foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1726-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ 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

vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 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] cSad vkQ cM+kSnk

ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh dsñ osadV jkek ewfrZ ¼tUe frfFk

12-01-1959½ dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

31-01-2019 vFkkZr~ vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 65]000—78]000 #i,

ds osrueku esa ;qukbVsM cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 16@46@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th August, 2015

S.O. 1726.—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 K.

Venkata Rama Moorthy (DoB: 12.01.1959), Executive

Director, Bank of Baroda as Executive Director, United

Bank of India in the scale of pay of Rs. 65,000—78,000

with effect from the date of his assumption of the charge

of the post and upto 31.01.2019 i.e. the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 16/46/2015-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, 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- 36]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 30—flrEcj 5] 2015] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 8—Hkkæ 14] 1937

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 30—SEPTEMBER 5, 2015, SATURDAY/BHADRA 8—BHADRA 14, 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)

3594 GI/2015

(3627)

3628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

'kqf)&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1727-&Jh fd'kksj fijkth [kjkr dks vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad fyñ ds

izca/k funs'kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh ds in ij fu;qDr djus

laca/kh bl foHkkx dh fnukad 14-08-2015 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k

4@2@2015&chvks&I esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr 'kCnksa%

^^jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ 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 vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

/kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,** ds LFkku ij

^^vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad fyñ ds laLFkk ds varfuZ;e ds vuqPNsn 116¼d½¼ii½

ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,** izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,A

[Qkñ lañ 4@2@2015&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1727.—In partial modification of this Department's

Notification No. 4/2/2015-BO-I dated 14.8.2015 appointing

Shri Kishor Piraji Kharat as MD & CEO of IDBI Bank Ltd., the

following words may be substituted:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 116(a)(ii) of the

Articles of Association of IDBI Bank Ltd." instead of the

following words:

"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".

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

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 flrEcj] 2015

dkñvkñ 1728.—xksok] neu ,oa nho ¼cSadksa dk iquxZBu½ fofu;ekoyh]

1962 ds fofu;e 4¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj

,rn~}kjk] Jherh dud ,lñ 'ksV~Vh] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad dh i.kth 'kk[kk esa

eq[; izca/kd dks in ds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls vxys vkns'kksa rd]

ckudks uSlhvksvy vYVªkeSfjuks ,aM dsDlk bdksuksfedk fM xksok ¼lhbZMhth½

ds vfHkj{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 66@1@2006&chvks&II]

rhFkZ jke] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2015

S.O. 1728.—In exercise of the powers conferred under

regulation 4(1) of Goa, Daman & Diu (Banks Reconstruction)

Regulations, 1962, the Central Government hereby

appoints Mrs. Kanaka S. Shetty, Chief Manager,

Panji Branch in the State Bank of India, as the

Custodian of Banco Nacional Ultramarino and Caixa

Economica De Goa w.e.f. the date she assumes the

charge of the post and until further orders.

[F. No. 66/1/2006-BO-II]

TIRTH RAM, Under Secy.

;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1729.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k

ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds

fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj

[ksy ea=ky; ds Lok;Ùk'kklh dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; [ksy izkf/kdj.k

izf'k{k.k dsanz] cokuk] fnYyh ftlds 80% ls vf/kd

deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks

vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ bZ&11011@2@2008&fgñ,ñ]

,lñ ,yñ ehuk] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2015

S.O. 1729.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule

10 of Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies Sports Authority of India Training Centre,

Bawana, Delhi, an Autonomous office of Ministry

of Youth Affairs & Sports, whereof more than 80%

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1730.—yksd ifjlj ¼vukf/kd`r dCtk/kkfj;ksa

dks csn[ky djuk½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh

/kkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj

,rn~}kjk uhps nh xbZ rkfydk ds dkWye ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr

vf/kdkjh] tks Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh dh jSad ds

cjkcj ds vf/kdkjh gSa] dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ

laink vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS] tks mDr rkfydk

ds dkWye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V yksd ifjljksa ds laca/k esa vius

vf/kdkj {ks= dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vf/kfu;e

}kjk vFkok mlds rgr laink vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lkSais x, dk;ks±

dk fu"iknu djsaxs vkSj iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs%—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3629

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. .1730.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government

hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below being an officer equivalent to the rank of

gazetted officer of the Government of India to be the Estate

Officer for the purposes of the said Act who shall exercise

the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on

estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local

limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises

specified in column (2) of the said Table:—

Rkkfydk

vf/kdkjh dk in

yksd ifjlj vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= dh LFkkuh;

lhekvksa dh Jsf.k;ka

¼1½

¼2½

jftLVªkj] jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku]

jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku] te'ksniqj ds

te'ksniqj

iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds rgr vkSj mlls lacaf/kr

lHkh ifjlj

[lañ ,Qñ 9&5@2015&Vh,l-III]

jkts'k flag lksyadh] voj lfpo

TABLE

Designation of Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits

of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Registrar,

All the premises belonging to and under the

National Institute of Technology,

administrative control of the National Institute

Jamshedpur

of Technology, Jamshedpur

[No. F. 9-5/2015-TS.III]

RAJESH SINGH SOLANKI, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1731.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

47½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;

,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 89@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

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

[lañ ,y&42012@57@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2015

S.O. 1731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 89/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya &

Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 19/08/2015.

[No. L-42012/57/2006-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

3630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

lsok dh fujUrjrk ekuh x;h vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsok esa okfil fu;ksftr

fd;k x;kA vokMZ dh vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ us fu;kstu ds ;gka

15-7-2005 dks M~;wVh Tokbu dh ysfdu vokMZ ikfjr gksus dh frfFk ls

14-7-2005 rd dh vof/k dk osru foi{kh us ugha fn;kA foi{kh us

cnys dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj fnukad 27-2-2006 dks izkFkhZ dks lsok

ls vyx dj fn;kA

5- fnukad 27-2-2006 ds vkns'k ds fo:) izkFkhZ us vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2&, ds vUrxZr lgk;d Je vk;qDr

ds le{k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k tgka le>kSrk okrkZ foQy jgh

ftlds ckn Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq ekeyk dsUæh; Je

U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd

lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k fnukad 27-2-2006 fuEu dkj.kksa ls fof/k fo:)

o izHkko 'kwU; gS%—

¼d½ fu;kstd ds ;gka okgu pkyd dk in fjDr gksus ds dkj.k

fnukad 23-11-99 dks izkFkhZ dks j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj rc ls izkFkhZ fujUrj

dke djrk vk jgk Fkk rFkk 27-2-2006 ds iwoZ izR;sd lky esa mlus

240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dke fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls vyx

djus dh dk;Zokgh vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gS rFkk cnys dh Hkkouk ls

izsfjr gS D;ksafd foi{kh izkFkhZ ls ukjkt jgrk FkkA foi{kh la[;k 2 dh

vuqefr ds fcuk gh foi{kh la[;k 1 us izkFkh dks lsok ls vyx dj

fn;kA

¼[k½ foi{khx.k ds ;gka dk;Z dh deh ugha FkhA izkFkhZ us okgu

pykus ds vfrfjDr Hkh tks dk;Z foi{khx.k us djk;k mls izkFkhZ us fd;k

vkSj dHkh dk;Z djus ls euk ugha fd;kA foi{khx.k ds ;gka nSfud

etnwjh ij dke djus okys dkQh Jfed lsok ls vyx fd;s x;sA

foi{kh }kjk okgu pkydksa dh dksbZ ojh;rk lwph ugha rS;kj dh x;h tks

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2&th dk mYya?ku gSA

¼x½ foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djrs le; ,d ekg dk uksfVl]

uksfVl ds cnys osru vFkok NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;kA foi{kh us tks

Hkqxrku fd;k mls Hkh fnukad 1-9-2005 ds ckn fd;k bl izdkj

foi{kh us /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dk mYya?ku

fd;kA

¼?k½ izkFkh dh foi{kh }kjk lsokeqfDr izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr

dk mYya?ku gSA

6- vr% izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k

fujLr dj izHkko'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dks leLr foRrh; ykHk lfgr

okgu pkyd ds in ij lsok esa fujUrjrk iznku djrs gq, iquLFkkZfir

fd;k tk;A

7- foi{kh us oknksRrj izLrqr dj ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1] 2] 3 vkSj 8

ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k gSA izLrj 4 esa vokMZ fnukafdr

20-1-2005 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS 'ks"k dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k

x;k gSA izLrj 5 ,oa 6 ds dFku dks fnukad 27-2-2006 ds vkns'k ds

lEcU/k esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] 'ks"k dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k

gSA izLrj 7 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izLrj 8 ds lEcU/k esa fnukad

vuqca/k

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

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 89@2006

Hkjr ik.Ms;]

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- L-42012/57/2006-IR (DU) fnukad 08/11/2006

Shri Kamal Babu Jogi S/o Shri Shrawan Lal Jogi,

R/o Shyosinghpura, P.O. Siras, Teh. Niwai

Distt.-Tonk, (Rajasthan) (Dead During Pendency)

1/1 Smt. Barfi Devi (Wife)

1/2 Ravi Kumar (Son)

1/3 Somadev (Son)

1/4 Miss. Maya (Daughter)

V/s

1. The Dy. Commissioner,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,

18, Sangram Colony, Mahavir Marg,

C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Village & P.O.-Chhan,

Distt.-Tonk (Rajasthan)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh ch- ,e- ckxM+k — ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh gok flag — izfrfuf/k

iapkV

fnukad % 30-7-2015

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

/kkjk 10 mi&/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 08@11@2006 ds

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

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

2. "Whether the action of the management of the Principal

Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chhan, in terminating the services of

their workman Shri Kamal Babu Jogi S/o Shri Shrawan Lal

Jogi, Driver, w.e.f. 27.02.2006 is legal and Justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

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

dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh fo|ky; esa pkyd dk LFkk;h in

fjDr gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 23-11-1999 dks okgu pkyd ds in ij

j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks ijs'kku djus dh fu;r ls okgu pkyd ds

fu;fer in ij dke djkus ds ckotwn izkFkhZ dks nSfud nj ls gh

etnwjh nh x;hA izkFkhZ dks U;wure etnwjh Hkh ugha nh x;h vkSj ekax

djus ij foi{kh us fnukad 16-6-2000 ls dke ij ysus ls euk dj

fn;k vkSj lsok ls vyx dj fn;kA

4- izkFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 2 , ds vUrxZr lgk;d Je vk;qDr dks

izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA Hkkjr ljdkj us U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq fookn

izksf"kr fd;k tks lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- ds dsl uEcj 21@2004 ntZ gqvk

vkSj fnukad 20-1-2005 dks vokMZ izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ikfjr gqvk ftlesa

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3631

27-2-2006 ds vkns'k dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr dFku esa

;g dgk x;k gS fd dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij fnukad

23-11-1999 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa izkFkhZ dks fu;ksftr fd;k

x;k Fkk vkSj fu;qfDr ds le; mldh mez 33 o"kZ N% ekg FkhA og

fu;qfDr ds fy, ik= ugha Fkk D;ksafd fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj okgu

pkyd in ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vk;q lhek 18 o"kZ ls vf/kd vkSj

30 lky ls de gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ik=rk ek= ls fdlh dks

in fo'ks"k ij fu;kstu dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk D;ksafd fu;fer

fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr oS/kkfud izfØ;k dks viukus ds i'pkr~

gh iznku dh tk ldrh gSA

8- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr gks x;k FkkA

foi{kh laLFkku esa pkyd dk ,d gh in Lohd`r gS vkSj mDr in ds

lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k lu~ 1996 ls fjV ;kfpdk

yfEcr Fkh vr% fu;fer fu;kstu ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk D;ksafd fjV

;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k foi{khx.k ds i{k esa gks pqdk FkkA izkFkhZ dks

foi{kh laLFkku esa fdlh vkns'k }kjk fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;ksftr

ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj u gh mls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;kstu

ls gVk;k x;k FkkA og Lo;a dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr gks x;k Fkk vkSj mlus

vuqifLFkfr dh lwpuk Hkh ugha nhA izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk nq:i;ksx dj fcuk dk;Z fd;s vkfFkZd ,oa

vU; ykHk ikus dh dqps"Vk esa Fkk tks izkfo/kkuksa dk [kqyk nq:i;ksx gSA

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- dsl uEcj 21@2004 ds vokMZ fnukad 20-1-2005 esa

foi{k }kjk izLrqr izkjfEHkd vkifRr ,oa mRrj ¼izn'kZ ,e 1 ,oa izn'kZ

,e 2½ ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk nq:i;ksx dj fcuk dk;Z fd;s ykHk

izkIr djus dh dqps"Vk dh FkhA

9- ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 20-1-2005 ls

Li"V gS fd fiNys osru ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k

x;k FkkA vokMZ dh izfrfyfi ,e 3 oknksRrj ds lkFk layXu gSA izkFkhZ

us /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ 2 ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk&i= lh-,y-lh- 19@2005

foxr osru ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr dh Fkh tks 12-5-2006 dks U;k;kfèdj.k

}kjk fujLr dj nh x;hA lh-,y-lh- 19@2005 esa vokMZ fnukad

12-5-2006 dh izfr izn'kZ ,e 4 layXu gSA

10- oknksRrj ds izLrj 5 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku

xyr gS fd fnukad 27-2-2006 dk lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k cnys dh

Hkkouk ls izsfjr gSA vkns'k fnukad 27-2-2006 vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh vkKkid /kkjkvksa dk ikyu djrs gq, fd;k x;k gS

vkSj izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dh uksfVl ds cnys esa ,d ekg dk osru vkSj

psd la[;k 908416 fnukafdr 27-2-2006 }kjk 10]039 #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ

dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dk

vkns'k iw.kZ:i ls fof/kd ,oa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 esa nh

x;h izfØ;k ds vuq:i gSA Jh Jo.k flag jktkor fu;fer okgu pkyd

dh fu;qfDr l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk igys gh dj nh x;h Fkh blfy, izkFkhZ

dh nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa lsok dh vko';drk ugha jg x;h FkhA

bl ckr dk mYys[k izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k izn'kZ 5 esa fd;k x;k

gS fd fu;fer pkyd miyC/k gks x;k gSA

11- izLrj 7 esa foi{kh dk dFku gS fd fof/kd n`f"V ls ;kph dh

ekaxi= iks"k.kh; ugha gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA izLrj 9 esa ;g dgk

x;k gS fd ;g fo'ks"k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok nSfud

osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fdlh LFkk;h in ds fo#) ugha yh tk jgh FkhA

tc fo|ky; dks vkdfLed vk/kkj ij pkyd dh vko';drk iM+rh

Fkh tc rRdkyhu ns; nSfud nj ij mls fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk

mldk Hkqxrku ^^fofo/k O;;** en ls fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkh dks bl

vk/kkj ij lsokeqDr fd;k x;k Fkk fd fo|ky; dks l{ke vf/kdkjh]

uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr }kjk pkyd miyC/k djk fn;k x;k FkkA

vizkFkhZ ds laLFkku esa izkFkhZ }kjk fu;fer fu;qfDr dh ekax fof/k fo#)

,oa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh lafo/kku ihB }kjk dukZVd jkT;

cuke meknsoh ¼3½] 2006] 4 ,l-lh-lh-&1] esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa

ds fo#) gS D;ksafd fdlh Hkh fu;fer fu;qfDr ds fy, vk'kkFkhZ dks

fuZ/kkfjr fu;ekoyh ,oa izfØ;k }kjk p;u esa lQy gksus ds i'pkr~ gh

fu;ksftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA

12- vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj

ugha gS ,oa izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk fujLr dh tk;A

13- izkjfEHkd vkifRr esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd foi{k ^^m|ksx** dh

ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkh dks dksbZ

okn dkj.k izkIr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kkuksa dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gSA

14- oknksRrj ds fo#) ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr fjTok;UMj esa

;kfpdk ds dFku dh iqujko`fRr dh x;h gSA

15- izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ vfHkys[kh;

lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls vfHkys[kh; lk{;

ds :i esa izn'kZ 1 yxk;r izn'kZ 5 vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftlesa

izn'kZ 1 dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj

ds le{k ;kfpdk la[;k 21@2004 esa izLrqr izkjfEHkd vkifRr ,oa

izn'kZ 2 oknksRrj] izn'kZ 3 vokMZ fnukafdr 20-1-2005] izn'kZ 4 lh-

,y-lh 19@2005 Jh dey ckcw tksxh cuke tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;

esa ikfjr fu.kZ; vkns'k fnukad 12-5-2006 ,oa izn'kZ 5 lsok lekfIr

dk vkns'k fnukad 27-2-2006 gSA

16- ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls lk{; esa dksbZ 'kiFk i= izLrqr ugha

fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 25-6-2012 ls ;kph i{k dks lk{; izLrqr djus

dk volj feyrk jgk gSA fnukad 25-6-2012 dks ;kph i{k }kjk

vuqifLFkfr jgus vkSj lk{; izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu fo}ku

ihBklhu U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ;kph i{k ds fo#) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk

vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj foi{kh dh lk{; ds fy, fnukad

27-8-2012 rkjh[k fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 27-8-12 dks foi{k }kjk

dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr jgkA

vxyh frfFk 8-11-12 dks foi{k }kjk viuk lk{; bl vk/kkj ij

lekIr fd;k x;k fd ;kph i{k us lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS] vr%

foi{k dks lk{; ugha izLrqr djuk gSA blds ckn i=koyh ,di{kh;

cgl ds fy, 20-12-12 dks fu;r dh x;hA vxyh frfFk;ksa fnukad

3632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

20-12-12] 13-3-13 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs gSa vkSj vxyh frfFk

15-5-13 dks izkFkhZ i{k vuqifLFkr jgk gS vkSj foi{k mifLFkfr jgk gS

,oa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vodk'k ij jgs gSaA cgl ds fy, vxyh frfFk

12-8-13 fjDr dh x;h gSA fnukad 15-5-13 vkSj 12-8-13 ds chp

tqykbZ 2013 esa U;k;ky; fjDr gks x;k gSA i=koyh U;k;ky; fjDr gksus

ds le; foi{k dh rjQ ls ,di{kh; cgl dh dk;Zokgh esa py jgh

FkhA fnukad 12-8-2013 ds ckn vxyh frfFk 23-10-2013 dks izkFkhZ

i{k vuqifLFkr Fkk vkSj i=koyh ,di{kh; cgl esa FkhA foi{k us

fnukad 23-10-2013 dks le; dh ekax dh vr% vxyh frfFk ,di{kh;

cgl gsrq 30-12-13 fu;r dh x;hA bl chp u;s ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

us fnukad 10-10-13 dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;kA

17- fnukad 30-12-13 vkSj 4-3-15 ds chp e`rd ;kph ds

mRrjkfèdkfj;ksa dks la'kks/ku ds ek/;e ls fjdkMZ ij fy;s tkus dh

dk;Zokgh pyhA fnukad 4-3-15 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr Fks vr% i=koyh

,di{kh; cgl esa fnukad 11-3-15 dks fu;r dh x;hA fnukad

11-3-15] 17-3-15 vkSj 23-3-15 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgsA i{kdkjksa

dh fujUrj vuqifLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, i=koyh dks vokMZ gsrq

vkjf{kr fd;k x;kA ,okMZ ds fy, i=koyh ds lE;d~ voyksdu ls

;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd mHk;i{k dk i=koyh ij lk{; ugha gSA

U;k;fgr esa izkFkhZ i{k dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj nsuk mfpr

le> dj ,okMZ ikfjr djus dh dk;Zokgh jksddj ;kph i{k ds fo}ku

izfrfuf/k dks lwpuk nh x;hA fnukad 27-7-15 dks ;kph i{k ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk izfrfuf/k mifLFkr vk;s ftUgsa i=koyh ij lk{; u gksus ds

lEcU/k esa voxr djk;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

voxr djk;k fd ckj&ckj lwpuk nsus ij Hkh ;kph i{k ugha vkrk gS

blfy;s mUgsa ,slh fLFkfr esa mUgsa vkxs dqN ugha djuk gSA mDr rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr esa lk{; dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh x;h vkSj i=koyh ,okMZ

ds fy, vkjf{kr dh x;hA

18- mijksDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;kph i{k dks

;kfpdk esa vkxs dh dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ #fp ugha gSA ;kph i{k }kjk

viuh ;kfpdk esa izLrqr dFku ds leFkZu esa lk{; esa dksbZ 'kiFk&i=

ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh fdlh ;kph lk{kh dh foi{k }kjk

izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA ;kph i{k }kjk dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; Hkh ugha

izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ;kph i{k ;kfpdk ds dFku dks fl)

djus esa vlQy gSA mDr vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd tokgj

uoksn; fo|ky;] Nkau ds izpk;Z }kjk Jh dey ckcw tksxh iq=

Jh Jo.k yky tksxh okgu pkyd ds fo#) ikfjr lsok lekfIr dk

vkns'k fnukafdr 27-2-2006 fof/kd ,oa mfpr gS rFkk ;kph fdlh

vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus

;ksX; gS ,oa rn~uqlkj [kkkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr

funsZ'k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k

tkrk gSA

19- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUæh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk,A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1732.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj us'kuy QfVZykbtj

fyfeVsM] jksiM+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

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

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

283@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@52@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 283/2013) of the

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

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the National Fertilizer Ltd., Ropar and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25/08/2015.

[No. L-42011/52/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 283/2013

Registered on 19.8.2013

1. Nangal Fertilizer Worker Union (Registered) National

Fertilizer Ltd., Naya Nangal, District, Ropar, through its

President/Secretary.

2. National Fertilizer Employees Union (Regd) National

Fertilizer Ltd., Naya Nangal, District, Ropar through its

President.

Petitioner

Versus

General Manager, National Fertilizer Ltd., Nangal Unit

Nangal, District Ropar (Punjab).

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Ramesh Chopra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Vinod Sharma (Senior Exec.).

AWARD

Passed on 12/12/2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/52/

2013-IR(DU) Dated 13.8.2013, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-

A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal:—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3633

"Whether the action of the General Manager, National

Fertilizer Ltd. Nangal Unit, Nangal, Distt. Ropar in

deducting Rs. 5/- per month on account of Union Fund

from the salaries of all the employees/workmen without

having their authorization/consent/option working

under him on the behest of the President Nangal Khad

Factory Mazdoor Dal (Regd & Recog) is just and legal?

To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

The workers submitted statement of claim to which

written reply was filed by the respondent management.

The facts emerging from the documents are that there are

five registered trade unions including the present Union

who preferred the reference as well 'Nangal Khad Factory

Mazdoor Dal' who was elected and recognized as such in

August, 2012. The management started deducting Rs. 5/-

of the members of Nangal Fertilizer Worker Union and

National Fertilizer Employees Union who preferred the

present reference as a letter was written by the 'Nangal

Khad Factory Mazdoor Dal' for making such deduction.

The members of the Nangal Fertilizer Worker Union,

National Fertilizer Employees Union had challenged the

said deduction on the ground that deduction cannot be

made from their salary without their consent and that too

merely on account of some letter written by the 'Nangal

Khad Factory Mazdoor Dal'. That deductions have been

made since 2013 and management be directed to refund the

amount and further the deduction if made be declared as

unauthorized.

The management filed written reply pleading that it has

been deducting the amount as per the letter of recognized

Union as per practice and the Union is to spent the amount

for the welfare of its members. That the act of the

management is legal.

Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.

In support of its case Ramesh Kumar and Kulwinder

Singh appeared on behalf of the Workers Union and filed

their affidavits reiterating the stand as taken in the claim

statement.

On the other hand Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, appeared

on behalf of the management and filed his affidavit

reiterating the stand as taken by the management in the

written statement.

I have heard Sh. Ramesh Chopra, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Senior Executive,

for the management.

It is not disputed that the management has been

deducting Rs. 5/- from the salary of the members of Nangal

Fertilizer Workers Union' (Regd.), National Fertilizer

Employees Union and had started deducting the amount

from January, 2013; as letter has been written to it for making

the deduction by another Union known as 'Nangal Khad

Factory Mazdoor Dal' who came to power in August, 2012.

Though it is pleaded that deductions are made as per law

but Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing for the respondent

management did not show any provisions of law under

which the management can deduct any amount from the

salary of its workers and that too at the instance of a third

party and without the consent of the workers. Mr. V.K.

Sharma has referred to certain letters written by the Union

for deducting some amount from the salary of the workers,

but the same do not have the effrect of any law. The

management cannot deduct the amount without the consent

of the workers and therefore the deduction of Rs. 5/- from

the salaries of the members of the Nangal Fertilizer Workers

Union, National Fertilizer Employees Union (Regd.) is

unauthorized and the management is liable to refund the

amount deducted so far.

In result, it is held that the action of the management

deducting Rs. 5/- per month from the salary of the workers

of Nangal Fertilizer Workers Union, National Fertilizer

Employees Union (Regd.) is unauthorized and the

management is liable to refund the same to the workers and

the reference is accordingly answered in favour of the

workers. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the

Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1733.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy lkby ,aM okVj

dksUlsoZfVvksu~ fjlpZ ,aM Vªsfuax bafLVV~;wV paMhx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 888@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@120@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 888/2005) of the

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

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Central Soil & Water Conservation

Research & Training Institute, Chandigarh and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 25/08/2015.

[No. L-42011/120/99-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 888/2005

3634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Registered on 12.9.2005

Workmen of Central Soil and Water Conservation, Research

and Training Institute Research Centre, Sector 26, Madhya

Marg, Chandigarh working at its Research Farm, Mansa

Devi, Distt. Panchkula through their Research Farm Worker

Union, Mansa Devi, Distt. Panchkula.

...Petitioners

Versus

The Officer Incharge Central Soil & Water Conservation

Research & Training Institute, Research Centre, Sector 26,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Ashwani Bakshi Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 14.10.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/120/

99-IR(DU) Dated 3.3.2000, by exercising its powers under

Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of Officer Incharge Central Soil &

Water Conservation Research & Training Institute,

Research Centre, Chandigarh in denying the under

mentioned three demands of Research Farm Workers

Union, Mansa Devi is justified?

1. Grant of pensionary benefits to Sh. Ram Rattan and

Kehar, workman retired from the services of

respondent after working at Research Farm, Mansa

Devi.

2. Grant of Compensatory leave to the workers

S/Sh. Muna Lall, Ujaggar, Pal Chand, Muni Lall,

Chhote Lall, Sahib Din, Banarsi, Deva, Chandrika,

Khoob Lall, Kehar, Amrit Lal, Ram Abilash, Ram

Karan, Jagira, Bant, Barkhas, Mrs. Satya Devi, Ran

Samujh, Arjun, Ram Rattan, Kartar Singh (deceased),

and Dayal Singh for performing extra duties during

the period from 12.2.1988 to 21.9.1990.

3. Treating full period of service as casual labour for

pensionary benefit.

If not to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

In response to the notice, the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that Sh. Ram Rattan joined the

respondent management in 1956 as labourer and remained

in continuous service and his services were regularized in

1988. He retired on 31.12.1994.

Sh. Kehar Singh joined the respondent management in

1957 and remained in continuous service till 20.8.1987 when

his services were regularized and he retired on 31.12.1995.

But both the said persons were not given pensionary

benefits and the services rendered by them as casual

labourer is to be taken into account for determining the

period of service for the grant of pensionary benefits and

they are entitled to get the same.

It was further pleaded that the persons whose names

find mentioned in Para 2 of the reference are entitled for

compensatory leave or wages. It is further pleaded that all

the casual labourers are entitled to pensionary benefits

including their service as casual labourers.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that respondent management is not an industry and further

pleaded that Ram Rattan was made regular on 6.1.1988 and

retired on 31.12.1994 and thus completed six years ten

months and twenty-six days of regular service. Similarly,

Kehar Singh joined regular service on 8.9.1987 retired on

31.12.1995 and did regular service of 8 years.

Since both the persons did not complete minimum of

ten years of service, they were not entitled to pensionary

benefits.

It is further pleaded that compensatory leave etc. has

been given to the workmen as per the circulars of the

management and no relief can be given to them.

Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.

In support of its case Ram Rattan and Kehar Singh

appeared in the witness box and filed their respective

affidavits reiterating the averments as contained in the claim

petition.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. S.S. Chauhan who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand

taken by the management in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Ashwani Bakshi, counsel for the

workman and Sh. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the management

and also perused the written submissions submitted by

the respective parties.

The main contention of the respondent management is

that since Ram Rattan and Kehar Singh did not put in ten

years of regular service, they are not entitled to pensionary

benefits. Though, Ram Rattan claims himself to be in service

as labourer from the year 1956 and Kehar Singh from the

year 1957, the management itself placed on record a

document regarding the seniority list of daily paid labourers

and it is mentioned therein that Ram Rattan was working

from 1971 and Kehar Singh was working from 1966. The

services of Ram Rattan were regularized on 6.1.1988 and of

Sh. Kehar Singh on 8.9.1987. The respondent management

did not count the service prior to the regularization of

service i.e. the service from 1971 to 1988 of Ram Rattan and

of Kehar Singh from 1966 to 1987 for the grant of pension.

It is now settled law that the service rendered on temporary/

ad hoc basis is to be taken into account for the grant of

pensionary benefits. Therefore the services rendered by

the workman Ram Rattan from 1971 and by Sh. Kehar Singh

from 1966 is to be taken into account for giving them

pensionary benefits and they cannot be denied pension

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3635

simply on the ground that they did not complete ten years

of regular service. Being so, it is held that Ram Rattan and

Sh. Kehar Singh are entitled to pensionary benefits on

their retirement as per Rules.

So far as the demand of the workmen that the persons

mentioned in para 2 of the reference are entitled for the

grant of compensatory leave or wages, for the period

12.2.1988 to 21.9.1990 is concerned, nothing material has

come on the record that they were denied the said benefits

and on mere assertions, no order can be passed for the

grant of compensatory leave or wages. Similarly, the demand

for granting pensionary benefits to casual labourer is also

not justified as only the regular employees can claim the

pensionary benefits and the services rendered as casual

labourer continuously has to be taken into account for the

purpose of pension and the person working as a casual

labourer cannot be granted the pensionary benefits.

In result, the reference is answered holding that Ram

Rattan and Kehar Singh are entitled to pensionary benefits

whereas, the other two relief claimed by the workmen in the

reference are declined and the reference is answered

accordingly. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1734.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

15½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefyVªh bathfu;fjax

lsok] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tyciqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl la-

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@116@98½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@23@97&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/

116/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Military Engineering Service,

Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 21/08/2015.

[No. L-14012/23/97-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/116/98

Shri Kanhaiyalal,

S/o Shri Narayan, 47/2,

MES Staff Quarter,

Mall Road, Mhow (MP)

........Wokrman

Versus

Chief Engineer,

MES (Military Engineering Service),

Jabalpur

........Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 11.6.98 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-14012/23/97/IR(DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of MES in giving

compulsory retirement to Shri Kanhaiyalal S/o

Shri Narayan Electrician w.e.f. 20.12.96 is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitlted for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Pages 2/1

to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was appointed as

Electrician by Officer of 2nd party. 2nd party is an Industry.

Chargesheet was issued to him on 19.8.95 about

unauthorized absence for the period 28.5.87 to 29.1.94.

Workman submits that he was absent from duty after leave

was sanctioned to him. He had denied charges against

him, showcause notice was issued to him by 2nd party.

Workman had given reply to the notice. Workman denied

charges against him. Enquiry Officer submitted his report

on 4.7.96. Ist party workman had submitted his objection

on 8.7.96. The order of punishment was passed against

him on 28.12.96 imposing punishment of compulsory

retirement. Workman submits that enquiry conducted

against him is illegal. He had not committed any misconduct.

The documents requested by workman were not supplied

to him. Consequently workman could not defend himself

properly. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot

prove charges against him. Workman had suffered injury,

his pay was deducted. In legal proceeding initiated by

workman, he was awarded compensation. The

compensation amount was recovered from 2nd party.

Management was annoyed by the legal actions taken by

workman. Chargesheet was issued falsely. Workman was

not served notice alongwith report of the Enquiry Officer.

His services are illegally terminated in violation of principles

of natural justice. Workman prays that order of his

compulsory retirement be declared illegal and reinstatement

with backwages be allowed to him.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at pages 7/1 to 7/2

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that it is

not industry under ID Act. 2nd party is a department in

control of Ministry of Defence. It is not engaged in earning

3636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

profit. It does not carry industrial activities contemplated

under Section 2(j) of ID Act. Workman is not covered under

Section 2(s) of ID Act as he is drawing Rs. 3085 in pay

scale Rs. 950-1500. The workman was served with

chargesheet for unauthorized absence under Rules 14 of

CCS CCA Rules 1965. Enquiry was conducted against

workman following procedure. Workman was given full

opportunity for his defence. On evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings, the report was submitted by Enquiry Officer.

That charges against workman were proved. Management

of 2nd party accepted findings of Enquiry Officer. After

receiving showcause notice, the reply submitted by

workman was also considered. Leniency was shown and

punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. If

enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated. 2nd

party prayed permission to prove misconduct by adducing

evidence.

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 8/1 to 8/4 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Management also filed reply to the rejoinder at Pages

11/1 to 11/6 reiterating his contentions in Written Statement.

6. As per order dated 20.3.14, enquiry conducted against

workman is found illegal/vitiated. 2nd party was permitted

to prove misconduct.

7. Considering pleadings on record and findings on

preliminary issue, the points which arise for my

consideration and determination are as under. My findings

are recorded against each of them for the reasons as

below:—

"(i) Whether the 2nd party

management proved charges

In Negative

alleged against workman?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

compulsory retirement

In Negative

imposed against workman is

proper and legal?

(iii)

If not, what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?"

order.

REASONS

8. Point No. 10—Enquiry conducted against workman

is found illegal. Management was given permission to prove

misconduct by adducing evidence. Workman had died

during pendency of reference proceedings. His LRs are

brought on record. In order to prove charges alleged against

workman, affidavit of evidence of Shri S.C. Awasthi is filed.

Management's witness says that workman was absent from

duty from 20.5.87 to 29.12.94 without informing authorities.

Workman failed to report on duty. Chargesheet was issued

to workman enquiry was conducted following the rules.

Workman was provided inspection of documents. Full

opportunity was given to him. Evidence of management's

witness is nothing but narrating about enquiry conducted

against workman. His affidavit of evidence is not disclosing

how he was concerned with the absence of workman from

duties. In his cross-examination, management's witness

says he was posted at Agra, he was not concerned with

enquiry conducted against workman. Affidavit is filed on

basis of record available. Document of DE proceedings are

not produced. After enquiry conducted against workman

is found illegal, management has not adduced any evidence

to prove misconduct alleged against workman. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2—for alleged misconduct of unauthorised

and habitual absence, punishment of compulsory retirement

imposed against workman, enquiry against workman is found

illegal, 2nd party was given opportunity to prove charges

against workman. When charges alleged against workman

are not proved, punishment of compulsory retirement against

workman cannot be suspended. It deserves to be set-aside

therefore I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of MES in giving

compulsory retirement to Shri Kanhaiyalal S/o

Shri Narayan Electrician w.e.f. 20.12.96 is not proper

and legal.

(2) Order of compulsory retirement of deceased

workman is set-aside. 2nd party is directed to pay

backwages from date of order of compulsory

retirement till the date of superannuation of

workman or his death which ever is earlier and

thereafter retiral benefit to deceased workman/

his family members be given.

(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1735.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj dkj[kkuk]

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] tcyiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|kSfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tyciqj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl uañ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@48@07) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@4@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/48/

07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3637

the management of the Telecom Factory, BSNL, Jabalpur

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 21/08/2015.

[No. L-40011/4/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/48/07

Shri Jogendra Singh,

C/o Shri M.R. Ghai, Advocate,

18, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur

Circle Secretary,

BSNL Employees Union,

House No. 2491, Ekta Parisar,

Ratan Nagar Road,

Madanmahal, Jabalpur

Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom Factory,

Wright Town,

Jabalpur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 21.5.07 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40011/4/2007-IR(DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of BSNL Employees Union for

correction/modification of date of birth of Shri Jogendra

Singh, T. No. 2620 from 20.12.1951 to 19.7.1954 is legal

and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Pages 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as labour on 3.4.73 through Employment Exchange. At the

time of joining, he had declared his educational qualification

as furnished in School Certificate of standard 8th.

Subsequent to joining, he was medically examined on

28.12.73. The Medical Officer certified workman fit for

service. With regard to his age, Medical Officer recorded

that as per statement of workman, his age was 19 years and

by appearance 22 years. Workman was posted in Store

Section, Wright town, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur. He was

working under control of chargeman for 3 years. Thereafter

he was shifted to other department. Thereafter he worked

for 15 years. After sometime, he was transferred to

Microwave tower Section/Factory at Jabalpur as Fitter

Mart.

3. That he was receiving his salary signing in cash

register. Said register was not mentioning his leaves or

date of retirement. From salary slip of August 05, it came to

my notice that his date of birth was recorded 20.12.1951.

He submitted representations for correction of his date of

birth as 19.5.54. He had furnished education certificate in

support of his representation. He was informed on 20.10.05

that his date of birth would not be corrected. His subsequent

representation dated 2.11.05 was not considered. Workman

submits at the time of joining, his date of birth was not

recorded in service book. In all the form submitted by

workman, he claimed his date of birth was 19.7.54. On basis

of Medical Examination, management entered his date of

birth 28.12.51. His repeated request for correcting date of

birth was not considered. He had submaitted School

Certificate issued on 20.5.72 prior to joining service by him.

There was no reason to disbelieve said document without

assigning any reasons, his request for correction for date

of birth was rejected. Workman prays for correction of his

date of birth.

4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 7/1 to 7/

4 opposing claim of the workman 2nd party submits that

workman joined as labour on 3.4.73. His name was entered

in service book. Workman was given Ticket No. 2620,

qualification of workman was 8th standard pass but he

had not produced marksheet. As date of birth could not

be ascertained, he was medically examined on 20.12.73 by

Factory Medical Officer. As per Medical Report, age of

workman was recorded 19 years, by appearance 22 years.

His date of birth was ascertained as 20.12.1951. It was

recorded in service book. Service book was signed by

workman himself. His finger prints were also put on service

record. 2nd party reiterates that the Attestation Form

submitted by workman shows his qualification B-Com.

Ist year on 28.8.73. Workman submitted his date of birth

was 16.3.55 for purpose of family pension. Workman

himself was mentioning different date of birth. Workman

submitted representation on 1.9.05 at fag end of his

service. The representation was examined by the

department. Workman was informed about rejection of

his representation on 20.10.05 as per GI Deptt. OM No.

19017/2/92-Estt. He claimed for attestation of date of birth

to be made by employees within 5 years of entry in service.

It is reiterated that workman had not submitted certificate

of 8th standard. He was claiming his age was 19 years. It

was contrary to School Certificate of 8th standard and

declaration made by workman. The claim of workman is

false. Workman is not entitled to correction of his date of

birth.

5. Considering pleading on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

3638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

"(i) Whether the demand of BSNL

Employees Union for

In Negative

correction/modification of

date of birth of Shri Jogendra

Singh, T. No. 2620 from

20.12.1951 to 19.7.1954 is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman is claiming correction of his date of birth as

19.7.54 instead of 28.12.51. Claim of workman is opposed

by 2nd party management. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence supporting his claim that as per School record,

his date of birth is 19.7.54. He joined service on 28.12.73.

His date of birth was wrongly recorded 20.12.51 came to

his notice from pay slip for the month of August 05. His

correct date of birth is 19.7.54. In his cross-examination,

workman says he was appointed on 3.4.73. Exhibit M-3

was not filed by him, it was filled by the clerk. He claimed to

know about his correct date of birth in the year 2005. He

had complained about it in writing. He has produced

certificate of passing 8th standard. The documents

produced by management Exhibit M-1 shows that the date

of birth of workman is recorded 20.12.51. Medical report

refers workman was claiming his age was 19 years and by

appearance of 22 years. In Exhibit M-2, the date of birth of

workman is shown 16.3.55. Exhibit M-1, M-2 are admitted

by workman. Exhibit M-3 is workman was informed that his

representation of correction of date of birth could not be

considered. Exhibit M-4 is copy of rules relating to the

alteration in date of birth. Said rule provides the employee

makes request in this regard within 5 years of entering

Government service. Exhibit M-1 was referred to

management's witness in his cross-examination and

admitted in evidence. The date of birth of workman is

13.3.1951, present age 23 years age, at Matriculation

18 years. The qualification of workman is shown B. Com Ist

year in 1972 from G.S. College Jabalpur. The year of entry in

College is shown 1971.

7. Workman examined witness Shri Deepak Kumar Soni.

From his evidence, document Exhibit M-1 is proved. In

said document, date of birth of workman is recorded 19.7.54.

Copy of marksheet is produced by workman but workman

did not adduce evidence to prove said document. Copy of

marksheet produced by workman finds the date of birth of

workman was 19.7.54.

8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Raju Sapre supporting contentions of 2nd party

that his date of birth was recorded 28.12.1951 as per the

Medical Report. That any document submitted by

workman for family pension, date of birth is recorded

16.3.55. That as per OM No. 19017 dated 19.5.93, the

date of birth can be altered on request within 5 years by

the employee. Management's witness in his cross-

examination says Exhibit M-1 produced by 2nd party is

with respect to Yogendra Singh. The Attestation Form

was submitted by workman. Exhibit M-5 was referred to

the witness by counsel for Ist party and therefore

admitted in evidence.

9. The documents produced on record shows workman

claimed different date of his birth while submitting

documents for pension, the workman joined service in

1973. Till year 2005, he had no grievance about his date of

birth.

10. Learned Counsel for 2nd party Shri Gautam Prasad

relies on ratio held in—

Case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department

and Others versus R. Kirubakaran reported in AIR 1993-

SC-2647. Their Lordship dealing with correction to date of

birth held the Court or Tribunal should be slow in granting

it, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character

is produced.

Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of Union of

India versus Harnam Singh reported in AIR 1993-SC-1367(1).

Their Lordship dealing with correction of date of birth held

limitation of 5 years for seeking it introduced by amendment

in 1979. Entry as to date of birth recorded at time of entry

into service continuing to exist for 3½ decades without

challenge. Servant having numerous opportunities to see

entry correction sought 5 years after amendment of Note 5

was not justified.

In present case, workman was appointed in 1973. After

about 32 years, workman has requested correction of date

of birth at fag end of service cannot be accepted. Therefore,

I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The demand of BSNL Employees Union for

correction/modification of date of birth of Shri

Jogendra Singh, T. No. 2620 from 20.12.1951 to

19.7.1954 is not proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1736.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xu dSfjt QSDVªh]

tcyiqj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ dsl la-

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@ 151@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@22@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3639

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2015

S.O. 1736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/

151/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jablapur and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 21/08/2015.

[No. L-14011/22/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/151/2001

Shri Shivram, S/o Shri Cheddilal,

House No. 22, Hetalganj,

Sadarbazar, Jabalpur

.......Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 28-9-2001 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-14011/22/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in awarding penalty of

dismissal from service on Shri Shivram, sweeper

and subsequently reducing the penalty to

compulsory retirment by the Appellate Authority

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

workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page

4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

employed as sweeper in 2nd party GCF, Jabalpur. On charge

of unauthorised absence of 913 days in broken period,

workman was removed from service. That he had

submitted sick intimation to the Controlling Authority

entire period of his illness on 14-2-97. That he was

constantly sick during leave period. He was suffering

from disease of limbago. His both hip joints were defective.

On most of the occasions, he was bed ridden and receiving

treatment in factory hospital. The punishment of removal

from service was challenged filing appeal. The Appellate

Authority revised the order of dismissal of compulsory

retirement as per order dated 20-10-99. The Appellate

Authority was fully convinced of his sickness and his

inability to attend duties. Workman still feeling aggrieved

raised dispute and prays for setting aside order of his

compulsory retirement and consequently reinstated with

backwages.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 6/1 to 6/4

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that he

is Appellate Authority modified order of removal from

service to compulsory retirement. That chargesheet was

issued to workman for unauthorized absence of 219 days

in 1994, 360 days in 1995, 340 days in 1996. Workman did

not submit reply to the chargesheet. Enquiry Officer was

appointed. After receiving report of Enquiry Officer, its

copy was served on workman. He had submitted his reply

considering gravity of the proved unauthorized absence,

punishment of removal was imposed against workman. It

is reiterated that workman was unauthorisely absent and

not submitted any intimation about his absence. It is

submitted that workman was absent for 859 days during

1994 to 1996. The moderate punishment imposed on

workman by Appellate Authority doesnot absorb him for

his misconduct of absence of 983 days from duty. 2nd

party submits that action of the management is proper and

legal.

4. Legality of enquiry is not disputed by workman.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the management of Gun

Carriage factory, Jabalpur in awarding penalty of

dismissal from service on Shri Shivram, sweeper and

subsequently reducing the penalty to compulsory

retirement by the Appellate Authority is justified and

legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Workamn is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6. Workman died during pendency of reference. His LRs

were brought on record. LRs failed to participate in the

proceeding, they were proceeded exparte on 10-12-12.

Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri Chumdemo

Ngullie. His evidence is devoted on the point that Enquiry

Officer Shri D.P. Sengupta was appointed and Shri R.N.

Bannerjee was appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry

was conducted issuing the notice. Record of enquiry is

produced at Exhibit M-2. Considering findings of Enquiry

Officer, unauthorized absence of workman was removed

from service, the punishment was modified to compulsory

retirement in appeal. Considering long absence during the

year 1994-95, 95-96 workman did not attend to his duties.

3640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against

workman cannot be said excessive, disproportionate. The

absence of workman is not disputed, no evidence was

adduced by workman about application for leave submitted

by him. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Gun Carriage

Factory, Jabalpur in awarding penalty of dismissal from

service on Shri Shivram, sweeper and subsequently

reducing the penalty to compulsory retirement by the

Appellate Authority is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2015

dk-vk- 1737.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 'kekZ baVjizkbtst ,aM

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

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

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

141@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@25@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2015

S.O. 1737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 141/2014) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Sharma Enterprises & others and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 26/08/2015.

[No. L-42012/25/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Before Shri Surendra Prakash Singh, Presiding

Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-I, Chandigarh.

Case No. ID 141 of 2014. Reference No. L-42012/25/2015-

IR(D-U) dated 10.03.2015.

Sh. Satish Kumar son of Shri Karam Chand, House

No. 2217, Sector 37 C, Chandigarh-160036.

.....Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Sharma Enterprises, Govt. Contract & Engineer,

617/A, Gate No. 6, Gurbaksh Colony, Patiala (Punjab)-

147001.

2. The Junior Engineer, O/o Assistant Engineer, CPWD,

Chandigarh Central Sub-Division 2, Qtr. No. 1409/A,

Audit Pool Colony, Sec. 41-B, Chandigarh-160036.

3. The Superintendent Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh

Central Circle, Kendriya Sadan, Sec.-9-A, Chandigarh-

160009.

4. The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central

Division I, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh-160019

5. The Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Chandigarh Central

Sub-Division 2, Qtr. No. 1409/A, Audit Pool, Colony,

Sec. 41-B, Chandigarh-160036.

......Respondents

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

:

None.

For the Management

:

Shri G.C. Babbar Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 19.08.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification

L-42012/25/2015-IR (DU) dated 10.03.2015 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of CPWD for

not regularising the services of Sh. Satish Kumar,

plumber even consequent upon abolition of contract

labour system in the department of CPWD as per Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour's Notification dated

31.1.2002 is just legal? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference notice were issued to the

parties. The case was fixed for filing of claim statement.

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman

despite several opportunities. No. claim statement has been

filed by the workman. It appears that workman is not

interested to pursue his reference. In view of the above,

the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for

want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as

well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

19.08.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1738.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gsM iksLV vkWfQl]

lksuhir 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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-

29@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@08@2015

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&40012@89@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] MsLd vfèdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3641

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2015

S.O. 1738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 29/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Head Post Office, Sonepat and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 26/08/2015.

[No. L-40012/89/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 29/2012. Reference No. L-40012/89/2012-

IR(DU) dated 03.12.2012.

Shri Jagmender Singh son of Shri Chander Singh resident

of Village Kheri Damkal, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

...Workman

Versus

1.

The Head Post Master, Head Post Office (Sonepat),

Near Door Sanchar Vibhag, Sarang Cinema Road,

Sonepat-Haryana

...Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

:

Shri Karan Singh

For the Management

:

Shri R. P. Singh, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 20.08.2015

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification.

No. L-40012/89/2012-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2012 has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the demand of Shri Jagmender Singh son

of Shri Chander Singh for reinstatement and

regularization in service with full back wages with

the management of Supdt. of Post Offices, Sonepat

w.e.f. 22.7.2011 as chowkidar is just, fair and legal? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman filed claim statement in which it has

been pleaded that he was appointed as chowkidar after the

death of Mahabir chowkidar at Head Post Office Jind Road

Gohana and he worked from 8.12.2008 to 21.7.2011 services

were terminated by the management on 27.7.2011 without

assigning any reason or reasonable cause. It is further

pleaded that the workman was drawing salary of Rs. 3411

per month and has completed more than 240 days in a

calendar year and the termination of the workman is

unlawful, arbitrary and against the principle of natural

justice and in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947

as no notice was given, no enquiry was held and the

management also appointed junior namely Sukhbir in his

place. It is also pleaded that the management has not

adopted the mandatory procedure of last come first go. It

is prayed by the workman that he may be directed to be

reinstated in service with full back wages along with

continuity of service and other resultant benefits.

3. The management filed reply in which it is submitted

that there is no sanctioned post of chowkidar in the

establishment of Gohana MDG, therefore, no vacancy of

part time chowkidar was notified nor employment officer

was requested to sponsor candidates for this post. The

workman was never appointed as part time chowkidar but

engaged as contingent paid part time chowkidar on

8.12.2008 by SPM Gohana. No appointment order was

issued to the workman against the post of part time

chowkidar. The wages were also not drawn by name but a

contingent voucher is prepared and was paid to incumbent

who was engaged for the work. The attendance was also

not marked by Sub Post Master Gohana and the services

of the workman were disengaged as per policy and

guidelines of the department. No other person was engaged

as part time contingent paid chowkidar after disengagement

of the arrangement made by SPM Gohana. It is further

pleaded that as the workman was never appointed as part

time chowkidar, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 of

the I.D. Act does not attract. There is no such of part time

chowkidar, therefore, no seniority list was required to be

displayed. The management also not violated the provisions

of Section 25H, N and G of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is prayed

that the demand of the workman for reinstatement and

regularization in service with full back wages is not just,

fair and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In evidence, workman filed his own affidavit as W1

along with documents. Exhibited as Ex. W2 to W8 which

were issued by the post office. The management in evidence

filed the affidavit Ex. M1 of Shri D.V. Saini who also relied

on documents Ex. M2 to M5. The witnesses of both the

parties were cross-examined by the rival representatives of

the parties. The workman stated in cross-examination that

he was engaged as chowkidar on 8.12.2008 and his salary

was Rs. 3411 per month. The workman stated that he was

paid through ACG vouchers. The workman stated that

Ex. W2 is the appointment letter cum charge report. In cross-

examination witness of the management MW! D.V. Saini

admitted the documents of the workman Ex. W2 to W8

correct as issued by the post office. He also stated that

Ex. W8 bears the name of the workman in subject of the

document. He further stated that the document shows that

3642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the payment from 1.6.2010 to 21.7.2011 was payable to part

time chowkidar and his office authorized the sub post master

Gohana for payment to part time chowkidar and for payment

of Rs. 3411. This witness of the management further stated

that he does not remember whether any retrenchment

compensation was paid to the workman at the time of his

termination and there was no seniority of part time

chowkidar.

5. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence

and record.

6. The learned counsel for the workman submitted that

the workman admittedly worked from 8.12.2008 to 21.7.2011

when his services were terminated without any justifiable

reason. The management has violated the mandatory

provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 as no

retrenchment compensation or notice of one month or pay

in lieu of notice was given to the workman although the

workman has completed more than 240 days of service

during every calendar year from 8.12.2008 to 21.7.2011. No

enquiry was conducted. Junior were retained in service. It

is prayed that the workman may be reinstated in service

with full back wages and other attendant benefits. The

learned representative of the workman also relied on 2008

LLR 1214 Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

A. Sankaralingam.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the management

submitted in arguments that no appointment letter was

issued to the workman. The workman was paid through

contingent as part time chowkidar. The workman was never

paid any salary of Rs. 3411 and this amount was drawn

through ACG vouchers and paid to the workman. The

workman was disengaged as per policy and guidelines of

the department. It is further submitted in the arguments

that the department of post office is not an industry under

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as such the workman/

applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as

the appropriate/competent court for the redressal of the

grievances of the employees of department of posts is

Central Administrative Tribunal constituted by the Central

Govt.

8. The documents Ex. W2 to W8 which have been

admitted by the witness of the management as correct and

issued from the department reveals that the workman

worked with the department from 8.12.2008 to 21.7.2011 and

he was paid Rs. 3411 at the time for disengagement by the

management and no retrenchment compensation, notice of

one month or notice pay was paid to the workman at the

time of his disengagement. The workman completed more

than 240 days of service in preceeding years to the date of

termination. The management has taken the plea in the

affidavit that the department of post is not an industry

within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act and the

department of post office comes under the purview of the

Central Administrative Tribunal.

9. The workman opposed this submission of the

management and cited Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act 1947 which

reads as under:

"2(j) "Industry" means any business, trade,

undertaking, manufacture or calling of employer and

includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft,

or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;"

10. As per the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act

1982, the definition has been amended which reads as

follow:—

"(j)" industry" means any systematic activity carried

on by co-operation between an employer and his

workmen (whether such workmen are employed by

such employer directly or by or through any agency,

including a contractor) for the production, supply or

distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy

human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes

which are merely spiritual or religious in nature),

whether or not,—

(i) any capital has been invested for the purpose

of carrying on such activity; or

(ii) such activity is carried on with a motive to make

any gain or profit, and includes—

(a)........

(b) any activity relating to the promotion of

sales or business or both carried on by an

establishment."

11. The department of post being providing public utility

services falls within the ambit of industry and this Tribunal

has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute.

12. Management's representative submitted that the

workman being part time workman is not entitled for the

privileges as enjoyed by the regular employees. The learned

representative of the workman opposed the submission of

the management and referred 2008 LLR 1214 Div. Manager,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sankaralingam,

wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that part time

employees also entitled to the protection of Section 25F

and G and H of the I.D. Act 1947.

13. From the evidence of the parties, it is evident rather

admitted fact that workman worked with the management

from 8.12.2008 to 21.7.2011. It is also established from the

documents and oral evidence of the parties that workman

completed more than 240 days in the proceeding year from

the date of his termination and admittedly no notice, notice

pay and retrenchment compensation has been paid to the

workman. It is also admitted fact that no enquiry was

conducted against the workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3643

14. In view of the above, as the management fails to

comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act,

1947. The workman is entitled to be reinstated in service

with 40% of the back wages within one month from the

publication of the award. The question of regularization

and seniority is left open for the management to decide.

15. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central

Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

20.08.2015

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1739.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vksj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67/1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@106@1999&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/1999) of the

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

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/106/1999-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present :

Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,

Presiding Officer

Reference No. 67 of 1999

Parties :

The management of State Bank of India,

Burdwan

Vs.

Sri Pradeep Mandal

Representatives:

For the management

:

Sri A. Chakraborty, Ld. Adv.

For the union (Workman) :

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Adv.

INDUSTRY: BANK

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 04.08.15

AWARD

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/

106/1999-IR(B-I) dated 10.06.1999 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Zonal Office, Region IV Burdwan in

termination the service of Shri Pradeep Mondal,

Messenger on 31.03.1998 is legal and justified, if not,

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Having received the Order No. L-12012/106/1999-IR

(B-I) dated 10.06.1999 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 67 of 1999

was registered on 05.07.1999 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

Case called out Sri A. Chakraborty, Learned Advocate

for the management (State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Burdwan) and Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate for the

workman (Sri Pradeep Mondal) are present.

Mr. P.K. Das submits that he does not want to contest

this case any more as he has failed to contact with the

workman. It is found from the record that on 07.08.2013 the

workman was partly cross-examined and the case was fixed

for further cross-examination. But the workman never

appeared after 07.08.2013. It seems that the workman has

now no interest left to proceed with the case further. The

reference is also very old-of the year 1999. As such the

case is closed and a "No Dispute Award" may be passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1740.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fljs;kl xzkeh.k cSad

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

3644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@14@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Shreyas Gramin Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/14/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 110/2013

Between:

Shri Dheeraj Kumar son of Sita Ram,

C/o R. P. Singh,

Satate Executive Committee Member,

UP Bank Organization,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh-202001.

And

The Manager,

Shreyas Gramin Bank,

Main Branch,

Etah. U.P.

AWARD

1.

Central Government, MoI, vide notification No.

L-12012/14/2013-IR(B-1) dated 28.05.2013, has referred the

following dispute the adjudication to this tribunal.

2.

Whether the action of management of Shreyas

Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Dheeraj

Kumar son of Shri Sita Ram workman with effect from

01.08.2012 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?

3. In the instant case after receipt of reference order

notices were issued to the contesting parties for filing of

their respective claim. On 01.10.2013, representative for the

bank appeared in the case and filed authority letter. It is

pertinent to mention here that from the order sheet of the

case it reveals that the case is pending from 04.10.2013, but

till 05.05.15 no claim statement was filed on behalf of the

workman. On 27.05.2015 when the case was taken up for

hearing in the presence of both the parties, the

representative for the workman made an endorsement on

the order sheet that as the worker is not available,

proceedings of the case is not possible. He also made an

endorsement that he will not file any claim statement in the

case.

4. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the tribunal

is left with no other option but to decide the reference

against the worker for want of pleadings and proof.

5. Accordingly the reference is answered in the above

terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1741.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@110@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/110/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 57/2013

Between:

Shri Anuj Kumar son of Shri Shyam Behari,

C/o Shri O.P. Mathur,

117/K/36, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur.

And

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3645

General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Motimahal Hazratganj,

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi vide notification

No. L-12012/110/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.05.2013, has referred

the following dispute the adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of management of State Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Anuj Kumar son of

Shri Shyam Behari,workman with effect from 16.12.84, and

not considering his name for reemployment while

re-employing other including the other recruitment of fresh

hand is just fair and legal? If not to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

3. It is pertinent to mention here that after the receipt of

the reference order from the Ministry both sides have

attended the proceedings of the case before the Tribunal

and in furtherance of the same Shri Neeraj Sharma, has

filed his authority on behalf of the management to represent

the case of the bank.

4. In this case the first date was fixed for filing of the

claim statement by the workman on 18.09.13 but from that

date till 28.09.2015, after availing of several opportunity he

has not filed his claim statement, therefore, it may be

presumed that he is not interested in contesting the case.

5. However, when the case was taken up for hearing

represenative for the bank was present but none appeared

on behalf of the workman nor any statement of claim was

fild in the case.

6. Therefore, the tribunal is bound to hold that the

workman is not interested in pursuing the present claim

before the tribunal and as a result of the same the tribunal

is left with no other option but to hold that the workman is

not entitled for any relief in the cas for want of pleadings

and proof.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1742.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ banksj

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 197@00½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@305@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197/00) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of Indore and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/305/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRAIL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/197/00

Shri P.N. Sharma, Chairman,

All India State Bank of Indore Employees

Coordination Committee,

Plot No. 138, Shakti Nagar,

Jabalpur

.......Workman

Versus

General Manager,

State Bank of Indore,

Head Office, 5,

Yeshwant Niwas Road,

Indore

.......Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 8.11.00 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/305/2000-

IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Indore, H.O. Indore (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Virendra Singh Bhadoriya w.e.f. 1.9.96 while

he has worked more than 240 days as peon in various

branches of the Bank i.e. from 3.12.91 to 9.9.93 in

Sadguva branch, from October, 93 to June, 94 in

Katni, from June, 94 to August 96 in Durg branch is

justified. If not, to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Statement of claim is filed by the Chairman of State

Bank of Indore Employees Coordination Committee,

Jabalpur at Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of Ist party is that workman

Virendra Singh Bhadoriya was appointed as full time peon

on 30.12.91. He was continuously working till 9.9.93. His

3646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

appointment was against permanent vacancy. He was only

peon in he Bank. His services were wrongly terminated on

10.9.93 without notice or paying pay in lieu of notice. The

termination of his services is in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act and bipartite settlement. As per settlement, the

engagement of workman against permanent vacancy is

deemed to be on probation as per clasification of the

employees in para 508 of Sastry Award and is deemed to be

confirmed employee after 6 months service as per para 495

of Sastry Award. That after his termination from Sadgua

branch, workman was employed at Katni branch from

October, 93 to June, 94 and thereafter from June, 94 to

August, 96 in Durg branch. His services are illegally

terminated without notice. Workman was paid Rs. 20 per

day of instead of wages as per full pay scale. Workman

was continuously working more than 240 days as defined

under Section 25B of ID Act. Termination of his service is

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/5

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised preliminary

objection that reference is not tenable as workman was not

employed as permanent employee neither he had attained

status of permanent employee. The engagement of

workman as casual worker in branches for cleaning premises

cannot give him right for absorption in bank service. It will

amount to back door entry in violation of rule and

regulations. It is reiterated that workman was never working

in the Bank. Employer employee relationship is not existing.

The reference is vague. It is not tenable. It is further

contented that Bank is constituted under SBI Act, 1959.

Bank has its own service regulations for recruitment in

clerical and subordinate cadre duly formulated by

Government of India. The appointment of messengers,

peons, guard are made by Head Office following the

recruitment procedure giving wide publication in the

Newspaper or on the basis of names sponsored by the

Employment Exchanges. The appointments are made after

following recruitment rules. The branches cannot appoint

sub staff without following the procedure. Back door entry

in Bank service cannot be permitted. Workman was not

given appointment letter. He had not worked as part time or

regular employee of the Bank. There was no question of

termination of his service. It is further submitted that

engaging or utilizing services of casual labour for few hours

in the branch for cleaning, sweeping premises doesnot

give right of Bank employment. The claim of workman

deserves to be dismissed. Workman is not entitled to

reinstatement or regularization of his service.

4. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of State Bank of

Indore, H.O. Indore (MP) in

terminating the services of

Shri Virendra Singh Bhadoriya

w.e.f. 1.9.96 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his service,

2nd party raised objection that reference is not tenable. As

workman is not appointed as employee of the Bank, there

is no employer-employee relationship. However the

management has not challenged order of reference therefore

contentions raised by 2nd party that reference is not

tenable cannot be entertained. The Tribunal is bound to

answer the reference. Ist party workman challenge

termination of workman for violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act.

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman

has stated that he was working from 3.12.91 to 9.9.93 in

Sadguva branch, from October, 93 to June, 94 in Katni and

from June, 94 to August, 96 in Durg branch. He worked for

more than 240 days during each calendar year. His services

were terminated without notice. After termination of his

service, IInd party appointed Shri Ajit Kumar Sahu, Santosh

Kumar Sahu, Rajnish Rajak and Shri Mukesh Puri. That he

was eligible for absorption as regular employee. He is 40%

disabled person. In his cross-examination, Ist party says

his name was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. That he received interview call paper No. 14/5.

Workman corrected in his further cross-examination that

said document was for engagement as temporary employee.

Written test was not conducted. That he was working from

8 AM to 10.30 AM for sweeping work, from 10.30 till 5.30

PM, he was doing different work in the bank, distribution

of dak, making bundles of notes, was accompanying Bank

officer for depositing cash in SBI. Order in writing was not

given to him. He was paid on daily wage basis. The

payments are made at end of the month. The interviews for

absorpiton of part time employees was held on 29.9.95.

Workman claims ignorance of its result. Again workman

says that he produced paper No. 12/2, 12/3 on record. Those

documents bears signature of Branch Manager Shri P.K.

Upadhyay. He denies that he was closely acquitted with

the Branch Manager. He admits that part time employee are

not transfered from one Bank to other. He requested

certificate of his working for the purpose of his employment.

The evidence of workman that he continuously worked

more than 240 days during 91 to 96 is not shattered in his

cross-examination.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3647

8. Management's witness Shri Santosh Patel filed

affidavit of evidence supporting contentions of

management in Written Statement. Management's witness

in his affidavit has stated that workman worked as casual

worker for cleaning branch premises. Simply doing work

for few hours does not confer right to workman for his

absorpiton in bank service. Workman was never appointed

in Bank service. He was neither given any appointment

letter as part time or regular employee. The dispute raised

by workman is not tenable. Management's witness in his

cross-examination says that in 1991, he was not working in

State Bank of Indore. He was not working as Manager in

Satgua branch. He joined service of State Bank of Indore

on 12.5.94. He has got information from record for what

period workman was working in State Bank of Indore,

Saugua branch. He had seen record for the year 1991-92.

He did not see record of 1993. That as per record in 1991-92,

workman was working as casual labour. The management's

witness was unable to tell the exact period. In his further

cross-examination, managements witness was unable to

tell who were working on daily wages in the bank. The

witness of management claims ignorance whether there is

any rule for absorption on daily wage employees. He claims

ignorance about the documents 15/4, 15/5. The terms of

reference pertains no legality of termination of workman

and not regularization of his service. The evidence of

workman that he worked more than 240 days during each

of the year 91 to 96. Document 14/2 is the copy of regulations

for absorption of regular employees as the terms of

reference does not include regularization of workman. The

discussion of said document is of no use. Bank has

reiterated that workman was engaged as casual employee.

Bank has not produced documents from its custody.

Workman cannot be expected to produce the documents.

The evidence of workman that he completed 240 days

continuous service during each of the year is not shattered.

His services are terminated wihtout notice, retrenchment

compensation is not paid to him is also not shattered in his

cross-examination. Therefore termination of workman is in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2, in view of my finding in Point No. 1,

workman was terminated illegally in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, question remains for decision is whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. As

per evidence of workman, he was terminated in 1993

thereafter he was working in Katni and Durg branch and he

was working till 1996. The reinstatement of workman would

not be appropriate as workman was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He was not selected following

recruitment process. As his services are terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, compensation Rs. 75,000

would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of Indore,

H.O. Indore (MP) in terminating the services of Shri

Virendra Singh Bhadoriya w.e.f. 1.9.96 is not proper.

(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1743.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

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

vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@27@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 48/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour- Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 27/08/

2015.

[No. L-12011/27/98-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/99

General Secretary,

SBI Workmen Union

C/o Shri R.K. Bhatt,

400, Suresh Nagar, Thatipur,

Gwalior

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

SBI, LHO, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

3648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of June, 2015

As per letter dated 31-12-98 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/27/98/IR(B-I).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India in terminating the services of 10 employees

(as per list enclosed) is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman are entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim on

behalf of 10 employees. Case of Union is all those workmen

were employed by State Bank of India as Farrash cum

Messenger. Shri Kashiram Shivhare was working from

20-2-86 to Nov-97, Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma from 21-2-83 to

24-5-83 and again from 1-5-85 to 31-2-87, Shri Chandan

Singh Puwansi from 31-3-83 to 31-12-87, Shri Santosh Kumar

w.e.f. 1-1-80 to 7-4-97, Shri Roop Kishore w.e.f. 20-2-86 to

7-4-97, Shri Bhagwandas Shivhare from Feb-88 to March

97, Shri Sudamalal from 9-9-85 to 30-3-97, shri Janaki Prasad

from 11-4-87 to 19-5-87, Shri Girdharilal shivhare from 1990

to 1997 and Shri Rajesh Kumar Shivhare from 27-10-86 to

19-1-87.

3. It is reiterated that all workmen had completed more

than 240 days in each of the calendar year. They were in

employment of IInd party for more than 10 years. They are

covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Instead of regularizing

their services, IInd party terminated their services. Persons

junior to them were regularised. Workmen were not given

re-appointment. When other persons were recruited, IInd

party violated Section 25-H of ID Act. Ratio held in various

cases is also referred in the statement of claim and it is

submitted that the discontinuation of workman is covered

under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. Workman prays for

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11 to 27

opposing claim of all the workmen. As per IInd party, all

those workmen were employed temporarily as casual

employee in various branches of the Bank. Their services

were intermittently utilized subject to availability of casual

work. The working days of Janki Prasad are shown 81 days

on daily wages during 87 to 95, 428 days on consolidated

wages during 87 to 95. Working days of Shri Rajesh Shivhare

on daily wages are shown 85 days during 86-87, Shri Sunil

Sharma on daily wages are shown 44 days during 85-86

and Shri Girdhari Lal on daily wages are shown 225 days

during 1990 to 97, their working on consolidated wages are

shown NIL. Working days of Roop Kishore on daily wages

is Nil and on consolidated wages are shown 3326 days

during 86 to 97, working days of Chandan Singh are shown

113 days on daily wages and 5203 days on consolidated

wages during 1983 to 1997, Shri Santosh Kumar worked on

daily wages for 67 days and 4115 days on consolidates

wages during 86 to 97, Shri Kashi Ram Shivhare on daily

wages for 354 days and on consolidated wages for 3533

days during 86 to 97, Shri Sudama Lal on daily wages for

120 days and for 727 days on consolidated wages during

85 to 96 and Shri Bhagwandas Shivhare for 208 days on

daily wages and for 3012 days on consolidated wages.

5. IInd party further submits that workman were engaged

on daily wages. They had not completed 240 days working

during any of the year. In para-2, working days of each of

the employees are shown. The engagement of workmen

came to end at end of the day. That the workmen are not

covered under Section 25 B of ID Act as they have not

completed 240 days continuous service. Their

discontinuation is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID

Act. All the employees were employed as per exigencies.

6. That pursuant to settlement dated 17-11-87, Bank had

considered those workmen for absorption. Those workmen

were called for interview on 17-8-92, 26-12-92, 4-11-92,

6-11-92, 26-12-92, respectively. That Sunil Kumar Sharma,

Chandan Singh, Santosh Kumar, Girdharilal Shivhare,

Rajesh Kumar Shivhare were not found eligible as they did

not qualify. Shri Kashiram Shivhare Sudamalal, Roop

Kishore were included in the list as they were junior, they

could not be absorbed in the Bank service. That Janki

Prasad was never employed in Morena branch. That

Girdharilal was also not employed at Jiwaji Ganj Mandi

Morena branch. He failed to qualify selection. It is reiterated

that any of those workmen have not completed 240 days

service. Any junior employee were not appointed. Violation

of Section 25-F,H of ID Act is denied by the management. It

is submitted that as workman did not work more that 240

days continuous service, their non-engagement is not

covered under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. Claim of workman

is not legal.

7. After parties adduced evidence in support of their

respective contentions, my predecessor passed award

dated 16-4-12 for reinstatement with backwages of Shri

Santosh Kumar, Shri Roop Kishore, Shri Bhagwan Das and

Shri Kashiram Shivhare.

8. Said award challenged by management filing Writ

petition No. 793/12. The Writ Petition was decided by

Hon'ble High Court on 31-10-14 remanding the matter for

deciding the matter with due advertence to the oral and

documentary evidence and provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)

and Section 25-B and Section 25-F of ID Act.

9. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether it is proved that

In Nagative

Ist party workmen Shri Kashiram

Shivhare, Shri Sunil Kumar

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3649

Sharma, Shri Chandan Singh

Puwansi, Shri Santosh Kumar,

Shri Roop Kishore, Shri

Bhagwandas Shivhare, Shri

Sudamalal, Shri Janaki Prasad,

Shri Girdharilal Shivhare and Shri

Rajesh Kumar Shivhare are

covered under Section 25 B of

ID Act?

(ii) Whether it is proved that

In Nagative

services of those 10 employees

are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F,H of I.D. Act?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workmen

Workmen are not

are entitled?

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

10. After remand of the matter, parties did not adduce

any additional evidence.

11. Point No. 1— While reading the matter, their Lordship

has observed that matter be decided considering oral and

documentary evidence and provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb),

Section 25-B, F of ID Act, For proper appreciation, it is

appropriate to consider the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)

of ID Act.

Section 2(oo) provides:—

Retrenchment as the termination by the employer of the

service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise

than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action,

but does not include:

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman, or

(b) reitrement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuating if the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned contains a

stipulation in that behalf;

Section 2(bb) provides that termination of employment

on non-renewal of employment agreement upon its expiry

shall not be considered as 'retrenchment'. Before this

provisions was added to the Act, the Courts were of the

opinion that non-renewal of such contracts of employment

would constitute retrenchment for the purpose of this Act.

Section 25B deals with Definition of continuous

service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted

on account of sickness or authorised leave or an

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or

a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on

the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not continuous service within the

meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service

under an employer:—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be

made, has actually worked under the employer

for not less than—

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine;

and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

12.

keeping above provision in view, it is necessary

to examine whether all the 10 workmen have completed 240

days continuous service preceding their termination.

Identical affidavits of evidence of Shri Roopkishore, Janki

Prasad, Bhagwandas, Girdharilal, Kashiram Shivhare, Sunil

Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Shivhare are filed narrating

period of their engagement. Those workmen did not remain

present for their cross-examination. Therefore their

evidence cannot be relied upon. Affidavit of evidence are

filed by workman Shri Santosh Kumar, Roop Kishore,

Bhagwandas, Janki Prasad, Girdharilal Shivhare, Kashiram

Shivhare, Sudamalal, Sunil Kumar Sharma and Rajesh

Kumar Shivhare. Shri Janki Prasad has stated period of

their engagement from 11-4-87 as messenger/waterboy/

Farrash. For absorption as permanent employee, he was

called for interview on 17-8-92. His services were illegally

terminated on 31-12-93. Again in Para-7 of his affidavit, he

stated that this services were illegally terminated on

31-12-97. In his cross-examination, he says that in 1987—

he worked for 81 days, in 1991 for 90 days, in 1992 for 90

days, in 1993 for 60 days, in 1994 for 60 days, in 1995 for 84

days, in 1989-90 for 44 days total 428 days. In his further

cross-examination, he says that he was called for interview.

As per document 9/46, the candidates called for interview

were selected considering their seniority. That he worked

as messenger for 81 days and waterboy for 84 dyas. His

evidence in cross-examination shows that he had not

worked for 240 days during any of the calendar year.

13. Shri Girdhari Shivhare in his affidavit says that he

was appointed as messenger cum waterboy on 2-3-90. He

completed 7 years service. He was working more than 240

days during each of the year. He was called for interview

on 14-11-92. His services were terminated on 31-3-97. In his

cross-examination, he says that he worked for 63 days in

1990, 11 days in 1994, 28 days in 1995, 64 days in 1996, 59

days in 1997 total 225 days. He denies that candidates

found suitable were given appointment.

14. Shri Kashiram Shivhare in his affidavit says that he

was appointed as messenger-cum-waterboy in the Bank

3650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

on 1-3-86. He was doing work of providing drinking water,

carrying the registers. he was doing sweeping work. Initially

he was paid Rs. 100/-p.m. from October, 1991, he was paid

Rs. 190 p.m. He was terminated from 29-12-97. In his cross-

examination he says he worked for 78 days in 1986, 30 days

in 87, 66 days in 88, 50 days in 89, 66 days in 90, 13 days in

1991, 5 days in 1992, 19 days in 1994, 17 days in 1996, 60

days in 1997 total 354 days as messenger/farrash. In his

further cross-examination, he admits that he had not

completed more than 240 days as messenger/farrash.

15. Shri Sudamalal in his affidavit says he was appointed

as messenger cum waterboy on 9-9-85. He was called for

interview on 4-11-92. He worked in the Bank till 30-3-97. He

had worked more than 240 days during each of the calendar

year. He worked for 12 years in the Bank. His services were

illegally terminated from 31-12-97. In his cross-examination,

he says he worked for 14 days in 1985, 76 days in 1986, 30

days in 1991 total 120 days. He admits that he had not

continuously worked fro 240 days as messenger cum

farrash. Thus it is clear from cross-examination of those

workmen that they had not completed 240 days continuous

service.

16. My attention was pointed out to evidence of

management's witness Shri B.M. Bhati. working days on

daily wags and consolidated wages shown at Para 2 and 3

of his affidavit. 3326 days work on consolidated wages are

shown of Shri Roop Kishore during the period 86 to 97,

5203 days of Shri Chandan Singh for the period from 83 to

97, 4115 days of Shri Santosh Kumar for the period from 86

to 97, 3533 days of Shri Kashi Ram Shivhare for the period

86 to 97 and 3012 days of Shri Bhagwandas Shivhare for

the period 87 to 1997.

Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Tripathis submits

that the working days shown on consolidated wages were

not working days. Management's witness Shri Bhati in his

cross-examination says that mostly the workmen were

engaged on consolidated basis means that they were

engaged on fixed rate. It was rate of daily wages. In 3rd

column of his affidavit Para-2 the working days shown

workmen had worked on daily wages. 3rd column of his

affidavit pertains to working on consolidated wages by

above said workmen. There is evidence of workman in their

cross-examination. They have stated the number of their

working days, they have not completed 240 days

continuous service whereas management has shown

working days on consolidated wages in their Written

Statement at Page 2 and 3. Management's witness has also

stated working on consolidated wages of those employees,

the question arises which of the evidence could be

accepted. When workman themselves have categorically

stated their working days during all the years and their

evidence is clear that they had not completed 240 days

continuous service, I find no reason to discard the evidence

of the workmen themselves. The evidence given by

management's witness cannot be preferred when categorical

evidence given by those workmen stating their working

days during the respective years. If quality of evidence of

management's witness is examined, management's witness

says that he knows Kashiram and Girdharilal personally.

He was working in Head Office/Zonal office as Dy. Manager.

The contents of his affidavit are based as per record. The

register of payment of wages was maintained in respective

branch. Personally he had not made payment to any of the

workers. He had not seen wage register. Management's

witness has no personal knowledge about the working

days of all those workmen therefore the statement in Written

Statement or affidavit at Page 2-3 about working on

consolidated wages cannot be preferred to the evidence in

cross-examination of respective workmen stating their

working days during all the years. It is clear from evidence

in cross examination of workmen that they had not

completed 240 days continuous service while working as

messenger cum farrash. I may also refer to the ratio relied

by counsel for workman Shri A.K. Shashi in—

Case of Ramesh Kumar versus State of Haryana reported

in 2010(2) SCC 543, The ratio held in the case clearly shows

that in addition to factual conclusion by Labour Court that

the appellant had worked the required 240 days, appellant

also showed that persons similarly situated had been

reinstated and regularised.

The evidence in cross examination of the workmen Shri

Santosh Kumar, Roop Kishore, Bhagwandas, Janki Prasad,

Girdharilal Shivhare, Kashiram Shivhare, Sudamalal, Sunil

Kumar Sharma and Rajesh Kumar Shivhare is clear that

they have not completed 240 days service. They are not

entitled to protection under Section 25-F of ID Act. The

ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case of Anoop Sharma versus Public Health Division,

Haryana reported in 2010(5)SCC497. Their Lordship held

burden lies on employer to lead tangible evidence as to

compliance with clause a and b of Section 25F.

In present case, the evidence in cross-examination of

workman shows that they have not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. Ratio held in

the case cannot be applied to case at hand. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

18. Point No. 2— In view of my finding on Point No. 1

workman did not worked for more than 240 days continuous

service workmen, workmen are not covered under Section

25-B of ID Act, workman is alleging termination of service

of workman in violation of Section 25-F.

Section 25-F of I.D. Act provides—

"Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen—

No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3651

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in

writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired or the workman has

been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent

to fifteen days average pay for every completed year

of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the

appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette."

As workman have not complete 240 days continuous

service during any of the year of their employment with

IInd party, violation of Section 25-F of ID Act by IInd party

is not established therefore action of the management

terminating services of workmen is held illegal. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No. 2 in Negative.

19. Other citations submitted in the matter needs no

detailed discussion as workmen have failed to establish

working more than 240 days continuous service.

20. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India

in terminating the services of these 10 employees is

proper and legal.

(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

(3) Parties to bear their respective costs.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1744.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] ¼1947 1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds

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

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@8@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2013) of the Cent.

Govt.

Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court

No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 27.08.2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 22 of 2013

Shanti Parkash son of Mr. Ram Chand, resident of 3 BR/B-

2/34, Gulmohar City, Dehra Bassi, District Mohali (Punjab).

...Workman

Versus

1.

General Manager State Bank of India, Local Head

Office, Chandigarh.

2.

Deputy General Manager-cum-Circle Dev. Officer, State

Bank of India, Sector 17A, Chandigarh.

3.

Dy. General manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Shimla, 40 Kaumpati, Shimla (HP).

4.

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Keylong, District

Lahaul & Spiti, Keylong (HP).

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

: Sh. K.G. Sharma Advocate

For the Management : Sh. S.K. Gupta Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on : 13.8.2015

1. The worman raised the dispute directly to this Tribunal

regarding his forced retirement from service by the

respondent management of State Bank of India on the

certificate dated 28.11.2011 issued by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh under Section 2(a)2

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the conciliation

proceedings not concluded in prescribed time under the

law. The workman filed claim statement stating there in that

workman joined the service with the management on

26.4.1980 and there was no disciplinary action pending

against him till 30.6.2007. It is pleaded that due to various

reasons he could not attend his duties at SBI Keylong on

1.7.2007 and he had submitted applications explaining the

cause of his absence in each application.

2. The Branch Manager sent him notice No. 21/40 dated

15.7.2007 for joining duty within three days. The workman

explained his poisition and submitted application for

extension of leave. The branch Manager sent another

notice No. 21/67 dated 17.9.2007 for joining duty within

3652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

three days which was not possible because of inclination

weather heavy snow etc. The medical certificate in response

to letter No. 21/77 dated 15.10.2007 was submitted to the

branch. It is pleaded by the workman that the branch has

not served any of the three mandatory 30 days notices to

the workman for joining of duties which is required as per

service condition as per 8th Bipartite Stattlement on Wage

Revision and other Service Conditions for workman staff.

Another letter i.e. final notice No. 21/176 dated 20.3.2008

sent from the branch and exact on expiry of 30 days from

20.3.2007, on 20.4.2007 the bank retired the applicant from

sercice without following any laid down procedure in a

desperate hurry to terminate the services of the applicant.

In this way, it is pleaded by the workman that gross injustice

has been done to the workman. The workman prayed that

order of termination of service may be set aside and the

workman may be allowed to join duties along with wages

notional elevation and corresponding increase in salary

and allowances along with 18% interest on the amount due

from the date of discharge from service till payment.

3. The management in reply has taken preliminary

objection that the claim of the workman deserved to be

rejected as he has come to the court after five years which

is inordinate delay and claim at this belated stage is not

maintainable. It is further pleaded that the claim of the

workman is not maintainable as the services of the workman

were never dismissed, terminated or retrenched by the

management; therefore, the present dispute is out of scope

of the Section 2A of the I.D. Act 1947. Management also

pleaded in written statement that the claim of the workman

is not maintainable in view of the application of the workman

under Section 33C(2) is pending before this Court (this

applicaiton has been disposed off). The workman in this

application U/S 33C(2) of the I.D. Act 1947 alleged that he

was taken the voluntary retirement under the Exit Policy of

the bank and is entitled for compensation under the VRS

Scheme. On the other hand in the present industrial dispute,

the workman is claiming reinstatement on account of illegal

termination of the services of the workman by the

management bank, thus blowing hot and cold in the same

breath and has taken the self contradictory stand. On merits,

in written statement it is pleaded that due to the frequent

absence of the workman from duty, disciplinary action was

initiated against the workman and was pending at the

relevant time. The workman remained unauthorizedly absent

for 17 months and 13 days during entire service. Disciplinary

action was taken against him and a punishment of warning

was inflicated on him. The workman remained

unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 1.7.2007. The

workman neither submitted any application for leave nor

responded to any of the correspondence or notice served

by the management on the workman. The workman

contention regarding the illness of the workman and his

family members were denied by the management for want

of knowledge. the management specifically pleaded in

written statement that workman never sent any leave

application rather remained willfully absent from duty even

after receipt of the notice dated 15.7.2007 from the

respondent management. Another notice dated 17.09.2007

was sent to the workman when nothing was heard from the

workman. The management also pleaded that as per record

no leave application or medical certificate was ever

submitted by the workman. The management initiated the

action after due compliance of the mandatory rules.

4. In evidence the workman filed his affidavit as Ex. W1

and also filed document Ex. W2 to W.15. The management

in evidence filed affidavit of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur and of

Ms. Anupama Sharma, Manager (HR, Regional Business

Office State Bank of India, Mandi. Management examined

Ms. Anupama Sharma in evidence as MW1 who tendered

her affidavit Ex.M1 and also relied on documents Ex. M2 to

M12.

5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the

evidence and record of the case. I have also gone through

the written arguments filed by the workman.

6. The learned counsel for the workman cited para 33 of

the Bipartite Settlement issued through circular dated

17.6.2005 which reads as under:

"33 Voluntary Cessation of Employment:

(i) When an employee absent himself from work for a

period of 90 days or more consecutive days without

prior sanction from the competent authority or

beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally

including any extension thereof or when there is

satisfactory evidence that he has taken up

employment in India or outside, the management at

any time thereafter may give a notice to the

employee at his last known address as recorded

with the bank calling upon him to report for work

within 30 days of the date of notice.

Unless the employee reports for work within 30 days of

the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within

the period of 30 days satisfying the management inter-

alia that he has not taken up another employment or

avocation, the employee shall be given a further notice

to report for work within 30 days of the notice failing

which the employee will be deemed to have volunatarily

vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice

and advised accordingly by registered post."

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the workman

that the requirement as per rule 33 mentioned above was

never satisfied by the management. The management

opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3653

workman and pointed out that notices were sent to the

workman. Besides this, it is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the management that workman himself in the

application U/S 33C(2) of the I.D. Act 1947 (certified copy

filed) mentioned that workman opted for Exit Policy of the

bank and in the claim statement submitted that he may be

allowed to join duty in the bank and workman also claim

wages w.e.f. 1.7.2007 with notional elevation in service and

corresponding increase in salary and allowances and

workman is not entitled to any relief because he himself

has prayed for VRS and now the workman is estopped to

claim reinstatement in this case.

8. The management submitted that workman was

unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 1.7.2007. He was

asked to join duty by sending notices. Workman submitted

that due to his illness and other family members illness he

could not join duty after 1.7.2007 and workman sent leave

applications. The workman in his cross-examination before

this Tribunal stated that on 1.7.2007 he applied for seven

days casual leave. Thereafter he sent application for 30

days earned leave due to wife illness. Thereafter, he himself

fell ill. The bank asked him to furnish medical certificate. He

also stated that all the applications were sent to the bank

through registered post. The copies of those applications

are with him which are kept in his home. The workman

clearly admitted that he never went to the bank to joint

duty and informed the bank about his illness. The workman

also admitted that he was informed by the bank on 15.7.2007,

17.9.2007 and 15.10.2007 to joint duty but he replied to the

bank that he cannot join duty due to his illness. Workman

also stated that these replies were sent to the bank through

registered post and the postal receipts are kept in his home.

It is pertinent to mention that the bank denied having

received any leave application or medical certificate of the

workman.

9. The learned counsel for the bank also relied upon and

referred the case laws 2009(4) RSJ 653 S.C. Regional

Manager Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog, 2005(3) RSJ

136 Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman J&K Bank Ltd. and

others, 2001(1) SSC 214 Punjab & Sind Bank and others Vs.

Sakattar Singh, 2005(5) Supreme Court Cases 65 Syndicate

Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff

Association and another.

10. It is well settled principles of jurisprudence that

claimant has to prove his own case. He can not be allowed

to get the advantages of the short coming if any on the

part of the other party. So far the conduct of the workman

is concerned, he himself pleaded contrary submissions as

mentioned above. The workman absented himself from duty

w.e.f. 1.7.2007 and as per own version, as admitted by him

during cross-examination before this Tribunal, that he sent

leave applications to the bank through registered post, but

not filed those copies of leave applications and receipts of

postal department in this Tribunal. It was the workman

who in order to prove that he sent these applications and

medical certificate should produce copies of those

applications and medical certificate along with the postal

receipt in this Tribunal. The public office/institutions are

run by diligent and duty committed people. When an

employee remain unauthorizedly absent from duty, then

the working of those public/institutions bound to suffer.

In 2005(3) RSJ 136 Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K

Bank Ltd. and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that when facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty

formality and even the principle of estoppels will apply.

11. In view of the discussion in the forgoing paras, it is

held that workman has failed to prove that he sent leave

applications and medical certificate through registered post

as alleged by him. From the conduct of the workman it also

proves that he never went to join duty with the bank. The

workman has taken the entirely contradictory stand as set

up in application U/S 33C(2) of I.D. Act 1947 and in the

claim statement.

12. In view of the above, the workman is not entitled to

any relief. The industrial dispute filed U/S 2(a)2 of the I.D.

Act 1947 is disposed off accordingly.

13. The reference is answered accordingly.Soft as well

as hard copy be sent to the Central Government for

publication.

Chandigarh

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

13.08.2015

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1745.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

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

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

vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@00½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@342@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/00) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/342/99-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

3654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/12/00

Shri Mohd. Ismail,

S/o Fakruddin,

Kambal Kendra,

New Abadi, Mandsor,

Distt. Mandsore(MP)

...Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-V, Zonal Office,

Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 23-24/12/99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

342/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India in terminating the service of Shri Mohd.

Ismail S/o Fakruddin w.e.f. 12-12-98 is justified? if

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as waterman from 26-4-93 in Mandsore Branch of

the State Bank. He was paid Rs. 28/- per day. He was

working with devotion. Management considering his

excellent services increased his wages from Rs. 28/- to 38/-

from 27-4-95. His wages were increased to Rs. 44/- per day.

However without any reasons, management of 2nd party

reduced his wages to Rs. 30/- per day from 1-4-98. Workman

submitted representation on 28-3-98 reporting that there

were difficulties in fetching water from long distance. After

said representation, Branch Manager reduced his wages

to Rs. 30/- per day. That from 12-12-90, his services were

suddenly discontinued without any notice. He was not

paid retrenchment compensation. Workman submits that

charge sheet was not issued to him before terminating his

services. His services are illegally terminated. His statement

of claim is further devoted that the information about

making reference in this Tribunal and the matter was not

traced. The Court was shifted. Workman got information

about the proceeding with quite difficulty. Workman claims

for his reinstatement with backwages.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party contends that

workman was employed on contractual basis as daily rated

employee for fetching and filling water at Mandsore Branch.

The working days of workman are shown 85 days in 1993,

146 days in 1994, 322 days in 1995, 277 days in 1996, 291

days in 1997 and 280 days in 1998. The engagement of Ist

party workman was on contractual basis depending on

exigency of work. The employee was free not to come on

the next day. Management was also at liberty not to engage

workman on next day. Wages of employee were said prior

to his engagement. Non-engagement of workman is covered

under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act and amounts to illegal

retrenchment.

4. 2nd party further submits that workman was paid one

month wages Rs. 750/- and retrenchment compensation

Rs. 1800/- on 12-12-98. Ist party workman was requested to

collect the cheque of compensation amount of Rs. 2550/-

which he left in the Bank after duly acknowledging the

same. It is reiterated that as workman was paid one month's

notice and retrenchment compensation, there is no violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act. The contractual appointment

came to end at end of the contract. The engagement on

daily wages came to end when it is discontinued. On such

ground, 2nd party submits that claim of workman cannot

be accepted.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of State Bank of

India in terminating the service

of Shri Mohd. Ismail S/o

Fakruddin w.e.f. 12-12-98 is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final orders

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence saying that

he was engaged as waterman on daily wages from 26-4-93.

He was paid Rs. 28/- per day. He was working with devotion.

His wages were increased to Rs. 38,44 per day form 1-4-98.

From 12-12-98 without issuing any notice, he was

discontinued. He was not paid wages Rs. 2500/-. However

his signature was obtained forcibly. His request for

reinstatement as per letter dated 27-1-99 was not responded.

Workman in his cross-examination says his wages were

reduced from Rs. 44 to 30/- per day. He was appointed on

contingency. Appointment letter was not issued to him.

The Branch Manager has prepared one monogram and

obtained his signature. Orally he was discontinued from

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3655

the Bank. Notice was issued by him through Advocate

Purushottam Agrawal. He was paid wages Rs. 35/- per day.

The cheque of Rs. 2550/- of retrenchment compensation

was prepared. He was not given that cheque. Amount of

Rs. 2550/- was not paid to him. Workman denied his

signature on receipt of compensation amount.

7. Management's witness Shri Gopikishan Sugandhi in

para-2 of his affidavit has narrated working days of

workman. 322 days in 1995, 277 in 1996, 291 days in 1997,

280 days in 1998. It is clear that workman worked for more

than 240 days during above years. That engagement of

workman was on contractual basis as per exigencies of

work. Management was at liberty engage workman. That

Ist party was paid one months wages Rs. 750/- and

retrenchment compensation Rs. 1800/-. Workman was

requested to collect cheque of Rs.2550/- duly

acknowledging it. Ist party refused its delivery by post.

Documents Exhibit M-1, M-2 are proved from evidence of

management's witness. Exhibit M-1 is letter given by

Manager to the workman for his temporary engagement as

there are no approved vacancies available. His services

stands terminated with immediate effect. Bank's cheque of

Rs. 2550/- was offered. It included retrenchment

compensation Rs. 1800/- and Rs. 750/- as months pay. How

retrenchment compensation is calculated is not shown. As

per evidence of workman, he was paid Rs. 30/- per day. His

monthly wages would come to Rs.900/- per month. Exhibit

M-1 one month pay in lieu of notice is shown Rs. 750/-.

Workman has denied receipt of cheque. Evidence of

management's witness is silent when amount of Rs. 2550/-

was paid/received by the workman. In absence of such

evidence, the payment of retrenchment and pay in lieu of

one months notice is not established. Therefore termination

of services of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. Therefore record my finding in Point No. 1

in Negative.

8. Point No.2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

termination of services of workman is illegal for violation

of Section 25-F, question remains for consideration whether

workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.

Workman was engaged on daily wages from 1993 to 1998.

Workman was not issued appointment letter. His

engagement was on contingency as per evidence in cross-

examination of the workman therefore workman cannot be

reinstated with backwages. Considering the period of work,

compensation Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India

in terminating the service of Shri Mohd. Ismail

S/o Fakruddin w.e.f. 12-12-98 is not proper.

(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 75,000/-

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1746.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ

chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@96½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@129@90&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/96) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/08/2015.

[No. L-12012/129/90-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/23/96

Shri R.K. Verma,

S/o Shri B.L. Sharma, 6/13,

Jagdish Ki Gali,

Ganesh Niketan,

Nayapura,

Ujjain(MP)

...Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,

Daulatganj Branch,

31/608, Daulatganj,

Gwalior

...Management

3656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 12-1-96 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

129/90/IR(B-III)D-3(A). The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur, Gwalior Branch in not providing

employment to B.K. Sharma S/o Shri B.L. Sharma

clerk cum cashier after 27-1-1981 (date of termination)

i.e. whether his said termination is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 6/1 to 6/6. Case of workman is that he was initially

appointed as clerk cum cashier on 31-10-80 as per the

process of law by IInd Party. He was continued till 27-1-81

without any break. He worked with sincerity and honesty.

He was not issued with any chargesheet, no Departmental

Enquiry was conducted against him. He was appointed as

cashier cum clerk on vacant post in new branch of IInd

party at Daulatganj branch, Gwalior. He was qualified and

eligible to hold said post. Workman was also ordered to

look after the duties of Head cashier in the branch. Workman

performed said work satisfactorily. That vacant post of

clerk cum cashier in the branch was never filled by regular

employee. The duties of said post were entrusted by

management to him. He was expecting regularization on

the post as per policy of the Bank and prevailing loss.

3. Workman further submits his services were

discontinued by Bank by now allowing him on duty, any

reasons were not assigned for it, showcause notice was

not issued to him. His services were discontinued from

28-1-81. Workman further submits that retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. His services were

terminated without notice, termination of his service by

management is illegal. His fundamental rights under Article

14,15 of the constitution are violated. The termination of

his service is in violation of provisions of ID Act. He was

not provided differential employment as retrenched

employee. Register of retrenched staff was not maintained.

Appointment and termination was not given to him in

writing. Principles of last first go was not followed.

Termination of his service is in violation of Para 507, 516,

522 Clause 4 & 5, 524 I of Sastri Award. The termination of

his service is also in violation of Section 25-(T,U) of ID Act.

Seniority list was not prepared and displayed on notice

board. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

4. Management filed Written Statement at Page 15/1 to

15/2 opposing claim of the workman. IInd party submits

that the reference is highly belated. Reference was made

without applying mind. Workman was never appointed

against clear vacancy. Workman had not completed 240

days continuous service contemplated under Section 25B

of ID Act. Termination of service of workman doesnot

amount to retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. The averments of workman in statement of claim are

vague. It is submitted that recruitment in Bank is always to

be done as per settled procedure for recruitment advertising

the post in national news paper. The selection of candidate

is made after examination. All adverse contentions of

workman have been denied. It is submitted that workman

was not entitled to hold the post claimed by him.

5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 17/1 to 17/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. Workman

submits that he is employee covered under Section 25B of

ID Act. His services are terminated in violation of Section

25G, H of ID Act. After his termination, Bank had employed

Shri Mukesh Chandra, Ashok Mishra, Ashok Kumar, Mrs.

Beena Mishra, Shri Vishal Saxena, Saryendra Singh, Suresh

Kumar Bajaj, Shyam Kishore Agoa & Brijendra Kumar

Sharma. He was not given opportunity by the management.

All those persons were employed in the Bank.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of the State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur, Gwalior

Branch in not providing

employment to Shri B.K. Sharma

S/o Shri B.L. Sharma clerk cum

cashier after 27-1-1981 (date of

termination) i.e. whether his said

termination is justified?

(ii) If not what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman

has stated that he was initially appointed as clerk cum

cashier by management on 31-10-98 following due process

of law. He was continued till 27-1-80. Date of his appointment

appears to be wrongly stated. He was appointed by

management against clear vacancy of cashier cum clerk at

Daulatganj Branch, Gwalior. Said post was sanctioned. He

was classified and eligible to hold said post. In his statement

of claim and affidavit of evidence, workman has not

disclosed what was the qualification for post of cashier

cum clerk and what qualifications he held for his

appointment. His further affidavit is devoted on the point

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3657

that instead of regularizing his services, he was discontinued

after 27-1-81. That he was again retained in service without

official orders. In his cross-examination, workman says that

he worked from 31-10-80. Date of his appointment is 31-10-

98 in his affidavit is a typing mistake. He received

appointment letter. It is no produced in the case. As his

Advocate did not asked for said document, it was not

furnished. It is denied that he was not appointed in the

Bank. In his further cross-examination, workman admits

that for appointment in Bank, post are advertised and the

applications are invited. Prior to his appointment, no

examination was conducted, he was appointed on direct

application. After his oral termination, he submitted

representations to the Bank and ALC. His document are

not with him. in the year 1982-83, he had submitted

representations to the Bank when juniors were appointed

and he was not regularised. He requested Bank for giving

appointment letter. Bank did not give him letter of

appointment. Workman was ready to produce appointment

letter. However the workman has not produced any letter

of his appointment on record.

8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shashikant.

Management's witness states that workman was never

appointed against clear vacancy of management. Workman

had not completed 240 days working in the preceding year

of his termination. Management's witness in his cross-

examination says workman was not appointed by him,

workman did not work under him. He claims ignorance that

he has personal knowledge of the facts of the case. That

Branch Manager has power to appoint employee of any

category considering exigencies. Workman did not work in

Bank. There is no record about working of Ist party workman

from 31-10-80 to 27-1-81. Management's witness was unable

to tell about sanctioned post at Daulatganj Branch in 1980,

how many employees were working on sanctioned post

and how many sanctioned post were lying vacant.

Management's witness denies that workman was paid under

voucher during above said period. He has also denied

engagement of the persons shown in Para-6 of the rejoinder

in the Bank.

9. During course of argument, learned counsel for

workman Shri N.B. Sharma pointed out my attention to

para 6 of statement of claim and emphasized that

management violated Section 25 H. When 14 persons were

engaged, workman was not given opportunity of

re-employment. There is no cross-examination about

appointment of 14 persons. It is emphasized that for

violation of Section 25-H of ID Act, workman is entitled for

re-employment. Workman has not produced any documents

about employment of persons names stated in Para 11 of

his affidavit. Management's witness in his cross-

examination has denied appointment of persons shown in

Para-6 of the rejoinder. In absence of any document

regarding appointment of such persons, claim of Ist party

workman about violation of Section 25-H of ID Act cannot

be accepted.

10. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri R.C. Shrivastava

in his argument submits that reference is highly belated, is

not tenable. Statement of workman about completing 240

days continuous service, workman has not discharged

burden. In support of his argument, learned counsel for

management relies on ratio held in—

Case of S.T. Hadimani versus State of Karnataka and

another reported in 2002 AIR SCW 909. Their Lordship

dealing with termination in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act held ownus lies upon claimant that he had worked for

240 days in a year preceding his termination.

The workman has not produced any document about

payment of salary or his attendance. Any co-employee is

not examined. Workman has failed to establish that he was

continuously working more than 240 days preceding his

termination rather as per his pleading in statement of claim,

the workman was working from 31-10-80 till 27-1-81 for less

than 3 months. Claim of workman that he worked more than

240 days in contrary to his own pleadings.

Reliance is also placed by Shri R.C. Shrivastava for

management on ratio held in case of—

Surendranagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai

Amarsinh reported in 2005(8)SCC 750. Their Lordship

dealing with the period for which employer to supply

records called for by court, in proceedings under adverse

inference when may be drawn by court held that scope of

enquiry before Labour Court was confined to only twelve

months preceding the date of termination to decide

question of continuation of service for purpose of Section

25-F. That courts wrongly drawn adverse inference.

11. The evidence of workman is not sufficient to

establish his continuous working more than 240 days

therefore termination of his service in violation of Section

25-F is not established. No evidence about appointment of

other persons after his termination is established therefore

violation of Section 25-G, H of ID Act cannot be established.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

12. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1,

workman has failed to establish termination of his service

in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of ID Act, the learned

counsel for management on point of delay relies on ratio

held in—

General Manager Punjab Roadways versus Amrik Singh

and another reported in 2013(138)FLR-912. Their Lordship

held though there is no time limit prescribed but stale

disputes cannot be referred to under Section 10 of ID Act.

The dispute is already referred. The order of reference

is not challenged. However in view of my finding in Point

No. 1 as workman has failed to establish his claim, he is not

3658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

entitled to any relief. Accordingly, I record my finding in

Point No. 2.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of the State Bank of

Bikaner and Jaipur, Gwalior Branch in not providing

employment to Shri B.K. Sharma S/o Shri B.L. Sharma

clerk-cum-cashier after 27-1-81 is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1747.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds izca/

kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59@06½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@13@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/06) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/08/2015.

[No. L-41012/13/2006-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/06

Shri Ram Prakash,

S/o Ramdayal Valmik,

R/o Nabadabad,

Near Narrow Gauge Rly. Station,

Bhind

....Workman

Versus

Asstt. Mechanical Engineer,

Loco Shed, Narrow Gauge,

Central Railway,

Gwalior

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of June, 2015

1. As per letter dated 13-9-06 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/

13/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant

Mechanical Engineer, Locoshed Narrow Guage,

Central Railway, Gwalior and Varishta Mandal, Yantrik

Abiyanta, Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Prakash w.e.f. 1-2-99 is justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/3. Case of workman is that his uncle Shri Ringa-Jhinga

was working under Assistant Engineer, C. Railway, Gwalior

as part time sweeper for more than 20 years. His uncle was

seriously ill, he submitted application for appointment of

workman on compassionate appointment as part time

sweeper. Workman was appointed as part time sweeper

from 21-6-97. He worked with devotion. His services were

orally discontinued from 1-2-99 on the ground that Gwalior

Bhind Rail was closed. Said reason was false. In place of

narrow gauge, broad gauge was started between Gwalior

to Bhind. That though workman had continuously worked

from 21-6-97 to 1-2-99, his services were terminated without

notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

His services are terminated in violation of section 25-F of

ID Act. On above contentions workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

the workman. IInd party submits that on request of

Shri Ringa-Jhinga, uncle of workman, workman was allowed

to work as part time sweeper at Rs. 120/- per month. His

engagment was on contract basis. Workman cannot claim

to be casual labour. There was clear stipulation that

workman would not be entitled to claim for regular

employment. Workman was initially paid Rs. 70 per month.

It was increased to Rs. 120 p.m. The narrow gauge Railway

was completely stopped therefore claim of workman cannot

be accepted.

4. IInd party also submitted Written Statement on

3-8-2011 reiterating his contentions in Written Statement

filed on record.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Assistant

Mechanical

Engineer,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3659

Locoshed Narrow Guage,

Central Railway, Gwalior and

Varishta Mandal, Yantrik

Abiyanta, Central Railway,

Jhansi in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Prakash

w.e.f. 1-2-99 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final orders.

workman is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Workman filed affidavit of evidence in support of his

claim. Workman has stated that he was appointed on

compassionate ground after application submitted by his

uncle. He was appointed as part time sweeper from 1-6-97.

His services were terminated from 1-2-99. He was terminated

on the ground that Gwlior Bhind Railway route was closed.

That narrow gauge is changed into broad gauge between

Gwalior to Bhind. His services were terminated without

notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Workman in his cross-examination says his uncle Ringa-

Jhinga was working as part time sweeper. He denies that

his engagement was on contract basis. Workman was

unable to tell whether name of his uncle was sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He denies that his uncle

was not regular employee of the IInd party. He has not

produced appointment letter of his uncle. In his further

cross-examination, workman says he was engaged as per

order dated 1-6-97. He denied that he was paid wages for

his working days. He denies that he was engaged as per

exigencies. He admits that he was required to carry

sweeping, cleaning work of 4 coaches. He denies that he

was working one hour morning one hour evening. In his

further cross-examination, he says after narrow gauge was

closed, broad gauge was started.

7. Management's witness Rafiq Ahmed filed affidavit of

his evidence supporting claim of management in Written

Statement. That workman was engaged as part time sweeper

in narrow gauge route. Workman was working 1-1/2 hour

for cleaning. He was paid Rs. 70 p.m., it was increased to

Rs. 120 p.m. Shri Ringa-Jhinga uncle of workman was not

keeping good health. On his request, workman was allowed

to work in his place. That engagement of workman was on

contract basis. In his cross-examination, management's

witness says one months notice was not issued to

workman, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

Management's witness admits that workman was engaged

during the period 21-6-97 to 1-2-99 as part time sweeper.

The document about contract is not produced.

Management's witness was unable to tell whether after

broad gauge started, other persons was engaged as

sweeper. That seniority list of part time employees is not

maintained. Section 2(s) of ID Act does not exclude part

time labours.

8. Workman has produced documents. In Exhibit W-1,

sanction is granted by General Manager to increase rate

from Rs. 70/- to Rs. 120/- p.m. to the sweepers. Exhibit W-2

shows on request of Shri Ringa-Jhinga part time sweeper,

workman was allowed to work in his place on payment of

Rs. 120 p.m. Exhibit W-3 is copy of application submitted

before ALC. W-4 is letter issued by Loco Foreman that

engagement of workman as part time sweeper on pay

Rs. 100 p.m. was on contract basis. Exhibit W-5 is copy of

order passed by CAT dt. 2-4-99- claim of Ist party workman

was not entertained. Workman was given liberty to

approach Industrial Tribunal/Labour court. The claim of

workman about his engagement is supported by document

Exhibit W-2 and W-4. The services of workman are

terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him, therefore termination of workman is illegal

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons,

I record my findind in Point No. 1 in Negative.

9. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1

that termination of service of workman is illegal, question

arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

back wages. The evidence of management's witness that

narrow gauge between Gwalior to Bhind is closed. Uncle

of workman was working on part time basis, on his request,

workman was allowed to work in place of his uncle.

Appointment letter was not given to him workman had

worked from 21-6-97 to 1-2-99 on part time sweeper.

Workman was paid Rs. 120/- p.m.

10. Learned counsel for workman pressing for

reinstatement of workman placed reliance on ratio held in

Case of Deepak Gundu Surwase and Kranti Junior

Adhyapak and others reported in 2013(139)FLR 541. Their

Lordship dealing with question of reinstatement and

backwages held if action taken against the employee by

the employer or found to be ultra vires the relevant statutory

provisions or principles of natural justice by competent

judicial/Quasi judicial body or court. Employee reinstated

restoring employee to position he held before dismissal or

removal or termination implies that he will be put in the

same position in which he would have been but for illegal

action taken by the employer.

In above cited case, petitioner was school teacher, she

was suspended and enquiry against petitioner was vitiated.

Facts of present case are not comparable. In above cited

case, the petitioner was appointed as teacher and various

memos were issued to her when she did not agreed to

contribute amount of Principal Taxes claim by the

management, the facts are not comparable.

In Para 33 of the judgement, their Lordship held on

propositions in case of wrongful termination of service,

reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule. Said rule is subject to the rider that while

deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority

or the court may take into consideration the length of

3660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 5, 2015/BHADRA 14, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

service of the employee/workman, the nature of

misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/

workman the financial condition of the employer and similar

other facts. If the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds

that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any

misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge,

then there will be ample justification for award of full back

wages. The courts must always keep in view that in the

cases of wrongful illegal termination of service, the wrong

doer is the employer and sufferer is the employee workman

and there is no justification to give premium to the employer

of his wrong doings by relieving him of the burden to pay

to the employee workman his dues in the form of back

wages.

In case of Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana reported

in 2015(144)FLR 837. Their Lordship dealing with Section

25-F, G, H of ID Act held that he completed more than 240

days of continuous service in one calendar year, workman

was allowed reinstatement with full back wages.

Reliance is also placed in case of Bhuvanesh Kumar

Dwivedi and M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in

2014(142) FLR 20. The order of reinstatement with back full

wages set-asisde by Hon'ble High Court and allowing

compensation Rs. One Lakh was set-aside.

The facts of above all cases are not comparable.

Workman was engaged as part time sweeper on monthly

pay Rs. 120/- from June 97 to 1-2-99 for less than 2 years.

Considering the engagement of workman on part time basis

on monthly pay Rs. 120/-, compensation Rs. 20,000/- would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The action of the management of Assistant Mechanical

Engineer, Locoshed Narrow Guage, Central Railway,

Gwalior and Varishta Mandal, Yantrik Abiyanta, Central

Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of Shri Ram

Prakash w.e.f. 1-2-99 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 20,000/-

to the workman.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1748.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds

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

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

vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2015½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@66@2014&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/2015) of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of State Bank of India and their

workman, received by the Central Government on 27/08/

2015.

[No. L-12011/66/2014-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/2015

Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari

Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp Engg. College,

Ujjain (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, L.H.O.

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July, 2015

1. As per letter dated 23-12-2014 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/

66/2014-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

¶Whether the demand of Union claiming difference

of wages in respect of Shri Ashok Kumar Rajak from

1-6-09 to 12-9-09 is justified or not? If so, what relief

the daily wager is entitled for?¸

2. Ist party workman is claiming recovery of difference

of wages from management in the dispute under reference.

Even after issuing notices, the Union did not participate in

the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 5] 2015@Hkknz 14] 1937

3661

4. Application on behalf of workman is filed for withdrawal

of the case. Management has no objection. As workman

has withdrawn his claim, the dispute between parties ceased

to exist. The reference stands disposed off as withdrawn.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2015

dkñvkñ 1749.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ckax;k xzkeh.k fodkl

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

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

kdj.k] dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@08@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@54@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2015

S.O. 1749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2010) of the Central.

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

27/08/2015.

[No. L-12011/54/2008-IR(B-1)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT, KOLKATA

Reference No. 08 of 2010

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Bangiya

Gramin Vikash Bank

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

:

Mr. Aowal Alam, Manager (Legal

Management

& Vigilence)

On behalf of the

:

Mr. Dhisankar Pal, General

Workmen

Secretary of the Union

State: West Bengal

Industry: Banking

Dated: 18th August, 2015

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/54/2008-IR(B-I) dated 23.06.2009

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

¶Whether the action of the management of Bangiya

Gramin Vikash Bank in transferring 1438 employees

(excluding non-workmen) without following any

norms and guidelins/policies regarding transfer/

posting, is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?¸

2. The case of the union viz. Bangiya Gramin Vikash

Bank Employees' Union is, in a nutshell, as follows:

On 31.07.2008 management of the Bank, hereinafter

referred to as management, issued mass scale transfer orders

in respect of 1438 employees of the Bank, without following

any guidelines/policies of transfer/posting. Such mass

transfer orders of the employees were made without any

administrative need and/or exigencies. The said transfer

orders were issued without creating matching post to

protect the wages of the employees. It is alleged that the

said transfer orders were issued with ulterior motive in

order to harass and victimize the employees. Accordingly

the union raised industrial dispute challenging the said

transfer orders. Hence this reference.

3. On the other hand, the management has opposed the

claim of the union by filing written statement contending,

inter alia, that out of 1438 employees (in respect of whom

transfer orders have been issued) 645 are officers (non-

workman) and 793 are Award Staff (workmen). Out of the

said 793 workmen, 102 workmen are the members of Bangiya

Gramin Vikash Bank Employees' Union, i.e., the union who

raised the industrial dispute. Other unions viz. Bangiya

Gramin Bank Employees' Association and Bangiya Gramin

Bank Employees' Congress did not raise any objection

against the said orders of transfer. It is also the case of the

management that the Bank had formulated Manpower

Deployment Policy based on business parameter, ancillary

business, potentiality of the branches. Inter-se seniority

list of all categories of staff has also been finalized and

approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank and transfer/

posting has been effected on the basis of these policies.

According to the management the transfer orders were

issued for the benefit and betterment of the employees of

the Bank as a whole. The management has accordingly

prayed that the instant reference may be answered in the

affirmative.

4. The union is support of its case, has examined two

witnesses and proved some documents viz. Ext. W-01 to

Ext. W-06.