4540 GI/2015
(4295)
x`g ea=ky;
¼Hkkjr ds egkjftLVªkj dk dk;kZy;½
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2086-—tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vf/fu;e] 1969
¼1969 dk 18½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds egkjftLVªkj dh bl vf/fu;e
ds varxZr vius dk;ks± vkSj nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa lgk;rk djus ds
iz;kstu ls ,rn~}kjk Jh dkes'oj vks>k] mi egkfuns'kd] Hkkjr ds
egkjftLVªkj dk dk;kZy; dks vij egkjftLVªkj ds :i esa fu;qDr
djrh gS A
[la- 1@6@2006&iz'kk- III]
jke xksiky] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
(Office of the Registrar General, India)
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2086.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section-3 of the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969 (18 of 1969), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Kameshwar Ojha, Deputy Director
General in the office of the Registrar General, India as
Additional Registrar General for the purpose of assisting
the Registrar General,, India in discharging his functions
and responsibilities under this Act.
[No. 1/6/2006-Ad.-III]
RAM GOPAL, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh-ih-oh- izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 20 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2087-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsaæ ljdkj Jh eksgen vyh tkSgj] lgk;d dks 20 vDrwcj] 2015
ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] cqMkisLV esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds
drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
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- 45]
ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 1—uoEcj 7] 2015] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 10—dk£rd 16] 1937
No. 45]
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 1—NOVEMBER 7, 2015, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 10—KARTIKA 16, 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)
4296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 20th October, 2015
S.O. 2087.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorises Shri Md. Ali Jouher, Assistant in
Embassy of India, Budapest to perform the Consular
services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 20th
October, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2088-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsaæ ljdkj Jh nhid dqekj 'kekZ vkSj Jh vk;q'k cMksuh] lgk;d dks
28 vDrwcj] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] ;axwu esa lgk;d dksalqyj
vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015
S.O. 2088.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorises (1) Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, Assistant
and (2) Shri Ayush Badoni, Assistant in Embassy of India,
Yangaon to perform the Consular services as Assistant
Consular Officer with effect from 28th October, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2089-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsaæ ljdkj Jh uUn fd'kksj] lgk;d] Jh Mh- ,l- fo"V] lgk;d vkSj
Jh lanhi ljdkj] lgk;d dks 23 vDrwcj] 2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl]
iSfjl esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds
fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2015
S.O. 2089.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorises (1) Shri Nand Kishore, Assistant, (2)
Shri D.S. Bisht, Assistant (3) Shri Sandip Sarkar, Assistant,in
Embassy of India, Paris to perform the Consular services
as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 23rd October,
2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2090-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsaæ ljdkj Jh gseUr taxhn] fuEu Js.kh fyfid dks 26 vDrwcj]
2015 ls Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] twck esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds
drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015
S.O. 2090.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorises (1) Shri Hemant Jangid, LDC in Embassy
of India, Juba to perform the Consular services as Assistant
Consular Officer with effect from 26th October, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2091-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk vkSj
Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsaæ ljdkj Jh lanhi dqekj ¯lg] lgk;d dks 28 vDrwcj] 2015 ls
Hkkjrh; mPpk;ksx] ekiqrks esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds drZO;ksa
dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS A
[lañ Vh&4330@01@2015]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2091.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the
Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths
and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby authorises Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Assistant
in High Commission of India, Maputo to perform the
Consular service as Assistant Consular Officer with effect
from 28th October, 2015.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4297
lkekftd U;k; vkSj vf/kdkfjrk ea=ky;
¼lkekftd U;k; vkSj vf/kdkfjrk foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2092-—jk"Vªh; vuqlwfpr tutkfr vk;ksx ¼,ulh,lVh½
tks vc rd lkekftd U;k; vkSj vf/kdkfjrk ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=.kk/khu Fkk] ds X;kjg ¼11½la;qDr laoxZ ds inksa vFkkZr~
funs'kd ¼xzsM osru % 7600 #i,½ds 4 in] mi funs'kd ¼xzsM osru %
6600 #i,½ds 2 in vkSj lgk;d funs'kd ¼xzsM osru % 5400 #i,½ds
5 in] dks tutkrh; dk;Z ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu muds
LVkQ esa rRdky izHkko ls LFkkukarfjr fd;k tkrk gS A
[la- ,&42018@53@2009&LFkk- I]
ts- ih- nÙk] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EMPOWERMENT
(Department of Social Justice and Empowerment)
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2015
S.O. 2092.—The Eleven (11) joint cadre viz. 4 posts
of Director (Grade pay: Rs. 7600), 2 posts of Deputy Director
(Grade pay: Rs. 6600) and 5 posts of Assistant Director
(Grade pay: Rs. 5400) assigned with National Commission
for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) which were hitherto under
the administrative control of Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment (M/o SJ&E) stands transferred to the
strength and administrative control of Ministry of Tribal
Affairs (MoTA) with immediate effect.
[No. A-42018/53/2009-Estt.I]
J. P. DUTT, Dy. Secy.
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2093.—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] layXu vuqjks/k i= la[;k 20@,l-ih-,y@2&15&3 ,p-th-
vkbZ- fnukad 22 vDrwcj] 2015 ds ekè;e ls gfj;k.kk ds jkT;iky
ds uke ,oa vkns'k }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh
/kjk& 147@149@452@436@307@302 ,oa 3@33@89 ,l-lh-@,l-Vh-
vf/fu;e ds v/hu iqfyl LVs'ku lnj cYycx<+] iQjhnkckn]
gfj;k.kk esa iathÑr vijk/ ekeyk la[;k 325@2015 fnukafdr
20&10&2015 ,oa mi;qZDr vijk/kksa esa fd, x;s iz;klksa] nq"izjs.kkvksa
,oa "kM;a=ksa ;k mlh laO;ogkj esa fd;s x, vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu
fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh
fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj
leLr gfj;k.kk jkT; esa djrh gSA
[Qk- la- 228@49@2015&,ohMh&II]
vthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2093.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central
Government with the consent by order and in the name of
the Governor of Haryana enclosed with request letter No.
20/SPL/2-15-3 HGI dated 22nd Octobe 2015. hereby extends
the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana
for investigation of FIR No. 325/2015 dated 20-10-15 U/s
147/149/452/436/307/302 IPC & 3/33/89 SC/ST Act
Registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana and attempt, abetment and conspiracies in
relation to or in connection with the above mentioned
offence and any other offence or offences committed in
course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/49/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk. 2094.—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956
(1956 dk 102) dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] lac¼ fo'ofo|ky; ds
uke esa ifjorZu gksus ds dkj.k Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa
vkSj fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %
mDr vuqlwph esa —
(d) vk;ZHkV~V ukWyst ;wfuo£lVh] iVuk] fogkj ds lkeus s
^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹vkxs dkWye (2) ds rkSj ij
mfYyf[krº 'kh"kZ ds varxZr] vafre izfof"V ds ckn vkSj ^iathdj.k
ds fy, laf{kIr :i* ¹vkxs dkWye (3) ds rkSj ij mfYyf[krº
'kh"kZd ds varxZr] fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
4298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
(3)
eftLVkj fp#jth
,e-lh-,p- (IykfLVd ltZjh)
(IykfLVd ltZjh)
(;g 2011 esa vFkok mlds ckn iVuk
esfMdy dkyst] iVuk] fcgkj esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa
vk;ZHkV~V ukWyst ;wfuo£lVh] iVuk] fcgkj
}kjk LohÑr fd, tkus ij ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh) A
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh %
1- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, LohÑr ekU;rk 5 o"kZ
dh vf/dre vof/ ds fy, gksxh] ftlds ckn bldk
uohdj.k fd;k tk,xk A
2- mi&/kjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij
uohdj.k ugha djkus ds iQyLo:i lacaf/r lzkrdksÙkj
ikB~;Øe esa fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk can gks tk,xk A
[la- ;w- 12012@560@2015&,ebZ&I]
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Faimly Welfare)
New Delhi, the 26th October, 2015
S.O. 2094.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,
after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby
makes the following further amendments in the First
Schedule to the said Act, due to change of affiliating
University, of the qualification namely :—
In the said Schedule —
(a) against “Aryabhatta Knowledge University,
Patna, Bihar’’ under the heading ‘Recognised Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Magistrar Chirurgiae
M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery)
(Plastic Surgery)
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Aryabhatta
Knowledge University, Patna,
Bihar in respect of students
being trained at Patna
Medical College, Patna, Bihar
on or after 2011).
Note to all:
1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate
Course shall be for a maximan period of 5 years,
upon which it shall have to be renewed,
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as
required in sub-clause 4 shall invariably result in
stoppage of admissions to the concerned
Postgraduate Course.
[No. U. 12012/560/2015-ME-I]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2095-—dsUnzh; ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu) vfèkfu;e]
1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa
uhps vuqlwph ds LraHk (1) esa mfYyf[kr O;fDr dks mDr vuqlwph
ds LraHk (2) esa dh rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr {ks=k dh ckcr]
mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh ds ÑR;ksa dk ikyu
djus ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS vFkkZr~%µ
izkf/dkjh dk uke vkSj irk
{ks=k
(1)
(2)
Jh vjfoUn [kjs]
fjVk;MZ la;qDr lapkyd] (m|ksx)]
eè; izns'k jkT;
eè; izns'k jkT;
eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k&fot;iqj
uspjy xSl ikbiykbu usVodZ
th,slih,sy bafM;k VªkUldks fyfeVsM
lsDVj&ch] 9@8] egkdky okf.kT; dsUæ]
ukuk[ksjk] mTtSu & 456 010]
eè; izns'k jkT;
2- ;g vf/lwpuk 01&04&2015 ls izHkkoh ekuh tk;sxh A
[iQk- la- ,y&14014@39@2011&th-ih-&II]
Jh izdk'k vxzoky] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2015
S.O. 2095.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section
2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of user in Land Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central
Government hereby Authorizes the person mentioned in
cplumn (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the
functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4299
in respect of the areas mentioned in column (2) of the said
Schedule namely:—
Name and Address of the Authority
Area of
Jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Shri Arvind Khare,
Retd. Joint Director (Industries)
For the State of
Government of Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilware-
Vijaipur Natural Gas Pipeline
Project.
GSPL INDIA TRANSCO Limited
Sector-B 9/8, Mahakal Vanijya
Kendra,
Nanakheda, Ujjain-456010,
(Madhya Pradesh)
2. This notification will be deemed to be effective
from 01-04-2015.
[F. No. L-14014/39/2011-GP-II]
SHRI PRAKASH AGARWAL, Under Secy.
oL=k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2096-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa
ds fy,) jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds
vuqlj.k esa oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa
dks ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS%µ
1- dkslk ijh{k.k dsaæ] dsUnzh; js'ke izkSn~;ksfxdh; vuqla/ku
laLFkku] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] ljdkjh dkslk cktkj] ch-,e-
jksM] jkeuxje&571511 (dukZVd)
2- dPpk js'ke ijh{k.k dsaæ] dsUnzh; js'ke izkSn~;ksfxdh;
vuqla/ku laLFkku] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] ljdkjh vkn'kZ chtkxkj
dkEiySDl] flíyxV~Vk&562105 (dukZVd)
[la- bZ&11016@1@2015&¯gnh]
xhrk ukjk;.k] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2096.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976. the Central Government, hereby notifies
the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than
80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of
Hindi:
1. Cocoon Testing Centre, CSTRI, Central Silk Board,
Govt. cocoon Market, B. M. Road, Ramnagaram-
571511 (Karnataka)
2. Raw Silk Testing Centre, CSTRI, Central Silk Board,
Govt. Model Grainage Complex, Siddalaghatta-
562105 (Karnataka)
[No. E.-11016/1/2015-Hindi]
GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2097-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj] Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@39@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@256@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/39/2001) 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 the Telecom,
BSNL and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-40012/256/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2001
Shri Bherulal, S/o Ratanlal,
Village Sagoria,
Tehsil Garodh,
Mandsour (MP)
...Workman
4300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
Telecom District Engineer,
Shajapur
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 28th day of September 2015
1.
As per letter dated 18-1-01 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
256/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, mandsaur in terminating the services of
Shri Bherulal, S/o Ratanlal w.e.f. September 1987 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that 2nd party no.2
engaged temporary employee in electrification Project,
Ratlam Kota Division. Workman was engaged by Telecom
Deptt. Services were terminated without notice. That
employee completing more than 240 days cannot be
terminated. Such employee gets eligibility for permanent
appointment. Workman had requested reinstatement as
per application dated 19-10-96. Any order was not passed
on his application. Workman and others approached CAT.
They were allowed time for approaching ALC, Bhopal for
redressal of their grievance. Document about attendance
was not submitted. 2nd party denied the documents.
Workman submits that he worked more than 365 days. He
acquired status of permanent employee. That he signed
on the documents about payment of wages as temporary
employee. Workman shows willingness to produce
relevant documents in support of his claim. As per ratio
held by Apex Court in various cases, workman has
completed working days getting the status of regular
employee. On such ground, workman prays for appropriate
reliefs.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Deptt.
of Telecommunication have been changed and presently
known as BSNL. That Union of India is not necessary
party. 2nd Party No.2 is shown incorrectly. That Incharge
of the office is District Divisional Engineer, Telecom.
Parties are not correctly shown. 2nd party submits that
Railway electrification Project work between Ratlam to
Kota was carried by DTO Shamgarh during July 86 to Jan
87. It is not covered under ID Act. Said project was for less
than 2 years period. Section 25-F,G of ID Act are not
applicable. As per ratio held by Apex Court in various
cases, workman doensot get status of regular employee.
It is not necessary to assign reason for terminating
services. It is denied that workman is entitled to be
regularized in service. Any documents are not produced
by workman. The representation submitted by workman
were received. The demand of workman was unjustified.
Workman had submitted petition before CAT, Jabalpur. It
is submitted that applicant was allowed to pursue matter
before ALC. The attendance chart produced by workman
is not as per record. It is denied that workman continuously
worked for 365 days. It is denied that workman signed
register of payment of wages of casual workers. The
availability of documents cannot be imagined. Workman
had not completed 240 days service. Therefore he is not
entitled to any benefits.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager,
Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, Mandsaur in terminating
the services of Shri Bherulal, S/o
Ratanlal w.e.f. September 1987
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of workman. 2nd party has pleaded that
Telecom Department is presently known as BSNL. Term
of reference further pertains to termination of service by
Chief General Manager, Telecom and Director, Railway
Electrification Project. Railway Electrification project is not
impleaded as party . Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. In para 2 of his affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was not shown as employee. It was contented
that he was engaged on contract basis. He could not be
appointed on permanent post. That he was not engaged
only for contract period. His affidavit is absolutely silent
about period of his engagement, who had engaged him on
work. In his cross-examination, workman claims ignorance
whether work of alignment was to be completed within 2
years. He denies suggestion of 2nd party about his working
days.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri.Fareed
Ahmed Kazi that the work of Railway Electrification
between Ratlam to Kota was carried in 1986-87, workman
was engaged as casual labour. As per evidence of
management’s witness, Exhibit M-3 is proved. Working
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4301
days of workman are less than 240 days. Management’s
witness was not cross-examined. His evidence remained
unchallenged. I find no reason to discard evidence of
management’s witness, as workman has failed to prove
that he worked more than 240 days , he is not entitled to
protection of Section 25-F of ID Act, 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 Chief General
Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project and TDM,
Mandsaur in terminating the services of Shri
Bherulal, S/o Ratanlal w.e.f. September 1987 is legal
and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2098-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj] Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@38@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@249@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/38/2001) 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 the Telecom,
BSNL and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-40012/249/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/38/2001
Shri Pirulal S/o Mangilal Gupta,
Vill Dhamnia Diwan,
Tehsil Garodh,
Mandsaur (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
Telecom District Engineer,
Shajapur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 18-1-01 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
249/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, mandsaur in terminating the services of
Shri Pirulal S/o shri Mangilal Gupta w.e.f. September
1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that 2nd party no.2
engaged temporary employee in electrification Project,
Ratlam Kota Division. Workman was engaged by Telecom
Deptt. Services were terminated without notice. That
employee completing more than 240 days cannot be
terminated. Such employee gets eligibility for permanent
appointment. Workman had requested reinstatement as
per application dated 19-10-96. Any order was not passed
on his application. Workman and others approached CAT.
They were allowed time for approaching ALC, Bhopal for
redressal of their grievance. Document about attendance
was not submitted. 2nd party denied the documents.
Workman submits that he worked more than 365 days. He
acquired status of permanent employee. That he signed
on the documents about payment of wages as temporary
employee. Workman shows willingness to produce
relevant documents in support of his claim. As per ratio
held by Apex Court in various cases, workman has
completed working days getting the status of regular
employee. On such ground, workman prays for appropriate
reliefs.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that depttt.
of Telecommunication have been changed and presently
known as BSNL. That Union of India is not necessary
party. 2nd Party No.2 is shown incorrectly. That Incharge
of the office is District Divisional Engineer, Telecom.
Parties are not correctly shown. 2nd party submits that
Railway electrification Project work between Ratlam to
Kota was carried by DTO Shamgarh during July 86 to
Jan 87. It is not covered under ID Act. Said project was for
4302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
less than 2 years period. Section 25-F,G of ID Act are not
applicable. As per ratio held by Apex Court in various
cases, workman doesnot get status of regular employee.
It is not necessary to assign reason for terminating
services. It is denied that workman is entitled to be
regularized in service. Any documents are not produced
by workman. The representation submitted by workman
were received. The demand of workman was unjustified.
Workman had submitted petition before CAT, Jabalpur. It
is submitted that applicant was allowed to pursue matter
before ALC. The attendance chart produced by workman
is not as per record. It is denied that workman continuously
worked for 365 days. It is denied that workman signed
register of payment of wages of casual workers. The
availability of documents cannot be imagined. Workman
had not completed 240 days service. Therefore he is not
entitled to any benefits.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager,
Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, Mandsaur in terminating
the services of Shri Pirulal S/o
Shri Mangilal Gupta w.e.f.
September 1988 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of workman. 2nd party has pleaded that
Telecom Department is presently known as BSNL. Term
of reference further pertains to termination of service by
Chief General Manager, Telecom and Director, Railway
Electrification Project. Railway Electrification project is not
impleaded as party . Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. In para 2 of his affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was not shown as employee. It was contented
that he was engaged on contract basis. He could not be
appointed on permanent post. That he was not engaged
only for contract period. His affidavit is absolutely silent
about period of his engagement, who had engaged him on
work. Workman remained absent for his cross-examination.
Evidence of workman was closed on 2-6-2010. Workman
was absent for his cross-examination, therefore his
evidence cannot be considered.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Farid
Ahmed Kazi that the work of Railway Electrification
between Ratlam to Kota was carried in 1986-87, workman
was engaged as casual labour. Working days of workman
are shown in Para-6 of his affidavit. It comes more than
240 days during June86 to May 87. In para 7 of his affidavit,
management’s witness says workman had not
continuously worked more than 240 days . Affidavit of
management’s witness is rather inconsistent. From
evidence of management’s witness, document M-1 to M-
3 are admitted in evidence. The working days of workman
comes more than 240 days as per Exhibit M-3. However
BSNL has been impleaded as party. Considering workman
worked more than 240 days as per Exhibit M-3, termination
of his service without notice is in violation of Section 25-
F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
7.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No,1
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, evidence of management’s witness shows
that workman had hardly worked about 1 year on daily
wages, reinstatement cannot be allowed. Compensation
Rs. 30,000 would be reasonable. Accordingly I record my
finding in Point No.2.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project and TDM,
Mandsaur in terminating the services of Shri Pirulal
S/o Shri Mangilal Gupta w.e.f. September 1988 is not
legal and proper.
(2)
2nd party BSNL is directed to pay compensation
Rs.30,000 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] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2099-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj] Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@40@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@257@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/40/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4303
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 Telecom,
BSNL and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-40012/257/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2001
Shri Mohanlal,
S/o Puralal, Vill Sagoria,
Tehsil Garod,
Mandsour (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
Telecom District engineer,
Shajapur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 18-1-01 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
257/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, mandsaur in terminating the services of
Shri Mohanlal,S/o Puralal w.e.f. September 1988 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that 2nd party no.2
engaged temporary employee in electrification Project,
Ratlam Kota Division. Workman was engaged by Telecom
Deptt. Services were terminated without notice. That
employee completing more than 240 days cannot be
terminated. Such employee gets eligibility for permanent
appointment. Workman had requested reinstatement as
per application dated 19-10-96. Any order was not passed
on his application. Workman and others approached CAT.
They were allowed time for approaching ALC, Bhopal for
redressal of their grievance. Document about attendance
was not submitted. 2nd party denied the documents.
Workman submits that he worked more than 365 days. He
acquired status of permanent employee. That he signed
on the documents about payment of wages as temporary
employee. Workman shows willingness to produce
relevant documents in support of his claim. As per ratio
held by Apex Court in various cases, workman has
completed working days getting the status of regular
employee. On such ground, workman prays for appropriate
reliefs.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Deptt.
of Telecommunication have been changed and presently
known as BSNL. That Union of India is not necessary
party. 2nd Party No.2 is shown incorrectly. That Incharge
of the office is District Divisional Engineer, Telecom.
Parties are not correctly shown. 2nd party submits that
Railway electrification Project work between Ratlam to
Kota was carried by DTO Shamgarh during July 86 to Jan
87. It is not covered under ID Act. Said project was for less
than 2 years period. Section 25-F,G of ID Act are not
applicable. As per ratio held by Apex Court in various
cases, workman doesnot get status of regular employee.
It is not necessary to assign reason for terminating
services. It is denied that workman is entitled to be
regularized in service. Any documents are not produced
by workman. The representation submitted by workman
were received. The demand of workman was unjustified.
Workman had submitted petition before CAT, Jabalpur. It
is submitted that applicant was allowed to pursue matter
before ALC. The attendance chart produced by workman
is not as per record. It is denied that workman continuously
worked for 365 days. It is denied that workman signed
register of payment of wages of casual workers. The
availability of documents cannot be imagined. Workman
had not completed 240 days service. Therefore he is not
entitled to any benefits.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager,
Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, mandsaur in terminating
the services of Shri Mohanlal,S/o
Puralal w.e.f. September 1988 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of workman. 2nd party has pleaded that
4304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Telecom Department is presently known as BSNL. Term
of reference further pertains to termination of service by
Chief General Manager, Telecom and Director, Railway
Electrification Project. Railway Electrification project is not
impleaded as party . Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. In para 2 of his affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was not shown as employee. It was contented
that he was engaged on contract basis. He could not be
appointed on permanent post. That he was not engaged
only for contract period. His affidavit is absolutely silent
about period of his engagement, who had engaged him on
work. In his cross-examination, workman claims ignorance
whether work of Ratlam division Project was for 2 years.
To deny that in July 1986, he worked for 28 days, in
December 1986, he worked for 25 days.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Farid
Ahmed Kazi that the work of Railway Electrification
between Ratlam to Kota was carried in 1986-87, workman
was engaged as casual labour. As per evidence of
management’s witness, Exhibit M-3 is proved. Working
days of workman are less than 240 days. Management’s
witness was not cross-examined. His evidence remained
unchallenged. I find no reason to discard evidence of
management’s witness.. as workman has failed to prove
that he worked more than 240 days , he is not entitled to
protection of Section 25-F of ID Act, 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 Chief General
Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project and TDM,
Mandsaur in terminating the services of Shri
Mohanlal,S/o Puralal w.e.f. September 1988 is legal
and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2100-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj] Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@146@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@248@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
LC/R/146/2000) 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 Telecom,
BSNL and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-40012/248/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/146/2000
Shri Balkishan S/o Motilal Sen,
Station Road,
Ambika Lodge, shyamgarh,
Mandsour(MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
Telecom District Engineer,
Shajapur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 28th day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 29-8-00 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-40012/
248/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, Mandsaur in terminating the services of
Shri Balkishan S/o Shri Motilal Sen w.e.f. 3-2-97 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that 2nd party no.2
engaged temporary employee in electrification Project,
Ratlam Kota Division. Workman was engaged by Telecom
Deptt. Services were terminated without notice. That
employee completing more than 240 days cannot be
terminated. Such employee gets eligibility for permanent
appointment. Workman had requested reinstatement as
per application dated 19-10-96. Any order was not passed
on his application. Workman and others approached CAT.
They were allowed time for approaching AlC, Bhopal for
redressal of their grievance. Document about attendance
was not submitted. 2nd party denied the documents.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4305
Workman submits that he worked more than 365 days. He
acquired status of permanent employee. That he signed
on the documents about payment of wages as temporary
employee. Workman shows willingness to produce
relevant documents in support of his claim. As per ratio
held by Apex Court in various cases, workman has
completed working days getting the status of regular
employee. On such ground, workman prays for appropriate
reliefs.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Deptt.
of Telecommunication have been changed and presently
known as BSNL. That Union of India is not necessary
party. 2nd Party No.2 is shown incorrectly. That Incharge
of the office is District Divisional Engineer, Telecom.
Parties are not correctly shown. 2nd party submits that
Railway electrification Project work between Ratlam to
Kota was carried by DTO Shamgarh during July 86 to Jan
87. It is not covered under ID Act. Said project was for less
than 2 years period. Section 25-F,G of ID Act are not
applicable. As per ratio held by Apex Court in various
cases, workman doesnot get status of regular employee.
It is not necessary to assign reason for terminating
services. It is denied that workman is entitled to be
regularized in service. Any documents are not produced
by workman. The representation submitted by workman
were received. The demand of workman was unjustified.
Workman had submitted petition before CAT, Jabalpur. It
is submitted that applicant was allowed to pursue matter
before ALC. The attendance chart produced by workman
is not as per record. It is denied that workman continuously
worked for 365 days. It is denied that workman signed
register of payment of wages of casual workers. The
availability of documents cannot be imagined. Workman
had not completed 240 days service. Therefore he is not
entitled to any benefits.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Affirmative
ment of Chief General Manager,
Telecom and Director RE Project
and TDM, mandsaur in termi-
nating the services of Shri Balkishan
S/o Shri Motilal Sen w.e.f. 3-2-97 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of
termination of workman. 2nd party has pleaded that
Telecom Department is presently known as BSNL. Term
of reference further pertains to termination of service by
Chief General Manager, Telecom and Director, Railway
Electrification Project. Railway Electrification project is not
impleaded as party . Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. In para 2 of his affidavit of evidence, workman
says that he was not shown as employee. It was contented
that he was engaged on contract basis. He could not be
appointed on permanent post. That he was not engaged
only for contract period. His affidavit is absolutely silent
about period of his engagement, who had engaged him on
work. In his cross-examination, workman claims ignorance
whether work of alignment was to be completed within 2
years. He denies suggestion of 2nd party about his working
days.
6.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri.Farid
Ahmed Kazi that the work of Railway Electrification
between Ratlam to Kota was carried in 1986-87, workman
was engaged as casual labour. As per evidence of
management’s witness, Exhibit M-3 is proved. Working
days of workman are less than 240 days. Management’s
witness was not cross-examined. His evidence remained
unchallenged. I find no reason to discard evidence of
management’s witness.. as workman has failed to prove
that he worked more than 240 days , he is not entitled to
protection of Section 25-F of ID Act, 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 Chief General
Manager, Telecom and Director RE Project and TDM,
Mandsaur in terminating the services of Shri
Balkishan S/o Shri Motilal Sen w.e.f. 3-2-97 is legal
and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2101-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj okgu fuekZ.kh]
tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@36@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@31@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/
4306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
LC/R/36/99) 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 Vehicle
Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-14012/31/98-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/99
Shri Manmohan Singh Talwar,
R/o Hathital Gurudwara,
Gorakhpur,
Jabalpur
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 21-12-98 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-14012/
31/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Vehicle
Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri
Manmohan Singh Talwar, T.No.22/7311 Mach B
G.M.S.Section Plant No.2 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that he had raised objection
that General Manager, Vehicle factory is not appointing
authority and as such is not competent to punish him. He
also refers to judgment by CAT, Jabalpur in original
application No. 377/90. His termination without showcause
notice is not justified. That he was not given proper
opportunity for his defence. Only appointing authority is
competent to punish employee. That he was not provided
documents by Enquiry Officer. The articles were not
sealed at the time of seizure. That no evidence was
adduced in enquiry on the point articles kept in locker by
workman. Enquiry was conducted pertaining to attempt
of theft against workman. However he was denied
opportunity for defence. The orderly officer shown as
witness was not examined in the enquiry. Workman submits
that the decision given by the Tribunal or Court in favour
of employees all employees placed in similar situation
should be given benefit. Workman refers to ratio held in
various cases by Apex Court. He also submits that general
manager has revoked termination of many employees
involved in theft cases. He prays for revocation of his
termination.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/
3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Ist
party workman committed gross misconduct – (i)
attempting theft of government property, (ii) keeping
government material unauthorisely in his locker, (iii)
conduct unbecoming of the Government Servant.
Chargesheet was issued under rule 14 CCS Rules 1965 on
15-4-87. Workman was suspended on 13-3-87. Workman
denied charges calling reply to chargesheet. Enquiry was
ordered against him. Enquiry was conducted following
the procedure. Several notices were issued to workman.
Enquiry was fixed on various dates shown in para-3 of the
Written Statement. Workman did not attend Enquiry
Proceedings. Enquiry Officer conducted exparte enquiry.
Enquiry Officer had given final opportunity for his defence
or submitting his brief on 18-8-88. Workman submitted his
brief and admitted charges against him. Penalty of dismissal
was imposed against workman. The appeal preferred by
workman on 29-10-97 was rejected. The dispute has been
referred. 2nd party reiterates that workman was allowed
opportunity for his defence. He failed to avail opportunity
as he remained absent in the Enquiry Proceedings.
Management followed principles of natural justice.
Considering gravity of misconduct, punishment of
dismissal was imposed against him on 16-8-89.
4.
Workman died during pendency. His LRs are brought
on record. As per order dated 18-7-2014, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal.
5.
Considering pleadings on record and findings on
enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the misconduct alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is
is entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
6.
As stated above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal. Point whether misconduct alleged
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4307
against workman are proved needs to be decided from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Management has
produced record of enquiry at Exhibit M-1 to M-19. The
statement of witnesses Dayaram Singh, Manmohan Singh.
Management’s witness Dayaram in his statement at Page
41 says during rigorous search of workman, he found 16
drills out of which 12 were of small size and 4 were of big
size found under the belt of Manmohan Singh. After he
found the material with workman, he informed Security
Assistant. He identified workman Manmohan singh T.No.
222. Materials recovered from workman were sealed in his
presence. Witness Shri H.S.Khare in his statement at Page
42 says on 13-3-87, 6.40 hours, Security Assistant from
Gate No.3 telephoned him. On reaching at Gate No.3, he
saw Manmohan Singh security Assistant and Srivastava.
He came to know that drills were recovered from workman
at the gate during his rigorous search. His statement were
recorded in his presence. Manmohan Singh admitted that
these drills were recovered from his possession.
Management’s Witness Narmada Prasad in his statement
at Page 43 says that he received information through
informers that Manmohan Singh was intending to take
out factory materials unauthorisely. He informed Security
Officer. He came to Gate No.3. Manmohan Singh was
caught and his search was taken. Workman was found
unauthorisely taking Government material. Management’s
witness Srivastava in his statement at page 44
corroborates their evidence that total 16 drills of various
size were found in possession of workman. Management’s
witness Shri shankarlal in his evidence says on 14-3-87,
Security officer directed him to go and search locker of
Manmohan Singh. He had opened locker of Manmohan
singh. The unauthorised material recovered form locker
was listed in his presence by GMS Foreman.
Management’s witness T.No. 314 says on 14-3-87, locker
of Manmohan Singh was searched using duplicate key.
Unauthorised items were found in the drawer of workman.
Enquiry officer submitted his report at Page 48 holding
charges against workman proved. Workman had submitted
his written submissions at page 50- Exhibit M-21.
Workman was dismissed from service.
7.
The arguments advanced by Advocate P.Yadav that
enquiry report was not send to appointing authority. The
seized articles were not produced, charges are not proved.
Workman did not participate in Enquiry proceedings.
Evidence of all management’s witnesses remained
unchallenged. In his statement also, workman has not
pleaded on those points. As evidence of management’s
witnesses remained unchallenged, there is no reason to
disbelieve evidence of management’s witnesses that 16
drills were found on his personal search and unauthorised
material found from his locker. The findings of Enquiry
Officer is supported by evidence of management’s
witnesses therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8.
Point No.2- The charges/ misconduct alleged against
workman are proved as per finding in point No.1. Learned
counsel for workman Shri P.Yadav submits that order of
punishment was not issued by Competent authority. The
pleadings and evidence of workman are not disclosing
who was his Appointing Authority and the authority
issuing order of punishment was not competent. In
absence of such pleading and evidence, the argument
advanced by learned counsel for deceased workman
cannot be accepted. On the point of quantum of
punishment, learned counsel for workman Shri P.Yadav
relies on ratio held in
Case between B.C.Chaturvedi versus Union of India
and others reported in 1995-6-SCC-750. Their
Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review held
the Court Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings
or fact based on evidence and substitute its
independent findings.
In case between Jaibhagwan versus Commissioner
of Police reported on 2013-11-SCC-187. Their
Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review and
discretionary power vested held the General rule of
non-interference unless punishment imposed found
to be outrageously disproportionate to gravity of
misconduct.
In present case, misconduct of workman carrying
16 drills of different size is established from evidence of
management’s witness. Certainly it is an attempt of
committed theft.
9.
Learned counsel for management Shri P.shankaran
relies on ratio held in
Case of 2000(7) SCC 517. Their Lordship held where
the charge of misappropriation of goods was
established in the domestic enquiry and the
delinquent employee was dismissed, the Labour
Court erred in directing his reinstatement with 25 %
backwages. Their Lordship held discretion of
employer exercised in imposing penalty after
misconduct proved in domestic enquiry.
In case between Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vrs
H.Amaresh reported in 2006(6)SCC 187. Their
Lordship considering misappropriation of a small
amount of SRTC funds of Rs. 360.95 by conductor
held a grave act of misconduct which resulted in
financial loss to RTC. The charge was proved in
domestic enquiry. The punishment of dismissal by
Disciplinary Authority did not call for interference
by Labour Court or High Court.
4308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In case between workmen of Balmadies Estates
versus management of Balmadies Estate reported in
2008LAB.I.C.1685. Their Lordship dealing with
Section 11-A of ID Act considering delinquent
charge of theft witnesses deposing that delinquent
has made confession witness not cross-examined
on such matter. No plea raised that delinquent has
made confession under duress. The interference by
labour Court with finding of Inquiry Officer that
delinquent has misconducted is improper.
In present case, workman did not participate in
enquiry, failed to cross-examine witnesses of management.
The evidence of management’s witnesses is consistent
that 16 drills were recovered on personal search of
workman. interference in punishment of dismissal is not
justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.2 in Affirmative.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri
Manmohan Singh Talwar, T.No.22/7311 Mach B
G.M.S.Section Plant No.2 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2102-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;q/ fuekZ.kh]
bVkjlh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@142@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@25@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2015
S.O. 2102.—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/142/2001) 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 the
Ordnance Factory, Itarsi and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-14012/25/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/142/2001
Shri Ramesh Prasad,
Adarsh Nagar,
Near EWS-73,
Housing Board Colony,
Hoshangabad
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of September, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 9-7-2001 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-14012/
25/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance
Factory, Itarsi in terminating the services of Shri
Ramesh Prasad w.e.f. 15-3-95 is justified? If not, 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 Page 2/1 to 2/7. Case of Ist party is that he was assigned
temporary duty for handing over the explosives loaded in
Ordnance Factory, Itarsi vehicle No. MP05-A-881 for export
at Embarkation Headquarters Bombay on 8-2-92. Rajendra
Prasad Patel accompanied him. On 8-2-92, they left for
Mumbai. He reached Mumbai on 10-2-92 and unloaded
the explosives at Karanja Port on 11-2-92. They reached
about 22.30 hours on the same day. Workman reached
Ambarnath on 14-2-92 for return journey following the
route via Indore and reported at Ordnance Factory. Itarsi
on 19-2-92 at about 16.35 hours. The was suspended on
12-3-92. Chargesheet was issued to him on 9-4-92. Enquiry
was initiated against him. As per order dated 20-7-93, he
was removed from service. Workman preferred appeal to
authority challenging order of his removal. Chairman of
Ordnance Factory as per order dated 14-11-94 quashed
penalty of removal from service with dissenting note. The
order of Appellate Authority was served on him alongwith
letter dated 18-1-95. The order of his reinstatement was
passed by Disciplinary Authority on 18-1-95. Workman
submitted his written defence on 23-2-95. As per order
dated 15-3-95, workman was removed from service.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4309
3.
Ist party workman submits that charges against him
were – (i) Pilferage of diesel from Government Vehicle, (ii)
Misuse of Government vehicle for private riding, (iii)
carrying unauthorised person in explosive van, (iv)
following unauthorized and longer route. Workman
submits that charges were baseless. Enquiry conducted
against him was empty formality. The charges were not
proved against him. He was punished only for one charge.
Said charge was not proved. That Charge No.1 about
misuse of Government Vehicle for private riding was
proved, Charge No.3 following unauthorized and longer
route were not proved from Enquiry Proceedings. That
Truck No. MP-05-A-880 which was also detailed for
Bombay covered 1857 Kms distance. The said truck had
travelled to Karanja Port. Workman reiterates that any of
the charges have not proved against him. 11 days journey
covering 1896 Kms by vehicle No MP-050A-0880 receiving
goods received from Mamaji goods transport is alleged.
Said charge is not proved. Punishment of removal from
service is based on fabricated evidence. The workman
prays for setting aside order of dismissal. Workman prays
for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/10
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party reiterates that
enquiry is conducted against workman following the rules
and prescribed provisions. No irregularity is committed.
Disciplinary Authority considered all documents
pertaining to the case while imposing punishment. The
appeal was dismissed by reasoned order . Workman along
with Shri Rajendra Prasad was detailed on temporary duty
on 8-2-92. That workman had carried another employee of
Factory unauthorisely in said explosive van. The van
reached Mumbai via Harda Khandwa route on 10-2-92 at
17.00 hours. The explosives were unloaded at Karanja
Port on 11-2-92. On same day, the van reached Ambernath
Ordnance Factory at 22.30 hours. The van returned
Ordnance Factory on 19-2-92 at 16.35 hours late by 3 days
of normal time. That fitter Rajendra Prasad reported that
workman accepted Private goods for transport in explosive
van of M/S Mamaji Goods. The goods were delivered at
Dooars Transport Limited, Indore on 16-2-92. That 75 litre
diesel was misappropriated by workman giving details of
the diesel in Para 3.5 of the Written Statement. Workman
was found guilty. The order of his suspension was issued
on 10-2-92. Enquiry was conducted against workman for
gross misconduct for the charge of pilferage of misuse of
Government Vehicle, carrying unauthorized person in
explosive van . Enquiry Officer reported that Charge
No.2,3,4,5 were found proved. The Enquiry Report was
forwarded to workman as per letter dated 15-6-93.
Workman submitted his representation on 30-6-93
challenging finding of Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary
Authority considering report of Enquiry and
representation of workman recorded his own findings on
20-7-93 holding that the charge of pilferage of diesel found
established. Copy of finding was recorded on 20-7-93.
Workman was held guilty and penalty of removal from
service was imposed against him on 27-6-93 itself.
5.
Workman challenged order of his removal filing
appeal. The Appellate Authority as per order dated 14-11-94
found that dissenting note of Disciplinary Authority was
not provided to workman before imposing penalty. The
authority was given liberty to proceed from the stage of
giving copy of dissenting finding. Workman was
reinstated on 20-7-93. It is reiterated that the Disciplinary
Authority received representation of workman on the point
of dissenting finding. After considering the evidence,
punishment of removal was imposed against workman on
15-3-95. The appeal preferred by workman was found
without substance and rejected on 22-9-99. 2nd party
submits that for proved misconduct, workman was
removed from service. Action of management is proper
and legal.
6.
Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6
reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
7.
Recording evidence of parties on preliminary issue
as per order dated 16-5-13, enquiry conducted against
workman was found illegal. 2nd party management was
permitted to prove misconduct by adducing evidence.
8.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the charges alleged
Only charge No.3
against workman is proved
of carrying
from evidence in Enquiry
unauthorized
proceedings?
person in
explosive van is
proved.
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?”
REASONS
9.
Enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal.
Management was permitted to prove charges adducing
evidence. The documents of Enquiry Proceedings are
produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-10. As enquiry is vitiated,
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be considered
as proof of the charges alleged against workman.
10.
Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Rajendra
Patel. In his affidavit, he says that on 8-2-92, he was
deputed with workman in Vehicle No. MP-5A-881 loaded
with explosive. He left at 17.50 hours for Mumbai. One
C.P.Mourya was picked up by workman for travelling with
4310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
them to Mumbai. He was allowed to travel with them. His
evidence is also devoted about 75 litres diesel taken in the
vehicle. Workman taken 5 litres diesel filling in the tank.
On 10-2-92, they reached Mumbai at 5 PM. On 11-2-92
morning, they started return journey to Karanja Port the
vehicle was airlocked. Workman brought diesel around 6
PM they started return and reached Ambarnath on the
way the vehicle was again airlocked. He narrated the details
of their journey. That on 13-2-92 at 16.30 hours, they
reached Nasik. Workman permitted transporter to load 8
ton consisting of metal in the vehicle. The above goods
were unloaded at Indore. On 8-2-92 at 14 hours, they
reached Hoshangabad, his hometown. His further evidence
is devoted on the point that he accompanied Neeraj Kumar
Security Supervisor for getting documents from Mamaji
goods Transport and Dooars Transport, Nasik. The
documents were not supplied by either of the transport
on their request.
11.
Management’s witness in his cross-examination
says the Ordnance Factory is located at Itarsi. Workman
is from Hoshangabad, distance between Itarsi and
Hoshangabad is 18 Kms. He claims ignorance about
chargesheet issued to workman and enquiry conducted
against workman. He was witness in Enquiry Proceedings
but he did not recollect name of Enquiry Officer. He did
not recollect his evidence in enquiry. He cannot read
English. He did not recollect whether his statement was
recorded in Hindi or English but Officer recorded his
statement. That he had once gone for duty with workman.
He claims ignorance whether workman was terminated. In
his further cross-examination, management’s witness says
once he had gone to Mumbai on 8-2-92. He did not
remember the year of leaving school. He was unable to tell
date or month of marriage. That written order was not
given to him for going with workman. That he was sent
with Ramesh Helper. He had gone in explosive van. He
remember its number. He did not remember time leaving
the factory. His Advocate has drafted his affidavit. He did
not remember what time was written in his affidavit leaving
factory on 8-2-92. He knows Shri C.P.Mourya since 1982.
He doesnot know whether Shri C.P.Mourya was given
order for going to Mumbai. He has not stated in his
affidavit about order given to Shri C.P.Mourya for going
to Mumbai. Distance between Itarsi to Mumbai is 850 kms.
The average consumption explosive van was about 8 -9
kms. He doesnot know distance between Igatpuri and
Mumbai. After he left factory on 8-2-92, he was unable to
tell the time he reached Igatpuri.
12.
In his cross-examination, management’s witness did
not remember where they had haulted at Igatpuri. He did
not see workman taking out diesel and selling it. In his
further cross, he did not recollect time of leaving Mumbai.
He did not know how much diesel was purchased by
Ramesh Prasad. The van haulted at 2-3 places on way to
Mumbai. They reached Karanja Port. He did not remember
time they reached Ambarnath on 10-2-92. He did not
remember time of returning back to Indrapuri. He did not
heard conversation between workman and transporter. He
was unable to tell distance of their van and the godown.
That he was sitting in the van. He did not remember
C.P.Mourya had gone. He may have gone in the city. Van
haulted for 7-8 hours at godown. He denies that any goods
were not loaded in the van. He was unable to tell whether
goods were loose or packed. He objected loading of Private
goods in the van. Above facts are written in the affidavit.
However the affidavit is silent about his objection in
loading. He denies suggestion that goods were not loaded
or unloaded in van by Shri Ramesh Prasad.
13.
Management has also filed affidavit of witness Shri
C.P.Mourya. in his affidavit, he3 says he was working as
Civil Driver Grade I since 1983. In February 1992, he was
on duty. Workman Ramesh Prasad told him that explosive
van was going to Mumbai, whether he was willing to
accommodate with him. He travelled in the explosive van
alongwith workman. The explosive van No. MP-05-A-881.
They had gone to Mumbai and other places. They returned
back to Hoshangabad by the same van. In his cross-
examination, above management’s witness says that he
was granted promotion after 1992. Order was not given to
him for accompanying workman to Mumbai. He was
travelling in the van from Itarsi. He was unable to tell how
much diesel was filled in the van. The average of explosive
van was 3-4 kms whereas witness Rajendra in his cross-
examination says average of explosive van was 8-9 kms
per litre. The evidence is not consistent. In his further
cross, above witness says vehicle was airlocked 2-3 times.
The Helper had repaired it. He admits that the earlock in
diesel would by waste material. While returning from
Mumbai to Itarsi, the vehicle was empty. For filling diesel,
van was stopped at Ambarnath. Thereafter they stopped
at Nasik for about 2 hours. He returned from Nasik to
Hoshangabad in same van. He had not written anything
in his affidavit about loading goods and unloading it. The
evidence of both the witnesses of management about
consumption of diesel, its unauthorized use of the vehicle
is not cogent rather the witness Shri C.P,Mourya had not
supported any other charges except he was travelling in
explosive along with workman and witness MW-1 Rajendra
Prasad. The evidence of Rajendra Prasad about loading,
unloading is not cogent. The evidence of both witnesses
is committed about they travelled in explosive van.
Witness No.2 Mourya is not supporting charges about
loading unloading private goods in explosive van.
14.
The evidence of witness No.3 Dhiraj kumar is on the
point of visiting Mama Garage Nasik along with Rajendra
Patel for verifying documents. The documents were
supplied to him. He submitted Exhibit M-1 along with
documents. As witness was not author of the documents,
proprietor of Mama Transport, Dooars Transport was not
examined. The documents were not admitted in evidence.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4311
In his cross-examination Shri Dheeraj Kumar says he was
not aware that the duties of workman were changed. He
was unable to tell in 1992 how many employees were
working in Ordnance Factory, Itarsi, how many Drivers
were working in the Factory. If whole evidence MW-1 to
MW-3 is carefully appreciated, the evidence about filling
diesel in the explosive van is not cogent. The charge of
Pilferage of diesel from Government Vehicle is not
established. The unauthorized use of Government Vehicle
carrying private goods cannot be proved. During course
of argument, my attention was drawn to the bill of Mamaji
Goods Transport shows van No. MP-05-A-0880 was
different than the explosive van driven by workman to
Mumbai. The evidence of all witnesses is consistent about
the C.P. Mourya MW-2 was travelling in the explosive van
without any order of the management. The evidence
proves only Charge No.3 against workman. Other charges
about Pilferage of diesel from Government Vehicle, Misuse
of Government vehicle for private riding, following
unauthorized and longer route could not be proved. The
evidence is clear that management had not given order to
the workman for going to Mumbai by longer route.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.
15.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, the
question remains for consideration is whether punishment
of dismissal imposed against workman is justified. On the
point, Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri P. Shankaran
relies on ratio held in
Case of Bhagwan Singh Rawat versus State of MP
and others reported in 2003(4) M.P.H.T.309. Their
Lordship held until and unless petitioner is found
guilty of demanding illegal gratification and charge
is established. Petitioner could not be fastened with
the penalty of removal without making any enquiry
into charge of demand of illegal gratification.
Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand as facts are
not comparable. From evidence only charge No.3 against
workman is proved.
In case of Nepal Singh versus State of UP and others
reported in AIR 1985-SC-84. Their Lordship dealing
with Article 311(2) of constitution held order based
on mere allegations and on unspecific and vague
grounds, order liable to be quashed.
The facts of present case are different. Charge No.3
pertaining to carrying unauthorized person in explosive
van is proved. Other charges of serious gravity are not
proved. The ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case of workmen of Balmadies Estates versus
Management of Balmadies Estates and others
reported in 2008(4) SCC 517. Their Lordship held in
domestic enquiry assessment of evidence is not
required to be made by applying the same yardstick
as a civil court would do when a lis is brought it.
Evidence Act 1872 is not applicable to the proceeding
in a domestic enquiry. Their Lordship further held
that the evidence was not properly appreciated by
Enquiry Officer and finding of guilt was based on
very slender evidence. It was held on facts, findings
of Labour Court were perverse and can be termed to
be based on misconception of law.
In present case from evidence discussed with Point
No.1, only Charge No.3 is brought against workman, the
ratio cannot be beneficially applied.
In case of General Manager (Operation) State Bank
of India and others versus P.Periyasamy reported in
2015(3) SCC-101. Their Lordship dealing with
Administrative Orders. Decisions. Executive
Instructions held that decision or executive order is
properly and validly made. The evidence required
to reverse the initial burden.
The ratio held in above case doesnot cover
controversy between parties. Therefore the ratio cannot
be beneficially applied to case at hand.
In case of General Secretary, South Indian Cashew
Factories Workers Union versus Managing Director,
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.
reported in AIR-2006-SCC-2208. Their Lordship
dealing with Section 11-A of ID Act and power of
Labour Court. Their Lordship held no allegations of
victimization or malafides or unfair labour practice.
There is clear finding that findings are not perverse
and principles of natural justice were complied with
while conducting enquiry. Labour Court has no
power to interfere with punishment.
In present case, enquiry conducted against workman
is found illegal. Management is given opportunity to prove
misconduct by adducing evidence. The evidence is
adduced by parties. Only Charge No.3 is proved against
workman. other charges of serious nature like pilferage of
Diesel from Government Vehicle amounting theft of
Government Property, misuse of Government vehicle for
private riding, following unauthorized and longer route
are not proved from evidence in record. The ratio cannot
be applied to case at hand.
16.
To conclude, only charge No.3 carrying unauthorized
person in explosive van is proved. At the time of argument,
it was also submitted that punishment of withholding
increment was also imposed against Shri C.P.Mourya MW-
2. Learned counsel Shri P.Shankaran submit that
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman should
not be interfered by the Tribunal. The Charge No.1,2,4 are
more serious in nature are not proved against workman.
Charge No.3 of carrying unauthorized person in explosive
van is proved. For the proved charge, in my considered
view, punishment of dismissal against workman would not
be proportionate to the guilt proved. Workman was
working as Driver with 2nd party, it would be appropriate
4312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to modify the punishment of dismissal to compulsory
retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
17.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Ordnance Factory,
Itarsi in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh
Prasad w.e.f. 15-3-95 is not proper and valid.
(2)
Dismissal of workman is modified to compulsory
retirement. Parties to bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2103-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;Zozr xzkehu
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56@2008) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@20@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Aryavart
Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12011/20/2008-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 56/2008
Ref. No. L-12011/20/2008-IR(B-I) dated 11.12.2008
BETWEEN
President/Sanyojak
Aryavart Gramin Bank Officer/Karmchari Parishad
555 Kha/64 Ka, Subhash Nagar, PO Manas Nagar,
Lucknow
AND
1. The General Manager
Aryavart Gramin Bank
HO: A-2/46, Vijay Khand,Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12011/20/2008-IR(B-I) dated
11.12.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred
this industrial dispute between President/Sanyojak,
Aryavart Gramin Bank Officer/Karmachari Parishad,
Lucknow and the General Manager, Aryavart Gramin Bank,
Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the Action of Aryavart Gramin Bank in
With Drawing of FPA/FPP Benefits from the Salary
of the Erstwhile Employees of Awadh Gramin Bank
by Means of Letter dated 17-09-2007, is just, Fair
and Legal ? If not, to what Relief the Workmen
Concerned are Entitled?”
3.
As per the claim statement, the applicant in brief,
has stated that there were three Regional Rural Bank’s viz
Avadh Gramin Bank, Barabanki Gramin Bank and
Farrukhabad Gramin Bank. The sponsor was Bank of India,
by notification dated 03.10.2006 all the three rural banks
were amalgamated into single namely Aryavart Gramin
Bank. The applicant has further stated that it was provided
in the aforesaid notification that the services of all erstwhile
employees of RRB’s will get the same remuneration and
on the same terms and conditions which they were getting
immediately before the effective date of amalgamation,
employees of Avadh Gramin Bank were transferred in
Aryavart Gramin bank from 03.10.2006, they were getting
FPA & FPP from 01.04.2001 in accordance with the circular
dated 23.04.2001, the aforesaid FPA/FPP has been
translated into service conditions of the officers/employees
of the erstwhile Gramin Bank Govt. of India in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 17(1) of Regional Rural
Bank Act.1976, the Aryavart Gramin bank has drawn the
benefit of FPA/FPP by means of impugned circular dated
17.09.2007 unilaterally, arbitrarily and without jurisdiction
since the benefit given by Govt. India can not be
withdrawn by the opposite party bank, therefore, the
erstwhile employees/officers of the bank were also entitled
for arrears of FPA/FPP as they were getting before
impugned circular along with arrears and interest. The
workman has prayed to set aside the impugned circular 2/
87 dated 17.09.2007 with the direction to the opposite party
bank to restore FPA/FPP to the employees/officers along
with arrears and interest @18% per annum.
4.
Along with claim statement notification dated
03.10.2006 and certain other documents have also been
filed.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4313
5.
The opposite party management while filing the
written statement M-7 has denied the main allegation of
the claim statement, and it has been asserted therein that
the applicant Parishad is not a registered union under trade
Union Act, and, as such, has no legal right to espouse the
cause of the opposite party under the I.D. Act, President
of the union has no legal locus-standi to represent the
unregistered union in the proceedings, all the proceedings
right from conciliation stage and consequent reference
are vitiated.
6.
It has also been stated in the written statement that
prayer as made in para 11(1) of claim statement is beyond
the scope of reference as the reference order relates to
both the staff and officers, who were employees of Avadh
Gramin Bank, whereas prayer has been made in respect of
all the employees of amalgamated opposite party bank. In
this way, claim statement is camouflaged and defective.
Further the reference order also relates to officers of
amalgamated bank who admittedly do not fall under the
definition of “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of
the I.D. Act, and, as such, it is defective and reference is
liable to be rejected on this ground alone. There were three
gramin banks, namely Avadh Gramin Bank, Barabanki
Gramin Bank and Farrukhabad Gramin Bank. The Central
Government, Ministry of Finance by notification dated
03.10.2006 had amalgamated the aforesaid three gramin
banks and had carved out the opposite party Aryavart
Gramin Bank.
7.
The management has stated that vide order dated
11.04.2001, Govt. of India has directed all the Gramin banks
to revised pay and DA of the employees/officers of RRBs
in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No. 2218/99 dated 31.01.2001, the terms of
the directions have been given in para 16 of the written
statement. It will be evident from a perusal of above
direction that only Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance
was to be revised in terms of decision of Apex Court and
6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements. Further House Rent
Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance was to be
paid at par with that of employees of Bank of India. As
regards other allowance, the same was to be negotiated
with the RRBs. It will be relevant to note that this direction
of Govt. of India was silent about other allowances other
than Pay, D.A., C.C.A., H.R.A., which were already being
paid to their employees from before hand. As this direction
was silent on this point, the only inference will be that
these existing allowances will be continued to be paid to
employees. As regards new allowances, they were to be
payable after negotiations. Allowances by way of Fixed
Personal Allowance and Fixed Personal Pay WERE NOT
EXISTING at the time of issuance of direction of the Govt.
of India. Hence, this was not payable till it was negotiated.
It was neither the case of Union nor that of employers that
allowance by way of Fixed Personal Allowance and Fixed
Personal Pay was negotiated in terms of direction of Govt.
of India when negotiations between the parties were held
about grant of other allowances. In its absence on its very
face the employees of Erstwhile Avadh Gramin Bank were
not legally entitled for this benefit of Fixed Personal
Allowance and Fixed Personal Pay.
8.
It has further been stated in written statement while
adopting the direction of Govt. of India, erstwhile Avadh
Gramin Bank by circular dated 23.04.2001 has given advice
to the Area Manager/Manager of all the branches
accordingly.
9.
The opposite party has also emphasized that while
giving above direction, Avadh Gramin Bank inadvertently
did not clarify the difference between the existing other
allowances and new other allowances, which were to be
paid after negotiations. Consequently in the grab of “Other
Allowances” New Additional Allowance by way of Fixed
Personal Allowance and Fixed Personal Pay was granted,
which on its very face was erroneous as it was beyond the
direction of Govt. of India. Further fixed personal pay and
fixed personal allowance is not payable to employees of
Regional Rural Banks as terms of 6th Bipartite Settlement
and 7th Bipartite Settlement with regard to these items, are
not applicable to Regional Rural Banks. It is settled law
that any order, which is passed under mistaken belief and
without jurisdiction can be corrected at any stage. As after
amalgamation of above three Banks, it was found that
employees of erstwhile Avadh Gramin Bank were getting
fixed personal allowance and Fixed Personal Pay whereas
the employees of the other two erstwhile banks were not
getting so, there was disparity causing resentment among
employees inter-se. It was in order to do justice between
the employees that the mistake of erstwhile Avadh Gramin
Bank was corrected by the opposite party bank by way of
passing resolution dated 07.09.2007 withdrawing the above
benefit to the employees of erstwhile Avadh Gramin Bank.
In this regard, circular dated 17.09.2007 was issued. It is
averred that opposite party bank is the successor in
interest of the Avadh Gramin Bank, it has every right to
correct the mistake of its predecessor Bank in terms of
amalgamation order.
10.
The opposite party has stated that Fixed Personal
Allowance and Fixed Personal Pay was not admissible to
employees of Regional Rural Banks, it was so apparent
that other Gramin banks had not given this benefit to its
employees after issuance of above direction of Govt. of
India. Grant of fixed personal allowance and fixed personal
pay was not condition of service as it does not emerge out
from the appointment letter and rules of the erstwhile bank.
The opposite party had shown enough magnanimity by
not ordering for recovery of amount of fixed personal
allowance and fixed personal pay from the employees of
the erstwhile Avadh Gramin Bank inspite of the fact that
such payment was made under mistake. Some employees
of the erstwhile Avadh Gramin bank have filed Writ Petition
No. 4184/2008, Akhilesh Kumar Misra and others Vs Union
4314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of India and others, and writ petition No. 4185/2008 before
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench Lucknow, Shravan Kumar Gupta versus Union of
India. It is true that provision of Section 10 CPC do not
apply to Labour Courts, still its principles are applicable.
In view of this and in view of pendency of the above
mentioned writ petitions the proceedings of the above
present reference are liable to be stayed as the subject
matter of two litigation is identical and further there is
identify of parties as well.
11.
The management with the above pleadings has
prayed to reject the reference.
12.
The applicant has filed rejoinder W-8 denying the
allegations of the written statement while reiterating
strongly pleas taken in the claim statement.
13.
The management has filed certain documents along
with list M-8.
14.
The management has relied upon the following
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Court:
1.
Arun Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Jharkhand
2009,Lab IC (NOC) 107 (JHAR.) alongwith
copy of full judgement.
2.
Satyavir Singh & others Vs Union of India 1986
Supreme Court cases (L&S) 1.
3.
Kandla Court Trust and another vs K.R. Chauhan
and another, 1988 Lab IC 3085.
4.
Mahendra Badal and others Vs Union of India,
Writ Petition No. 9040/2006 (CMIC), Patna High
Court.
15.
Despite, sufficient opportunity given to the workman,
none appeared on his behalf to advance the arguments.
Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the
management, were heard at length. The record available
before this court has been scanned thoroughly.
16.
The Employees Union has come up with the case
that as many as three rural banks were amalgamated,
including Avadh Gramin Bank, vide notification dated
03.10.2006; wherein it was provided in the notification that
all the employees of the banks, getting amalgamated, shall
continue to enjoy same service conditions and shall get
the same remuneration as they were getting before
amalgamation. It has been alleged by the Union that the
management of Aryavart Gramin Bank has arbitrarily and
illegally withdrawn the benefit of FPA/FPP by the means
of impugned circular No. 2/87 dated 17.09.2007.
17.
Per contra, the management of the Bank has come
up with a case that the Government of India vide order
dated 11.04.2001, directed all the Gramin Banks to revise
pay and Dearness Allowance of the employees/officers of
RRBs in light of directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2218/99 dated 31.01.2001, therefore, only Basic
Pay and Dearness Allowance was to be revised in view of
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and 6th and 7th Bipartite
Settlement. However, House Rent Allowance and City
Compensatory Allowance was to be paid as par with the
employees of the Bank of India; moreover, the other
allowances were to be negotiated with the RRBs. It is the
case of the management that since the directions of the
Government of India was silent over the allowances, other
than Basic Pay, DA, CCA and HRA, which were already
being paid to the employees, therefore, only these
allowances were continued to be paid. As regards new
allowances, they were payable after negotiations and the
allowances viz. Fixed Personal Allowance and Fixed
Personal Pay were not part of the directions of Government
of India; hence not payable without negotiations. The
management has very specifically pleaded that while
issuing circular dated 23.04.2001, the erstwhile Avadh
Gramin Bank, inadvertently, did not clarify the difference
between the existing allowance and other new allowances,
like FPA/FPP, which were payable after negotiations; and
this led to generation of new additional allowances viz.
FPA/FPP, which was not only erroneous but also beyond
the purview of the directions of the Government of India
vide order dated 11.04.2001. On amalgamation it was found
that the employees of the Erstwhile Avadh Gramin Bank
were getting FPA/FPP whereas the other amalgamated bank
employee were not getting the same, therefore, in order to
maintain equality in the pay and allowances of the
amalgamated bank employees, a resolution dated
07.09.2007 was passed; whereby the benefit of FPA/FPP
was withdrawn vide circular dated 17.09.2007.
18.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival pleading of the parties and scanned entire evidence
available of record and law relied upon by the opposite
party.
19.
From respective pleadings of the parties it
emerges out that Government of India, Ministry of Finance
in accordance with the decision dated 31.1.2001 of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2218/1999, determined the
pay scales of employees of Regional Rural Banks vide
circular dated 11.04.2001. The salient features of the said
circular dated 11.04.2001 are quoted as under:
“(i)
The new basic pay and dearness allowance of
each RRB employee as on 01.04.2000 would be
determined
by
notionally
granting
………………………., the pay scales of RRB
employees would become equal to that of their
counterparts in commercial banks.
(ii)
…………………….
(iii)
…………………….
(iv)
The House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City
Compensatory Allowance (CCA) would be
payable ant the same rate as applicable to
comparable employees in the sponsor banks
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4315
and would be given prospective effect i.e. date
of issue of these orders as is done in commercial
Banks.
(v)
As far as other allowances are concerned,
individual sponsor banks shall negotiate the
same with the respective RRB. The revised
allowances shall be paid w.e.f. 1.4.2000. The
ceiling on the payment shall, however, be as
per the formula stated in (iii) above.
The RRBs may issue a comprehensive order based
on the above orders indicating the revised pay scales in
respect of each category of employees after getting
approval of their Board of Directors.”
Thereafter, in pursuance to above directives the
erstwhile Awadh Gamin Bank issued circular No. 25/08
dated 23.04.2001 regarding revision of salary. A few
clauses of the same are quoted hereunder:
“iii)
As on 01-04-2000, the pay scales of the
RRBs Employees would become equal to that of
their counterparts in Commercial Banks.
iv)The House Rent Allowance and City
Compensatory Allowance will be paid at the same
rates applicable to Bank of India Employees, from
the date of the issue of the Govt. Order i.e. from 11th
April, 2001.
v) As far as other allowances are concerned, Sponsor
Bank shall negotiate the same with our Bank and the
same shall be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2000 for which separate
circulars shall be made.
2. The Board of Directors on 132nd Board Meeting
hale on 23-04-2001 has adopted the G.O.I. orders
conveyed in Order No. F. No. 7(6)/96-RRB dated
11th April, 2001 issued under Proviso 2 (I) of section
17(1) of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and approved
the current payment of revised salary w.e.f. 01.-04-
2001.
3. Accordingly, you are advised to pay the revised
salary i.e. basic & D.A. w.e.f. 01.-04-2001 and House
Rent Allowance & City Compensatory Allowance
w.e.f. 01-04-2001 and other allowances at old rates.”
Thus, from perusal of above two circulars it becomes
crystal clear that the Government of India, in view of
directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court, formulated a
guideline dated 11.04.2001 in order to bring uniformity to
the pay structure of the RRBs at par with other banks and
accordingly it directed for pay revision which included
Basic pay, Dearness Allowance, HRA and CCA only and
for other allowances it was provided that the Sponsor
Bank shall negotiate the same with respective RRB; also
while issuing the circular dated 23.04.2001, the erstwhile
Awadh Gramin Bank in para 1(v) mentioned that the other
allowances shall; be paid after negotiation with the Sponsor
Bank. However, from the records available it is apparent
that the allowances viz. FPA/FPP were extended without
any negotiations with the Sponsor Bank. There is no iota
of evidence on record that the Sponsor Bank ever entered
into any negotiation with erstwhile Awadh Gramin Bank
for grant of FPA/FPP. The Aryavart Gramin Bank vide
their circular No. 2/87 dated 17.09.2007, terminated the
facility of FPPA/FPP with immediate effect. The circular
No. 2/87 dated 17.09.2007 in this respect reads as under:
^^ge vkidks voxr djkuk pkgsaxs fd lekesyu ds iwoZ
rFkk orZeku esa iwoZorhZ vo/ xzkeh.k cSad esa leLr vfèkdkfj;ksa@
deZpkfj;ksa dks osrueku ds vf/dre ij igq¡pus ds ,d
o"kZ ckn ,iQ ih ,@,iQ ih ih fn;s tkus dh O;oLFkk gS A
ysfdu 'ks"k nks iwoZorhZ cSadksa--------------------------------------------esa ,slh dkbZ
O;oLFkk ugha Fkh A
lekesyu ds i'pkr~ iwoZorhZ xzkeh.k cSadksa esa ,d:irk ykus
ds fy, cSad funs'kd e.My us fnukad 07&9&2007 dh
lkroha cSBd esa iwoZorhZ vo/ xzkeh.k cSad esa leLr vf/
dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks osrueku ds vf/dre ij igq¡pus ds
,d o"kZ ckn feyus okyh ,iQ ih ,@,iQ ih ih dks rRdky
izHkko ls lekIr@okil ysus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS] D;ksafd ,iQ
ih ,@,iQ ih ih fu;ekuqlkj ns; ugha Fkk A vr% iwoZorhZ vo/
xzkeh.k cSad ds vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks feyus okyk ,iQ ih
,@,iQ ih ih ij rRdky izHkko ls jksd yxkbZ tkrh gSA**
Thus the stand taken by the management of Aryavart
Gramin Bank that the continuance of FPA/FPP, which was
not as per Rules, may be terminated, was in order.
20.
The stand taken by the management that the
reference relates to the officers of amalgamated bank who
do not fall within the definition of “workman” seems having
no force as the parties have pleaded that the FPA/FPP
was admissible to employees/officers of the erstwhile
Avadh Gramin Bank, therefore, when it was extended to
employees then it can be well said that the reference order
relates to the class of people who come in the ambit of
definition of ‘workman’ as provided in Section 2 (s) of the
Indusial Disputes Act, 1947.
21.
Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the
case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of
considered opinion that the action of the Aryavart Gramin
Bank in withdrawing of FPA/FPP benefits from the salary
of erstwhile employees of Awadh Gramin Bank by means
of letter dated 17.09.2007 was just, fair and legal; hence,
the reference under adjudication is adjudicated against
the workman’s Union and accordingly, I come to
conclusion that the workman’s union is not entitled for
any relief.
4316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
09th October, 2015.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2104-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
baUnksj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k (102@97) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@300@95&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.102/97) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Satate Bank of Indore
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/300/95-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/102/97
Shri Ram Nagwanshi,
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this Ist day of October, 2015
1.
As per letter dated 25-3-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
300/95-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri
S.K.Mukati, Spl. Assistant, State Bank of Indore,
Morar (Gwalior) w.e.f. 6-1-94 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through
General Secretary, Bank Employees Union at Page 3/1 to
3/10. Case of Ist party workman is that workman Sushil
Kumar Mukati was appointed on 8-4-69 in Bank. He
worked with devotion. Workman was promoted to the post
of Special Assistant. On 19-6-90, shri Mukati had taken
charge in Morar branch. Without giving any training,
charge of Saving Account, R/D Accounts, pension was
entrusted to him. His authority was restricted to withdrawal
upto Rs.20,000/-. The withdrawal above Rs. 20,000 was
processed by Shri Sarvatte. There used to be rush of work
of pension during 1st to 5th day of the month. On 9-3-91,
Sbaccount Holder Jagdish Vyas submitted withdrawal of
Rs.10,000 alongwith pass book. Shri Jagdish himself
refused to accept payment telling that he used to sign in
Hindi. That on 20-9-91, cashier Shri R.L.Verma sent Mr.
Vijay Kumar Jain to workman for immediate issue of the
cheque. Following directions of Sr. cashier, the cheque
was issued after verifying the specimen signature. On
21-9-91, Mr. vijay Kumar Jain came for cheque of Rs.35,000.
As amount was above Rs.20,000, specimen signature and
pass book were sent to Mr. Sarvatte. Mr. Sarvatte after
verifying specimen signature passed payment of Rs.35,000
to Mr. Vijay Kumar. On 28-10-91, Vijay Kumar Jain submitted
withdrawal of Rs.15,000 along with pass book. The counter
clerk found no balance in his account. Mr. vijay Jain had
submitted complaint that he not withdrawn amount of Rs.
35,000 on 21-9-91. Thereafter the officers of the Bank
threatened workman to admit charges assuming that
workman and Mr. Sarvatte did the same.
3.
Workman has alleged that incident was reported to
police, chargesheet was issued on 7-9-91. The charges
related to withdrawal of Rs.10,000 on 27-1-92, amount of
Rs.35,000 on 27-1-92. The Defence Assistant did not
participate in Enquiry proceedings. He was not given
opportunity to cross examine the management’s witness.
Shri vijay Kumar Jain was not a witness in Enquiry
proceedings. Enquiry was vitiated. The finding of enquiry
Officer are perverse. He was not supplied report of
preliminary enquiry. Enquiry was not conducted following
principles of natural justice. On such ground, workman
prays for setting aside order of his dismissal and prays for
reinstatement with backwages.
4.
2nd party management filed Written Statement at
Page 9/1 to 9/3 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party
contends that workman was posted as incharge of Saving
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4317
Bank Account. Cheque No. 217461-72 were issued to same
person. Ist party workman had shown extra interest while
issuing cheque books. He was not vigilant while issuing
the cheque book. The pyament of Cheque No. 217461 –
Rs. 35,000 for self was issued on 21-9-91. The bogus cheque
was submitted by unauthorised person. Workman shown
undue interest and issued token taking entries in ledger,
cash book and order for payment. Workman not shown
diligence to verify the specimen signature and passed
payment on 10-6-87, 26-6-89, duplicate and triplicate pass
books were issued on the ground that false pass book
were lost. Token for payment was issued to unauthorised
person. En enquiry conducted against workman, charges
were found proved. Considering gravity of the charges
proved against workman, the punishment of dismissal was
imposed. The 2nd denied contentions in Para-1,3,7 to 23
in statement of claim. All adverse contentions of workman
are denied. The contentions in Para 35, 36 of statement of
claim are claimed to be false. Workman was given
opportunity for his defence. On such contentions, 2nd
party prayed reference be answered in its favour.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2
reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
6.
The enquiry conducted against workman is found
legal as per order dated 9-5-2014. Considering pleadings
between parties 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 charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman are proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Negative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
7.
As per finding on issue, enquiry is found proper
and legal. Whether the charges against workman are proved
needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
MW-2 Shri S.R.Milani in his evidence at Page 11/28 to 11/
30 of Enquiry Proceedings has stated about the signatures
on document MEX-2 that he had carried preliminary
enquiry in the matter. When in MEX-13 signature isi
appearing on Shri S.K.Mukati, MEX-4, S.K.Mukjati signed
in his presence. MEX-26 letter was given to Shri Mukati
calling necessary information. MW-3 Ram Naresh Thakur
in his statement before Enquiry Officer says document
MEX-15 is payment scroll. The details of payments are
given in it. Entry of payment of Rs. 35,000 is taken in the
scroll. Account was opened on 28-9-84. MW-5 Shri
G.S.Chadda in his statement before Enquiry Officer says
on 31-10-91, workman Shri S.K.Mukati had given his
statement MEX-22 in his presence. Workman signed in
his presence. He has also signed on the document as
witness. In document MEX-22, workman had admitted
evidence is given by MW-2 K.K.Bhatt. Shri Bhatt says
document MEX-23 bears his signature. The statement of
workman was recorded on 2-11-91. It bears signature of
workman. The evidence of the management’s witness is
not shattered in their cross-examination. The scope of
judicial review under Section 11-A of ID Act is limited.
The evidence cannot be re-appreciated. The evidence of
CBI Officer is also clear that during inspection, he recorded
statements. Cheque of Rs.35,000 submitted by Shri Vijay
Kumar Jain. The evidence of other witnesses also supports
finding of Enquiry Officer. The findings of Enquiry Officer
cannot be said perverse. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8.
Point No.2- Evidence in Enquiry Proceeding is clear
that workman had taken entries in payment scroll about
payment of Rs.35,000. The payment was sanctioned by
shri Sarvatte Sr. officer. Considering the passing remark of
Ist party workman, the payment was actually sanctioned
by Mr. Savatte replying endorsement made by workman.
The power of Ist party were restricted to withdrawal of
Rs.20,000. For payment sanctioned by Mr. Sarvatte without
examining the specimen signatures, Ist party workman
cannot be held responsible. Ist party workman was
appointed on 4-4-79. Before termination of his service from
6-2-94, he completed long tenure with the Bank. Said aspect
was not considered by Disciplinary Authority while
imposing the punishment. The payment of cheque of
Rs.35,000 was sanctioned by Shri Sarvatte. The
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is
excessive. The length of unblemished long service was
not considered. The workman died during pendency of
the proceeding. Considering above aspect, the
punishment of dismissal imposed against workman needs
to be modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No.2.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The of the management of State Bank of Indore in
terminating the services of Shri S.K.Mukati, Spl.
Assistant, State Bank of Indore, Morar (Gwalior)
w.e.f. 6-1-94 is not proper and legal.
(2)
Punishment of dismissal imposed against deceased
workman is modified to compulsory retirement.
Retiral benefits be given to deceased workman/ his
LRs.
(3)
Parties to bear their respective costs.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
4318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2105-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
chdkusj ,.M t;iqj izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k (48@1996) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@143@95&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.48/1996) of
the Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shwon in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Bikner & Jaipur and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
29.10.2015.
[No. L-12012/143/95-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
vuqca/
vkS|kSfxd U;k;kf/dj.k] t;iqj
dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 48@1996
jSiQjSal % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh dh vf/lwpuk
Øekad ,y- 12012@143@95 vkbZ-vkj-(ch)] ubZ fnYyh] fnukad
09-10-1996
1- vfuy dqekj iq=k nqxkZyky] IykV uEcj 2@125] Vhyk uEcj 1]
vktkn uxj] dPph cLrh] fnYyh ckbZikl jksM] gfjtu
cLrh&t;iqjA
2- vè;{k] vkWy cSad liQkbZ deZpkjh la?k] jktLFkku ekiQZr lsaVªy
cSad vkWiQ bf.M;k] vkdk'kok.kh ds ikl] ,evkbZ jksM] t;iqjA
-----izkFkhZx.k
cuke
1- izca/d] vkapfyd LVs'kujh vkxkj] LVsV cSad chdkusj ,.M
t;iqj] vadqj flusek ds lkeus] ?kkVxsV&t;iqjA
2- izca/ funs'kd] LVsV cSad vkWiQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj] iz/ku
dk;kZy;] fryd ekxZ] t;iqjA
3- mi&egkizca/d] LVsV cSad vkWiQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj] vapy
dk;kZy;] ljkstuh ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA
4- {ks=kh; izca/d (izFke)] LVsV cSad vkWiQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj]
{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] vapy dk;kZy;] t;iqjA
-----vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr
ihBklhu vf/dkjh % Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls %
Jh ,l- ds- frokjh]
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls %
Jh ,- etwenkj]
fnukad % 02-06-2015
vf/fu.kZ;
1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=kky; dh vkKk Øekad ,y-
12012@143@95 vkbZ-vkj- (ch-)] ubZ fnYyh fnukad 09-10-
1996 }kjk fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/fu.kZ; gsrq bl vfèkdj.k
ds ;gka fnukad 22-20-1996 dks bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk gS
fd& ‘‘Whether the claim of the workmen Sh. Anil Kumar,
part time sweeper for full scale of pay the date his junior
workmen Sh. Shyam Lal and Satya Narain are given full
scall of pay is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen
is entitled?’’
2- izkFkhZx.k }kjk ,d LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe izkFkZuk i=k bl vk'k; dk
izLrqr fd;k fd Jfed vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds v/hu fnukad
01-08-1987 ls ,d frgkbZ osrueku ij fu;qfDr dh xbZA vizkFkhZ
izcaèkd] iz/ku dk;kZy;] fryd ekxZ] t;iqj ds i=k la[;k
dkiz@451@LFkk@3782 fnukad 04-05-1989 ds vuqlkj fnukad
08-04-1988 ls cSad lsok esa v/huLFk deZpkjh oxZ esa Lohij in
ij ,d frgkbZ osrueku ij LFkkbZ fd;kA vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds
}kjk Jfed ls dfu"B ';keyky dh fu;qfDr fnukad 01-09-91
dks 1992 ls iw.kZ osrueku fn;k x;kA NksVsyky dks fnukad 01-
09-91 dks 175@& jQi;s izfrekg ij va'kdkyhu liQkbZ deZpkjh
in ij fu;qDr fd;k rFkk fnukad 05-10-1994 ls iw.kZ osrueku
fn;k x;kA nsosUnz dks 1992 esa va'kdkyhu liQkbZ deZpkjh in
ij fu;qDr fd;k rFkk 05-10-94 ls iw.kZ osrueku fn;k x;k rFkk
izHkqn;ky dks 1988 esa va'kdkyhu liQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij
fu;qDr fd;k tkdj 1995 esa iw.kZ osrueku fn;k x;kA Jfed us
ekeyk 1993 dks Je vk;qDr] t;iqj ds le{k mBk;k] ftl
ij fnukad 13-10-93 dks iathÑr ;wfu;u }kjk ekeyk mBkus ds
fy, fy[kk x;k] ftl ij izkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ekè;e ls fnukad
11-10-1994 dks ekeyk lgk;d Je vk;qDr] t;iqj ds le{k
izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr fd;k x;k] tgka foi{khx.k ls eè;LFkrk
djok, tkus ckcr~ foi{khx.k dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k] foi{khx.k
dh vksj ls fnukad 11-01-93 dks tokc izLrqr dj fdlh Hkh
izdkj ls lgk;rk izkIr djus dk izkFkhZ Jfed vf/dkjh ugha
gksuk crk;k rFkk le>kSrk okrkZ foiQy gksus ds dkj.k lgk;d
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4319
Je vk;qDr] t;iqj }kjk fnukad 29-05-1995 dks lfpo] Hkkjr
ljdkj] Je ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh dks Hkstk] ;gka ls fnukad
09-10-1996 dks Hkkjr ljdkj us vf/lwpuk }kjk ;g ekeyk bl
vf/dj.k dks izsf"kr fd;kA
3- vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tokc izLrqr dj izkjafHkd vkifÙk yh gS
fd la?k dks LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe izLrqr djus dk vf/dkj ugha gS
rFkk LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe ds iSjk la[;k 1 o 2 ds laca/ esa dksbZ
vkifÙk ugha dh rFkk vU; fcUnqvksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq,
LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA
4- izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/ dh vksj ls fnukad 09-03-2015 dks No
Instruction Plead fd;kA bl ij izkFkhZx.k DysesaV dks bl
vf/dj.k }kjk uksfVl fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh rkehy gksus
ds ckotwn dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vk;k rFkk izkFkhZ vfuy dqekj dh
jftLVªh bl uksV ds lkFk okil vkbZ fd ^^izkIrdÙkkZ bl irs ij
ugha jgrk gSA** izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe ds
leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrr ugha dh gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dk
LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk Jfed fdlh
Hkh rjg dh jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh ugha gSA
6- mijksDr foospu ds iQyLo:i izdj.k esa LVsVesaV vkWiQ DySe
vokMZ fuEu izdkj ls ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS&
vf/fu.kZ;
‘‘The claim of the workmen Sh. Anil Kumar, part time
sweeper for full scale of pay from the date his junior
workmen Sh. Shyam Lal and Satya Narain are given full
scale of pay is not justified and workman is not entitled
for any relief.’’
dsnkj yky xqIrk] U;k;k/h'k
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2106-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lriqMk {ks=kh;
xzkeh.k cSad izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k (54@08) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@188@2007&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/08)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Satpura Kshetriya Gramin
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/188/2007-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/54/08
Shri Mukesh Chourasia,
S/o Shri Ramcharan Chourasia,
Devri, Raisen Distt. (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chairman,
Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
(erstwhile KGB Hoshangabad), Head Office,
800/19, South Civil Lines,
Chhindwara
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 9th day of October 2015
1.
As per letter dated 20.3.08 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/
88/2007-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chairman,
Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the
services of Shri Mukesh Chourasia S/o Ramcharan
Chourasia as authorized collection agent w.e.f.
14.2.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman failed to participate in
reference proceeding. He failed to submit statement of
claim. On 13.1.2014, Ist party is proceeded exparte.
3.
2nd party management filed Written Statement. The
case of 2nd party is that management floated a Gramin
Mini Deposit Scheme. Said Bank is merged in Central MP
Gramin Bank and Regional office at Hoshangabad, Head
office at Chhindwara. The scheme contemplated collection
of small amount from the persons desirous of making daily
deposits in the bank. Management needed persons and
appointed agents including applicant purely on contract
basis. The agent was entitled to 2% of total collection
4320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
made by him each month. The Bank was paying
commission to the workman, collection scheme was quoted
by the Bank during 1986 to 2000 in 15 branches out of its
total 80 branches. Review of said scheme was taken by
them and it was found that scheme was no longer in
prevailing circumstances. When the scheme was floated
the rate of interest was 13% per annum in respect of term
deposit while it was 5% per annum in respect of Saving
Bank Account. The cost of implementing the scheme was
8%. At the time when review of the scheme was made the
cost become 6.5% for implementing the scheme itself plus
operating expenses while the bank has to pay 2%
commission to daily deposit collectors under the scheme
and interest at 3% per annum to depositors. The cost of
scheme was found not economical therefore the Bank
was instructed to close the scheme as per decision of
Board Directors dated 9.3.04 published in newspaper. As
a result, workman was terminated.
4. That engagement of workman was purely contractual.
He was not regular employee of the Bank. Workman was
paid commission on the basis of amount collected by him
and deposited in the Bank as per the agreement. As per
Clause I and 15 of the agreement dated 6.9.99, the terms
and conditions mentioned in appointment letter dated
21.7.99, it was discretion of the Bank to terminate without
notice to the authorized collection agent without assigning
reasons. That the matter is governed by Section 2(00)(bb)
of ID Act and doesnot amount to retrenchment. Provisions
of Section 25-F of ID Act are not attractred as workman
terminated as per the terms of contract.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise
for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons
as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Chairman,
Satpura Kshetriya Gramin
Bank in terminating the
services of Shri Mukesh
Chourasia S/o Ramcharan
Chourasia as authorized collection
agent w.e.f. 14.2.2004 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is not
is entitled to?’’
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6.
As narrated above, workman has failed to file his
statement of claim. Workman is proceeded exparte on
13.1.2014. 2nd party filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Rakesh Suri supporting contentions of management in
Writeen Statement that as per terms and conditions of the
agreement, services of workman were terminated as the
collection scheme noted by Bank during 1986 to 2000 was
not economical vital. Workman not completed 240 days
continuous service in any calendar year. Section 25-F of
ID Act is not attracted. Evidence of management's witness
remained unchallenged as workman failed to participate in
reference and cross-examine witness of management. I
donot find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of
management's witness as workman has not filed any
evidence to substantiate his claim. I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :-
(1) The action of management of Chairman, Satpura
Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri
Mukesh Chourasia S/o Ramcharan Chourasia as
authorized collection agent w.f.f. 14.2.2004 is legal and
proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2107-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
banksj izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k (174@2001) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@266@2001&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shwon in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
29.10.2015.
[No. L-12012/266/2001-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/174/2001
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan,
9, Sanwer Road, Hardeo Niwas,
Ujjain.
...Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4321
Zonal Office,
Indore (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of October 2015
1.
As per letter dated 15.11.2001 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
266/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, State
Bank of Indore (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Shyamlal, Peon-cum-Farrash as justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at page 4/2 to 4/9. Case of Ist party workman is that he
was working on scale wages during 1983-84 on pay scale
Rs. 690.90. He was again engaged from 22.12.93 on daily
wages. He was doing the work of cleaning, sweeping and
other works of the peon. He was working till 31.3.98. He
completed 240 days continuous service during each of
the year. He was paid bonus after filing proceeding before
ALC. In proceeding before ALC, 2nd party admitted
working of 376 days during the period 12.1.94 to 2.5.98.
Bonus of Rs. 1031 was paid on 14-9-98. Workman further
submits he had completed 240 days continuous service
during 97-98 at Ratlam, 336 days and 289 days during period
10-3-97 to 6-5-98. The services re terminated without notice.
He was not paid retrenchment compensation. His services
are terminated in violation of Section 2S-F of ID Act. the
due amount of bonus was not paid to him. On such ground,
he prays for reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/8
opposing claim of workman. Case of 2nd party is that
workman was engaged during leave vacancy of regular
sub staff. Workman was engaged on daily wages as per
exigencies. Workman was not appointed by Bank following
recruitment process. his name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange as per rules of the Bank. Shri Ram
Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of Bank, he is not
competent to raise the dispute. Workman was not included
in panel list maintained by Bank working 240 days on casual
basis doesnot give workman right to the post. The reference
is delayed. The delay is not explained therefore reference
is not tenable. Workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/4
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
General Manager, State Bank of
Indore (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Shyamlal, Peon-
cum-Farrash is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?’’
REASONS
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his contentions that he worked during 3-10-83 to 31-3-84
on pay scale. From 22-12-93, he was engaged on wages
Rs.30/- per day. He continuously worked till 12-5-90 at
Station Road Branch, Ratlam. He had completed more than
240 days. During 1997-98, he worked for 290 days total 672
days. His services were terminated without notice from
12-5-98. In his cross-examination, workman says he passed
8th standard. He had not appeared in selection process.
He was doing work of cleaning, sweeping and taking ledger.
He was not interviewed. Appointment letter was not given
to him. He was also doing work of stitching vouchers of
regular peons. Two regular peon were working in the
branch. In 1983-84, he was paid on skilled wage basis, its
basic pay was Rs. 436/-. During 22-12-93 to 31-12-95 he
was paid Rs. 30 per day from 10-3-97 to 6-5-98. He was
paid Rs. 40/- per day. He denied suggestion that he was
working only for 2-3 hours in a day. The evidence of
workman that he was continuously working for more than
240 days is not challenged in cross-examination of
workman.
7. Management’s witness Dilip Kumar filed affidavit
supporting contentions of 2nd party in Written Statement
that workman was engaged as per exigencies. Workman
was not continuously working. He was not appointed by
the Bank. In his cross-examination, management’s witness
says he is giving evidence on information given by Branch
Manager. Shri Mandloi and Kule couldnot be contacted.
Shri Rajiv Agrawal Branch Manager Station Road branch
was contacted by him through telephone. Management’s
witness denied that workman worked for 3-4 years. He
claims ignorance about payment of bonus at both the
branches. The evidence of workman that he worked more
than 240 days during 93 to 98 is not challenged in cross-
examination. Evidence of management is not supported
by documents.
8. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1
pertaining to claim of workman for bonus. Exhibit W -2 is
reply submitted by 2nd party to ALC. The working for 376
days on daily wages by workman is admitted during the
period 10-1-94 to 2-5-98. The management had denied that
workman had completed 240 days continuous service.
Exhibit W -3 is reply given to ALC shows workman had
completed 376 days working. He worked for 233 days in
1997-98 and 20 days in 1998-99. Exhibit W-5 is Asstt.
Manager requesting review of the matter. Exhibit W-6
4322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Asstt. General manager requested to arrange meeting for
conciliation. Exhibit W - 7 is letter issued by Bank Manager
regarding payment of bonus to workman. Exhibit W-8 also
relates to payment of bonus to workman. Exhibit W -9
pertains to payment of bonus of Rs.100. 145.35 Rs to
workman for the year 1983-84. W-I0 is General manager
requested for review of the matter. Exhibit W -11 shows
his appointment letter of workman on pay scale, basic pay
is shown Rs.245/-. All those documents clearly shows that
workman was working in the bank on daily wages. His
evidence that he completed more than 240 days during
1993 to 1998 remained unchallenged. Evidence of
management’s witness is not supported by documents. I
therefore find no reason to disbelieve evidence of workman
that he completed 240 days continuous service during
1993 to 1998 and his services are terminated without notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid therefore
termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point N 0.1 in” Negative.
9. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
Termination of workman is in violation of section 25-F of
ID Act, workman was engaged on daily wages, he had not
appeared for interview. Conciliation process was not
followed. Workman was working from 93 to 98.
Reinstatement with backwages would not be appropriate.’
Considering the period of working, 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 General Manager, State Bank of
Indore (MP) in terminating the services of Shri
Shyamlal, Peon-cum-Farrash is not proper and
legal.
(2)
2nd party management 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] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2108-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼4@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 izkIr gqvk Fkk A
[la- ,y&12011@73@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2011)
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 29/10/
2015.
[No. L-12011/73/2008-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/4/2011
Dy.General Secretary,
State Bank Karmchari Sena,
C/o State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Station Road,
Nagpur
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Personnel Management Deptt.
16th Floor, Corporate Centre,
Post Box 12, Mumbai
Dy.General Manager,
SBI, Zonal Office,
S.V. Patel Marg,
Kingsway, Nagpur
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 30th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 6-1-2011 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/
73/2008-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Nagpur in introducing a new
scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount
in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds
w.e.f. 4-8-05 without issuing notice to the
workmen under Section 9-A of ID Act, 1947 is
justified? To what relief the dependents and legal
heirs of deceased employees/ Union is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Union did not appear in the matter. Ist
party was proceeded exparte on 14-6-2013.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4323
3. 2nd party filed exparte Written Statement contenting
that reference made by Government of India can be inferred
that Union has challenged the action of the Bank in
rejecting the case of appointment on compassionate
ground. Written Statement is further devoted about
definition of Industrial Dispute, workman, dismissal of
workman. Individual workman has been discharged,
dismissed or retrenched otherwise or terminating raising
dispute with his employees. That reference made by
Government was rejected by CGIT Nagpur. Written
Statement also exhaustively devoted about ratio held in
various judgments by Apex Court. The object of granting
compassionate appointment was to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the sole
breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness
does not entitle his family to such a source of livelihood.
The object is to offer compassionate appointment only on
the basis of financial condition of the family. Appointments
in public services are made strictly on basis of open
invitation. The Bank introduced scheme called as SBI
Scheme for payment of exgratia amount. The objective of
scheme was that because of changing banking scenario
in India less manual workforce is needed in the Bank. The
Executive Committee of the Central Board in its meeting
held on 4-8-2005 approved the scheme for payment of
exgratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on
compassionate ground. The service conditions are those
which are governing the employees during his employment
and further when the compassionate appointment itself is
not fundamental right no notice of change is required to
be given.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
An Affirmative
management of State Bank of
India, Nagpur in introducing a
new scheme for payment of ex-gratia
lump sum amount in lieu of appoint-
ment on compassionate grounds w.e.f.
4-8-05 without issuing notice to the
workmen under Section 9-A of
ID Act, 1947 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workmen/
entitled to?”
Union are not
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5. As stated above, Union has not participated in
reference after the service of notice. Exparte Written
Statement is filed by Bank. Affidavit of evidence is filed
by Shri Narsingh Kumar Mehta supporting contentions in
Written Statement filed by 2nd party. management’s witness
is not cross-examined. There is no evidence to support
contentions of workman raised by the dispute. Therefore
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is proper and
legal.
(2)
Union is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29] vDrwcj 2015
dk-vk- 2109-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e]1947 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ls izca/k ra= ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼74@02½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@31@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.74/02)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/10/
2015.
[No. L-12012/31/2002-IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/02
Shri Ratanbahadur
S/o Shri Kishanbahadur,
R/o Ajanta Talkies,
Near Bansal Bhawan,
H.No.18, Ratlam
...Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
4324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Region-V,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 28th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 17-5-02 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
31/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India in not
regularizing the services of Shri Ratanbahadur
S/o Kishanbahadur is justified? If not, What relief
the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Pages 2/2 to 2/7. Case of workman is that he was working
in SBI Ratlam from 1-11-88 to 2-7-97 as messenger against
permanent post. He worked in various department like
cash, records. That person of high integrity is allowed to
work in cash department. Experience certificate was issued
by Branch Manager. He belongs to General Category.
Management called him for interview, for permanent post
of messenger, he had complained against the selection
committee. The messenger having lesser days experience
were selected by underhand dealings. Many officers of
Selection Committee were suspended. That interview
conducted was mere formality. Most of the candidates
selected from Ujjain by way of corruption. That workman
was not allowed to sign attendance register by concerned
officer is illegal. Bank not strictly followed guidelines of
Sastry Award. Bank was not maintaining record of Class-
IV employees. That copy of attendance register maintained
by bank is produced. Workman delivered cheque, telegram
etc. to the parties. Since 1985, workman was regularly
working till 2-7-97. Bank regularised services of juniors.
Workman belonging to weaker section could not fulfill
illegal demands for regularization in service. As per the
rules, temporary employees putting aggregate of 90 days
temporary service as on 15-4-85 were given chance for
consideration. Workman reiterates that Bank has not
maintained attendance record of temporary employees.
Workman referred to ratio held in AIR-1976-SC-1111 and
reiterated that his service are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays
oral termination of his service from 1-3-85 is illegal for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, he is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages.
3. It appears that statement of claim is also submitted
in Hindi at Pages 8/1 to 8/5 contending that he worked for
85 days during 15-4-85 to 17-7-85, 289 days during 5-3-87
to 28-12-87, 711 days during 1-11-88 to 14-8-91. That his
services were terminated without notice. He worked for
more than 240 days. He is employee covered under Section
25 B of ID Act.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 12/1
to 12/13 opposing claim. Preliminary objection is raised
that Shri Ram Nagwanshi so called General Secretary of
Union was terminated after enquiry is not competent to
raise the dispute. That Ist party workman was engaged as
canteen boy in staff canteen of Collector branch from 15-
4-85 to 1-5-85 and 10-5-85 to 17-7-85. There is local
implementation committee for staff members. Bank has
nothing to do with recruitment by implementation
Committee. 2nd party Bank has no direct control over the
canteen or work done by canteen boy. Welfare Committee
used to make payment to workman through cheque.
Workman was not in employment of the Bank. 2nd party
reiterates that Ist party employee was initially engaged on
daily wages as temporary messenger for 85 days from 10-
5-85 to 17-7-85. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the calendar year.
Workman was Engaged on daily wages. His employment
come to end at end of the day. His discontinuation is
covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Engagement
of Ist party was depending on exigencies, purely
contractual. Bank has elaborate selection procedure for
permanent appointment calling names from Employment
Exchange. The settlement provides-
“Temporary employees completed 240 days
temporary service during 1-7-75 – 270 days service in
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75, the employees
who have completed a minimum of 30 days temporary
service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or a minimum of
70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 , temporary service
of 270 days, 240 days, 70 days or 30 days should have
been put in by a temporary employee as on 31-7-88. Said
period was extended till 14-8-91”
The eligible daily wagers casual employees who
completed required minimum days were given chance for
permanent
employment.
Management
issued
advertisement in newspaper. Ist party submitted his
application to the Bank stating that he worked for 85 days,
certificate issued by Branch Manager. As workman worked
only for 85 days after cut off date, he could not be absorbed
in service of the Bank. It is denied that Ist party was called
by Ist party was called by Branch Manager. He was asked
not to come on next day. That Ist party employee was
engaged by local Implementation Committee as canteen
boy. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service. He is not employ under 25-B of ID Act. The
violation of section 25-F of ID Act is denied. Ist party
appeared for interview but he was not found eligible as
per seniority. That non-engagement of workman is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act as he was engaged on
daily wages. Workman is not entitled to scale wages as he
was never permanent employee of the Bank. 2nd party prays
that workman is not entitled to reinstatement with
backwages.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4325
5. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 15/1 to
15/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India in
not regularizing the services of
Shri Ratanbahadur S/o
Kishanbahadur
is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman
is
not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. The terms of reference pertains to denial of
regularization of workman. Legality of termination of his
service in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is not covered
in the order of reference. 2nd party has admitted Ist party
working for 85 days prior to cut off date 14-8-91. Workman
was called for interview. He could not be absorbed in the
Bank as his working days were less.
8. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. In para-
4 of his affidavit, he has stated that he worked for 85 days
from 15-4-85 to 17-7-85, 289 days from 1-3-87 to 20-12-87,
711 days from 1-11-88 to 14-8-91. That he was continuously
working for more than 240 days. Denial of regularization
as per the settlement is illegal. In his cross-examination,
workman says he was working in the Bank during 15-4-85
to 1-5-85. He denies that he was working in canteen from
10-5-85 to 17-7-85. He claims ignorance about settlement
between Bank and Union. After his interview, appointment
letter was not given. H denies that he was not found fit
after interview.
9. Though workman has produced large number of
copy of documents, no care is taken to prove those
documents. Documents produced by workman Exhibit
W-1 pertains to 85 days working of workman from 1-5-85
to 1-7-85 and 10-5-85 to 17-7-85. Exhibit W-2 is letter of
identity of workman as temporary watchman. W-3 is copy
of public notice issued inviting applications from
temporary employees. 70 days during 26 calendar months
during 1-7-75 to 31-7-86, Exhibit W-4 to 7 are documents
relating to payment of retrenchment compensation, one
months notice paid to Shri Tekre, Narayan Shivhare,
Mukesh, Trilokchand. Those documents do not establish
working period of workman prior to the cut off date. Exhibit
W-8 is letter issued to branches by Chief Personnel Officer
informing that the candidates interviewed in 1989 were
not required to be called for interview in 1997. Exhibit W-9
is letter issued to Shri G.K.Sarsia part time employee for
interview. Exhibit W-10 is certificate of working days of
Gopal Sarsia that he worked for 67 days. Exhibit W-11 is
appointment letter issued to Vyas. Exhibit W-12 is certificate
of 103 working days of Kamal Kishore Vyas. Exhibit W-14
is letter issued to branches by Asstt. General Manager
that the appointments were to be given to temporary
employees in the list. Exhibit W-15 is copy of letter dated
12-12-02 prohibiting employment in subordinate cadre.
Exhibit W-16 is certificate issued by Bank that workman
was on duty on 20-1-93 as canteen boy. Said document
support contention of workman that he was working in
the Bank prior to cut off date 14-8-91. Copies of settlements
are produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-5. Parties are not in
dispute about settlement and cut off date prescribed for
absorption of temporary employees. 2nd party had admitted
workman was working for 85 days prior to cut off date.
Copy of select list is produced at Exhibit M-6. Working
days of last candidate appointed is shown 96 days at
Sl.No.169 candidate having less number of working days.
Considering working days of workman prior to cut off
were 85 days, shows that workman is not discriminated. In
Exhibit M-6, candidate at Page 173 candidate Gulab Singh
appointed having 73 days working is from ST category.
Workman is from General Category. Workman cannot
compare himself with the candidate of SC Category.
10. Management’s witness Shri Shukla filed
affidavit of evidence supporting contentions of 2nd party
in Written Statement that workman had worked for 85 days
till 17-7-85, he not completed 240 days continuous service
as per the settlements. In his cross-examination,
management’s witness says he was not posted in April to
July 95 at Collector branch, Ratlam. During March 87 to
December 87, he was not posted in Ratlam branch. During
1988 to 2000, he was not posted at Collectorate branch,
Ratlam. That he had not seen complete record of canteen.
The appointment letter was not issued to workman. He
was engaged as casual employee. The rules about welfare
committee are not produced. Workman was not issued
notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
11. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri V.P.Khare relies
on ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others Versus Shri
M.L.Kesari and others reported in 2010(9)SCC-247. Their
Lordship held appointment of qualified persons made
against sanctioned posts without following process of
open competition are irregular appointments. Only irregular
appointees are entitled to regularization in terms of Para
53 of Umadevi case.
The evidence in cross-examination of workman does
not substantiate claim of workman that he worked more
than 240 days prior to the cut off date. The evidence
discussed above does not show that workman has been
discriminated. Therefore, I record my finding in Point No.1
in Affirmative.
4326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India in not regularizing
the services of Shri Ratanbahadur S/o
Kishanbahadur is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk- vk- 2110-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e]1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼145@2002½ dks izdkf’'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y 12012@453@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/
2002) 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
29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/453/2001– IR(B-1) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/145/2002
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-10-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
453/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Roopnarayan
shivhare w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not regularizing him even
after completing more than 240 days in a calendar
year is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through
daily wage Bank Employees Union at Pages 2/1 to 2/8.
Case of Ist party is that workman Roop Narayan Shivhare
worked for 91 days as messenger in 1983, certificate of
working days was issued. During the period 27-11-84 to
19-2-85, he worked for 67 days as messenger. The certificate
of working days was issued. The workman was called for
interview on 27-4-85 for absorption as regular employee.
He was interviewed on that day. As per settlement dated
17-11-87, temporary employees working more than 30 days
during 1-1-1975 to 31-7-88 are eligible for appointment as
regular employee. That he had worked for 158 days.
Workman was called for interview on 22-9-89. After
interview, his name was included in panel list. As per letter
dated 10-2-97, he was informed that he was interviewed
earlier therefore it was not necessary to interview again.
3. Ist party workman submits that he was not called for
interview in 1997 as he was interviewed in 1989. Since
8-6-93, he was continuously working as messenger. On
11-12-98, workman was called in cabin and his services
were terminated. Cheque of Rs. 2160/- was given to him.
Workman reiterates that he was continuously working
more than 240 days. He also reiterates that he worked for
91 days in main branch till 14-8-91. His name was included
in panel list. He was paid bonus R. 2067 by cheque on
8-8-01. He worked more than 1500 days during 3-6-93 to
11-12-98. His services are terminated illegally. 2nd party
has violated settlement dated 17-11-89. The act of
management is punishable under section 29 of ID Act. On
such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. Case of 2nd party is Shri Ram Nagwanshi is not
competent to raise dispute as his services were terminated
from SB of Indore. He has no authority to represent
workman. Workman was engaged on daily wages on
contract basis for 91 days during the period 1-1-1983 to
31-12-1983, 67 days during 27-11-84 to 19-2-85. Workman
was not continuously working. Management paid wages
for the period of engagement. Workman had not completed
240 days continuous service during any of the year. As
per ratio held in case of Secretary of State of Karnataka
versus Umadevi and others , workman is not entitled to
reinstatement. Workman was not selected after his
interview. It is denied that workman was continuously
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4327
working. As working days of workman were less than other
temporary employees, he was not appointed. Workman
was paid retrenchment compensation Rs. 2160/-. In para-
11 of Written Statement, working days of workman are
shown 108 days in 1994-95, 203 days in 1995-96, 219 days
in 1996-97, 202 days in 1997-98 & 114 days in 1998-99
Total 746 days. As work was not available, workman was
discontinued. 2nd party submits that workman was not
entitled for reinstatement.
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
General Manager, State Bank
of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Roopnarayan
shivhare w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not
regularizing him even after completing
more than 240 days in a calendar
year 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
denying regularisation by 2nd party. Affidavit of his
evidence is filed by workman. Workman in his affidavit
says he worked for 91 days during 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1983
and 67 days during the period 27-11-84 to 19-2-85. He was
called for interview on 27-4-85. As per settlement dated
17-11-87, temporary employees working for 30/70 days as
sub staff are eligible for regular absorption. He worked for
158 days . he was called for interview on 27-9-89. He was
engaged by bank from 8-6-93. He was paid wages on daily
wage basis instead of pay scale. He was not called for
interview in 1997 as he was interviewed earlier in 1989.
That his services were forcibly terminated paying
compensation Rs.2160/-. From his evidence, documents
Exhibit W-1 to W-7 are proved.
7.
Workman in his cross-examination says he was
engaged by Bank in 1983, his name was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. The post was not
advertised. In 1983, he was not interviewed. Appointment
letter was given to him. During 1983 to 1998, he was
intermittently working in Bank. During 1993 to 1998, he
worked for 1280 days. The details of his work are not given
in his affidavit. In 1998 along with him 8-10 persons were
terminated. He was unable to tell reason for his termination.
He was paid retrenchment compensation. He has not
produced receipt of membership of the Union. He joined
Union in the year 2000.
8. Management’s witness Yogesh Vijaya filed affidavit
of his evidence. In para 2 of his affidavit, working days of
workman are shown 91 in 1983, 67 days during 27-11-84 to
19-2-85. Working days for the period 94-95 to 98-99 are
shown as per the Written Statement. The affidavit of
management’s witness also refers to settlement dated
17-11-87, 16-7-88, 27-10-88, 9-1-91. The period was
extended till 14-8-91. Workman was called for interview
on 27-9-89, wait list of selected candidates was prepared.
Waiting List was valid till March 1997. That no junior was
retained in service by management. Workman had not
completed more than 240 days during any of the calendar
year. Retrenchment compensation Rs.2160/- was paid to
workman on 11-2-90. In his cross-examination,
management’s witness says he was not posted in GPO
branch during 1983 to 1985, 1994 to 1998. He has not
disclosed about the case with the Branch Manager
working during said period. He claims ignorance about
sanctioned post of peon in GPO branch during 1994 to
1999. Appointment letter was not given to workman. His
attendance register was not maintained. Workman was
paid wages every day. He claims ignorance how the wages
were paid. Bonus was not paid to workman. Permission of
Government was not taken for terminating services of
workman. Retrenchment notice was not given to workman.
He claims ignorance whether list of daily wage employees
was displayed. Exhibit W-8 is admitted by management’s
witness.
9. Copies of settlements are produced at exhibit M-1 to
M-5. The list of selected candidates are produced at Exhibit
M-6. Name of Ist party workman is appearing at page 56 at
Sl.No.157. his working days are shown 91. In Written
statement and evidence of management’s witness,
workman was working for 91 days in 1983 and 67 days
during 84 to 85. Total working days is 158. However his
working days in M-6 are shown only 91 days. The correct
working days of workman are not shown in Exhibit M-6. In
Exhibit M-6, Bhagwandas candidate at Sl.No.161 is
appointed. His working days are shown 96 from Category
C-I whereas working days of workman are shown 158 days.
Workman is not given appointment after his interview as
the working days were shown 91 days instead of 158 days.
Exhibit M-1 is not in dispute between parties. The said
settlement provides- employees completed 240 days
temporary service during 1-7-75 – 270 days service in
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75, the employees
who have completed a mimumum of 30 days temporary
service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or a minimum of
70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 are given chance
for permanent appointment in Bank service is likely to
arise during 1987 to 1991. Working days of workman were
wrongly shown in Exhibit M-6. Workman was illegally
denied appointment. Candidates having less working days
were appointed. The term of reference pertains to legality
of termination and denial of regularisation. Considering
4328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
158 working days of workman, he was entitled for
absorption after his interview. List Exhibit M-6 is not
disclosing whether the said list is of 1989 or 1997. The list
of 1989 is not produced on record. Exhibit W-8 admitted
by management’s witness also shows 91 days working
days of workman in 1983. Exhibit w-2 shows 67 days
working in 1984-85. Exhibit W-4 is copy of public notice.
Exhibit W-5 is interview call of the workman. From evidence
discussed above, it is clear that workman is illegally denied
regularisation after his interview. Junior candidates having
less working days have been appointed therefore
termination of workman is illegal. Evidence of
management’s witness is silent how retrenchment
compensation Rs.2160/- was calculated. The termination
notice was not issued to workman, seniority list of daily
wage employees was not displayed on notice board
therefore termination of workman is illegal for violation of
Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
10. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
workman has illegally denied regularisation after his
interview, his services are terminated illegally. Question
arises whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with
backwages. Workman in his cross says he is working as
labour after termination from service. Therefore backwages
cannot be allowed to the workman. For illegal denial of
regularisation and termination of his services in violation
of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. Workman is entitled for
reinstatement without backwages. 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 General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Roopnarayan shivhare w.e.f.
11-12-98 and not regularizing him even after
completing more than 240 days in a calendar year is
not proper and legal.
(2)
2nd party management is directed to reinstate
workman but without backwages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2111-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;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 vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k
Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 106@95½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
Fkk1
[la- ,y&41012@22@94&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/
95) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
29/10/2015.
[ No. L-41012/22/94-IR(B-1) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/95
Shri Ambika Prasad,
Behind Raja Kothi,
Rajendra Nagar,
Street No.12, P.O Jawahar Nagar,
Satna (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of October, 2015
1. As per letter dated 1-6-95 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-41012/22/94-IR(B-
I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur in removing
Shri Ambika Prasad, S/o Shri Harihar Prasad, Ex-Cleaner
boy, T.No. 824, Loco Satna from service vide order dated
25-5-88 is legal and proper? 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 3/5. Case of Ist party workman is he was working
as cleaner by holding T.No.224 of Central Railway, Loco
Satna with 2nd party No.3. He was appointed on post on
23-1-79. He was working till his removal from service on
25-5-85 for period of six years. Workman further submits
that on false allegation of theft of 6 machine oil which was
kept at Store room of cleaning boy, Satna. Chargesheet
was issued to him on 20-10-84 by 2nd party No.3. He was
removed from service as per order dated 25-5-85 without
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4329
conducting legal enquiry. That he was not allowed proper
opportunity. Natural justice was not followed in the case.
Showcause notice before removal from service was not
issued. His removal from service is illegal. Though the
charges against him pertain to theft, no report was
submitted to police. Any complaint to police was not
produced before enquiry committee. No theft of oil kept in
oil room was committed. That workman was framed for
baseless charges of theft of oil. Workman reiterates that
his removal from service is illegal. The appeal preferred
by workman challenging order of removal was rejected
on 15-7-91. His application for deciding case through PNM
was not considered. Workman therefore approached ALC,
Jabalpur. Failure report was submitted. The charges of
theft alleged against him are false. That he is deemed to
be in service of 2nd party. Workman prays for his
reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to 8/3
opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised preliminary
objection that Ist party workman was found in possession
of 6.3 litre machine oil in Jerry Cane. Chargesheet was
issued under Rule 9 of Railway Servant Rules on 20-10-84.
Workman represented that he was not desiring to file
anything in writing. Enquiry Officer was appointed.
Workman was represented by Shri S.N.Khare, enquiry was
conducted as per rules. As per findings of Enquiry Officer,
charges against workman were proved. Punishment of
removal from service was imposed. The appeal preferred
by workman was rejected. Workman was removed form
service holding regular enquiry as per the rules.
Reasonable opportunity was given for his defence. Charge
of attempted theft proved against workman is of serious
nature. Removal of workman is illegal.
4. 2nd party denies that enquiry against workman was
conducted in violation of the rules. It is reiterated that the
removal of workman is after the findings of Enquiry Officer,
the charges were proved. The workman had not explained
possession of 6.3 litres of machine oil. 2nd party prays that
claim of workman cannot be accepted.
5. As per order dated 14-5-2012, enquiry conducted
against workman was found proper and legal.
6. Considering findings on enquiry and pleadings on
record, the points which arise for my consideration and
determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is not
is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
7.
In view of finding that enquiry conducted against
workman is found legal, whether charges alleged against
workman are proved needs to be decided on the basis of
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.
8.
The record of enquiry is produced. The charge
against workman is on 11-7-84, before information was
received that with dishonest intention, machine oil was
kept in room of oil boy. On such Ist party was found sitting
in front of room having its key. 6.3 litre machine oil was
found in jerry cane. Workman had failed to explain in
possession. Machine oil was found kept with dishonest
intention. The statement of workman was recorded. he
denied charges against him. In reply to Q.10, workman
admits on 11-7-84, he had gone to Basant Kumar for taking
drain tube oil. He had taken issue ticket with him. In reply
to Q.13, workman admits that Basant Kumar told him
whether he would take oil with him. That he had not seen
drain tube oil opening its cork. He says that he was
knowing there was drain oil in the jerry cane. He came to
know that machine oil was in jerry cane when he opened
cork. He says that he was knowing there was drain oil in
the jerry cane. He came to know that machine oil was in
jerry cane when he opened cork. Workman did not tilt at
the time of opening the cork. He did not complaint about
the statement recorded by Mr. Sharma. That he had not
taken machine oil with dishonest intention.
9.
Management’s witness Krishna Pal Singh in his
statement says on 11-7-84, after receiving information that
machine oil was dishonestly kept, he along with others
went to the cabin of Ambika Prasad. Workman was sitting
in front of room. After opening lock, 6.3 litre machine oil
was found in room where it should not have been kept.
Similar evidence is given by management’s witness
Ramnarayan Sharma, B.P.Prasad, J.P.Soni. Management’s
witness J.P.Soni in his statement says when workman was
asked about jerry cane, he told that store Khalasi Basant
had given oil in jerry cane to him telling him to keep in
room. The machine oil was checked in his presence.
Workman did not explain how machine oil was received
by him in jeery cane. As per statement of Shri J.P.Soni,
workman was knowing that store khalasi Basant had
handed over oil to him. All witnesses of management
deposed that workman received oil dishonestly in collision
with Basant Kumar. The witnesses of management were
cross-examined in detail. That the witnesses of management
re-affirmed that workman had dishonestly received
machine oil from Basant Kumar. Workman denies
dishonest intention in receiving the oil. Evidence about
4330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dishonest intention needs to be considered from the
surrounding circumstances. The intention is always in mind
of the culprit. No cogent evidence about dishonest
intention can be accepted. Scope of judicial review is
limited, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated . The
findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of
management’s witness. When machine oil was kept in jerry
cane, room was locked and workman was sitting with key
in front of room. The finding of Enquiry Officer cannot be
said perverse, no interference is called for in findings of
Enquiry Officer. The charges alleged against workman are
proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
charges of attempt to commit theft of machine oil is proved
against workman, question remains for consideration is
whether the punishment of removal from service is
excessive or disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
Attempt to commit theft of 6.3 litre machine oil is a serious
misconduct. Railway employee is expected to work
honestly. The punishment of removal from service cannot
be said excessive of disproportionate to the proved
misconduct. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.2 in Affirmative.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur in removing Shri
Ambika Prasad, S/o Shri Harihar Prasad from service
vide order dated 25-5-88 is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2112-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@03½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@221@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.26/03) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/221/2002–IR(B-1) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/03
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank
Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 28th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 26-31/12/02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
221/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not
regularizing Shri Mahesh Babarkar and not paying
bonus to him is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/
1 to 3/6. Case of workman is that his father Chandrashekhar
Babakar had taken VRS on 31-12-97. His father was working
in Imperial bank as peon since 1950. On account of his
health, he had requested transfer to Indore, GPO branch
of State Bank. His father was promoted to the post of
Nayak on 14-4-82. On completion of 58 years age, his father
was informed by the Bank if he desires extension of 2
years, he should produce documents about his fitness. In
reply to letter dated 1-7-87, his father informed that he was
not keeping good health, he was not desiring extension of
2 years. He submitted letter dated 24-9-83 for VRS, the
request for appointment on compassionate ground of Ist
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4331
party was not possible he was informed by the bank as
per letter dated 21-1-88. Ist party Mahesh Babarkar was
engaged on daily wages as messenger in GPO branch
Indore from 2-5-90. He was working with devotion. There
was no grievance about his working. His wages were paid
by voucher from petty cash. Secretary of State bank
pensioners Association had written letter dated 22-6-93
that the application for compassionate ground could not
be sent to Central office, Mumbai. Workman further submits
that he worked for 60 days in 1991, 33 +3days in 1992, 22
days in 1993, 23 days in 1994, 30 + 4 days in 1995, 34 days
in 2001.
3. The Bipartite agreements were entered between Staff
Federation and the management.27-10-88, employees
working part time as messenger, Farrash, sweeper were
considered eligible for regular absorption. If he worked
for 30 days during the period 1-7-75 to 31-7-88, workman
raised dispute before ALC, Bhopal. Workman further
submits that in reply submitted before ALC, management
had shown working days in different branches. During
pendency of conciliation proceeding, his services were
terminated without notice, without paying retrenchment
compensation on 30-5-2001 in violation of Section 33 of
ID Act. During conciliation proceeding, he was paid bonus
Rs.100 by cheque on 8-8-01. On failure of conciliation,
report of failure was submitted to the Secretary, Labour
Ministry. Workman reiterates that he was continuously
working. He was covered as employee under section 25 B
of ID Act. His services are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of ID Act. Seniority list of daily wage employees was
not displayed on notice board. Policy of last come first go
was not followed. Before terminating his services, he was
not paid retrenchment compensation. He was not provided
re-employment. Workman submits termination of his
service is illegal. On such ground workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. 2nd party filed objection that shri Ram Nagwanshi
was in employment of State Bank of Indore. His services
were terminated after enquiry. He is not employee of State
Bank of Indore, he is not competent to represent the
employees.
5. 2nd party filed written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/18
opposing claim of workman raising objection to
representation of Ist party workman by Shri Ram
Nagwanshi. As per 2nd party, Ist party workman was
engaged on daily wages in main branch. Indore and MG
Road, branch Indore for 6 days in 91-92, 19 days in 92-93,
31 days in 1995. In MG road branch, he worked for 75
days in 1995. The engagement of workman was as per
exigencies. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service during any of the year. He was engaged
on contract basis. Engagement of workman on daily
wages, he was not bound to attend work on next day.
Termination of his service cannot be said retrenchment.
His discontinuation is covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of
ID Act. As workman not continuously worked for 240 days
during any of the year workman is not entitled to protection
under Section 25-F of ID Act. Settlements were entered
between Staff Federation and management on 17-11-87,
16-7-88, 27-10-88, 9-1-99 were applicable to part time
employees working till 31-7-88. Said period was extended
till 14-8-91. For regularization of services, public notice
was issued inviting application from eligible candidates.
Workman was not fulfilling the conditions as per bipartite
settlement therefore his services could not be regularized.
Father of workman had taken VRs after 58 years as he was
not fulfilling conditions, he was not given extension of 2
years service.
6. 2nd party denies that workman was appointed as
messenger on 2-5-90. Ist party workman worked for 56
days during 1991 to 1995 in main branch and thereafter 75
days in MG Road Branch. Workman was paid wages for
the working days. The candidates found eligible were
given appointment. After 1995, workman was not engaged
by the Bank. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. Violation of Section 25-F is denied. It
is reiterated that discontinuation of workman engaged on
daily wages is covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.
2nd party has not violated Section 33 of ID Act. Workman
is not entitled to any reliefs.
7. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of
India, Bhopal in not regularizing
Shri Mahesh Babarkar and not
paying bonus to him is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is
is entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
9. Terms of reference pertains to denial of regularization
to workman and not paying bonus. The terms of reference
does not pertain to legality of termination of workman or
4332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
compassionate appointment. Workman not filed affidavit
of his evidence. His evidence was closed on 3-6-2010.
Workman had filed his affidavit dated 29-3-06 but he did
not appear for his cross-examination therefore his evidence
cannot be considered. Documents produced by workman
Exhibit W-1 shows that his father was appointed as Nayak
on 14-4-1982 on six months probation. Exhibit W-2 father
of workman was informed if he desire extension of two
years, he should produce certificate. Exhibit W-3 father of
workman informed Bank that he was not willing to have
further 2 years extension. Exhibit W-4 is circular issued by
the Bank dated 11-11-1982 regarding compassionate
employment of employees taking VRS on medical ground.
The benefit was restricted to the son or widow of the
employee. Exhibit W-5 is application submitted by father
of workman for VRs. Exhibit W-6 is letter given by branch
Manager dated 20-8-85 that father of workman had
completed 55 years service. Compassionate employment
to his son was not possible. Exhibit W-7 is letter given by
Branch Manager to workman that as per rules, his
appointment on compassionate ground was not possible.
Document Exhibit W-8 shows Ist party workman was paid
wages Rs. 375/- on 7-4-95. Exhibit W-9 is notice inviting
applications from eligible candidates working during
1-7-75 to 31-7-88 for 30 days, 70 days etc. Exhibit W-10 is
reply submitted before ALC opposing claim of workman.
It was made clear that in 1992-93, workman worked for 99
days, in 1995-96 for 91 days, in 1995 he worked for 75 days
in MG Road Branch. Exhibit W-11 workman was paid
retrenchment compensation Rs. 3600/- on 11-12-95. Said
document also shows that workman was paid
retrenchment compensation and one months pay.
Document Exhibit W-11 to W-15 are documents about
payment of retrenchment compensation and one months
pay to Shri Shyam Sundar and others. Those documents
are related to payment of notice or retrenchment
compensation to other persons does not advance claim of
workman for his appointment on compassionate ground.
Exhibit W-16 is letter given by Asstt. General Manager.
Appointment given to temporary employees as per letter
circular of the Bank. Exhibit W-7 is copy of instruction
issued by the Bank dated 12-12-02. Copies of settlements
are produced by management at Exhibit M-1 to M-5. Exhibit
M-1 provides- “Temporary employees completed 240 days
temporary service during 1-7-75 – 270 days service in
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75, the employees
who have completed a minimum of 30 days temporary
service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or a minimum of
70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous
block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 , temporary service
of 270 days, 240 days, 70 days or 30 days should have
been put in by a temporary employee as on 31-7-88. Said
period was extended till 14-8-91. Workman has not adduced
evidence about his working days during above said period,
the claim of workman for appointment on compassionate
ground is not established. Copy of select list is produced
by management at Exhibit M-6. Last candidates appointed
had completed 87 days working.
10. Management’s witness Smt.Nirupa Joshi in her
affidavit of evidence has stated that workman worked for
6 days in 1991-92, 19 days in 1992-93, 31 days in 1995 and
in MG Road branch for 75 days in 1995. Workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service during any of the
period. He is not covered as workman under Section 25 B
of ID Act. In her cross-examination, management’s witness
says in 1990 to 2001, she was not posted at GPO MG Road
Branch. Workman was engaged on compassionate ground
as his father was ill. He was engaged on daily wages.
Selection process was not followed. Permission of
Controlling Authority was not taken before engaging
workman. Appointment letter was not issued to him. Wages
were paid by petty cash. She did not work in GPO, MG
Road branch. She admits that workman worked in both
branches. Workman was not paid retrenchment
compensation, he was not paid bonus. Notice of
termination was not given to him. If whole evidence is
considered, it is clear that workman had not worked in the
Bank prior to 14-8-91 therefore his claim for compassionate
appointment cannot be accepted.
11. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri V.P.Khare relies on
ratio held in
Case of State of Karnataka and others versus Shri
M.L.Kesari and others reported in 2010(9)SCC-247.
Their Lordship held appointment of qualified persons
made against sanctioned posts without following
process of open competition are irregular
appointments. Only irregular appointees are entitled
to regularization in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi case.
As workman has not adduced any evidence about
working days prior to 14-8-91 claim of workman for
regulrisation cannot be upheld. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not regularizing
Shri Mahesh Babarkar and not paying bonus to him is
proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4333
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2113-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
baUnksj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@97)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@46@96&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.101/97) 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, which was received by the Central
Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/46/96-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLAN, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/101/97
Shri Mohan Singh Yadav,
55, Biharganj, Agra Bombay Road,
Dewas (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Regional Manager-III,
State Bank of Indore,
Zonal Office, Jiya Chambers,
Kanchan Bagh, Indore
..Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 25-3-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
46/96-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri
Mohan Singh Yadav w.e.f. 1-6-94 is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Pages 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was in
continuous service of 2nd party State Bank of Indore,
BNP Dewas branch from 17-8-93 to 1-6-94. That his services
were illegally terminated. That he was continuously
working with 2nd party for 289 days from 17-8-93 to 5-6-94.
The details of his working days and payments are given in
Para 3 of his statement of claim. That he was not paid
wages for 49 days by 2nd party. The Bank extracted all
work of peon during period of his service. Branch
representative shows wages paid to him as labour charges
only to deny absorption in Bank service. Workman was
denied wages for holidays, Sundays. He was not allowed
to mark his attendance in the register. Management
indulged in unfair labour practice. He was doing work of
perennial nature in the Bank. His services were terminated
without assigning any reason. It is submitted that workman
was enjoying status of permanent employee. That he claims
immediate reinstatement with full backwages. Workman
had submitted representations vide letter dated 11-6-94
requesting reinstatement. The copy of said letter was
addressed to Regional Manager. Letter dated 20-7-94 was
also submitted to Managing Director without any reasons.
Workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.
3.
2nd party management filed Written Statement at
Pages 7/1 to 7/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party
denied that workman was appointed in subordinate cadre
in bank at Bank Note Press branch, Dewas. It is contented
that workman was engaged in BNP branch Dewas as casual
labour on different dates as per requirement. Workman
was paid for period of his employment, the details shown
in R-I submitted along with Written Statement. Workman
was engaged only for 192 days on different dates as casual
labour. Workman was not continuously working more than
240 days. 2nd party denies that Bank restricted service of
peon from him and paid labour charges to the workman. It
is reiterated that workman was engaged as casual labour.
2nd party denies that workman was not paid for holidays
and denied to mark his attendance. The allegations of
unfair labour practice are denied by 2nd party. It is reiterated
that workman was engaged as casual labour. He not
completed 240 days continuous service. Claim of workman
be rejected.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 3/1 to 3/2 reiterating
its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
"(i) Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of State Bank of Indore in
terminating the services of
Shri Mohan Singh Yadav w.e.f.
1-6-94 is justified?
4334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
orders.
REASONS
6.
Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of provisions of ID Act. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence. Workman in his affidavit says he
was working in State Bank of Indore from 4-6-83 to 17-8-83
for 75 days. Certificate of his working was issued to him.
Again he was engaged in said Bank from 17-8-93 to 1-6-94
for 289 days as peon. He was discontinued from 1-6-94 for
289 days as peon. He was discontinued from 1-6-94. In his
cross-examination, workman says his age was 45 years.
For permanent staff, 15-20 was working in the branch. He
was engaged on daily wages. He was not paid wages at
Collector rate. Initially he was paid Rs.25/- per day. It was
increased to Rs.30/- per day. Permanent staff was paid as
per the bipartite settlement. He submitted application in
Bank for permanent post. In his cross-examination, there
is no denial that Ist party workman was not working for
75 days in 1983 and 289 days prior to termination of his
service.
7.
Management’s witness Shri Saxena in her affidavit
of evidence says workman was engaged in BNP Dewas
branch from 17-8-93 to 27-4-94 for 192 days. Workman had
not worked for 240 days. He denied that service of peon
was extracted from workman and labour charges were paid
to him. Casual labour is engaged on day to day need basis.
There is no question of payment of holidays. There was
no question of issuing appointment letter. In her cross-
examination, witness admitted R-I, it is marked Exhibit M-
1. Said document shows working days of workman on
which document, Exhibit M-1 was prepared is not explained
by management’s witness. In her further cross,
management witness says the documents are available in
branch. As she was not asked for documents, the
documents were not produced. The work for which
workman was engaged, other employees were doing similar
work. The list of casual employees was not prepared. Before
discontinuing service of workman, it was not verified casual
labours engaged in the Bank. Management’s witness was
unable to tell reasons for termination of services of
workman. She denies that the material witness is not
examined in the case as he may support claim of workman.
Workman was not paid bonus. She works as Manager HR.
She denies that to protect interest of Bank, her affidavit is
produced. Though management’s witness admits that the
documents relating to workman are available in the branch,
those documents are not produced. There is no denial in
cross-examination of workman that he not completed
240 days continuous service. The termination of service
of workman without notice, not paying retrenchment
compensation, not displaying seniority list is in violation
of Section 25-F, G of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding
in Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
services of workman are terminated illegally, question
remains for consideration is whether workman is entitled
for reinstatement with backwages.
9.
Learned counsel for workman Shri Gehlod during
his submissions referred to ratio held in case of 2007-1-
SCC-588, 1996-2-LLN-436, 2003-LIC-866 but any of the
citations are not made available.
10.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri V.P.Khare submits
that workman on daily wages cannot be reinstated. In
support of his argument, learned counsel relies on ratio
held in.
Case of Nand Kumar versus State of Bihar reported
in 2014(5) SCC 300. Their Lordship dealing with
services of casual labour daily wager held daily wager
are not appointees in strict sense of term
appointment, they donot hold post. Status and rights
of daily wagers of a Government concern are not
equivalent to that of Government Servant and claims
of daily wager would be adjudged differently.
Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of
Allahabad Bank versus Shri Prem Singh reported in
1996(II) BC 387(SC). Their Lordship held that status
of daily wager stood terminated at the end of each
day. This being so the decision of the Tribunal in
holding that the respondent shall be deemed to have
continued in service from 16-6-77 and would also be
entitled to usual pay and allowances is clearly
untenable. The respondent could not insist on his
being continued to be employed and the appellant
was under no legal obligation to employ him.
Workman engaged on daily wages cannot be
reinstated in service as services of workman are terminated
without notice, no retrenchment compensation is paid and
workman hardly worked only for 289 days, compensation
Rs. 25,000/- 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 State Bank of Indore
in terminating the services of Shri Mohan Singh
Yadav w.e.f. 1-6-94 is not proper and legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 25,000
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] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2114-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4335
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k] Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
144@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@451@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.144/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-12012/451/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/144/2002
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia road,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-10-02 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
451/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Assistant
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Harishankar Saxena
w.e.f. 11-12-98 instead of regularizing him is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through
daily wage Bank Employees Union at Page 2/1 to 2/8. Case
of Ist party is that workman Shri Harishankar Saxena
worked for 93 days as messenger in 1983, certificate of
working days was issued. During the period 9-5-83 to
9-8-83, he worked for 93 days as messenger. The certificate
of working days was issued. The workman was called for
interview on 27-4-85 for absorption as regular employee.
He was interviewed on that day. As per settlement dated
17-11-87, temporary employees working more than 30 days
during 1-1-1975 to 31-7-88 are eligible for appointment as
regular employee. That he had worked for 158 days.
Workman was called for interview on 22-9-89. After
interview on 22-9-89, he was engaged. He was working as
messenger from 5-2-97. In March 97, for working on
computer in night, he was assigned duty, he was paid Rs.
1000/- for it. His services were terminated on 11-12-98.
Cheque of Rs. 2160/- was given to him towards
compensation. On 8-8-01, he was paid bonus Rs. 1503/-.
During 1997-98, he worked for 429 days. That other
temporary employees Santosh Mishra, Rajkumar Rai,
Sanjay Babulkar, Vinodmangal Singh, Rajkumar Mitai, Raju
Solanki, Manoj Ingle were appointed having less working
days than him. He continuously worked 300 days during
5-1-97 to 11-12-98. His services are terminated illegally.
2nd party has violated settlement dated 17-11-89. The act
of management is punishable under section 29 of ID Act.
On such grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement
with backwages.
3.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of
workman. Case of 2nd party is Shri Ram Nagwanshi is not
competent to raise dispute as his services were terminated
from SB of Indore. He has no authority to represent
workman. Workman was engaged on daily wages on
contract basis for 93 days during the period 1-1-1983 to
31-12-1983, 429 days in 1997-98. Workman was not
continuously working. Management paid wages for the
period of engagement. Workman had not completed 240
days continuous service during any of the year. As per
ratio held in case of Secretary of State of Karnataka versus
Umadevi and others, workman is not entitled to
reinstatement. Workman was not selected after his
interview. It is denied that workman was continuously
working. As working days of workman were less than other
temporary employees, he was not appointed. Workman
was paid bonus Rs. 1503/-. As per settlement, candidates
apply for absorption in response to the advertisement
after interview were waitlisted in Category-A,B,C
considering length of aggregate temporary service. As
per settlement, permanent appointment was given against
vacancies. Candidates whose turn could not come till
31-3-97 , the wait list would be lapsed. 2nd party submits
that workman was not entitled for reinstatement.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
4336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
Whether the action of the manage-
In Negative
ment of Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Bhopal in termi-
nating the services of Shri Harishankar
Saxena w.e.f. 11-12-98 instead of
regularizing him is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per final
entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
5.
Workman has not adduced his evidence to
substantiate his claim. Evidence of workman was closed
on 21-3-2011 as his representative submitted not to adduce
evidence of workman.
6.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Yogesh Vijaywarge shown 93 days working days of
workman during May 83 to August 83. 429 working days
of workman during 1997-98. That workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was
paid compensation Rs. 2160/-.
7.
Management’s witness in his cross examination says
he was not working in MG Road branch in 1983. Any
selection process was not followed before engaging
workman. Permission of Controlling Authority was not
taken. Appointment letter was not given to workman.
Attendance register was not maintained. During 1997-98,
workman was allowed to work as per settlement. Public
notice exhibit W-1 is admitted by management’s witness.
Management’s witness denies that workman was
interviewed in 1989. His name was not included in select
list. He claims ignorance at what rate workman was paid
wages. Documents regarding payment of compensation
is not produced. Management’s witness was unable to
tell working days of workman during the year. He was
unable to tell whether workman was paid bonus.
Retrenchment notice was not issued. List of daily wage
employees was not displayed. The details of working
days of workman is not produced in the case. Name of
contractor is not known to him. 2nd party has not produced
select list. Working days of workman are shown 93 in
Exhibit W-2 in 1983. Interview call Exhibit W-3 is admitted
by 2nd party. Evidence of management’s witness is
contrary to said admitted documents. As per Exhibit w-4,
list of empanelled employees in subordinate cadre
enclosed. However said list is not produced on record. As
per Exhibit w-5, workman was interviewed in 1989.
Therefore he was not called for interview in 1997. Exhibit
W-6 reply filed before ALC clearly shows 93 working days
of Ist party workman prior to 14-8-91. He was interviewed
in 1989. Select list of 1989 is not produced on record. Exhibit
M-1 is not in dispute between parties. The said settlement
provides- employees completed 240 days temporary
service during 1-7-75 – 270 days service in block of 36
calendar months after 1-7-75, the employees who have
completed a minimum of 30 days temporary service in any
calendar year after 1-7-75 or a minimum of 70 days
aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of
36 calendar months after 1-7-75 are given chance for
permanent appointment in Bank service is likely to arise
during 1987 to 1991. Other documents at Exhibit M-2 to
M-5 are not in dispute. From documents discussed above,
it is clear about working days of workman, he was also
called for interview, select list is not produced by 2nd
party shows that management has withhold material
documents. If those documents would have produced,
certainly would have supported claim of workman.
Workman has illegally denied regularization after his
interview in 1989. Reasons for termination are not shown.
Seniority list of temporary employees was not displayed.
Termination of workman is therefore in violation of Section
25-F,G of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Negative.
8.
Point No.2- Termination of workman is illegal as per
my finding in Point No.1. he was denied regularization
after his interview in 1989,select list of 1989 is not produced.
The question whether workman is entitled for reinstatement
with backwages. Workman has not examined himself in
support of his claim, therefore his claim for backwages
cannot be allowed. Workman is entitled to reinstatement
without backwages. 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 Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Harishankar Saxena w.e.f.
11-12-98 instead of regularizing him is not proper
and legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to reinstate workman but
without backwages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2115-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ LVSaMMZ
eds±Vkby daiuh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ la[;k 05(lh)@2010º
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@8@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 05(C)/2010]
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4337
of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Patna now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of M/s.
Standard Mercantile Company and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-29011/8/2010-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No.:- 05 (C) of 2010
Between :
M/S Standard Mercantile Company,
23-A, Netaji Subash Marg, 2nd Floor,
Room No. 2, Kolkata-1
and
Their workman represented by
The General Secretary,
Mangalhat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajmahal, Distt. Sahibganj.
For the management
:
Sri Alok Kumar Sinha,
Advocate
Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwary,
Advocate
For the workman
:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
(Vice- President of Mangalhat
Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajmahal )
Present :
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, the 12th August, 2014.
By notification order No.- L-29011/8/2010-IR(M) New
Delhi, dated- 10.08.2010 Govt. of India, Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi referred
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter
to be referred to as ‘the Act’ ) the following dispute between
M/s. Standard Mercantile Company, 23-A, Nteaji Subash
Marg, 2nd Floor, Room No. 2, Kolkata-1 and Their workman
represented by The General Secretary, Mangal Hat Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh, Rajmahal, Distt. Sahibganj. for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the declaration of the lockout w.e.f
8/1/2010 by the management of Standard Marcantile
Company (Mining Division) Private Limited,
Rajmahal, Distt. Sahibganj (Jharkhand) is legal and
justified? What relief the workman are entitled to
and from which date?”
2.
Statement of claim on behalf of the workman has
been filed on 23.11.2010 stating therein that declaration of
the lock-out w.e.f 06.01.2010 by the management vide its
notice dated- 05.01.2010 is totally unwarranted and illegal
and this is deliberate malicious act of the management to
avoid financial liability imposed on the management of all
claim cases of arrear amounting to Rs. 9,60,000/- (Rs. Nine
Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only and workman compensation
amounting of Rs. 2,27,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakhs Twenty Seven
Thousand) only. Management by declaring the illegal lock-
out tried to avoid and delay the payment of compensation
of lock out of the handicapped workman Majid Sheik who
became handicapped in an accident during his duty in
which he had fallen in the mining. The Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Dumka had directed the management to
pay compensation to the said workman. Lock-out was
declared so that workman be involved in another problem
for struggling liveliwood. With a view of oppress the
genuine claim of the workman and management lodged
sbsolutely false criminal case and the workman were
peacefully putting their legal grievances before the
management in legal way. General Secretary of the union
sent several letters to management and concerned
authority of the government. The workmen are entitled to
receive there respective arrears, bonus etc. from the
management.
It appears that petition for amendment in the
statement of claim as also been filed on 17.04.2012 stating
therein that workman are being represented by their union-
Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Rajmahal
(Jharkhand). The said union has duly authorised there
Vice-President, Sunil Kumar Singh, to take steps in the
present case on behalf of the workman but the statement
of claim dated-23.11.2010 has been filed by one of the
workman namely Bhikhan Ghosh. The statement of claim
dated-23.11.2010 was verified by Sunil Kumar Singh.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
management therein that the terms of reference for
adjudication is—
“Whether the declaration of the lockout w.e.f
8/1/2010 by the management of Standard Marcantile
Company (Mining Division) Private Limited,
Rajmahal, Distt. Sahibganj (Jharkhand) is legal and
justified? What relief the workman are entitled to
and from which date?”
It has stated that reference is not in accordance with
law. Preliminary objection petition has been raised that
the dispute sent for adjudication did not constitute
“Industrial Dispute” as on the date of reference as it lacked
espousal by recognized union of workman or support of
substantial number of workmen, employed with the
4338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management. It has not been stated that dispute was raised
by any recognized union. Order of reference is illegal was
not an Industrial Dispute. This tribunal will have no
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same on merit under
the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1942. The
statement of claim have not been filed by the recognized
union. There is no authorization in favour of Sri Bhikhan
Ghosh by majority of workmen.
The another objection is that matter of reference is
already covered by a bipartite settlement between the
management and recognized union entered on 27.02.2010
and hence the same can not be subject of an Industrial
Dispute. Persuant to illegal strike of the workman from
03.01.2010, the management had declared lock out from
06.01.2010 which continued till 02.03.2010. During the
period of lock out vast majority of workers approached
the management with a view to resolve the dispute and
after having extensive negotiation and talk all the parties
entered to a bilateral settlement on 27.02.2010. Lock out
was amicably resolved by agreeing that management was
right in enforcing “ no work no pay ” for the period of lock
out but management will pay of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five
Hundred) only per worker as ex-gratia payment for the
period of lock out and the workmen received the same.
The subject matter of lock out referred by Central
Government is totally illegal. A settlement can not be
ignored. The management had open cast mine of “China
clay and Silica sand” at Rajmahal. But union of the workman
has been recognized namely (a) Rashtriya Quaries Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh, (b) Jharkhand Shramik Sangh and (c)
Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh. In the year-2009-10
there was dispute between the workers and management
over several issued such as rate of payment of bonus for
the year-2008-09 and 2009-10. Payment of arrears due to
increase of minimum wages by 10 times etc. Negotiation
was going on. All these led to a sudden strike by the
workman on 03.01.2010. Sri B.K.Verma, General Manager
cum Commercial Manager held a meeting in his residence
on 04.01.2010 at 10.00 A.M. In the meeting Sri Nivaran
Saha. Permit Mines Manager, Sri D.K.Das, Production
Manager, Sri S. Ghosh, Accountant, Sri Satyawan Mahto,
Head clerk and Sri Mangal Dev Sharma, Peon were present.
All of sudden some of the workers led by Sri Bikhan Ghosh,
and others surrounded the residence of Sri B.K.Verma
entered the house armed with lathis and chappals and
started beating everyone. They targeted Sri D.K.Das
production Manager whom they dragged out and beat
him severally. They took out his money and broke his
spectacles. On 04.01.2010 F.I.R was lodged with the local
police station. As a result of the above riotus, disorderly
and violent behaviour of some workers,the office staffs/
employee refused to work in such atmosphere of fear. The
strike was illegal. On 05.01.2010 again an emergency
meeting was held of all the manager at the official residence
of Sri B.K. Verma. It was decided that a lock out be declared
from 06.01.2010. Notice was given to various authorities
of the Central Labour Department. Conciliation proceeding
before Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) failed. Finally
on 27.02.1010 a bipartite settlement was reached between
the management and two recognized unions. It has been
prayed that present reference to decided in favour of the
management.
The rejoinder to said written statement of the
management has been filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh of
Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh. It has been stated
that written statement filed by the management is totally
unwarranted, misleading and beyond the facts and law. It
has been stated that workmen are being represented
through Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Rajmahal.
The general secretary of the union namely D.Mihra has
raised the genuine grievances of the workmen before the
management times to time. Workman have never been
represented by Rashtriya Quaries Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
and Jharkhand Shramik Sangh. There has never been
bipartite settlement on the subject matter of reference.
The workmen never reached on any settlement on
27.02.2010 as alleged by the management. The workman
have never authorized the so called unions, namely,
R.Q.K.M.S and J.S.S as referred by the management. The
alleged settlement is forged and fabricated.
3.
The petition of preliminary objection has been filed
by the management on 07.07.2011.
4.
Rejoinder 02.08.2011 to the said petition dt-
07.07.2011 that preliminary objection has been filed by the
union.
5.
It appears that copy of the reference was forwarded
to the General Secretary, Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh, Rajmahal, Dist- Sahibganj and the said union filed
written statement and rejoinder to the written statement
filed on behalf of the management on 12.05.2011 and also
rejoinder to the preliminary objection dated- 07.07.2011
filed by the management. Written notes filed on 08.02.2012
on behalf of the workman but union was not present on
29.02.2012 from 06.09.2012. No one appeared on behalf of
the workmen. Lastly on 07.04.2014 management witness
namely Janardhan Kumar was examined. But no one
appeared for cross-examination of this witness. On
08.07.2014 argument on behalf of the management was
heard.On 15.07.2014 Written argument was filed on behalf
of the management.
6.
Management witness namely M.W-1 Janardhan
Kumar has stated that he is acquainted with the case. This
witness is personnal manager of M/S Standard Mercantile
Company (Mechinary Division). He has stated that
company has mines of “Chine Clay and Silica Sand ” at
Rajmahal, Dist.- Sahibganj is state of Jharkhand and head
office situated at Patna. Further he has stated that on
2009.10 dispute was going between management and
workmen for bonus and arrears of minimum wages. On
3rd Jaunuary, 2010 all an a sudden workmen went on strike
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4339
without information to the management or Labour
department. On 04.01.2010 a meeting was going at
residence of Sri B.K.Verma, General Manager then some
workmen arrived entered into the house, they abused and
assaulted. Sri D.K.Das was dragged out of the house and
was assaulted. F.I.R was lodged for this, which has been
marked exhibit-M on 05.01.2010 emergent meeting was held
at the residence of Sri B.K.Verma and mine was lock out
from 06.01.2010. Copy of the notice of the lock out is Exts.-
M/1, thereafter settlement was made between the
management and workmen on 27.02.2010 which has been
marked as Exts.- M/2. After settlement lock out was
removed from 03.03.2010. Now the workmen has no
complain and on the basis of compromise all the workmen
were paid Rs. 500/- ( Rs. Five Hundred ) only each for lock
out and ex-gratia. Workmen have received payment.
Receipt has been marked as Exts.- M/3. Dispute for bonus
has also been settled on 09.05.2010. Copy of which has
been marked as Exts.- M/4.
7.
Ext.- M is F.I.R dated - 05.01.2010 by Mr Binod Kumar
Verma, Manager. Exts.- M/1 notice of lock out given by
General Manager. Exts-M/2 is settlement dated- 27.02.2010.
Exts.- M/3 is proof of payment and Exts.- M/4 is the
settlement in respect of dispute for bonus for year 2008-09
and 2009-10.
8.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
management stating therein that no written statement has
been filed on behalf of the workman. After hearing of
objection of the management, tribunal vide order dated-
17.04.2012 directed the workman to file fresh written
statement but no written statement has been filed by the
workman. No evidence was laid by the workman. Workman/
Union completely failed to prove their case.
9.
It appears from record that copy of the reference was
forwarded to General Secretary, Mangal Had Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh who appeared in the case. It appears that
workman has also filed some documents which are copy of
the letter No. 561/2010 dated- 07.01.2010 and letter No.- 463/
2010 dated-07.01.2010 dated- 07.01.2010 sent by the union to
Asstt. Labaour Commissioner. There is also letter dated- 568
dated- 22.01.2010 in which it has been stated that more than a
dogen cases are pending before Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central ) which has not been disposed of. A
letter has been sent to the Labour Secretary, Govt. of India.
This facts also been stated in letter 651/2010 dated- 23.01.2010.
Since the matter under reference is pending before this
tribunal but Mangal Hat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh has left to
take step in he case since 06.09.2012. Though the notice
was also sent to the union on 24.08.2013, 21.01.2013, in the
said circumstances, I have no option but to answer the
reference that now there is no dispute of the workman. In
this case before tribunal. Hence award is answered as “
No Dispute Award ” accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2116-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZiQ
ba';ksjsal dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ
la[;k 09(lh)@2014º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@50@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 09(C)/
2014] of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Patna now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life
Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-17012/50/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 09 (C) of 2014
Between the management of the Sr. Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna Divisional
Office-1, Frazer Road, Patna (BIHAR)-800001 and their
workman Sri Ranjeet Kumar S/O-Sri Alakh Niranjan Prasad
Road No.-5, Gandhi Nagar, Biranbigha, Dehri-on-Sone,
Rohtas-821301.
For the management
:
Sri Asish Kumar Asst. Admn.
Officer (Legal), Divisional
Office No.-1 Patna.
For the workman
:
Sri B. Prasad, Joint Convener
of Coordination Committee of
Trade
Unions
and
Association.
Present :
Sri Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated the 30th September, 2015
By the adjudication order No.- L-17012/50/2014-IR
(M) dated- 05.08.2014 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1)
4340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and sub-section (2A) of section-10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the
Act’), the following dispute between the management of
The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Patna Divisional Office-1, Frazer Road, Patna-800001
and their workman Sri Ranjeet Kumar, for adjudication to
this tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of LIC of
India, Divisional Office Patna to terminate the service
of Sri Ranjeet Kuamr w.e.f 01.02.2013 was valid? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
Both parties appeared, workman filed their statement
of claim and management filed their respective written
statement.
3.
In the statement of claim on behalf of the workman it
has been stated that Ranjeet Kumar was appointed in the
service of Life Insurance Corporation of India as Financial
Services Executive (FSE) w.e.f 15.01.2008, he went in
Training Programme from 15.01.2008. He was posted at
Aurangabad Branch of LIC of India vide letter dated-
15.02.2008. He started working with utmost sincerely and
ability. He was being paid Rs. 10000/- per month which
was subsequently raised to @ Rs. 16000/- per month. His
services was terminated w.e.f 01.02.2013 vide letter
No. PDO-1/B &AC, dated- 06.02.2013. He was neither
given any notice nor notice pay nor any retrenchment
compensation. He worked for more than 240 days in 12
calendar months . He is covered under section-2(OO) of
the I.D.Act,1947. Management resorted to unfair labour
practices as per section 25F (Schedule V ) of the I.D.Act.
He represented on 25.02.2013 but no positive step was
taken by the management. Then he raised dispute before
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna on
03.10.2013 thereafter on failure of conciliation matter was
referred here.
4.
Management filed statement of defence (written
statement) it has been stated that reference is bad in law.
Ranjeet Kumar failed to fulfill the minimum new business
parameters as per LIC of India ( Finance Services Executive)
Schemes, 2007 which ultimately led to his termination in
terms of clause 8 of his engagement. “The contract will be
terminated forth with without giving any notice to you, in
case you do not procure the stipulated minimum new
business in two successive quarters.” It has been further
stated that LIC of India ( Staff ) Regulations, 1960 will not
be applicable. Letter of engagement has been filed.
Financial Services Executive 2007, clause 23 provides for
termination of contract if the FSE does not procure the
stipulated new business. He failed to procure required
new business norms in two successive quarter ending on
31.05.2012 and 31.08.2012 which will be evident to the chart
annexed with the written statement. Claim of the workman
has been denied. Workman cannot claim any advantage
of working for more than 240 days in 12 calendar month.
5.
Rejoinder on behalf of the workman to the statement
of defence (written statement) of management has been
filed.
6.
One witness has been examined on behalf of the
workman and one document Ext.-W has been proved by
the workman.
W.W-1 is the workman Ranjeet Kumar himself. He
has stated that he was working in LIC of India at
Aurangabad on the post of Financial Services Executive.
He was appointed after interview. He joined on 15.01.2008
at Patna thereafter he was posted at Aurangabad and he
joined there. Initially he was paid Rs. 10000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand). At the time of termination his scale was Rs.
16700/- per month. Termination letter is dated- 6th February,
2013 and date of termination is 01.02.2013. As such he was
terminated with retrospective effect. He was provided leave
and leave under NI Act, CL and Medical leave.
After joining for period of three years his worked
was satisfactory and as such his services were extended.
At the time of termination his work in previous quarter
was excess to the target which was 104.44 per cent. No
notice or compensation was paid prior to his termination.
He gave representation on 25.02.2013 which was not
replied. Seven person who joined along with him are
working. He claimed for reinstatement with back wages.
In cross-examination he stated that he is B.A (Hons.)
with Economics. He was appointed as per appointment
letter dated- 15.01.2008 which was read over by him. His
appointment was governed by Financial Services Executive
Scheme. His service was on contractual term. His
appointment was not for a fixed period. His services was
used to be extended. He has to fulfill minimum business.
He did not fulfill business criteria from 01.03.2012 to
31.05.2012. But he had completed minimum business
criteria from 01.06.2012 to 31.08.2012. Thereafter he has
also fulfilled minimum business criteria from 01.09.2012 to
30.11.2012. He was removed from the service from
01.02.2013. It is necessary to give notice before termination
due to non fulfillment of business criteria. After 31.08.2012
he was extended till 28.02.2013. His business was reviewed.
He received salary for the work done after 31.08.2012.
14 persons were appointed along with him and about
7-8 persons are working. Some persons joined another
places.
From evidence of this witness it appears that he
worked till 22nd February,2013 while date of his termination
of Ist February, 2013. From Ext.-W it appears that (FSE)
quarterly review indicate that for the quarter 01.03.2012 to
31.05.2012 achievement was 21.11%, for the quarter
01.06.2012 to 31.08.2012 achievement was 72.22%, for the
quarter 01.09.2012 to 31.11.2012 achievement was 104.44%,
while target with all the quarter was 90. He had also
exceeded EFP 109.41% for the period 01.06.2012 to
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4341
31.08.2012 and 105.83% in the quarter 01.09.2012 to
30.11.2011.
7.
Single witness M.W-1 has been examined on behalf
of the management, who is Md. Sayeed Akhtar Khan,
presently posted as Chief Manager (B&AC) Divisional
Office-1 Patna. In his examination in chief on oath it has
been stated that in terms of clause-8 of his engagement
letter dated-15.02.2008, it has been stated that contract
will be terminated forthwith without giving any notice to
you in case you do not procure the stipulated minimum
new business in two successive quarters. Engagement
letter of Ranjeet Kumar has been exhibited as Ext.-M/
1.Copy of LIC of India Financial Services Executive
Scheme, 2007 has been marked as Ext.-M/2. It has been
stated that Sri Ranjeet Kuamr failed to procure the required
new business norms in two successive quarter ending
31.05.2012 and 31.08.2012 which was far behind the target.
Letter of business performance has been exhibited as Ext.-
M/3 and chart of quarterly review dated 04.10.2012 has
been marked as Ext.-M/4. Copy of note sheet dated-
04.10.2012 regarding performance review of Sri Ranjeet
Kumar has been exhibited as Ext.-M/5 and copy note sheet
dated-24.12.2012 regarding performance review of FSE Sri
Ranjeet Kumar has been marked as Ext.-M/6. Copy of E-
mail dated-08.12.2012 of Secretary M/B & AC has been
marked as Ext.-M/7. Copy of letter to Sri Ranjeet Kumar
dated-06.02.2013 has been marked as Ext.-M/8. It has been
stated that in terms of clause-8 of the engagement letter,
Sri Ranjeet Kumar was not entitled to continue as Financial
Service Executive and hence the central office authorities
of the LIC of India did not extend his continuation as
Financial Service Executive. Copy of representation of Sri
Ranjeet Kumar dated-25.02.2013 has been marked as Ext.-
M/9.
In cross-examination this witness has stated that he
is acquainted with all the facts of this case.
Financial Service Executive post was implemented
from 2007. Which was contractual. He is not acquainted
with Ranjeet Kumar.
He stated that after seeing the file he may state
monthly remuneration of Ranjeet Kumar who joined service
in the year 2008. Some persons are working. He does not
remember quarterly business of Ranjeet Kumar. Business
of Ranjeet Kumar in quarterly ending on 31.05.2012 and
31.08.2012 was much less. So he was terminated. Further
he stated that Ext.-W is business statement of Ranjeet
Kumar for the period from 01.03.2012 to 28.02.2013.
According to the this Exts business for the period
01.09.2012 to 31.11.2012 exceeded target 90 to 104.44%
services of Ranjeet Kumar, who completed for four years
was extended to five years. He could not say that prior to
termination any notice or retrenchment compensation was
given to Ranjeet Kumar or not. Ranjeet Kumar did not
fulfill the target for two quarter in one year but thereafter
his work was satisfactory because he worked more in
comparision of previous quarter. This fact was informed
to head quarter and no letter was sent from there, so he
used to work.
Ranjeet Kumar was terminated on 06.02.2013. Target
was 90 for the quarter 01.09.2012 to 31.11.2012 and
achievement was 104.44%. Number of life was 94 which
was more than 90. Ranjeet Kumar worked more
incomparision of preceeding quarter.
8.
Ext.-M/1 is engagement as Financial Services
Executive. He was appointed for a period of three years
which was renewable at the sole discretion of the
coporation subject to certain terms and conditions for
another two years. It appears that in 1st quarter number of
life was NIL FPI was fixed one lac shown in extended in
consecutive quarter in 2nd year.
Ext.-M/2 is Financial Services Exective Scheme-2007
according to which engagement was purely on contractual
basis.
Ext.-M/3 is business performance of Ranjeet Kumar
as on 31.05.2012 and in which it has been stated by Branch
Manager we would also like to inform that your 2nd quarter
of 5th year is to end on 31.08.2012, and you must have
made up your own target to complete not only the required
business of this quarter but more and more to compensate
the past quarter and to earn incentives also.
Ext.-M/4 is quarterly review of Ranjeet Kumar.
Ext.-M/5 is letter sent by manager B & AC to Sr.
Divisional Manager stating with, he ( Ranjeet Kumar )
made good of short fall in NOL by obtaining Rs. 2,30,828/-
(57.71%) growth in FPI over & above eiligible FPI. It was
stated to refer his case for continuation of next quarter of
5th years of his engagement.
Ext.-M/6 is also performance review of FSE of Ranjeet
Kumar.
Ext.-M/7 it was informed that it was not found
possible to accede to request as FSE’s have not fulfilled
the minimum criteria of business as per the scheme.
Ext.M/8 is discontinuation as FSE by letter dated-
06.02.2013 Ranjeet Kumar.
Ext.-M/9 is the the representation of Ranjeet Kumar.
9.
Written argument has been filed on behalf of the
workman stating mainly facts and evidence of the case.
Web copy of the decision 2011 SC of Devinder Singh
Versus Municipal Council, Sanaur has been filed. This
decision is not applicable in this case as the facts differ
from the fact of this case. In the case reported case workman
was doing working was clerical nature.
Next decision is also web copy of case of (2010) of
Harjinder Singh Versus Punjab State Ware Housing
Corporation in this case in lieu of reinstatement with 50%
4342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
backwages it was directed to pay Rs. 87582/- by way of
compensation. This case award of Labour Court was
resorted with cost.
10.
In the written argument filed on behalf of the
management, case of the workman and management and
the evidence has been dealt. They have stated about
exhibited which has been already dealt. Some decision
has been filed on behalf of the management one of which
is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P.State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Udai Narain Pandey. In
this case services of one staff Udai Narain Pandey was
terminated on the expiry of his tenure. In this case
respondent was appointed on daily wages in a project
work to look after construction building.Due to binding of
unit some regular staff and other staff were retrenched.
Facts of this case differed from this case here because the
present dispute before this tribunal as regard to fulfillment
of target. Another case also referred is of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic)
Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors, is also not
applicable with the facts and circumstances of the case.
FINDINGS
11.
It is important to note that in this case Ranjeet Kumar
was appointed as Financial Services Executive ( FSE ) w.e.f
15.01.2008. Which is admitted by both the parties even
none of the exhibits has been challenged. As per Ext.-W
quarterly review from 01.03.2012 to 31.05.2012 was NOL
achievement 21.11% which exceeded in the quarterly
ending on 01.06.2012 to 31.08.2012 and NOL achievement
was 72.22% similarly EFP achievement exceeded 109.41%.
Further NOL achievement in quarter 01.09.2012 to
30.11.2012 was 104.44% and EFP achievement was 105.83%.
From engagement letter Ext.-M/1 it appears that
number of life and eligible FPI was nil in the first quarter
which subsequently was increasing. From Ext.-M/3 it
appears that Branch Manager (B&AC) informed Ranjeet
Kumar that 2nd quarter of 5th year is to end on 31.08.2012
and you must have made up your own target to complete
not only the required business for this quarter but more
and more to compensate the past quarter & to earn
incentives also and it appears from Ext.-W that in the quarter
ending on 31.08.2012 business of Ranjeet Kumar in number
of life was 94 which was 104.44% and even EFP is
achievement was 105.83%. As such he completed more
than expectation in the quarter ending on 31.08.2012 which
apparent from Ext.-M/4. Quarterly review of Ranjeet Kumar.
It appears from Ext.-M/5 the branch manager informed to
Senior Divisional Manager that Ranjeet Kumar is making
good of such fall in NOL by obtaining 57.11% in growth in
the EFPI. Over and above eligible EFPI so it was requested
to refer his case for continuation of Mr. Ranjeet Kuamr to
the next quarter 5th years of his engagement but this
improvement was not considered and this request was
turn down which appears Ext.-M/7 and Ext.-M/6 and
improvement of Ranjeet Kumar and recommendation for
continuation for 3rd quarter was not considered properly
without assigning any reason of for the period of short
fall he was terminated which is not just and proper. More
over termination letter dated-06.02.2013 while termination
is dated 01.02.2013 with retrospective effect which is bad
in the eye of law. In this circumstances that the termination
of Ranjeet Kumar was not valid.
It is hold that action of the management of LIC of
India Divisional Office, Patna to terminate the service of
Ranjeet Kumar w.e.f 01.02.2013 was not valid. In this
circumstance the workman is entitled to reinstatement and
with full back wages and award is accordingly is answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2117-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ psUubZ
isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 115@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@23@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-30011/23/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 12th October, 2015
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 115/2015
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4343
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
and their workman]
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Chennai Petroleum
Employees’ Union
CPCL Campus, Manali
Chennai-600068
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Chennai Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.
Manali, Chennai-600068
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
:
Absent
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
:
Ms. K. Premalata,
Respondent
Authorized Representative
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-30011/23/2015-IR (M)
dated 21.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of Chennai
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. regarding denial of OT
payment to their employees is justifiable or not? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 115/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The Respondent has entered appearance through
authorized representative.
3.
Even though the petitioner has received notice, he
did not enter appearance. In spite of his absence the matter
was repeatedly posted for his filing Claim Statement.
However, he failed to appear or file any statement.
4.
The petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing
the dispute. In the absence of any material to substantiate
the case of the petitioner, the reference is to be answered
against him.
The reference is answered against the petitioner. An
award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the Petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2118-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dqekj
th-lh- ik.Ms; ,.M da- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 264@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@36@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 264/
1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kumar G.C. Pandey and Co. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-29012/36/1993-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 264 of 1994
Employer in relation to the management of
M/s. G.C. Pandey & Co.
AND
Their workmen
Present :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
4344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Stone Mines
Dated : 8/10/2015
AWARD
By order No. L-29012/36/1993-IR (M), dated
11/08/1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub–section (1) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Kumar G.C Pandey (Quarry owner) in terminating
the service of Shri Ram Prasad Banerjee and not
taking him back in employment with full back wages
is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed,
Though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is
presumed that the disputes between parties have been
resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2119-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dqekj
th-lh- ik.Ms; ,.M da- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 263@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@35@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2015
S.O. 2119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 263/
1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kumar G.C. Pandey and Co. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23-10-2015.
[No. L-29012/35/1993-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference: No. 263 of 1994
Employer in relation to the management of
M/s. Kumar G.C. Pandey & Co.
AND
Their workmen
Present :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Stone Mines
Dated : 8/10/2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-29012/35/1993-IR (M), dated.11/08/
1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Kumar G.C. Pandey, Pakur in terminating the
service and refusing to take back in employment
with full back wages Shri Madhav Jha is justified ? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference the parties are noticed,
though they took steps for certain dates, subsequently
did not appears nor take any interest in the case. It is
presumed that the disputes between parties have been
resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2120-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948
(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 fnlEcj] 2015 dks
ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds
vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4345
vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]
79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds micaèk
fetksje jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Ø-
jktLo xzke dk
gnoLr la-@
rglhy@
ftyk
la-
uke@{ks=k*
gkscyh*
rkyqd*
1
2
3
4
5
1-
vkbtkWy
vkbtkWy
eqfufliy
¹la- ,l&38013@88@2015&,l-,l- Iº
vt; dqekj] lgk;d lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2015
S.O. 2120.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st December, 2015 as the date on
which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44
and 45 which have already been brought into force) and
Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76
and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been
brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in
the following areas in the State of Mizoram namely :—
Sl.
Name of the
Had Bast
Tehsil/
District
No.
Village Area*
No./
Taluk*
Habli*
1.
Aizawl
Aizawl
Municipal
[No. S-38013/88/2015-S.S.I]
AJAY KUMAR, Assistant Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2121-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nkudquh
[kjxiqj ifj;kstuk jk"Vªh; jktekxZ&6 ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@177@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2015
S.O. 2121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Refernce
No. 14/2014) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of the Dankuni Khargapur
Project/N.H.-6 and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 27/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/177/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 14 of 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Dankuni Khargapur Project/N.H. 6
A N D
Their workmen
Present :
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
:
None
Management
On behalf of the
:
Mrs. Bratati Chakraborty,
Workmen
Ld. Counsel.
State : West Bengal
Industry : National Highways
Dated: 16th October, 2015.
AWARD
By Order No.L-42012/177/2013-IR(DU) dated
13.02.2014/18.02.2014 the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d)
and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Ashoka Dhankuni Kahragpur Tollways Ltd. is
justified by terminating the service of 3(Three) No.
of workmen namely S/Sri Srimanta Maity, Srikanta
Adgiri and Kanailal Pal is legal and or justified? If
not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
Bereft of all unnecessary details, the case of the
concerned workmen is as follows:
The concerned three workmen namely S/Shri
Kanailal Pal, Srikanta Adgiri and Srimanta Maity were
appointed as Assistant Cashiers on 01.02.2012, 01.03.2012
and 26.03.2012 respectively at a monthly salary of
Rs. 7750/- each. After joining service they performed their
duties continuously and uninterruptedly till 19.11.2012.
Subsequently, on 20.11.2012 they were illegally terminated
from the service on the allegation that they misappropriated
the money of the Company. Accordingly, industrial
dispute was raised by the concerned workmen against
4346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
such illegal termination of their service. Hence this
reference.
3.
The management/M/s. Ashoka Dankuni Kharagpur
Tollways Ltd. has not contested the case inspite of service
of notice. So, this reference is heard ex parte.
4.
The concerned three workmen have examined
themselves as the witnesses and proved four(4) documents
viz. Exts. W-01 to W-04 in order to establish their case.
5.
In this case the concerned workmen have specifically
stated in their statements of claim that they were appointed
as Assistant Cashiers on 01.02.2012, 01.03.2012 and
26.03.2012 respectively at a monthly salary of Rs.7750/=
each and after their joining in service they worked
continuously and uninterruptedly till 19.11.2012. The said
statements of the workmen have been corroborated by
the oral evidence of the witnesses. The termination letters
dated 20.11.2012 issued by the management (Ext. W-02)
do not go to show that there was any break of service in
respect of any of the said workmen during the period of
their service. On the contrary, the said letters go to show
that after joining they worked continuously till termination
of their service.
6.
Accordingly, it appears that the workmen after their
joining in service worked continuously for at least 240
days. So the concerned workmen were in continuous
service as per the provision of Section 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
7.
From the statements of claim which corroborate oral
evidence of the witnesses, it further appears that at the
time of their termination one month’s notice in writing had
not been given to the workmen in compliance with the
provision of Section 25F of the Act. Nor had any wages
been paid in lieu of such notice. There is nothing on record
to show that compensation was paid in compliance with
the provision of Section 25F(b) of the Act.
8.
Now from Ext. W-02 (termination letters dated
20.11.2012) it appears that the workmen were terminated
from the service as the management lost its confidence in
them for their alleged misappropriation of money of the
Company. But there is nothing on record to show that
before termination of their service domestic enquiry was
held against them.
9.
In this connection, it is desirable to mention the
decision reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727
(paragraph 8) wherein it has been held that:
“It is difficult to agree with the findings of the Labour
Court that when service is terminated on the basis
of loss of confidence the order does not amount to
one with stigma and does not warrant a proceeding
contemplated by law preceding termination. Want
of confidence in an employee does point out to an
adverse facet in his character as the true meaning of
the allegation is that the employee has failed to
behave up to the expected standard of conduct
which has given rise to a situation involving loss of
confidence. In any view of the matter this amounts
toa dereliction on the part of the workman and,
therefore, the stand taken by the Management that
termination for loss of confidence does not amount
to a stigma has to be repelled. In our opinion it is not
necessary to support our conclusion by reference
to precedents or textual opinion as a commonsense
assessment of the matter is sufficient to dispose of
this aspect. ‘Retrenchment’ is defined in Section
2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and excludes
termination of service by the employer as a
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action.
If the termination in the instant case is held to be
grounded upon conduct attaching stigma to the
appellant, disciplinary proceedings were necessary
as a condition precedent to infliction of termination
as a measure of punishment. Admittedly this has
not been done. Therefore, the order of termination
is vitiated in law and cannot be sustained.”
10.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
evidence on record and the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court it appears that the termination of the
workmen from the service by the management without
any domestic enquiry and without any adherence to the
provision of Section 25F of the Act, was neither proper
nor justified.
11.
From the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
viz. 1978 Lab. I.C. 1667 and 2013(139) FLR 541 it appears
that in case of illegal termination of service, reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages are normal rule.
12.
Now it is to be considered whether or not the
workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service. In this
context it is necessary to refer to the decision reported in
(1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727 (paragraph 9 and 10)
wherein it has been held that:
“9.Ordinarily, when the order of termination is
quashed a declaration follows that the workman
continues to be in employment and is therefore,
reinstated in service with full back wages as was
held by this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (Private)
Ltd. V. Employees. This Court held in Jitendra Singh
Rathor v. Shri Daidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. that
under Section 11-A of the Act advisedly wide
discretion has been vested in the Tribunal in the
matter of awarding relief according to circumstances
of the case. In Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela v.
A.K. Roy, this Court has held that the Labour Court
has discretion to award compensation instead of
reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular
case make reinstatement inexpedient or improper. In
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4347
this case it has been the stand of the respondent
that the Management had lost confidence in the
appellant and there has been some pleading about
the importance of the role of confidence in the
business set-up of the respondent. Without
examining the tenability of the stand on loss of
confidence as a defence to reinstatement and
accepting the allegations advanced by the
respondent that there has been loss of confidence,
we are of the view that while the termination of
service of the appellant is held to be bad, he may not
be reinstated in service. On the other hand he should
be adequately compensated.
10.The quantum of compensation has now to be
ascertained. Ordinarily, the appellant would have
gone back into service with full back wages.
Admittedly he has been out of employment from
March 1974. If he had gone back into service he
would have been entitled to back wages of a little
more than 11 years. In computing compensation this
aspect has to be kept in view. If he was restored to
service he would have been assured of employment
for a further term of years. Keeping this as also other
relevant aspects in view, we quantify the
compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 2 lacs.
In almost similar circumstances in respect of two
employees working under the Lufthansa German
Airlines, compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for each worker
was fixed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 650 of
1982 disposed of by us on April 9, 1985. Counsel for
the appellant has undertaken to file a statement
showing the spread-over of the compensation from
the date of the order of termination of service till the
end of the present financial year, within a week from
today. After the statement is filed the same be placed
for further directions.”
13.
It has already been discussed that the management
lost its confidence in the workmen for their alleged
misappropriation of money of the Company. Though the
allegation of loss of confidence has not been established
by any domestic enquiry, yet in the pleadings of the parties
there is inkling of loss of confidence of the management
for any reason whatsoever. In such circumstances it will
not be expedient to reinstate the workman against the will
of the management and in such cases adequate
compensation would be an alternative to reinstatement.
And in coming to this decision this Tribunal is fortified by
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as already
referred to in paragraph 12 above.
14.
Now the question arises as to what would be the
just and proper amount of compensation. In this regard
the foregoing decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
mentioned in paragraph 12 of this Award may be taken as
a guideline.
15.
There is pecuniary loss as well as non-pecuniary
loss. Non-pecuniary loss i.e., sufferings, loss of earnings
for the rest of the life, non-performance of the obligation
towards the family cannot be measured in terms of money.
So by applying the rule of thumb the total compensation
for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss is fixed at
Rs.2,00,000/= (Rupees two lac) only.
16.
The instant order of reference is accordingly
answered in the negative. Each of the concerned three
workmen are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lac).
17.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 16th October, 2015
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV ekLVj
tujy] dks;acrwj vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@31@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 89/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Post Master General, Coimbatore
and Others and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-40012/31/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 14th October, 2015
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 89/2014
4348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Post Master General and Two Others
and their workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri J. Sivakumar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Post Master General
: 2nd Party/1st
Western Region (TN)
Respondent
Coimbatore-641002
2. The Senior Superintendent
: 2nd Party/2nd
of Post Offices,
Respondent
Salem East Division
Salem-636001
3. The Sub-Divisional Inspector : 2nd Party/3rd
Attur Postal Sub-Division,
Respondent
Attur, Salem-636102
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s R. Malaichamy,
Petitioner
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/1st,
:
Mrs. K. Akhilandeswari,
2nd & 3rd Respondent
ACGSC
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/31/2014-IR (DU)
dated 07.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management of Postal
Authority i.e. Inspector of Posts, Attur-Salem
District regarding the termination of the services of
the petitioner Mr. J. Sivakumar, GDS/DA is justifiable
or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 89/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (now known
as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer) at Arasanatham
Branch Office took long leave from 21.09.1998 and the
Third Respondent appointed the petitioner as Extra
Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) by memo dated
21.09.1998 on temporary basis. The petitioner worked in
the post till the regular incumbent joined duty on 24.02.1999.
He again went on leave from 25.02.1999 and the petitioner
was again appointed in his place by the Third Respondent.
The petitioner was thus appointed by the Third
Respondent from time to time and he had been discharging
his duties with utmost satisfaction. The permanent
incumbent went on long leave again and the Third
Respondent appointed the petitioner in his place on
provisional basis by order dated 01.01.2000. The petitioner
had completed more than 3 years of service at Arasanathan
B.O. The third Respondent regularized the service of the
petitioner by order dated 01.03.2003 w.e.f. 04.09.2002.
However, the appointment was cancelled by order dated
26.03.2005. The petitioner challenged this before the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Tribunal
gave a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. The
authorities did not comply with the order. Similarly placed
persons like the petitioner were appointed as GDS after
including their names in the dovetailed list prepared in
respect of those who had completed more than 240 days
of work. This benefit was denied to the petitioner. The
petitioner was entitled for regularization as per the old
recruitment rules since he has put in nearly three years of
service. By virtue of continuous service rendered the
petitioner is entitled to protection of Section-25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. An order may be passed directing
the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with
continuity of service, backwages and other attendant
benefits.
4.
The Respondents have filed a common Counter
Statement contending as below:
When the regular incumbent of Arasanatham B.O.
was placed under off-duty the petitioner was given
appointment on temporary basis w.e.f. 21.09.1998.
Subsequently, he was temporarily appointed for 3 months
from 21.11.1998 and had worked upto 24.02.1999. The
temporary appointment of the petitioner was terminated
on 25.02.1999 when the regular incumbent joined duty.
When the regular incumbent availed leave at different
spells from 26.02.1999 the petitioner was nominated by
him as the EDDA and this was approved by the Third
Respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted
to work on temporary basis from 01.09.1999 to 31.12.1999.
When the regular incumbent was again placed on off-
duty the petitioner was again provisionally engaged for 2
months from 01.01.2000 and he worked till 03.09.2000. After
the regular incumbent was removed from service the
provisional appointment of the petitioner was regularized
by memo dated 04.09.2002, by the Third Respondent. But
this was done without observing the recruitment
procedure. After issuing notice to the petitioner and on
hearing him, his appointment was cancelled by order dated
26.03.2005. The petitioner was relieved form the post on
30.03.2005. The petitioner moved the CAT, Chennai against
this order. The Tribunal had directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for the post as and when the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4349
same was notified for being filled up. The petitioner was
not selected for the post as he was not in the zone of
consideration. Another candidate was selected. The
application filed by the petitioner before the CAT against
this order was dismissed. The maintenance of dovetailed
list has been discontinued and the system is not in vogue
now. The list was maintained only in respect of those who
had worked for 240 days in the 2 years before 11.02.1988.
The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W24 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3
6.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether termination of the service of the petitioner
by the Third Respondent is justifiable?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner who had worked as Extra
Departmental Delivery Agent (now known as Gramin Dak
Sevak Mail Deliverer) with the Respondents at
Arasanatham Branch Post Office at different spells had
been terminated from service by order dated 26.03.2005. It
is not denied by the Respondents that the petitioner had
started to work at the Branch from 21.09.1998 and had
worked till 30.03.2005 at different spells. Initially he had
started to work when the regular incumbent was under
off-duty. He had continued in the post when the regular
incumbent was on leave and subsequently he was again
appointed when the man was dismissed from service. The
appointment which was provisional in nature was
regularized by the Third Respondent by order dated
11.03.2003 w.e.f. 04.09.2002. However, the Third respondent
himself cancelled the appointment by order dated
26.03.2005 stating that the regularization is not in
accordance with the rules.
8.
Ext.W1 to Ext.W6 are the different orders appointing
the petitioner in the Branch Office at Arasanatham. Ext.M3
is the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
Ext.M1 and Ext.M2 are the notices given to the petitioner
to show cause for not cancelling the order.
9.
The petitioner seems to have approached different
forums against the cancellation of his appointment. Ext.W7
is the order of CAT, Madras Bench in which the Tribunal
directed the Respondents, the Postal Department
authorities, to consider the application of the petitioner
for the post of EDMC as and when the same was notified
for being filled-up. It was further directed that the
applicant’s case shall be considered with reference to the
rules as well as procedure, if any. It was further stated that
if relaxation is required the same is to be deemed to have
been ordered by the Tribunal in so far as age qualification
alone was concerned. Regarding other qualifications they
were to be considered objectively and the petition disposed
of. This was to be done within a period of 6 months. The
petitioner had then approached the CAT again alleging
contempt by the Respondents. However, this was
dismissed, on the ground of delay, as seen from Ext.W8.
The petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras challenging the order of dismissal and the order is
marked as Ext.W9. It is seen from the order that the
grievance of the petitioner was on account of the alleged
disobedience of the postal authorities to the order of
CAT. The Writ Petition was disposed observing that the
contempt petition was in time. He again approached the
CAT armed with the order of the High Court. This time the
contempt petition was dismissed considering it on merits
as the postal authorities had already considered the
application of the petitioner as directed by the Tribunal,
though the same was rejected. The petitioner later applied
to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (Ext.W11) to
include his name in the dovetailed list for considering
appointment against the regular vacant post subject to
the outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending before
the Supreme Court. He gave such representation (Ext.W13)
to the Post Master General also. Since he did not receive
any response, he filed application before the CAT, Chennai
claiming the relief of inclusion of his name in dovetailed
list. By Ext.W16 order, the CAT directed the Post Master
General to consider and dispose of the representation of
the petitioner in accordance with law within a specified
period. As per the direction, a decision was taken, as seen
from Ext.W17. The Post Master General stated that the
dovetailed list was prepared in respect of those who have
worked for 240 days in 2 years before 11.02.1988 and as
the petitioner had worked only between 01.01.2000 and
26.03.2005 the question of inclusion of his name in the
dovetailed list does not arise. He further stated that as
case is already pending before the Supreme Court on the
issue, inclusion of name of the petitioner in the list would
be viewed as contempt of court. Thus, the request of the
petitioner to include his name in the dovetailed list was
rejected. It is subsequently the petitioner has raised the
dispute claiming that he has worked for more than 240
days continuously and he is entitled to be reinstated in
service.
10.
As could be seen, the appointment of the petitioner
was once regularized. But subsequently the same was
cancelled stating that the regularization is not in
accordance with the rules prevalent. The counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the decision of the Division Bench
of Madras High Court in support of his argument that
termination is not justified. The Division Bench had
disposed of several writ petitions including WP No. 5026/
03 filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices in which
issues akin to that of the petitioner’s case were considered.
11.
As in the present case, Suguna one of the Writ
Petitioners in the batch of cases referred to above was
4350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed on temporary basis in March 1998. Her period
was extended later and she had worked in the Respondent
Department till November 1998. The temporary appointment
was terminated consequent to the selection of another
person after notification, and considering the applications.
Suguna approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
challenging the selection of another person but the
application filed by her was dismissed. She then filed
another application to include her name in the dovetailed
list based on her temporary service. This was disposed
with a direction to consider her request. The Post Master
General, as directed by the Tribunal considered her request
and found that she is not eligible to be considered in the
dovetailed list. She approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal again and the Tribunal directed the Respondent
to include her name in the dovetailed list. It was challenging
this, the Respondent has filed Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The Hon’ble High Court
considered the scheme framed in Kumar Vs. Union of India
by the Administrative Tribunal and other facts. In Kumar’s
case the Tribunal had sought the stand of the Respondent
and the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle had
given a reply making its stand clear. It was stated in the
reply that substitutes engaged before 11.02.1988 who have
completed 240 days in any two years before 11.02.1998,
substitutes engaged before 11.02.1988 but completed 240
days of service in any two years after 11.02.1988 and also
provisional appointees who were appointed after
11.02.1988 and allowed to continue for 240 days in any
two years as per judgment in Kumar’s case were to be
brought in the dovetailed list. The only persons who were
omitted were substitutes appointed after 11.02.1988. It
was observed by the Tribunal that in respect of provisional
appointees, even those appointed after 11.02.1988 and
allowed to continue for more than 240 days have also
been placed in the dovetailed list and even otherwise the
provisional appointees are entitled to have their names
included in the list in view of the letter of the Department
dated 18.05.1979 provided they have put in 3 years of
service. It had again been observed by the Tribunal,
referring to the argument advanced on behalf of the Postal
Department that the scheme was intended only as a one-
time measure and there is no question of applying the
scheme after rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak in 2001
has been framed and that apprehension expressed that
including such persons would open a flood gate of such
cases is without basis and that the department is liable to
extend the benefit of the scheme until the last eligible
casual labourer, full time and part time EDA/GDS
(Provisional Appointee or Substitute or Outsiders) is
absorbed against the existing and future vacancies of
GDA/GDS. The High Court concurred with the view
expressed by the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the Department.
12.
When the regular incumbent was put under off duty
the petitioner was appointed on provisional basis by
order dated 01.01.2000. His appointment was regularized
by order dated 01/.03.2003 w.e.f. 04.09.2002. Subsequently,
the Inspector of Posts felt that the regularization is not in
accordance with the rules and terminated him from service.
By then he had completed more than 3 years in the post of
EDDA at Arasanatham Branch Post Office. So the
petitioner’s case squarely comes under the criteria
prescribed by the Department itself. In its reply the PMG
has told the Tribunal that the provisional appointees who
are appointed after 11.02.1988 and allowed to continue for
240 days in any two years also are eligible to be brought in
the dovetailed list. Even otherwise the provisional
appointees are entitled to have their names included in
the list on the basis of letter of the department dated
18.05.1979. By the time the petitioner was terminated form
service he had completed more than 3 years of service.
The Postal Department had turned down the request of
the petitioner to be included in the dovetailed list only on
the basis that he is not from the particular zone. When the
petitioner was engaged this was not considered by the
department. Apart from that the Administrative Tribunal
does not seem to have made any difference regarding
persons residing inside or outside the zone. No case is
also seen put forth that persons will be excluded from the
dovetailed list on the basis of the zone. When this aspect
is taken into account the petitioner was all the more entitled
to be included in the dovetailed list.
13.
The facts of the present case are almost in
parimateria with that of facts of the Suguna’s case. Suguna
was appointed on 04.03.1998 on temporary basis and
continued upto 15.11.1998. In the present case the
petitioner had initially been appointed on 21.09.1998 and
had continued till 23.02.1999. When the regular incumbent
joined on 24.02.1999 there was a gap in the service but he
was again appointed on the next day on 25.02.1999 and
continued under different orders. His provisional
appointment from 01.01.2000 was regularized and he
continued till 30.03.2005.
14.
Even though the petitioner had approached the
Adminsitrative Tribunal and other forums for redressal of
his grievance his case was not considered on merits. The
Tribunal had only given a direction to consider his
application and the department had wrongly refused to
include his name in the dovetailed list. The petitioner was
sent away from service after he was regularized and had
completed more than 3 years in service. A farce of an
enquiry is seen conducted in which the petitioner was
asked to state under which rules he had been engaged. It
is the department that had engaged him. It should have
better known the manner in which the petitioner was
appointed. If the petitioner was included in the list on his
request he would have entered the service long ago. The
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4351
petitioner is eligible to appointed in the service of the
Respondent.
15.
Accordingly an order is passed as below:
The Respondents are directed to appoint the
petitioner in service in the vacancy that arises immediately
after completion of one month of publication of the award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri J. Sivakumar
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri T. Venkatesan
Management
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
21.09.1998
Order of Appointment
Ext.W2
21.07.1999
Order of 2nd Respondent
Ext.W3
15.12.1999
Order of 3rd Respondent
Ext.W4
21.12.1999
Order of 2nd Respondent
Ext.W5
01.01.2000
Order of 3rd Respondent
Ext.W6
01.03.2003
Order of 3rd Respondent
Ext.W7
04.05.2006
Order in OA No. 324 of 2005
Ext.W8
19.03.2008
Order in MA No. 92 of 2008
Ext.W9
08.09.2008
Order in WP No. 20996 of 2008
Ext.W10
09.07.2008
Order in CA 12 of 2008 in OA
No. 324 of 2005
Ext.W11
11.06.2010
Representation
Ext.W12
13.07.2010
Representation
Ext.W13
17.09.2010
Representation
Ext.W14
19.12.2010
Original Application No. 1542
of 2010
Ext.W15
—
Reply by 2nd Respondent
Ext.W16
22.12.2010
Order in OA No. 1542 of 2010
Ext.W17
18.02.2011
Order of 1st Respondent
Ext.W18
25.05.2013
Claim Petition
Ext.W19
01.07.2013
Reply to ALC
Ext.W20
15.07.2013
Representation
by
K.
Murugesan
Ext.W21
29.10.2013
Rejoinder by the Petitioner
Ext.W22
24.05.2014
Letter by the Petitioner
Ext.W23
24.05.2014
Rejoinder by the petitioner to
reply the Claim Petition
Ext.W24
13.08.2014
Order of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central)
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
09.02.2005
Letter No. DR/C/177 dated
09.02.2005
from
2nd
Respondent to Petitioner
Ext.M2
25.11.2004
Letter No. GDSMD/MC
Arasanatham dated 25.11.2004
from 3rd Respondent
Ext.M3
26.03.2005
Letter No. 362/GDSMD/MC/
Arasanatham dated 26.03.2005
from 3rd Respondent
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2123-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xkSre tklwlh
vkSj lqj{kk lsokvksa] iqMqpsjh vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@143@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 114/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Gautham Detective and Security
Services and Others and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/143/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 16th October, 2015
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 114/2014
4352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Gautham Detective & Security Services
(P) Ltd. and Another and their workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri V. Murugan
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
M/s Gautham Detective &
Security Services (P) Ltd.,
No. 5, “K” Lane, VVP Nagar
Puducherry-605009
2. The Project Director
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
National Highways
Authority of India
PIU No. 10, Govindasamy
Nagar, Vazhudhareddy Post,
Villupuram, Tamilnadu-605401
Appearances :
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s P. Chandrasekaran,
Petitioner
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/
:
Set Ex-parte
1st Respondent
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s B. Harikrishnan,
2nd Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/143/2014-IR (DU)
dated 27.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the workman, Sri Murugan
in seeking employment in the Office of National
Highways Authority of India, Villupuram from where
he was stopped without reason is legal and justified?
If so, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 114/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel. The petitioner has filed Claim Statement and the
Second Respondent Counter Statement. The First
Respondent did not file any Counter Statement.
Subsequently, the counsel for the First Respondent
reported to have no instruction and the First Respondent
was set ex-parte.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner are as below:
The petitioner was engaged as Peon in 2006 in the
Office Project Implementation Unit of National Highways
Authority of (India (NHAI), Villupuram through a
placement agency. He had been discharging his duties to
the utmost satisfaction of his superior officers. Initially he
had been receiving Rs. 3,000/- a month as salary.
Subsequently, this was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- a month.
On 04.03.2011 he was paid Rs. 10,305/- as salary by the
Security Administration. For the period from October 2008
to March 2011 the petitioner worked through M/s Ramesh
Manpower Security Services. From April 2011 to July 2011
he worked through M/s Indian Security Organization. From
August 2011 to April 2014 he worked through the First
Respondent. Though salary fixed by the First Respondent
was Rs. 13,872/-, he actually received Rs. 7,900/- only. The
balance amount was paid to someone else. The petitioner
had submitted a representation to the Respondents on
11.10.2014 seeking permanency in the NHAI. The same
was not acceded to by the General Manager. The petitioner
is entitled to be made permanent under Section-3 of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981. The First
Respondent has denied job to the petitioner from the
month of April 2014. This action of the First Respondent
is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
While terminating the service of the petitioner the
Respondent did not give any notice, notice pay or
compensation. The termination amounts to retrenchment.
The petitioner is not responsible for the missing of
documents in the Office of the Second Respondent. The
petitioner is seen made a scapegoat. The petitioner is
entitled to be reinstated as Peon in the service of the
Second Respondent with full backwages, continuity of
service and other benefits.
4.
The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The NHAI is an autonomous agency of the
Government of India. To augment its administrative
functions the authority used to engage supporting staff,
such as Clerks, typists, computer operator and Peon on
short term contract through Security Services/Placement
Agencies. The salary for short term contract employees
are fixed by NHAI Headquarters, New Delhi as per the
prevailing guidelines. Monthly bill will be raised as per
contract against the manpower supplied by the Security
Agency. The salary will be paid by the Agency after making
statutory deduction towards Provident Fund, ESI, etc.
there is no master-servant relationship between the
petitioner and the Second Respondent. The Second
Respondent never disbursed salary to the petitioner
directly. The Second Respondent did not engage more
than 20 workmen on contract basis on any day during 12
months preceding the Claim Statement. The provisions of
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981 is not applicable
to the case. The Second Respondent has entered into an
agreement with the First Respondent under which the First
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4353
Respondent has agreed to deploy personnel to work as
Computer Operator, Peon, Watchman, etc. in the Office at
Villupuram. The First Respondent supplied the petitioner
among others to work as Peon in the Office of the Second
Respondent. His salary used to be paid by the First
Respondent. Originally the petitioner was on the rolls of
the Security service by name M/s Firstman Security Force,
Trichy. Thereafter he was on the roll of other agencies.
From August 2011 onwards he was on the rolls of the First
Respondent. The First Respondent on investigation found
the petitioner guilty of theft of documents and withdrew
the petitioner from the premises of Second Respondent.
The petitioner has indulged in malpractice and stealthily
removed papers of correspondence from the Office of the
Second Respondent. From 22.05.2014 the First Respondent
did not depute the petitioner to work in the Office of the
Second Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the
Counter Statement of the Second Respondent denying
the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating
his case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W15 and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
“Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated
in service of the Second Respondent as claimed by
him?”
(ii)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief?
The Points
8.
Murugan, the petitioner was working in the National
Highways Authority of India as Peon from October 2006
onwards. According to him he was denied job in the month
of April 2014. He has stated in his Claim Statement that the
Respondents are to be directed to reinstate him as Peon in
the National Highways Authority of India at Villupuram
with backwages, continuity of service and other benefits.
The First Respondent is the Security Service through
which the petitioner was employed. The Second
Respondent is the Project Director of NHAI. The petitioner
has not specified in the Claim Statement with which
Respondent he is to be reinstated, though he has claimed
that he should be taken back as Peon in NHAI at Villupuram.
9.
It could be seen even from the Claim Statement that
the petitioner was working through placement agencies.
The very case of the Second Respondent who is the only
contesting Respondent in the case is that the petitioner
was engaged through placement agencies all along.
According to the Second Respondent there was never
employer-employee relationship between him and the
petitioner. The monthly bill for the short term employees
used to be raised by the manpower agency as per the
contract and it was the agency who was making payment
to the petitioner and similar employees.
10.
In the Claim Statement the petitioner has claimed
that he was employed through different agencies. From
October 2008 to March 2011, he was employed by one
agency and from April 2011 to July 2011 through another
agency. Thereafter the First Respondent had employed
him. The very case of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement
is that the First Respondent has denied job to him. In the
Proof Affidavit filed by him also the petitioner has asserted
that he was working through the placement agencies.
During his cross-examination the petitioner would state
that during the period from 2006 to 2008 his employment
was not through any Security Service. However, he does
not have such a case in his Claim Statement.
11.
Even the documents produced on behalf of the
petitioner would show that payment was made to him by
the agency through which he was employed. Ext.W1 is
the receipt of 2009 towards payment of salary, issued by
the placement agency. Ext.W2 is another such receipt also
of 2009. These receipts would suffice to show that the
petitioner was not directly paid by the Second Respondent
but only by the agency through which he was employed.
In fact there is no case for the petitioner also that he was
directly employed by the Second Respondent. In the
absence of employer-employee relationship between the
petitioner and Second Respondent the petitioner would
not be entitled to be reinstated in the service of the Second
Respondent.
12.
There is a claim for the petitioner in the Claim
Statement that he is entitled to be made permanent on the
basis of Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workman) Act, 1981. It has been pointed out by the counsel
for the Second Respondent that in the absence of
employer-employee relationship the petitioner would not
be entitled to make such a claim at all. The counsel has
relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in
PRAKASH VS. SOMYAJI in Writ Petition No. 17389 of
1999 in this respect. In the above decision, it was held that
to invoke Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act the relationship
of master and servant must be subsisting at the time when
the claim is made. This decision was rendered under the
background that though the workman had completed 480
days in a period of 24 calendar months in the concerned
industrial establishment there was no employer employee
relationship at the time when the claim was made. The
dictum is all the more relevant in the present case in so far
as there was never any employer-employee relationship
between the petitioner and the Second Respondent.
13.
Even otherwise, as pointed out by the counsel for
the Second Respondent, in view of Section-7 of Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status
4354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to Workman) Act, the petitioner will not be entitled to any
relief. The section excludes workman employed in an
industrial establishment engaged in the construction of
buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other
construction work whether structural, mechanical or
electrical, from the purview of the Act. The Second
Respondent has specifically stated in the Counter
Statement that it is engaged in the development,
maintenance and management of National Highways.
So the exemption clause is applicable to the NHAI. For
this reason also the petitioner is not entitle to invoke
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Act for his benefit. So the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief again the Second
Respondent.
14.
The First Respondent in the case has remained ex-
parte. Even from the Claim Statement and Proof Affidavit
of the petitioner what could be deciphered is that the
petitioner was employed by the First Respondent and not
by the Second Respondent. He was working at the office
of the Second Respondent at the instance of the First
Respondent who engaged him. As could be seen from the
Claim Statement itself it is the First Respondent who had
denied work to him.
15.
Though the First Respondent has not come forward
to justify the act of the termination of the petitioner from
service, the Second Respondent has advanced a case that
some documents were missing from its office and on
enquiry by the First Respondent the petitioner was found
responsible for the same and it is accordingly the petitioner
was taken away from the premises of the Second
Respondent. The petitioner had denied this case in the
Claim Statement as well as during his examination. Apart
from what is stated in the Counter Statement there is
nothing to justify the case advanced by the Second
Respondent. There is nothing to show that any enquiry
was conducted and the petitioner was terminated from
service by the First Respondent on the basis of the report
of enquiry. Apparently, the First Respondent has denied
work to the petitioner. In the absence of any justification
for the same the act of the First Respondent in terminating
the service of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment. The
petitioner was not given any notice, notice pay or
compensation before he was sent away. The First
Respondent is liable to reinstate the petitioner in service.
Accordingly an order is passed as below:
16.
The First Respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with 25% backwages within a month
of publication of the Award. In case of default the amount
will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of the award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
WW1, Sri V. Murugan
WW2, Sri R. Varadharaju
For the 1st & 2nd Party/
:
None
Respondent
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
01.08.2009
Receipt for salary given by the
petitioner
Ext.W2
01.12.2009
Receipt for salary given by the
petitioner
Ext.W3
01.05.2014
Requisition sent by the
petitioner for permanency
Ext.W4
05.05.2014
Disability Certificate issued to
the petitioner
Ext.W6
23.08.2014
Reply furnished by NHAI to
Thiru Varadharaju, father of
the petitioner
Ext.W7
09.09.2014
Letter of the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Puducherry
Ext.W8
16.09.2014
Order passed by the District
Legal Services Authority
closing the petition
Ext.W9
23.09.2014
Conciliation Proceedings
Ext.W10
29.09.2014
Letter sent by the Asstt.
Labour
Commissioner
(Central) Puducherry
Ext.W11
01.12.2014
Letter sent by the Tamil Nadu
Legal Services Authority to the
Chairman
Ext.W12
10.12.2014
Statement
of
defence
submitted by the NHAI to the
Desk Officer
Ext.W13
12.12.2014
Notice issued by the Tribunal
Ext.W14
16.01.2015
Letter sent by the D.G.M.
(NHAI) to the Project Office
Ext.W15
16.01.2015
Letter sent by the D.G.M. to the
First Respondent
On the Management’s side
Ex.No
Date
Description
Ext.M1
01.05.2014
English version of the letter of
the petitioner for Permanency
Ext.M2
01.12.2014
English version of letter of
Varadharaju.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4355
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2124-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy baLVhV~;wV
vkWiQ 'kkL=kh; rfey] psUubZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@165@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Central Institute of Classical
Tamil, Chennai and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/165/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 13th October, 2015
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 13/2014
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Central Institute of Classical Tamil
and their workman]
BETWEEN :
Smt. B. Kalpana
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Registrar
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Central Institute of
Classical Tamil
No. 44-44, LMV Building,
IRT Campus
100 Feet Road, Taramani
Chennai-600113
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s T. Sundaravadanam,
Petitioner
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s R. Parthiban, Advocates
Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/165/2013-IR(DU)
dated 25.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Institute of Classical Tamil, Chennai in terminating
the service of Smt. B. Kalpana, Lower Division Clerk
is legal and justified? If not to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 13/2014 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had joined the Central Institute of
Classical Tamil, Mysore as Data Input Operator in the
Project Critical Edition of Ancient Tamil Classics on
31.12.2007. She was given daily wages at the rate of Rs.
200/- and also honorarium of Rs. 75/- per day. The petitioner
was transferred to Chennai on 19.05.2008. She was
promoted as Lower Division Clerk and given consolidated
payment of Rs. 12,588/- w.e.f. 01.04.2010. She worked from
07.01.2008 to 27.03.2011 continuously for three years. She
applied for Maternity Leave for the period from 28.03.2011
to 30.06.2011, alongwith Medical Certificate. The petitioner
gave birth to a child on 05.05.2011. Because of the illness
of the child she applied for extension of leave upto
30.11.2011. After expiry of this period she went to the
Respondent Institution for joining duty and reported to
the Registrar. But the Registrar refused to permit her to
join duty. She was told that her services are terminated.
She issued lawyer notice to the Respondent and received
a reply that her services are on daily remuneration basis
and there is no provision to take Maternity Leave. The
dispute is raised accordingly. An order may be passed
directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service with backwages, continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner had approached the Labour
Commissioner claiming that her contract was terminated
4356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and Maternity Leave was not sanctioned to her. The
contract of the petitioner had ended on 31.03.2011. No
fresh contract was issued after this. The petitioner had
been engaged on temporary basis. There was no
requirement of continuing the service of the petitioner as
she had been appointed on short-term project. The
petitioner had joined the temporary position giving false
declaration that she had completed 12th standard. The
engagements of the petitioner was not by proper authority
or committee for appointment. It was only against a
particular project. Regular posts for the Respondent
Institute were sanctioned only during June 2010 and
Recruitment Rules were framed and approved by the
Ministry during September, 2011 only. The Governing
Board of the institute in meeting held in October 2012
instructed the Institute to restrict the temporary positions
operated to the sanctioned strength. No appointments
were made thereafter. Even in temporary positions the
strength of the temporary persons engaged was brought
down progressively to 52 from more than 100 that was
prevailing in March 2011. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
5.
Subsequently the Respondent had filed additional
Counter Statement contending as below:
The Respondent Institution was started in the year
2008 on the basis of the scheme framed by the Central
Government in order to promote, propagate and preserve
the Tamil language. The purpose of the Respondent
institute is to do research works relating to the classical
phase of Tamil The objective of the Institute includes
organizing and offering educational and research programs
at Post Graduate Level in classical Tamil leading to Ph.D
and Post Doctoral Awards, supporting research projects
received from Universities and established institutions
and supporting such case studies as may be relevant to
the disciplines mentioned, organizing national and
international conferences, seminars and workshops and
supporting similar efforts in Universities and established
academic institutions, etc. In order to achieve the aims
and objectives of the Institute several faculties have been
established in the Institute. When the Institute was started
the Central Government had not sanctioned permanent
post and did not recruit any permanent employee. The
post of Director is being held by additional charge and the
Registrar who is working in the Institute is on deputation.
The Respondent Institute is a research Institute and is
mainly financed by Ministry of Human Resource
Department of the Central Government. It is not directly or
indirectly carrying on any trade or business. Its activities
do not result in production or distribution of goods or
service calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.
The materials that were made by the Respondent
Institution produced out of research of ancient Tamil were
occasionally published, but they have never been sold in
public shops. The Respondent is not producing saleable
commercial materials at the market for any commercial
value. The Institute is registered as an Autonomous
Institution under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
The activity carried on by the Respondent does not fall
under the definition of Industry as given in Section-2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act. The application of the petitioner
for Maternity Leave was received by the respondent only
on 04.04.2011, after expiry of the period of contract. The
appointment of the petitioner having been purely on
contract basis, by afflux of time the appointment came to
an end. The person holding such post can have no right
to continue in the post. The case of the petitioner directly
falls under Section-2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioner in any case is not entitled to any relief.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WWs 1 to 4 and MW1 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W42 and
Ext.M1 to Ext.M16.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating
the service of the petitioner is legal and justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8.
Admittedly the petitioner has started working with
the Central Institute of Classical Tamil as Data Input
Operator on 31.12.2007. At that time the Institute was
functioning from Mysore and the petitioner had been
working there. When the Institute was shifted to Chennai
the petitioner was brought to Chennai to work in the same
position. Subsequently, she was given the position of
Lower Division Clerk with a consolidated payment of Rs.
12,588/- Though the petitioner has stated in the Claim
Statement that she was given promotion, her engagement
as LDC is not termed as a promotion by the Respondent.
While she was working as Data Input Operator the position
of LDC seems to have been offered to her, as seen from
Ext.M10. This document is to the effect that the selection
committee has interviewed and selected the petitioner as
Lower Division Clerk. According to the petitioner she has
worked with the Respondent upto 27.03.2011. She is said
to have applied for Maternity Leave for the period from
28.03.2011 to 30.06.2011 alongwith Medical Certificate.
Subsequently extension of leave upto 30.11.2011 is said
to have been sought for. According to the petitioner she
had approached the Registrar of the Institute after
30.11.2011 to permit her to join duty but she was not
allowed. On the other hand she was told that she was
terminated from service.
9.
According to the Respondent the engagement of
the petitioner was project oriented and that also on
contract basis. The stand of the Respondent is that the
period of contract of the petitioner has expired on
30.06.2011 and thereafter the same was not renewed. It is
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4357
stated that the case of the petitioner will fall under Section-
2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. It is the further case of the Respondent
that in any case the Respondent is not an institution
running any industry and therefore the dispute will not
come under the purview of the ID Act.
10.
The case that is attempted to be advanced on behalf
of the petitioner is that she was illegally denied Maternity
Leave by the Respondent. According to the petitioner
she was under the impression that her application for
Maternity Leave has been accepted and allowed by the
Respondent. Only after she came back to the Institute to
join duty after the period of leave had expired she came to
know that it was not allowed. According to her, only when
she approached the Institute to join duty on expiry of the
period for leave she was told that her service is terminated.
11.
The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 in terms
of the Claim Statement. She has stated in her cross-
examination that she has applied for Maternity Leave and
it was accepted by the management also. According to
her, the Management did not give any letter sanctioning
the leave. Only oral sanction was given. According to her,
after expiry of the leave she had rejoined on 01.12.2011
and leave was extended orally by Professor Ramaswamy,
WW4.
12.
WW2 was the Director of the Respondent institution
at the time when the Counter Statement was filed. This
witness had been summoned by the petitioner to depose
on her behalf. This witness had no personal knowledge of
the engagement of the petitioner or the alleged refusal of
the Registrar to allow her to join duty. This witness has
stated that the contract of the petitioner had ended on
31.03.2011 and that is why she was not allowed to join
duty. She has further stated that the Maternity Leave
application of the petitioner was received at the office on
04.04.2011 only. According to the witness, a note was seen
made on the records that the petitioner is not eligible for
leave.
13.
WW3 another witness summoned by the petitioner
was also in-charge of the Director of the Respondent
Institution. He was there from 24.04.2015. This witness
also asserted during examination that leave application of
the petitioner was received at the office on 04.04.2011 only
and since the period of contract was over there was no
question of sanctioning the leave. The witness has stated
that leave could not be granted to a person who is not an
employee.
14.
WW4 was the Professor of the Institute and was in-
charge of the post of Dy. Director also. This witness had
come to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner. According
to this witness the petitioner had worked from 07.01.2008
to 27.03.2011 continuously for 3 years. She had applied
for maternity leave from 28.03.2011 to 30.06.2011 and this
was received by him as Officer-in-Charge of the Institution
and was forwarded to the Director. He has also stated in
the affidavit that the petitioner has given a second leave
application for 92 days from 01.07.2011 and a third one for
61 days on 01.10.2011.
15.
Ext.W8 is the application for Maternity Leave dated
28.03.2011. The Respondent has produced the original
application submitted by the petitioner at the Institute
and this has been marked as Ext.W8A. The date of receipt
of application shown in the document is 04.04.2011.
However, the document does not contain any seal. It has
been pointed out by the counsel for the Respondent that
throughout there was no case for the petitioner that she
has submitted the application on 28.03.2011 itself but only
that her application is for Maternity Leave for the period
of 3 months from 28.03.2011. WW4 has stated that he has
received the application at the institute on 28.03.2011.
However, he is not the authority to sanction the leave. He
is said to have forwarded the application to the Director.
But Ext.W8(A) which is apparently the application given
by the petitioner does not contain anything to show that
it was received at the office by him on 28.03.2011. The
only date shown in the document is 04.04.2011.
16.
As already stated the case of the Respondent is
that by the time the application of the petitioner reached
the office the period of her contract has expired and her
service has come to an end by afflux of time. According to
the Respondent there was no question of allowing the
application since the petitioner has already ceased to be
an employee of the institution. Ext.M10 is the document
engaging the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk. The
document specifies that the engagement is purely on
temporary basis and is upto 31.03.2011 only. It further
states that she will be entitled to special casual leave at
the rate of 2.5 days for every completed month. She will
not be allowed any Special Casual Leave at any time during
the period of engagement. There is a further condition
that the assignment can be terminated by the Institute
authorities at any time without assigning any reason or
prior notice. The petitioner had accepted the terms and
conditions prescribed in Ext.M10 and has accepted the
engagement as seen from Ext.M11. She has stated in it
specifically that she undertakes to abide by the terms and
conditions as stipulated. She has further stated that she
has understood that the Institute reserves the right to
engage her only for the period her expertise is needed.
17.
The counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the
decision in BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
VS. SALIMBHAI UMARBHAI MANSURI reported in
2013 14 SCC 456 to advance his argument that the case
comes under Section-2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. In the above case that the service of the workman
was terminated on the expiry of the fixed period. The Apex
Court has held that the contract of appointment
consciously entered into by the employer and the employee
4358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
would indicate that the employment is short-lived and the
same is liable to termination on the fixed period mentioned
in the contract of appointment. Section-2(oo)(bb) states
that if termination of the service of the workman is as a
result of non-renewal of the contract between the employer
and the workman on its expiry such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein the same would not constitute retrenchment. In
the present case the petitioner was bound by Ext.M10,
she having acceded to it by Ext.M11. The period of her
contract had expired on 31.03.2011. There is nothing to
show that her application for leave was received at the
office on 28.03.2011 or any date prior to 31.03.2011 on
which date the contract was to expire. So it is to be presumed
that service of the petitioner had ended on expiry of the
period of contract on 31.03.2011 and she has ceased to be
an employee of the Respondent Institute from that date.
18.
Even assuming that the case of the petitioner that
she had applied for Maternity Leave on 28.03.2011 and
was entitled to continue in the Institute in spite of the
specified period mentioned in the contract for employment
she would not be entitled to any relief from this Tribunal
for the reason that the Respondent institute is not an
industry coming under Section-2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the additional Counter Statement the
Respondent has specifically raised a contention that it is
not an industry as defined in Section-2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Respondent has stated that the main
object of the Institute is to do research works relating to
the classical phase of Tamil and the Institute is fully
engaged in research in documenting and preserving
objects and documents relating to the classical phase of
Tamil. The Memorandum of Association of the Institute
which is registered under the Societies Registration Act
of Tamil Nadu is produced by the Respondent. It is stated
that several faculties are established in the Institute to
achieve the aims and objectives. In spite of this, no posts
were sanctioned for the Institute until the year 2010. Rules
were framed for this still later.
19.
MW1, the witness for the Respondent has stated
about the nature of work done at the Institute. He has
spoken about the aims and objects of the Institute also.
He has stated that though some works are published, these
are not sold in public shops but only during certain
exhibitions, etc. WW4 also has stated that books published
by the Institute will not be available in the shops. He has
stated that the books in the Institution used to be sold in
different exhibitions only. He deposed that the object of
the Institute is dissemination of information about classical
Tamil all through the world. Only those persons interested
in Tamil would come and get the books from the Institution.
Thus it is clear that publication of books by the Institute
is only to achieve its aim and objectives. Only the materials
obtained at the Institute by way of research are published
as books. They are not intended to gain any profit for the
Institute.
20.
The counsel for the Respondent has pointed out
with reference to legal pronouncements that the Institute
would not come under the definition of Industry in the
above context. The counsel has referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in PHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Vs. K.G. SHARMA reported in 1997 4 SCC 257 in support
of his argument. The Physical Research Laboratory is an
Institute coming under the Government of India,
Department of Space engaged in pure research in space
science. It was doing research in Astronomy and
Astrophysics, Planetary Atmosphere and Aeronomy, Earth
Sciences and Solar System Studies and Theoretical
Physics. The Apex Court held that it is not directly or
indirectly carrying on any trade or business and its
activities do no result in production or distribution of
goods or services calculated to satisfy human wants and
wishes. The workman in the above case had raised
Industrial Dispute questioning age of his retirement. The
Labour Court has found that the workman is not entitled
to any relief since Physical Research Laboratory is not an
industry and this finding was upheld by the Apex Court.
The counsel for the Respondent has drawn parallels from
the decisions of several High Courts also in support of his
argument. The Allahabad High Court has found in
GANESH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
reported in 1981 LAB I.C. 781 that National Sugar Institute
is not an Industry. The Karnataka High Court has found in
the decision in VIJAY KUMARI PILLAI Vs. THE
MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
reported in 2012 3 LLJ 627 that the Institute is not an
Industry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has found in
PROJECT DIRECTOR Vs. MAMTA SRIVASTAVA reported
in 2005 (4) MPHT 396 that Saksharta Mission and Adult
Educational Program is not an Industry.
21.
Apparently, the Respondent is an Institute
conducting research on Classical Tamil. It is not doing
anything with the object of making profit. Similar
institutions were found to be not Industry by the Apex
Court and different High Courts. The Respondent Institute
also would not come under the definition of Industry. So
in any case the petitioner would not be entitled to any
relief on the basis that she is a workman coming under the
Industrial Disputes Act. For this reason, in any case the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of my discussion above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4359
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Smt. B. Kalpana
Petitioner
WW2, Ms. V.G. Bhooma
WW3, Prof. R. Gnanamoorthy
WW4, Sri K. Ramaswamy
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Dr. M. Muthuvelu
Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
26.06.2009
Community Certificate
Ext.W2
March 2003
10th Mark Statement
Ext.W3
31.12.2007
Appointment Order issued by
the Respondent Institution
and ID Card issued by the
Respondent
Ext.W4
16.05.2008
Transfer Order issued to
petitioner by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W5
19.05.2008
Representation made by the
petitioner to Respondent
Institution
Ext.W6
12.03.2010
Promotion Order and pay
revised
order
by
the
Respondent Institution
Ext.W7
12.11.2010
Pay Revision Order by the
Respondent Institution
Ext.W8
28.03.2011
Representation made by the
petitioner for Medical Leave for
maternity
Ext.W8(A) 28.03.2011
Leave application alongwith
medical certificate received by
the Respondent Institute on
04.04.2011 (original Leave
application has been filed)
Ext.W9
05.07.2011
Medical Certificate and advise
to the petitioner
Ext.W10
22.03.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to Respondent
Institution
Ext.W11
26.03.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W12
26.03.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Governor of
Tamil Nadu
Ext.W13
10.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W14
11.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W15
12.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu
Ext.W16
12.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to Commission for
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled Tribes
Ext.W17
12.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu
Ext.W18
16.04.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to Respondent
Institution
Ext.W19
19.04.2012
Communication from Tamil
Development Department to
the petitioner
Ext.W20
02.05.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the President of
India
Ext.W21
09.05.2012
Communication
from
Commission for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Ext.W22
14.05.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Commission
for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes
Ext.W23
14.05.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Prime Minister
of India
Ext.W24
09.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Respondent
Institution and Others
Ext.W25
09.06.2012
Legal notice sent by the
petitioner to the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W26
12.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Commission
for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes
Ext.W27
12.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu
Ext.W28
12.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Tamil Nadu
Commission for Women
4360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W29
15.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W30
14.09.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W31
20.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Respondent
Institution and Others
Ext.W32
26.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Secretary, HRD
Department, New Delhi
Ext.W33
26.06.2012
Representation made by the
petitioner to the National
Commission for Women
Ext.W34
27.06.2012
Communication sent by the
President of India
Ext.W35
29.06.2012
Reply sent to the petitioner by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W36
07.05.2012
Communication sent to the
Respondent Institution by
Tamil
Development
Department
Ext.W37
28.03.2013
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Chief
Secretary, Tamil Nadu and
Others
Ext.W38
07.06.2013
Reply sent to the petitioner by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W39
20.06.2013
Representation made by the
petitioner to the President of
India
Ext.W40
04.07.2013
Representation made by the
petitioner to the Labour
Department, Chennai
Ext.W41
20.10.2010
Minutes of Governing Board
Ext.W42
28.04.2011
Cumulative
Physical
achievements of the year 2010-
2011
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
26.12.2007
Copy of the resume submitted
by the petitioner
Ext.M2
-
Copy of the mark sheets
submitted by the petitioner
Ext.M3
27.12.2007
Offer made by the Respondent
to the petitioner as Data Input
Operator
Ext.M4
31.12.2007
Acceptance of the petitioner as
Data Input Operator
Ext.M5
04.01.2008
Copy of the Joining Report
Ext.M6
25.06.2010
Letter from MHRD to the
Respondents
Ext.M7
19.08.2011
Copy of the letter from MHRD
to the Respondent
Ext.M8
31.05.2007
Copy of the minimum
qualifications for the post as
Data Input Operator
Ext.M9
16.05.2008
Petitioner and other staff were
transferred to Chennai
Ext.M10
12.03.2010
Engagement of the petitioner
by the Respondent Institution
on contract basis for a fixed
period
(01.04.2010
to
31.03.2011)
Ext.M11
01.04.2010
Accepting the terms and
conditions, petitioner joined
duty
Ext.M12
-
Extract of the Finance
Committee of the Institute
Ext.M13
04.07.2013
Representation made by the
petitioner to ACL
Ext.M14
20.11.2013
Parawise comments submitted
by the Respondent’s Institute
before ACL
Ext.M15
28.11.2013
Conciliation Failure Report
Ext.M16
21.01.2009
Memorandum of Association
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2125-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eækl iQ£VykbtlZ
fyfeVsM] psUubZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 44@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
29@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@91@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 44/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4361
to the management of the Madras Fertilizers Limited,
Chennai and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 29/10/2015.
[No. L-42012/91/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 16th October, 2015
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 44/2014
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Madras Fertilizers Ltd. and their
workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri K.R. Kumaran
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chairman-cum-
: 2nd Party/Respondent
Managing Director
M/s Madras Fertilizers Ltd.
Post Bag No. 2
Manali, Chennai-600068
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: M/s K.M. Ramesh,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s P. Chandrasekhar
& H. Rekha, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/91/2012-IR (DU)
dated 19.05.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management of Madras
Fertilizers Ltd. in terminating Sri K.R. Kumaran from
the service w.e.f. 29.08.2007 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief Sri Kumaran is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 44/2014 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner are as below:
The Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking and
is controlled by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
of the Government of India. The petitioner joined the
service of the Respondent on 07.09.1992 as Technical
Assistant (Trainee). After completion of the training period
he was appointed as technical Assistant in September 1994
and was posted to work in Production Plant Group. The
petitioner was discharging his duties faithfully and
efficiently. The last drawn salary of the petitioner is Rs.
17,000/-. The petitioner had applied for leave for 60 days
on 28.02.2007. He attended duty after 03.03.2007. 4th and
5th of March were weekly off days. The leave application
of the petitioner was not rejected till 03.03.2007. He availed
the leave sought for by him from 06.03.2007. The petitioner
had presumed that his leave has been granted. The
petitioner submitted his resignation on 30.03.2007. On
13.04.2007 the Respondent belatedly issued a letter stating
that the leave sought for by him has been refused and his
resignation has not been accepted. The petitioner was
directed to report for duty. The petitioner sent a letter to
the Respondent on 07.05.2007 requesting to accept the
resignation and relieve him from duty. Thereafter, the
Respondent issued Charge Memo dated 30.05.2007 alleging
that the petitioner has been absent from duty from
07.03.2007 without prior sanction of leave, he had gone
abroad and failed to obtain permission from the competent
authority before leaving the Headquarters, he had
engaged himself in employment of others without proper
relief and he had failed to follow the prescribed rules of
the Company. In spite of the explanation submitted by the
petitioner the Respondent had appointed an Enquiry
Officer and conducted an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer
had sent notice asking the petitioner to appear for enquiry
to be held on 16.07.2007. On receipt of the said notice the
petitioner sent a fax message requesting to postpone the
enquiry. The enquiry was postponed to 31.07.2007. The
enquiry seems to have been adjourned to 02.08.2007 on
which date the petitioner was set ex-parte and the enquiry
was concluded. Thereafter the Respondents sent a Show
Cause Notice stating that the Management had accepted
the report of the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner is to
submit his explanation. As requested by the petitioner he
was asked to appear on 21.08.2007. When the petitioner
went to the Company he found that no enquiry was
conducted in his presence. The petitioner sent a letter to
the General Manager requesting to accept his resignation
and relieve him from service. While the petitioner was
awaiting reply the Management issued an order dated
29.08.2007 terminating his services. The action of the
Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is
illegal and unjustified. The punishment awarded to him is
shockingly disproportionate also. The petitioner is entitled
to be reinstated in service of the Respondent with
backwages, continuity of service and other attendant
benefits.
4362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner was on unauthorized absence since
06.03.2007 and until his dismissal from service. The
Respondent has communicated to the petitioner that since
he had gone abroad without proper approval his
resignation is not accepted and that he should report for
duty immediately. The petitioner did not attend the
domestic enquiry even after several reminders. So the
enquiry had to be conducted ex-parte. The petitioner was
issued with a letter dated 06.08.2007 seeking his explanation
on the report of the Enquiry Officer. Instead of giving
explanation he made a plea to accept his resignation. The
petitioner had joined in a job abroad without proper relief
from the Company. So it is dual employment and therefore
his representation to accept his resignation was not
considered. The petitioner was dismissed from service
following due process of law and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner had willfully
absented himself unauthorizedly from 06.03.2007 till
29.08.2007, the date of his dismissal and thereby has
voluntarily abandoned his employment. The petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The petitioner having contended that the domestic
enquiry by the Respondent was not conducted in a fair
and proper manner the matter was heard as a preliminary
point and was found against the petitioner. So there is no
necessity to consider the issue regarding fairness of
enquiry in the main dispute.
7.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W19.
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating
the petitioner from service w.e.f. 29.08.2007 is legal
and justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?”
The Points
9.
The petitioner who had been employed in the
Madras Fertilizers Ltd., the Respondent submitted a leave
application on 28.02.2007 for leave for 60 days. He left the
establishment even before the leave was sanctioned. He
had worked in the institution upto 03.03.2007. He availed
leave from 06.03.2007 on the basis of his leave application
though his leave was not sanctioned or communicated to
him. It is the case of the petitioner that he sought leave on
the ground that he has been selected for final interview
for a job at Saudi Arabia and that is why he had left on
06.03.2007 itself. According to the petitioner, he presumed
that his leave application has been sanctioned. On
reaching Saudi Arabia, probably because his job there
was confirmed, he sent resignation letter to the Respondent
on 30.03.2007. The Respondent had sent a reply to him on
30.04.2007 stating that the leave sought for by him has
been refused and his resignation could not be accepted.
He was directed to report for duty. However, the petitioner
did not report for duty. He sent another letter to the
Respondent requesting to accept his resignation and
relieve him from service. The Respondent initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, conducted
an enquiry and dismissed him from service. Even though
the petitioner received notice of the Enquiry Officer to
attend the enquiry proceedings, he was seeking
postponement again and again. Ultimately, enquiry was
conducted in his absence and a report was given. On the
basis of the report the Respondent had again asked the
petitioner to submit his explanation regarding the enquiry
report. The petitioner sought for time and wanted the
matter to be posted within some particular dates. The
Respondent obliged and asked him to appear on 21.08.2007.
After hearing him the Respondent dismissed the petitioner
from service.
10.
The petitioner has raised the dispute years after his
dismissal from service on 29.08.2007. The dispute is seen
raised before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner on 04.01.2012
only. Though all along the petitioner had been asking the
Respondent to accept his resignation, in the Claim
Statement the petitioner has claimed the relief of
reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits on holding that his
termination is not legal and justified.
11.
The argument that is advanced on behalf of the
counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has properly
submitted his leave application and the same should have
been accepted. He was under the impression that the same
was accepted. It is further argued by the counsel that the
absence of the petitioner was under compelling
circumstances.
12.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
provisions regarding leave in the Standing Orders of the
Respondent. He has referred to Clause-17.6 of the Standing
Orders which states that application for leave under
Clause-17.5 shall be disposed of within 4 days. According
to the counsel the leave application was not disposed
within the period or any communication given to the
petitioner and he was under the impression that the same
was sanctioned. Clause-17.3 of the Standing Orders states
that a workman who decides to obtain leave of absence
shall apply to the sanctioning authority in advance and
shall not avail of the same before it is actually sanctioned
except in case of extreme emergencies. Again, as per
Clause-17.4 except in an emergency even applications for
leave for three days or less should be made at least
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4363
24 hours prior to the time from which the leave is required.
As per Clause-17.5 applications for leave for more than 3
days should be made at least 7 days before the date from
which the leave is required. As per Clause-17.8 before
proceeding on leave the workman should inform the
Officer-in-Charge of the Section or the department in which
he is employed, of his address during the period of leave.
On reading Clause-17.4 and Clause-17.5 together it can be
seen that the exception in the case of an emergency is
available only for leave for three days or less and not for
leave for more than 3 days. An application for leave for
more than 3 days should necessarily be given at least 7
days before the date from which leave is required. The
petitioner had submitted his leave application on 28.02.2007
which is not in compliance with Clause-17.5 of the Standing
Orders. As seen from this clause the authority should
get at least 7 days before the date from which the workman
is to avail leave. In the case of the petitioner having applied
for leave on 28.02.2007 he left the office on 03.03.2007 and
is said to have left the station itself on 06.03.2007. No doubt
as per Clause-17.6 the application for leave should have
been disposed of within 4 days. The petitioner did not wait
for expiry of even these four days. The petitioner could
have left the station only after sanctioning of leave has
been communicated to him. As seen from Clause-17.2 leave
cannot be sanctioned as of right and can be granted only
after considering the exigencies of work. The sanctioning
authority has the discretion to revise, curtail or revoke leave
at any time according to the requirement of work.
13.
The case of the petitioner is that he was under the
impression that leave was sanctioned and that is why he
has left. Even giving allowance to this assumption on the
part of the petitioner it could be seen that he was informed
in black and white by the Respondent that his leave has
not been sanctioned. This was in response to the letter of
resignation sent by the petitioner to the Respondent. In
the communication the petitioner was asked to report for
duty. But the petitioner has not obliged. He continued
abroad at his place of work. It was when he failed to report
for duty in spite of direction disciplinary proceedings has
been initiated against the petitioner. Even though, the
proceedings was postponed to different dates at the
request of the petitioner, he failed to participate in the
proceedings apparently for the reason that he still remained
abroad and was working there. There was no reason for
the petitioner not to take note of the communication given
by the Respondent that his leave is not sanctioned.
14.
The charges against the petitioner in the disciplinary
proceedings were that he absented from duty w.e.f.
06.03.2007 without prior sanction of leave, he went abroad
and failed to obtain prior permission of the competent
authority before leaving headquarters, he engaged himself
in employment of others without proper relief in violation
of the rules of company and failed to follow the prescribed
rules of the Company and his absence has caused
disruption in the work schedule. The charges for
misconduct were under Clause-23.1 (15), 23.1 (44), 23.1
(63) and 23.1 (69). As per Clause-23.1(15) absence without
permission exceeding 8 consecutive days is a misconduct.
Clause-23.1(44) is to the effect that any act subversive of
discipline of the Company is a misconduct. Clause 23.1
(63) is engaging in self employment or in employment of
others to the detriment of the company. Clause-23.1(69) is
leaving the Headquarters without prior permission of the
Company. Apparently, the petitioner had committed all
these misconducts. Even though an application for leave
was submitted he had left without waiting for sanction of
the leave. There is nothing to show that he had obtained
permission from the authorities to leave the station.
15.
There was sufficient opportunity to the petitioner
to come back and join duty when he was informed that his
leave is not sanctioned. Disregarding this he continued at
his place of work abroad. His only demand at the time was
that his resignation letter should be accepted. Even though
he was informed that it could not be accepted because of
his absence from duty without prior permission, he did
not try to come back or join duty. So it is to be treated as
abandonment of service. The very fact that the petitioner
has raised the dispute only after more than 5 years of his
dismissal also would show that he had abandoned his
service because of his employment abroad. He did not
find time to come back and challenge the proceedings.
16.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision in KRUSHANAKANT B. PARMAR Vs. UNION
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2013 SC (Supp)
42 to support his argument that the absence of the
petitioner was under compelling circumstances. In the
above case the Apex Court has found that if the absence
from duty was the result of compelling circumstances under
which it was not possible to report or perform duty such
absence cannot be held to be willful. The absence of the
petitioner cannot be said to be the result of compelling
circumstances. His continuing in his job abroad could
never be taken as a compelling circumstances for his
absence from duty. On the other hand it would only show
that he had abandoned his position in the Respondent
establishment. He demand was only acceptance of
resignation which would also show that he had abandoned
the job and had no intention to rejoin the service of the
Respondent. So the present request of the petitioner to be
reinstated in service could not be acceded to in any case.
The petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the
circumstances.
17.
In view of my discussion above, the reference is
answered against the petitioner. An award is passed
accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
4364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri K.R. Kumaran
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
None
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
18.02.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager,
P&A
of
the
Respondent
Ext.W2
30.03.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager,
P&A
of
the
Respondent.
Ext.W3
13.04.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Respondent to the Petitioner
Ext.W4
07.05.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager,
P&A
of
the
Respondent
Ext.W5
30.05.2007
Xerox copy of charge memo
issued to the petitioner
Ext.W6
02.07.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager,
P&A
of
the
Respondent
appointing
enquiry officer and presenting
officer
Ext.W7
09.07.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
enquiry officer to the petitioner
Ext.W8
16.07.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
petitioner to the enquiry Officer
Ext.W9
16.07.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
enquiry officer to the
petitioner.
Ext.W10
02.08.2007
Xerox copy of the enquiry
report
Ext.W11
06.08.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
General Manager, (P&A) of the
Respondent enclosing enquiry
report
Ext.W12
11.08.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager
P&A
of
the
Respondent
Ext.W13
14.08.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
General Manager, P&A of the
Respondent to the petitioner
Ext.W14
21.08.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the General
Manager
P&A
of
the
Respondent
Ext.W15
29.08.2007
Xerox copy of the order issued
by the General Manager
(P&A) of the Respondent
imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service against
the petitioner
Ext.W16
13.09.2007
Xerox copy of letter from
Petitioner to the Respondent
Ext.W17
28.11.2011
Xerox copy of letter from
Deputy General Manager
(P&A) of the Respondent to
Under
Secretary
to
Government, Department of
Chemicals and Fertilizers, New
Delhi
Ext.W18
04.01.2012
Xerox copy of the petition filed
by the Petitioner before the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Chennai-9
Ext.W19
18.01.2012
Xerox copy of the remarks filed
by the Respondent before the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner
(Central), Chennai
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ izdk'k
dalVªD'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
19@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
30-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@10@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2015)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4365
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Prakash Construction and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 30-10-2015.
[No. L-30012/10/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present :
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.19/2015
Registered on 18.5.2015
Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahender Ram,
Village-Munak Dera, 6 Hazara Pul,
Post-Munak, Distt.Karnal
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Prakash Construction,
House No.1069-P, Sector-13-17,
HUDA, Panipat, Haryana
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
Workman ex parte
Management
:
Sh. Vikram Kumar
AWARD
Passed on:-28.9.2015
Vide Order No. L-30012/10/2015-IR(M), dated
27.4.2015 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Prakash Construction in terminating the services of
Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Mahender Ram w.e.f. 25.7.2014
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to and from which date?”
A notice was sent to the workman who appeared in
person, but did not come present on 3.9.2015. A letter was
received in this office on 1.9.2015 on behalf of the workman
in which he stated to withdraw the case as he affected
compromise. In view of his letter, the matter stand
compromised.
Since the matter has been compromised between
the parties, the reference is answered against the workman
and he is not entitled to any relief in this reference. A copy
of the award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykbZiQ
ba';ksjsal dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kkuh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 46@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 30-10-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17025@5@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2015)
of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life
Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30-10-2015.
[No. L-17025/5/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present :
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
Thursday, on this the 1st day of October, 2015
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46 OF 2015
Between:
Smt. Mary Grace, W/o. Jagadishwar,
Aged 45 years, R/o.H.No.25-6-341,
Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal District,
Temporarily came down to Peddapalli
V/o. Peddapalli Mandal,
Karimnagar District
...Petitioner.
-And-
1.
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Peddapalli.
4366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
near Tower Circle, Karimnagar.
3.
The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
South Central Zone, Zonal Office,
Secretariat Road, Saifabad,
Hyderabad.
4.
The Chairman, Central Office,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Yogaskhema Jeevan Bharathi,
Post Box No.19953, Bombay
...Respondents
This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before
me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha
Rao & Smt. S.V. Ramadevi, Advocates, for the petitioner
and no representation for the respondents, and the matter
having stood over before me for consideration till this
date, the Court passed the following:-
AWARD
1.
The averments of the petition in brief are that the
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in Mancherial
Branch by the Divisional Manager, LIC Karimnagar on
19-1-1996. The petitioner was paid salary of Rs.3,000/- per
month. Petitioner worked 2 years in Mancherial Branch,
7 years in Huzurabad Branch and 4 years in Narsampet
Branch. In the year 2009, the petitioner was transferred to
Peddapalli Branch at her request. Unfortunately the
petitioner used to absent due to her personal problems at
her house and also due to the health problems of her son
and her ill health. The husband of the petitioner used to
beat the petitioner and her children in a drunken condition.
2.
The petitioner was foisted a false charge of
absenteeism in the year 2009 duly issuing a charge sheet
dt. 8-12-2009 and also issued show cause notice dt. 23-2-2010
and she was terminated from service on 22-3-2010. The
charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows:-
CHARGES:-
(i)
That you have absented yourself from your office
duties in an un-authorized manner on 30-4-2009,
27-5-2009 to 29-5-2009 and 18-9-2009 to 19-9-2009,
24-9-2009 without any leave and information to
the officer.
(ii)
That you have been again continuously absenting
yourself from your office duties in an
unauthorized manner since 30-9-2009 without any
leave and intimation to the office in writing.
(iii)
That you have been sent a letter dt. Nil seeking
sick leave without enclosing the necessary
Medical certificate and without mentioning the
period of leave required, which is not valid.
(iv)
That for the letters dt. 8-10-2009, 21-10-2009,
29-10-2009 addressed to you by the Branch that
was sent to you by Regd. Post Ack., due, you
have neither replied nor resumed to duties.
(v)
That a letter dt.21-10-2009 addressed to you was
sent by Regd.Post informing your unauthorized
absence on 30-4-2009, 27-5-2009 to 29-5-2009,
18-9-2009 to 19-9-2009, 24-9-2009, 30-9-2009
onwards and directing you to appear before
Dr. D.C.Thirupathi Rao, Divisional Medical
Referee for medical examination was not
responded by you.
(vi)
That one more letter dt. 3-11-2009 addressed to
you to appear before Medical examiner and
instructions thereof which was sent by Regd.
Post. Ack., due, to your two addresses available
with us was not complied with. One letter sent to
Peddapalli address was returned undelivered by
postal authorities mentioning that you are not
staying in the address and another letter sent to
Kazipet was delivered. However you have neither
replied nor resumed to duties as directed.
(vii)
That you thus, continued to remain
unauthorisedly absent from office duties from
30-9-2009 onwards in breach of Regulations 21,
24, 30(1) & (2) of the LIC of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 for which act of misconduct
any one or more of the penalties specified under
Regulation 39(1)(a) to (g) of the aforesaid (staff)
Regulations can be imposed on you.
3.
The petitioner did not receive charge memo, charge
sheet, enquiry reports and removal order. The respondents
conducted exparte enquiry into the charges behind back
of the petitioner without supplying any documents and
also without paying any subsistence allowance. The
petitioner is suffering a lot of economical difficulties ever
since the date of her termination. Therefore, the petitioner
prays to direct the respondents to reinstate her into service
with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with full
back wages.
4.
The respondents have not filed counter and there is
no representation on their behalf on 28-9-2015.
5.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6.
On behalf of the petitioner, Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-9 are
marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the
respondents.
7.
Counsel for the petitioner filed Memo U/sec.11-A of
ID Act stating that the petitioner is not disputing the
validity of domestic enquiry and to decide the matter on
the gravity of charges.
8.
Now the point for consideration is:-
“Whether the punishment of removal from service
is justified?
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4367
9.
Point :
Letter dt.11-1-1996 under Ex.W-1 shows the
petitioner was selected as “Assistant” and allotted to
Karimnagar Division by the respondents’ LIC. Order dt.
9-9-1996 under Ex.W-2 shows that the petitioner was
confirmed as Assistant. Charge sheet is marked as Ex.W-3
and it is seen that the petitioner did not give any
explanation thereto. It shows the petitioner absented to
duties unauthorisedly without any leave or intimation on
30-4-2009, 27-5-2009 to 29-5-2009, 18-9-2009, 19-9-2009,
24-9-2009 and from 30-9-2009 onwards; and she did not
appear before the doctor for medical examination as per
the letters dt.21-10-2009 and 3-11-2009; and that she
continued to remain unauthorisedly absented to her duties,
Show cause notice dt.23-2-2010 under Ex.W-4 shows that
there is no response from the petitioner and that enquiry
was conducted exparte on 28-1-2010 and that the charges
were proved against the petitioner. There is also no
response from the petitioner and she did not reply to any
letters of the corporation since 8-10-2009. Petitioner was
required to show cause within 15 days as to why penalty
of removal from service may not be imposed on her. Finally
petitioner was removed from service by order dt.22-3-2010
marked as Ex.W-9. Appeals dt.3-10-2012 and 1-2-2015 are
marked as Ex.W-6 & W-7.
10.
Admittedly the petitioner having been selected and
appointed as “Assistant” in January 1996, worked for more
than 12 years. Petitioner did not submit any explanation
to the charge sheet and she did not participate in the
enquiry. Hence it cannot be said that initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings by the respondents was uncalled
for. However, taking into consideration the service of the
petitioner for 12 years, proportionality of punishment has
to be considered, particularly when the Industrial Disputes
Act is a social welfare legislation.
11.
Further it is seen that the petitioner was imposed
with the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage by
order dt.28-9-2006 and reduction in basic pay by two stages
by order dt.17-2-2009, as per Ex.W-4 show cause notice.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that imposing
stern punishment on the petitioner is required, other than
capital punishment of removal from service. In a decision
reported in 1982 LAB.IC.1031 BETWEEN: R.M., PARMAR
VRS., GUJARATH ELECTRICITY BOARD, it was held that
the length of service based on good record and the socio
economic condition of the delinquent workman are
considerations which should weigh with the Tribunal while
exercising discretion.
12.
It is true that there is delay on the point of petitioner
in approaching this court. As the petitioner put up service
of more than 12 years, this Tribunal is constrained to set
aside the removal order, by imposing stern punishment so
that she may not repeat the lapse in future and mend
herself. Therefore, I hold that reinstatement of the
petitioner into service as “afresh Assistant” would meet
the ends of justice. Accordingly, the removal order dt.
22-3-2010 under Ex.W-9 is set aside. The petitioner is not
entitled to any continuity of service, attendant benefits
and back wages.
13.
In the result, the order of removal dt.22-03-2010
marked as Ex.W-9 is set aside. The respondents are hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner into services as “afresh
Assistant” within (30) days from the date of publication
of this Award. The petitioner is not entitled to any
continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages.
SRI G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-
Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Workman :
For Management :
-Nil-
-Nil-
E X H I B I T S
For workman :
Ex.W-1
Dt. 11-01-1996
Appointment order issued to
the petitioner as Assistant by
the General Secretary
Ex.W-2
Dt. 09-09-1996
Confirmation letter issued to
the petitioner by Sr.Divisional
Manager
Ex.W-3
Dt. 08-12-2009
Charge sheet
Ex.W-4
Dt. 23-02-2010
Show cause notice
Ex.W-5
Dt. 03-10-2012
Appeal submitted to the
Divisional Manager, LIC of
India, Karimnagar Division.
Ex.W-6
Dt. 01-02-2015
Demand letter submitted to
respondent
Ex.W-7
Dt. 04-02-2015
Postal receipts 2 Nos.
Ex.W-8
Dt. 09-10-2012/
Postal Acks., 2 Nos.
09-02-2015
Ex.W-9
Dt. 22-03-2010
Removal order
For Management :
-Nil-
'kqf¼i=k
ubZ fnYyh] 2 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
4368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] iVuk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ Mh ua- 03 (lh)@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@07@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2015
S.O. 2128.—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. 03(C)
of 2011) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 06/07/2015.
[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Industrial Dispute Case No.:- 03 (C) of 2011
Between
The management of Chief General Manager, State Bank of
India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-
800001/The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Khanjarpur, At & P.O.- Bhagalpur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
and
Their workman Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad, S/o- Late Bhola
Mandal, Vill- Durgasthan Tilakpur, P.O.- Tilakpur, P.S-
Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur,Bihar.
For the workman
:
Shri B. Prasad, General
Secretary, Bank Employees
Federation, Bihar.
For the management
:
Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha,
Branch Manager, ADB,
Ghogha, Bhagalpur.
Present :
Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 22nd June, 2015
This case has been filed u/s- 2A (1) & (2) of the
Industrial Disputes ( Amendment ) Act,2010. Over denial
of regularization of the services as a messenger/peon and
wrongfull termination from services of a temporary
Messenger / Peon w.e.f. 06.03.2009 while working at State
Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Ghogha,
Dist.- Bhagalpur.
2.
The statement of claim of workman Sri Shashi
Bhushan Prasad is that he has raised an Industrial Dispute
before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Patna against
his termination from services of the bank w.e.f. 06.03.2009.
Dispute has been raised on 19.06.2009. Conciliation
proceedings ended in failure on 27.08.2010. Dispute has
been raised within stipulated period and that remained
pending over an year with no solution. Workman preferred
an application under the following terms:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Ghogha Branch in denying
regularization of services of sri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad as a Messenger/ Peon and terminating his
services in violation of section-25F of the I.D.Act,
is legal and justified? If not, what relief (S) the
workman is entitled to?”
The facts of the case is that workman was appointed
by the management of State Bank of India to discharge
the duties of a messenger/peon w.e.f. 30.04.2000. He
discharged his duties:-
(i) Taking out Register from Almirah and placing
the same on table /counters;
(ii) Preparation and posting of mails to post office,
(iii) Distribution of notices relating to loans/
recovery etc. to parties through peon’s book.
(iv) To accompany the Recovery Team during the
course of recovery of loans;
(v) To accompany the bank officers to Lok Adalat
camps;
(vi) Filing of letters/ circular and arrangement of
stationary;
(vii) Brining stationary article from the Branches/
officers;
(viii) Serving water, tea to the members of staff and
customers;
(ix) Other sundry jobs of a Messenger/ Peons;
He used to work on 10 A.M to 6 P.M regularly and
same times even beyond that as per requirement of the
Bank. He was initially paid wages @ Rs. 15/- per day which
was raised to @ Rs. 25/- , Rs. 40/- and lastly Rs. 50/- per
day. Payment was made through vouchers. He used to
discharge all the duties as per the instruction of the Branch
manager and other superior officials of the Bank. He
worked from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009. His services stand
terminated. As usual he went to discharge of duties on the
following day, he was stopped from working and was again
informed of termination of his services from evening of
06.03.2009. He was neither given any notice pay nor
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4369
retrenchment compensation preceeding his termination.
He was paid his wages regularly from 30.04.2000 to
31.08.2008 and on 01.09.2008, he was instructed by the
authority to take payment in different names to which he
did not agree. He was not made payment of his wages
from 01.09.2008 to 06.03.2009. His duties were perennial in
nature. He used to perform some clerical duties as per
instruction of the management from time to time. His duties
were identical with other permanent staff of the Bank. The
termination of the workman is covered u/s-2(oo) of the
I.D.Act, 1947. After termination he is facing starvation as
he has no any alternative means of livelihood. Action of
the management is not considering regularization but
terminating the services of the workman is neither legal
nor justified.
(i) The management violated the mandatory
provisions as contained in section-25F of the
I.D. Act.
(ii) Management being a public sector Bank and a
‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the
India Constitution resorted to unfair Labour
Practice as per Schedule V of the I.D.Act.
(iii) Management failed to follow the principle of
‘Equal pay for Equal work’ as per Acticle 39 (d)
of the Indian Constitution.
(iv) Management has violated section 25(H) of the
I.D.Act.
Letter dt-25.11.2010 sent by Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Patna to the Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi indicates that conciliation
proceeding ended in failure on 27.08.2010.
3.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of the
Bank (Management) stating therein application filed by
the claimant u/s-2A (1) & (2) of the amended I.D.Act, 2010
is neither maintainable in law nor on fact. It is not a case
where an Industrial Dispute has been referred under
section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act, 1947 mentioning therein
any term of reference. It has been stated that Shri Shashi
Bhushan Prasad has filed the application under reply under
section- 2A (1) & (2) of the I.D.Act as amended by Act
No.24 of 2010. Bank in this regards raised certain
preliminary question relating to the maintainability of the
reference in the present form, but as it appears that no
order rejecting the contentions rose by the Bank therein
has been passed. The term of reference has been framed
by the workman himself. Under the Industrial Disputes
Act, it is only the appropriate government which is
competent to frame the term of reference. The amendment
does not seize or supersede the powers of the appropriate
government conferred under section 10 of the Act. The
term of reference as framed by the workman is not only
illegal but also contradictory. Section 2A (1) & (2) of the
Industrial Dispute act is confined to termination of service
and not regularization in service. These two issue are quite
different. If the complete term of reference is read as it
cannot be an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the
I.D.Act. Dispute raised by an individual for regularization
is not an Industrial Dispute. Selection tests required for
regularization in service are quite different and various
factors are required to be considered which has no bearing
with the termination of service. It is submitted both the
issues cannot be decided in the same proceeding. The
conciliation officer is a necessary party and the learned
Tribunal should hear his views also as he has dealt with
the dispute. The person has been filed a writ application
before the Patna High Court bearing C.W.J.C No.:- 5287 of
2009 which was dismissed by order dated 27.04.2009 in
which the Hon’ble High Court held the person concerned
is a daily wager who holds no regular/permanent post.
It has been further submitted that the concerned
person was engaged as and when exigencies of work arose
on daily basis and whenever work was taken from him, he
was paid his wages as agreed between the parties. He has
performed works in the SBI, ADB Ghogha, Bhagalpur as
and when instruction was given by the Branch Manager.
It is submitted that his claim that he had worked since
30.04.2000 till August,2008 continuously, is totally baseless
and denied. His claim that he had also worked 240 days in
every calendar year in also incorrect.
The Bank has its own rules of recruitment for
appointment of subordinate cadre staff satisfying the
requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. He was not issued any appointment letter even to
work as temporary staff. His engagement was purely as a
casual worker on daily wages engaged as and when
required. Payment were made to him through petty cash
which means payment against some expenses which are
in petty nature and that cannot be termed as regular
payment of wage or other benefit. He used to discharge
his duties on the days he was engaged on the instruction
of the Branch Manager. Such discharge of duties were of
casual nature and it cannot be said to be permanent and /
or perennial in nature to discharge regular duties. Regular
appointments are made who work as regular staff of the
Bank. Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad was fully aware of the
fact that the Bank has its own rules of recruitment and his
casual engagement as daily wager as and when required,
was not in compliance of the rules of recruitment of the
Bank. During the whole period of his work as claimed by
him, never demanded for his regularization in service. It is
only when he could not get any engagement from the
Bank even as casual daily wager, he started demanding
regularization. Neither any vacancy was advertised nor
any requisition to the Employment Exchange was sent
nor the Branch Manager had any power to appoint
subordinate staff. His engagement was totally non-est.
The Bank is legally bound to follow of the equality in
compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
4370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
India in the matter of appointment. Merely because a daily
wager as such a temporary employee is continued for a
long time he would not be entitled to absorbed in service
or made permanent. His claim that he had worked from
2000 to 2008 and that too continuously is wholly baseless.
In this contest reference has been made about the decision
of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ 2004(4) SCCI ] has
been mentioned. Other decision and also been mentioned
and it has been hold that “the appointment made in total
disregard to the constitutional scheme as also the
recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is state
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, the recruitment would be illegal one.” An illegal
appointment cannot be legalized by taking recourse to
regularization. Vide order dated- 27.04.2009 in case of
C.W.J.C No.:- 5287 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, the
Hon’ble High Court has held that person concerned is a
daily wager. As there is no provision in the Bank of
regularization of a daily wager, the person concern cannot
be regularized. Engagement of Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad
as daily wager is illegal. He submitted that a school transfer
certificate dated-26.07.2006 from Government High School.
In that certificate his date of birth has been shown to be
31.03.1988. He has claimed that he has started working in
the Bank from April, 2000. Therefore, in April 2000 he was
merely a child of about 12 years. Engagement of a 12 years
child in the Bank, even as casual daily wager, was nothing
but an impossibility and illegal. Comment has been made
about the statement made by the Shri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad.
4.
Rejoinder to the written statement of the Bank has
been filed mainly stating that workman on worked for
morethan 240 days in 12 calendar months as per section-
25B of the I.D.Act. The retrenchment has been covered
u/s – 2 (oo) of the I.D.Act. Management violated the
provision of section-25F of the I.D.Act. It is also been
stated that the services of workman were utilised as a
radice workman for over 8 years. He discharged the duties
of a messenger from 30.04.2000 to 06.09.2000 uninterruptly.
5.
Management of SBI has also filed a petition dated-
03.05.2011 raising question of maintainability and further
steps in the aforesaid case.
Mentioned objection has been raised that
application was filed u/s 2A (1) and (2) of the I.D.Act
which has been added vide Industrial dispute
(Amendment) Act, 2010. A Gazette notification which
brought amendment in to force, has not been annexed
with the application. In this contest when the amendment
has been made then there is no need to file Gazette
notification became amendment has already got statutory
force. Other objection has been made that amendment act
is not enforceable unless Industrial Dispute ( C ) rules are
accordingly amended or separate rules are framed. This
petition has got no force itself and is accordingly rejected.
6.
A petition dated- 04.08.2014 was filed on behalf of
the workman, Shashi Bhushan Prasad stating therein that
dispute has been referred for adjudication by Ministry of
Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide order No.- L-12012/
102 / 2010 – IR (B-1) dated- 26.05.2011 before the Hon’ble
CGIT No – 1 Dhanbad. Workman was not in a position to
bear the travelling expenses for attending the proceedings
at Dhanbad, an I.D.Case was filed before the Hon’ble
Industrial Tribunal, Patna as per the provisions of
Section 2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment)
Act, 2010.
7.
It is also appears that the dispute was referred for
adjudication “Whether the action of the management of
State Bank of India, Patna in terminating Shri Shashi
Bhushan Prasad, S/O Shri Bhola Mandal from service with
effect from 06.03.2009, is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled?”
It appears that award was passed stating therein
that on 30th Novemebr, 2011. Registered letter duly signed
by Shashi Bhushan Prasad was received that the same
case has been already filed before the Industrial Tribunal,
Patna under the provision of 2A (1) & (2) of Industrial
Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010. In the same has been
registered as I.D.Case No.- 3(C) of 2011 and the same is
pending for the adjudication. In such circumstances he
has prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw case before
this tribunal. In view of such prayer Tribunal passed no
dispute award which was already notified on 08.12.2011.
From this it appears that matter has not been adjudicated
earlier.
8.
Workman has examined only one witness W.W-1
Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad who has stated in his evidence
that he worked in SBI Branch Ghogha, Bhaglpur on the
post of messenger / peon from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 on
daily wages. He worked like taking out of ledger, cash box,
peon register and going to post office, bringing stationary
etc. He used to serve notice in villages. He used to served
water to the staffs. He worked from 10 A.M to 5.30 P.M. In
the begining he got Rs 15/- per day. Which was inhanced
to Rs. 50/- per day.
Payment was made to him from petty cash, he
worked like permanent messenger. He worked for 240
days regularly in one calendar year. He has filed details of
his working. Duly signed by him which has been marked
as Ext.-W/4.
He has also proved Ext.-W/5 which is in respect of
the payment of Rs. 890/- paid to him by Vishwajeet Kumar
the then Branch Manager. He has also proved Ext.–W/6
online statement print of Rs. 890/- in his name. He has also
proved Ext.–W/7 letter dated- 04.10.2005 signed by Chief
Officer of SBI, ADB, Ghogha Branch Bhagalpur by
Janardhan Prasad Pandey, addres to Branch Manager
State Bank of India, ADB, Ghogha Branch.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4371
He has also been proved Ext.-W/8 letter dt-
04.08.2005 signed by Janardhan Prasad Pandey and
addressed to Branch Manager stated Bank of India, ADB,
Ghogh.
He has also proved Ext.-W/9 the letter dt- 02.12.2008
given to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for bringing K.V.P.
payment. Similarily Ext.-W/10 is letter dt-08.11.2008 to bring
payment of N.S.C signed by Ajit Vishal incharge Branch
Manager. Ext.-W/11 is the letter dated-03.10.2002 signed
by Rabindra Kumar Pandey Branch Manager and Ext.-W/
12 is letter dt- 15.12.206 signed by Branch Manager to the
Secretary Special Lok Adalat, Bhagalpur. Ext.-W/13 series
is description of payment of wages for working of records.
He further stated that voucher was prepared for
payment of his work and he has proved photo stat of 64
pages for the period 31.12.2006 to 31.12.2007. Further
payment was made through register it has been marked as
Ext.-W/14 with objection. There is sign on payment
voucher and also sign of the then Branch Manager
Sri Anil Kumar Ambastha, Anil Kumar Singh marked as
Ext.- W/15. He has also proved Bank circular dated-
02.01.2003 and 23.12.2002 marked as Ext.- W/16 and Ext.-
W/16-A with objection and Ext.-W/17 with objection and
stated that according to circular the Branch Manager has
sent letter to the Zonal Office, letter no.- 21/178 dated-
21.03.2003 marked as Ext.-W/18. He has also stated that
his date of birth is 05.09.1981 but by mistake he submitted
in the bank his date of birth is 31.03.1988. Prior retrenchment
no notice or compensation was made to him.
In cross-examination he stated that he filed Ext.- W/
14. Payment was made to him for serving water. Ext.- W/14
at page 11 is letter to cheque collectiion which was given
to him for depositing in another branch. He also identified
Ext.-W/14 page 12 which was of 31st March, in respect of
closing report. There is initial at page 12 of Ext.- W/14 of
Manoj Kumar Singh. There is not his signature on Ext.W/
14 at page 12 but one of its copy is Bank office which bear
his signature. Payment was made to him on the same date
when he served water. He used to daily for serving water.
Bank has never told him not to serve the water. He further
stated that Ext.- W/16, A page 66 is the circular for
temporary appointment. Ext.- W/17 page 68 is the circular
in respect of appointment of temporary employee who
completed 240 days. Ext.-W/6 relates to crediting of
Rs. 890/- for distributing letter in villages. Ext.-W/9 is the
letter of the bank for K.V.P. which was extra work done by
him and no separate payment was made to him. A single
payment he used to do all the workers.
He denied that he never worked for 240 days. He
did all the worker as done by permanent messenger. He
does not remember the name of messenger of that time.
On recall in further examination-in-chief he stated
that Ghogha Branch, of the Bank Janardhan Prasad Pandey
was cash officer. In certificate of date of birth was year-
1981 and in another certificate of School Living Certificate
by mistake year 1988 has been mentioned which was later
on corrected. He regularly worked for 240 days.
In cross-examination he stated that it is wrong to
say that he himself left to going in the bank. He also denied
that he was called in Bank on the day but work in bank and
he called for that he daily used to go to bank.
9.
18 documents has been exhibited on behalf of the
workman. One document marked X-for identification which
is School Transfer Certificate of Shashi Bhushan Prasad
dt- 26.07.2006 and date of birth is 05.09.1981 which is also
written in the word.
Ext.-W/1 is the letter sent by Branch Manager which
is reminder letter for advising facts of instrument (s)
forwarded to Munger Branch for collection. In which
signature of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested
by Branch Manager. This is dated 23.02.2007.
Ext.- W/2 is the letter dated 10.03.2006 for supply of
stationary. Letter was sent to Branch SBI Zonal stationary
department Bhagalpur. This leltter bears attention of
signature of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
Ext.-W/3 is also for delivery for some items. This
letter was sent by Branch Manager to Manager Regional
and stationary department Bhagalpur. In this letter
signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad been also attested.
Ext.-W/4 is chart signed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad
stating his working days from the year 2002 to year 2009,
in year 2000 he worked for 196 days and from the year 2001
to the year 2008 he worked for more than 240 days in each
year and till March, 2009 he worked for 57 days.
Ext.-W/5 is the receipt signed by Shashi Bhushan
Prasad in regard to payment of bill of Rs. 890/- on 01.10.2005.
Ext.-W/6 is the computer print in respect of above
payment.
Ext.-W/7 is the letter sent to Branch Manager, SBI,
ADB, Ghogha Branch by Janardhan Prasad Pandey cash
officer in which it has been stated that Sri Shashai Bhushan
Prasad has been working at this branch from 30.04.2000 as
daily wages worker. Payment in petty cach book has always
been segregated in labour charges column.
Ext.-W/8 is also letter sent by Janardhan Prasad
Pandey cash officer SBI, Bhagalpur to the Branch Manager
SBI, ADB, Ghogha stating therein that Shashi Bhushan
Prasad has been working at this Branch from 30.04.2000 as
daily wages.
Ext.-W/9 is the letter sent for payment of K.V.P.
infavour of Branch Manager, SBI Ghogha and signature
of Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
Ext.-W/10 is the letter sent to SBI, ADB, Ghogha by
Branch Manager in respect of submits the mentioned N.S.C.
4372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for payment infavour of Branch Manager. Signature of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
Ext.-W/11 is the also letter sent to SBI ADB Ghogha
for personal attention in the subject mentioned, in this
signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad is also attested.
Ext.-W/12 is the letter sent to the Secretary Special
Lok Adalat by ADB Ghogha in which in respect of details
of certificate cases Borrowers.
Ext.-W/13, W/13-1 to W/13-20 series is the receipt
of payment to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for working of in
respect of working in record room etc.
Ext. W/14 & W/15 series is the same 64 pages are in
receipt of payment of serving water from Novemebr, 2006
to 31.12.2007.
Ext.- W/16 is the photo stat copy of Local Head
Office of letter in respect of letter dated- 2nd January, 2003
in respect of sub-ordinate temporary employee.
Ext.- W/16-A is letter dated- 23.12.2002 in this letter
it has been stated that in terms of extant instructions,
temporary employment in the sub-ordinate cadre is strictly
prohibited and it has been observed that inspite of our
unquivocal instruction many branches / office have
engaged workmen or continued to engage the temporary
employees who worked prior to 1997 in the subordinate
cadre on temporary basis. It has also been observed that,
in many branches / offices, whenever a need arises for the
services for watch and ward staff to fill temporary
vacancies, instead of seeking fresh names of candidates
from Zila Sainik Board, services of ex-temporary watchman
are utilised and these workmen are allowed to exceed the
minimum number of day. Required for becoming protected
employees under the I.D.Act,1947 resulting in legal
complications for the Bank. Such action is highly irregular
and should be avoided at all costs. Similar situation may
be obtaining in the category of messengers / sweeper also.
Para-3 in order to enable us to assess the gravity of
the situation, please furnish the following information/
particulars:-
(i) How many temporary daily wage employees
have completed 240 days service in a calendar
year or any continuous period of 12 calendar
months at branches and offices under your
control as on 30.09.2002.
(ii) Details of month-wise and year wise temporary/
daily wage service in each case.
(iii) A statement indicating their names as well as
rank in terms of the qualifying temporary service
( aggregate ) daily wage service put in as on
30.09.2002.
Ext.- W/17 is dated- 22.05.2002 in respect of
absorption of temporoary employee in bank permanent
service of all such employees who have put in more than
240 days continuous service in terms of section 25(B) of
the I.D.Act.
Ext.- W/18 is details of temporary employees sent
by Branch Manager to Asst. General Manager, reason
Bhagalpur. It appears that name of Shashi Bhushan Prasad
has been mentioned in the above mentioned report and it
has been stated that he is working since 30.04.2000 as
water boy.
10.
Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the management. M.W-1 Sri Anil Kumar Singh, M.W-2 Sri
Shambhu Prasad Srivastava, and M.W-3 Sri Ajay Kumar.
M.W-1 Anil Kumar Singh in his examination-in-chief
on affidavit as stated that he was posted at State Bank of
India, ADB, Ghogha branch from August-2007 to
Septemebr, 2008 as branch manager. He is acquainted with
Sri Shashai Bhushan Prasad. He worked on totally
temporary basis at daily wager when required. He has not
worked regularly. Further he has stated that case has filed
is not maintainable. Order has been not been passed in
this case the objection made in written statement. The
case has not been referred to this tribunal by the Govt. of
India. Claim for regularisation for service is wrong. Shashai
Bhushan Prasad has filed C.W.J.C No.:- 2587 of 2009 which
was dismissed vide order dated- 27.04.2009 clearly stating
that workman is daily wager worker and he has no right for
regularisation. When there was need Shashi Bhushan
Prasad worked as daily wager worker and the wages was
fixed and was paid to him at the time of receiving payment
but never raised dispute for being regular or permanent. It
is wrong to say that he worked each year from 30.04.2000
to 06.03.2009 for morethan 240 days in each year. He was
terminated on 06.03.2009. He has not filed any
authenticated documents that he worked morethan 240
days. He has filed photo stat petty cash book which is
maintained for payment of wages of daily wager worker.
There is rules for employment in of subordinate cadre in
Bank. Bank has not issued any appointment letter to him.
He worked as and when required and payment was made
to petty cash book. He worked as per order of branch
manager as casual nature. No work was taken from him as
regular nature. Mainly he worked as water boys. Seldem
other work was taken from him and payment was made at
fixed rate. He seldem distributed letter of bank. In case of
vacancies, it is informed to the employment exchange
after arrival of candidates regular appointment is made.
Certificate of bank officer is not recognized according to
the rules of bank. Any officer or branch manager of office
has no power to give such certificate. There is no provision
to regularise daily wager worker, who worked for long
period. Appointment of subordinate staff was used to be
done according to the seniority from panel. Now any
appointment has not been done since several years. Shashi
Bhushan Prasad has filed transfer certificate of Govt. High
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4373
School in which date of birth has been mentioned on
31.03.1988 and he claimed that he is working since April-
2000, it means that at the time he was aged of 12 years.
Taking working from such boy is not possible and is illegal.
It is wrong to say that his service has been terminated and
no compensation has been made to him u/s- 25(F) of the
I.D. Act,1947. He was not entitled to any compensation or
notice. Management has not terminated his service and
the when required work was taken from him and now there
is no need to his work. Chart of working filed by the
workman is totally wrong and baseless and the documents
does not indicates that preceeding 12 month’s from
termination he worked for 240 days. It is his responsibility
to prove that in preceeding 12 months he worked for
morethan 240 days. Other statement of the workman has
been denied. It is wrong to say that he worked from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 regularly. Management has never
terminated him and he is not entitled for equal pay for
equal work, which is given to regular employee. Bank never
did unfair labour practice. This witness as exhibited photo
stat of petty cash book. He further stated that claim of
workman is baseless.
In cross-examination he has stated that he was
posted at ADB, Ghogha from August-2007 to September,
2008. He does not know first working day and last working
day of Shashi Bhushan Prasad. He was not paid regularily
on daily, weekly or monthly basis. Rather he used to submit
bill after two month and two and half month and then
payment was made. During the working day of this witness
payment was made @ 50% per day for work he did on the
respective day. He does not know he Shasshi Bhushan
Prasad had not worked 240 days in preceeding one year.
He has worked less than 240 days. He could not say that
how many days he worked preceeding one year from
06.03.2009 and that working day is how much less than
240 days. In calculation of 240 day’s he has not included
sunday, leave days and 11 days of casual leave. In bank
record will be available of the payment made to him. He
does not know that branch manager has asked for school
leaving certificate which was submitted by the workman.
After seeing the school transfer certificate which has been
marked as X- for identification. This witness submitted
that this certificate was not produced in the bank rather
another certificate was produced which was defective and
photo stat of that certificate has been filed by the bank.
Certificate was filed by preceeding branch manager which
was defective. When Shashi Bhushan Prasad was sent
outside for distributing letter then travelling expences was
paid to him. Witness further stated that one Janardhan
Prasad Pandey was working at ADB Ghogha who has
retired and died. This witness does not identify his writing.
He (workman ) was authorised to receive on maturity
cheque of K.V.P. from Bhagalpur post office. He further
proved the authority letter which bears signature of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad but this witness did not identify the
signature of concerned officer. He ( workman ) was sent
for advice of cheque collection from Munger. This witness
further stated that authority letter was signed by Anil
Kumar Ambastha, Branch Manager. Which also bears
signature of Shsshi Bhushan marked as Ext.- W/1. Further
he stated that he sent once to bring stationary from
Bhagalpur Zonal Stationary Department. This witness
identified authority letter signed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad
and then branch manager Sri Shambhu Prasad Srivastava
which was marked as Ext.- W/2.
It is the duty of messenger to bring advice of cheque
collection and stationary. The duty of messenger is to
take out and keep register, voucher and to help in another
work. It further duty to messenger to distributes local letter
and to post letters. His duty is not to serve water. He
denied that he is not acquainted with the facts of this
case.
M.W-2 is Shambhu Prasad Srivastava this witness
is desk officer is State Bank of India Zonal office, Bhagalpur.
He stated that he was branch manager at ADB Ghogha
from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006. He is acquainted with
workman Shashi Bhushan Prasad. He was permanent
manager at Ghogha branch. He never permanently took
work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
was working to serve water at different rate and payment
was made from petty cash. Shashi Bhushan Prasad never
raised dispute of being regular or permanent employee.
No appointment letter was issued to him.
In cross-examination this witness stated that he used
to take work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad to take water
and payment was made to him. Seldom payment was made
to him @ Rs. 30/- and seldom @ Rs. 40/-. Shashi Bhushan
Prasad working in the branch before joining of this witness
in that branch. Details of payment from petty cash is
maintained in a register which used to be cheque once in
a month by branch manager. This witness posted in that
branch for about 2 years and Shashi Bhushan Prasad
worked in that branch irregularly. This witness never took
work from Shashi Bhushan Prasad to bring stationary or
cheque from other branch.
He further stated that on 10.03.2006 he has given
order to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for bringing stationary
and another order dated- 23.02.2007 is to bring cheque but
this witness could not say that order is under signature of
then branch manager. Letter dated-14.09.2002 has been
signed by then branch manager Sri R.K.Pandey which has
been marked as Ext.- W/3. He denied that Shashi Bhushan
Prasad also worked as messenger apart from bringing water.
M.W-3 is Ajay Kumar, Branch Manager, in SBI at
Ghogha Branch. He has proved photo stat of petty cash
register for the period from 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009.
In cross-examination this witness stated that for the
period from 30.04.2004 to 31.08.2008 he was at Dhamsain
4374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
branch, Dist. Godda, P.B. branch, Bhagalpur town,
Bhagalpur city branch Bhagalpur, Zonal office Bhagalpur.
Some where he was posted as branch manager and some
where he was post as accountant, field officer. This witness
identified Shashi Bhushan Prasad from face but not by
name. When he was joined at Ghogha Branch Dist.
Bhagalpur, then he learnt that Shashai Bhushan Prasad
has filed case before this tribunal. This witness has
brought photo stat of concerned ledger, petty cash register
which has been attested by him marked as Ext.- M/10. He
further stated that he had seen the document filed by him.
He had seen the related documents of this case but this
witness has not details knowledge of first working day
and last working day. Before termination notice, notice
pay and compensation was not paid to the workman and
there is no mention of these matter in the ledger.
11.
Documents exhibited on behalf of the management
Ext.- M/1 is order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
C.W.J.C No.- 5287 of 2009 dated 23.04.2009. Writ was
dismissed as withdrawn with a direction that in proceeding
before Industrial Tribunal is to be decided in accordance
with law uninfluenced by the refusal by the Hon’ble Court
to interfere only because of the availability of an alternative
statutory remedy to the petitioner.
Ext.- M/2 is School Transfer Certificate of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad in which date of birth of certificate in
31.03.1988.
Ext.- M/3 to M/9 is photostat of petty cash register
of the concerned year 2000-2009.
Ext.-M/8 it appears from Ext.-M/8 that cost of labour
charge was paid regularly from 01.08.2007 to 13.09.2008
and thereafter only cost of has been written. Cost of what
purpose has been made has not been maintained in cost
register.
Ext.-M/9 cost of conveyance charge has been
mentioned.
Ext.-M/10 is the also photostat of petty cash register
for the period April 2002 in which cost of water has been
mentioned. Cost of water and cost of labour charge etc
has been mentioned.
12.
Written argument has been filed on behalf of the
management stating therein application filed by the
claimant is not maintainable in law nor on facts. Terms of
reference is not only illegal but also contradictory. Section-
2A (1) and (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is confined to
termination of service and not regularization of service.
Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad was engaged as and when
exigency of work arose on the daily basis and whenever
work was taken from him, he was paid his wages as agreed
between the parties. He performed works in the State Bank
of India, ADB, Ghogha Branch as and when instructions
was given by the Branch Manager. He claimed that he
worked since 30.04.2000 till Agusut, 2008 continuously is
totally baseless and false. Claim that he worked
continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year is
also false. He used to discharge his duties on the days he
was engaged on the instructions of branch manager. Such
discharge of duties were of casual nature and it cannot be
said to be termination or perennial nature to discharge
regular duties. Regular appointment are made who work
as regular staff of the bank. Sri Prasad was wholly aware
of the fact that the bank has its own rules of recruitment
and his casual engagement as daily wager as and when
required therein no compliance of the rules of recruitment
of the Bank. During the whole period of his work as claimed
by him, he never demanded for regularization of service.
When he could not get any engagement in the bank even
as casual daily wager, he started demanding regularization.
Regularization in service is not a mode of appointment.
Neither the Government nor their instrumentality can make
appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of public
appointment. Neither any vacancy was advertised nor any
requisition to the Employment Exchange was sent nor the
Branch Manager had any power to appoint subordinate
staff. His engagement was totally non-est. Merely because
a daily wager as such a temporary worker is continued for
long time, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent. In the instant case, his claim
that he worked from 2000 to 2008 and that too continuously
is wholly baseless. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ 2004(4) SCC 1 ] has held
that merely because a temporary or casual employee has
continued for a long time, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent. In view of
decision State of MP Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma [ 2007 (1) SCC
575] “the appointment made in total disregard to the
constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed
by the employer, which is state within the meaning of article
12 of the constitution of India, the recruitment would be
illegal one.” Another decision referred is M.L. Jain Vs.
Indore Development Authority [2005 (1) SCC 639]
“Regularization cannot be claimed as matter of right. An
illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking to
regularization. The constitutional scheme which the
country has adopted does not contemplate any back door
appointment.
It has further been submitted that section 2 (oo) of
the Industrial Dispute Act says that retrenchment means
termination by the employer of the service of a workmen
for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment
inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The case of Shashi
Bhushan Prasad clearly follows u/s 2(oo) (bb) there was
an implied agreement between the parties that his
engagement comes to an end as soon as he leaves the
bank meaning thereby that there was an oral agreement
between the parties regarding this typy of engagement.
Even decision of Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and
others [1997 (11) SCC 521] has been referred for the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4375
purposes that termination of service of the workmen does
not constitute retrenchment. Further decision has been
referred again it has been submitted that “ the distinction
between “ irregular appointment” and “illegal
appointment” is apparent. In the event appointment is
made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as
also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which
is a part of the “State” within the meaning of article 12 of
the constitutional, the recruitment would be an illegal one.
The respondent was not appointed in terms of the statutory
rules. He was not entitled to any regular scale of pay
attached to any post. Therefore, he could not have been
directed to be regularised in service having regard to the
Constitution Bench. Hence, the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal as also the High Court were not correct in
directing regularization of service of the respondent.” The
appointment of Sri Prasad was not made in terms of
statutory rules. Original appointment of Sri Prasad being
illegal and not irregular. Therefore, no question arises of
regularization of Sri Prasad.
The decision of ESCOOTS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING
OFFICER AND ANOTHER has been filed in which it has
been held that “ Temporary appointment for a specified period
(2 months in this case )—Terms of appointment enabling
the employer to terminate the service at any stage without
assigning any reason—In such circumstances,
termination of service under the said terms even though
effected before the expiry of the specified period, held, did
not amount to retrenchment. But in this case it has not
been demonstrated the temporoary appointment for a
specific period of 2 months or for any specified period.
Next decision is reported case of “MAHENDRA L.
JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND OTHERS” In which it has been hold
that irregular appointments, not illegal appointments, held,
can be regularised—Sub-Engineers ( appellants )
appointed on daily-wage basis under a project to be
executed by respondent Development Authority—No
appointment letters issued—Posts not sanctioned by
Govt.. Appointment not in compliance with the
requirements of Act and Rules which were applicable in
absence of any direction to the contrary contained in
Standing Orders— Held, such illegal appointment were
void ab initio.
In the case of STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS Vs.
LALIT KUMAR VERMA it has been held that Necessity
of initial appointment being “ irregular” and not “illegal”.
Respondent not having appointed as per the rules, nor
being entitled to any regular scale of pay attached to any
post, his appointment was illegal and not irregular.
Continuous work for more than six months on daily wages
without more, held, is not sufficient to entitle workman
concerned to status of permanent employee.
13.
Written argument has been filed on behalf of the
workman stating therein that subject matter of the
adjudication before this tribunal is “ Whether the action
of the management of State Bank of India, Ghogha Branch
in denying regularization of services of Sri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad as a Messenger / Peon and terminating his services
in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D.Act is legal and
justified? If not, what relief (S) the workman is entitled
to?”
It has been stated that workman was appointed as a
messenger/peon w.e.f. 30.04.2000. He used to work from
10 A.M to 6 P.M regularly for which he was paid wages
initially @ 15/- per day which was raised to @ Rs 25/-,
Rs. 40/- and lastly @ Rs. 50/- per day. Payment was made
through vouchers. He worked continuously from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 and was informed at the closing
hour on 06.03.2009 that his services stood terminated.
When the workman went to attend his duties on the
following day, he was stopped from working and was
informed that his services stood terminated after the
working of 06.03.2009. Neither notice, nor any notice pay
nor any retrenchment compensation was given to him.
But duty was perennial in nature. Case of the workman is
covered under Section 2 (OO) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the
management violated the mandatory provisions as
contained in section 25 F of the I.D.Act,1947. Workman
prays for reinstatement of his services as a messenger
with back wages. Substance of written statement of the
management has been delt. Further in reference of the
evidence it has been stated that Ext.- W/1 to W/3
supported of the work of the workman. Ext.-W/4 is details
of work of the workman. Ext.- W/5 is proof of payment of
sum of Rs. 890/-. Ext.-W/6 is the on live statement and
Ext.-W/7 and Ext.-W/8 are the certificates of Sri Janardan
Pandey Chief Cashier, SBI, ADB, Ghogha Branch. In
support of work of Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Ext.-W/9,
W/10, and W/11 are the authorization for performing
certain works. Ext.W/12 is the letter dt- 15.02.2006
addressed to Secretary, Lok Adalat, Bhagalpur. Ext.-W/13
is the proof of payment in 20 pages. Ext.-W/14 & W/15
relate to payment of wages. Ext.-W/16, W/17, W/18 relates
to formulation of a scheme by State Bank of India for
absorption of daily rated/ temporary workers performing
the jobs as a messenger. The workman was covered under
the scheme and accordingly his application for absorption
was forwarded by the Branch Manager to Regional Office
and other higher offices.
M.W-1 Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Branch Manager, SBI,
ADB Ghogha submitted that he knew Shashi Bhushan
Prasad who worked as temporoary daily rated worker as
per requirement and did not work continuously. In cross-
examination he admit that his services were utilized for
bringing cheque collection advice, distribution of letters,
bringing stationary from Zonal Stationary Deptt. Bhagalpur.
He further admits that the work of messenger relates to
4376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
bringing cheque collection advice, bringing stationary etc.
In cross- examination he had deposed that workman did
not work for 240 days preceeding his termination but failed
to submit the actual number of days he worked.
M.W-2 is Sri Shambhu Prasad Srivastava, he worked
as Manager from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006 and also admitted
that the workman worked at SBI, ADB Ghogha Branch. In
cross- examination he admitted that the workman was
working prior to his posting at Ghogha Branch.
M.W-3 Ajay Kumar is the present Branch Manager
of SBI, ADB, Ghogha Branch and admitted in cross-
examination that he does not know the first and last
working day of the workman. He was neither given any
notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation
preceding his termination.
W.W-1 Shashi Bhushan Prasad stated that he
worked from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 at SBI ADB Ghogha
Branch as messenger / peon. He used to discharge the
duties such as taking out ledger, cash box, peon book,
attending post office work, bringing stationary,
distribution of notice in the village, serving water to the
members of staff. His duty hour ranged from 10 A.M to
5.30 P.M. His duties were identical to that of a permanent
messenger. He identified the letter of Sri Janardan Prasad
Pandey, chief office ( Ext. W/7 & W.8 ).
Further submitted is that on the basis of material on
record the workman worked from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009;
(ii) The workman discharged all the duties of a messenger;
(iii) He used to discharge his duties from 10 A.M to 5.30
P.M; (iv) He was being paid his wages through petty cash
vouchers; (v) The Bank formulated a scheme for absorption
of temporary / daily rated workers as messengers; (vi) The
name of the workman had been forwarded by the Branch
Manager to Regional / Zonal Office, Bhagalpur which are
Exts.- W/16, W/16/A, W/17 & W/18; (vii) The termination
of the workman is covered under section 2 (oo) of the
I.D.Act; (viii) Management violated the mandatory
provisions as contained in section 25 F of the I.D.Act; (ix)
Management resorted to unfair labour practices as per
schedule V of the I.D.Act; and did not follow the principles
of equal pay for equal work;
Relief (S) (i) Reinstatement as a temporary
messenger; (ii) Payment of back wages from the date of
termination; (iii) Absorption as messenger as per Bank’s
circular dated- 2.1.2003, 23.12.2002 and as per Exts W/17 &
W/18; (iv) Payment of Rs 10000/- as cost for contesting
the dispute.
Some decisions has been cited on behalf of the
workman. Out of which the decision of Hon’ble Patna High
Court in Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Ors.
In which petitioner was a workman in working in the work
department of Public Works Department Bulling Circle,
Purnia in this case reference was made “ Whether the
termination of service of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh,
Treasure Guard, Public Works Department, Building Circle,
Purnia, by the management from December, 15, 1992 is
proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled to
reinstatement and/or any other relief?”
In this case petitioner was initially appointed on-
muster roll as a daily wager. He continuously worked for
over three months and thereafter he was appointed in a
regular time-scale of pay as Treasure Guard on a temporary
and ad hoc basis. But on August 26, 1992 he was asked to
file a show why his appointment may not be terminated. In
written statement of the management it was stated that
initially appointment /engagement was illegal and invalid
and did not confer any right upon him and, hence, it could
be terminated without a month’s notice or payment in lieu
of notice and without paying the retrenchment
compensation. Labour Court in the impugned award
upheld the management contention that petitioner
appointment was illegal and invalid and was made without
any advertisement or any selection process. There was
no sanctioned post against which the appointment could
be made. Labour Court relied upon the decisions reported
in 1986 PLJR 873 and 1987 PLJR 1090 in this decision it
was held in case of initial appointment was invalid the
concerned employee could not claim a writ of mandamus
for payment of salary for the period he actually worked
under the invalid appointment. These two decisions also
do not even refer much less consider the mandatory nature
of Section 25-F and have absolutely no relevance to the
case in hand. The idea of illegal or invalid appointments is
quite foreign to the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act.
For application of section 25-F is that the concerned
workman should have been in continuous service for 240
days in a calendar year. In fact, the termination of
employment of a workman on the ground that his initial
appointment was not legal and valid itself qualifies as
retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) as
termination for illegal and invalid appointment has not
been made an exception to the definition of retrenchment.
This aspect of the matter has been considered in a Division
Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Prabhudayal Vs. Alwar Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. And
Ors., in which it has been held that “The definition of
retrenchment as given in the Act is wide and comprehensive
to include all types of terminations of service unless the
termination falls within any of the excepted categories
and it was held that the termination of service of the
petitioner amounts to retrenchment and was statutorily
required to be in compliance with the provision of Section
25-F of the I.D.Act.
Another decisions is of the Supreme Court of India
in Mineral Exploration Corporation Vs. Mineral Exploration
Corporation which was decided on 26th July, 2006 in Appeal
(civil) 2027-2028 of 2000. In this case according to the
union workman engaged in Mineral Exploration
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4377
Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “ the
Corporation” have completed minimum 8 years and
maximum 20 years of service but they were not regularized
nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales.
The workmen started demanding regular pay scale and
their regularization, corporation resorted to retrenchment
of workmen which caused serious Industrial unrest.
Reference was made “Whether the action of the
management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S/Shri
A.K.Janson 2144 others ( as per Annexures’A’ attached)
and depriving them all fringe benefits like permanent
workers is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to and from what date? The tribunal
after recording the evidence of the both parties and
considering the arguments vide its award dated 24.03.1998,
held that all the workman in dispute, workman be regularized
in the service. The corporation preferred writ petition
before the High Court which was allowed and award was
set-aside. The High Court affirmed the findings of the
Tribunal. It has been stated that all the time of hearing, our
attention was drawn to the judgement delivered by the
Hon’ble Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
& Ors. Vs. Umadevi, 3 and Ors., [2006]4 SCC and it has
been held that the said case deals with public employment,
absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of
temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc
employees appointed / recruited and continued for long
in public employment de hors the constitutional scheme
of public employment. Further it has been stated that one
aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments ( not illegal appointments ) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967] 3 SCR 128, R.N.
Nanjundappa [1972]2 SCR 799, and B.N. Nagarajan [ 1979]3
SCR 937, of dully qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without
the intervention of order of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the service of such employees
may have to be considered on merit in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the case above referred
to and in the light of this judgement. The Union of India,
the State Government and their instrumentalities should
take step to regularize as a one time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts. It has also been
stated that respondent an industry governed by I.D. Act,
1947 as well as the provision of Industrial Employment
Standing Order Act, 1946 the standing order define
contigent / temporoary and casual employee as under the
temporary workman as one who has been engaged for
work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to
be finished within a limited period. The casual workman is
a workman whose employment is of casual labour.
Therefore it will be clear that employees engaged and
continued together cann’t be termed as temporary or
casuals.
Another decisions is the decision of Hon’ble S.C in
case of Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. Vs. State of U.P which
was decided on 5 August, 1985 in citations 1986(52)
FLR147, (1986)ILLJ134SC, (1986)I SCC 637.The Writ
petition the complaint made is that there are a number of
person who are engaged by Nehru Kendra as casual
workers on daily basis and though they are doing the
same work as is performed by class IV employees appointed
on regular basis, they are not being given the same salary
and allowance as are being paid to class IV employee. In
this case writ petition were allowed and rules was make
absolute and directed the Central Government to accord
to these person who are employed by the Nehru Kendras
and who are concededly performing the same duties as
class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of
service as are being received by class IV employee, except
regularisation which cannot be done since there are no
sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be
sanctioned by the Central Government in die different
Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so these persons can be regularised.
It is not at all desirable that any management and
particularly the Central Government should continue to
employ persons on casual basis in organisations who have
been in existence for over 12 years. The salary and
allowance of class IV employees shall be given to these
persons employed in Nehru Yuvak Kendras with effect
from the date when they were respectively employed.
Another decision has been referred of the Supreme Court
of India, in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corp. decided on 5th January, 2010, in civil appeal no.- 587
of 2010 in which termination of the service of the workman
was found incontinuous verson of section 25(G) of the
Industrial Dispute Act. But impugned order was liable to
be set aside. Another decision is also of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal
Council, Sanaur which was decided on 11th April, 2011 in
this case service was terminated without holding any
enquiry and without giving him notice and compensation
and that persons junior to him were retained in service.
Respondent pleaded that the appellant was engaged on
contract basis and his service was terminated because the
Director, Local Self Government did not give approval to
the resolution passed for his employment. The Labour
Court held that the appellant had worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year preceding the termination of
his service. Writ petition reliance was based on the
judgement in Secy.. State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006)1
SCC 1; State of M.P. Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007)1 SCC
575; Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C.
Joshi (2007(2) SCC ( L&S) 813; M.P. Administration Vs.
Tribhuban (2007)9 SCC 748; and others decision are the
found adopted that Labour Court should not have ordered
4378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reinstatement of the appellant because his appointment
was contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution and it would not be in public interest
to sustain the award of reinstatement after long lapse of
time. In para 13 it has been stated that source of
employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and
conditions of employment/contract of service, the
quantum of wages/pay and the mode payment are not at
all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.
Further in para 14 it has been stated that it is apposite to
observe that the definition of workman also does not make
any distinction between full time and part time employee
or a person appointed on contract basis. In the result the
appeal was allowed and award passed by the Labour Court
for reinstatement of the appellant is restored and it was
also directed that respondent shall be entitled to wages
for the period between the date of award and the date of
actual reinstatement.
Another decision reported in 2014-III-LLJ-772
Calcutta High Court. Another decision is Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs.
Employer I/R to Mangmt. of FCI & Anr. In which the tribunal
found that termination of the applicant was illegal they
were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. FCI
filed writ petition which were dismissed. LPA was allowed
by Division Bench. In this case reference was that “
Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, in retrenchment Shri Hari Nandan
Prasad, Ex-Casual workman, in contravention of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with
full back wages and regularization of his service is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?” In this case decision of Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees Union Vs. Delhi Administration
AIR 1992 SC 789 and Constitution bench judgement in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.
(2006) 4 SCC 1 has been dealt. In this case contention
raised by the appellants before the High Court was that
the ratio of Uma Devi’s case had no relevance in the cases
of industrial adjudication by the Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals and this submission that found to be meritless
by the Hon’ble High Court taking support of the judgement
of this Court in U.P. Power Corporation Vs. Bijli Mazdoor
Sangh & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 755. In this case which was
found that appellant No.-1 was not in service on the date
when scheme was promulgated i.e as on 6.5.1987 as his
services were dispensed with 4 years before that circular
saw the light of day. Therefore, in the result of monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be more
appropriate in his case but in case of appellant No.-2 which
was hold that CGIT rightly held that he was reinstate with
50% back wages
F I N D I N G S
14.
The relief claimed in this case is against the
management of State Bank of India over denial of
regularization of the services as a messenger/peon and
wrongfully termination for the service of a temporary
messenger/ peon w.e.f 06.03.2009 while working at State
Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Ghogha,
Dist.- Bhagalpur.
15.
Dispute has been raised on 19.06.2009 and the
conciliation proceedings ended in failure on 27.08.2010.
Question formulated and by the petitioner in this case is
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of
India, Ghogha Branch in denying regularization of services
of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad as a Messenger/Peon and
terminating his services in violation of Section 25 F of the
I.D.Act is legal and justified? If not, what relief (S) the
workman is entitled to?”
16.
The workman was working from 30.04.2000 to
06.03.2009 and was informed at the close of office hour on
06.03.2009 that his services stood terminated. When the
workman went to discharge his duties on the following
day, he was stopped from working and was again informed
of termination of his services from the evening of 06.03.2009.
Neither he was given any notice nor notice pay nor
retrenchment compensation preceeding his termination.
He was paid his wages regularly from 30.04.2000 to
31.08.2008. On 01.09.2008, the workman was instructed by
the authority to take payment in different names to which
the workman did not agree. He was not made payment of
his wages from 01.09.2008 to 06.03.2009. The termination
of the workman is covered under Section 2(oo) of the
I.D.Act, 1947. Relief claim is (i) Reinstatement, as a
temporary messenger with back wages; (ii) Regularization
of services as a messenger; (iii) Payment of due wages for
the period of working; (iv) Payment of wages from
31.08.2008 to 06.03.2009; (v) Payment of a sum of Rs. 10000/-
for contesting the dispute.
17.
Written statement of the management stating that
therein that application filed by the claimant u/s 2A (1)
and (2) of the amended Industrial Dispute Act, 2010 is
neither maintainable in law nor on fact. Dispute have not
been referred u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Terms of reference has framed by the person is not only
illegal but also contradictory. Section 2A (1) and (2) is
confined termination of service and not regularization in
service.
It appears from perusal of Section-2A of the
Industrial Dispute Act, it appears that this relates to
dismissal etc. of a individual workman to be deemed to be
an Industrial Dispute.
18.
Section-2[(A)] Where any employer discharges,
dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services
of an individual workman, any dispute or difference
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4379
between that workman and his employer connected with,
or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment
or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of
workman is a party to the dispute.
19.
This section also provide that workman may make
an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for
adjudication to the dispute is referred therein after expiry
of forty five from the date from the date he has made the
application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate
Government. This case has been filed on 18.03.2011 as
such the case is maintainable.
Section-2A relates to discharge, dismisses,
retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman. So far the matter is concerned for
regularisation that will be discussed later on. Further it
has been stated that it is totally baseless and denied that
workman had worked continuously 240 days in every
calendar years.
20.
Further it has been stated that bank has its own
rules of recruitment for appointment of subordinate cadre
staff satisfying the requirement of Articale 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. He was not issued any
appointment letter even to work as temporary staff. His
engagement was purely as a casual worker on daily wages
engaged as and when required. Payment were made to him
through petty cash which means payment against some
expenses which are in petty nature and that cannot be
termed as regular payment of wages or other benefit. Had
therein appointment letter then it would proof terms of
appointment of the workman. Further it has been stated
that during the whole period of his work as claimed by
him, he never demanding for regularization in service. It is
only when he could not get any engagement in the Bank
even as casual daily wager, he started demanding
regularization. Another contention is that merely because
a daily wager as such a temporary worker is continued for
long time, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent. His claim that he worked from
2000 to 2008 and that too continuously is wholly baseless.
About the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi
reported in [2004(4) SCC 1 ] has been stated but this case
only relates to Government service and it cannot said that
bank is not an industry. When bank is an industry then
the dispute will be governed under the provision of the
Industrial Dispute Act. In this contest several decision
has been filed on behalf of the workman which are
Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar and Ors reported
in 1994 (42) BLJR 1300, (1995) 1 LLJ 973 Pat. On the Mineral
Exploration corporation Vs Mineral Exploration
corporation by Hon’ble Supreme court of India. Further
the case of Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. Vs State of U.P
decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and reported
in 1986 (52) FLR 147, (1986) I LLJ 134 SC, (1986) I SCC 637
and other so many decisions in which several decisions
has been discussed. Other case is Devinder Singh Vs
Municipal Council, Sanaur decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in which case of Uma Devi has also been
dealt and other decision cited by the management bank
has been dealt. Further it has been stated that by order
dated-27.04.2009 in case of C.W.J.C No.- 5287 of 2009 filed
by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Court hold that the person
concerned is daily wager. As there is no provision in the
bank for regularization of such a daily wager.
21.
In the rejoinder of the workman in para-13 it has
been stated that workman discharged the duties of a
messenger from 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009 uninterruptedly.
To continue a workman for a longer period without any
service condition is a act of unfair Labour Practice on the
part of the management as per schedule V of Industrial
Dispute Act,1947. Further it has been stated that remedy
of Industrial worker is under Industrial Dispute Act.
22.
In the evidence of Shashi Bhushan Prasad has stated
that he worked in the State Bank of India, ADB, Ghogha
Branch, Dist.- Bhagalpur as a messenger/peon from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009. He worked from 10 A.M to
5.30 P.M. He worked like a permanent messenger in one
year. He worked for 240 days regularly. He has proved
Exts.-W/5 & W/6 regarding his payment by then branch
mananger of Rs. 890/-. He has also proved Exts.-W/7 and
Exts.-W/8 and other documents filed by him. He has also
proved photo stat of vouchers in 66 pages for the period
from 31.12.2006 to 31.12.2007 he has also proof circular
sent by branch manager to Zonal office on 21.03.2003 and
dated-02.01.2001 and 02.01.2002. He has stated that his
date of birth is 05.09.1981 but by mistake that was written
31.03.1988 which was rectified. He has also stated that no
compensation and no payment was made to him before
removal from service.
In cross-examination he has stated that Exts.-W/14
relates to the payment for serving water and for cheque
collection. In para-2 of the cross-examination he has stated
that Janardhan Pandey was cash officer at Ghogha branch.
In certificate his date of birth is mentioned year 1981 but
his another certificate by mistake it was written year 1988
and that mistake was corrected. He regularly worked for
240 days. In further cross-examination he stated that it is
wrong to say that he himself left to come to bank. He daily
used to go bank. Nothing was challenged in the cross-
examination that this workman was not working for 240
days in a calendar year or he did not work in the bank from
30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009.
23.
Management witness M.W-1 Anil Kumar Singh who
is Dy. Manager in SBI Bhagalpur branch. He has stated
that he was posted at ADB Ghogha Branch for the period
August-2007 to September-2008. Shashi Bhushan Prasad
was temporary daily wager. He did not work regularly. He
further stated that claim for regularisation his service is
4380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
wrong . In view of the order passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2587
of 2009 by Hon’ble Patna High Court. He has also stated
that photo stat of petty cash book has been filed by the
bank. There is rule for recruitment of sub-ordinate cadre
staff. No appointment letter was issued. He worked as per
order of Branch Manager and work was casual in nature.
There is no provision to regularise a daily wager, who
worker for the long period. He was not entitled for any
compensation or notice.
In cross-examination he has stated that he posted
at ADB Ghogha Branch for the period from August-2007
to Septemeber-2008. He does not know first working day
and last working day of Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Payment
was made after two or half month on submitting the bill.
He does not know in preceeding period counted from
06.03.2009 Shashi Bhushan Prasad had not work for 240
days. He could not tell in year prior to 06.03.2009 for how
many days Shashi Bhushan Prasad had worked. There
will be record in bank for the payment made by the bank to
him. He has also stated about the authority letter given to
him Shashi Bhushan Prasad for receiving maturity cheque
of K.V.P from Bhagalpur post office. He proved authority
letter given to him for receiving advice of cheque collection
from Munger which was signed by branch manager namely
Anil Kumar Ambastha. He has also proved contents of
Ext.-W/2. Duty of messenger is to distribute local letter
and to go to post office for dispatching the out side letter.
24.
Next witness on behalf of the management Shambhu
Prasad Srivastava who was posted at ADB Ghogha Branch
from 17.07.2004 to 16.06.2006 he is acquainted with Shashi
Bhushan Prasad. He stated that he did not took work from
Shashi Bhushan Prasad for the whole day mainly.
In cross- examination he has stated that Shashi
Bhushan Prasad was working in the branch prior to joining
this witness. Payment of petty cash is entered in one
register which is checked once in a month by branch
manager. During the period of two years Shashi Bhushan
Prasad irregularly attendant the branch. He has given work
on 10.03.2006 to Shashi Bhushan Prasad to bring
stationary.
25.
Management witness no.-3 is Ajay Kumar, Branch
Manager in SBI Ghogha Branch who deposited photo stat
of petty cash register from 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009. He
stated that for the period from 30.04.2004 to 31.08.2008 he
was posted at Ghamsain branch Dist.- Godda, PB Branch,
Bhagalpur city branch and Zonal office Bhagalpur. He
identify the Shashi Bhushan Prasad but was not
acquainted with his name. Prior to remove from the service
workman was not given notice, notice pay and
retrenchment compensation.
26.
Ten documents has been Exhibited on behalf of the
management. M.W-1 is photo stat of the order passed in
C.W.J.C No.- 5287 of 2009 filed by Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
In which it has been stated that in his own plea as para-8
involved the question of facts and claim under the Industrial
Dispute Act. Where a daily wages post cannot lay out
his claim in a writ petition. Learned council of the petitioner
press for leave to withdraw this petition to persue his
remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act.
It is for the petitioner to choose his remedy after
writ court declined interference. This court makes no
observation with the regards to the case. The writ is
dismissed as withdrawn. The proceeding before Industrial
Tribunal is to be decided in accordance with law
uninfluenced by refusal by this court. So matter is to be
decided by this tribunal. Ext.-M/2 is SLC in which date of
birth has been mentioned as 31.03.1988. This has got no
relevency when corrected SLC has been submitted by the
Shashi Bhushan Prasad. Ext.-M/3 to M/9 is photo stat of
petty cash register.
In the written statement the management bank, claim
of the workman that he worked since 30.04.2000 to August-
2008 worked continuously 240 days in every calendar year,
have also denied. Management witness no.-1 Anil Kumar
Singh, in cross-examination in para-29 could not say the
first working day and last working day of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad. But during the period of post of this witness he
was paid Rs. 50/-. This witness also could not tell prior to
06.03.2009 for how many
days workman worked and
what period of less than 240 days. This witness is para-32
identified the authority letter given of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad when he was sent for work to post office etc. As
such it is apparent that Shashi Bhushan Prasad working
in the bank. M.W-2 Shambhu Prasad Srivastava was posted
at Ghogha Branch from the period from 17.07.2004 to
16.06.2006 and he identified workman Sri Shashi Bhushan
Prasad. He further stated that in para-7 in cross-examination
that prior his posting on that branch Shashi Bhushan Prasad
worked there.
27.
M.W-3 Ajay Kumar has identified petty cash register
from the period 13.04.2002 to 31.03.2009. This witness
identified Shashi Bhushan Prasad by face but this could
not tale first and last working day of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad. From petty cash register counting from March,
2008 only cost of labour, tea, labour charge and etc shown,
but to whom payment was made has been no been shown.
So it could not be gather to whom payment was made.
28.
From evidence of W.W-1 Shashi Bhushan Prasad it
appears that he was working on the post of messenger /
peon from the period 30.04.2000 to 06.03.2009. He has
stated that payment was made to him from petty cash. He
has exhibited details of his working day vide Ext.W/4.
From which is appears that he worked for 295 in the year
2008 and 57 days in the year 2009 this documents has
been exhibited without objection. He has also exhibited
print out of online statement Ext.-W/6 which is in name of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad which is dated-24.12.2008.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4381
Ext.-W/2 is the letter sent to S.B.I Zonal Stationary Deptt
for bringing stationary dated- 10.03.2006 and signature of
Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
29.
Exts.-W/7 is the letter sent by Mr Janardhan Prasad
Pandey, cash officer S.B.I, ADB, Ghogha Branch,
Bhagalpur to branch manager SBI that Shashi Bhushan
Prasad has been working at this branch from 30.04.2000 as
daily wager worker. His payment in petty cash book has
always been segregated in labour charges. This letter was
sent information and needful. From this letter it appears
that Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working from 30.04.2000
and letter is dated 04.10.2005 from it appears that he was
still working there. Exts.-W/8 is another letter sent by same
Janardhan Prasad Pandey to Branch Manager, SBI, ADB,
Ghogha Branch. From which it appears that Shashi
Bhushan Prasad was working since 30.04.2000 in the bank
as daily wages this letter is dated- 04.10.2005. Exts.- W/9 is
letter sent by Branch Manager from Ghogha branch to
Sub post master, Bhagalpur for payment of KVP this letter
is dated-02.12.2008 and signature of Shashi Bhushan
Prasad has been attested from which it appears that till
02.12.2008 Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working there.
Another letter was sent by the Branch Manager vide Ext.-
W/10 in which signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad was
attested in which it has been stated that NSC payment
infavour of Branch Manager has been captioned. Ext.-W/
11 has also been to Chief Manager, SBI, Bhagalpur in which
signature of Shashi Bhushan Prasad has been attested.
Exts-W/12 is the letter sent through Shashi Bhushan
Prasad whose signature was attested as such Shashi
Bhushan Prasad working regularly. Exts.-W/13 series is
regard to the payment receipts by Shashi Bhushan Prasad
on 24.12.2001, 15.02.2002, 22.12.2001 and several dates
working in records shows.
30.
Exts.-W/14 series is the details of payment paid to
Shashi Bhsuhan Prasad from the period 23.01.2007 to
31.12.2007 this indicates that Shashi Bhushan Prasad was
working in the bank for the period 240 days in the year
2007. Exts.-W/15 is the letter sent by A.G.M, Circle Office,
Bhagalpur in regard to subordinate temporary employee
and Exts.-W/16 is also letter to Circle Development office.
It is observed that inspite of instruction some workmen
are working and legal complication arising if on becoming
them protected employee under the Industrial Dispute
Act,1947. Exts.-W/17 in which it has been stated that
please arrange to submit full particulars of all such
employees who have put in more than 240 days continuous
service in terms of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Dispute
Act together with your reasoned recommendation for their
absorption or other wise on enclosed proforma immediately.
It means that the bank was aware of provisions of
I.D.Act,1947. From Exts.-W/18 it appears that branch
manager has sent letter to A.G.M, Bhagalpur stating therein
that Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working there from
30.04.2000 as water boys to from there Exts, it appears that
he was also doing other work because his signature is
attested when he was sent to another place and from Exts.-
W/14 it appears that he regularly worked for the period
from 31.12.2006 to 31.12.2007. This documents has not
been challenged. Apparently Shashi Bhushan Prasad
worked for morethan 240 days in the year 2007 as such he
became protected employee under the I.D.Act. From Exts.-
W/9,10, it appears that he was sent for receiving payment
of K.V.P on 02.12.2008 and for receiving payment of NSC
on 08.11.2008. In cross-examination M.W-1 has stated that
regular payment was not paid to the workman because bill
was being submitted after two and half months then
payment was made. So it may be gathered that he was
working always in the bank. Bank has not submitted the
vouchers of payment of Shashi Bhushan Prasad and has
not demonstrated that how many less date counting from
240 days Shashi Bhushan Prasad was working. In para-34
he has stated that advice cheque of collection and to bring
was duty of messenger and from this evidence it appears
that Exts. demonstrate that Shashi Bhushan Prasad even
working like messenger.
31.
From definition of 25(B) and photo stat of payment
vouchers it appears that in the year 2007 there was
inuninterrupted service though this workman was working
since 30.04.2000 and even becoming in continuous service
from him till 06.03.2009. So prior to is removal compliance
of section-25F of the I.D.Act must have been done. Even
from Exts.-M/10 it appears that counting from 06.03.2008
labour charge was regularly paid till 28.02.2009. Which is
clearly apparent, so inference may be gathered that payment
was made to Shashi Bhushan Prasad for the period more
than 240 days in a calendar year last preceeding from the
date of his removal because bank could not demonstrate
who was another or other workman working in the bank
and this case relates to Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
32.
In view of the decisions of Hon’ble S.C in case of
Hari Nandan Prasad & Another Vs Employer I/R to
management of FCI & Another when retrenchment is bad
then service be regularised. In that view of the matter
Shashi Bhushan Prasad had became in the category
protected workman. Hence, the case of the workman is
allowed. Management is directed to reinstate and regularise
the service of workman from the date- 06.03.2009 on which
he was removed from service. Further management is
directed to give all consequential benefits to the workman
and all due wages from the date of his removal from service
and upto the date of his reinstatement.
Accordingly the order is being given.
BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer
4382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2129-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh
ukxfjd lgdkjh cSad fy- izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
142@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2015 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4 November, 2015
S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.142/2012)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Delhi Nagrik Sehkari
Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-12025/01/2015– IR (B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT - II, ROOM NO.33, BLOCK-
A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDUMA
DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No. 142/2012
Sh. Anuj Kr. S/o Sh. P.K. Vashishth,
R/o-262, Village & P.O.- Harevali,
Delhi-110039.
…..Workman
Versus
Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd.
Through Its C.E.O/
Administrative Office,
3- C/5 , Opp. Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110005
……Management
AWARD
Direct claim has been received in this tribunal. Which was
register as I.D No. 142/2012 and claimant/workman was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice Sh. Anuj Kumar filed claim statement
on 9.11.2012 on behalf of workman. Wherein he prayed as
follows:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the workman
may kindly be reinstated in services with full back wages
and continuity of service along with the benefits attached
to his services under the law.
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 6.5.2013 through which he denied the
contents of claim statement and prayed for dismissal of
claim statement.
On the basis of pleadings of parties my Ld. Predecessor
framed following issues on 6.5.13:-
1.Whether enquiry conducted by the management is
just, fair and proper?
2.Whether punishment awarded to the claimant
commensurate to the misconduct of the claimant?
3.Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement
in service?
4.As in terms of reference.
Workman on 8.7.2015 filed rejoinder . Through which he
reaffirmed the contents of claim statement.
Workman in support of his case filed affidavit of WW1
Sh. Anuj Kumar on 20.1.2014 and he tendered his affidavit
on 8.5.2014.
His statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-
I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. WW1/A which bears
my signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ . I rely upon my documents
Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/7.
None to cross-examined on behalf of management. Hence
cross nil and right of management of cross-examination of
WW1 has been closed.
Workman in support of his case filed affidavit of WW2
Sh. Phool Kumar on 19.8.2014 and tendered his affidavit
on 19.8.2014.
His statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-
I tender my affidavit in evidence on behalf of workman it
bear my signature at point A and B . Contents of affidavit
are true and based on my personal knowledge. Affidavit is
marked Ex.WW2/B and copy of annexed documents which
relates to service rules is marked Ex. WW2/8.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4383
None to cross-examined on behalf of management. Hence
cross nil and right of management of cross-examination
has been closed and in the interest of justice 16.9.2014
was fixed for management evidence. On 16.9.2014 in the
interest of justice fixed 19.11.2014 for management
evidence. On 19.11.2014 management remained dormant
then I closed management evidence and fixed 10.12.2014
for ex-parte written arguments of workman.
Workman filed written submission on 12.01.2015. Wherein
he stated as follows:-
1.That this Hon’ble court was please to proceed the
respondent /management ex-parte as they did not appear
deliberately after filing the written statement in the present
case. The brief facts of the case are narrated herein below
for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.
a) That the workman filed claim petition vide reference No.
F .7/856/ALC/CD/11 dated 21.12.2011 before the
conciliation officer, Central District, Delhi. Both the parties
were called for the settlement on various dated but no
settlement could be arrived at. The appropriate authority
then issued a failure report and granted a liberty to the
workman to approach this Hon’ble court and to file a claim/
industrial dispute.
b) That the workman herein was appointed as peon cum
chawkidar on adhoc basis in the last week of October 2004
and thereafter vide order No. DNSBL/HO/2004-2005
dated19.4.2004 his services were regularized in the regular
pay sale of Rs. 2750-70 3800-75-4400 w.e.f 23.04.2004. That
the workman was working with utmost sincerity and he
had good satisfactory, unblemished record in the Bank
and he was performing his duty sincerely, he had never
given any cause of complaint to the management . That to
the utter shock of the workman that on 30.07.2009, the
workman was illegally arrested by the police of the P.S
Keshav Puram, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 217/2009
under section 307/395/397/412/120-B/34 of IPC. That
workman was too shock to hear about the offences
mentioned in the FIR as he was performing his duties
independently and honestly since last many years. That
on 18.11.2009 the workman was released on bail by the
Hon’ble Court of Session, Rohini, Delhi.
c) That the workman was suspended vide office Order No.
DNSBL/HO/2009 -2010/STAFF 3.41/332 dated 3.8.2009
illegally and unjustifiably. That the suspension of the
workman became effective from 30.07.2009. That no proper
show cause was issued to the workman nor has any
explanation been called for by the management, hence,
illegal and unwarranted. That on 18.9.2010 the Chief
Executive Officer of the Bank issued a false, frivolous and
vague charge sheet bearing No. NSBL/HO/2010-2011 /Anj-
2/418 dated 18.9.2010 to workman , thereby leveling false,
frivolous and vague allegation against the workman of
gross misconduct unbecoming of an employee of the Bank
in terms of Rule 20, 21, and 27(IV) of Delhi Nagrik Sehkari
Bank Ltd. Staff Services Rules (Amended ) March, 2003
alongwith list of documents and witnesses. That on
23.10.2010, the workman submitted his reply to the
aforesaid charge sheet, to the Chief Executive Officer of
the Bank, there by requesting to withdraw the aforesaid
charge sheet.
d) That to the utter surprise of the workman, vide memo
No. DNSBL/HO/2010-2011 /Staff 3.108/675 and the order
No. DNSBL/HO/2010-2011 /Staff 3.109/676 both dated
29.12.2010, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank has
informed the workman that with reference to workman’s
reply received in the office of the Bank on 23.10.2010 to
the aforesaid charge sheet the Board vide its resolution
No. -10.7 (iii) in meeting held on 29.11.2010 allegedly
considered the record of his case at length and having
regard to the material available on record an serious
allegations leveled against him by the police the Board
has lost confidence in him, it was therefore decided that
he should be removed from the service of the Bank w.e.f
01.12.2010 and that period of his suspension from
30.07.2009 to 30.11.2010 will not be treated as on duty and
that however no recovery will be made on account of
subsistence allowance paid for this period.
e) That the memo No. DNSBL/HO/2010-2011 /Staff 3.108/
675 dated 29.12.2010 order No. DNSBL/HO/2010-2011 /
Staff 3.109/676 dated 29.12.2010 and resolution No.107(iii)
dated 29.11.2010 thereby removing the workman from
service by the management is illegal, arbitrary , malafide
and vague against the facts and law of the land and against
the principles of natural justice and against the service
rules 26 and 28 Staff Service Rules of the Delhi Nagrik
Sehkari Bank Ltd. and without any basis or evidence and
without holding any domestic enquiry and without finding
the fact of guilt by any authority or court of law. Hence
out rightly illegal and liable to be quashed.
f) That workman having faith in the system filed an appeal
on 11.02.2011 before the Chairman , Delhi Nagrik Sehkari
Bank Ltd. at administrative office of the Management
against the arbitrary order of the CEO of removal of the
workman but of no avail. That the above said authority
did not give any heed to the appeal of the workman. That
the workman sent a reminder dated 09.08.2011 in relation
to the reply and disposal of his appeal. That issues
pertaining to releasing the 60% of arrears of basic pay
revised with effect from dt. 01.01.2006 and bonus which
payable to him as on 31st March, 2009 and some issues
were also raised in above mentioned reminder /letter. But
the management did not reply the same. That the workman
approached the Learned Labour Commissioner , Pusa
Campus, New Delhi for adjudication of dispute but the
management was adamant to their illegal stand and flatly
refused to accommodate the workman despite the efforts
made by the learned commissioner therein. That workman
4384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is without any job and not earning a penny since his date
of illegal termination. He is in a bad economic condition
and are under the mental distress and agony. Though he
tried his level best to search another gainful employment
but his efforts have been failed irretrievably . That the
refusal and /or not allowing to work/or no duty/or removal
from the job without giving him any opportunity to place
his case or to defend himself by the management
tantamount to retrenchment.
g) That it is submitted that the management did not
conduct the domestic enquiry against the workman and
no enquiry report has been provided by the management
to the workman. It is pertinent to mention here that the
workman has been dismissed from the services by the
management while ignoring the prevailing service rules at
the particular time. That the management has ignored Rule
No. 28, the contents of Rule-28 has been reproduced herein
below:- the contents of Rule -28 have been reproduced
here under for ready reference.
28. INQUIRY
i)
No order imposing any of the penalties
specified in clause (i) to (ix) of the Rule 26
shall be made unless an enquiry is held, as far
may be, in the manner provided in central civil
services classification control and appeal
Rules , 1965. The Appointing Authority may
itself inquire into or appoint a suitable person
to Inquire into the truth of any imputation of
misconduct or misbehavior , against an
employee.
ii)
No order imposing any of the minor penalties
specified in clauses (i) to (xi) of the Rule above
shall be made except after-
a)
Informing the employee in writing of the
proposal to take action against one and
of the imputations of misconduct or
behavior, on which it is proposed to be
taken, and giving to one reasonable
opportunity
of
making
such
representation as one may wish to make
against the proposals.
b)
Holding an inquiry in the manner laid
down in the Rule above in every case in
which the disciplinary authority is of the
option that such inquiry is necessary;
c)
Taking the representation, if submitted
by the employees under Clause (a) and
the record of inquiry, if any, held under
clause (b) into consideration.
d)
Recording a finding on each imputation
of misconduct or Misbehavior.
iii)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
clause (i) to (ii) , major penalty may be imposed
without holding an enquiry in such case where
an
employee
is
found
guilty
of
misappropriation of the funds of the bank or
indulging in fraudulent transactions by
competent authority in the enquiry u/s 59(2)
and other relevant sections of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 or held guilty
of any such charge by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
iv)
Orders made by the disciplinary authority shall
be communicated to the employee who shall
be supplied a copy of the Enquiry report, if
any , held by the discipline authority and a
Copy of its finding on each article of charge.
Where Disciplinary authority is not the inquiry
authority and a statement of the finding of the
disciplinary authority together with brief
reasons for its disagreement , if any, with the
finding of the inquiring authority unless they
have already been supplied to him.
It is most respectfully prayed that at the
time of suspension of the workman
whatever rules were in existence, will be
applicable on the workman. Hence, it is clear
from the rule above that Management
cannot impose the major penalties in
absence of court’s final verdict in relation
to the offence if any committed by the
employee. That in the case of answering
workman there is no order of any court by
which the workman is held guilty and no
proper inquiry has been conducted by the
management, there is no justification of
refusal of inquiry. Therefore, imposing of
penalty of removal from service by the
management against the workman is a major
penalty hence; it is illegal, unjust and unfair
and the same is contrary to the provisions
of service rules.
2. That the respondent has not taken any major objection
in relation to the claim statement. That the respondent in
para -8 of preliminary objection has falsely submitted that
they have conducted domestic inquiry under the staff rules
but in fact no inquiry has been conducted only charge
sheet was given to the workman. That the reply of the
workman and his appeal was not considered by the
management. Hence the dismissal from service is illegal. It
is most respectfully submitted that no cognizance has been
taken by the competent court till date with regard to the
allegations leveled by police in said case and same is
pending for trial in the court of Additional Session Judge
N/W Distt. Rohini Court Delhi. Thus before the decision
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4385
of the trial court, the management should not be permitted
to form any opinion about the workman as for the sake of
natural justice, the management should have not taken
any action or impose any major penalty on him. Even their
service rule applicable on the particular day doesn’t permit
the management to do so. It is therefore submitted that
removal /dismissal of workman from services without
conducting domestic enquiry and in the absence of
judgment and order of the trial court, by the management
is bad illegal and liable to be recalled forth with. That the
case is pending for final judgment in the court of Additional
Session Judge N/W district, Rohini Court, Delhi. Thus ,
before the decision of the trial court , the management has
dismissed the workman from services for which the
management should not be allowed. That the trail court in
the case of Sh. Satish Jain V/s DNSBL has observed that
the board resolution qua termination of the workman
during the trail in the criminal case is not convincing and
not as per service rules. That the termination of the
workman (Satish) was stayed by the civil court. The case
of Satish is still pending. A copy of the order dated
11.09.2012 passed in the case of Sh. Satish Jain Vs. DNSBL
is filed and exhibited as WW-1/6
3. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:-
That the Hon’ble courts in various decisions has held
that even if they have their service rules then also they
should adhere to the principles of Natural Justice.
i) M/s Laxmi Precision Screw Ltd. Vs. Ram Bhagat ,
2002 LAB I.C. 2968 (PARAS-16)
It is observed that the Arbitrariness in an anti-thesis to
rule of law, equity , fair play and justice –contract of
employment there may be but it cannot be devoid of the
basic principles of the concept of Natural Justice.
Wrongful termination /reinstatement
(ii) Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. K J A Mahavidyalaya &
Ors. 2013 (11) SCALE 268
Says that certain parameter to be looked into. Because the
injury suffered by a person , who is dismissed or removed
or is otherwise terminated from services cannot easily be
measured in terms of money with the passing of an order
of termination not only the concerned employee but his
entire family suffers grave adversities. The reinstatement
of such an employee by a finding of the competent judicial
authority /quasi judicial body or court that the action taken
by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory
provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the
employee to claim full back wages , gainful employment.
That the gainful employment to be proved by the employer.
If the employer gets failed to prove the employer is entitled
to get full back wages in case of illegal proposition.
1)
In case of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is a normal rule.
2)
To be decided when issue is made while
considering length of service.
3)
If enquiry conducted is against the principal of
natural justice.
4)
Where victimization is proved against the
employee.
5)
For delay litigant should not be penalized .
That this Hon’bel court may kindly be pleased to pass
the order and judgment in the above facts and
circumstances.
I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R for the workman
and perused the evidence on record of workman.
It is relevant to mention here that burden to prove issue
no. 1 and 2 was on management but in the instant case
management neither filed written statement nor cross-
examined workman and his witness. As well as management
failed to adduce evidence to prove issue no. 1 and 2. In
these circumstances there is no option to this Tribunal
except to decide issue no. 1 and 2 against management
and in favour of workman. Which are accordingly decided.
So far issue no. 3 and 4 is concerned burden to prove
these issues lies on workman. Through his evidence
workman tried his best to prove issue no. 3 and 4 in his
favour but their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme court on
the point of reinstatement and grant of back wages has
settled law. Which shows that reinstatement is not a
necessary consequence wherever termination is held
illegal. Depending upon the facts of each case a suitable
compensation can be awarded. In Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr Vs. Gitam Singh,
(2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and
25% back wages was not proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the compensation of
Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends
of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award of
reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year
preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers
has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement
is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal
or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute
Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society
Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement,
it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not
automatic.”
4386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman of the instant case was not appointed by
following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered
service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus,
Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only)
by way of damages as compensation is liable to be
awarded to the workman/claimant which shall be paid to
workman/claimant within 2 months by Management after
expiry of period of limitation of available remedy against
Award. That will meet the ends of Justice.
Reference is decided in favour of workman/ claimant and
against Management.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-19.8.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2130-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k ] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@21@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2013)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
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 04/11/
2015.
[No. L-12012/21/2013– IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY,
Presiding Officer
I.D.28/2013
Reference No.L-12012/21/2013-IR(B-I) dated: 20.5.2013
Shri Braham Dev Sargara
S/o Shri Ramuram
R/o Shivbari, Near Post Office,
Bikaner.
V/s
The Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India
Nehru Place, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
AWARD
25.6.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Zonal Office, Jaipur not to grant
annual increments from 1997 to 2004 to Shri
Braham Dev Sargara, Assistant, NLC, Brasinghsar
Branch, Bikaner is fair, legal and justified? If not,
he is entitled to what relief ?”
2. Pursuant to order dated 24.6.13, notices were sent
to both the parties fixing 17.10.13 for filing statement of
claim. On 17.10.13 both the parties were present, applicant
filed statement of claim. Copy of the claim petition was
given to opposite party fixing 24.12.13 for reply. On 24.12.13
applicant was present. Opposite party sought adjournment
for filing reply which was allowed fixing 24.3.14 for filing
reply. On 24.3.14 none was present from both the side,
9.6.14 was fixed for filing reply to statement of claim
providing last opportunity to opposite party with direction
that case shall proceed ex-party in case reply is not filed.
On 9.6.14 Vakalatnama was filed by opposite party &
adjournment was sought for filing reply which was granted
fixing 31.7.14 for reply.
3. On 31.7.14 applicant was absent & Deputy
Manager, SBI was present. Learned Counsel were on strike,
hence, 16.10.14 was fixed for filing the reply. On 16.10.14
an information dated 16.10.14 addressed to tribunal was
submitted by bank with reference to the present case
wherein it has been mentioned that arrear of salary from
April, 97 to September, 2010 amounting to Rs.2,55,539.91
has already been paid to the applicant Sh. Braham Dev
Sargara & the applicant is satisfied & matter has been
resolved amicably, hence, Hon’ble Tribunal is requested
to close the matter. Along with above letter of information
a letter dated 15.9.14 sent to AGM, State Bank of India,
Regional Office, Jaipur by applicant has also been filed on
record. Letter dated 15.9.14 has been sent for information
& necessary action to AGM, State Bank of India, Region-
4, Jaipur. Applicant Sh. Braham Dev Sargara has written in
his letter dated 15.9.14 that he had applied for voluntary
retirement vide his letter of request dated 8.3.14. He has
further said that he had applied for voluntary retirement
because bank had stopped pay increment from 1997 till
2004 but bank started giving increment from year 2005.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4387
According to content of letter, in his entire banking career
of 32 years he had not committed any mistake which
occasioned any loss to the bank. He has further said that
he had applied for voluntary retirement because he had
four daughters who were required to be married, hence, he
was under compulsion to apply for voluntary retirement
so that he could get money from the bank. Further he has
alleged that as payment of arrear of increment in pay from
1997 to 2004 has been made by the bank without delay,
hence, money received in form of arrear will meet the
requirement of marriage. He has thanked the bank for
making payment & in view of receipt of arrear which has
met the need of the marriage of his daughters he has
decided to withdraw the application of voluntary
retirement. Accordingly he has prayed the withdrawal of
application of voluntary retirement dated 8.3.14.
4. Above application of the applicant filed by bank
was taken on record on 16.10.14. On 16.10.14 an order was
passed directing the applicant to show that why the
proceeding of the case be not closed. On 16.10.14 next
date 20.11.14 was fixed. On 20.11.14 learned counsel for
the applicant appeared. Opposite party was absent. It was
submitted by learned counsel for applicant that increment
given to the applicant is not to the extent admissible to
him. File was fixed for further order in afternoon on 20.11.14.
In the afternoon of 20.11.14 learned counsel for applicant
& Deputy Manager from the bank appeared for the parties.
It was alleged by Deputy Manager that entire payment
has been made & the workman is working in the branch of
the bank & he is satisfied with the payment. 22.12.14 was
next date fixed for filing the satisfaction of the applicant &
reply to the statement of claim by the opposite party. On
22.12.14 applicant side remained absent, learned
representative for opposite party appeared but reply to
statement of claim or satisfaction of the applicant was not
filed. 9.3.15 was next date fixed for filing reply to statement
of claim by opposite party. On 22.12.14 it was reiterated by
opposite party that entire payment to the applicant has
been made. On 9.3.15 both the parties were absent & an
order was passed to proceed ex-parte against opposite
party fixing 15.4.15 for ex-parte evidence of the applicant.
5. On 15.4.15 applicant was absent. Opposite party
was present. Presiding Officer was on leave. Next date
10.6.15 was fixed for ex-parte evidence of the applicant.
On 10.6.15 none appeared. It was observed by the Tribunal
that reply to statement of claim was not filed on the ground
that applicant is already working in the bank who is
satisfied with the payment made by the bank. It was further
observed that on 20.11.14 it was ordered that bank should
file either reply to statement of claim or satisfaction of the
applicant that he is satisfied with payment made by the
bank but neither letter of satisfaction nor reply to
statement of claim was filed due to which ex-parte order
was passed against the bank & applicant was provided
opportunity to lead ex-parte evidence but it appears that
applicant is also not interested in filing ex-parte evidence,
hence, last opportunity was given to applicant to file ex-
parte evidence on 18.6.15.
6. After passing order on 10.6.15 learned counsel
for the bank appeared with an officer of the bank at 13.50
hours & filed two documents which was taken on record
& the learned counsel of the bank & bank officer both
were informed that case is proceeding ex-parte against the
bank. One of the two documents submitted by the bank is
an application written by Branch Manager to the AGM,
State Bank of India, Region-VI, Administrative Office,
Jaipur, wherein it has been alleged that an application
submitted by applicant Sh. Braham Dev Sargara for
withdrawing the case from the Labour Court is forwarded
to the AGM. Attested Photocopy of the withdrawal
application attested by the officer of the bank has been
attached to the application. In withdrawal application of
the applicant Sh. Braham Dev Sargara addressed to Branch
Manager, it has been submitted that bank has made
payment in relation to eight unpaid increments admissible
to him & his pay fixation from year 2010 has also been
done correctly. He is thankful to the bank for the act of
payment & pay fixation. The applicant has further said
that on next date he will withdraw his case from tribunal &
through this application he is withdrawing his case. The
application of the applicant is dated 20.4.2015.
7. On 18.6.15 applicant was absent & on behalf of
bank an officer of the bank Sh. S.L.Meena, Manager (HR)
was present. Ex-parte evidence was not submitted by
applicant. No adjournment was filed from the applicant
side, hence, opportunity for the evidence of applicant was
closed. It was submitted by Manager (HR) that no evidence
is required to be produced on behalf of bank in absence of
evidence from applicant side. Accordingly, evidence for
both the parties was closed & case was fixed for argument
on 24.6.14. On 24.6.14 also none was present on behalf of
applicant. Sh. Shanker Lal Meena, Manager (HR) was
present on behalf of opposite party who alleged that entire
payment has been made to the applicant & applicant is
working in the branch office of the bank & has no objection
if the case is closed.
8. According to statement of claim the fact of the
case is that the applicant was appointed on 4.1.84 on the
post of Messenger & promoted to the post of ‘Assistant’
on 19.8.2010. At the time of submitting statement of claim
he is working on the post of Assistant in L.N.C.,
Barsinghsar, Bikaner branch. It has been further alleged
that since his date of appointment till 1996 he was getting
regular annual increment but since 1997 suddenly without
sufficient cause annual increment was stopped by the bank
& remained stopped till the year 2004 which has resulted
into a great injustice to the applicant which gave rise to
industrial dispute. Due to stoppage of increment the
applicant is receiving less amount of pay & suffers
4388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
economic loss every month. It has been further alleged
that orally & in writing he made several request to get
benefit of increment from 1997 to 2004 which was not
considered by the employer.
9. It has been further alleged that his credit balance
of leave has been made NIL by the employer & deduction
has been made from his pay on account of leave availed
by him despite the fact that leave was existing to his credit
& yet he was given leave without pay which has
occasioned injustice to him. It has been further alleged
that the applicant’s daughters are in marriageable age &
due to stoppage of increments he has been placed in
financial difficulty. It has also been alleged that unfair
labour practice is being followed by the bank. Thus, the
applicant has prayed that order be passed for payment of
arrears of increment from 1997 to 2004 in favour of applicant
with 18% interest.
10. It is clear from the record of the proceedings that
after filing of statement of claim as noted above reply to
the statement of claim has not been filed by opposite party
bank. It is also clear that case has proceeded ex-parte
against the bank on 9.3.15 & since then on the dates fixed
for ex-parte evidence no evidence has been adduced from
the applicant side in support of statement of claim. It is
also clear that applicant Sh. Braham Dev Sargara in his
application dated 20.4.15 has expressed his intention to
withdraw the case stating in the application that he is
withdrawing the case. As the applicant has not lead any
evidence, hence, the application is liable to be dismissed
for want of evidence. The application is also fit to be
dismissed as withdrawn but as the application for
withdrawal by the applicant has not been submitted by
him to the court & he has not appeared before the court in
person for withdrawing the case, hence, I am of the view
that application is fit to be dismissed for want of evidence.
Accordingly, the application of the applicant is dismissed
for lack of evidence.
11. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk- vk- 2131-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if’pe jsyos]
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 9@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@274@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2014)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/11/
2015.
[No. L-41012/274/2003– IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY,
Presiding Officer
I.D.9/2014
Reference No.L-41012/274/2003-IR(B-I) dated: 25.2.2014
Shri Raghuveer Singh Sisodia
General secretary,
Paschim Rly. Karmchari Parishad
Jai Prakash Chowk, Khanpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat).
V/s
1.The Chief Project Manager
Western Railway
Ahmedabad (Gujarat).
2.The Chief Project Manager
North Western Railway
Zonal Office, Jaipur.
AWARD
17.8.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
^^D;k fu;kstu eq[; ifj;kstuk izac/kd] mRrj if’pe
jsyos tksuy dk;kZy; t;iqj ,oa eq[; ifj;kstuk
izca/kd] if'pe jsyos vgenkckn ds deZdkj Jh jkteuhde
iq= Jh jkepanz dks tUe frfFk fnukad 10-03-43 ekudj
eq[; ifj;kstuk izca/kd i- js- t;iqj ds }kjk i= da
bZ@949@1& tsih fnukad 19-10-2000 ds rgr lsok ls
i`Fkd djuk ,oa iw.kZ osru ykHk @ HkRrs vkfn dk Hkqxrku
ugha djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSa\ ;fn ugha arks deZdkj vius
fu;kstd ls D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4389
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to both the parties as per
the order of the tribunal dated 20.3.2014 fixing 24.6.2014
for filing statement of claim. On 24.6.2014 case was called
out, none was present from either side. Order was passed
to issue notice to the applicant Sh. Raghubir Singh Sisodia,
General Secretary, Western Railway Karamchari Parishad,
Ahmedabad, (Gujarat) & opposite party No.3 & 4 fixing
5.8.2014 for filing statement of claim. On 5.8.2014 learned
advocates were on strike & both the parties were absent,
22.10.2014 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim.
On 22.10.2014 both the parties were absent. On perusal of
record it was found that Chief Project Manager, Western
Railway was unserved. Applicant was served in person.
Notice sent to applicant in the name of General Secretary
was also served upon him. Chief Project Manager, North
Western Railway was served by refusal. Order was passed
to issue notice against the unserved parties & for filing
statement of claim on 26.12.2014.
3. On 26.12.2014 both the parties were absent &
Presiding Officer was on leave. 23.3.2015 was fixed for
filing statement of claim & for further order in the case. On
23.3.2015 both the parties were absent. Order was passed
to issue notice to the Chief Project Manager, Western
Railway, Ahmedabad, (Gujarat) fixing 28.4.2015 for service
of notice & for filing statement of claim. On 28.4.2015 both
the parties were absent. Notice sent to Chief Project
Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad, (Gujarat)
returned with endorsement that address mentioned on the
notice is incomplete. Order was passed to file statement of
claim on next date 28.7.2015 beside re-issuing of notice to
the Chief Project Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad,
(Gujarat).
4. On 28.7.2015 none appeared from both the side.
From perusal of record of service it was found that
applicant was served in person & Chief Project Manager,
Western Railway, Ahmedabad, (Gujarat) was served by
denial of notice. Rest of the opposite parties were also
served but statement of claim was not filed by applicant
till 28.7.2015. In the interest of justice case was adjourned
by the tribunal on its own motion providing opportunity
to the applicant for filing statement of claim fixing 14.8.2015
as next date.
5. On 14.8.2015 case was called out. Both the
parties were absent. From perusal of the order-sheet of
the case it appeared that applicant was served for filing
statement of claim on 22.10.2014 but he did not file
statement of claim till 14.8.2015. Beside applicant rest of
the parties were also served but none appeared from the
date of service till 14.8.2015. In above facts & circumstances
looking into the neglect of the applicant in pursuing the
matter further case was reserved for passing “No Claim
Award”. It is pertinent to note that on 25.2.2014 reference
order was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to
file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of
receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement
of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice &
knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal.
It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in
submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances
& in the absence of material evidence brought on record,
tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues
referred to it on merit. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is
passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is
answered accordingly.
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2132- —vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cMksnk
jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
67@2015½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@39@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2015)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jaipuras shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya
Gramin Bankand their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-12011/39/2015– IR(B-1) ]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-izdj.k la- 67@2015
Jh Hkjr ik.Ms;
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- -L- 12011/39/2015–( IR (B-I) fnukad 15/07/2015
4390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Secretary,
Grameen Bank Officers Organization & Grameen Bank
Employees Union,
B- 124, Sethi Colony,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
v/s
The Regional Manager,
Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Grameen Bank,
Regional Office, Kalash Tower,
13- Lajpat Nagar, Alwar.
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh iadt f=ikBh
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh lquhy vxzoky
% iapkV %
fnukad 30@9@2015
1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh
èkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 30@09@2015 ds
vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS%&
^^D;k izca/ku cM+kSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] {ks=h; dk;kZy;
vyoj ds }kjk ;wfu;u ds lfpo Jh iadt f=ikBh dks nqHkkZouko'k
^dkj.k crkvks uksfVl^ fnukad 08@09@2014 fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr
,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugh rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk
vf/kdkjh gS\**
2- fjQjsUl ds vk/kkj ij ekeyk iathd`r dj mHk;i{k dks uksfVl
fuxZr dh x;h vkSj fnukad 28@09@2015 dks uksfVl esa Dyse izLrqr djus
dh frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 28@09@2015 dks mHk;i{k mifLFkr vk;s
ijUrq Dyse izLrqr ugha gqvk rFkk ekeys dks lqyg ds vk/kkj ij okil ysus
dk dFku vkosnu ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;kA mHk;i{k us ekSf[kd dFku
izLrqr fd;k fd os yksd vnkyr ds ek/;e ls ekeys dk fuL=kj.k pkgrs
gS]a vr% fnukad 30@09@2015 dks yksd vnkyr esa ekeyk fuLrkj.k gsrq
fu;r fd;k x;kA
3- fnukad 30@09@015 dks yksd vnkyr esa lqyg ds vk/kkj ij
eqdn~esa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vkosnu izLrqr gqbZ tks fuEuor~ gS%&
Jheku fizlkbZfMax vkWfQlj
dsUnzh; Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
fo"k;% dsl la[;k 67@2015 okfil ysus gsrqA
ekU;oj]
mijksDr fo"k;kUrZxr fuEu izdkj ls fuosnu gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh
vksj ls izLrqr vkS|ksfxd fookn ds lEca/k es ekuuh; Je ea=ky; }kjk
fnukad 15.07.2015 dks tkjh lUnHkZ la[;k L- 12011@39 @2015– IR (B-
I) ekuuh; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ds le{k okLrs fuLrkj.k izsf"kr
fd;k x;k ftlds laEca/k es vf/kdj.k }kjk uksfVl dz- 287 fnukad
07.08.2015 i{kdkjksa dks tkjh fd;k x;k gSaA ftles vkt fnukad
30.09.2015 rkjh[k dks fu;r gSA
;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mDr muokuh izdj.k dks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u foFkMªk
(Withdraw) djuk pkgrh gS] izkFkhZ ;wfu;u yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls
mDr muokuh izdj.k foFkMªkdj jgk gSA
vr% egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd mDr muokuh izdj.k dks foFkMªk
djokus dh d`ik djsaA
fnukad%
30.09.2015
Hkonh; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
gLrk{kj iBuh;
tfj;s lfpo
xzkeh.k cSad ,ei- ;wfu;u
;wfuV BRKGB, vtesj
4- i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr lqygukek mijksDr ij yksd vnkyr esa
fuEu vkns'k ikfjr gqvk%&
5- vkt i=koyh yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA Jh iadt f=ikBh]
;kph O;fDrxr :Ik ls mifLFkr gSA Jh lquhy vxzoky] ofj"B izcU/kd]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] cM+kSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] foi{k dh rjQ ls
mifLFkr gSa ftUgksus vf/kdkj i= cSad dh rjQ ls izLrqr fd;kA Jh iadt
f=ikBh rFkk Jh lquhy vxzoky }kjk lqygukek izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls
’'kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;kA lqygukek esa mYys[k gS fd ;wfu;u bl izdj.k
dks okil ysuk pkgrh gS rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k dh uksfVl ij Jh iadt
f=ikBh] ;wfu;u lfpo mifLFkr vk;s gSA lqyg dh 'krZ ,oa mís'; ls mHk;
i{k dks voxr djk;k x;k ,oa lqygukek mHk;i{k dks lquk;k rFkk le>k;k
x;kA lqyg es adksbZ 'krZ ’ugha gS rFkk fcuk 'krZ ;qfu;u eqdn~nes dks okil
ys jgh gSA vr% lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij bl izdj.k dks ;kph dks okil ysus
dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA lqygukek fnukafdr 30@09@2015 iapkV
dk va'k gksxkA
6- 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
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ xkSre LVksu odZl
ds izcaèra= ds laca) 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] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@1995½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y& 29012@88@1994&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/1995)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbadnow as shown in the Annexure in the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4391
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Goutam Stone Works and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-29012/88/1994-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1) DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act,
1947
Ref. No.26 of 1995 .
Employer in relation to the management of M/s Goutam
stone works.
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry
:Stone mines.
Dated: 23/10/2015
AWARD
By Order No.L-29012/88/1994-IR (M),
dated 21/02/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of M/s Gautam Stone
Works, Sahebgunj in removing Sri Mahavir Yadav
from his service and refusing to re-employ him on his
job was legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference the parties are
noticed. Though they took steps for certain dates,
subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the
case. It is presumed that the disputes between parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2134.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vkj- ds-
ekcZyl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@27@2014&vkbZvkj¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2134—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in realtion to
the management of M/s R.K. Marbles Ltd. and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-29012/27/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR,Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY,
Presiding Officer
I.D.8/2015
Reference No.L-29012/27/2014-IR(M) dated: 15.12.2014
Sh. Aman Kumar Jha
S/o Shri Ramakant Jha
R/o Rajendra Nagar,
Dheeranpatti (Bela)
P.O. – R.K.Ashram
Dist. – Mujaffarpur (Bihar) Bihar.
V/s
The General Manager
M/s R.K.Marbles Ltd.
Morwad, Dist. Rajsamand,
(Rajasthan), Rajsamand.
AWARD
30.9.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
4392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
R.K.Marbles Ltd., Morwad Rajsamand, in termination
services of Shri Aman Kumar Jha S/o Shri Ramakant
Jha w.e.f. 14.01.2014 is legal and justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of reference it was registered on
8.1.2015 & registered notices were sent to both the parties
fixing 22.6.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 22.6.2015
none appeared from both the side. Next date 10.8.2015
was fixed for filing statement of claim furnishing
opportunity to the claimant & adjourning the case for the
day. Acknowledgement sent with registered notices were
not received back.
3. On 10.8.2015 none appeared from both the side.
Acknowledgement from the opposite party was received
back on record but acknowledgement connected with
notice of the applicant was not received back. Order was
passed to issue fresh notice to the applicant fixing
29.9.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 27.8.2015 notice
was sent to the applicant for filing statement of claim till
29.9.2015 in compliance of order dated 10.8.2015.
4. On 29.9.2015 none appeared from both the side.
Despite the fact that twice notices were sent to applicant
none appeared on his behalf & statement of claim was not
filed. It is pertinent to note that after receipt of reference
applicant is under obligation to file statement of claim suo
moto within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference
forwarding a copy of such statement of claim to each one
of the opposite parties involved in this dispute. Applicant
has neither opted to file statement of claim on his own
motion nor on the notices sent by the Tribunal.
5. In above fact & circumstances & in absence of
statement of claim it is not possible for the Tribunal to
answer the reference on merit. Accordingly, “No Claim
Award” is passed against the reference in question.
6. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ,lksfl,VsM
LVksu baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 33@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@40@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.33/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
LabourCourt, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Associated Stone Industries Ltd.
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-29012/40/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] t;iqj
U;k;ky;] t;iqj
U;k;ky;] t;iqj
U;k;ky;] t;iqj
U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 33@2014
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 33@2014
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 33@2014
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 33@2014
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 33@2014
Hkjr ik.Ms;]
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L-29012/40/2013– IR (M) fnukad 17-04-2014
Shri Kalu Lal Panwar S/o. Shri Mangilal Panwar,
R/o Village & Post Laxmipura,
Tehsil- Ramganjmandi,
Distt.- Kota. (Rajasthan)
v/s
The Manager,
M/s Associated Stone Industries Ltd.,
Tehsil- Ramganjmandi,
Distt.- Kota. (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh leFkZ 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh :fiu dqekj dkyk & ,MoksdsV
% % % % % iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV
iapkV % % % % %
fnukad % 06- 08- 2015
1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad
17@04@2014 ds vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g
izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr
fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
2. ‘Whether the action of the management of M/s
Associated Stone Industries Ltd., Ramganj Mandi in
terminating the services of Shri Kalu Lal Panwar S/o Shri
Mangilal Panwar w.e.f. 23.01.2013 is legal and justified? If
not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?’
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4393
3- LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF; ds vuqlkj
laf{kIrr% ;kph Jh dkywyky dk dFku gS fd og foi{kh dEiuh
esa gsYij ds in ij fnuakd 4-1-90 ls fu;fer Jfed ds :Ik esa
fu;qDr Fkk ftldk jft- chV la[;k 15324 ,oa izks-Q-Vksdu ua-
55168 Fkk rFkk vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds fofHkUu fiV uEcjksa ij dk;Zjr
FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; fu;kstd ,oa Jfed ds
lEcU/k jgs gSaA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd foi{kh dEiuh }kjk izkFkhZ
dks [kku y{ehiqjk Hkkx 6 esa fLFkr yht {ks= esa dEiuh dh Vkijh
fuokl gsrq nh xbZ rFkk mDr Vkijh ;kph }kjk vokaNuh; rRoksa
dks csp fn;s tkus ds dkj.k dEiuh dks uqdlku igqapus ,oa
lqpk: :Ik ls dk;Z lEiUu gksus esa ck/kk mRiUu gksus ds vk/kkj
ij fnukad 23-1-2013 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr fd;s tkus dk
voS/kkfud vkns'k dEiuh }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks dEiuh
ls dk;Z eqDr dj tcju ,oa euekus rkSj ij gVk fn;k x;k
tcfd mDr Vkijh ftl Hkwfe ij cuh Fkh og ;kph dh Loa; dh
[kjhnh gqbZ feyfd;r Fkh ftldk izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu;ekuqlkj
fnukad 16-7-98 dks iV~Vk tkjh gqvk FkkA izkFkhZ mDr Hkwfe dk
mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx djus dk gdnkj gS vkSj mDr Hkwfe ls
lEcfU/kr leLr gd izkIr gSaA vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd
foi{k }kjk lk”k; izkFkhZ dks lsokfu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq,
fcuk fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds lsok lekfIr i= tkjh dj fn;k x;k
tks izkFkhZ ds laoS/kkfud vf/kdkj ij izR;{k dqBkjk?kkr ds lkFk gh
Hkkjrh; fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fl)kUrksa ,oa izkfo/kkuksa dk mYya?ku
gS rFkk fof/k fo:) ,oa uSlfxZd fl)kUr dh vogsyuk gSA foi{kh
dEiuh }kjk viuh iz”kklfud 'kfDr;ksa dk fujUrj nq:Ik;ksx
fd;k tk jgk gS tcfd fu;ekuqlkj mDr dkj.k ds vk/kkj ij
fdlh izdkj lsokeqDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks ;g
vf/kdkj izkIr gS fd og viuh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx djsa] gLrkukUrj.k
djsa vFkok nku djsaA izkFkhZ }kjk bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh ls lEidZ
Hkh fd;k x;k ysfdu dksbZ lUrks”kizn tokc ugha fn;s tkus ij
mDr Hkwfe dks izkFkhZ }kjk cspuk iM+k ftlds lEcU/k esa nLrkost
layaXu gSA
4- vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa
dk;Z dj ceqf”kdy og viuk o vius ifjokj dk Hkj.k iks"k.k
dj jgk Fkk fdUrq vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds bl euekus o voS/kkfud
dk;ZeqfDr vkns”k ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks vdkj.k gh xgjk ekufld]
'kkjhfjd o vkfFkZd d"V mBkuk iM+ jgk gS ftldh {kfriwfrZ
vizkFkhZ dEiuh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZ }kjk
ckj&ckj fuosnu ds i'pkr foi{kh dEiuh }kjk mls dk;Z ij
okil ugha ysus ds ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ us fnukad 31-1-2013 dks
jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k ¼baVd½] jkexate.Mh ds ek/;e ls ,d
uksfVl foi{kh dEiuh dks Hksth ftldk lUrks"kizn tokc dEiuh
}kjk ugha fn;k x;kA uksfVl dh izfr ;kfpdk ds lkFk layaXu
gSA blds ckn foi{kh us ,d uksfVl vius vf/koDrk ds ek/;e
ls izsf"kr dh tks foi{kh dks izkIr gqbZ ysfdu foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks
lsok esa okil iquLFkkZfir ugha fd;k vkSj u gh cdk;k /kujkf”k
dh vnk;xh dhA foi{kh dk ;g d`R; ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dh
Js.kh esa vkrk gSA
5- ;kfpdk ds izLrj 7 esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks
orZeku ekeys dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ
ftyk dksVk dk LFkkbZ fuoklh gS vkSj mldh fu;qfDr Hkh dksVk
esa gqbZ ,oa foi{kh dEiuh dk iathd`r dk;kZy; Hkh dksVk esa fLFkr
gSA izkFkhZ us ;kpuk dh gS fd mlds fo:) ikfjr dk;ZeqfDr
vkns”k fnukad 23-1-2013 fujLr dj iqu% mls mlds in ij
iquZLFkkfir fd;k tk; vkSj osru ,oa HkRrksa dh /kujkf”k fnyk;s
tkus dk vkns”k Hkh lsok esa fujUrjrk cuk;s j[kus ds lkFk fn;k
tk;A
6- i=koyh fnukad 6-8-15 dks oknksRrj@i{kdkjksa ds chp
le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij vfUre fuLrkj.k ds fy;s fu;r FkhA
mHk;i{k }kjk fnukad 6-8-15 dks vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr
gqbZ fd le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij iapkV ikfjr fd;k tk;A vkosnu
ds lkFk i{kdkjksa dh rjQ ls lqyg dh 'krsZa **le>kSRkk i=** ds
:Ik esa izLrqr gqbZA ^^le>kSrk i=** fuEuor gS %&
Øekad
fnukad % 03-08-2015
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
le>kSrk&i=
QkseZ&**,p**
QkseZ&**,p**
QkseZ&**,p**
QkseZ&**,p**
QkseZ&**,p**
¼nsf[k;s fu;e 58½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 12¼3½ ds
vUrxZr Jh dkywyky iaokj vkRet Jh ekaxhyky ,oa ,lksfl,VsM
LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½ fyfeVsM] jkexate.Mh izcU/kdksa ds eè;
okrkZ ds nkSjku fnukad 03-08-2015 dks lEiUu le>kSrk%&
izcU/kd izfrfuf/k %&
1-Jh vkj-,l- 'kekZ] lgk;d
egkizcU/kd ¼dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklu½
,lksfl,VsM LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½
fy-] jkexate.Mh ftyk & dksVk
¼jkt-½
;wfu;u izfrfuf/k %&
1- Jh dkywyky iaokj vkRet Jh
ekaxhyky fuoklh xzke o iksLV
y{ehiqjk rglhy jkexate.Mh
ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½
fookn dk laf{kIr f
fookn dk laf{kIr f
fookn dk laf{kIr f
fookn dk laf{kIr f
fookn dk laf{kIr fooj.k
ooj.k
ooj.k
ooj.k
ooj.k (Short recitals of the
case)
Jfed Jh dkywyky iaokj vkRet Jh ekaxhyky gsYij
[kku y{ehiqjk dks izcU/kd eSllZ ,lksfl,VsM LVksu b.MLVªht
¼dksVk½ fyfeVsM }kjk izkFkhZ }kjk dEiuh yht esa cuk;s vLFkkbZ
vkokl dks vokaNuh; rRoksa dks fcuk vuqefr csp fn;s tkus ij
4394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mls lsokvksa ls fnukad 23-1-2013 dks i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k FkkA
ftldk fookn yxk;k tks vHkh dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj esa fopkjk/khu gSA mDr lanHkZ esa nksuks
i{kksa ds e/; dkQh xgu fopkj foe”kZ gqvk rFkk nksuksa ds e/;
fuEu 'krkZsa ij le>kSrk lEiUu gqvkA
le>kSrs dh 'krsZ
le>kSrs dh 'krsZ
le>kSrs dh 'krsZ
le>kSrs dh 'krsZ
le>kSrs dh 'krsZ
1- ;g fd izkFkhZ Jh dkywyky iaokj vkRet Jh ekaxhyky
dk lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fookn tks ekuuh; dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds le{k yfEcr
gSa mls lekIr djus ds cnys esa izcU/kd mls crkSj ,Dlxzsfl;k
jkf”k :Ik;s 1]00]000@&¼v{kjs ,d yk[k :Ik;s½ dk Hkqxrku t;sZ
psd ua- 007724 fnukad 17-07-2015 H.D.F.C.cSad ls dj nsxsA
gLrk{kj iBuh; izkFkhZ
dkywyky
gLrk{kj viBuh;
vkj-,l- 'kekZ]
2- nksuksa i{k lger gSa fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ds le{k nksukas i{k mifLFkr gksdj
fookn lekfIr gsrq vyx ls izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fookn
lekIr djk ysxsA
3- ;g fd bl le>kSrs ds QyLo:Ik izkFkhZ dk vc lsok
lekfIr laca/kh dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gSa rFkk izkFkhZ iqu% ukSdjh
esa Reinstatement ds vf/kdkj dk Hkh Lor% ifjR;kx djrk gSaA
nksuksa i{k lger gSa nksuks i{k bl le>kSrs dks Fairo Reasonable
ekurs gSaA
4- ;g fd Hkfo"; esa bl ckjs esa dksbZ fookn vU; fdlh
izkf/kdkjh@U;k;ky; ds le{k py jgk gksxk rks og bl le>kSrs
ds QyLo:Ik lekIr le>k tkosxkA mHk; i{k lger gSaA
5- ;g fd izkFkhZ dk vc izcU/kdksa ls Full and Final
settlement gks x;k gSa rFkk dksbZ cdk;k 'ks"k ugha gSa izkFkhZ dks ih-
,Q- o xzsT;qVh dk Hkqxrku vyx ls ns; gksxkA
gLrk{kj izcU/k
gLrk{kj izcU/k
gLrk{kj izcU/k
gLrk{kj izcU/k
gLrk{kj izcU/kd izfrfuf/k
d izfrfuf/k
d izfrfuf/k
d izfrfuf/k
d izfrfuf/k
gLrk{kj
Jfed
gLrk{kj
Jfed
gLrk{kj
Jfed
gLrk{kj
Jfed
gLrk{kj
Jfed
izfrfufè
izfrfufè
izfrfufè
izfrfufè
izfrfufèk
gLrk{kj viBuh;
gLrk{kj iBuh;
dkywyky
1- vkj- ,l- 'kekZ]
1- Jh dkywyky iaokj
lgk;d egkizca/kd ¼dkfeZd ,oa
vkRet Jh ekaxhyky
iz'kklu½ ,lksfl,VsM LVksu
fuoklh xzke o iksLV
b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½ fy-]
Yk{ehiqjk rglhy
jkexate.Mh ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½
jkexate.Mh ftyk
dksVk ¼jkt-½
xokg % &
gLrk{kj iBuh;
Identified by
vkseizdk'k
gLrk{kj viBuh;
gLrk{kj ,MoksdsV
viBuh;
6&8&15
7- ^^le>kSrk i=^^ ds vk/kkj ij eqdnesa dk fuLrkj.k
djrs gq, fnukad 6-8-15 dks fuEu vkns”k ikfjr fd;s x;s %&
06-8-15
06-8-15
06-8-15
06-8-15
06-8-15
is'k gqvkA Jh dkywyky iaokj vius fo}ku vf/koDrk ds
lkFk mifLFkr gSaA foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh vkj-,l- 'kekZ] lgk;d
egkizcU/kd ¼dkfeZd ,oa iz”kklu½ vius fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds lkFk
mifLFkr gSaA izkFkhZ Jh dkywyky dh igpku muds fo}ku
vfèkoDrk Jh leFkZ 'kekZ ,MoksdsV rFkk foi{kh dh igpku muds
fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh :fiu dkyk] ,MoksdsV us dh gSA Jh :fiu
dkyk ,MoksdsV dk vf/kdkj i= i=koyh ij j[kk x;kA
mHk;i{k dh rjQ ls vkosnu ds lkFk lqygukek izLrqr
fd;k x;k vkSj vkosnu ds ek/;e ls izkFkZuk dh x;h fd layXu
lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij eqdnesa esa ,okMZ ikfjr fd;k tk;A
vkosnu ij mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lqukA lgefr
ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA
lqyg dh 'krsZ mHk;i{k dks i<+dj lquk;h ,o¡ le>k;h
x;h] mHk;i{k }kjk lqyg dh 'krsZ LosPN;k Lohdkj dh x;hA
Jh dkywyky iaokj us jlhn izLrqr dh ftlesa mUgksuas
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl eqdnesa dh lekfIr ds cnys ,d yk[k
:Ik;s dk Hkqxrku psd ds ek/;e ls izkIr dj fy;k gSA jlhn
'kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;kA vr% eqdnek mDr ^^le>kSrk i=^^
ds vk/kkj ij fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA lqygukek ¼^^le>kSrk i=^^½
fnukafdr 06-8-15 iapkV dk va'k gksxkA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
06-8-15
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ jktLFkku
LVsV ekbZUl ,.M feujYl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@46@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4395
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
LabourCourt, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Rajasthan State Mines and
Minerals and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-29012/46/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY,
Presiding Officer
I.D.46/2014
Reference No.L-29012/46/2013-IR(M) dated: 22.5.2014
Shri Rajkumar Soni
S/o Late Kishan Soni
R/o13/43, Behind Pinjra Pol Gau Shala
Sanganer, Dist- Jaipur (Rajasthan).
V/s
1.
Managing Director
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited,
Meera Road, Udiapur (Rajasthan).
2.
Group General Manager
Phosphate Division
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited,
Jhamarkotra, Girwa,
Udaipur (Rajasthan).
AWARD
25.6.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of Rajasthan
State Mines and Minerals Ltd., Udaipur/ Phosphate
Division, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd,
Jhamarkotra, Udaipur, in terminating the services of
Sh. Rajkumar Soni S/o Late Kishan Soni w.e.f.
16.9.2010 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to both the parties as per
the order of the tribunal dated 23.6.14 fixing 11.8.14 for
filing statement of claim. On 11.8.14 applicant was absent.
On behalf of opposite party Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bhupesh,
Manager was present. Learned counsel were on strike.
Notice sent to the applicant was back on record with
endorsement of the Postal Department that after repeated
visit residence of the applicant was found locked. In
interest of justice order was passed to issue notice again
fixing 28.10.14 for filing statement of claim. On 28.10.14
none was present on call. Notice sent to the applicant was
received back with endorsement that house of the applicant
was found locked. Order was passed fixing 26.11.14 for
statement of claim with direction that notice against the
applicant be sent once more. After order learned
representative on behalf of opposite party Sh. Anil Sharma,
Advocate came in appearance & stated to file Vakalatnama
on date fixed 26.11.14.
3. On 26.11.14 Sh. Rajkumar Soni Applicant
appeared in person & ask for time to file statement of claim
by 27.1.15, hence, 27.1.15 was date fixed according to the
choice of the applicant for filing statement of claim. None
appeared for & on behalf of the opposite party. On 27.1.15
both the parties were present but statement of claim was
not filed. Next date 16.4.15 was fixed for filing statement of
claim. On 16.4.15 applicant Sh. Rajkumar Soni was absent,
statement of claim was not filed. Although applicant was
present on record since 26.11.14 but Vakalatnama was also
not filed. In the interest of justice again case was adjourned
& next date was fixed on 25.6.15 for filing statement of
claim providing last opportunity to the applicant. On 25.6.15
also none appeared on behalf of applicant & statement of
claim was not filed. Opposite party also remained absent.
Looking into the fact that since past seven months despite
appearance statement of claim has not been filed from the
applicant side is indicative of the fact that he is not
interested in pursuing the case further, hence, opportunity
for filing statement of claim was closed & case was
reserved for award.
4. It is pertinent to note that on 22.5.2014 reference
order was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to
file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of
receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement
of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice &
knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal.
It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in
submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances
& in the absence of material evidence brought on record,
tribunal is unable to record the findings on merit in respect
of issues referred to it. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is
passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is
answered accordingly.
5. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
4396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]&1 paMhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@52@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
LabourCourt-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-30011/52/2012-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No.72 of 2012, Reference no. L-30011/52/2012/
IR(M) dated 11.1.2013
The General Secretary, Indian Oil Panipat Refinery
Employees Union, Panipat Refinery, Panipat.
Union.
Versus
The Executive Director( Incharge),IOCL, Panipat Refinery,
Panipat-132140.
Respondent.
Appearances
For the Workman:
Shri Hari Pal Singh.
For the Management: Shri P.Murlidharan.
Award Passed on:- 28.10.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-30011/52/2012/IR(M) dated 11.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the demand of the Indian Oil Panipat
Refinery Employees Union for Change of Wages of
Ministerial or non-ministerial staff in percentile
proportion of time spent on duty is just, fair and
legal? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to the parties. The Union appeared and filed claim statement
pleading therein that the workmen of IOCL, Panipat
Refinery are working in 48 hours duty in a week are getting
only 10% extra of their basic pay in comparison of the
workmen who are working for 36 hours in a week.
Therefore, those workmen who are working for 48 hours
in a week are entitled for 1/3rd of their present basic pay
extra duty hours wages instead of 10 % extra of their basic
pay. It is prayed that 1/3rd amount of basic pay may be
allowed to all the workmen who are working for 48 hours
in a week.
3. The management filed written statement.
Preliminary objection has been taken that Equal
Remuneration Act, 1976 was enacted with the objective
to provide for the payment of equal remuneration to men
and women workers and for prevention of discrimination
on the ground of sex against workmen in the matter of
employment and for matter connected there with or
incidental thereto. In the Panipat refinery both the genders
are placed in the same scale of pay and equal pay for equal
work. The management pleaded that the present dispute
alleging non compliance of the provisions of the said act
is squarely not applicable in the context and the reference
deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. On merits it is pleaded that two sets of workmen
which refer to workmen observing 36.25 hours per week
schedule and workmen observing 48 hours per week work
schedule are commonly known as ministerial and non-
ministerial staff respectively. Pay and pay related benefits
admissible to these two sets of workmen are in accordance
with the long term Settlement arrived between the
recognised unions and the management of IOCL.
5. As per clause 6.5 of Long Term Settlement on
pay and pay related benefits singed on 24.01.1971 special
allowance at 10% of basic pay will be given to the workmen
whose normal hours of work are 48 hours per week and
they are being compensated for extra hours of work
performed by such workmen in comparison of non-
ministerial staff. This agreement is continuing. Claimant
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4397
union is also a party to the said agreement of 2010 and it
was specifically agreed that the during the period of
operation of this settlement, the unions shall neither raise
any demand having financial burden on the Corporation
other than on a item becoming due for revision under
provisions of any existing MOU signed with the Unions,
nor raise any fresh demand on the issues being settled
through the settlement. The Union stopped to raise the
present dispute in view of the settlement to which this
Union was also a party which is binding on the union also
and the demand of the union for change of wages of
ministerial or non-ministerial staff in percentile proportion
of time spent on duty is not justified. It is prayed by the
management that the demand raised by the Union is wholly
unwarranted, unjustified, misconceived, misplaced, ill
advised and untenable in law and deserves to be rejected.
The management also filed documents along with the
written statement.
6. The Union also filed rejoinder to the written
statement stating therein that the Union has not concealed
any fact and also denied the contents of the written
statement and prayed that the demand may be decided in
favour of the Union.
7. Both the parties prefer not to lead any evidence
and filed written arguments on the same line of their
respective pleadings.
8. I have gone through the entire record of the case
and also gone through the written arguments and
documents filed by the parties on record.
9. From the record it is revealed that the management
has specifically pleaded that as per clause 6.5 of the Long
Term Settlement signed on 24.01.1971, special allowance
at 10% of basic pay will be given to workmen whose normal
hours of work are 48 hours. In this context the management
referred para 6.5 of the settlement dated 24.1.1971 which
provides as under:-
“6.5. Special Allowance: Special
Allowance at 10 per cent of basic pay will be given
to workmen, whose normal hours of work are 48
hours per week. This allowance shall count for
computation of Provident Fund and ‘Overtime’, but
shall not be taken into account for any other
purpose.”
10. The above settlement was continuing and in the
year 2010 a settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the
I.D.Act 1947 before the Regional Labour Commissioner
( Central), Chandigarh and conciliation officer on 8.12.2010
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian
Oil Corporation Limited, Refineries Division, Panipat
Refinery and their workmen represented by their
recognised union, Indian Oil Panipat Refinery Employees
Union ( copy of settlement has been filed on record by
the management). Clause 20.0 of the above settlement
provides as under:
“20.0 Implementation/Interpretation of Settlement:
The Union agrees that during the period of operation
of this Settlement, they shall neither raise any demand
having financial burden on the Corporation, other
than on an item becoming due for revision under
provisions of any existing MOU signed with the
Union, nor raise any fresh demand on the issues
being settled through this settlement, provided that
this clause shall not affect the rights and obligations
of the parties in regard to matters covered under
Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”
11. It is not denied by the Union that this Union was
not the party to the settlement entered into between the
management and the Union on 8.12.2010 referred above.
The above settlement is binding on the parties to the
settlement which was arrived at before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh on 8.12.2010 in the
Industrial Disputes between the management and the
Union. There is also no occasion for violation of the
provision Section 9A of the I.D.Act 1947 as there is no
change in the service conditions of the workmen.
12. In view of the discussions made above, as the
Long Term settlement entered into in the year 1971 was
continuing and memorandum of Settlement also entered
into between the management and the Union on 8.12.2010
in which it is specifically agreed under clause 20.0 that
during the period of operation of this Settlement, they
shall neither raise any demand having financial burden on
the Corporation, other than on an item becoming due for
revision under provisions of any existing MOU signed
with the Union, nor raise any fresh demand on the issues
being settled through this settlement, provided that this
clause shall not affect the rights and obligations of the
parties in regard to matters covered under Section 9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The above settlement is
binding on the parties to the settlement and the Union can
not raise fresh demand as per the provisions of settlement
dated 8.12.2010 mentioned above.
13. In view of the above it is held that the demand of
the Union for change of wages of Ministerial or non -
ministerial staff in percentile proportion of time spent on
duty is not just which is unfair and illegal and the workmen
are not entitled to any relief.
4398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
28.10.2015
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2138.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@23@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 104/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India Limited and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-22011/23/2011-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/2011
Shir Bhola Ram Dhankar,
S/o Shri Sewa Ram Dhankar,
Vill & Post Singhaula,
Tehsil Rajandgaon,
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Food Corporation of India Ltd.,
Regional Officer, Kapa, Raipur
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 7th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 13-10-2011 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22011/
23/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Rajnandgaon (CG) in not
providing the employment on compassionate
ground to Shri Bhola Ram Dhankar S/o Ex-employee
Shri Sewa Ram Dhankar who sought voluntary
retirement on medical ground is justified and legal?
To what relief Shri Bhola Ram Dhankar is entitled
to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party claiming to be dependent son of Shri
Sevaram filed statement of claim. Case of Ist party is his
father Sevaram retired on medical ground. On his retirement,
he submitted application for compassionate appointment
on 7-11-03. Said application was submitted to the
representative Union operating in FCI. After lapse of about
8 years, the application was rejected by 2nd party as per
order dated 6-5-2011 quoting ground that time period of
3 years fixed for appointment has expired. The Ist party
explained that the delay in considering his application
was on cause of 2nd party. During the period there were no
vacancies for appointment all over the region. The Ist party
explained that it is incorrect. Vacancies existed in
Rajnandgaon Division in November 2002 as per the
statement prepared by 2nd party. Relaxation in upper age
30 years to be sought by higher authorities. Ist party on
the date of application for compassionate appointment,
his age was less than 30 years. From 2009 any
compassionate appointment was not vague. Ist party
explained that it is incorrect. When vacancies existed at
FCI Rajnandgaon depot, Ist party submits that his
application for compassionate appointment was rejected
on the ground. There is no scope that Ist party had abused
the rule of compassionate appointment. On 7-11-03, family
of Sevaram consisted of his wife, 2 sons, 2 minor children
and one daughter in law were dependent on his earning.
Due to loss of income, the family suffered economical
disturbance after retirement of Sevaram. On such ground,
Ist party workman prays for appointment on
compassionate ground.
3. 2nd party management filed Written statement
opposing claim of Ist party. FCI Act 1964. Shri Sevaram
was initially employed in FCI in 1991 has handling labour
in Gang No.6 Rajnandgaon depot. For his illhealth, he was
unable to perform duty of handling labour. He sought
voluntary retirement on medical ground. His request for
VRS was allowed on 5-8-03. 8 other employees were also
permitted VRS on medical ground on 12-8-03 modified on
9-9-03 changing effective date of birth as 29-6-75.
Application was submitted along with format and affidavit
of evidence of employee Sevaram for giving
compassionate appointment in place of his father. It is
reiterated that 8 other employees had also taken VRS. The
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4399
applications for compassionate appointment by their
dependent were also submitted in prescribed form. After
receiving application of workman and on all the
applications were scrutinized and forwarded to Regional
Office, Raipur vide letter dated 3-1-04. The applications
were returned by Regional Office, Raipur with request to
constitute a committee at District level to verify authenticity
and validity of supporting documents such as date of
birth, medical certificate of applicant seeking
compassionate appointment. Accordingly Committee was
constituted at District level. Committee after verifying
documents submitted report to the Regional Office
on 26-2-04.
4. The compassionate appointment in place of
employees seeking VRS on medical ground is covered by
Circular dated 4-3-03 which came into force laid down only
5 % vacancy be filled by direct recruitment on
compassionate ground. The circular was modified by
subsequent circulars stipulating 3 years time limit for
keeping the applications with a condition that after 3 years
if the compassionate appointment is not possible to be
offered the case will be closed. Dy. General Manager as
per his correspondence dated 14-6-2011 referred various
circulars including report of colleague. Committee report
w.r.t. Bholaram Regional Office found that a group of 9
labours including applicant for appointment of handling
labour on compassionate ground considering merit were
on basis of economical existing vacancy position. The
Regional Office found that Bholaram exceeded age of 30
years. There was no vacancy to the limit of 5 % per circular
for appointment on compassionate ground during the
period 2003 to 2011. That such compassionate
appointments were given to any dependents of employee
voluntary retirement.
5. 2nd party further submitted that matter pertaining
to ceiling limit of 5 % giving compassionate appointment.
The matter was decided with Writ Petition 7284/08 Rajpal
Kumar and others versus FCI. The matter was challenged
before Division Bench. It was held that 45 % ceiling limit
to compassionate appointment was valid. The applicant’s
case was also not considered. As no vacancy under ceiling
limit of 5 %, the applicant was not given compassionate
ground. In substance, the claim of applicant was rejected
for reasons quoted above. 2nd party submits that reference
be answered in its favour.
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 Negative
management of Food
Corporation of India,
Rajnandgaon (CG) in not
providing the employment
on compassionate ground to
Shri Bhola Ram Dhankar S/o
Ex-employee Shri Sewa Ram
Dhankar who sought voluntary
retirement on medical ground is
justified and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?”
REASONS
7. The dispute as per term of reference pertains to
denial of compassionate appointment to Shri Bholaram
after VRS on compassionate ground after retirement of his
father. Ist party Bholaram filed affidavit of his evidence
that his father was employed as handling mazdoor. He had
taken voluntary retirement on medical ground. He
submitted application for compassionate appointment on
7-11-03. The application was kept pending for 8 years. As
per order dated 6-5-2011, his application was rejected on
ground of delay. He has stated that 4-5 persons have been
given appointment in similar situation while his application
was rejected. He claims entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground. In his cross-examination, Ist party
admits his father taken VRS on 26-8-03 on medical ground.
On 7-11-03, he submitted application for appointment on
compassionate ground. His date of birth was 29-6-75. That
his application was rejected, he was of 31 years of age. He
says that Shri Bhola Sahu, Pratap, Virendra, Anil, Kanhaiya
etc. were appointed on compassionate ground. He denies
that when he submitted application for compassionate
ground, his age was more than 30 years. As per evidence
in cross examination of workman, his date of birth is
26-6-75. He submitted application for appointment
on 7-11-03. The age of Ist party comes about 28 years 5
months. He had not completed 30 years of age.
8. Management witness Amit Kumar filed affidavit
of his evidence covering most of the contentions of 2nd
party in Written Statement about VRS taken by father of
Shri Bholaram who was employed in FCI from 1991 working
in FCI, VRS on medical ground was granted to him and 8
employees. Parties have no dispute on factual matters.
That as per circular dated 4-3-03, 5 % vacancies were to be
allowed for appointment on compassionate ground at entry
level. The affidavit of management’s witness is silent why
the application for compassionate appointment of
workman was undecided till the year 2011 when as per the
circular, compassionate appointment were to be granted
within 3 years limit. Management’s witness in his cross-
examination he claims ignorance that FCI is registered
under law. FCI has its rules about appointment on
compassionate ground. He claims ignorance about the
rules framed by Government of India in matter of
appointment on compassionate ground.
4400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Documents Annexure M-1 to M-4 proved from
evidence of management’s witness. As per Exhibit M-1,
the information about 9 employees taking VRS on medical
ground was informed to District Manager. M-2 is office
order dated 8-8-03 allowing VRS to 9 employees including
Sevaram F/o Ist party. Circular Exhibit M-1 dated 4-3-03 is
circular issued by FCI in the matter of compassionate
appointment of dependents. 5 % ceiling on the vacancies
for appointment on compassionate ground at entry level.
Exhibit M-2 is circular dated 4-3-03 on the same point.
Exhibit M-3 is circular dated 5-2-04 enclosing the copy of
consolidated scheme for appointment on compassionate
ground. The scheme enclosed with it is not produced
Exhibit M-4 is circular dated 5-5-2000 also refers to the
ceiling of 5 % recruitment quota for appointment on
compassionate ground maximum time 3 years. The
evidence of management’s witness has not proved rest of
the documents what was the vacancy position after VRS
allowed to those 9 persons. Atleast after accepting VRS
on medical ground to 9 employees, their posts had fell
vacant, why the application for Ist party was not decided
atleast within 3 years, no reason has come on record. All
the 9 applications submitted by dependents of employees
taking VRS were not considered individually on merits.
The applicant were referred to Regional office and after
letter received by Regional office Committee was
constituted. The evidence on record shows that the
management has not taken proper steps to decide each of
the application on it considering the vacancies as per
circulars. Therefore the rejection of application for
compassionate ground by 2nd party cannot be said proper
and legal is ground on which application is rejected Ist
party has become overage. The evidence on record shows
that application was submitted by Ist party, his age was
about 38 years 5 months, it cannot be a ground for rejecting
appointment for compassionate ground. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
10.Point No.2- Ist party is claiming employment on
compassionate ground after his father had taken VRs on
medical ground. His application was not properly
considered by 2nd party. The application was rejected after
almost 8 years. The application was required to be decided
within 3 years as per the circular. The reasons for rejection
of application was not for justified reason. Ist party cannot
be blamed for delay in taking decision by 2nd party. How
the vacancies were considered by 2nd party , evidence is
not cogent therefore in view of evidence on record as
claim of Ist party of compassionate ground was rejected,
for reasons he could not be blamed. Claim of Ist party for
appointment on compassionate ground deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.
11.In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management is not proper
and legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to provide appointment
on compassionate ground to Ist party within
30 days from the date of publication of award.
No order as to costs.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk- vk- 2139-
dk- vk- 2139-
dk- vk- 2139-
dk- vk- 2139-
dk- vk- 2139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
MCY;wlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 142@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@64@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 142/
2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Coalfields
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 04/11/2015
[No. L-22012/64/2002- IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/142/2002
General Secretary,
RKKMS(INTUC),
Pathakhera Area,
Distt. Betul
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
WCL, PO Pathakhera,
Distt. Betul
...Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4401
A W A R D
Passed on this 7th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 8-10-2002 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
64/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Koyla
Khadan Mazdoor Sangh from the management
of WCL, Pathakhera for restoration of original
grade and pay with continuity of service of Shri
Suresh Puri workman is just and fair? If so to
what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was initially
employed at Satpura No.2 Mine Pathakhera Area on
23-8-84. He was promoted to the post of SDL Helper on
13-9-92. He was honestly doing his work to the satisfaction
of his superior. On 14-9-92, false and fabricated criminal
case was registered against him. He was sent to judicial
custody in jail. He was looking to the financial needs of
his mother Jeenabai. His mother informed management
about he was in the jail. The payment of bonus and LTC
was released in favour of his mother Jeenabai. His services
were terminated behind his back without following due
process. Charge sheet was issued to him on his address.
3. Workman submitted on 21-11-96, he was acquitted
by Hon’ble High Court of MP. After his acquittal, workman
submitted application dated 3-12-96 and requested to
permit him to join duty. On his application, management
allowed him to join duty but not on original post. He was
permitted to join as General Mazdoor Category I as fresh
appointment. Workman submits it amount to punishment
in absence of any proved misconduct. Workman had raised
dispute through Union submitting representations. The
management submitted false statement. Looking to the
rigid view adopted by management, the authorities
submitted failure report that dispute has been referred.
workman submits that the management refused his
legitimate demand due to Union activities. On such ground
workman prays that his original status with continuity of
service and backwages be allowed.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page
6/1 to 6/6 opposing claim to the workman. 2nd party submits
that on 23-8-84, workman was appointed as piece rated
workman Category I, T.No. 1353 in Satpura Mine No.1 of
WCL. Workman was regularised as General Mazdoor
Category I from 1-1-1986. On 1-1-1989, workman was
promoted to the post of cableman Cat-III. Workman was
habitual absentee. He remained absent without permission
or sanctioned leave. His working days are shown 216.5 in
1990, 190 in 1991, 160 days in 1992. Workman remained
absent unauthorisely from 15-9-92 to 23-3-93. Charge sheet
was issued to workman under clause 17.1(b), of the
standing orders. As no reply was received from workman,
Shri S.K.Bismillah Khan was appointed as Enquiry Officer,
O.P.Yadav was appointed as management representative.
Enquiry was conducted. Notices were sent on address of
workman. Workman failed to appear. After notice was
published in Navbharat, enquiry was conducted ex parte.
As per finding of Enquiry Officer, charges were proved.
Considering proved charges of workman, the services of
workman were terminated.
5. After his acquittal in criminal case, workman
submitted application along with copies of the judgments.
The matter was referred to WCL, Hqr, Nagpur. The
Competent authority approved temporary fresh
appointment for period of 3 months. Accordingly workman
was given appointment. It is submitted that workman had
not informed his detention in jail to the management. After
enquiry, the unauthorised absence, habitual absence of
workman was proved. It is further submitted that on
recommendation of DPC, workman along with others
working in mine were promoted on 1-7-00. All adverse
contentions of workman are denied. Workman was given
fresh appointment as General Mazdoor. His services on
post of SDL Helper had come to end as per the order of
punishment. Workman has accepted punishment
accepting fresh offer of appointment as General mazdoor.
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
6. As per order dated 22-11-2012, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal. Management was
permitted to prove misconduct by evidence.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether management of 2nd
In Negative
party proves misconduct of
habitual absence against workman?
(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal
In Negative
imposed against workman is proper
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to’’
REASONS
8. As treated above, enquiry conducted against
workman is found illegal by my predecessor vide order
dated 22-11-2012. Management of 2nd party was permitted
to prove misconduct by evidence. Management filed
affidavit of evidence of witness Shri R.D.Tuddu supporting
contentions of management in Written Statement.
However management’s witness did not appear for his
cross-examination. Therefore evidence of management’s
4402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
witness cannot be considered. Any other evidence is not
adduced by management. Management has failed to prove
alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence against
workman therefore the punishment of dismissal against
workman cannot be sustained. The order of punishment
of dismissal is illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1,2 in Negative.
9. Pont No.3- workman was dismissed form service
as per order dated 14-3-95 for alleged misconduct of
unauthorised absence. The charge of unauthorised
absence against workman is not proved. After acquittal of
workman on his representation, workman was appointed
as General Mazdoor Category I as fresh appointment. That
charge against workman is not proved. The order of
dismissal of workman is illegal. Relief prayed by workman
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly I record my finding
in Point No. 3.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The demand of the Rashtriya Koyla Khadan
Mazdoor Sangh from the management of WCL,
Pathakhera for restoration of original grade and
pay with continuity of service of Shri Suresh
Puri, workman is proper and legal.
(2)
The termination of service of workman from
14-3-95 is quashed. 2nd party is directed to
reinstate workman with continuity of service
without backwages.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@91) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@417@1990&vkbZ vkj ¼lh- II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.75/91)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of South Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-22012/417/1990 - IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/91
General Secretary,
M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Post Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol
....Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Chachai and Rungta Group,
Post Amlai Colliery,
Distt. Shahdol
....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 5th day of October, 2015
1. As per letter dated 15-4-91 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-22012/417/90-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Rungta
Colliery of Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri in
refusing to rectify date of birth of the workman and
consequently superannuating their workman Shri
Jagannath S/o Nathai, Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 1-7-1987
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled and from what date?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union General Secretary of Union
submitted statement of claim on behalf of workman Shri
Jagannath, S/o Shri Nathai at Page 6/1 to 6/7. Case of Ist
party Union is it is registered Union affiliated to Hind
Mazdoor Sabha bearing application No. 45 which is also
recognized Union. 2nd party is Government company
subsidiary of coal India Ltd. on 28-11-85. The companies
having number of areas and Rungta Colliery is a unit of
Sohagpur Area, Distt. Shahdol. That workman Jagannath
was working at S.C. Rungta Colliery of Sohagpur area of
SECL. He was appointed in 1956. Shri Jagannath S.O
Nathai appeared for Gas Testing Certificate Examination
at Burhar Colliery on 5th September 1975 and granted on
4-3-76. The examination was a statutory examination and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4403
all the particulars and information regarding address, date
of birth etc are mentioned in the above mentioned
certificate. The date of birth of workman is shown 18-5-35.
Workman Jagannath also appeared for Examination of
Sirdar Certificate under Coal Mine Regulations 1957 on
14-5-76 at Shahdol. The certificate was granted to workman
on 14-4-77. His date of birth is shown 18-5-35. As per
procedure, the Manager of Colliery concerned has to send
the certified date of birth to the office of Director of Mines
Safety on the basis of authentic records and proof of date
of birth of the employee. Then the workman can appear in
the above examination. The date of birth so certified by
the Manager used to be mentioned in the column of date
of birth of Gas Testing Certificate and Sirdar’s Certificate
issued by the Director of Mines Safety.
3. The Ist party further submits Office of the Director
of Mines Safety being satisfied with the authentic records
regarding the age and proof of date of birth of concerned
employee at the time of issuing the Certificate of Gas
Testing Certificate, Sirdar Certificate. As per both the
certificates, date of birth of workman is shown 18-5-1935.
The workman came to know that management wants to
retire him on 1-7-87. He approached management requesting
to correct his age as per the date of birth mentioned in
the statutory certificates. Even after request and
applications, the management had not paid any heed to
his applications. Workman approached ALC Shahdol
raising dispute through Union MP Koyla Mazdoor Sabha.
Written Statement was submitted by management of
chachai and Rungta group on 20-1-87 stating that the
date of birth mentioned in the statutory certificate cannot
be taken as authentic. After several hearings of the above
dispute, it ended in failure and failure report submitted to
the appropriate Government and present dispute has
referred.
4. Ist party Union further submits that the
management forcibly retired workman on 1-7-87. After his
retirement, Union approached the management that the
retirement of workman is illegal. As date of birth is shown
18-5-35 in both statutory certificates as per I.I.No.76 issued
by JBCCI of Coal Industry, the date of birth mentioned in
above certificate is authentic. Management further send
the case for Apex Medical Board on 25-4-89. The Apex
Medical Board without applying the procedure for age
determination as mentioned in II No.76, determined the
age arbitrarily and approved the same done by their counter
part. That workman produced 4th class school leaving
certificate on affidavit. The certificate issued by Medical
Officer regarding his date of birth. On such ground, Union
submits that retirement of workman is in colourable exercise
of power. Management forced workman to retire and
deprive him of work without reason ignoring the process
of law. That management be asked to produce proceeding
of the process for age determination by Apex Medical
Board of SECL which is in possession of management.
Union prays that superannuating workman Jaganath
Mining Sirdar from 1-7-87 is not legal and justified.
workman is entitled to be treated in employment till date
of his retirement as per his date of birth 18-5-85 shown in
statutory record. Union also prays for backwages for
forced idleness.
5. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/4 opposing claim of Union. 2nd party submits that
reference is illegal beyond jurisdiction of the appropriate
Government. While making reference, appropriate
Government amended its jurisdiction had tried to
adjudicate upon dispute between parties. The reference is
about management refusing to rectify date of birth. Said
finding could be given only by Tribunal on basis of
evidence with it is produced by parties. Therefore the
reference is liable to be rejected. 2nd party further submits
that workman Jagannath was working as Mining Sirdar,
duties of mining Sirdar are of supervisory nature. Wages
of Mining Sirdar are more than Rs.1600/- is not covered as
workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. 2nd party further
submits that workman was appointed as General mazdoor
in 1956. As per coal mines regulations, the person employed
in coal mine is required to give detailed particulars
regarding himself which includes his name, fathers name,
date of birth, address etc. These particulars are entered in
a Register known as Form B Register or the Register of
employment. It is statutory register. The entries in the
register are made on the basis of information given by
workman concerned. The entries in the register are made
on the basis of information given by workman concerned.
The entries are made and the workman concerned
countersigned the entries made. In Form B register, the
age of workman was shown 30 years in 1947 therefore he
was superannuated from 1-7-87. The particulars in Form B
register are binding on the workman because the
particulars made thereunder are covered on the basis of
information given by him and countersigned by the
workman. he stopped from challenging it.
6. 2nd party submits as per NCWA-II, II No.37 was
in force. According to this, date of birth and other
particulars of each and every employees are displayed on
he notice board in December 1981. It was also circulated.
In said list, name of shri Jagannath appears at Sl. No. 198
and it was clearly mentioned that his age is 52 years as on
1-1-1979. In said notice, the employee aggrieved by the
date of birth should submit objection within 90 days. Inspite
of displaying the particulars of age of Shri Jagannath in
notice board, he did not submit any objection. It shows
that he was not aggrieved by the date of his birth maintained
by the management. in all those register, his age is
mentioned correctly. The entries made in Form B register
are countersigned by Shri Jagannath every year. There is
no variation in date of birth mentioned in the register.
4404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
There were discrepancies in the record maintained by the
management. That workman Shri Jagannath was examined
by Apex Medical Board on 29-4-89 at SECL, Bilaspur. After
going through various Form B register maintained by
management, said board came to conclusion that date of
birth of Jagannath was correctly entered and held that his
date of birth was 1-7-87 as per the entries. 2nd party reiterates
that Shri Jagannath was superannuated on 1-7-87 is legal.
No ground is made out for rectifying his date of birth
recorded in management record. His school leaving
certificate submitted by workman is not genuine. The
certificate was submitted only at the time of retirement.
Workman kept quite all the years cannot challenge his
date of birth recorded in management record. On such
ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
7. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/2
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
8. Management filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating his contentions in Written Statement.
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 action of the
In Negative
management of Rungta
Colliery of Sohagpur
Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri
in refusing to rectify date of
birth of the workman and
consequently superannuating
their workman Shri Jagannath
S/o Nathai, Mining Sirdar w.e.f.
1-7-1987 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?’’
REASONS
10. Present dispute is raised by Union on behalf of
workman pertaining to date of birth. As per order sheet
dated 16-4-99, it is recorded that Union did not want to
lead evidence. Matter was fixed for evidence of
management.
11. Management’s witness I.L. Rakashiya in his
affidavit of evidence says that he was working at Rungta
colliery from 1-11-64 as clerk. He was promoted to the
office of O.S. while working at Rungta colliery, he used to
maintain Form B register of employees working in Rungta
colliery. That workman Jagannath S/o Nathai were
appointed as General Mazdoor in 1956. As per coal mine
regulation, every person who is employed in coal mine is
required to give detailed particulars regarding himself
which includes his name, father’s name, date of birth etc.
Those particulars are entered in Register of employment,
Form B register which is statutory register. The entries in
the register are made on the basis of information given by
workman. The entries are made and workman concerned
countersigned it. In his affidavit, he further says that in
Form B register of 1979 at Sl.No. 234, name of workman
Shri Jagannath is entered, age is shown 52 years. The
date of commencement of employment is shown 1956.
The above witness in his cross-examination says his
appointment is subsequent to the appointment of
workman. Part of Form B register were prepared by him
and other part were prepared by his predecessor. He
prepared form B register from the year 1979 and initialed.
In Form B register at Sl. No. 234, appears signature of
workman. It contains my initial at the bottom of sheet as
Head time keeper. It does not contains signature of
Manager but it contains the signature of Mines Safety
Officer Shri Mansingh. The duty of time keeper is to issue
attendance of workman and mark in and out of the
workman for going and coming out of the mines. The Form
B register contains the particulars of attendance of the
workman. in form B Register of 1957, thump impression
of workman Jagannath appears. The same evidence is
given about form B Register for 1959, 1960, 1962, 1973,
1964, 1968, 1976, the witness says that certificate issued
by DGMS regarding Gas Testing and Sirdar Test , thump
impression of workman Shri Jagannath.
12. Management’s witness No. 2 Umakant Gupta in
his affidavit of evidence says as workman was appointed
as General Mazdoor in 1956. As per Mine Rules 1955 under
Mines Act 1952, the detailed particulars of employees were
recorded including name, address, age. In Form B Register
of 1957, age of Jagannath was shown 30 years. Workman
was superannuated on 1-7-87. As per I.I.No.37, the date of
birth and other particulars were displayed in notice board
in December 1981. It was circulated. In the list, name of
workman was appearing at Sl. No. 198. His age was recorded
52 years as on 1-1-79. Objections were called within 90
days. No objection was submitted by workman. the age of
workman as correctly recorded in Form B Register. His
case was referred to Apex Medical Board. The Board held
his date of birth is 1-7-27. The school certificate of Class
IV, affidavit etc. are not authentic and cannot be considered
as proof of date of birth of employee. If workman objection,
he should have submitted when the particulars are
displayed in notice board. Copies of Form B produced are
marked ExhibitM-4. As evidence of above witness
remained unchallenged, witness was not cross-examined.
13. Management’ witness shri M.K.Thapar is similar
to the evidence of both witnesses. That workman
Jagannath was appointed as General Mazdoor in 1956.
Entries in Form B register were entered on information
given by workman. the age of workman in 1957 was 30
years. He was superannuated on 1-7-87. The certificate
regarding date of birth/ age issued by management as per
entries made in Form B Register. He issued certificate dated
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4405
19-3-76 certifying that as per form B register, date of birth
of Jagannath was 49 years. In his cross-examination, above
witness says he was working in Rungta colliery from 1974
to 1977 workman was working as Mining Sirdar. He did
not recollect whether workman had appeared Gas Testing
Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate during his period.
For Mining Sirdar Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate is
necessary. Mining Sirdar Certificate and Gas Testing
Certificate are issued by Director General, Safety and
Mines. Witness says that zerox copy of Gas Testing
Certificate/ Mining Sirdar certificate appears correctly
issued. He denies that application for appearing for Gas
Testing Certificate exam, Mining Sirdar are forwarded by
the Manager. Further shows that age shown in Gas Testing
and Mining Sirdar are not accepted. There is no basis for
recording age in Form B register. The employees produced
documents for 1-2 years is allowed for raising the dispute.
The employees recording age in Form B Register is not
given training. He claims ignorance whether before
recording age, employees examined by Medical officer/
Doctor. He was unable to tell whether the employee used
to sign documents or is signed in Form B or not. The
evidence of management’s witness about particulars
recorded in Form B register on information submitted by
workman is not shattered. Copies of Form B register Exhibit
m-4 thump mark of workman are appearing. His age is
shown in different years. The date of birth of workman is
not recorded in Exhibit M-4.
14. Turning to documentary evidence by workman
in Exhibit W-1,2 Gas Testing Certificate, Sirdar certificate ,
his date of birth s recorded 18-5-1935. My attention is
pointed out by Shri Nathulal Pandey, Union Secretary that
the information was received through Mine Manager was
accepted as correct. Shri A.K.Shashi submits that both
the documents are admitted except the date of birth.
Management not produced any evidence to show that
how the date of birth recorded in Exhibit w-1, w-2, age 35 is
incorrect. Exhibit w-3 is application submitte by workman
Jagannath requesting not to retire him from 1-7-87. Exhibit
w-4 is application submitted by Union to ALC contending
that date of birth of workman was shown 18-5-35 in
statutory documents. The annexure to said application
finds photocopy of school certificate was submitted along
with Exhibit W-4. Copies of Sirdar Certificate and other
applications were also submitted to ALC. Exhibit W-5 is
reply submitted by management denying claim of workman
reiterating that Gas Testing Certificate, Sirdar Certificate
cannot be accepted as evidence of date of birth. Exhibit
W-6 is copy of I.I.No.76 , W-7 is letter given by Manager
that Apex Medical Board found date of birth of workman
was 1-7-27.
15. Management produced documents Exhibit M-1
application submitted by workman objective to his
retirement. M-2 Gas Testing Certificate, his date of birth
is shown 18-5-35. Exhibit M-3 is certificate issued by
Manager of Rungta colliery, age of Jagannath was 49
years on 19-3-76. Documents Exhibit W-7, W-8 are
produced for Ist party. From those documents, it is clear
that date of other persons were corrected. In Exhibit W-7,
date of birth of Shri R.P. Tripathi 16-7-43 as per Form B was
corrected to 25-2-37. Date of birth of Lalman Thakurdin is
24-1-50 as per form B was corrected to 13-9-47. Date of
birth of Sonalal 18-8-54 corrected to1-12-56. Date of birth
of Amritlal 28-10-51 as per Form B was corrected to 5-4-51
considering the certificates produced by them. As per
Exhibit W-8, date of birth Tilku singh 1-7-50 in Form B
Register was corrected to 7-7-50. The date of birth of Shri
Biswanath 31-7-47 was corrected to 9-7-39, date of birth of
shri Benukar Mandal 1-7-41 was corrected to 31-12-42 as
per the mining sirdar certificate produced by workmen.
16. Workman died during pendency on 2-3-05, his
LR are brought on record. they have not adduced any
evidence.
17. Witness Gopal Sharan Singh was examined by
Ist party. From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-7 to W-
9 are proved. In his cross-examination, said witness denied
that he appeared as witness at instance of Union Secretary.
He further says that he did not take any action in the
matter of date of birth of workman. He admits that in 1981,
notice was displayed by management regarding date of
birth of the employees. Notice was displayed on notice
board. He claims ignorance whether workman had taken
in objection about his date of birth. That I.I.37/76 were
issued for resolving the dispute of date of birth.
18. Union Secretary Shri N.L.Pandey during course
of argument emphasized that I.I.76 issued by JBCCI is
mandatory. That the date of birth recorded in Form B register
by clerk cannot be accepted to be authentic.
19. Shri Pandey pointed my attention to I.I.76 issued
as per NCWA III.
Clause 12 provides- It was also agreed that age
disputes pending in the case of employees superannuated
on and after Ist July, 1987 will be examined in accordance
with the revised procedure and all past cases will not be
reopened.
Above clause was not disputed by 2nd party.
Annexure I with I.I.76 is submitted for perusal. Under
caption B Review determination of date of birth in respect
of existing employees.
(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees
Matriculation Certificate or Higher secondary Certificate
issued by the recognized Universities or Board of Middle
Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/ or
department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued
by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct
provided they were issued by the said universities/ boards/
institutions prior to the date of employment.
4406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(b) similarly Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or
similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had
to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.
Provided that where both documents mentioned in
(i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date of birth
recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.
(ii) wherever there is no variation in records , such
cases will not be reopened unless here is a very glaring
and apparent wrong entry brought to the noticie of the
management. The management after being satisfied on
the merits of the case will take appropriate action for
correction through Determination Committee/ medical
Board.
(c) Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board
for the above will be constituted by the management. In
the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be
determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned
above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the
company namely form B register, CMPF records and
Identity Cards will be treated as final. Provided that where
there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records
mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age
Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by
the management for determination of age.
20. During course of argument, there is serious
dispute whether the date of birth of workman shown in
Sirdar Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate could be
accepted as authentic. Shri N.L.Pandey submits that
workman was semi literate. He has not passed matriculation
or any of the board examination. Therefore the date of
birth recorded in Gas Testing Certificate, Sirdar certificate
be treated as authentic. There was no need to refer workman
to the Apex Medical Board. Apex Medical Board has not
conducted test required. Only the report of the Apex
Medical Board based on date of birth recorded in Form B
register cannot be accepted. The document Exhibit W-7
shows remarks of Medical Board. Date of birth 1-7-27 age
recorded in Form B register was accepted by Medical
Board. The report of Apex Medical Board is not produced.
I.I.No.76 provides medical board to decide age as per the
medical jurisprudence i.e. after conducting examination of
bones and ossification test etc. It is surprised to say that
in absence of report of Apex Medical Board, it cannot be
said that age of Ist party workman was determined by
Apex Medical Board.
21. Shri N.L. Pandey in his argument submits
that date of birth in Gas Testing Certificate, Sirdar
Certificate Exhibit W-1, W-2 be accepted as authentic. It is
emphasized that DGMS is statutory authority. the
application forms for both the examination are submitted
through Mine Manager. Reliance is placed by the parties
on ratio held in different cases.
22. Copy of Appendix proforma for application
to be submitted for Mining Sirdar Certificate is also
submitted for my perusal. On the point both the parties
relies on ratio held in various cases. Shri N.L.Pandey
submitted judgment in-
Unreported case between A.Raja Murali versus
M/s Singareni Collieries by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High
court. His Lordship ordered the petitioner filed admission
certificate issue by the Head Master of the Primary School
wherein his date of birth was shown as 10-2-1950. The
said document was dated 5-6-56. That petitioner had also
filed SSC certificate with Roll No. 180550 dated 18-6-74 to
show that he passed SSC examinations held in April 1974.
His date of birth was 10-2-1950. When the employee soon
after joining in service or within 5 year from date of joining
service, consistently claims a particular date as his date of
birth and furnishes school record may be Primary school
record and when genuineness of such record not in
dispute, the claim of such employee cannot be rejected
without valid reasons. When an employee passed all the
departmental tests showing the date of birth as claimed
by him and the concerned authorities issued certificates
accordingly it becomes clear that such employee
consistently claimed his date of birth as contented by
him. The only presumption that can be drawn is that the
authorities who issued Shot Firer’s Certificate on 7-8-1974
Sirdar’s certificate on 3-3-76 and overman’s certificate on
30-10-78 in all probabilities must have issued those
certificates mentioning his date of birth only after making
reasonable enquiry. Their Lordship further observed that
it is to be brought to notice that each case has to be
decided on its own facts and circumstances. It is clear
from I.I.76 issued by JBCCI referred above that Mining
Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory
certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of
birth will be treated as authentic. When the genuineness
of those documents are not in dispute, those certificates
have to be taken into consideration. Those certificates
have to be taken into consideration.
In present case, workman or management have not
produced certificate of standard 4th neither any certificate
about his educational qualification therefore the ratio held
in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case between employees in relation to Nichitpur
colliery under Sijua Area of M/S BCCL versus their workmen
in unreported judgment by Hon’ble High Court Jharkhand.
In para 6 of the judgment, his Lordship observed the
Tribunal considered evidence particularly service excerpts
, School Leaving Certificate, letter written by the
management dated 1-7-97 in which date of birth of the
concerned workman has been shown as 1-2-1952 and
answered the award in negative holding that the action of
the management of M/S BCCL in not considering the date
of birth of the concerned workman as 1-2-1952 and
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4407
superannuating him from service w.e.f. 1-7-97 is not
justified. The action of the management in not considering
date of birth of workman as 1-2-52 , superannuating him
w.e.f. 1-7-97 is not justified.
In present case, the any of the school leaving
certificate has not come on record to support claim of
workman that date of birth was 18-5-35 therefore the
judgment cannot be applied to case at hand.
Reliance is placed on Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and
others versus Chhota Birsa Uranw reported in 2014-III-
LLJ. Their Lordship held dispute was not raised by
respondent at fag end of career but almost two decades
prior to his superannuation when he first came to know of
the discrepancy. The NCWA III, initiative of the Appellants
clearly indicated the existence of errors in service records
of which the appellants were aware and were taking steps
to rectify the same. The instance of appellant that the
records in the Form B register must be relied upon doesnot
hold good as it is admitted by the Appellant that errors
existed in the same. The respondent duly followed the
procedure available and the attempt of the Appellant to
deny the claim of the respondent on the basis of
technicality is incorrect. The appellant failed to follow the
procedure as laid down in the Implementation Instruction.
In above cited case, Para 3.3 of the judgment shows
respondent Mining Sirdarship and in the certificate
acknowledging the same his date of birth was recorded as
6-2-1950 corresponding to the date recorded in the
aforementioned School leaving Certificate. The date of
birth in Form b register was recorded as 15-2-47 and in
Mining Sardar Certificate and School Leaving Certificate
was recorded as 6-2-1950.
23. Shri A.K.Shashi pointed out document 14/2-
application submitted by workman to DGMS. However
said document has not been proved by valid evidence. It
is denied by Ist party therefore said document cannot be
relied for deciding the controversy. As per appendix in
I.I.No.76 workman has not produced matriculation
certificate or other educational certificate therefore the
date of birth recorded in Mining Sirdar Certificate, Gas
Testing Certificate can be treated authentic as provided
under Clause B(1)(b) of the Annexure to I.I.76.
24. Shri A.K.Shashi relies on unreported judgment
in W.P.No. 18 of 1999 by Hon’ble High Court, Jabalpur.
His Lordship observed the age indicated in Mining Sirdar
Certificate is therefore not relevant. In present case, it has
not been shown that on the basis of entry in Form B
register, it was necessary to take date of birth recorded by
them and that for purpose of record, the matter was sent
to Age Determination Committee, the claim was made for
review of the age on the basis of age shown in Mining
Sirdar Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate. Long after their
entry in service. There was no dispute during course of
argument that after workman passed Gas Testing
Certificate, Sirdar Certificate, he was appointed as Sirdar
long back in 1977. The management had accepted those
certificates. Workman was referred for examination by Apex
Medical Board but his age was not determined as per
I.I.No.76 as per the Medical rules. the report of the Apex
Medical Board is also not produced on record therefore
contentions of management cannot be accepted.
25. Reliance is also placed by Shri A.K.Shashi on
ratio held in
Case of G.M.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal
versus Shib Kumar Dushad and others reported in 2000(8)
SCC 696. Her Lordship dealing with determination of date
of birth and judicial review held that in absence of any
arithmetical or typographical error apparent on the face of
the record. High Court should not interfere with such
decision of the employer in exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226. Their Lordship dealing with
burden of proof held where the date of birth is entered in
service record is questioned before court by an employee
shortly before his retirement, burden lies heavily on him
to establish his stand by producing acceptable evidence
of clinching nature.
The date of birth of Ist party workman 18-5-35 was
recorded in Exhibit W-1, W-2. As per Para B(1)(b) of
I.I.No.76, date of birth in statutory certificates is required
to be accepted as authentic when no documents are
covered under para B(1)(a). Therefore the ratio held in
above case cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.
In present case, the dispute lies between parties is whether
his date of birth recorded in form B should be treated
authentic or the date of birth recorded in Sirdar Certificate
should be accepted. The ratio in above case cannot be
beneficially applied to case at hand.
Next reliance is placed in case of State of Haryana
versus Satish kumar Mittal reported in 2011(1) MPLJ. Their
Lordship held application for correction in service record
within the rules. In above judgment it is not prescribed
within the reasonable time.
I.I.76 was issued in 1988 providing the method I.I.
No.76 covers claim of applicant as he was retired from
1-7-87. As date of birth of workman was recorded 18-5-35
in Exhibit W-1, W-2 and the workman was appointed as
Sirdar. It cannot be said that claim of workman was delayed.
As per I.I.No.76, date of birth recorded under clause (C) in
case of employees date of birth cannot be determined in
accordance with the procedure mentioned in B-1(a), B-
1(b) above. The date of birth recorded in record of the
company’s Form B will be treated as final. As applicant’s
date of birth 18-5-35 is recorded in Gas Testing Certificate
and Sirdar Certificate, the form B register cannot be given
preference on these documents. Considering the
provisions in Para B(1)(a), B(1)(b) and Para (c) of the
Appendix to I.I. No. 76. Superannuation of workman from
4408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1-7-87 is not legal. For above reasons, I record my finding
in point No.1 in Negative.
26. Point No.2- In view of my finding on Point No.1
superannuation of workman from 1-7-87 is found illegal,
question arises whether workman is entitled for backwages
for above period. On above point, Shri N.L.Pandey relies
on ratio held in
Case of T.N.Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC
Employees Association versus LIC of India reported in
2015 AIR SCW 1906. Their Lordship held employees
working as temporary, badly and part time employees
against permanent posts doing perennial nature of work
continuing them as such for number of years is unfair
labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) which is
statutorily prohibited under Section 25 T of the ID Act.
Ratio held in the case has no bearing to the
controversy between parties. It cannot be beneficially
applied to case at hand.
27. However as the date of birth of workman as
recorded in Sirdar Certificate, Gas Testing Certificate as
18-5-35. Workman was superannuated considering his date
of birth in Form B register. The superannuation of workman
is illegal. Workman was forcibly kept idle, the workman
had died during pendency, he cannot be reinstated. Claim
of workman for wages till date of his superannuation
considering his date of birth 18-5-35 deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
28. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Rungta Colliery
of Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri in refusing to
rectify date of birth of the workman and consequently
superannuating their workman Shri Jagannath S/o Nathai,
Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 1-7-1987 is not proper and legal.
(2)2nd party is directed to pay wages to the workman
from 1-7-87 till the date of his superannuation 17-5-95.
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] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 147@1995½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@168@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
jktsUnz flag ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.147/
1995) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Coalfields
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 04/11/2015.
[ No. L-22012/168/1995 - IR(C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/147/95
Chief General Secretary,
M.P.K.K.M.P(HMS),
Post Junnardeo,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman/Union
Versus
Manager,
Sukri Colliery,
PO Junnardeo,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 9th day of October 2015
1. As per letter dated 7-8-95 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/
168/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Sukri
Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Junnardeo,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing Shri Balram
S/o Tejbali, Mech. Fitter Sukri Colliery of WCL,
Kanhan Area from services w.e.f. 15-10-94 is
justified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled
to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim
at page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of Union is that workman Balram
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4409
was its member. He served 2nd party for 35 years without
any compliance. Age of workman was 56 years on 12-9-94
around 4.15 PM. Asstt. Manager ordered workman to
operate data haulage. He refused to do said work because
he was fitter and not haulage Khasi. That workman had
operated data haulage sometime. That he did not want to
operate haulage regularly. Asstt. Manager was angry and
ordered to cut attendance of workman around 4.30 PM,
workman returned back. Thereafter he went to Petrol pump
for filling petrol in scooter of one Shri Sushil. Asstt.
Manager came there and started quarrelling over the same
dispute. Hard talks held at Junnardeo main road. That
chargesheet was served to workman on 13-9-94. Workman
replied to chargesheet on 14-9-94 denying charges against
him. Reply was received by management on 16-9-94.
Instead of considering reply to the chargesheet,
management appointed Enquiry Committee on 13-9-94
while chargesheet was received by workman on same day.
Enquiry Officer Shri S.K.Srivastava was Personnel
Manager in GM Office Kanhan. Notice of enquiry was
issued on 13/14-9-94. Conveying to hold enquiry on
17-9-94 at 10 AM in his office. Workman was served with
notice of enquiry on 16-9-94, 5 PM, reply to chargesheet
was submitted on same day but management did not give
heed to reply to chargesheet. Enquiry Committee was
appointed. It is further contented that on 17-9-94, workman
submitted application that at short time of the notice, it
was not possible to arrange co-worker Mohan from
Regional workshop. He requested to postpone enquiry to
some other day. Enquiry Officer taking his application did
not sign on copy. Enquiry Officer said that enquiry would
be held on same day and he will dismiss him. Workman
rushed to the post office and reported submitted to the
police, General Manager and other authorities of WCL.
He applied for change of Enquiry Officer alleged Enquiry
Officer was not impartial. On 24-9-94, Chief Personnel
Manager, Kanhan Area issued showcause notice informing
enquiry was proceeded exparte. The charges against
workman were proved. Workman was called upon to submit
his comments within 48 hours. 22-9-94 was holiday.
Workman received letter on 23-9-94 . he replied to
showcause notice on 23-9-94 by post. Workman had
written letter dated 1-10-94 requesting to hold enquiry
but management could not hold enquiry. Letter of dismissal
was issued on 15-10-94. Union submits dismissal of
workman is without giving him opportunity for his defence.
The Union prays for reinstatement of workman with
backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to
6/5 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary
objection that workman expired on 24-7-95. His LRs were
not brought on record within 90 days. The reference is
liable to be dismissed as abated. 2nd party further submits
that deceased workman was working as mechanical fitter.
On 12-9-94, he was in 2nd shift. Workman reported for duty
in drunken condition. For safety point of view, mines as
well as co-workers shri Narayan Charokar not allowed
him on duty. Workman threatened and abused Shri
Narayan Charokar. While Narayan was returning his home
after duty, workman came from his back side, stopped
Narayan, abused and beaten him with belt of the lamp.
Shri Abdul and other rushed to the spot. All those persons
rescued Narayan. On complaint made by Narayan dated
12-9-94, chargesheet was issued to workman. Reply
submitted by workman was not found satisfactory. The
Enquiry Officer Shri S.K.Srivastava was appointed. Shri
P.C.Sahu Personal Manager was appointed as
representative of management. The enquiry was fixed on
17-9-92 as per memorandum issued on 14-9-92. Workman
received memorandum and did not participate in the
enquiry. Workman was present in personal department.
Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural
justice. The 2nd sitting of enquiry was held on 18-9-94.
Workman refused to receive memorandum. Statement of
10 witnesses of management were recorded. Workman was
not present to cross-examine management’s witnesses
who were discharged. It is reiterated that the enquiry was
conducted properly. Workman was allowed opportunity
for his defence. For proved charges of abuses and threats
given to Shri Narayan by workman, punishment of dismissal
was imposed against the workman is legal. If enquiry is
found vitiated, management be permitted to prove
misconduct by adducing evidence.
4. As per order dated 6-4-2015, enquiry conducted
against workman is found illegal. 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 Sukri Colliery
of WCL, Kanhan Area,
PO Junnardeo, Distt. Chhindwara
(MP) in dismissing Shri Balram
S/o Tejbali, Mech. Fitter Sukri
Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area
from services w.e.f.
15-10-94 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?’’
REASONS
5. Enquiry conducted against workman is found
illegal as per order dated 6-4-2015. The counsel for Ist
party submitted application dated 21-7-2015. The workman
was dead. It was submitted that management may not be
permitted to produce evidence to prove charges. Further
enquiry about charges cannot be allowed when workman
is dead. After hearing counsel for parties, case was fixed
for final arguments.
6. Management was not allowed to adduce evidence
to prove charges against workman. Workman was dead.
As charges against workman are not proved, the order of
4410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dismissal of workman cannot be sustained. The dismissal
of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No.1 in Negative.
7. Point No.2- The learned counsel for workman
Shri P. Yadav at the time of argument submits that as
charges against workman are not proved, the dismissal of
workman is illegal. As workman is dead, consequential
benefits of backwages be allowed. The compassionate
employment also be allowed. In reply to above, learned
counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi submits that the
charges against workman were of workman assaulting
Shri Narayan, workman had attended duty under
intoxication, enquiry is found vitiated. There is no evidence
that workman was or was not in employment, backwages
cannot be allowed. W.r.t. the ruling of appointment on
compassionate ground, it is submitted that term of
reference doesnot include the claim for compassionate
appointment. The Tribunal cannot decide opportunity
beyond the terms of reference. As the claim for appointment
on compassionate ground is also not claimed in his
statement of claim, workman died on 24-7-95 long back, I
donot find substance in the argument of Shri P. Yadav
about appointment on compassionate ground to the
dependants of said workman. Workman was terminated
on 15-10-95 and he died on 24-7-95. The backwages for
period 15-10-95 to 24-7-95 deserves to be allowed. In view
of workman had completed long spam of service and order
of his dismissal is illegal, dependants of workman be also
entitled to retiral benefits. Accordingly I record my finding
in Point No.2.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)The action of the management is not proper and
legal.
(2)2nd party is directed to pay wages to the deceased
workman for the period 15-10-94 to 24-7-95 ( death of
workman). 2nd party is also directed to allow retiral benefits
to the workman considering his death on 24-7-95.
The monetary benefits 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] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk- vk- 2142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@ Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 140@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 22012@597@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No..140/
2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of South Eastern
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-22012/597/1999 - IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/140/2000
The Secretary,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh (HMS),
Amradandi Store Complex,
PO Amlai Colliery,
Shahdol
...Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Burhar Sub Area,
SECL, PO.Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 14th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 6-21-7-2000 by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
22012/597/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the sub Area Manager, Burhar
sub Area of SECL, PO Burhar, Distt. Shahdol(MP)
in dismissing the services of Shri Befaiya S/o Jethua
Clipman, Dhanpuri U.G.Mine w.e.f. 20-9-97 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 7/1 to 7/4. Case of workman is he was
employed as General Mazdoor by 2nd party. he was working
honestly. There was no adverse remark against him.
workman had submitted medical certificates for resuming
duty on 27-9-96. He was not allowed to join duty.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4411
Chargesheet was issued to him on 27-10-96 alleging
unauthorized absence. Workman further submits that he
denied allegation in chargesheet. Chargesheet was issued
to him with ulterior motive. That due to illness like TB,
workman had applied for light job. Management did not
pay heed to his request. That management alleged
misconduct under standing orders. Workman submits
there are no certified standing orders existing. Workman
had joined Janta Mazdoor Union for redressal of his
grievances. Management developed malice against him
without giving any opportunity to be represented to
engage co-worker, enquiry was conducted. Enquiry
Proceedings shows bias of Enquiry Officer against him.
Enquiry was mechanically completed by Enquiry officer.
That he belongs to ST. workman further submits that he
was suffering from TB. He was receiving treatment from
17-3-97 to 30-3-97. He had produced sick certificate. He
was allowed to join duty as per letter dated 28-8-97. It is
reiterated that enquiry was not properly conducted. He
was not allowed opportunity for his defence. Report of
preliminary enquiry was not supplied to him. Enquiry was
conducted in violation of principles of natural justice is
illegal.
3. 2nd party submitted Written Statement at Page
8/1 to 8/8 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits
that workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor.
He was given promotion as clipman. Workman was habitual
absentee. The production of coal mines is affected by
absenteeism. In Para-2 of Written Statement, working days
of workman are shown in 1993-184, 1994-70, 1995-136 & 10
days in Feb-96, 16 days in March 1996. That workman was
granted CL from 9-4-96 to 12-4-96. After said leave,
workman not reported for duty. He was absent from
13-4-96 to 25-10-96. Workman was under treatment from
15-4-96 to 6-5-96. He was declared fit to resume duty but
did not report to duty from 7-5-96 to 9-5-96, workman was
under treatment at Burhar from 10-5-96 to 15-7-96. He was
declared fit but did not resume duty on 16-7-96 to
25-10-96. No medical certificate was produced.
Chargesheet was issued to workman as per certified
standing order. Enquiry was conducted. Workman did not
attend Enquiry Proceeding fixed on various dates.
Workman was present in enquiry on 19-2-97 alongwith his
co-worker. Workman denied charges against him. the
statement of management’s witnesses were recorded.
Statement of workman was recorded. It is reiterated that
enquiry was conducted properly. As per order dated
28-9-97, workman was removed from service. Appeal
preferred by workman was rejected as per order dated 26-
7-99. It is reiterated that workman was habitual absentee.
The charges against workman are proved from evidence
in enquiry. The allegation of victimization have been
denied. 2nd party prays that reference be answered in its
favour.
4. As per order dated 12-12-12, enquiry conducted
against workman is found not proper and legal. 2nd party
was granted permission to prove misconduct.
5. Considering pleadings on record and order on
preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the misconduct
In Negative
alleged against workman
is proved by 2nd party?
(ii) Whether the punishment
In Negative
of removal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.’’
workman is
REASONS
6. Chargesheet issued to workman is produced at
Exhibit M-1 under Clause 26.24 habitual late attendance
and habitual absence from duty. The working days form
1994 to 1996 are shown in the chargesheet- in 1993-84
days, 1995-136 days, 10 days in Feb, 16 days in March 96.
Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Shri P.K.
Srivastava has shown similar working days of workman.
Workman was granted CL. He remained absent after expiry
of leave. He reported to duty on 13-3-96 to 25-10-96. His
affidavit is similar to contentions of 2nd party in Written
Statement that workman had not reported on duty after
leave period. In his cross-examination, management’s
witness says Ist party did not work under him. He worked
under SECL. He did not know whether workman was not
given memo before issuing chargesheet. He denies that
workman was not given opportunity of hearing before
imposing punishment. The evidence of management’s
witness doesnot clearly shows the period of unauthorized
absence. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1.
To W-2. Workman had donated blood in the year 1994.
Workman produced sick certificate and fit certificate
Exhibit W-3. Workman was declared fit for duty on
4-11-94. Sick certificates are produced at Exhibit W-4.
Workman was unfit for duty from 10-8-96. Exhibit W-5
workman was found fit for duty from 24-11-94. Exhibit
W-6 workman was found fit for duty. That sick certificate
is produced. Evidence of management’s witness doesnot
show how workman was habitually absent when workman
was receiving treatment, he was granted CL at different
time. Therefore evidence of management witness is not
sufficient to prove charges/ misconduct alleged against
workman. For above reasons, I record Point No.1 in
Negative.
7. Point No.2- the charges of habitual absence
alleged against workman are not proved from evidence of
management witness. Learned counsel for Ist party
workman pointed out my attention that illness of workman
was beyond his control, any document about attendance
was not produced by management, workman be
reinstated.
4412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi
submits that workman was irregular in his work. Medical
certificates and leave record is produced. Rest of the period
was unauthorized. His working days are also brought to
notice. Learned counsel Shri A.K. Shashi further submits
that workman was insisting for surface duty. He was absent
without submitting application for leave. The intimation
of his absence was not given to the management. Therefore
reinstatement should not be allowed.
9. The unauthorized absence of workman is not
proved from evidence of workman. It is argued that
attendance of workman was irregular. Chargesheet was
issued to workman about habitual absence. Said charge
is not proved from evidence of management’s witness.
Affidavit of evidence of workman shows his age was 57
years in the year 2010. Workman has already attained age
of superannuation therefore reinstatement could not be
allowed. Considering charge of unauthorized absence not
proved, reasonable compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh 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 Sub Area Manager, Burhar Sub
Area of SECL, PO Burhar, Distt. Shahdol(MP) in dismissing
the services of Shri Befaiya S/o Jethua Clipman, Dhanpuri
U.G.Mine w.e.f. 20-9-97 is not proper.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay Rs. 2 Lakh 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] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dj /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy
bafLVV;wV vkWiQ VsDuksykWth] dqjQ{ks=k ds izca/ra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ 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- 77@2012 ,oa 79@2012)dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@10@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@145@2012 vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2143. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.77/2012
& 79/2012) 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 National Institute of
Technology, Kurukshetra and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 03/11/2015.
[No. L-42012/145/2012-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 No.77 of 2012, Reference No. L-42012/145/
2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
Sh. Vijay Kumar son of Shri Suresh Kumar C/o Girish Rana,
H.No. 635, New Colony, Mirjapur, Near Bheem Hawan,
Kurukshetra, Haryana.
....Workman.
Versus
The Director, National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Shri S.S. Chokhar, Advocate.
Award Passed on: - 27.10.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/145/2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the demand of Shri Vijay Kumar son of
Shri Suresh Kumar, for reinstatement and
regularisation in service with the management of
Director, NIT, Kurukshetra w.e.f. 06.12.2008 as
Security Guard is just, fair and legal? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any witness is present on behalf of the
workman. On the last date of hearing also, no one was
present on behalf of the workman. It appears that the
workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.
In view of the above the present reference is disposed off
for want of prosecution.
Chandgarh,
27.10.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4413
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dj /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy
bafLVV;wV vkWiQ VsDuksykWth] dqjQ{ks=k ds izca/ra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ 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- 77@2012 ,oa 79@2012)dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@147@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No.77/2012
& 79/2012) 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 National
Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
03/11/2015.
[No. L-42012/147/2012-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 No.79 of 2012, Reference No. L-42012/147/
2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013.
Sh. Sanjay Sharma son of Shri Vidya Prakash Sharma,
Resident of 616/6, Patel Nagar, Kurukshetra-Haryana.
....Workman
Versus
The Director, National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman
: None.
For the Management : Shri S.S. Chokhar, Advocate.
Award Passed on: - 27.10.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-42012/147/2012/IR(DU) dated 21.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the demand of Shri Sanjay Sharma son of
Shri Vidya Prakash Sharma, Ex-security guard, for
reinstatement and regularisation in service with the
management of Director, NIT, Kurukshetra w.e.f.
10.4.2008 as Security Guard is just, fair and legal? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the
workman nor any witness is present on behalf of the
workman. On the last date of hearing also, no one was
present on behalf of the workman. It appears that the
workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.
In view of the above the present reference is disposed off
for want of prosecution.
Chandigarh
27.10.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh]] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2145-
dk-vk- 2145-
dk-vk- 2145-
dk-vk- 2145-
dk-vk- 2145-—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
uS”kuy caSd ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la- 122@2001½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 04-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@45@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/
2001))of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-12011/45/2001 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM L-ABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/122/2001
Shri General Secretary,
Association of Punjab
National Bank Employees,
37, Bhakshi Gali,
Indore
...Workman/Union
Versus
4414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Bhopal Region,
Sikharvarta Bhawan,
Press Complex,
Bhopal, Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-6-2001 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-12011/
45/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Regional
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in imposing
the punishment of stoppage of 4 annual grade
increments with cumulative effect in respect of Shri
Rajeev Stephen is justified? If not, 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 Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of workman is that he was
working on post of clerk/ cashier at branch Ratlam. He
was previously posted at Ganjbasoda branch.
Management imposed punishment stopping his 4
increments with cumulative effect. Chargesheet was issued
to him on 6-1-94, the applications were vague. Certain
allegations were false. Workman submitted reply to
chargesheet. Without considering his reply, enquiry was
initiated against him. Enquiry Officer appointed by
management was biased. He was leader of the Officers
Union. Workman have taken objection to the appointment
of Enquiry Officer. Its cognizance was not taken. Enquiry
Officer conducted enquiry as per his discretion, he acted
as a prosecutor rather than a judge. Workman was not
given opportunity to cross examine witnesses of
management. He was not given opportunity for his defence.
The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Enquiry
Officer had not given attention towards circumstances in
favour of Ist party. He had made up his mind totally.
Chargesheet was issued to the Competent Authority not
by Appointing Authority. The enquiry based on said
chargesheet is illegal. Workman had 14 years unblemished
service record. The witness was not examined on enquiry.
On such ground, workman prays for setting aside order of
punishment and prays for relief of his increments.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing
claim of the workman. Preliminary objection is raised that
no dispute under Section 2K of ID Act has been referred.
The Bank has initiated disciplinary action as per bipartite
settlement. Workman was given opportunity for his
defence and personal hearing. Enquiry Officer submitted
his report dated 23-6-95 holding that charges against
workman are proved. The Disciplinary Authority carefully
gone through the charges and findings of Enquiry Officer.
The punishment of stoppage of 4 annual increments with
cumulative effect was imposed against workman on 15-9-
95. Workman had challenged order of punishment filing
appeal after 3 years and 9 months as per bipartite
settlement, the limitation period for appeal is 45 days. The
appeal was filed without application for condonation of
delay was rejected. All adverse contentions of workman
are denied. It is reiterated that the Disciplinary Authority
considered facts and misbehavior committed by workman.
Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural
justice. Workman was allowed opportunity for his defence.
Enquiry was conducted on various dates. 2nd party submits
that punishment awarded against workman is
commensurate with his misconduct workman had indulged.
2nd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.
4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 15/1 to
15/7 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
Workman submits that management is misleading court.
Presenting Officer Mr. Chauhan was changed as he was
not supporting the complainant.
5. As per order dated 10-6-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found proper and legal.
6. Considering pleadings on record and findings
on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my
consideration and determination are as under. My findings
are recorded against each of them for the reasons as
below:-
(i)
Whether the misconduct/
In Affirmative
charges alleged against
workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii)
Whether the punishment
In Affirmative
of dismissal imposed
against workman is
proper and legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found
legal and proper as per order dated 10-6-2013. Whether
charges/ misconduct alleged against workman are proved
requires to be decided form evidence in Enquiry
Proceedings. Enquiry Proceeding is produced at Page
17/8 to 17/49. Management’s witness Shri S.k.Jain in his
statement at Page 17/15, 17/16 says that on 21-10-93 around
1.30 PM, workman Rajeev Stephen came to Manager,
abused him in indecent language and threatened to beat
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4415
him. Workman had threaten to beat him by shoes. With
difficulty, he had taken away workman from Manager.
Witness has narrated that the workman said Manager if
he talks further, he would be beaten by shoes using the
word “Saale” . In Cross examination of said witness, he
says that he had straight away gone to the table of
Srivastava. He had talked with Srivastava about the LIC
business and premium. At that time, Mr. Sunil jain asked
workman to work at his place. On that workman in anger
said to beat Mr. Jain with shoes. The evidence of the
witness Jain on the point of incident is not shattered in his
cross-examination. Evidence of management’s witness
No.1 about incident is corroborated by management’s
witness No.2 Shri S.K.Jain. witness No.2 in his further
statement says he was in the Bank for 15-20 minutes. He
claims ignorance what happened prior to his reaching the
Bank. He denies that he had given statement in writing
vide letter dated 21-11-92 on say of some other person.
Management’s witness No.3 Shri C.K. Jain Manager
Gangbasoda branch corroborates that on 21-10-93, while
he was sitting in cabin of Shri S.K.Jain, they had talk, the
workman entered the cabin. He was shouting loudly.
Workman was told that the Manager was busy. They would
talk afterwards. Workman insisted for immediate talks.
Workman said how he is not talking that time itself he
would see him and threatened to beat him by shoes. The
evidence of management’s witness about occurrence of
the incident is not shattered in cross-examination. The
scope of judicial review under Section 11-A of ID Act is
settled that evidence cannot be re-appreciated as appellate
authority. The findings of Enquiry officer are supported
by evidence of MW-1 to MW-3. The findings of Enquiry
Officer therefore cannot be said perverse. The charges are
proved from evidence of management’s witness 1 to 3. For
above reasons, I record my finding in point No.1 in
Affirmative.
8. Point No.2- In view of my findings in Point No.1,
charges against workman are proved from evidence of
management’s witnesses, question remains whether
punishment of stoppage of 4 increments of workman with
cumulative effect is proper and legal. The misconduct
proved against workman pertains to abusing the Manager
and threatening him to beat by shoes is misconduct of
serious nature.
9. Management witness Tanvi Upadhyay in her
cross-examination denies that punishment imposed
against workman is harsh.
10. Considering the proved misconduct against
workman, punishment of withholding 4 increments with
cumulative effect of workman cannot be said
disproportionate or excessive. In my considered view,
looking to the proved misconduct against workman, no
interference is required in the order of punishment. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in
Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Regional
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in
imposing the punishment of stoppage of 4
annual grade increments with cumulative
effect in respect of Shri Rajeev Stephen is
proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2146-
dk-vk- 2146-
dk-vk- 2146-
dk-vk- 2146-
dk-vk- 2146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj caSd vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼66@08½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-11-2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@23@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/08))of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/11/
2015.
[No. L-12012/23/2008 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/08
Shri Kailash Singh
S/o Sahab Singh,
365,Paschimpuri, Sikandra,
Agra (UP)
...Workman
4416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Ujjain Zone,
18, Shanku Marg,
Ujjain
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 15th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 4-6-08 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
23/2008- IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Zonal
Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain in
issuing orders of dismissal from service to Shri
Kailash Singh w.e.f. 27-3-2001 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 7/1 to 7/9. Case of workman is that he is workman
under Section 2(s) of ID Act. He was working as cash cum
account clerk at Mahidpur branch. On 4-7-2000, he was
suspended alleging gross misconduct under clause 19.5(c),
19.5(e), 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement pertaining to
disorderly or indecent behavior, drunkenness,
disobedience of order of management, doing any act of
gross negligence. Workman submits that chargesheet
issued to him for baseless and vague charges, Enquiry
officer was appointed. Enquiry conducted against him is
illegal on various grounds. Preliminary issue is decided as
per order dated 30-7-2013. Enquiry conducted against
workman was found legal therefore the contentions of
workman in detail are not enumerated. Workman further
contented that findings of Enquiry Officer were served on
him alongwith showcause notice. He was removed from
service as per order dated 27-3-2001. Workman has narrated
charges against him in para-8, 10 to 15. The substance of
the charges against workman were that he had
unauthorisely collected amount of Rs. 5500 from Yogesh
from 17-2-2000 for crediting in loan Account. Workman
issued further point to him. the amount was not deposited.
Charge No.2 pertain to posting of cheque No. 681- Rs.400
in overdraft account of workman. Charge No.3 pertain to
Cheque No. 682 of overdraft Account of workman Ramesh
issued by workman on 2-6-00. Other charges pertain to in
bundle of Rs.10 denomination, 2 notes of Rs.10 were found
less. That workman misbehaved with acting Manager Mr.
Meena. Workman refused to accept cash brought by
Mahidpur branch on 10-12-98. Workman was dismissed
from service vide order dated 27-3-01. The order of
dismissal was challenged filing appeal. His appeal was
dismissed in violation of Article 311 of the constitution,
para19 of bipartite settlement. Workman submits that
charges are not supported by evidence. The punishment
of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. Appellate
Authority not applied his mind correctly. The evidence
produced by workman was not appreciated by Enquiry
Officer or Disciplinary Authority. On such ground, workman
prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 14/1 to
14/11 opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary
objection is raised by 2nd party that workman filed Writ
petition No. 2537/01 before MP High Court Bench Indore
was dismissed on 13-12-05 observing that the delinquent
officer found guilty of the charges after enquiry granting
full opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority also
confirmed the findings of Disciplinary Authority. The
workman also filed Writ Appeal No. 62/06. Writ appeal
was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court on
25-4-07. The dispute raised by workman under ID Act before
RLC. Management opposed conciliation proceeding in
view of judgment in above Writ petition and Writ appeal.
2nd party submits order of reference is illegal. The reference
is not tenable. Workman had chosen forum before Hon’ble
High Court. 2nd party submits that chargesheet was issued
to workman for gross misconduct under Clause 19.5(C),
19.5(e), 19.5(j). Mr. Dhamle was appointed as Enquiry
Officer, enquiry was conducted on various dates. Evidence
of management’s witnesses and Defence Witnesses was
recorded. The enquiry was adjourned on different dates.
The evidence of management’s witnesses and defence
witnesses was recorded. The enquiry was adjourned on
different dates. The documents were produced. CSE
examined witness Pushkar Parihar, Yogesh. Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings on 6-2-01 holding that the charges
against workman were proved. Workman had abused and
threatened Acting Manager Mr. Meena. Considering report
of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority examined report
and documents. Showcause notice was issued to workman
on 3-3-2001. Punishment of dismissal was imposed against
workman. Appeal preferred by workman was dismissed.
2nd party denied that enquiry conducted against workman
was in violation of principles of natural justice. Workman
was not given enough time for engaging Defence
Assistant. 2nd party prays that the reference be answered
in its favour.
4. As per order dated 30-7-2013, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal. Considering pleadings
on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise
for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons
as below:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4417
(i) Whether the dispute raised by
In Negative
Ist party workman
under reference is tenable in
view of judgments in Writ
petition No. 2537/2001 &
Writ Appeal No. 62/06?
(ii) Whether the charges alleged
Does not Survive
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(iii) Whether the punishment
Does not survive
of dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(iv) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. 2nd party raised preliminary objections that in
view of judgment in writ petition No. 2537/01 and Writ
appeal No. 62/06, dispute under reference raised by
workman is not tenable. In his statement of claim, workman
has not disclosed about Writ petition and writ appeal
decided by Hon’ble High Court. Copy of judgment in Writ
Petition 2537/01 is produced. Her ladyship while
dismissing Writ Petition considered submissions that
petitioner was working on responsible post of cashier cum
account clerk and has been leveled with charges of amount
not deposited making overdrafts in his own account and
the serious charges of withdrawal from other accounts
and also guilty of fraud and misappropriation. He is also
guilty of insubordination and such acts amount to gross
misconduct. He was also guilty drunken and disorderly
behavior. Such acts are prejudicial to the interest of the
bank and like to affect the working of the other employees
and the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in service.
There is no infirmity in the order impugned and has prayed
for dismissal of the petition. It was observed on perusing
the Annexures, record and the rules, it is found that the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner is sans merit.
The delinquent officer is being found guilty of the same
charges after due inquiry and after granting full
opportunity of hearing, the appellate authority has also
confirmed and upheld the findings of the disciplinary
authority. The conduct of delinquent doesnot elicit any
sympathy and hence the petition is sans merit and is
dismissed.
6. In Writ appeal No. 62/06, their Lordship of
Division bench while dismissing the appeal observed on
charges being proved, Disciplinary Authority passed order
of removal from service which was challenged by appellant
before learned single judge. Learned counsel for appellant
contented that the order has been passed by the Authority
which was not the appointing authority or competent under
rules to pass the aforesaid order of removal from service.
Their Lordship further observed that the provisions of
Bank of India Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal
Rules 1976 and according to the schedule Dy. Zonal
Manager, Regional manager and the Chief Manager are
the Disciplinary Authorities and order having been passed
by one of them cannot be said to be illegal. Their Lordship
observed looking to the serious nature of charges leveled
against appellant and proved by respondents, they have
justified in ordering the termination of service of the
appellant, no case is made out for any interference. The
appeal was dismissed.
7. During course of argument, learned counsel for
workman Shri P.Choubey pointed out my attention to the
details of charges alleged against workman and evidence
of management’s witnesses. Learned counsel for 2nd party
Shri A.K.Shashi submits that workman had challenged his
dismissal filing Writ petition and the judgment of Single
Bench was challenged filing writ appeal. Preliminary
objection is raised in the Written Statement. Workman
availed remedy under Article 226. The evidence and order
were considered in Writ Appeal also. The objection was
also raised before RLC filing reply Exhibit M-18. The
reference is barred by resjudicata.
8. Learned counsel for workman Shri P.Choubey. In
written notes of argument, he submitted that power of
Labour Court under Section 11-A of ID Act to interfere on
the question of proportionality of punishment is peculiar
to the scheme of the Act and may not be exercisable by
the High Court. Reliance is placed on ratio held in 1995-I-
LLJ-351. It is submitted that principles of resjudicata are
not applicable as the judgment of High Court is not on
merit. The question of resjudicata is not involved in present
reference.
Commentary in AIR Manual Vol IV 5th Edicition of
Section 11 CPC note at Page 447. Essentials of resjudicata
are explained. It is essential that the former judgment must
be of Court Competent jurisdiction but when a plea of
resjudicata is founded on general principles it is not
necessary that the Court which is competent to decide the
former case and decides that case should have jurisdiction
to hear the later suit, refers to AIR-1961-SC-1457. It further
deals with prior decision of High Court under Article 226
will operate as bar to application to Supreme court under
Article 32. Under Caption (6), the legal position is explained
that for application of the principle of resjudicata, the form
of the proceeding whether it originated as a suit or even
as an original petition is not really very material but only
substance thereof.
9. Workman challenged order of his dismissal before
Hon’ble High court under Article 226 and Writ Appeal, it
cannot be said that Hon’ble High Court were not
competent to decide legality of the order of dismissal.
Workman had chosen remedy under Article 226 and also
filing Writ Appeal was filed on rejection of Writ Petition.
The order of dismissal was challenged by workman.
4418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Considering the commentary discussed above, the
reference is not tenable. Claim of workman is barred under
Section 11 of CPC. After rejection of writ appeal, workman
cannot again challenge order of his dismissal under Section
11-A raising the dispute under ID Act. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2, 3- In view of my finding on Point
No.1 as reference is barred by principles of resjudicata,
both Point No.2,3 have become redundant. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No.2,3.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The dispute under reference is not tenable as
barred by resjudicata.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2147-
dk-vk- 2147-
dk-vk- 2147-
dk-vk- 2147-
dk-vk- 2147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy caSd
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼158@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 04-11-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@167@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 158/2000))of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/11/2015.
[No. L-12011/167/2000 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/158/2000
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank
Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas,
9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
The Manager,
Central Bank of India,
CBI, Regional Office,
6/3, Race Course Road,
Indore.
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 15th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 22-8-00 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-12011/
167/2000/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India in terminating Shri Sudhir Kumar
Shinde w.e.f. 9-6-99 and denial of regularization of
his services is legal and justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
4/1 to 4/4. Case of workman is that in 1985, Ist party
workman was engaged on pay scale as peon for 60 days.
He worked with devotion to avoid benefit of regularizing
artificial break was given to him. the record of working for
60 days was prepared. During 1986 to 1990, he was
engaged on work for 60 days during each of the year. He
was called for test on 9-3-93 for absorption in regular
service. He was called for personal interview at Indore on
10-7-93. After interview, his name was included in select
list at Sl. No.17. He was doing work of Dartary sorting
vouchers, arranging it, preparing its bunch etc. during
period 15-7-95 to 28-3-98, he was paid wages Rs.30, 43.92,
45 per day. That he worked for total 871 days during
15-7-95 to 8-6-99. He had worked more than 220 days during
each of the day. It is reiterated that he was not paid bonus,
difference of wages. As he was selected after written test
and interview, his name was at Sl. No.17 in Waiting List.
Workman prays that 2nd party be directed to absorb him in
regular service.
3. 2nd party submitted Written Statement at Pages
7/1 to 7/4 opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party denies
that workman was appointed on the post of peon. It is
denied that workman was working continuously. It is
denied that workman was interviewed after looking the
record about his working in 1985. Workman was engaged
on daily wages as per exigencies. Workman is not eligible
for absorption as regular employee. The panel list was
prepared and as per directions given by RBI, workman
was not appointed. The list has become irrelevant.
Workman was paid wages for his working days. He had
not completed 240 days during 15-7-95 to June 1999. As
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4419
RBI had issued directions, workman was not given
appointment as per the select list.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
In
Affirmative
management of Central
Bank of India in terminating
Shri Sudhir Kumar Shinde
w.e.f. 9-6-99 and denial of
regularization of his services
is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?’’
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. Though workman has raised present dispute
challenging termination and denial of regularization by
management of 2nd party, workman has not participated in
reference proceeding. He has not adduced any evidence
in support of his claim. The evidence of workman was
closed on 7-5-2014.
6. 2nd party also failed to adduce evidence. Evidence
of 2nd party is closed on 7-4-2015.
7. On behalf of workman, Shri Ram Nagwanshi
representative of Union produced zerox copies of Exhibit
W-1 to W-13- documents in R/11/04. When 2nd party has
denied continuous working for more than 240 days of the
workman during 95 to 99, workman has not adduced any
evidence. They have not participated in reference. 2nd
party also claimed that as per direction by RBI, no
appointment was given to workman. The Waiting List has
become irrelevant. In absence of any evidence by workman
to substantiate his claim, the claim of workman cannot be
accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Negative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Central Bank of
India in terminating Shri Sudhir Kumar Shinde
w.e.f. 9-6-99 and denial of regularization of his
services is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
(3)
Parties to bear their own cost.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk 2148-
dk-vk 2148-
dk-vk 2148-
dk-vk 2148-
dk-vk 2148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy caSd
cSMksnk ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks 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 ¼217@97½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-11-2015 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y 12012@246@96-&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf?kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 217/97))of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of Baroda and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/11/
2015.
[No. L-12012/246/96 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/217/97
Shri Sailesh Tiwary, 27,
Ayodhya colony, Koderia Village,
Indore
...Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Plot No. 238,
Zone-I, Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 22-7-97 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12012/
246/96/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Baroda, Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Shailesh Tiwary S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Tiwary
w.e.f. 31-5-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the said workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim
through General Secretary, Daily wage Bank Employees
Union at Page 3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party is that workman
Shailesh Tiwary authorized General Secretary of Union to
4420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submit statement of claim on his behalf. That workman
Shailesh Tiwary was engaged as daily wager for sweeping,
cleaning, dusting etc. work by Branch Manager
Shri A.K. Jadhav. From 22-8-92, he was paid Rs. 25/- per
day. Workman was dong work of distribution of dak giving
drinking water etc. from 22-8-92, workman was
continuously working without complaint against him. His
wages were increased time to time. He was paid wages
from Monday to Saturday 6 days in a week by voucher.
Workman was working under different Branch Managers.
He was paid wages under voucher. The record of
Attendance Registers, token book, cashier scroll are
maintained by the Bank. He worked for 2 years. On his
request for payment of bonus, his services were terminated
on 31-5-94 without notice. He was not paid 3 months salary
before terminating his services. Workman reiterates that
despite continuously working for 20 days in a year, his
services were not regularized. He is covered as employee
under Section 25 B of ID Act. His services are terminated
without paying retrenchment compensation in violation
of Section 25-F and Para 507, 524 of Sastry Award. 2nd
party not followed principles of last come first go. Thereby
2nd party violated Section 25-G,N of ID Act. After
terminating his services Bank engaged other daily wage
employees. Workman was not engaged. Thereby 2nd party
violated Section 25 H of ID Act. After termination of his
service, it finds difficult to maintain his family. On such
ground, Ist party prays for reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/9 opposing claim of Ist party. 2nd party submits that he
General Secretary of Union has no locus standi to represent
workman. Management granted work of cleaning to
contractor Sudhir Kumar who was doing the business in
the name and style of safai syndicate. Workman was
engaged by said contractor. That contractor is necessary
party. The reference order is illegal as workman was not
engaged by the Bank. There is no question of his
termination by Bank. The employer employee relationship
is not existing between parties.
4. 2nd party further submits that workman shailesh
Tiwary was engaged by Mhow branch for fetching water
at Rs.25/- per day from 22-8-92 to 16-12-92 for 88 days.
Workman was paid wages from Sundry charges account.
Subsequently work of cleaning, fetching was given under
contract to Sudhir Kumar carrying business in name of
Safai Syndicate. 2nd party submits the dispute is raised
alleging termination of workman. 2nd party reiterates that
workman was not its employee. His services were not
terminated. The termination of workman doesnot amount
to retrenchment rather it is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb)
of ID Act. That engagement of workman was intermittent
on contract basis. Provisions of Section 25 B, 25-F of ID
Act are not attracted. Workman was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. The vacancies were not
notified in Employment Exchange. The intermittent
engagement of workman as stop gap arrangement is not
violative of Article 16(1) of the constitution. The
reservation policy of government for SC,ST, OBC etc.
needs to be followed by 2nd party in regular appointments.
It is reiterated that workman was engaged on daily wages
for 88 days in 1992. Workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. Section 25-F of ID Act is not attracted.
All adverse contentions of workman are denied. 2nd party
submits that workman is not entitled to any relief.
Termination of workman is not illegal.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 19/1 to 19/2
reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Bank
of Baroda, Bhopal in
terminating the services
of Shri Shailesh Tiwary
S/o Shri shyam Sundar Tiwary
w.e.f. 31-5-94 is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging termination of his
service for violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act. Workman
claims that he had worked for more than 240 days from
22-8-92 till his termination 31-5-94. Workman did not
adduce evidence in support of his claim. Shri Ram
Nagwanshi Union Secretary submitted in writing on
20-11-13 that workman not adducing evidence.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shweta
Chandel. The evidence of workman was closed on
8-12-2014. Affidavit filed by management’s witness pertains
to the application for production of documents.
Management has not filed affidavit of evidence in the
matter. Thus both parties have not adduced evidence in
the matter. There is no evidence on record that workman
had completed more than 240 days working during any of
the year when management has admitted only 88 days
working by workman in 1994. That contentions of workman
about his continuous work for more than 240 days during
the period 22-8-92 to 31-5-94 is not supported by any
evidence. Claim of workman that his services are
terminated illegally in violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID
Act is not established. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Bank of
Baroda, Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri shailesh Tiwary S/o Shri Shyam Sundar
Tiwary w.e.f. 31-5-94 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4421
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2149-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼93@05½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04&11&2015 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@70@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/05))of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 04/11/2015.
[No. L-12012/70/2005-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/05
Shri Gangaram Parmar,
S/o Shri Gaijiram Parmar,
Hall Niwasi,
Vill & PO Bhaavra,
Tehsil Aashta, Dt. Sehore
Sehore (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Manager,
Indian Bank, Circle Office,
Upper Ground Floor,
World Trade Centre,
Babar Road,
New Delhi.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 13th day of October 2015
1. As per letter dated 6-9-05 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
70/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Manager,
Indian Bank in terminating the services of Shri
Gangaram Parmar w.e.f. 31-10-03 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 3/5. Case of workman is that he was
appointed on permanent vacant post of sweeper in January
1987. He was posted under 2nd party No.2 on monthly
salary of Rs. 740/- which was less than minimum wages
fixed by Central Government. He was working
continuously till 31-10-03. His services were terminated.
Workman reiterates that he was appointed on permanent
vacant post. He was performing duties satisfactorily.
Workman was also paid wages for extra work. He was
continuously working more than 240 days during the period
1987 to October 2003. He acquired status of permanent
employee. His services were terminated in violation of
statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. He
was not given opportunity for defence. Any chargesheet
was not issued to him. Enquiry was not conducted against
him. The termination is in colourable exercise of powers.
His termination amounts to illegal retrenchment. Workman
submits that he was continuously working with 2nd party
for about 16 years. He is left in starving condition.
Workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party management filed Written Statement
at Page 12/1 to 12/7 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party
reiterates that workman was engaged by Bank Manager
as casual sweeper for sweeping and cleaning branch
premises on Rs.450/- per month. The engagement of
workman was unauthorised without following the
prescribed rules. Workman was engaged at Rs. 450/- per
month. He was wrongly paid Rs. 740/- per month. His
financial irregularity was tried to be set right. Workman
stopped cleaning sweeping work, he did not come to the
Bank of his own. Claim of workman for reinstatement as
part time sweeper with full backwages cannot be allowed.
Workman was not terminated by management. He himself
stopped working. It is denied that workman was terminated
vide order dated 31-10-03. Workman had not completed
240 days continuous service during any of the year.
Workman was engaged as casual sweeper on pro-rata
wages. Workman has no right of employment as he was
not appointed by the Bank. The long period of ad hoc
employment does not give right of regularization to the
workman. Workman was not holding any post. Provisions
of Section 25 of ID Act are not attracted. Workman is not
entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Manager,
Indian Bank in terminating
the services of Shri
Gangaram Parmar
w.e.f. 31-10-03 is justified?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled
to?”
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his
service for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. In support
of his claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence. In his
affidavit of evidence, workman says that he was working
as sweeper with 2nd party from 1987 to 31-10-2003. He was
paid Rs. 740/- per month. Any chargesheet was not issued
to him. During leave period of regular employees, other
works were extracted from him. He was paid for such
work. He worked more than 240 days during each of the
year till his termination on 31-10-03. His services were
orally terminated without any notice. Any chargesheet
was not issued to him. He was working from 9 AM to 5
PM. He was working for about 16 years with 2nd party.
Termination of his service is illegal. He claimed
reinstatement with backwages. In his cross-examination,
workman says appointment letter was not issued to him.
The post was not advertised. He was interviewed along
with 3 persons. He was selected after interview. Ram Singh
was interviewed with him. He was unable to tell name of
other persons interviewed with him. Order of his
termination was not issued to him. He was doing sweeping,
cleaning work. He denies that after doing sweeping work,
he was leaving Bank, he was not doing any other work. He
denied that he was paid Rs. 60/- for 3 hours working per
day. Workman reiterates that he was paid Rs. 700 per month.
He admits Exhibit W-1 Rs. 60 shown is correct. In 2003, he
was paid Rs. 700. Amount paid to him was correctly
recorded. He admits that Rs. 60 or Rs.700 per month is not
correct. Mischief was committed with him. He produced
document P-3, P-4- complaints to the officers. Those
documents needs to be exhibited as referred by 2nd party
in cross-examination of workman. Workman denied that
he was engaged for working as 3 hours per week at Rs. 60
per month.
6. The documents produced by workman Exhibit
W-1 extract of Bank account shows that he worked more
than 240 days from November 02 to October 2003. The
entries of Rs. 740 are recorded every month during above
period. Exhibit W-1 further shows payment made to
workman at various rates since 1987 to October 2003.
Evidence of workman is corroborated from entries in Exhibit
W-1. The document Exhibit W-2 shows payment of wages
to workman for extra work since April 91 to July 97. Exhibit
W-2 also corroborates evidence of workman that he was
paid wages for extra work.
7. Management filed affidavit of Branch Manager
Gangaram supporting contentions of management that
workman was engaged as casual sweeper at Bager branch
for 1 or 2 hours in morning, no other work was taken from
him except cleaning premises of the branch. Workman was
engaged at Rs. 450 per month. Workman was wrongly
paid Rs. 750 per month by Branch Manager when such
financial irregularity was tried to be set right, workman
stopped cleaning sweeping work from 1-11-03. Workman
was not terminated by management. In para 12 of his
affidavit, witness says workman was wrongly paid Rs.
740 per month. Workman had not completed 240 days
working during any of the year. Workman himself stopped
cleaning sweeping work. Workman was not appointed by
the Bank. He has not served for 16 years in the Bank.
Management’s witness further says that workman was
not paid bonus or increment. He was not given CL, EL,
Medical Leave etc. Management’s witness in his cross-
examination says that he was posted in Bager branch
from 9-7-03. During this period, workman was working as
part time sweeper. Workman was not continuously working
from 1987 to 31-10-03. He denies that after 1-11-03, other
person was engaged for sweeping work. From year 2000,
workman was wrongly paid Rs. 740 per month. He claims
ignorance whether any action was taken against concerned
officer. Workman was not served with notice of
termination, compensation was not paid to him. Notice
was not issued to workman for his absence from work. He
denies that other work was extracted from workman.
8. Management’s witness has not produced any
documents as to how payment of Rs.740/- per month was
wrongly paid to workman. No document is produced about
the wages to be paid to casual/ part time sweeper. In
absence of such documents, the evidence of management’s
witness cannot be accepted. Management’s witness has
not produced any documents that recovery of excess
amount paid to workman was initiated against the workman
therefore evidence of management’s witness that
workman himself stopped cleaning, sweeping work cannot
be believed.
9. As discussed above, the evidence of workman
about continuously working from December 87 to October
2003 is corroborated by document Exhibit W-1. Workman
was paid wages for other work which is supported by
document Exhibit W-2. Workman has established that he
was continuously working more than 240 days during 1987
to October 2003. Management’s witness admits workman
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4423
was not issued notice of termination. Compensation
amount was not paid to workman.
10. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri R.K.Agrawal
during course of argument pointed out my attention to
Document P-3, P-4. In P-4 workman has referred himself as
temporary sub staff and not as regular employee.
11. Shri R.K.Agrawal further submits that
provisions of Section 25-F are not applicable as workman
was part time employee, he was not appointed following
rules and regulations. Section 25-F does not make a
difference between regular or part time employees.
Workman was engaged as part time casual sweeper, he
completed more than 240 days continuous service during
each of the year during 1987 to 2003. Workman is entitled
to protection of Section 25-F. He was not served with notice,
retrenchment compensation is not paid to workman
therefore termination of workman by 2nd party is in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
12. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled
for reinstatement with backwages. Workman in his cross-
examination says the post was not advertised, he was
interviewed with 3 persons and selected. Workman has
not produced interview call issued by management.
Workman was not engaged following the rules for
appointment. Workman was engaged as part time sweeper
not against any sanctioned post. Though learned counsel
for workman Shri P.C.Paliwal referred to ratio held in AIR-
2010-SC-683 but the citation is not made available. I have
no opportunity to consider the ratio held in said case.
Considering the facts and evidence discussed above,
workman was engaged as casual part time sweeper, relief
of reinstatement would be appropriate. However workman
was working with Bank as part time sweeper from
December 1987 to October 2003, compensation Rs. 1,50,000
would be appropriate. 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 Manager,
Indian Bank in terminating the services of Shri
Gangaram Parmar w.e.f. 31-10-03 is not proper
and legal.
(2)
2nd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2150-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼44@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04&11&2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@56@12&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2013)) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04-11-2015.
[No. L-12011/56/12 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2013
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
Kendriya Karyalaya, F-1, Karmbhumi,
Tripti Vihar, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager,
Bank of India,
Regional Office, Opposite
Rasoma Laboratory,
AB Road, Indore
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of September 2015
1. As per letter dated 8-2-13 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
4424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/
56/12-IR(B-II).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar
Sunhare w.e.f. 20-1-03 is legal and justified? What
relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim through General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank
Employees Union. Case of workman is that he was working
on daily wages at Indore from 15-3-89 as peon. He was
paid wages Rs.32/- per day. His wages were increased
time to time. Lastly he was paid Rs.125/-, 130/- per day. He
continuously worked for more than 14 years from 15-3-89.
He worked more than 240 days during each of the year. He
was not paid bonus. On his request for payment of bonus,
his services were terminated without notice from 20-1-03.
His services were terminated in violation of Section 33 of
ID Act during pendency of conciliation proceeding before
ALC, Bhopal. That he is covered as employee under
Section 25 B of ID Act. His services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim
of the workman. Preliminary objection is raised that Shri
Ram Nagwanshi, so called General Secretary of Union is
not competent to raise the dispute as he was dismissed
employee of State Bank of Indore. That in statement of
claim filed by workman in R/160/93, he has pleaded that he
worked from 15-3-89 to 7-11-02 whereas in present case,
he claims his services were retrenched from 22-1-03 in
violation of Section-33 of ID Act. The dispute raised about
the same matter is liable to be rejected. Ist party is not
covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act as he
was not appointed by the Bank following recruitment
process. Workman was engaged on daily wages as per
exigencies for casual nature of work. The Bank has to
follow the policies of Government about reservation of
SC,ST,OBC etc. Workman was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. 2nd party denies that workman
was engaged from 15-3-89. However his engagement on
daily wages as per requirement is not disputed. All adverse
contentions of workman are denied.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Bank of
India in terminating the
services of Shri Ashok
Kumar Sunhare
w.e.f. 20-1-03 is
legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. As per terms of reference, workman is challenging
termination of his service. His claim is opposed by 2nd
party filing Written Statement. On 23-4-14, Shri
R.Nagwanshi representative of Union on behalf of
workman submitted in writing that workman does not
desire to adduce evidence. Shri R.Nagwanshi submitted
copies of award passed in R/180/00, 105/03 in support of
the claim of workman. When workman has not adduced
any evidence, management of 2nd party also not adduced
any evidence in the matter. For absence of evidence of
both the parties, the claim of workman about legality of
termination in violation of Section 25-F cannot be accepted.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri
Ashok Kumar Sunhare w.e.f. 20-1-03 is legal
and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. P ATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2151-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ
la[;k ¼33@09½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
04&11&2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@81@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/09) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04-11-2015.
[No. L-12012/81/2008-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4425
ANNEXIRE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/33/09
Shri Intezhar Ali,
s/o Shri Barkat Ali,
R/o near Baba Kapoor,
Golandaj Mohalla,
Qilagate,
Gwalior.
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Zonal office, Arera Hills,
1513/1/1, Jail Road,
Bhopal.
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of September, 2015
1. As per letter dated 25-2-09 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-
12012/81/2008-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
“Whether the claim of the workman that he has
completed 240 days of services in a calendar year
that his services were terminated w.e.f 30-6-2006
without following the procedure of ID Act, 1947
and that he should be reinstated by the management
of Union Bank of India is legal and justified? What
relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case of
workman is he was appointed against clear vacancy of
peon from 15-12-02. Workman rendered his services as
peon in new High Court Branch. He was continuously
working till 30-6-06. He rendered more than 240 days service
in each of the calendar year in office of 2nd party No.3. He
is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act.
Initially he was paid Rs. 50 per day by 2nd party No. 3.
Subsequently the wages were increased to Rs.60 per day.
His remuneration were paid form petty cash mode for the
period 15-12-02 to 28-11-04 and onwards till 30-6-06.
Payment was made through vouchers Bank Account No.
8841900. Workman has prayed that 2nd party No. 3 be
directed to pay difference.
3. Ist party further submits that he was not paid
bonus 8.33 %. He had submitted complaint to the
Competent Authority but no action was taken. In repellant
to his complaint, 2nd party No. 3 dispensed with services
from 30-6-06 without otice or compensation in lieu of notice
in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, he was working as
messenger. After dispensing his services, 2nd party
engaged one Munna in his place in violation of Section
25-G.H of ID Act. Workman filed Writ petition 4153/2006.
Writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-9-06 with
liberty to raise ID. On such ground, workman is praying
for reinstatement with backwages.
4. 2nd party filed exhaustive Written Statement
opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits contentions
of workman in his statement of claim are false, fabricated.
2nd party Bank is nationalized Bank incorporated under
Bank Act 1970. Workman was never appointed by the
Bank in any post. There is no employer employee
relationship. The reference is not tenable. Ist party is not
covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. As
workman was never appointed by Bank, there is no
question of his termination.
5. 2nd party submits that it has rules and procedure
for appointment of sub staff. Central Office of Bank
identifies vacancies and enforced to the zonal/ Regional
office, call names of eligible number of candidates from
Employment Exchange of different categories. The
candidates reported from Employment Exchange are
interviewed. After verification of eligibility, 3 member Board
carries interview, the selected candidates after medical
examination are appointed. Ist party workman had not gone
through prescribed selection process.
6. 2nd party submits that for certain casual work,
services of workman were utilized. He was paid amount,
he was not appointed as regular employee. It is denied
that workman was appointed by Branch Manager. The
engagement of casual employee come to end at end of the
day. 2nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases.
That claim of workman cannot be allowed. 2nd party had
denied workman completed 240 days continuous service
and is covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. It is reiterated
that workman was not appointed on regular post. He was
engaged as casual labour. There was no question of his
termination. Provisions of Section 25-F are not attracted.
It is denied that after discontinuing workman, one Munna
was employed in violation of Section 25-G,H of ID Act.
Writ Petition filed by workman was dismissed as withdrawn.
It is reiterated that workman is not entitled to any relief.
7. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions in statement of claim.
8. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
4426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i)
Whether it is proved that
In Negative
workman completed 240 days
service in a calendar year?
(ii)
Whether services of
In Affirmative
workman are terminated
from 30-6-06 without following
procedure of ID Act 1947?
(ii)
If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
9. The terms of reference pertains to whether
workman has completed 240 days continuous service and
his services are terminated in violation of provisions of ID
Act, 1947, whether workman is entitled for reinstatement.
Section 25-F provides-
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-
(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.”
Section 25 B provides-
For the purpose of this chapter-
(i)…….
(ii) where a workman is not in continuous service
within the meaning of clause (I) for a period of
one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be
in continuous service under an employer-
(a)
For period of one year, if the workman during
aperiod of 12 calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the
employer not less than-
(i)
One hundred and ninety days in
the case of a workman employed
below ground in a mine and
(ii)
240 days in any other case.
Keeping above provisions in view, the evidence of
parties needs to be appreciated. Ist party workman filed
affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in
statement of claim. That he was appointed as peon against
clear vacancy on 15-12-02 by Branch Manager. He rendered
continuous service in city centre, New High Court Branch.
He was paid salary through cash vouchers bearing
Account No. 88419000. He was not paid 8/33 % bonus. He
had complained to Competent Authority. his services were
dispensed with without notice or pay in lieu of notice. He
rendered 240 days continuous service till 2006. In his cross-
examination, workman says he was not given appointment
letter, he claims ignorance about selection process. he
was not interviewed. No written test was taken. He has
produced documents payment vouchers abut his working
more than 240 days. Written order terminating his service
was not issued. Workman has produced documents
Exhibit W-1 receipt for payment of wages for 17 days from
24-4-06 to 12-5-06. Exhibit W-2 receipt of payment of wages
for 18 days 15-5-06 to 3-6-06. Receipt Exhibit W-3 payment
of wages for six days from 17-10-05 to 22-10-05. Receipt
Exhibit W-4 includes payment of wages for 6 days 29-8-05
to 3-9-05, Exhibit W-5 includes payment of six days wages
from 3-10-05 to 8-10-05. Exhibit W-6 includes payment of
wages for 5 days 10-10-05 to 15-10-05. Exhibit W-7 payment
of wages for 6 days 26-9-05 to 1-10-05. Those receipt Exhibit
W-3 to W-7 also includes other payments. Exhibit W-8
payment of wages for 11 says. 19-6-06 to 30-6-06. Exhibit
W-9 payment of 5 days wages 22-8-05 to 26-8-05. Exhibit
W-10 is payment of wages for 8 days from 30-1-06 to
7-2-06. The document Exhibit W-11, 12,13,14,15 pertains
to other payment made by Bank. Workman had submitted
application for production of documents. 2nd party was
directed to produce documents as per order dated
19-3-2013. 2nd party has not produced documents.
10. 2nd party filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Sushil Kumar singh supporting its contentions of
management in Written Statement. From his evidence,
documents M-1 to M-6 are admitted. From evidence in
cross-examination, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-15 are
admitted in evidence. Management’s witness in his cross-
examination denies that documents relating to payments
made to the workman are not produced. He claims
ignorance whether seniority list of temporary messengers
peon was prepared. Workman was not served notice of
retrenchment, compensation was not paid to workman.
management’s witness claims ignorance of Account No.
88419000. Despite workman had requested production of
documents, 2nd party has not shown its detail in Written
statement. The documents are not produced by
management as per order dated 19-3-13. Evidence of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4427
workman is supported by some documents. 2nd party
employer failed to produced documents even after order.
It is clear that 2nd party has suppressed relevant documents.
If evidence of Ist party workman and management’s
witness is carefully appreciated, management’s witness
has no personal knowledge as he was not working in city
centre branch. Therefore the evidence of workman deserves
to be accepted. For non-production of documents, adverse
inference deserves to be drawn that as per order dated
19-3-13, the documents would have supported claim of
workman. Therefore the evidence of workman is accepted
that he completed more than 240 days service preceding
12 months of his termination. My conclusions are also
supported by documents produced by management-
Exhibit M-1 to M-6. Workman was paid wages time to
time. Management’s witness admits that notice was not
issued to workman, compensation was not paid to him,
therefore termination of service of workman is illegal for
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No.1in Negative and 2 in
Affirmative.
11. Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1
service of workman are terminated without notice in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, question arises whether
workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.
Workman in his cross-examination says he is working as
labour. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
workman Shri Pranay Choubey relies on ratio held in case
of Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council Sanaur . In
para 24, their Lordship held we are also convinced that the
reasons assigned by the High Court for setting aside the
award of reinstatement are legally untenable. In the first, it
deserves to be noticed that the respondent had engaged
the appellant in the back drop of the ban imposed by the
State Government on the filling up of the vacant posts.
The respondent had started a water supply scheme and
for ensuring timely issue of the bills and collection of
water charges, it needed the service of a clerk. However
on account of the restriction imposed by the State
Government, regular recruitment was not possible.
Therefore resolution dated 27-4-95 was passed for
engaging the appellant on contract basis. Copy of
resolution No. 30 dated 27-4-95 is considered by their
Lordship that resolution was passed that Devinder Singh
was engaged for period of six months on part time basis
on salary of Rs.1000.
In para-26, their Lordship concluded if what the High
Court has done is held to be justified, gross illegalities
committed by the employer in terminating the services of
workman will acquire legitimacy in majority of cases.
Next reliance is placed in
Case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division versus
Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda. From Para-4 of said
judgment, it is clear that workman before Labour Court
was employed as watchman and he was paid daily wages
and his presence was also marked in the muster roll. In
para 16, their Lordship observed that the appellants have
clearly failed to prove the services of no junior employee
was continued when the services of the respondent was
terminated. Section 25-G has also not been followed.
In present case, though workman says Munna was
appointed after his discontinuation, no cogent evidence
is adduced on the point. Violation of Section 25-G is proved
in view of admission of management’s witness claim
ignorance seniority list of temporary employees is
displayed or not. When seniority list was not displayed
on notice board, workman was engaged on daily wages.
He was not appointed as regular employee. In my
considered view, reinstatement of daily wager is not
appropriate, reasonable compensation Rs. One Lakh
would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in
point No. 3.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of management is not proper.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. One Lakh 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] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2152-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 160@03½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@126@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/
03))of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/11/2015.
[No. L-12011/126/2003 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
4428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/160/03
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
Hardev Niwas, 9,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal office, 22,
Yashwant Niwas Road,
Indore
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of October, 2015
1. As per letter dated 18-9-03 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/
126/2003-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in not regularizing the services of Shri Ashok
Sunhare and not paying him bonus is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim through
General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank Employees Union at
Page 3/2 to 3/8. Case of Ist party is since 15-3-89, he was
working with 2nd party Bank as daily wage peon. He was
paid scale wages. His signatures were obtained on payment
voucher dated 25-2-92, 8-9-93. All branches were informed
that badli peon working more than 240 days in a year were
eligible for regular appointment. As per circular dated
24-8-84, the daily wage peons were entitled for payment of
wages. That Ist party workman had worked more than 240
days during each of the year from 15-3-89 to 31-5-93. Bonus
of Rs. 853.48, 1113,1112, 1110 were paid to him for the year
1991, 92, 93, 95. The attendance of workman was maintained
in muster roll by Branch Manager. Ist party workman
reiterates that he completed 240 days continuous service
during each of the year. He is covered as employee under
Section 25 B of ID Act. His services were terminated on
22-1-03 without notice in violation of Section 33 of ID Act.
On 7-11-02, ALC Bhopal had directed management not to
terminate service of workman. Workman reiterate that his
services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G,N
of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for
reinstatement in service and bonus. The terms of reference
pertains to denial of regularization and not paying bonus.
The legality of termination of workman is not included in
terms of reference.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/14 opposing claim of the workman. Preliminary
objection is raised by 2nd party that Shri Ram Nagwanshi
was terminated from service of the Bank. He was not
employee of the Bank. Shri R.Nagwanshi is not competent
to raise dispute. That Ist party workman is not covered
under Section 2(s) of ID Act as he was not appointed in
Bank’s service. Ist party has not disclosed anything in
regard to his employment in management. It is reiterated
that the reference made by Government is misconceived.
The Government has decided disputed questions while
making the reference. Workman claimed reinstatement and
other benefits contending that his services are illegally
terminated in violation of provisions of ID Act. The
employees appointed following prescribed procedure are
regular employees. Branch Manager is authorized to
engage sub staff temporarily during the period or increase
of work. Ist party workman was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. The vacancies were not notified
to Employment Exchange. The reservation of SC ST OBC
as per policy of Government is required to be followed.
Such procedure was not followed before engagement of
workman. The persons engaged on temporary basis cannot
be appointed permanently. Ist party workman was not
appointed by Competent Authority. He was engaged on
daily wages for few days for increase of work. He never
worked for more than 240 days during any of the year.
Workman was not appointed on permanent basis after
holding interview as per bipartite settlement. All adverse
contentions of workman have been denied. Workman was
not appointed on regular basis. No unfair labour practice
is committed by management. Management has not
violated any statutory provisions. Violation of Section 33
of ID Act is also denied. Bank cannot provide employment
to all unemployed persons as its sources are limited. On
such ground, 2nd party prays to answer reference in its
favour.
4. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page
14/1 to 14/3 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
‘‘(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Bank of India
in not regularizing the services
of Shri Ashok Sunhare and not
paying him bonus is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4429
REASONS
6. The terms of reference pertains to denial of
regularisation of workman and non-payment of bonus.
Legality of termination of service of workman is not
covered under the reference.
7. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence that he
was working as peon on scale wages from 15-3-81 to
termination of his service on 20-1-03. He worked more
than 240 days. During 1-8-91 to 31-7-92, he worked for 228
days. During 1-6-92 to 31-6-92 he worked for 242 days. He
was paid wages for the period 30-5-89 to 19-3-94. He was
paid bonus Rs.110/- for 1993-94, Rs.113/- for 1994-95. Nand
Kishore Peon having less number of working days was
absorbed in permanent service. He had raised dispute
before ALC Bhopal No. BPL-7(67)/03. In his cross-
examination, workman claims ignorance whether in his
affidavit of evidence, pay scale is written. He was engaged
by Branch Manager Amar Kumar Kalu his name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange, public notice
was not issued. As Manager Kaku was of his
acquaintance, he was engaged in the Bank. Appointment
letter was not issued to him. Zerox documents about
payment of wages are produced on record. He received
those documents in 1999. From 1989 to 2003, he worked in
same branch on daily wages. He was engaged on work as
per exigencies. His signatures were obtained on payment
voucher. He was unable to tell his working days in
particular year. He admits payment of bonus for the year
1991-92 but he was unable to tell the number of days for
which bonus was paid.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Umesh Chand Chaturvedi supporting contentions of
the management in Written Statement. That workman was
never paid bonus. He not completed 240 days continuous
service. Workman was not engaged by Branch Manager.
Workman was not engaged against permanent sanctioned
vacancy. He was paid daily wages. His engagement was
on day to day basis. His engagement was of temporary
nature. Management’s witness in his cross says that
directions in Exhibit M-1, M-2 about temporary engagement
of workman were not complied. He was working in
kanchanbagh mine during 2001-03. During his tenure,
workman was engaged by rotation. The rotation list is not
produced. He had discussed the matter with Branch
Manager. Sinha and Mr. Biswanath. Attendance register
of workman was not maintained. Wages paid to the
workman were reimbursed to the Branch Manager, its
documents not produced on record. No document is
produced about working days and payment of wages paid
to workman. Workman was not paid retrenchment
compensation, he was not issued termination notice. As
the term of reference pertains to denial of regularisation
and non-payment of bonus, the evidence of management’s
witness in present case workman was not paid
retrenchment compensation, he was not served termination
notice is of no consequence. Above evidence has no
relevance to the denial of regularisation. If evidence of
workman and management’s witness is carefully
appreciated, the management’s witness has not produced
relevant documents about working days and payment of
wages to the workman. There is no denial in evidence in
cross examiantion of workman that he was working from
15-3-89 to 20-1-03. That workman was engaged in the Bank
for about 14 years is not challenged. The evidence of the
workman would show that he was engaged on daily wages
for years together and as it may amount to unfair labour
practice covered under Item 10 Schedule V of ID Act, the
claim for regularisation of workman would have been
justified. However the terms of reference in present case
relates to denial of regularisation. The termination of
workman was under challenge in R/44/13. As workman did
not adduce any evidence in R/44/13, the award is passed
against workman. When workman is not in service and
R/44/13 pertaining to termination of service of workman is
answered against him, claim of workman for regularisation
in service cannot be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi
relies on ratio held in case of
Tilak Singh Tomar versus State of MP and others
reported in 2000 LLR 971. His Lordship of MP High Court
held that the completion of 240 days work doesnot under
the Industrial law import the right to regularization and it
merely imposes certain conditions on the employer.
In case between Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. versus workmen Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. reported in 2007(1) SCC 408. Their Lordship of the
Apex Court held the Court cannot create a post where
none exists nor issue directions to absorb or regularize
temporary employees nor continue them in service nor
pay them salaries of regular employees as these are purely
executive or legislative functions. In Para 34, their Lordship
observed that there can be no regularization dehors the
rules.
In case between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. versus
Dan Bahadur Singh and others reported in 2007(6)SCC
207. Their Lordship dealing with status and right of daily
rated employees held not equitable that of Government
Servant. In absence of availability of the post, such
employee is not entitled to absorption as regular employee.
In case between Dhanpur Sugar Mills versus Bhola
Singh reported in AIR 2005-SC-1790. Their Lordship
dealing with regularization of service held completion of
240 days of continuous service in a year may not itself be
ground for regularization of service.
In case of MP State Agro Industries Development
Corp.Ltd. and another versus S.C.Pandey reported in
2006(2) SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with status and
rights of causal labour held on completion of 240 days
4430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
continuous service itself would not confer right for
regularization in service.
In present case, the evidence shows workman was
engaged on daily wages for about 14 years would amount
to unfair labor practice under Item 10 of ID Act. However
the workman has been terminated from service. The
termination of workman is challenged in R/44/13. The claim
of workman is not upheld. When workman is not in service,
his claim for regularization cannot be accepted. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Bank of
India in not regularizing the services of Shri
Ashok Sunhare and not paying him bonus
is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2153-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 134@97½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@151@96&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2015
S.O. 2153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134/
97) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/11/2015.
[No. L-12012/151/96 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/134/97
Shri Some B.Ghoke,
House No. 24,
Near Phooti Bhavdi Durga Mandir,
Pushpa Nagar,
Bhopal.
...Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Jail Road,
Arera Hills, Bhopal
...Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 1st day of October, 2015
1. As per letter dated 16-5-97 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
151/96/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Soma
B.Ghoke and also stoppage of two future increments
with cumulative effect w.e.f. 11-1-94 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?’
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that
chrgesheet was issued to workman on 18-10-91,
corrigendum issued to him on 25-2-92. Workman was
suspended on 8-2-91. Workman submitted reply to
chargesheet denying charges against him. Enquiry was
initiated against him. Workman contented that enquiry be
recorded in Hindi, he repeatedly gave applications in that
regard. His request was not acceded to and he same was
done only at fag end when he was proceeded exparte. The
evidence was closed without granting him opportunity
for his defence. He submitted application dated 27-8-92.
His defence representative declined to participate in
proceeding, requested permission to appoint Advocate
for his defence. His request was acceded after completion
of enquiry. He did not get opportunity for his defence. He
submitted application dated 27-8-92. His defence
representative declined to participate in proceeding,
requested permission to appoint Advocate for his defence
as request was acceded after completion of enquiry. He
did not get opportunity for his defence. The principles of
natural justice were not followed by Enquiry Officer. He
acted under influence of Disciplinary Authority. Enquiry
Officer did not submit his report with appropriate reasons.
The findings of Enquiry Officer are without application of
mind and came to conclusions. The findings are not based
on evidence. Showcause notice issued to workman was
replied in detail. The Issuing Authority did not consider
his contentions in reply. That enquiry is conducted against
him in contravention of service regulations and principles
of natural justice. That dismissal from service of workman
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4431
is based on illegal findings, is violative of Constitution.
On report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of dismissal ,
withholding two annual increments are illegal. On such
ground workman prayed for his reinstatement.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Pages 6/1 to
6/7. 2nd party submits that Ist party workman during course
of service committed misconduct. Chargesheet was issued
to him on 18-10-91 and corrigendum on 28-2-92. The
misconduct proved against workman related to fraudulent
loan Account opened in name of Ghansham and mis-
utilised the Bank funds of Rs.61,500. Workman fraudulently
obtained signature of workman on bank loan application
for wrongly representing the documents related to
employment in the Bank. The Ist party workman
fraudulently withdrawn Rs.5000/- forging signature of
Ghansham. Workman sanctioned housing loan of
Rs.75000/-, 35,000/- for purchasing property situated at
No.26, Bharveli Near Barkhedi Railway Phatak, Bhopal.
The acts prejudicial to the interest of Bank amounted
gross-misconduct. The charges against workman were
proved from evidence of Enquiry Officer. Punishment of
dismissal was imposed. Appellant preferred appeal before
Competent Authority. It is reiterated that enquiry was
conducted properly. Workman was given opportunity for
his defence. Workman was also given opportunity to
produce evidence in rebuttal. It is reiterated that the
punishment is imposed for proved misconduct. The
evidence of handwriting expert establish the forged
signature of Shri Bagde, so called borrower. The proved
misconduct of workman is of serious nature. Punishment
of dismissal is proper and legal. As the punishment is
imposed after conducting enquiry, there is no question of
fundamental rights of workman under Article 19.1(g), 21 of
the Constitution. The punishment is not arbitrary or illegal.
2nd party prays that award be answered in its favour.
4. As per order dated 27-6-14, enquiry conducted
against workman is found proper and legal. 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 charges alleged
In Affirmative
against workman is proved
from evidence in Enquiry
proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
In Affirmative
dismissal imposed against
workman is proper and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. In view of my finding on preliminary issue,
enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and
proper, question arise whether charges alleged against
workman are proved from evidence in enquiry needs to be
discussed from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The
documents of enquiry are produced collectively marked
as Exhibit M-1. The CBI Officer Shri H.N.Tripathi
Investigating in crime was examined as witness of
management. The statement before Enquiry Officer shows
that Ghansham had complained against workman about
raising loan of Rs.80,000 without his knowledge. That he
observed that loan of total Rs.66,500 was granted in name
of Ghansham for purchase of Cannon 271 Copier machine.
The statement of MW-5 Tripathi further shows that
Cannon machine was proposed to be purchased by so
called Borrower Ghansham from Sunil Kumar Sharma. The
payment was made through Sunil Kumar Sharma. That
Mr. Sharma had confirmed that he received payment of
Rs.62,000, personally delivered to him by Shri Ghoke
(workman). The amount of pay slip was later on taken by
workman. He has not sold any cannon MP 271 machine to
Ghansham. Handwriting Expert Deshpande was examined.
As per his opinion, Exhibit M-38, it is confirmed opinion
about forgery of signature on above two cheques. The
signature was not in handwriting of Shri Ghansham.
Management’s witness Shri A.K.Solanki in his statement
says that he remember having sanctioned loan of second
hand photocopy machine to Ghansham Bgde not visiting
the branch for signing the documents. He did not remember
Ghansham approaching him for said loan. Ghansham
himself is also examined as witness and he denied that he
taken loan from Bank. That his signature on documents of
loan were obtained by workman saying that signatures
were obtained for purpose of securing service in the Bank.
Re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted while
exercising powers of judicial review under Section 11-A of
ID Act. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings is sufficient
to prove charges alleged against workman. The findings
of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. Therefore I
record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
6. Point No.2- The charges alleged against workman
pertains to fraud and forgery of documents for sanctioning
loan in name of Ghansham. Amount was misused by
workman, considering serious charges proves against him,
the punishment of dismissal cannot be said excessive. I
therefore record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Soma
B.Ghoke and also stoppage of two future
increments with cumulative effect w.e.f.
11-1-94 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
4432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2154-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk esllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M lfoZysal
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 9@2013½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@74@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Idian Oil Corporation, M/s Beehive
Security & Surveillance and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 06/11/2015.
[No. L-30012/74/2012 - IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR-COURT
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
DELHI
ID No. 9/2013
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Ram Kumar,
R/o Village and Post Office Matan,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar,
HARYANA-124 510
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security &
Surveillance, Hose No. 43,
Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraola More, Najafgarh,
Delhi - 110 043
...Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-30012/74/2012-
IR(M) dated 20.12.2012, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
employment of Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri Ram
Kumar from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect
from 14.04.2012, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?’’
2. Claim statement was filed by the workman and
written statements were filed by both the managements.
On perusal of pleadings, it was observed by my learned
predecessor, on 25.09.2013, that no other issue, than those
referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication
was made out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence
of the parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude
first. However, despite affording 16 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 2, 2015
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2155-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjsS'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 73@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@53@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4433
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2015.
[No. L-30011/53/2012 - IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No.73 of 2012, Reference No. L-30011/53/2012/
IR(M) dated 11.1.2013
The General Secretary, Indian Oil Panipat Refinery
Employees Union, Panipat Refinery, Panipat.
...Union
Versus
The Chief Human Resource Manager,IOCL, Panipat
Refinery, Panipat-132140.
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Workman
:
Shri Hari Pal Singh.
For the Management
:
Shri P. Murlidharan.
AWARD
Passed on: - 02.11.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-30011/53/2012/IR(M) dated 11.1.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether clause 5 of the Settlement dated 8.12.2010
entered on between the management of IOCL,
Refineries Division, Panipat Refinery and Indian Oil
Panipat Refinery Employees Union under Section
12(3) of I.D.Act, 1947 could be set aside being
violative of different sections of Factories Act, 1948
and Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders) Act,
1948? If yes, then relief to which Union is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to the parties. The Union appeared and filed claim statement
pleading therein that the a memorandum of settlement
Under Section 18(i) and 2(P) of Industrial Disputes Act
1947 has been signed on 29.7.2010 between the
representatives of Employer and the Union and clause 5
states that in the event of compensatory off accrues to a
workman, the same shall be encashed which is totally
against the law as it violates the provisions of Section 53
of Factories Act, 1948. It is pleaded that U/S 53 of the
Factories Act, 1948, it is provided that the employee shall
be allowed to take rest within two months from the date
on which the compensatory off generated and it may not
be encashed. In view of the above, the Union prayed that
the compensatory off may be given within two months
from the date of generation instead of encashment of the
same and the relevant provision of Memorandum of
Settlement dated 29.7.2010 may be set aside being in
violation of the provisions of Section 53 of the Factories
Act, 1948.
3. The management filed written statement.
Preliminary objection has been taken that Union is stopped
in law to challenge the Memorandum of Settlement dated
8.12.2010 which was arrived at in course of tripartite
conciliation proceedings between the claimant union and
the management which is statutory in nature and binding
upon the parties to the settlement. It would also bind even
those workmen who may join in future as long as the
settlement is in operation and contents of the settlement
cannot be altered/varied/modified without the express
consent of all the parties to the settlement. Therefore the
Union has no claim. Moreover the other units of refineries
division (Including Headquarters), Pipelines division,
Research and Development Centre and Assam Oil Division
etc. of the Corporation as also other different recognised
workers unions who are parties and signatories to the
settlement dated 29.7.2010 have not been joined as parties
in the case. And any adjudication/order which may be
passed by this Court in respect of the parties to the
settlements would seriously prejudice their rights which
would be unjustified in the absence of affording
opportunity of hearing to them. It is further submitted that
on earlier occasion one of the recognised union raised a
dispute on the similar issue against the management of
Barauni Refinery before R.L.C( C ) Patna and the matter
was referred to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry
of labour does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication
holding that the management has not violated any rule
and adopted any unfair labour practice. The management
prayed that the above dispute is misconceived, ill advised,
unwarranted and untenable and deserves to be rejected.
On merits it is pleaded that settlement was arrived at
between the parties on 8.12.2010 wherein it was agreed to
pay special computer allowance @8%, 9% and 10% of the
Basic Pay to the workmen in cluster A, B and C respectively
w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and it was agreed between the parties to the
settlement that compensatory off normally would not
accrue to workmen, however, in the event of compensatory
off accrues to a workman, the same shall be encashed.
The settlement is binding on the parties to the settlement
having statutory force. It is further submitted that in
consonance with the relevant provisions of the Factories
4434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Act, 1948 as well as the above settlement, it was also
clarified to all concerned that if a workman works on his
weekly off day, he has or will have a holiday for a whole
day on one of three days immediately before or after the
said day. It is further submitted by the management that
workers performing the work on respective weekly holidays
are allowed to avail substitute holiday for a whole day on
one of three days immediately before or after the said day
and as such none is deprived off any weekly holiday for
which provisions is made under Sub Section of Section 52
of the Factories Act, 1948. In view of the above the
management prayed that the claim of the union may be
rejected and the reference may be answered in negative in
favour of the management.
4. Both the parties prefer not to lead any oral
evidence. The management filed written argument. The
representative of the Union oraly addresses the arguments.
5. I have gone through the entire record of the case
and also gone through the written arguments of the
management and documents filed by the parties on record.
6. Clause 5 of the settlement dated 8.12.2010
provides as under:
“With a view to improve productivity, efficiency and
profitability of the Corporation in the current
competitive business scenario management and
Union agree that compensatory off (CO) normally
would not accrue to workmen however in the event
a compensatory off accrues to a workman, the same
shall be encashed. The Union and the management
further reaffirm to eliminate unproductive work
practices that have been agreed upon as per
enclosed annexure-A.”
7. In this context, it is relevant to mention the
provisions of Section 53 of the Factories Act, 1948 which
provides as under:
“53. Compensatory holidays-(1) Where, as a result
of the passing of an order or the making of a rule
under the provisions of this Act exempting a factory
or the workers therein from the provisions of Section
52, a worker is deprived of any of the weekly holidays
for which provision is made in sub-section (1) of
that section, he shall be allowed, within the month
in which the holidays were due to him or within the
two months immediately following that month,
compensatory holidays of equal number to the
holidays so lost.”
8. The management in para 4 of the written statement
pleaded that on earlier occasion, one of the recognised
workers unions i.e. Shramik Vikas Parishad, Barauni
Refinery raised a dispute on the similar issue against the
management of Barauni Refinery before the Regional
Labour Commissioner( Central) Patna. On failure of the
conciliation proceedings the matter was referred to the
Govt.of India, Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour
vide letter dated 30.9.2011, opined that prima facie the
Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication
for the reasons that “the management has not violated
any rule and adopted any unfair labour practice”. Thus
the management pleaded that as the matter has been
declined by the Ministry of Labour, hence present claim
statement of the Union is not tenable.
9. The worker Union opposed this contention of
the management on the ground that Ministry of Labour
itself has vide notification No. L-30011/53/2012/IR(M)
dated 11.1.2013 referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether clause 5 of the Settlement dated 8.12.2010
entered on between the management of IOCL,
Refineries Division, Panipat Refinery and Indian Oil
Panipat Refinery Employees Union under Section
12(3) of I.D.Act, 1947 could be set aside being
violative of different sections of Factories Act, 1948
and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1948? If yes, then relief to which Union is entitled?”
10. Besides this on earlier occasion the denial by
the Ministry of Labour for referring the dispute of the
Barauni refinery has no effect in the present reference and
the stand of the management is not well founded because
the Ministry of Labour has itself referred the above referred
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
11. The management further submitted that the
settlement dated 8.12.2010 has been arrived at along with
other unions and the present worker union i.e. Indian Oil
Panipat Refinery Employees Union, Panipat Refinery,
Panipat alone is not competent to raise the dispute
regarding any clause of the settlement as other parties to
the settlement are also the necessary parties to the dispute.
Workman union opposed this contention of the
management on the ground that as the clause 5 of the
Settlement dated 8.12.2010 is violative of the Section 53 of
the Factories Act, 1948 and any party to the settlement
can raise the dispute.
12. It is settled law that if any clause of the
settlement/agreement is violation of the specific
provisions of the law or if that clause is permitted to operate,
it will nullify the specific provisions of law. In this regard it
would be relevant to mention Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 which provides as under:
“23.What consideration and objects are lawful and
what not- The consideration or object of an
agreement is lawful, unless-
It is forbidden by law, or
Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat
the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4435
Involves or implies, injury to the person or property
of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or
opposed to public policy.
In each of these cases, the consideration or object
of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every
agreement of which the object or consideration is
unlawful is void.”
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, if clause 5 of the settlement dated 8.12.2010 is
allowed to be permitted, it violate the specific provisions
of Section 53 of the Factories Act 1948 and its
consequences have been described in Section 23 of the
Indian Contract Act 1872. Hence clause 5 of the settlement
is violative of the provisions of the Factories Act.
14. In view of the discussion made above, the
claimant Union and the management are directed to
reconsider the clause 5 of the Settlement dated 8.12.2010
within two months from the date of the publication of the
award.
15. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh.
02.11.2015 S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2156-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 92@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30011@71@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2015.
[No. L-30011/71/2012 - IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No.92 of 2012, Reference No. L-30011/71/2012/
IR(M) dated 01.02.2013
The General Secretary, Indian Oil Panipat Refinery
Employees Union, Panipat Refinery, Panipat.
...Union
Versus
The Chief Human Resource Manager,IOCL, Panipat
Refinery, Panipat-132140.
...Respondent
Appearances :
For the Workman
: Shri Hari Pal Singh.
For the Management
: Shri P.Murlidharan.
AWARD
Passed on:- 03.11.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-30011/71/2012/IR(M) dated 01.02.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the demand of Union for payment of
Officiating Allowance for additional work of
operation of control panels apart from their basic
job in the field is legal and justified? What relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to the parties. The Union appeared and filed claim statement
pleading therein that the workmen of IOCL, Panipat
Refinery who are working in panel operation are not getting
officiating benefits in accordance with the rules applicable
to on officers. It is pleaded that an employee officiating in
a post in the scale immediately next above for a period of
not less than 15 days or more at a stretch may be allowed
an officiating pay @ 10% of his basic pay where, however
the period of officiating appointment exceeds three months
pay of such an employee shall be fixed in the grade of the
higher post as per normal rules governing the fixation of
pay on promotion. It is also prayed that in the case of
Grade IV to Grade VIII employees who are working in panel
operation in some location may be paid officiating
allowance as they are performing duties on the higher
post and also assuming duties of responsibilities of greater
importance and carrying the duties of a higher grade that
his own as they are shouldering higher responsibilities of
4436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
an officer and not the job of a non-officer working in grade
IV to Grade VIII.
3. The management filed written statement.
Preliminary objection has been taken that Union is stopped
in law to raise the present dispute against the management
in as much as the payment of officiating allowance in the
corporation is made to only that employee who has been
officiating in a post when he/she is required to perform
the duties of a post to which another employee holds a
lien through a specific order issued by the competent
authority which is further governed by the provisions of
personnel manual (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) and the
Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the
management of the Corporation and their workmen
represented by the recognised Union before the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central, Chandigarh U/S 12(3) of
the I.D.Act 1947 on 6.7.1999 and this settlement is
continuing and the latest settlement has been signed on
8.12.2010 before the RLC ( Central), Chandigarh. It is further
pleaded that in view of this settlement the workmen of the
union are not at all entitled to the payment of officiating
allowance in the corporation in as much as they were never
required to officiate on any post by issuing any orders by
the competent authority and the demand of the union is
unfair, unwarranted, unjustified and untenable and the
reference deserved to be rejected. It is further pleaded
that union is also guilty of mis-representation and
concealment of managerial facts and deserves no relief.
4. On merits it is pleaded that panel operation is
being done by the officers only who are required to monitor,
maintain, control and taking corrective action with regard
to maintaining various parameters viz. Pressure,
temperature, level and flows in their respective plants.
The panel officers are also required to supervise the
working of Engineering Assistants who are deployed in
the field in the workmen category for operation of their
respective plants whereas the console is only for viewing
display and no equipment is required to be operated from
the console necessarily, and installation of consoles
significantly reduces the manual efforts required to be put
in by the engineering assistants. It is further pleaded that
console exists in the Engineering Assistant’s room in raw
water plant for alarm/ annunciation of the field parameters
and after getting the alarm, action is taken by the shift
engineering assistant and in this way console helps the
shift engineering assistant to quickly identity the defective
parameter while sitting in his room rather than going in the
field. The management tried to provide modern instruments/
gadgets/operating consoles/PLCs by incurring huge to
help the operating person. It is prayed by the management
that there is no merit in the demand of the Union and the
reference deserved to be rejected.
5. Replication also filed by the Union reiterating
the claim made in the claim statement.
6. Both the parties prefer not to lead any oral
evidence. The management filed written argument. The
representative of the Union orally addresses the arguments.
7. I have gone through the entire record of the case
and also gone through the written argument of the
management and documents filed by the parties on record.
8. During argument it is submitted by the
representative of the Union that the workmen are working
on the panel operation which is the work of the officers
but are not paid officiating allowance. That such workmen
who are working on panel operation are entitled for
officiating allowance as they are performing the duties on
higher post and also assuming higher responsibilities and
carrying the duties of a higher grade then their own.
9. On the other hand the stand of the management
is that payment of officiating allowance in the corporation
is made to only that employee who has been officiating in
a post when he/she is required to perform the duties of a
post to which another employee holds a lien through a
specific order issued by the competent authority which is
further governed by the provisions of personnel manual
(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) and the Memorandum of
Settlement arrived at between the management of the
Corporation and their workmen represented by the
recognised Union before the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central, Chandigarh U/S 12(3) of the I.D.Act
1947 on 6.7.1999 and this settlement is continuing and the
latest settlement has been signed on 8.12.2010 before the
RLC ( Central), Chandigarh. It is further submitted that in
view of this settlement the workmen of the union are not
at all entitled to the payment of officiating allowance in
the corporation in as much as they were never required to
officiate on any post by issuing any orders by the
competent authority. It is further submitted by the
representative of the management that panel operation is
being done by the officers only who are required to monitor,
maintain, control and taking corrective action with regard
to maintaining various parameters viz. Pressure,
temperature, level and flows in their respective plants.
The panel officers are also required to supervise the
working of Engineering Assistants who are deployed in
the field in the workmen category for operation of their
respective plants whereas the console is only for viewing
display and no equipment is required to be operated from
the console necessarily, and installation of consoles
significantly reduces the manual efforts required to be put
in by the engineering assistants. It is further pleaded that
console exists in the Engineering Assistant’s room in raw
water plant for alarm/ annunciation of the field parameters
and after getting the alarm, action is taken by the shift
engineering assistant and in this way console helps the
shift engineering assistant to quickly identity the defective
parameter while sitting in his room rather than going in the
field. The management tried to provide modern instruments/
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4437
gadgets/operating consoles/PLCs by incurring huge to
help the operating person. It is prayed by the management
that there is no merit in the demand of the Union and the
reference deserved to be rejected.
10. Chapter 5 deals with officiating appointments,
according to which written order of a competent authority
is required to perform the duties of a post to which another
employees holds a lien and an employee may be allowed
to draw benefits for officiating against a post involving
the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater
importance and carrying a higher grade than his own.
Section 5.1.2. deals with conditions for officiating
appointments which provides that an officiating
appointment may be made in leave vacancy or due to the
incumbent on long training or because of the officer being
given a special assignment for a temporary period.
11. From the above it is clear that a written order of
the competent authority are required to be issued if any
workman is given officiating position. The officer are
required to monitor, maintain, control and taking corrective
actions with regard to maintaining various parameters viz.
Pressure, temperature, level and flows and also to
supervise the working of engineering assistants who are
deployed in the field and console is only for viewing
display and no equipment is required to be operated upon
from the console which significantly reduce the manual
efforts to be put in by the workman staff i.e. engineering
assistants.
12. From the above discussion it is clear that there
exist no such order passed by the competent authority to
order for officiating to any workman as per the Chapter 5
which deals with officiating appointment. Merely watching
the display on console cannot be said to be put on
officiating duty to any workman by the management.
13. In view of the above, no case is made out for any
relief to the Union and the demand of Union for payment
of Officiating Allowance for additional work of operation
of control panels apart from their basic job in the field is
neither legal nor justified and the concerned workmen are
not entitled for any relief.
14. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh.
03.11.2015 S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ ,lhlh
fyfeVsM xkxy lhesaV oDlZ ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29011@8@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s ACC Ltd. Gagal Cement Works
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/11/2015.
[No. L-29011/8/2015-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 11of 2015, Reference no. L-29011/8/2015/
IR(M) dated 13.07.2015
The President, ACC Gagal Cement Karamchari Sangh
(INTUC), PO Barmana, District Bilaspur (HP).
...Workman
Versus
1. The Managing Director, ACC Ltd. Gagal Cement Works,
Regd. Office, Cement House 121, Maharishi Karve Road,
Mumbai-400020.
2. The Plant Director, ACC Gagal Cement Karamchari Sangh
( INTUC), PO Barmana, District Bilaspur (HP).
...Respondents.
Appearances:
For the Workman : Shri Chain Singh Thakur, President
of the Union alongwith others.
For the Management
: Shri R.K.Thakur, General
Manager
alogwith
Shri S.M.S. Liberhan, Advocate.
4438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 7, 2015/KARTIKA 16, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on: - 03.11.2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-29011/8/2015/IR(M) dated 13.07.2015
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of ACC
Limited Gagal Cement Works in stopping the
additional gratuity for the workers who participated
in National Strike on 28.2.12 is just, legal and valid?
If not, to what relief the concerned workers of Union
who participated in the National strike could be
given?”
2. Case taken up in lok adalat fixed for today. On
behalf of the Union Shri Chain Singh Thakur President,
Shri Ramesh Kumar, General Secretary, Shri Kansi Ram
Vice Present and Shri Ravi Kumar Joint Secretary are
present. On behalf of the management shri R.K.Thakur,
General Manager alongwith Shri S.M.S.Librahan advocate
are present.
3. After persuasion and negotiation which took
place in lok adalat, both the parties agreed to terms and
workmen union agreed to withdraw the present reference.
They recorded their statement on the margins of the orders
sheet. The management also recorded no objection. In
view of the statement of the parties, the present reference
is returned to the Central Govt. as withdrawn.
4. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central
Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh
03.11.2015 S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2158-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk esllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M lfoZysal
ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4@2013½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@69@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 06/11/2015.
[No. L-30012/69/2012 - IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.4/2013
Shri Ram Karan Singh,
S/o Shri Nihal Singh,
R/o Gali No.3, Adarsh Nagar,
Jhajjar Road,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
HARYANA
…..Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi – 110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No.43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraola More, Najafgarh,
Delhi – 110 043
…Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/69/
2012-IR(M) dated 20.12.2012, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
employment of Shri Ram Karan Singh, S/o Shri Nihal
Singh from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect
from 22.03.2012, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?
2. Claim statement was filed by the workman and
written statements were filed by both the managements.
On perusal of pleadings, it was observed by my learned
predecessor, on 25.09.2013, that no other issue, than those
referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication
was made out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence
of the parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude
first. However, despite affording 16 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 7] 2015@dk£rd 16] 1937
4439
3. Since the workman has neither put in his
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 2, 2015
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2015
dk-vk- 2159-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM rFkk esllZ fcfgo flD;wfjfV ,.M lfoZysal
ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2013½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@11@2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@68@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2015
S.O. 2159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 06/11/2015.
[No. - L-30012/68/2012 - IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 3/2013
Shri Rajvir Singh,
S/o Shri Uday Singh,
R/o Village and Post Office Kanaunda,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar,
HARYANA – 124 501
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Indane Gas Terminal,
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi – 110 041
2.
M/s Beehive Security & Surveillance,
House No.43, Rathi Enclave,
New Roshan Vihar,
Kakraola More, Najafgarh,
Delhi – 110 043
…Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-30012/68/
2012-IR(M) dated 20.12.2012, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Beehive Security & Surveillance in terminating the
employment of Shri Rajvir Singh, S/o Shri Uday Singh
from IOC Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with effect from
04.02.2012, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2. Claim statement was filed by the workman and
written statements were filed by both the managements.
On perusal of pleadings, it was observed by my learned
predecessor, on 25.09.2013, that no other issue, than those
referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication
was made out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence
of the parties, with directions to the claimant to conclude
first. However, despite affording 16 opportunities to the
workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3. Since the workman has neither put in his
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate
Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 2, 2015
A.C. DOGRA , Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.