02.01.1984 to 27.11.1985 he
was getting Rs. 8.52/- per day. On 28.11.1985 he was
removed from the service. He learnt on 16.11.1985 that in
his place Awadhesh Kumar Singh may be appointed. He
has stated that on 27.11.1985 he was on duty on the bank.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was getting
Rs. 60/- per month from 16.11.1981 to 22.12.1982. Thereafter
he was getting remuneration it has not been challenged
that this witness was not working from the period 16.12.1981
to 27.11.1985.
24. Ext-M/3 is the circular/letter sent by under secretary
to the Govt. of India to the Chairman All Regional Rural
Banks on 28.05.1981 in which it has been stated that
Regional Rural Bank was advised that keeping in view the
local conditions, messengers may be appointed in the
Regional Rural Banks on purely part time and daily wages
basis. Ext.-M/8 in the voucher by which payment was made
to Shatrughan Prasad Sah on 22.02.1986. Ext.-M/10 is the
circular dt. 27.09.1980 that daily wage employees may be
exended all benefits such as provident fund etc for which
they are eligible under the law. It appears that attendence
sheet of messenger has been filed on behalf of the
Shatrughan Prasad Sah from the period December 1983 to
27.11.1985. It also appears that attendence of Shatrughan
Prasad Sah has been filed duly counter signed by the bank
officers. It appears that arrival time was 10.30 A.M. and
departure time was 5.30 P.M. It appears that days we are
counted in the presence of both the parties and it appears
that Shatrughan Prasad Sah worked since 28th November,
1984 for 03 days, in the month of December,1984 for
23 days, in January, 1985 for 26 days, in February, 1985 for
24 days, in March,1985 for 25 days, in April, 1985 for 26
days, in May, 1985 for 27 days. In June, 1985 for 25 days,
July, 1985 for 27 days, August, 1985 for 26 days, September,
1985 for 25 days, October, 1985 for 23 days, in November,
1985 for 23 days total 303 days. As such the workman had
worked for 303 days which is much more than 240 days in
last preceding 12 months. Last preceding 12 month period
has been counted backward from 27.11.1985.
25. The order sheet dt.10.12.2013 has being quoted as
follows:—
"Heard Mr. B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin
Bank Employees Association on behalf of the workman
and Mr. Om Prakash on behalf of the management (Bank)
and perused the record.
Mr. B. Prasad demonstrated Photo Stat of the attendence
sheet of the workman from the period November, 1984
to 27th November, 1985 with the counter signature of
the manager of the bank.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3031
Representative of Bank also perused the record and
calculated the working days of the workman during the
above mentioned period which comes to 303 days. But
the expressed his inavailibity to say anything further
more and asked for time for verification of the attendence
sheet from original by the next date.
The time is granted to the management as last
chance, because matter is very old. Record put up on
07.01.2014."
26. Workman always remained present in his duty accept
holidays and Sunday. No other argument has been
advanced and the argument of the workman had not been
controverted. In that view of the matter the action of the
management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Saran in
terminating the services of Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah,
Sweeper-cum-Messenger is not justified because immediate
after his removal Awadhesh Kumar Singh was appointed
by the messenger. This Awadhesh Kumar Singh is in service
of the management who has stated that he was appointed
as messenger in the said branch of Saran Kshetriya Gramin
Bank Saran because he learnt that post is vacant and he
applied for his appointment. In this view of the matter the
award is answered that termination of Shatrughan Prasad
Sah Sweeper-cum-messenger was not justified and he
worked for more than 240 days counted backward from
November-1984 to November, 27.11.1985 and Shatrughan
Prasad Sah is entitled to get all consequential benefits.
This is my award accordingly.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 11@1981 ¼,eñ ihñ lañ 24@1985½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award of the Indus. Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad, Ref. No. IT/ID/11/1981 (M.P.
No. 24 of 1985) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of SCCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 07/07/2015.
[No. L-22013/1/2015-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-I, AT HYDERABAD
Present: Sri P.V. Ramana Rayalu, B.Sc., L.L.M., M.B.A.,
District & Sessions Judge
(Chairman)
M.P. No. 24 of 1985
IN
I.D. No. 11 of 1981
Dated 11th day of June, 2015
BETWEEN
Akula Rajam
S/o Mallaiah
Ex-Coal Filler, KK-2 Incline
Mandamarri Division
Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
P.O. Kalyan Kani Post, Adilabad District
......Petitioner
AND
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Rep by its Addl Chief Mining Engineer,
Mandamarri Division
P.O. Kalyan Kani Post, Adilabad District
.....Respondent
This M P is coming up before me for final hearing on
09.06.2015 in the presence of Sri William Burra Advocate
for the petitioner, and Sri P A V V S Sharma Advocate for
the Respondent having stood over the same for
consideration, this Court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This petition was filed under Sec. 33 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 praying the Court to direct the
Respondent M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited to
re-instate the petitioner in service with full back wages and
all other attendant benefits etc.
2. The material averments of the petition are that the
petitioner was appointed on 07.10.1976 as Coal Filler in the
Respondent Company and certain charges were leveled
against the petitioner vide charge sheet dt: 07.07.1983
stating that he instigated the co-workers to go on illegal
strike. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on
10.07.1983 denying the charges. An enquiry was conducted
into charges and erroneously the enquiry officer found
charges against the petitioner proved and ultimately
petitioner was dismissed on 29.01.1984 from service. The
3032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute I D No. 11/1981 was pending in this
Tribunal regarding penal cut of wages of employees of
KK2-Incline by the Respondent. The petitioner was one of
the employees whose wages were sought to be cut by the
Respondent. The above dispute was pending on the date
of dismissal of the petitioner. The respondent has not, paid
wages under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
or obtained approval of the action sought. So the dismissal
is illegal for violation of mandatory provisions of Sec.
33 (2) (b). Hence the petition was filed.
3. The Respondent has resisted the petition and filed
the counter contending inter-alia that the charge sheet
dated: 05.07.1983 was served for misconduct under
Company's Standing Order Nos. 16 (1), (9) and (19) of
specific charges that he resorted to illegal strike and insisted
his co-workers to strike. A Domestic Enquiry was held in a
fair manner and the petitioner fully participated and he was
given full opportunity to defend himself and on
consideration of evidence on record including of the
petitioner, the enquiry Officer had given report holding the
petitioner was guilty of the charges. The petitioner was
rightly dismissed with effect from 29.01.1984. The President
Tandor Coal Mines Limited Union raised a dispute before
Assistant Labour Commissioner for the dismissal of the
petitioner and demanded for reinstatement and conciliation
Officer considered the case and held that dismissal of
workman was justified and the same was communicated in
letter dt: 15.12.1984. The Industrial Dispute covered by I D
11 of 1981 is in no way concerned with the present dispute
and the wages deducted from the workers were already
refunded in 1981 itself and there was no Industrial Dispute
at all. Hence Sec. 33 of I D Act does not attract. Hence
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Since it is a very long pending case it has some history
of proceeding. This Tribunal passed the award on 18.08.1986
in M P 24 of 1985 holding that complaint under Sec. 33 A is
valid and worker is entitled for re-instatement with full back
wages and other attendant benefits. The Respondent
preferred Writ Petition No 323 of 1987 questioning the said
award. Hon'ble High Court by the order dated: 08.04.1993
remanded the matter to this Tribunal for fresh disposal and
the petitioner herein should be continued in service till
disposal of the dispute by this Industrial Tribunal and he
shall not be removed from service. Hon'ble High Court in its
order mentioned that during the pendency of the Writ Petition
the petitioner herein was re-instated and 50% of the back
wages were deposited by the Management and they were
paid to workman. The Hon'ble High Court also further
observed that the question relating applicability of
Sec. 33-A was not pressed.
5. This Court disposed of M P 24 of 1985 again on
08.11.1993 holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and
proper and closed the matter on consideration of the material
i.e., the evidence of RW 1 enquiry Officer and Exs. R1 to R10.
Aggrieved by the same a Writ petition No. 1492 of 1994 was
filed by the petitioner herein questioning the correctness of
the same. Hon'be High Court by the Order dt: 07.07.2003
allowed the petition setting aside the order dt: 08.11.1993 and
M P 24/1985 was allowed. Against such order of the Hon'ble
High Court, Management preferred Writ Appeal
No 1560 of 2003. Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal by the
order dt: 28.11.2011 allowed the Writ Appeal and M P is restored
to file of this Tribunal, to conduct enquiry into the charge
made against the workman by its duly providing opportunity
to both sides to lead evidence and on that basis to conclude
the exercise. So the matter has again came back to this Tribunal.
The petitioner has not adduced any evidence.
6. Before disposal of the M P 24 of 1985 the Management
examined R W 1 J Shyam Babu the Enquiry Officer and marked
Exs.-R 1 to R 10. After remand of the case by the Hon'ble
High Court by the order in Writ Appeal, Respondent examined
one witness and got marked two documents. This evidence
shall be read as RW2, though it was mentioned on record as
RW 1 again. Similarly 2 documents were got marked as
Ex R 1 and R2, which shall be read as Ex R11 and Ex R12
because earlier already 10 documents were marked.
7. During the course of arguments it was submitted by
the Respondent's Counsel that the petitioner was retired
from service on 01.06.2015 on superannuation and enjoyed
all benefits of reinstatement and the matter is left only with
respect of 50% of back wages unpaid and the Hon'ble
Tribunal may decide about the finding of the enquiry and
pass necessary orders with respect to the remaining balance
of back wages.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is entitled for back wages and his
termination is illegal and not justified and the Respondent
has failed to justify the dismissal of the petitioner.
9. Now the point for consideration is.
"Whether the dismissal order is justified if not what is
appropriate order that has to be passed".
10. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner mentioned
much in his written arguments about the applicability of
Sec. 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and violation
of principles of natural justice while conducting enquiry
and the application of Sec. 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act
and relied on the following judgments:
1.
Management of English Electric Co. of India And
V. Manohara Rao & Others reported in 2001 1 LLJ
Page 185, on the proposition that Section 33 and
33A will be attracted during the Pendency of any
proceedings in respect of Industrial Dispute.
2.
Union of India and Others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
reported in 1991 1 LLJ Page 29, on the factum that
non-supply of enquiry report would amounts to
violation of rules of natural justice.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3033
3.
Ramulu G Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gadwal
reported in 1999 3 LLJ (Supl.) Page 1036, on the
same point.
4.
General Manager (Projects) 21, Incline Singareni
Collieries Co. Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunals,
Hyderabad reported in 2001 3 LLJ (Suppl.) page 197,
regarding the application of Sec. 33-A of I D Act.
11. It is to be noted that with regard to application of
Sec. 33-A and violation of principles of natural justice were
already decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the 2 Writ
petitions, so they need not be gone into again.
12. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the
Respondent relied on the following judgments:
1. Union of India and Others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
1991 on Supreme Court Cases page 588, on the point that
Article 311 and first proviso is prospective application only.
2. Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs.
Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in 2008 (10) skilled page
101, this is also regarding principles of natural justice to be
followed during the Domestic enquiry.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that non
furnishing of enquiry report ipso facto would not result in
proceedings being declared null and void and order of
punishment non-est and non affective. It is for the
delinquent employee to plead and prove the same that non
supply of such report caused prejudice and resulted in
mis-carriage of justice.
14. Now, I would like to consider whether the
Respondent is able to justify the dismissal of the petitioner.
15. RWI Enquiry Officer stated the he was apppointed
as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the
petitioner. Ex.-R1 is charge sheet which was acknowledged
by the petitioner under Ex.-R2 and submitted explaination
in Ex.-R3 and Notices were sent to the petitioner from time
to time under Ex.-R4 to Ex.-R8 and the workman has attended
the enquiry which was conducted for more than 5 days
and Ex.-9 is the Enquiry proceedings and he read over the
contents of the charge and explained to the workman and
explained him in telugu. He further stated, full and fair
opportunity was given to the petitioner and Management
witnesses were cross examined by petitioner and petitioner
also examined two witnesses on his behalf and he submitted
his enquiry report under Ex.-R10. RW2 (RW1 after remand)
in his chief examination affidavit mentioned about the facts
and question about the non-applicability of Sec. 33 and
Sec. 33-A. He is not the person having perssonel
acquaintance with the enquiry conducted by RW1. This
witness was examined by the Respondent because the
enquiry officer J.Shyam Babu was no more by the time of
remand of the metter to this Tribunal for 2nd time.
16. The petitioner has not examined himself or examined
any other witnesses before this Tribunal. The main charge
is concerned that on 03.06.1983 the petitioner was met with
mine accident on duty and he was got treated and admitted
in area Hospital at Bellampally twice and also treated at
K K Dispensary and the petitioner was complaining pain in
his foot and on examination it was revealed that he did not
have any bone injury but he continued his treatment in the
local dispensary up to 01.07.1983 and lastly on 02.07.1983
he was referred to specialist at Area Hospital Bellampally
and Medical Board examined and declared him fit to resume
duty. On 04.07.1983 at the beginning of 2nd shift and again
on 1st shift of 07.07.1983 he came to mine and incited and
instigated other coal fillers of the shift to go on illegal and
lightening strike on the pretext that he was not able to work
under ground and that surface job had to be given to him.
17. The Enquiry Report Ex.-R10 Reveals that MW 1 to 6
were examined and the delinquent and other two witnesses
were examined for petitioner and on consideration of the
said material he found that the petitioner was referred twice
to Area Hospital at Bellampally and declared fit to resume
duty and he was normal, but he requested for light job on
the plea that he was not in a position to do underground
job and accordingly Shri S V Krishna Rao came to the
Office on 04.07.1983 and agreed to give light job for ten
days and there was no point for the petitioner to refuse to
work and he insisted coal fillers to go on illegal strike by
seeking their help to pursue his case. The witnesses of the
petitioner in cross examination stated that the petitioner
sought for help to demand and the they demanded
management to provide light surface job to the petitioner
and went on strike. The petitioner should have tried for
redressal of his grievance through legitimate procedures
like grievance procedure and conciliation etc. but he did
not try in that regard and on contrary instigated coal fillers
to go on illegal strike. So, he held the petitioner was guilty
of misconduct and the charge was proved.
Ex R9 is enquiry proceedings with statements of the
witnesses including the petitioner and his witnesses.
18. It is to be noted that on 03.06.1983 the petitioner met
with an accident on duty and he was referred to hospitals
and on 02.07.1983 lastly he was referred to Specialist area
hospital at Bellampally for examination and advise. Medical
board declared him fit to resume duty. On 04.07.1983 he
wanted light duty on surface and expressed his in ability
and failed to work in mine and he sought the help of his
colleagues to insist the Manager to give surface work.
According to under Manager KK-2 incline Management
witness Additional CME agreed to give 10 days surface
job but the petitioner did not head and coal fillers went
away on strike and there was loss of production of work
Rs. 62,800/- and 118 workmen locked out and similarly on
07.07.1983 again it was happened.
19. It is to be noted that the Respondent has to manage
huge number of workmen and redress their grievances then
and there, if possible, to see that the work was conducted
3034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in a smooth way without any hindrance. Admittedly, the
petitioner met with an accident and sustained injury. There
is no bony injury. It cannot be said that the petitioner was
not having any pain in his foot. The Doctor may have
given fitness certificate on examining the foot of the
petitioner physiologically. It is the person who knows about
the pain that suffers. The Management must be a hit tactful
by providing for some more days to the petitioner the
surface work. Seeking the help of the co-workers to support
his request to place before the Management, is not illegal.
In fact he did it like that. The Management could have
solved the problem then and there. It appears in the course
of discussion, both were adamant and the situation become
worse. Both parties should be blamed for the situation but
not the petitioner alone. The Manager or officer concerned
is aware of the consequences. Had he acted tactfully by
giving some light work to the petitioner on surface for few
days or few days more what he asked the situation would
be different. If, the workers were only adamant, then it can
be said that the petitioner was guilty of insisting other
workers to go on strike. The management has to solve the
problems then and there which was not done in this case
properly. So the petitioner alone cannot be blamed, for
that. In such case dismissal of the petitioner cannot be
said to be justified.
20. The Respondent has not followed the prescribed
procedure under Sec. 33(2) and so dismissal order become
in valid. On any of the two grounds, the dismissal order is
not sustainable.
21. Since during the pendency of the proceedings,
basing on the orders of the Tribunal the petitioner was re-
instated and continued his services and retired peacefully
on 01.06.2015 and he was also paid 50% of the back wages
i.e. for the period between the date of dismissal and the
date of reinstatement, it is proper to order payment of
balance of 50% of the wages also to the petitioner by the
Respondent. I answer the point accordingly, holding that
the dismissal order is not justified.
In the result, the award is passed allowing the petition,
setting aside the dismissal order and the Respondent is
directed to pay balance 50% of the unpaid back wages to
the petitioner.
P. V. RAMANA RAYALU, District & Session Judge
(Chairman)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined for petitioner
Witness examined for
Respondent
NIL
RW1: J. Shyam Babu
RW2: Edara James
(After Remand)
Documents marked for petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for Respondent
Ex R1
Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner
dt.: 07.07.1983
Ex R2
Acknowledgement to Ex.R1
Ex R3
Explanation submitted by the workman
Ex R4 to R8
Enquiry Notices sent to the petitioner-
workman
Ex R9
Enquiry proceedings
Ex R10
Enquiry Report
Ex R11
Procedings of the re-instatement
(after Remand) order Dt.: 27.11.1986
Ex R12
Certified copy of order Dt. 08.11.1993 in MP
No. 24 of 1985
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u,ylhfy
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; pSUubZ+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2014½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@29@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2014) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. NLC Limited, Corporate Office,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/29/2014-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3035
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 6th May, 2015
Present:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 47/2014
(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 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and
Two Others and their workman)
BETWEEN
1. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/1st Petitioner
NLC Contract & Indcoserve
Union
Workers Progressive Union
MU Su Mani Arangam,
Block-17 Neyveli-607801
2. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/2nd Petitioner
NLC Anna Indcoserve &
Union
Contract Thozhilalar
Sangam (ATP) 2nd Street
Therruvellore, Vadakkuvellore
Post Neyveli-607802
3. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/3rd Petitioner
NLC Anna Contract Worker's
Union
Union No. 8, Main Road
Neyveli-607802
4. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/4th Petitioner
NLC General Contract
Union
Workers Staff Union (CITU),
CITU Office, Near Central
Bus Stand Block-24,
Neyveli-607801
5. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/5th Petitioner
NLC Pattali Oppandha
Union
Thozhilalar Sangam (PTS)
D-10, K.N. Subburaman Road,
Block-19 Neyveli-607803
6. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/6th Petitioner
Neyveli National Contract
Union
& Indcoserve Workers Union
(INTUC) D-39, Anna Road,
Block-25 Neyveli-607803
7. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/7th Petitioner
NLC Thozhilalar Ottrumai
Union
Maiyam (AITUC) 36, Haja
Lane, Gangaikondan
Neyveli-607802
8. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/8th Petitioner
NLC Indcoserve Thozhilalar
Union
Uzhiyar Sangam (ITUS),
No. 48/117A,
Akilandagangapuram
Ammeri (Post)
Neyveli-607802
9. The General Secretary
: 1st Party/9th Petitioner
NLC Oruginaintha Oppandha Union
Thozhilalar Sangam (LLFC)
D-14, Alwaye Road,
Block-27 Neyveli-607803
AND
1. The Chairman &
: 2nd Party/Ist
Managing Director
Respondent
Neyveli Lignite
Corporation Ltd.
Corporate Office
Neyveli-607801
2. The General Secretary
: 2nd Party/2nd
NLC Builder's Association
Respondent
of India No. 104, MRK Salai,
Indira Nagar Neyveli-607801
3. The General Secretary
: 2nd Party/3rd
NLC Contractor's
Respondent
Association No. 46,
PTR Mananan Nagar
Gandhi Gram Post
Neyveli-607801
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/1st, 2nd, :
M/s Ajoy Khose,
4th 5th 7th & 8th
Advocates
Petitioner Unions
For the 1st Party/3rd,
:
Set Ex-parte
6th & 9th
Petitioner Unions
For the 2nd Party/1st
:
M/s N.A.K. Sarma,
Respondent
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/2nd
:
Set Ex-parte
Respondent
For the 2nd Party/3rd
:
Set Ex-parte
Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-22012/29/2014-IR (CM-
II) dated 03.06.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
3036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the demand of the unions for maximum bonus
of 20% and ex-gratia from the management of M/s NLC
Ltd., Neyveli is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workmen are entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 47/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and have filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3. Though the petitioners have entered appearance and
some of them have filed Claim Statement also, none of
them have shown any interest in following up with the
matter. So far they have not produced any documents to
support the case. In spite of repeated postings the
petitioners were not ready to proceed with the enquiry
also. So it is to be assumed that they are not interested in
pursuing the matter. In the absence of any material in
support of the case of the petitioners, the finding in the
reference can be against them only.
Accordingly the reference is answered against the
petitioners. An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Unions
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st Management
:
None
For the 2nd Party/2nd Management
:
None
For the 2nd Party/3rd Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14dh èkjk 17½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds
izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@336@1999&vkbZ-vkj-¼lh ,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2000) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
07/07/20015.
[No. L-22012/336/1999-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/68/2000
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Premlal,
Village Kachana,
PO Saddu,
Distt. Raipur (MP)
...Workman
Versus
District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Kutchery Chowk,
Raipur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of May, 2015
1. As per letter dated 29-2/7-3/2000 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
336/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether S/Shri Premlal, Itwari Yadav, Krishna Jhanghel,
Dulay Ram, Papu Banjaray, Keshav Patel, Surech
Jhanghei and Lachi Ram Sinha are workmen under
Section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If so,
whether their termination from the services w.e.f. 1992
and not providing alternative employment is justified?
If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1
to 3/4. Cases of 1st party workman is they were working as
casual labours at Khapa depot of F.C.I. During the year
1987 to 1990 and thereafter from 1990 to 1922, they were
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3037
working under mate system, direct payment system. They
were working with devotion. Their services were terminated
without notice. They were not absorbed in other depots of
FCI. Assurance was given to them. Ist Party workman had
objected to absorption of some of the employees after
closing of Khapa Depot. IInd Party was annoyed by their
protest. Ist party workman sought redressal of their
grievances through Union. As per letter dated 20-4-97,
meeting was held in the matter as IInd party refused to
absorb workman, new depot was constructed at Ajuni near
Dhamtari. 35 employees were deployed at new depot.
Despite of assurance given to the workmen, they were not
absorbed in the new depot. Letters of Union were not
replied.
3. It is contention of workman that they were
continuously working from 1987 to 1992 to Khapa Depot.
Their services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G,
H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for their
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party had filed application for better particulars
requesting workman to furnishing their name, father's name,
husband's name, name of the contractor under whom they
were working, appointment letters, name of the mate and
period of working, particulars regarding payment directly
made to them.
5. It is seen that application was opposed by Union.
Thereafter case was fixed for evidence. Workman failed to
adduce evidence. After hearing argument, case was fixed
for award.
6. It was noticed that proper stages were not followed in
the matter. Case was not fixed for filing Written Statement.
Therefore the case was fixed for filing Written Statement.
7. IInd party filed Written Statement on 20.6.2014
opposing claim of the workman. It is submitted that FCI is
formed under FCI Act 1964. It deals with imports,
procurement, storage and distribution of the food grains
throughout the country. The work of handling transport at
various depots was assigned to the contractors. The Khapa
depot was closed in 1989. The contentions of workman
that they were continuously working from 1987 to 1992 is
false. IInd party has further contented that as per
notification dated 1-11-90, under Section 10 of CL(R&A)
Act, prohibited employment of contract labour in 16 depots
of MP. As per notification dated 12-4-91, direct payment
system was introduced. FCI depot at Khapa was not
covered by Notification dated 1.11.90. The contract system
in Khapa depot was not abolished. Mate system was still
operating in said depot till 31.12.93. As per circular dated
5.12.94, workers engaged by mate in other food storage
depots were upgraded from mate system to direct payment
system. It is reiterated that the workmen were not working
in Khapa depot after its closure in 1989. Any contractors
were not engaged after closure of depot. The claim of
workman is false. On such ground, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether S/Shri Premlal, Itwari
Yadav, Krishna Jhanghel, Dulay
Not proved.
Ram, Papu Banjaray, Keshav Patel,
Suresh Jhanghei and Lachi Ram
Sinha are workmen under section 2(s)
of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
(ii) Whether termination of
Termination of
services of above workers
services is not
.
w.e.f 1992 is proper?
proved.
(iii) If not what relief the
Workmen are not
workman is entitled to?"
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
9. Though dispute is raised by 1st party workmen,
statement of claim is filed on their behalf but workmen
failed to participate in reference. Evidence of workman was
closed on 29.2.2012. Management's Witness Shri Vikrant
Vishwakarma filed affidavit supporting contentions of IInd
party in Written Statement. Management's witness is not
cross-examined. His evidence remained unchallenged.
Management's witness Vikrant in his affidavit of evidence
has stated that Khapa Depot was closed in 1989. Thereafter
any labours or contractor were not doing any work in said
depot. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness has
also narrated about mate system in FCI. Workmen were not
working at Khapa depot during the year 1989 to 1992. Their
claim is false. The evidence of manageament's witness
remained unchallenged. I find no reason to discard his
evidence. Claim of workman is not supported by any
evidence. The evidence of management's witness is
corroborated by documents M-1 to M-3. For the reason
disucssed above, workman failed to establish that they are
covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act. They have also failed
to substantiate their claim, that they were entitled for
absorption in any other depot or their termination is in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 as not proved, Point No. 2-
termination not proved.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Ist party workmen failed to participate is reference
proceeding therefore it could not be decided
whether they are covered under Section 2(s) of ID
Act, termination of their services by IInd party is
not established.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
3038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1425-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,,lvkbZ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 145@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@44@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/01) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Archaeological Survey of India, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07.07.2015.
[No. L-42012/44/2001-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM L ABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No.CGIT/LC/R/145/01
Shri Narendra Singh,
S/o/ Shri Kehar Singh,
C/o Marhoom Haji Roostam Khan
H.No. 288, Near School,
Station Nehru Nagar,
Lalitpur
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. Superintendent,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Archaeological Museum, Singhpur Palace
P.O. Chanderi,
Guna
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of May 2015
1. As per letter dated 3-9-01 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/44/2001-
IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of
Archaeological Survey of India, Chanderi in terminating
the services of Shri Narendra Singh S/o Shri Kehar Singh
w.e.f. December 1995 is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
initially appointed as watchman in IInd party on 1-1-1987.
He was continuously discharging his duty till August, 98.
His services were orally terminated. It is further submitted
that on 5-9-94, workman was appointed on daily wages as
watchman. He was continued till 31-12-95. During the period
5-9-94 to 31-12-95, he was paid under voucher from
1-1-1995, his name was entered is muster roll. In January
1995, workman requested for regularizing his services on
vacant post of watchman, interview was held on 20-2-95.
Ist party workman along with 4 other daily wage employees
were interviewed. On recommendation of selection
committee, workman and 3 other daily wage employees
were appointed as casual labour as per order dated
21-2-95. It is alleged that IInd party adopted unfair labour
practice Sept. 94 to Dec-95 by assigning work of artificial
breaks of 1-2 days. Though he was continuously working
from September, 94 to December, 95, IInd party paid wages
only for 299 days. His services were abruptly terminated
from 31-12-95 without any notice. Workman was not paid
retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice. That
he completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12
months of his termination. That his services are terminated
in violation of section 25-F of ID Act.
3. Ist party further submits that provisions of Section
25-G of ID Act are violated, Principles of last come first go
was not followed. One Vishram Singh was engaged on
daily wages in 1995 after engagement of workman was
permitted to continue in services even after 31-12-95. IInd
party also violated Section 25 H of ID Act. After termination
of workman, IInd party appointed Shri Pappulal, Rajesh
Mohite, Vijay Singh and Prakash on daily wages from
24-2-2000, 1-3-00 and 9-3-00. Workman was not re-employed.
IInd party violaged Rule 77 of Industrial Rule 1957 by not
preparing list of all workmen of the category of workman
and displaying on notice board 7 days prior to his
retrenchment. By amendment, workman has pleaded that
after termination of his service in December, 1998, he has
no source of income. He was borrowing money from friends
and relatives. He was not gainfully employed. On such
contentions, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement on 17-8-02 opposing
claim of workman. IInd party contends that during 1987-88,
Archaeological Museum was directly under control of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3039
Dy. Supdt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India
at Red fort, Delhi. Muster roll and other records pertaining
to Chennai region were maintained in said office. Dy. Suptd.
ASI, Delhi is not made as party in the reference, Northern
Region, Museum Branch is now defunct. Workman raised
dispute after 14 years. The workman had approached CAT
filing Original Application No. 321/96 contending that he
worked in ASI, Sighpur Chanderi for few months. Workman
had not given date of his engagement how long he was
working with the management. IInd party further submits
that workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wage
basis. The certificate issued by management produced
before CAT states that the workman was engaged on daily
wages. It is denied that workman had worked as museum
Attendant or as watchman. In petition before CAT, reply
was filed by Mr. S.A. Siddqui alleging that workman had
stolen official record. Zerox copy of stolen documents
annexed. That workman had criminal tendency. Workman
himself left job without information of his superiors.
5. IInd party further submits that workman was initially
engaged as casual labour from 1-9-94 to 24-9-94 for 88 days.
Again he was engaged in December, 1994 to December,
1995 as unskilled labour. Workman continuously worked
for 90 days. Workman was working as casual labour and
not as watchman. Workman not produced relevant
documents working as watchman. Workman had worked
in muster roll and paid accordingly as per record.It is denied
that workman was interviewed by management for post of
watchman against vacant post. Workman was interviewed
for job of unskilled casual labour. He was subseuently
engaged as casual labour on daily wages. Workman himself
left job without notice. There was no question of
regularization of his services. Workman doesnot fulfill
conditions as per ID Act. IInd party is not covered as an
Industry. In case CGIT/B/18/97, Vijayapati Samkhya and in
case of Shri Bhagirath Sharma, it was held that IInd party is
not an Industry. On such ground, IInd party submits that
claim of workman is not legal.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of Archaeological
Survey of India, Chanderi in
In Negative
terminating the services of Shri
Narendra Singh S/o Shri Kehar
Singh w.e.f. December, 1995 is
legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
7. Ist party workan is challenging termination of his
service. For violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. In support
of his claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence.
Workman has stated that he was appointed as watchman
in January, 1987. Alongwith him one Sonu Khan, Prem were
appointed as Attendant. They are regularised. Sonu Khan
is still working at Chanderi, From 5-9-94, he was engaged
on daily wages as watchman in 1995, his services were
orally terminated without any notice, retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. His signature was
obtained on muster roll. In January, 1995, he requested for
regularization on post of watchman. He was called for
interview on 20-2-95. He and 3 other labours were
interviewed. They were given appointment as casual labour.
He was not issued notice of termination, retrenchment
compensation was not paid. From evidence of workman,
documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are admitted in evidence. In
his cross-examination, workman says in 1994, he was
appointed as watchman. He denies that he was engaged as
casual labour. He denies that during Sept. to November. 94,
he worked only for 58 days. The document Exhibit W-1
shows workman was engaged on daily wages during the
year 1987-88, Exhibit W-2 is interview call calling workman
for interview on 20-2-95. Exhibit W-3 is appointment letter
given to workman and 3 others subject to certain
conditions. Exhibit W-4 is workman was engaged as casual
labor in 1995. Exhibit W-5 is Identity Card issued to
workman.
8. IInd party did not adduce any evidence. Evidence of
IInd party is closed on 3-2-2015 as such the contentions of
IInd party are not supported by any evidence. Counsel for
IInd party was absent and no arguments are advanced.
Considering the evidence of workman supported by the
documents, it is clear that termination of services of
workman without notice, without paying retrenchment
compensation is illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
9. Point No.2- The workman was engaged as casual
labour on daily wages. The workman was working with
IInd party from 1987 to 1995 for about 7 years. Considering
nature of employment as casual labour, reinstatement with
back wages would not be justified.
10. Learned counsel for workman relief on ratio held in
Case of Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Oberoi Flight services
reported in 2010(1) SCC 142. Their Lordship held that
compensation allowed to workman Rs. 60,000/- was not
justified, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2 Lakhs.
In above cited case, workman was working as labour on
Oberoi Flight Service. Workman in present case cannot be
compared with workman in above cited case. Considering
the length of service, in my considered view, compensation
Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate. Accordingly I record
my finding in Point No.2.
3040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Archaeological
Survey of India, Chanderi in terminating the
services of Shri Narendra Singh S/o shri Kehar
Singh w.e.f. December 1995 is not proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One
Lakh to the workman within 30 days from the date
of publication of award.
In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per
annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 155@02½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@129@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 155/02) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/129/2002-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/155/02
Shri Teej Ram S/o Shri Shiv Sahai,
Village Chanadongi,
Post Parasi,
Thana Marvahi,
Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
...Workman
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Ram Nagar Sub Area,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of May, 2015
1. As per letter dated 12.12.2002 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
129/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference related
to:
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, South
Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Ram Nagar Area in
terminating the services of Shri Teej Ram S/o Shri Shiv
Sahai w.e.f. 25.10.99 is legal and justified? if not, to what
relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of workman is that from 02.02.1977, he
was working as loader in South Jhimar Colliery, Distt.
Shahdol, Chargesheet was issued to him for unauthorized
absence. He was honestly working. He submitted
application about his illness. He belongs to SC community.
When he had approached IInd party with reply to
chargesheet, he was told that the officer was not present.
Without recording statement of any witness, order of
dismissal was issued on 25.10.99. Appeal filed by him was
dismissed on 30.01.2002. The Medical Certificate about his
illness produced were not considered. That workman was
resident of Chanadogri Marwai, he was attending duty
from 50 Kms distance. Quarter was not provided to him
because of illness, he could not attend the duty. Without
considering his submissions and length of 20 years service,
punishment of dismissal was imposed. Ist party submits
that the order of dismissal is illegal. He prays for
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/12.
IInd party submits that service condition of employees in
Coal Industry are governed by settlement called NCWA.
IInd party provides medical facility to its employees and
their family members. In case of serious illness, the
employees are also provided the treatment in specialized
hospitals. As per provisions of standing orders, application
for leave, extension of leave on medical ground needs to
be supported by Medical Officer, registered Medical
Practitioner. Workman was habitual absentee. He was
remaining unauthrisely absent. Workman was issued
warning, chargesheets. It is submitted that chargesheet
No. 525 was issued to workman on 27.09.94. Workman had
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3041
submitted apology in reply to chargesheet. He was allowed
on duty on 31.8.94. Warning letter was issued to workman
on 24.11.94. Again chargesheet for unauthorised absence
was issued on 20.04.95. The reply submitted by workman
was found unsatisfactory. Shri A.K. Dwivedi was appointed
as Enquiry Officer. Workman was allowed to resume duty
from 30.05.95 for absence of workman from 20.05.95 to
04.07.95. Chargesheet was issued on 07.07.95. In reply to
chargesheet, workman admitted charges and apologized
for his absence. He was allowed to resume duty on 04.09.95.
Chargesheet were also issued on 19.04.96. Enquiry Officer
Shri S.N. Mittal was appointed as reply of workman was
not found satisfactory. The details of working days of
workman are shown 76 days in 1997, 130 days in 1998,
40 days till July, 1998. It is reiterated that as reply to
chargesheet was not found satisfactory, Shri A.K. Dwivedi
was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri R.R. Tiwari as
Management's Representative. Workman admitted charges
before Enquiry Officer even after explaining consequences
of admission of charges. Enquiry Officer submitted his
report holding workman guilty of the charges. The
Disciplinary Authority agreed with findings of Enquiry
Officer. Competent Authority considering workman
remained absent on several occasions, warnings were
issued to him. DE was conducted. The appeal preferred by
workman was rejected. IInd party further submits enquiry
conducted against workman is found illegal. Management
be permitted to prove misconduct in Court. While imposing
punishment against workman, his past record was
considered. IInd party referred to ratio held in various
cases. All the material allegations of workman are denied. It
is denied that workman had submitted medical reports.
Workman made allegation against Enquiry Officer finding
that report of enqury was against him. It is denied that
workman was residing at 50 Kms. distance. Workman never
applied for residential quarter. Workman was staying at his
own house. He never submitted application for allotment
of quarters. On such ground, IInd party submits claim of
workman is not justified.
4. As per order dated 20.11.2012, my predecessor found
enquiry conducted against workman as legal.
5. Considering findings on preliminary issue and
pleadings on record, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:—
(i)
Whether the charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence is Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
Reasons
6. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal
as per order dated 20.11.2012. The question remains whether
charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence
in Enquiry Proceedings, whether punishment of dismissal
imposed against workman is proper and legal. For deciding
Ist point, the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be
considered. The record of enquiry is produced. Exhibit
M-1 is chargesheet issued to workman for habitual late
attendance and habitual absence without leave or without
sufficient cause. The period of absence is shown from
02.05.94 to 22.09.94. In reply Exhibit M-2, Ist party workman
contented that he could not attend duties as he was
attending his work from 50 Kms. distance. He could not
submit application. The chargesheet Exhibit M-5 relating
to the period of unauthorized absence 09.02.95 to 19.04.95.
As per Exhibit M-6, it is contented that he submitted
application for leave. He is not literate person. He could
not submit the report about his illness. In Exhibit M-10,
workman submitted that he was ill, he was receiving
treatment. The intimation was sent by RPAD along with
MedicalCertificate. In Enquiry Proceedings, Exhibit M-12,
when charges were explained to workman, he admitted
charges against him, workman assured not to repeat such
incidents. W.r.t. chargesheet Exhibit M-13, period of
unauthorized absence 22.02.96 to 17.04.96. In reply Exhibit
M-14 submitted by workman, it is contented that he was
absent because of illness. He was receiving treatment in
hospital. In Exhibit M-17, workman assured not to repeat
such incident. In Enquiry Proceedings Exhibit M-20,
workman admitted charges against him. In view of charges
are admitted, the charges of unauthorized absence against
workman are proved. He was repeatedly assuring not to
repeat such acts in future. Workman admitted charges, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. Point No. 2—as per finding on Point No. 1, charges of
unauthorized absence are proved, question remains
whether the punishment of dismissal is proper and legal.
As per pleading of workman, he was continuously working
with IInd party from 02.02.77. Workman was issued
warnings for unauthorised absence in past. Workman did
not produce Medical certificate of his illness before Enquiry
Officer. Workman appears illiterate, he has put his thumb
marks in enquiry Proceedings and other documents
submitted before Enquiry Officer Page 4/16, 4/17. IInd party
did not dispute that workman was initially appointed in
February 1977. the chargesheets were issued to workman
for unauthorised absence since the year 1994. It appears
that workman had completed more than 17 years service.
Workman is dismissed for unauthorized absence. Workman
in his affidavit of evidence on other issues submits that he
punishment imposed against him is not proportionate to
3042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the charges. In his cross-examination, workman says that
he had submitted medical certificates in Enquiry
Proceedings. Intermittently he was attending duties. In the
past 3 years, he was remaining absent. Chargesheet was
issued to him by IInd party. He claims ignorance whether
the employees used to be referred to specialized hospital.
He received documents about his treatment. He claims
ignorance whether entries were taken in the Medical Card.
Considering the length of service and period of
unauthorized absence in chargesheet Exhibit M-13, 22.02.96
to 17.04.96, the punishment of dismissal appears harsh.
Length of service of workman was not considered while
imposing the punishment. Therefore the punishment of
dismissal deserves to be modified to the punishment of
compulsory retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Sub Area Manager, South Eastern
Coal Fields Limited,Ram Nagar Area in terminating
the services of Shri Teej Ram S/o Shri Shiv Sahai
w.e.f. 25.10.99 is not proper.
(2) Punishment of dismissal of workman is modified to
compulsory retirement allowing retiral benefit as
per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 62@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@282@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award Ref. 62/05 of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 07.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/282/2004-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/62/05
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
The Joint General Secretary,
Rshtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (INTUC),
B-24, Civil Lines,
PO Kotma Colliery,
Distt. Annuppur (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Jamuna and Kotma Area,
SECL, PO Jamuna,
Distt. Annuppur,
Annuppur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of April, 2015
1. As per letter dated 11.07.05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L/22012/
282/2004-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Jamuna and Kotma Area of SECL in dismissing Shri
Jagangir Khan S/o Shri Taj Mohammad, Sr. Store Keeper
from company's services vide order dated 24/25-01-1997
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through the General Secretary, Rshtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Congress at page 5/1 to 5/5. Case of workman is that he
was employed as wardboy at Kotma Colliery Regional
Hospital of SECL in the year 1974. While he was working in
said hospital, he was promoted to the post of Store Keeper
in 1978. Again in 1988 he was promoted as Sr. Store Keeper
and posted at Regional Stores of Jamuna and Kotma area
of SECL. In July 94, he sustained attach of depression
(Schizophreria). On 5-7-95, he requested medical advance
of Rs. 5000/- through his family members. As he was
suffering from depression (Schizophreria) ailment, he was
not in a condition to join duty. Workman was granted EL
for the period 22-8-94 to 7-9-94. The person suffering from
Schizophreria and illness characterized by delusion and
popularly termed as split personality disorder. Such patient
remains as normal 99%, it affects in between. Workman
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3043
was suffering from chronic Schizophreia i.e. mental illness.
He was continuously receiving treatment form different
Doctors for ailing mental condition. Workman was not aware
of his own personality and status or he was employed
somewhere.
3. Ist party workman submits that he was receiving
treatment in various hospital from 3-9-94 to 6-8-00. As per
letter dated 16-8-00, he requested General Manager to allow
him to join duty. He was allowed to join duty. Again he
requested General Manager to allow him to join duty as per
letter dated 22-9-00. He was informed that he was dismissed
from service from 25-1-97. He could not be permitted to join
duty. Workman submits that he had not received any
chargesheet, he was terminated without enquiry knowing
that workman was sufferig from illness, he was not given
opportunity of hearing before his dismissal from 22-1-97.
Workman also submits that under Section 47 of disability
Act, the person acquires disability from service cannot be
removed from service. It is reiterated that his service are
terminated without notice, without enquiry. His termination
is illegal. On such ground. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/8 opposing claim of the workman. It is submitted that the
reference is highly belated. Workman was dismissed from
22-1-97. That dispute is raised in the year 2005. Such
reference is not tenable. The service conditions of
employees working in coal industry are covered by Bipartite
Settlements known as NCWA. The employees and their
family members are provided facilities such as free fuel,
free accommodation, free water supply, free medical aids
etc. the Central Govt. Hospitals are also at functioning
shahdol. Serious cases are referred to the specialized
hospitals in Metropolitan cities. If employee fells ill, he has
to report to medical authority of the company who issue
sick certificate then sick leave is granted. Workman has
not received treatment in colliery hospital. On his request
for medical advance of Rs. 5000/- as per letter dated
29-7-95, workman was informed that he was unauthorisely
absent without intimation and his advance cannot be
granted. Workman has to apply for Medical Advance as
per Medical Attendance rules. On 27-4-95, workman was
served with chargesheet for unautorised absence. Shri
S.N.P. Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer, G.C.Naidu
was management representative. Despite of various notices
issued on available addresses, workman failed to appear in
Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry was proceeded ex parte.
Enquiry Officer submitted has finding. Charges against
workman are proved. On proved misconduct of
unauthorized absence, workman was dismissed from
service after issuing showcause notice. IInd party submits
that order of dismissal is proper and legal. Workman is not
entitled to any relief.
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/6
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is
contented further that generally patients are not referred
to specialized hospitals. Due to mental disturbance,
workman was not aware of his own personality and status
as he was suffering from Schizophreria. He was not capable
for applying his mind. All adverse contentions of
management are denied.
6. As per order dated 6.5.2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found illegal. Management was
permitted to prove misconduct in Court.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the point which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the misconduct of
In Affirmative
unauthorized absence
alleged against workman
are proved?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is excessive?
(iii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
8. As per order dated 6-5-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found illegal. Management was allowed
to prove misconduct in Court. Management filed affidavit
of witness Priyabrata Mohanty. He has narrated in his
affidavit workman was granted EL for 22-8-94 to 7-9-94. He
was to report on duty from 8-9-94. Workman was
unauthorisely absented from his duty. He failed to report
for duty. The letter dated 13-6-95 was issued to him advising
to report for duty within 3 days. On 5-7-95, management
had issued letter for medical advance of Rs. 5000/- for his
treatment. He was informed about his unauthorized absence
from 8-9-94. he was absent without intimation. He failed to
submit application. His further affidavit is devoted on the
point of issues conducting enquiry, workman failed to
participate in the enquiry. In his cross-examination
management's witness says in 1994, he joined management
as Welfare Officer at SECL, Korba. He was working from
1994 to 2001 at Korba. He joined J&K Area in 2009. He
personally did not deal with any matter relating to the
workman. He had seen record of workman relating to his
absence. The medical certificate dated 13.4.96 was not seen
by him. He had not seen medical certificate dated
20-11-2000. The evidence of management's witness about
unauthorized absence of workman since 8-9-94 is not
challenged in his cross-examination.
9. Management's witness Shri G.N. Naidu in his affidavit
of evidence has narrated that workman remained absent
from 8-9-94 as per Attendance Register. Workman was
marked sick from 9-8-94 till December 1994. Workman was
3044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
paid sick wage for 25 days. Enquiry was conducted and
report was submitted by Enquiry Officer. As enquiry
conducted against workman is found illegal, the evidence
on the point needs no detailed discussion. From evidence
of MW-2, documents Exhibit M-13 to 15 are admitted in
evidence. Managemnt's witness admitted Exhibit W-1. In
his cross-examination, MW-2 he did not give any reply to
the question when sick leave is granted. He admits that he
had granted EL for the period 22.8.94 to 7.9.94. He had also
granted sick leave for 8.9.94 to 19.12.94. The witness
explained that when employee is absent without permission,
he is called unauthorized absent. In his further cross,
MW-2 says that he was not knowing that workman was
suffering from illness. The absence of workman from duty
is not challenged in cross-examinatin of both the witnesses.
10. Turning to the documentary evidence, Exhibit M-1
was issued to the workman about his absence, M-2 finds
reference that if workman was suffering from illness, he
was advised to appear before Medical Suptd. Kotma for
his check up and further treatment. Exhibit M-3 to M-23
relates to the Enquiry Proceedings. As enquiry conducted
against workman is found illegal, it is not necessary to
examine those documents in detail. In Exhibit W-1, wife of
workman had requested advance of Rs. 5000 narrating that
her husband was suffering mental sickness from long time,
the advance was required. Document Exhibit M-13
produced by management is zerox copy of Attendance
Register is not legible. From evidence of management's
witness No.1, 2, absence of workman without intimation is
established. The evidence on the point is not shattered,
charge of unauthorized absence of workman is proved. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
11. Point No. 2— In view of my finding in Point No.1,
charge of unauthorized absence against workman is proved,
question arises whether the punishment of dismissal is
imposed against workman is proper and legal.
12. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri S. Pandey
submitted detailed notes of arguments relying bunch of
citations.
In case of Kunal Singh versus Union of India and
another reported in 2003(4) SCC 524. Their Lordship dealing
with Provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 held the prohibition in Section 47 against
dispensing with the services of an employee acquiring a
disability during his service is mandatory. The employee
of an establishment which was not exempted from Section
47 acquiring disability during service and getting
incapacitated. Such an employee is held covered by
Section 47(i)(v). the verbatim of Section 47 is reproduced
in para-4 of the judgment. Para-47. No establishment shall
dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires
a disability during his service. Provided that, if an employee
after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post, he
was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the
same pay scale and service benefits.
In case of Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahaidyala and other reported in 2013(10)SCC
324. Their Lordship dealing with the consequential relief in
the matter of wrongful illegal termination of service held
where employer wants to deny back wages or contest the
employees entitlement to get consequential benefits,
employer has to plead and prove that employee was
gainfully employed during the intervening period.
In case of Jagdish Prasad versus State of Rajasthan and
others reported in 2009(LAB). I.C.2977, his Lordship of
Rajasthan High Court held in exparte disciplinary
proceedings order of removal passed was not sustainable
being violative of Article 14 & 16 and principles of natural
justice.
The ratio held in above case cannot be applied at this
stage as enquiry against workman is already found illegal.
13. The service excerpts of workman are produced at
Exhibit M-15, 16. The date of birth of workman is shown
4.8.54. Workman has attained age of superannuation
therefore there is no question of his reinstatement.
14. Considering Exhibit W-1, it is clear that workman
was mentally sick and request for advance by his wife was
not accepted. Management had advised workman for
medical examination. The person suffering from mental
illness could not be expected to behave normally as the
medical illness affects his intellectual capacity. Workman
could not get himself medically examined even for purpose
of Medical Advance shows his incapacity. While imposing
punishment of dismissal, any of those facts were not
considered. The Disciplinary Authority even did not
consider length of service of workman from 1974. Therefore
the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is
disproportionate and excessive. When workman had
rendered service of about 20 years prior to his absence
from duty, why he was not allowed benefit of retirement is
not explained from pleading and evidence of IInd party
management. Considering those circumstances in my
considered view, punishment of dismissal from service
deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement allowing
retiral benefits to workman. Accordingly I record my finding
in Point No.2.
15. In the reuslt, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the Chief General Manager, Jamuna
& Kotma Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Jagangir
Khan S/o Shri Taj Mohammad, Sr. Store Keeper
from company's services vide order dated 24/
25.1.1997 is not proper and legal.
(2) Punishment of dismissal of workman is modified to
compulsory retirement allowing retiral benefit as
per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3045
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1428-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u,ylhfy ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@54@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2014) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of M/s NLC Ltd., and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 07/07.2015.
[No. L-22012/54/2014-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 25th June, 2015
Present
:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 69/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),
between the Management of M/s. EDAC Ltd. and their
workman)
Between
Sri A. Pari
: 1st Party/Petitioner
and
1. The Chief Manager/HOHR
: 2nd Party/1st
M/s. NLC Ltd.
Respondent
Thermal Power Station-II
Expansion
Neyveli-607802
2. M/s. EDAC Engineering Ltd.
: 2nd Party/2nd
No. 88, Mount Road
Respondent
Guindy, Chennai-600032
3. M/s. BHEL-Principal Contractor : 2nd Party/3rd
Project Office, C/o M/s. NLC Ltd. Respondent
TPS-II Expansion
Neyveli-607802
Appearance:
For the the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s. C.D. Sugumar,
T. Ramkumar,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party 1st Respondent
: M/s. NAK Sarma,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
: M/s. K.
Sathayakumar,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
: M/s. S.
Ramasubramaniam
& Associates,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-22012/54/2014-IR
(CM. II) dated 14.08.2014 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in the order is:
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri A. Pari seeking
employment from the management of M/s. EDAC Limited
with effect from 06.09.2011 i.e. from the date he was
given "Fit for Duty" by Medical Authority is justified?
if so, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has
numbered it as ID 69/2014 and issued notice to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel
and have filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was working with the Second
Respondent, a Sub-Contractor of the Third Respondent
under the Principal Employer, the First Respondent. He
was drawing salary of Rs. 11,000/- from Second Respondent
M/s EDAC Engineering Ltd. On 17.06.2011, while the
petitioner was working as Fitter he met with an accident
and suffered injuries which damaged his middle finger and
a portion of his index finger. He was given medical treatment
at the hospital of the First Respondent as well as in the
Government Hospital. After recovery the petitioner reported
for duty to the Second Respondent alongwith a fitness
certificate. However, the Second Respondent refused to
provide employment to the petitioner. Denial of employment
by the Second Respondent is arbitrary. The petitioner raised
dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Puducherry. Before the Labour Commissioner the Second
3046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Respondent has taken the stand that the petitioner was
engaged by one M/s Tech Force Erectors, a Sub-Contractor.
The petitioner was in fact employed by the second
Respondent only and not by Tech Force Erectors. The
denial of employment to the petitioner amounts to
constructive termination of service from 06.09.2011 on which
date the petitioner was given fitness certificate to resume
work. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages,
continuity of service and attendant benefits.
4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The dispute raised by the petitioner against the First
Respondent is frivolous and based on misconception. The
First Respondent has been unnecessarily arrayed as a party
to the dispute. The petitioner has not claimed any relief
against the First Respondent. The dispute is directed
against the Second Respondent alone. The dispute against
the First Respondent is to be dismissed in-limini as not
maintainable. No employer employee relationship existed
at any time between the petitioner and the First Respondent.
The petitioner himself has admitted in his Claim statement
that he was the employee of the Second Respondent. The
First Respondent has awarded the work of main plant (BTG)-
A-01 Package of Manufacture, Supply, Erection and
Commissioning of 2x250MW Thremal Power Stateion-II
Expansion to the Third Respondent with a provision to
engage Sub-Contractors. Accordingly, the Third
Repondent has engaged the Second Respondent as a Sub-
Contractor. The Second Respondent had employed the
petitioner as a contract worker. The First Respondent is in
no way connected with the employment of the petitioner
by the Second Respondent. The dispute raised by the
petitioner against the First Respondent is to be dismissed
as without merits.
5. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The Second Respondent is a multinational construction
company and is engaged in the business of construction
and has earned high reputation worldwide. The Second
Respondent has been awarded work at Neyveli by the Third
Respondent for construction and erection of 2x250 MW
Thermal Station-II Expansion project at Neyveli. To carry
out the work the Second Respondent had issued work to
Sub-Contractors for supply of manpower with requisite
skills and qualifications. The manpower engaged by the
Sub-Contractors is directly under the Sub-Contractor and
not under the Second Respondent. The Second
Respondent has issued work order to M/s Tech Force
Engineers. The petitioner was not an employee of the
Second Respondent. He was directly employed by Tech
Force Engineers as a Fitter on 26.11.2010 on daily wage
basis @ Rs. 198.36 per day and the work of the petitioner
was supervised and monitored by Tech Force and payment
was also made by them. The petitioner met with an accident
on 17.06.2011 and was immediately given First Aid and the
report of accident was submitted to the Third Respondent.
The responsibility for the treatment of the petitioner was
taken by M/s Tech Force Engineers. The petitioner's
attendance and wage registers was maintained by Tech
Force Engineers. The petitioner did not approach the real
employer Tech Force Engineers after he obtained Fitness
Certificate. The Second Respondent has nothing to do
with the employment or non-employment of the petitioner
except that it was monitoring payment of compensation to
the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief
from the Second Respondent.
6. The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner has not sought any relief from the Third
Respondent since he is well aware that there is no employer-
employee relationship between him and the Third
Respondent. The Third Respondent is not a necessary
party to the dispute. The dispute is actually between the
Second Respondent and the petitioner. The Third
Respondent is a Government of India Undertaking engaged
in the business of erection, commissioning and servicing
of power plants in the Southern part of the country. The
First Respondent had awarded work contract of
manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of 2x250
MW Thermal Station at Neyveli Lignite Corporation to the
Third Respondent. The Third Respondent was authorized
to engage Sub-Contractors to accomplish the task as
envisaged in the agreement with the First Respondent.
Pursuant to this the Third Respondent entered into a
contract with the Second Respondent for carrying out part
of the work. The Second Respondent is an independent
employer who has engaged contract labour and obtained
labour license. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief
against the Third Respondent.
7. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of
WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext. W1 to Ext.
W9 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M9.
8. The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the demand of the petitioner seeking
employment from the Second Respondent is
justified?
(ii) What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The points
9. The petitioner has claimed that he was working as
Fitter on a project of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the First
Respondent, as employed by the Second Respondent. The
First Respondent, the principal employer is said to have
given contract for expansion of its Thermal Power Station
to the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent in its turn
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3047
had engaged the Second Respondent as Sub-Contractor
to carry out part of the work. According to the petitioner
he was engaged by the Second Respondent as Fitter and
accordingly he was working with the Second Respondent.
He met with an accident during the course of his
employment on 17.06.2011 and had undergone treatment.
He obtained Fitness Certificate on 06.09.2011 and he
approached the Second Respondent to resume work.
According to the petitioner the Second Respondent
refused to provide work to him. This according to him
amounts to constructive termination from service. It is
accordingly he has raised the dispute claiming
employment.
10. In the prayer portion of the Claim Statement the
petitioner has not stated against with Respondent he is
claiming relief. He has merely used the general term
"Respondent" and has stated that the Respondent
Management is to reinstate him in service with full back
wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
However, ongoing through the Claim Statement itself it
could be seen that the claim of the petitioner could be
against the Second Respondent only. There is no case for
him that he was employed either by the First Respondent
or by the Third Respondent. So the relief claimed is to be
taken as one against the Second Respondent only, even as
per the Claim Statement. In the Proof Affidavit filed by him
the petitioner has made it further clear that he was employed
by the Second Respondent only and he is entitled to
reinstatement by the Second Respondent. During his cross-
examination he has again stated that he is claiming relief
only against the Second Respondent as he was employed
by the Second Respondent the petitioner seems to have
made the First and Third Respondent parties to the dispute
only because they were the principal employer and the
Contractor respectively, as formal parties. As contended
by these Respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief against them for the very fact that there is no claim as
such and also because there was never any employer-
employee relationship between them and the petitioner.
11. The dispute is mainly between the petitioner and the
Second Respondent. The contention raised by the Second
Respondent is that the petitioner was not directly employed
by it but by another establishment by name M/s Tech Force
Engineers which was the Sub-Contractor engaged by it for
supply of manpower. This case is disputed by the petitioner.
His specific case is that he was directly employed by the
Second Respondent only.
12. The Legal Advisor of the Second Respondent has
given evidence as MW1 on behalf of the Second
Respondent. The contention that the petitioner was
employed by M/s Tech Force Engineers is repeated by this
withness. However, no acceptable material was available
to show that petitioner was the employee of another
establishment by name M/s Tech Force Engineers and not
by the Second Respondent itself. Ext. M7 (series)-
Attendance Register is said to be maintained by Tech Force.
These documents are not proved through the competent
person. MW1 is not competent to prove them, he being
only an employee of the Second Respondent. So, on the
basis of these Attendance Registers it cannot be found
that the petitioner was not employed by the Second
Respondent.
13. There is sufficient documentary evidence to show
that the petitioner was the direct employee of the Second
Respondent. Ext. W1 is the copy of the Entry pass issued
to the petitioner. This shows the Second Respondent as
the Company who has engaged the petitioner. In Ext. W3-
Fitness Certificate, the petitioner is show as the employee
of the Second Respondent. Of course, this was issue by
the Medical practitioner, most probably on the information
given by the petitioner. However, this was issued at a time
when there was no dispute regarding the status of the
petitioner as a workman. The most important document
which shows that the petitioner was employed by the
Second Respondent is Ext. W 4, the order passed by the
Workman Compensation Authority directing the Second
Respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner. In this
the Authority has found that the Second Respondent was
the employer of the petitioner and has directed it to pay
compensation. Ext. M4 is the letter by the Chief Manager
of the Second Respondent issuing Demand Draft of Rs.
2,98,557/- to the petitioner towards compensation as
directed by the Workman's Compensation Authority. It is
clear from this that the Second Respondent has not
challenged the order of the authority but has paid the
amount ordered as compensation. Thus it could be seen
that the Second Respondent has accepted the finding of
the authority under the Workman's Compensation Act that
it is the employer of the petitioner. The oral evidence of the
petitioner along with the documentary evidence is sufficient
enough to show that the petitioner was employed by the
Second Respondent.
14. It is clear from the evidence of the petitioner that he
has approached the Second Respondent for employment
after he obtained Ext. W3-the Fitness Certificate from the
concerned Medical Practitioner. In spite of this he was not
allowed to resume his work by the Second Respondent. As
stated by the petitioner this is to be treated as constructive
termination from service w.e.f. 06.09.2011, the date on which
Fitness Certificate was issued. The petitioner is entitled to
be reinstated in service with the Respondent with
continuity of service and other benefits. Back wages due
to him is restricted to 50%.
15. On the bases of the above finding an award is passed
as follows:
3048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Second Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service within a month of publication of the
award. The petitioner will be entitled to 50% back wages
from 06.09.2011 to the date of publication of the award. He
is also entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. If
back wages is not paid within a month of the award it will
carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the award.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW 1, Sri A. Pari
For the 2nd Party/Management: MW 1, Sri V. Balaji Pathak
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W1
31-12-2009
Entry pass of the petitioner
Ex. W2
23.06.2011
Discharge summary given to the
petitioner
Ex. W3
06.09.2011
Fitness certificate given to the
petitioner
Ex. W4
09.02.2012
Order passed by the WC authority
Ex. W5
Nil
Communication of the petitioner to
Asstt. Commissioner of labour
Ex. W6
07.04.2014
Communication of the second
respondent to the Asstt.
Commissioner
Ex.W7
Nil
Communication of the third
respondent to the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
Ex. W8
02.06.2014
Failure Report given by the Asstt.
Commissioner of Labour
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. M1
24.03.2011
Work order issued to M/s Tech
Force Engineers by EDAC
Engineering alongwith amendment
1&2
Ex. M2
15.09.2011
Letter issued by EDAC Engineering
regarding concluding of manpower
Supply
Ex. M3
—
Accident report submitted before
the NLC and BHEL by EDAC
duty Acknowledged
Ex. M4 —
DCL Award and receipt for the
deposit of compensation duly
Acknowledged
Ex. M5
17.06.2011
On duty certificate issued by Tech
Force Engineers and Wage
Certificate
Ex. M6
—
Gate Pass issued by Tech Force for
temporary entry
Ex. M7
—
Attendance Register maintained by
Tech Force for the month of March,
April, May and June 2011
Ex.M8
01.06.2007
Copy of the letter of intent between
BHEL and M/s EDAC previously
known as Spic Jet Engineering
Construction Ltd.
Ex. M9 27.05.2013
Copy of the license granted to M/s
EDAC
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1429-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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; u- 1] èuckn ds iapkV okn la[;k 2@2015 ¼lanHkZ la[;k
138@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 2/2015 (Arising
out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal -
cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexue,
in the Industrial dispute between the management of FCI
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR (C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1) DHANBAD,
In The Matter of a Complaint U/S 33(a) of I.D. Act,
1947
Complaint No. 2/2015
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Order No. 22012/170/96-IR(C-II)
Hans Raj Singh AG II (Depot)
Food corporation of India,
FSD Katihar
...Complaintant
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3049
Vs
The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India
Arunachal Building,
Exhibition Road, Patna-1
...Opp. Party
Present :
SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For Complainant
: Sri Vijayendra
Kumar, Zonal
President FCIESU
For Opp. Party (Dist. Office, Patna) : Sri Anshu Sharma,
AGM (P) (R.O)
State : Bihar
Industry : Food
Dated: 12/6/2015
AWARD
2. This application filed by the applicant U/s 33 of the
I.D. Act, as the management changed the service conditons
of the workman while reference No. 138/97 is pending
concerning the present workman & others.
3. The workman submitted that on the basis of
departmental enquiry the management has stopped two
increments of the workman with cumulative effect.
4. While deciding matter after hearing the parties, also
perused the enquiry report. The case is some excess
payment made to the third party due to oversight and when
the same was came to the knowledge of the delinquent he
deposited the amount with 12.5% interest thereon much
prior to issuance of change sheet. The said fact has been
considered by the enquiry officer who gave the concluding
part of the report as below:—
"It is proved during the course of enquiry that all but
Rs. 4000/- of the excess payment has been deposited
with/recovered by FCI along with interest. The CO has
also expressed his willingness to deposit the excess
payment of Rs. 4000/- admitting his mistake. As mistake
can be done by any one while performing duties under
pressure and as it appears that there was no personal
financial gain to the CO, the CO can't be held guilty for
any malafied intention."
5. This being the observation of the EO, the same should
be carefully read by authority and to pass orders. But from
the orders it appears as if the authority has made of his
mind to punish the delinquent and the enquiry was an eye
wash.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case
I hold that the Higher authority like management is more
hot than the low grade staff. The higher grade management
should know the rule of science, that higher is cooler.
therefore it is ordered that, the order of stopping two
increments of the workman is wholly illegal. Hence the
workman be given said increments usually.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1430-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ 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;kky; u- 1] èuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 1@2014 ,oa 7@2014
¼lanHkZ la[;k 138@97+½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 1/2014 &
7/2014 (Arising out of Ref. 138/97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.-
Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in
the Annexue, in the Industrial dispute between the
management of FCI and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 07/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR(C-I1)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD
In the matter of a Complaint u/s 33(a) of I.D. Act, 1947
Complaint No. 1 of 2014
Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97
Ministry's order No. 22012/170/96 IR(C-II)
Rabindra Nath Pathak,
Ex-AG II (D),
S/O Late Jagnanath Pathak,
Vill-Chhutki Saranpur,
PO-Buxar Dist. Buxar.
...Complaint
Vs
Executive Director (East Zone),
Food Corporation of India, 10-A,
Middleton Row, Kolkata-71
...Opp. Party.
3050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Complainant No. 7 of 2014
Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97
Ministry's order No. 22012/170/96 IR(C-II)
Chandeshwar Raj, AG II(D),
S/o Late Bindeshwar Rai,
Vill-Basana Raja Ram,
PO-Dhebwan, Distt.
Gopalganj
...Complainant
Vs.
Executive Director (East Zone),
Food Corporation of India, 10-A,
Middleton Row, Kolkata
...Opp. Party
Present :
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
For complainant
:
Sri Vijayendra Kumar,
Authorised representative
For Opp. Party
:
Sri Anshu Sharma, Asstt.
G.M. (P) RO, FCI Patna
Industry: Food
Dated: 9/6/2015
AWARD
(1) Both the complainants are filed under section 33 of
the ID Act, 1947 for violation of section 33 of the ID
Act, 1947 by Shri Vijayendra Kumar under the
authority of the complainants on their behalf.
(2) Both the complaint cases are similar in nature and
are arising out of reference case No. 138 of 1997
hence both the cases are heard jointly and common
award is passed as hereunder.
(3) The complainants of both the cases were dismissed
from their service w.e.f. 17.09.2013 and 14.06.2012
along with forfeiture of gratuity and post-retirement
benefits.
(4) The case of the workmen is that a dispute reference
No. 138 of 1997 is pending before this Tribunal
regarding all the workmen of Bihar region and the
complainant are also concerned workmen of the
said dispute but during the pendency of said
dispute the management on flimsy allegation
dismissed them without proper enquiry and in gross
violation of Sec. 33 of the ID Act 1947 without taking
approval nor paid one month salary to them which
was mandatory on the part of the management.
(5) On the other hand the case of the management is
that the present workmen were not the workmen
concerned of that dispute as such management has
liberty to initiate disciplinary action against the
workmen for lapses and can take any action as per
their law. It is further submitted by the management
that they have taken action as per provision of FCI
Staff Regulation as such taking permission or
obtaining approval under sec. 33 of the ID Act was
not necessary for them and they will not examine
any witness to justify their action in this tribunal.
(6) The workmen representative submitted that
admittedly a dispute relating to payment of overtime
allowances of the employees of Bihar is pending
before this Tribunal bearing reference No. 138/97
and the complainant are concerned workmen to that
dispute as such it was mandatory on the part of the
opposite party to pay one month salary and also to
obtain approval of the Tribunal for the action taken
but admittedly management has not given one
month salary to the complainant at the time of
dismissal and also not obtained any approval from
this Tribunal as required under sec. 33(2) (b) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. But the management representaive
submitted that for the serious lapses management
has to take stringent action. That is true but as per
Sec. 33(2) the a management ought to have obtained
approval from Tribunal to justify their action and
must pay one month salary at the time of dismissal.
(7) Asking for approval from the Tribunal relating to
action of the management would not be little the
dignity of the management. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has very clearly observed that while a dispute
whatever sort is pending before the Tribunal
approval must be obtained from the Tribunal to
justify their action and a decision to that effect is
reported in AIR 2002 SC page-647.
(8) Considering the facts and circumstances of both
the cases I hold that the action of the management
in dismissing the complainants is legal and not
justified, hence the workmen be treated in
continuous service from the date of their dismissal
along with all benefits by the opposite party.
Accordingly the complaint is allowed and action of
the management is held illegal.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1431-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV okn la- 8@2014 ¼lanHkZ la- 138@97½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3051
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Complaint No.
8/2014 (Arising out of Ref.138/97) of the Cent.Govt.
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of FCI and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 07/07/2015.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR (C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In The Matter of a Complaint U/S 33(a) of ID Act, 1947
Complaiant No. 8 of 2014
Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97
Ministry's Order No. 22012/170/96 IR(C-II)
Ajay Kumar Singh, AG I (D),
S/o Late Baidya Nath Singh,
Vill & P.O. Rajopatti,
Near Telephone Exchange,
Dumra Road, Distt. Sitamarhi
...Complainant
Vs
General Manager (Region),
FCI, Regional Office,
Arunachal Building
Exhibition Road, Patna-1
...Opp. Party
Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For complainant
:
Shri Vijayendra Kumar,
Authorised representive
For Opp. Party
:
Shri Anshu Sharma, Asstt.
Genl. Manager, Personnal,
RO, FCI Patna
Industry: Food
Dated: 12.6.2015
AWARD
(1) The complaint is filed under Sec. 33 (1) of the ID
Act 1947 for violation of Sec. 33(1) of the ID Act
against an order of penalty dated 3.1.2014 of
reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative
effect by OP during the pendency of reference No
138/97.
(2) The case of the workman is that a punishment of
reduction of pay of two stages with cumulative
effect was passed by OP on flimsy allegation and
also without proper inquiry and without taking any
prior permission from this Tribunal as required
under Sec. 33(1) of the ID Act.
(3) On the other hand the case of the management is
that the present workman is not concerned with
the dispute and as such the management has liberty
to initiate disciplinary action against the workman
for lapses and can take any action as per their rules.
It is said that they have taken action as per staff
regulation as such they will not examine any witness
to justify their action.
(4) The workman representative submitted that dispute
relating payment of OTA of the employees is
pending before this Tribunal bearing reference 138/
97 and reduction of pay has direct relation to the
payment of OTA to the workers, therefore, the
complainant is connected and concerned with the
pending dispute and it was mandatory on the part
of the management to take prior permission of this
Tribunal as required under Sec. 33(1) of the ID Act
before issuing any order of penalty but the OP has
failed to take permission as required under Sec.
33(1) as such the order of penalty dated 31.01.2014
is illegal and unjustified. But the management
representative submitted that for serious lapses
management has to take stringent action. That is
true but as per under Sec. 33 (1) the management
ought to have obtained prior permission from the
Tribunal to justify their action but admittedly it is
not done.
(5) Asking for approval or permission from the Tribunal
relating to action of the management would not be
little the dignity of the management. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has very clearly observed that while a
dispute whatever or is pending before the Tribunal
approval/permission must be obtained from the
Tribunal to justify their action and decision to that
effect is reported in AIR 2002 SC page 647.
(6) Considering the fact and circumstance of the case
I hold that the action of the management in
awarding punishment of reduction of pay of two
stages with cumulative effect is illegal and not
justified, hence the workmen is entitled for
restoration of his pay. Accordingly the complaint
is allowed and action of the management is held
illegal.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
3052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1432-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 138@97½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.138/97 of
the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 07/07/2015.
[No. - L-22012/170/1996-I R(C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.1), DHANBAD
In the Matter of a Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2a) of
I.D. Act, 147
Ref No. 138 of 1997
Employers in relation to the management of Food
Corporation of India, Patna
AND
Their workmen
Present:- SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri Anshu Sharma, AGM
For the workman
: Sri V. Kumar, Rep.
State: Bihar
Industry: Food
Dated: 24/3/2015
AWARD
By order No. L.-22012/170/1996-IR (C-II) dated
27.06.1997/15.7.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, 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, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna
in stopping payment of OTA of double rate of the
workmen of Bihar region w.e.f. 27.6.85 without giving
notice to the Union under section 9A of the I.D. Act is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workman
entitled and from which date?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
31.07.1997. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 01.08.1997. And the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 06.03.2000. Thereafter rejoinder
and document filed by the parties. One witness examined
by the management but three witnesses adduce by the
workmen.
3. Document of Management marked as M-1 to M-4
workman's document marked as Ext. W-1 to W-4.
4. The short point involved in the case is whether the
management of FCI, Patna is justified in stopping OTA at
double rate to the workman of Bihar region w.e.f. 27.6.85
without giving notice U/S 9 A of I.D. Act.
5. Parties filed written statement, counter and documents,
examined witnesses. It is submitted by the workman that
stopping OTA at double rate is a conditions of service of
workman and prior to stopping, the authority should give
notice U/S 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act.
6. The management submitted that, the governor passed
orders to stop the same, for which series of litigations are
going in various Tribunals. Even the Governor passed
orders to stop payment OTA at double rate, it is obligatory
on the part of the management to give notice U/s 9A of the
I.D. Act. Not giving notice U/s 9A of I.D. Act is a statutory
violation and it is very well known to the management.
7. The management by violating the statutory mandate,
running litigation on several Courts right from Tribunal to
High Court and Apex Court.
8. It is not that the F.C.I. management does not known
law. Their callous attitude, adamant approach put more
loss to the management, than any gain.
9. The Tribunal has concerned for piling of cases in
many Tribunals. Moreover stopping OTA at double rate is
a condition of service which has been observed by High
Court of Bombay & others.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
I hold that the action of the management of FCI, Patna in
stopping payment of OTA of double rate to the workmen
of Bihar region w.e.f. 27.6.85 without giving notice to the
Union under section 9A of the I.D. Act is not legal and
proper.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3053
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1433-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k @Je U;k;ky;
vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@62@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eksñ tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref.21/2002) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery, M/s. ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/62/2000-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present :
SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 21 of 2002
Parties :
The management of Kalipahari (R) Coliery
of M/s ECL
Vs
Sri Ramprakash Harijan
Representatives:
For the management
: Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman) : None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 18.06.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.L-22012/
62/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 26.07.2002 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kalipahari
(R) Colliery, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing
Sh. Ramprakash Harijan, Underground Loader w.e.f.
10.07.1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he
is entitled to?"
Having received the Order No.L-22012/62/2000-IR(CM-
II) dated 26.07.2002 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 21 of 2002
was registered on 13.08.2002 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate for the
management is present. Neither the workman nor his
representative from the union is present.
On perusal of case record I find that workman last
appeared before the tribunal on 13.09.2006 through his
advocate Mr. N. Ganguly and after that the workman neither
appearing nor taking any step. Registered notice was issued
on 05.01.2012/17.01.2012 and two date was granted after
that. Then again on 09.05.2012 notice was issued and three
dates were granted. Last notice was issued on 10.09.2014
i.e. about five months ago but none on behalf of the
management turned up. Management has also not filed his
written statement till date. It appears to me that the union
has lost his interest to proceed with the case further. I also
think it proper not to pass an order for ex-parte hearing as
the union is not taking any step. Under the circumstances
I find it just and proper to close the case. As such the case
is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' may be
passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful,
The referrence is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1434-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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;y; vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼44@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@62@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2002) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
3054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Hospital Kalla M/s. ECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
07.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/62/2002-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : SRI PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA,
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 44 of 2002
Parties :
The management of Central Hospital, Kalla of
M/s ECL
Vs.
Sri Shankar Das
Representatives:
For the Management
: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Adv. ECL
For the union (Workman) : Sri Sayantan Mukherjee
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 19.06.2015
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
62/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 03.10.2002 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Colliery Mazdoor Union
from the management of ECL, Central Hospital, Kalla for
grant of additional increment to Sh. Shankar Das, Hindi
Typist for acquiring graduation certificate w.e.f.
01.01.1989 instead of 02.01.2001 is just, fair and legal? If
so, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/62/2002-IR(CM-
II) dated 03.10.2002 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 44 of 2002
was registered on 28.10.2002 and accordingly an order to
that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of
witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the
said order notices by the registered post were sent to the
parties concerned.
Case called out. Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate for
the management and Shri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned
Advocate for the workman are present.
Shri Mukherjee submits that the case may be closed
and a 'No Dispute Award' may be passed as the workman is
now not interested to proceed with the case further. He has
also put remarks on the order sheet to that effect. Since the
workman is now not interested to proceed with the case,
the case is closed and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award'
may be passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute
existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful.
The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PARMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1435-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k @Je
U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@332@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
eks- tkfgn 'kjhQ] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2015
S.O. 1435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2000) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Asansol as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Chora Colliery, M/s. ECL, and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 07.07.2015.
[No. L-22012/332/1999-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Parmod Kumar Mishra,
Presiding Officer
Reference No. 33 of 2000
PARTIES : The management of Chora Colliery, ECL
V/s
Sri Sidhinath Mukherjee
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management:
Shri P. K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate, ECL
For the union (Workman): Shri Rakesh Kumar, President,
KMC
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 22.06.2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3055
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section 1 and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/
332/1999-IR(CM-II) dated 23.02.2002/07.03.2000 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chora
Colliery M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing
Sh. Sidhinath Mukherjee, workman from service is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
Having received the Order No. L-22012/332/1999-IR(CM-
II) dated 23.02.2000/07.03.2000 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case
No. 33 of 2000 was registered on 18.04.2000. Accordingly
an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them
to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent
to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the
Tribunal, through their representative and filed their
separate sets of written statement in support of their
respective claims.
The workman in his written statement has stated that
Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was a permanent workman of
Chora OCP under Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited.
Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was ill and he was treated at S.D.
Hospital, Asansol. He was suffering from Pulmonary T.B.
with effect from 31.01.1996. After his recovery from illness
he reported for his duty on 17.05.1997. But instead of
allowing him to join duty, he was dismissed from service
on 30.08.1997. The enquiry was held ex-parte. The workman
was not given opportunity to prove his innocence and
thus, there was violation of natural justice. The punishment
of dismissal is very harsh and it is disproportionate for his
absence for only 28 days. Management in so many cases
of unauthorized absence for more than a year has allowed
to resume duty. Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was un-lawfully
dismissed from duty. The workman has prayed that he
should be re-instated in his duty with all consequential
benefits.
On the other hand, the management has stated in his
written statement that Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee has been
dismissed from service for his unauthorized absence. He
was issued a Charge Sheet bearing Reference No. CH.OCP/
Agent/WO/96/35 dated 24.02.1996/27.02.1996 for his
offence of misconduct. The concerned workman was
dismissed from service on 30.08.1997 and the dispute was
raised after one year. It was not a fact that the workman
was not given opportunity to defend himself rather he
denied the co-operation of the Management. The Home
Address of the workman is near Dubrajpur in the District
of Birbhum and Suri Sadar Hospital is very near from his
home but the concerned workman got a medical certificate
from Asansol S.D. Hospital which is about 100 K.Ms away
from the residence of the workman.
On the way from Dubrajpur to Asansol there are many
company's Hospitals but the concerned workman did not
avail the same. The concerned workman has absented
himself unauthorizedly and therefore after enquiry he was
dismissed from service which is lawful and justified. The
workman is not entitled for any consequential benefits.
The Union filed photo copies of workman's Identity
Card, Charge Sheet, Letter of Dismissal from service, Receipt
of Acknowledgement of the Application, copy of
Memorandum, Letter of Director (Personnel) ECL, copy of
Appointment Letter, copy of Voter I.D., copy of the
Certificate of the Treatment issued by the S.D. Hospital,
Asansol, copy of the Rejoinder submitted by the Union to
Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj. The
workman has also filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He
has been cross-examined by the Management.
Management has not filed any documentary of oral
evidence.
I have heard the argument of Shri Rakesh Kumar,
Learned union representative and also of Shri P. K. Goswami,
Learned Advocate on behalf to the management.
Shri Rakesh Kumar argued that the workman was absent
only for 28 days in compelling situation as he was suffering
from T.B. He was under treatment. Therefore, he could not
come to his duty place and when he reported for duty to the
competent authority, instead of allowing him to join duty,
the management held an ex-parte enquiry and passed
Dismissal Order which is very harsh and disproportionate to
the fault if any. Besides, he argued that the workman was not
given any opportunity to defend the allegations brought
against him by the management. As per the Memorandum of
Settlement if any workman has absented for nine months he
would be permitted to join duty and no disciplinary action is
required to be taken against the workman.
On the other hand, Shri P. K. Goswami, Advocate for the
management argued that the concerned workman had
procured a medical certificate as got himself treated at S. D.
Hospital at Anansol when there are many Company's
Hospitals are situated nearby. The workman had
deliberately avoided the same to justify his unauthorized
absence in unlawful manner. On cross-examination by the
management the empolyee admitted that he was doing
private tuition, therefore he is not entitled for any back
wages.
It is an admitted fact that the delinquent employee
Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was a permanent employee at Chora
Colliery of ECL. This fact is also clear in his Appointment
letter issued by ECL and in his identity card. The case of
Union is that the workman had absented only for 28 days for
which he has been dismissed from service after holding ex-
parte domestic enquiry. Whereas the case of management is
that unauthorized absence is misconduct therefore after
conducting domestic enquiry the workman was dismissed.
3056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Though the case of workman in Para 6 of his written
statement is that the delinquent workman had absented
only for 28 days since 31.01.1996 to 27.02.1996, but in
Para 5 of his Written statement the workman has stated
that he reported for his duty on 17.05.1997. The Medical
certificate issued by the doctor of S.D. Hospital, Asansol
is that Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee during medical treatment
since 31.01.1996 as a out-door patient and he was advised
rest. Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was examined on 17.05.1997
and was found fit for duty. It is not mentioned in the medical
certificate upto which date, Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was
advised rest. Besides this, he was treated as an outdoor
patient. It shows that he was not admitted in the said
Hospital for medical treatment as an in-door patient. The
medical certificate is not supported by any prescription or
treatment papers of the Hospital. This medical certificate
does not inspire confidence.
Even in the written statement of the management the
period of absence of the delinquient employee is not
mentioned. The delinquient employee was issued Charge
Sheet No. CH.OCP/Agent/WO/96/35 dated 24.02.1996/
27.02.1996. In the Charge Sheet the period of absence has
not been mentioned. Simply it has been mentioned that
Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee was absence since 31.01.1996.
The total period of absence has not been clearly mentioned
in the Charge Sheet.
The Charge Sheet is a charter of diciplinary action. The
domestic equiry commences with the services of Charge
Sheet. In other words, before proceeding with the domestic
enquiry against the delinquent workman he must be
informed clearly, precisely and accurately all the charges
leveled against him. It is the duty of the employer to intimate
the delinquent employee not only the precise nature of the
Charge Sheet but also he should be provided with the
document on which the charges are based. This is more
necessary when the charges are of general nature and
pertain to account maintained over a period of time. The
Charge Sheet should specifically set out all charges and a
Show-Cause letter should also be issued to the delinquent
workman without which he can not defend himself. Object
of this requirement is that the workman must know what he
is charged with and to provide opportunity to meet the
charges and to defend himself by giving proper explanation
after knowing the nature of the offence with which he was
charged otherwise it will amount to condemn, unheard. For
fair hearing a precise and genuine catalogue of charges
should be informed so that the persons charged can
understand and may think over effectively. If the charges
are not precise and indefinite the enquirty would not be
fair and just enquiry. After serving the Charge Sheet the
delinquient workman should further be given sufficient
opportunity to enable him to give a proper explanation and
defend himself. The employer can not justify his action to
any amount that those are contained in the Charge Sheet.
In Charge Sheet which fails to comply with the requirement
of principle of natural justice is not a Charge Sheet at all. In
order to able to take part in the enquiry the charged
workman must have notice of date, time and venue. Even if
any employee did fail to submit his reply to the Charge
Sheet the enquiry officer is not absolved from his duty to
send notice to the delinquent employee informing him about
date, time and venue of the enquiry so that the workman
may cross-examine the witnesses produced against him.
Non-compliance of above requirement would be violative
of rules of natural justice.
The Charge Sheet does not disclose total period of
absence of the delinquent workman which is a paramout
fact which ought be mentioned in the Charge Sheet. As per
rules 28(1) of the Standing Order of ECL the charge Sheeted
workman must be given a period of not less that 3 days
time for his explanation. But on perusal of Charge Sheet
page No. WE-II it is clear that he has been given only
48 hours which is in clear violation of Standing Order of
ECL itself. The workman has questioned fairness of
domestic enquiry in his written statement.
Shri Rakesh Kumar argued that workman has not been
supplied with a copy of enquiry proceeding and enquiry report.
It is evident from records that the management has not even
filed a copy of enquiry proceedings and enquiry report.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs S.K. Kapur
(2011) 4 SCC 589 as held ‘‘it is total principal of natural
justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental
proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in
advance to the Charge Sheeted employee so that he may
have a chance of rebut the same."
In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court the management ought
to have suppied copies of departmental enquiry proceedings
and enquiry report. Non-compliance of this mandatory
provision is clear violation of principle of natural justice.
Where different categories of penalties can be imposed
one of which is dismissal from service. Disciplinary
authority perforce is required to consult himself for
selecting the impositon of appropriate penalty. From out of
range of penalities available that can be imposed having
regard to the nature, content and gravity of the default.
Unless the disciplinary authority reaches to the conclusion
that having regard to the nature, content and magnitude of
the fault committed by the delinquent concerned, it would
be absolutely unjust and unreasonable to punish to the
maximum penalty of dismissal from service.
If lesser penalty is imposed then the delinquent employee
can be faithful in discharging of his duties in future. Where
precise period of unauthorized absence is unknown to the
management, then in such case, the punishment of dismissal
for such unauthorized absence is too harsh and rather
shocking. Besides, as per Memorandum of Settlement if
any employee is absent even for 9 months he can be allowed
to join his duty. It is essential before imposing the
punishment on the delinquent the disciplinary authority
must apply his mind to the records of proceedings, enquiry
report of the enquiry officer and then modulate the quantum
of punishment. The punishment must be at par with the
nature and gravity of the misconduct proved against him.
It is also relevant to mention that before imposing the
penalty to any delinquent workman Show-Cause notice
must be served to the delinquent workman which is
mandatory in law. It is apparent from records that Show-
Cause notice has not been issued to the concerned
workman before imposing penalty of dismissal.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3057
The workman has not pleaded in his written statement
anywhere that he was not gainfully employed anywhere. The
burden of proof that workman was not gainfully employed is
initially on the workman. Rather Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee has
admitted in his cross-examination that he was doing private
tuition. Therefore he is not entitled for back wages. But this
fact should also be kept in mind that management has filed
written statement after lapse of many years. This reference is
of the year 2000. Therefore, instead of back wages the workman
should be awarded with cash compension.
In view of discussion as above, I think it just and proper
to modify and substitute the punishment exercising the
Power under section 11(A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The impugned order of dismissal is set-a-side. Management
is directed to reinsate Shri Sidhinath Mukherjee with all
consequential benefits but without back wages. I think it
proper that the delinquent workman be imposed a stoppage
of two increments without cumulative effect. The workman
will get Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as
compensation instead of back wages.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above
discussion. Second the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delh for information and
needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1436-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ us'kuy
bU';ksjsUl daiuh fyfefVM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|skfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;k;y] ukxiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2009½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@57@2008&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi , the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Indisutrial Dipsutes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.07.2015.
[No. L-17012/57/2008-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/16/2009
Date: 04.02.2015
Party No. 1
: The Regional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mangala Market, 2nd Floor,
Dharampeth Extention,
Nagpur-440010
Versus
Party No.
: Shri Pramod N. Yelamanchiwar,
R/o 25, Puroshottam Apartment,
Sita Nagar, Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated: 4th February, 2015)
In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers , in relation to the
management of National Insurance Company Ltd. and their
workman, Shri P.N. Yelmanchiwar, for adjudication, as per
letter No. L-17012/57/2008-IR(M) dated 15.04.2009, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of National
Insurance Company in imposing the penalty of
"Dismissal from Service" w.e.f. 29.08.2007 on Shri P.N.
Yelmachiwar, Assistant, Nagpur DOV is just and legal?
What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which the workman, Shri P.N. Yelmanchiwar,
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of National Insurance Company Ltd.
("party No. 1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the statement
of claim is that he was employed as a clerk at D.O.B. in the
year 2003-2004 in category Assistant 'C' and during his
entire service tenure, he was not served with any charge
sheet, memo or warning except the impugned charge sheet
and his service record was clean and unblemished and he
was served with the charge sheet dated 26.05.2005, but
annexure to the charge sheet and documents were not
supplied to him in spite of his demand and there was
violation of the principles of natural justice and the
concerned officer of the party No. 1 and some of the union
office bearers pressurized him to tender an apology, so
that his service could be saved and further action would
not be taken and though he went on insisting that false
charges to have been levelled against him with the only
intention to get rid of him, the officer of party No. 1 and the
office bearers of the union did not pay any heed to the
same and insisted him to tender apology and during
the relevant period, he has under terrible mental
pressure and the union. ‘‘The General Insurance
Employees Union" encashed his mental situtation
and pressurized him to tender apology against his wish
and even though he did not commit any misconduct, much
less as alleged and he was served with the notice of the
enquiry with intimation of the appointment of Shri M.B.
Mishra, the Deputy Regional Manager and Smt. Bidichandini
3058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer
respectively and some officers of the party No. 1 and some
office bearers of the union took him before the Enquiry
Officer and pressurized him to submit an apology letter
and the letter was dictated by the Enquiry Officer and the
Enquiry Officer, the office bearers of the union and the
officers of the party No. 1 assured him that the submission
of the apology letter would be a formality and nothing
would happen to him and he would be exonerated from the
charges and believing their version, he submitted a
conditional apology letter and as the apology letter was
conditional, the same was meaningless and the Disciplinary
Authority was duty bound to conduct a full-fledged enquiry
as per the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1975 and by following the principles of
natural justice, but the Authority gave a complete to by to
the same and hence, the entire enquiry and the order of
dismissal dated 29.08.2007 are void ab-initio and liable to
be set aside.
The further case of the workman is that he was never
served with any notice of the enquiry and he was not given
a chance to submit his reply to the charge sheet and he
was not given the opportunity to engage defence
representative and no chance was given to him to defend
the charges, to cross-examine the management witness and
to examine witness in his defence and the enquiry was
conducted behind his back and he was not paid the
subsistence allowance as per law and the departmental
enquiry conducted by the party No. 1 was infact not an
inquiry, but an eye wach and party No. 1 failed to supply
him copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry
officer and 2nd show cause notice, before acceptance of
the findings of the enquiry officer and passing the order of
punishment dated 29.08.2007 and the enquiry conducted
against him was against the principles of natural justice
and the order of punishment dated 29.08.2007 is bad in law
and is required to be quashed and set aside and after his
dismissal from services, he is not gainfully employed.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
3. The party No. 1 in the written statement, after denying
the adverse allegations has pleaded inter-alia that the
workman was never pressurized by any of its officers or by
some of the office bearers of the union and the apology
letter and the sbsequent admission of the charges before
the Enquiry Officer were all voluntarily done by the
workman, without any influence or presence from any
quarter and the workman first having admitted his guilt,
now wants to wriggle out from the same on some pretext or
the other and an amount of Rs. 1,15,660/- was
misappropriated by the workman by forging signature and
rubber stamp of the bank and on 09.06.2005, the workman
submitted his reply to the memorandum of charge sheet
dated 26.5.2005 and accepted all the five charges levelled
against him and in his reply, he tried to explain the
compelling circumstances, which resulted in
misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 1,15,660/- by him
and even though, the workman admitted the charges in his
reply, it went ahead with the departmental enquiry and at
the initial stage of the enquiry, i.e., on 13.10.2005, the
workman admitted the service of the charge sheet upon
him before the Enquiry Officer and he also admitted all the
charges levelled against him and thereafter, the Enquiry
Officer again put specific question to the workman as to
whether he (workman) accepts all the five charges levelled
against him in the charge sheet and in answer to such
specific question, the workman specifically stated to have
accepted all the five charges and hence, the plea advanced
by him that he was pressurized by its officer and some
office bearers of the union is an afterthought and humbug
and in his application filed by the workman before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner for raising the dispute,
the workman had not made any allegation against any of
its officers of pressurizing him to tender apology and in his
said application dated 14.12.2007, he had specifically alleged
that the office bearers of the General Insurance Employees
Union, Wastern Zone had pressurized him to tender
apology and to admit the guilt and he was under mental
pressure and the allegations made by the workman are
vague and are general allegation without naming anybody
as to who had exerted such pressure on him and moreover,
the workman had deposited an amount of Rs. 84,909/- by
two demand drafts, out of the total misappropriated amount
of Rs. 1,15,660/- with it on 22.09.2004 and the workman had
not only admitted his guilt, but also, had acted upon it and
paid some of the amount.
It is further pleaded by the party No. 1 that there was no
condition in the apology submitted by the workman and
the same was unconditional and as per the Rules, no enquiry
needs to be held or conduct for the charges admitted by
the charge sheeted employee and as the workman had
admitted all the five charges, it was not necessary for the
Enquiry Officer to proceed further in the enquiry and as
such, there was no violation of any principles of natural
justice and the order of dismissal dated 29.08.2007 is
perfectly legal and proper and deserves no interference
and the allegations of non-supply of the inquiry is not true
and the notice of the enquiry was duly served on the
workman and all the papers and documents were given to
the workman and he attended the enquiry pursuant to the
notice issued to him and admitted the charges levelled
against him before the Enquiry Officer and he was paid the
entire subsistence allowance as per law and the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
4. No rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the
workman.
5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, as a punishment imposed against him in the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3059
departmental inquiry conducted against him, the fairness
or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a
preliminary issue for consideration and vide order dated
16.10.2014, the departmental enquiry conducted against
the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
6. It is to be mentioned here that no argument on the
perversity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the
proportionality of the punishment was advanced by either
of the parties. The reference was fixed to 28.11.2014 for
hearing of argument on the questions of preversity of
findings and the quantum of punishment, but on the said
date, both the parties remained absent. However, in the
interest of justice and to gave the parties a chance to take
part in the case, the reference was adjourned to 12.01.2005
for argument on the merit of the case. On 12.01.2015 also,
the parties remained absent and none appeared on behalf
of either of the parties to make argument. So, on 12.01.2015,
the case was closed and fixed for award.
7. As no argument has been made by the parties, I think
it proper to mention the settled principles regarding the
power of a Tribunal in interfering with punishment awarded
by the competent authority in departmental proceedings,
as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court have
held that:
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfer with the
disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated
with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot
interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or
competent authority where they are not arbitrary or
utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a
delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made
under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and
in accordance with principles of natural justice what
punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is
imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has
no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the
authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide
is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern itself
with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty
if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent
authority is based on evidence even if some of it is
found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have
exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to
maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of
judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the
High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the
relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority
to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in esxceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
"In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal
is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate
authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion,
on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities. Once
findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are
recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not
normally interfere with those factual findings unless it
finds that the recorded findings were based either on
no evidence or that the findings were wholly preverse
and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy
of the evidence is not permitted to be convassed before
the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over the factual findings recorded
during departmental proceedings, while exercising the
power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally
speaking, substitute its in own conclusion, with regard
to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental
authorities, Even insofar as imposition of penalty or
punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or
penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental
appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that
it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should
not normally substitute its own opinion and impose
some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court,
it appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even
though judicial review of administrative action must
remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the
Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not
concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact
on the basis of which the orders are made so long as
those findings are reasonably supported by evidence
and have been arrived at through proceedings which
cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or
irregularities which vitiate the process by which the
decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be
remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is
confined to the examination of the decision-making
process."
3060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is also settled beyond doubt by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions that:—
"Departmental enquiry is not bound by strict rules of
Evidence Act, but by fair play and natural justice. Only
total absence, but not sufficiency of evidence before
Tribunal is ground for interference. If the enquiry has
been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability
of evidence cannot be canvassed before the court and
in a department enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the
delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
"preponderance of probability".
8. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone
of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
mentioned above, it is found that the workman had admitted
all the five charges levelled against him before the Enquiry
Officer voluntarily and unconditionally and the Enquiry
Officer has based his findings on the evidence on record
of the enquiry, after taking into consideration of the
voluntary and unconditional admission of all the five
charges by the workman and the Enquiry Officer has also
assigned cogent reasons in support of his findings. It is
also found that this is not a case of no evidence at all or
that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally against
the whole body of the evidence on record of the enqiry
Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said
to be perverse.
9. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that commission of grave misconduct
of misappropriation of cash to the tune of Rs. 1,15,660/- of
the Insurance Company has been proved against the
workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry
against him. Hence, the punishment of dismissal from
service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. Hence,
there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed
against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of National Insurance
Company in imposing the penalty of "Dismissal from
service" w.e.f. 29.8.2007 on Shri P.N. Yelmanchiwar,
Assistant, Nagpur D O V is just and legal. The workman is
not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1437-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkbZñvksñlhñ,yñ
¼vle vkW;y fMfotu½ 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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-30011@68@2012&vkbZñvkjñ ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1437.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s. IOCL (Assam Oil Division) and their workman, which
was received by the Cental Government on 03.07.2015.
[No. L-30011/68/2012-IR(M))]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.
Present
Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,
Presideng Officer,
CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati,
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—
The Management of IOCL (Assam Oil Division), Digboi,
-vs-
Their Workman Sri Nirman Sarmah represented by the
President AOC Labour Union, Digboi.
Appearance
For the Management: Mr. S.N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Jahid, Advocate.
For the Workman:
Mr. S.M. Rahman, Advocate.
Ref. Case No. 20 of 2013
ORDER
27.5.2015.
The Management is represented by Mr. A. Jahid, learned
Advocate. The O.P/Workman is absent without any step.
By this order it is proposed to dispose of the matter
regarding framing of preliminary issue on the petition
No. 107/14 dated 26.3.2014 which was registered being
Misc. Case No. 2/14 filed by the petitioner Management.
Upon hearing both the sides the said Misc. Case (2/14)
was allowed of on contest framing the following preliminary
issues:
(i) Whether the Petitioner/Management has held the
domestic enquiry against the workman Nirman Sarmah fairly
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3061
in accordance of the principles of natural justice and the
procedure adopted in the Standing Order of the petitioner
company?
(ii)
Whether the present reference is maintainable in
law? The Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred
this dispute between the Management of IOCL (AOD),
Digboi and their workman Sri Nirman Sarmah under Clasued
of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication. The schedule of this
reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of IOCL (Assam
Oil Division), Digboi, in dismissing the services of
Shri Nirman Sarmah w.e.f. 30.06.2011 is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?"
The case of the workman, in short, is that Late Akhil
Sarmah, employee of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Assam
Oil Division) being employee No. 33833 who died pre
maturely on 14.11.04. As per superannuation Benefit Fund
Scheme (hereinafter called SBFS) & as such, the family of
Late Akhil Sarmah is entitled to various benefits on the
basis of option therein. Accordingly the mother of the
workman agreed to the benefit available in option R-III of
the Superannuation Benefit Scheme and requested the
IOCL(AOD) management to provide necessary prescribed
option Form for the workman. But the Management did
neither offer any job to the workman nor they issue any
application Form till September, 2005, but the Officer
concerned of the management verbally told the mother of
the workman that the posts are available for graduate level
and if the mother of the workman provide any certificate
showing educational qualification as graduate they may
provide the job. The workman mentioned that as per Rule
of the Company, the management has to offer the job within
six months to the mother of the workman but no any such
offer or nor any communication made to the mother of the
workman, and due to death of his father the workman
suffered lots and became penyless for which the workman
need a job to rescue his family with huge burden of credit
and liabilities. The workman also stated that under such
compelling circumstances they lost their sense of reasoning
and as a result his other accepted ill advise of their so
called well wishers and collected one certificate in order to
substantiate qualification of the workman as graduate. At
the time of death of his father the workman was doing
DOEACC 'O' Level after completing his 10+2 at New Delhi
which is in the knowledge of the management as well as
they know that all the records related to the dependents
are still maintained at the establishment even then the
management did not object to filing of fake graduation
certificate at the time of applying for the job. Subsequently
the management sent the workman for one year training by
providing a monthly stipend of Rs. 5000/- which he
successfully completed and he was offered a job of
Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist. After 4 years the management charge
sheeted the workman for filing graduation certificate which
he never denied and explained the cirumstances to do so.
He also added that he was asked for a job on the basis of
his eligible qualification and as he was entitled to the
aforesaid 'SBFS' Scheme-option R-III which was meant for
the rehabilitation of the family of the employee who died
prematurely while in service. If he was offered the job on
the basis of the actual qualification within a period of six
months and hence, the situation of submission of fake
certificate by his mother would not have arisen at all.
The workman further stated that in spite of confession
made before an enquiry the management terminated him
without showing any sympathy to the victim family of Late
Akhil Sarmah. Thereafter the workman put his case before
the AOC Labour Union, Digboi with a hope of review
punishment awarded against him. The Union also found
the punishment too extreme and unjustified as his
recruitment was done under rehabilitation Scheme to
provide relief to his family as such, the workman contended
that action of the management is illegal and not justified on
the ground that the provision of misconduct given in
XIV(2) XX in the Certified Standing Order is applicable to
the employee who applied for the post invited through
employment exchange or other media wherein the terms
and conditions are specifically mentioned; that the
management did not give any written guidelines to be
followed by the workman at the time of applying
rehabilitation Scheme, that the charges of misconduct
brought against the workman is not justified as he did not
commit any misconduct during his service period as at the
time of submission of certificate the workman was not the
employee under the management; that the order of dismissal
is not justified and unjust as there was no act or conduct
prejudice or likely to prejudice to the interest of the
management; that the father of the workman had
contributed an amount every month from his salary till his
death to the rehabilitation Scheme and hence, the workman
is entitled to get employment under the said Scheme. Hence,
the workman prayed to pass an award directing the
management to appoint the workman against some other
post as per SBF Scheme on the basis of his actual
qualification.
The management contested the case by filing their W.S.
Stating, inter-alia, that the reference made by the Central
Government is not maintainable and that the reference is
bad for which it can not be adjudicated. The management
denied all the averments made in the claim statement
submitted by the workman except which are admitted by
them. The management stated that it has a Scheme known
"Suerannuation Benefit Fund Scheme" (SBFS) which was
introduced with effect from November, 1987 in respect of
the officers of the Corporation; and in pursuant a settlement
dated 22.04.1996. As per the said Scheme all the employees
have to make contribution towards the fund as specified in
3062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Scheme. Annexure-1 to the said Scheme provides the
rehabilitation of the family of the employees deceased
employee or those suffering permanent total disablement
while in service and three options are there one of which
will have to be opted by the female spouse within the six
months of the death of the employee, and option once
exercised shall be final. Option 3 provides for employment
of eligible, suitable and dependant unmarried son/daughter
of the deceased employee and this option must be sought
within six months of the death or permanent disablement
of the employee and be sought in the prescribed format
and that the employees under the scheme will be offered
within a period of three years. The management stated that
the father of the workman namely Akhil Sarmah employee
No. 33833 expired on 14.11.04 while in service. Thereafter
the mother of the workman vide her letter dated 07.07.2005
opted for 3rd option for appointment of her son i.e. the
present workman, and in the said Form she had mentioned
specifically that qualification of her son is graduate (B.A.)
along with the application, the applicant (mother of the
workman) forwarded the attested mark sheet shown to have
been issued by the Gauhati University and pass certificate
from Arya Viddyapith College, Guwahati. Though the option
was opted belatedly, yet on humanitarian ground the same
was accepted by the Company. After death of the father of
the workman his wife was paid Rs.11,88,640.56 towards
Provident Fund, which she had received on 21.4.2005.
Similarly she was paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards
Gratuity, and further an amount of Rs. 66,594/- towards
Group Savings Linked Insurance and Rs. 1,49,655/- towards
Leave Dues to the deceased. Thus total sum of
Rs. 17,54,889.56 was paid to the mother of the deceased.
On receipt of the application from the mother of the
workman, the educational certificate, mark sheets are
verified with originals produced before the Officer of the
Company and thereafter the workman was called for
personal hearing on 16.10.2006 while the workman was
asked to fill up the candidate's declaration form. In the said
form it is specifically mentioned that any false or untrue
declaration will make the candidate/service of the candidate
liable to be cancelled/terminated without giving any notice
and the workman filled up the said declaration form and
declared that he had passed graduation from Guwhati
University in the year 2005. Accordingly the workman was
offered traineeship for the post of Jr. Clerk/typist vide letter
dated 1.11.2006 and on completion of one year training
period the workman was offered the post of Jr. Clerk/typist
in Grade-IV vide letter dated 26.11.2007 on probation which
the workman accepted and accordingly furnished the
attestation form on 03.12.2007 wherein also the workman
declared that he had passed graduation from Gauhati
University in 2005. The management added that in the year
2009 rumors circulated in an around that many employees
of the Corporation have joined in the service by producing
fake certificate. As such, the management decided to verify
the certificates of the employees with the authorities.
Accordingly the management wrote tothe Register, Gauhati
University as well as to the Principal of Arya Vidyapeeth
College, Guwahati to verify the certificates provided by
the workman at the time of offering him the job under the
scheme. Both the Gauhati University as well as Arya
Vidyapeeth College wrote back to the management,
informing that the certificate produced by the workman are
not genuine and the same are fake. Thus it became apparent
that both the workman and his mother has willfully mislead
the Company to obtain employment in higher grade, by
producing false certificate. Accordingly the management
issued charge sheet to the workman on 2.6.2010 asking him
as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against
him as per Certified Standing Order of the Corporation and
for obtaining appointment by submission of false or fake
document. The workman in his reply to the charge sheet
admitted that his mother had mistakenly mentioned him as
Graduate though he actually has passed 10+2, and that to
get a job he had also declared himself as a graduate. The
workman with the above confession prayed to deal with
the matter with compassionate and sympathetically. Since
the misconduct committed by the workman was grave
nature, the management decided to give him and
opportunity by holding a domestic enquiry and accordingly
the Enquiry Officer started the enquiry. In the enquiry
proceeding the workman was present at the beginning from
the enquiry while he admitted the charges levelled against
him. The workman took the assistance of Mr. Arup Kumar
Mishra, co-worker in the enquiry. Thereafter the Enquiry
Officer decided to take evidence of the management.
Accordingly the management examined one witness who
has produced all the certificates produced by the workman
and the letters received from the Guwahati University and
the Arya Vidyapeeth College along with some other
relevant documents, but the workman refused to cross-
examine the said management withness. After closing the
evidence of management side the Enquiry Officer asked to
examine his witnesses while the workman denied to examine
any witness and he gave his own statement before the
Enquiry Officer. That the management contended that all
the opportunities was offered to the workman to defend
his case and the entire enquiry was conducted in
compliance of the principle of natural justice and both the
workman and his co-worker had put their signatures in all
the pages of the enquiry proceeding. On conclusion of the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave his findings that the
charges levelled against him were successfully proved
against the workman. The management on receipt of the
findings of the Enquiry Officer forwarded the same to the
workman for submission of his representation, if any. The
workman in reply submitted his representation on 18.4.2011
wherein he has not alleged anything against the domestic
enquiry and/or finding of the Enquiry Officer but only
prayed for consideration of his appointment. Thereafter
the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the explanation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3063
from the workman taken into account of the documents
including the proceeding of the departmental enquiry, and
the representation of the workman and considering the
gravity of the offence committed by him dismiss the
workman from his service with effect from 30.6.2011.
The management further pleaded that they are fully
justified in dismissing the workman from his service for the
offence committed by him and no leniency may be shown
to the workman considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, as it will create a precedent for other job seekers
to obtain job by producing false education qualification
certificates in various organizations. The management
denied the averment made in paragraphs-1,2,3,4 & 8 of the
claim statement submitted by the workman.
The management also contended that after death of the
father of the workman the management paid an amount of
Rs. 17,54,899.56 and hence, the plea of the workman that
under compelling circumstances he along with his mother
compelled to obtain forge certificate, cannot be accepted
since the workman was aware that being a matriculate, he
would not get a job in higher levell and as such, they
committed fraud and submitted false certificate. The
management also mentioned that since the workman got
the job misleading the Company, knowing fully well that
the submission of false document is an offence and himself
declaring that if his documents are found to be false, then
he is liable to be terminated. It is also pleaded by the
management that the father of the workman did not furnish
the fact that his son (workman) had been taking computer
training at Delhi while taking educational allowance. It is
also pointed out by the management that although the
mother of the workman would submit option within
3 months she submitted her option No.3 under the
aforementioned scheme after 8 months of the death of her
husband, giving false education qualification certificate,
and had the mother of the workman would have given the
actual educational qualification the workman would get
the appropriate job within 3 years as per provision of the
Scheme since the workman with intent to make illegal gain
resorted to irregularities and hence, the ground shown in
para-10 of the claim statement of the workman that the
dismissal of the workman is not legal and justified, are not
correct and frivolous as such, the action of the workman
itself is pre-judicial to the interest of the Corporation as
well as other similarly situated job seekers and the question
of faithful discharge of duties is not primary question. It is
also added by the management that the question of keeping
the workman in some lower job at this stage does not arise
as the conduct of the workman has forced the management
to loss all confidence and trust repose to the worman and
as such, the question of lesser punishment for such gross
misconduct does not arise. Hence, the management prayed
to frame preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the
domestic enquiry and decide the same at first, if the said
issue is decided against the management, the management
may be allowed to contest the reference on merit.
The management in order to prove their petition No.
107/14 dated 26-3-14 examined 2 witnesses as MW.1 &
MW.2. The workman was also given opportunity to adduce
his evidence vide order dated 5.1.15 and since that date the
workman had been taking time once again and on 3.3.15
the workman by filing the petition preferred to examine one
of his witnesses namely Sri Tarun Hazarika, a employee of
IOC (AOD), Digboi and at the instance of the workman
summon was issued upon the witness T. Hazarika, and on
the following date the workman prayed for time for hearing
showing cause of absence of the witness T. Hazarika.
Accordingly the workman was given last time. On the
subsequent date i.e. 20.4.2015 the workman remained absent
without any step and hence, the reference proceeded ex-
parte against the workman. Subsequently on 15.5.15 the
workman was also found absent while the management
was heard ex-parte.
I have gone through the entire case record and the
documents submitted by both the parties along with the
evidence adduced by the management, and the issues are
discussed and decided as under:
Issue No. (I)
The materials on record shows that the management
witness No. 1 Mr. Chandra Sekhar Chakrabarty was
appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against
the delinquent workman Sri Nirman Sarma vide Exhibit-1.
The management on receipt of a rumor circulated in and
around Digboi that many employees of the Corporation
had joined in the service by producing fake certificates
and hence, it decided to verify the certificate of the
employees with the authorities concerned. Accordingly
the management took up the matter with the Register,
Gauhati University as well as the Principal of Arya
Viddyapeeth College, Guwahati to verify the certificates
and marksheets provided by the workman at the time of
offering the job to the workman under SBFS Scheme. Upon
which the Controller of Examination, Gauhati University
submitted the report vide Exhibit-7(1) & 7(m) that on
verification of the photo copy of the mark sheets of B.A.
Part-II Final examination bearing No. 411 of the year 2005 in
respect of Nirman Sarmah with record, the contents were
found correct, and the result not tallied with their records.
Arya Viddyapeeth College also informed the management
vide their letter dated 12.3.2010 that on verification from
their documents they found the certificated not to be
correct. On the basis of the report of the Gauhati University
and the Arya Viddyapeeth College, Guwahati, the
management initiated domestic enquiry against the
workman issuing show cause-cum-charge sheet against
the workman vide Exhibit-2. While the workman submitted
his reply to the charge sheet admitting the charges framed
3064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
against him vide Exhibit-3 wherein the workman
categorically mentioned that his uneducated mother while
filing option form mistakenly mentioned the workman as a
graduate since at that time he was undergoing on further
education after 10+2 pre-graduation course only; and that
under compelling circumstances both he and his mother
lost their senses of reasoning and since his mother already
mistakenly mentioned him as a graduate, so everybody
started reiterating his status as a graduate and got service
somehow; and that out of compulsion for their sustenance
survival they continued to reiterate by claiming the
workman as graduate, and being frighten by the uncertain
prospects of survival, a desperate attempt to win the battle
with poverty and the subsequent fear of the ordeals of
sustenance, led them resort to calling himself a graduate if
that was the only way out without any alternative. In course
of enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer (MW.1) started
enquiry on 31.10.11 at 2 P.M. in the officer of the Sr. Terminal
Manager, IOCL, Betkuchi TOP, Guwahati in presence of
the management representative i.e. Presenting Officer Sri
Dinesh Das, Manager (Engg), Guwahati; the workman along
with his co-worker Sri Arup Kumar Mishra, while at the
beginning of the enquiry, the workman admitted the charges
leveled against him and on that day one witness Smthri
Runita Goswami was examined as MW 1 in the enquiry
who stated that after demise of the father of the workman
his mother submitted application dated 7.9.05 vide Exhibit
7(a) intimating the workman for employment under option
R-III of SBF Scheme along with 2 documents namely B.A.
Pt. II final examination mark sheet (Exhibit-7(b) bearing No.
1539 in the name of the workman Nirman Sarmah bearing
Roll No. 411 and B.A. pass certificate vide Exhibit 7(c)
issued by Arya Viddyapeeth College. The said management
witness also produced the declaration on 16.10.06 submitted
by the workman at the time of interview whereby he had
declared that his qualification is graduation (B.A.) vide
Exhibit 7(d), along with the attestation from Exhibit7(e)
submitted by the workman. The said witness in course of
her deposition, in enquiry, has proved the photo copies of
B.A. mark sheet and certificate in respect of the workman
vide Exhibit 7(g) & Exhibit-7(h) respectively. The
management witness No. 1 further mentioned that the
workman in presence of his co-worker was allowed to cross-
examine the enquiry witness (MW.1) but he did not examine
the said enquiry witness; and thereafter the workman was
asked whether he had any witness to examine while he
declined. After closing of the departmental enquiry the
presenting officer Mr. D. Das, Manager (Engg), GIDO
submitted a brief note on the enquiry in connection with
the charge sheeted employees Sri Nirman Sarmah vide with
Exhibit-8. Accordingly the Enquiry Officer (MW. 1) prepared
the enquiry report vide Exhibit-10 and forwarded the same
to the Chief Manager (operation) NEISO vide Exhibit-9.
Thereafter the Chief Manager (operation) and the
Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, forwarded the same to the workman vide
Exhibit-12 asking him to submit representation, if any. While
the workman submitted his representation on 18.4.11 vide
Exhibit-12 wherein he did not allege anything against the
domestic enquiry proceeding as well as the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, but only prayed for consideration of his
appointment. The Disciplinary Authority, on receipt of the
representation of the workman taking into account of the
documents including the proceeding of the domestic
enquiry the findings of the Enquriy Officer along with all
the exhibits and the representation submitted by the
workman, considered the matter and on the basis of the
gravity of the offence committed by the workman dismissed
the workman from his service with effect from 30.6.2011
vide letter dated 29.6.11 marked as Exhibit-13.
From the above discussion it is clear that the management
in spite of admission of his guilt by the workman conducted
departmental proceeding in pursuance of the
Constitutional Provision as well as the principle of natural
justice it is also seen from the evidence on record as
discussed above that in course of enquiry proceeding the
workman was given ample opportunity to defend him as
well as to cross-examine the management witness and also
to adduce his defence evidence, if any, but the workman
declined to do so. Further the proceeding of the enquiry as
well as all the documents proved in course of enquiry
proceeding have been proved in this Tribunal and both
the enquiry Authority as well as the workman along with
his co-worker present with him acknowledged all the
documents by putting their signatures thereon as it reveals
from the enquiry proceeding marked as Exhibit-7. Further
the workman was given ample opportunity to submit his
representation forwarding the enquiry proceeding along
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and at this stage
the workman did neither alleged nor raise any objection
against the enquiry proceeding but prayed for considering
his appointment only. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority
considering the report of the Enquiry Officer along with
the enquiry proceeding and the documents produced
before the Enquiry Officer, and the representation submitted
by the workman, on being satisfied the Disciplinary
Authority concurred that the findings of the Enquiry Officer
that the workman was guilty of the charges, being
misconduct under Clause IV(2) (XX) of the Certified
Standing Order.
Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Advocate for the management
during argument submitted that the workman has committed
fraud by submitting forged documents to get the
employment in the establishment of the management which
was admitted by the workman himself both in his
explanation and in the enquiry; and that in case of clear
admission, the domestic enquiry is not necessary, but the
management has initiated the domestic enquiry against
the workman and rightly dismissed the workman from
service after concurring to the report of the Enquiry Officer
along with the documents as well as the representation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3065
submitted by the workman. In support of his contention
Mr. Sarma, Learned Sr. Advocate relied upon the decision
in SPCV Naidu-Vrs-Jaganath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1,
wherein it was held that the person whose case is based on
falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can
be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. Learned
Advocate for the management also submitted that it a
settled position of law that when charges are admitted by
workman, holding the domestic enquiry is an empty
formality, and in this regard he has placed the reliance of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of
India-vs-Karunamoy Banerjee, reported in AIR 1968 SC
266, wherein it was observed "when once the workman
himself has answered the charges labelled against him,
admitted his guilt, in our opinion, there will be nothing
more for the management to enquire into". Mr. Sarma,
learned Advocate for the management also placed reliance
on the judgment in (2005) 5 SCC 337 (Vivekanand Sethi-vs-
Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. & Ors.) wherein it was observed-
"The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly
horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an
empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will applys.
The principles of natural justice are required to be complied
with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.
It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula. It cannot be
applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts
and circumstances of the case".
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and having regard to the conduct of the workman as well
as his admission of the charges levelled against the
workman by the management, the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and the submission of Learned Advocate for the
management along with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as referred to above it found that the domestic enquiry
held against the workman by the management fairly in
accordance with the principle of natural justice and the
procedure adopted in the Standing Order of the petitioner
of the management Company. In the result, this issue is
decided in affirmative in favour of the management.
Issue No. (II)
In view of the finding of the above issue that the
domestic enquiry is free, fair and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and there is no perversity in
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and having regard to
the fact that the person whose case is based on falsehood
has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of litigation. Thus it is crystal clear
that there is no need to adjudicate the dispute in this Tribunal
as it will be futile exercise to proceed with the case further.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the gravity of the offence of fraud committed by the
workman as well as the findings on the issue arrived at as
above, it can safely be held that the present reference is
not maintainable in law.
Accordingly the preliminary issues framed vide order
dated 23.6.2014 have been decided in favour of the
management.
Before parting with the discussion, it will not be out of
context to mention here that having answered the
preliminary issue should the Court see whether in the facts
and circumstances of the present case as well as the findings
on the preliminary issue, any leniency can be shown to the
workman with the punishment. Although the workman in
his written statement submitted before this Tribunal as
well as in his reply to show cause notice placed before the
Enquiry Authority that his case should be considered on
humanitarian ground that the job opportunity for matriculate
dependent under the SBF Scheme ia available at the relevant
point of time and the application for option are entertained
by the management within a period of six months; and if so
was the case then it is the onus of the management to
cancel the family of the deceased employee regarding
various aspects of rehabilitation Schemes but the
management defied the purpose of SBF Scheme at the very
beginning and cheated the family of the workman without
providing any job to the workman according to his
qualification. The workman also pleaded that he was
willfully mislead to obtain employment in higher grade by
producing false certificate delaying the matter for around
one year, the management put harsh terms and conditions
of the employment namely graduation etc. The workman
also took the plea that the management has not also
approached to his family from the very beginning
discharging 30 years of long contribution of his father in
the establishment, and hence, prayed before this Tribunal
to pass necessary award directing the management to
reduce punishment to some other form except termination
from service so that the family of the deceased Akhil Sarma,
the father of the workman would survive as the employment
provided to the workman for the very purpose of
rehabilitation of a deceased employee.
It is a settled position of law that the power under Section
11A under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be exercised
only when the Tribunal is satisfied with the order of
dismissal is not justified. In this regard I am to rely the
principle of law laid down in (1987) 4 SCC 691, (C.M.C,
Hospital Employees Union-vs-K. Medical Counselor, Valor
Associations & Ors), (2003) 3SCC 437(Kendra Vidyalaya
Sangathan-vs-Ram Ratan Yadav), (2007) 5 SCC 336
(Additional G.M.H.R.B.H. Electricals Ltd. -vs-S.R. Burde),
(2006) 2SCC 541 (Ram Saran-vs-I. G.Police, CRPF) and (2008)
13 SCC 170 (Regional Manager CBI-vs-M.G. Dahir & Ors.)
wherefrom it is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that in such case no leniency can be shown and
dismissal is the only punishment for the such offence. In
the instant case, admittedly the workman to make illegal
gain for himself has produced false documents regarding
his educational qualification. It is a settled position of law
that fraud vitiates everything. Apparently, the workman by
3066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
committing fraud got appointment in the refinery of
management and if any leniency is shown to such a workman
it will create a precedent for other job seekers to place fake
educational qualification certificates to obtain jobs either
in the industries or in the Govt. Services. This Court cannot
be a party encourage such mischievous and illegal activities
of the workman. Accordingly, it is not a fit case to exercise
the power under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Accodingly, it can safely be held that the management
is justified in dismissing the workman for gross misconduct
committed by him.
From the above discussion it is held that the enquiry
held by the management against the workman is in
accordance with the principle of law, natural justice and
the procedure adopted in the Standing Order of the
Management Company and as such, this reference is not
maintainable. Also it is not a fit case to exercise the power
of the Tribunal u/s 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. In
the result, I find no hesitation to opine that the action of
the management of IOCL (Assam Oil Division), Digboi in
dismissing the service of the workman Sri Nirman Sarman
with effect from 30.6.2011 is legal and justified and the
workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly this
reference is disposed of without any relief. Send the copy
of this order to the Ministry for their needful.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1438.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vksñ,uñthñlhñ
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@Je U;k;ky; xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30012@61@2012&vkbZ- vkj- ¼,e-½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 09/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati
now as shown in the Annexre, in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s. O. N.G.C. Limited and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 03/07/2015.
[No. L-30012/61/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI
Present
Shri L.C. Dey, M.A. LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-Cum-labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—
The Management of ONGC Limited Kolkata
-vs-
Their Workman Sri Chamal Chakrabary, Tripura (West)
Ref. Case No. 09 of 2013
ORDER
13.05.2015
The Case Record put up today along with the order No.
F. No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.01.2015 from the
Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of
the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P. (C) No. 5958
of 2013 (2) W.P. (C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of
2013 (4) W.P. (C) No. 7385. 2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati
High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant
reference cawe (No. 05/2013) along with 47 Nos. of other
reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute
between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P./
management) and the workman Shri Chamal Chakrabarty,
(Claimant/workman).
This dispute arose between the employer in relation to
the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the
said dispute was referred to by the Ministry for adjudication
vide their No. F.No. L-30012/61/2012-IR(M), dated
22.01.2013. The schedule of this reference is as under:
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC
Limited, in terminating the service of Shri Chamal
Chakraborty, Ex-Contingent workman engaged in
seismic survey work through their Geographical Party
w.e.f. 01.07.2001 in presence of settlement dated
27/28.01.2001, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?"
The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he
had been working as casual contingent workman under
ONGC, Tripura since 1977-78 to work under Geophysical
Party No. 27/31 along with other workmen and continuously
worked for a period of 234/235 days on an average in every
year with few intentional breaks and he was terminated
from service in the year 2001. The workman stated that
during his period of service, he had in fact, worked for
more than 240 days on an average in every year and the
work performed against payment of wages in cash on day
to day basis. But the management did not consider their
genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite
repeated request. On 31.07.01 the Hon'ble Gauhati High
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3067
Court passed an order and judgement directing the
authority to take proper step for appointment of the
workmen on regular basis and also to absorb the retrenched
workers in service fill their services are regularized and
their contingent employment should be allowed for the
maximum days in year. Despite the above order of the
Hon'ble High Court the management did not regularize the
workmen rather the present workman has been retrenched
from service in 2001 without assigning any reason thereof,
and the management in order to avoid the statutory
obligation as provided u/s 25(F) of the I.D. Act. 1947 allowed
the workmen to work less than 240 days in each calender
year and thereby the management deliberately exercised
unfair labour practice. Thereafter in a meeting held on
20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR resolution No. 6 it was decided
that services of the casual workers would be regularized
according to the qualification and experience. The
management have not complied with the decision contained
in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of 58th meeting of ONGC
held that the recognized Union, communicated vide No.
11(2)/91-IR dated 20.01.92. Hence, the workman prayed to
adjudicate the present reference by pronouncing an award
in favour of the claimant/workman.
On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry
this reference case was registered and notices were issued
upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.
The workman submitted his claim statement along with the
supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding
the management after obtaining time on few dates submitted
a petition on 04.11.13 stating that they have moved before
the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the
order or reference and the subsequent notice issued there
upon and the Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order
dated 07.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the
reference. The management also submitted a copy of the
order dated 07.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High
Court in W.P.(C) No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding
of this reference was stayed with effect from 04.11.13 until
further order.
On perusal of the letter dated 13.01.15 issued by the
Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy
of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P. (C) No. 5958/13 dated
18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court
has been pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by
the management of ONGC challenging the claims of the
workmen as well as the order of reference and the
subsequent notices issued thereupon by this Tribunal on
the ground that since the memorandum of settlement arrived
at u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th
January, 2001 and the same having been acted upon by all
the concerned parties, there could not have been any
occasion for the workmen involved in the writ petitions to
raise a further dispute already stood settled as per the said
settlement and consequently no reference could have been
made for adjudication for the issue raised, and set aside
and quashed the reference under challenge with
observation that consequently, the proceeding culminating
from the said reference and pending before the Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court shall also stand set aside and quashed.
In view of the above circumstances this reference is
disposed of granting no relief to the workman.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Ministry for
information and necessary order.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1439.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vksñ,uñthñlhñ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@59@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2013) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the Central
Government on 03/07/2015.
[No. L-30012/59/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI
Present:
Shri L.C.Dey. M.A., LLB.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:-
The Management of ONGC Limited, Kolkata.
vs.
Their Workman Sri Subodh Deb Barma, Tripura (West).
Ref. Case No. 11 of 2013
3068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
13.05.2015
The Case Record put up today along with the order No.
F.No. L-30012/45/2011-IR(M) dated 13.1.2015 from the
Ministry of Labour and Employment along with a copy of
the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court on 18.11.2014 in (1) W.P. (C) No. 5958
of 2013 (2) W.P.(C) No. 7372 of 2013 (3) W.P.(C) No. 7381 of
2013 (4) W.P.(C) No. 7385.2013 by which the Hon'ble Gauhati
High Court has been pleased to dispose of the instant
reference case (No.11/2013) along with 47 nos. of other
reference cases in the matter of an Industrial Dispute
between the Management of ONGC Ltd. Kolkata (O.P/
management) and the workman Shri Subodh Deb Barma,
(Claimant/workman).
This dispute arose between the employer in relation to
the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen and the
said dispute was referred was referred to by the Ministry
for adjudication vide their No.F.No.L-30012/59/2012-IR(M),
dated 22.01.13. The schedule of this reference is as under:
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC
Limited, in terminating the service of Shri Subodh Deb
Barma, Ex-contingent workman engaged in seismic
survey work through their Geographical Party w.e.f.
1.7.2001 in presence of settlement dated 27/28.1.2001, is
legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled
to?
The case of the claimant/workman, in brief, is that he
had been working as casual contingent workman under
ONGC, Tripura, since 1978-79 to work under Geophysical
Party No. 31 along with other workmen and continuously
worked for a period of 236/237 days on an average in every
year with intentional breaks and he was was terminated
from service in the year 2001. The workman stated that
during his period of service, he had in fact, worked for
more than 240 days on an average in evry year and the
work performed against payment of wages in cash on day
to day basis. But the management did not consider their
genuine case for appointment on regular basis despite
repeated request. On 31.7.01 the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court
passed an order and judgement directing the authority to
take proper step for appointment of the workmen on regular
basis and also to absorb the retrenched workers in service
till their services are regularized and their contingent
employment should be allowed for the maximum days in a
year. Despite the above order of the Hon'ble High Court
the management did not regularize the workmen rather the
present workman has been retrenched from service on 2001
without assigning any reason thereof, and the management
in order to avoid the statutory obligation as provided u/s
25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 allowed the workmen to work less
than 240 days in each calendar year and thereby the
management deliberately exercises unfair labour practice.
Thereafter in a meeting held on 20.1.92 vide No. 11(2)/91-IR
resolution No. 6 it was decided that services of the casual
workers would be rgularized according to the qualification
and experience. The management have not complied with
the decision contained in the minutes dated 30.10.91 of
58th meeting of the ONGC held with the recognized Union,
communicated vide No.11(2)/91-IR dated 20.1.92. Hence,
the workman praved to adjudicate the present by
pronouncing an award in favour of the claimant/workman.
On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry
this reference case was registered and notices were issued
upon both the parties who appeared before this Tribunal.
The workman submitted his claim statement along with the
supporting documents. During pendency of this proceeding
the management after obtaining time on few dates submitted
a petition on 08.11.13 stating that they have moved before
the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing, inter-alia, the
order or reference and the subsequent notice issued tehre
upon the Hon'ble High Court passed on interim order dated
7.10.13 staying the further proceeding of the reference.
The management also submitted a copy of the order dated
7.10.13 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C)
No. 5958/13. Accordingly the proceeding of this reference
was stayed with effect from 08.11.13 until further order.
On perusal of the letter dated 13.1.15 issued by the
Ministry of Labour and Employment along with the copy
of the judgement and order (oral) passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) No. 5958/13 dated
18.11.14, it appears that the Hon'ble Gauhati Court has been
pleased to allow the Writ Petitions preferred by the
management of ONGC challenging the claim of the workmen
as well as the order of reference and the subsequent notices
issued thereupon by this Tribunal, on the ground that since
the memorandum of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 in conciliation proceeding before the Regional
Labuor Commissioner (C) on 27th/28th January, 2001 and
the same having been acted upon by all the concerned
parties, there could not have been any occasion for the
workmen involved in the writ petitions to raise a further
dispute already stood settled as per the said settlement,
and consequently no reference could have been made for
adjudication for the issue raised; and set aside and quashed
the reference under challenge with observation that
consequently, the proceeding cluminating from the said
reference and pending before the Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court shall also stand set aside and quased.
In view of the above circumstances this reference is
disposed of granting to relief to the workman.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Ministry for
information and necessary order.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3069
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1440-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ
bU';ksjsUl dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&17012@15@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2010) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1,
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/07/2015.
[No. L-17012/15/2009-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
ID No.3/2010. Reference No.-L-17012/15/2009-
IR(M)dated 10.05.2010.
Sh. Ramesh Chander S/o Sh.Inder Singh, Village Samain,
Tehsil-Tohana, Fatehabad.
.......Workmen
Versus
1. The Regional Manager, LIC of India. Regional Office.
Karnal.
.......Respondent
Appearances
For the Workman:
Sh.K.B.Sharma Advocate.
For the Management:
Sh.P.K.Longia Advocate.
Order Dated:-01.04.2015
The Central Govt. vide letter No..-L-17012/15/2009-IR(M)
dated 10.05.2010 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Branch
Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Tohana Branch
in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Chander son
of Shri Inder Singh, Peon w.e.f. 31.1.2009 is just fair and
legal? To what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The brief facts of the case according to the workmen
are that he was appointed as Peon with the management
by Senior Branch Manager, Tohana on 21.01.2006 and he
worked continuously till 30.01.2009 when his services were
terminated by the Manager without assigning any reason
orally. His work and conduct was satisfactory. He also
worked as Assistant in Record Room and drawing his salary
as per D.C. Rates during the above mentioned period. He
was not served with any notice, charge sheet. Junior to the
applicant was retained in service and no seniority list was
prepared by the management. He was also not offered any
retrenchment compensation at the time of his termination,
though he has completed more than 240 days of continous
service during the preceding calendar year. The workman
prayed 'that the management may be directed to reinstate
him with full back wages and continuity of service.
3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary
objection has been taken that there is no relationship of
employee and employer between the workman and the
management. It is admitted by the management that
workman was appointed as Peon for 85 days from 21.01.2006
to 15.04.2006 due to rush of work for a specific period and
his services were automatically came to an end on
15.04.2006 after completion of 85 days and he was never
given any extension after that. As the workman had not
completed 240 days, therefore, he is not entitled to any
relief. It is also pleaded that as per the terms and conditions
of the appointment letter dated 21.01.2006 and undertaking
furnished by the workman, he worked only for 85 days and
no further extension of time was granted to him. It is further
pleaded by the management that there is no post of Peon
lying vacant at the Branch Office, Tohana. It is prayed by
the management that as the workman never worked for 240
days, therefore he is not entitled to any relief.
4. Replication filed by the workman in which the
workman denied the averments of the written statement
and it is pleaded that the applicant has the proof that he
worked for more than 240 days. He has also submitted in
replication that he worked on franking machine upto
16.01.2009. The detail of such payment made to the workman
has been given in para 1 of the replication. He also submitted
in replication that he also worked in record room and he
prepared the bag of new policies and in the two months, he
disposed of 25,000/- files. He also pleaded that he encashed
cheques No.497001 to 498000 which belongs to account
No.2204 and he made the payment to Branch Manager
Tohana.
5. In evidence, workman placed on file his affidavit
alongwith certain documents in which he has given
voucher Nos. for the period of 28.03.2006 to 15.01.2009 and
payment detail on his working on Franking Machine.
6. Management also placed on record affidavit of
Mr.R.K.Sonker, Assistant Secretary (OS) Zonal Office,
Kanpur. The workman in evidence stated that he was
3070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed as temporary Peon as his name was sponsored
by the Employment Exchange. He admitted that he was
engaged for 85 days. He also admitted that no extension
was ever issued by the management to him. He also stated
that there is no name mentioned in his affidavit who was
retained after his removal from service. He also admitted
that he has also not mentioned any name who were engaged
after his removal, He also stated that he used to earn
Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month. The witness of the management
submitted in evidence that workman was appointed
through appointment letter dated 21.01.2006 for 85 days
and thereafter no extension letter was issued to him and
after his termination, no one was appointed in his place. He
also stated that he cannot say whether one Jagdish is
working on the post of Peon.
7. During the pendency of the proceedings workman
also filed an application for placing some documents on
file and his application was allowed vide order dated
12.02.2015 and documents were taken on record.
8. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidenc
and record. The learned counsel for the workman during
argument submitted that workman worked after 85 days by
initial appointment and continued working up to 2009 and
completed 240 days in each calendar year and the
management terminated his services without following the
provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with full
back wages and other benefits.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the management
submitted that he workman was appointed for a specific
period on 21.01.2006 for 85 days and after 85 days, no
extension letter was ever issued to him. The workman failed
to show a single document which could reveal that he
continued working after expiry of 85 days as alleged by
him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
management that as the workman was appointed for 85
days for specific period and no extension was given to him
and workman never completed 240 days in any calendar
year as alleged by him. Therefore the workman is not entitled
for any relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are
not attracted in the case of the workman and management
prayed for the rejection of the reference.
10. From the perusal of Ex.M1 which is appointment
letter, issued by LIC, Tohana office dated 21.01.2006, it
reveals that workman Ramesh Chander son of Inder Singh
appointed as temporary Peon at Tohana Office of the
management in the temporary vacancy which has arisen
on account of the rush of work from 21.01.2006 to 15.04.2006
for 85 days. Vide Ex.M2 workman executed an undertaking
that he would not claim absorption in LIC of India on account
of having been appointed as temporary Peon vide
appointment letter dated 21.01.2006 issued by Senior
Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Division Office, Karnal.
From Ex.M4, it is clear that Branch Manager, LIC, Tohana
vide letter dated 25.04.2006 informed District Employment
Officer, Employment Office, Tohana that Ramesh Chander
son of Inder Singh was appointed by their office from
21.01.2006 for 85 days and now his term expired on
15.04.2006. From the document it is clear that workman was
engaged for 85 days for specific period and he was not
given any extension thereafter.
11. In evidence before this tribunal workman admitted
that he was engaged for 85 days and no extension letter
was ever issued by the management to him. He further
admitted that an intimation vide Ex.M4 was sent to the
employment exchange regarding completion of 85 days as
per the appointment letter. He further admitted that there is
no name mentioned in his affidavit who were retained after
his removal from service. He further admitted that he has
also not mentioned any name who was engaged after his
removal. The witness of the management stated in cross-
examination that appointment letter issued to the workman
was for 85 days and there is no permanent post of the Peon
in the Branch. Workman has also placed on record
documents scrutiny of which shows that these have no
relevance to the case. These documents failed to point out
that workman worked with the management up to 30.01.2009.
The only document is the initial appointment letter in which
admittedly no extension was given to the workman after 85
days of work. The learned counsel for the management
also placed reliance on 2013 (4)SCT115 Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation Vs. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri, a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has
been held that when the term of workman was for a fixed
period, the same would not constitute retrenchment. In
1996(2) SCT600 State of Rajasthan Vs. Rameshwar Lal
Gahlot,(SC) also the Hon'ble supreme Court held that if the
appointment is for a fixed period, Section 25F does not
apply as it is covered by clause (bb)of Section 2(oo) of the
I.D.Act .In 2008(2) SCT 318 Ajay Kumar Vs. Presiding
Officer and another, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab &
Haryana held that Section 25F is not attracted even if the
workman had completed 240 days if he was employed as a
casual labour or daily wager or for a fixed period.
12. From the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand it is held that workman failed to point out that he
worked up to the period of 31.01.2009, therefore, it cannot
be held that Ramesh Chander son of Inder Singh worked
up to 31.01.2009. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
13. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft as well as hard copy of the award
be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Chandigarh
01.04.2015
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1441-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3071
dkWjiksjs'ku 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
1131@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@07@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@11@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1131/2005) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-
2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/07/2015.
[No. L-30012/11/2001-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case I.D. No. 1131/2005
Registered on 23.9.2005
Sh. Satbir Singh, S/o Sh. Gopal Ram, resident of Village
Madlauda Tehsil and district Panipat, Haryana.
.......Petitioner
Versus
The Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Marketing Terminal, Tehsil and District Panipat, Village
Dadlana.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. S. Kaushal, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 6.5.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/11/
2001-IR(M) Dated 17.6.2003, by exercising its powers under
Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-
A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in terminating the serivce of
Sh. Satbir Singh is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as
Sweeper by the respondent management on 1.11.1997. He
continuously worked till 10.7.1999 when he was told not to
come on duty. He was getting Rs. 1900/- per month at that
time. He was not paid salary for the month of May to July,
1999 and when he asked for the salary, his services were
terminated. That he was not served with any notice nor
any retrenchement compensation was paid to him. It is
also pleaded that the persons junior to him were retained in
service and in the circumstances; the termination of his
services is illegal.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and denied that there was
any relationship of an employer and employee between
the parties. That the workman was never engaged by the
management at any point of time. It is further pleaded that
respondent management is a statutory body and has its
Rules and Regulations for employing a person and the
workman was never appointed as Sweeper with the
respondent management.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
taken by him in the statement of claim.
On the other hand the respondent management has
examined Sh. S.P. Bangur, who filed his affidavit Exhibit R1
reiterating the case of the respondent management as find
mentioned in the written reply.
I have heard Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the workman
and Sh. S. Kaushal, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman
that workman has given an affidavit that he worked with
the management from 1.11.1997 to 10.7.1999 and his services
were illegally terminated and he be reinstated in service.
It may be added that in order to establish the relationship
of employer and employee between the parties, the
workman was required to lead cogent and convincing
evidence on the file and his affidavit alone do not prove
the said fact. There is nothing on the file that he ever
recived any salary from the management. No effort was
made by him to requisition the record from the management
to establish the said fact. Since it is not proved that he was
getting any wages from the respondent management, it
cannot be said that he was ever employed as Sweeper with
the respondent management. Again no appointment letter
was issued to him and in the absence of any document on
3072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the file,it cannot be said that he was ever employed by the
respondent management.
An argument was also raised by the learned counsel
that the management has taken a stand about giving
contract for engaging employees but the contractor has
not been examined and therefore adverse inference be
taken. Suffice it to say, it is not the case of the workman
that he was engaged by the respondent Corporation
through the contractor and as such the non-examination
of the contractor is of no help to the workman who has
otherwise failed to prove his relationship with the
respondent management. When it is not proved that he
was ever employed by the respondent management, it
cannot be said that his services were terminated.
In result, it is held that the workman was not an employee
of the respondent management who did not terminate his
service 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] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1442-—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, LVhy vFkkWfjVh vkWQ bafM;k dk feJ
/kkrq bLikr la;a=] nqxkZiqj 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 dh rkjh[k 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;eu] 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 fufer 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'k"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;s 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
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 ;Fkkfu/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
[la- ,l&38014@16@2013&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3073
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1442.—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 Alloy Steel Plant of SAIL, Durgapur 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 establishment 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 the contribution paid prior to the
date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3) The contribution 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 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 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
(c) examine the principal or immediate
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
register, account book or other 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 automatically
cancelled and then the new entity will have to
approach the appropriate Government for
exemption.
[No. S-38014/16/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1443-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@273@2003&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&1½]
,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1443—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
3074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2004) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhandbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/273/2003-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1)(d)(2A) of I.D. Act,
1947
Reference No. 31 of 2004
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur
Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman :
Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.
State:—Jharkhand
Industry:—Coal
Dated 26/6/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/273/2003 IR-(C-I), dated 26/03/
2004 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section
(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur
Area No. III of M/S BCCL in not recording the date of
Birth of the workman Sri Raj Kumar Kalindi as 02.04.1968
on the basis of Matriculation Certificate is justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
19.04.2004. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 14.09.2004. The management also files written statement-
cum-rejoinder on 29.03.2006. The workman himself examined
as WW-1.
3. There is dispute regarding Date of Birth of the
workman. The workman submitted that his age is 29 years
as recorded by the management as on 29.08.1995 is wrong
and as a matter of fact his age to be recorded as per the age
mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
4. The management submitted that the workman never
produced the original matriculation certificate for
rectification of age. The management has neither adduced
any evidence nor filed any document.
5. From the photocopy of the matriculation certificate it
appears that he has passed matriculation in the year 1984.
But the workman joined in the years 1995, at that time he
did not file the matriculation certificate. Even in this case
he is not filing the original of the same. He passed the
matriculation 1984 why he did not file the same in 1995 at
the time of joining, for which he appears in Medical test.
6. He has admitted in his evidence that he signed form-
B register and went for medical test. He raised belated claim
without original Matriculation certificate. Photocopy of
certificate is doubtful as the Board Secretary Signature is
lacking. Hence claim refused.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case
I hold that, the action of the management of Govindpur
Area No.III of M/S BCCL in not recording the date of Birth
of the workman Sri Raj Kumar Kalindi as 02.04.1968 is
justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1444-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@1993½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@142@1991&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central Govenment
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/1993) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.-Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad
as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3075
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, reveived
by the Central Government on 08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/142/1991-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.
1947
Reference No. 63/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Bhatdee
Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer,
Appearances:
For the Employers: Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated:- 3/6/2015
AWARD
By order No L-20012/143/1991/IR (C-I) dated 09/02/1993,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjusdication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhatdee
Colliery of M/s. BCCL in superannuating Shri D.L. Hazari
Clerk from 13/06/90 is justified. If not to what relief is the
workmen entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates. Ld. Counsel for the
workman submits that workman is not interested to contest
the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1445-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uñ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@62@2010&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-&1½]
,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby
publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2011) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus.-Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/62/2010-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act
1947
Reference:No. 18/2011
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area
of M/S BCCL
And
Their workmen
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman:
None
State: Jharknand.
Industry-Coal
Dated-4/6/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/62/2010/IR (C-1) dated 16/03/2011,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub—
3076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Gondudih
Colliery of M/S BCCL in not accepting the GVRS and
dismissing Sri Nehal Ahmad from the service of the
company is fair and justified? To what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently
on behalf of the workman. Case remain pending. It is felt
that the disputes between the parties have been resolved
in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1446&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj VhLdks ds izca/kra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] uñ
1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@107@2005&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2006) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1 Dhanbad as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. TISCO and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/107/2005-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD.
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act
1947
Reference No. 36 of 2006
Employer in relation to the management of TISCO
and
Their workman
Present:
Sri R.K. Saran
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman : Sri Balmiki Prasad, Advocate.
State: Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal.
Dated 2/6/2015
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/107/2005 IR-(C-I), dated. 23/01/
2006 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section
(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication of this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of Jharia Group of Collieries of
Jamadoba of M/S TISCO is not providing employment
to Md. Kalam dependent son of Late Shri Mahamuddin
is justified? if so, to what relief is the said dependent of
the workman entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
13.02.2006. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the workman files their written statement on
08.05.2006. The management also files written statement-
cum rejoinder on 28.05.2007. Both parties adduce one
witness each on their behalf. Document of the management
marked as M-1 to M-5.
2. The Short point to be decided in this reference is the
workman, who died during cancer while in job under TISCO
management, whether to be treated as death due to accident
in the factory or not.
3. The applicant submitted that due to occupational
hazard the workman suffered and subsequently he died.
4. On the other hand management counsel submitted
that, though the workman died during service, his death
has no nexus with its occupation and as such the applicant
is not entitled to get any benefit.
5. Since the workman died in service his dependant son
is to be enrolled in the depedent list waiting for job under
the management whose parents who were in service died.
Therefore it is ordered to enroll the name of the applicant in
the dependant list for getting job and give him job, when
the vacancy occurs and his terms reached.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3077
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1447-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LikbZl tSV 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@@Je U;k;ky;] ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@58
vkWQ 2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@13@2012&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼lh,e&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 2/58 of 2012
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Spice Jet Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/07/2015.
[No. L-11012/13/2012-IR(CM-1)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE,
Presiding Officer
Reference Case CGIT-2/58 of 2012
Employers in Relation to the Management of
M/S Spice Jet Limited
The Manager
Spice Jet Limited
319, Udyog Vihar
Phase-IV
Gurgaon
Haryana-122 016.
AND
Their Workmen
Shri Chandan Punjabi
H.No. 13, Flat No. 4
Ambaji Bhawan
Laxmi Colony
Mahul Road, Chembur
Mumbai-400 074
APPEARANCES
For the Employer
:
Mr. Sanjay Sharma,
Representative
For the Union
:
Mr. D.N. Mandavia,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 7th April, 2015.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-11012/13/2012-IR (CM-I),
dated 04.12.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the
following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the demand of Shri Chandan Punjabi, Cabin
Attendant, In-flight Department of M/s. Spice Jet
Limited to reinstate him in services of M/s. Spice Jet
Ltd. Mumbai with back wages and continuity of
services in view of his resignation letter 3/11/2011,
coupled with termination order dated 7/12/2011 of
the management w.e.f. 7/12/2011 is legal and justified?
To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were
served with notice. In response to the notice second party
workman filed his Statement of claim at Ex-3. According to
the second party workman he is employee of the first party.
He was appointed on 15/10/2010 as Cabin Attendant in
Flight Service Department. After training he started his
regular duty. Subsequently he was transferred to Mumbai.
He was confirmed in service w.e.f. 01/08/2010. He was
performing his duty honestly continuously and was getting
his salary till 12/10/2011. He received a warning letter dt.
04/11/2011 regarding refusal to operate the schedule duty
on 1/11/2011. The workman had denied the allegations vide
his reply dated 3/11/2011. The workman had sought leave
from 23/11/2011 to 28/11/2011 for performance of certain
rituals in respect of his marriage. However company did
not communicate him whether his leave was granted or
refused. In order to harass the workman the first party
company deliberately kept the training for flying license
from 25/11/2011 knowing well that workman had asked for
leave from 23/11/2011 to 28/11/2011. The company then
issued a letter dt. 3/12/2011 in respect of unauthorised
absence from duty from 23/11/2011 to 28/11/2011. Workman
also received mail calling for his explanation and he had
given the explanation to the Manager. He also gave
explanation to the notice regarding unauthorised absence
vide his reply dated 5/12/2011.
3. Workman submits that he received letter of
termination dt. 7/12/2011 in respect of false charges. In that
respect, neither any charge-sheet was issued to him nor
any inquiry was initiated about the charges. Earlier workman
had given his resignation vide his letter dt. 3/11/2011 with
3078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
intention to resign w.e.f. 16/11/2011 but deliberately the
company has not accepted his resignation for want of three
months notice. He also gave another letter dt. 3/11/2011 for
resignation w.e.f. 2/2/2012. However there was no
communication from the side of the company in respect of
acceptance of the resignation. Pay i.e. total gross salary of
Rs. 46,295 for the month of Nov. 2011 was not paid to the
workman.
4. Second party is not performing any executive or
supervisory work. He is doing his work manually and he
comes within the definition of 'workman'. He had also sent
legal notice through his advocate but company did not
give any response thereto. The workman claims that his
services were terminated illegally. In spite of utmost efforts
he could not get any employment. Therefore he prays that
the company be directed to reinstate him with full back
wages w.e.f. 7/12/2012 with continuity of service.
5. The first party resisted the Statement of claim vide
its Written Statement at Ex-6. According to the management
the allegations of the workman are false. According to them
on 1.11.2011 workman refused to operate a flight duty under
the pretext that he had not completed his mandatory rest
period and he has withheld the operation of the
management. On 3/11/2011 workman was called to discuss
the reason of his refusal to operate the assigned flight
duties. In the discussion he was made to understand that
calculation of rest period by him was only presumptive
and he had not calculated it properly. He had also made to
understand that such a refusal to operate flight duty amount
to in-subordination and amount to gross misconduct. He
demanded new bag and management assured to give the
same. On 4/11/2011 a warning letter was issued to the
workman for willfull refusal to operate scheduled flight duty
and he was instructed to refrain from such activites in future.
On 4/11/2011 the workman resigned from the service of the
company and chose to serve for three months notice period
and his last working day was 2/2/2012. The management
had accepted his resignation.
6. After submission of resignation during the notice
period, workman started to create nuisance for the
management, such as on 21/11/2011 he approached the
Manager and sought for leave from 23/11/2011 to
28/11/2011 knowing well that his annual recurrent training
was scheduled to be held from 25/11/2011 to 28/11/2011
which was required for renewal of his license and
prerequisite to perform his duties as cabin crew. As his
license was expiring Management issued a letter dt.
21/11/2011 instructing him to attend the annual recurrent
training from 25/11/2011 to 28/11/2011. It was also stated in
the letter that no leave will be granted during the notice
period. He was also informed not to leave his present base
without prior permission of the Base Manager, Mumbai.
However the workman remained absent and left the HQ on
account of marriage without submitting marriage invitation
card to the company which was prerequisite to grant leave
on that count. Before that on 15/11/2011 workman was
scheduled to travel from Delhi to Mumbai on flight No. SG
109 as Additional Crew Member (ACM) in order to perform
duties assigned to him by the management. However after
boarding the said flight, without any authorisation workman
de-boarded the said flight and even failed to inform the
cabin crew-in-charge about his de-boarding. It clearly
indicates the intention of the workman to disrupt the
business operation of the company. Management issued
another warning letter dt. 25/11/2011 for his said behaviour.
On 28/11/2011 management noticed that workman was
absconding from his normal duties since 23/11/2011. It was
unauthorised absence without any approval from
management. Company issued a letter directing him to
report the Office within 24 hours. On 5/12/2011 workman
reported back to the Head Office and made written
submission about his absconding contending that he was
absent for puja and rituals of his marriage. In spite of demand
he did not produce the marriage invitation card.
7. As workman did not attend the recurrent training,
his license was expired and he could not perform his duties
as a cabin crew. For unauthorised absence and refusal to
attend flight duty also amount to insubordination. Refusal
to attend training and for all above reasons management
decided to terminate his services from 7/12/2011. The
workman had already resigned from services. For all these
reasons the reference is liable to be dismissed. They denied
all the allegations made by the workman in his statement of
claim and pray that the reference be dismissed with cost.
8. Following are the issues for my determination.
I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
1. Whether the termination of services of
Yes
workman Shri Chandan Punjabi, Cabin
Attendant in flight Department was
legal and justified?
2. Whether the workman is entitled to be
No
reinstated in service with full back-wages
and continuity of service?
3. What order?
As per final
order
REASONS
In the case at hand at the outset it was pointed out on
behalf of the workman that the termination is prima facie
illegal as neither the workman was charge-sheeted nor nay
departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Therefore
termination of his service is illegal. In this respect the fact
is not disputed that, the workman is permanent employee
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3079
of the first party company. Therefore though there are
serious allegations of misconduct against the workman his
services cannot be terminated without domestic inquiry
for the charges of misconduct. In the case at hand fact is
not disputed that neither any charge-sheet was served on
the workman nor management has conducted any
departmental inquiry against him. Therefore it needs no
further discussion to arrive me at the conclusion that the
order of termination issued by the management is not legal
and proper. Both the parties herein have led their entire
evidence. In this backdrop merely setting aside the order
of termination would not serve the purpose. When the
pleadings and entire evidence of both the parties are on
record the Tribunal is duty bound and well empowered to
examine the evidence on record as to whether the workman
is guilty of the alleged charges of misconduct.
10. There are specific allegations of misconduct and
both the parties have led their documentary and oral
evidence. Thus instead of merely setting the order of
termination, I think it proper to deal with the charges leveled
against the workman. The management has leveled
following charges against the workman: (1) in-
subordination (i) by refusing to operate his flight duty on
1/11/2011 & (ii) leaving Head Quarter without prior
permission and against the specific instructions to that
effect. (2) Un-authorised absence. (3) De-boarding the flight
without intimation to the Crew In-charge.
11. Now I would like to examine the evidence in respect
of each of the above charges.
12. In respect of the first charge the fact is not disputed
that on 01/11/2011 workman refused to operate his flight
duty by saying that, he had not completed his mandatory
rest period as required as per DGCA rules. Secondly he has
also admitted in his cross at Ex-11 that though he was
asked not to leave the Head Quarter without prior
permission he had to leave the HQ to perform some marriage
rituals. In this respect from these admitted facts it is clear
that the workman did not obey the orders of his superior.
The workman has tried to give his explanation that he
refused to attend the flight duty on 1/11/2011 as he has not
completed his mandatory rest period. Neither workman has
given this specific rest period he wanted to avail nor has given
the hours of flight duty he had completed on 31/10/2011.
Whereas specific question was put to the workman in his
cross examination at Ex-11 that on 31/10/2011 he worked
for 4 hours and 16 minutes. He replied that he cannot say
whether he worked for 4 hours and 16 minutes as flying
hours. Subsequently he says that, I again say that as per
record it was 5 flying hours and had required 10 hours
mandatory rest. This version of workman thus does not
stand to reasons that he has not completed the mandatory
rest period.
13. In this respect it was also pointed out that workman
has admitted in his cross at Ex-11 that he was not having
proper crew baggage and it was also one of the reasons in
refusing to attend the flight duty on 1/11/2011. After
examining overall circumstances it is revealed that the
workman has put forth unacceptable reason that he refused
to attend the duty on 01/11/2011 as he had not availed
sufficient rest. The main reason appears that he was not
given proper baggage. For such reason the workman who
was a crew member of the flight was not supposed to refuse
to attend the duty. Said refusal no doubt amount to
insubordination. Secondly it is also the charge of the
management that, the workman was asked not to leave
head quarter during the period 25/11/2011 to 28/11/2011
when he was supposed to attend his training. However the
workman has left the Head Quarter by giving the reason
that he has to perform some marriage rituals. It appears
that before that the workman has sent his letter of
resignation on 3/11/2011 contending that he is resigning
w.e.f. 16/11/2011 and 15/11/2011 would be his last working
day. The workman has admitted the same in his cross at Ex-
11. In this respect workman has also admitted in his cross
that management told him to give three months notice or
deposit three months pay in lieu of notice and he had agreed
to give three months notice. It seems that thereafter the
workman has started creating trouble. On 21/11/2011 he
has sought for leave from 23/11/2011 to 28/11/2011 saying
that he has to perform his marriage puja and rituals. He has
admitted in his cross that management told him to produce
marriage invitation card to grant leave on that ground.
However according to him the marriage invitation cards
were not ready therefore he could not produce the same.
14. In this respect I would like to point out that had his
marriage was to be held between 23/11/2011 to 28/11/2011.
it is ridiculous to say that marriage invitation cards were
not ready seven days there prior as on 21/11/2011. The
workman has admitted in his cross that he left the Head
Quarter on 23/11/2011 as he had to perform marriage rituals.
In this respect further I would like to point out that the
reason of marriage also appears false for the simple reason
that, nowhere the workman has given either the date of his
marriage or the venue fixed for. It is also cleverly mentioned
in the statement of claim that he applied for leave to perform
some marriage rituals. He has not contended anywhere
that he had sought for leave for his marriage. The vague
pleading that he was in need of leave to perform some
marriage rituals appears a lame excuse. It appears that he
was not in need of leave for his marriage. The fact is not
disputed that on that count workman had left the Head
Quarter though he was directed not to leave the same. It
amount to in-subordination. Accordingly I hold that the
workman is guilty for in-subordination on both these
counts.
15. The second charge is in respect of unauthorized
absence. The fact is not disputed that, the workman was
absent from 23/11/2011 till 28/11/2011 by saying that he
had to go to perform some marriage rituals. Neither he
3080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
produced marriage invitation card, nor has given details of
his marriage such as day, date, time, place of marriage.
Furthermore the license of the workman was expired and
he was supposed to undergo Annual Recurrent Training.
He admitted in his cross at Ex-11 that without renewal of
license they cannot attend their duty as cabin crew.
In spite of that, the workman remained absent during the
training period. It seems that the workman was doing all
these things merely to harass the management. He has
already declared his intention to resign from duty. Instead
of depositing three months pay, it seems that he has
adopted such method to tease and harass the management.
The management has not granted him leave as he had not
produced marriage invitation card. He has not even
communicated the details of day, date, place and time etc.
of his marriage. He has not even pleaded in his statement
of claim that he had sought leave for his marriage. He has
not given the details thereof such as to when and where
his marriage was to be performed. The pleading that he
applied for leave to perform some marriage rituals is vague
and unacceptable. It supports the version of the first party
that the workman remained absent unauthorisedly.
Therefore I found that the workman is guilty for
unauthorised absence.
16. The next charge against the workman is that on
15/11/2011 he de-boarded the flight when he was asked to
attend the flight duty as Additional crew Member. He
admitted in his cross at Ex-11 that, he did not travel as
Additional Crew Member in Delhi-Mumbai SG 109 flight
on 15/11/2011. Vaguely he has further contended that it
was the fault on the part of the company as they did not
allow him to travel as ACM. He admitted that for that one
more warning letter was issued to him on 25/11/2011. He
further admitted that he had refused to accept the warning
letter and it was sent by post and he had sent it back.
Thereafter the said letter was sent to him on his registered
address.
Looking into the overall conduct of the workman, it
appears that, he is not a trustworthy witness to rely upon.
It appears that he was creating nuisance for the first party
management at every stage. Furthermore he has not pointed
out as to who did not allow him to travel as ACM. He has
vaguely contended in his cross at Ex-11 that, it was fault
on the part of the company as they did not allow him to
travel as ACM. His reply is vague and unacceptable. On
the other hand his behavior of de-boarding the flight
without intimation, appears consistent to his earlier
behavior of creating problem to the first part. In this back-
drop I hold that the workman de-boarded the flight without
informing the Crew In-charge. All the allegations levelled
against the workman are proved by the management. Thus
I hold the workman guilty for the aforesaid misconduct. In
the circumstances now it is irrelevant as to whether the
resignation was accepted or kept pending till expiry of the
notice period.
17. On the point of punishment I would like to observe
that the overall conduct of the workman who is crew member
as discussed hereinabove is no doubt unbecoming of a
crew member. In case he remains in service such type of
crew member may create even more serious problems. Not
only he had disobeyed the orders of his superior but also
refused to accept the warning letters. He also remained
absent unauthorisedly during crucial period of his annual
recurrent training. He de-boarded the flight without
informing the Crew In-charge. All these behaviour is not at
all tolerable more so from a cabin crew. Therefore the
punishment of termination of his services is quite just and
proper and the same cannot be called shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Thus I hold
that the charges of serious misconduct are proved against
the workman. Therefore I hold that the order of termination
of his services is just and proper and needs no interference.
Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands rejected with no order as to cost.
Date: 07.04.2015
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk. 1448.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y 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;
uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@361@1991&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 51/1993 of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of the M/S.
ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/361/1991-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3081
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 51/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Hariajam
Colliery of M/S ECL
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
PRESENT
SHRI R. K. SARAN
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES
For the Employers
: Shri D.K. Verma,
Advocate
For the workman
: None
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry
: Coal
Dated: 1/6/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/361/1991/IR (C-I) dated 06/01/
1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referraed the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for regularization of S/Shri Ashok Kumar
Biswakarma and 19 others by the management of
Hariajam Colliery of M/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Nirsha Area is Justified? If yes, to what relief the
concerned workmen is entitled?"
Note: list of workmen is not received along with order of
reference.
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties and
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1449.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds izca/
kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@
Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@1993½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@403@1991&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&1½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2015
S.O. 1449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 54/1993) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between the management of the M/s.
ECL and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 08/07/2015.
[No. L-20012/403/1991-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947
Reference: No. 54/1993
Employer in relation to the management of Lakhimata
Colliery of M/S ECL
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
PRESENT
SRI R. K. SARAN
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES
For the Employers
: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry
: Coal
Dated: 1/6/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/403/1991/IR (C-1) dated
06/01/1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this TribunaL:
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union for regularization of S/Shri Badal Mahato and
11 others as Black Smith is justified? If yes, what
relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"
3082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Note: List of workmen is not received along with order of
reference.
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
But appearing for certain dates non appears subsequently.
Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resloved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1450.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ
ch,llhlh&lh ^^tsoh** ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k eqt¶Qjiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 02@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y&42025@03@2015&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th July, 2015
S.O. 1450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 02/2013)
of the Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the M/s. BSC-
C&C "JV" and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 09/07/2015.
[No. L-42025/03/2015-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
OFFICE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MUZAFFARPUR
PRESENT
SHRI BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD GUPTA
Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
Industrial Dispute Case No. 02/2013
Sandeep Kamar
S/o Lakhindra Thakur,
R/o Village Serukahi,
P.O. Kabilpur P.S.-Kanti.
Distt.-Muzaffarpur, Bihar
WROKMAN/APPLICANT
Versus
1. M/s BSC-C&C "JV" (A Joint venture between
BSCPI Infrastructure Ltd. and C&C Construction
Ltd.) Shikarpur House Dr. T.N. Banarjee Road,
Chhajju Bagh, Patna-800001
Through
2. Ashok Kumar Singh, Chief General Manager.
M/s. BSC-C&C "J.V.."
3. Umesh Mehotra. Senior Project Manager, M/s.
BSC- C&C "J.V." Office At & Post-Korlahiya, via
Rampur Hari. P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt. Sitamarhi,
(Bihar) Pin- 843117
4. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Junior Project Manager. BSC-
C&C "J.V." Office. At & Post-Korlahiya via Rampur
Hari. P.S. Runnisaidpur. Distt. Sitamarhi (Bihar) Pin-
843117.
MANAGEMENT/OPP. PARTIES
Dated 26th of June, 2015
AWARD
1. This case has been filed under section 2 of Section
2 (A) of I.D. Act, 1947 by the workman petitioner
for the relief of
(i) That his termination order dated 07.06.2012
by the O.P's management be held illegal,
improper, perverse and void abinitio and the
same be quashed.
(ii) That the management OP's be directed to
reinstate the workman with full back wages,
benefit of consequential benefit, had his
service not been terminate
2. The short fact of this case, is the workman Sandeep
Kumar was employed by the OP management in
the year 2007 and posted him at village Garha. P.S.
Ahiyapur, Distt. Muzaffarpur (Bihar) As the OP's
are contractor and engaged in construction of four
lane road at Muzaffarpur and nearby districts, by
the Govt. of India.
3. After employment the work man started working
under the OP's and the OP's were fully satisfied
with the work performance of the petitioner and
deputed him at the Office of District Land
Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, as technical
assistant, by Office order dated 05.08.2009. After
deputation in the Office of land Acquisition Officer
Muzaffarpur, the workman discharged his duty with
full devotion and ability and also worked for the
land acquisition in the surrounding district of
Sitamarhi, as per requirement of the work. It is further
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3083
case of the workman that he continuously worked
in the Office of Distt. Land Acquisition Officer,
Muzaffarpur from 2009 to 07.06.12, but the
management OP's started torturing him by illegal
deduction of him payment and also delayed his
monthly payment, for that he protested and
objected. Lastly on 07.06.12 stopped the petitioner
to work in the Office of the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Muzaffarpur by issuing a letter to the Land
Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur and terminated
the workman from his service on 07.06.2012
suddenly without complying the mandatory
provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and rules framed there
under and also against the cannon of natural
Justice.
4. It is relevant to mention that no charges of
misconduct ever made against him nor any domestic
enquiry was ever conducted, nor he was held guilty
of misconduct, nor one month notice or one month
salary was given to the petitioner.
5. That the workman after termination of his service,
raised industrial dispute, before conciliation Officer
of Govt. of India by letter dated 11.06.2012 but, the
conciliation authorities did not taken any
appropriate steps for reinstatement of his service
nor noticed the OP's to take appropriate step for
his employment and payment of his back wages.
Hence finding no alternative he filed this case before
this tribunal for adjudication of his dispute.
6. That after service of notices all the three OP's
appeared and filed their joint written statement
alleging their in, that this case is not maintainable
as the work man is not a worker under I.D. Act,
1947. The workman petitioner had filed a case before
the Court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Muzaffarpur vide Case No. 03/2012, for payment of
wages, which is still pending, but this fact has not
been disclosed before this Tribunal. Hence this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this case. Apart
from, that this court has been constituted by the
State Govt. under I.D. Act, 1947 and the OP's are
concessionaire of the Central Govt. and this case
has been filed directly before this Tribunal. On this
score also this case is not maintainable before this
tribunal.
7. Besides the aforesaid facts the present OP's are
engaged in road construction under Contract of
NHAI (National Highways Authority of India)
under Ministry of transport and High ways, in which
North Bihar Highway Ltd. (NBHL) is the
concessionaire. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar was
in need of a service. He approached with the OP's
and under the approval of the OP's he joined the
service of the management on 23.01.2007, as
supervisor at Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa (Sitamarhi)
Section of NH-77, on the monthly salary of
Rs.-4500/- (Four Thousand Five hundred) only, later
on after increment etc. he was getting Rs.-7800/-
(Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) per month.
8. It is further case of the OP's is that on 05.08.2009
Sri Sandeep Kumar was deputed by the
management in the Office of the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur vide Letter
No. 31026/05/2004/PD/PIU/Muz./978 dated
05.08.2009, where he worked till 10.10.2011, but the
management withdrawn the service of Sri Sandeep
Kumar from the Office of D.L.A.O. Muzaffarpur vide
letter No.31026/10/2011/PD/PIU/Muz./1432 dated
11.10.2011 and in place of Sri Sandeep Kumar one
Binod Bhagat was deployed and he was directed
to report from the Office of management, but he
was remain absent till 14.10.2011.
9. On 14.10.2011 Sri Sandeep Kumar petitioner was
transferred to camp No. 3 at Sonbarsa (Sitamarhi)
as per requirement of the work, but he did not joined
at Camp No. 3 and remain absent on 29.12.2011 the
present petitioner came in the Office of the
management and orally refused to join at Camp
No. 3 at Sonbarsa (Sitamarhi) left the office.
Therefore he was traceless. Finding no alternative
the management OP's advised him vide letter
No. BSC-C&C/NH-77/AB-71 dated 30.12.2011 to
join his duty immediately, but to no effect, then
after waiting for a month the management send a
letter with charge sheet vide letter No. BSC-C&C/
NH77/CS/66 dated 01.02.2012 for his unauthorized
absence from the duty, but the petitioner was
become traceless. The above two letters were
sending through D.T.D.C. Courier Service at the
home address of the worker. But he never replied
nor joins his duty. It is false to say that the worked
in the Office of D.L.A. Office Muzaffarpur since the
2008 to 07.06.2012.
10. As far allegation of illegal deduction of salary,
delayed payment and non-payment are concern,
it is false and wrong allegation of the worker without
any proof. It is also false to say that the workman
was ever terminated from the service by the
management with effect from 07.06.2012, rather after
withdrawal from the D\.L.A.O.-Muzaffarpur he
himself left the service without any permission and
information. Therefore, no questions arise for
termination and compensation. The management
finding no alternative simply struck off the name of
the workman and made alternative arrangement to
complete the contract work of National importance.
11. All the allegations leveled against the management
OP's are totally false, concocted and misconceived.
The petitioner workman is not entitled for any relief
claimed. Hence the case should be dismissed.
3084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. Now from the pleadings of the parties the following
issues may be cast for the adjudication of the case
of the workman—
(i) Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction and
power to entertain and adjudicate the case filed
against the contractor/authorities of the Central
Govt. under the I.D. Act, 1947 specially when
this tribunal was constituted by the state
Govt.?
(ii) Whether the petitioner workman was
terminated from his service by the management
without complying the mandatory provisions
of the I.D. Act, 1947, and its rules framed under
and entitle for reinstatement with back wages?
(iii) Whether the petitioner workman himself left
the service of the management without any
information of the management after
withdrawal from the D.L.A. Office Muzaffarpur?
(iv) Whether this case is maintainable in the
pendency of payment of wages Case
no. 03/2012, pending before the Labour Court,
Muzaffarpur?
(v) To what relief or relieves the workman entitled
to?
13. Before entering into the findings of the issues
framed above I would like to mention the Exhibits
and evidences adduced by the respective parties
to quote them in the findings.
14. The learned counsel of the work adduced workman
witness No. 1 Sandeep Kumar and also exhibited
follwing documents in support of his case and
claim—
(i) Ext. 'A' is the photo copy of the plaint of
payment of wages Case No. 03/2012 pending
before Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Muzaffarpur.
(ii) Ext. A/1 is the application of work man Sandeep
Kumar, which was filed before Project Manager
B.S.C.-C&C "J.V."
(iii) Ext. 'B' is the letter dated 05.08.2009 send by
Sri A.K. Verma, Project Director N.H.A.I. of
India, by which Sri Sandeep Kumar was
deputed at District land Acquisition Officer
Muzaffarpur.
(iv) Ext. B/1 is the letter dated 14.10.2009 sent by
Sri A.K. Verma, Project Director, N.H.A.I. of
India by which he deputed Sri Ram Babu 'Amin'
in the Office of District land Acquisition Officer,
Muzaffarpur.
(v) Ext. B/2 is the letter dated 02.09.2011 by which
the 'Amin' technical assistants were deployed
in the Office of District Land Acquisition
Officer, Muzaffarpur by the Project Director.
(vi) Ext. 'C' is the letter of the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, by which this
workman and others were deployed in the
Office of District Registrar. Muzaffarpur to do
some work of NH-57 and same is the position
of Ext. C/1 and C/2.
15. The management also adduced three witnesses in
support of his case. His first witness is Suresh Pd.
Prajapati. He is the Deputy Manager of B.S.C. C&C
"J.V.", Second witness is Nawal Kishore Prasad.
He is Assistant Manager of R.O.B. Third witness is
Pradeep Kumar Anwar. He is Senior Accountant of
Personnel, in BSC-C&C 'JV.'
16. The management OP's also exhibited following
documents in support of his case, out of whom,
ext. No. 1 is letter dated 11.10.2011 sent by Rajesh
Kumar, Deputy General Manager. N.H.A.I. to District
Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, by this letter
the worker petitioner Sandeep Kumar was
withdrawn from the Office of District Land
Acquisition Officer and one Binod Bhjagat was
deployed there.
(i) Ext. '2' is voucher of internal communication
with Sri Sandeep Kumar with endorsement, by
which Sri Sandeep refused to report at camp
No. III on 29.12.2011.
(ii) Ext. I/A is the letter dt. 30.12.2011 by the
authorities of BSC-C&C 'JV'. to Sri Sandeep
Kumar Workman, by which he was directed to
join his duty before 09.01.2012 failing which it
is constructed that you are not willing ot
continue in your service with the company.
(iii) Ext.-1/B is the letter dated 1.2.2012 by which
an explananation was sought from the worker
Sandeep Kumar regarding his unauthorized 107
days absence from the work of the company.
(iv) Ext. '3' to 3/d (total five) are the Staff increment
statement for the year 2007-2008 to 2011-2012
of Sri Sandeep Kumar, to show his salary and
his gradual increment.
17. Now I would like to inter into the findings of the
crucial issue of the case.
FINDINGS
18. Issue No. I So far the objection of the OP's
management with regard to jurisdiction and the
power of this tribunal is concern, I have to say that
this objection was raised by the OP's before this
tribunal as a preliminary objection, just after filing
of his written statement and after hearing both the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3085
parties this issue was adjudicated and decided by
this tribunal by its order dated 20.12.2013, by which
it is held that after amendment in the I.D. Act, 1947
and after incretion of section 10 (d) (iii) proviso,
which came into force on 21.08.1984. This tribunal
has power and jurisdiction to entertain this case
even if the appropriate Govt. is the Central Govt.
19. The order of this tribunal was accepted by both the
parties and none of the parties filed any appeal,
revision or challenged in the writ jurisdiction before
competent court. Hence this issue is set of rest.
Issue No. II & III
20. Both the issues are inter linked therefore; both the
issues are taken together.
21. It is the case of the workman that he had been
stopped to inter into the premises of the company
and by stopping him he had been deprived to
continue his work with the company. As against
this the OP's came with a case that after withdrawal
of the workman from the Office of the D.L.A. Office
Muzaffarpur he did not turn up to work to the place
of his new assignment. For that the OP's issued
notices and directed him to resume his work to his
new place of work, but the work man did not pay
any heed and remain kept mum.
22. To find out the real truth I have gone through with
the evidence oral and documentary available on
the record. From perusal of the same, it appears
that most of the facts are almost admitted. Such as
he join the service of the OP's on 23.01.2007, he
was deputed in the Office of District Land
Acquisition officer, Muzaffarpur on 05.08.2009 and
he had been withdrawn from the said Office on
11.10.2011 and transferred to Sonbarsa Camp, but
he did not joined there. But the real controversy
started in the version of the workman when he
started claiming. That he was deputed by the OP's
in the Office of the D.L.A. Office for the work of the
OP's. Where he worked till 06.06.2012 without any
hindrance. (Vide Para-5 of his affidavit by way of
examination in Chief).
23. From perusal of Ext. 1 it appears that a letter on
11.10.2011 was sent by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Deputy
General Manager of National Highway Authority
of India, Muzaffarpur, by which Sri Sandeep Kumar,
present petitioner working in the said Office as
technical assistant on behalf of the OP's. was
withdrawn from that Office and on his place one
Binod Bhagat was deployed in place of Sri Sandeep
Kumar. This fact also finds support from Ext. B-2,
Letter dated-02.09.2011 by which Sri Rajesh Kumar,
Project Director informed the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur regarding
deployment of Sri Sandeep Kumar at his Office as
technical assistant along with others, this letter is
prior to letter Ext. 1 by the same officer. The
deployment of Sri Sandeep Kumar is not under
controversy with the D.L.A. Office. In deposition
Para No. 7 of Sri Sandeep Kumar, it appears and he
accepted the fact that the OP's. send a letter to the
Land Acquisition Office to stop the entry of Sri
Sandeep Kumar in the office.
^^Hkw&vtZu dk;kZy; dks Hkh bl ckr dh lwpuk Hkstok fn;k
x;k fd eq>s vkWfQl esa ugha tkus fn;k tk;s**
24. This acceptance of Sandeep Kumar support the
verdict of Ext. 1, because no other letter brought on
record by him that he was stopped to inter into the
Office of D.L.A. Officer on 07.06.2012, nor any
documentary and oral evidence are available on
record to prove the said statement of Sri Sandeep
Kumar.
25. In this respect the OP's. adduced three witnesses
and all are the officers of the OP's. The OPWI Suresh
Kumar Prajapati, who is Deputy Manager
(Personnel) clearly stated in his deposition that—
"N.H.A.I. ds i= la[;k&31026@10@2011@ihñMhñ@ihñvkbZñ;wñ
eqtñ@1432 fnukad 04-10-2011 ds }kjk rRdky izHkko ls
vkosnd lanhi dqekj dks ftyk Hkw&vtZu dk;kZy;]
eqt¶Qjiqj ls izfrfu;qfDr ls okil dj muds LFkku ij fouksn
Hkxr dks izfrfu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk**
This statement of O.W.I has not been furnished in
the cross examination by the learned counsel of
the workman, rather he stood in the test of cross
examination by saying—
,slh ckr gS fd o"kZ 2011&12 esa lanhi dqekj dks D.L.A.O.
eqt¶Qjiqj ls okil cqyk fy;k x;k Fkk rFkk blds fy;s
dk;kZy; vkns'k fuxZr gqvk Fkk**
26. OPW-2 Nawal Kishore Prasad, who is an Assistant
Manager of B.S.C.-C&C and was posted at
"Garaha" upto September 2010, accepted that the
worker Sri Sandeep Kumar was deployed to the
Office of the D.L.A. Officer, but he is unable to say
that at present who deployed in the D.L.A. Office
because he has been transferred from Guraha to
R.O.B. Muzaffarpur in September 2010. In the cross
examination the learned counsel fail to establish
from this witness that the worker Sri Sandeep was
deployed in the Office of D.L.A. Officer upto
07.06.2012.
27. O.P.W-3 Pradeep Kumar Anwar in the senior
accountant of BSC-C&C 'J.V.'. He also stated that
Sri Sandeep Kumar was deployed in August, 2009
in the Office of the D.L.A. Officer, but on 11.10.2011
3086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he was withdrawn from the D.L.A. Office
Muzaffarpur and in his place one Binod Kumar was
deputed (vide para-5).
In cross examination he has strengthen the case of
the OP's by saying—
^^fouksn Hkxr uke ds deZpkjh dks ftyk Hkw&vtZu
inkfèdkjh] eqt¶Qjiqj esa vDrwcj&2011 esas inLFkkfir fd;k
x;k Fkk**
28. In this way this witness also supported the case of
the OP's. Nothing has come in the cross-
examination of this witness to disbelieve his
statement.
29. No documentarty evidence had been brought on
record by the worker to show that he had worked at
D.L.A. Office till 07.06.2012.
30. From the above discussion it is clear, that the
workman had worked in the Office of the D.L.A.
Office for the N.H.A.I. since 05.08.2009 to
11.10.2011. Accordingly I have no hesitation to hold
that the workman worked in the Office of D.L.A.
Officer Muzaffarpur from 05.08.2009 to 11.10.2011
only. He has failed to prove that he worked till
07.06.2012.
31. Now the second question is that, the workman was
dismissed or retrenched/terminated from the service
of the OP's without any consent cause or he himself,
leave the service of the OP's.
32. To answer this question I would like to refer Ext.-1/A,
which is the letter dated 30.12.2011, by which he
had been directed to resume his duty on or before
09.01.2012, otherwise it will be construed that he is
not interested to continue in his service with the
OP's. and his name will he struck off from the rolls
of the company. This letter was sent to the
permanent residential address of the workman
through courier. This letter was never return to the
addressee, which is presumed to be served.
33. Here it is relevant to mention that previously the
workman was deployed in the Office of the D.L.A.
Officer since 05.08.2009 to 11.10.2011. When he had
been withdrawn from the D.L.A. Office on 11.10.2011
and transferred to N.H.A.I. project Sonbarsha. Then
he himself refused to work at Sonbarasa. To prove
that he had been forcibly stopped to enter into the
premises of the company, not a chit of a paper is
available on the record save and accept the oral
evidence of the workman. It is obvious that if he
was forcibly stopped to inter into the premises of
the OP's then why not he sent any letter to the
higher authority of the N.H.A.I. Muzaffarpur, why
not agitated the matter, why not join his duty after
receiving of letter dated 30.12.11 (Ext.1/A), but
became silent and keep mum.
34. Apart from that an another letter on 01.02.2012 by
way of charge sheet was send to him with an
allegation that you are absent without permission
from your duty for a period of 107 days, which has
cause dislocation of work and loss of company
and called for an explanation from the worker, but
in-spite of that letter this work man neither
submitted his explanation nor resume his duty, nor
agitated the matter before any higher authority. It
is very strange that the OP's. are claiming that they
never terminated the workman rather he himself
gives up the service of the OP's without any
information in protest of withdrawal from the Office
of the D.L.A. Officer. No termination letter brought
on record by any of the parties. Without termination
letter now it has been presumed that the workman
was terminated or retrenched from the service by
the OP's. In his examination in chief and cross-
examination he denied about issuance of letter. He
did not brought any letter, document, evidence oral
and documentary about forcibly stopping of his
entrance in the premises.
35. On the other hand the OP's brought evidence oral
and documentary that after transfer from D.L.A.
Office to Sonbarsa, he left to work and did not
assume his duty at Sonbarsa, this fact was
supported by all the three witnesses of the OP's
and nothing have come in their cross examination
to disbelieve it.
36. It is also the case of the workman that on 07.06.2012
he had made protested to the general manager of
the OP. Company about his late payment and illegal
deduction from his salary, but not a chit of paper or
any type of evidence have been brought on record
to show how he made protest, by writing a petition,
by orally making demand and from where which led
to his termination. These fact and circumstances
clearly shows that he was never terminated or
retrenched by the OP's rather he himself leave the
service of the OP's in protest of his transfer from
the D.L.A. office, Muzaffarpur to Sonbarsa.
37. Hence I am of the opinion that the story of
termination or retrenchment or stopping of entrance
in the premises of the OP's are not correct and
proved by the workman without any shadow of
doubt. Accordingly I hold that the workman was
never terminated/retrenched by the OP's.
Accordingly this issue is decided against the
workman. Hence no question arises for compliance
of the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act. 1947
under section 25(F)
Issue No.-IV
38. So far the question of maintainability of this case in
the pendency of the case No. 03 of 2012 pending
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3087
before the court of presiding Officer Muzaffarpur is
concern, from perusal of the main petition of this
case (Plaint) it appears that in the present case the
relief sought from the Tribunal is for the setting aside
of the termination dated 07.06.2012, whereas the relief
sought before the Labour Court is for payment of
delayed wages and payment of the amount of illegally
deducted salary of the petitioner worker.
39. It would be relevant to mention here that the
legislatures separated the power and jurisdiction of
the Tribunal as well as the Labour court in the I.D.
Act, 1947 and its amendments, specifically the
second Schedule governs the power and jurisdiction
of the Labour Court and Third Schedule governs
the power and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.
40. The matter of back wages and deducted wages
comes under the jurisdiction of Second Schedule
which is exclusivly Triable by the Labour Court,
and the termination and retrenchment matters
comes under the third schedule which comes under
power and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.
41. The present case was filed before this tribunal for
setting aside of termination/retrenchment order of
the OP's only, and the Case No. 03/2012 was filed
before Labour Court for payment of deducted salary
and back wages. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the present case filed before this tribunal is fully
maintainable during the pendency of the case No.
03/2012 filed before Labour Court, Muzaffarpur.
42. Apart from the above discussion and provision of
law, I have already discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs that the present workman petitioner was
never terminated nor retrenched by the OP's rather
he himself left, the service of the OP's in protest of
his transfer from the Office of the D.L.A. Officer
Muzaffarpur, on this score also this tribunal have
full jurisdiction to try this case as it is not within
the jurisdiction of the Labour court. Hence this
issue is decided against the OP's and in favour of
the workman petitioner.
Issue No.-V
43. During course of argument the learned counsel of
the OP's very much gave stress on the cross
examination of the workman, in which he
categorically admitted that before going in the
service of the OP's in the year 2007, he was an
practicing Advocate of the Civil Court, Muzaffarpur
having Enrollment No. 48 of 2006 and a registered
Advocate of Bar Association Muzaffarpur. He also
admitted that this fact had not been disclosed by
him before the OP's at the time of appointment, nor
after getting service he informed the Bar Council of
Bihar and Bar Association of Civil Court,
Muzaffarpur, which is itself a cheating and
misappropriation of his post and unbecoming of a
lawyer and against, the Advocates Act. Hence the
very appointment of the petitioner worker was
illegal.
44. In this respect he relied upon the judgement and
orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj
Gupta & other Versus state of Jammu and Kashmir
case, passed on 16.09.2004. In which the Hon'ble
Court opined that—
"The appointees have no right for
regularization in service because of erroneous
procedures adopted by the concern
authorities".
In another case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Branch Manager, M.P. Agro Versus Shri S.C.
Pandey. It has been opined by the Hon'ble Court-
"If appointment has been made contrary to
the provisions of the statute, the same would
be void and the effect thereof would be that
no legal right was derived by the employees".
In the similar case (U.O. India Versus M. Bhojkaram)
it was hold that the order of removal would amount
to recalling of fraudulently obtained erroneous
appointment orders. This opinion of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was followed by the several Hon'ble
High Courts in the catena of judgment.
So far violation of natural justice is concern. In the
case, syndicate Bank V/s. General Secretary,
syndicate Bank Staff Association & others, the
Hon'ble S.C. held.
"Where in certain Bank employee was
unauthorisedly absenting himself from work
for a period exceeding the prescribed limit of
'90' days, he was by a notice required by the
Bank to join duty within 30 days or else he
would be deemed to have retired. In these facts,
their lordships held that no enquiry was
necessary and there was no violation of
principle of natural justice."
45. Applying the above principle in the present case it
would appear that the petitioner workman was also
given notice through courier service to join his
duty immediately after the receipt of this letter, but
not later than 09.01.2012. If you fail to join your
duties by the date stipulated above it will be
construed that you are not interested to continue
in your service with us and your name will be struck
off from the rolls of the company.
46. In this way the OP's give him opportunity after
unauthorized absence of 107 days to join his duty,
but the petitioner workman fail to join his duty and
he was forbidden by the official of the company to
3088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
join his duty by not to allowing him to inter into the
premises, then why not he send any letter to the
officials of the company about his joining of the
duty. He may lodge any Sanaha or may take legal
action against the employees of the OP's company.
Not a chit of paper or oral evidences are available
on the case record to prove this statement of the
workman petitioner.
47. The rulings, filed by the learned counsel of the
petitioner is of no help as they are not consistent
with the ruling with the present case.
48. Hence, from the above discussion, it is clear that
the case and claim of the workman petitioner has
no leg to stand, rather he want to move and rotate
the OP's on his own terms amd wishes. Therefore,
this case is dismissed but without cost.
BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD GUPTA, Presiding officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1451.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
cSad ds izcaèra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k Je U;k;ky; uañ II p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼2@2010½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y-12012@12@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/2010) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
13.07.2015.
[No. L-12012/12/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, 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. 2/2010
Registered on 3.5. 2010
Devi Chand S/o Sh. Mansa Ram, aged 34 years, presently
retrenched Clerk from Punjab National Bank Rekeong Peo,
R/o Village Sanghoi, PO: Mangu, Teh: Arki, Distt: Solan
Petitioner
Versus
Dy. General Manager/Circle Head, (Disciplinary Authority),
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Shimla.
Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the worman
:
Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi,
Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 23.6.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/12/
2010 IR(B-II) dated 19.4.2010, by exercising its powers under
Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-
A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank to terminate the services of Sh. Devi
Chand, workman is justified and legal? What relief,
back wages, seniority and other benefits the workman
Sh. Devi Chand is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim to which written statement
was filed.
The facts emerging are that workman was appointed
as Peon on 27.7.1998 and was promoted as Clerk and he
joined as such on 12.6.2007 at Rekeong Peo (HP).
Now, according to the workman, he had proceeded on
leave on 13.6.2007 as his wife was to undergo an operation
and in the meantime he also suffered from health problem
and remained bed-ridden. He submitted leave applications
on medical grounds. He did not recover from his health
problems when he received the letter dated 30.6.2008 that
his name was deleted from the roll of the bank deeming him
to have voluntarily vacated the services. That the said
order is illegal and arbitrary as no intimation was given to
him before passing the said order and he was under bona
fide belief that he was availing the extension of leave applied
by him.
On the other hand, the case of the bank is that the
workman proceeded on joining time from 13.6.2007 to
19.6.2007 and therefore remained absent. Registered letters
dated 28.6.2007 (M1), 16.7.2007 (M2), 24.8.2007 (M3),
20.10.2007 (M4) and 11.12.2007 (M5) were issued to him
but he did not join the duty. A final notice dated 11.3.2008
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3089
(M6) was issued to him asking him to join the duty but he
did not report for duty and consequently in view of Clause
33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005, he was deemed
to have voluntarily vacated the employment vide order
dated 30.6.2008 (M7) and since the workman himself
remained willfully absent from duty, his name was rightly
struck off from the roll of the bank and the order dated
30.6.2008 is legal and valid.
In replication the workman pleaded that there was no
evidence or proof that workman has taken any employment
and no opportunity was given to him before passing the
final order and as such, the same is illegal.
Parties were given the opportunities to lead their
evidence.
In support of its case, the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
taken by him in the statement of claim. He has also placed
on record medical certificate Exhibit WW2. He has also
examined Sh. Om Prakash who filed his affidavit deposing
therein that Devi Chand (workman) was granted leave on
13.6.2007 for attending his wife and in the meantime, he
suffered health problems and he submitted application for
extension of his leave.
On the other hand, the management has examined Sh.
Subhash Chander Chaudhary, who filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand of the management taken in the written
statement and placed on record the copies of the notices
sent to the workman.
The admitted facts are that on promotion the workman
joined at Rekeong Peo Branch on 12.6.2007 and thereafter
proceeded on leave from 13.6.2007 to 19.6.2007. He was
required to join the duty on 20.6.2007 but he remained
absent and did not report for duty. The bank has placed on
record the photocopy of the notices dated 28.6.2007 (M1),
16.7.2007 (M2), 24.8.2007 (M3), 20.10.2007 (M4)
and11.12.2007 (M5) whereby, the workman was asked to
report for duty.When he did not do so, a final order notice
dated 11.3.2008 (M6) was issued to him intimating him to
take action as per Bipartite Settlement.
Clause 30 of the Bispartite Settlement reads as
follows:—
(i) When an employee absent himself from work for a
period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior
sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond
the period of leave sanctioned originally including
any extension thereof or when there is satisfactory
evidence that he has taken up employment in India
or outside, the management at any time thereafter
may give a notice to the employee at his last known
address as recorded with the bank calling upon
him to report for work within 30 days of the date of
notice.
Unless the employee reports for work within 30
days of the notice or gives on explanation for his
absence within the period of 30 days satisfying the
management inter alia that he has not taken up
another employment or avocation, the employee
shall be given a further notice to report for work
within 30 days of the notice failing which the
employee will be deemed to have voluntarily
vacated his employment on the expiry of the said
notice and advised accordingly by registered post.
In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory
reply, he shall be permitted to report for work thereafter
within 30 days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid
notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any
action under the law or rules/conditions of service. If the
employee fails to report for work within this 30 days period,
then he shall be given a final notice to report for work
within 30 days of this notice failing which the employee
will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment
on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly
by registered post.
(ii) If an employee again absents himself for the second
time within a period of 30 days without submitting
any application and obtaining sanction thereof,
after reporting for duty in response to the first
notice given after 90 days of absence or within the
30 days period granted to him for reporting to work
on his submitting a satisfactory reply to the first
notice, a further notice shall be given after 30 days
of such absence giving him 30 days time to report.
If he fails to report for work or reports for work in
response to the notice but absents himself a third
time from work within a period of 30 days without
prior sanction, his name shall be struck off from the
rolls of the establishment after 30 days of such
absence under intimation to him by registered post
deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his
appointment.
(iii) Any notice under this clause shall be in a language
understood by the employee concerned. The notice
shall be sent to him by registered post with
acknowledgment due. Where the notice under this
clause is sent to the employee by registered post
acknowledgement due at the last recorded address
communicated in writing by the employee and
acknowledged by the bank, the same shall be
deemed as good and proper service.’’
Thus, as per this settlement, when an employee absents
himself from work for a period of 90 days or more without
prior sanction from the competent authority, the
management is to give a notice to the employee calling
upon him to report for work within 30 days and the workman
will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment
on the expiry of the said notice period. The workman
continuously remained absent from 20.6.2007 and did not
report for duty despite the issuance of several notices and
even the final notice dated 11.3.2008 (M6) and the authorities
were well within its rights to pass the impugned order dated
30.6.2008 (M7) deeming the workman to have voluntarily
vacated his employment.
3090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The contention of the learned counsel that workman
did not take any job and no inquiry was conducted in this
respect, is of no help to the workman as it is another
eventuality when the workman be deemed to have
voluntarily vacated his employment on getting another
employment but remaining absent from duty and not joining
the same despite issuance of notice intself is a ground to
pass the impugned order. Workman has taken the plea that
his wife fell sick and thereafter he also suffered health
problems and even examined one Om Prakash in support
of his assertions but these assertions seem to be an
afterthought as he never approached the bank authorities
for getting the leave sanctioned and there is no cogent
evidence on the file except the bare statements that he or
his wife remained sick. It was argued that management has
failed to prove that the alleged notices were actually served
on the workman. Notices were sent to the workman on his
given address and there are postal receipts dated 11.7.2007
(M8), 13.8.2007 ( M9) and 27.8.2007 (M10) showing that
registered notices were sent to the workman and the
workman did not deny the receipt of the notice and simply
stated that he did not know whether the notices were sent
to him or not and in the ordinary course it is to be presumed
that when registered letters were sent, the same have been
received by the workman. Workman himself admits during
the cross-examination that he did not join his duty after
availing joining time and remained absent and he did not
submit any leave application or medical certificate to the
authorities. Thus, the workman himself admits that he
remained absent and did not apply for leave and in the
circumstances; it cannot be argued that registered letter
were not received by the workman.
Since the workman remained absent continuously after
20.6.2007 and despite issuance of several notices, he did
not join the duty, the competent authority was well within
its rights to pass the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 (M7)
deeming that the workman has voluntarily vacated his
employment and as such the order is illegal and valid.
In result, the reference is answered holding that the
action of the management is justified and legal and the
workman 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1452-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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; cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼15@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@13@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/13/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated : 26th April, 2013
PRESENT
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND
Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 15/2010
I Party
II Party
Sh. R. Rajkumar,
The General Manager (HR),
S/o S.R. Krishna,
Canara Bank,
No. 7/1, 2nd Cross, Tindlu
Head Office
Main Road, Near Police
J.C. Road,
Station, Vidyaranyapura
BANGALORE.
Post,
BANGALORE-560 097.
APPEARANCES
I Party
: Sh. M. Rama Rao
Authorized Representative
II Party
: Sh. T.R.K. Prasad
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section
2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/13/2010-
IR (B-II) dated 16.04.2010 for adjudication on the following
schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Canara
Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore, Karnataka in
compulsorily retiring the services of Shri R. Rajkumar,
Ex-sub-staff, Currency Chest, Canara Bank, RMV
Extn., Bangalore, Karnataka w.e.f. 21.07.2005 is
justified and legal? What relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R
15/10 when notices were issued to both the sides, the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3091
I Party entered his appearance through Sh. M. Rama Rao,
General Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees
Association and II party through T.R.K. Prasad, Advocate.
After completion of the pleadings having regard to the
certain allegations made in the claim statement touching
the fairness of Domestic Enquiry 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 sides
and hearing the arguments by order dated 25.10.2011 the
Domestic Enquiry conducted against the I Party by the
II Party held being Fair and Proper, the I party examined
himself on victimization and unemployment and thereafter
both sides filed their Written Arguments.
3. The brief facts leading to this reference may be stated
as under:
4. R. Rajkumar (hereinafter referred as I party workman)
who joined as probationer in the II party on 30.06.1993
while working as Sub-staff at the currency Chest, RMV
extention of the II Party, on 14.12.2004 served with an Order
of suspension alleging that he has committed certain acts
of misconduct and then served with Charge sheet dated
05.02.2005 as under:
"You are working as Sub-staff at our Currency Chest,
RMV Extension, Bangalore, since November, 1999
and you were placed under suspension on 15.12.2004
(AOH).
Our Currency Chest, RMV Extension, Bangalore, vide
their letter No. 8/HO/51/04 dated 10.12.2004, reported
to our Staff Section (workmen), Circle Office,
Bangalore, alleging theft of 6 pieces of Rs. 10/-
denomination notes on 10.12.2004. A detailed
investigation conducted into the matter has revealed
that, on 10.12.2004, you were entrusted with the job
of bundling of Rs. 10/- denomination packets. As
bout 11.20 a.m., when Shri Muniyappa (17745),
Officer, was not in his seat, you had removed 6 pieces
of Rs. 10/- denomination notes from the notes given
to you for bundling.
Shri K. Chandrakanth Pai (10547), Officer, caught you
red handed while removing the 6 pieces from the
sealed packet and reported the matter to the Manager,
Shri K. Chandrakanth Pai, Officer, in his written
statement dated 10.12.2004, has confirmed the above.
You had confessed your above acts to Shri Vernekat,
Manager and assured him that your will not repeat
such mistakes in future.
In your written statement dated 10.12.2004 given to
the Investigating Officer, you have confirmed that
you were neither entrusted with the duties of sorting/
counting of cash nor replacement of new notes with
old notes of Rs. 10/- denomination bundles. You
have also stated that the packet from which you had
removed 6 pieces was sealed and signed by the
branch officials.
Sorting of old notes, counting and making of new
packets are being done in the sorting hall of Currency
Chest. Nobody in the Currency Chest had entrusted
you with the job of sorting of notes in the already
sealed/signed packets of currency notes inside the
vault. You have deliberately removed 6 notes of Rs.
10/- denomination for your personal gains.
Your above action in removing the currency notes
from the packet given for bundling touches upon
your honesty and integrity.
Our Staff Section (Workmen), Circle Office,
Bangalore, had called for an explanation from you
vide their letter DLSW/11177/EP/E. 37/2004 dated
20.12.2004. The reply submitted by you, vide your
letter dated 17.10.2005 is neither convincing nor
satisfactory.
By your above action you have failed to discharge
your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion
and diligence and committed a 'Gross Misconduct'
within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 2(A) (i)
of Canara Bank Service Code.
By your above action you have also caused willful
damage to the property of the Bank and its customers
and committed a 'Gross Misconduct' within the
meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3(j) of Canara Bank
Service Code.
Your actions being prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank, you have committed 'Gross Misconduct' within
the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3, Clause (m)
of Canara Bank Service Code."
5. Being not satisfied with his reply the II party
management appointing M.S. Bhat as Enquiry Officer and
R.R. Iyengar as Presenting Officer ordered to hold the
Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after observing the
formalities of the preliminary hearing while recording the
evidence of K. Chandrakanth Pai, Officer at RMV extension,
Currency Chest who allegedly caught hold the I party while
he was removing six notes of Rs. 10/- denomination when
he was entrusted with the work of bundling of sealed
packets; T.K. Muniyappa, Officer working in Currency
chest, RMV Extension who allegedly went for Coffee asking
Sh. K. Chandrakantha Pai to keep watch on the currency
chest; H.R. Mushtaq Ahmed, Officer working at SS(W),
CO, Bangalore who claims to have gone for investigation
immediately on report of the alleged act of I party to the
Currency Chest, RMV Extension and P.R. Vernekar, Senior
Manager, Currency Chest, RMV Extension. Extension to
whom allegedly K. Chandrakantha Pai took R. Rajkumar
immediately on holding him re-handed while taking out six
notes of Rs. 10/- denomination given to him for bundling
as MWs 1 to 4 and exhibiting the statements given by K.
Chandrakantha Pai, T.K. Muiyappa to the Investing Officer
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed; Investigation report submitted by
Mushtaq Ahmed dated 11.12.2004; the confession allegedly
given by Rajkumar/CSE to Investigating Officer dated
10.12.2004; Report sent by P.R. Vernekar, Senior Manager
to Canara Bank, Canara Bank Staff Section Workmen, Circle
3092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Office, Bangalore; Letter No. BLC:SSW:11177:EP:E-37:2004
dated 20.12.2004 of SS(W), CO, Bangalore addressed to
the CSE and reply of I party dated 17.01.2005 as MEx-1 to
MEx-7 respectively, after receiving the written briefs from
the Presenting Officer and the Defence Representative
submitted his enquiry finding dated 13.05.2005 the charge
levelled against CSE being Proved then the Disciplinary
Authority while enclosing the copy of the enquiry finding
called upon the CSE to make his representation and on
receipt of his representation dated 13.06.2005 finding no
substance in the representation agreeing with the Enquiry
Finding he issued Second Show Cause Notice proposing
compulsory retirement and after affording an opportunity
of hearing passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2005
imposing Compulsory Retirement as envisaged in Chapter
XI, Regulation 4, Clause (b) of Canara Bank Service Code.
On appeal by the CSE the Appellate Authority while
affording an opportunity of hearing agreeing with the
enquiry finding as well as the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority rejected the Appeal by his Order
dated 02.08.2005. Then on failure of conciliation before the
ALC(C), Bangalore, the government made their reference
for adjudication.
6. The defence of the I Party throughout is that he was
also asked to sort out the soiled notes from the bundles
and accordingly he had taken out six soiled notes from a
Packet and at that juncture he was taken to the Senior
Manager by K. Chandrakantha Pai who was grudging ill
will against him and after keeping those notes in the packet
and keeping it in the chest some two officials from Circle
Office came and under threat of filing a complaint taken
from him in writing as per Ex M-4 and that he did not attempt
to commit theft of six notes of Rs. 10/- denomination as
alleged against him.
7. On appreciation of the charge levelled against the
CSE with the evidence brought on record by the
management in the Domestic Enquiry in the light of the
defence put forward by the I Party, I am of the considered
view the enquiry finding in the absence of production of
allegedly tampered packet and the notes allegedly taken
out by the I Party with an intention to take it away is
perverse and the I Party is entitled for reinstatement with
50% of backwages, continuity of service and all other
consequential benefits that he would have received in the
absence of the impugned punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed against him for the following reasons:
REASONS
8. According to K. Chandrakantha Pai (MW 1) and his
statement given to the Investigating Officer marked as MEx-
1 in the Domestic Enquiry on 10.12.2004 around 11.30 am
he noticed CSE removing some notes from Ten Rupees
packet kept in valve from the sealed packets lying on the
table of Muniyappa (MW 2) who had just left for Urination,
he caught hold of him dragged him to the Senior Managers
table along with the six pieces of Ten Rupee denomination
he had taken out from the Packet with a request to take
action against him. According to T.K. Muniyappa, Officer
of Currency Chest, MW 2 on 10.12.2004 at 11.30 am with
permission of Senior Manager, Mr. P.R. Vernekar, he went
to coffee/toilet in the bank premises and during his absence
it was told that Mr. Rajkumar, Sub-staff was being caught
red handed by K. Chandrakantha Pai while removing six
notes of ten rupees denomination from a packet and having
reported the same to the Senior Manager. It has come in
the evidence of MW 3, Investigating Officer, Mushtaq
Ahmed that by the time he visited the Currency Chest the
alleged tampered packet was rectified and placed in the
Chest and could not be identified later. The relevant
question of the Defence Representative and his Answer
reads as under:
"Whether you have gone through the tampered
packet of Rs. 10/- before preparing the MEX Ans. By
the time I visited the Currency Chest, the tampered
packet was rectified and placed in the chest and could
not be identified later."
Thereby it is clear that even the Investigating Officer,
MW 3 could not see the alleged tampered sealed packet
and taking out of six notes from the said packet. The only
material that he relied upon was the statement of K.
Chandrakantha Pai marked as MEx-1 and the alleged
confession statement given by the CSE/I Party workman.
When the I Party claims that his statement was taken under
threat and coersion being a lowest cadre employee in the
Bank his claim that it was taken under threat and coersion
has to be appreciated from the other circumstances. If at all
the work entrusted to the I Party workman on 10.12.2004
was just bundling of the sealed packets and he had no
reason to open the packet the Senior Manager to whom
immediately report was made by K. Chandrakantha Pai he
ought to have preserved all the packets entrusted to the
I party workman for the purpose of bundling till the
Investigation Officer arrived to the spot who could have
preserved the required evidence to accept the charge
levelled against the I Party. When the entire case made out
against the I party workman is that he had removed six
notes of Ten rupee denomination from one of the sealed
packets entrusted to him for the purpose of bundling, in
other words he had stolen six notes from a sealed packet
out of the packets entrusted to him only for the purpose of
bundling, no enquiry could have been proceeded without
the said item being produced. When the charge is one of
theft, fraud or dishonesty with respect to the employers
property the failure to produce the property vitiates the
enquiry and it is highly difficult to accept such charge of
theft by the employee. Under the circumstances, the finding
of the Enquiry Officer charge being proved only on the
oral version of K. Chandrakantha Pai/MW 1 and Senior
Manager/MW 4 without production of the material object
of theft is perverse and unsustainable.
9. In view of my above finding the enquiry report is
perverse, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority based on such report as well as the order of the
Appellate Authority confirming the same are not
sustainable and the I Party workman is entitled for
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3093
reinstatement. The I Party workman while examining himself
has deposed that he is not gainfully employed after the
impugned punishment of compulsory retirement and except
a bald suggestion that as it is not possible to lead the life
without doing any job he is stating falsely that he is without
any job nothing has been elicited either in his cross-
examination or any rebuttal evidence is placed to
demonstrate that he has been gainfully employed. However
having regard to the nature of the job of the I Party workman
and no evidence is placed how he pulled on the
maintenance of himself and his family members for all these
days, it can be presumed that he must have made some
earnings to maintain himself and his dependent family
members. As such, under the circumstances it is just and
proper to direct the II Party to pay him 50% of backwages
from the date of impugned punishment of compulsory
retirement. In the result, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is allowed holding that the action of the
management of Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore,
Karnataka in compulsorily retiring the services of Shri R.
Rajkumar, Ex-sub-staff, Currency Chest, Canara Bank RMV
Extn., Bangalore, Karnataka w.e.f. 21.07.2005 is not legal
and justified and that he is entitle for 50% of backwages,
continuity of service and all other benefits that he would
have received in the absence of the impugned punishment
of compulsory retirement. The II party may adjust the
Terminal Benefits paid if any to the I Party from the arrears
of wages payable to him.
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1453-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkWQ egkjk"Vªk
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; eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼06@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@81@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 06/2014 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13.07.2015.
[No. L-12011/81/2013-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA
Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-1/6 of 2014
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Bank of
Maharashtra
AND
THEIR WORKMAN
APPEARANCES:
For the first party/
: Mr. M.B.
Management
Anchan, Adv.
For the second
: None present.
party/Union
State
: Maharashtra,
Mumbai, Dated the 2nd day of July, 2015.
AWARD
1. The present Reference has been made by the Central
Government by its order dated 7.2.2014 passed in exercise
of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of Reference as per the
Schedule to the said order are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Maharashtra, Yamunanagar Branch by not filling
the vacancy of computer operator 'B' since April,
2008 and depriving the eligible person for getting
functional allowance is justified? What relief the
Workman is entitled to?"
2. By the Order dated 24.2.2014, this Tribunal directed
that Notices be issued to the parties, and the matter be put
up on 11.4.2014.
3. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.2.2014, the case was
put up before the Tribunal on 11.4.2014.
4. On 11.4.2014, it was noted in the Order passed on
the said date that Notices issued to the first party/
Management as well as the second party/Union had been
served, and the Acknowledgement Cards had been received
back. Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate was present before the
Tribunal on the said date i.e. 11.4.2014, and he stated that
he would be putting in appearance for the first party/
Management on the next date fixed in the matter. However,
despite service of Notice, non was present on behalf of the
second party/Union on the said date i.e. 11.4.2014.
5. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 11.4.2014,
the case was fixed for 16.6.2014 for filling Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
3094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.4.2014, the case was
put up on 16.6.2014. Mention was made on behalf of Mr.
M.B. Anchan, Advocate for adjournment of the case on
the said date. However, none was present for the second
party/Union on the said date also i.e. 16.6.2014.
7. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 16.6.2014,
the case was fixed for 11.8.2014 for filing Statement of Claim
by the second party/Union.
8. Pursuant to the Order dated 16.6.2014, the case was
put up on 11.8.2014. Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of the first party/Management. However,
none was present for the second party/Union.
9. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 11.8.2014,
the case was adjourned to 30.9.2014 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
10. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.8.2014, the case
was put up on 30.9.2014. On the said date, Mr. M.B. Anchan,
Advocate was present on behalf of the first party/
Management. However, none was present for the second
party/Union.
11. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 30.9.2014,
the case was adjourned to 18.11.2014 for filing Statement
of Claim by the second party/Union.
12. Pursuant to the Order dated 30.9.2014, the case
was put upon 18.11.2014. Mr. MB. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of thefirst party/Management. However,
none was present for the second party/Union.
13. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 18.11.2014,
the case was adjourned to 22.12.2014 for filing Statement
of Claim by the second party/Union.
14. Pursuant to the Order dated 18.11.2014, the case
was put up on 22.12.2014. On the said date, Mr. M.B.
Anchan, Advocate was present on behalf of the first party/
Management. However, none was present for the second
party/Union.
15. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 22.12.2014,
the case was adjourned to 20.1.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
16. Pursuant to the Order dated 22.12.2014, the case
was put up on 20.1.2015. Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of the first party/Management. However,
none was present for the second party/Union.
17. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 20.1.2015,
the case was adjouned to 23.2.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
18. Pursuant to the Order dated 20.1.2015, the case
was put up on 23.2.2015 Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate was
present on behalf of the first party/Management. However,
none was present for the second party/Union.
19. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 23.2.2015,
the case was adjounred to 17.3.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
20. Pursuant to the Order dated 23.2.2015 the case was
put up on 17.3.2015 . On the said date, Mr. M.B. Anchan,
Advocate was present on behalf of the first party/
Management. However, none was present for the second
party/Union.
21. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 17.3.2015,
the case was adjourned to 24.4.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
22. As 14.4.2015, was declared as a holiday on account
of "Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar", the Tribunal by the
Order dated 15.4.2015 fixed the matter for 8.6.2015.
23. Pursuant to the Order dated 15.4.2015, the case
was put up on 8.6.2015. On 8.6.2015, Mr. M.B. Anchan,
Advocate was present on behalf of the first party/
Management. However, none was present for the second
party/Union.
24. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 8.6.2015,
the case was adjounred to 2.7.2015 for filing Statement of
Claim by the second party/Union.
25. Pursuant to the Order dated 8.6.2015, the case is
put up today.
26. Mr. M.B. Anchan Advocate is present for the first
party/Management. He states that despite repeated
communications having been sent by him to the first party/
Management, he has not so far received any Authority for
putting in appearance on behalf of the first party/
Managment.
27. None is present for the second party/Union today
also.
No Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of the
second party/Union.
28. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that
despite service of notice, none has put in apperance on
behalf of the second party/Union even though the case
has been repeatedly adjourned on account of absence on
behalf of the second party/Union. No Statement of Claim
has so far been filed on behalf of the second party/Union.
29. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no
pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second party/
Union in support of its Claim as contained in the aoresaid
Reference.
30. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to
the second party/Union.
31. The Reference made to this Tribunal is, therefore,
answered by stating that no relief can be granted to the
second party/Union.
32. Award is passed accourdingly.
JUSTIC S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1454-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbZfVM cSad
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3095
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV ¼13@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@270@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of United Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13.07.2015.
[No. L-12011/270/2000-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 13 of 2001
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of
United Bank of India
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
PRESENT Justice Dipak Saha Ray
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE
On behalf of the
: None.
Management
On behalf of the
: None.
Workmen
State
: West Bengal
Industry
: Banking.
Dated: 25th June, 2015.
AWARD
By Order No. L-12011/270/2000-IR(B-II) dated
22.03.2001 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the United Bank of India in
not regularizing the service of its canteen employees
(as per list enclosed) in the service of the Bank and
refusing them the grade and scale and all other
benefits available to the members of subordinate staff
of the bank is legal and justified? If not, what relief
are the concerned workmen entitled"
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, none
appears on behalf of the management inspite of service of
notice. None also appears on behalf of the union. It appears
from the record that on 11.03.2014 the Ld. Counsel for the
union appeared for the last time. Thereafter six consecutive
dates have been given to the parties to appear before this
Tribunal but none of the parties has tuned up even today.
3. In the instant case the union raised the industrial
dispute and accordingly as a consequence the reference
case has been initiated. But from the records and the
conduct of the union it may be presumed that the union at
present is not interested to proceed with the case. So, it
appears that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping
the matter pending.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute
Award".
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding
Officer.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 25th June, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1455—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª
ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼02@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2011)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/07/2015.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.
3096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Application 02/2011
Date: 08.01.2015.
APPLICANT
:
Shri Akbal Samiulla Khan,
Aged about 50 years.
R/o Plot No. 20, P and T Colony,
Amravati Road.
V/s
RESPONDENT
:
Chief Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Nagpur Region,
Regional Office,
Mahabank Building,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 8th January, 2015)
This is an application filed by the workman, Shri Akbal
Samiulla Khan, ("the applicant" in short) under sub-
sections 1 and 2 of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 ("the Act" in short), for setting aside the order
dated 23.02.2011, passed by the Disciplinary Authority
awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from
service against him and for other consequential reliefs.
It is to be mentioned here that the applicant had made
application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Nagpur on 20.07.2011 and raised the industrial
dispute for conciliation and the respondent submitted its
written reply on 18.08.2011, but as no settlement could
arrived at between the applicant and the respondent, even
though a period of more than 45 days elapsed from the
date of raising the dispute, the applicant has filed the
present application directly before this Tribunal, in
pursuance to the provisions of Sub-sections 1 and 2 of
section 2-A of the Act.
2. The respondent was noticed to file the written
statement, in response to which, the respondent, "Bank of
Maharashtra", ("the Bank" in short) filed the written
statement.
3. The case of the applicant as presented in his
application is that he was an employee of the Bank and the
Bank is a nationalized bank and an "industry" within the
meaning of section 2(j) of the Act and the service conditions
of employees of the Bank are governed by the provisions
of Sastry Award, Desai Award and different bipartite
settlements arrived at industry level, between the trade
unions and association of the Bank and he was appointed
as a clerk by the Bank on 13.02.1984 and his services were
terminated by awarding the punishment of compulsory
retirement from 23.02.2011, as a consequence of the
disciplinary action initiated against him by the Bank and
he made application and raised the industrial dispute before
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur on
20.07.2011 for conciliation, under section 2 A of the Act
and the Bank submitted its written reply before the
conciliation officer on 18.08.2011 and thereafter, he
submitted his rejoinder on 23.08.2011 and as no settlement
could be arrived, within a period of more than 45 days,
after filing of the dispute before the concilation officer, he
has approached the Tribunal by filing the application for
adjudication of the industrial dispute.
The further case of the applicant is that initially, he
was appointed in the service of the Bank as a clerk on
13.02.1984 and was posted at Kannad branch and
subsequently, he was transferred to various branches of
the Bank and when the order impugned came to be given
to him, he was working at Jaripatka, Nagpur branch and
before the said assignment, he was working at Mahal
Branch, Nagpur and a charge sheet dated 26.07.2010
containing as many as two charges, covered under clauses
19.05 (d) and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement was served
on him and the allegations against him were that he availed
a term loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Mahal Branch of the Bank
against his life Insurance policy bearing No. 970220890 on
03.09.2002 and he applied for issuance of duplicate
insurance policy no. 970220890 on the ground of the original
policy to have been lost and on receipt of the duplicate
policy, he applied for premature payment of the said policy
and received an amount of Rs. 39294/- from the LIC on
20.01.2010 and he did not take any permission from the
Bank, before obtaining the payment of the policy from LIC
and he was put under suspension w.e.f. 11.05.2010 and the
charges framed against him were vague and for one incident,
two separate charges were framed and it was not clear as
to whether there was charge of willful damage to the
property of the Banhk or customer or doing an act
prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and gross negligence
and the vagueness of the charges goes to the root of the
charge sheet and in this ground only, the enquiry is liable
to be declared as ivalid, unfair and vitiated.
It is also pleaded by the applicant that even thoguh,
both the charges levelled against him were based on only
one incident, separate and distinct punishment came to be
awarded for the same and as the allegation was only one,
therefore, the same ought not to have been unduly
expanded by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of
conducting the departmental enquiry and awarding
punishment and the exercise adopted by the bank squarely
invalidates and vitiates are entire enquiry and the two heads
of misconducts were not only antithetical, but were also
mutually exclusive and the Enquiry Officer also accepted
the same evidence as indicative of two head of charges,
which were mutually exclusive and from the said facts, it is
clear that there was non application of mind on the part of
the Enquiry Officer and on this ground also, the entire
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3097
exercise of conducting the departmental enquiry is unfair,
vague and vitiated.
The further case of the applicant is that it can be seen
from the record of the Bank that there was total negligence
on the part of the bank in as much as, despite obtaining
instructions, they preferred not to deduct any amount from
his salary for years together and the same indirectly added
to inadvertence and confusion on his part that his life policy
must have been lost and though his salary was endorsed
in the name of the Bank, no charge was framed by the Bank
with LIC, for the reasons not known to him and since his
services came to be transferred to Jaripatka Branch, he lost
sight about any outstanding dues in the loan at Mahal
Branch and he could not repay the loan for want of any
intimiation or information from Mahal Branch and normally,
documents of any loan if availed are subject to renewal
within three years of their execution and no such effort
came to have been taken by the Bank at any point of time
and if documents would have referred to him by the bank,
it would have come to his mind that loan was outstanding
against him and the policy, which he presume to have been
lost is safe at Mahal branch and all those facts contributed
to a presumption and confusion in his mind that there was
no loan against him and under such presumption, he applied
for the duplicate policy from LIC and when it came to his
notice about the outstanding loan, he immediately repaid
the entire loan amount and due to the same, he was put to
loss, as he was required to pay an amount of Rs. 59000/-
against borrowing of Rs. 25000/- and the Bank was not put
to any loss, but earned extra interest i.e. profit, even though,
there was total negligence on the part of the Bank in not
recovering the amount from his salary every month and
even if, his LIC policy, which the bank was supposed to
keep safe, was lost by it and not charged with the LIC,
which had contributed to his confusion.
The further case of the applicant is that grant of loan
against his LIC policy by the Bank and charging interest
thereon is nothing but a transaction between a customer
and the Bank and close scrutiny of the charges would
indicate that matter highlighted there under affect only
private rights and the employer-employee relationship does
not come into picture and the loan was not sanctioned to
him as an employee of the Bank, but as a customer of the
Bank against his LIC policy and the transaction was outside
the master-servant relationship and subject matter of taking
disciplinary action and on this count, the charge sheet was
unreasonable, unjust and without any power of the
Disciplinary Authority in Law and therefore, the charge
sheet is liable to be declared as invalid, illegal and unfair
and the Bank was predetermined to punish him by hook or
crook and the enquiry was merely a farce and all the orders
passed by the Bank Authorities were indicative of total
non application of mind and the order dated 07.04.2011
suggests the bias, vindictiveness and casual approach and
non application of mind is writ large on the face of the
order and the enquiry proceedings therefore, are unjust
and vitiated.
It is also averred by the applicant that the approach of
the Enquiry Officer was mechanical and not impartial and
he lost sight of the fact that onus of proving the charges
was on the management and the charges were not proved
beyound the shadow of doubt and the Enquiry Officer
failed to notice the glaring discrepancies in the evidence
recorded by him and gave his findings casually and
mechanically to suit the management and the Enquiry
Officer failed to consider and analyze the real evidence,
while arriving at his findings and the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are perverse and action based on such perverse
findings is unjust and illegal and is liable to be set aside
and the punishment is unreasonably high and does not
commensurate with the gravity of the misconducts and by
the punishment impugned, he has lost the opportunity of
serving in the Bank for a further period of 10 years and
after termination of his services, he is not in gainful
employment.
The applicant has prayed to set aside the order of
punishment dated 23.02.2011, passed against him and to
direct the Bank for his reinstatement in service with
continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits.
4. The Bank in its written statement has pleaded inter-
alia that the applicant was working as a clerk at its Jaripatka
branch and he was issued with the suspension order dated
08.05.2010 followed by the charge sheet dated 26.07.2010,
for willful damage and attempt to cause damage to the
property of the Bank which was prejudicial to the interest
of the Bank and gross negligence, likely to involve the
Bank in serious loss, which amounted to misconducts under
clause 5(d) and 5(j) of the memorandum of settlement dated
10.04.2002 and Shri V.P. Ghate was appointed as the Enquiry
Officer and he conducted a full fledged departmental
enquiry against the applicant for the misconduct and proper
opportunity was granted to the applicant to defend himself
in the enquiry and the applicant neither examined any
witness nor produced any evidence in his defence and the
Enquiry Officer declared the charges to have been proved
beyond doubts against the applicant and submitted his
report on 04.12.2010 and after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, the evidence led in the enquiry by both the parties
and the argument advanced by them, the Disciplinary
Authority on 23.02.2011 passed the order of "compulsory
retirement from service with superannuation benefits as
would be due otherwise at that stage and without
disqualification from future employment" and the order
dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is
just and proper and the workman preferred an appeal against
the order of punishment and his appeal was dismissed on
30.06.2011 by the Appellate Authority, holding the same to
be without substance.
3098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is further pleaded by party No. 1 that the applicant
applied for a term loan of Rs. 25000/- from its Mahal Branch
against his LIC policy No. 070220890 having surrender
value of Rs. 29000/- on 03.09.2002 and the applicant agreed
to repay the same at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f.
October, 2002, through salary deduction, but he did not
repay the loan as agreed and an amount of Rs. 59,292/- was
outstanding in his loan amount as an 03.05.2010 and he
failed to ensure timely repayment of the loan, as per the
commitment given to the bank and the applicant applied
for and obtained duplicate LIC policy on the false ground
that the original policy was lost and also furnished the
indemnity bond dated 18.02.2009 to LIC and on obtaining
the duplicate policy, the applicant obtained the premature
payment of the said LIC policy for Rs. 39,294/- fraudulently,
which was deposited with it as security and without
permission of the Bank vide cheque No. 355099 dated
08.01.2010 and on 20.01.2010, the applicant withdrew the
said amount, instead of depositing the amount in his loan
amount availed against the said policy and it had lost
confidence in the applicant, who defrauded the Bank and
committed gross misconduct and the misconduct
committed by the applicant was twofold and accordingly,
it levelled appropriate charges against the applicant and
both the charges were co related to each other and the
charges were plain and clear and do not suffer from any
infirmity and the same cannot be termed as invalid and
unfair and there was no negligence on its part and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
6. As this is a case of compulsory retirement of the
workman from services, as a punishment in the disciplinary
proceedings intiated against him, the fairness and otherwise
of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration
as a preliminary issue and by order dated 21.10.2014, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant was
held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles
of natural justice.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the applicant that when the workman
was working at Mahal Branch, Nagpur charge sheet dated
26.07.2010 was served on the workman under clauses 19.5(d)
and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement and a departmental
enquiry was conducted against the workman and the final
order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated
23.02.2011 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority against
him and the charges levelled against the workman were
vague and such vagueness goes to the root of the charge
sheet and the order of punishment passed against the
workman on such charges is not maintainable.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the applicant that from the materials on record, it can be
found that there was total negligence on the part of the
respondent Bank and despite obtaining instruction from
the applicant, the respondent preferred not to deduct any
amount from his salary for years together and the same
indirectly added to inadvertence and confusion on the part
of the applicant that his insurance policy must have been
lost by him and the respondent did not sustain any loss, as
the applicant, as the applicant paid a total amount of
Rs. 59,000/- with interest on the loan amount of Rs. 25,000/-
taken by him and cleared the loan, soon after it came to his
knowledge about the outstanding loan against him and
the respondent earned extra profit in shape of extra interest
and there was total negligence on the part of the respondent
in not recovering the loan amount from the salary of the
applicant and such facts clearly establish that the acts
alleged to be the misconduct by the respondent were
committed due to inadvertence contributed by both the
sides and the transaction of granting of loan by the
respondent to the applicant against his LIC policy
demonstrated only the relationship of customer and Banker
and the same does not amount employer and employee
relationship and the approach of the respondent was
mechanical and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are
perverse and not impartial and he lost sight of the fact that
the onus of proving the charges was that of the
management and from the materials on record, it can be
found that the charges were not proved beyond shadow
of doubt and the Enquiry Officer did not notice the glaring
discrepancies in the evidence recorded by him and gave
his findings casually and mechanically and he did not
consider the real evidence on record at all, while giving his
findings and he did not analyze the evidence judiciously
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are without just and
proper reasoning and the further action basing on such
perverse findings is also unjust and illegal and the
punishment imposed is unnecessarily harsh and does not
commensurate with the gravity of the misconducts and
therefore, it is a fit case, where interference of the Tribunal
under section 11-A of the Act is necessary and the order of
punishment imposed against the applicant is required to
be quashed and set aside and the applicant is entitled for
his reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages
and all other consequential benefits.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the respondent that in this case, it has already been
held by the Tribunal that the departmental enquiry
conducted against the applicant to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
applicant was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report,
which was received by him on 18.12.2010 and he was asked
to submit his comments on the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, but he did not submit any comment and vide letter
dated 31.01.2011, the applicant was served with the second
show cause notice with intimation about the proposed
punishment and he was also asked to appear on 09.02.2011
for personal hearing and on the request of the applicant,
the same was adjourned to 21.02.2011 and personal hearing
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3099
was given to the applicant on 21.02.2011 and the
Disciplinary Authority considered the materials on record
of the enquiry and so also, the submissions made by the
applicant and imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement from services with superannuation benefits as
per order dated 23.02.2011 and the applicant preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of
punishment and after hearing the applicant and his defence
representative, the Appellate Authority dismissed the
appeal by order dated 30.06.2011 and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are not at all perverse and the punishment
imposed against the applicant is justified and the same is
not shockingly disproportionate and the applicant is not
entitled to any relief.
In support of the submissions, the learned advocate
for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 2014 III CLR-42 (Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bank
of India), 1999 I CLR-499 (Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner
of Police), (2011) 6 SCC-3769 Commissioner of Police Vs.
Jaibhagwan) and (2010) 7 SCC-6789 East Coast Railway Vs.
Mahadev Apparao).
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties, I think it apropos to mention the
principles settled by the Hon'ble court in a string of
decisions including the decision cited by the learned
advocate for the respondent regarding the jurisdiction and
the power of the Tribunal in regard to interference with the
findings and punishment in a departmental enquiry.
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the
disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated
with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot
interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or
competent authority where they are not arbitrary or
utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a
delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislative or rules made
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules
and in accordance with principles of natural justice
what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a
matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,
the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of
penalty unless it is made fide is certainly not a matter
for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion
of the enquiry officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate, being fact finding authorities have
exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view
to maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power
of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
panalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mould the relief, either directing
the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may
itself, in exceptional and rate cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
In departmental proceedings, the discplinary authority
is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented
to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also
the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence
and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole
fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on
appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in
writ jurisdiction may not normally interefere with those
factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings
were based either on no evidence or that the findings were
wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy
or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court
does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual
findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while
exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion,
with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the
departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of
penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment
or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental
appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it
shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not
normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored
the well-settled principle that even though judicial review
of administrative action much remain flexible and its
dimension not closed, yet the Court, in exercise of the
power of judicial review, is not concerned with the
correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which
the orders are made so long as those findings are
reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived
at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the
3100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial
review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the
decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision
making process."
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate, being fact finding authorities have
exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view
to maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power
of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
panalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mould the relief, either directing
the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may
itself, in exceptional and rate cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
It is also settled beyond doubt that departmental
enquiry is not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act, but
by fair play and natural justice. Only total absence, but not
sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is ground for
interference. If the enquiry has been properly held the
question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be
canvassed before the court and in a departmental enquiry,
penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a
finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of
probabilities."
10. The first contention raised by the learned advocate
for the applicant is that the charges levelled against the
applicant were vague and the vagueness goes to the root
of the charge sheet submitted against the applicant and
the punishment imposed against the applicant, basing on
such defective charges cannot be sustained.
On perusal of the charge sheet, Ext. W-II, it is found
that the charges levelled against the applicant were
mentioned in detail and the lists of documents and the
witnesses were enclosed with the same as annexure I and
II. The clauses of the Bipartite Settlement were also clearly
mentioned in the charge sheet. So, it cannot be said that
the charges levelled against the applicant were vague.
Hence, there is no force in the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the applicant on that score.
11. The next contention raised by the learned advocate
for the applicant is that the transaction of grant of loan to
the applicant against his LIC policy was that of a customer
and Banker and did not involve master-servant relationship
and therefore, the entire disciplinary action including the
imposition of punishment is illegal and unjustified.
It is the admitted case that the applicant was granted a
loan of Rs. 25,000/- against his LIC policy. It is also not
disputed that it was agreed between the parties that the
loan amount was to be recovered in installments from the
salary of the applicant and the salary of the applicant was
endorsed in the name of the bank. From such facts, it is
clear that the loan was not advanced to the applicant as a
customer, but the same was gtiven to him as an employee
of the Bank and there was employer-employee relationship
between the Bank and the applicant in granting the loan.
Hence, I find no force in the contentions raised by the
learned advocate for the applicant in that regard.
12. The next contention raised by the learned advocate
for the applicant was that the applicant was transferred
from Mahal Branch to Jaripatka Branch and for that he lost
sight about any outstanding dues against him and the
inaction of the Bank in recovery of the loan amount from
his salary and nonrenewal of the documents relating to the
said loan contributed to the confusion and presumption in
his mind that there was no loan against him and this his
LIC policy was lost and as such, he applied for the duplicate
LIC policy and when it came to the notice of the applicant
about the outstanding loan amount, he immediately repaid
the entire amount of Rs. 59,000/- and the Bank earned extra
profit in shape of interest and there was no loss to the
Bank and such facts were not at all taken into consideration
by the Enquiry Officer, while giving his findings and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on the
evidence on record of the enquiry and therefore the findings
are perverse.
It is necessary to mention here that it is well settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that absence of any loss to the
Bank is no defence for a Bank employee and a Bank
employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and
integrity.
Moreover, on perusal of the materials on record, it is
found that the plea of the applicant that due to the inaction
of the Bank to recover the loan amount from him, he thought
that there was no outstanding loan against him and that
his LIC policy was lost and for that he obtained the
duplicate LIC policy is an afterthought. In the show cause
filed by the applicant to the charge sheet, he did not
mention the above facts. Rather, he had taken quite a
different plea in his show cause. The applicant had
mentioned that, "I am having so many LIC policies and on
the LIC policy No. 970220890 (policy in question) was due
for maturity on March, 2010 and he was not aware of which
particular policy was assigned to Bank. Hence, I applied
for discounted value of policy immediately."
It is to be mentioned here that the applicant did not
adduce and evidence in his defence in the departmental
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3101
enquiry. Even, he did not give his own statement in the
enquiry.
It is clear from the own pleading of the applicant and
the other materials on record that as the respondent did
not recover the loan amount advanced to him, in
installments, from his salary, he aplied for the duplicate of
the LIC policy, without disclosing about his obtaining loan
from the respondent Bank, against the said, policy and
prematurely received the amount against the said policy.
13. On perusal of the proceedings of the departmental
enquiry held against the applicant, it is found that the
Enquiry Officer has dealt with the charges chronologically.
The evidence in spport of the charges has been properly
assessed by the Enquiry Officer in reaching the
conclusions by him. The pleas taken by the applicant were
also duly taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer has also assigned cogent reasons in
support of his findings. The findings of the Enquiry Officer
are based on the materials on record and the findings are
not as such, which cannot be arrived at by any prudent
man on the evidence on record. Hence, it is found that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.
14. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that grave misconduct under clauses
5(d) and 5(j) of the memorandum of Bi-partite settlement
dated 10.04.2002 for willful damage and attempt to cause
damage to the property of the Bank and doing an act
prejudical to the interest of the Bank respectively has been
proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. So,
the punishment imposed against the aplicant cannot be
said to be shockingly disproportionate, calling for any
interference. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the
punishment. Hence it is ordered:
ORDER
The order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the management
of the Bank awarding the punishment of compulsory
retirement against the applicant is just and proper. The
applicant is not entitled to any relief. The application is
rejected, being devoid of any merit.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1456.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2011) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 13.07.2015.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Application 01/2011
Date: 08.01.2015.
Applicant
:
Shri Subhash, S/o Vasantrao Nasre
Aged about 58 years.
Resident of C/o Union Bank of
India Housing Society,
Plot No. 844, Vikash Complex,
Vaishali Nagar, P.O. Kamal Chowk,
Nagpur.
V/s.
Respondent
:
Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Nagpur Region,
Regional Officer,
Mahabank Building,
Dr. Munje Chowk, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated : 8th January, 2015)
This is an application filed by the workman, Shri
Subhash Vasantrao Nasre, ('the applicant" in short) under
sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 ('the Act" in short), for setting aside the order
dated 29.03.2011, passed by the Disciplinary Athority
awarding the punishment of dismissal from service against
him and for other consequential reliefs.
It is to be mentioned here that the applicant had made
application before the Assistant labour Commissioner
(Central), Nagpur on 25.07.2011 and raised the industrial
dispute for conciliation, but as no settlement could arrived
at between the applicant and the respondent, even though
a period of more than 45 days elapsed from the date of
raising the dispute, the applicant has filed the present
aplication directly before this Tribunal, in pursuance to the
provisions of Sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 2-A of the
Act.
3102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The respondent was noticed to file the written
statement, in response to which, the respondent, "Bank of
Maharashtra", ("the Bank" in short) filed the written
statement.
The case of the applicant as presented in his
application is that he was an employee of the Bank and the
Bank is a nationalized bank and an "industry" within the
meaning of section 2(j) of the Act and the service conditions
of employees of the Bank are governed by the provisions
of Sastry Award, Desai Award and different bipartite
settlements arrived at industry level, between the trade
unions and association of the Bank and he was appointed
as clerk by the bank on 04.03.1984 and he was dismissed
from services from 29.03.2011, as a consequence of the
disciplinary action initiated against him by the Bank and
he made application and raised the industrial dispute before
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur on
25.07.2011 for conciliation, under section 2A of the Act and
as no settlement could be arrived, within a period of more
than 45 days, after filing of the dispute before the
conciliation officer he has approached the Tribunal by filing
the application for adjudication of the industrial dispute.
The further case of the applicant is that he was an Ex-
service man and he came to be appointed in the services of
the Bank initially as a clerk on 04.03.1984 and was posted at
Mulawa branch and subsequently, he was transferred to
various branches of the Bank and when the order impugned
came to be given to him, he was working at Kamptee branch
and he was suspended from services w.e.f. 12.10.2009 and
he was served with the charge sheet dated 18.02.2010
containing as many as two charges covered under clause
19.05 (d) and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement and Shri V.N.
Dongre was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct
the departmental inquiry against him and Shri Dongre
conducted the departmenal enquiry against him and gave
his findings on 22.01.2011, declaring the charges to have
been proved against him and on the basis of such findings,
the Disciplinary Authority passed the findal order of
punishment dated 29.03.2011 and consequently, his
services came to be dismissed and he filed an appeal before
the Appellate Authority, challenging the order of
punishment, but his appeal came to be dismissed by the
Appellate Authority by order dated 11.07.2011.
It is further pleaded by the applicant that the bare
perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the charges
framed against him were vague and fore one incident, two
separate charges were framed and it was not clear as to
whether there was charge of willful damage to the property
of the Bank or customer or doing an act prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank and gross negligence and the
vagueness of the charges goes to the root of the charge
sheet and in this ground alone, the enquiry is liable to be
declared as invalid, unfair and vitiated.
It is also pleaded by the applicant that the procedure
followed by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry was not
proper and fair and the documents of the management were
given exhibit numbers immediately by the Enquiry Officer
even though, the said documents were neither admitted
nor were proved during the enquiry and the above
procedure demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer was pre-
determined to establish the charges against him and what
was done by him was only a formality and this proves the
bias of the Enquiry Officer against him and the Enquiry
Officer without appliying the standards meant for re-
examination as given in the Evidence Act, went ahead in
giving liberty to the management to re-examine the witness
to fill in the gaps in the evidence to suit the management
and in fact, there was no need for re-examination of the
witnesses and for that serious pre-judice was caused to
him and on this short ground, the enquiry was unjust and
invalid and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse
and the approach of the Enquiry Officer was mechanical
and not impartial and the Enquiry Officer lost sight of the
fact that the onus of proving the charges was on the
management and the charges were not proved beyond the
shadow of doubt and if the customers alleged in the charge
sheet had deposited the amount with him as the cashier
employee, then as to why the amount was not paid to them
by the Bank and there was no authorization of the officer
on the receipts of the complainants as required by the
Bank's procedure and really it was under doubt as to
whether the said persons had deposited the money with
him and false and frivolous complaints were made against
him at the instance of some interested persons and the
counter pips produced during the course of the enquiry
were not reliable and the signature purported to have been
given and the stamp branded were not identified and the
same were not certified by any competent hand writing
expert and as he did not accept the said counter slips, it
can be said that the evidence on that count was not beyond
shadow of doubt and the witnesses subsequently stated
that they had received the amount and they did not have
any complaint about the deposits made by them in the
Bank and the said facts show that the entire allegations
were developed by the management on the basis of cock
and bull story and the Enquiry Officer did not take any
pain to notice the glaring discrepancies in the evidence
recorded by him and gave his findings casually and
mechanically just to suit the management and the Enquiry
Officer also lost sight of the fact that on 10.07.2009, he was
not at all working on the receipt counter, but was on payment
counter of the branch and record shall demonstrate that it
was Mr. Gaikward, who worked in the receipt counter on
10.07.2009 and it is likely that the complainants in fact had
given the cash to someone other than himself (the
applicant) or else did not deposit the cash and made a false
and frivolous complaint and the Enquiry Officer did not
consider the above stated facts at all, while arriving at its
findings and no analysis of the evidence was made by the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3103
Enquiry Officer judiciously and the findings of the Enquiry
Officer were without just and proper reasoning and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and action
based on such perverse findings is unjust and illegal and
the punishment "punishment without notice" for every
charge is disproportionate and unwarranted and if the trend
of giving of punishment by the same Disciplinary Authority
in many more serious cases is taken note of, then it would
be seen that he has been singled out by the Disciplinary
Authority for awarding the highest punishment of
"Dismissal without notice", whereas, the other employees
were awarded with punishment of "compulsory retirement"
and his past service record was not considered while
imposing the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority
and the punishment is harsh and does not commensurate
with the gravity of the misconducts.
The applicant has prayed to set aside the order of
punishment dated 29.03.2011, passed against him and to
direct the Bank for his reinstatement in service with
continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits.
4. The Bank in the written statement has pleaded inter-
alia that the applicant while working at its Kamptee branch
as a clerk was issued with the order of suspension dated
12.11.2009, followed by the charge shee dated 18.02.2010
and a corrigendum dated 18.08.2010, for the misconduct
committed by him and the charges levelled against the
workman wer under clauses 5(d) and 5(j) of the memorandum
of settlement dated 10.04.2002, on the allegations of
misappropriation of funds on various occasions, willful
damage to the property of the Bank and its customers which
was prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross
negligence likely to involve the bank in serious loss and
Shri V.N. Dongre was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and
a full fledged departmental enquiry was conducted by
shri Dongre and the enquiry officer submitted his report
on 22.01.2011, fholding the charges were proved beyond
doubts against the applicant and taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence led by
both the parties and the submissions made by them , the
Disciplinary Authorty passed the final order of punishment
of "Dismissal without Notice" on 29.03.2011 and the
Enquiry Officer offered opportunity to the applicant to
defend himself and the applicant preferred an appeal before
the Appellate Authority against the order of punishment,
but the appeal came to be rejected by order dated
11.07.2011, by the Appellate Authority.
It is further pleaded by the bank that charges levelled
against the applicant were very clear and the same were
not vague and on 10.7.2009, a customer , "Bajrang Cycle
store" having cash cerdit account No. 20078501940 with
Kamptee branch gave an amount of Rs. 2000/- for deposit
in its account to the applicant and though the applicant
issued the counter foil of the deposit slip bearing the
endorsement, "Cash receipt" to the customer, he did not
credit the said amount of Rs. 2000/- in the account of the
customer and misapporpriated the amount and the account
holder vide its letter dated 24.09.2009 made complaint that
the amount of Rs. 2000/- was not credited to his account
and the said customer again by letter dated 03.11.2009,
informed it that the applicant paid him the amount of
Rs. 2000/- and so far charge No.2 is concerned, on
08.07.2009, Mrs. Shushama Prabhakar Piparod having
saving account No. 20078628107 (Old No. 31288) with
Kamptee branch deposited an amount of Rs. 4360/- in cash
with the applicant and the applicant issued a counter foil
bearing a stamp "cash received" to her, but he did not
credit the amount to the account of the said customer and
misappropriated the amount and the said account holder
by her letter dated 24.09.2009 made complaint that the
amount of Rs. 4360/- was not deposited in her account and
subsequently, she intimated that the applicant pair her the
amount of Rs. 4360/- and such action of the applicant
amounted to commission of misconduct under clause 5(d)
and 5(j) of the aforesaid memorandum of settlement and
accordingly, two charges were levelled against him and the
enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a fair manner by
following the proper procedure and the evidence was
recorded by him strictly according to the Evidence Act and
in the enquiry, both the parties were given the opportunity
of examine and re-examine the witnesses and the enquiry
was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are based on the evidence adduced in the departmental
enquiry and the same are not perverse and the punishment
of dismissal from service is just and proper and no differential
treatment was given to the applicant and the cases of Shri
A.S. Khan and Shri Raju Pathrabe of Jaripatka and Mahal
branches respectively are quite different from the case of
the applicant and the past record of the applicant is not the
criterion for imposing the punishment and in the case of
the applicant, commission of serious misconducts
involving moral turpitude has been proved and it has not
confidence in the applicant and as such, the punishment is
just and prper and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
5. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
6. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, as a punishment in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him, the fairness and otherwise of the
departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a
preliminary issue and by order dated 21.10.2014, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant was
held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles
of natural justice.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the applicant that the findings of the
enquiry Officer were perverse and his approach was
mechanical and not impartial and he lost sight of the fact
that the burden of proving the charges was that of the
management and the charges were not proved against the
applicant beyond the shadow of doubt and the
3104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
complainants had subsequently stated to have already
received the amount and not to have any complaint about
the deposits made by them and from such statements, it is
clear that a cook and bull story was developed by the
management and the Enquiry Officer did not notice the
above said glaring discrepancies in the evidence recorded
by him and the Enquiry Officer also did not consider the
facts that the applicant was not in the receipt counter, but
he was in the payment counter on 10.07.2009 and the
Enquiry Officer did not analyze the evidence judiciously
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are without just and
proper reasoning and the punishment of dismissal without
notice imposed against the workman is disproportionate
and unwarranted and the applicant has been singled out
by the Disciplinary Authority for award the highest
punishment of dismissal from service without notice and it
is clear form the document, Ext. W-V that one Shri A.S.
Khan, who was charge sheeted under clauses 5(d) and 5(J)
of the Bipartite Settlement like that of the applicant was
awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by the
same Disciplinary Authority and the applicant has been
discriminated and before imposition of the punishment, the
past service record of the applicant was not considered and
as such, the applicant is entitled for reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the respondent that by order dated 21.10.2014, the
Tribunal has already declared the departmental enquiry
conducted against the applicant to be valid and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence
on record of the enquiry and the findings are not perverse
and commission of serious misconduct by the applicant
has been proved against the applicant in a properly
conducted departmental enquiry and for that the
punishment imposed against the applicant cannot be said
to be shockingly disproportionate and there is no scope to
interfere with the punishment and the allegations made
against the applicant and Shri A.S. Khan were quite different
from each other and as such, it cannot be said that the
applicant was discriminated and the punishment imposed
against the applicant is just and proper and the applicant is
not entitled to any relief.
In support of the submissions, the learned advocate
for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 2014 in III CLR-42 (Amrendra Kumar Sing Vs. Central
Bank of India), 1999 I CLR-499 (Kuldip Singh Vs.
Commissioner of Police), (2011) 6 SCC-3769 Commissioner
of Police Vs. Jaibhagwan) and (2010) 7SCC-6789 East Coast
Railway Vs. Mahadev Apparao).
9.
Before delving into the merit of the case in hand,
I think it proper to mention the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the applicant of the
Evidence Act ot departmental proceedings and the
requirements in a departmental enquiry to prove the charges
against the delinquent workman.
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
''Departmental enquiry- Not bound by strict rules of
Evidence Act, but fair play and natural justice. Only total
absence but not sufficiency of evidence before Tribunal is
ground for interference.
**
**
**
**
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. It the punishment 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.
**
**
**
**
A disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal trial. The
standard of proof required is that of preponderance of
probability and not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Where there are some relevant materials which the
authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably
support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not
the function of the Tribunal to review the materials. If the
enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequency
or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the
Tribunal.
**
**
**
**
Where the employer has lost confidence and faith in
such employee and choose to remove that employee, there
is no scope of misplaced sympathy to interfere with the
quantum of punishment.
**
**
**
**
In case of such nature - Indeed, in cases involving
corruption — there cannot be any other punishment than
dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally
uncalled for and opposed to public interest.
**
**
**
**
Now, the case in hand is to be considered with the
touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, as mentioned above.
10. The first contention raised by the learned
advocate for the applicant is that the charges levelled
against the applicant were vague and the vagueness goes
to the root of the charge sheet submitted against the
applicant and the punishment imposed against the
applicant, basing on such defective charges cannot be
sustained.
On perusal of the charge sheet, Ext. M-I, it is found
that the charges levelled against the applicant were
mentioned in detail and the lists of documents and the
witnesses were enclosed with the same as annexure I and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3105
II. The clauses of the Bipartite Settlement were also clearly
mentioned in the charges sheet. So, it cannot be said that
the charges levelled against the applicant were vague.
Hence, there is no force in the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the applicant on the score.
11. So far the submission made by the learned
advocate for the applicant that one Shri S.M. Khan was
awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement, where
as the applicant was dismissed from service by the same
authority, even though, both of them were charge sheeted
under the same clauses of the Settlement and the applicant
was discriminated is concerned, it is to be mentioned here
that awarding of a lesser punishment to another delinquent
is not a good ground for judicial interference with the
quantum of punishment. Moreover, it is found from the
record that the allegations in the case of the applicant and
that against Shri S.M. Khan were contextually different.
Hence, I find no force in the contention made by the learned
advocate for the applicant in that regard.
12. On perusal of the proceedings of the departmental
enquiry held against the applicant, it is found that the
Enquiry Officer has dealt with the charges chronologically.
The evidence in support of the charges has been properly
assessed by the Enquiry Officer in reaching the
conclusions by him. The pleas taken by the applicant were
also duly taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer has also assigned cogent reasons in
support of his findings. The findings of the Enquiry officer
are based on the materials on record and the findings are
not as such, which cannot be arrived at by any prudent
man on the evidence on record. Hence, it is found that the
findings of the Enquriy Officer are not perverse.
13. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that grave misconduct under clauses
5 (d) and 5 (j) of the memorandum of Bi-partite settlement
dated 10.04.2002 for willful damage and attempt to cause
damage to the property of the Bank and doing an act
prejudicial to the interest of the Bank respectively has been
proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. So,
the punishment of dismissal from service without notice
imposed against the applicant cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference.
Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.
Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the management
of the Bank awarding the punishment of dismissal from
service without notice against the applicant is just and
proper. The applicant is not entitled to any relief. The
application is rejected, being devoid of any merit.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1457.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;j QkslZ LVs'ku]
cfBaMk 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
lañ 1262@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-
07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@14@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1262/
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Air Force Station,
Bathinda and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 13.07.2015.
[No. L-14012/14/2005-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. 1262/2006
Registered on 25.4.2006
Sh. Darshan Singh, S/o Sh. Sarwan Singh,
C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President,
Punjab Telecom & General Labour
Union-27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar,
Lal Singh Basti Road, Bathinda.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The Station Commander,
Air Force Station,
Bhissiana, Bathinda.
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
for the Workman
Sh. P.K. Longia, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. R.N. Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 29.6.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-14012/14/
2005-IR(DU) Dated 12.4.2006, by exercising its powers under
3106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Station
Commander, Air Force Station, Bhissiana in
terminating the services of Sh. Baldev Singh, Ex-
Asamia Labour w.e.f. 10.12.2004 without complying
the statutory provisions of the ID Act, 1947 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 Asamia Labour (workman) since January, 1997 in the
office of the respondent management and was getting
Rs. 2210/- as monthly pay. He continuously worked till
10.12.2004 when his services were terminated without
serving him any notice or paying him any retrenchment
compensation. That the persons junior to him were retained
in service. Therefore, termination of his services is illegal.
Respondent management controverted the averments
in this written statement and pleaded that workman was
engaged occasionally as unskilled casual labour to meet
the exigencies of the work and was not employed
continuosuly. His engagement was as follows:—
Months
Years
(Details of the days of engagement on
daily wage basis)
2001
2002
2003
2004
January
-
24
21
14
February
-
09
10
08
March
-
18
16
09
April
-
-
11
02
May
-
15
11
13
June
-
13
11
14
July
-
04
06
16
August
-
07
20
16
September
-
08
18
18
October
-
04
16
11
November
17
09
17
06
December
12
04
15
06
Total
29
115
172
133
Since the workman was never employed, the question
of his termination do not arise. It is further pleaded that
management is carrying on sovereign functions being a
part of Defence and is not an 'industry'.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of their case, workman appeared in the
witness box and filled his affidavit reiterating the stand
taken by him in the statement of claim. He has also examined
Major Singh, who deposed that workman was working with
the respondent management.
On the other hand, respondent management has
examined Squadron Leader K. Srikanth, who filed his
affidavit reiterating the stand of the respondent
management taken in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. P.K. Longia, counsel for the workman
and Sh. R.N. Sharma, counsel for the management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
management that respondent management is a part of the
Defence Forces and therefore, is not an 'Industry'.
Opposing this, it was argued by the learned counsel for
the workman that the definition of 'Industry' is of very wide
import and even part of the Defence establishment, falls
within it and placed reliance on Soundararajan and others
Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi and another, reported in 1994(2) LLJ 665 wherein,
the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the Ordnance
Depot under the Armed Ordnance Corps though is a part
of Defence service, but is an 'industry'.
I have considered the respective contentions.
The definition of 'industry' came for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others reported in
AIR 1978 LAB. I.C. 467, wherein, it was observed by His
Lordships in para 161 of the judgements as follows:—
'Industry', as defined in Section 2(j) and explained in
Banerji (AIR 1953 SC 58) has a wide import.
(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by
co-operation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is chimerical)
(iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods
and services calculated to satisfy human wants;
and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive
of material things or services geared to celestial
bliss i.e. making on a large scale Prasad or food)
prima facie, there is an industry in that enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is
irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,
private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test
is the nature of the activity with special emphasis
on the employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does
not cease to be one because of philanthropy
animating the undertaking.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3107
It was further observed that sovereign functions
performed do not fall within the definition of 'Industry'.
There is hardly any dispute that Defence forces
perform sovereign functions and do not fall within the
definition of 'industry'. There is nothing on the file that any
systematic activity is conducted by the respondent
management with the cooperation of the workman and for
production or distribution of goods and services. The
workman has simply pleaded "Station Commander, Air Force
Station, Bhisiana" and 'Station Commander' cannot be
termed as an 'industry'. The workman knew from the very
beginning that an objection has been taken by the
respondent management denying its status as 'industry'
but workman did not lead any evidence to prove the said
fact. As much as the description given of the respondent
management in the statement of claim do not fall within the
definition of 'industry' and since the Defence Forces do
'sovereign functions' and on that account also, respondent
management is not an 'industry'. In the circumstances, the
ratio of Soundararajan and others Vs. Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and
another case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Though the workman has alleged that he was employed
as labour in January, 1997 and was getting Rs. 2210/- as
monthly pay but no cogent evidence has come in this
respect except the bare statements of the workman and his
witness. The definite case of the management is that he
was employed as a casual labourer to meet the exigencies
of the work firstly in November, 2001 and was lastly engaged
in the month of December, 2007 and as per the chart
reproduced above, he worked for 29 days in 2001, 115 days
in 2002, 172 days in 2003 and 133 days in 2004. Squadron
Leader K. Srikanth has specifically deposed in his cross-
examination that his affidavit is based on record and he
brought the record relating to the workman when appeared
in the witness box. In view of the documentary evidence,
the workman cannot claim that he was continuously in
employment of the respondent management since 1997,
rather the record shows that he was occasionally employed
in the year 2001 to 2004 and he did not complete 240 days
in a calendar year preceding his disengagement from
service. Therefore he was not entitled to any retrenchment
compensation or the benefits of other provisions of the
Act.
In result, the reference is answered holding that the
action of the management is not illegal and workman is not
entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ- 1458.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj j{kk ea=ky; ,oa
nwljksa 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 lañ 496@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@10@99&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 496/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Ministry of Defence & others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 13.07.2015.
[No. L-14012/10/99-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. 496/2005
Registered on 22.8.2005
Sh. Jagdish Singh, S/o Sh. Bhag Singh,
H.No. 585, Deroki Basti,
Baba Hardwari Bagichi, Patiala.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ministry of Defence, through the Secretary,
Government of India, Raksha Mantralaya, New
Delhi.
2. Officer Commanding, 340 Coy, A.S.C. (Supply) C/o
56 A.P.O.
.. Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
Sh. P.K. Longia, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 29.6.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-14012/10/
99-IR(DU) dated 21.7.1999, by exercising its powers under
Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section
3108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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 Commanding Officer, 340,
COY ASC (SUP) Type 'B' C/o 56 APO, in terminating
the services of Sh. Jagdish Singh S/o Sh. Bhag Singh
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
appointed by respondent No. 2 through Employment
Exchange and he joined the service w.e.f. 1.4.1993. His
services were terminated w.e.f. 24.7.1998. That he was
entitled to regularization of services as per Clause 15(1) of
the Model Standing Orders issued by respondent No. 1
vide his letter dated 22.3.1982 and he was entitled to regular
pay scale but instead of regularizing his services, his
services were terminated without serving him any notice
or holding any inquiry or payment of retrenchment
compensation and therefore his services were terminated
illegally and he be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply pleading
that workman was not appointed by the respondent
management but was hired as a casual labourer on day to
day basis as per requirement and he did not work
continuously. That the Model Standing Orders are not
applicable to him. That he did not complete 240 days of
service in a calendar year and therefore he was not entitled
to any retrenchment compensation. It was further pleaded
that the Ministry of Defence do not fall within the definition
of 'industry'.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as
set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined
Sh. A.S. Kulsange, who filed his affidavit reiterating the
stand taken by the management.
It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for
the respondent management that respondent being
Defence services discharge sovereign functions and do
not fall within the definition of 'industry'.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the workman
submitted that the definition of 'industry' is of very wide
import and even part of the Defence establishment, falls
within it and placed reliance on Soundararajan and others
Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi and another, reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 665 wherein,
the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the Ordnance
Depot under the Armed Ordnance Corps though is a part
of Defence Service, but is an 'industry'.
I have considered the respective contentions.
The definition of 'industry' came for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board, Vs. A. Rajappa and others reported
in AIR 1978 LAB I.C. 467, wherein, it was observed by the
Lordships in para 161 of the judgment as follows:—
'Industry', as defined in Section 2(j) and explained in
Banerji (AIR 1953 SC 58) has a wide import.
(a) Where (i) Systematic activity, (ii) organized by
cooperation between employer and employee (the
direct and substantial element is chimerical) (iii)
for the production and/or distribution of goods
and services calculated to satisfy human wants;
and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive
of material things or services geared to celestial
bliss i.e. making on a large scale Prasad or food)
prima facie, there is an industry in that enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is
irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,
private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test
is the nature of the activity with special emphasis
on the employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does
not cease to be one because of philanthropy
animating the undertaking.
It was further observed that sovereign functions
performed do not fall within the definition of 'Industry'.
There is nothing on the file to suggest that the respondent
management was doing any systematic activity by
cooperation between the management and the workman
for production or distribution of goods and services and it
is the case of the workman himself that he was doing the
work of loading and unloading. Since the respondent
management is covered under the Army Act, the respondent
management is not an 'industry'. In the Head Note of the
claim petition, the workman has given the description of
the respondents as follows:—
"1. Ministry of Defence, through the Secretary,
Government of India, Raksha Mantralaya, New
Delhi.
2. Officer Commanding 340 Coy. A.S.C. (Supply)
C/o 56 A.P.O."
'Ministry of Defence' as well as 'Officer Commanding'
cannot be termed as an 'industry' as impleaded by the
workman and there is nothing on the file to suggest that
the said respondents fall within the definition of 'Industry'.
As such the ratio of Soundararajan and others Vs. Secretary
to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and
another case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3109
present case. The workman has the knowledge that
respondent management has taken an objection regarding
whether it is an 'industry', but the workman did not lead
any evidence to prove this fact and on the face of it, as
discussed above, the respondent management is not an
'industry'.
According to the workman, he joined the service w.e.f.
1.4.1993 and he continuously served till 24.7.1998. During
cross-examination, he was stated that he was not given
any appointment letter and he received the job orally which
probabalize the case of the respondent management that
he was engaged on casual basis as and when required and
he was not a regular employee of the respondent
management. The workman has relied on the Model
Standing Orders issued by respondent No. 1 which deals
with the benefits given to the casual labourers and its clause
13 itself provides for the termination of employment of a
casual labourer without issuance of any notice and it reads
as follows:—
Termination of Employment:—No notice shall be
necessary to terminate the employment of a casual
workmen but the service of a casual workman shall
not to terminated under SC 12 (iii) unless he has been
given an opportunity of explaining the charges of
misconduct alleged against him in the manner provided
for in S.O. 12(iv).
Thus, as per the Model Standing Orders the services
of the casual labourer can be terminated at any time except
when there are allegations of misconduct, an inquiry is to
be conducted. The management was well within its rights
not to engage the workman as a casual labourer and he
was not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the
Act.
In result, the action of the management in terminating
the services of the workman is legal and justified and he is
not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1459.—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 ¼lañ 1353@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@62@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1353/
2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, 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 was received by the
Central Government on 13.07.2015.
[No. L-40012/62/2007-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. 1353/2008
Registered on 6.2.2008
Smt. Laxmi Devi,
W/o Shri Ram Kishan,
Village Handesra,
Tehsil Derabassi, Mohali,
Chandigarh
.... Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Telecom Deptt., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Ambala
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
Shri Arun Batra, Adv.
For the Management
Shri Anish Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 22.6.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/62/
2007-IR (DU) dated 31.1.2008, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 of 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 Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ambala in terminating the
services of their workman Smt. Laxmi Devi w.e.f.
9.10.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and
submitted statement of claim pleading that she was working
3110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as part time sweeper for the last 20 years with the
respondent management Handesra, Telephone Exchange.
Respondent No. 2 issued letter No. GG/70/17/50 dated
18.2.2001 regarding conversion of part-time workers into
full time casual labourer and in pursuance thereof a list was
prepared and her name was mentioned at serial No. 14, but
her services were not converted into full time worker. That
the concerned SDE also informed respondent No. 2 vide
his letter dated 24.12.2001 mentioning her name at serial
No. 13. When the respondent management failed to convert
her job into full time casual labourer, she served a notice on
4.10.2006 and thereafter respondent No. 2 terminated her
services on 9.10.2004.
The services of the workman were terminating without
paying her any retrenchment compensation or service of
notice though she worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year. That the persons junior to her were retained
in service. Being so, termination of her services is illegal
and she be reinstated in service with full back wages.
Respondent management filed written reply admitting
that Government of India, Department of Telecom, had given
one time relaxation to convert part-time casual loabourer
working less than 4 hours per day into full time casual
labourers vide letter dated 25.8.2000. Since there was no
shortage of 'Group D' employees at Handesra Telephone
Exchange and therefore, part-time casual labourers were
not converted into full time casual labourer as per the said
instructions. That no Safaiwala was engaged for more than
90 days after 1.4.1999. That no person junior to the workman
was retained in service. That the claim is misconceived and
be dismissed.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness
box and filed her affidavit supporting the case as set out in
the claim petition.
On the other hand, the management has examined
Sh. Avtar Singh, SDO who filed his affidavit reiterating the
stand of the respondent management.
I have heard Sh. Arun Batra, Counsel for the workman
and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the
management that only one time relaxation was given for
conversion of part-time casual labourers working for less
than 4 hours per day into full time casual labourers vide
letter dated 25.8.2000 and as per Clause 4 of the said letter
where there was no shortage of 'Group D' employees, part-
time casual labourers were not to be converted into full
time casual labourers and since there was no shortage of
'Group D' employees, the services of the workman was not
converted into full time casual labourers and the claim filed
by the workman is without basis.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
Though, workman has pleaded that she was entitled
to be converted into full time casual labourer as per the
said letter. But the question to be seen is whether the
workman worked with the respondent management and
her services were terminated without serving any notice or
payment of retrenchment compensation as required under
Section 25-F of the Act.
Workman has specifically pleaded in para 1 of the claim
petition that she worked as Sweeper with the respondent
management at Handesra Telephone Exchange for 20 years
as part-time sweeper. The management pleaded in para 2 of
the preliminary objections that the management neither
issued any appointment letter nor any termination letter to
the workman but again pleaded in para 1 of the written
statement on merit that there were only two rooms for the
Telephone Exchange during the working tenure of the
claimant. It again pleaded in para 11 of the written statement
on merit that the workman was engage for cleaning the
Exchange before 1.4.1999. Thus the respondent
management admits that workman was engaged by it for
cleaning the Telephone Exchange.
The stand taken by the management is that she was
engaged only before 1.4.1999. Workman has pleaded in
para 3 of the statement of claim that her name was mentioned
at serial No. 14 of the list prepared for converting the part-
time workers into full time casual labourer. This fact is
admitted by the respondent management in its reply and
the same also do find mention in the letter dated 25.2.2001
(Exhibit A3) of the Sub-Divisional Engineer. The opening
lines of the said letter are relevant and are reproduced as
follows:—
The following part-time workers working less than four
hours are to be converted into full time casual worker as
per intimation of higher authorities. As such please intimate
the date from which they are working in your sub-division,
so that necessary action for their conversion into full time
casual worker can be taken by this office at an early.
Thus, an intimation was sought regarding the date
from which workmen including present workman were
working and the name of the workman do appear in the list
mentioned in this letter. Meaning thereby, the workman
was in service in the year 2001 which totally falsified the
stand taken by the management that she was not engaged
after 1.4.1999 and being so, the averments as made by the
workman that her services were terminated in the year 2006
are to be taken as correct.
No doubt, the witness of the management nemely
Sh. Avtar Singh has stated during cross-examination that
there was no record for engaging persons for safai work
and stated that payment was made from the temporary
advance but again did not produce any receipts. Thus the
best record available with the respondnet management has
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3111
been withheld and adverse inference is to be drawn that
the workman worked with the respondent management till
9.10.2006 as pleaded by her.
It is the specific case of the workman that she worked
continuously for 20 years which has not been specifically
denied and it is only pleaded that she was engaged before
1.4.1999 which is not proved on the file, as discussed above.
Therefore it is to be taken that she worked for the period as
alleged by her and it leaves no doubt that she completed
240 days of service in a calendar year prior to the termination
of her services.
It is admitted fact that no notice was served to her
prior to termination of her services nor she was paid any
retrenchment compensation and therefore the termination
of her services is illegal.
The next question to be seen is whether she can be
reinstated in service or be paid compensation. There is
noting on the file that she was appointed as part-time
sweeper as per rules and regulations of the department
and being so, she cannot be ordered to be reinstated in
service. However, compensation is to be given to her for
illegal termination of her services. She has a quite length of
service to her credit though she did not plead about her
salary. Considering the entirety of the facts Rs. 1 lac is
suitable compensation which is to be paid to her.
In result, the reference is answered holding that
termination of the services of the workman namely
Smt. Laxmi Devi is not legal and she is entitled to get Rs. 1
lac as compensation from the respondent management who
shall pay to the workman within 1 month 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 th award till realization.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvk- 1460.—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/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè 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- 106@2014½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@105@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2015
S.O. 1460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 106/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the
Annexure, 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 13.07.2015.
[No. L-40012/105/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Shri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 106/2014
Registered on 2.3.2015
Sh. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Bharu Ram,
R/o Village Kundan Pura,
Uklana Mandi, Hisar.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Red Square Market Railway Road,
Main Office, Hisar.
.... Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh. Jang Bahadur, AR.
For the Management
Sh. Kailash Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 17.6.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/105/
2014 (IR (DU)) Dated 4.2.2015, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 of 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 Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hisar in terminating the
services of Sh. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bharu Ram
w.e.f 10.11.2013 is valid and legal? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from
which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
through Authorized Respresentative who made statement
on 2.6.2015 claiming no relief in the present reference.
In result, the reference is answered that workman is
not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
3112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1461.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼100@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@13@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015
S.O. 1461.—In pursuance of section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.100/2011) of
the Cent.Govt, Indus. Tribunal -cum-Labour Court,
Lunknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Northern Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/07/2015
[No. L-41011/13/2011-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. NO. 100/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/13/2011-IR(B-I) dated: 26.05.2011
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kanauri (Premwati Nagar)
Post- Manak Nagar
Lucknow-16.
(Espousing cause of Shri Om Prakash Verma)
AND
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Northern Railway
DRM Office, Hazratganj
Lucknow
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/13/2011-IR(B-I) dated:
26.05.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kanauri
(Premwati Nagar), Post - Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Personnel Officer, Northan Railway, DRM Officer,
Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the demand of the Union regarding
placement of Shri Om Prakash Verma S/o Shri Shyam
Lal Verma assistant Loco Pilot, Locoshed, Lucknow
in the penal of 1983-84 above his juniors and grant of
pay benefits accordingly is legal and justified? To
what relief the union is entitled?''
The case of the workman's union in brief, is that the
workman, Om Prakash Verma was appointed as cleaner w.e.f.
01.06.1979 and worked as such till 03.09.1981 continously,
when he had been reternched w.e.f . 04.09.1981 illegally.
The workman challenged his retrenchment before CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/1983
and the Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman
with back wages from the date of retenchment vide their
award dated 19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management
challenged the award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon'ble High
Court, which was rejected; likewise the SLP too before
Hon'ble Apex Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman
was reinstated on 04.08.1983. It is alleged that the
management vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/screening/ Loco
dated 30.08.1991 regularized the workman on the post of
Loco Cleaner; whereas it absorbed other junior workmen
in the panel for the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days
working up to 30.09.1998, which is in violation to the
provisions of Railways Rules. It is submitted by the
workman's union that Shri Amarjeet Singh & Shri Abdul
Aziz were also included in the panel for yeat 1992 but later
on included in the panel of year 1983-84 on the orders of
Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow. Likewise, other workman Viz. Shri
Pratap Bahadur & Ahmad Ali, Who were earlier included in
panel for the year 1992 were include in the panel for year
83-84 as per order of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the
workman's union has prayed that the name of the workman,
Om Prakash Verma be included in the panel of the year
83-84 which consequiently benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its written
satatement, denying the claim of the workman's union and
has contended that the workmen's union has sought the
relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of year
1983-84, which is not permissible beacuse of the seniority
of the other employees will be effected and they are not
arrayed as party in the present industrial dispute and if the
relief is granted, several other workers may prefer the matter
in courts since their seniority shall be affected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapes of more than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3113
point of limitation.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their respective case and forwarded
oral arguments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.1981 has
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-1984. He has relied upon:
(i) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy1998 ACJ
1347.
10. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, in asmuch as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workmen has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/ Tribunals. The
management has relied on:
(i) M. Ramakotaiah & Others vs. Union of india &
others 2007 (6) AWC 6556 (SC).
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned athorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
12. Admittedly, the workman has been terminated w.e.f.
04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to be
illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon'ble High Court
in writ petition, filed by the management of railways, upheld
the award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management's contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time;
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
13. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to
whether the workman is entitled to be included in the
seniority panel of 83-84, which was denied to him,
consequent upon his termination in the said year? It is
admitted fact that the workman was not in service due to
illegal termination in the relevant year 1983, when the
seniority panel was drawn and his name was not
considered. The termination of the workman was quashed
by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and in compliance
thereof the management reinstated the workman, treating
the termination as non-est and paid back wages in
compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur
the reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given
effect to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatement required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman, Om Prakash Verma would be deemed in
service on the last post held on the date of termination.
Accordingly, he is entitled for preference over his juniors
and to be included in the seniority panel for the year
1983-1984.
14. The management of the railways has come up with
a contention that the present industrial dispute is time
barred as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25
years. The workman's witness during his cross-examination
stated that he made oral objection against inclusion of
name in the panel of 91-92 and for delay he stated that the
management kept on assuring that he will be included in
the panal of 83-84, therefore, he did not raise the dispute.
He further, stated that when the names of Amarjeet Singh,
Pratap Bahadur, Ahmad Ali and Abdul Aziz were added in
the paenl of 83-84 due to Court's order, he also raised the
industrial dispute. The authorized representative has
contended that the workman has not given any reliable
explanation for inordinate delay of 25 years; rather he turned
up when the other got successful. He stressed that the
order of the Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
respect of Amarjeet Singh was delivered on 26.04.993; but
the workman has raised present industrial disputein 2011,
without any explanation.
15. The management has relied upon N. Balakrishnan
vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court while dealing with the matter of delay has observed
that length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & others vs T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
3114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
person, without adequate reason approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
list at a belated stage should be entertained or not.
Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstanes delay and laches may be fatal
but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the
doors of the Court. Delay reflects inacitivity and in
action on the part of a litigant a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination
is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does
not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay
does bring a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four years'
delay in aproaching the Court, yet the writ Court
chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the
Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is
to be ignored without any justification."
Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohtagi Memorial Eye
Hospital vs State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State Government
to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being
old and state case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble
High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to
why the workmen could not approach the authority under
the ID Act. On the issue of delay the workman has tried to
explain his delay by pleading that he kept on requesting
the authorities who assured him of fruitful. There is no
other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunitism
of the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by
the workmen's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
16. In the present case, admittedly there is delay of
approximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dated
30.08.1991. The workman's union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another
1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven
years has held that the Court can mould relief by refusing
back wages or directing payment of part of back wages.
17. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case
laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered opinion that
the action of the management of Central Railway in not
including the name of the workman in the panel for year
1983-84 was illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, I come to
the conclusion that the workman, Sri Om Prakash Verma is
entitled for placement in the panel of 1983-1984 above his
juniors, subject to his suitability under Rules. He shall be
entitled to services benefits under Rules; however, he
would be liable for payment of only 1/3rd of back wages, in
view of delay in raising the present industrial dispute.
18. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
19. Award as above.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
LUCKNOW
2nd July, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1462.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l ;qfjdk
Qksjcsl fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] dksydkrk ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼63@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-07-2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@60@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14h July, 2015
S.O. 1462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2014) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14.07.2015.
[No. L-41011/60/2014-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 63 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Sourth Eastern Railway
AND
Their workmen
Present: JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY,
Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3115
APPEARANCE
On behalf of the
:
Mrs. Sujata Chowdhry, Ld.
Management
Counsel for S.E. Railway, None
for M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.
On behalf of the
:
None.
Workmen
State
:
West Bengal
Industry : Railway.
Dated: 2nd July, 2015
AWARD
By Order No. L-41011/60/2014-IR(B-1) dated 28.08.2014
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of
its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
"(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Eureka Forbes Ltd., contractor of South Eastern
Railway by not paying festival bonus to 350 (List
Enclosed) contract labourers for accounting year
2011-12 is justified or not? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled for? (2) Whether the workmen
are entitled for interest for delayed payment of bonus
by the management? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?"
2. When the case was taken up for hearing on
30.06.2015 none appeared on behalf of the union though
South Eastern Railway and M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited
were represented by their respective Ld. Counsel. It appears
from the record that inspite of receiving notice, the union
has not turned up for the previous four consecutive dates.
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances it
appears that the union at whose instance the present
reference has been initiated is not interested to proceed
with the case further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served
in keeping the matter pending.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
present reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute
Award".
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 2nd July, 2015.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1463.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos
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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼35@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@07@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@104@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14h July, 2015
S.O. 1463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2011) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 14/07/2015.
[No. L-41011/104/2010-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I NDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR : Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 35/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/104/2010-IR(B-1) dated: 14.03.2011
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora (Premwati Nagar)
PO-Manak Nagar
Lucknow-16.
(Espousing cause of Sri N.K. Mehta)
AND
Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/104/2010-IR(B-1) dated:
14.03.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora
(Premwati Nagar), PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the demand of the union regarding
placement of Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra s/o Shri S.K.
Mishra, assistant loco pilot, loco-shed, Lucknow in
the penal of 1983-84 above his juniors and grant of
pay benefits accordingly is legal and Justified? To
what relief the Union is entitled?"
3116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, Ashok Kumar Mishra was appointed as cleaner
w.e.f. 11.03.1977 and worked as such till 03.09.1981
continuously, when he had been retrenched w.e.f. 04.09.1981
illegally. The workman challenged his retrenchment before
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/
1983 and the Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman
with back wages from the date of retrenchment vide their
award dated 19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management
challenged the award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon'ble High
Court, which was rejected; likewise the SLP too before
Hon'ble Apex Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman
was reinstated on 04.08.1983. It is alleged that the
management vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/Screening/Loco
dated 30.08.1991 regularized the workman on the post of
Loco Cleaner; whereas it absorbed other junior workmen
in the panel for the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days
working up to 30.09.1988, which is in violation to the
provisions of Railway Rules. It is submitted by the
workman's union that Shri Amarjeet Singh & Sri Abdul Aziz
were also included in the panel for year 1992 but later on
included in the panel of year 1983-84 on the orders of Hon'ble
CAT, Lucknow, Likewise, other workmen viz. Sri Pratap
Bahadur & Ahmad Ali, who were earlier, included in panel
for the year 1992 were included in the panel for year 83-84
as per order of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the workman's
union has prayed that the name of the workman, Ashok
Kumar Mishra be included in the panel of the year 83-84
which consequential benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its written
statement, denying the claim of the workman's union and
has contended that the workman's union has sought the
relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of year
1983-84, which is not permissible because of the seniority
of other employees will be effected and they are not arrayed
as party in present industrial dispute and if the relief is
granted, several other workers may prefer the matter in
courts since their seniority shall be affected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapse of more than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
point of limitation.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their respective case and forwarded
oral arguments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.2981 has
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-1984. He has relied upon:
(i) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ
1347.
9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, in as much as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workman has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/Tribunals. The
management has relied on:
(i) M. Ramakotaiah & others Vs. Union of India &
others 2007 (6) AWC 6556 (SC).
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
11. Admittedly, the workman had been terminated w.e.f.
04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to be
illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon'ble High Court
in writ petition, filed by the management of railways, upheld
the award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management's contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time;
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
12. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to
whether the workman is entitled to be included in the
seniority panel of 83-84, which was denied to him,
consequent upon his termination in the said year? It is
admitted fact that the workman was not in service due to
illegal termination in the relevant year 1983, when the
seniority panel was drawn and his name was not
considered. The termination of the workman was quashed
by the CGIT-cum-Labour, Kanpur and in compliance thereof
the management reinstated the workman, treating the
termination as non-est and paid back wages in compliance
of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3117
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur,
the reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given
effect to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatement required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman, Ashok Kumar Mishra would be deemed
in service on the last post held on the date of termination.
Accordingly, he is entitled for preference over his juniors
and to be included in the seniority panel for the year 1983-
1984.
13. The management of the railways has come up with
a contention that the present industrial dispute is time
barred as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25
years. The workman's witness during his cross-examination
stated that he did not make any written objection against
inclusion of name in the panel of 1992 and for delay he
stated that the management kept on assuring that he will
be included in the panel of 83-84, therefore, he did not raise
the dispute. He further, stated that when the names of
Amarjeet Singh, Pratap Bahadur, Ahmad Ali and Abdul
Aziz were added in the panel of 83-84 due to Court's order,
he also raised the industrial dispute. The authorized
representative has contended that the workman has not
given any reliable explanation for inordinate delay of 25
years; rather he turned up when the other got successful.
He stressed that the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow in respect of Amarjeet Singh was delivered
on 26.04.1993; but the workman has raised present industrial
dispute in 2011, without any explanation.
14. The management has relied upon N. Balakrishnan
Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1347; wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with the matter of delay has
observed that length of delay does not matter, acceptability
of the explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant—a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the
greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
15. Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital Vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State Government
to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being
old and stale case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble
High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to
why the workman could not approach the authority under
the ID Act. On the issue of delay the workman has tried to
explain his delay by pleading that he kept on requesting
the authorities who assured him of fruitful. There is no
other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunitism
of the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by
the workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
16. In the present case, admittedly there is delay of
approximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dated
30.08.1991. The workman's union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. & another
1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven
years ha;s held that the Court can mould relief by refusing
back wages or directing payment of part of back wages.
16. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the action of the management of Central
Railway in not including the name of the workman in the
panel for year 83-84 was illegal and unjustified. Accordingly,
I come to the conclusion that the workman, Sri Ashok Kumar
Mishra is entitled for placement in the panel of 1983-1984
above his juniors, subject to his suitability under Rules.
3118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
He shall be entitled to services benefits under Rules;
however, he would be liable for payment of only 1/3rd of
back wages, in view of delay in raising the present industrial
dispute.
18. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
19. Award as above.
Lucknow.
2nd July, 2015.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1464-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼34@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@103@2010&vkbZvkj¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2015
S.O. 1464.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2011) of
the Cen.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 14.07.2015.
[No. L-41011/103/2010-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. NO. 34/2011
REF. NO. L-41011/103/2010-IR(B-I) DATED:
14.03.2011
BETWEEN
Mandal Sangthan Mantri
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora (Premwati Nagar)
PO - Manak Nagar
Lucknow - 16. (Espousing cause of Shri N.K. Mehta)
AND
Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/103/2010-IR(B-I) dated:
14.03.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sangthan Mantri, Uttar
Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kananora
(Premawati Nagar), PO - Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the Demand of the Union regarding
placement of Shri N.K. Mehta S/o Shri D.K. Mehta,
assistant LOCO Pilot, LOCO-Shed, Lucknow in the
Penal of 1983-84 above his juniors and grant of pay
benefits accordingly is legal and justified? To what
relief the union is entitled?"
The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that the
workman, N.K. Mehta was appointed as cleaner w.e.f.
15.04.78 and worked as such till 03.09.1981 continuously,
when he had been retrenched w.e.f. 04.09.1981 illegally. The
workman challenged his retrenchment before CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur in I.D. No. 48/83 and 163/1983 and
the Tribunal was pleased to reinstate the workman with
back wages from the date of retrenchment vide their award
dated 19.02.1987 and 25.11.1985. The management
challenged the award of CGIT, Kanpur before Hon'ble High
Court, which was rejected; likewise the SLP too before
Hon'ble Apex Court was rejected; accordingly, the workman
was reinstated on 04.08.1983. It is alleged that the
management vide its order No. 220 E/1-5/Screening/Loco
dated 30.08.1991 regularized the workman on the post of
Loco Cleaner; whereas it absorbed other junior workmen
in thepanel for the year 1983-84 on the basis of 120 days
working up to 30.09.1998, which is in violation to the
provisions of Railway Rules. It is submitted by the
workman's union that Shri Amarjeet Singh & Sri Abdul Aziz
were also included in the panel for year 1992 but later on
included in the panel of year 1983-84 on the orders of Hon'ble
CAT, Lucknow. Likewise, other workmen viz. Sri Pratap
Bahadur & Ahmad Ali, who were earlier included in panel
for the year 1992 were included in the panel for year 83-84
as per order of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the workman's
union has prayed that the name of the worman, N.K. Mehta
be included in the panel of the year 83-84 with consequential
benefits.
4. The management of the railways has filed its written
statement, denying the claim of the workman's union and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3119
has contended that the workman's union has sought the
relief placing the name of the workman in the panel of year
1983-84, which is not permissible because of the seniority
of other employees will be effected and they are not arrayed
as party in present industrial dispute and if the relief is
granted, several other workers may prefer the matter in
courts since their seniority shall be affected. The
management has specifically submitted that the industrial
dispute has been referred after lapse of more than 25 years
without any rhyme or reason or any sufficient explanation;
and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected on the
point of limitation.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder wherein
apart from reiterating facts already mentioned in the
statement claim has submitted that there is no limitation
provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. The parties filed documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their respective case and forwarded
oral agruments.
7. Heard learned authorized representatives of the
parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
contended that since the termination dated 04.09.1981 has
been held illegal and the workman had been reinstated
with consequential benefits, therefore he is entitled for
inclusion in the panel of year 1983-1984. He has relied upon:
(i) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ
1347.
9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the
management has contended that the workman was screened
and rightly placed in the seniority panel vide order dated
30.08.1991. The management has vehemently contended
that the workman is not entitled to be included in the panel
for the year 1983-84, inasmuch as the present industrial
dispute is time barred and the workman has raised this
industrial dispute when he found that some other workmen
got benefit from different Court/Tribunals. The
management has relied on:
(i) M. Ramakotaiah & others vs. Union of India &
others 2007 (6) AWC 6556 (SC).
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives
of the parties and scanned the entire evidence available on
record.
11. Admittedly, the workman had been terminated w.e.f.
04.09.1981 and his termination had been declared to be
illegal and was reinstated with back wages by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Also, the Hon'ble High Court
in writ petition, filed by the management or railways, upheld
the award regarding reinstatement and the management in
compliance of award reinstated the workman and paid him
back wages. However, the management's contention over
the issue referred to this Tribunal is, that the workman was
screened and was rightly placed in the seniority panel for
1991 and he is not entitled for inclusion in the panel for
year 1983 as he was not in service at that point of time;
more so because the present industrial dispute has been
raised after lapse of more than 25 years.
12. Thus, the question to be adjudicated is as to
whether the workman is entitled to be included in the
seniority panel of 83-84, which was denied to him,
consequent upon his termination in the said year? It is
admitted fact that the workman was not in service due to
illegal termination in the relevant year 1983, when the
seniority panel was drawn and his name was not
considered. The termination of the workman was quashed
by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and in compliance
thereof the management reinstated the workman, treating
the termination as non-est and paid back wages in
compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
As per award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur,
the reinstatement order was not qualified one to be given
effect to the extent of monetary benefits only. As per settled
procedure, logically and legally reinstatement required grant
of all service benefits including seniority as if the
termination had not taken place. The management complied
with the order of reinstatement without giving seniority
and released monetary benefits to the workman. On the
quashing of termination order, it has to be assumed that
the workman was never been terminated and continued to
be in service notionally. The effect of the reinstatement is
that the workman, N.K. Mehta would be deemed in service
on the last post held on the date of termination.
Accordingly, he is entitled for preference over his juniors
and to be included in the seniority panel for the year 1983-
1984.
13. The management of the railways has come up with
a contention that the present industrial dispute is time
barred as it has been raised after lapse of more than 25
years. The workman's witness during his cross-examination
stated that he moved an application before DRM; but has
not filed its copy before this Tribunal. He further, stated
that when the management did not act upon his repeated
representations, then he raised the present industrial
dispute. The authorized representative has contended that
the workman has not given any reliable explanation for
inordinate delay of 25 years; rather he turned up when the
other got successful. He stressed that the order of the
Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in respect of
Amarjeet Singh was delivered on 26.04.1993; but the
workman has raised present industrial dispute in 2011,
without any explanation.
14. The management has relied upon N. Balakrishnan
vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 ACJ 1374; wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with the matter of delay has
3120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
observed that length of delay does not matter, acceptability
of the explanation is the only criterion.
In Chennail Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board & other vs. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (141) FLR 772,
Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
Constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights
of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reasons, approaches the
Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would
be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the
lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may be fatal but in
most circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten
the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the
greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring
a hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at
hand, though there has been four years' delay in
approaching the Court, yet the writ Court chose not
to address the same. It is the duty of the Court to
Scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification."
15. Further, in Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Memorial Eye
Hospital Vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (138) FLR 11 Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court upholding the action of the State
Government in denying the making reference of case after
22 years held that it is not expedient for State government
to refer against order of termination dated 26.6.1982 being
old and stale case, where the workman filed an application
raising industrial dispute after 22 years in 2004. Hon'ble
High Court observed that there is nothing to indicate as to
why the workman could not approach the authority under
the ID Act. On the issue of delay the workman has tried to
explain his delay by pleading that he kept on making
representations before the authorities; but in the absence
of any copy thereof his contention cannot be relied upon.
There is no other explanation about delay.
Thus, from the face of record it is crystal clear that the
workman did not bother to approach the management or
any legal forum for redressal of his grievances for more
than 20 years; and he approached this Tribunal when he
come to know about favourable order of courts in similar
nature of cases, which points out towards opportunitism
of the workman. Moreover, the explanation forwarded by
the workman's union before this Tribunal is insufficient.
16. In the present case, admittedly there is delay of
approximately 20 years as he was screened vide order dated
30.08.1991. The workman's union failed to give any logical
explanation for this inordinate delay of 20 years. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative
Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Ltd. &
Another 1992 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay
of seven years has held that the Court can mould relief by
refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back
wages.
17. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case
and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered
opinion that the action the management of Central Railway
in not including the name of the workman in the panel for
year 83-84 was illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, I come
to the conclusion that the workman, Sri N.K. Mehta is
entitled for placement in the panel of 1983-1984 above his
juniors, subject to his suitability under Rules. He shall be
entitled to services benefits under Rules; however, he
would be liable for payment of only 1/3rd of back wages, in
view of delay in raising the present industrial dispute.
18. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
19. Award as above.
Lucknow.
02nd July, 2015.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1465-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼47@2013½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@42@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2013) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow
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 15/7/2015.
[No. L-12011/42/2012 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3121
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RAKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. NO. 47/2013
REF. NO. L-12011/42/2012-IR(B-II) DATED 28.05.2013
BETWEEN
General Secretary
Central Bank Employees Congress (U.P.)
MIG-C 1241 Rajaji Puram
Lucknow
AND
The Regional Manager
Central Bank of India, Regional Office
Hazratganj
Lucknow (U.P.)
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12011/42/2012-IR(BII) dated
28.05.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between General Secretary, Central Bank
Employees Congress, Lucknow and the Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Lucknow for
adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
"Kya Prabhandak Central Bank of India, Lucknow/
Jhansi dwara Sri R.K. Sharma Ke 53 dino ka avkash
ya hona na karan vetan vradhi aagey bara diya jana
tatha uska vetan na dena nyayochit va vaidh hai?
Yadi nahi to vadi kis rahat ko pane ka haqdar hai"
3. The order of reference was endorsed to the General
Secretary, Central Bank Employees Congress (U.P.)
Lucknow with the direction to the party raising the dispute
to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen
days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward
a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the
Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4. The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal
on 18.07.2013 and notice was issued for filing statement of
claim by the workman.
5. The workman did not file statement of claim. Several
dates i.e. 21.08.2013, 24.09.2013, 12.11.2013, 18.12.2013,
21.01.2014, 03.03.2014, 17.04.2014, 05.06.2014, 25.07.2014,
05.09.2014 and 10.11.2014 were fixed for filing statement of
claim but parties did not turn up.
6. Under the circumstances and the facts mentioned
herein, no relief is legally required to be given to the
applicant/workman Sh. R.K. Sharma. The reference under
adjudication is answered as No Claim Award.
7. Award as above.
Lucknow
15.12.2014
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1466-—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/kr= lac) fu;kstdks 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 81@2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS ]tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@29@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2015)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai 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 15.7.2015.
[No. L-12012/29/2015-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 6th July, 2015
Present
: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 81/2015
(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 Central Bank of India and their
workman)
3122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN
Smt. G. Nirmala
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Sr. Regional Manager
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office
48/49, Montieth Road, Egmore
Chennai-600008
APPEARANCE
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: In Person
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
: Absent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/29/2015-IR(B-II)
dated 22.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
1. The schedule menitoned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Chennai regarding imposing the
punishment of Compulsory Retirement on G. Nirmala
is justified or not? If not, what relief the petitioner
G. Nirmala is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of notice, the petitioner has appeared in
person. The Respondent has not entered appearance.
3. The petitioner has filed ID 59/2015 before this
Tribunal directly for redressal of her grievance. She has
decided to proceed with the said matter. She has made
endorsement to the effect that she is not pressing this ID.
Therefore the ID is disposed as not pressed. An award
is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witness Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1467-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 80@2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@30@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjhA
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2015) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
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 15.7.2015.
[No. L-12012/30/2015-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 24th June, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 80/2015
(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 Central Bank of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri C. Sekar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior General Manager, :
2nd Party/Respondent
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
48/49, Montieth Road, Egmore
Chennai-600008
APPERANCE
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
In Person
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Set Ex-parte
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/30/2015-IR(B-II)
dated 18.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3123
1. The schedule menitoned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Chennai regarding the termination of
the service of the petitioner Sri C. Sekar is justified
or not? If not so, to what relief the petitioner C. Sekar
is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Indudstiral Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 80/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner has appeared in person. The
Respondent did not enter apperance.
3. On appearance, the petitioner has filed a memo
stating that he has moved this Tribunal directly for redressal
of his grievance and the same has been numbered as ID 22/
2015 and is pending. He does not want to press this ID in
the circumstances.
4. In view of the memo field by the petitioner the ID is
closed as not pressed. An Award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witness Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management :
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dk-vk- 1468-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojlht
c®d ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2014½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@07@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@94@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Indian
Overseas Bank and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 15/07/2015.
[No. L-12012/94/2013-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 10th June, 2015
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 3/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai and
their workman)
BETWEEN
Shri P. Sasi Kumar
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Deputy General Manager,
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No. 763, Anna Salai
Chennai-600021
APPEARANCES :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s T. Ramkumar, C.D.
Sugumar, 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-12012/94/2013-IR(B-II)
dated 16.12.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Overseas Bank, Chennai in imposing the punishment
of Discharge from service of Shri P. Sasikumar, Clerk/
Cashier is legal and justified? What relief the
concerned workman is entitled?
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 3/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are
these:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent
Bank on 30.10.2000. He had been discharging his duties in
a sincere and diligent manner. When the petitioner was
dismissed from service he was engaged in the Arni branch
of the Respondent Bank. The petitioner had married
Kanmani. Misunderstanding developed between the
petitioner and his wife after a year of the marriage. The
petitioner's wife allegedly lodged a complaint with the
Banking Ombudsman making false allegations against the
petitioner. Without verifying the genuineness of the
complaint the Respondent initiated disciplinary action
against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed on
suspension alleging that he had committed certain acts of
commission and omission prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank. Thereafter the Respondent issued a Charge Memo
dated 27.10.2011 making false and frivolous allegations
against the petitioner. The charges is said to be based on
the complaint said to have been given by the wife of the
petitioner. The charge sheet does not contain the details
as to on what basis of the Management alleged that the
petitioner forged the signature of his wife in the loan
application, loan documents, authorization letter, etc. The
charges are based on assumptions and surmises. A
domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner
based on the charges. Enquiry proceedings were vitiated
by bias and violation of principles of natural justice. The
statement of the petitioner's wife was not obtained during
the preliminary enquiry. She was not made available for
examination also. The petitioner was not involved in any
misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. The Enquiry
Officer entered a finding that the charges are proved. On
the basis of this the petitioner was dismissed from service
by order dated 31.10.2012. Though the petitioner preferred
an appeal against the said order the same was dismissed.
The dismissal of the petitioner from service is without any
justification. An award may be passed holding that the
action of the Respondent in terminating the service of the
petitioner is unjustified, and directing the Respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
As both Respondents are representing the Indian
Overseas Bank they are collectively referred to as
"Respondent" and a common counter statement is filed.
The Respondent used to sanction various types of loans
including Jewel Loan. When a Jewel loan is advanced for
agricultural purpose, it cannot be used for any other
purpose. In March 2011 the Respondents Regional Office
at Vellore received a complaint dated 26.02.2011 from one
Mrs. Kanmani complaining that she was married to the
petitioner on 06.08.2009, that she was given gold jewels by
way of dowry at the time of marriage, that within a month of
marriage the petitioner had compulsory took away the
jewels, that she had misunderstanding with the petitioner
and she was living with her parents from 19.09.2009 and
that the petitioner had taken two jewel loans in her name
without her knowledge and forging her signature. An
investigation was made and it transpired that out of the
loan of Rs. 1.5 lakhs availed on 31.08.2009, Rs. 29,790/- was
utilized to the current deposit and cash credit of the
petitioner and another Rs. 73,539/- was credited to the loan
account of Uma Maheshwari. The loan was redeemed on
12.11.2009 purported to be based on the authorization given
by the wife of the petitioner. On 21.10.2009 the petitioner
had obtained agricultural loan of Rs. 1.03 lakhs pledging
jewels of his wife, Kanmani. The loan disbursing voucher
was prepared by him in his own handwriting. On redemption
the jewels were handed over to the petitioner based on the
authorization letter purportedly signed by Kanmani. The
loan application for the loan was not traceable. The
redemption voucher also was missing. Based on the above
irregularities a Charge Sheet was issued to the petitioner.
Three witnesses were examined and 23 documents were
exhibited in the enquiry that followed. The Enquiry Officer
gave a report holding that all the three charges against the
petitioner are proved. The petitioner was given a personal
hearing. After considering his representation the
punishment of dismissal was awarded to the petitioner.
The allegation in the Claim Statement that the enquiry was
not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice is not correct.
5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
6. The issue raised by the petitioner regarding fairness
of the enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue and a
finding was entered to the effect that the enquiry was
conducted in a fair and proper manner.
7. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 and
Ext.M1 to Ext.M44.
8. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in
imposing the punishment of discharge from
service on the petitioner is legal and justified?
(ii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
9. The petitioner entered the service of the Respondent
in the year 2000 on compassionate grounds consequent to
the death of his father. He had been working as Clerk/
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3125
Cashier at Arni Branch of the Respondent Bank at the time
of his dismissal from service.
10. Investigation was conducted against the petitioner
based on complaints that were allegedly given by Kanmani,
wife of the petitioner in the year 2011 alleging that she had
become estranged from the petitioner, her husband within
a year of the marriage that has taken place on 06.08.2009,
that the petitioner had forcibly taken away the jewels
belonging to her and had pledged them at the branch in
which he is working itself as if it is done by her, by forging
her signature. Based on the investigation report, Ext.W2-
Charge memo was issued to the petitioner. The charges
run as below:
I. 1. You had obtained agricultural jewel loan no.
740900278 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Mrs.
Kanmani by pledging the jewels of which you are
not the true owner. Kanmani had denied availment
of the loan and obtaining of the loan proceeds in
cash. You had obtained the loan by forging
Kanmani's signature in the application form and
the loan disbursement debit voucher.
2. You had received the AJL proceeds in cash
colluding with Mr. K.N. Selvaraj, Clerk/Shroff by
forging the signature of Kanmani in the debit
voucher of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the same day, with
the loan proceeds fraudulently received by you,
you had credited Rs. 29,461/- in cash to your
CDCC account no. 125 and in the reverse of this
voucher you had indicated adjustments made with
regard to Rs. 1,50,000/- in your own handwriting.
An amount of Rs. 72539/- was credited to the AJL
account held in the name of Uma Maheshwari,
daughter of Selvaraj, the staff member mentioned
above. You had deliberately not marked the
disposal of balance Rs. 48,000/-. You had obtained
AJL proceedings by forging the signature of
Kanmani.
3. On 12.11.2009 on redemption of the above loan
the pledged jewels were handed over to you on
the basis of authorization letter submitted by you
and purported to be signed by Kanmani. You had
forged the signature of Kanmani in the
authorization letter and received the pledged
jewels not belonging to you.
4. You had destroyed the bank records, loan
application, authorization letter from Kanmani,
cash scroll print out and the related redemption
voucher dated 12.11.2009 to suppress the fraud
committed by you.
II. 1. You had obtained agricultural jewel loan no.
740900381 for Rs. 1,30,000/- in the name of Mrs.
Kanmani by pledging the jewels of which you are
not the true owner. Kanmani had denied availment
of the loan and obtaining the proceeds in cash.
You had obtained the loan by forging Kanmani's
signature in the application form and the loan
disbursement debit voucher.
2. On 22.02.2010, on redemption of the loan the jewels
were handed over to you on the basis of
authorization letter submitted by you and duly
signed by Kanmani. You had forged the signature
of Kanmani in the authorization letter and received
the pledged jewels.
3. You had destroyed the bank records, loan
application, authorization letter from Kanmani,
Cash Scroll Printout and the related redemption
voucher dated 22.02.2010 to suppress the fraud
committed by you.
III. 1. You had obtained agricultural jewel loan no.
740900401 for Rs. 85,000/- in the name of Mrs.
Kanmani by pledging the jewels of which you are
not true owner. You had obtained the loan by
forging Kanmani's signature in the application form
and the loan disbursement debit voucher.
2. On 06.03.2010 on redemption of the loan the
pledged jewels were handed over to you on the
basis of authorization letter submitted by you and
signed by Kanmani. You had forged the signature
of Kanmani in the authorization letter and received
the pledged jewels.
3. You had destroyed the bank records, loan
application, authorization letter from Kanmani,
Cash Scroll Printout and the related redemption
voucher dated 06.03.2010 to suppress the fraud
committed by you.
IV. 1. You had obtained AJL No. 740900478 for
Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Mrs. Kanmani by
pledging the jewels of which you are not the true
owner. Kanmani had denied to have availed the
loan or obtained the loan proceeds. You had
obtained the loan by forging Kanmani's signature
in the application form and in the loan
disbursement debit voucher.
2. On 22.02.2010, on redemption of the loan the
pledged jewels were handed over to you on the
basis of authorization letter from Kanmani and
submitted by you. You had forged the signature
of Mrs. Kanmani in the authorization letter and
received the pledged jewels.
3. You had destroyed the bank records, loan
application, authorization letter from Kanmani,
Cash scroll printout and the related redemption
voucher dated 22.02.2010 to suppress the fraud
committed by you.
3126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The charge memo proceeds to state that the petitioner
had caused damage to the property of the bank and thereby
committed gross misconduct within Clause-5b of the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.12.2002 and he had
acted prejudicial to the interests of the bank within the
meaning of gross misconduct as defined in Clause-5j of
the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement.
11. Two complaints purportedly written by Kanmani,
wife of the petitioner are marked as Ext.M34 and Ext.M35.
English translation of these two documents which is in
Tamil have been furnished to me. Ext.M34 a letter dated
26.02.2011 said to have been received by Banking
Ombudsman has been sent to Consumer Grievance
Redressal Service Centre at Chennai and has been
forwarded to the Respondent Bank for investigation. The
letter states that within a month of the marriage the
petitioner had taken away jewels given to his wife at the
time of marriage. It is further stated that because of the ill-
treatment from the petitioner and due to difference of
opinion with him she got separated on 19.09.2009 and had
been living with her parents from that date. The letter refers
to two loans, loan account No. 740900278 and loan account
No. 740900381. It is stated that the petitioner had pledged
jewels belonging to her and had taken loans, that has not
visited till date the branch of the Bank where the petitioner
was working. The petitioner is alleged to have forged the
signatures and collected the money. By Ext. M35 in which
the date is given as 04.10.2011, which according to the
Respondent must be 04.11.2011 the author of the letter
requested the Zonal Manager to make an enquiry and take
appropriate action against the petitioner.
12. It is on the basis of the complaint allegedly given
by Kanmani investigation has been conducted, a report
was prepared and proceedings had been initiated against
the petitioner for the misdeeds allegedly committed by him.
it could be seen from the charge memo that the allegation
against the petitioner is that he had availed four loans in
the name of his wife Kanmani, all by forging the signatures
of Kanmani using the jewels that were forcibly taken away
from her. All the loans were redeemed and the jewels are
said to have been handed over to the petitioner on the
basis of the Authorization letters purportedly given by his
wife but actually forged by him. The documents pertaining
to the loans are said to be missing from the branch and this
is also attributed to the petitioner.
13. In the enquiry proceedings the Management had
examined three witnesses and marked 23 documents. MW1
and MW2 are the officers who investigated the matter and
MW3 is the Senior Manager of the Arni branch at the time
of the enquiry proceedings. The report of MW1 who
conducted the investigation was marked through him. The
preliminary report prepared by MW2 was marked through
him also. MW3 was the Senior Manager of the Arni branch
since 24.08.2010. He was not working in the Branch at the
time when concerned loans were availed by the petitioner
by foregery.
14. On going through the enquiry proceedings it seems
that MW1 had questioned the staff of the Arni branch
during his investigation. The entire evidence is on the basis
of the statement purportedly given by the staff. However,
none of the staff who had anything to do with the four
transactions are examined during the enquiry proceedings.
The Management had also produced documents in its
attempt to prove that the loan proceeds were not actually
handed over to Kanmani, the wife of the petitioner but the
entire loan proceeds were misutilized by the petitioner by
different methods. It is stated that some of the loan proceeds
were credited to other accounts including that of himself,
that there is no evidence of his wife having received the
amount in cash at all.
15. It could be seen on going through the enquiry
proceedings that the entire case of the Management is a
castle built with sand as foundation and the same is bound
to tumble down. The case is entirely based on the complaint
allegedly made by Kanmani, wife of the petitioner. She is
not examined. She was not even questioned by MW1 or
MW2. They have treated the complaint as a genuine one
and proceeded on the basis that the complaint should have
been made by Kanmani alone. Referring to non-examination
of Kanmani, the counsel for the Respondent has tried to
justify the stand of the Respondent stating that the
petitioner has admitted in the Claim Statement that the
complaint was actually written by Kanmani hereself.
However, this is not so. On going through the Claim
Statement it could be seen that the petitioner has taken
care to dispute the genuineness of the complaint. The
counsel for the Respondent has been referring to the
statement in the Claim Statement that the petitioner's wife
had allegedly lodged a complaint with the Banking
Ombudsman containing false and frivolous allegations. The
word "allegedly" used in the Claim Statement itself would
show that the genuineness of the complaint is not admitted
by the petitioner. In the grounds for the Claim Statement
the petitioner has repeated that the charge memo was
issued "based on a complaint allegedly given by his wife
and without making any verification regarding nature and
genuineness of the said complaint".
16. The only person who could have stated anything
about the genuineness of the complaint is the estraged
wife of the petitioner. The loans are seen availed in the year
2009. The complaint was made only in 2011. One does not
know what was the reason for the delay in making the
complaint even though loans might have been availed at a
time when wife was staying with the petitioner. If the
complaint is believed she was with the petitioner for a year
after the marriage. The non-examination of the complainant
affected the very foundation of the case of the
Management.
17. Even otherwise the Respondent has miserably
failed in proving the charges against the petitioner. As
already pointed out none of the persons who might have
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3127
anything to do with the transactions are examined. It is not
the case of the Respondent that it is the petitioner himself
who has been dealing with the loan application, sanctioning
the loan, handing over the loan proceeds, etc. the attempt
of the respondent had been to prove the statement
purportedly made by other staff of the bank through MW1
who investigated the matter. The statements allegedly made
by the staff of the bank before MW1 are available in the
enquiry proceedings. A look at the statements would show
the fallacy of the case of the Respondent . The statements
of Selvaraj, a staff of the bank the wife of whose account a
portion of the money availed as loan was credited is found
alongwith Ext.M43, the investigation report at Page-202.
The statement is recorded in first person but in the words
of third person.What this person has stated to MW1 is
that on 31.08.2009 on which date one loan was availed he
was the Cashier and that he had not issued token to
Kanmani as she was the wife of a staff. It is further stated
that since the amount was paid in round figure he had not
put denomination but he made payment to Kanmani only.
On 21.10.2009 the date on which another loan was availed
Chinnapaiyyan was the Cashier. This person also seems to
have stated that since the loanee was the wife of a staff no
token was issued but the amount was paid to the loanee.
Shivakumar, the appraiser of the bank has told MW1 that
he will process jewel loans only to parties who came to the
Bank. He seems to have stated that he weighed the jewels
in the persence of borrower Kanmani and obtained
signature of Kanmani in the concerned documents.
Adimoolan who was the Senior Manager seems to have
stated that two jewel loans were granted at the request of
petitioner in the name of his wife. These two jewel loans
are probably those referred to in the complaint. There is no
reference to other loans. He had stated that while
redemption of the loans jewels were handed over to
petitioner after getting due authorization letter from
Kanmani. There is a further statment from him that on
delivery of jewels on 12.11.2009 many persons from
Kanmani's side had been to the bank. The above statements
would indicated that none of the staff had got a case that
Kanmani did not come to the Bank at all in connection with
loans and everything was dealt with by the petitioner based
on the forged application and other documents.
18. The basis for the investigation report is that
signature purportedly that of Kanmani in the loan
applications, vouchers, etc. differ from her signature in the
complaint. As already stated the complaint itself is not
proved in the absence of the examination of the
complainant. There was no material for the Investigation
Officer to come to a conclusion that the signature in the
loan application and other connected documents are forged
ones and the signature in the complaint alone is the genuine
one. The Enquiry Officer has accepted the entire
investigation report which could not be a basis for a finding
at all in the absence of the same having been confirmed
through the evidence of the connected witnesses.
19. There is no evidence to show that the complaint
was made by Kanmani. There is no evidence to show that
the signature in the loan applications and other documents
were forged by the petitoner. There is no evidence to show
that he utilized the loan amount by himself. There is nothing
to show that the jewels were received by him.
20. There is no evidence to put responsibility on the
petitioner for the missing documents also. Nobody has
stated that he is the custodian of the documents. No one
has stated that he has done something to remove the
documents from the custody of the bank. Lastly there is
nothing to show that the petitioner has done anything to
cause any damage to the property of the bank or to any of
its customers or acted in any way prejudicial to the interests
of the bank. I find that the enquiry report has no legs to
stand and the dismissal (it is dismissal and not discharge
as given in the schedule) of the petitoner on the basis of
such report is illegal and unjustified. The petitoner is
entitled to be reinstated in service. Considering the
circumstances, the petitoner will be entitled to 75% back
wages.
Accordingly the Respondent is directed to reinstate
the petitoner in service with 75% back wages, continuity
of service and other attendant benefits within one month
of the award. The petitoner will be entitled to interest at the
rate of 9% per annum on the back wages payable, if not
paid within a month of the award. An award is passed
accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: WW1,
Sri
P.
Sasikumar
For the 2nd Party/Management
: None
Documents Marked:
on the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W1
15.06.2011
Order of Suspension issued to
the petitioner/workman
Ex. W2
27.10.2011
Charge Sheet issued to the
petitioner/workman
Ex. W3
31.10.2012
Order of dismissal issued to the
petitioner/workman
On the Management's side
Ex. M1
27.02.2012
Notice of enquiry issued to the
petitioner - Ref. C/CDAC/EO/
7077/2012 - Enquiry at Arani
Branch on 21.03.2012 - 11.30 hrs.
3128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex. M2
20.03.2012
Letter from petitioner to
Enquiry office enclosing
medical certificate
Ex. M3
21.03.2012
Enquiry Proceedings
15.05.2015
Ex. M4
21.03.2012
Letter from Enquiry Officer
forwarding copy of enquiry
proceedings on 21.03.2012 and
giving opportunity to the
petioner to cross-examine the
witness and present his case-
posting next hearing to
15.05.2012.
Ex. M5
01.06.2012
Letter from Enquiry Officer to
30.05.2012
Petitioner enclosing Presenting
Officer's brief dated 30.05.2012
Ex. M6
04.06.2012
Letter from Enquiry Officer to
Petitioner enclosing
Presenting Officer's brief and
calling for defence brief
Ex. M7
26.07.2012
Letter from Enquiry Officer to
Petitoner enclosing enquiry
findings dated 26.07.2012
calling for his representation
Ex. M8
08.08.2012
Letter from Lakshminarayanan,
Defence R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
(Deputy General Secretary-
Union)
to
Disciplinary
Authority submitting his
Defence Proof
Ex. M9
13.09.2012
Letter from Disciplinary
Authority
to
petitioner
proposing punishment of
dismissal and fixing personal
hearing on 03.10.2012
Ex. M10
24.09.2012
Letter from petitioner to the
Disciplinary
Authority
requesting 30 days time for
appearing before the Authority
for personal hearing
Ex. M11
24.09.2012
Reply of Disciplinary Authority
to Petitioner to letter dated
24.09.2012 requesting 30 days
time by the petitioner-posting
personal hearing on 19.10.2012
Ex. M12
19.10.2012
Proceedings of personal
hearing
Ex. M13
19.10.2012
Letter of petitioner by way of
reply to the 2nd Show Cause
Notice dated 27.10.2011
submitted during p e r s o n a l
hearing
Ex. M14
13.12.2012
Letter from petitioner to
Disciplinary Authority stating
he will appear against the order
and requesting personal
hearing
Ex. M15
23.01.2013
Letter from Appellate Authority
in reply to petitioner's letter
dated 13.12.2012 fixing
personal hearing on 25.02.2013
Ex. M16
25.02.2013
Proceedings of personal
hearing by the Appellate
Authority
Ex. M17
25.02.2013
Appeal and submission of
petitioner to the Appellate
Authority submitted during the
personal hearing
Ex. M18
26.04.2013
Order of Appellate Authority
confirming the order of
Disciplinary Authority
Ex. M19
26.06.2013
2A Petition filed by the
petitioner before ALC(C),
Chennai
Ex. M20
29.08.2013
Reply by the Respondent
before ALC (C), Puducherry
Ex. M21
12.09.2013
Conciliation failure report by
ALC (C), Puducherry
Ex. M22
-
Attendance Register for the
period from August 2009 to
March 2010-except Dec. 09 and
January 10
Ex. M23
-
Biodata of Sri P. Sasikumar
Ex. M24
-
Complaint
letter
dated
26.02.2011 of Mrs. P. Kanmani
wife of Sri P. Sasikumar through
Office of the Banking
Ombudsman along with
covering letters from Customer
Ex. M25
-
Complaint
letter
dated
04.10.2011 of Mrs. P. Kanmani
addressed to RO, Vellore
Ex. M26
-
Master printout record of Agri
Jewel Loan No. 740900278 dated
31.08.2009 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in
the name of P. Kanmani (4
pages)
Ex. M27
-
AJL Application No. 740900180
dated 23.07.2009 for Rs. 72,000/
- of K.S. Uma Maheswari with
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Date
Description
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3129
related Jewel Loan Card No.
731399 dated 23.07.2009
Ex. M28
-
Debit Cash Voucher dated
31.08.2009 for Rs. 1,50,000/-
pertaining to AJL 740900278
Ex. M29
-
Cash receipt of Rs. 29,461/- and
Rs. 28,000/- dated 31.08.2009 to
the credit of CC No. 125 of Sri
P. Sasikumar
Ex. M30
-
Cash receipt dated 31.08.2009
for Rs. 72539/- to the credit of
Mrs. K.S. Uma Maheswari D/o
Sri K.N. Selvaraj foir AJL
740900180
Ex. M31
-
Master Print out record of Agri
Jewel Loan account No.
740900381 dated 21.10.2009 for
Rs. 1,30,000/- in the name of Mr.
Kanmani (bearing the address
of Mr. P. Sasikumar)
Ex. M32
-
Master print out of AJL No. No.
740900401 and No. 740900478
mentioning the address of Mrs.
Kanmani as 5, Bestha Street,
Arani
Ex. M33
-
Debit Cash Voucher dated
21.10.2009 for Rs. 1,30,000/- AJL
No. No. 740900381
Ex. M34
-
Debit Cash Voucher dated
27.10.2009 for Rs. 85,000/- AJL
No. No. 740900401
Ex. M35
-
Lot entry dated 22.02.2010-
range of lot from 139 to 142
Ex. M36
-
Lot entry dated 12.11.2009-
range of lot No. 147 to 149 and
180
Ex. M37
-
Lot entry dated 21.10.2009-lot
No. 145
Ex. M38
-
Lot entry dated 31.08.2009-lot
No. 46, 213, 225
Ex. M39
-
Lot entry dated 27.10.2009-lot
No. 157
Ex. M40
-
Lot entry dated 06.03.2010-lot
No. 210, 170
Ex. M 41
-
Lot entry dated 06.03.2010-lot
No. 147
Ex. M42
-
Advances supplementary
dated 12.11.2009, 06.03.2010,
22.02.2010
Ex. M43
-
Investigation Report dated
03.06.2011
along
with
enclosures
of
Sri
S.
Vaidyanathan Roll No. 30205
Senior Manager II Line. Ranipet
Industrial Complex Branch
Ex. M44
-
Investigation Report dated
16.05.2011 along with with
Flash report and enclosures of
Sri M.R. Nachiappan Roll. N.
32495 Sr. Manager, RO Vellore
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1469-—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 vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] t;iqj esa iapkV ¼54@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS ]tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@66@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 54/2013) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.7.2015.
[No. L-12012/66/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 54/2013
Reference No. L-12012/66/2013-IR (B-II) dated: 17.10.2013
Smt. Meena
D/o Pralad Ji, Harijan caste,
R/o Plot No. 1, New Sabarmati Colony,
Kota (Rajasthan)
V/s
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Date
Description
3130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Dist. Cordinator
Office of Dist. Cordinator
Punjab National Bank
Aerodrum, Kota (Rajasthan)
AWARD
14.10.2014
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
^^D;k vizkFkhZ izca/kd }kjk izkfFkZ;k Jherh ehuk dks LFkk;h :i
ls va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ij fu;qfDr ugha nsus dh dk;Zokgh
oS/k ,oa U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha] rks izkfFkZ;k fdl jkgr dh o
dc ls ikus dh gdnkj gS\**
2. After receipt of reference notices were sent to the
parties & both the parties have been served. On 17.2.2014
on behalf of applicant Smt. Meena authority was filed in
name of two learned advocate Sh. Vijay Chaudhary &
Sh. Amit Kumar Jain.
3. From perusal of the order sheet it appears that on
17.2.2014 applicant Smt. Meena was personally present
with her learned advocate Sh. Amit Kumar Jain & time was
sought for filing statement of claim which was accepted &
more than three month time was given for filing statement
of claim on 19.5.2014. On 17.2.2014 none was present on
behalf of opposite party. On next date 19.5.2014 both the
parties were absent, statement of claim was not filed &
Presiding Officer was on leave. 21.7.2014 was next date
fixed for filing statement of claim. On 21.7.2014 none was
present from both side. Learned advocates were on strike
hence, 20.8.2014 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On
20.8.2014 both the parties were absent, learned advocates
were on strike. The Presiding Officer was on leave hence,
13.10.2014 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On
13.10.2014 also none appeared on behalf of both the parties
& statement of claim was also not filed, hence, further
extenstion of opportunity for filing statement of claim was
closed & case was reserved for passing "No Claim Award".
4. It is pertinent to note that vide Labour Ministry's
order dated 17.10.2013 applicant was directed to file
statement of claim with complete relevant documents &
list of witnesses with the tribunal within 15 days from the
receipt of above order of reference forwarding the copy of
statement of claim to each of the opposite parties involved
in this dispute but applicant failed to file statement of claim
in compliance of that order also. In above fact &
circumstances, it is clear that beside the order of the labour
Ministry notices sent by tribunal also have failed to initiate
the applicant for submitting the statement of claim.
5. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on the
direction of Ministry nor on receipt of notice sent by the
tribunal. It appears that applicant is not interested & willing
in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the above
circumstances & in the absence of material brought on
record it is not possible to adjudicate the reference under
consideration, therefore, "No Claim Award" is passed in
this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1470-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼59@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS ] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@55@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2011) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 15/7/2015.
[No. L-12012/55/2011-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. 59/2011
L-12012/55/2011-IR (B-II), dated 11.11.2011
Date of Passing Award—31st Day of Decmeber, 2014
Between:
The Sr. Manager,
Allahabad Bank, Sunabeda Branch,
PO- Sunabeda,
.....1st Party
Dist-Koraput, Odisha
Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3131
(And)
Shri Srikant Pradhan,
S/o Niranjan Pradhan,
At-AEF Market, PO/
P.S.-Sunabeda,
Dist-Koraput, Odisha
....2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
1. None
.....For the 1st Party-
Management
2. Shri Srikant Pradhan
.....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
Allahabad Bank, Sunadeba Branch, Koraput, Odisha, and
their workmen Shri Srikant Pradhan 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-12012/55/2011-IR (B-II), dated
11.11.2011 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 Allahabad Bank,
Sunabeda, Dist-Koraput in terminating the services
of Shri Srikant Pradhan, Ex-Part Time Sweeper/
Messenger of Allahabad Bank, College Extension
Counter, Semiliguda, Dist. Koraput w.e.f. 11.08.2008,
ignoring the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled?”
2. The 2nd party workman (hereinafter referred to as
"the 2nd party") has filed his Statement of Claim and
rejoinder detailing therewith the illegality committed on
behalf of the 1st party management (hereinafter referred to
as "the 1st party") in terminating the services of the 2nd
party. As per the guidelines dated 10.11.2003 issued by the
Head Office of the 1st Party, the application of the 2nd
party was considered and he was engaged as a part time
sweeper during September, 2004 with a wage of Rs. 20/- per
day. The 2nd party was receiving his wages by signing the
debit vouchers. The 2nd party was performing the duties
of maintaining/updating the cash scroll, Cash Books, Local
Cheque Books and Out Station Cheque Books of the 1st
party. During September, 2006, a burglary took place in the
1st party bank for which the local police have recorded the
statements of the 2nd party along with other officials of
the 1st party under S.D.J.M, Koraput, Odisha.
3. The 2nd party was working under the direct control
of the 1st party. Hence, the employer-employee relationship
was existing between the 1st party and the 2nd party. The
2nd party also pleaded that he had worked continuously
under the 1st party and worked for more than 240 days
during the preceding calendar year of his termination by
the 1st party. Hence, Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is applicable
to him. To establish the above fact, the 2nd party relied
upon the experience certificate issued to him by the 1st
party on 25.07.2008.
4. On being instructed by the Sr. Manager, Allahabad
Bank, Sunabeda, the 1st party floated an advertisement for
the engagement of one part time sweeper on 1/3rd wage
scale without considering his case. To put forth his
candidature, the 1st party made application for the said
post. But, he could not succeed in the interview held on
09.08.2008 in the premises of the 1st party which resulted
in the disengagement of the 2nd party with effect from
11.08.2008. The 2nd party has further urged that he has
completed more than 240 days of service to the 1st party
preceding the date of his disengagement by the 1st party,
that is 11.08.2008 and the 1st party without complying the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, unceremoniously
terminated his services and engaged a new person Shri
Narasingha Jani in violation of Section 25-H of the Act.
5. The 2nd party pleaded that, he is not gainfully
employed after his illegal retrenchment and striving hard
to sustain his livelihood by doing part time business.
Accordingly, the 2nd party prayed for passing an award
declaring his termination of by the 1st party is illegal &
unjustified, his reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity of service with all consequential benefits.
6. The 1st Party on the other hand in his written
statement denied the statements made by the 2nd party in
his statement of claim. The 1st party has contended that,
the 2nd party was never been engaged as a part time
sweeper-cum-messenger. On 27.03.2007, the 1st party has
sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the 2nd
party under SJSRY scheme which is admissible only for the
unemployed persons/youths.
7. The 1st party also cited two reasons for non selection
of the 2nd party in the interview held on 09.08.2008. The
first reason was that, the 2nd party had no valid
employment exchange registration card and second was
due to the fact that the post was reserved for Scheduled
Tribe candidates only. The 1st party pleaded that the 2nd
party was never an workman in the bank and the statement
of the 2nd party of completing more than 240 days of
services to the bank is false and baseless. Accordingly, the
1st party prayed for dismissal of the claim of the 2nd party.
8. Since, the 1st party remained absent in the
proceedings of the case, he was set exparte on 17.06.2013
and the case was fixed for exparte evidence of the 2nd
party without the settlement of issues. The 2nd party filed
affidavit of his exparte evidence and submitted certain
documents in support of his case. Later on, in order to give
an opportunity to the 1st party, notice was issued to the
1st party on 11.09.2014 for participating in the argument.
But, the same had little consequence. Finally, I have heard
oral arguments from the side of the 2nd party.
3132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
9. As per the evidence and documentgs filed by the
2nd party, it is observed that the 2nd party was an employee
of the 1st party since 2004. When the 1st party floated
advertisement for engagement of a party time sweeper-
cum-messenger during 2008 without considering his
candidature, the 2nd party was forced to apply for the
same with a hope to get a chance of his continued
employment under the 1st party. The 1st party also
considered the application of the 2nd party and called him
for the interview held on 09.08.2008. This shows that the
averments made by the 1st party in it's written statement
about reservation of the post for the Scheduled Tribe
candidates only and that the 2nd party had no valid
employment exchange registration card is false. In view of
the same, the stand taken by the 1st party in his written
statement cannot be believed. The 2nd party also couldnot
sufficiently prove the fact of his continuous employment
under the 1st party for more than 240 days in the last 12
months preceding the date of his termination, that is
11.08.2008.
10. Since, the 2nd party was an employee of the 1st
party for more than one year till the date of termination of
his services, that is, 11.08.2008, the termination of services
of the 2nd party amounts to retrenchment. Accordingly,
the action taken by the 1st party in terminating the services
of the 2nd party without complying the provisions laid
down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is not justified.
11. The 1st party is hereby ordered to restore the
previous engagement of the 2nd party immediately and
pay 25% of the back wages to the 2nd party from the date
of his termination till the date of restoration of his services.
The 1st party shall pay the back wages within a period of 3
(three) months from the date of publication of award in the
Gazette of India failing which the 1st party will be charged
interest @12% per annum simple interest on the back wages.
12. Accordingly, this award is passed exparte against
the 1st party management.
Dictated and corrected by me.
PRADEEP KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1471- —vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼24@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-07-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@48@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1471.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2008) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Dena Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 15/7/2015.
[No. L-12011/48/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
vuqcUè
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lhñthñvkbZñVhñ izdj.k lañ 24@2008
Hkjr ik.Ms;]
ihBklhu vfèdkjh
jsQjsUl uañ &12011@48@2008&IR (B-II)fnukad 30@06@2008
The Legal Secretary,
Rajasthan Pradesh Bank Workers Organisation,
C-13, Ojhaji ka Bagh, Gandhi Nagar Mod
Jaipur
V/s
1. The General Manager,
Dena bank,
Regional Office, Bank of Baroda Building;
16, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh vkjñ lhñ tSu&izfrfufè
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh ,eñ,eñ ikyhoky&,MoksdsV
%iapkV%
fnukad % 6-12-2014
1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 dh
èkjk 10 mièkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 30-06-2008 ds
vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vkèkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq
lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS%
2. “Whether the action of the management of Dena
Bank through Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, New
Delhi in not giving the benefit of proportionate wages of
scale and status of sub-staff to Shri Pradeep Saharia, PTS
despite his more than 7 years of continuous service is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
3- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr%
izkFkhZ Jh iznhi lgkfj;k dk dFku gS fd og foi{kh cSad esa lc&LVkQ
ds :i esa fnukad 12-10-2000 ls dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ Jh iznhi lgkfj;k
ls lc&LVkQ ds lHkh dk;Z fy;s tk jgs gS ysfdu vHkh rd mls
va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh dk in ugha fn;k x;k gSA foi{kh laLFkku
,d jk"Vªh;d`r cSad gS ftl ij deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok 'krs± 'kkL=h vokMZ]
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3133
nslkbZ vokMZ rFkk bafM;u cSaDl ,lksfl;s'ku o cSad deZpkfj;ksa ds
laxBuksa ds chp lEiUu f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds vuqlkj fuèkZfjr dh
tkrh gSA
4- ;kfpdk ds izLrj 3 vkSj 4 esa dgk x;k gS fd cSad deZpkfj;ksa
ds laxBuksa ,oa foi{kh cSad ds chp lEiUu le>kSrs ds vuqlkj cSad esas
dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks feyus
okys osru ds 1@3] 1@2 vkSj 3@4 osru ij fu;fer fd;s tkus rFkk
v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa dh HkrhZ esa ojh;rk fn;s tkus dk izko/kku gS
ysfdu mUgsa ;g ykHk vHkh rd ugha feyk gSA izLrj 5 esa dgk x;k gS fd
izkFkhZ Jh iznhi lgkfj;k }kjk yxHkx 7 o"kks± ls yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds
ckotwn foi{kh cSad us le>kSrs ds vuqlkj vkuqikfrd osru ugha fn;k
rFkk iw.kZdkfyd deZpkjh ds :i esa lekfo"V ugha fd;k ijUrq mlls
dfu"d vusd deZpkfj;ksa dks ykHk fn;k tk pqdk gSA
5- ;kfpdk esa ,lksfl;s'ku us ekax dh gS fd foi{kh cSad ds ifji=ksa
,oa f}i{kh; le>kSrksa ds vuqlkj Jh iznhi lgkfj;k ls dfu"B Jfedksa
dks ftl frfFk ls vkuqikfrd osru fn;k x;k mlh frfFk ls izkFkhZ dks Hkh
e; ,fj;j Hkqxrku fd;k tk; ,oa lkFk esa vU; lHkh vkfFkZd ,oa vU;
ykHk Hkh fnyok;k tk,A
6- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds fo#) oknksÙkj esa foi{khx.k us ;kfpdk
ds izLrj 1]4]5]6 ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k gSA izLrj 2 ds dFku
dks Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj izLrj 3 ds laca/k esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd
iw.kZdkfyd vf/kuLFk LVkQ dh fu;qfDr ds le; mu deZpkfj;ksa dks
ojh;rk nh tkrh gS tks 1@3] 1@2 vkSj 3@4 Ldsy ost esa dk;Z djrs gaS
ysfdu Jh iznhi lgkfj;k mDr fu;e ds vUrxZr vkPNkfnr ugha gSA
;wfu;u vkSj bf.M;u cSad ,lksfl;s'ku ds chp ,slk dksbZ le>kSrk
ugha gS fd 1@3] 1@2 vkSj 3@4 Ldsy ost deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr djrs
le; mu fu;qfDr;ksa dks Hkh ojh;rk izkIr gksxh tks ,deq'r osru ij
fu;qDr fd;s x;s gaSA vfrfjDr dFku esa foi{khx.k us ;g mYys[k fd;k
gS fd Jh iznhi lgkfj;k ,deq'r Hkqxrku ds cnys foi{kh cSad dh
Hkjriqj czkap esa fnukad 12-10-2000 ls 'kkspky; bR;kfn dh lQkbZ ds
fy, j[ks x;s FksA Jh iznhi lgkfj;k dh izfrfnu dh dk;Z vof/k ,d
?kaVs ls Hkh de gS ftldk ;g rkRi;Z gS fd mldh vf/kdre dk;Z
vof/k 6 ?kaVs izfr lIrkg gS blfy;s ^^Bipartite** le>kSrs ds vuqlkj
deZpkjh dks 1050 #ñ ,deq'r Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk FkkA orZeku
le; esa mls 1440 #ñ Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSaA
7- Jh iznhi lgkfj;k v/khuLFk LVkQ ds :i esa cSad esa dk;Z djrs
jgs gSa blfy;s v/khuLFk LVkQ ds :i esa mUgsa lsok esa fu;fer fd;k
tkus dk iz'u ugha mBrk gSA Jh iznhi lgkfj;k 'kkspky; vkfn dh
lQkbZ ds fy;s yxk;s x;s gSa ftudh dk;Z vof/k izfrfnu ,d ?kaVs ls
Hkh de vof/k dh gS blfy;s os cSad lsok esa fu;fer fd;s tkus ds
gdnkj ugha gSaA
8- vkxs izLrj 6 esa ;g dgk x;k gS lafonk ij dk;Z dj jgs
deZpkjh ds ekeys esa ofj"B vFkok dfu"B deZpkjh gksus dk iz'u
ugha mBrk gS rFkk ,sls deZpkjh dh dk;Z vof/k dk vkadyu dsoy
mlh ds vuq:i vkSj ifjfLFkfr esa dk;Z ij yxk;s x;s deZpkfj;ksa ls
dh tk ldrh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS Jh iznhi lgkfj;k dh Hkkafr gh
dk;Z djus okys fdlh deZpkjh dks 1@3] 1@4 ;k 3@4 ost Ldsy dk
ykHk fn;k x;k gSA tgka rd lsok ds fu;fefrdj.k dk iz'u gS cSad
esa fu;qfDr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr fu;e vkSj ekinaM ds vuqlkj {ks=h;
izcUèd viuh t:jr ds vuqlkj LFkkuh; jkstxkj dk;kZy; dks
ekax Hkstrs gaS ftlesa vH;FkhZ dh mez vkSj 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dk mYys[k
jgrk gSA jkstxkj dk;kZy; }kjk ftu vH;£Fk;ksa dk uke {ks=h; izcU/
kd dks Hkstk tkrk gS mudh ;ksX;rk ij[kus ds fy, mudk lk{kkRdkj
gksrk gS vkSj p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh lwph p;u lfefr }kjk laLrqfr
ds fy, cSad ds eq[; dk;kZy; dks Hksth tkrh gSA Jh iznhi lgkfj;k
ds ekeys esa mDr fu;qfDr izfØ;k dk dksbZ vuqlj.k ugha gqvk gS
blfy;s cSad Jh iznhi lgkfj;k dks lsok esa fu;fer djus esa leFkZ
ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; vkSj mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vusd
ekeys esa ;g voèkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh
fu;fer fd;s tkus ds gdnkjh ugha gaS vkSj ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k
x;k gS fd fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k fd;s fcuk dh xbZ
fu;qfDr fof/k fo#) ,oa Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 vkSj 16
dk mYya?ku gS rFkk fu;fer inksa ij fu;qfDr iznÙk izfØ;k dk
vuqlj.k djds gh djuh pkfg,A
9- lsØsVjh] dukZVd jkT; ,oa vU; cuke mek nsoh ,oa vU; esa
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh laoS/kkfud ihB us vius fnukad 10-04-
2006 ds fu.kZ; esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd tc rd fu;r fu;e ,oa
izfØ;k ds vuqlkj ;ksX; mEehnokjksa dh izfrLi/kkZ ds mijkUr fu;qfDr
ugha gksrh rc rd fdlh fu;qDr O;fDr dks fu;fefrdj.k dk ykHk
iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh mDr
lqLFkkfir fof/k O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Jh iznhi lgkfj;k ;kfpr vuqrks"k
ikus ds gdnkj ugha gSaS rFkk mudh vkosnu fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA
10- i=koyh fnukad 4-3-2014 ds vkns'kkuqlkj fnukad 7-5-2014
dks vizkFkhZ i{k dh vkosnu ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r Fkh ftlesa foi{k us
izkFkZuk dh gS fd bl ekeys dks vkosnu ds lkFk layXu nLrkostksa ds
vk/kkj ij lekIr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A blh chp
fnukad 15-4-2014 dks izkFkhZ Jh iznhi lgkfj;k us iathd`r Mkd ls
vkosnu fnukafdr 10-4-2014 izsf"kr fd;k ftlesa izkFkhZ us ;g izkFkZuk
dh gS fd mldh Dyse ;kph dks cy u fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij fujLr
dh tk;A mDr vkosnu fnukad 12-6-2014 dks yksd vnkyr esa
fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r fd;k x;k ysfdu lHkh i{kdkjksa ds mifLFkr u gksus
ds dkj.k ekeys dk fuLrkj.k u gks ldkA fnukad 6-12-2014 dks
i=koyh iqu% yksd vnkyr esa fuLrkj.k gsrq i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl nsus
ds ckn fu;r dh x;hA yksd vnkyr dh dk;Zokgh rFkk izkFkhZ Jh
iznhi lgkfj;k dh vkosnu fnukafdr 10-4-2014 esa vafdr fooj.k
fuEuor gS%
le{k ekuuh; dsUnzh; ljdkjh vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky; t;iqj ¼jktñ½
iznhi lgkfj;k
cuke
nsuk cSad
izkFkZuk i= o eqdnek izdj.k lañ 24@08 rkñ is'kh 7@5@2014
3134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Jheku th]
mijksDr muokfur izdj.k U;k;ky; Jhekuth esa fopkjk/khu FkkA
izkFkhZ va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk ftlus U;k;ky;
esa iw.kZ deZpkjh ds :i esa eqdnek is'k fd;k FkkA mDr izdj.k esa
izkFkhZ 1@3 osrueku ij fu;qDr 04-08-2012 dks Jheku {ks=h; dk;kZy;]
ubZ fnYyh }kjk i=kad ,u-Mh-vkj- 1356@2012 dks ,d eseksjsUMe
dh dkWih {ks=h; dk;kZy; ls izkIr gqbZA tks fd eseksjUMe ds }kjk izkFkhZ
us 'krks± ds vuqlkj 1@3 osrueku ij orZeku esa nsuk cSad] Hkjriqj
'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ 23-08-2012 ls Jheku~ ds U;k;ky; esa
rkjh[k ij yxkrkj gkftj ugha gks jgk gSA izkFkhZ DysesUV vc mDr
izdj.k esa vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djuk pkgrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ vc mDr
izdj.k dks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrk gSA izkFkhZ bl eqdnesa dks okfil
ysuk pkg jgk gSA
vr% Jhekuth ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ ds mDr izdj.k dks uksV izsl
ds vk/kkj ij blh LVst ij [kkfjt Qjekus dh d`ik djsaA
fnukad% 10-04-2014
izkFkhZ
gLrk{kj iBuh;
iznhi lgkfj;k
orZeku 1@3 osrueku
nsuk cSad] uqekb'k jksM]
Hkjriqj ¼jkt-½
No objection to withdrawal of the case by applicant
gLrk{kj viBuh;
(Ankit Sharma)-Dena Bank-Manager Bharatpur
6-12-2014
gLrk{kj viBuh;
06-12-2014
yksd vnkyr
vkt i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA Jh iznhi lgkfj;k izkFkhZ
vius fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh vkj-lh-tSu rFkk Jh vafdr 'kekZ] izcU/kd
nsuk cSad Hkjriqj czkUp] jktLFkku vius fo}ku izfrfuf/k ,MoksdsV
Jh jktsUnz ds- lkyspk ds lkFk mifLFkr gSA Jh vafdr 'kekZ dh igpku
muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk dh x;h gS rFkk Jh iznhi lgkfj;k dh
igpku muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k rFkk cSad ds izcU/kd Jh vafdr 'kekZ
}kjk dh x;h gSA
lqygukek fnukafdr 10-4-2014 ij mHk;i{k dks lquk x;k ftlesa
izkFkhZ iznhi lgkfj;k us ;g izkFkZuk dh gS fd mudk LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse
^^cy u fn;s tkus** ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k tk,A vkt cSad ds
izcU/kd Jh vafdr 'kekZ }kjk vkosnu ij fyf[kr :i esa ;g mYys[k
fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse okil ysus esa mUgsa vkifÙk
ugha gSA mudh igpku muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk dh x;h gSA Jh vkj-
lh- tSu] vkosnd ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dks Hkh izkFkhZ dh vkosnu Lohdkj
gksus esa vkifÙk ugha gSA lqyg dh 'krs± mHk;i{k dks i<+dj lquk;h ,oa
le>k;h x;haA 'krks± dks mHk;i{k us LoPN;k Lohdkj fd;k] vr%
lqygukek dh 'krks± ds vk/kkj ij ekeys dk fujrkj.k fd;k tkrk gS
rFkk ^^cy u fn;s tkus** ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ iznhi lgkfj;k dh
LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ iznhi lgkfj;k dh
vkosnu fnukafdr 10-4-2014 rn~uqlkj Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA iznhi
lgkfj;k dh vkosnu fnukafdr 10-4-2014 ,okMZ dk va'k gksxhA
12- U;k;kfu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ'k dk mÙkj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk
gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2015
dkñvkñ 1472-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds izcaèra=
ds lc) 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;
t;iqj ds iapkV ¼¼41@2006½ izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 15@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@140@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2015
S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2006) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15/7/
2015.
[No. L-12011/140/2005-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
vuqcU/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 41@2006
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L-12011/140/2005-IR(B-II)
fnukad 20@04@2006
The General Secretary,
Dena Bank Employees Union,
C/o Dena Bank, M.I. Road
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
Vs.
1. The Regional Manager,
Dena Bank,
Kaltron Chambers,
18/7-8, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3135
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh ts ,y- 'kkg& izfrfuf/k
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh jktsUnz lkyspk & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
fnukad 6-12-2014
1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh
èkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 20-04-2006 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 action of the management of Dena
Bank through Regional Manager, New Delhi for not giving
3/4 wages and status of permanent part time cleaner to
Shri Vishnu Kumar Saini from 1994 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which
date?"
3- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr%
izkFkhZ nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd gekjh ;wfu;u
ekU;rk izkIr gSA fookn ls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh
gekjh ;wfu;u ds lnL; gSA foi{kh cSad us fnukad 20-3-1994 dks
gfYn;ksa ds jkLrk] t;iqj esa viuh 'kk[kk [kksyh Fkh vkSj fnukad 20-3-
1994 dks gh mDr 'kk[kk esa Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks ,deq'r osru ij
fu;qDr fd;k Fkk vkSj rc ls Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dk;Z djrs tk jgs gSA
esgur] fu"Bk vkSj bZekunkjh ls dk;Z djrs gq, 12 lky O;rhr gksus ds
ckn Hkh fu;fer( (Regular) ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA
4- Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks 740 :- izfrekg osru b.MLVªh;y
yscj lsVyeSUV ds vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k tks vc fiNys f}i{kh;
le>kSrs ds ckn ,d gtkj ipkl :- izfrekg gS tcfd vkWy bf.M;k
cSad ,EiykbZt dksvkfMZus'ky desVh ls 1987 esa cSad ds lkFk gq,
le>kSrs esa ikVZ& VkbZe lQkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dks 'kk[kkvksa esa dkjisV
,fj;k ds vk/kkj ij osru Hkqxrku r; gqvk Fkk vkSj cSad }kjk bl
lEcU/k eas fnukad 20-11-87 dks ldwZyu Hkh tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk
ftldh QksVksizfr LVsVeSUV vkWQ Dyse ds lkFk laXyud la[;k 1 gSA
fnukad 20-11-87 dk ldwZyj fnukad 20-3-1994 dks cSad dh 'kk[kk
[kksyus ds fnu ykxw FkhA gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk fLFkr 'kk[kk dk dkjisV
,fj;k 3180 oxZfQV FkkA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks foi{kh cSad }kjk
lQkbZ deZpkjh dh osru Ja[kyk esa 3@4 osru nsuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq
,slk uk djds dsoy 740 :- izfrekg osru nh tkrh FkhA bl izdkj
foi{kh cSad vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dk nks"kh gS D;ksafd fnukad
20-11-87 dks ifji= u ykxw dj euekuk rjhdk cSad us viuk;k gSA
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh 20-3-1994 ls gh osru J`a[kyk dk 3@4 osru rFkk
mldk leLr ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA
5- vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;kfpdk ds izLrj 5 esa ;g dFku gS fd foi{kh
cSad us vkWy bf.M;k nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt dksvkfMZus'ku desVh ds
lkFk ;g djkj fd;k dh lc&LVkQ ds Qqy VkbZe fjDr inksa esa HkrhZ
osru J`a[kyk esa dkjisV ,fj;k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa esa ls
gh dh tkosxhA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dh fu;qfDr ds ckn ,slh fu;qfDr;ka
dbZ ckj dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj cSad }kjk ldwZyj fnukafdr 20-11-87
dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA ;fn Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks fnukad
20-11-87 ds ldwZyj ds vuqlkj osru fn;k x;k gksrk rks Hkh Jh fo".kq
dqekj lSuh cgqr igys Qqy VkbZe lc LVkQ esa fu;fer (Regular) gks
x;s gksrs A cSad }kjk HksnHkko djus vkSj ldwZyj dk ikyu u djus ls Jh
fo".kq dqekj lSuh vkt rd bl ykHk ls ofUpr gSA cSad dh gfYn;ksa
dk jkLrk] t;iqj 'kk[kk esa nks Qqy VkbZe lc LVkQ dk;Zjr Fks muesa ls
,d O;fDr Jhjke ukFk eh.kk dk fnukad 15-10-2000 dks fu/ku gks
x;k ftlds dkj.k og in vc Hkh fjDr gSA bl fjDr in dk dk;Z Hkh
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh ls fy;k tk jgk gS bl izdkj Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh
fnukad 15-10-2000 ls yxkrkj cSad dh 'kk[kk esa iwjs le; dk;Z djrs
vk jgs gSa vkSj iw.kZ lg;ksx ns jgsa gSA
6- cSad dh gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk] tkSgjh cktkj] t;iwj 'kk[kk ds
flfu;j eSustj bl 'kk[kk esa in LFkkiuk ds ckn ls gh Jh fo".kq dqekj
lSuh dks ijs'kku djus yxs vkSj Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dh lsok Hkh
ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lekIr dh nh] ftldk ;wfu;u us fojks/k fd;k rc
cSad ds mPpkf/kdkjh;ksa ds gLr{ksi ij lsok cgky gqbZA mlds ckn
'kk[kk ds ofj"B izcU/kd deZpkfj dks ijs'kku djrs jgs vkSj ekg twu
lu~ 2004 ds osru ds Hkqxrku ekg tqykbZ 2004 esa ugha fd;k vkSj
deZpkjh dks osru okmpj ij Lo;a vius gLrk{kj dj èujkf'k mBkbZ
rFkk deZpkjh dks osru okmpj ds iqLrd ij gLrk{kj Hkh ugha djus
fn;k tcfd deZpkjh gj ekg feyus okyk osru okmpj ds iqLrd ij
gLrk{kj djrk vk jgk FkkA bl izdkj ofj"B izcU/kd deZpkjh dh
lsok lekIr djus rFkk gkfu igqapkus dh cnfu;riw.kZ dk;Zokgh djrs
jgs gSA
7- vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd 'kk[kk ds ofj"B izcU/kd us ekg
tqykbZ 2004 ds osru dk Hkqxrku fnukad 26-8-2004 rd ugha fd;k
rc ofj"B izcU/kd dks uksfVl nsdj osru Hkqxrku dh ekax dh x;hA
blds ckn fnukad 27-8-2004 dks cnfu;riw.kZ rjhds ls izkFkhZ dks
osru ^^osru 'khZ"kZ** esa u nsdj ^^l.Mªh ,DlisUlst gsM** esa fn;k x;k
tcfd Hkqxrku dh jkf'k osru ls lEcfU/kr Fkk] blls Li"V gS fd
'kk[kk ds ofj"B izcU/kd deZpkjh dh lsok,a lekIr djus ij rqys gq,
vkSj cnfu;riw.kZ vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl viuk;h FkhA
8- izLrj 10 esa ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh fnukad
20-3-1997 ls gh foi{kh cSad dh gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk] tkSgjh cktkj]
t;iqj 'kk[kk esa dk;Z djrk vk jgk gS vkSj mls cSad }kjk fd;s x;s
le>kSrs vkSj ldwZyj fnukafdr 20-11-87 ds vuqlkj dkjisV ,fj;k ds
vuq:i osru u nsdj fQDlM+ osru 740 #- fn;k tk jgk gS tks orZeku
esa 1050 #- gSA bl izdkj cSad }kjk vius fd;s le>kSrs dk mYya?ku
djus ds lkFk&lkFk izkFkhZ dks yxkrkj dbZ o"kks± rd fQDl osru nsdj
mldk 'kks"k.k fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj mlds osru Hkqxrku dh izfØ;k tks
mldh fu;qfDr ls py jgh Fkh mls cnydj mlds fu;kstu dks lekIr
djus dh cnfu;riw.kZ dksf'k'k dh tk jgh gSA bl lEcU/k esa fookn
dsUnzh; lgk;d Je vk;qDr t;iqj ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k ysfdu
deZpkjh fojks/kh :[k ds dkj.k fookn dks U;k;fu.k;Zu gsrq U;k;kfèdj.k
dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk fd gS fd Jh fo".kq dqekj
3136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2015/ASADHA 27, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lSuh dks dkjisV ,fj;k ds vk/kkj ij lc&LVkQ dh osru J`a[kyk dk
3@4 osru ,oa HkÙkk lu~ 1994 ls fnyok;k tk; vkSj lu~ 1994 ls gh
ikVZ& VkbZe Dyhuj ds in ij LFkk;h fd;k tk; ,oa fiNyk cdk;k
fnyok;k tk;A
9- foi{kh cSad dh rjQ ls oknksÙkj izLrqr dj ;kfpdk ds izLrj
1 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd mÙkj dh vko';drk ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh ;wfu;u ds lnL; gS bl rF; dks fl) djus dk
Hkkj mu ij gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd dsoy cSad dk deZpkjh oknh
;wfu;u dk lnL; gks ldrk gS vkSj Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh foi{kh cSad
ds deZpkjh ugha gS rFkk mUgsa dksbZ fu;qfDRk i= Hkh ugha fn;k x;k gS
vr% ;wfu;u }kjk izLrqr okn iks"k.kh; ugha gSA izLrj 2 ds lEcU/k esa
;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk] t;iqj 'kk[kk
fnukad 20-3-1994 dks [kksyh x;h vkSj 'kk[kk dh lQkbZ ds fy,
,deq'r èujkf'k ds Hkqxrku ds vk/kkj ij Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks
j[kk x;kA c®d deZpkjh ;wfu;u vkSj Hkkjrh; cSad laxBu ds le>kSrs
ds vuqlkj Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh tSls deZpkjh dks fuEu nj ls Hkqxrku
vuqeU; gS^%&
1- lIrkg esa rhu ?k.Vs rd dk dk;Z------ cSad dks foods ds
vuqlkj rFkk vYire 450 #-
2- lIrkg esa rhu ?k.Vs ls T;knk ysfdu N% ?k.Vksa ls de-------
cSad ds foosd ds vuqlkj de ls de 740 #-A mDr nj ds vuqlkj
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh ds lUnHkZ esa T;knk /kujkf'k ls lEcfU/kr ekax
iks"k.kh; ugha gSA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh }kjk lQkbZ dk visf{kr dk;Z 1
ds dk;Z ls Hkh de gSA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks tc dk;Z ij j[kk x;k
ml le; vkSj mlds ckn Hkh mUgsa bl ckr dh vPNh rjg ls tkudkjh
Fkh fd muds dk;Z ij j[ksa tkus dks fu;fer deZpkjh ds :i esa
fu;qfDr izfØ;k viuk;s fcuk ifjofrZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] vr%
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk fof/k O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Jh
fo".kq dqekj lSuh lsok dh vof/k ds vk/kkj ij fu;fer fd;s tkus dh
ekax ugha dj ldrsA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks 740 #ñ izfrekg dk
Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk vkSj mlds ckn ds le>kSrs ds vuqlkj mUgsa
1050 #ñ izfrekg dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk A bl /kujkf'k esa vkxs
pydj c<+ksrjh gqbZ vkSj uosa le>kSrs ds vuqlkj orZeku le; esa mUgsa
1440#ñ dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA tgka rd fnukad 20- 11-87 ds
le>kSrs dk iz'u gS ;g dsoy va'kdkyhu LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa ls lEcfUèr
gS vkSj fQDl /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus okys deZpkfj;ksa ij
ykxw ugha gksrk gS] vr% vLFkk;h deZpkjh@vkdfLed deZpkjh dks
dkjisV ,fj;k ds fglkc ls fnukad 20-11-87 ds ldwZyj ds vuqlkj
Hkqxrku djus ij fopkj djus dk iz'u ugha mBrk gS D;ksafd ,slh
fu;qfDr cSad dh fu;qfDr fufr ds fo#) gS tks fof/k ds vuqlkj vuqeU;
ugha gS rFkk ftls ihNs ds njokts ls izos'k dh laKk nh tkrh gSA LVsVesUV
vkWQ Dyse ds tokc esa foi{kh cSad us Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh tSls
deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k dh izfØ;k
dk mYys[k djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd fu;qfDr ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj
izkFkhZ Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dk p;u ugha gqvk gS vkSj bl dkj.k fnukad
20-11-87 ds ldwZyj dk izkfo/kku muds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA
foi{kh cSad us mDr leFkZu esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds n`"VkUrksa
dk mYys[k fd;k gS vkSj ;g dgk gS fd fn;s x;s fu;qfDr izfØ;k ds
vuqlkj fu;qfDr fd;s fcuk dksbZ O;fDr fu;fer fd;s tkus dk gdnkj
ughaA
10- ;kfpdk ds izLrj 4]5]6]7]8]9]10]11 vkSj 12 ds dFku
dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 20-11-87 dk
ldqZyj vkbZ vkj 29 fnukafdr 13-7-93 }kjk foyksfir dj fn;k x;kA
'kk[kk dk dkjisV ,fj;k 3170 LdkW;j QhV gSA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh
dh cSad esa dHkh fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h vkSj u gh og LFkk;h deZpkjh gS
blfy;s og lc&LVkQ dh 3@4 osru ikus ds gdnkj ugha gS rFkk mlds
lkFk dksbZ vuqfPkr Je O;ogkj ugha fd;k x;kA mls le>kSrs ds vuqlkj
gh Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSa
11- izLrj 5 ds dFku dks Lohdkj dj ;g dgk x;k gS fd cSad
vkSj vkWy bf.M;k nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt dksvkfMZus'ku deZpkjh dh
lgefr fnukafdr 5-12-96 ds vuqlkj lsok esa 'kkfey gksus dh frfFk
ds vuqlkj lcls ofj"B deZpkjh ls fjDr inksa dks Hkjus dh dk;Zokgh
dh tkosxh
12- orZeku le; esa gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk] t;iqj 'kk[kk esa 2
iw.kZdkfyd lc&LVkQ fu;qDr gaS ftUgsa le>kSrs ds vuqlkj ikfjJfed
dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS ftruh vof/k ds fy;s os dk;Z djrs gaSA izkFkhZ
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dks fu;fer :i ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gSA og
cSad ds LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha gaS blfy;s mudh lsok lekfIr dk iz'u
ugh mBrk gSaA Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh cSad ds deZpkjh ugha gSa blfy;s
mudks fd;k x;k Hkqxrku osru gsM ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mls vU;
[kPkksZa ds en ls fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad 20-11-87 ds ldqZyj dks
gfYn;ksa dk jkLrk] t;iqj 'kk[kk ds [kqyus ds iwoZ gha fnukad 13-7-93
ds ldqZyj ls foyksfir fd;k x;k gS blfy;s fnukad 20&11&87 ds
ldqZyj ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh ekax xyr gSA lsok ds lUnHkZ esa ;wfu;u
}kjk dh x;h ekax vuqfpr gS vkSj fof/k fo:) gS vkSj Jh fo".kq dqekj
lSuh dks ihNs ds jkLrs ls izos'k fnyk;k tkus dk iz;kl gS vr% ;kph dh
;kfpdk fujLr dh tk,A
13- i=koyh lk{; esa py jgha FkhA fnukad 6-12-14 dks yksd
vnkyr dh dk;Zokgh fu;r FkhA fnukad 5-12-2014 dks Jh fo".kq
dqekj lSuh us vkosnu izLrqr dh fd mudk ekeyk yksd vnkyr esa
fuLrkj.k ds fy;s fu;r fd;k tk;sA mUgksaus ;g Hkh crk;k dh cSad ds
izfrfuf/k vkSj vf/kdkjh yksd vnkyr esa eqdnesa dk fuLrkj.k djokus
ds fy;s mifLFkr jgsxsA mDr vk/kkj ij Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dh
vkosnu Lohdkj dh x;h vkSj eqdnesa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq i=koyh fnukad
6-12-14 dks yxus okyh yksd vnkyr ds fy;s fu;r dh x;hA
14- yksd vnkyr esa mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls lqyg ukek izLrqr
gqvk tks fuEuor gS%&
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 18] 2015@vk"kk<+ 27] 1937
3137
le{k ekuuh; dsUnz ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k t;iqj
dsl uañ & % CGIT 41@2006
nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u t;iqj
cuke
fjtuy eSustj] nsuk cSad] ubZ fnYyh
fo"k;%& fookn dks lekIr djus gsrq izkFkZuk&i=
ekU;oj]
izkFkhZ fujraj fuosnu djrk gS%&
¼1½ ;g mDr fookn esa vkxs dk;Zokgh ugha djuk pkgrk gS o bl
fookn dks okil ysdj lekIr djkuk pkgrk gSA
vr% fuosnu gS bl fookn dks lekIr djus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s
tkosaA
fnukad% 16@12@14
izkFkhZ
Identi by me
gLrk{kj viBuh;
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼fo".kq dqekj lSuh½
06@12@14
There is no objection
gLrk{kj viBuh;
To Bank in applicant
vf/kd`r izfrfu/kh
Withdrawing the case today
nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u
In Lok Adalat
t;iqj
gLrk{kj viBuh;
06/12/2014
P.S. Kalyan
Chief Manager
Dena Bank
HKR Jaipur
Identified by me
gLrk{kj viBuh;
Counsel for Dena Bank 6/12/2014
le{k ekuuh; dsUnz ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k t;iqj
dsl uañ & % CGIT 41/2006
nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u ¼jktLFkku½ t;iqj
cuke
fjtuy eSustj] nsuk cSad] ubZ fnYyh
ekU;oj]
izkFkhZ fuosnu djrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa nsuk cSad ,EiykbZt
;wfu;u ¼jktLFkku½ t;iqj dh vksj ls izkFkhZ t;Urh yky 'kkg ,MoksdsV
dks le>kSrk i= izLrqr djus gsrq vf/kd`r fd;k gSA d`I;k izkFkhZ dks
bldh vuqefr iznku djsaA rkfd lqyg ukek jsdkMZ esa jgsA
fnukad 06@12@14
izkFkhZ
gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼ts-,y- 'kkg½
No objection to the Bank
gLrk{kj viBuh;
Adv.
15- yksd vnkyr esa dh x;h dk;Zokgh dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj
gS%&
yksd vnkyr
6&12&14 vkt i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA izkFkhZ
Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gSA ;kph ds vFkkZr~
;wfu;u ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh t;Urh yky 'kkg] ,MoksdsV mifLFkr
gSA foi{kh nsuk cSad ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k Jh jktsUnz dqekj lkyspk]
,MoksdsV] cSad ds iz/kku izcU/kd Jh izseflag dY;k.k ds lkFk
mifLFkr gSA i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa fuLrkj.k gsrq yxh gSA ;wfu;u
ds izfrfuf/k ugha mifLFkfr gSaA ;wfu;u ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh t;Urh
yky 'kkg ,MoksdsV us ;wfu;u dh rjQ ls le>kSrk izLrqr djus gsrq
izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k gsA izkFkZuk&i= ij mH;i{k dks lqukA cSad
dh rjQ ls vkosnu ij vuikfÙk vafdr dh x;h gSaA vr% mDr rF;
,oWa ifjfLFkfr esa vkosnu Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA ;wfu;u dh rjQ ls
;wfu;u ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dks lqygukek izLrqr djus dh vuqefr
iznku dh tkrh gS D;ksafd lqygukek mHk;i{k ds fgr esa gSA i=koyh
lqyg gsrq is'k gksA
¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
yksd vnkyr
06&12&14 vkt i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA izkFkhZ Jh
fo".kq dqekj lSuh O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkfr gSA ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfufè
Jh t;Urh yky 'kkg] ,MoksdsV rFkk foi{kh cSad nsuk cSad ds fo}ku
izfrfuf/k Jh jktsUnz dqekj lkyspk] ,MoksdsV] mifLFkfr gSA cSad
Jh izse flag dY;ku iz/kku izcU/kd mifLFkr gSA mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls
lqygukek vkt izLrqr gqvk ftlesa izkFkhZ Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh }kjk
izkFkZuk dh x;h gSa fd og okn esa vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djuk pkgrs
gaS vkSj fookn ls lEcfU/kr bl okn dks okil ysdj lekIr djuk
pkgrs gaSA
izkFkhZ Jh fo".kq dqekj lSuh dh igpku muds fo}ku izfrfuf/k
}kjk rFkk cSad ds iz/kku izcU/kd Jh izseflag dY;ku ds igpku
cSad ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk dh x;h gaSA lqyg dh 'krsZ mHk;i{k dks
i<+dj lquk;h ,oWa le>k;h x;hA lqyg dh 'krsZa i{kdkjksa }kjk LosPNk
Lohdkj dh x;hA vr% bl ekeys ds lqygukek dh 'krksZa ds vk/kkj
ij fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA lqyg ukek fnukafdr 06-12-14 ,okMZ
dk va'k gksxkA
16- U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ'k dk mÙkj mDr izdkj fn;k
tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.