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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1690-&dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½

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

¼dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks½ }kjk tkap fd, x, ekeyksa dk ubZ fnYyh

fLFkr fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; esa vfHk;kstu] vihy] iqujh{k.k rFkk

muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa dks lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh vt; dqekj

xqIrk] vfèoDrk dks muds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ ;k

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks½ dk fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@32@2014&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1690.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Delhi High Court at New Delhi

for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other

matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three

years from the date he takes over charge or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/32/2014-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

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- 35]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 23—vxLr 29] 2015] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 1—Hkkæ 7] 1937

No. 35]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 23—AUGUST 29, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 1—BHADRA 7, 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)

3510 GI/2015

(3583)

3584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ1691-&fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vfèfu;e 1946

¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa dh tkap fnYyh

fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dks djus dk funsZ'k nsrh gS%

¼d½ fuEufyf[kr ds varxZr naMuh; vijkè%

¼i½ èu 'kksèu fuokj.k foès;d] 2002

¼ii½ daiuh vfèfu;e] 2013 ¼2013 dk vfèfu;e lañ 18½

¼iii½ vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956

dk vfèfu;e lañ 104½ dh èkjk 6] 7 vkSj 16

¼iv½ okf.kT; iksr ifjogu vfèfu;e] 1958 ¼1958 dk

vfèfu;e lañ 44½

¼v½ oU; tho laj{k.k ¼vle la'kksèu½ vfèfu;e] 2009

¼vi½ oU; i{kh vkSj thotarq laj{k.k vfèfu;e] 1912

¼1912 dh vfèfu;e lañ 8½

¼vii½ Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e

lañ 45½ dh èkjk 109] 115] 166&d] 166&[k]

171] 174&d] 195&d] 228&d] 228&[k]

229&d] 326&d] 326&[k] 354] 354&d]

354&[k] 354&x] 354&?k] 370] 370&d] 376]

376&d] 376&[k] 376&x] 376&?k] 376&M+] 422

rFkk 511 vkSj

¼[k½ mi;qZDr vijkèksa ds lacaè esa vFkok tqM+s mdlkok ,oa

"kM;a= vkSj dksbZ vU; vijkè tks mlh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fd;k gks

vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu gksA

[Qkñ lañ 228@53@2014&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2015

S.O. 1691.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section 3 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946

(Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby

specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:

(a) Offences punishable under:—

(i) The Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002

(ii) The Companies Act, 2013 (Act No. 18 of

2013)

(iii) Sections 6, 7 and 16 of the Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956)

(iv) The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act No.

44 of 1958).

(v) The Wild Life Protection (Assam

Amendment) Act, 2009

(vi) The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act,

1912 (Act No. 8 of 1912)

(vii) Sections 109, 115, 166-A, 166-B, 171, 174-A,

195-A, 228-A, 228-B, 229-A, 326-A, 326-B,

354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A,

376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E, 422

and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act

No. 45 of 1860) and

(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation

to or in connection with the above mentioned offences

and any other offence or offences committed in course of

the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/53/2014-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1692-&dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk vkijkfèd izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk

8 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh f'kjh'k pUnzk] vfèoDrk

dks lhchvkbZ dsl vkjñlhñ2¼,l½@1984@,llh&1@

ubZ fnYyh ¼xks.Mk QthZ eqBHksM dsl½ ls mRiUu vkijkfèd vihy

rFkk blls lacafèr o vuq"kkafxd ekeyksa esa bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ cSap ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ,oa Jh chjs'oj ukFk] vfèoDrk

dks lgk;rk djus gsrq fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@52@2013&,ohMh&II]

vthr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2015

S.O. 1692.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri Shreesh Chandra, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor in criminal appeals, arising out of case

No. RC 2(S)/84-SIU.I/CBI/SC-1/New Delhi (Gonda false

encounter case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (C.B.I.) before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court

at Lucknow Bench and any other matter connected therewith

and incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/52/2013-AVD-II]

AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2015

dkñvkñ 1693-&jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad vfèfu;e] 1987 ¼1987

dk 53½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼p½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] fuEufyf[kr

O;fDr;ksa dks bl vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy,

jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad ¼,u,pch½ ds funs'kd eaMy esa funs'kd ukfer

djrh gSA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3585

¼1½ lfpo@izèku lfpo] vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx]

mÙkj izns'k ljdkjA

¼2½ lfpo@izèku lfpo] vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx]

e/; izns'k ljdkjA

[Qkñ lañ 24@17@2010&vkbZ,Q&II]

,eñ ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2015

S.O. 1693.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central

Government hereby appoints the following persons to be

the Directors on the Board of Directors of National Housing

Bank (NHB) for a period of three years with effect from the

date of issue of this notification:

(i) Secretary/Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban

Planning Department, Government of

Uttar Pradesh.

(ii) Secretary/Principal Secretary, Housing and

Environment Department, Government of

Madhya Pradesh.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]

M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1694-&cSaddkjh fofu;eu vfèfu;e] 1949 ¼1949

dk 10½ dh èkjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh flQkfj'k ij ,rn~}kjk] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M

¼x½ ds mi&[k.M ¼i½ ds micaè vkUèzk cSad ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka

rd bldk lacaè cSad ds izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vfèdkjh

¼vfrfjDr izHkkj½ Jh ,lñdsñ dkyjk dks eSllZ bafM;k QLVZ ykbQ

ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djus ls gSA

[Qkñ lañ 13@19@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2015

S.O. 1694.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of

1949), the Government of India on the recommendations

of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the

provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-section

(1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Andhra

Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri S.K.

Kalra, MD & CEO(Additional charge), of the Bank as

Director on the Board of M/s. India First Life Insurance

Co. Ltd.

[F. No. 13/19/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1695-&fnukad 13-09-2012 dh vfèlwpuk ds vuqØe

esa] jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad vfèfu;e] 1987 ¼1987 dk 53½ dh èkjk ¼6½

dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh fot;k JhokLro] la;qDr lfpo] Hkkjr

ljdkj] xzkeh.k vkokl] xzkeh.k fodkl ea=ky; ds LFkku ij Jh jktho

lnkuanu] la;qDr lfpo] Hkkjr ljdkj] xzkeh.k vkokl] xzkeh.k fodkl

ea=ky; dks rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] jk"Vªh; vkokl

cSad ¼,u,pch½ ds funs'kd eaMy esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 24@17@2010&vkbZ,Q&II]

,eñ ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2015

S.O. 1695.—In continuation of the Notification dated

13.09.2012, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National Housing

Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby

appoints Shri Rajeev Sadanandan, Joint Secretary to the

Government of India, Rural Housing, Ministry of Rural

Development as a Director on the Board of National

Housing Bank in place of Smt. Vijaya Srivastava, Joint

Secretary to the Government of India, Rural Housing,

Department of Rural Development, with immediate effect

and until further orders.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]

M. M. DAWLA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1696-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] ohch,plh oSY;w gkse izkñfyñ

ds izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh Jh ihñ,lñ t;dqekj

¼tUe frfFk 08-04-1962½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

75]500&80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa cSad vkQ cM+kSnk ds izcaè

funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr dsñMhñ [ksjk cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa

mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½ la[;k 2015 dk 225 ds

ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

3586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1696.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (3) Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation

with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints

Shri P.S. Jayakumar, (DoB: 08.04.1962) MD & CEO, VBHC

Value Home Pvt. Ltd. as MD & CEO, Bank of Baroda in

the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000/- for a period of

three years with effect from the date of his assumption

of charge of the post or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition(C) No. 225 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of D.D. Khera Vs Union of India & Others.

[F. No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1697-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; efgyk cSad dh

v/;{k ,oa izcaè funs'kd Jherh vuarlqczef.k;u ¼tUe frfFk 01-

10-1958½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh

vofè ds fy, ;k 30-09-2018 rd vFkkZr~ vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr

djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks]

75]500&80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds izcaè

funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr dsñMhñ [ksjk cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa

mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½ la[;k 2015 dk 225 ds

ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1697.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Smt. Usha

Ananthasubramanian (DoB: 01.10.1958), CMD, Bharatiya

Mahila Bank as MD & CEO, Punjab National Bank in the

scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000/- for a period of three

years with effect from the date of his taking over the charge

of the post or till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.09.2018

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition(C) No. 225 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of K.D. Khera Vs Union of India & Others.

[F. No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1698-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad

ds mi&izcaè funs'kd Jh esyohu vkslokYM jsxks ¼tUe frfFk 19-

07-1959½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh

vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 75]500@&

80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izcaè funs'kd

,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr dsñMhñ [ksjk cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa

mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½ la[;k 2015 dk 225 ds

ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1698.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Melwyn

Oswald Rego (DoB: 19.07.1959), DMD, IDBI Bank as MD

& CEO, Bank of India in the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-

80,000/- for a perod of three years from the date of taking

over the charge of the post or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 225 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of K.D. Khera Vs Union of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3587

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1699-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] ;wfu;u cSd vkWQ bafM;k

ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh fd'kksj fijkth [kjkr ¼tUe frfFk 04-09-

1958½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè

ds fy, ;k 30-09-2018 rd vFkkZr vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus

dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 75]500@&

80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad fyñ ds izcaè funs'kd

,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr dsñ Mhñ [ksjk cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys

esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½ la[;k 2015 dk 225 ds

ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1699.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Kishor

Piraji Kharat (DoB: 04.09.1958), ED, Union Bank of India as

MD & CEO, IDBI Bank Ltd. in the scale of pay of Rs.

75,500-80,000/- for a perod of three years from the date of

taking over the charge of the post or till the date of

superannuation i.e. 30.09.2018 or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 225 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of K.D. Khera Vs. Union of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1700-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] y{eh foykl cSad fyñ ds

izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh Jh jkds'k 'kekZ ¼tUe

frfFk 02-07-1958½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ

dh vofè ds fy, ;k 31-07-2018 rd vFkkZr 60 o"kZ esa vfèof"kZrk dh

vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks 75]500@& 80]000@& #i, ds osrueku esa dsujk cSad ds izcaè

funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vfèdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr dsñMhñ [ksjk cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa

mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½ la[;k 2015 dk 225 ds

ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1700.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-

clause 5of The Nationalized Banks (Management and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri Rakesh Sharma (DoB:

02.07.1958), MD & CEO, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. as MD &

CEO, Canara Bank in the scale of pay of Rs. 75,500-80,000/

- for a perod of three years with effect from the date of his

assumption of the charge of the post or upto 31.07.2018 i.e.

till the date of his superannuation on attaining 60 years of

age, or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 225 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of K.D. Khera Vs. Union of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1701-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 5 ds lkFk ifBr]

cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980

dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~

,rn~}kjk] Jh xksikyd`".ku ukjk;.ku ¼tUe frfFk 31-10-1949½ dks

mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy,

vFkok 70 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] fot;k cSad esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd vkSj

xSj&dk;Zikyd v/;{k ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; cSad vfèdkjh la?k cuke Hkkjr

la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½

la[;k 2015 dk 445 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

3588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1701.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and clause 5

of The Nationalized Banks (Management and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri Gopal Krishnan Narayanan

(DoB: 31.10.1949) as Part Time Non-official director as well

as Non-Executive Chairman in Vijaya Bank for a period of

three years from the date of notification of his appointment

or until his attaining the age of 70 years, or until further

orders, whichever is earliest.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 445 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs Union

of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1702-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 5 ds lkFk

ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼t½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh fr#eaxykdqMh pUnz'ks[kju

osadV lqczef.k;u ¼tUe frfFk 30-10-1949½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh

vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok 70 o"kZ dh

vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

bafM;u cSad esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd vkSj xSj&dk;Zikyd

v/;{k ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; cSad vfèdkjh la?k cuke Hkkjr

la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½

la[;k 2015 dk 445 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1702.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and clause

5 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri Tirumangalakudi

Chandrasekharan Venkat Subramanian (DoB: 30.10.1949)

as Part Time Non-official director as well as Non-Executive

Chairman in Indian Bank for a period of three years from

the date of notification of his appointment or until his

attaining the age of 70 years, or until further orders,

whichever is earliest.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 445 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs Union

of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1703-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 5 ds lkFk

ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM

¼t½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jfo

osadVs'ku ¼tUe frfFk 12-01-1963½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh

vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk esa va'kdkfyd

xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd vkSj xSj&dk;Zikyd v/;{k ds in ij fu;qDr

djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; cSad vfèdkjh la?k cuke Hkkjr

la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½

la[;k 2015 dk 445 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1703.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and clause

5of The Nationalized Banks (Management and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri Ravi Venkatesan (DoB:

12.01.1963) as Part Time Non-official director as well as

Non-Executive Chairman in Bank of Baroda for a period of

three years from the date of notification of his appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 445 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs. Union

of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3589

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1704-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 5 ds lkFk

ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼t½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh xksikyjeu ineukHku ¼tUe

frfFk 29-05-1955½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] cSad vkWQ bafM;k esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd vkSj

xSj&dk;Zikyd v/;{k ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; cSad vfèdkjh la?k cuke Hkkjr

la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½

la[;k 2015 dk 445 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1704.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and clause 5

of The Nationalized Banks (Management and

Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri Gopalaraman Padmanabhan

(DoB: 29.05.1955) as Part Time Non-official director as well

as Non-Executive Chairman in Bank of India for a period of

three years from the date of notification of his appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 445 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs Union

of India & Others.

[F.No. 4/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1705-&jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 5 ds lkFk

ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼t½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Jh Vhñ ,uñ euksgju ¼tUe frfFk

07-04-1956½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu

o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

dsujk c®d esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd vkSj xSj&dk;Zikyd

v/;{k ds in ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

;g fu;qfDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; c®d vfèdkjh la?k cuke Hkkjr

la?k ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; dh fjV ;kfpdk ¼lh½

la[;k 2015 dk 445 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gSA

;g fu;qfDr ,ulhlh fyñ ds cksMZ ls muds R;kx&i= nsus@;g

'kiFk nsus fd mudk QkeZ mudh dk;kZofè ds iwjk gksus rd fdlh

lkoZtfud {ks= ds c®d dh ys[kkijh{kk ;k lac) dk;Z ls vyx jgsxk]

ds v/;èhu gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2015

S.O. 1705.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 & clause 5 of

The Nationalized Bank (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

appoints Shri Thothala Narayanasamy Manoharan (DoB:

07.04.1956) as Part Time Non-official director as well as

Non-Executive Chairman in Canara Bank for a period of

three years from the date of notification of his appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

The appointment is subject to outcome of Writ

Petition (C) No. 445 of 2015 in the Supreme Court in the

matter of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs. Union

of India & Others.

The appointment will also be subject to his

resignation from the board of NCC Limited/disassociation

of him and his firm from any audit or related work of any

public sector bank till completion of his tenure in

continuation with his undertaking.

[F.No. 4/4/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1706-& jkT; foÙkh; fuxe vfèfu;e] 1951 ¼1951

dk 63½ dh èkjk 46 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr

vfèfu;e dh èkjk 32N ds micaè vkS|ksfxd laLFkkvksa dks èu miyCè

djkus ds lacaè esa dsjy jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir dsjy jkT; vkS|ksfxd

fodkl fuxe fyfeVsM ij ykxw gksaxsA

[Qkñ lañ 6@1@2014&vkbZ,Q&II]

,eñ ,eñ nkSyk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1706.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of the section 46 of the State Financial

Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Central Government

hereby directs that the provisions of section 32G of the

said Act shall apply to the Kerala State Industrial

Development Corporation Limited, established by the

Kerala State Government for the financing of industrial

concerns.

[F. No. 6/1/2014-IF-II]

M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.

3590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1707-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= 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; dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 27@2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@55@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2011) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-12011/55/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR-COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 27/2011

Between—

The General Secretary,

Central Bank Employees Congress (UP),

MIG-C-1241 Rajajipuram,

Lucknow-17

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Pandu Nagar,

Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12011/55/2010-IR(B-II) dated

04.05.11, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of management of Central

Bank of India, Kanpur, in taking work of 1/2 scale

of wages and paying 1/3 scale of wages against

the bank's policy to Sri Ram Babu PTSK is just

and proper? What relief the concerned workman

is entitled?

In short the case of the workman is that he is

employed by the bank with effect from December

2006 at banks Parwati Bagla Road Branch as part

time safai karamchari at 1/3rd scale of pay but

according to the rules of the bank he is entitled

for 1/2 scale wages. Apart from the work of

scavenging he had also performed the clerical work

in the branch after his duty hours and that his

duty hours were from 9.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. It is

also submitted by the worker that the branch of

the bank was shifted in new premises of which

carpet area is 1200 sq. ft. and he had to work

29 hours per week and in this way he is entitled to

get his wages at 1/2 scale wages, which has not

been provided to him. In the last he has prayed

that he be allowed the 1/2 scale wages with effect

from December 2006.

Opposite party has filed reply refuting the claim

of the union on the ground that the claim of the

worker has been fled before the conciliation officer

Kanpur to misuse the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, there is no merit in the claim

of the union, the alleged dispute raised by the

union is not an industrial dispute, as a matter of

fact the concerned workman was appointed a part

time safai karmchari on 1/3rd scale of wages with

effect from 11.01.99 to work 6 hours to 13 hours

per week and thereafter no promotion letter was

issued by the controlling authority in his favour

hence the claim fled by the union is not tenable

and is liable to be dismissed ex-facie on this

ground, it is admitted by the bank that the carpet

area of new premises of the bank is 1200 sq. ft.

Bank has further alleged that after overlooking

seniority of other employees of the bank,

automatic conversion is not permissible as per

banks guidelines and workman is not entitled to

get 1/2 scale of wages from the opposite party.

On the basis of above it has been prayed by the

bank that an award may be passed in favour of

the bank and against the concerned workman.

Rejoinder has been filed but nothing new has been

pleaded therein.

Vide list of document dated 03.04.13, the bank

filed the appointment letter of the workman. From

a perusal of the appointment letter it reveals that

the worker was appointed as Part Time Safai

Karamchari on 1/3 of scale wages and his duty

hours will be ranging to 6 to 13 hours per week.

Union has also filed certain papers vide

application dated 20.11.2012, but by a bare perusal

of the same it is quite evidence that these

documents are not concerned with the claim of

the worker.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3591

Both sides have been given adequate opportunity

to adduce evidence in support of their respective

case but none has adduced any evidence in the

case. As per settled legal position it is the union/

workman who has to prove his case before the

tribunal by adducing cogent and convincing

evidence and as he had failed to discharges his

obligation for adducing evidence opportunity of

the workman was closed by the tribunal vide order

dated 25.03.15.

As none appeared from the side of the worker, the

arguments of the management were heard in the

case and file was reserved for award.

10.

From the above it is quite evident that it is a case

where the worker has palpably failed to discharge

his burden by adducing relevant evidence,

therefore, it is a case of no evidence.

11.

Having concluded that it is a case of no evidence,

tribunal has no option but to decide the reference

against the union/workman. Hence worker is not

entitled for any relief pursuant to the reference

order.

12.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1708-&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 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 4@08½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&08&2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@59@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 4/08) of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-08-

2015.

[No. L-12011/59/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR-

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 4/08

Between—

Sri Pradeep Saraswat,

General Secretary,

U.P. Bank Karamchari Sangh,

45-A, Chandra Nagar,

Lalbungalow,

Kanpur, U.P.

And

The Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional Office,

Birhana Road,

Kanpur, U.P.

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12011/59/2007-IR(B-II) dated

30.10.2007, has referred the following dispute the

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of management of Punjab

National Bank in with drawing an amount of

Rs. 7655/- from personal over draft account of

Sri Pradeep Sarswat after sanctioning the same as

LFC on 27.09.99 in response to workman

application dated 23.09.99 informing about

availing of LFC from 18.10.99 to 13.11.1999 by his

parents, on the ground that journey undertaken

by his father and mother was after expiry of 4 year

block of LFC of Sri Saraswat, for the period from

01.10.1995 to 30.09.99 is legal and just? If not to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled?

Although in the instant case the claimant has filed

a very lengthy statement of claim running into

22 pages but the real facts germane for the purpose

of deciding the present reference are as under.

It has been claimed by the workman that while he

was posted as a clerk cum godown keeper at

bank's Bidhnoo Branch, Kanpur, he vide his

application dated 23.09.99, paper No. 2/33,

informed the branch manager that he will avail

LFC facility for the period 29.9.99 to 03.10.99 and

after 29.09.99 within four months his parents will

also avail LFC benefit and thereby he requested

that for the time being he may be allowed a sum of

Rs. 4000/- along with one month's leave

encashment. The said application of the workman

was sanctioned by the bank on 27.09.99 and

workman after taking the amount claimed by him

proceeded for availing LFC on 29.09.99. The

claimant before proceeding on has also submitted

Annexure-C paper No. 2/34 on 23.09.99 detailing

about his tour program as also informed the bank

3592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

that his parents will avail LFC within four months.

The workman further claimed that after

sanctioning the LFC availed by him the bank has

finally sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4168.00 paisa

vide paper no. 2/37 for the block year 01.10.95 to

30.09.99.

The workman further allege that vide application

dated 07.10.99 by referring his previous application

dated 23.09.99 and Form C requested the bank

that now his parents will avail LFC for which he

may be allowed a sum of Rs. 14000/- as an advance

which was sanction to him on the same day, the

paper filed by the claimant is annexure 13 of the

claim statement and paper no. 2/38. The workman

has further alleged that his parents availed LFC

during the period 18.10.99 to 13.11.99. Thereafter

the workman has produced the bill and details of

journey performed by his parents which was

submitted by him on 20/25.11.99 vide annexure

5/1-4. The bank after going through whole record

accepted these documents without raising any

objection of demur.

The workman against advance of Rs. 14000/- has

submitted final bill of Rs. 7655 with all details of

journey performed by his parents and the balance

amount was refunded to the bank on 20/25.11.99,

as an amount of Rs. 7153/- had already been

sanctioned by the authorities of the bank on

29.05.2000, vide annexure 5/4, against the LFC

advance taken by him for his parents.

It is further pleaded by the workman that the bank

vide their letter dated 13.06.2000 annexure No. 6

of the claim statement which is paper No. 2/31,

has informed the workman that the LFC TA bill

submitted with regard to his parents stands

rejected on the ground that the span of LFC was

from 01.10.95 to 30.09.99 and his parents have

availed LFC during the period 18.10.99 to 13.11.99,

as such the above amounts stands recovered from

his account. The workman further claims that soon

after he received the above communication he

tendered a representation dated 27.06.2000,

requesting there in that he shocked to know that

an amount of Rs. Rs. 7655/- has been withdrawn

from his O/D account no. 400/-. He also requested

to review the above decision after reconsidering

the LFC file. He also mentioned therein that the

amount that has been withdrawn from his account

was withdrawn without his permission and the

amount may please be return to his above O/D

account.

It is further stated by the claimant that no fruitful

has come out in the matter he being the General

Secretary of the Union has raised an industrial

dispute before RLC^Kanpur and accordingly Mol,

New Delhi, has referred the present dispute for

adjudication.

The workman accordingly has prayed that the

amount of Rs. 7655/- that was illegally withdrawn

on 13.06.2000 from his personal O/D account be

refunded to him with 18% compound interest as

the workman had to pay interest in the same

manner to the bank against OD account.

10.

The opposite party bank has filed its reply and

has refuted the entire claim of the workman inter-

alia, on the ground that the workman being

relieved on the basis of obtaining VRS now stands

out side the scope and ambit of workman,

therefore, he is not entitled to raise the present

industrial dispute; that at this belated stage the

issue raised by the workman cannot be termed to

be an industrial dispute; that the so called dispute

has not been validly and legally espoused by the

union therefore, it is not an industrial dispute;

and accordingly what has been referred to the

industrial dispute cannot be termed to be an

industrial dispute, and therefore, it was

accordingly prayed that the preliminary objection

raised by the bank should be decided before

initiating further proceedings.

11.

Here I would like to mention that whatever issues

have been raised by the opposite party bank is

going to the root of the reference order regarding

its proprietary and legality. It is well settled legal

position that the National Tribunal, Industrial

Tribunal or the Labor Court is not competent

enough to go behind the reference order referred

to it for its decision. It is also observed that if on

any count the management was aggrieved from

the reference order, it was open for them to have

challenged the reference order before the Hon'ble

High Court, but in any case it is not open for the

tribunal to examine the legality and proprietary of

the reference order. Preliminary objection of the

management is answered accordingly.

12.

On facts the management has replied that the

provision of para 6^ of the settlement dated

08.09.1983 are no more in force, and stands

superseded by Para 8 of settlement dated

05.01.1987, where in there is no provision/

requirement of period of four months. Further as

per provisions as amended vide settlement dated

05.01.87, LFC can be availed by the employee

without attendance of the workman. It is also

alleged by the Bank that though the family of the

workman is entitled to journey separately while

availing LFC in respect of self but the family has

to necessarily avail the benefit within the span

only.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3593

13.

On merit of the case it has been pleaded by the

bank that since the claimant is no more employee

of the bank as he has opted VRS 2000 and relieved

on 17.03.2001. The bank has also refuted the claim

of the workman that he has been forcefully retired

from the service of the bank rather it is a fact that

the workman of his own free will have obtained

VRS from the services of the bank and accordingly

he was paid his all retirement benefits which has

been accepted by him without any demur or

objection.

14.

It is further alleged by the bank that in any event

the provision contained in para 6(3) of settlement

dated 08.09.1983 are not applicable as per said

Para one of the journey has to be performed by

the family with the workman concern because the

provision says that LFC may be availed of by the

workman's family for travel without attendance

on either journey and it is in this context that the

limitation of four months have been prescribed

between the date of commencement of journey

and the date of return journey.

15.

Accordingly it has been prayed that the action of

the bank in rejecting the claim of the workman is

just legal, proper and in the light of the Bipartite

Settlement, the claimant is not entitled to the relief

claimed by him.

16.

The management vide application paper no. 14/1

has sought certain amendment in their written

statement which was rejected vide order dated

26.09.2011.

17.

The management vide their application dated

16.11.2009 has filed paper no. 9/1-14, relevancy of

which shall be discussed at appropriate stage in

the body of the award.

18.

Along with claim statement worker has also filed

certain documents in the shape of photocopies.

19.

Whereas worker has appeared in the witness box

and has examined himself as w.w.1, management

has not examined any witness.

20.

I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and have also perused the record of the case

carefully.

21.

The admitted facts between the contesting parties

are that Sri Pradeep Saraswat was in the service

of the bank who has chosen 4 years block for

Leave Fare Concession (for short LFC) and has

applied for LFC on proper format paper no. 9/9 on

23.3.99 wherein he has mentioned the date of

availing LFC for himself i.e. from 29.09.99 to

03.10.99, and has also informed that his parents

shall avail LFC after wards within four months.

He has also given a letter to Manager PNB,

Bidhunu Kanpur on 23.02.99 along with format

for availing LFC for himself from 29.09.99 to

03.10.99 and for availing LFC for his parents after

29.09.99 but within four months and applied for

advance for Rs.4000/- and leave encashment for

one month salary which is admitted to have been

sanctioned and thereafter, after expiry of 4 year

block of LFC, he submitted another application to

the branch manager PNB on 07.10.99 referring

earlier mentioned format on form C and requesting

the branch manager to make payment of Rs.14000/-

advance for availing LFC by his parents. It is also

admitted to have been sanctioned by the branch

manager althrough the period of 4 year block of

LFC has expired. It is paper No. 2/38 filed by the

worker Sri Pradeep Saraswat.

22.

Sri Pradeep Saraswat has examined himself as

w.w.1. He has also supported the facts and

documents filed by himself wherein he has also

mentioned about bipartite settlements of bank. In

para 10.1 of Bipartite Settlement it is settled that

family of worker can avail LFC within four months

from the date LFC is availed by worker himself.

23.

Representative for the bank contended that a

family of worker has availed LFC after block of 4

years, money advanced to worker is withdrawn

legally and has drawn my attention on circular

letter No. 21/91 dated 01.06.91 which is paper

No. 4/2, wherein it has been mentioned that

journey of LFC should commence before the expiry

of the block. It appears to be a letter issued by

Assistant General Manager (P), Punjab National

Bank while in bipartite settlement it is settled that

family of worker should commence their journey

within four months from the date LFC is availed

by worker. It is not specified in Bipartite settlement

that journey for availing LFC for the family of

worker should commence within block.

24.

The contention of representative for the bank has

no force espically on perusing application for

giving advance by the claimant to the branch

manager for availing LFC facility to his family.

Paper No. 2/38 which is moved on 07.10.09 i.e.

after expiry of the block and on this application

the then branch manager has not made any

objection before sanctioning the advance and that

application has been moved after expiry of block

and advance cannot be sanctioned. As on this

application advance was sanctioned to the

workman it can be held that branch manager has

given implied consent for availing LFC for the

3594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

parents of the workman within four months from

the date journey is commenced by the workman.

25.

Thereafter when the claimant has submitted his

bills for LFC it was objected for the flirt time and

as alleged by workman amount of Rs. 7655 has

been deducted from the account of the worker

without giving any notice. It is also against rules

of natural justice money sanctioned for availing

LFC has been deducted from the account of justice

money without giving any notice or opportunity

of hearing.

26.

It is well settled law that once a facility is provided

to employee by his employer it cannot be

withdrawn without giving any notice or

opportunity of hearing.

27.

In this case particularly when worker had applied

for getting advance of availing LFC by his parents

after expiry of the block year, it was the duty of

the then branch manager to inform him about the

circular of the bank dated 01.08.91 and should not

have sanctioned the advance and once he had

sanctioned the advance he has no authority to

withdraw it from the account of the worker without

giving any notice or opportunity of hearing.

28.

Therefore in view of the above observation, it is

held that the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in with drawing an amount of

Rs. 7655 from personal over draft account of

Sri Pradeep Saraswat after sanctioning the same

as LFC on 27.09.99 in response to workman

application dated 23.09.99 informing about

availing of LFC from 18.10.99 to 13.11.1999 by his

parents, on the ground that journey undertaken

by his father and mother was after expiry of 4 year

block of LFC of Sri Saraswat, for the period from

01.10.1995 to 30.09.99 is neither legal nor just?

Accordingly workman is held entitled for Rs. 7655

from the management of Punjab National Bank.

29.

Management is further directed to make the

payment of the amount of Rs. 7655 to the workman

within three months from the date of publication

of award.

30.

Reference is answered in above terms in favour

of the worker and against the bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1709-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ 2@08½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@83@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/08) of

the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

19.08.2015.

[No. L-12012/83/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 2/08

Between—

Sri Rakesh Kumar,

Son of Sri Ram Gopal,

Village Mauhar,

Post Atraiya,

Hamirpur.

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Zonal Office,

10/379, Rameni,

Hamirpur- 210301.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12012/83/2007-IR(B-II) dated

27.11.07, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of

Allahabad Bank, Hamirpur, in terminating

Sri Rakesh Kumar PCCF Allahabad Bank Mundera

Branch, Hamirpur from service with effect from

01.04.04 is jut fair and legal? If not to what relief

the workman concerned is entitled?

It is alleged by the workman that he worked with

the opposite party 01.02.02 to 31.03.04

continuously and performed the work of regular

and permanent nature of sub staff. He has also

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3595

detailed then nature of work done by him in his

claim statement. He was verbally terminated from

his service by the opposite party without order in

writing. It is also claimed by the worker that at the

time of termination of his service he was neither

given any notice, nor notice pay and nor the

retrenchment compensation therefore the action

of the opposite party is in breach of provisions of

section 25F of the Act and thus is liable to be set

aside. Lastly he has prayed that he be reinstated

in the service of the bank with full back wages

and all consequential benefits.

The claim of the workman has been denied by the

opposite party bank on the ground that he was

never appointed against any sanctioned post, he

was never subjected for regular selection process,

he was never terminated by the bank, he is not a

workman as per provision of the I.D. Act and lastly

that he had never completed 240 days of

continuous service within the meaning of section,

therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of

section 25F of the Act. Lastly it is prayed that the

claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being

devoid of merit.

In this case the worker despite availing of

sufficient opportunity did not turn up for adducing

his evidence, therefore, opportunity to adduce

evidence by him has been closed by the tribunal

and management has also made an endorsement

to the effect that since the worker has not adduced

any evidence they are not interested in adducing

any evidence in the case.

Therefore, from the above it is clear that it is a

case of no evidence and the tribunal is left with

no option but to hold that the workman is not

entitled for any relief and accordingly the

reference is answered against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1710-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 06@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@78@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/09) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19.08.2015.

[No. L-12011/78/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 06 of 09

Between—

The General Secretary,

Bank Staff Association,

46/26-A,

North Malaka,

Allahabad.

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Taksal Theatre Building,

Varanasi.

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12011/78/2008-IR(B-II) dated

13.10.08, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of

Allahabad Bank in imposing the penalty of

dismissal from service vide order dated 13.09.94

on Sri Panna Lal, Head Cashier and rejecting his

appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated

21.12.94 is legal and justified. What relief the

concerned workman is entitled. The workman in

the instant case has filed his claim stating there

that on the basis of inquiry on certain acts of

omission and commission as narrated in the

charge sheet dated 15.09.93, he was subjected to

disciplinary action and on the basis of report of

the inquiry officer and after providing him

opportunity of being heard his services were

dispensed with by the disciplinary authority by

order dated 13.09.94 and appeal filed against it

was also rejected by order dated 21.12.94. Being

aggrieved by the illegal action of the opposite

party he raised the present dispute praying that

the action of the management in dismissing his

service be declared as illegal and order of dismissal

and order of appeal be set aside and he be

3596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

reinstated in the service with full back wages,

seniority and all consequential benefits.

The opposite party fled its reply denying the claim

of the worker on legal issues as well as on merit. It

is also pleaded by the opposite party that the

bank has not committed any illegality in issuing

charge sheet to the concerned workman for the

acts of omission and commission committed by

him and the bank has rightly taken up the workman

into disciplinary action and on the basis of report

of inquiry in which allegations levelled against

the worker were found proved, after providing

opportunity of hearing the workman has been

punished by way of dismissal from service, the

appellate authority has also rightly rejected the

appeal of the worker after finding that appeal is

devoid of merit. There is no illegality committed

by the opposite party, therefore, the claim of the

worker is devoid of merit and he is not entitled for

any relief as claimed by him.

It is pertient to mention here that after receipt of

several notices to the worker he did not turn up

for his evidence in the case. The case is pending

since long for evidence of parties i.e. 13.05.11 but

till date no evidence could be recorded for

deliberate fault of the worker in making his

presence in the casse. It therefore, appears that

he is not interested in contesting his case.

Considering the conduct of the worker the

representative for the bank on 20.05.15 has also

made an endorsement on the order sheet that they

too will not adduce any evidence in the case.

Considering the facts of the case it reveals that it

is a case of no evidence, and under such

circumstances, the tribunal is left with no option

but to hold that the claim of the worker is liable to

be rejected for want of evidence and proof.

Accordingly the claim of the workman is rejected

and he is held to be not entitled for any relief.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1711-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ cMksnk

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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@27@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 23/2007) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of the Bank of Baroda

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-12011/27/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 23/2007

BETWEEN—

The Assistant General Secretary,

U.P. Bank of Baroda Employees Union,

C/o Bank of Baroda,

Latouche Road,

Kanpur.

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Regional office,

Gumti No. 5,

Kanpur-208001.

AWARD

Central Govt. MoI, New Delhi vide notification

no. L-12011/27/2007-IR (B-II) dated 04.07.07, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to

this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Boroda in removing Sri Mukesh Sharma,

Assistant, from service vide order no. UPK/31/

HRM/637/1278 dated 11.08.2005 is justified or

legal? if not what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?

At the outset it may be pointed out here that in

the instant case vide order dated 08.03.2010 a

preliminary issue to the effect whether the inquiry

conducted by the opposite party is just & proper?

If not to what relief?

The authorized representative for the workman

on 15.12.2004, very fairly conceded the fairness

of the domestic inquiry and also moved an

application praying therein that he will confine

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3597

his arguments only on the line of section 11-A

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, i.e. quantum of

punishment awarded to the workman.

The undisputed facts of the case is that the

workman was issued a charge sheet dated

8.11.2004 by the disciplinary authority for

committing gross-misconduct and the inquiry

officer after concluding the inquiry submitted his

report to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the

workman was issued a show cause notice dated

30.07.2005 by the disciplinary authority and after

considering the reply of the workman final order

of punishment dated 11.08.2005 was passed by

the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred

by the workman did not find favour at the hands

of the appellate authority who ultimately

dismissed the appeal vide its order dated

02.12.2005.

Being aggrieved by the above orders the workman

has raised the present industrial dispute through

the union of which he was member and has filed

his statement of claim raising a number of grounds

challenging the action of the management.

As stated in the opening paragraph of the award

as the authorized representative for the workman

has conceded the fairness of the inquiry and

submitted that he will confine his argument only

on the point of quantum of punishment awarded

to the workman, therefore, there is hardly any need

to detail the facts of the case as mentioned in the

statement of claim. There is also no necessity to

detail the facts narrated by the opposite party in

the their reply.

However, in the claim statement the legality and

proprietary of the charge sheet has been assailed

by the workman on the ground that as the

disciplinary authority without inviting the reply

to the charge sheet from the workman and without

considering the same has appointed enquiry

officer and presenting officer in the charge sheet

itself which shows that the mind of the disciplinary

authority was clouded with bias against the

workman and is in violation of the provision of

para 19.1 of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66

which clearly provide that an opportunity is

required to be given to the workman to reply the

charge memo.

The opposite party in 9 of their reply to the above

allegations of the workman has asserted that the

workman was advised that if he desires he may

submit his written statement before the inquiry

officer and as the misconduct committed by the

workman and admitted by him was of grave nature

hence he was rightly awarded punishment by the

disciplinary authority.

10.

The representative for the management vide

application dated 19.01.2009 has filed 13

documentys relevancy of which will be discussed

in the body of the award at the appropriate stage.

11.

By a bare perusal of the charges sheet dated

08.11.2004, it is quite obvious that the workman

was charged on 6 counts viz, (i) you remained on

unauthorized absence for 36 days without

obtaining prior permission and proper sanction;

(ii) you committed acts prejudicial to the interest

of the bank which are acts of Gross-misconduct

under clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement; (iii)

you committed willful insubordination of lawful

and reasonable order of your Br. Head; (iv) you

are highly irregular in attending duty; (v) you are

negligent in performing duties and (vi) you have

given false statement to the bank.

12.

I have arguments of the parties at length and have

carefully gone through the whole records of the

case.

13.

The representative for the workman has fairly

contended that the workman had admitted all the

charges in writing before the enquiry officer on

26.04.05, which was taken non record by the

enquiry officer. On 12.01.15, the above document

was admitted by the representative for the

workman as well as by the workman himself by

endorsing that the documents is admitted to him.

14.

It was further submitted by the auth.

Representative for the workman that initially the

workman was appointed a peon in the bank and

later on he was promoted as a clerk and as the

entire routine work of the bank switched over to

computer system, he was not able to perform the

work on computer system, therefore, this Hon'ble

tribunal in exercise of its powers conferred upon

it under section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, may award any lesser punishment that was

awarded to the workman by demoting him at the

post of messenger.

15.

On the other hand it was contended by the

representative for the bank that the workman is

habitual of remaining on unauthorized absence

from duties without any sanctioned leave and or

peremission of the competent authority; that other

acts of misconduct are also in the nature of gross-

misconduct and as whole charges have been

admitted by the workman without any demur,

therefore, it is not a fit case where this tribunal

should exercise its jurisdiction under section

11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the

claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

3598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

16.

I have given my due consideration to the rival

arguments advanced by the representatives for

the parties in the light of allegations of charges.

In Para 3 of the charge sheet in a very clear term it

has been mentioned that youwere in the habit of

refusing to carry out the duties assigned to you

under the pretext that you do not know how to

carryout the work assigned to you. When duties

relating to realization of OBCs was assigned, you

refused to do it saying that you do not know how

to do that work. You were therefore taught by the

Branch Manager for a period of 15 to 20 days

ending on 18.10.2003 how to realise OBCs.

However, you refused to carry out work allotted

to you.

17.

By the above conduct of the workman as depicted

in the charge sheet one and only one inference

that can be drawn is that after receiving training

at the branch he did not mend himself and

continued repeating disobedience of the orders

of his superiors willingly and knowingly. This is

certainly a very serious act on the part of the

workman which could not be viewed lightly for

any reasons what so ever. It is a matter of common

knowledge that day to day working in bank is of

an important nature and if a man like the workman

is allowed to remain in the service of the bank, I

am afraid that the entire work of the branch would

be badly hampered causing great prejudice to the

constituents of the bank. Therefore, I am not

convinced with the arguments of the

representative for the workman that the workman

be awarded lesser punishment of demoting him at

the post of peon.

18.

There is yet another aspect of the matter for which

tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction in the

present case under section 11-A of the Act. I have

gone through provision of rule governing the

service condition of the workman and find that

there is no provision that the workman may be

demoted at the post of peon even by disciplinary

authority what to say for Industrial Tribunal. As

such I do not find any merit in these arguments as

it is beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions

of service rule.

19.

The representative for the bank has also invited

attention of the tribunal towards paper no. 14/16

in which kind of assignment of work has been

mentioned and it was argued that Sri Mukesh

Sharma was assigned the work of preparing of

dak, work of cash sorting and the workman did

not perform the work till 2.00 p.m. and he was

reminded orally in this regard by the branch

manager still he did not perform the work and

spent time in the bank without work. He was

questioned as to why he did not comply with the

orders; his reply was that he did not know the

work of cash shorting.

20.

It is also crystal clear from the admission made by

workman during inquiry wherein he as admitted

all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet and

submitted that he being sub staff to clerical

promotee he is not well worsed in the job of

accounts department so mistakes and delay are

bound to occur. It shows that the workman is not

fit to be retained in service as clerk as after having

training by Branch Manager he is not well worsed

with the job of clerk in the bank and if a person

after having training of work commits willful

disobedience and considering that job of clerk

carrier much more responsibility as transaction of

public money is involved. Therefore, person like

workman failed to show any reason to allow

himself to be retained in bank service.

21.

From the charge sheet it is crystal clear that the

workman was given training by the branch

manager but neither he was serious nor sincere in

the work allotted to him and he has committed

disobedience willfully and deliberately with a view

to avoid the work assigned to him.

22.

A person like the workamn cannot be adjusted in

the service of the bank as it is established from

the charge sheet and from the admission of

charges by the workman that he never remained

serious in his work, therefore, it is held that he

was rightly punished by the disciplinary authority

for the admitted charges.

23.

The disciplinary authority while punishment

order has already taken a lenient view in the matter

of award of punishment and had punished the

workman by way of removal from service with

superannuation benefits.

24.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances

of the case the tribunal is not inclined to interfere

with the punishment awarded to the workman.

25.

Accordingly my award is that the workman is not

entitled for any relief cfonsequently reference is

decided against the worker and in favour of the

bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1712-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3599

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 83@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@03@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour

court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of the Central Bank of

India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/03/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 83/2012

BETWEEN—

The Rakesh Kumar Sharma,

Son of late Basant Lal Sharma,

Resident of Kamla Bazar,

Sasni,

Mahamayanagar, U.P.

And

The Zonal Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal office,

Sanjai Place, Agra.

AWARD

Central Govt. MoI, New Delhi vide notification

no. L-12012/03/2012-IR (B-II) dated 21.09.2012, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to

this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Agra in terminating the services/

Agency of Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma son of Late

Basant Lal Sharma workman with effect 16.04.09

is jut, legal and fair? if not to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case after exchange of pleadings

between the parties, the representative for the

workman appeared in the case on 09.10.13 and

moved an adjourned application on the ground

that worker is ailing for last several months and

he could not contact to him, therefore, a months

time be allowed for filing rejoinder in the case and

the said application was allowed by the tribunal

as the application was not objected by the bank.

Thereafter several dates were fixed in the case

and even the representative for the workman

attended the hearing of the case on 08.04.15, but

neither had he filed any rejoinder nor document

in support of the case of the workman. Even the

workman also did not attend the proceedings of

the case and ultimately on 23.04.15 the

representative for the workman made an

endorsement on the order sheet of the case that

the concerned workman has not filed any

document, hence bank management does not

want to file any document.

In view of above it is clear that the workman is not

interested in prosecuting his claim before the

tribunal and he deliberately absented in the

proceedings of the case and also did not adduce

any evidence documentary or oral in the case.

Thus virtually it is a case of no evidence and

under the circumstances of the case the tribunal

is left with no other option bait to decide the

reference against the workman for want of

evidence and proof.

Accordingly the action of the management in

terminating the service/agency of the workman

with effect from 16.04.09 is held to be just fair and

legal and the workman is held entitled to no relief

pursuant to the present reference order.

Reference is decided in the above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1713-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds ¼lanHkZ la- 26@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@79@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2013)

3600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Central Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/08/

2015.

[No. L-12011/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 26 of 2013

Between—

Sri R.P. Singh,

State Executive Committee Member,

Central Bank Workers Organization,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh

And

The Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Branch Office,

Sasni,

District Mahamaya Nagar.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no. L-12011/79/2012-IR (B-II) dated

11.03.2013 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Asni Branch in terminating the

service of Sri Sonu alias Sheelendra w.e.f.

December 2011 is just fair and legal? What relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

It is pertinent to mention here that the workman

after exchange of pleadings between the parties

stopped attending the tribunal and on most of

the dates fixed in the case, management

representative remained present in the

proceedings of the case, Neither the union raising

the dispute on behalf of the workman nor the

workman himself filed any document nor any

evidence by workman was adduced. Therefore,

the representative for the management made an

endorsement on the order sheet on 23.04.15 to

the effect that as the concerned workman has not

filed any document hence bank management does

not want to file any document.

Therefore, considering the above facts and

circumstances of the case it is absolutely clear

that it is a case where neither any document has

been filed by the parties nor any oral evidence

has been lead in support of their respective cases.

It is the workman on whom heavy burden lies to

prove his case by adducing cogent and

convincting evidence, but as he failed to adduce

any evidence in the case as well as it is also clear

from the conduct of the workman that he seems

to not interested to press his claim before the

tribunal, under these circumstances of the case,

tribunal is left with no other option but to hold

that the action of the management in terminating

the services of the workman with effect from

December, 2011 is just and fair and he is not

entitled for any relief as claimed by him in his

claim statement for want of evidence and proof.

Therefore, the reference is decided against the

workman and in favor of the bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1714-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn 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; dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 52@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@114@2004&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjhA

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1714.—In pursuance of section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/114/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 2004.

Between

Sri Surendra Prasad Kharwar,

Son of Sri V P Kharwar,

Village & Post Mhandra,

Ghazipur.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3601

AND

The Regional Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Regional Office,

Civil Lines Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no. L-12012/114/2004-IR(B-II) dated

07.10.2004, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the claim of Sri Suresh

Prasad Kharwar that he has been illegally

terminated from the service of Allahabad Bank

with effect from 17.10.94 is legal and justified? If

yes what relief the workman is entitled for?

In short the case of the worker is that he was

engaged by the branch manager on 21.12.84 at

the post of safai karmi under approval and

intimation to the Regional Manager of the Bank

and he worked continuously till 09.08.94 and in

this way he had completed 240 days continuous

service under the opposite party. During the period

of his employment he performed all the work of

permanent nature at the branch and he was also

allowed to sign the attendance register by the

manager of the branch. All of sudden on 17.10.94

he was not taken on job and his name was also

struck off from the muster rull/attendance register

without showing any cogent reasons and also he

was neither offered any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation by the bank at the

time of his termination, therefore, his termination

from service is bad in law as it is in breach of

provisions of section 25F of the Act.

Therefore the workman has prayed that he be

reinstated in service of the bank after setting aside

the termination order of the bank and he be paid

his full back wages and consequential benefits.

The worker along with his claim statement has

also filed certain document in the shape of

photocopies running from paper no. 6/9-39.

The bank has filed its reply wherein the claim of

the workman has been denied vehemently and it

is also prayed that the claim of the worker is

devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and

being so the worker is not entitled for any relief.

From the record it appears that he workman

stopped appearing in the case from 10.09.2010,

when he moved last application for adjournment.

It also appears from the record that worker has

also not adduced his evidence in support of his

claim nor has summoned the original documents

from the management of which either photocopies

or carbon copies have been filed by him.

Therefore, from the conduct of the worker it is

quite clear that the worker is not interested in

prosecuting the present case before the tribunal.

10.

Accordingly an award in the case is passed

against the worker as he appears to be not

interested in pressing the present reference before

this tribunal.

11.

The reference is therefore, answered against the

union holding that they are not entitled for any

relief pursuant to the present reference order.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1715-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

cSsad 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 76@97½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@42@96&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1715.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 76/97)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Punjab National Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/42/96-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA L CUM LABOUR

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 76 of 97

Sri S. K. Sheson,

State Executive Member,

14/123 Krishnapur,

Rajpur Road,

Dehradun.

3602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AND

Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional Office,

156, Civil Lines,

Bareilly.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol. New Delhi vide

Notification No. L-12012/42/96 IR B-II dated 3/

12.05.97 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the Action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in dismissing the service of

Sri R N. Pandey with effect from 13.04.93 is legal

and justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled and from what date?

In short the case of the workman is that at the

relevant time he was posted as Cashier/Godown

Keeper at BO Izatnagar, Bareilly. Workman was

falsely implicated in certain acts of misconduct of

allegedly receiving money from three persons for

depositing the same in the bank against receipts

issued by the workman concerned allegedly under

his signatures with date affixing bank stamp and

not depositing the said money in the bank and

destroying the concerned vouchers without

making entry in cashiers long book, thus allegedly

misappropriating cash amount totaling Rs. 12,200/-

willfully and allegedly destroying bank records.

He has also challenged the action of the bank on

the ground that he was not issued first show cause

notice for providing to explain his conduct prior

to the initiation of contemplated disciplinary action

which shows the mind of the disciplinary authority

was preoccupied. A charge sheet dated 27.08.91

was issued by the Senior Manager without

authority thereby the whole inquiry is vitiated

and is nullity in the eye of law and as such no

punishment can be awarded to the workman. Reply

to the charge sheet was never demanded by the

bank. He was placed under suspension with effect

from 07.01.92. The inquiry officer was bias person

and the proceedings before him were only an

empty formality and findings of the inquiry officer

based on such inquiry which is perverse. The

order of punishment dated 13.04.93 passed by

the disciplinary authority on the basis of invalid

perverse findings of inquiry officer is bad in law

and is liable to be quashed. material prosecution

witnesses were neither produced before the

inquiry officer nor were examined to prove the

charges. He was issued tentative show cause

notice by the disciplinary authority on 23.03.93,

with which copy of inquiry report was not

enclosed. Finally the proposed punishment of

dismissal from service was imposed against him

vide order dated 13.04.93.

On the basis of above it is prayed by the workman

that the punishment of dismissal from service be

set aside and he be reinstated in service with full

back wages, continuity of service and all

consequential benefits.

Opposite party has filed its reply against the claim

of the worker in which it is pleaded that the

workman was issued charge sheet by the bank

for gross misconduct as defined in para 19.5 (j) of

Bipartite Settlement and after holding departmental

inquiry punishment of dismissal from service was

awarded to the workman from 13.04.93 after

providing him personal hearing by the disciplinary

authority. During personal hearing the workman

expressed his regret. Workman had not submitted

any reply against charge sheet issued to him for

his gross misconduct. Punishment order passed

by the disciplinary authority is just, proper and in

accordance with the law and no prejudice can be

said to have been caused to the workman.

Workman was given full opportunity for his

defense by the inquiry officer and the charges

were found to have been proved against the

workman by the inquiry officer in his report. The

management has therefore, requested that the

claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being

devoid of merit and the workman is not entitled

for any relief in the circumstances of the case.

It is pertinent to mention here that none of the

parties have adduced oral evidence in the case,

rather the bank has produced entire file relating

to the disciplinary action held against the

workman.

From perusal of records it appears that the parties

are not responding in this case since 24.10.03,

after issuing fresh notices and representative for

the bank appeared on 26.08.13 and 24.09.13 and

thereafter he also stopped coming in the case.

Previous to this the case was fixed for arguments

in the year 2007 but parties did not appear in the

case.

It appears that parties have no interest in the case,

therefore, file was perused.

10.

On perusal of record it appears that in this case

award was made on 21.06.97 against the workman

for want of claim statement. Thereafter on the

application of the workman award was recalled

by the tribunal vide order dated 02.04.98.

Thereafter the management challenged the order

setting aside the award before Hon'ble High Court

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3603

Allahabad in CMWP No. 43328 of 98 which was

decided by Hon'ble High Court on 18.12.98 with

the direction to the tribunal that tribunal shall give

a fresh look to the matter in view of decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court and pass order after hearing

the counsel of the parties and order dated 02.11.98

shall stand in abeyance. Thereafter, on the

application of the bank, the bank was asked to file

application against restoration application moved

by the worker and that the matter was decided by

order dated 13.11.03 and order dated 02.11.98 was

maintained and the management was given time

to file written statement. Thereafter several

opportunities were given for adducing evidence

to the parties but one of them adduced evidence.

As discussed earlier thereafter parties did not

appear to adduce their submission even after

giving notices. As the case is critically old it was

fixed for award after perusal of record.

11.

As the instant case is a case of dismissal of the

workman after holding disciplinary inquiry and it

is also alleged in the claim statement that inquiry

was done arbitrarily and against the rules of

natural justice but none appeared on behalf of

the workman to make any submission for holding

inquiry as vitiated by making any submission.

12.

In the reply filed by the management it is alleged

that the workman was served with charge sheet

dated 27.08.91 for gross misconduct under para

19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement. He was give

reasonable opportunity to file reply, he participated

in the inquiry and was given all opportunity to

place his defense. On conclusion of inquiry, report

was submitted by the inquiry officer to the

disciplinary authority. Concurring with the

findings of the inquiry officer the disciplinary

authority issued show-cause notice to the

workman proposing punishment of dismissal from

service. It was also stated that bank is likely to

recover the amount of loss suffered by the bank

on the part of Sri Pandey. He was also given

opportunity of personal hearing wherein worker

expressed his regrets. Keeping in view the gravity

of charges proved against the workman inasmuch

as he had not only embazzled public fund but

also destroyed the banks record, the disciplinary

authority confirmed the punishment proposed by

order dated 13.04.93. Appeal against it also stands

rejected by the appellate authority after giving

him personal hearing.

13.

On perusal of inquiry file filed by the management,

I find averments made in written statement as

mentioned above are correct and Sri Pandey was

given all natural and probable opportunity in his

defense by the inquiry officer. Therefore, it is held

that inquiry conducted by the bank against the

workman is just, fair and proper and also I do not

find any reason to disturb the punishment awarded

to the workman which appears to be

commensurate with the gravity of misconduct

proved against the workman.

14.

For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the

action of the management in dismissing Sri R. N.

Pandey from bank service is neither illegal nor

unjust. Worker is therefore, held entitled to no

relief.

15.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the

bank and against the workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1716-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 12012@69@2008&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Govenment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2009) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus.-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the management of Corporation Bank and their

workmen, reveived by the Central Government on 19/08/

2015.

[No. L-12012/69/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMANT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 17 of 2009

Between:

Shri Pappu Ram Meena,

S/o Shri Shiv Lal Meena,

C/o Shri Devi Singh Dhakarti,

R/o 4/20, C-4 Sjanker Colony, Near Tehsil Sadar,

Agra.

And

3604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The Assistant General Manager,

Zonal Office,

1-1/F Ashok Marg,

Near Nishatganj, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow-226001

AWARD

Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12012/69/2008 IR(B-II) dated

06.02.2009, has referred the following disput for

adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of

Corporation Bank, Agra in refuging Shri Pappu

Ram Meena, sub staff from the service with effect

from 23.07.07 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

It is claimed by the workman that on 10.06.2004,

he was engaged by the bank as subordinate staff

and worked continously till 23.07.07, i.e., more than

240 days of continuous service, when the bank

abruptly terminated his services without any

notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation

and in this way the bank did not complied with

the provisions of section 25F of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, and thereby the workman has

claimed his reinstatement with full back wages,

continuity of service and all consequential

benefits, as the action of the opposite party bank

is in utter disregard of the provisions of the Act.

The opposite party has denied the claim of the

workman. It is alleged by the opposite party that

the bank has prepared a panel for engaging sub

staff on temporary basis against vacancy caused

due to leave/death of staff according to need

basis. There is a specific procedure followed by

the bank for empanelling a person in the daily

wages as temporary employee panel and after the

name of the workman was sponsored from the

local employment exchange, he was interviewed

and his name appeared at serial No. 1 of the panel

list. the workman was not a permanent employee

of the bank and he was paid his wages on daily

wage basis. It is also alleged by the bank that

temporary employees are engaged to meet out

the exigencies as and when required. His

engagement was for a specific work for specified

period and when the work entrusted to the

workman was completed his engagement

automatically comes to an end and non-renewal

of the same is not retrenchment within the meaning

of the Act. When the contractual period of

employment came to an end contract of

employment automatically came to an end,

therefore, the workman is not entitled for the

protection of the provisions of section 25F of the

Act. Opposite party has not committed any

illegality in the case of the workman. Therefore,

the workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed

by him in the present claim petition and the claim

of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

Workman has filed his rejoinder but nothing new

has been pleaded therein except reiterating the

averments of the statement of claim.

The workman vide paper No. 7/1 dated 06.01.2010,

has filed 12 documents. All these papers are in

the shape of photocopies.

The opposite party vide application dated

18.3.2010, has filed 4 docuemnts viz. photocopy

of letter of empanelment of temporary sub staff at

Agra, photocopy of letter dated 19.09.06 from

Chief Manager to Sernior Manager, photocopy

of letter from Chief Manager to the Senior

Manager which is dated 17.02.2007 and lastly

photocopy of letter dated 26.06.09 i.e. circular

modification in the bank's recruitment policy

procedure of temporary staff.

Apart from above, in support of his claim the

workman examined himself a WW.1 whereas the

opposite party examined Shri Saroj Kumar Raoot

as MW1 in support of their case.

The workman in his examination in chief has stated

that he was engaged on 10.06.2006 as sub staff

under the opposite party bank and he performed

all the work of subordinate staff in the branch. He

stated that his name was sponsored from the

employment exchange and after written test and

interview and after holding of recruitment process

letter was received by him. He was told by the

branch manager that in all four candidates

including him has been declared successful. He

was removed from service on 23.07.07. At the time

of his removal he was neither given any notice,

notice pay or retrenchment compensation and that

he continuously worked from the date of his

engagement till the date of removal from the

service. In his evidence the witness has also

detailed the documents photocopies of which

were filed by him. Witness has further stated that

after removal of his service from the bank he tried

his best to search some alternate employment but

could not get success and that he is unemployed

till date.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3605

10.

In his cross-examination the witness has admitted

that like other regular sub staff of the branch he

was also getting his wages on minimum of pay

scale and that his basic pay was Rs. 4000-6000

and also that in all he was getting Rs. 6200/- as

wages per month. Witness has also admitted that

he had not filed any documents in support of his

contention as no documents were provided to

him by the bank. Since his services were not

confirmed therefore, he was not provided uniform

by the bank. How many kinds of leave are in the

bank he does not know. To a specific question

put by the representative for the bank whether or

not he ever received any letter whereby he was

regularised in the service of the bank. The witness

replied in affirmative and by looking paper No. 6

he stated that it is a paper. Witness has admitted

that in the document no where it is mentioned

that he will be confirmed and regularized in the

service of the bank. Mukesh was interviewed

along with him and he is still working in the bank

and was regularized in the service of the bank in

2004, but he has not filed any documents relating

to confirmation in service of Mukesh. For

collecting the clearing cheques one Shri Ram

Prakash was there, who was regular employee of

the bank. During the period 10.06.2004 to 23.07.07,

there were two regular and permanent sub staff

were there one was Ram Prakash and second was

Mukesh. He denied the suggestion of the bank

as to who was performing the work of cash on the

ground that he is not able to collect his memory.

Witness has admitted paper No. 3 which is marked

as Ext. M-1 which is dated 21.11.2003 and from

this letter it is very much clear that three other

persons figured in the document but none of them

were given employment by the bank. Witness has

tried to prove the document was were filed by him

are in the shape of photocopies. Why originals of

the same has not been filed nor were summoned

by the workman remained unexplained by the

workman.

11.

Management witness in his evidence has stated

that for seeking employment in the bank, bank

has got its own procedure. A regular employee

going on leave or dies then temporary engagement

are done in the bank. Witness has admitted that

the workman was engaged on temporary basis as

casual labour on the vacancy fell vacant on

proceeding leave by regualr employee of the

branch and death of employee. Workman was

offered appointment letter for fixed period and

last extended period of employment of the

workman is from 01.07.07 to 22.07.07. After expiry

of this period the workman was never appointed

by the bank.

12.

In his cross-examination the witness has admitted

that the workman was appointed as temporary

sub staff. He was appointed after following the

due procedure. In the appointment letter there is

not mention that his appointment is for fixed term

nor there is any such document which shows that

he was appointed for fixed period and workman

was appointed in June 2004. Witness has denied

the suggestion that he was appointed on 10.04.04.

Witness admitted the attendance register and

stated that by a bare perusal of the register it is

clear that there is break in service for a day or two

in a month. He has further admitted the fact that

the claimant was not given any retrenchment

compensation, notice or notice pay. He further

admitted that when there was no work or he was

not required to work he was relieved from the

service. Today there are 80 branches of the bank,

whereas in 2007 there were 30 branches and it is

correct to say that temporary and regular

employees are working as sub staff.

13.

I have heard the arguments of the contesting

parties in detail and have also perused the whole

record carefully.

14.

Learned representative for the workman

contended that the name of the workman was

figured in the penal prepared by the opposite party

for providng employment in branches at Agra, as

temporary sub staff and in furtherance of the same

the workman was appointed as sub staf on

10.06.2004 and continued to work up to 23.07.2007,

when the bank terminated the service of the

workman without complying with the provisions

of Section 25F of the Act, inasmuch as the workman

was neither offered notice, notice pay nor the

retrenchment compensation, therefore, the action

of the management in terminating the service of

the workman is bad in law and therefore, the action

is liable to be set aside.

15.

The representative for the opposite party bank

has contended that the workman was engaged

purely on temporary basis to meet out the work

as per exigencies of work and according to the

need of the bank and also that the engagement of

the workman was for fixed term which was

extended from time to time, therefore, the

disengagement of the workman with effect from

23.07.07 could not be termed to be a case of

3606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

retrenchment considering the provisions of

section 2 (oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

which clearly envisages that non renewal of term

of employment would not constitute retrenchment

of a worker.

16.

To prove the fact that the workman has rendered

more than 240 days of continuous service

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of

termination, the workman in his evidence has

stated that he was engaged by the opposite party

on 10.06.04 and continued to work till 23.07.07

and in this way had completed 240 days of

continuous service. In his evidence he has also

stated that his name figured in the penal prepared

by the bank for providing temporary appointment

as sub staff. He has also drawn my attention to

the paper No. 8/2 of the list of documents of the

management. This document is dated 21.03.03,

on the subject of temporary sub staff for Agra

Branches. This letter is written by the Chief

Manager of the bank at Agra which was addressed

to the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office,

Agra, whereby the Lucknow office of the bank

was informed that the name of the following

candidates empanelled as temporary sub staff. In

this letter the name of the workman is appearing

at serial No. 1.

17.

Witness has further stated that at the time of

interview the Assistant General Manager of the

bank was also present and after being declared

successful he received a letter and he was also

informed by the manager of the branch that along

with him three more candidates were selected out

of total candidates interviewed. No notice, notice

pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to

him by the opposite party at the time of terminating

his service.

18.

Workman has also filed photocopy of attendance

12/1 to 12/38. The witness has proved the

attendance register through his oral evidence. I

have also perused the attendance register and

find that the workman has signed the attendance

on 10.06.04 and last one appears on 21.07.07. My

attention has also been drawn to document No.

4/1-2 which is a letter dated 22.01.2004 addressed

to Sernior Manager, Agra Branch. The letter

leveals that empanelled candidates have to be

offered temporary engagement, in serial order, only

during leave/absence of regular peon at your

branch. Candidate at serial No. 1 has to be given

temporary engagement first. In case he is not

available then the next candidate may be offered

temporary engagement. The appointment orders

for temporary engagement has to be issued I the

prescribed format.

19.

Worker has also filed vouchers through which he

was paid his salary by the branch. From perusal

of payment voucher it reveals that the workman

was paid his wages not for whole month but for

the days he was present in the branch. Document

No. 7/8 is the payment voucher for the month of

February 06 which reveals that the workman in

that month was paid salary only for 29 days.

Likewise the workman has filed payment vouchers

till 31.07.07 and from salary voucher dated 31.07.07

it is quite clear that the workman in the month of

July, 07, has been paid his salary worth Rs. 4510.26

paisa only for 22 days. From the salary vouchers

it is also clear that on some vouchers reasons for

his engagement has been shown to be the death

of permanent sub staff and on some occasion

that is in the month of March 06, workman was

engaged against one vacancy.

20.

Management witness also in his evidence has

stated that in the bank temporary arrangement for

making temporary appointment is done only one

any regular and permanent sub staff proceeds on

leave or vacancy caused due to death of regular

and permanent staff. MW-1 in his evidence has

also corroborated the documentary evidence filed

by the opposite party bank. Witness has also

admitted the attendance register filed by the

workman. In his cross examination the witness

has clearly admitted that the worker has worked

for 240 days till the date of his termination.

MW-1 has also admitted that the workman was

not given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation at the time of dispensation of his

service by the bank. In his chief the witness has

stated that the worker had not worked

continuously during the period June 2004 to July

2007. He goes on to state that wherever any new

branch is opened panel for providing temporary

engagement are prepared to engage them for

performing the work of regular and permanent staff

proceeding on leave.

21.

After giving my anxious consideration to the facts

of the case, there remains no dispute that the

worker was engaged from the penal of selected

candidate for performing the job of such regular

and permanent employees who either proceed on

leave or on account of death of permanent

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkkæ 7] 1937

3607

employee. The fact that he worker was engaged

against vacancies caused in the branch due to

death of permanent sub staff is very much clear

from the payment vouchers filed by the worker. It

is also proved that the worker had worked

contnuously for 240 days proceeding 12 calendar

months from the date of his termination. It is also

proved that the worker has not been given any

notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation

at the time of his teronination.

22.

Now considering the pleadings of the parties

coupled with evidence oral as well as

documentary, question arises of determination,

having regard to the arguments advanced by the

representative for the opposite party that the

present case is fully covered under the provisions

of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, therefore, worker

could not be held entitled for any relief as claimed

by him.

23.

Admittedly as has been come out from the

documentary evidence filed by the workman it is

amply clear that the worker had not been

appointed like a regular and permanent employee

of the bank. Rather from the payment vouchers

filed by the workman it is clear that his

appointment was for fixed term for each month

and therein reason for his engagement has also

been mentioned. This fact has also been

corroborated by the witness of the management

that the worker had not worked contiuously during

the relevant period.

24.

Therefore, considering the overall aspect of the

case, it is held that the engagement of the

workman during the period from June 4 to July 7

was for fixed term against vacancy caused due to

death of regular and permanent sub staff of the

bank. It is settled legal position that where

temporary appointment or otherwise are liable to

came to an end by efflux of time in such cases

provision of section 25 F of the Act remains silent

and in such cases worker is not entitled for any

notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation

as provided under the Act. Therefore, if the worker

had not been given any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation by the bank at the

time of his dispensation from the service,

irrespective of the fact that he has been found to

have worked continuously for more than 240 days,

to my considered view weighing the legal position

as provided under the Act, no illegality can be

said to be committed by the opposite party

bank.

25.

The authorized representative for the workman

has placed reliance on the following citations—

(a) 2014 AIR SCW 3157 Supreme Court.

(b) 2010(125) FLR 629 Supreme Court.

(d) 2007 1 SCC (L&S) 961 Supreme Court.

(e) 2005 (105) FLR 383 Supreme Court.

(f) 2003 (93) FLR 79 Rajasthan High Court.

(g) 1999 LAB IC 1125 Supreme Court.

26.

With due respect to the Hon'ble Courts, I am not

convinced with the citation relied upon by the

representative for the worker because the present

case is fully covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of

the Act as from the oral as well as documentary

evidence it is proved that the worker was engaged

from time to time during the period in question

against vacancy caused due to death of a regular

and permanent sub staff working at the branch at

Agra.

27.

Next it will be examined as to whether or not the

present case is a case covered under section 2-A

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering the

language of the reference order which envisages

“whether the action of the management of

Corporation Bank of Agra in refusing Sri Papoo

Ram Meena, sub staff, peon the service....What

relief the workman concerned is entitled? As per

definition of section 2-A of the Act it is clear that

the cases of individuals relating to dismissal,

termination, removal etc., are covered under the

provision of the Act, but to refusing service by

the management cannot fall under the definition

of section 2-A of the Act. From the entire pleadings

and evidence of the workman it is clear that he

has treated his case to be a case of termination

from service and accordingly sought the relief of

reinstatement, but has not whispered even a

single word either in his pleading or his evidence

that the management had at any point of time

refused him to provide service at the post of sub

staff.

28.

Therefore, at any rate it cannot be said that the

workman is entitled for any relief as claimed by

him pursuant to the present reference order and

reference is bound to be decided against him.

29.

Accordingly reference is answered against the

workman and in favour of the opposite party.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

3608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1717-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-08-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@104@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management of Central Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/104/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDR KUMAR, HJS PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29 of 2009

Sri Budhha Lal,

Son of Late Sri Bachchan Lal,

Village & Post Dahgaon,

District Auraiya (U.P.)

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

125, Civil Lines,

Etawah. U.P.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-12012/104/2008-IR (B-II) dated

13.05.2009, has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of the

Central Bank of India, Regional Office Etawah, from

dismissing Sri Budhha Lal Daftari of Central Bank of India,

Kanchausi Bazar Branch Etawah from the bank service vide

order dated 03.08.2007 of disciplinary authority and

Regional Manager Central Bank of India, Regional Office

Etawah and upholding the same by the appellate authority

and assistant General Manager Central Bank of India Zonal

Office, Agra vide order dated 11.02.2008 is legal and justified.

What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

3. In short the case of workman Sri Budhha Lal is that

he was serving a permanent worker with designation as

Daftari at branch office Kachousi Bazar District Auraiya, in

Central Bank of India. Unfortunately on 09.11.2006 an

incident of loot committed by some miscreants in morning

hours at the branch and an amount of Rs. 795850 lying in

cash safe was reportedly find removed taken away and an

FIR was lodged. The workman was placed under

suspension vide memo dated 05.12.06. The workman replied

the gyapan of the management vide his letter dated 30.11.06

in connection with the incident of loot in the branch and

subsequently workman was served with charge sheet dated

12.03.07 by the disciplinary authority. Sri D. K. Jain Senior

Manager conducted inquiry as inquiry officer and submitted

his findings dated 19.06.07, copy of the inquiry finding

was also delivered to the workman vide letter dated 28.06.07.

He was issued proposed punishment vide letter dated

23.07.07 by the disciplinary authority and ultimately he

was removed from service by the disciplinary authority

vide order dated 03.08.07 and aggrieved by the punishment

the workman preferred appeal before the appellate authority

wherein the punishment awarded to the workman was

confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated

11.02.08 after granting personal hearing to the workman.

4. The workman has assailed the action of the

opposite party on the ground that he was placed under

suspension without any cogent reason, the workman was

totally innocent as none of act of omission or commission

relating to the incident of dacoity/loot/removal of banks

cash was attributable to the workman and charge as framed

are based on unfounded facts, presumptions and

assumptions and after thoughts drawn without any

involvement on the part of the workman, none of the

allegations prima-facie deserves to be classified as charges

in the referred clause and the allegations if at all to be

classified falls in the nature of unpunctual or irregular

attendance with is codified under clause 7(b) of the referred

settlement as minor misconduct, the punishment of removal

from the service is in violation of service rules and lastly it

is stated that the punishment awarded to the workman is

absolutely without proper application of mind.

5. On the basis of above, the workman has prayed

that the punishment awarded to him be set aside and he be

reinstated in service with full back wages, continuity of

service and all consequential benefits be also provided to

him.

6. The opposite party has challenged the claim of the

workman on a number of grounds admitting the incident of

loot on 09.11.06. The management has also admitted that

the workman was issued charge sheet, inquiry was

conducted against him inquiry officer submitted his finding

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3609

holding the workman guilty of charges, and after providing

opportunity of hearing to the workman the proposed

punishment of dismissal from service was up held by the

disciplinary authority and appeal too did not find favour at

the hands of the appellate authority.

7. It is stated by the management that the workman

at each and every stage was given full opportunity in his

defense and the management during the course of conduct

of inquiry fully followed the rules of natural justice and

rules governing the disciplinary action. It is also stated by

the bank that the claimant was fully responsible for the

incident of loot and he was rightly charge sheeted by the

disciplinary authority. The inquiry finding does not suffer

from any infirmity as the inquiry officer has appreciated

the evidence brought on record with open mind which was

accepted by the disciplinary authority. There is no illegality

if the workman was held guilty of the charges by the inquiry

officer. Lastly it is prayed by the management that it is

totally fit case, where the action of the management is liable

to be approved holding that the workman is not entitled for

any relief as claimed by him.

8. Rejoinder has been filed by the workman But

therein nothing new has been pleaded except reiterating

the plea of claim statement. In support of his claim the

workman has filed whole enquiry papers including charge

sheet, proceedings of inquiry, inquiry findings, final order

and appellate order etc., vide letter dated 19.01.2011 which

is paper No. 8/1-2. In all workman has filed 13 documents

relevancy of which will be examined at the appropriate

stage.

9. After exchange of pleadings the parties on

20.09.2011 the tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to

whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the

management is just and fair, if not to what relief?

10. On 07.01.15, the representative for the workman

made an endorsement on the order sheet to the effect that

he is not pressing the preliminary issue and thereafter,

arguments in the case were heard.

11. Representative for the workman cited a case law

of Hon'ble High Court 2004(4) AWC 3331 Canara Bank

Lucknow versus PO CGIT and others wherein the Hon'ble

High Court, Allahabad, has held that labour court after

finding that the disciplinary inquiry was valid and proper

can re-appreciate evidence and record its own finding for

satisfying itself whether the evidence relied upon by the

employer establishes the misconduct alleged to be

committed by the delinquent employee.

12. I have perused the whole enquiry file which

reveals that 4 charges were framed against the worker under

different heads and inquiry officer in his finding has found

charge No. 3 as not proved and for charge No. 2, the worker

was dismissed from service without notice and for charge

Nos. 1 and 4 which was found proved against the worker

he was awarded punishment of reduction of two stages in

time scale of pay for a period of 2 years.

13. Therefore, considering the reference order that it

has been referred to find out the action of the opposite

party in dismissing the worker from service is just fair and

legal, as such since worker was dismissed from the service

of the bank on proved misconduct against charge No. 2, so

the tribunal is confining its findings only on charge No. 2,

because the worker has already been suitably dealt with

charge Nos. 1 and 4. Even otherwise I have also gone

through the finding of the inquiry officer on charge Nos. 1

and 4 and I do not find any error therein. Therefore, the

punishment awarded to the workman on charge Nos. 1 and

4 is approved and confirmed.

14. Charge No. 2 read as under—

15. Dinank 09.11.2006 ko ghatna ke samai lootero ke

dhamkane par tatkalin shakha prabandhak Sri Sohan Lal

Dwar Ashakha ke safe ki ek chabi unke brief case me rakhi

hone ki jankari di gai thi tatha dusari chabi Sri Sohan Lal

Dwar Ashakha ke head cashier Sri Ram Ratan ke paas hona

badmasho ko bataya gaya tha. Iske bawjood bhi Gopniya

dhang se almari me rakhi hui safe ki doosari chabi nikalkar

Sri Bhudhha Lal dwara lootero ke samne bina kisi pratirodh

ke safe khol diya gaya usme se looterey bank ka Rs. 795850/

- le jaane me safal huye. Unke is kratya ke karan unke ooper

karmkaro ke liye anushashnatmak karwahi prakariya par

samjhouta gyapan dinank 10.04.2002 ke para 5(J) ke antargat

ghor kadachar ki shrei me ata hai jiske liye unhey aaropit

kiya jata hai.

16. It is alleged by the representative for the

management that Branch Manager Sri Sohan Lal has given

information one key of the safe which was kept in his brief

case and for the second key of the safe he told the dacoits

that it is lying with head cashier Sri Ram Ratan. Despite

this worker without any resistance took out the second

key of the safe and opened the locker due to which dacoits

were able to make dacoity of Rs. 795850/- kept in the safe.

In this connection it is not found during the whole inquiry

that worker has any connivance with the dacoits or he has

helped the dacoits in any other way.

17. It is admitted by M.W. 1 Sri Praveen Kumar Goel

that on 09.11.06 bank was opened at 8.45 a.m. and he has

started his work and at that very time 5 dacoits entered in

the branch and roped branch manager and himself and

asked about the key on gun point. Branch Manager had

informed them that one key is lying in his brief case and for

about the second key, dacoits on extending threat to kill

the worker and the branch manager sought information

and by getting opened the safe by the worker looted cash

and roped the worker also. He has also answered question

No. 7 by stating that while working in the bank he felt some

pressure on his neck and at gun point he was beaten and

tied with rope and closing his mouth by dirty clothes and

3610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

threaten him to kill him if he moves from his place. Thereafter

other dacoits brought branch manager Sohan Lal and asked

about the keys. Branch Manager told them that one key is

kept in his brief case and the other is with head cashier.

After some time he heard some noise and somebody called

manager sahib, manager sahib ji, Sri Sohan Lal ji and also

so many people gathered there. They found Sri Sohan Lal

and Budhha Lal both are lying roped outside the branch.

18. From the other evidence recorded by inquiry

officer during domestic inquiry, it is very much clear that

dacoits after entering in the bank tied the branch manager

and Assistant Branch Manager by ropes and took one key

of the safe on gun point by threatening branch manager

and as M.W.1 accepted in his evidence, the information

regarding other key was given by Budhha Lal when dacoits

extended threats to kill branch manager and worker. Dacoits

also tide branch manager and worker outside room where

Assistant Branch Manager was also kept roped by the

dacoits and their ropes were opened by the villagers who

entered in the bank after commission of dacoity. There is

no evidence that dacoits were known to the worker or the

workman had any connivance in the commission of dacoity.

19. Budhha Lal was a sub staff in the branch. Definitely

his intelligence cannot be rated at par with branch manager

or Assistant Branch Manager. Even branch manager has

given information regarding first key of safe kept in his

brief case and when dacoits extended threat to kill branch

manager and the worker on gun point, it cannot be accepted

that worker deliberately and knowingly gave information

regarding second key. When a person is on gun point it

cannot be expected from him that he will remain calm and in

natural common sense, when he is facing fear of death of

branch manage and himself. Under such circumstances a

person of poor i.q. will do anything to save himself by

giving information regarding second key appears to be

natural phenomena of saving himself without supposing

the reaction of it, his act of giving information regarding

second key and opening safe is not deliberate.

20. This fact has also been admitted by the worker in

his report given to Regional Manager on the same day

when dacoity was committed at the branch that dacoits at

gun point got information regarding first key from branch

manager and dacoits also beaten him and threatened to kill

the branch manager. He under fear gave information

regarding second key and they also forced him to open the

safe and took cash and tied him with rope. It can be held

that under fear of death and on receiving threats to kill

branch manager and the worker, he might have thought

that by giving information regarding second key their lives

can be saved and a person of the category of peon can do

the same in the circumstances developed at the time of

dacoity. He has not deliberately done any act of help the

dacoits rather he was forced to given the information

regarding second key and to open the safe under the fear

of his death and other staff.

21. It can be held that he was slightly negligent at the

time of commission of dacoity. Had he thought of the

consequences by applying common sense he would have

never provided information to the dacoits regarding second

key of the safe.

22. As far as the fact regarding not raising of alarm of

the bank at the time of dacoity, firstly it was not possible

for worker due to fear and circumstances at the time of

dacoity and he was also found tied by ropes and secondly

there was no electricity in the branch at the time of dacoity

and this fact finds place in the report dated 09.11.06 paper

No. 8/100 and Ext. M-7 of domestic inquiry. It is a report

signed and sent by Sri Praveen Kumar Goel ABM-2 to

Regional Manager, Agra, regarding commission of dacoity.

23. The opposite party in paragraph No. 24 of their

written statement has admitted the fact that the branch

manager after completion of inquiry has been awarded the

punishment of "Reduction by 5 stages of time scale of pay

for a period of 2 years".

24. In view of above observations, I find it to be fit

case where tribunal can exercise its power under section

11-A of the act and can award lesser punishment than the

dismissal as provided under disciplinary rules having

regard to the gravity of charges found proved against the

workman by the tribunal.

25. It is admitted by the management in paragraph 24

of their written statement that inquiry was also held against

the branch manager and after completion of inquiry he has

been awarded of reduction by 5 stages of time scale pay

for a period of 2 years who is said to have given information

regarding first key of the safe to the dacoits. Branch

Manager is the head of the branch and has much more

responsibility than Sri Budhha Lal workman. In the case of

the worker it is alleged that he has given information

regarding second key of the safe and open the safe under

fear of death. Therefore when the punishment awarded to

the branch manager is compared with the punishment

awarded to the workman, it appears that the punishment of

dismissal from service inflicted upon the workman is neither

just nor legal because it is quite disproportionate to the

gravity of charges proved against him.

26. Therefore, under the fact and circumstances of

the case, the tribunal is of the view that justice would be

met if the workman is awarded punishment of stoppage of

three increments permanently for proved misconduct

against him and with this punishment the worker is liable

to be reinstated in service at the post from where he was

dismissed with full back wages, continuity of service and

all consequential benefits.

27. Accordingly order dated 03.08.07 passed by the

disciplinary authority dismissing the workman from service

without notice and order dated 11.02.08 of the appellate

authority whereby he had confirmed the dismissal of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3611

workman from the service are hereby set aside and the

worker is reinstated in the service of the bank on the basis

of above observations concluded by the tribunal with

punishment of stoppage of 3 increments permanently, with

full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential

benefits.

28. Reference is therefore, answered in favour of the

worker and against the opposite party.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1718-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ fizTe

lhesUV fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

29@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@24@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 29/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Prism Cement Ltd. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

21/08/2015.

[No. L-29012/24/2009-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/29/2010

Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey,

S/o Shri Shivlakhanprasad Pandey,

Muktyarganj

Satna (MP) ...

... Workman

Versus

Joint General Manager (IR),

Prasim Cement Ltd.,

Village Manakhari,

Distt. Satna (MP)

...

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of April, 2015

1. As per letter dated 9-3-2010 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/

24/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Joint

General Manager (IR), Prism Cement Limited, Village

Manakhari, Distt. Satna MP in dismissing the services of

Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Shivlakhanprasad

pandey Ex Workman Mines Workshop vide order dated

19-2-09 is justified? To what relief the workman concerned

workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

3. IInd party submitted Written Statement. Workman

submitted application to withdraw his claim submitting that

the matter is settled between parties. Management has

agreed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- to him within 3 months.

Workman admitted contents of the applications.

Management has given no objection. As such dispute

between parties is settled out of Court. The dispute between

parties ceized to exist therefore no dispute award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1719-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ikdqj D;wjh

izkñfyñ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

194@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29011@53@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 194/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No.-2 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Pakur Quary (P) and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

21/08/2015.

[No. L-29011/53/2013-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

3612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 194 OF 2013.

PARTIES

The General Secretary,

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Main Road, Dhanuspuja, Pakur, Pakur,

Vs. M/s. Pakur Quary (P) Ltd.,

Sindhipara, Pakur, Pakur.

Ministry's Order No. L-29011/53/2013-IR(M)

dt. 03.10.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None.

On behalf of the Management

: None

State

: Jharkhand

Industry

: Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th July, 2015,

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No-L-29011/

53/2013-IR(M) dt. 03.10.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Management of M/s. Pakur Quarry (P)

Ltd., Malpahari, Pakur, is guilty of denying the

payment of legal dues to Shri Naju Shekh and 05

others (list enclosed) and whether the workmen are

entitled for adequate compensation in lieu of the

same? If so, what should be the total compensation

including the legal dues?"

2. Neither any Union Representative for the Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh, Pakur, nor any of the workmen Naju Shekh

& five others appeared nor any written statement with any

documents filed on behalf of them despite ample

opportunities for it. Likewise none appeared for M/s. Pakur

Quarry (P) Ltd., Pakur.

From the perusal of the case record, it appears that

since its registration as the Reference No. on 28.10.2013,

three registered Notices dt. 24.02.2014, 12.08.2014 and

30.04.2015 have been issued to both the parties on their

respective addresses as noted in the Reference itself, but

neither the Union Representative nor the opposite party

responded to any of the Notices, out of which the middle

one dt. 12.08.14 returned as "Not known" Under these

circumstances, I find that the Union Representative which

has raised this Reference has neither any concern nor any

interest in pursuing it for its final adjudication. As such it

appears no longer any Industrial Dispute concerning the

denial of payment of legal dues to the workmen or due

compensation in lieu of that. Hence the Reference is closed.

and accordingly, disposed of as 'No Industrial Dispute'

existent. To that effect, an order is passed as "No Dispute

Award."

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

List of the five others workmen

Sl.

Name

Father's name

Md. Mainual Shekh

Gayamu Shekh

Anu Mandal

Tajijul Shekh

Yunis Shekh

Muslim Shekh

Wazir Shekh

Ajijul Shekh

Yunis Shekh

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1720-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ uqekyhx<+

fjQkbZujh fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2015½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@8@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2015)

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. Numaligarh Refinery Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 21/08/2015.

[No. L-30012/8/2015-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

Present:

Shri L.C. Dey. M.A. LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3613

Ref. Case No. 01 of 2015.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

Shri Dhaneswar Baishya, Guwahati. . ... workman

-Vrs-

The Management of Numaligarh Refinery Limited,

Guwahati, Assam. .....Management

APPEARANCES

For the Workman.

: Workman Himself.

For the Management : Mr. K. Sarma Manager ER, NRL

Ms. M. Kar, Asstt. Manager,

Law NRL.

Date of Award: 05.08.2015

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute raised by the workman Dhaneswar Baishya against

the management of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., vide

Ministry's Order No. L-30012/8/2015-IR(M), dated

05/09.06.1999 for adjudication. The schedule of this

reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati in terminating

the services of Sh. Dhneswar Baishya S/o Late

Kshiram Baishya from their registered office,

Guwahati w.e.f. 21.9.2013 is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

2. On receipt of the order from the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi, this reference case was

registered and notices were issued by Registered Post to

the parties concerned directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed and to file their written statement along

with the relevant documents in support of their claim.

3. Both the workman Sri Dhaneswar Baishya, and

the representative of the Management of NRL appeared

but they did not file any claim Statement/written statement.

However both the parties submitted petition No. 311/15

stating that due to some misunderstanding the workman

raised the dispute and subsequently the workman has been

engaged by another contractor of "building Project of NRL".

In the mean time with the intervention of the well wishers

of both the parties the dispute has been settled up amicably

out of Court. As such, both parties are not interested to

proceed with the case.

4. Statement of workman Dhaneswar Baishya has

been recorded. In his statement the workman categorically

mentioned that he raised the dispute challenging the legality

of his termination from service with effect from 21.9.2013

by the management of NRL. Initially he worked under NRL

as casual worker and thereafter he was engaged as contract

worker through the Contractor Sri R.N Taye. on 20.9.2013

he submitted a petition for regularization of his service by

the management but on the following day i.e. 21.9.2013 he

was terminated. Thereafter he was engaged as contract

worker in "NRL Building Project" under the Contractor

M/s Velecha Engineering. He categorically mentioned that

consequent upon his engagement under the contractor in

the NRL he is not interested to proceed with the case and

hence, he has filed this petition for withdrawal of the

reference.

5. On perusal of the petition No. 311/15 dated 5.8.15

submitted by both the workman Dhaneswar Baishya and

the management of NRL along with the statement of the

workman it appears that the workman initially joined the

NRL as casual worker and thereafter he was engaged as a

contract worker through the contractor named Sri R.N. Taye

and upon claiming regularization by the workman the

service of the workman was terminated. Subsequently, the

workman was engaged in NRL under "Building Project of

NRL" through the Contractor M/s. Velecha Engineering.

As such, the workman is found not interested to proceed

with the dispute. In the petition as aforesaid filed by both

the parties jointly categorically mentioned that they have

no objection to dispose of the reference on withdrawal as

prayed for by the workman.

6. In view of the above discussion, it is found that

the dispute was raised by the workman due to certain

misunderstanding and consequent upon the engagement

of the workman as contract worker under the Contractor

M/s. Velecha Engineering the workman declined to proceed

with the case further. Since both the parties have come up

for disposal of the dispute on withdrawal consequent upon

the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties out

of the Court and the management has specifically expressed

their no objection to the withdrawal of the proceeding,

there is no reason that the Court should stand as hurdle

between the parties.

7. In the result, the reference is disposed of on

withdrawal on amicable settlement without any relief.

No cost is awarded.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

05th day of August, 2015 at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1721-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u

vkW;y dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

3614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@7@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 21.08.2015.

[No. L-30012/7/2013-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID NO. 76/2013

Shri Pan Singh,

S/o Late Shri Govind Singh,

C/o Shri Narayan Singh,

Mahamanti, Hindustan Engineering General Mazdoor

Union,

A-193, Karampura,

New Delhi 110015

... Workman

Versus

The Plant Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Delhi Bottling Plant,

Gheva Mode, Tikri Kalan,

Delhi-110041

... Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the above reference is that

the workman, Shri Pan Singh joined the employment as a

Cook and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2500.00 per month.

He has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service

and during the period of this tenure, the workman had not

given any chance to the management to issue any memo or

complaint against him. Despite several requests, he was

not provided legal facilities, like appointment letter,

attendance card, leave book, ESI, provident fund, minimum

wages, overtime bonus, weekly off etc. Union had also writ

petition No. 535/2000 in High Court of Delhi for

regularization and stay was granted and service of the

workman was also protected. The workman met with an

accident on 30.03.2000 and was on leave till 04.10.2000.

Since no ESI card was issued, the workman was under

treatment at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. When he

went to resume duties on 05.10.2000, he was not allowed to

join. A writ petition No. 1631/2001 was filed in High Court

of Delhi for payment of medical expenses. On the

instructions of Assistant Labour Commissioner, the

workman was taken on duty for some time and again on

27.02.2013 was dismissed. He is unemployed since then.

The above action of the management is illegal, bad, unjust,

malafide and violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 of the

Constitution of India. Prayer has made that an award may

be passed entitling him to reinstatement in service with full

consequential benefits.

2. Since the matter could not be resolved, as such

the workman approached the Union Government, who made

reference to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.

L-30012/7/2013-IR(M) dated 11.04.2013 in the following

manner:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd., Delhi Bottling Plant, Tikri Kalan, Delhi

in terminating the services of Shri Pan Singh, S/o Shri Govind

Singh, Ex-Cook form 2004 is justified or not? What relief

the workman is entitled to?

3. After consideration of statement of claim by the

workman, matter was listed for filing written statement on

behalf of the management, who filed written statement

denying the relationship of employer-employee between

the parties, hence has no locus standi to raise the dispute.

Workman was employed by M/s Ajay Engineering Works,

who has not been made a necessary party. He has filed

another industrial dispute bearing No. ID 25 of 2013, which

is impermissible in law to raise two industrial disputes. The

management has denied other material averments made in

the statement of claim.

4. Against this factual background, this Tribunal vide

order dated 13.08.2013 framed the following issues:

(1) Whether there is privity of contract between the

parties?

(2) As in terms of reference

5. The case was then listed for evidence of the parties

and the claimant to conclude first. At this stage, an

application was moved by the claimant for impleading M/s

Ajay Engineering Works and M/s Adarsh Royal Caterers

to the dispute. Management filed its reply to the application

so filed. During the course of arguments, attention of

Shri Kailash Kumar, A/R for the claimant, was invited to the

question referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government. He was called upon to explain as to whether

this Tribunal is competent to enlarge scope of the reference

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3615

order. At that juncture, Shri Kailash Kumar submitted that

he would see remedy for issuance of corrigendum, with the

appropriate Government and sought time to do the needful.

However, till 30.07.2015, no corrigendum was issued by the

appropriate Government.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that on 08.06.2015

an application was filed by the workman herein for

withdrawal of the reference and it was urged on behalf of

the workman that necessary parties, have not been

impleaded in the instant reference. Workman also made

statement before this Tribunal seeking permission to

withdraw the reference petition.

7. There is no provision in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act) or in any other law for withdrawal

of the reference which has been made by the Government

under Section 10(1) of the Act. However, a party cannot be

forced to pursue the claimant which it does not want to

continue for one reason or the other. In view of the

statement made by the claimant at the bar on 30.07.2015,

there is no need to pass an award on merits. Moreover, the

claimant herein is not interested in pursing the present

case. Hence, no claim/dispute award is accordingly passed.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : July 31, 2015

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1722-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ fnYyh

baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ ¼izkñ½ fyfeVsM] lsfych xzkmaM gSaMfyax fnYyh

¼izkñ½ fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 21-08-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11025@1@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.,

M/s Celibi Ground Handling Delhi Pvt. Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 21.08.2015.

[No. L-11025/1/2015-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.

1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID NO. 49/2014

Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh,

S/o Shri Likho Singh,

R/o Village and PO Bhramarpur,

PS Bihpur, Distt. Bhagalpur,

Bihar-853201

C/o Celibi Employees Union,

Village Bagdola,

PO Raj Nagar, Sikendarpuria,

Dwarka

New Delhi-110077

... Workman

Versus

1. M/s Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.

Udyan Bhawan,

IGI Airport,

New Delhi-110037

2. M/s Celibi Ground Handling Delhi Pvt. Ltd.

Room No. 22, Import Building-3,

International Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport,

New Delhi-110037

... Managements

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised directly by the

workman under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) in as much

as 45 days stood expired from the date of making application

to the Conciliation Officer. It is averred in the application

that the workman, Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh was employed

by respondent No. 2, Celibi Ground Handling Pvt. Ltd.,

New Delhi at cargo terminal of Indira Gandhi International

Airport since 14.03.2012, as worker. He was being paid

salary of Rs. 8100.00 per month. There are allegations that

the workman was not being extended facilities available to

the workman under various industrial laws. On 28.03.2013

the workman was seriously ill and was not even in a position

to stand up. Respondent No. 2 did not allow any leave to

the workman and he was shifter to British Airways counter

after 23.03.2013. It is also averred that on 23.04.2014 when

the workman approached the employer for giving him

suitable work, he was told that show cause notice dated

15.04.2014 was served regarding termination of his job. No

such letter/notice was received by the workman. The

workman also told the authorities that he was ill and he

was not even granted leave. The workman was threatened

that his wages would be reduced on account of

unsatisfactory work and enquiry was already initiated

3616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

against him, where he was wrongly held to be guilty. Thus,

termination of the workman from the job vide letter dated

29.03.2014 without serving any charge sheet is totally wrong

and illegal. Prayer has been made for reinstatement,

alongwith payment of wages.

2. On receipt of the complaint, management was called

upon to file their written statement. In response to the

notice, management filed application for placing on record

out of court settlement arrived at between the claimant and

the management. In the application, it was averred that the

claimant approached the management on 13.01.2015 and

informed that he would not wish to continue to continue

with the reference and requested for his full and final

settlement of his dues. Management has placed no record

copy of settlement arrived at between them and the claimant

under Section 18(1) of the Act, an affidavit and an

application duly signed by the claimant.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that despite service

of notice, the claimant has not put in appearance so as to

pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not

interested in the adjudication of the reference on merits.

Further in the settlement 13.01.2015 arrived at between the

parties, which has been signed by the workman without

any duress, has made a statement to the effect that he is

willing to accept Rs. 12,557.00 from the contractor towards

full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in

service. Thus, it emerges that on payment of a sum of Rs.

12,557.00 to the claimant towards full and final settlement

of his claim for reinstatement in service, his claim made in

the present petition stands satisfied. Hence, a no claim/

dispute is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to

the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : August 3, 2015

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1723-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ lsUVªy

os;jgkmflax dkiksZjs'ku ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@1986½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@¼23½@85&D.II(B)]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/1986)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21/08/2015.

[No. L-42012/(23)/85-D.II(B)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 10/1986

Shri Madan Mohan,

17/203, Panchkuin Road,

New Delhi

... Workman

Versus

M/s Central Warehousing

Corporation, Warehousing Bhawan,

1, Siri Institutional Area,

Haus Khas, New Delhi

... Management

AWARD

Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the reference

are that the workman herein was appointed as daily rated

peon in January, 1968 and later on was regularized in that

capacity on 06.11.1968. Thereafter, the workman was

promoted as a daftary in the year 1975. The workman has

maintained an unblemished record throughout his career.

He completed period of his probation in the year 1976 and

during that period the workman joined union of the

employees known as Central Warehousing Employees

union, New Delhi and took active part in the activities of

the said union. The workman later on became joint

secretary of in the year 1975 and management did not relish

trade union activities of the workman.

2. Management, in order to victimize the workman

put pressure on him to quit trade union activities, which

was not acceptable to the workman. False charge sheet

dated 28.11.1975 was issued against the workman stating

therein that the management proposed to hold a domestic

enquiry under Regulation No. 18 of CWC Staff Regulations

1966.

3. In the statement of charges, it was alleged that a

cheque for a sum of Rs. 27,745.00 was issued by the

Financial Division of the management on 10.06.1975 in

favour of Shri Chander Prakash, printer, against sanction

order dated 02.06.1975 and signatures on the sanction order

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3617

was allegedly forged. It was also alleged that sanction was

made to obtain fraudulent payment from the management.

During the course of initial enquiry, it was revealed that the

workman took unusual interest regarding issuance of the

cheque and further he remained absent from duty with

effect from 16.06.1975 to 13.07.1975 without leave when the

matter was under police investigation as to evade arrest by

the police. It is alleged that the above charge sheet was

issued against the workman in order to make him a scape-

goat and save some top officials.

4. There are also allegations that management

conducted domestic enquiry against the workman, which

was simply a farce and was against the principles of natural

justice as attitude of the Enquiry Officer was partisan.

Thereafter, management passed order of compulsory

retirement on 09.07.1980 against the workman. Workman

was getting salary of Rs. 535.00, inclusive of all allowances.

Thereafter, workman preferred an appeal against the

aforesaid order and the same was rejected in June, 1984

and that too in reply to a legal notice sent by the workman

through his counsel, Shri P.T.S. Murthy, Advocate vide

notice dated 08.06.1984. It is also averred that enquiry

conducted by the management was totally illegal and

Enquiry Officer has submitted two reports and subsequent

report was on the dictation of the management so as to

plug the loopholes. Subsequent report was not only

improper and invalid but also caused serious prejudice to

the workman, who was given the impression that his appeal

was still under consideration. Thereafter, when no action

was taken, workman raised an industrial dispute by filing

statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer. Attitude

of the management even at that time was adamant.

Consequently, Government has referred the matter for

adjudication vide order No. L-42012(23)/85/-D.II(B) dated

26.12.1985 in the following manner.

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Warehousing Corporation, Delhi in compulsorily

retiring Shri Madan Mohan, Daftary from services

vide order dated 09.07.1980 for the alleged fraud

involving an amount of Rs. 27,745.00 is justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

5. Allegations contained in the statement of claim

were demurred by the management in its written statement.

Management has taken certain preliminary objections. On

merits, it was admitted that the workman was a daily rated

peon appointed and was appointed as Daftary in 1975. It is

denied that he joined any union to the annoyance of the

management. Allegation regarding carrying on of union

activities has been specifically denied. It is further alleged

that there were allegations of misappropriation of funds of

the Corporation against the workman, who got issued

fraudulent sanction order/cheque for Rs. 27,745.00 in favour

of Shri Chander Prakash, whose real name was Chander

Mohan and was brother of the workman, Shri Madan Mohan.

Preliminary enquiry was instituted and it was found during

the preliminary enquiry that allegation was prima facie

proved against the workman herein. Thereafter, he was

issued a charge sheet dated 28.11.1975. The workman also

remained absent from duty from 16.06.1975 to 13.07.1975

without leave in order to avoid police investigation.

Workman had filed reply the charge sheet and enquiry was

also conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the workman.

Enquiry Officer was not at all biased nor conducted the

enquiry in a partisan manner.

6. It transpires from the record that reference was

initially decided on merits in favour of the workman vide

award dated 04.05.1987 by CGIT-cum- Labour Court, New

Delhi. Later on, an application was filed by the management

to recall the ex-parte award, which was allowed on

30.07.1987, subject to cost of Rs. 500.00 and management

was also directed to pay interim relief of 50% of pay and

allowances to the workman.

7. Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the matter on

05.07.1988 for non-prosecution and again the said order

was recalled vide order dated 14.10.1988. The Tribunal, on

the basis of pleadings, vide order dated 06.06.2002, framed

the following issues:

(i) Whether domestic enquiry was fair and proper?

(ii) Whether findings of the Enquiry Officer suffer

with vice of perversity?

8. Learned Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour court,

Lucknow vide award dated 06.08.2002 held that action of

the management in compulsorily retiring the workman, Shri

Madan Mohan vide order dated 09.07.1980 was not justified

and workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with

consequential benefits, including back wages. Thereafter,

management filed writ petition No. CW(P) 8242 of 1980

titled Central Warehousing Corporation vs. The Presiding

Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal, which was decided by

the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgement dated

19.12.2013, wherein it was held that the Tribunal has

committed a patent error of law in straightaway setting

aside the punishment order after holding enquiry was

vitiated. It was incumbent upon the industrial adjudicator

to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner, i.e.

management herein, to prove misconduct. For the foregoing

reasons, above impugned order was set aside and matter

was remanded back to this Industrial Tribunal to proceed

in the matter.

9. Thereafter, management, in support of its case also

proved certain documents. I would be referring to the same

while drawing my conclusion.

10. Workman herein has examined himself as WW1.

11. Now, the moot point involved in the present case

is whether the charges levelled against the workman Shri

Madan Mohan in charge sheet Ex. WW1/1 have been

3618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

established as required under the law. It is pertinent to

note that in a departmental enquiry article of charges framed

against charged official are not required to be proved

beyond reasonable doubt like a criminal case, however,

such charges are to be proved by preponderance of

probability. Moreover, when the punishment imposed upon

the charged official is very and grave in nature,

management is required to lead cogent and reliable evidence

so as to substantiate the charges against the delinquent

official.

12. Now, the vital question is whether the

management has led any cogent or reliable evidence before

this Tribunal so as to prove the charges against the

workman. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the

charge sheet Ex. MW1/1 dated 28.11.1975 and the same is

as under:

“A cheque for Rs. 27,745.00 was issued by the Finance

Division

10.06.1975

favour

Shri Chander Prakash, Printer against sanction order

No. CWC/II-Stationery/74-75/Store dated 2nd June,

1975. Subsequently, it transpired that the signatures

on the I Bid sanction order were forged and an

attempt was made to obtain fraudulent payment from

the Corporation.

Enquiries have revealed that the said Shri Madan

Mohan, Daftary (brother of Shri Chander Mohan

alias Chander Prakash, Printer) took unusual interest

and rather chased the issue of cheque, in question.

After his interrogation by the police on 14.06.1975,

the said Shri Madan Mohan absconded/remained

from duty from 16.06.1975 to 13.07.1975 without any

leave application, with a view to cover up his

connivance in this forged sanction order/cheque and

evade further police investigation in the matter. In

brief, his role in the I Bid incident has not been above

board.

He is, thus, charged with gross misconduct,

connivance to defraud the Corporation and lacking

in integrity."

13. In order to prove the allegations against the

workman, management after remand of the above case from

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi examined Shri P.C. Rai as MW3,

whose affidavit is Ex. MW3/A, who was working as Senior

Assistant Manager and he was examined before this

Tribunal. He has also mentioned in the affidavit that prior

to issuance of charge sheet, matter was initially investigated

by one Shri N.S. Sethia, whose report dated 22.08.1975 is

Ex. MW1/2. Workman was also interrogated by the police

as per deposition of this witness. This witness has admitted

in his cross examination that he joined the above office on

15.06.2010 whereas the workman retired on 09.07.1980.

Consequently, he does not have any personal knowledge

about the case and he also made deposition purely on the

basis of documents available in the office. He further

deposed that he is not in a position to produce witnesses

of the domestic enquiry as some of them have retired or are

not easily available. He was not aware whether the workman

was interrogated by the police on 14.06.1975. He has further

deposed that leave application was submitted by the

workman and his absence was regularized on medical

grounds.

14. Management has also examined Shri M.L.

Nautiyal as MW4, who was Chief Cashier in Safdarjung

Enclave branch of Dena Bank. This witness has deposed

in regard to issuance of cheque amounting to Rs. 27,745.00,

which was received in his branch for deposit in the account

of Shri Chander Prakash, whom he was knowing personally.

Since he became suspicious about the cheque, as such he

reported the matter to the Senior Manager. Cheque was

signed by Central Warehousing Corporation. On enquiry,

Central Warehousing Corporation stated that the cheque

was issued. However, the same has been misplaced/lost.

15. It is clear from the statement of Shri Nautiyal that

he has not deposed anything anywhere against the

workman herein nor he has stated that the workman has

played any significant role in preparation of the office order

or issuance of cheque for Rs. 27.745.00. It is pertinent to

note here that the amount mentioned in the above cheque

was not released in favour of any person nor any loss has

been caused to the bank by issuance of the above cheque.

16. In have heard Shri K.P. Rao, authorized

representative for the management and Shri Rajat Arora,

authorized representative for the management.

17. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the

workman herein was employed as daily rated peon by the

management in the year 1968 and thereafter he was

promoted as daftary in the year 1975. As discussed above,

he was compulsorily retired from service vide a order dated

09.07.1980. It is clear from the judgement of the Hon'ble

High Court in WP(C) No. 8242/2002 titled Central

Warehousing Corporation vs Presiding Officer Central

Industries and others dated 19.12.2013 that the Hon'ble

High Court while setting aside the order/award dated

06.08.2002 of Lucknow, specifically held that (in para 7)

when the industrial adjudicator comes to find that the

enquiry is vitiated or have not been conducted as per rules

and in violation of principles of natural justice, then the

industrial adjudicator upon being requested by the

management has to enquire himself about the misconduct

alleged against the workman. It was against this

background that award was set aside and matter was

remanded back to this Tribunal to proceed in the matter in

accordance with law in the light of directives made by the

Hon'ble High Court.

18. It is necessary to mention here that evidence

which was led by the management before the Enquiry Oficer

during the conduct of enquiry by the management cannot

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3619

be taken into consideration for the purpose of establishing

the charges against the workman. It is now well settled

position in law that it is not open to the management to rely

on demestic enquiry proceedings already held by the

Enquiry Officer, including evidence recorded by him and it

was under an obligation to lead further evidence in view of

the nature of objection raised by the workman. Thus, record

of enquiry held by the management ceased to be ematerial

on record' within the meaning of Section 11A of the Act

and only course open to the management was to prove the

case against the workman by leading fresh evidence before

the industrial adjudicator. If such evidence has not been

led, management has to suffer the consequences.

Consequently, report of the Enquiry Officer as well as

evidence recorded before such Enquiry Officer cannot be

considered or taken into consideration by the Industrial

Tribunal. In am fortified in this regard by the judgement of

the Apex Court, i.e. Neeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer

Labour Court and Anr. AIR (1999) SC 698, Delhi Cloth &

General Mills Co vs Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 LLJ 180 and

Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. P.P. Mundhe AIR (1975) SC

1900. This proposition of law was not disputed by either of

the parties.

19. In the case in hand, no material witness has been

examined, including the Enquiry Officer, Shri O.N. Chhibber,

Manager (WD), CWC, New Delhi. As such, there is not

cogent or reliable evidence on record to suggest that the

workman herein was taking undue interest in preparation

of the sanction order dated 02.06.1975 and also chased the

matter so as to ensure preparation of the cheque for a sum

of Rs. 27,745.00 in favour of Shri Chander Prakash, Printer.

There is also no admissible evidence led by the

management to prove whether Shri Chander Prakash,

Printer, is the real brother of the workman herein or was

some other person, on whose behalf workman herein was

taking undue interest. There is also no evidence on record

that the workman herein has put his signature as Chander

Prakash on the cheque so as to cheat the bank of the above

amount. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the

statement of Shri P.C. Rai, MW3, who has simply deposed

that he did not have any personal knowledge about the

case and he has deposed only on the basis of documents

available on reocrd. His affidavit is Ex.MW 3/A. He further

deposed that he was not aware whether one Shri V.K.

Parthasarathy had filed affidavit in this case and he was

not in a position to produce witnesses of the domestic

enquiry as most of them have retired or are not readily

available.

20. He also had no personal knowledge about the

interrogation of the workman by the police. It is not out of

place to mention here that record pertaining to police

investigation have not been placed on record nor there is

anything on record to suggest that whether workman herein

faced trial in the above FIR or not. Statement of Shri P.C.

Rai, MW3, is also clear that leave of the workman was later

on regularized on medical grounds. He is not aware of the

fate of the FIR No. 133/1975. Evidence of this withness is

thus not at all relevant so as to prove misconduct against

the workman.

21. To the similar effect is the statement of Sri. M.L.

Nautioyal who was the Chief Cashier. This withness has

simply deposed regarding issuance of cheque amounting

to Rs. 27,745.00 which was received in this branch and the

cheque was in the name of Chander Prakash, whom he was

knowing personally. He has now here stated that the

workman herein tried to dupe the bank in any manner with

the said cheque was presented for payment. Rather, he

was not aware whether Shri Chander Prakash was knowing

the workman herein at that time and only later on he came

to know about this fact. He had made a vital statement in

his cross-examination to the effect that introduction of the

account holder was done by him. However, he was not

exactly aware of the documents taken from the said

Shri Chander Prakash while opening of the above account.

Further he did not remember whether there was any

difference in signatures on the application as well as other

documents annexed with the said form. He knew

Shri Chander Prakash as he was from the area of his in-laws

and was a resident of Sewa Nagar, at that time. However, he

was not aware of the relationship between Shri Chander

Prakash and the workman herein. It has also come in his

statement that officers of Central Warehousing Corporation

informed the Manager that the cheque in question was

misplaced/lost. However, there is no evidence worth the

name on record to suggest that the workman herein was at

all involved in misplacing the cheque. It is, thus, clear from

evidence led by the management that the charge of

misconduct has not been proved at all against the workman

herein. Further, it is also clear from the evidence on record

that management has failed to prove that the workman

herein was in any manner involved in preparation of the

sanction order dated 02.06.1975 or preparation of the

cheque. Consequently, it is held that punishment awarded

to the workman herein by imposing compulsory retirement

by the management cannot stand scrutiny of law and as

such is liable to be set aside. Since the workman herein has

already attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years,

as such he cannot be reinstated forthwith.

22. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held

that order of compulsory retirement dated 09.07.1980 is set

aside and the workman herein, Shri Madan Mohan, is held

to be entitled for full back wages alongwith all consequential

benefits, which otherwise would have accrued in his favour,

had he retired at the age of superannuation. The issue is

decided accordingly. An award is accordingly passed. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated: August 4, 2015

A.C.DOGRA, Presiding Officer

3620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1724-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ykbZQ

bU';ksjsal dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;y;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@28@2008&vkbZvkj¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2008

of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Life

Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 21-08-2015.

[No. L-17012/28/2008-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 08

Between:—

Sri Satish Kumar,

Son of Sri Narain Das,

Near Jail Chauraha,

Behind Ambedkar Park,

Jhansipura,

Lalitpur U.P.

And

The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Jeewan Vikas,

M.G. Marg, PB No. 181

Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-17012/28/2008-IRM dated 30.5.08, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Sr.

Divisonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Kanpur and others in terminating the services of Sri Satish

Kumar, Son of Sri Narain Dass, Class IV employee with

effect from 29.03.2007, is legal and Justified? If not what

relief the workman is entitled to?

3. Case of the workman in short is that engagement

as Badli worker or temporary worker or engagement as

casual workers have been given recognition under the

provisions of the Act of which item No. 10 of Schedule V

under the heading Unfair Labour Practice, on the part of

the management/employer reads as under.—

"To employ workmen as Badlis, casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years,

with the object of depriving them of the status and

privileges of permanent workmen".

4. The claimant workman was engaged by the then

branch manager of Lalitpur Branch on 06.02.03 under Group

IV Category and continued as such till 29.03.07, when his

services were abruptly terminated with by the opposite

party in gross violation of provisions of Section 25F of the

Act in so much so that the opposite party neither paid

notice, notice pay nor retrenchment compensation ignoring

the fact that he had rendered continuous service within

the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act. It is also alleged by

the claimant that there is hardly any need to follow

recruitment rules in employing workman as Badlis, casual

or temporary nor there is any formal appointment letter

given by the opposite party. Branch Managers of the

opposite party under the circular of the opposite party

were competent to employ persons on temporary bssis

against any regular and permanent vacancy in Group IV

Category till the post is filled up on permanent basis through

regular selection process. It is also the case of the workman

that without following regular process of selection the

services of the workman could not have been terminated

by the opposite party in an arbitrary and illegal manner

without assigning any reason and if it is done that would

attract the provisions of the Section 25U of the Act. The

working of the workman during the period 06.02.03 to

29.03.07, could not be disputed by the opposite party

having regard to the wages paid to him through vouchers.

Although the workman discharged regular and permanent

nature of work on temporary basis yet instead of giving

payment of temporary employee on full scale and allowance

basis management by way of adopting BEGAR from the

workman preferred to pay the wages on monthly basis

through vouchers at the rate of Rs.3000 per month

approximately, which is much less than what is payable to

employee in Group IV Category. Providing employment to

the workman on temporary basis is neither illegal nor

dehoring the recruitment rules in view of circular No. ZD/

793/ASP/93 dated 28.06.93. The above action of the

opposite party is fully covered under section (2ra) of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3621

Act read with Article 23 of the Constitution of India and

further the action of the management is an example of unfair

labour practice. The action of the opposite party in

dispensing with his employment with effect from 29.03.07

is also liable to be set aside as it is in breach of Section 25F

of the Act read with Rule 76 of I.D. Central Rules. After the

termination of the service of the workman the opposite

party employed in their employment S/Sri Devendr Kumar

Yadav, Deepak Kumar Gupta, Deepak Namdeo, Munna and

Pratap Ahirwar etc., to perform the same work as performed

by the workman, therefore, the action of the opposite party

is also in breach of Section 25H of the Act.

5. Lastly it has been prayed by the workman that

the action of the opposite party be held illegal, unjust and

unfair and he may be reinstated in the service of the opposite

party with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

6. The opposite party has filed their reply in which

it is alleged that the opposite party being owned and

controlled by Government of India is having its rules and

regulations and instructions issued by Government of India

from time to time and whenever any post falls vacant the

same is notified to employment exchange and thereafter

after following the recruitment rules post is filled up. The

Branch Manager, Lalitpur is not authorized or empowered

to appoint person in any category. Whenever any casual

work aroses the branch manager as per need got it done

through any person available in the market on contract

basis and such person work on day to day basis and

submits his bill for payment. Workman had never been

appointed on any post by the opposite party. Opposite

party has denied the continuous working of the workman

during the period 06.02.2003 to 29.03.2007. Opposite party

has also denied having terminated the services of the

workman. Management has also denied the working of the

workman and making payment of wages at Rs. 3000/- per

month. No appointment letter was ever issued in the name

of the workman. Opposite party has also denied having

violated any provisions of the Act.

7. On the basis of above allegations it has been

prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected

being devoid of merit.

8. The workman has not filed rejoinder in the case.

9. The workman vide paper No. 15/1 dated 09.03.11

has filed documents paper No. 15/2-29 relevancy of whcih

will be discussed at approrpiate stage.

10.The workman vide paper No. 7/1 has also filed

photocopies of payment vouchers which are 16 in numbers

for the period 01.3.06 to 02.03.07 i.e. preceding 12 calendar

months from the date of dispensation of his service.

11.It is pertinent to mention here that the management

had not filed any document in the case.

12.Whereas the workman examined himself as W.W.1

in support of his claim, opposite party examined S/Sri Rajeev

Kumar Pandey as M.W.1 Branch Manager and Sri Jagdamba

Prasad Shukla as M.W.2.

13.In his examination in chief W.W.1 has stated that

he was engaged on 06.02.03 at Lalitpur Branch of the

opposite party and worked up to 29.02.07 continuously.

He worked more than 240 days. He further stated that in

Lalitpur Branch there were 7 departments and he worked in

Expenditure and Accounts Department. He worked with

Vinita Shukla, Higher Grade Assistant, Sumit Kumar Verma

and Rajeev Pradhan. He performed the work of receipt of

daks, sending of daks, sending of cash etc. He was not

given any appointment letter. During his tenure, S/Sri

Kishan Mishra, Anil Kumar Bhardwaj and Rajeev Kumar

were the Branch Manager. Sri Nilesh Kushwaha, and

Ganesh Namdeo were also working with the workman in

the branch. There was no regular and permanent peon in

the branch during his period. At the branch there were 25

staffs working. He further stated that after obtaining

application and processing the same he was paid his wages

after entering the same in budget control register. He was

paid his wages at Rs. 3000/- per month. His working hours

in the branch was from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. Original of

payment vouchers and budget and control register is in

the possession of the opposite party. He was neither given

any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation at

the time of dispensation of his service by the opposite

party. Sri Nilesh Kushwaha and Ganesh Namdeo are still

working at the branch. He entered into correspondence

with the opposite party after termination of his services.

He is unemployed.

14. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted

that no advertisement were ever appeared for any post. He

also admitted that he was never subjected through

recruitment test. He also admitted the fact that he was

getting his wages on monthly basis. Witness denied the

suggestion that he did not work for 240 days. He used to

work as Class IV employee and no attendance was recorded

rather an entry was made on budget and control register.

Witness admitted the fact that there is no mention of the

fact as to from which date Devendra Kumar etc. are working.

He was removed and others are working. Witness has

further denied the suggestion of the opposite party that

he did not work continuously during the period 06.02.03 to

29.03.07.

15. Management has examined Sri Rajeev Kumar

Pandey as M.W. 1, who in examination in chief has admitted

that fact that he remained posted as Branch Manager

Lalitpur Branch of the opposite party during the period

2006 to 2009. On 06.02.03 on post of sub staff was vacant at

the branch and workman was never posted on regular post

of sub staff and he was never issued any appointment

letter. There is settled procedure for providing appointment.

In his examination in chief the witness has admitted the

3622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

fact that the workman concerned some time used to be

engaged as casual worker for scavenging work on need

basis. So far as his knowledge is concerned the workman

had never worked for 240 days continuously under the

opposite party. He was paid his wages on daily basis at

the rate of Rs. 90/- and the days for which he had worked

he was paid his wages. During his period no person by

name Nilesh Kushwaha or Ganesh Namdeo were ever

engaged after removing the service of the workman. Now it

has come to his knowledge that in the branch two regular

peons were appointed. Document No. 15/2-27 is the

document of the department. Witness has admitted the

payment vouchers filed before the Labour Enforcement

Officer, Jhansi, which are paper No. 7/3-18.

16. In his cross-examination the witness stated that

he had not read the claim of the worker. Worker was given

payment on the basis of number of days he worked or

otherwise. During his period no regular and permanent

employee worked as sub staff at the branch. He further

stated that no slip prepared by the workman on the basis

of which he was paid his wages in no record. Witness has

denied his signature on paper No. 7/11 which is payment

voucher dated 30.09.06. Witness was specifically

questioned that when he had admitted paper No. 15/3 that

is payment voucher by saying that it bears the signature of

some officer and likewise signature is appearing on paper

No. 7/11 then what is the reason that you are denying this

paper. Witness replied that when the documents were

located in the office of Labour Enforcement Officer and by

seeing paper No. 15/3 he verified the same and since paper

No. 7/11 was not in original therefore it was not verified.

After going through paper No. 15/3 witness has stated

that the worker was paid for 28 days on the basis of per

day. Lastly witness has stated that since the worker was a

daily wager, therefore, word entertainment was used in the

payment vouchers.

17. Opposite party has also examined Sri Jagdamba

Prasad Shukla as M.W. 2, who in examination in chief has

admitted his signature on paper No. 10/1-2 and he accepted

paper No.10/3. He is fully aware of the facts of the present

case. Budget and control register is destroyed after end of

financial year. Payment voucher are not destroyed and is

preserved for 8 years. He stated that vouchers for the period

2006-07 were not traceable. It is in his knowledge that the

present case was raised before Labour Enforcement Officer,

Jhansi. He admitted the fact that paper No. 15/2-8 was issued

by the department. He denied the suggestion that

demanded documents have not been filed before the

tribunal whereas they were filed before Labour Enforcement

Officer, Jhansi in this way he had given false statement

before this tribunal by filling fake affidavit.

18. I have heard the arguments of the contesting

parties at length and have also perused the whole record

carefully.

19. Firstly it has been argued by the representative

for the management, that the workman was never appointed

by the opposite party and that the branch manager was

not competent to appoint any person at his sweet will.

20. Contrary to it, it has been argued by the

representative for the workman that the engagement of the

workman is proved by the payment vouchers admitted by

the management witness and even admitted by the

opposite party in his written reply that as and when there

was need workman was engaged as casual worker.

21. Representative for the worker has drawn my

attention towards paper No. 15/20 which is a circular dated

28.06.93 on the subject of providing temporary appointment

issued by Head Office of the opposite party. It has been

argued by him that considering the provision of Sub clause

B of the circular at page 3 branch managers were fully

competent to appoint persons in group IV. I have given my

due consideration to the provision of the above circular

and find that in the circular itself has been made clear that

Senior Branch Managers/Branch managers are competent

to appoint persons in group IV category in cases where

need is for short term not beyond seven days. Considering

the provision of the circular, I do not find any force in the

contention of the representative for the opposite party

that branch manager was not competent to appoint any

person. Provision of the circular are very much clear and I

hold that the branch manager of the opposite party were

fully competent to engage persons on need basis.

Therefore, I reject the contention of the representative for

the opposite party on this point.

22. Next it has to be seen as to whether the worker

has rendered continuous service for 240 days or more

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of termination.

23. Worker vide paper No. 7/1 has filed payment

vouchers in the shape of photocopies for the period

01.03.2006 to 02.03.07. He has also summoned the original

of the same from the management whereon after inviting

objection from the opposite party it was ordered that

though grounds of the opposite party are satisfactory but

if it is proved that some mala fide has been committed by

the opposite party then adverse inference may be drawn

against the opposite party. Opposite party has filed affidavit

of one Mr. Jagdamba Prasad Shukla who is M.W. 2. In the

present cases and in his cross examination has stated that

letter of branch manager is not record but whatever is

written in paper No. 10/3 like either document is misplaced

or stolen because at that time documents were filed before

Labour Enforcement Officer. I am not convinced with the

evidence of MW.2 who is the senior officer of the opposite

party. Before filing his affidavit before the court he should

have personally examined the matter and should have

satisfied himself that as to what happened about the

documents called for by the tribunal and then he should

have filed his affidavit. Therefore, the tribunal is bound to

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3623

draw adverse inference against the management that the

opposite party has deliberately and willingly did not file

the called for documents before the tribunal on the

presumption that the case of the worker may be proved to

the effect that he had worked continuously for 240 days.

Workman has filed inasmuch as 16 vouchers in support of

his claim that he had worked continuously for 240 days. He

has proved those payment vouchers through his oral

evidence. I have also examined the payment vouchers and

find that each payment voucher there is mention of number

of working days. Workman has also filed payment vouchers

filed by the opposite party before Labour Enforcement

Officer, Jhansi which has been admitted by the opposite

party. Therefore, at the cost of reiteration it is again held

that the workman was in the employment of the opposite

party. It is also held that from the records it has been proved

by the workman that he had rendered continuously service

of 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of

termination of his service.

24. Admittedly workman was neither given any notice

nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation at the time

of termination of his service by the opposite party. This

fact has been stated by the worker in his evidence. Worker

was not confronted by the representative for the opposite

party in his cross examination on this point.

25. In view of above it is held that provision of

section 25F of the Act are applicable in the case of the

workman, therefore, the termination of the service of the

workman is bad in law being in breach of provision of

Section 25F of the Act.

26. The representative for the opposite party has

argued that if this tribunal is of the opinion that the

termination of the service of the workman is not legal then

he may be compensated by awarding lump sum

compensation and in support of his contention he has

relied upon following rulings—

a. FLR 2013 (139) 700 Patna High Court.

b. FLR 2012 (135) 1079 Allahabad High Court.

c. FLR 2013 (136) 123 Allahabad High Court.

d. FLR 1997 (76) 237 Supreme Court.

e. FLR 2007(112) 490 Supreme Court.

f. FLR 2013 (137) 689 Supreme Court.

28. With due respect I have given my anxious

consideration to the citations (supra) and find that the

case laws are distinguishable on fact and law both,

therefore, opposite party cannot take advantage of the

same.

29. As per contra the representative for the workman

has argued that by taking adverse inference against the

opposite party on the point of filing of documents, workman

should be reinstated in the service of the opposite party.

30. In support of his contention he has placed

reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus/s Hindalco

Industries Ltd. In Civil Appeal Nos. 4883-4884 of 2014

decided on 25th April, 2014, wherein it was held as under—

The learned counsel for respondent had mentioned

before this court about a settlement between the

parties in this matter after the judgment was reserved.

Therefore, we have not taken into consideration such

plea from the learned counsel of the respondent since

it was taken up after the hearing was over. Also the

documentary evidence on record produced by the

parties required us to reject the subsequent plea

made by the respondent in this case. We therefore,

set aside the finding of the High Court in the

impugned judgment and held that appellant is entitled

to reinstatement with full back wages from the date

of his termination of his service till the date of

reinstatement and other consequential benefits which

accrue to him by virtue of his employment with the

respondent company. The appeals are allowed with

no order as to costs.

31. Representative for the worker has also placed

reliance on (2010) Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1 in btween

Director, Fisheries Terminal Department versus Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Chavda.

32. After going through the citations of the Hon'ble

Apex Court I am of the opinion that the case of the workman

squarely falls within the ambit of the facts of the cases

cited above, therefore, fully supports the case of the

workman.

33. For the reasons discussed above it is held that

the workman has successfully proved his case by

documentary as well as oral evidence, therefore the action

of the management referred to in the schedule of reference

order is held to be neither legal, fair and proper. I am also of

the view that it is not a fit case where instead of

reinstatement workman should be awarded compensation

as argued the representative for the opposite party.

34. Accordingly the workman is held entitled for his

reinstatement with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

35. Reference is therefore, answered in favour of the

workman and against the opposite party management of

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñ vkñ 1725-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZQ

3624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 29, 2015/BHADRA 7, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

bU';ksjsal dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@11@2009&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 21/08/2015.

[No. L-17012/11/2009-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 01 of 2010

Between—

The Law Secretary,

Indian National Trade Union Congress,

2/236 Namner, Agra.

And

The Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Divisional Office,

Jeevan Prakash Sanjay Place, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification No. L-17012/11/2009-IR(M) dated 04.01.2010

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Manager, LIC of India, Agra, in not giving appointment

Smt. Shyamlata Saxena wife of late V.K. Saxena, on

compassionate ground and also not extending service

benefits in respect of late V.K. Saxena to Smt. Shyam Lata

Saxena widow of deceased employee is just and proper?

What relief the concerned applicant is entitled?

3. The case of the applicant in short is that her

deceased husband Sri Virendra Kumar Saxena (herinafter

will be referred as V.K. Saxena for short) was appointed by

the opposite party at its guest house no. 1 situate at Agra,

on the post of Caretaker on 10.12.92, and since then he

discharged his duties with full sincerity and devotion. The

husband of the applicant died during the period of his

employment on 29.09.05, information of which was given

to the opposite party with request to provide employment

to the applicant on compassionate ground. It is further

alleged by the applicant that the duty hours of her deceased

husband was of 24 hours.

4. The applicant has further stated that under the

opposite party there is provision for giving appointment

to the dependants of the deceased employee on

compassionate grounds but despite that the opposite party

did not provide her employment on compassionate ground

and even the officers of the opposite party did not consider

it fit to reply the representation of the applicant. It is further

alleged that it is the stand of the opposite party that Late

V.K. Saxena was engaged on giving express consent to

keep him as contractor at prescribed monthly rate. The

work of caretaker is of permanent nature and this fact is

admitted by the opposite party and her late husband was

appointed against permanent nature of work at the post of

caretaker by the opposite party. She is intermediate and

qualified to be appointed on compassionate ground in place

of her late husband and is further entitled for all due benefits

accrued in favour of her deceased husband. Lastly it is

prayed that her claim be allowed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

5. The opposite party has filed their reply in which

the claim of the applicant was refuted on a number of

grounds viz., claim of the applicant referred to this tribunal

is not an industrial dispute; late Shri V.K. Saxena was not

an employee of the opposite party and that he was working

on contract as caretaker on an agreed fixed amount. On

merit it is alleged that late Shri V.K. Saxena requested to

give him work of caretaker on contract basis and

considering his request he was engaged on contractual

basis as caretaker of a guest houes on agreed fixed payment

per month and payment of contract was agreed from time

to time. Shri V.K. Saxena was not an employee of the

opposite party, therefore, service rules applicable to the

employees of the opposite are not applicable in the case of

late V.K. Saxena. He was working on contract basis with

effect from 25.2.2005 and even on 29.9.05 i.e. the date of

death Shri Saxena was not working even on contract basis.

It is denied by the opposite party that late Shri Saxena had

done any other work except the work of caretaker. It is also

denied that any post of caretaker is in the opposite party.

He was never paid any wages from the opposite party.

6. In the end it is alleged that the claim of the applicant

is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

7. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the

applicant but nothing new has been pleaded therein except

reiterating the pleading of claim statement.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vxLr 29] 2015@Hkknz 7] 1937

3625

8. Along with rejoinder the applicant has also filed

photocopies of certain documents which are paper

No. 7/4-7.

9. Management vide application dated 03.02.2012

paper no. 10.1 has filed 4 document paper no. 10.2 to 10/5.

10. Applicant has examined herself as w.w. 1 and the

opposite party examined one Shri Indra Prakash Dixit as

M.W. 1.

11. I have heared the arguments of both the sides at

length and have carefully examined the whole record.

12. It is to be considered in this case whether

Smt. Shyam Lata Saxena widow of late V.K. Saxena is entitled

to be appointed on compassionate ground on the death of

her husband.

13. During the course of arguments management has

filed copy of circular no. ZD/1/1993 dated 25.02.93 on the

subject of LIC Recruitment (Class III & IV Staff) Instructions

1993 of which paragraph 21 provides for relaxation in favour

of near relative of an employee who dies while in service,

which clearly establishes that appointment on

compassionate ground is limited to the dependants of

deceased employee.

14. Now the point arises whether late V K Saxena

was an employee of LIC. In This regard the applicant has

not filed any documents to establish that late V K Saxena

was ever appointed by LIC.

15. Smt. Shyam Lata Saxena, w.w. 1, has stated in her

evidence that her husband was working as caretaker of

guest house who died on 26.09.05. He has filed paper

No. 7/4 to 7/6 to show that her husband was working till

2002. She has admitted that the does not know whether her

husband was appointed or given any appointment letter.

She has also admitted the signature of her husband on

paper no. 10/2-5 which has been filed by the management.

She has denied that her husband was working on contract.

She also said that she does not know whether her husband

was putting his signature on the attendance register or

not.

16. Management has examined W.1. Sri Indra Prakash

Dixit, A.O. LIC Kanpur, who has deposed in his evidence

that LIC is having it guest houses at several places but no

post of caretaker is sanctioned and the work of caretake is

being taken of contract basis. Sri V.K.Saxena was never

given any appointment letter. Document no. 10/2-5 filed by

the management in original clearly indicates that Sri Saxena

had been working on contract. It is further stated that rules

and circulars relating to employee of LIC are not applicable

I the case of R. Saxena. It is further stated that as V K

Saxena was not the employee of LIC there is no necessity

of giving any notice when he left his work.

17. Management has filed paper no. 10/2 which is

original application of V K Saxena offering himself to work

as caretaker of LIC Guest House on contract. He has not

prayed for providing any employment by the opposite party.

18. Paper no. 10/3 is the application of Sri Saxena

requesting therein to enhance the payment and stating

therein that he is working on Rs. 1300/- per month on

contract. Other paper 10/4-5 are also application of

Sri Saxena for enhancing his payment and these papers are

admitted by the applicant Smt. Shyam Lata Saxena.

19. From the above evidence it is very much clear

that late V K Saxena was never appointed by LIC on the

post of caretaker and he was working simply on contract

therefore, he cannot be termed as employee of the LIC of

India, nor he can be said to be contractual employee of LIC

of India.

20. Representative for the applicant has cited the

case laws—

1. 2011 Lab IC 2799 SC Devender Singh versus

Municipal Council Sanour.

2. 2004 SCC (L&S) 506 BHEL versus State of U.P.

21. Both the authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court do

not favor the applicant because case of applicant does not

come within the ambit of Contractual employees or real

employee.

22. From the above discussion of facts and law both,

it is held that the action of the management of Divisional

Manager, LIC of India, Agra in not giving appointment to

Smt. Shyamlata Saxena W/o of late V K Saxena on

compassionate ground and also not extending service

benefit in respect of late V K Saxena to Smt. Shyamlata

Saxena widow of deceased employee is just and proper.

Consequently she is not entitled for any relief pursuant to

the present reference order.

23.Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.