4945 GI/2015

(4557)

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

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2253.—dsUnz 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, xksok jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx ¼lkekU;½ lfpoky;]

iksjoksfje] dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 2@97@2012&,pMh ¼th½ fnukad

08 vDrwcj] 2012 ds ek/;e ls izkIr lgefr ds }kjk fczfV'k ukxfjd

lqJh MsUlh dSjksy Lohuh dh e`R;q ls lacaf/kr vUtquk iqfyl LVs'ku esa

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk

302 ds rgr ntZ ,QvkbZvkj la- 86@2012 fnukad 06@07@2012 ds

varxZr fd, x, vijkè rFkk mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU;

vijk/k@vijk/kksa dh tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr xksok jkT;

esa djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@61@2012&,-oh-Mh-&II]

eks- unhe] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2253.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act

No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent

of the State Government of Goa, Home Department

(General), Secretariat, Porvorim, vide Notification No.

2/97/2012-HD(G) dated 8th October, 2012, hereby

extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of

the State of Goa for the investigation of the death of the

British

National,

Ms. Denyse Carole Sweeney, an offence vide Crime No.

86/2012 under section 302 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860

(Act No. 45 of 1860), registered at Anjuna Police Station in

FIR No. 86/2012 dated 06.07.2012 and any other offence/

offences committed in the cause of the same transaction

or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/61/2012-AVD-II]

MD. NADEEM, Under Secy.

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 50]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 6—fnlEcj 12] 2015] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 15—vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

No. 50] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 6—DECEMBER 12, 2015, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 15—AGRAHAYANA 21, 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)

4558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2254-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vfèlwfpr djrk gS%

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh; Hkkx

vuq&

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd ¼#-½

bdkbZ nj

LySc esa

'ks"k

izpkyu frfFk

ekud

Hkkx

cM+s iSekus ij ,e-,l-,e-bZ-

LySc 1

bdkbZ;ka

la[;k

ds fy,

¼#-½

210

2009

Hkwjs yksgs dh

1 Vu

39000-00

31200-00

72-00

lHkh

–

16-11-2015

<ykbZ;ka fof'kf"V

¼ikpoka iqujh{k.k½

[lanHkZ % lh,eMh&2@16 % 210]

lh- ds- egs'ojh] oSKkfud ^th-* ,oa miegkfuns'kd ¼izek.ku½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2015

S.O. 2254.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking Fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No. Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking

Unit

Units

Remain- Effective

Fee (Rs.)

Rate

ing

Date

Large

MSME

Slab-1

Scale

(Rs.)

210

2009

Grey Iron Castings-

1 Ton

39000.00

31200.00

72.00

All

16.11.2015

Specification (Fifth

Revision)

[Ref.: CMD-2/16 : 210]

C. K. MAHESHWARI, Sc. ‘G’ & DDG (Certification)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2255-—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]

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 152@02)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@2@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4559

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 152/

02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/2/2002-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/152/02

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 18th day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 7-11-02 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/

2/2002-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

terminating the services of Shri Shyam Sunder Kekre

w.e.f. 11-12-98 and not regularizing his services is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/2 to 2/9. Case of Ist party is that he was working as

a temporary messenger for 64 days during the period 29-

11-84 to 31-1-85. That as per settlement dated 17-11-87,

temporary employees working for 30 days during the period

1-7-75 to 31-7-88 was eligible for absorption as permanent

employee. Workman reiterates that he was called for

interview with documents on 19-12-89. His name was

included in select panel. After 6 years of select panel, he

was engaged as peon/ messenger from 24-6-95. He worked

with devotion. He worked for 300 days. He was paid Rs.48/-

per day from petty cash. In 1997, he was not called for

interview as he was also interviewed in 1989 and his name

was included in select list. On 1-12-98, he was called in

chamber of Branch Manager Mr. Aryan. He was paid

cheque of Rs.3600 informing him that his services were

not required. Workman reiterated that he had worked for

64 days during 1984-85 as per the settlement. He was

interviewed in 1989, his name was included in select list.

He completed more than 240 days continuous service after

his engagement from 24-6-95. His services were terminated

illegally.

Ist party workman further submits that after interview

in 1997, candidates working less number of days than him

were given appointment. Names of such candidates are

given Santosh Mishra appointed on 15-1-93, Raj Kumar 8-

12-93, Vinod Singh, Raj Kumar, Manoj Ingde etc Ist party

claims that he is covered as employee under Section 25 B

of ID Act. His services were terminated without hearing

him. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Seniority

list of retrenched employee was not displayed. Therefore

his retrenchment is illegal. That since 24-6-95, he worked

for 1087 days. Termination of his service without notice is

illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 14/1 to 14/

13 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary

objection that Shri Ram Nagwanshi was employee of the

State Bank. He is dismissed after enquiry. He is not

competent to represent workman. 2nd party submits that

during 29-11-84 to 31-1-85, workman had worked for 64

days. Workman was called for interview. His name was

included in select list but workman could not be appointed

as his number of working days were less. 2nd party has

contented that workman had worked only for 87 days. He

not completed 240 days continuous service. Even

completion of 240 days service does not give him right for

reinstatement. The select list was kept alive till March

1997 giving opportunity to the candidates. Ist party was

engaged in Indore Main branch for 907 days during 1997

to 1998. He was discontinued after making payment of

wages and retrenchment notice under ID Act. 2nd party

reiterates that workman is not entitled to any relief as he

was paid retrenchment compensation and notice. All

adverse contentions of workman about violation of Section

25-F, G, N are denied. There is no question of violation of

section 29 of ID Act. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 15/1 to 15/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

4560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the manage-

Termination of

ment of Asstt. General Manager,

workman is

State Bank of India, Bhopal in termi-

illegal.

nating the services of Shri Shyam

Sunder Kekre w.e.f. 11-12-98 and

not regularizing his services is

justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

The terms of reference pertains to legality of

termination of workman and denial of regularization to him.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his

claim. Workman was not produced for cross-examination

as per ordersheet dated 9-5-2011. Workman did not want

to examine. His evidence was closed. Case was fixed for

evidence of management. as workman did not make

available for his cross-examination, his evidence cannot

be considered.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Dilip Mogre supporting contentions of 2nd party in

Written Statement that workman had not completed 240

days continuous service. Workman was paid notice pay

and retrenchment compensation Rs. 13,211/-, bonus of

Rs.1503 was paid to him. As per settlement for absorption

of temporary employees, workman was called for interview

on 23-9-89. His name was included in select list. Workman

not completed 240 days continuous service. Despite of

it, retrenchment compensation and notice pay were paid

to workman. Management’s witness in his affidavit of

evidence in para-1 has stated that workman worked for 64

days during 23-11-84 to 31-1-85 and 907 days during 1995

to 1998. The affidavit of witness of management is silent

about displaying seniority list of retrenched employees.

In his cross-examination, management’s witness says

select list Exhibit W-18 is correct. Workman was engaged

from 1995, appointment letter was not given to him. At the

time of terminating workman, list of retrenched employees

were displayed on notice board. He does not know list of

retrenched employees was displayed on notice board. In

Exhibit W-18, select list, name of workman is appearing at

Sl.No.35, his working days are shown 64. Workman has

not adduced any evidence that the candidates having less

number of working days are appointed. Therefore claim of

workman for regularization as per the settlement cannot

be accepted. Copy of settlement is produced at Exhibit M-

1. Temporary employees working 240 days during 12

months or less after 1-7-75 , employees completed 270

days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block

of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75, temporary employees

who have completed minimum of 30 days temporary

service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 are eligible for

absorption. Settlements are produced at Exhibit M-4, 5

needs no detailed discussion. As any employee working

less number of days than workman is established, the claim

of workman for regularization cannot be accepted.

As per evidence in cross-examination of

management’s witness, he claims ignorance about

displaying list of retrenched employees on notice board,

workman had worked for 907 days during 1995 to 1998, its

breakup is not given. It is clear that workman worked more

than 240 days continuous service during 1995 to 1998.

While terminating workman, list of retrenched employee

was not displayed.

Section 25-G of ID Act provides-

Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman

in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of

India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a

particular category of workmen in that establishment,

in the absence of any agreement between the

employer and the workman in this behalf, the

employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who

was the last person to be employed in that category,

unless for reasons to be recorded the employer

retrenches any other workman.

Rule 77 of ID Act provides-

The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in

the particular category from which retrenchment is

contemplated arranged according to the seniority

of their service in that category and cause a copy

thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a

conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial

establishment atleast seven days before the actual

date of retrenchment.

10.

2nd party has not complied Rule 77 of ID Act therefore

retrenchment of workman is illegal. Merely payment of

compensation amount Rs. 3600/- by cheque cannot legalize

retrenchment of workman. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- workman had worked only for 64 days

during settlement period. His claim for regularization

cannot be accepted for reasons given below. While

terminating services of workman, seniority list as per Rule

77 was not displayed, secondly retrenchment of workman

is illegal. As per evidence of management’s witness,

workman had completed 907 days working during 1995 to

1998. Workman was working 64 days only during 1984 to

1985. Thus workman was continuously working during

1995 to 1998. Considering period of working, compensation

Rs. 75,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No.2.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4561

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 terminating

the services of Shri Shyam Sunder Kekre w.e.f.

11-12-98 and not regularizing his services is not

proper and legal.

(2)

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

to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

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

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2256-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkaxyh cSad fy-

(vc vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ ds :i esa tkuk tkrk gS) 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;] dksYgkiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2013) (iqus

607@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

7-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2256.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. (IDA)

No. 86/2013) (Pune Ref. No. IDA No. 607/2004) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Sangli Bank

Ltd. (Now known as ICICI Bank Ltd.) and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT KOLHAPUR

CORAM: SHRI M.S. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

Reference (IDA) No. 86/2013

(Labour Court, Pune Ref. IDA No. 607/2004)

BETWEEN :-

(The Sangli Bank Limited)

Now known as ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Rajwada Chowk, Sangli.

...First party

And

(Ramdas Trimbak Umrani),

Died, hence through legal representative

(1) Smt. Madhuri Ramdas Umrani,

(2) Miss. Prajakta Ramdas Umrani,

(3) Sourabh Ramdas Umrani,

(Natural Guardian 2nd Party No.1 for No. 2 & 3).

(4) Smt. Sayali Harshal Deshpande,

All R/o. Somwar Peth, Karad,

Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara

...Second Party

APPEARANCES :

Shri. U. J. Chipre, Advocate for First party.

Shri. K. D. Shinde, Advocate for Second party.

AWARD

( Dated :- 19.12.2013 )

The second party workman attached as a clerk with

the first party bank which is now taken over by ICICI

Bank, was chargesheeted for 2 misconducts as (1) doing

an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and (2) breach

of any Rule of the business of the bank, by charge-sheet

dated 29/1/01. Second party replied charge-sheet on

15/2/01. Second Party workman was but required to face

enquiry which was commenced on 16/3/01. On 10/7/01

second party workman submitted no evidence purshis and

accordingly enquiry came to be closed. Enquiry officer

submitted his report on 11/12/01 holding both misconducts

leveled against second party workman are proved. On the

basis of this report second party workman came to be

dismissed without notice from the services w.e.f. 8/7/02.

Second party workman then approached

Government of India from whom industrial dispute in

between both parties was referred to the Labour Court,

Pune on 27.09.2004. Thereafter, by new order dt. 22.01.2008

the industrial dispute came to be transferred to Labour

Court, Sangli. On having appearance from the both parties

and respective contentions from them Labour Court, Sangli

decided only one issue pertaining to the mechanism of

enquiry by its order dated 15/2/12. Thereafter, by an order

of the Hon’ble President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra,

Mumbai, dated 10/5/13 this reference came to be transferred

to this Court for further adjudication.

After having received R. and P. of reference from

Sangli Court notices were issued to both parties. They

appeared before this court.

Through Statement of Claim, second party contends

that, he joined the services of then Sangli Bank on

06.11.1980 as a Clerk. He has rendered 22 years service

without blame. He has been because of that given letter of

appreciation on behalf of bank. On 20.12.2000 he was

4562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

attached Vadgaon Haveli branch, and on relevant date he

was on leave. On 21.12.2000 when he went to attend duty,

Branch Manager informed him that he had done

misconduct of embezzlement. Thereafter he was suspended

from the services from 12.01.2001 and charge sheet was

issued on 29.01.2001 alleging charge of embezzlement in

the account of customer Mr. Dobhada. He had denied

said charge vehemently vide reply dt. 15.02.2001, but he

was caused to face enquiry. The charge was baseless,

imaginary and untenable. He was not allowed to examine

himself during course of enquiry. The material witness

Shri. Dobhada was even not brought before Enquiry

Officer. Management witness had given contradictory

statements, while admitted some important things. Enquiry

Officer did not appreciate evidence in right perspective,

and because of that drew perverse findings. First Party

issued him the final show cause notice dt. 12.04.2002

proposing dismissal punishment. Personal hearing was

held on 26.04.2002, but he came to be awarded with the

punishment of dismissal which is shockingly

disproportionate. Second Party workman further contends

that, he is now 49 years old. In his family, there is aged

mother, wife and three children. He is the only bread winner

of his family. So the punishment of dismissal be set aside

and First Party be directed to reinstate him in his original

post with continuity of service and pay him full back

wages.

First Party vide its written statement denies whole

contention of Second Party. First Party contends that,

Second Party was attached at Vadgaon-Haveli branch on

20.12.2000 as a Clerk. On relevant date he was on leave.

One customer of the bank namely Mr. Dobhada came to

the branch with his wife and demanded repayment of fixed

deposit receipt bearing no. 941687 which was dtd.

16.12.1995 for Rs. 10,000/- and due on 16.12.2000. On

scrutiny, it was found that, on 16.12.1995 then Branch

Manager was on leave. The Cashier had the charge of

Branch Manager. But on relevant date, for official work,

he was outside of the bank. So, Second Party alone was

looking after the branch. On relevant date, Mr. Dobhada

withdrew Rs. 10,000/- from his account by withdrawal slip.

Reverside of withdrawal slip, bears signature of Second

Party, indicating that Second Party had accepted said

amount on behalf of Mr. Dobhada. On further

investigation it was found that, on relevant date Second

Party took a blank F.D. Receipt illegally from the stock of

the stationary of the First Party. Then filled & signed it

showing that amount which was withdrawn by Mr.

Dobhada was invested in fixed deposit. While doing so,

second party workman did not register the entry of the

amount of Rs. 10,000/- in any register, rather pocketed the

said amount for his own gain. To cover this illegal act, the

Second Party altered the receipt no. 941686 to 941687 which

was a mid-term deposit receipt issued to one Mrs. Pushpa

Raghunath Patil written in F. D. Register bearing account

no. 447. Considering this grave misconduct, Second Party

was issued charge-sheet. Enquiry was conducted by

following principles of natural justice. He was given

abandon opportunity to lead evidence, but he declined to

lead evidence by moving purshis to that effect. Second

Party himself was obliged to brought Mr. Dobhada before

Enquiry Officer to prove his innocence, but he did not do

so. Enquiry Officer considering oral and documentary

evidence produced before him, drew findings against

Second Party. These findings are just and proper. Second

Party was then issued show cause notice dt. 12.04.2002

and given personal hearing on 26.04.2002, then only

second party has been dismissed from the services on

08.07.2002. The punishment is not disproportionate to the

grave misconducts. It is not proper for this court to interfere

with the punishment. Hence, this Reference be answered

in the negative.

Court considering the rival contention of both the

parties, so also the question framed in the Schedule of the

Reference, drafted issues at Exh. O-6. First Issue of them

about legality of enquiry was decided by Presiding Officer

at Labour Court, Sangli on 15.02.2012. This court decided

Issue No. 2 pertaining to the findings of the Enquiry Officer

vide Part-I Judgment dt. 10.09.2013. Now remaining issues

are for my determination. I give my findings against them

for the reasons as below :

No. Issues

Findings

Does the second party prove

In the negative

that the punishment of dismissal

awarded by first party to him is

disproportionate?

Whether the second party is

In the negative

entitled for the relief of reinstate-

ment with continuity of service

and full back wages as sought?

What Award?

Reference is

answered in

the negative.

REASONS

EVIDENCE :-

During the pendency of Reference before Labour

Court, Sangli, Second Party ceased to life. His legal heirs

have been brought on record. Widow of Second Party has

produced on record affidavit in lieu of examination in chief

in concern of remaining issues. There is no evidence from

the side of First Party.

ARGUMENTS :-

On behalf of Second Party, Ld. Senior Advocate

Shri K.D.Shinde argued orally. He even produced on record

synopsis of his argument. The gist of submissions of

Advocate Shri K.D.Shinde is that, Second Party had

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4563

rendered 22 years unblemished service to the then First

Party Bank. It was alleged against Second Party that, he

had embezzled an amount of Rs. 10,000/- of the bank

customer namely Mr. Dobhada. But there was no Complaint

of Mr. Dobhada to the bank. Even during enquiry, Mr.

Dobhada was not examined by the Bank. So, the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are not just and proper. Even if it is

held that, Second Party committed misconduct leveled

against him, but considering the fact that his past service

record was clean and there was no complaint from the

concern customer, Second Party should not have been

awarded with punishment of dismissal. Ld. Sr. Advocate

Shri. K.D.Shinde relying on the judgment of Hon’ble

Gujarat High Court in the case of A.M.Parmar V/s. Gujarat

Electricity Board, Baroda [1982 LAB I.C. 1031] , submitted

that, Second Party workman is now no more, so there is no

question of reinstatement. But as his family is on road,

First Party Bank be directed to pay the widow all retiral

benefits. This direction U/S. 11-A of the I.D.Act from the

court will serve the purpose of justice.

On behalf of First Party, when court had to decide

Issue No. 2 about findings, Written Argument was filed

supposing that the Sangli Court had decided first two

issues vide its order dt. 15.02.2012. Ld. Advocate for the

First Party in short through this written argument submits

that, as grave misconducts are held to be proved against

Second Party, the punishment awarded to the Second Party

is proportionate. Ld. Advocate has given stress on the

fact that, First Party is engaged in the banking business,

where trust and faith of public at large is required to causes

them to invest their funds. Accordingly learned advocate

submitted that, the misconduct of Second Party has

breached said faith and trust, hence the awarded

punishment is proportionate. Ld. Advocate has placed

reliance to that effect on the judgments in the case of :

J.A.Naiksatam V/s. Prothotary and Senior Master,

High Court of Bombay and others [2005 LAB I.C.

461 S.C.]

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., V/s. N.B.Naravade

etc. [2005 LAB.I.C. 1333 S.C.]

Bharat Heavy Electicals Ltd. V/s. M.

Chandrasekhar Reddy and others [2005 LAB. I.C.

1345 S.C.]

State of Gujarat V/s. Ashokkumar Shantilal Doshi

[2005 LAB. I.C. 2536 Gujarat H.C.]

B. Srinivasa Reddy V/s. Karnataka Urban Water

Supply and Drainage Board Employees’

Association & Ors. [2006 LAB. I.C. 2484

Karnataka H.C.]

10.

Now it is time to advert to the issues.

ISSUE NO. 3 TO 5 :-

11.

Second Party was leveled with the charge that, on

20/12/2000 when he was absent on duty in the branch at

Vadgaon Haveli, Tal. Karad, one Mr. Dobhada had come

in the bank with one fix deposit receipt which was already

matured on 16/12/2000. At the relevant time in the branch,

branch Manager Shri. A. M. Karade and peon namely V. N.

Gosavi were present. Cashier N. S. Kusurkar came there

meanwhile from Karad branch of first party bank. These

3 persons verified the said FDR which was bearing no.

941687. They could not find the mentioning of that FDR in

any register. So Mr. Kusurkar took details of said FDR on

one chit. When Mr. Kusurkar verified the said FDR he

found that said FDR was in the hand writing of second

party and he himself had signed it. Mr. Karade & Kusurkar

tried to contact second party on phone but he was not in

reach. On next day i.e. on 21/12/2000 in the morning second

party and Mr. Kusurkar visited Mr. Karade at his residence

where second party admitted that on 16/12/95 he had issued

the said fabricated FDR to Mr. Dobhada. Second party

then assured Mr. Karade that he would pay amount of

FDR to Mr. Dobhada, so he should not make any complaint

to the higher authorities of the first party. It was further on

investigation found that on 16/12/95 second party was

handling the charge of cashier at the same branch while

Mr. Kusurkar was handling charge of branch manager. On

relevant date Mr. Dobhada first deposited Rs. 3500/- and

then withdrew Rs. 10,000/-. It is alleged that on the back

side of the withdrawal slip second party put his signature

in receipt of said amount. It is alleged that Mr. Dobhada

had allowed second party to take the money to deposit in

FDR for 5 years. It is accordingly alleged that second party

at relevant time took one blank FDR receipt from the stock

and by writing in his own hand writing and putting

signature thereon issued it to Mr. Dobhada to show that it

was the genuine receipt. Second party while doing so did

not account the said amount Rs. 10,000/- in any of the

accounting books of the Branch, rather pocketed the said

amount for his own purpose. It is also alleged that to show

that receipt bearing no. 941687 issued to Mr. Dobhada is

genuine second party forged with one account which was

in the name of Sou. Pushpa Raghunath Patil bearing No.

477 to whom FDR bearing No. 941686 was issued in the

month of July 2001 for short term deposit, to change the

number of said receipt from No. 941686 to 941687.

12.

Against this allegation second party was prosecuted

for two misconducts as, (1) doing an act prejudicial to the

interest of the bank and (2) breach of any Rule of the

business of the bank, by charge-sheet dated 29.01.2001.

No doubt, Mr. Dobhada had not made any complaint

against Second Party with the First Party. But the fact is

that, from 16.12.1995 Second Party had used amount of

Rs. 10,000/- of the First Party Bank without its consent or

knowledge, and to cover up the said misconduct, he had

fabricated certain bank documents. This act on behalf of

4564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Second Party was sufficient to loss faith in him. It is clear

that, so far as banking business is concern, the trust and

faith reposed in the employee by the customer of the bank

as well as public at large is very material. If any incident

which causes public to withdraw faith or trust in the bank,

causes it to suffer heavy loss. Sincerity and honesty on

the part of employee is utmost important in banking

business. Here in this case, the Second Party did not show

honesty in concern of one of the customers i.e. Mr.

Dobhada who was his neighbour at Karad, who only

because of trust kept in Second Party, opened account in

the First Party Bank at Vadgaon Haveli Branch, where

Second Party was serving. Admitted facts come on record

that, even for number of times, Mr. Dobhada would ask to

deposit or withdraw the amount on his behalf, the said

trust is shattered by the Second Party by utilizing his

amount which was in fact amount of the first party bank

without it’s knowledge for five years. All the judgments

whereupon First Party has relied, led the same principle

that, when there is misconduct of misappropriation by the

employee working in the bank, the punishment of dismissal

awarded to him is just and proper, and court can’t interfere

with the said punishment u/s 11-A of the Act lightly.

13.

The judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case

of Parmar relied upon by Second Party in such situation

will not help Second Party. So, Reference deserves to be

answered in the negative.

Hence following is the Award :

AWARD

The reference is answered in the negative.

Inform to the State Government.

Place : Kolhapur

Date:- 19.12.2013

M. S. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2257-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ

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 83@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@48@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of ICICI Bank

and their workman, received by the Central Government

7-12-2015.

[No. L-12011/48/2011-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/83/2011

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti vihar,

Opp Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

ICICI Bank, Regional Office,

11, Alankar Complex,

Zone-II, MP Nagar, Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of November 2015

1. As per letter dated 14-9-2011 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/

48/2011-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of ICICI

Bank Ltd. (Earstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.) in

terminating the services of Shri Ramchandra S/o

Shri Prabhu Lal w.e.f. 1-3-08 is legal and justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman filed statement of claim through General

Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union. Case of Ist

party is that he was engaged by Branch Manager

R.G.Gatani on wages Rs.15/- per day from April 1998. The

wages were increased time to time to Rs. 40, 45. He was

working from Monday to Saturday. He was paid wages

drawn in regular pay. His services were terminated from

28-2-08 without notice, retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. He worked under different Branch

Managers. His pay was shown paid through top Security

Agency. He completed more than 240 days continuous

service at Shamgarh branch. 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. the policy of last

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4565

come first go was not followed. Violation of Section 25-G,

N of ID Act is alleged. After termination of his service,

other daily wage employees were engaged. Workman was

not given opportunity to work thereby 2nd party violated

Section 25 H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays

for his reinstatement with backwages.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

workman. Preliminary objection is raised by 2nd party that

Shri R.Nagwanshi is dismissed employee of the Bank. He

is not competent to represent the workman. Shri

R.Nagwanshi is not holding degree of law. He is not

registered as an Advocate. However he has made his

profession under the guys of Trade Union. That Bank of

Rajasthan was merged with ICICI Bank on 12-8-2010. At

the time of merger, any sub staff was not working. There

was no employer employee relationship existing between

parties. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service. He was engaged as casual labour on wages Rs.15/-

per day for cleaning work as per exigencies. M/S Top

Security was engaged in Bank of Rajasthan. Workman

was working as office boy under said contractor holding

Ticket No. 5058. Ist party workman was on pay roll of the

Top Security Ltd. He was not terminated by 2nd party. Ist

party has mischievously contented that he completed

240 days continuous service. Violation of Section 25-F, G,

H is denied. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.

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 ICICI Bank Ltd. (Earstwhile

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.) in terminating

the services of Shri Ramchandra S/o

Shri Prabhu Lal w.e.f. 1-3-08 is legal

and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act, violation

of Section 25 H is also alleged. Ist party filed affidavit of

his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim. However he failed to appear for his cross-

examination. Evidence of workman cannot be considered.

Documents Exhibit W-1 produced by workman pertains to

notice of calling applications for appointment in MP from

the casual employees working for 180 days or full time

employees working for 80 days. Exhibit W-2 is interview

call issued to workman. Workman was called for interview

on 15-4-89 along with documents. Exhibit W-3 is panel of

selected candidates. Name of Ist party workman is not

appearing in it. Exhibit W-4 is letter given by Dy.General

Manager asking details in respect of casual labours

pertaining to the workman. Rate of wages is shown Rs.40/-

, Rs.40+15. Zerox copies of vouchers are produced.

Workman has not adduced evidence to prove the same.

6. Management’s witness Shri Shristi Priya filed

affidavit of her evidence contending that Shri Ram

Nagwanshi was dismissed employee of the Bank, as such

he is not competent to represent the workman. Ist party

workman Shri Ram Nagwanshi was not working as peon in

the Bank. Employer employee relationship is denied. In

her cross-examination, management’s witness says

appointment letter was given to the workman, his

attendance was not maintained. Attendance Register has

become old, could not be produced. She was not working

in Shamgarh branch during 1998 to 2008. She claims

ignorance whether Shamgarh branch is working or not

working. She filed affidavit as per record. Workman was

engaged for one or two hours for cleaning work. The details

of payment made to the workman is not available with the

management. She denied documents referred to her in

cross-examination. Nothing has come in cross-examination

of management’s witness supporting claim about his

working days. Workman was not served notice. She claims

ignorance whether retrenchment compensation as paid to

workman or PF was deducted. She also claims ignorance

about payment of bonus. Workman has not appeared for

his cross-examination. There is absolutely no evidence to

support claim of workman. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. Point No.2- as workman has failed to establish his

services that his services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act, workman is not entitled to any

relief. 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 ICICI Bank Ltd.

(Earstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.) in terminating the

services of Shri Ramchandra S/o Shri Prabhu Lal w.e.f.

1-3-08 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2258-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj 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 66@07)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@29@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

4566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/07)

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 workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/29/2007-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/07

Shri Santosh Kumar Babulal Yadav,

Jamapara, Near Chitragupt Mandir,

Ward No. 21,

Rajnandgaon (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager(V),

State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office,

National Highway, Telibadha,

Raipur (CG)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 25-6-07 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

29/2007-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

Santosh Kumar Babulal Yadav w.e.f. 25-5-06 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as peon on daily wages by Branch Manager Shri

A.K.Singh on 10-7-98. His wages were increased time to

time 60,70,75,90, 100 & 110. He was working from Monday

to Saturday, Sunday was holiday. He was not paid wages

for Sunday. He completed more than 240 days continuous

service during the year. His services were terminated

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. he worked under different Branch Managers.

Workman further submits that he is covered as employee

under Section 25 B of ID Act and is eligible for regular

appointment. Overlooking his service for 9 years, his

services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. Policy of last come first go was not followed thereby

violated Section 25-G,N of ID Act. After termination of his

service, 2nd party engaged other persons on daily wages.

Workman was not given opportunity for re-employment

violating Section 25 H of ID Act. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages. Though in

his statement of claim, workman has objected engagement

of legal practitioner by management, said objection was

not pressed.

3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/9

opposing claim of Ist party. 2nd party submits that it is

Banking company established under SBI Act 1959. It is

subsidiary of State bank of India carrying banking business.

The Bank has rules for recruitment of staff including peon,

messenger, security guard. After public notice in

newspapers, Branch manager has no authority to appoint

any peon, messenger or Security Guard. The posts are

also filled by transfer of sub staff. The claim of workman is

based on back door entry is not legal.

4. Ist party workman was engaged for sweeping,

cleaning work for 1-2 hours. The regular peons were not

doing cleaning, sweeping work. Workman was paid agreed

wages. He is not eligible for regular appointment. Ist party

workman never carried the work of peon. He was engaged

on daily wages. He had not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. Workman was

not appointed as peon. There was no question of his

termination. It is denied that workman completed 240 days

continuous service during the year. He was not appointed

as regular peon. His name was not included in the muster

of ID Act are not applicable 2nd party has referred to ratio

held in various cases. That workman is not entitled for

regularisation. Casual, daily wages, adhoc labours cannot

be regularised. Mr.Nagwansi is a dismissed employee of

the Bank, he is not competent to represent the workman.

On such grounds, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.

5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That he

completed more than 240 days continuous service during

each of the year. His services are terminated without notice

violating Section 33 of ID Act.

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 manage-

In Negative

ment of State Bank of Indore in

terminating the services of

Shri Santosh Kumar Babulal

Yadav w.e.f. 25-5-06 is legal

and justified?

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4567

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of section 25-F of ID Act. he filed affidavit of

his evidence. Workman has contented that he was

engaged as permanent peon from 10-7-78. He was working

in the Bank from opening till Bank was closed. He

completed more than 240 days continuous service. His

services were terminated on 2-4-06. He was not served

with notice of termination, retrenchment compensation.

He had filed conciliation proceeding before ALC, Raipur

for payment of bonus. Bonus of Rs.8578.46 was paid to

him. In his cross-examination, workman says he was

working in Rajnandgaon branch of the Bank from 10-7-98

to 25-5-06. He had kept written notes about it. His evidence

in further cross-examination is devoted about he has 3

children, he did not recollect their date of birth. He was

married on 5-5-92. At the time of evidence, he was of 40

years, his elder son was of 15 year age. He was doing work

of receiving and distribution of dak. He worked under

different Branch Managers. Appointment letter was not

received by him. he had not appeared for any examination.

The documents Exhibit W-1 is letter issued by Asstt.

General Manager of the Bank for payment of bonus to 6

daily wage worker including Ist party workman at Sl.No.2.

Letter Exhibit W-2 is letter issued by General Manager

informing to ALC that the matter about payment of bonus

was taken before the higher authorities. Exhibit W-3 is

letter issued by ALC calling progress report from

management of 2nd party. Exhibit W-4 is also letter issued

by ALc, Raipur in the matter of payment of bonus. Exhibit

W-5 is reply submitted by management before ALC

denying the appointment of workman from 10-7-98. In any

of those documents working days of Ist party workman

are not mentioned. In document Exhibit W-6, the working

days of workman are shown 157 days in 2002-03, 306 days

in 2003-04, 343 days during 2004-05, 336 days during 2005-

06, 42 days in 2006. The evidence of workman that he

completed more than 240 days is supported by document

Exhibit W-6.

Management’s witness Dhirendra Kumar filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written

Statement filed by 2nd party that workman was engaged

for 1-2 hours for cleaning, dusting work. He had not

completed 240 days continuous service. The contention

of workman in that regard are false. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says before engaging

workman, any recruitment process was not followed.

Permission of Controlling Authority was not taken.

Appointment letter was not issued to workman.

Attendance Register of workman was not maintained.

Management’s witness claims ignorance how wages were

paid to workman. Workman was paid wages at different

rates. He claims ignorance how wages were paid to

workman. workman was paid wages at different rates. He

claims ignorance about conciliation proceeding filed before

ALC. Workman was paid retrenchment compensation and

notice pay. Bonus was paid to workman. management’s

witness admitted Exhibit W-6. He claims ignorance about

payment of gratuity to workman. He claims ignorance under

which name workman was paid during May 99 to Sept-01.

Permission of ALC was not taken for termination of

workman. though management’s witness in his evidence

says that one months pay and retrenchment compensation

was paid to workman, the documents in that regard are

not produced. Evidence of management’s witness is not

disclosing details of the retrenchment compensation,

notice pay paid to workman. evidence of workman is

corroborated by Exhibit W-6. Workman completed more

than 24 days during 1-4-03 to 31-3-06. Workman was not

served with termination notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. Termination of services

of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

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, question remains for consideration is

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Ist party workman in his cross-examination

says appointment letter was not received by him, he not

appeared for any examination before his appointment. It is

clear that Ist party workman was not appointed following

recruitment process. he was engaged on daily wages. The

relief of reinstatement with backwages would not be

justified. considering the period of working of Ist party

workman with 2nd party, compensation Rs. One Lakh

would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

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

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of Indore

in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar

Babulal Yadav w.e.f. 25-5-06 is not legal and justified.

(2)

Management 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] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2259-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkaxyh cSad fy-

(vc vkbZ lhvkbZ lh vkbZ esa foy;) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

4568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

dksYgkiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 156@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. (IDA)

No. 156/2007] of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Kolhapur as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Sangli Bank Ltd. (Now merged as ICICI

Bank Ltd.) and their workman, received by the Central

Government

7-12-2015.

[No. L-12025/01/2015-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT KOLHAPUR

CORAM: Shri M.S.KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

Exh. O-43

Reference (IDA) No. 156/2007

BETWEEN :-

The Managing Director,

Sangli Bank Ltd.

(Now merged in ICICI Bank Ltd.)

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (Estt.), Mumbai

...First Party.

And

Shri Babaso Dhanpal Gat (Desai),

H.No. 14/A Plot No. 11, E Ward,

Vishalgadkar Area,

Near Mahaveer College, Kolhapur

...Second Party

APPEARANCES :

Shri. V. V. Nalawade & A.P.Chougule, Advocates for First

party.

Shri. D. D. Desai, Advocate for Second party.

AWARD

(Dated :- 15/05/2014)

Second party workman who was working as a

‘Agricultural Assistant’ in the then Bank namely Sangli

Bank which is now taken over by ICICI Bank – [hereinafter

refereed as the First party,] issued demand notice under

section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

[hereinafter in short called as I.D.Act only] to the First

Party to set aside his termination dt. 30.10.2003 and take

him on duty.

As there was no positive respond, Second party

approached Conciliation Authority of Central Government,

where there was no settlement. So by an order dt.

05.12.2007 Central Government referred the dispute to this

court for adjudication. Notices were issued to both parties.

Second party workman filed his Statement of Claim at Exh.

U-8. While there is written statement from the side of First

party at Exh. C-12.

Before touching to the rival contention of both

parties, there is need to note some admitted facts, which

are as :

The First Party has its one of the branches at

Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli. Second party workman was

attached to the said branch as a ‘Agriculture Assistant’ in

the year 2002. In the said branch, there was one staff

member namely Mr. Dilip Namdeo Hingmire. On 05.12.2002

Mr. Dilip Hingmire arranged party for his colleagues in the

hotel namely ‘Pancharatna’ situated within the limit of same

village. Second party workman was on relevant date on

leave. He even did not participate in the said party. The

party which was inclusive of liquor, veg, non-veg food

items, was attended by 6 colleagues of Mr. Hingmire. Party

ended at about 8 to 9 p.m. After party, except Mr. Hingmire

and one Peon namely Mr. B. N. Khokade, all other

participants left for their respective residence. Mr. Hingmire

and Mr. Khokade then came at one hotel namely ‘Pranav

Garden’ situated within the limits of same village, where

there was Second party workman. On next date i.e.

06.12.2002 Second party workman handed over Bank keys

which were supposed to be with Mr. Hingmire, as it was

his duty to open the bank, along with his (Mr. Hingmire’s)

Senior Officer (special assistant) Mr. S.R.Kulkarni who

had participated in last day party. Mr. Hingmire was not

traceable for 2 to 3 days. His dead body was found in one

well owned by Mr. Khade of village Kawathe Ekand which

is near about 6 to 7 kilometers away from Tasgaon. In

connection of death of Mr. Hingmire, Second party

workman and B.N.Khokade were arrested on 23.12.2002

by Tasgaon Police Station. News to that effect was flashed

in broad language near about in all Marathi news papers

circulating within Sangli district. First Party taking this

fact, as amounting to tarnish it’s image as well as prejudicial

to it’s interest, suspended Mr. Khokade and Second party

workman on 07.02.2003. So far as Second party workman

is concern, he came to be issued charge-sheet dt.

11.02.2003 which was issued as per Bipartite settlement

dt. 19.10.1966 alleging two misconducts as [which are

recorded as there are] :

i. you acted prejudicial to the interest of bank, and

ii. you tarnish/ damage the image of bank in the eyes

of Public.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4569

Second party replied charge-sheet on 20.02.2003

denying the fact that, he was involved in any way in death

of Late Hingmire. Enquiry was initiated against Second

party workman by appointing Enquiry Officer namely Mr.

S. J. Bagalwade. One Mr. V.V. Kulkarni was appointed as

Presenting Officer by the First Party. In the enquiry, First

Party examined three witness namely Mr. R.H. Ruikar –

Deputy Regional Officer, Regional office, Sangli ; Mr. S.R.

Kulkarni – Special Assistant attached to Tasgaon branch;

and Mr. D.S. Shikar – Manager of the Tasgaon branch.

Second party workman when was asked by Enquiry Officer

on 28.05.2003, whether he is going to examine witness in

his defence, Second party workman submitted that, he did

not want to examine any witness from his side. But his

reply given to the chargesheet which was already on record

be treated as his defence. Enquiry Officer submitted his

report on 7th August 2003 to the First Party. First party

sent the report for explanation to second party workman

on 29.08.2003. Second party workman gave reply to the

said report by a letter dt. 06.09.2003 denying the findings

recorded by Enquiry Officer. Second party workman was

again given letter dt. 25th September, 2003 asking him to

give reasons, why he should not be dismissed from the

services? Thereafter by an order dt. 30th October 2003

Second party workman came to be terminated from the

services. Prior to that, on 3rd October 2003 Second party

workman replied the show-cause notice dt. 30th October

2003. Second party workman, against order of termination

preferred Departmental Appeal on 04.12.2003 wherein

Second party workman was given personal hearing. He

had put his side by way of written notes on 02.02.2004.

Appellate Authority but dismissed the Appeal by an order

dt. 23rd September 2004. Second party workman then came

to be acquitted from the charge of murder of Late Hingmire

by an order dt. 09.06.2005. So, on 31.10.2005 he requested

the First Party by issuing demand notice to reinstate him,

which came to be denied by letter dt. 17.12.2005. Thereafter

there was conciliation proceeding. On its failure, as stated

above, the dispute is before this court.

In the above background, so far as the legality of

enquiry and findings therein are concern, Second party

workman contends that, First party had instead of issuing

him charge-sheet, to wait for the decision from the Session

Court. Issuance of the chargesheet was itself illegal. Both

the charges leveled against him are not at all applicable to

the situation, exaggerated on the basis of news flashed in

the newspapers. The alleged situation based on the news

flashed as, does not at all come under the purview of

interest and image of the First party. Hence, the charges

leveled against him are false, frivolous, baseless and illegal.

They are not at all concern or they do not have any nexus

with the duties and responsibility of him as well as service

conditions applicable to him.

Second party workman further contends that, during

enquiry, to prove the charges, internal correspondence,

documents prepared by the police and the copies of the

news flashed in the newspaper were produced. But none

of the documents were proved in the enquiry. The

documents did not disclose that the interest and image of

the Bank was suffered. The three witnesses examined by

the Bank also did not prove the charges leveled against

him. His evidence by way of reply was before Enquiry

Officer. He was not cross-examined. So, said evidence was

unchallenged. Enquiry Officer did not consider the said

evidence. Enquiry thus conducted against him was against

principles of natural justice. Findings of the Enquiry Officer

are perverse.

First party on the other hand challenges this

contention of Second party workman in the words that,

this court can’t go beyond the terms of the Reference.

The terms of the Reference are misconceived and

erroneous, because the services of the Second party

workman is not terminated for the charges of involving in

the alleged murder of his colleague Late Hingmire. The

charges leveled & proved against second party workman

are totally different which were as per the bipartite

agreement. As this Reference is bad in law, it deserve to be

dismissed on this point only. Second party workman may

have been acquitted by the competent court for the offence

under Indian Penal Code, but it has no connection with

his dismissal from the services. No enquiry was initiated

against Second party workman for an offence under the

I.P.C., but it was initiated as per the provisions of bipartite

agreement applicable to staff. Independent enquiry forum

for that purpose was constituted. Thus, the First party

has taken independent action against Second party

workman in the capacity of the employer. During enquiry,

Second party was given sufficient opportunity to defend

himself, but he refrained himself from entering into the

witness box. Even he did not take cross examination of

First party witness Mr. Ruikar. Enquiry was conducted in

consonance with the principles of natural justice. The

Enquiry Officer has recorded his findings on the basis of

evidence recorded during enquiry and the documents

produced on record. So, these findings cannot be termed

as illegal.

Court has framed issues at Exh. O-29. First of these

two issues regarding the legality of enquiry and peversity

of findings are decided by the court by part one award

dated 13-02-2014. Court recorded findings in concern of

both issues against first party holding that enquiry was

not in consonance with the principles of natural justice

and findings recorded therein are perverse. The first party

was hence given opportunity to lead evidence before Court

to justify it’s action to terminate the second party workman

from service. Till 24.04.2014 first party did not come before

Court to lead evidence to justify action as stated above.

So Court passed an order closing it’s evidence. Thereafter

on 02.05.2014 second party workman filed on record his

evidence closure pursis. On the same date second party

4570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman put on record written argument. Matter was

before court again on 08.05.2014. On relevant date also,

first party did not come before Court. Today also, till this

moment i.e. 2:45 p.m., first party is not before Court despite

repeated calling. So matter is taken for final judgment.

Now remaining issues are for my consideration. I give my

findings against them for the reasons stated below.

No.

ISSUE

FINDINGS

Is it proved that first party

In the affirmative

illegally terminated services

of second party as alleged?

To what reliefs the second

Second party

party is entitled for?

workman is

entitled for

reinstatement

with continuity

of service and all

consequential

benefits with 30%

of back wages.

What order?

Reference is

answered in the

affirmative.

REASONS

ISSUE NO. 3 :-

As stated above once the Court held that enquiry

against the workman was held against principles of natural

justice, and on that count it is vitiated, further the findings

recorded by Enquiry Officer are unjust and perverse, the

employer is bound to justify before Court the action taken

against the workman. The Court has passed Part-I Award

on 13-2-2014 making clear that enquiry conducted against

the second party workman is vitiated. Further findings

recorded thereunder are perverse. Thereafter till 24-4-2014

there was two month time for first party to approach proper

forum against the said judgment otherwise to lead evidence

before Court to justify the action. There is no Writ from

the Superior Court staying the proceeding. There is no

evidence before Court to justify the action. In such

situation it has to be held that the dismissal of complainant

by order dated 30-10-2003 is illegal. So this issue is

answered in the affirmative.

ISSUE NO. 4 & 5 :-

10.

As Issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, the

second party is entitled for reinstatement with continuity

of service and for all consequential benefits.

11.

Now there is the question of back wages. It is well

established legal position through judgment of the Hon.

Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

& Anr. v. S. C. Sharma [2005(1) Bom.LC 598 SC] and

judgments of Hon. Bombay High Court in the cases

(i) Principal, Daund Taluka Arts & Commerce College,

Daund & ors. v. Macchindra Sahebrao Bhavar & Anr.

[2009(1) Bom. LC 610], (ii) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli & Anr.

v. Prakash s/o Nagorao Thete & Anr. [2009(4) Mh.L.J. 628]

that workman has to plead and prove that he has been

unemployed during termination. In the statement of claim,

second party initially nowhere stated that he has been

unemployed since termination.

12.

But by way of amendment which is affected in the

year 2013, second party has introduced in the statement

of claim that since termination he has been unemployed.

But the next important fact is that, workman has at least to

depose the said fact on oath before court. But here in this

case second party has not deposed this fact on oath.

13.

No doubt there is no evidence from first party that

second party workman has been employed or has a

sufficient income to run his family. But considering the

fact that the second party has been illegally terminated

showing him to have been involved in the murder of

colleague Mr. Dilip Namdeo Hingmire, he is entitled for at

least 30% Back wages. So these issues are answered

accordingly.

14.

Reference thus deserves to be answered partly in

affirmative and in the result I proceed to pass following

Award.

AWARD

1. Reference is answered in affirmative.

2. It is hereby declared that First party has illegally

terminated the services of second party workman.

3. The termination order dated 30.10.2003 is set aside.

4. First party is hereby directed to reinstate the second

party in his original post with continuity of service

and consequential benefits.

5. Further first party is directed to pay 30% of back

wages to second party workman considering in mind

that he has been awarded with consequential

benefits.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Inform to the Government.

8. Award accordingly.

Place : Kolhapur

Date : 15.05.2014

M. S. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2260-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj {ks=kh; xzkeh.k

cSad 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@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@63@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4571

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/63/2006-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2007

Shri Rajendra Pagare,

s/o Shyamlal Pagare,

R/o Nehru colony,

Distt. Harda.(MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Mangalwara,

Hoshangabad (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 23-1-07 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

63/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chairman,

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in terminating

the services of shri Rajendra Pagaare as Authorised

collection Agent w.e.f. 14-2-2004 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

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

initially appointed as authorized Collection Agent from

13-1-98. Appointment Letter was issued by Chairman of

2nd party Bank. After his appointment, Ist party workman

was honestly working without any complaints. He

rendered service more than 5 years as Collection Agent.

His services were terminated from 14-2-04 by issuing public

notice in newspaper. Workman submits that he completed

more than 240 days service during each of the year. His

services are terminated in violation of Article 311 of the

constitution. His services were terminated without

showcause notice. On such grounds, workman prays for

his reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/5

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that

the kshetriya Gramin bank Hoshangabad was constituted

under Regional Rurl Bank 1976, it was sponsored by Central

bank as per Notification dated 1-6-06. The Bank was

amalgamated in Sutpura Kshetriya Gramin bank. Mini

deposit Collection scheme known as Gramin Mini Deposit

Scheme. The scheme contemplated collection of small

amount from the persons desirous of making daily deposits

in the Bank. For purpose of collection of amount, the

management needed persons and appointed agents on

contract basis. Workman was entitled for 2 % amount on

collection amount made by him. Ist party was not appointed

as Bank employee. The collection scheme was found

uneconomical, not viable as the rates of interest were

changed from 13 % to 5.5 % etc. the Bank closed the

scheme. The workman was also discontinued. As

collection scheme was closed, Ist party workman had not

completed more than 240 days. Provisions of ID Act, article

311 of the constitution are not applicable. Disengagement

of Ist party is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.

As the collection scheme is closed, workman is not entitled

for reinstatement.

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 Chairman, Kshetriya

Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in

terminating the services of Shri

Rajendra Pagaare as Authorised

collection Agent w.e.f. 14-2-2004

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

As per pleadings between parties, engagement of

Ist party as Collection Agent and termination of his service

are not in dispute. Parties are in dispute that Ist party is

not covered as workman under Section 2(s0 of ID Act as

he was not appointed as Bank employee. Workman was

engaged on contract basis. He was paid 2 % commission

for all amount collected by him. workman filed affidavit of

his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of

claim. Workman contends that he completed more than

240 days service his services were terminated without

notice. He was working with 2nd party as Collection Agent

from 13-1-98 to 14-2-04.

4572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The documents are produced Exhibit w-1 is

appointment of Ist party workman as Collection Agent, 2

% commission to be paid on amount collected by him.

Exhibit W-2 is public notice to make any transaction with

Commission Agent. Exhibit M-1 is copy of the Mini

Collection Scheme introduced by the Bank. M-2 is copy

of appointment order for said collection scheme. Exhibit

M-3 is the scheme as to what work the commission agent

was required to carry out. Parties are not in dispute on

facts that Ist party was working as Commission Agent

from 1998 to 2004. Though 2nd party has contented that

the workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service, the details of absence of workman from duty are

not produced by 2nd party.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Rakesh

Suri, his affidavit is also silent about the period Ist party

was not doing his work. Rather his affidavit is devoted

supporting contentions of 2nd party in Written Statement.

That certain incidents of fraud by Commission Agent were

introduced, matters were reported to police. In his cross-

examination, witness admits that from 1998 to 2004, Ist

party was assigned work of Commission Agent. It supports

the claim of workman that he continuously worked during

said period. The evidence in cross-examination of

management’s witness is also clear that workman had

worked more than 240 days during each of the year.

The controversy between parties that workman was

engaged as Commission Agent and he is not covered as

workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. On the point, reliance

is placed on ratio held in

Case of Indian Banks Association versus workmen

of Syndicate Bank and others reported in 2001(3)SCC-

36. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with

scope of Section 2(s) of ID Act in the context of

commission agent held the relationship of master

servant didinot exist between the bank and person

engaged on commission. The words and phrases

“Workmen” Master and servant relationship. Their

Lordship held Banking Regulation Act did not bar

employment of persons on commission.

Ratio held in above cited case supports claim of Ist

party that he is engaged as workman under section 2(s) of

ID Act. services of workman are terminated without notice

on the ground that scheme was closed. The controversy

is covered under Section 25-FFF. Workman is not paid

compensation under Section 25-FFF of ID Act when

Collection Scheme was closed by the Bank. Copy of award

in R/111/05 is produced on record. In said reference, my

colleague had held that workman was covered under

Section 2(s) and after closure of collection scheme,

workman was entitled for compensation under Section 25-

FFF of ID Act, management was directed to pay

compensation under said section. In present case,

evidence of parties is clear that when collection scheme

was closed by the Bank, compensation under section

25-FFF of ID Act was not paid. Ist party working as

Commission Agent is entitled to compensation under

Section 25-FFF of ID Act. workman was not paid

compensation under said section. Therefore action of

management is not proper and legal. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

action of the management is not legal, question arises

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. There is no dispute that workman was engaged

as Commission Agent. He was entitled to receive 2 %

commission amount. As collection scheme is closed,

workman cannot be reinstated . however he is entitled to

compensation under section 25-FFF of ID Act. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No. 2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chairman,

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in terminating

the services of shri Rajendra Pagaare as Authorised

collection Agent w.e.f. 14-2-2004 is not proper and

legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation under

Section 25-FFF of ID Act and cost of this proceeding

Rs.2000/- be paid within 30 days 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] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2261-—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 deZdkj 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 102@02)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@82@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/

02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/82/2002-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4573

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/102/02

Shri Ramnarayan Namdeo,

S/o Shri S.L.Namdeo,

At Bandhwatola, PO Biltikuri,

Shahdol (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-IV, Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 10-7-02 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/

82/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the State Bank of India

through the Asstt. General Manager, SBI Region IV

in not reinstating to Shri Ram Narayan Namdeo is

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman

is entitled?’

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman after issuing notice, submitted

statement of claim at Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of Ist party

workman is that he was appointed on daily wage by Dy.

Manager Kotma Branch on 17-11-87. He continuously

worked till June 90. Thereafter in July 1990, Branch

Manager in Jamuna colliery branch appointed him. He was

continuously working in said branch till 25-12-98. That he

worked more than 240 days during each of the year since

1992. That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B

of ID Act. His services were orally terminated from

25-12-98 by Branch Manager without assigning any

reasons. He raised dispute between ALC Shahdol. After

failure of conciliation proceedings, dispute is referred.

Workman further submits that he worked for 132

days during 1987-88, 31 days in 1989. He was engaged on

daily wages. He was not served notice of termination,

compensation was not paid in lieu of notice. He was

performing work of messenger and Daftary as per direction

of the Manager. His service record was excellent. His

services were appreciated by Colliery Manager.

Management in its comment dated 7-9-01 before ALC

admitted Ist party workman worked during 1987 to 1998.

That workman completed 240 days continuous service.

That termination of his service amounts to retrenchment

under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. His services were terminated

in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, therefore termination

of his service is illegal. On such ground, workman prays

for his reinstatement with backwages.

4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 13/1 to 13/10

opposing claim of workman. 2nd party did not dispute

that workman had worked for 132 days in 1987-88 and

31 days in 1989. Working days of workman from 1990 to

1998 are shown in para 1 of Written Statement. Working

days of workman from 1992 to 1998 are shown more than

240 days. 2nd party submits that said engagement of Ist

party could not be considered as employment in Bank as

his engagement was purely contractual. Workman was

engaged on contract basis. His engagement was as per

exigency of work. He was not required to report for work.

He was free to come on next day, his non-engagement is

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.

5. 2nd party further submits that there is elaborate

selection procedure out evolved out of the agreement

entered into between SBI and All India State Bank of India

Staff Federation. That management provided opportunity

to the temporary casual workers for permanent

appointment in Bank service. As per settlement dated

17-11-87, temporary employee completing 240 days

continuous service in block of 12 months or less after

1975 shown in Category A, temporary employees

completing 270 days in block of 36 calendar months after

1-7-75 are shown in Category B, temporary employees

completed a minimum of 30 days temporary service in any

calendar after 1975 or a minimum of 70 days aggregate

temporary service in any continuous block of 36 months

after 1-7-75 are shown in Category C. 2nd party submits

that the settlement dated 17-11-87 was modified by

subsequent settlement dated 16-7-88, 27-10-88, 9-1-91,

30-1-96. As per settlement dated 9-1-91, the absorption of

daily wagers can be made against vacancies arise from

1995 to 1996. Ist party workman submitted application for

permanent absorption as he did not work during stipulated

period. He was not called for interview. That engagement

on daily wages on casual basis does not give him right for

regularization. Workman was engaged on contract basis.

He was paid wages. Workman was not in continuous

employment of the Bank. Engagement of workman was

purely on contract basis commending on the opening

hours of the Bank and ended with closing hours of the

Bank. It is reiterated for non-engagement of workman is

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

engaged on contractual basis. The action of management

is nor arbitrary. The wages of Ist party were settled prior

to his engagement. Violation of provisions of ID Act is

denied.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 18 reiterating his

contentions in statement of claim. That his services are

terminated without notice in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

4574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

“(i) Whether the action of the State Bank

In Negative

of India through the Asstt. General

Manager, SBI Region IV in not

reinstating to Shri Ram Narayan

Namdeo is justified?

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

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

As per pleadings in Written Statement, working days

of workman 132 days in 1987-88 working from 17-11-87, 31

days in 1989 and more than 240 days during 1992 to 1998

are not disputed. Since 1992, Ist party workman was in

continuous service for more than 240 days. Copy of

settlement is produced by 2nd party at Exhibit M-1 to M-

5. Exhibit M-1 shows temporary employee completing more

than 240 days continuous service during 12 months or

less after 1-7-75 or (ii) 270 days aggregate temporary service

in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after

1-7-75, (iii) minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service

in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or 70 days in any

continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 are

eligible for absorption. The period of settlement was

changed time to time. There is no dispute between parties

that workman was engaged from 17-11-87.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions that from 1992, he worked more than 240

days. His services were terminated by Branch manager

from 25-12-98 without assigning reasons. His affidavit is

devoted about the details of conciliation proceeding before

ALC. His services were terminated without notice. From

evidence of workman, documents Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are

proved. Workman in his cross-examination says except

Kotma Jamuna branch, he did not work in any other

branch. He was working as messenger. The documents

Exhibit W-1, W-2 were prepared as per direction of Jabalpur

office. He claims ignorance about the settlements. Exhibit

W-1 shows working days of workman 132 days during

1987-88, 31 days in 1989. The working days are already

admitted by 2nd party. In Exhibit W-2 & 7, working days of

workman are shown. The working days are also admitted

by 2nd party. Though workman completed 240 days service

during 1990 to 1998, as per affidavit of evidence of

management’s witness Mahesh kumar, his services were

orally terminated without notice. Termination of service of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, therefore

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

10.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

workman is terminated illegally in violation of Section 25-

F, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, he was

not served with notice of termination, question arise

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. As per pleadings and evidence on record,

workman was working on daily wages with 2nd party from

1987. The working for 132 days in 86, 31 days in 1989.

Thereafter he was working intermittently till 1992. From

1992 to 1998, he was continuously working more than 240

days. For long period, workman was engaged by 2nd party

on daily wages, it amounts to unfair labour practice under

Item 10, schedule V of ID Act.

11.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Ashish Shroti

submits that workman was not appointed following

selection process, his name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Instead of reinstatement, workman

be allowed appropriate compensation. Shri Prem Jaiswal,

Advocate for workman submits that considering long

period of working, workman be allowed reinstatement with

backwages. In support of his argument, learned counsel

relies on ratio held in case between-

Mackinnon Machenzie and Co.Ltd versus

Machinnon Employees Union reported in 2015-2-

SCC L&S-66. Their Lordship dealing with violation

of Section 25-F G held action of appellant company

was not clear breach of conditions precedent for

retrenchment of workmen, rendering retrenchment

illegal/invalid. Principle of last come first go was not

followed. Renders retrenchment unsustainable. Their

Lordship considered contention by appellant

company that workmen concerned could not be

reinstated and/ or backwages paid to them since

department unit of appellant company where they

were employed was no more in existence and hence

relief of reinstatement and backwages granted by

courts may be moulded. The Lordship held High

Curt cannot sympathise with a party which gambles

in litigation to put off the evil day and when that

day comes prays to be saved from its own gamble.

Hence moulding of relief not permissible.

Reinstatement of workman was upheld.

Next reliance is placed in ratio held in case of Ajay

Pal Singh versus Haryana Warehousing

Corporation reported in 2015(20) SCC (L&S) 279.

Their Lordship observed appellant workman within

the meaning of Section 2(s) was employed by the

respondent public sector Corporation which is an

Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of ID

Act. The appellant had completed more than 240

days of service in preceding 12 calendar months

w.e.f. 1-7-88 without notice of pay in lieu thereof in

terms of Section 25-F of ID Act. Labour court by its

award dated 11-8-93 held that the termination of

service of the appellant was illegal and he was

entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. In

Para 24 of the judgment, their Lordship observed in

present case, the services of the appellant was not

terminated on the ground that his initial appointment

was made in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the

constitution of India. No such reasons were shown

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4575

in the order of retrenchment nor was such plea raised

while reference was made by the appropriate

government for adjudication of the dispute between

the employee and the employer. In absence of such

ground, it was not ground to deny the benefit for

which the appellant was entitled on ground that his

initial appointment was made in violation of Article

14,16 of the constitution.

In present case, parties are in dispute that parties

are engaged on daily wages. There are no pleadings about

legality of initial appointment of workman.

12.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Jaiswal also relies

on ratio held in

Case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vrs Kranti Junior

Adhyapak and others, though the facts were

different, their lordship allowed full back wages.

13.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Shroti submits

that workman has not pleaded about unfair labour practice

on part of management. The workman was engaged on

daily wages. He has no right to continue on the post. On

the point of reinstatement, reliance is placed on ratio held

Case of BSNL versus Bhurumal reported in 2014(7)

SCC-177. In Para 33, their Lordship observed

however it come to the case of termination a

procedural defect, namely in violation of section 25-

F of the IID Act, this Court is consistent in taking

the view that in such cases reinstatement with

backwages is not automatic and instead the workman

should be given monetary compensation which will

meet the ends of justice.

In para 35, their Lordship observed we would

however like to add a caveat here. There may be

cases where termination of a daily wage worker is

found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted

to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the

principle of last first go while retrenching such a

worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There

may also be a situation that persons junior to him

were regularised under some policy but the workman

concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the

terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement

unless there are some other weighty reasons for

adopting the course of grant of compensation

instead of reinstatement. In such cases,

reinstatement should be the rule and only in

exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in

writing, such a relief can be denied.

Shri Shroti also relies on ratio held in case of BSNL

and others versus Kailash Narayan Sharma reported

in 2014(16) SCC-440. In Para 6 of the judgment, their

Lordship discussed we have bestowed our

consideration to the rival submissions and we find

substance in the submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellants. The decisions of this Court

referred to above in no uncertain terms hold that in

case of termination in violation of Section 25-F of

the ID Act, relief of reinstatement may not be the

natural consequence. It will depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. It is not automatic.

In the facts of a given case, instead of reinstatement,

monetary compensation can be granted.

No cogent evidence is adduced by workman about

junior to him is regularised or continued in service.

Considering ratio held in 2014(7) SCC-177, it would be

appropriate to award reasonable compensation to the

workman instead of reinstatement with backwages. The

pleadings and evidence on record shows that workman

was continuously working more than 240 days from 1992

to 1998, prior to it, he was working intermittently from

1987, compensation Rs. 2,50,000/- would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the State Bank of India through the

Asstt. General Manager, SBI Region IV in not

reinstating to Shri Ram Narayan Namdeo is not

proper and legal.

(2)

Management is directed to pay compensation

Rs.2,50,000/- 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] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2262-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjok flnh

xzkeh.k 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 133@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@138@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/

99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Rewa Sidhi

Gramin Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/138/98-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

4576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/133/99

Shri Krishna Kumar Sen

s/o Shri H.S.Prasad Sen

Vill. Tendun, PO Baikunthpur,

Tehsil Sirmasur, Rewa (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Rewa sidhi Gramin Bank,

RSGB Gurunanak Market,

Rewa (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 18-3-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

138/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Rewa

Sidhi Gramin Bank, Gurunanak Market Rewa (MP)

in not providing duty as messenger in the Bank to

Shri Krishna Kumar Sen S/o Shri H.S.Prasad Sen is

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

is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

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

employed as messenger on vacant post on 28-4-95. He

continuously worked till 3-1-97. Management terminated

his services suddenly on 3-1-97 in violation of Section 25-

F of ID Act. That workman was continuously working

with 2nd party which is covered as employee under Section

25 B of ID Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Section 25 G, H of ID Act were not followed by 2nd party.

Permission of Government for his retrenchment was not

obtained by the management. Junior persons working in

the Bank were retained. Termination of his service amounts

to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. It also

amounts to unfair labour practice.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/5

opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised

that Government was not entitled to make reference. While

making reference, Government decided employer employee

relationship exists between parties, workman was

terminated. Reference is illegal. Termination of workman

was highly disputed question. 2nd party further submits

that workman was engaged by extension counter of the

Bank on daily wages Rs.42.27. The workman was

intermittently working on daily wages on extension counter

for sweeping cleaning work of the premises during leave

period of regular staff. Ist party was not given permanent

appointment by Bank. He was not continuously working

as per Section 25 of ID Act. Workman had not completed

more than 240 days continuous service. Workman was

engaged on daily wages. The contract of appointment

begin in morning and ends at end of the day. The non-

engagement of workman is covered under Section 2(oo)

(bb) of ID Act. It does not amount to retrenchment. 2nd

party denied violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman

is not covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Directions of

Central Government provides that employment of cadre

of sub staff could be done through Employment Exchange

only. 2nd party submits that the candidates sponsored by

Employment Exchange after notification of vacancies are

to be considered for regular appointment. That Bank

employment is public employment covered under Article

16 of the constitution. Any person seeking employment

can register with the Employment Exchange. The person

who is engaged purely on temporary basis as staff gap

arrangement without following such procedure to be

appointed permanently. 2nd party reiterates workman is

not covered under Section 25 B of ID Act. Violation of

Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act is denied. There was no question

of taking permission for retrenchment of workman. On such

ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/2 reiterating

its contentions in statement of claim.

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 Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank,

Gurunanak Market Rewa (MP) in

not providing duty as messenger

in the Bank to Shri Krishna Kumar

Sen S/o Shri H.S.Prasad Sen is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

services from 3-1-97 for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of

ID Act. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence at Page 11

contending that his contentions in rejoinder are correct. It

appears said affidavit was accepted as affidavit of his

evidence and workman was cross-examined in detail. In

his cross-examination on said affidavit, workman says

appointment letter was received by him from President

Shri S.K. Gupta. His name was not sponsored through

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4577

Employment Exchange. He was not interviewed. He was

engaged on daily wages Rs.42.27. he was working during

whole month except Sundays. He denies that he had

personal relation with Shri S.K.Gupta, President and

therefore he was appointed. He claims ignorance about

any action taken against Shri S.K.Gupta but ultimately

Shri S.K.Gupta was dismissed. That he was doing work of

writing Day Book, checking OBC Register, handling

stationery as per directions of Shri R.K.Dubey Manager.

One post of messenger was vacant. That he was engaged

in the branch.

Workman again filed affidavit of his evidence.

Workman has stated that he was appointed on vacant

post of messenger in the extension branch on 28-4-95. He

continuously worked till 3-1-97. He completed more than

240 days continuous service during each of the year. He

has produced appointment order of his appointment. He

was appointed following selection process. His services

were terminated without notice. Retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him.

In his cross-examination, workman says certificate

about his working was not issued. He claims ignorance

about rules of recruitment of Bank. He was engaged on

daily wages. He denies that as he has personal relations

with Shri S.K.Gupta, he was engaged in the Bank. Shri

S.K.Gupta was President of the Bank. He was working in

extension counter. He denies that he was engaged in

extension counter as per requirement. He denies that he

worked for 190 days during the period 27-4-95 to 31-12-96

only. He denied regulations of the Bank shown to him. He

claims ignorance under which rules, he was appointed.

He claims ignorance whether Shri S.K.Gupta was served

with chargesheet and for what reasons Shri S.K.Gupta

was dismissed.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

Y.S.Bundela. management’s witness supports contentions

in Written Statement filed by 2nd party that 2nd party

Bank was established under Regional Rural Bank Rules

1998. Chairman of Bank is not authorized to fill the

vacancies. The appointment order is totally illegal and

invalid. Workman was engaged by extension counter on

daily wages Rs. 42.27. he was not given permanent

appointment in the Bank. Workman was not continuously

working in Bank. Workman not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. The offer of

appointment was given by Shri S.K.Gupta. due to several

irregularities committed by him, he was removed from

service. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says he was working in the Bank from 1-7-98. Workman

was not working in the Bank during said period. Workman

was working in extension counter at Sarasvatipuram. The

Bank may have entries about it. Workman was working

on daily wages. He was unable to tell the period of his

working without going through record. Management’s

witness denies that workman was continuously working

from 1995 to 1997. Appointment letter dated 20-9-96 issued

to workman was contrary to rules. Daily wages employees

were not issued order in writing. They used to be engaged

orally. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation,

termination notice was not issued to him. Management’s

witness was re-examined and documents Exhibit M-1 to

M-6 were admitted in evidence. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says Exhibit M-1 to 4 pertains to

services of regular employees. Exhibit Receipt M-5 was

obtained from workman. He admits that Exhibit M-6 was

given to Shri S.K.Gupta working as Manager.

Shri S.K.Gupta was working as Chief Manager in Rewa

Sidhi branch. Workman was paid wages under voucher.

He claims ignorance about the manner of payment of

wages to workman. At fag end of his cross-examination,

management’s witness says the vouchers of the period

1995 to 1997 may be available in the Bank.

10.

The evidence of management’s witness Shri V.K.

Mishra is on the point that workman had not completed

240 days continuous service. Workman was engaged

during leave period. Workman was not appointed by

Competent Authority. Working days of Ist party are shown

198 days from 27-4-95 to 12-12-96. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness Shri V.K.Mishrta says he was

posted in Sidhi branch during 3-7-95 to 30-6-98. The

services of workman were taken on daily wages. He was

doing work of sweeping, supplying drinking water.

Workman was given intermittent breaks. After December

96, services of Ist party workman were not utilized. He

denies that workman was in service on 4-1-97.

Management’s witness admitted Exhibit W-1, W-2.

Workman was engaged on need basis. Documents in that

regard were not maintained.

11.

Turning to documentary evidence, Exhibit W-2 is

letter of appointment to workman as temporary messenger/

sweeper dated 20-9-96. Period of working is not shown in

the documents. Exhibit W-1 is copy of receipt given by

workman. Working period is shown from 28-4-95,

23-12-96 to 23-12-96, 26-12-96 to 28-12-96, 30-12-96 to

3-1-97 on wages Rs. 42.27. document doesnot show that

the workman had continuously worked for 240 days.

Exhibit M-1 is copy of Notification dated 20-9-88 pertains

to rules of the Bank in appointment and promotion of

officers and other employees. The evidence of workman

is clear that he was engaged on daily wages. Selection

process was not followed before engaging him by the

Bank. Exhibit M-2 is Circular dated 9-5-96. M-3 is letter

dated 15-6-99. Clarification in the matter of promotion of

employees/ officers. M-4 is also clarification in the matter

of promotion of employees and officers. The contents in

those documents donot support the claim of workman.

Exhibit M-6 is order of suspension of Shri S.K.Gupta dated

23-9-96. Exhibit M-7 is order of his removal followed by

enquiry. The documents on record are not clear that

workman was continuously more than 240 days during 12

months receding termination of workman.

4578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Aditya Ahiwasi

during course of argument pointed out my attention that

workman filed application for production of documents.

Application was opposed by management filing reply

claiming that the documents were not available. The same

were destroyed. Management’s witness Bundele in his

cross says te documents may be in the Bank and therefore

adverse inference be drawn against 2nd party.

Management’s witness Bundele is not telling truth above

argument cannot be accepted as in his cross-examination,

management’s witness Bundele have not admitted

documents are in the Bank rather he claims that documents

may be in the Bank. His affidavit filed in reply to application

for production of documents dated 17-4-2008. As stated

that documents cash vouchers, ledger and stationery

challan for the period 27-4-95 to 31-11-97 called by

workman. As per directions in circular dated 14-12-2002,

documents are not preserved more than 9 years. The

stationery challan or petty vouchers are not kept more

than one year. The cash vouchers, ledger and day book

within period of 9 years from 2008 are available with the

management. Said documents being bulky . management

is unable to produce same before Tribunal.

13.

After considering submissions of production,

application for production of documents are rejected as

per order dated 20-10-2008. In view of above facts,

arguments advanced by Advocate Aditya cannot be

accepted. There is no cogent evidence to establish

workman completed more than 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of his termination violation

of Section 25-F is not established. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

termination of workman is not illegal for violation of Section

25-F, G, H of ID Act is not established.

15.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Aditya Ahiwasi

relied on ratio held in 2015(4)MPLJ-5 &2014(15)SCC-313.

Ratio held in above cases needs no detailed discussion as

workman has failed to establish termination of his service

in violation of Section 25-F,G,H of ID Act, therefore

workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No.2.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Rewa Sidhi Gramin

Bank, Gurunanak Market Rewa (MP) in not providing

duty as messenger in the Bank to Shri Krishna Kumar

Sen S/o Shri H.S.Prasad Sen is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2263-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos 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 160@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@49@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.

No. 160/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Central Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on7-12-2015.

[No. L-41012/49/2000-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/160/2000

Shri Rubbilal S/o Shri Sumera Mukam

Bahar Post Taral Thana Sihora

Distt. Jabalpur (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of November, 2015

As per letter dated 29-8-2000 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-41012/

49/2000/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the service of

Shri Rubbilal S/o Shri Sumera, Ex.Parcel Porter MRCL

w.e.f. 18-12-84, while he has worked from 9-2-97 to

18-12-84 and completed more than 240 days in 1984

is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled?”

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 he was

employed by management of DRM, office at office of PWI

Gotegaon as Parcel porter and till 9-2-79. His services were

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4579

terminated on 18-12-84. He worked more than 240 days in

a year. That he attained status of employee defined under

Section 25 B of ID Act. Service Card No. 33346 as casual

labour. The entries about his working are recorded in it.

He was removed arbitrarily. Evenafter he attained status

of permanent employee, his services were terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman had raised

dispute before ALC. The dispute has been referred by

Central Government. Workman reiterates that he was not

considered for regular appointment as per seniority. His

services are terminated illegally from 18-12-84 . Workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 8/1 to 8/3 opposing claim of workman. Case of 2nd

party is employment of workman was purely of contract

employment restricted to the tenure of the work. That soon

after completion of the work, the term of employment of

workman seized. Thereafter workman was not in

employment of 2nd party. It is reiterated that employment

of workman was restricted till completion of the work. Work

was of casual nature. Claim of workman deserves to be

dismissed. The tenure of employment had seized . workman

is not entitled to any relief. Claim of workman for

regularization as per seniority is false and without any

basis. That applicant’s claim is barred by time is liable to

be dismissed.

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 Central Railway, Jabalpur

(MP) in terminating the service of

Shri Rubbilal S/o Shri Sumera,

Ex. Parcel Porter MRCL w.e.f.

18-12-84 and worked for more than

240 days in 1984 is justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that he was

working as parcel porter from 9-2-79. He completed 120

days service. He was taken on regular strength initially for

a period of 4 months. He was paid wages Rs. 210/- per

month. After completion of 120 days service, he was paid

salary Rs.700 per month. He was posted under PWI

Gotegaon. He was continuously working till 18-12-84. His

services are terminated without notice. He worked more

than 240 days. Service Card No. 333346 was issued to him.

Management not followed mandatory provisions of ID

Act while terminating his service. In his cross-examination,

workman says after completing 120 days working on daily

wages, he was working on monthly basis. The regular

work was provided to him. he was working with Lohar

Mistry. Break was given to him. He did not work after

1984. He was not aware about the case therefore case was

filed after 6-7 years when he got information that case

could be filed. That before his engagement, he submitted

application. He did not recollect his date. Any document

is not produced in that regard. He denies that he not

completed more than 240 days continuous service. He did

not received order on monthly rated basis. Workman

produced service Card Exhibit W-1. In his cross-

examination, workman says he was paid for the working

days shown in Exhibit W-1. He was working as parcel

porter. He was unable to tell that he had not worked from

1979 to 1983. The service card produced by workman shows

he was continuously working from 3-8-83 to 18-12-84.

Workman had completed 240 days service during above

said period. His services were terminated without notice.

No retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

Management’s witness Shri R.K.Shrivastva filed

affidavit of his evidence denying that workman worked

more than 240 days and his services were illegally

terminated. Management’s witness in his affidavit says

that the dispute was raised after 16 years. The Railway

Administration has recruitment policy. No authority can

bypass said procedure for appointment against existing

vacancies. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says since 2012, he is working at Sridham Railway Station.

His affidavit is filed as per documents. He admits that

from 3-8-83 to 18-12-84, workman was continuously

working. He admits that services of workman were

terminated without notice. Workman was working as MR

Khalasi. Management’s witness was unable to tell when

work of M.R.Khalasi was stopped in 2nd party. He denies

that other khalasis were regularised. The evidence is clear

that workman completed more than 240 days continuous

service. Workman was terminated from 18-12-84. Learned

counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that dispute

is raised after lapse of 16 years is not tenable. In support

of his argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in

case between

Indian Iron and Steel co.Ltd versus Prahad Singh

reported in 2001(1) SCC-424. In above cited case,

their Lordship dealing with latches, the dispute was

raised after 13 long years of termination of service,

no reasonable explanation is given for such delay.

Their Lordship held Industrial Tribunal rightly

refused to grant any relief.

In Para-10 of the judgment, their Lordship discussed

in our view on the facts of the case in hand the

aforementioned two decisions were of no avail to

support the case of the respondent. The learned

Single Judge also found fault with the Tribunal as to

4580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the finding that the claim of the respondent was too

stale to grant any relief when arties had not raised

such a plea. When the Tribunal on proper and

objective appreciation of the material on record

found that the claim was made by the respondent

after 13 years, it was open to it to refuse relief to the

respondent. Moreover the Tribunal did not refuse

relief merely on the ground of delay and latches as

is evident from para 25 of the order extracted above.

Tribunal has recorded that even without considering

the question of delay the respondent had lost his

lien on his appointment.

It is clear that claim of workman was not rejected

only on the ground of delay.

Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in

Case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka and

Shivalinga reported in 2002-I-LLJ-457. Their Lordship

in cases of serious dispute as to relationship of

employer and employee, records of employer being

relevant, would come in way of maintenance of same.

Situation of such nature renders claim stale.

Shri P.C.Chandak counsel for workman pointed out

my attention to para-6 of the judgment,. Their

Lordship observed that there is no period of

limitation prescribed under ID Act to raise dispute

and it is open to party to approach the Court even

belatedly and the Labour Court or the Industrial

Tribunal can properly mould the relief by refusing

or awarding part payment of back wages. It is no

doubt true that in appropriate cases as held by this

court in aforesaid two decisions, such steps could

be taken by the Labour Court or the Industrial

Tribunal as the case may be where there is no such

dispute as to relationship between the parties as

employer and employee.

In present case, from Document Exhibit W-1,

relationship of employer employee is established.

Workman worked more than 240 days in 1983 is also

established. Therefore claim of workman cannot be

rejected only on the ground of delay and latches.

8. Shri A.K.Shashi further relies on ratio held in

Case of Chief Engineer Construction versus Keshava

Rao(Dead) by LRs reported in 2005-II-SCC-229. Their

Lordship held unless initial burden of establishing

factum of continuous work for 240 days in a year is

discharged by workman and the employer fails to

produce evidence in rebuttal, finding of non-

compliance cannot be recorded.

In present case from Exhibit W-1, it is established

that workman worked more than 240 days in 1983-84. The

burden is discharged by workman by documentary

evidence. Therefore ratio held in above cited case cannot

be applied to case at hand. In above case, delay was of a

year and 5 months in issuing notice. The ratio held in the

case doesnot pertain to the rejection of claim on the ground

of delay and latches. As workman completed more than

240 days continuous service, his services were terminated

without notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, I

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

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 the

services of workman are terminated in violation of section

25-F of ID Act long back in 1984, reinstatement of workman

with backwages is not justified. considering period of

working, compensation Rs.20,000/- would be adequate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Central Railway,

Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the service of Shri

Rubbilal S/o Shri Sumera, Ex.Parcel Porter MRCL

w.e.f. 18-12-84 and worked for more than 240 days in

1984 is not proper and legal.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 20,000/- 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] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2264-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj 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 80@07)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@35@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/07)

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 workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/35/2007-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4581

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/80/07

Shri Rajesh Beri,

New Hanuman Nagar,

Lakhe Nagar Ward,

Behind Durga Mandir,

Raipur (CG)

...Workman

Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of Indore,

Zonal Office, National Highway,

Telibandha,

Raipur CG

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of October, 2015

As per letter dated 17-8-07 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

35/2007-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore, Raipur in terminating the services of

Shri Rajesh Kumar Beri w.e.f. 25-5-06 is justified? If

not, what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was engaged

on daily wages by Branch Manager MG Road, Raipur of

State Bank of Indore. Said Bank is merged in State Bank in

2010. Workman further submits that he was paid wages

Rs.80 per day from 1-4-01. The wages were increased to

Rs.90. He was paid wages for working days Monday to

Saturday deducting the wages for holidays. That he

completed more than 240 days working during each of the

year is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act.

His services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G,H

of ID Act. Principles of last come first go was not followed.

After his termination from 25-5-06, 2nd party had engaged

other persons on daily wages in violation of Section 25-H.

Workman was not awarded employment. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/10

opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that State

Bank of Indore was registered under State Bank of India

Act, 1959 bearing Banking business. The employees in

the Bank are appointed as per regulations by RBI in SBI.

The sub staff are also appointed as per the rules and

regulations. The candidates are called from Employment

Exchange. The post was advertised. Branch Manager has

no authority to make appointments of sub staff. The

principles of sub staff are transferred to the branches.

Workman is claiming back door entry in service of the

Bank. He is not entitled for service in the Bank. Ist party

workman was never working in MG Road branch, Raipur.

The work of cleaning sweeping is not carried by regular

peons. For such work, labours are engaged on daily wages.

Daily wage labours works one or two hours in the Bank.

One hour before the Bank is opened and one hour after

the Bank is closed. The daily wage labours have no right

for regularization. Workman had not worked more than

240 days during any of the year. As Ist party workman

was not appointed by the Bank, the provisions of ID Act

are not applicable to him. 2nd party referred to ratio in

various cases and submits that workman is not entitled to

any relief as he was engaged on daily wages for casual

work.

4. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to

9/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of State Bank of Indore,

Raipur in terminating the services

of Shri Rajesh Kumar Beri w.e.f.

25-5-06 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F,G,H,N of ID Act.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Ist party workman

in his affidavit of evidence says that he was engaged on

post of permanent peon on 1-4-01. He worked more than

240 days during each of the year till termination of his

service from 25-5-06. Notice of termination was not issued

to him. Retrenchment compensation was not paid before

termination of his service. Workman had submitted

complaint to ALC, Raipur in the matter of payment of

bonus. 2nd party paid bonus of Rs. 10,277/-. That during

pendency of conciliation proceeding, his services were

terminated in violation of Section 33 of ID Act. In his cross-

examination, workman says he worked in State Bank of

Indore, MG Road branch from 1-4-01 to 25-5-06. He was

working under the Branch Manager Shri H.N.Khare, Patel,

G.P.Mourya and Pathak. Appointment letter was not

received by him. He had not appeared for any examination.

He was paid weekly wages. He was doing work in treasury

collecting bills, cheques. The evidence of workman that

he worked more than 240 days during each of the year is

not challenged in cross-examination.

4582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. Workman produced documents Exhibit W-1 is letter

issued by Asstt. General Manager assuring payment of

bonus to the persons engaged in different branches. Name

of workman is appearing at Sl.No.6. document Exhibit W-

2 shows workman was paid Rs. 10,277/- by cheque dated

30-4-02. Exhibit W-3 is letter dated 23-1-07 to ALC informing

that the matter has been taken up with higher authorities

for examining issue of payment of bonus to daily wagers.

Exhibit W-4,5 is letter dated 11-12-06 & 5-2-07 by ALC,

Raipur in the matter of complaint of non payment of bonus.

Exhibit W-6 is letter issued by Asstt. General manager that

daily wagers were engaged. Wages were paid at Collector

rate. Exhibit W-2 corroborates evidence of workman that

he was paid bonus of Rs.10,277/-. 2nd party has not

produced documents regarding the working days for

which bonus was paid to workman. Management’s witness

Shri Nikhil Chandra Shukla in his affidavit of evidence

says that Bank of Indore was merged in State Bank of

India on 20-7-2010. Workman had not completed 240 days

during any of the year during 2001 to 2006. Workman was

engaged as per exigency for cleaning, sweeping work one

hour morning, one hour evening. The wages were paid to

him. Workman is not entitled for regularization as he was

engaged for casual work. Workman was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He was not interviewed.

Workman is not entitled for any relief. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says he was not posted

in MG Road branch during 2001 to 2006. He received

information about the matter from Branch Manager

Anthony who was working in said branch during 2011 to

2013. Management’s witness claimed ignorance whether

workman had filed conciliation proceeding before ALC,

Raipur for regularization of service. He also claims

ignorance whether before termination of workman,

permission was taken. The documents regarding payment

of retrenchment compensation are not available.

Management’s witness claims ignorance whether

permission of Competent Authority was taken before

engaging workman. The documents in that regard are not

available. The documents regarding appointment of

workman are not available. Attendance Register of

workman was not maintained. Documents in that regard

are not available. On information received from other

employees, he has stated in his affidavit that workman

was working for two hours. He claims ignorance about the

documents received by workman under RTI Act. Presently

cleaning work is carried by regular staff.

The documents produced by workman under RTI

Act can be considered as evidence. The documents

produced pertains to the payment of bonus to Shankarlal

Dhewar, Rajkumar, (workman). The evidence of workman

regarding payment of bonus is corroborated by documents

supplied to workman under RTI Act.

2nd party has not produced any record regarding

working of Ist party workman, the wages paid to him. On

the other hand, workman had produced documents Exhibit

W-2 bonus of Rs. 10,277/- was paid. The evidence of

workman is corroborated by documents whereas evidence

of management is heresay therefore I donot find reason to

discard the evidence of workman that he completed more

than 240 days continuous service.

10.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Vijay Tripathi

relies on ratio held in

Case of Range Forest Officer versus S.T.Hadimani

reported in 2002(3) SCC 25. Their lordship held where

the workman’s claim that he had worked for more

than 240 days in the year preceding his termination

was denied by the employer, held it was for the

claimant to lead evidence to that effect. Workman’s

affidavit was not sufficient evidence for that

purpose.

The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to

present case at hand as evidence of workman is

corroborated by document Exhibit W-2 bonus of

Rs. 10,277/- was paid to him.

Reliance is also placed by counsel for 2nd party in

case of

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited versus

Mohammed Rafi reported in 2009(11) SCC-522. Their

Lordship held burden of proof as to completion of

240 days of continuous work in a year, reiterated lies

on the aggrieved workman.

Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present

case as workman has proved for evidence that he completed

240 days continuous service as discussed above.

Reliance is also placed in case of Rajasthan State

Ganganagar S.Mills Ltd. versus State of Rajasthan

and another reported in 2004(8)SCC-161. Their

Lordship held mere non production of muster roll

for a particular part of the period concerned is not

sufficient to hold that workman worked for 240 days

as claimed.

The ratio held in above case cannot be beneficially

applied to case at hand as evidence of workman is

corroborated by Exhibit W-2 and documents supplied to

him under RTI Act. As from the documents and evidence

of workman, it is established that workman completed 240

days continuous service, his service were terminated

without notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid

to him. The termination of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

remains for consideration whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with backwages. Workman in his cross-

examination says he was not issued letter of appointment,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4583

he had not appeared for any test, he was paid weekly

wages. Workman was not appointed following selection

process. He was engaged on daily wages. The

reinstatement with backwages would not be justified.

Workman was working with 2nd party from April 2001 to

25th May 2006 for about 5 years. Considering above

aspects, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be

appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

12. 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 compensation amount

Rs. One Lakh to the workman.

The 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] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2265-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj 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 181@01)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@262@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 181/

01) 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 workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/262/2001-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/181/01

General Secretary,

Dainik Wetan Bhoti Bank Karmchari

Sangathan, Indore

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of Indore,

Head Office, Indore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of October, 2015

As per letter dated 27-11-2001 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/

262/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of Indore in not giving permanent appointment

to Shri Krishan Rao Gaur in the Bank service is

justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of workman is that he was engaged

as peon by Branch Manager Shri S.P.Padlikar on 1-1-1991.

He was paid wages Rs.15/- per day. Workman was honestly

working. His wages were increased to Rs.20/-, 30/-, 35/-,

40/-. He worked with 2nd party till November 1994. He was

paid wages for six days in a week. As per requirement, in

December 1994, workman was sent to Dhamtari branch.

His wages were increased to Rs. 40/-, 45/-, 50/-, 60/- per

day. Workman was discontinued without notice from

8-4-99. Workman raised dispute. Workman further submits

that he worked more than 240 days continuous service.

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. He was not served notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/9

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party raised

preliminary objection that workman was not employed by

the Bank. Workman has not allotted permanent status.

Workman was engaged as daily wage sweeper as casual

worker. It does not give right to workman for regularization.

Employer employee relationship does not exists between

parties therefore reference is not tenable. Shri Ram

Nagwanshi is dismissed employee of the Bank, he is not

competent to raise the dispute. 2nd party Bank has its

own service regulations for recruitment. Workman was

not appointed as per rules and regulations. His name was

not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Workman

was engaged for 2 hours before opening of the Bank and

one hour after closing of the Bank. Workman was engaged

for sweeping work, in supplying drinking water to the

employees. He not completed 240 days continuous service

as part time employee. Claim of workman is not tenable.

2nd party submits that there is no substantiate claim of

workman and reference be answered in its favour.

4584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3 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 manage-

In Affirmative

ment of State Bank of Indore in not

giving permanent appointment to

Shri Krishan Rao Gaur in the Bank

service is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

Workman is

not entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

The dispute under terms of reference pertains to

denial of regularization of the workman. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. Workman in his affidavit says

that he was engaged on daily wages as peon from 1-1-91.

He worked more than 240 days during each of the year till

December 1994. His wages were increased from time to

time. From December 1994, he was sent for work to Dhantari

branch. He continuously worked in said branch from

19-12-94 to 8-4-99. His services were terminated without

notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.

Workman could not be cross-examined as he died during

pendency. The LRs of deceased workman are brought on

record. Widow of workman Parvati filed affidavit of her

evidence covering above facts. In her cross-examination,

widow of workman denied that workman was working for

1-2 hours in a day. She was unable to tell whether

appointment letter was issued to deceased workman. She

denies that her husband was engaged in leave period. She

was unable to tell of the working days of deceased workman

during any of the year.

Ist party has produced certified copy of admitted

documents in R/165/02. The working period of deceased

workman is shown from 19-12-94 till certificate was issued

on 4-10-97 and wages paid to workman has increased to

Rs.40/-, 45/-, 50/-, 60/- per day.

Management’s witness Anjan Kumar filed affidavit

of his evidence supporting contentions of 2nd party in

Written Statement. That Bank never appointed workman

in its service. The workman was engaged as casual labour

for few hours in a week for several work. That permanent

vacancies in the branch are filled on 21-3-98. No permanent

staff is required. Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 applies

only to the employees of the Bank. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says workman was working in the

branch from 1994 to 1999. The dispute was raised before

ALC Indore for regularization. Workman was engaged as

per exigencies. He was working 2 hour in morning, one

hour in afternoon. Workman was served with termination

notice.

Management’s witness Mahadeo Barapatre filed

affidavit of his evidence stating that workman was not

given appointment letter, he not completed 240 days

continuous service during any of the year. The services

of deceased workman were only s daily rated casual

workman. The workman is dead therefore the claim of Ist

party workman for permanent appointment has frustrated.

Besides it, any rule has not been brought to my notice

that workman is entitled for regularization. Merely working

as part time sweeper, cleaner as proved from admitted

documents in another reference cannot establish the claim

of Ist party workman for permanent appointment.

10.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Praveen

Chaturvedi relies on ratio held in

Case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. versus Man Singh

reported in 2012(132)FLR 500. The ratio relates to

daily wager does not hold post and not a permanent

employee. Instead of reinstatement, compensation

was allowed.

In case of Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar

Panchayat Gajraula and another reported in 2008(1)

SCC 575, the ratio held in the case pertains to claim

for regularization of daily wager/ adhoc employees.

Ratio held in both cases cannot be applied to present

case as workman had died and any rule is not brought to

notice for giving permanent appointment to daily wager.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

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

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of Indore

in not giving permanent appointment to Shri Krishan

Rao Gaur in Bank is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2266-—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]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 95@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@96@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4585

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/96/2013-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 18th November, 2015

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 95/2013

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of State Bank of India and Another and

their workman].

BETWEEN :

Sri S. Savarinathan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Regional Manager,

2nd Party/1st

(Disciplinary Authority)

...Respondent

State Bank of India, Region-IV

Regional Business Centre

Puducherry-605001

2. The Deputy General

2nd Party/2nd

Manager, (B&O)

...Respondent

State Bank of India,

Chennai Zone-II, Z.O.

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

M/s Balan Haridas, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondents

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/96/2013-IR (B-I)

dated 28.11.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India in dismissing Sri A. Savarinathan, Ex-

Clerk of Panrutti Branch is legal and justified? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 95/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in reply to

the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner are as below:

The petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-Cashier

in Kallakurichi Branch of SBI on 11.09.1997. He was

transferred to Panrutti Branch in the year 2003. He

continued in the said branch till he was dismissed from

service by order dated 27.09.2012. The entire service of

the petitioner is without any blemish except the allegation

for which his service was terminated. The petitioner was

placed under suspension from 15.02.2010. After 16 months

the Second Respondent issued a Charge Sheet containing

13 charges to the petitioner. The charges leveled against

the petitioner were that he misused the capability level

given to him by the Bank and altered the limit of his

overdraft facility, unauthorizedly withdrew amount over

and above sanctioned limit of overdraft facility, opened

demand loan account in the name of one Gopal and

obtained loan by himself, opened loan account in the name

of one Vanathu Chinnappan and obtained loan through

that account also, debited amount from the account of

one Jayarani using his ID for deriving pecuniary benefits,

debited the account of one Christuraj and credited the

amount to his own account through his ID for his pecuniary

benefits, debited the account of one Rajarajendran and

credited the same to his account for his pecuniary benefits,

retained the amount received from a women’s forum to be

credited to its account and failed to credit the amount for

four months, debited the account of one Rajendran

Cashews and credited the amount to his wife’s account,

debited the gold loan account of one Abel and credited it

to another account and withdrew it himself through his

ID for his pecuniary benefits, transferred amount from the

account of Rajendra Cashews and from the account of

Arul Doss through his ID and credited these amounts to

his account, sanctioned education loan to one Britto and

transferred portion of the amount to his own account,

foreclosed the Fixed Deposit in the name of Gopal without

the knowledge of the customer, credited the proceeds to

the SB Account of Gopal, unauthorizedly withdrew

amounts from the account of Gopal, opened TDR account

in the name of Gopal and remitted Rs. 6.00 lakhs for funding

the account. The petitioner is alleged to have committed

misconducts in terms of Rule-5(j) of Memorandum of

4586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Settlement dated 10.04.2002. An enquiry was conducted

on the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry

Officer submitted report finding that Charges 1, 2 and 3

and 5 to 13 are proved and Charge No. 4 is proved partially.

The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The

enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles

of natural justice. There is no legal or factual basis for the

findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was

dismissed from service based on the report of the Enquiry

Officer. The dismissal of the petitioner is illegal and

arbitrary. An award may be passed holding that the

punishment imposed on the petitioner is illegal and also

directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with

full back wages, continuity of service and all other

attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as below :

Since October 2003 the petitioner was working as an

Assistant in Panrutti banch of SBI. He was sanctioned a

personal loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- in September 2005. When

the Regional Office at Tiruchy was monitoring the

overdrawal of various loan accounts in September 2005 it

came to light that the petitioner was overdrawing personal

loan. On investigation it was found that the petitioner had

by himself increased the limit of his personal loan to Rs.

3.00 lakhs on 29.08.2007, then reduced it Rs. 2.00 lakhs on

14.11.2007 and again increased it to Rs. 3.00 lakhs on

03.04.2009 and had unauthorizedly overdrawn his personal

overdraft account. He had debited the cash credit limit

account of Rajendra Cashew, a customer of the Branch

with a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and transferred it to his SB

Account. He had made a debit of Rs. 50,000/- in the SB

account of Arul Doss and transferred this also to his SB

Account. These transfers were not authorized by the

customers. On investigation it came out that on 13.11.2009

the petitioner closed his overdraft account by cash

payment of Rs. 2,99,994/-. On verification it was found

that one R. Gopal had FD Account to the tune of

Rs. 6,06212/- and the petitioner had foreclosed that account

crediting the proceeds to the SB Account of Gopal. By

forging the signature of Gopal the petitioner had withdrawn

Rs. 4,50,000/-. Out of this amount he had credited Rs.

2,99,994/- to his personal loan account on 13.11.2009. The

petitioner opened a Demand Loan Account for Rs. 2.00

lakhs in the name of Vanathu Chinnappan without his

knowledge and had taken the loan amount for himself.

The petitioner used his ID number for debiting the SB

Account of Jayarani with Rs. 14,000/- on 11.01.2010 using

Plain Debit Voucher and credited the same to his SB

Account. The amount was misappropriated by the

petitioner. The petitioner also debited the account of one

Christuraj for Rs. 2,000/- and credited the same to his SB

Account. On 12.01.2010 the petitioner debited the SB

Account of Rajarajendran for Rs. 16,000/- and credited the

same to his SB Account without preparing voucher. On

31.08.2009 the petitioner received Rs. 2,000/- from Magalir

Mempadu Mandram, Nadumettukuppam but did not

account for it and credited to the customer’s account only

on 30.12.2009. On 21.10.2009 the petitioner debited the

account of Rajendra Cashew with an amount of Rs. 12,000/-

and credited the same to his wife’s SB Account without

preparing any voucher. On 21.01.2010 he unauthorizedly

debited the Gold Loan Account of Shri Abel with

Rs. 10,000/- under his ID number and credited the same to

another SB Account. On recommendation of the petitioner

Educational Loan of Rs. 60,000/- was disbursed to one

Britto on 01.10.2009 and credited to his SB Account. The

petitioner transferred Rs 50,000/- to his OD Account without

preparation of any voucher. On 26.09.2009 the petitioner

debited his account with Rs. 1.00 lakh without preparing

any voucher and credited it to his wife’s SB Account. On

the basis of the investigation report against the petitioner

13 charges were framed against the petitioner. A charge

memo was issued to him and he was asked to submit his

explanation. The petitioner gave a reply simply denying

the charges. In view of the denial of the charges an enquiry

was conducted. The Enquiry Officer gave report holding

that Charge No. 4 is partly proved and all other charges

are fully proved. The petitioner had given a representation

regarding the report. After considering the representation

the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on

the petitioner. The domestic enquiry held on the charges

against the petitioner was fair and proper and does not

call for any interference. The petitioner is not entitled to

any relief.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the

allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his

case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of the documents

marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W20 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M205.

Oral evidence was not adduced by either side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondents in dismissing

the petitioner from service is legal and justified?

(ii)

To what relief, if any to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

8. The petitioner who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier

at Panrutti Branch of the Respondent Bank was dismissed

from service on 27.09.2012 on the basis of the report of the

Enquiry Officer on the charges of misconduct alleged

against him. The Enquiry Officer has found that out of the

13 charges the 4th charge is proved partially and all the

other charges are fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority

acted upon this report and dismissed the petitioner from

service. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not

committed any misconduct, the management has not

established the charges against him and the Enquiry

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4587

Officer has entered a finding against him without any legal

or factual basis. The petitioner has raised the dispute

against the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority,

the First Respondent and Appellate Authority, the Second

Respondent.

The petitioner was suspended from service on

detecting certain acts of gross-misconduct allegedly

committed by him as per Ext.W1, the order dated

15.02.2010. The charge memo containing 13 charges, the

copy of which is marked as Ext.W2 was issued to him on

24.06.2011. The different charges leveled against the

petitioner can be examined separately to find out if there is

any justification for the report of the Enquiry Officer or

the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

10.

Charges 1 and 2 go together and can be discussed

together. The first charge runs as below:

Charge No. 1

You were sanctioned a personal loan (Overdraft)

limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on 20.09.2005. While you were

officiating as Assistant Manager (Cash) you were

given Capability Level-7 by the Branch Manager to

enable you to discharge your duties as Assistant

Manager (Cash). It is alleged that you have misused

the capability level -7 given to you by the Bank for

your personal benefits by altering your limits in your

personal loan (overdraft) Account, as mentioned

below:

29.08.2007 – altered the limit to Rs. 3.00 lakhs from

Rs. 2.00 lakhs

14.11.2007 – altered the limit to Rs. 2.00 lakhs from

Rs. 3.00 lakhs

03.04.2009 – altered the limit to Rs. 3.00 lakhs from

Rs. 2.00 lakhs.

Thus you have betrayed the trust and confidence

reposed by the bank on you and misutilized the power for

your personal benefit.

Charge No. 2

You had unauthorizedly withdrew from your

Personal Loan (Overdraft) Account over and above

the sanctioned limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as mentioned

in Annexure-I and thereby resorted to unauthorized

excess drawings in your personal loans (overdraft)

Account.

11.

As could be seen, the gist of Charges 1 and 2 put

together is that the petitioner altered his personal loan

(overdraft) limit thrice misusing the Capability Level-7 given

to him in his capacity as officiating Assistant Manager

(Cash) and withdrew amount over and above the

sanctioned overdraft limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. It is pointed

out on behalf of the Respondents that the factum of

alternations in the overdraft limit is not disputed by the

petitioner. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to

the defense brief submitted on behalf of the petitioner

before the Enquiry Officer and marked as Ext.W20. What

is stated in the defence brief is that on 29.08.2007 the

petitioner has erroneously altered the overdraft limit from

Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs. 3.00 lakhs and the same was approved

by some other official. It is also stated in the defence brief

that as the petitioner has not withdrawn any amount over

and above the limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs it could be seen there

was no malafides on his part. It is further stated in the

defence brief that on 14.11.2007, on coming to know of the

erroneous alteration, he has corrected the limit from

Rs. 3.00 lakhs to Rs. 2.00 lakhs. This was also approved by

one of the officials of the Branch. Regarding the third

alteration on 03.04.2009 to the limit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs from

Rs. 2.00 lakhs it is stated in the defence brief that the

petitioner has applied for enhancement of limit of his

personal loan to Rs. 4.00 lakhs on 08.07.2008 and the same

was sanctioned, but the petitioner has erroneously

changed the limit from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs. 3.00 lakhs

instead of Rs. 4.00 lakhs and this was also approved by

one of the officials of the branch. As per the defence brief

the petitioner has requested the Enquiry Officer to provide

the copy of the letter seeking enhancement in the overdraft

limit and also the sanction letter from the Zonal Office but

these were not made available till the end of the

proceedings. Thus it could be seen from the defence brief

that the case regarding Charge No. 1 is that the petitioner

has initially altered the limit erroneously from Rs. 2.00 lakhs

to Rs. 3.00 lakhs and then brought it down to Rs. 2.00

lakhs when he realized his error but subsequently again

he altered the limit from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs. 3.00 lakhs

which was also an error since he had already obtained

sanction for increasing the limit to Rs. 4.00 lakhs.

12.

The Respondents have produced Ext.M88 the

personal loan sanctioned letter dated 20.09.2005 for an

amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs which according to the

Respodnents is the overdraft limit sanctioned to the

petitioner. According to the Respondents there was no

enhancement of limit subsequently. So the petitioner had

no power to withdraw amount above the overdraft limit of

Rs. 2.00 lakhs which is permitted as per Ext.M88. There is

no case for the petitioner that on 29.08.2007 when he altered

the limit to Rs. 3.00 lakhs from Rs. 2.00 lakhs he had

submitted any application for enhancing the limit of

overdraft. His case is that it was only an error and he had

corrected it by showing the limit as Rs. 2.00 lakhs on

14.11.2007. It is his further case that he did not withdraw

any amount above the limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs within the

period from 29.08.2007 to 14.11.2007 and this show his

bonafides. Apparently, the petitioner has not even

requested for enhancing the limit. It is not known how the

petitioner could have enhanced the limit from Rs. 2.00 lakhs

to Rs. 3.00 lakhs. This certainly could not have been an

unintentional error as the petitioner could not have been

4588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under the supposition that he could enhance it himself

without any sanction. On the other hand it is apparent

from the admission made by the petitioner regarding the

“error” that he knew very well that he could not have

enhanced the limit on his own without any sanction for

enhancement of the limit. He had brought down the limit

to Rs. 3.00 lakhs on 14.11.2007.

13.

The case of the petitioner regarding alteration of the

limit from Rs. 3.00 lakhs on 03.04.2009 is that his request

for enhancement of the limit was sanctioned. The counsel

for the petitioner has stated in his notes of argument that

the Branch Manager has admitted that the proposal dated

08.07.2008 for enhancement of the loan limit has been

dispatched from the branch. According to him, if the same

was produced it would have come to light that the proposal

was sanctioned by the Bank. However, this argument of

the counsel could not be accepted. Perhaps Ext.M88 would

not show that this is the last order sanctioning overdraft

facility for the petitioner. However, it is clear from Ext.M88

that in the absence of any order of sanction enhancing

the limit and without complying with the conditions for

enhancement it would not have been possible for the

petitioner to use the overdraft facility. As seen from Ext.M88

the overdraft limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs is sanctioned to the

petitioner. However, the sanction order specifies that the

instructions contained in the annexure to the circular

regarding overdraft facility, regarding security and

documentation (including obtaining arrangement letter)

duly acknowledged by the employee) etc. are to be

complied with. Apart from other conditions it further states

that documents are to be signed wherever required. At

Page-96 of the document there is a letter by the petitioner

to the Trustee of State Bank of India Provident Fund /

Gratuity Fund authorizing them to hand over to SBI the

cheque for entire amount payable to him under the

Employee’s Provident Fund and Gratuity. It could be seen

that this was given as security for the overdraft facility.

Thus, it could be seen that it is not enough that an order

sanctioning enhancement in the overdraft limit is obtained

but consequent to the order the petitioner is bound to

execute documents for giving such overdraft facility. It is

pointed out by the counsel for the Respondents that every

loan account should be supported by an application for

loan, order of sanction and a demand promissory note.

Merely because the petitioner has made a request for

enhancing the limit he could not have altered the limit of

his overdraft loan account to his benefit without

complying with the terms and conditions of order of

sanction. He must have been well aware of this for the

very fact that he has executed such documents consequent

to Ext.M88 sanction order which allowed overdraft facility

of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Ext.M90 is the letter addressed to the

petitioner asking him to submit explanation for drawing

amount in excess of the limit. In Ext.M91, the explanation

given by him, the petitioner has stated that the transactions

have been carried out by him under the impression that

the limit applied for had been sanctioned until it was

brought to his notice as excess drawn. So the case of the

petitioner that his request for enhancement of limit in

overdraft facility was allowed and that is why he has altered

the limit in the system could not be accepted. He had also

admitted that he had utilized the fund upto the limit applied

for as and when required. The petitioner could not have

unilaterally altered the limit without a sanction order or

without complying with the directions in the sanction order.

The petitioner has apparently altered the limit of the

overdraft facility for his advantage. It is neither an error

nor an innocent act on his part.

14.

The annexure to the charge sheet refers to the excess

withdrawal made by the petitioner on the basis of the

altered limit of the overdraft facility. As seen from the

annexure he had exceeded the limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in

withdrawing the amount on 73 occasions. The fact that he

has not withdrawn any amount exceeding the limit in the

periods between 29.08.2007 and 14.11.2007 is not

justification for his altering the limit. It is admitted by him

that after he altered the limit on 03.04.2009 he was freely

making withdrawals exceeding the limit. In Ext.M91 he

has requested the Branch Manager to condone the lapse

on his part. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner

that the transactions have been approved by the checker

is no justification for withdrawal of the amount in excess.

The misconduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be

justified on the basis that it was approved by someone

else. The petitioner was very well aware that he could not

alter the limit of overdraft policy without a sanction order

and could have withdrawn amount only after compliance

of the terms of the sanction order. The petitioner was using

Capability Level-7 given to him in his capacity as officiating

Manager (Cash) to his advantage. The capacity was given

to him to transact his business with the customers. He

was using this facility to his own advantage. The act of

the petitioner certainly amounts to misconduct. The

Enquiry Officer had every reason to enter a finding against

the petitioner on these charges.

15.

Charge No. 3 and 13 go together and are discussed

together. These charges are as below:

Charge No. 3

You opened a Demand Loan Account in the name of

Sri Gopal Account No. 30828940598 for Rs. 2.00 lakhs

on 18.07.2009 without any supportive documents

and without the knowledge of the customer. You

have taken the loan amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs yourself

by means of cash without preparing voucher. The

customer Sri Gopal has confirmed that he has not

availed any loan for Rs. 2.00 lakhs on 18.07.2009 and

the original rerceipt was available with him at that

material time.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4589

You have foreclosed FD standing in the name of

Sri Gopal Account No. 30475328073 to the tune of

Rs. 6,06,212/- on 13.11.2009 without the knowledge

of the customer and credited the proceeds to the SB

account of Sri Gopal’s account number 10577761601.

The original script was with the customer at the

material time.

On 16.11.2009 you have debited SB Account

No. 10577761601 standing in the name of Sri Gopal

with Rs. 2.00 lakhs and credited it to unauthorized

DL Account No. 30828940598 opened by you in the

name of Sri Gopal.

The unauthorized transactions were put through by

you under your ID for your pecuniary benefits.

All the above transactions were done by you

without the knowledge of the customer. Your above

acts tantamount to misappropriation of the

customer’s money and the trust reposed by the

customers on the Bank.

Charge No. 13

You have foreclosed FD standing in the name of

Sri R. Gopal Account No. 30475328073 to the tune of

Rs. 6,06,212/- on 13.11.2009 without the knowledge

of the customer and credited the proceeds to SB

Account of Sri Gopal Account No. 10577761601. The

original script was with the customer at the material

time. You have unauthorizedly withdrawn an amount

of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs on 13.11.2009

from the customer Sri Gopal’s SB Account without

his knowledge and got payment from SWO counter

of Smt. R.N. Kumari.

You have opened the TVR Account in the name of

Sri Gopal on 17.11.2009 and remitted Rs. 6.00 lakhs

for funding the account through SWO Smt. R.N.

Kumari for which no credit voucher is available.

The unauthorized transaction of foreclosure was put

through by you under your ID for deriving pecuniary

benefits.

16.

As could be seen, the gist of Charge No. 3 is

that the petuitioenr opened a Demand Loan Account

in the name of one Gopal, an account holder for Rs.

2.00 lakhs without his knowledge and took the loan

amount by himself, he foreclosed the FD for Rs.

6,06,212/- standing in the name of Gopal without his

knowledge and credited the proceeds to the SB

Account of Gopal, then debited the SB Account of Gopal

for Rs. 2.00 lakhs and credited this amount to the

unauthorized DL Account opened by him in the name of

Gopal and all these were done to misappropriate the

customer’s money. Charge No. 13 is to the effect that after

foreclosing the FD Account and crediting the proceeds to

the SB Account of Gopal the petitioner withdrew Rs. 2.00

lakhs and Rs. 2.540 lakhs on 13.11.2009 and opened TDR

account in the name of Gopal on 17.11.2009 and remitted

Rs. 6.00 lakhs for funding the account through the Single

Window Operator, Smt. R.N. Kumari, without any credit

voucher.

17.

The Enquiry Officer who has separately discussed

the two charges had entered a finding that these charges

are proved. However, the Enquiry Officer did not discuss

the material that were placed before him or give any

reasons for arriving at such findings. He has merely

reproduced the written arguments submitted on behalf of

the Management and has stated that the Management

has established through the documents and oral evidence

that the charges are proved. Certainly, This should not

have been the manner in which the finding was arrived at

by the Enquiry officer. The Apex Court has held in the

decision in ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. PRESIDING

OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in CDJ 1985 SC 290

that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be

reached only if it is supported by the most cogent reasons

that appealed to the Authority. The apex court has noticed

in the above case that the enquiry report is an order sheet

which merely produced the stage through which the

enquiry passed. There could not have been a more gross

case of non-application of mind, it has been observed. In

the present case also so far as Charges 3 & 13 are

concerned, the Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind

to the facts of the case or tried to draw inference from the

available material. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry

Officer is not of any help in the matter. So a discussion of

the entire case independent of the report of the Enquiry

Officer is required.

18.

It has been pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioner that the Enquiry Officer was influenced by the

statement of Gopal marked in the proceedings. As already

stated there is no specific reference to the statement or

any other documents on the side of the Respondents in

arriving at the impugned conclusion by the Enquiry Officer.

There is only a general reference to the evidence and

documents. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed

out that the statement said to have been given by Gopal

and marked as Ext.M203 is to be discarded as it is not

proved properly. Gopal who is said to have given the

statement is not examined in the enquiry proceedings.

Certainly, the statement could not be relied upon in the

absence of examination of the author of the statement.

This principle has been asserted by the High Court of

Madras in the decision in CHAIRMAN, PANDYAN

GRAMA BANK, VIRUDHUNAGAR Vs. PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

reported in 2010 4 LLN 824. It was held here that such

statement proved through someone other than the author

of the statement is not substantive to prove the contents

of the statement. Reliance was also placed on the decision

in B. PADMAIAH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND

4590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

OTHERS represented by SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF

HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI reported in 2007 WRIT LR

7. It was held here that if the statement of the person is to

be relied upon the author of the statement has to be

examined and then only the delinquent would get an

opportunity to cross-examine as to the veracity of the

statement. Marking a statement not through the author of

the statement violate the principles of natural justice as

the delinquent loses the valuable opportunity to cross-

examine the author, to test the veracity of the statement

said to have been made by him, it was held. Relying upon

a statement which is not proved through the proper

procedure as a material is a negation of the principles of

natural justice and is a violation of the person’s right to

defend himself, it was observed. Probably, it is only on

account of this the counsel for the Respondents has not

even referred to the statement of Gopal in the written

submission given by him.

19.

Bereft of Ext.203 what is the evidence available to

justify Charges No. 4 and 13? It is alleged that the petitioner

had opened a Demand Loan Account in the name of Gopal

for an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on 18.07.2009 without

supportive documents and without the knowledge of the

customer and he had taken the loan amount by means of

cash without preparing voucher. It is not disputed that

Demand Loan Account was opened in the name of Gopal

under the ID of the petitioner. However, in the absence of

assertion from Gopal there is nothing to show that it was

done without the knowledge of the customer. The case of

the Management is that this was done without any

supportive documents. It is pointed out by the counsel

for the petitioner that every loan document would be kept

in the locker on the same day with joint custodian. It is

pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that it is

impossible to open Demand Loan Account without the

documents. The Branch Manager has admitted that

without the knowledge of the Manager no account can be

opened. The loan account was closed on 21.12.2009 by

remittance of cash. This was not by the petitioner but in

some other ID number. It is argued by the counsel for the

petitioner that if loan was not taken by Gopal, there is no

reason for him to close the account. In the VVR Checking

said period was missing. If there is no voucher for the

transaction it would have been in the register. In the

absence of any such entry the case that the transaction

was carried out by the petitioner without any voucher

could not be accepted.

20.

The next limb of charge 3 is that the petitioner

foreclosed FD standing in the name of Gopal to the tune

of Rs. 6,06,212/- on 13.11.2009 without the knowledge of

the customer and credited the proceeds to the SB account

of Gopal. As already stated Gopal himself did not come

forward to speak about this. Ext.M89 is the deposit receipt,

the maturity date of which is 26.08.2011. The amount was

credited to the SB account of Gopal on 13.11.2009, as seen

from Ext.M85. The transaction was carried out by the

petitioner with checking by another official. The absence

of any reference in the VVR Checking Register regarding

the absence of voucher comes to the rescue of the

petitioner in this case also. There is no evidence to show

that the transaction was carried out by the petitioner

without the knowledge of the customer.

21.

The next part of the charge is that on 16.11.2009 the

petitioner has debited the SB Account of Gopal with Rs.

2.00 lakhs and credited it to the unauthorized Demand

Loan Account of Gopal. Though the transaction was

carried out by the petitioner it is authorized by another

official. The non-reference to the absence of voucher in

the register is the case here also. So there is no way to

know if this was done by the petitioner without the

knowledge of the customer.

22.

So far as Charge No. 13 is concerned the case is that

after foreclosing the FD in the name of Gopal without his

knowledge and crediting the proceeds to the SB Account

of Gopal the petitioner unauthorizedly withdrew Rs. 2.00

lakhs on one occasion and Rs. 2.50 lakhs on another

occasion, both on 13.11.2009 and obtained payment from

the Single Window Operator counter of Smt. R.N. Kumari.

According to the Management on 17.11.2009 the petitioner

opened a FD in the name of Gopal for Rs. 6.00 lakhs. It is

stated by the counsel for the petitioner that both

transactions are not by the petitioner but under some

other ID number. Ext.M94 is the withdrawal form in respect

of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and Ext.M95 is the withdrawal slip in

respect of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The ID number of the person

who made the transaction is not legible from Ext.M94.

However, the ID number shown in Ext.M95 is ID Number

3582876. The ID number of the petitioner is 3587754.

Payment of cash regarding these transactions also are

done under ID 3582876.

23.

The counsel for the Respondents have stated that

the disputed documents were sent for opinion of the

forensic expert and the expert has given opinion that the

signature are not that of the account holders. It is seen

from Ext.M93 the letter written by the Branch Manager of

Panrutti Branch to the Assistant Director, Forensic

Sciences Department that withdrawal slips which are

marked as Ext.M94 and Ext.M95 were sent for the opinion

of the handwriting expert alongwith other disputed

signatures. Ext.M186 is the report of the forensic expert in

which it is stated that the disputed signatures are not that

of the account holder. Alongwith the two withdrawal slips,

the specimen signature in the account opening form of

Gopal, a credit slip and a withdrawal slip containing

signatures of Gopal also are seen sent to the Forensic

Expert for comparison. The signatures in the two withdrawal

slips dated 13.11.2009 are marked as Q9 and Q10 by the

expert. The forensic expert has reported that the disputed

signatures are not written by the person who wrote the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4591

admitted signatures. This report might show that the

signatures in the two withdrawals slips are not of Gopal.

However, this report is not of any consequence so far as

the petitioner is concerned for the reason that the maker

of the two withdrawals slips is not the petitioner but some

other official of the Bank. So there is no proof for the case

of the Management that the petitioner had withdrawn the

amounts by the withdrawal slips referred to earlier. Even

the TDR account opened in the name of Gopal for Rs. 6.00

lakhs is through Kumari, another official of the Bank.

According to the petitioner the voucher which is available

was not deliberately produced by the Bank. In short the

material furnished by the Management is not sufficient to

pinpoint the petitioner with Charges 3 and 13.

24.

Charge No. 4 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 4

You opened a Demand Loan Account of Rs. 2,00,000/-

in the name of one Vanathu Chinnappan bearing

Account No. 30907138743 on 29.09.2009 without the

knowledge of the customer and took the loan

amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- yourself. Sri Vanathu

Chinnappan has confirmed that he has not availed

the loan. Thus you have misappropriated the bank’s

money for your personal benefits.

25.

Ext.M68 is the screen shot in respect of the account

of Vanathu Chinnappan. On 29.09.2009 Rs. 2,00,000/- is

seen withdrawn from the account through the ID of the

petitioner. Ext.M134 is the VVR showing that cash advance

of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid through the ID of the

petitioner.

26.

Vanathu Chinnappan has been examined as PW7

before the Enquiry Officer. Prior to that he has given two

statements to the Branch Manager who made a preliminary

enquiry and these were marked through him at the time of

his examination. These statements are marked here as

Ext.M101 and Ext.M102 respectively. Translation of the

statements in Tamil has been furnished. So also translation

of the evidence of Vanathu Chinnappan which is in Tamil

also has been furnished. In Ext.M101 Vanathu Chinnappan

has stated that in the year 2008 he has made a Fixed Deposit

of Rs. 4,00,000/- with Panrutti Branch of the Respondent

and in December 2009 he had received the amount with

interest of Rs. 50,000/-. He has further stated that he had

not approached the Bank for a loan on the basis of his

Fixed Deposit Receipt. However, he came to know that

without his knowledge and consent someone had illegally

taken loan in his name. In Ext.M102 also he has stated

about his Fixed Deposit and withdrawal of the amount

with interest, the date of which he has specified as

26.10.2009. He has further stated that in February 2010 the

petitioner had informed that he had taken a loan of Rs.

2,00,000/- in his account. It is further revealed from the

statement that the petitioner had forcibly paid Rs. 2,00,000/-

to Vanathu Chinnappan. When he refused to accept it

there was pressure from the petitioner and he had accepted

the money on the assurance that it will not affect his family.

Later the Bank Officers met him and he came to know that

the loan was wrongly taken in his name by the petitioner.

On coming to know about this he had given back the

amount that was paid to him by the petitioner, says the

statement.

27.

Vanathu Chinnappan has affirmed during his

examination that Ext.M101 and Ext.M102 are the statements

given by him to the Bank. He has revealed during his

evidence that he never approached the Bank for loan based

on his Fixed Deposit. The petitioner who is his relative

and is working in the Respondent Bank had approached

him with his family members and had informed him that he

had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- in his name. He has

further stated that the petitioner has told him not to reveal

this to anyone as it will affect his job. It was thereafter the

petitioner had asked him to keep Rs. 2,00,000/- with him.

According to Vanathu Chinnapan the petitioner told him

to save his family and begged him not to reveal anything

about the loan. He received the amount on the assurance

that he will not encounter any problem on account of this.

28.

The witness Vanathu Chinnappan has been

extensively cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. He

has asserted during his cross-examination that the two

statements were given by him. He has stated that the

petitioner and his family had approached him at his house

with the amount. He has stated that it was only out of

compulsion he received the amount from the petitioner.

He even stated that he received the amount from the

petitioner in four bundles of Rs. 500/- denomination. On

coming to know of the misconduct committed by the

petitioner from the Branch Manager, he had returned the

amount, Rs. 1,00,000/- through the mother of the petitioner

and Rs. 1,00,000/- through his father-in-law.

29.

The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

evidence of Vanathu Chinnappan and has stated that the

evidence of his witness could not be relied upon because

of the contradictions in the evidence. He has pointed out

that in Ext.M101 what is stated is that he came to know

that someone had drawn Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 2,00,000/-

It is further pointed out by him that the document was

shown to Vanathu Chinnappan and he has admitted that

the amount shown in Ext.M101 is Rs. 20,000/- only. On

this basis it was argued by the counsel that the transactions

referred to in the charge is not one that is spoken to by the

witness but some other transaction. It is difficult to accept

this argument of the counsel. True, in Ext.M101 the amount

drawn is shown as Rs. 20,000/-. During his examination

the witness has stated initially that Rs. 20,000/- has been

taken out from his account without permission. However,

when Ext.M102 was put to the witness he has asserted

that this statement was given by him. In this he had

specifically stated that the petitioner had informed him

4592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that Rs. 2,00,000/- has been taken from his account and

also stated that the petitioner has compelled him to accept

Rs. 2,00,000/-. In fact the knowledge of the witness

regarding the exact amount collected by the petitioner

through the loan account created in the name of the witness

is only based on information and if he has committed any

mistake in giving the exact amount he cannot be found

fault with. What is material is that the witness had in

undoubted terms stated that he never opened a loan

account on his own and it is only when the petitioner

approached him with family, probably after investigation

was started, that he came to know that such an account

has been created. The witness has gone to the bank with

the Fixed Deposit Receipt with him and has collected the

entire amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest payable on it.

It was thereafter the petitioner had approached him with

the amount. The witness has stated that he was not willing

to accept the amount but it was thrust on him by the

petitioner who wanted to silence the witness by this money.

The witness has further stated that after he came to know

about the misdeed of the petitioner from the Branch

Manager he had given back the amount. The counsel for

the petitioner has argued that as per his statement the

witness had immediately repaid the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-

to the petitioner but according to his oral evidence it was

not immediately but after 18.05.2010 and that also

Rs. 1,00,000/- to the mother and Rs. 1,00,000/- to the father-

in-law. Even this, I am not able to accept as a contradiction

at all. For one thing it is not stated in Ext.M102 that it was

given back immediately. It merely stated that it was given

back. Anyhow the word “immediately” is relative and the

period intended depends upon the circumstances. It does

not necessarily mean at the same instance.

30.

Another argument that is advanced on behalf of the

petitioner against accepting the evidence of Vanathu

Chinnappan is the closure of the loan account. The witness

has admitted during his cross-examination that Ext.W40

contains his signature. This is the voucher for closing the

loan account. However, the witness has stated that he did

not go to the Bank to close the account though he has put

his signature. He has stated that he did not remit any

money in the Bank at all. The argument on behalf of the

petitioner is that the witness himself has reached the bank,

remitted the amount and closed the loan account. On the

side of the petitioner, DW1 a staff of the bank was

examined. This witness has stated that Vanathu

Chinnappan himself had come to the Bank and remitted

the amount. The very nature of evidence of DW1 would

show that he could not be telling the truth. In the usual

course it in unlikely for a staff of the Bank who is dealing

with several customers daily to remember about the

transactions carried out by these persons each day. There

is no case for DW1 that he had previous knowledge of

Vanathu Chinnappan. According to DW1, he remembers

about the closure of the account on 14.05.2011 since the

Manager had told him on that day that Vanathu

Chinnappan would be coming to close the account. He

did not reveal why the Branch Manager was so particular

to tell him about a particular customer who will be coming

to close the account. The only conclusion that could be

arrived is that DW1 who has carried out the transaction

wanted to save himself and also to protect a colleague

who might have been working with him for quite some

time. It is the specific case of Vanathu chinnappan that he

gave back the amount to the petitioner through his

relatives. The petitioner did not come forward to deny this

case. There is nothing to disbelieve Vanathu Chinnappan

who has stated that he did not open a loan account. So

also there is no necessity to disbelieve the version of this

witness that the petitioner had approached him and had

been seeking his help or that he had given back the money

and he came to know from the Manager about the atrocity

committed by the petitioner. I am not inclined to accept

the evidence of DW1 against the evidence of Vanathu

Chinnappan. There is sufficient material to establish that

the petitioner had opened a loan account in the name of

Vanathu Chinnappan without his knowledge and had

withdrawn the amount. The charge is found proved.

31.

Charge No. 5 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 5

You have debited from the SB Account No.

30022379307 of Jayarani on 11.01.2010 with Rs.

14,000/- by using plain debit voucher and credited

the same to your SB Account No. 30030909222. The

signature of Smt. Jayarani as appearing in the debit

voucher did not tally with the specimen signature

as available in the branch records. The unauthorized

transaction was put through by you under your ID

for deriving pecuniary benefits.

32.

There is no complaint from Jayarani who is said to

be the sister of the petitioner himself. The voucher

verification report dated 11.01.2010 marked as Ext.M175

shows that Rs. 14,000/- was debited from the account of

Jayarani. The User ID for the transaction is that of the

petitioner. Ext.M106 is the debit voucher regarding the

transaction. The counsel for the Respondent has stated

in the written submission that the forensic report has

confirmed that the signature in the debit voucher is not

that of Jayarani. Jayarani herself has not come forward

accusing that amount was debited from her account

unauthorizedly. Though it is seen from Ext.M93 that debit

voucher marked as Ext.M106 also was sent for the opinion

of the handwriting expert, the voucher itself does not show

this. In the case of Ext.M94 and Ext.M95 referring to Gopal

the signatures are marked as Q9 and Q10 respectively. On

going through Ext.M106 I do not find any such marking

given. In the report of the forensic expert there is no

reference to the date of the document or the persons

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4593

involved but only the number given by them to the

disputed signatures. So from Ext.M186, the report of the

handwriting expert also it cannot be made out if the

document was sent for expert opinion. So there is no

evidence to show that the original of Ext.M106 was sent

to the handwriting expert and opinion obtained. It has

been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner in the

written submission that there is no finding regarding

Ext.M106 in the forensic report. When the

circumstances I have already referred to above are

considered this assertion is to be accepted. So there is

total dearth of evidence against the petitioner regarding

this charge also.

33.

Charge No. 6 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 6

You have debited from the SB Account of Christuraj

(Account No. 30159064313) on 13.01.2010 an amount

of Rs. 20.000/- and credited the same to your SB

Account No. 30030909222. The unauthorized

transaction has been put through in your ID for

deriving pecuniary benefits.

34.

It is seen from Ex.M71 the statement of account of

Christuraj that on 13.01.2010 Rs. 20,000/- has been debited

from his account. The transaction is under the ID of the

petitioner. The amount is seen transferred to Account No.

3003090922 which is the joint account of the petitioner

and his wife. Ext.M110 is the transfer voucher regarding

this transaction. No doubt the transaction is done in the

ID of the petitioner and the amount is transferred to the

joint account of the petitioner and his wife. But what is the

evidence to show that this was done not by the concerned

account holder, without his knowledge and unauthorizedly

by the petitioner? The concerned account holder has not

been examined in the enquiry proceedings. A complaint

allegedly made by him has been marked in the enquiry

proceedings and is marked here as Ext.M100. However,

the reasoning given regarding Charge No. 3 for not relying

upon the complaint is applicable to the charge under

consideration also. The register does not show that the

voucher was missing. If there was no voucher it should

have referred to in the VVR Error Checking Register. Merely

because the transaction has been carried out under the ID

of the petitioner and the amount has been transferred to

his own account it cannot be found that it is an

unauthorized one. So this charge also is to be found not

established.

35.

Charge No. 7 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 7

You have debited from SB Account of Sri

Rajarajendiran, Account No. 10577746446 on

12.01.2010 the amount of Rs. 16,000/- and credited

the same to your SB Account No. 30030909222

without preparing any vouchers. The unauthorized

transactions has been put through by you in your

ID for your pecuniary benefits.

36.

It could be seen from Ext.M73 the SB Account of

Rajarajendiran that Rs. 16,000/- has been debited from his

account on 12.01.2010 and has been transferred to Account

No. 30030909222. Ext.M74 is the statement of account of

the petitioner showing that the amount of Rs. 16,000/- has

been transferred to the account of the petitioner and that

the transactions are carried out through the ID number of

the petitioner himself. It is stated on behalf of the

Respondents that no voucher has been prepared

regarding the transaction. The transaction is not disputed

by the petitioner. As could be seen, though the case is

that the account of Rajarajendiran was unauthorizedly

debited by the petitioner without any voucher the said

Rajarajendiran did not come forward with a complaint. He

has not been examined by the Management. He has not

even given a written complaint to the bank. It is pointed

out on behalf of the petitioner that though it is the case of

the Management that there is no voucher for the

transaction, the Error Checking Register which is marked

as Ext.W19 does not indicate that there was any missing

voucher. It is pointed out that in case the voucher is not

available, the Officer who is making the verification on the

day after the transaction would be making an entry of it

and makes the necessary corrections. In the absence of

this, there is no evidence to show that the transaction was

done by the petitioner without any authorization by the

concerned customer. This aspect becomes more relevant

in the absence of any complaint from Rajarajendiran, the

customer. So, though the amount has been transferred by

the petitioner from the account of Rajarajendiran to his

own account evidence is missing to show that it was done

without any authorization.

37.

Charge No. 8 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 8

You have not accounted for the amount of Rs. 2,000/-

received by you from Magalir Mempattu Mandram

on 31.08.2009 for credit of the ACC-SGSY Account

No. 30520099606, but you have credited the same to

the customer’s account number only on 30.12.2009

after a gap of 4 months. Your above act tantamount

to misappropriation of the customer’s money.

38.

Ext.M75 is the Screen Shot of the transaction in

respect of Rs. 2,000/- in the account of Magalir Mempattu

Mandram. The amount is seen credited to the account on

30.12.2009 in the ID number of the petitioner. The petitioner

has remitted the amount by transferring from his

account. He has stated that the amount was not

credited on 31.08.2009 and so it was made good on the

day of remittance i.e. 30.12.2009. Thus it could be seen

from the very entry made by the petitioner in Ext.M75 that

he has received the amount on 31.08.2009 and he has

remitted it only on 30.12.2009.

4594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

39.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that

the account holder has not made any complaint and was

not examined also. According to the petitioner, the amount

was remitted on 30.12.2009 with the permission of the Bank

Manager. According to him, if the voucher relating to the

transaction is produced it would show that the remittance

was made with the approval of the Manager. It is also

argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the daily banking

transactions some inadvertent errors are bound to occur

and no malafides can be attributed to the petitioner. It is

also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the amount

was deposited as insisted by the Branch Manager when

the customer approached the Branch Manager with the

complaint. It is very much apparent form Ext.M75 that the

amount was remitted by the petitioner on 30.12.2009. What

he has stated in Ext.M75 is that the amount was not

remitted on 31.08.2009 and it was made good on 30.12.2009.

This very much shows that though he has received the

amount on 31.08.2009 it was not remitted by him and only

when it came to light when the customer approached the

Bank the petitioner has remitted the amount. At the same

time Ext.M75 will not reveal that the remittance was made

as insisted by the Branch Manager. When so much

admission is made by the petitioner through Ext.M75 it is

upon the petitioner to examine himself and show under

what circumstances he has remitted the amount.

Explanation during the argument without the petitioner

coming forward to state his case will not justify the

transaction. The petitioner has waited till the irregularity

is noticed, to make remittance of the amount. If it was a

mistake on his part he would have made the remittance

immediately and would not have waited for 4 months to

do that. I find that the charge is established.

40.

Charge No. 9 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 9

You have debited in the account of Rajendra

Cashews Cash Credit A/c No. 30303643366 an

amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 21.10.2009 and credited

the same to your wife’s Smt. Lesy Josephine SB

Account No. 30291553731 without preparation of

any vouchers. The unauthorized transaction was

put through by you under your ID for your

pecuniary benefits.

41.

Ext.M76 is the Cash Credit Account of Rajendra

Cashew which shows that on 21.10.2009, Rs. 1,20,000 was

debited from the account and transferred to Account No.

30291553731 by the petitioner through his ID number.

Ext.M77 would show that the account to which the amount

is transferred is that of Lesy Josephine, the wife of the

petitioner. It is not in dispute that Lesy Josephine is the

wife of the petitioner.

42.

As in the case of other transactions the account

holder did not make any complaint to the Bank regarding

the transaction. The account holder had not been

examined. Though it is the case of the Respondent that

the transaction has been carried out by the petitioner

without preparing any voucher and without any

authorization from the account holder, no evidence is

available to prove this. The voucher verification report

which is marked as Ext.M15 would not show that any

voucher was missing. It was for the checking authorities

to detect the missing of the voucher and take necessary

corrective measures immediately. But there is no evidence

to show that any voucher was missing. So there is no

evidence to show that the transaction was carried out by

the petitioner on his own without any authorization from

the petitioner. In the absence of acceptable material, this

charge against the petitioner is found not established.

43.

Charge No. 10 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 10

You have unauthorizedly debited the Gold Loan

Account of Sri Abel Account No. 30831352921 with

Rs. 10,000/- on 21.01.2010 under your ID by means

of Plain Debit Voucher and credited the same to SB

Account No. 10577785500. The amount was

withdrawn on the same day. The transaction is over

and above the sanctioned limit. The unauthorized

transaction was put through by you under your ID

by misusing the Capability Level given to you for

deriving pecuniary benefits.

44.

Ext.M78 is the Screen Shot of the account of Abel

showing the relevant transaction. It shows that on

21.01.2010 Rs. 10,000/- has been debited from the Loan

Account of Abel through the ID number of the petitioner.

Ex.M108 is the withdrawal slip for the amount and Ext.M109

is the credit voucher. The transaction is not in dispute.

45.

Apparently the amount of Rs. 10,000/- debited from

the Gold Loan Account of Abel has gone to his own SB

account. The case is that the transaction was not in the

Capability Level of the petitioner and it is over and above

the sanctioned limit. There is nothing to show that the

petitioner has exceeded his Capability Level in carrying

out the transaction. Vouchers regarding the transaction

are available. There is nothing to show that these are not

vouchers signed by the account holder. The account holder

has not been examined in this respect. The charge itself is

not very clear. It is stated in the charge that the amount

was withdrawn on the same day. However, it is not

specifically stated whether the withdrawal was by the

account holder or by the petitioner. The only charge

specifically leveled against the petitioner is that he carried

out the transaction by misusing the Capability Level.

However, it is pointed out that the petitioner as Cash

Officer was in Level-7 and he had unlimited power to allow

operation of the Account. There is no evidence to show

that the petitioner had committed any irregularity regarding

this transaction. The charge is not proved.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4595

46.

Charge No. 11 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 11

You have transferred under your ID an amount of

Rs. 48,000/- from Account No. 30303643366 of

Rajendra Cashews, a CC Limit Account and Rs.

50,000/- from SB Account of Sri A. Arul Doss,

Account No. 30033943239 by means of Plain Debit

Vouchers and credited the same to your SB Account

No. 30030909222 on 11.11.2009. The unauthorized

transactions were put through by you under your

ID for deriving pecuniary benefits.

47.

Ext.M80 is the screen shot showing the transaction

of Rs. 48,000/- from the account of Rajendra Cashews

through the ID of the petitioner on 11.11.2009. The amount

seems to have been withdrawn in cash. Ext.M81 is the

screen shot showing that the account of Arul Doss was

debited by Rs. 50,000/- on the same date through the ID of

the petitioner. Ext.M82 is the screen shot showing that on

11.11.2009 Rs. 98,000/- was credited to the account of the

petitioner. The case of the Management is that the

petitioner unauthorizedly debited the accounts of Rajendra

Cashews and Arul Doss and remitted the amount to his

own account on the same day.

48.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, there is

no evidence available to show that these amounts were

unauthorizedly debited by the petitioner and remitted to

his account. According to him, the concerned vouchers

were signed by the concerned account holders. The

account holders did not make any complaint to the Bank.

Ext.M111 is the debit slip in the name of Rajendra Cashews

and Ext.M115 is the debit slip in the name of Arul Doss. In

the absence of complaint from the account holders there

is no material to show if these debit slips were not signed

by the account holders.

49.

The counsel for the Management has stated that

the concerned signatures were sent for the opinion of the

handwriting expert and these vouchers were found to be

not of the account holders. Ext.M93 the letter from the

Manager of Panrutti Branch to the Forensic Science

Department would show that the debit slips including the

two debit slips dated 11.11.2009 in the name of Rajendra

Cashews and Arul Doss also were sent for the opinion of

handwriting expert along with the other documents

containing the admitted signatures of these two persons.

However, it could not be made out from Ext.M186 the report

of the forensic expert if these two documents were

compared and opinion rendered. Disputed vouchers in

respect of seven account holders are seen sent to the

forensic expert for opinion. The forensic expert has given

opinion regarding the signatures of four persons only. It

is not clear from the report which are the signatures that

were compared and which were the signatures from which

it was not possible to draw any reliable opinion. Ext.111

and Ext.M115 do not contain any marking to show that

these were marked as disputed signatures and compared.

As pointed out earlier, in the case of Gopal the signatures

are seen given the marking Q while there is no such marking

in Ext.M111 and Ext.M133. The copies of the questioned

documents are not either sent back by the forensic

department to the Branch Manager or are not produced

alongwith the report resulting in disadvantage in finding

out whether these were compared at all. So this charge

also remains un-established.

50.

Charge No. 12 against the petitioner runs as below:

Charge No. 12

An educational term loan was sanctioned to

Sri Britto, Account No. 30875890174. An amount of

Rs. 60,000/- was disbursed on 01.10.09 and credited

to SB Account of Sri Britto. You have transferred an

amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the SB Account of Britto

to your OD Account 10577744314 under your ID.

The transactions were put through without

preparation of any vouchers. The unauthorized

transactions were put through your ID for deriving

pecuniary benefits.

51.

As seen from Ext.M83 Rs. 50,000/- from the account

of Britto has been debited by transfer through the ID

Number of the petitioner. Ext.M84 shows that the amount

was transferred to the account of the petitioner. Ext.M180

the Voucher Verification Report also reveals the transfer

through the ID of the petitioner. Ext.M181 is the Voucher

Verification Report in respect of the account of the

petitioner. This also reveals the transaction.

52.

The same argument that is raised in respect of other

transactions is advanced on behalf of the petitioner

regarding this charge also. There is no complaint from the

account holder regarding withdrawal from his account

unauthorizedly by the petitioner. The account holder has

not been examined. According to the petitioner if the debit

and credit vouchers of the respective accounts are

produced it would have been revealed that the petitioner

has not done anything irregular. It is pointed out that the

voucher verification report does not show that any

voucher was missing. Only because the transaction was

carried out through the ID of the petitioner and because

the amount has been transferred to the ID of the petitioner

it cannot be stated that the petitioner has done it

unauthorizedly and fraudulently for his own pecuniary

benefits. It is again pointed out on behalf of the petitioner

that the account of Britto is only an SB account and not

educational loan account. The material available are not

sufficient to prove this charge also.

53.

I have found charges 1, 2, 4 and 8 proved. The

counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charges

against the petitioner did not result in any loss to the

Bank even if found true. He has further argued that the

acts of the petitioner, if any, are not prejudicial to the

4596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interests of the Bank. According to him, most of the

charges, if proved, amount to only minor misconducts as

enumerated under Clause-7 of the settlement and so only

punishments other than dismissal, discharge or

compulsory retirement shall be given to the petitioner.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to two

decisions of the Apex Court, the STATE BANK OF

INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. BELA BAGCHI AND

OTHERS reported in 2005 7 SCC 435 and DISCIPLINARY

AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL MANAGER AND

OTHERS Vs. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK reported in

1996 9 SC 69 in this respect. In both cases it has been held

by the Apex Court that absence of loss is not necessary in

such cases. So whether loss has occurred to the Bank or

not is not a criteria in deciding the punishment.

54.

It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner

that in any case the Court has got sufficient power to

interfere with the quantum of punishment and considering

that the petitioner has got several years of service, that

the acts of the petitioner did not result in any loss to the

Bank and the charges did not lower the esteem of the

Bank a lesser punishment is to be imposed on the petitioner.

55.

The petitioner has been put in a position which

requires utmost honesty. He was bound to work for the

Respondent in a manner beyond suspicion. He was dealing

with the money of the public. The very fact that he has

been meddling with the amount of the customers is

sufficient to impose on him a major punishment. Even those

charges which are not sufficiently established do not put

him beyond the shadow of suspicion. True, the Bank was

not able to prove those charges. However, there is

sufficient reason for the Bank to lose its faith on the

petitioner. In most of the charges, it is alarming to notice

that money has gone from the account of the customers

to the account of the petitioner through his own ID. The

transactions as per Charges 3, 5, 6 7, 11 and 12 were carried

out in the ID of the petitioner and the amount debited from

the customer’s account had gone to the account of

petitioner. So far as charge No. 9 is concerned, this

transaction was also carried out by the petitioner and the

amount had gone to the account of the wife of the petitioner.

In spite of such specific charges the petitioner has not

cared to give any explanation except giving a one sentence

denial in Ext.W3. By way of explanation to the Charge

Memo he has just stated that he is denying all the

irregularities alleged against him. If the petitioner wanted

the Bank to regain its faith in him it was for him to get into

the witness box and state under which circumstances the

amounts were transferred to his own account. The

transactions having been carried out by him and the

amounts having gone to his own account, he is only one

and the proper person who could have explained how and

why these transactions were carried out. It is only natural

that the Bank has lost faith in the petitioner. However,

considering that all the charges alleged are not established

the punishment is modified to compulsory retirement from

service. Accordingly an award is passed as below:

The punishment imposed on the petitioner is

modified to Compulsory Retirement from Service.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

15.02.2010

Suspension Order

Ext.W2

24.06.2011

Charge Memo

Ext.W3

08.06.2011

Explanation of Charge Memo

Ext.W4

Enquiry Proceeding

Ext.W5

03.03.2012

Enquiry Report

Ext.W6

15.15.2012

Reply for Enquiry Report

Ext.W7

10.09.2012

Second Show Cause Notice

Ext.W8

18.09.2012

Reply for Second Show Cause

Notice

Ext.W9

27.09.2012

Order of First Respondent

Ext.W10

07.11.2012

Appeal petition to Appellate

Authority

Ext.W11

24.01.2013

Order of the Second Respondent

Ext.W12

24.06.2013

Petition filed by petitioner before

A.C. L.

Ext.W13

07.09.2013

Counter filed by Respondent

before A.C.L.

Ext.W14

Voucher

Ext.W15

Voucher Verification Report

Ext.W16

Screen Shot of Account

Ext.W17

Credit Voucher

Ext.W18

Statement of Account

Ext.W19

Checking Error Register

Ext.W20

24.06.2011

Defence Brief

Documents Marked:

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

29.08.2007

Screen Shot Transaction for

Rs. 3.00 lakhs relates to A/c.

No.

10577744314

Savarinathan

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4597

Ext.M2

14.11.2007

Screen Shot Transaction for

Rs.

2.00

lakhs

–

A/c.

No.10577744314

–

Savarinathan

Ext.M3

03.04.2009

Screen Shot of transaction for

Rs. 3.00 lakhs – A/c No.

10577744314 – A. Savarinathan

Ext.M4

04.09.2008

Screen Shot of transaction for Rs.

2,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M5

23.09.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,500/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M6

22.10.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,500/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M7

28.10.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M8

05.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M9

06.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M10

08.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M11

15.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M12

20.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

25,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M13

27.11.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M14

20.12.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M15

22.12.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M16

23.12.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

7,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M17

26.12.2008

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,000/- (Two transactions)-

A/c.

No.

10577744314–

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M18

07.01.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M19

10.01.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M20

29.01.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M21

06.03.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

4,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M22

26.03.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

7,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M23

31.03.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

600/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M24

28.04.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

7,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M25

30.04.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M26

30.04.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

22,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M27

02.05.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,500/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M28

06.05.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M29

21.05.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M30

26.05.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for

Rs.10,000/- A/c No. 10577744314

– A. Savarinathan

Ext.M31

27.05.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M32

13.06.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M33

22.06.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

4598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M34

25.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

9,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M35

03.07.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

90,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M36

07.07.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

4,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M37

17.07.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,500/- - A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M38

05.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

6,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M39

08.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M40

12.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- - A/c No.

10577744314 – A. Savarinathan

Ext.M41

14.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- - A/c No.

10577744314 – A. Savarinathan

Ext.M42

17.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,00,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314

– A. Savarinathan

Ext.M43

21.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- - A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M44

24.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

7,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

25.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

7,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M45

25.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

500/- and Rs. 500/- - A/c No.

10577744314 – A. Savarinathan

Ext.M46

26.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,250/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M47

28.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M48

29.08.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

75,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M49

18.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M50

22.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

4,500/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M51

23.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M52

26.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,00,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M53

03.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,00,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 –

A. Savarinathan

Ext.M54

05.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M55

06.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

08.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

08.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

13,500/- A/c No. 0577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M56

07.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,500/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M57

08.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

3,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

08.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for rs.

6,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

08.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M58

10.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M59

12.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

15,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M60

15.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

30,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4599

Ext.M61

24.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M62

03.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M63

12.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

5,000/- A/c No. 10577744314 – A.

Savarinathan

Ext.M64

18.07.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,00,000/- A/c No. 30828940598 –

Type of Account - DL

Ext.M65

13.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

6,06,812/- - A/c No. 30475328073

– Type of A/c - STDR

Ext.M66

13.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

6,49,261/- A/c No.10577761601 –

Type of Account - SB

16.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,00,000/- - A/c No. 10577761601

– Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M67

16.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,00,000/- A/c No. 30828940598 –

Type of A/c - DL

Ext.M68

29.09.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,00,000/- A/c No. 30907138743 –

Type of A/c – DL

Ext.M69

11.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

14,000/- A/c No. 30022379307 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M70

11.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

14,000/- A/c No. 30030909222 –

Type of A/c - SB

Ext.M71

13.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,000/- A/c No. 30159064313 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M72

13.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

20,000/- A/c No. 30030909222 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M73

12.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

16,000/- A/c No. 10577746446 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M74

12.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

16,000/- A/c No. 30030909222 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M75

30.12.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,000/- A/c No. 30520099606 –

Type of A/c – SHG CC/OD

Ext.M76

21.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,20,000/- A/c No. 30303643366 –

Type of A/c – CC/OD

Ext.M77

21.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

1,20,000/- A/c No. 30291553731 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M78

21.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- - A/c No. 30831352921 –

Type of A/c – DL

Ext.M79

21.01.2010

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

10,000/- - A/c No. 30831352921 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M80

11.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

48,000/- - A/c No. 30303643366 –

Type of A/c – CC

Ext.M81

11.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- - A/c No. 30033943329 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M82

11.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- - A/c No. 30030909222 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M83

01.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- - A/c No. 30875890174 –

Type of A/c – SB

Ext.M84

01.10.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

50,000/- - A/c No.10577744314 –

Type of A/c – OD

Ext.M85

13.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

6,06,812/- - A/c No. 30475328073

– Type of A/c – STDR

Ext.M86

13.11.2009

Screen Shot of Transaction for Rs.

2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- A/c

No. 10577761601 – Type of A/c

Ext.M87

13.06.2005

Account Opening Form (Two

Pages)

Ext.M88

20.09.2005

Personal Loan Sanction Letter for

Rs. 2,00,000/-

Ext.M89

01.12.2008

STDR Receipt for Rs. 6,06,812/-

with value dated 29.11.2008

Ext.M90

11.11.2009

Explanation letter for excess

drawing

Ext.M91

25.11.2009

Letter submitted by Sri A.

Savarinathan to Branch Manager,

Panrutti

Ext.M92

02.08.2010

Acknowledgement from Forensic

Sciences Department, Chennai

addressed to the Branch

Manager, Panrutti

4600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M93

02.08.2010

Letter addressed to the Assistant

Director, Forensic Sciences

Department, Chennai-4 by the

Branch Manager, Panrutti (Four

Pages)

Ext.M94

13.11.2009

Withdrawal slip for Rs. 2,50,000/-

pertaining to A/c No. 10577761601

Ext.M95

13.11.2009

Withdrawal slip for Rs. 2,00,000/-

pertaining to A/c No. 10577761601

Ext.M96

11.11.2009

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 48,000/

- pertaining to A/c No.

30303643366

Ext.M97

11.11.2009

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 50,000/

- pertaining to A/c No.

30033943239

Ext.M98

19.01.2010

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 10,000/

- pertaining to A/c No.

30831352921

Ext.M99

11.01.2010

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 14,000/

- pertaining to A/c No.

30022379307

Ext.M100

31.03.2010

Written Statement of Sri D.

Christhuraj (2 pages) addressed

to the Branch Manager, Panrutti

Ext.M101

18.05.2009

Written Statement of Sri R.

Vanathu Chinnappan addressed

to Branch Manager, Panrutti (2

pages)

Ext.M102

Written Statement of Sri Vanathu

Chinnappan addressed to Branch

Manager, Panrutti

Ext.M103

20.02.2010

During Preliminary Investigation,

Statement given by Sri S.

Seshadri, Deputy Manager (Adv.)

(2 pages)

Ext.M104

20.02.2010

During Preliminary Investigation,

Statement given by Sri K.P.

Jayabalan, Assistant Manager

Ext.M105

20.02.2010

During Preliminary Investigation,

Statement given by Sri S.

Arumugam

Ext.M106

11.01.2010

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 14,000/

- and the debitconfirmed by Smt.

Y. Jayarani

Ext.M107

19.01.2009

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 10,000/

- pertaining to A/c No.

30831352921

Ext.M108

21.01.2010

Withdrawal for Rs. 10,000/-

pertaining to A/c No. 10577785500

Ext.M109

21.01.2010

Credit Voucher for Rs. 10,000/- in

the name of Sri A. Abel A/c No.

10577785500

Ext.M110

A transfer debit voucher for Rs.

20,000 pertaining to A/c No.

30030909222

Ext.M111

11.11.2009

Plain

Debit

VoucherNo.

30303643366 of Rajendra Cashew

Ext.M112

13.11.2009

A withdrawal voucher for Rs.

2,50,000/- pertains to A/c No.

10577761601

Ext.M113

16.11.2009

A withdrawal voucher for Rs.

2,00,000/- pertains to A/c No.

10577761601

Ext.M114

13.11.2009

A withdrawal voucher for Rs.

2,00,000/- pertains to A/c No.

10577761601

Ext.M115

11.11.2009

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 50,000/

- pertains to A/c No. 3003394239

Ext.M116

04.09.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID 3587754 taken from

branch report (Branch Code 2251)

pertains to the transaction amount

of Rs. 2,000/- withdrawal transfer

of A/c No. 10577744314

Ext.M117

23.09.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

2,500/- withdrawal transfer of A/c

No. 10577744314

Ext.M118

22.10.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

2,500/- withdrawal transfer of A/c

No. 10577744314

Ext.M119

28.10.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

3,000/- withdrawal transfer of A/c

No. 10577744314

Ext.M120

05.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

3,000/- withdrawal transfer of A/c

No. 10577744314

Ext.M121

06.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

3,000/- withdrawal transfer of A/c

No. 10577744314

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4601

Ext.M122

08.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c No. 10577744314

Ext.M123

15.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c No. 10577744314

Ext.M124

20.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 25,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M125

27.11.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 10,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M126

20.12.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M127

22.12.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M128

23.12.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 7,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M129

06.03.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 4,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M130

26.03.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 7,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M131

28.04.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 7,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M132

30.04.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

5,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M133

30.04.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 22,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M134

02.05.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID no. 3582876pertains to

the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,500/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M135

06.05.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID 3035719 pertains to the

transaction amount of Rs. 5,000/-

cash

withdrawal

of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M136

21.05.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M137

27.05.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID 3035719 pertains to

the transaction amount of

Rs. 50,000/- withdrawal transfer

of A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M138

22.06.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M139

04.07.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID 1478176 pertains to

the transaction amount of

Rs. 4,000/- cash withdrawal of A/

c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M140

05.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 6,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M141

08.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 10,000/- withdrawal transfer

of A/c. No. 10577744314

4602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M142

12.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M143

12.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M144

14.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- cash

withdrawal

A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M145

17.08.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs.

1,00,000/-

debit

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M146

21.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M147

24.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 7,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M148

25.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 7,000/- cash withdrawal and

Rs. 500/- and Rs. 500/- withdrawal

transfer of A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M149

26.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,250/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M150

28.08.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID 3582876 pertains to the

transaction amount of Rs. 3,000/-

cash

withdrawal

of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M151

18.09.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 10,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M152

22.09.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 4,500/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M153

23.09.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M154

26.09.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 1,00,000/- withdrawal transfer

of A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M155

03.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 1,00,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M156

05.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 3,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M157

06.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 3,000/- : Rs. 13,500/- &

Rs. 50,000/- cash withdrawal of A/

c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M158

07.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 1,500/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M159

08.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- cash

withdrawal and Rs. 10,000/-

withdrawal transfer of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M160

10.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 50,000/- cash withdrawal of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M161

12.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4603

Rs. 15,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M162

15.10.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 30,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744134

Ext.M163

24.10.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 10,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M164

03.11.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M165

12.11.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 5,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M166

03.07.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 90,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M167

17.07.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 1478176 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 10,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 10577744314

Ext.M168

31.03.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 600/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 1057774414

Ext.M169

26.12.2008

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3035719 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 20,000/-

withdrawal transfer of A/c. No.

10577744314

Ext.M170

18.07.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- cash adv. of A/c.

No. 30828940598

Ext.M171

13.11.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 6,49,261/- closed transfer of

A/c. No. 30475328073

Ext.M172

13.11.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 6,49,261/- dep. Transfer of A/

c. No. 10577761601

Ext.M173

16.11.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3582876 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- withdrawal transfer

of A/c. No. 10577761601

Ext.M174

29.09.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- cash adv. of A/c. No.

30907138743

Ext.M175

11.01.2010

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

14,000/- Dr. withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 30022379307 &

Rs. 14,000/- Cr. Dep. Tr of A/c.

No. 30030909222

Ext.M176

13.01.2010

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 20,000/- Dr. withdrawal

transfer of A/c. No. 30159064313

and Rs. 20,000 Cr. Deptr of

A/c. No. 30030909222

Ext.M177

30.12.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs.2,000/- dep. transfer of

A/c. No. 3052009606

Ext.M178

11.11.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of Rs.

48,000/- Dr. Debit of A/c.

No. 300303643366 and Rs. 50,000

Dr. Debit of A/c. No. 30033943329

Ext.M179

11.11.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 98,000/- Credit of A/c.

No. 3003909222

Ext.M180

01.10.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 50,000/- withdrawal transfer of

A/c. No. 30875890174

4604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M181

01.10.2009

Voucher Verification report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 50,000/- dep.Transfer of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M182

13.11.2009

Voucher Verification Report of

Checker ID No. 3587754 pertains

to the transaction amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/-

cash

transfer

A/c.

No. 10577761601

Ext.M183

Screenshot taken under ID No.

2980320 pertaining to the

specimen signature of A/c. No.

30159064313

Ext.M184

Screenshot

A/c.

No.

30022379307 taken under ID

2980320

Ext.M185

The Screenshot taken under ID

2980320 pertaining to specimen

signature of A/c. No. 10577785500

Ext.M186

31.08.2010

Forensic Report No. 246/2010

submitted by the Assistant

Director, Forensic Science

Department,

Chennai-4

containing 5 pages

Ext.M187

Statement of Account of A/c.

No. 10577744314 of Sri A.

Savarinathan starting from

01.08.2007 to 31.12.2010 (Pages 16)

Ext.M188

16.11.2009

A cash withdrawal voucher for

Rs. 2,00,000/- pertaining to A/c.

No. 10577761601 numbering as

246 10

Ext.M189

24.03.2008

Cash withdrawal voucher for

Rs. 50,000/- in respect of A/c.

No. 10577761601 numbered as

246/12/A 14 by Forensic

Department

Ext.M190

24.01.2008

A cash deposit voucher for

Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of

10577761601 numbered as 246/10/

A 13 by Forensic Department

Ext.M191

23.12.2008

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 7,000/-

pertaining

Account

No. 10577744314

Ext.M192

20.12.2008

Plain Debit Voucher for Rs. 5,000/-

pertains

the

account

No. 10577744314

Ext.M193

Transfer Credit Voucher for

Rs. 5,000/- in respect of account

no. 30030909222

Ext.M194

10.10.2009

Plain Debit Cash Voucher for

Rs. 50,000/- in respect of account

No. 10577744314

Ext.M195

06.10.2009

Plain Debit Cash Voucher for

Rs. 3,000/- in respect of A/c. No.

10577744314

Ext.M196

06.10.2009

Plain Debit Cash Voucher for

Rs. 50,000/- in respect of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M197

23.12.2008

Credit Voucher for Rs. 7,000/- in

respect of 30030909222

Ext.M198

24.10.2009

Plain Debit Ttransfer Voucher for

Rs. 10,000/- in respect of A/c. No.

10577744314

Ext.M199

24.10.2009

Credit Transfer Voucher for

Rs. 10,000/- in respect of A/c.

No. 30030909222

Ext.M200

15.10.2009

Plain Debit Cash Voucher for

Rs. 30,000/- in respect of A/c.

No. 10577744314

Ext.M201

05.10.2009

Plain Debit Cash Voucher for

Rs. 3,000/- in respect of A/c. No.

10577744314

Ext.M202

08.08.2009

A withdrawal voucher for

Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to the A/c.

No. 30030909222

Ext.M203

22.10.2010

A written statement signed by

Sri R. Gopal which was witnessed

by Sri R.G. Rajendran, South

Sathupattu, Panrutti in respect of

following accounts

SB A/c 10577761601

STDR A/c. No. 30522838718

STDR A/c. No. 30473918019

STDR A/c. No. 30475328073

Ext.M204

17.11.2009

VVR taken from Checker ID

No. 3587754 for Rs. 6,00,000/- cash

deposit in respect of A/c. No.

30960374436

Ext.M205

24.09.2010

A Screen Shot of Deposit

transaction enquiry relating to

A/c. No. 30960374436 in the name

of Sri R. Gopal for Rs. 6,94,250/-

with the narration of “premature

closure”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4605

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2267-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds çcaèkra=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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2015)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7-12-2015 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@83@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2015.

[No. L-12012/83/2014-IR (B-I)]

VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 19th November, 2015

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 7/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

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

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

the Management of State Bank of India and Another and

their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri R. Kesavan

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Regional Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

State Bank of India,

Chennai-600001

2. The Branch Manager

: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

State Bank of India,

Thirupathur,

Vellore District

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s S.V. Karthikeyan,

Petitioner

R. Elçabeth, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri S. Ravindran, S. Bazeer

Management

Ahmad, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/83/2014-IR (B.I)

dated 13.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether services of Sri R. Kesavan, temporary

security guard worked on leave vacancies need to

be regularçed in the permanent post of Security

Guard at State Bank of India, Tirupattur Branch or

any other branch of the Bank. If not what is the

relief to be given to Sri R. Kesavan?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 7/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner are as below:

The petitioner who was working in the Indian Army

had opted for Voluntary Retirement and was relieved from

duty. The petitioner applied for the post of Security in the

Tirupathur Branch of the First Respondent, the Second

respondent and was appointed as Security on 01.05.2005.

His salary calculated based on the number of duties he

attended used to be remitted to his bank account

maintained with the Second Respondent. After joining duty

on 01.05.2005 the petitioner was regularly working as

temporary security till 28.07.2006 and a certificate of

temporary service was issued to the petitioner by the

Second Respondent. He was again asked to work as

Security and was continuously working from 05.01.2007

to 14.10.2012. In the year 2010 the persons working as

temporary guards were called for interview and were made

permanent by the First Respondent but the petitioner did

not receive any intimation regarding such interview. In

the year 2012 also the First Respondent had called for

recommendations and particulars of the temporary guards

fit for appointment as permanent guards. Though the

Second Respondent informed the petitioner that his name

was also forwarded to the First Respondent, the petitioner

did not receive any call letter from the First Respondent.

On enquiry the petitioner came to know that his name was

not forwarded at all. On 14.10.2012 the petitioner was asked

to relieve from duty, without any reason. The petitioner

was working with the second Respondent on regular basis

and had completed 240 days of service in all the calendar

4606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

years from 2005 to 2012. The order of termination of the

petitioner on 14.10.2012 is illegal. The petitioner ought to

have been regularçed in the service of the First Respondent

as permanent guard. An award may be passed directing

the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner and regularçe

him in service with backwages, continuity of service and

other attendant benefits.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

On exigencies the branches of the First Respondent

used to engage temporary employees under certain

circumstances. So far as recruitment of Security Guards

are concerned there was an embargo on recruitment till

2008 and only from 2008 the recruitment process of Security

Guards was started. The guidelines listed for recruitment

of guards provides for eligibility criteria. Only candidates

sponsored by Zila Sainik Board/Rajya Sainik Board from

Ex-Servicemen would be considered for interview. The

petitioner was engaged as temporary Security Guard by

the Second Respondent. His name was sponsored by the

Sainik Board for the first time only in 2012. However, his

name could not be shortlisted as he was aged above 45

years. The petitioner was lastly employed on 14.10.2012

even according to him. So the question of regularçation

could not be considered. Only temporary guards who are

in service can be considered for regularçation. The

petitioner is put to strict proof in respect of period of

service and the days of work by him in each year. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement

in tune with the Counter Statement filed by the First

Respondent.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W6 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M5.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the claim of the petitioner to be regularçed

in the post of Security Guard with the First

Respondent is justifiable?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner has claimed that he had been working

as Temporary Security Guard with the Second Respondent

from 01.05.2005 and except for a gap between 28.07.2006

and 05.01.2007 he had been working with the Second

Respondent in this capacity until 14.10.2012 on which

date he was orally terminated. According to the petitioner

his termination is without any justification and he is entitled

to be reinstated in service and regularçed.

The statement made by the petitioner before the

Labour Commissioner raising the dispute is not produced

before the Tribunal. However, on perusing the schedule

of reference the case of the petitioner before the Labour

Commissioner seems to have been that he was working as

Temporary Security Guard on leave vacancies and is

entitled to be regularçed in the permanent post of Security

Guard. The schedule of reference does not refer to

reinstatement of the petitioner in service. In the Claim

Statement there is no case that the petitioner was working

on leave vacancies. His case is that he was continuously

working with the Second Respondent. As stated earlier.

the prayer of the petitioner in the Claim Statement includes

a prayer for reinstatement in service also.

10.

The petitioner has filed Proof Affidavit reiterating

his case in his Claim Statement. In his Claim Statement and

in the Proof Affidavit he has stated that he was engaged

in duty for 180 days during the period from 2005 to 2006

and was again called in service in the year 2007. According

to him, he was engaged in temporary service of 221 days

in the year 2008, 308 days in the year 2009, 295 days in

2010, 385 days in the year 2011 and 241 days in the year

2012 till 14.10.2012 the date on which he was orally

terminated.

11.

To prove his period of service, the petitioner has

produced Ext.W4, a certificate regarding his service issued

by the second Respondent, Ext.W5 said to be the extract

of Attendance Note Book and Extr.W6 the extract of the

Bank Account of the petitioner. Ext.W4 would show that

the petitioner had worked for 99 days with the Second

Respondent for the period from 01.05.2005 to 31.12.2005

and for 81 days for the period from 06.01.2006 to 28.07.2006.

This document is a certificate of temporary service issued

by the Chief Manager, Tirupathur branch. Ext.W5 is the

document described as Attendance Note Book containing

the signature of the petitioner and the seal of the Second

Respondent. It could be seen from this that he had worked

for three months in 2007 and also during the entire

period from 2008 until August 2012. His signature on daily

basis is seen in this document. Mostly he seems to have

been working in the place of those persons who were on

leave. He has stated during his cross-examination that

other names found in the document are that of permanent

Security Guards.

12.

According to the Respondents, recruitment to the

post of permanent Security Guards could have been done

only as per the guidelines for recruitment of bank guards

a copy of which is marked as Ext.M5. As per this the Zila

Sainik Board/Rajya Sainik Board are to be approached for

names of persons from Ex-Servicemen to be recruited for

the posts. The eligibility criteria also is prescribed in the

guidelines. According to the Respondents, by the time

the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Sainik

Board he had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for

the post and so his name could not be shortlisted. However,

Ext.M5-the guidelines on which the Respondent is relying

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4607

was framed only in 2013. MW1 has stated during his cross-

examination that recruitment was taking place from the

year 2008. But guidelines for recruitment of guards prior

to 2013 is not produced.

13.

What is seen from the admission of MW1 during

his cross-examination is that the name of temporary guards

who have completed 180 days of work used to be sent to

the Regional Office for consideration of permanency. He

further stated that the name of the petitioner has not been

sent for consideration of permanency. However, according

to the witness the petitioner has not given any application

to send his name for permanency. The application should

have been given to the Branch Manager. There is a letter

from the Office of Ex-Servicemen Welfare marked as Ext.M4

which states that the petitioner have not registered his

name with the Zila Sainik Board for employment and his

name was not forwarded for re-employment during the

period from 2008-2011 to the First Respondent. The

petitioner has admitted during his cross-examination that

he did not give any application for the post of guards in

the year 2010. In 2012 also he did not submit any application

to participate in the interview. He further admitted that he

did not submit any application to the Welfare Board for

employment in the Bank. Thus, it could be seen that the

petitioner had not taken any specific steps to see that his

name is sent to be considered for regularçation. It seems

that by the time he got his name sponsored by the Office

of the Ex-Servicemen he had passed the age of 45 years

which was the age limit prescribed for the post. So he was

not considered for the post. Recruitment was conducted

for the vacancies and the vacant posts were filled. It is on

account of this the petitioner was not able to continue to

work with the Second Respondent. The demand of the

petitioner for reinstatement or regularçation is without

justification.

14.

As already stated the petitioner has been working

with the Second Respondent for several years continuously

and he seems to have worked for more than 240 days in

many of these years. There is no case for the respondents

that the petitioner was terminated in compliance with

Section-25F of the Act. So the Respondents are bound to

pay compensation. Considering the period of service of

the petitioner, the amount of compensation is fixed as

Rs. 3,00,000/-.

15.

Accordingly the Respondents are directed to pay

the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation

within a month of the publication of the award. In case of

default in payment within the prescribed period, the amount

will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the

award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri R. Kesavan

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri S. Gnanasambandham

Management

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

22.07.1983

Transfer Certificate of the

petitioner

Ext.W2

19.10.2001

Security Training Certificate

Ext.W3

03.08.2002

Community Certificate of the

Petitioner

Ext.W4

25.01.2007

Certificate of Temporary Service

issued by the 2nd Respondent

Ext.W5

Extract of the Attendance Note

Book

Ext.W6

Extract of the Bank Account of the

Petitioner

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

13.06.2012

Details regarding personal

particulars of 166 Ex-Servicemen

candidates

Ext.M2

05.07.2012

Internal communication regarding

constitution

screening

committee

Ext.M3

16.07.2012

Internal communication regarding

short listing of Ex-Servicemen

candidates

Ext.M4

13.06.2015

Letter from Deputy Director,

Office of the Ex-Servicemen’s

Welfare, Vellore

Ext.M5

30.10.2013

Guidelines for recruitment of bank

guards

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2268-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lksfl;sfVM

LVksu b.MLVªht (dksVk) fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 5@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@9@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

4608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2012)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-29011/9/2011-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k dzekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&5@2012

fnukad LFkkfir % 17@4@12

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k dza-

,y&29011@9@2011&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 23@2@2012

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ o mi/kkjk ¼2,½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

jk/ks’;ke }kjk lsdzsV~zh] jk”V~zh; etnwj la?k ¼baVd½]

jkexate.Mh] dksVk

&çkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

çlhMsUV] ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu b.MLV~zht ¼dksVk½ fy-]

jkexate.Mh] dksVk

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh lh- ,l- oekZ

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh oh- ds- tSu

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad %

9@1@2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

23@2@2012 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh

/kkjk 10¼1½?k½ o mi/kkjk ¼2,½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

lEçsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Limited, Kota

in not regularçing the services of Shri Radhey Shyam

is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa

dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

çkFkhZ }kjk viuk Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k çLrqr dj

O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ Jfed] fu;kstd i{k ds vkS|ksfxd laLFkku esa

crkSj [kku etnwj csynkj fnukad 9@12@94 ls rRdkyhu etnwjh osrueku

350&750 esa fu;qDr gqvk Fkk o fcuk fdlh f’kdk;r ds [kku y{ehiqjk o

vU; foHkkxksa esa dk;Z djrk pyk vk jgk gSA çkFkhZ Jfed dks fn-

9@12@95 ds ckn vFkkZr fn-1@1@96 ls vU; Jfedksa dh HkkWfr fu;kstd

i{k }kjk LFkk;h fd;k tkdj leLr osru&HkRrs M~;w&M~zkWu ds fglkc ls çnku

ugha fd;s x;sA çkFkhZ Jfed fujUrj :i ls dk;Z djrk jgk ijUrq çkFkhZ ls

dfu”B Jfedksa dks fu;kstd i{k us Lo;a dh bPNk ls inkSUufr nsdj eqa’kh

cuk;k fdUrq çkFkhZ Jfed dks eqa’kh ugha cuk;k] uk gh eqa’kh dk osrueku fn;k

ftlls çkFkhZ dks 5354@&:- çfrekg dk uqdlku gqvk tks ns; ds eqdkcys

5124@&:- çfrekg de FkkA çkFkhZ Jfed }kjk tfj;s Jfed la?k dk;Zokgh

djus ds fy, fuosnu fd;k x;k o Jfed la?k dh vksj ls fnukad

11@6@09 dks ekax&i= fu;kstd i{k dks is’k fd;k] dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha

djus ij fnukad 10@9@10 dks le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ds le{k

fookn çLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr Dyse LVsVesUV ds ek/;e ls çkFkhZ Jfed us

Lo;a dk Dyse LVsVesUV Lohdkj fd;k tkdj çkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad

9@12@94 ls crkSj csynkj fu;fer ekurs gq,] fn-1@1@96 ls LFkk;h

Jfed o 1@6@2009 dks crkSj eqa’kh ekurs gq, leLr osru&HkRrs] ykHk ,oa

fcyks xzkm.M dh etnwjh fn-1@10@94 ls 30@9@2006 rd dk vUrj

57]356@&:- ,oa fn-1@6@2009 ls 5124@&:- çfrekg fu.kZ; dh fnukad

rd ds o 2]00]000@&:- ekufld larki o Msestst ds crkSj eqvkotk e;

C;kt ds vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fnyk;s tkus dh çkFkZuk dh gSA

;g çdj.k Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc çLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq fu;r Fkk

fd vkt fnukad 9@1@15 dks çkFkhZ Jfed us ,d çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr dj

O;Dr fd;k fd çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; jkthukek gksus ls çfri{kh] çkFkhZ dks

csynkj ¼Msyh ostst½ ls csynkj ds in ij fnukad 1@1@15 ls LFkk;h

djsxk rFkk LFkk;h dkexkj ds vuq:i lHkh ns; ykHk Jfed dks nsxkA çkFkhZ

Jfed] çfri{kh ls 10]000@&:- dh jkf’k {kfriwfrZ ds vkSj çkIr djsxk

ftldk Hkqxrku çfri{kh] çkFkhZ dks vkt gh tfj;s pSd la-- 005602 fn-

2@1@15 ,pMh,Qlh cSad ls dj jgk gSA çkFkhZ ,oa çfri{kh ds e/; vU;

dksbZ fookn ‘ks”k ugha jgsxkA mDr çkFkZuk&i= ds ek/;e ls jsQzsUl ls

lEcfU/kr fookn bl le>kSrs ls r; gqvk ekus tkus o mDr vuqlkj gh

çdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;ky; ls dh x;h gSA çkFkhZ

Jfed dks mlds vf/koDrk@çfrfuf/k Jh lh-,l-oekZ }kjk ‘kuk[r fd;k x;k

gSA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4609

bl çdkj çdj.k esa çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; le>kSrk gksus ls o çkFkhZ

}kjk ,d çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr dj gLrxr jsÝsUl ls lEcfU/kr fookn dk

fuLrkj.k le>kSrs ds vuqlkj gh fd;s tkus ls ;g ekeyk fookn jfgr gks

tkrk gS o U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lEçsf”kr jsÝsUl@fookn blh vuq:i mRrfjr

gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk çklkafxd

vkns’k fn-23@2@2012 ds tfj;s lEçszf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl fookn dks blh

vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd çkFkhZ Jfed jk/ks’;ke o vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

ds e/; jkthukek@le>kSrk gksus o çkFkhZ }kjk çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr dj çkFkhZ

o vçkFkhZ ds e/; dksbZ fookn ‘ks”k ugha jguk çdV djus ls ekeyk fookn

jfgr gks tkrk gSA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2269-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lksfl;sfVM

LVksu b.MLVªht (dksVk) fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 2@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@1@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2010)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-29012/1/2010-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh’k]

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&2@2010

fnukad LFkkfir % 17@5@10

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k

Øa-,y&29012@1@2010&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 22@4@2010

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

jkts’k dqekj iq= pqUuhyky }kjk tujy lsØsVªh]

fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dksyksuh]

Nkouh] dksVk

&çkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

çcU/kd] ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½ fy-]

jkexate.Mh] dksVk

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh ,u- ds- frokjh

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh oh- ds- tSu

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad %

2@12@2014

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

22@4@2010 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk

10¼1½?k½ o mi/kkjk ¼2,½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

lEçsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&

“Whether the action of the management of

Associated Stone Industries Ltd., Ramganjmandi,

Distt. Kota in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh

Kumar S/o Shri Chunnilal. Ex-Munshi w.e.f.

14/3/2009 is legal and just? To what relief the

applicant Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Chunnilal is

entitled and from which date?”

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr

i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k Dyse LVsVesUV çLrqr

dj ;g O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ Jfed dks vçkFkhZ ,lkslsfl;sVsM LVksu

b.MLVªht fy- jkexate.Mh ftyk dksVk ds çcU/kdoxZ us fnukad 13@10@93

ls csynkj@eqa’kh dk dk;Z djus gsrq lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k FkkA çkFkhZ dh

ekrk /kkiw Hkh fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ dk;Zjr Fkh ijUrq mUgsa lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q ds

iwoZ gh lsokfuo`Rr dj fn;k x;k Fkk ftldk fookn çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA

fookn çLrqr djus ds ckn fu;kstd us çkFkhZ dks ijs’kku djuk ‘kq: dj

fn;kA vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us blh dkj.k ls çkFkhZ Jfed dks Hkh ukSdjh ls

fudkyus dh /kedh nh] etcwj gksdj çkFkhZ dks viuh ekrkth ds fookn esa

le>kSrk djuk iM+k ijUrq fu;kstd us çkFkhZ Jfed dks ijs’kku djuk tkjh

j[kk o çkFkhZ dks lsok esa vuqifLFkr jgus lEcU/kh vkjksi&i= fn;k o vçkFkhZ]

çkFkhZ dh ekrkth ds fookn ds QyLo:i jath’k j[kus yxk] tcfd çkFkhZ

lsok ls vuqifLFkr ugha jgk gSA çkFkhZ dks fnukad 2@2@09 dk vçkFkhZ

4610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fu;kstd dk ,d i= çkIr gqvk ftlesa fn- 31@10@08 ls viuh M;wVh ls

fcuk iwoZ lwpuk o fcuk vodk’k LohÑr djk;s vuqifLFkr jguk crk;k

ftldk Li”Vhdj.k çkFkhZ Jfed }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k ftldh jlhn Hkh

çkFkhZ Jfed dks ugha nh x;hA fu;kstd us çkFkhZ Jfed ij vkjksfir vkjksiksa

dh dksbZ tk¡p ugha dh o mls tk¡p vkfn esa Hkkx ugha ysus fn;k x;k rFkk

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us jftLVMZ i= fn-14@3@09 dk çkFkhZ Jfed dks Hkstdj

lsok eqfDr dk vkns’k ns fn;kA bl çdkj çkFkhZ Jfed dks ukSdjh ls gVkus

ds iwoZ fdlh çdkj dh dksbZ tk¡p ugha dh x;h] çkFkhZ Jfed dks viuk i{k

j[kus dk dksbZ volj çnku ugha fd;k x;k o uSlfxZd U;k; fl)karksa dh

vogsyuk dj mls ukSdjh ls gVk;k x;k gSA ifj.kker% çkFkhZ Jfed vius

Dyse LVsVesUV ds ek/;e ls mls vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ fiNys lEiw.kZ osru

o leLr ifjykHkksa lfgr iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk dh gSA

mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh

vksj ls çkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 13@10@93 ls muds ;gk¡ csynkj ds in ij

fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ijUrq fnukad 31@10@08 ls

çkFkhZ Jfed }kjk fcuk lwpuk fn;s o fcuk vodk’k LohÑr djk;s vukf/kÑr

:i ls viuh M;wVh ls vuqifLFkr gksuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bl ckcr çkFkhZ

Jfed dks vçkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vius i= fnukad 7@11@08 ds }kjk i=

çkfIr ds 72 ?kUVs esa çkFkhZ Jfed dks viuk Li”Vhdj.k çLrqr djus ds

funsZ’k fn;s x;s Fks] ijUrq çkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ml i= dk dksbZ Li”Vhdj.k

ugha fn;k x;kA vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us ?kjsyw tk¡p fd;s tkus o tk¡p

vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa fn- 21@2@09 dk lwpuk i= çkFkhZ

Jfed dks çsf”kr djuk O;Dr fd;k ijUrq çkFkhZ rnqijkUr Hkh tk¡p dk;Zokgh

esa mifLFkr ugha gqvkA rnqijkUr tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; fl)karksa

dh ikyuk esa çkFkhZ Jfed dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq tk¡p 9@3@09 ds fy,

fu;r dh x;hA çkFkhZ Jfed ds fu;r frfFk dks tk¡p esa mifLFkr gksus o

vkjksi&i= esa of.kZr vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj dj fy;s tkus ij tk¡p dk;Zokgh

cUn dh x;h o vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us fnukad 14@3@09 ds lsokeqfDr vkns’k

ls çkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M ikfjr fd;kA bl

çdkj tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; fl)karksa dh ikyuk esa tk¡p fd;k

tkuk O;Dr djrs gq, çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls çLrqr fd;k x;k Dyse

LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk dh x;hA

;g çdj.k tk¡p dk;Zokgh lEcU/kh dkxtkr is’k fd;s tkus gsrq

fnukad 30@1@15 ds fy, fu;r Fkk] ijUrq mlls iwoZ gh vkt fnukad

2@12@14 dks nksuksa i{kksa us U;k;kf/kdj.k esa mifLFkr gksdj ^^yksd vnkyr^^

dh Hkkouk ls çsfjr gksdj ,d jkthukek çLrqr fd;k ftldh lqlaxr bckjr

fuEukuqlkj gS%&

^^çkFkhZ çfri{kh ls 30]000@&#- ¼rhl gtkj #i;s½ viuh lsok eqfDr

fookn dks lekIr djus dh ,ot esa çkIr djsxk] tksfd Qqy ,.M

QkbZuy isesUV gksxkA mijksDr jkf’k çfri{kh] çkFkhZ dks ,d ekg ds

vUnj vnk djsxk] rnqijkUr çkFkhZ o çfri{kh ds e/; dksbZ fookn

‘ks”k ugha jgsxkA xzsP;qVh o ih,Q dh jkf’k fu;ekuqlkj çkFkhZ Jfed

çkIr djsxkA^^

mijksDr jkthukes ds vuqlkj yfEcr çdj.k esa i{kdkjku vkxkeh

dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSa rFkk muds }kjk çLrqr’kqnk jkthukes ds vuqlkj

çdj.k vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk dh x;hA

mijksDr jkthukes dh bckjr nksuksa i{kksa dks i<+dj lquk;h] le>k;h

x;h rks mUgksaus LosPNk ls jkthukek djuk o jkthukek ds rF;ksa dks lgh

gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA rnqijkUr çLrqr’kqnk jkthukek rLnhd fd;k x;kA

bl çdkj nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek gksus o çkFkhZ i{k }kjk çdj.k esa dksbZ

dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus ls çdj.k esa vc dksbZ dk;Zokgh ‘ks”k ugha jgus ls

çdj.k fookn jfgr gks tkrk gS ,oa blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd

vkns’k fnukad 22@4@2010 ds tfj;s lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@fookn dks

vf/kfuf.kZr dj blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl çdj.k esa

i{kdkjksa ds e/; ^^yksd vnkyr^^ dh Hkkouk ls çsfjr gksdj jkthukek gks

tkus ls ekeyk fookn jfgr gks tkrk gSA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lksfl;sfVM

LVksu b.MLVªht (dksVk) fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 2@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@42@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2014)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Associated Stone Co. (Kota) Ltd. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

3-12-2015.

[No. L-29012/42/2004-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&2@2014

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4611

fnukad LFkkfir % 19@8@14

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k Øa-

,y&29012@42@2004&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 21@4@2014

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

tloUr flag iq= fxj/kkjh flag }kjk lsØsVªh]

jk”Vªh; etnwj la?k ¼bUVd½] eS- ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu

daiuh ¼dksVk½ fyfeVsM]

jkexate.Mh

&çkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

çcU/kd] eS- ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½ fy-]

jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh lrh'k ipkSjh

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh oh- ds- tSu

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad %

25@2@2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

21@4@2014 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh

/kkjk 10¼1½?k½ o mi/kkjk ¼2,½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

lEçsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Associated Stone Co.(Kota) Ltd., Lime Stone Mines,

Ramganjmandi in superannuationg Sh. Jaswant

Singh from service w.e.f. 26/11/2002 ignoring his age,

is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij fn- 19@8@14 dks

mDr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl ntZ jftLVj fd;s tkus ds vkns’k ikfjr fd;s x;s rFkk

çkFkhZ Jfed o vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dks uksfVl tkjh dj i=koyh esa Dyse

LVsVesUV is’k gksus gsrq fnukad 6@2@15 fu;r dh x;hA

fn- 6@2@15 dks iqu% i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s tkus ds vkns’k

fn;s tkdj i=koyh esa vkxkeh is’kh 5@6@15 fu;r dh x;h] ijUrq vkt

fnukad 25@2@15 dks çkFkhZ Jfed tloUr flag e; vf/k—r çfrfuf/k rFkk

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd çcU/kd dh vksj ls vkj-,l- ’kekZ e; vf/k—r

çfrfuf/k ds mifLFkr gksdj la;qDr :i ls çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr dj O;Dr

fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZ us çfri{kh ls viuh lsokfuo`fRr ds lEcU/k esa fd;s x;s

fookn esa çfri{kh ls le>kSrk dj fy;k gS rFkk le>kSrs ds rgr çkFkhZ us

çfri{kh ls pSd ua- 005603 fn-2@1@2015 ,pMh,Qlh cSad dk 40]000@&#-

dk {kfriwfrZ ds ,ot esa çkIr dj fy;k gSA çkFkhZ] çfri{kh ds ;gk¡ vius iqu%

fu;kstu ds vf/kdkj dk ifjR;kx dj jgk gSA çkFkhZ ,oa çfri{kh ds e/;

vc dksbZ fookn ‘ks”k ugha jgk gSA vr% çkFkhZ us Lo;a dk fookn fuLrkj.k

fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh gSA

bl çdkj çdj.k esa çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls lEçsf”kr mDr

funsZ’k@jsÝsUl ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Dyse LVsVesUV Hkh çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS

rFkk çkFkZuk&i= ds ek/;e ls çkFkhZ Jfed us vçkFkhZ@çfri{kh ls {kfriwfrZ ds

:i esa 40]000@&#- dk pSd çkIr dj vius iqu% fu;kstu ds vf/kdkj dk

ifjR;kx djuk O;Dr fd;k gS o çkFkhZ rFkk vçkFkhZ ds e/; vc dksbZ fookn

‘ks”k ugha gksuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/;

dksbZ fookn ‘ks”k ugha gksus ls ekeyk fookn jfgr gks tkrk gS o lEçsf”kr

funsZ’k@jsÝsUl Hkh blh çdkj mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk çklkafxd

vkns’k fnukad 21@4@2014 ds tfj;s lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl fookn dks

blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd çkFkhZ Jfed tloUr flag }kjk bl

vk’k; dk çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr djus ij fd çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; vc dksbZ

fookn ‘ks”k ugha gS] ;g ekeyk fookn jfgr gks tkrk gSA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ JhukFk

,UVjçkbZtst ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@1998) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@30@1998&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/1998)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Sreenath Enterprises and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-29012/30/1998-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

4612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&21@1998

fnukad LFkkfir % 30@9@98

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k Øa-

,y&29012@38@98&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 8@9@98

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi&/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

1&iou dqekj

2&fiadh

3&ikoZrh

Øe’k% e`rd çkFkhZ Jfed ckypUn ds iq=]

iq=h o iRuh fuoklh bdfyaxiqjk] jkorHkkVk

ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ }kjk tujy lsØsVªh]

jk”Vªh; etnwj la?k] jkexate.Mh] dksVk

&çkFkhZx.k

,oa

eS- JhukFk ,UVjçkbZtst] pspV ftyk dksV

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh iq:”kksRre nk/khp

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh lat; fot;]

çcU/kd@ç’kkld

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad %

7@7@2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

8@9@98 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½

,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr

fd;k x;k gS%&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Sreenath Enterprises, Chechat Limestone Mines,

Chechat in not allowing Shri Balchand S/o Shri

Bhagirath Kumhar, Driver to work from 6/1/1998 is

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

is entitled to and from what date?”

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr

i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

çkFkhZ Jfed ckypUn dh vksj ls çkFkhZ Jfed ;wfu;u ds egkea=h

}kjk Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k çLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd

çkFkhZ Jfed vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ fn- 28@5@93 ls crkSj MªkbZoj] pspV

[kku ij dk;Zjr Fkk] ijUrq çkFkhZ dks fn- 6@1@98 ls voS/k :i ls dk;Z ugha

djus fn;k x;kA çkFkhZ Jfed fn- 28@5@93 ls crkSj MªkbZoj vçkFkhZ

fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ dk;Z djrs gq, U;wure osru fn- 6@1@98 ls iwoZ çkIr dj

jgk Fkk rFkk çkFkhZ Jfed dk ih-,Q- dkVdj ih-,Q- foHkkx esa tek djok;k

tkrk FkkA çkFkhZ Jfed fujUrj 240 fnu dk dk;Z djus ds mijkUr vçkFkhZ

ds fu;kstu esa dk;Zjr Fkk] ijUrq vçkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk voS/k :i ls çkFkhZ

Jfed dks lsok ls iFk`d dj fn;k x;kA ifj.kker% çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls

Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ i{k }kjk dh x;h

dk;Zokgh fujLr dh tkdj çkFkhZ Jfed dks fn- 6@1@98 ls fujUrj lsok esa

ekurs gq, leLr cdk;k osru ykHk] M~;w&MªkWu LVsVesUV ds vk/kkj ij fnyk;s

tkus dh çkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh

vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k

gS cfYd fn- 31@12@97 rd dk;Z dj çkFkhZ Jfed LosPNk ls ukSdjh ls

R;kxi= nsdj pyk x;k o rRi’pkr og dHkh dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA

vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls ugha fudkyk] vr% mls uksfVl vkfn fn;s tkus

dh vko’;drk ugha FkhA bl çdkj tc çkFkhZ dks vçkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqDr gh

ugha fd;k x;k rks dkuwuksa dh ikyuk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ ç’u gh iSnk ugha

gksrkA ifj.kker% vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çkFkhZ ds Dyse LVsVesUV dk

tokc çLrqr dj çkFkhZ dk Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk

U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh x;h gSA

lk{; esa çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Lo;a çkFkhZ ckypUn dk rFkk lk{kh

jkexksiky xqIrk dk ‘kiFk&i= çLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftuls vçkFkhZ

çfrfufèk }kjk ftjg dh x;h gSA çys[kh; lk{; esa çkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls

çn’kZ 1 yxk;r 4 çLrqr dj çnf’kZr djok;s x;s gSa] tcfd vçkFkhZ i{k dh

vksj ls çn’kZ ,e-1 çLrqr dj çnf’kZr djok;k x;k gSA

çdj.k esa fn- 12@4@11 dks çkFkhZ Jfed ckypUn dh e`R;q gksus ds

mijkUr fn- 29@8@11 dks çkFkhZ Jfed ds okfjlku }kjk çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr

dj mUgsa vfHkys[k ij dk;eeqdkeku@çkFkhZx.k ds :i esa vfHkys[k ij fy;s

tkus dh çkFkZuk dh x;h ftl ij mDr çkFkZuk&i= fn- 13@8@12 dks

Lohdkj fd;k tkdj e`rd çkFkhZ Jfed dh iRuh ikoZrh] iq= iou o iq=h

fiadh dk;eeqdkeku@çkFkhZx.k ds :i esa vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus ds vkns’k

fn;s tkdj lafLFkr fd;s x;sA

;g çdj.k fn- 4@8@15 dks lk{; vçkFkhZ gsrq fu;r Fkk fd vkt

fn-7@7@15 dks mHk;i{k dh vksj ls la;qDr çkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk ,d

le>kSrk fu/kkZfjr çi=&,p esa bl vk’k; dk çLrqr fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZ

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4613

Jfed ckypUn dk nsgkUr gks x;k gS rFkk çkFkhZ ds dk;eeqdku@çkFkhZx.k

yfEcr fookn dks le>kSrk dj fuiVkuk pkgrs gSaA nksuksa i{kksa us okrkZ dj

fu’p; fd;k gS fd fu;kstd ,deq’r jkf’k 40]000@&#- dk Hkqxrku djus

dks rS;kj gS o 40]000@&#- dh jkf’k dk pSd vkt gh le>kSrk lEiUu gksrs

gh çkFkhZx.k dks vnk dj nsxkA çkFkhZx.k ¼e`rd Jfed ds okfjlku½ dks

mDr fookn ds lEcU/k esa fu;kstd ls vc fdlh çdkj dh jkf’k ysuk ‘ks”k

ugha jg x;k gS rFkk os vkS|ks- U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ds le{k fookn

dks lekIr dj ysaxsA vr% i=koyh vkt ryc dj is’kh esa yh x;hA

çLrqr’kqnk mDr jkthukek@le>kSrk&i= nksuksa i{kksa dks i<+dj

lquk;k o le>k;k x;k rks nksuksa i{kksa us LosPNk ls jkthukek djuk o

jkthukes ds rF;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;kA jkthukek rLnhd fd;k x;kA

bl çdkj nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek gks tkus ds mijkUr e`rd

Jfed ckypUn ds fof/kd çfrfuf/kx.k@çkFkhZx.k }kjk çdj.k esa vc fdlh

çdkj dh dksbZ jkf’k ysuk ‘ks”k ugha jgus o U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k fookn

lekIr djus dh ea’kk çdV djus ls vc bl ekeys esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ‘ks”k

ugha jgh gS o mijksDrkuqlkj gh lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl mRrfjr gksus ;ksX;

gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk çklkafxd

vkns’k fnukad 8@9@98 ds tfj;s lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl fookn dks blh

vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd gLrxr çdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/;

jkthukek gks tkus ds QyLi:i çkFkhZx.k }kjk vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fdlh

çdkj dh dksbZ jkf’k ysuk ‘ks”k ugha jgus o fookn lekIr djus dh ea’kk

çdV djus ls ekeys esa vc dksbZ dk;Zokgh ‘ks”k ugha jgh gSA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,lksfl;sfVM

LVksu b.MLVªht (dksVk) fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 3@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-

12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@20@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2015

S.O. 2272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2010)

of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-29012/20/2000-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&3@2010

fnukad LFkkfir % 1@10@2010

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k

Øa-,y&29012@20@2000&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 9@9@2010

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi&/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

Nhrjey iq= lkaofy;k cSjok }kjk tujy lsØsVªzh]

gkM+kSrh ,oa iRFkj m|ksx etnwj ;wfu;u]

jkexate.Mh ftyk dksVk¼jkt-½

&çkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

çcU/kd] eS- ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½ fy-]

jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½

&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

çkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh ,u- ds- frokjh

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh oh- ds- tSu

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad %

25@8@2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

9@9@2010 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½

,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&

“Whether Shri Chhitar Mal S/o Shri Sanvaliya Berwa

is legal and justified in raising the dispute of

continuity of service and back wages against the

management of M/s Associated Stone Industries

(Kota) Ltd, Ramganjmandi or not? If yes, what relief

the claimant is entitled to and from which date?”

4614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa

dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

çkFkhZ us viuk Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k çLrqr dj O;Dr

fd;k gS fd çkFkhZ dks vçkFkhZ çcU/kd] eS- ,lksfl;sVsM LVksu b.MLVªht ¼dksVk½

fy-] jkexate.Mh ftyk dksVk ¼ftls vkxs pydj ^^fu;kstd^^ ‘kCn ls lEcksfèkr

fd;k tkosxk½ us fnukad 13@8@77 ls dVj ds in ij lsok esa fu;ksftr

fd;k FkkA vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us çkFkhZ dks fn- 16@10@89 dks ,d vkjksi&i=

bl vk’k; dk fn;k fd fn- 14@10@89 dks çkFkhZ us vius lkFkh gtkjh ds

lkFk tkdj lqijokbZtj dUgS;k cynso dks xkfy;ka nh ,oa og lkjs etnwjksa

dks cksul nsus o ekjihV djus dks rS;kj gqvkA çkFkhZ us bldk mRrj fnukad

18@10@89 dks çLrqr fd;k] ijUrq fu;kstd us vkjksi dh tk¡p djus gsrq

vkj-,l-’kekZ] egkçcU/kd ¼dkfeZd½ dks tk¡p vf/kdkjh fu;qDr dj fn;k ftUgksaus

tk¡p esa çkFkhZ dks viuk i{k çLrqr djus ,oa cpko djus dk dksbZ volj

çnku ugha fd;k rFkk euekus rjhds ls tk¡p dh tks U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)karksa

dh foijhr gSA fu;kstd us tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h voS/k tk¡p ds

vk/kkj ij fn- 27@12@89 dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus dk n.M nsdj çkFkhZ dks

lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA çkFkhZ dks tk¡p esa viuk çfrfuf/k ugha ykus fn;k]

tk¡p vf/kdkjh us tk¡p dk;Zokgh ds [kkyh dkxtkr ij uktk;kt :i ls

gLrk{kj djus dk ncko çkFkhZ ij MkykA çkFkhZ ds tk¡p dk;Zokgh esa tkus

ij Hkh çkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ntZ ugha dh x;h o nqHkkZouko’k tk¡p dj çkFkhZ

dks lsok ls gVkus dk n.M fn;k x;kA lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ çkFkhZ dks fdlh

çdkj dk dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA bl çdkj çkFkhZ dks lsok

ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA çkFkhZ dh vksj ls fn-

20@3@90 dks egkea=h] jk”Vªh; [kku etnwj ;wfu;u] jkexate.Mh ftyk

dksVk us fu;kstd ds fo:) lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ds le{k ,d

fookn çLrqr fd;k ftlds lEcU/k esa vlQy okrkZ çfrosnu] Je ea=ky;]

Hkkjr ljdkj dks çsf”kr fd;k x;k] ijUrq Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj us fnukad

9@10-9-91 ds i= }kjk çkFkhZ ds fookn dks çR;{kr% dksbZ vk/kkj ugha ekurs

gq, U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr djus ls euk dj fn;kA fookn dks fu.kZ;kFkZ ugha

Hkstus ds fo#) çkFkhZ us ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk çLrqr dh

ftl ij ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; dh t;iqj ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fn-

12@9@94 dh ikyukFkZ çkFkhZ us fn- 19@1@95 dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr

gksus dh fjiksVZ çLrqr dh] ijUrq fn- 19@1@95 dks çkFkhZ dks M~;wVh ij ugha

ysdj fu;kstd us fn- 25@1@95 dks jft-,Mh- Mkd }kjk i= çsf”kr dj

7 fnu ds Hkhrj lkry[ksM+h [kku ij M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ds funsZ’k fn;sA

bl çdkj fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ çkFkhZ M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gks x;k] ijUrq fu;kstd

us çkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fn- 13@8@77 ls ugha ekudj ubZ lsokvksa ij fu;qfDr

ekuhA bl çdkj çkFkhZ dh 18 lky dh lsok;sa lekIr dj mls ukSdjh ij

fy;k tks voS/k gSA çkFkhZ us Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds v.Mj

lsØsVªh dks mDr lEcU/k esa ,d çkFkZuk&i= çsf”kr fd;k] ijUrq muds }kjk

mldk dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;k x;k] vr% çkFkhZ us fn- 10@3@95 dks lgk;d

Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ds le{k iqu% fookn çLrqr fd;kA tc çkFkhZ us

iqjkuh lsok ij j[kus dh ekax dh rks fu;kstd us çkFkhZ dks lsok esa ysus ls

euk dj fn;k] mlds ckn ls çkFkhZ Jfed lsok ls ckgj py jgk gSA mijksDr

fookn dk tokc fu;kstd }kjk bl vk’k; dk çLrqr fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZ

dk dksbZ fookn ugha curk gSA lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk us fn-

3@3@2000 dks vlQy okrkZ çfrosnu Hkkjr ljdkj dks çsf”kr fd;k ijUrq

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky; us çkFkhZ dk fookn U;k; fu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr djus

ls euk dj fn;kA vr% çkFkhZ us iqu% ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk

çLrqr dh ftl ij çkFkhZ dk fookn fu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr djus ds vkns’k ikfjr

gq,A ifj.kker% çkFkhZ us viuk Dyse LVsVesUV çLrqr dj çkFkhZ dks fu;kstd

ds ;gk¡ ij fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o leLr fgrykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s

tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh gSA

mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ us fn-16@10@89

dks çkFkhZ dks vkjksi&i= fn;k tkuk o vkjksiksa dh tk¡p gsrq tk¡p vf/kdkjh

vkj-,l- ’kekZ dks fu;qDr fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh

}kjk foHkkxh; tk¡p] U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)karksa ds vUrxZr dh tkdj çkFkhZ

dks vçkFkhZ }kjk fn-27@12@89 ds vkns’k }kjk mfpr ,oa oS/k :i ls lsok

ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk çkFkhZ ij yxk;s

x;s vkjksiksa dks iw.kZr;k çekf.kr ik;k x;kA vçkFkhZ us i=@vkns’k

fn- 27@12@89 ds }kjk vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, çkFkhZ

dks vçkFkhZ daiuh dh lsokvksa ls i`Fkd djus dk n.M ikfjr fd;kA vçkFkhZ

us çkFkhZ }kjk çLrqr dh x;h ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk

fn-12@9@94 dks vkns’k ikfjr djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk çkFkhZ }kjk

fn- 19@1@95 dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrq i= çsf”kr djuk Hkh Lohdkj

fd;k gSA vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZ }kjk fn- 8@2@95 dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksdj

ek= 2 ?kUVs dk;Z djus ds mijkUr fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds dk;Z NksM+dj pyk

tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA çkFkhZ] ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k

fn- 12@9@94 dks le>us esa Hkwy dj jgk gSA ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky;

us vius fu.kZ;@vkns’k esa ;g of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd çkFkhZ dh lsok;sa

fn- 13@8@77 ls yxkrkj ekuh tkosA bl çdkj vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZ dks iqu%

lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;s tkus ds mijkUr çkFkhZ dks fn- 8@2@95 dks M~;wVh ij

mifLFkr gksus ds mijkUr fcuk lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jguk dgk gSA çkFkhZ

ykHkdkjh fu;kstu esa gS] mlus vius Dyse LVsVesUV esa Hkh csjkstxkj gksus dk

dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA ifj.kker% vçkFkhZ dh vksj ls çkFkhZ }kjk çLrqr

fd;k x;k Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh

x;h gSA

çdj.k esa fnukad 26@2@2016 dh frfFk foHkkxh; tk¡p dh mfprrk

dh cgl gsrq fu;r dh x;h Fkh] ijUrq çkFkhZ us vkt fnukad 25@8@2015

dks U;k;kf/kdj.k esa mifLFkr gksdj ,d çkFkZuk&i= bl vk’k; dk çLrqr

fd;k fd çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; vkilh le>kSrk gks x;k gSA le>kSrs ds

vuqlkj çkFkhZ] vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ vius fu;kstu ds vf/kdkj dk ifjR;kx dj

jgk gSA vçkFkhZ] çkFkhZ dks ,d yk[k #i;s dh jkf’k crkSj {kfriwfrZ ,d

lIrkg esa vnk dj nsxkA çkFkhZ bl fookn dks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrk gSA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4615

mDr çkFkZuk&i= ds ek/;e ls bl fookn dk fuLrkj.k blh çdkj fd;s tkus

dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh x;h gSA fo}ku çfrfuf/k vçkFkhZ us Hkh mDr

çkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus esa vukifRr O;Dr dh gSA

vr% mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZ }kjk vkosnu&i= çLrqr dj çkFkhZ o

vçkFkhZ ds e/; vkilh le>kSrk gksus ls çkFkhZ us vius fu;kstu ds vf/kdkj

dk ifjR;kx dj bl fookn dks vkxs ugha pykus dh ea’kk çdV dh gSA

vr% çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; vc dksbZ fookn ‘ks”k ugha jgus ls ekeyk fookn

jfgr gks tkrk gS o lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus

;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk çklafxd

vkns’k fnukad 9@9@2010 ds tfj;s lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÚsUl fookn dks

blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd çkFkhZ Jfed Nhrjey }kjk çLrqr

vkosnu&i= vuqlkj çkFkhZ o vçkFkhZ ds e/; le>kSrk gksus ls çkFkhZ }kjk

vius fu;kstu ds vf/kdkj dk ifjR;kx djus o fookn dks vkxs ugha pykus

dh ea’kk çdV djus ls vc ;g ekeyk fookn jfgr gks tkrk gSA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 8 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkbZ-lh-

vkbZ- lh-vkbZ- çwMsafl;y ykbZiQ ba';ksjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2011) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@18@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2015

S.O. 2273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance

Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-17012/18/2010-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 36/11

Sh. Sunil Dutt,

S/o Sh. Hari Dutt,

C/o 12-D , MCD Flats,

Bunglow Road,

Delhi-7

...Workman

Versus

The Sr. Manager, HR,

M/s. ICICI Prudential Life

Insurance Co. Ltd.

3rd Floor, Videocon Tower ,

Jhandewalan,

New Delhi-110005

...Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-17012/18/2010 (IR(M) dated

25.04.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication #-

“Whether Sunil Dutt, Manager Business Partner in

the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

is a Workman?

“If so, whether the action of the management of

M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bangalore in terminating the services of Sh. Sunil

Duttw.e.f. 8/7/2009 is just, fair and legal? What relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?

On 02.05.2011 reference was received in this

Tribunal. Which was registered as I.D No. 36/2011.

Claimant union 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 workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 1.8.2011. Where-in he prayed as follows:—

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to :

(a) Direct the management to reinstate the workman

with full back wages;

(b) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court

deem fit and proper.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 13.02.2012 through which management

prayed as follows#-

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is

therefore most humbly prayed that his Hon’ble Tribunal

be pleased to dismiss the statement of claim of Mr. Sunil

Dutt in favour of the Respondent Company and against

Mr. Sunil Dutt in the interest of justice.

4616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 9.4.2013 My Ld. Predecessor framed following

issues#-

1. Whether termination of services of the claimant

amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of

section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947?

2. As in terms of reference.

And case was fixed for evidence of the parties.

When workman has not filed his evidence in spite

of several opportunities then this Tribunal on 15.9.2014

closed the right of workman evidence and fixed 19.11.2014

for management evidence.

On 19.12.2014 management in support of its case

filed affidavit of MW1 Mrs. Sarita Gusain who tendered

her affidavit on 25.8.2015. Wherein stated as follows#-

I tender my affidavit in my evidence as Ex. MW1/A

which bears my signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’ . Contents

of affidavit are based on official and personal knowledge

through department. I rely upon documents which are Exh.

MW1/1 to Exh.MW1/3.

Cross nil as none is turning upon behalf of workman

Management on 1.10.2015 filed written arguments.

Wherein management prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

kindly be pleased to dismiss the claim, in the interest of

justice.

My issue wise findings as follows#-

Finding on issue no. 1.

Issue No.1 is as follows#-

“Whether termination of services of the claimant

amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of

section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?”

Burden to prove lies on workman but workman

produce no evidence. Hence issue no. 1 is liable to be

decided against workman and in favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided.

As issue no. 1 as already been decided against

workman. So, issue no. 2 is also liable to be decided against

workman and in favour of management. Which is

accordingly decided.

Reference is liable to be decided against workman

and in favour of management. Which is accordingly

decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated: 29/10/2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ U;w bafM;k

,';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17011@04@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2015

S.O. 2274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. New India Assurance Company

Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-17011/04/2013-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 68/13

The General Secy.

General Insurance Employees Federation, NR,

C-30, Community Centre,

New Delhi -110028

...Workmen

Versus

1. Managing Director,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

87, MG Road. Mumbai.

2. Chief Regional Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

6/7, Astley Hall, Dehradun

...Management

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-17011/4/2013-(IR(M) dated

23.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication #-

“Whether the action of the management of New India

Assurance Company Ltd., in not granting increment

to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sl. No. 33552 in the year

2011, 2012 and not granting of ACP to S/Shri Anil

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4617

Kumar Sharma 20927, Satish Kumar 21232, Amar

Singh 16.558, Mahendra Kumar 16866, M.L. Verma

17364 and Man Singh Rawat 17092 is illegal and

unjustified? If so, what relief is the workman are

entitled to?”

On 1.7.13 was received in this Tribunal. Which was

registered as ID. No. 68/13 and claimants were called upon

to file claim statement within 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 workmen/claimants filed claim

statement on 12.8.2013. Wherein they prayed as follows#-

It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your honor

Tribunal may graciously be pleased to answer the order of

reference in favour of Union and to grant the following

relief to workmen.

That appropriate action against the earring

official Sh. Rambabu, Manager, for unwarranted

harassment to the workmen by willfull with

holding their increments as well as Assured

progression Career Scheme (APCS).

That to release 18% per annum compound

interest for delaying period to the workmen.

That pass any such order or orders, which in the

circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble court

deems just and proper in favour of the workmen

against the management.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 22.10.2013 through which management

prayed as follows#-

As none of our employees / officers ever been

victimçing anyone and negligent in performing their duties.

They have never been prejudiced towards any employee

on account of his/her association . We have always tried

to ensure that all the dues are released well in time.

Due to reasons mentioned in para no. 4 of the

objection, there were some delay which was not deliberate

or mala fide.

It is, therefore most humbly prayed that since the

grievances of the said 7 employees including Mr. Rajesh

Kumar have already been settled by OP No. 2 last year on

26.09.2012 and payments have already been made to them

through bank transfer (copies attached 1 to 7 ) and there is

no matter of dues and increment is pending with before

us, so the petition of the union is liable to be rejected.

Workman filed rejoinder on 3.6.14. Wherein they

prayed as follows#-

In view of above submissions it is therefore prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow

the claim in the favour of the petitioner and against the

respondent management with heavy cost so that

unnecessarily plight of the employees without a sufficient

cause could be stopped once for all.

On 17.7.2014 this Tribunal framed following issues#-

Whether the action of the management of New

India Assurance Company Ltd., in not granting

increment to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sr. No. 33552 in

the year 2011, 2012 and not granting of ACP to

S/Shri Anil Kumar Sharma 20927, Satish Kumar

21232, Amar Singh 16558, Mahendra Kumar

16866, M.L. Verma 17364 and Man Singh Rawat

17092 is illegal and unjustified? If so its effect?

To what relief the workmen is entitled to ?

Several opportunities given to workmen to adduce

their evidence but no evidence on behalf of workmen have

been filed. Hence this tribunal closed the evidence of

workmen so there is no need for management evidence.

In this background there is no option to this Tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because claimants are

not interested to file their evidence .

On the basis of which management cannot be

directed to adduce its evidence.

‘Reference is accordingly decided and claim

statement is dismissed.’

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated#-30/10/2015

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-th-lh-

fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

19@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@43@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2015

S.O. 2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

3-12-2015.

[No. L-30011/43/2011-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

4618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

Present :

Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 19 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between #-

The Workman Smti .Purna Laxmi Das, Casual Cleaner/

Unskilled worker.

-Vrs-

The Management of M/S ONGC Ltd., Cachar, Assam.

APPEARANCE :

For the workman/Claimant

: Mr. K.Gogoi, Advocate

Mr. A. Borgohain,

Advocate

For the Management/O.P.

: Mr. P. K. Roy, Advocate,

Mr. S. K. Chakrabarty,

Advocate.

Date of Award : 27.11.2015

AWARD

This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of ONGC Ltd., Cachar

Forward Base, Srikona, Silchar, and their workman Smti

Purna Laxmi Das on account of terminating the service of

casual cleaner/Unskilled worker w.e.f. 5.6.2010 without

notice by the Management, which was referred by the

Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi vide

their order No. L-30011/43/2011-IR(M) dated 2.5.2012. The

Schedule of this Reference is as under.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., Cachar Forward Base, Srikona, Silchar, in

terminating the service of Casual Cleaner/Unskilled

worker Smti Purna Laxmi Das W/o Late Suresh Das

w.e.f. 5.6.2010, without notice and without extending

any terminal benefits as well as refusal to reinstate

her into the service, is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

The case of the workman Smti Purna Laxmi Das, in

nutshell, is that she was working in the Medical Dispensary

and the Project House of ONGC, Cachar Project, Srikona,

Silchar and she was appointed by the Management of

ONGC Ltd., Cachar Silchar as a casual/contingent worker.

She was entrusted with the task of Cleaning Dispensary

and Project house during working hours. The workman

had to perform unskilled job as Sweeper/Cleaner, however

her service was utilçed by the management in respect of

different other jobs and the duties performed by her are

similar to those which were done by the regular workers

who were provided with higher emoluments better facilities

and better living conditions. However, the services of the

workman were intentionally and deliberately not regularçed

by the Management with intent to deprive her from claiming

the legitimate rights and privileges available to the regular

workers appointed by the Management. During the period

of her employment the workman discharged her duties

and responsibility with utmost sincerity, interest and

integrity to the satisfaction of all concerned, and tried her

level best. She placed representation before the higher

authority of the Management for increasing her salary in

accordance with the price index as well as for regularçation

of her service in the ONGC Ltd. After rendering her service

for more than 27 years the management all of a sudden,

without any cause, notice, notice pay and compensation

as required under law, retrenched the services of the

workman with effect from June, 2010. The workman pleaded

that her service for a period of more than 27 years, which

render in the manner as was done by regular workers of

the Management and hence, the workman could not be

defined and/or termed as Casual Contingent worker. The

Management deliberately and maliciously engaged the

workman to work for marginally less than 240 days in a

year as per their record with a view to avoid its obligation

and provided under the provision of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947. It is also averred by the workman that by virtue

of her long standing employment under the Management

and on account of her vast practical experience gained

out of such employment, the workman is no longer an

unskilled casual/contingent worker, and as such, the said

management is under legal liability to absorb the workman

by regularçing her service. But the Management has

adopted unfair labour practice by not regularçing her

service. The Management employed her for not less than

27 years from 1985 upto 4.6.2010 deliberately showing the

period of employment marginally less than 240 days in

each year despite working for more than 240 days and as

such, she ought not have been retrenched from her service

without compensation in contravention under the

provision of Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act; which

resulted her frustration to the expectation that her service

can be regularçed and with that end in view the workman

has become over aged /ineligible to apply for employment

elsewhere under public employment. Thus the case of

termination of the workman from service by the

management is illegal, malafide and actuated with the

motive of victimçation and it is an instance of gross

violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, the

workman is entitled to be reinstated. Under the above

circumstances the workman prayed to pass an award in

favour of the workman directing the management to

reinstate her with full back wages from the date of

heretrenchment with all accompanying service benefits

made available to her under the law.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4619

The Management contested the proceeding filing

written statement, stating inter-alia, that the order of

reference is incompetent and not sustainable in the eye of

law since it is the admitted position that the workman Smti

Purna Laxmi Das was a casual cleaner and was not in the

Roll of the ONGC Ltd, there could be no question of

termination of service of the casual cleaner. The

Management, on being approached, engaged Smti Purna

Laxmi Das, to carry out miscellaneous/petty jobs, which

are intermittent in nature on daily wage/part time basis

and her service were obtained for a brief period on need

basis, and she never did the same nature of job

continuously. As such the workman has no legally

subsisting, enforceable right to claim reinstatement. The

Management of ONGC Ltd. since December, 2009, as a

part of their policy decision, has been outsourcing the

said miscellaneous and petty jobs and the said worker

was earlier awarded to M/S Sulabh International. In view

of the above, the order of reference with the terms as

mentioned thereunder and not to have been made by the

Government, the same being not maintainable in law.

Further the workman is not a worker within the meaning of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and as such, the

reference made is beyond the scope and ambit of the

provision of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The

Management also stated that the contention of the

workman made in paras 3 & 4 of her written statement are

quite misleading and not based on fact; since it is not true

that the workman was working in the Medical Dispensary

and project house of ONGC, Cachar Project Srikona, Silchar

and was appointed by the Management of ONGCL as

casual/contingent workers by means of selection process

since 1985. It is also denied that the workman had been

entrusted with cleaning the dispensary and project house

during the working hours, as alleged. The management

mentioned that at times they engaged outsiders on casual,

daily wage on need basis to perform the jobs required

intermittently and not continuously, and also not done by

the same worker always. The Management also denied

that the workman was engaged by means of selection

process as per applicable rules and procedures since 1985.

Further case of the Management is that the claims

of the workman that during her employment she performed

the duties which were performed by regular workers of the

ONGC Ltd. who were provided higher emoluments, better

facilities and better living condition, and that the service

of the workman were intentionally and deliberately not

regularçed with intent to deprive her from claiming

legitimate rights and privileges available to regular workers

are not true. The management stated that the regular

employees of the ONGC are also appointed against regular

vacancies in a definite scale of pay following due selection

process and as the workman was never appointed by the

Management as a regular worker she can not claim equal

status. It is also mentioned by the Management that they

have outsourced the work of hygiene maintenance and at

present M/S Biswajit Sharma of Sibsagar has been carried

out the said works. It is stated that the workman might

have engaged herself in hygiene and maintenance

activities intermittently whenever she learnt about

requirement of the management to such work done hardly

had taken between half and one hours time to clean and

sweep a particular area which is the precise nature of job

and received payment on daily wage basis as per the

entitlement for such unskilled job. The management also

denied the statement of the workman that she has been

gloriously rendering service for 27 years and without any

cause, notice, notice pay and compensation, retrenched

her with effect from June, 2010. The management stated

that since they never appointed the workman who only

got herself engaged on daily wage basis there is no

question of her retrenchment and/or issuing any notice or

granting notice pay and compensation. There is also no

post available in ONGC, Cachar Forward Base for engaging

the workman in the said cleaning and sweeping job as the

workman only got herself engaged on need basis for half

an hour to one hour there can be no question of her

deliberate, malicious engagement for marginally less than

240 days a year with a view to avoid obligations and

liabilities provided under the provisions of Industrial

Dispute Act. The Management further denied that the

claimant continuously rendered her service to the

management like that of regular worker and the

management intentionally refused to engaged the workman

in regular Roll, and hence, the claim of the workman that

by virtue of long standing employment and experience

she is no longer unskilled casual/contingent worker and

is liable to be absorbed by regularçing her services. The

statement of the workman that she joined the service of

the ONGC for more than two decades and that she was

under reasonable expectation that her services would be

regularçed and with that end in view she has become over

aged/ineligible to apply for employment elsewhere for

public employment as alleged, are not admitted by the

management. Rather they stated that even assuming but

not admitting that the workman has ever worked for some

period of time, but that by itself cannot entitle her for

regularisation, de-hors the provisions of the ONGC

recruitment Rules. The management also denied the

averments made in paras-17,19 and 20 of claim statement

made by the workman stating that the termination of the

workman from service by the management of ONGC is

illegal, malafide and actuated with the motive of

victimçation and that accordingly, it is an instance of gross

violation of principle of natural justice as alleged. As such,

the workman is not entitled to be reinstated and hence,

the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

On receipt of the claim statement along with the

relevant documents/written statement from both the sides

the workman was called for adducing evidence, if any, in

4620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order to prove her case vide order dated 24.2.2014. But the

workman after seeking adjournments on different dates

appeared on 25.6.2014 and she was examined partly at her

instance keeping her further examination reserved for want

some relevant documents from the custody of the

Management. Accordingly the management was directed

to submit the documents. Thereafter the workman remained

absent for consecutive seven (7) dates and hence, the

case proceeded ex-parte against the workman vide order

dated 15.7.2015. The management examined their solitary

witness Sri Kripesh Chakrabarty, Dy. Manager, HR, ONGC

as MW.1 ex-parte. After closing hearing of management

side I have heard argument from the management side.

The workman Smti Purna Laxmi Das who was

examined partly as W.W.1 stated that she worked as

Sweeper/Cleaner in ONGC Dispensary at Link Road, Silchar

and on shifting of the said ONGC, Dispensary to Ambika

Patty Silchar she had to clean the office premises,

dispensary and its toilets etc. She also used to pour water

to the water filter, supply drinking water to the staff of the

said dispensary. In this way she served in the ONGC

Dispensary for 30 years without any disruption and

sometimes in her absence due to illness her younger

daughter Miss Kanchan Das used to work there. She also

mentioned that for first 6/7 years she was paid @ Rs. 200/-

per month by the ONGC and thereafter @ Rs.500/- per

month for about 7/8 years; and then her wage was

enhanced to Rs.700/- per month till her dismissal from

service. She also approached the management for

enhancement of her wages but it was rejected by the Head

Office of the ONGC, Srikona. The examination of the

workman (WW.1) was not completed nor she was cross-

examined by the Management. Further, the statement of

the workman is also not supported by any oral or

documentary evidence and hence, such statement of the

workman is found having no evidentiary value.

The Management Witness No.1, Sri Kripesh

Chakrabarty, the Manager, HR, Cachar Forward Base,

Srikona, Silchar stated that the Management occasionally,

on being approached by Smti Purna Laxmi Das (W.W.1)

engaged herself to carry out miscellaneous/petty jobs

which are intermittent in nature on daily wage/part time

basis. The ONGC, Cachar Forward Base engaged other

worker/workers as well to perform the same job

intermittently done by her, and the workman did never

performed the same nature of job continuously as such,

the workman has no legal and enforceable right to claim

reinstatement. He also mentioned that the management,

as part of policy decision, has been outsourcing the

aforesaid miscellaneous and petty jobs since December,

2009 through some service providers. The MW.1

categorically denied that the claimant had been entrusted

with cleaning the Dispensary and Project house during

office hours, and that the workman was engaged by the

management by means of selection process as per the

rules and procedure since 1985. He also denied the

contention of the workman that although she was engaged

to perform unskilled jobs as sweeper/cleaner, her service

was utilçed by the Management in respect of different

other jobs; and that the duties performed by the workman

were also performed by the regular workers of ONGC Ltd.

who were provided with higher emoluments and better

facilities with better living condition. The MW.1 also

denied the contention of the workman that she was

intentionally and deliberately denied regularçation with

sinister design to deprive her from claiming the legitimate

right and privilege made available to the regular workers

working in the ONGC. Mr. K. Charkrabarty( MW.1) stated

that the claimant having only worked as a daily wager for

a limited period against casual requirement of job cannot

legally claim regularçation since the regular employees of

ONGC are appointed against regular vacancies in a definite

pay of scale following due selection process. He also

added that ONGC has been outsourcing the work of

hygiene maintenance and such work was earlier provided

by the service provider M/S Sulabh International and at

present by M/S Biswajit Sharma of Sibsagar. He further

stated that the workman might have engaged herself in

hygiene maintenance activities intermittently, wherever

she learnt about requirement of the management and such

work done never takes more than one hour in any day and

the job was only to clean or sweep a particular areas which

is a precise nature of job for which the workman received

payment on daily wage basis as per the entitlement for

such unskilled job which is not a regular post in the ONGC.

He also denied that the claimant has never been

continuously rendered service for 27 years and the

Management without any cause, notice, notice pay and

compensation retrenched the service of the claimant from

June, 2010. Since the workman was not appointed by the

Management and she only got herself claiming for more

than 240 days the question of issuing any notice or

granting any notice pay and retrenchment compensation

does not arise. Further the claimant never rendered

continuous service of the ONGC and there is no post

available in the ONGC Cachar Forward Base for engaging

the claimant for the said cleaning and sweeping job by the

ONGC through out sourcing. He also mentioned that the

workman herself engaged on need basis for half an hour

to one hour on daily wage basis there can be no question

of her said engage or marginal less than 240 days in a year

with a view to avoid its obligation and liable provided

under the Industrial Dispute Act as alleged. The MW.1

again denied that the claimant continuously rendered her

service to the management like that of regular works and

that by virtue long standing working experience was no

longer casual/contingent worker and is liable to be

absorbed by regularçing her service. The MW.1

categorically denied that the workman was employed by

the management continuously for not less than 27 years

from 1985 to 4.6.2010 deliberately showing the period of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4621

employment marginally less than 240 days in each year

despite working for more than 240 days. He again

mentioned that even assuming but not admitting that the

claimant has ever worked for some period of time, but that

by itself, can not entitle her for regularçation or claim public

employment, de-hors the provision of the ONGC

recruitment rules. Mr. K.Chakrabarty (MW.1) further

mentioned that Mr. Monoj Munde, Assistant Legal

Advisor, ONGC, CFB, Silchar submitted the W.S.on

14.2.2014 in this reference vide Exhibit-A supported by an

affidavit vide Exhibit-A(1) whereupon Exhibit-A(2) is the

signature of Mr. Munde. Consequent upon the transfer

of Mr. Munde to other place he (MW.1) has been

representing the management.

The MW.1 has produced the original receipt/

vouchers in respect of payment of wages to the workman

by the management in pursuance of the order dated

3.11.2014 and 3.11.2015 passed by this Court at the

instance of the workman, which are marked as Exhibit-B,

Exhibit-C, Exhibit-D, Exhibit-E, Exhibit-F, Exhibit-G, Exhibit-

H, Exhibit-I, Exhibit-J, Exhibit-K, Exhibit-L, Exhibit-M,

Exhibit-N, and Exhibit-O in respect of payment of wages

to the workman during the period which she worked as

casual worker for the month of February, 2007, March, 07,

May, 07 June, 07, November, 07 December, 07 March,

2008, April, 08, June, 08, July, 08, September, 08, December,

08, February, 09 & March, 2009 respectively.

On perusal of the record as well as the evidence as

discussed above it appears that the workman although

claimed that she had been working for 27 years

continuously (as stated in her claim statement)/ 30 years

(as stated in her evidence in chief), the workman could

neither produce any appointment/engagement letter nor

adduce any legal evidence or documentary as well as

supporting evidence in order to establish her claim. Further

the workman although claimed that she was appointed by

the management as casual/contingent worker, and that

she had been doing the similar nature of work which the

regular employees of ONGC were performing for such a

long period of 27/30 years continuously and as such, she

acquired the right to be regularçed while the management

without any notice, notice pay, compensation money

dismissed her with a view to deprive her from getting the

benefit of a regular employee of the ONGC; she could not

produced any iota of evidence to show that she had been

working continuously and regularly under the management

of ONGC for such a long period. The workman also failed

to substantiate that she had been discharging the duties

of perennial nature against any sanctioned post. Thus it

is clear that the workman has not been able to discharge

her onus to prove in order to establish her case as revealed

in her claim statement.

The evidence of management witness along with

their pleading shows that the ONGC occasionally on being

approached by the workman, engaged her to carry out

miscellaneous/petty job which are intermittent in nature

on daily wage/part time and on need basis for a brief period;

and the management of ONGC for their Cachar Forward

Base engaged other worker/workers as well to perform the

job intermittently done by her. It is also found in the

evidence of the Management that since December, 2009,

as per their policy decision, the ONGC has been

outsourcing the said miscellaneous and petty jobs and

that said workman might have engaged herself in hygiene

maintenance activities intermittently whenever she learnt

about the requirement of the management and such work

which never take more than one hour in a day and the job

being only to clean or sweep of a particular area with is a

precise nature of work done by her, and the workman also

receive payment as per the entitlement for such unskilled

job. In support of this contention the management witness

No.1 has proved 14 numbers of documents namely, the

Bills submitted by the workman for the month of

February, 2007, March, 2007, May, 2007, June, 2007,

November, 2007, December, 2007 and March 2008 vide

Exhibit-B , Exhibit-C, Exhibit-D, Exhibit-E , Exhibit-F,

Exhibit-G & Exhibit-H respectively, and the receipt being

the payment for cleaning and up-kit-ment at Silchar/Srikona

Dispensary for the month of April, 2008, June, 2008, July,

2008, September, 2008, December, 2008, February, 2009,

March, 2009 vide Exhibit-I, Exhibit-J, Exhibit-K,

Exhibit-L, Exhibit-M, Exhibit-N, and Exhibit-O respectively.

The said documents were produced by the management

at the instance of the workman and these documents shows

that the payment towards the wages to the workman was

made on monthly basis @ Rs.700/- per month and not

continuously for consecutive period i.e. months rather

intermittently. The workman although in her evidence as

well as claim statement mentioned that initially she was

paid @ Rs.200 per month and thereafter @ Rs.500/- per

month which was increased to Rs.700/- per month regularly;

the Management deliberately showing that she worked

less than 240 days every year although she worked for

more than 240 day. But she has not adduced any evidence

in this respect for which the evidence adduced by the

management witness No.1 can not be thrown away. The

Management witness No.1 categorically denied all the

averments made by the workman in her W.S. as well as in

her evidence in chief. Such mere statement of engagement

by the workman as casual contingent worker and

continuous of her service for long 27/30 years which

entitled her to be regularçed as well as protection of law as

provided under the I.D. Act; as made by the workman can

not be entertained without any supporting evidence. In

this connection I am inclined to rely upon the case,

State of Karnataka—vs—Umadevi (3) published in

(2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein

“ 48. …… There is no fundamental right in those

who have been employed on daily wages or

temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that

4622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has

been held by this Court, they can not be said to be

holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could

be made only by making appointments consistent

with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The right to be treated equally with

the other employees employed on daily wages,

cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment

with those who were regularly employed. That would

be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be

relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service

even though they have never been selected in terms

of the relevant recruitment rules.”

In Union of India—vs—A.S. Pillai published in

(2010) 13 SCC 448, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt

with the issue of regularçation of part time employees

and the Court refused relief on the ground that part

timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere

and they are not restrained from working elsewhere

when they are not working for the authority/

employer; and being the part-time employees, they

are not subject to service rules or other regulations

which govern and control the regularly appointed

staff of the department; therefore, the question of

giving them equal pay for equal work or considering

their case for regularçation would not arise.

In State of Rajasthan–v—Daya Lal published in

(2011) 2 SCC 429 it has been decided as under :

“ Para 12-(i)

* * * * * * * * * * *

(ii)Mere continuation of service by a temporary or

ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some

interim orders of the Court, would not confer upon

him any right to be absorbed into service, as such

service would be ‘litigious employment’. Even

temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long

number of years, let alone service for one or two

years, will not entitle such employee to claim

regularçation, if he is not working against a

sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot

be grounds for passing any order of regularçation

in the absence of a legal right.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek

regularçation as they are not working against any

sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for

absorption, regularçation or permanent continuance

of part-time temporary employees.

(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-

run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with

regular employees of the Government on the principle

of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in

private employment, even if serving full time, seek

parity in salary with government employees. The

right to claim a particular salary against the State

must arise under a contract or under a statute,”

In view of my above discussion and having regard

to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned

above it can safely opined that the workman has not been

able to establish that she was appointed by the

management as casual/contingent worker who is working

continuously discharging the jobs of perennial nature at

par with the regular employees against the sanctioned

post. She also failed to establish that she worked for 240

days in a year in order to be entitled to claim protection

under Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Even she failed to

adduce evidence both oral and documentary in order to

establish her contention made in the claim statement. In

the result, it can safely be held that the workman is not

entitled to be regularised/reinstated/notice pay and

retrenchment compensation as well as protection of law

under Article 14,16 of the Constitution of India and the

I.D.Act, 1947. Accordingly, the claim of the workman is

rejected and the reference is disposed of in negative

without granting any relief.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure

immediately.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this

27th Novemeber, 22276015 at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,p-ih-

lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

44@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

3-12-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@14@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2015

S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. HPCL and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 3-12-2015.

[No. L-30011/14/2014-IR(M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4623

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer,

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 2014

PARTIES :

The President,

Industrial Mazdoor Congress (INTUC),

Ara-Patna Main Road, Giddha,

Ramendra Nrayan Singh,

Market, Giddha Indl. Area, Bhojpur (Bhojpur),

Bihar

Vs.

The Sr. Regional Manager,

HPCL, Regional Office,

6th Floor, Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow

Chauraha, Patna-1

Order No.L-30011/14/2014-IR (M) dt.13.08.2014.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

None

State

Jharkhand

Industry

Petroleum & Natural Gas

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th November, 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-30011/14/2014-IR (M) dt.13.08.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of HPCL,

LPG Bottling Plant (HPCL),Giddha Bhojpur by not

accepting the charter of demand of the Union

“Industrial Mazdoor Congress” was justified. If not

what remedy lies with the Industrial Mazdoor

Congress?”

None representation either from the Sponsoring

Union or the Management is reported even on the last

date on 16.11.2015 .Though two Regd. Notices dated

3.09.2014 and & 6.4.2015 were sent on the addresses of

the Union concerned and the Management that too failed

to respond .The Management by filing an Authority letter

has not moved ahead. The case is lying on very beginning

stage of filing of W.S. on the part of the Workman since its

coming into existence on 26.08.2014.The issue of the case

relates to disapproving of the charter of demands of the

Union by the LPG Bottling Plant (HPCL) Management in

some way or other amounts to unjustifiable.

By going through the case record, it is evident and

apparently clear that the both the parties seem reluctant

for going in for final adjudication as the dispute is not in

existence real terms and rather it should be closed as ample

opportunity was provided to each of them to defend their

case, as reflected through the order sheet .And I do not

see any logic to hold it on to the period uncertain rather

better to dispose of as ‘No Dispute Award’ in the larger

interest of justice. Accordingly the case is closed a’ No

dispute Award’ and passed the order to that effect.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v'kksd gksVy]

fnYyh ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

25@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@12@2015

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@118@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 25/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Ashok Hotel, Delhi and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42011/118/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 25/2012

The President

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,

Ashok Hotel,

4624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Staff Quarter No.C-48-49,

50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi – 110 021

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager(HR),

Ashok Hotel, 50-B,

Chanakyapuri,

Delhi 110 021

...Management

AWARD

Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and

sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 was received from the appropriate Government

vide letter No.L-42011/118/2011-IR(DU) dated 20.01.2012

to the following effect:

‘Whether the action of the management of Hotel

Ashok, a unit of ITDC, New Delhi in terminating the

services of Shri Pradeep S/o Shri Ganga Saran and

10 others (Total eleven) as detailed in annexure ‘A’

of the ID w.e.f. 19.11.2010 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman concerned are entitled to and

from which date?

Factual matrix as contained in the statement of claim

shows that Ashok Hotel (in short the management) was

using services of 14 employees in ETP Plant of the

management thorough M/s. Dophin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd.

from the dates mentioned against the names of employees

in Annexure. Matter regarding regularçation of their

services was taken up by the Union with the Labour

Department and after the failure of the conciliation, the

above reference was received. Workers mentioned in

Annexure A were continuously working with the in ETP

Plant in shits round the clock. Their attendance was also

marked in the I.Card Section of the management as well as

in the ETP Plant. Salary bill of the workmen were being

verified by the management and payment was made

through contractor. Officials of the management used to

assign job to the workmen and also supervise their work.

Job carried out by the workmen was regular in nature and

ETP Plant is still functioning in the premises of the

management.

As per averments, workers had worked for 240 days

in each calendar year and as such, they are entitled for

regularçation of their services with the management. No

notice was served upon the workers at the time of their

termination, as such removal of the workman is in

violations of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short

the Act). No service compensation was paid to the

workman, thus resulting in violation of Section 25F and

25N of the Act. Contractor was also not having licence

from the Labour Department of the Central Government,

as such, contract between the management and the

contractor was illegal, sham, unlawful and a camouflage.

It is also alleged that as per Contract Labour Act, 1970,

workmen were entitled to equal pay at par with the regular

employees, but the management was paying minimum

wages, thus resulting in violation of Contract Labor Act,

1970. Workmen were not paid their wages from 01.10.2010

to 18.11.2010 and they were ultimately removed from service

on 19.11.2010 without assigning any reason. Workmen

have protested before the management on 22.11.2010

regarding their illegal removal and non-payment of wages.

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union also wrote letters on

30.11.2010 and 13.12.2010 regarding illegal removal from

service of the employees. Workers are now unemployed

and facing great financial problems. As per Standing

Orders of management, Clause No.3, there is no provision

classification of employees where there is no provision to

engage any employee through contractor and management

can use the employees only as Permanent, Temporary,

Badlis, casuals and probationers. During service, workman

herein were not given any kind of leave, which is also in

violation of Shops and Establishment Act and act of the

management is totally unlawful and illegal. Workman was

also entitled for bonus for each financial year, which was

not paid by the management. Officials of the management

used to allot job to the workmen and also supervise their

job from time to them and for all purposes were working

under the administrative control of the officers of the

management.

Finally prayer has been made that the workmen,

whose services have been terminated be reinstated with

full back wages and management be directed to treat them

as permanent employees as per Standing Orders of the

management.

Management was put to notice, who filed written to

the statement of claim filed by the workmen. Several

preliminary objections have been taken and it has been

specifically alleged that the workmen herein are employees

of M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd., as such, claim filed

against the management is not maintainable and the

management is neither a necessary nor a proper party for

adjudication of the claim. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction

to adjudicate the claim filed by the workmen, inasmuch as

the claimants are employees of M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure

Pvt. Ltd. and the appropriate authority would be the Labour

Court created under the Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi and not this Tribunal under the Central

Government. It is also alleged that the management

entered into an annual maintenance contract with M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. which was on principal to

principal basis and all the persons deployed for service in

the said agreement, including the workmen herein, were

permanent employees under the employment of M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. and not that of the

management.

Management on merits denied that the management

was using services of the 14 workman herein in its ETP

Plant. Management denied all the material averments

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4625

contained in the statement of claim. It is denied that the

claimants were working under with the management. It is

also denied that attendance of the workman herein was

marked in I Card Section as well as ETP Plant of the

management. The answering management has no rile

with regard to marking of attendance of the employees of

M/s. Dolphin Aqua Care Pvt. Ltd. It is also denied that the

workman herein were working for the answering

management at any point of time for a period of 240 days

or more in any calendar year. Finally, prayer has been made

for dismissal of the claim filed by the workman.

Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the claimants’ services were

terminated by the contractor, namely M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Care Pvt. Ltd. or by the

management of M/s. Ashok Hotel?

(ii)

Whether M/s. Dolphin Aqua Care Pvt. Ltd. is a

necessary party?

(iii)

As in terms of reference.

Claimant in support of its claim examined Shri S.S.

Upadhyay as WW1, Shri Allanoor as WW2, Shri

Mohammad Saddik as WW3, Shri Pradeep Kumar as

WW4, Shri Ram Sanjivan as WW5, Shri Ganesh as WW6,

Shri Manoj as WW7 and Shri Mukesh Kumar as WW8

and tendered in evidence, their affidavits Ex.WW1/A to

Ex. WW1/8. Management in order to rebut the case of the

claimant examined Shri Suresh Chandra as MW1, who

tendered in evidence his affidavit which is Ex.MW1/A.

Item No. (i) and (iii)

Both these issues are being taken up together for

the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and

can be conveniently disposed of.

10.

Since affidavits filed by most of the workmen are on

the same lines as that filed by Shri S.S. Upadhyay, General

Secretary of the Union, as such, it is proper to refer to the

affidavit of Shri S.S. Upadhyay, which Ex.WW1/A. It is

clear from perusal of the above affidavit that it is in tandem

with the averments contained in the statement of claim.

Shri Upadhyay has been subjected to cross examination

by the management and there is hardly anything in the

cross examination to impeach his credit. He has clarified

that he is appearing in the capacity of President of the

Union. He has admitted that no appointment letter was

issued in favour of the workmen herein and they were

engaged on the job by the management. He has further

admitted that payment of salary was made to the claimant

by the contractor after receiving the same from the

management (Ashok Hotel). Contractor also used to

deduct provident fund contribution from the wags of the

claimant and as per rule, this contribution ought to have

been deposited in the Trust Account. He has specifically

denied that claimants were employed by M/s. Dolphin

Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. and clarified that employees of the

management used to supervise the work of the claimants

and assign job to them. Their attendance was also marked

by the management and the claimants unemployed as on

date.

11.

To the same effect is the affidavits filed by Shri

Allanoor, Shri Mohammad Saddik, Shri Pradeep Kumar,

Shri Ram Sanjivan Shri Ganesh, Shri Manoj and Shri

Mukesh Kumar. Shri Upadhyay also filed written

arguments, alongwith judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court so as to support his submissions. The management,

in order to rebut the case of the workmen, examined Shri

Suresh Chandra as MW1.

12.

It is necessary to mention at the outset that the

contractor, M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. has not

been examined either by the workman herein nor the

management. Admittedly, M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt.

Ltd. has not been arrayed as a party in the present

reference. During the course of arguments, it was not

disputed that the workman herein were deployed in ETP

Plant of the management from the dates mentioned in

Annexure A. Later on, their services were terminated and

now they are not at all in employment of the management.

It was also not disputed that annual contracts is being

given by the management of Ashok Hotel from time to

time to different contractors, though employees mostly

remained the same.

13.

Now, the vital question which requires consideration

in the present case is whether the workmen were in the

employment of the management or were deployed by M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. from the date mentioned in

Annexure A. Equally important is also the question

whether agreement between the management and

M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. is genuine or the same

is simply sham and a camouflage so as to deny status of

workmen under the principal employer herein. It is also

appropriate to refer to the statement of Shri Suresh

Chandra, MW1, who specifically alleged in the affidavit

that the claimants were permanent employees of

M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. and in the employment

of M/s Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd.. He has further averred

that the management is registered under the provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and

Certificate of Registration dated 12.09.2006 of M/s. Dolphin

Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.MW1/1. It is clear from the cross

examination of this witness that he is an employee of ITDC

and is working with the management since April 2011.

Thus, during the relevant period, i.e. period prior to

termination of the claimants herein, he was not working as

Deputy General Manager with the management. He has

further clarified that Shri Nemi Chand was the Junior

Engineer under whose supervision ETP Plant was

installed. He further deposed that Board of Directors of

4626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ITDC sanctioned staff strength of all categories. There

was no sanction in respect of ETP Plant. Since

management was not having manpower in ETP Plant, as

such, services of M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. was

taken for the above work. He made a vital admission that

the ETP Plant is functioning regularly. He has also admitted

that the workman, even today, are working in ETP Plant.

He has admitted that in the Certified Standing Order, under

Section III, classification of employee, there is a clause

wherein it is indicated under what category an employee

can be appointed. He has further admitted that there is no

provision of appointing contract employees in the

classification. He also admitted that regarding EPF Trust

in the management, which stopped functioning since

August 2014. Being Deputy General Manager, this witness

was not aware whether the above trust was de-recognçed

by Regional Provident Fund Officer vide order dated

28.12.2010 due to violation of the rules. Further,

management had not issued any show cause notice or

charge sheet before terminating services of the workman

herein, because they were employed by M/s. Dolphin Aqua

Cure Pvt. Ltd.. It is pertinent to mention here that this

witness has admitted in his cross examination ‘It is also

correct that even today, workman are working in the ETP

Plant, under my supervision.’ He has admitted issuance

of order Ex.WW1/7 by Shri Ramanand. It is clear from

perusal of document Ex.WW1/6 that Shri S.P. Verma,

General Manager(HR) has issued letter to the contractor

M/s. Sparkling Enterprises when surprise checking was

done by the management and workers were found sleeping

there. The contractor was advised to remove all the

contracatual employees immediately. Thereafter, letter

Ex.WW1/7 has been issued which shows that during the

intervening night of 24/25.08.2008, workers were found

sleeping on duty. It is thus clear from perusal of the above

two documents that workmen herein were employed by

different private contactors for different periods, yet

supervisory control was with the management. The above

two letters admittedly are not of the last contractor, M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Cure PVt. Ltd. under whom the workman

herein were working during that period, but it throws ample

light on the fact that the management was having

supervisory control over the workers in respect of the

work which have been outsourced to private contractors

under the Contract Labour Act, 1970. Since Shri Suresh

Chandra, MW1 has categorically admitted that ETP Plant

is still functional as on date and workers have been

deployed in the said plant were functioning regularly, it is

clear that the work in the present case is regular and

permanent in nature. Though Shri Suresh Chandra, MW1

has tendered in evidence copy of contract Ex.MW1/W2,

but merely tendering of this contract document of 2006 is

not of much help to the case of the management inasmuch

as there is ample evidence on record to suggest

supervisory control over the ETP Plant was that of the

officials of Ashok Hotel. Entries of the workman was

being regulated by the management of Ashok Hotel and

workman, even at present, are working regularly in the

said ETP Plant. It is further clear from overall statement of

Shri Suersh Chandra MW1 that functioning of the ETP

Plant is necessary for running Ashok Hotel.

14.

During the course of arguments, Shri Upadhyay,

learned authorçed representative appearing on behalf of

the claimant place strong reliance upon the case of Steel

Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union

Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1, wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered extensively

various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as

well as Contract Labour Act, 1970 along with relevant

notification issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour

Act, 1970. A critical appraisal of the above judgement

would show that the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into

consideration the entire spectrum of the case law on the

subject and held in para 107 as under:

107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above,

shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where

contract labour is engaged in or in connection with

the work of an establishment and employment of

contract labour is prohibited either because the

industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of

contract labour or because the appropriate

Government issued notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the

contract labour working in the establishment was

ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a

sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which

case the contract labour working in the establishment

of the principal employer were held, in fact and in

reality, the employees of the principal employer

himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition

of contract labour but present instances wherein

the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position as a fact at the stage after employment of

contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in

discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a

canteen in an establishment the principal employer

availed the services of a contractor the courts have

held that the contract labour would indeed be the

employees of the principal employer.

15.

Ratio of the above judgement has been cited with

approval in all the subsequent pronouncement by the

various High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and while making various conclusions, ratio of the law in

Hussanbhai case (three judgements decision) was

approved and ratio of the judgement in Air India Statutory

Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377

was partly overruled prospectively. It was also made clear

that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act nor any

other provisions under the Act, whether expressly or by

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4627

necessary implication provides for automatic absorption

of the contact labour on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section

10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment.

Matter is to be decided judiciously by the Industrial

Adjudicator where a contractor has been interposed either

on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given

result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour

for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is merely a ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers

of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be

not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract

labour will be treated as employees of the principal

employer who shall be directed to regularçe services of

the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject

to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose

in the light of para 6 hereunder:

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and

prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the

CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment

has been issued by the appropriate Government,

prohibiting employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work of any

establishment and where in such process, operation

or other work of the establishment the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if

otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

16.

This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the

Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act are

social and beneficial legislations. The scheme of the

Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of

workers under the contract labour system and to provide

for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided

under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said

Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any

work through contract labour, except under and in

accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of

the Act makes contravention of provisions of the Act

punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the

principal employer of the establishment to get itself

registered under the Act so as to avail the benefit of

provisions of the Act.

17.

Reliance was also placed upon the case of

Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen decided

on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No.14828/2006 wherein similar

question was involved. It was a case where various

workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/

Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were

alleged to be working directly under the contactor who

has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e.

Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the

workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India

(supra) and contention of the management to the effect

that workmen were employees of the contractor was

rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to

be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship

of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

18.

In the case in hand also, situation is almost similar

and there is ample evidence on record, as discussed above,

to show that the workman herein were working under the

direct supervision of the management of Ashok Hotel.

Some of the workmen had even specifically deposed that

their salary was being paid by the officials/Engineers of

Ashok Hotel. Work of the ETP Plant, as is evident from

statement of MW1, is regular and perennial in nature. It is

further clear that contract is being awarded to different

contractors on yearly basis and in the year 2006 it was

M/s Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. to whom contract of

employment was given by the management. The said

contract in the light of the ratio of the decision in Steel

Authority of India coupled with evidence on record is

held to be sham and a mere camouflage so as to deny

relationship of employer(Ashok Hotel) and the workman

herein.

19.

It is further clear from the critical appraisal of the

above judgements that services of the workman is taken

in connection with the work of the establishment, by the

principal employer through contractor, in that eventuality,

contractor merely acts as an agent or a broker on behalf of

the principal employer and the workman in such a situation

would continue to be a direct employee of the principal

employer and not that of the agent or the broker. In the

case in hand also, it is clear from the evidence on record,

that the workmen herein were admittedly working in the

ETP Plant of the management regularly, though alleged to

be in the employment of M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd.

Supervisory control upon them remained with that of the

management.

20.

It is also clear from perusal of the Certified Standing

Orders Ex.WW1/1 that Section III details with the

classification of employees and the same is reproduced as

under:

Section 3 : Classification of Employees

(a) Permanent

(b) Temporary

(d) Casuals

(e) Probationers

4628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.

Since appointment of contact labour is not

contemplated in the above Certified Standing Orders, as

such, the engagement of workmen through contract

labour is patently against the law and Standing Orders

Ex. WW1/1.

21.

Claimants have also filed documents Ex.WW1/2

which deals with the deposit of provident fund of the

employees engaged by the employer. Similarly, document

Ex.WW1/3 shows that contractor or the employer was not

depositing the provident fund etc. with the Trust so

constituted under the Regulation, as a result of which

exemption granted to the management was withdrawn by

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi, North.

There is another document, Ex.WW1/4, which shows the

position of employees who were working in the

establishment of the management. During the course of

arguments, it was not disputed that several posts of various

categories are lying vacant in the establishment of the

management and have not been filled up so far as the

Central Government has not granted permission to fill up

the same. In such a situation, one thing is crystal clear

that though the work of the workman herein who were

admittedly working in the ETP Plant of the management is

regular in nature, yet the management is running the said

plant by deploying workers through contractors. It is

further clear that management has adopted this devise so

as to deprive the workmen of regular employment and

deprive them of their permanent livelihood, which is totally

against the spirit of Contract Labour Act, 1970 wherein it

is clearly provided that when a work is regular or permanent

in nature, there is no question of employing contract labour,

particular when such labour is not covered by any clause

mentioned in Section III of the Certified Standing Order.

22.

Admittedly, no notice whatsoever was served upon

the workman herein before ordering their termination, as

majority of them have been working since 2004 and

onwards. Thus, in the case in hand, there is violation of

Section 25F of the Act, which requires that if a workman

has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year,

then the management is required to issue notice to such

workman, which has not been done in the case in hand.

Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the management

that the workman herein were directly employed by M/s.

Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. when the overall control and

supervision remained with the management.

23.

So far as question of regularçation of the workman

herein is concerned, this Tribunal cannot give directions

for regularçation of the workmen in view of the clear cut

ratio of law in Steel Authority of India (supra) wherein it

was held that question of regularçation is to be decided

by the principal employer after taking into consideration

the minimum qualification, age as well as availability of

posts. There is no such evidence to this effect brought on

record, either by the workmen or the management. As

such, plea of the workman for regularçation cannot be

entertained at this stage. This is to be decided by the

management after taking into consideration the necessary

rules applicable to such employees governing such

regulation.

Issue No. (ii)

24.

During the course of arguments, it was strongly

urged on behalf of the management that M/s. Dolphin

Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. was a necessary party to the

controversy and in the absence of its impleadment as a

necessary party, reference filed by the claimant herein is

not legally maintainable. Shri Upadhyay, authorized

representative on behalf of the claimant countered the

above submissions by urging that the workman herein

were in the employment of the management and that

payment of wages were made to them through contractor

with the prior approval of the management, as such

M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. is not a necessary party.

To my mind, when reference has been made under Section

10 of the Act by the appropriate Government, this Tribunal

does not have the power to implead a party. Hence, there

is no force in the contention of the management inasmuch

as the management should have examined the contractor

M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure Pvt. Ltd. so as to ascertain its

terms and conditions. Moreover, M/s. Dolphin Aqua Cure

Pvt. Ltd. is simply a proper party and is not the necessary

party for the adjudication of the controversy in question.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

25.

Consequently, it is held that termination of the

workman herein, i.e. from 19.11.2010 is held to be illegal

and workman herein are entitled to be reinstated. Since it

has come in the evidence of the workmen that they are

unemployed since the date of their termination and there

being no evidence to the contrary led by the management,

as such, the workman herein are liable to be reinstated

with full back wages from the date of their termination. An

award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the

appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : November 24, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2278-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xks;y daLVªD'ku

,aM bathfu;lZ ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 21@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 9@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@178@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4629

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 21/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Goel Construction and Engineers

and Others and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42012/178/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 21/2015

Shri Nimai Mandal,

Through Indian Steel and

Metal Workers Union,

1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 019

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s Goel Construction & Engineers,

C – 503, JVTS Garden,

Chhattarpur Extension,

New Delhi-110 074

2. Health and Family Welfare Centre,

Baba Ganga Nath Marg,

Munirka,

New Delhi

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/178/

2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Nimai

Mandal S/o Shri Bhupati Mandal by the management

of M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers a sub

contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National

Health and Family Welfare Centre, Principal Employer

w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Nimai Mandal

opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the workman herein as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor

was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services

remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,

every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above

notice was served upon the workman herein. Despite

service of the notice, initially nobody was appearing on

behalf of the workman herein on several dates of hearing

and later on, despite granting of opportunities workman

herein opted not to file his statement of claim. Thus, it is

clear that the workman herein is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman herein has neither filed his

statement of claim nor has 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 : December 4, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xks;y daLVªD'ku

,aM bathfu;lZ ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 17@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@174@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 17/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Goel Construction and Engineers

and Others and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42012/174/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

4630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 17/2015

Shri Zakir Ali,

Through Indian Steel and

Metal Workers Union,

1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers,

C – 503, JVTS Garden,

Chhattarpur Extension,

New Delhi-110 074

2. Health and Family Welfare Centre,

Baba Ganga Nath Marg,

Munirka,

New Delhi

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/174/

2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Zakir

Ali S/o Shri Munna Ali by the management of M/s.

Goel Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of

NPCC in the establishment of National Health and

Family Welfare Centre, Princtpal Employer w.e.f.

12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Joginder Sharma

opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the workman herein as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor

was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services

remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,

every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above

notice was served upon the workman herein. Despite

service of the notice, initially nobody was appearing on

behalf of the workman herein on several dates of hearing

and later on, despite granting of opportunities workman

herein opted not to file his statement of claim. Thus, it is

clear that the workman herein is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman herein has neither filed his

statement of claim nor has 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 : December 4, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy ifCyd

oDlZ fMikVZesaV ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 107@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@63@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 107/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the C.P.W.D. and Others and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42011/63/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 107/2013

Shri Surender Kumar Sharma,

Shri Kanwar Pal, Wiremen, through

General Secretary,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Gali No.13, Shahdara,

Delhi-110 032

...Workmen

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4631

Versus

The Director General (Works),

C.P.W.D.,

Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi-110 001

The Executive Engineer,

ECD – 5, C.P.W.D.,

Pushpa Bhawan,

New Delhi

M/s Bhardwaj Brothers,

R-32, South Extension II,

New Delhi

M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises,

R-32, South Extension II,

New Delhi

M/s Jagat Sharma (Sharma Brothers)

15, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur,

New Delhi-110 003

M/s Ramesh Electrical Works,

53/1, Arjun Nagar,

New Delhi-110 053

...Managements

AWARD

A reference was received under clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), vide letter

No. L-42011/63/2013-IR(DU) dated 18.07.2013 with the

following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of CPWD

in terminating the services of Shri Surender Kumar

Sharma and Shri Kanwar Pal, Wiremen (Workmen

worked from 01.04.1998 to 16.06.2009) is just, fair

and legal? To what relief the workmen are entitled

to.’

Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are

that Shri Surender Kumar Sharma and Shri Kanwar Pal,

workmen herein, were engaged as wiremen by the

Executive Engineer, Electrical Construction Division-5,

CPWD at HUDCO Complex Enquiry Office with effect from

01.04.1998 without any notice, notice pay, retrenchment

compensation etc. Workmen were performing their duties

continuously on normal working days as well as on

Sundays and holidays, who were being paid less wages

that that prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. There

are regular employees working as Wireman in the

establishment of the management who are being paid

regular pay scales and other allowances as admissible as

per Government rules whereas the above said two

workmen were doing same nature of work and being paid

less wages. Workmen have also annexed their educational

qualification, competency licence as Annexure I.

Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) has conducted

surprise check on 15.06.2009 and found that the

management had not been paying the workmen due wages

and also noticed that no records were maintained as Labor

laws, either by the principal employer or the concerned

contractor. It was at that time that the workmen herein

came to know that their services were under the contract

system, which was purely and camouflage because they

were being paid wages by the Junior Engineer/Assistant

Engineer of the management. No notice was issued to the

workmen for changing their service conditions as per

Section 9A of the Act. Copy of the note of the Labour

Enforcement Officer is Annexure II. Due to surprise check

by the Labour Enforcement Officer, services of the

workmen herein was terminated on 16.06.2009. Thereafter,

the workmen herein filed a representation to the principal

employer, i.e. Executive Engineer and requested for their

reinstatement vide Annexure III. Union of the workmen ie.

All India CPWD(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan also took

up the case of the workmen with the Superintendent

Engineer concerned as is clear from annexure IV. However,

no action was taken on the same. Resultantly, the workmen

union was left with no choice but to approach the

appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance

through their union and copy of the application is

Annexure V. During pendency of the proceedings,

management concerned paid wages to the workmen on

different dates. However, they were not reinstated.

Decision of the claim application dated 17.06.2011 of the

Authority under the Minimum Wages Act in favour of the

workmen clearly shows that the workmen had been

performing their duties continuously under different

contractors at various points of time but under the same

principal employer. The workmen have been performing

their duties continuously with effect from 04.01.1998 to

15.06.2009 and liable to be reinstated in service as well as

regularçed under the principal employer directly.

There are also averments that in CWP No. 4817/99,

All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan vs Union

of India decided on 26.05.2000, Hon’ble High Court

directed the Ministry of Labour for constitution of a Board

to look into the aspect of contract system prevalent in

CPWD, under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition

and Regulation) Act, 1970. On the recommendations of

the Board, Ministry of Labour issued notification on

31.07.2002 for abolishing contract system for 15 posts.

The said notification was also circulated by Ministry of

Urban Development/Director General of Works CPWD for

implementation. However, notification has not been

implemented by the CPWD at the level of Executive

Engineer/Divisions, which is severe violation of Labour

Laws. Work of the workmen was perennial in nature under

the principal employer and contract of the management

with the contractor is purely sham. Finally, a prayer has

been made by both the workmen for reinstatement of their

4632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services with effect from 16.06.2009 with proper pay

allowances etc. as well as their regularçation.

Claim was demurred by the management by filing

written statement wherein certain preliminary objections

have been taken. It is alleged that the workmen have not

approached the Tribunal with clean hands and they did

not have locus standi to file the present claim petition.

The workmen are not in the employment of Management

No.1 and 2. As such, claim petition is alleged to be not

maintainable On merits, in para 2 of ‘para-wise reply’ of

the written statement, it is denied that the workmen herein

were engaged as wiremen by the Executive Engineer,

Electrical Division, 5 CPWD HUDCO Complex for day to

day maintenance works with effect from 01.04.198. Their

services were terminated on 13.06.1999 without any notice,

notice pay and retrenchment compensation. It is also

alleged that the workmen were neither engaged by

management no. 2, i.e and Executive Engineer (E), ECD V,

CPW Pushp Bhawan, hence question of their termination

of services by the Management No.1 and 2 does not arise.

It is also denied that the workmen herein were performing

their duties continuously on normal working days as

alleged as well as on Sundays and holidays. Management

has also denied other material averments contained in the

statement of claim and further alleged that it was for the

contractor to maintain proper record in respect of the

workmen. In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal

of the reference.

Reply/written submissions have also been filed by

Management No. 5, Jagat Sharma, proprietor who has

alleged that he is an electrical contractor and running a

firm in the name and style of M/s. Sharma Brothers. In

January 2009, workmen herein had joined his firm and they

were assigned task of looking into electrical complaints of

HUDCO, near Ansal Plaza. Both the workmen worked for

about 3 months and there were lots of complaints in short

period, hence they were directed to be transferred to

Dwarka project. Workmen did not join the Dwarka project

despite a number of notices sent to them. Thereafter, they

have approached Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Connaught Place Delhi, finally resulting in filing of the

present reference petition. Reply is supported by affidavit.

7. Against this factual background, my learned

predecessor framed the following issues vide order dated

18.12.2013:—

(i) Whether there is privity of contract between the

claimants and Central Public Works Department?

If no, its effects.

(ii) Whether the claimants abandoned services of

M/s. Sharma Brothers, when they were

transferred to Dwarka project somewhere in April

2009?

(iii) As in terms of reference.

The workmen herein, in support of their case

examined Shri Surender Kumar Sharma and Shri Kanwar

Pal Singh as WW1 and WW2. Both these witnesses have

tendered in evidence their educational certificates,

experience certificate and license of wireman, copy of

complaint register, copy of identity card, copy of character

certificates, copy of report of Enforcement Officer, copy

of application dated 16.06.2009, copy of complaint dated

28.06.2009, copy of demand notice, copy of claim filed

before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, copy

of settlement arrived at before the aforesaid Authority,

copy of judgement dated 26.05.2000 passed by High Court

of Delhi, copy of reports of the Advisory Committee dated

18.12.2001 and 26.07.2002, copy of notification dated

31.07.2002, prohibiting contract labour on some jobs in

the establishment of the management, copy of letter dated

26.09.2002 written by Urban Development Ministry to the

management, copy of letter dated 27.11.2002, which was

circulated by Director General of the management amongst

the officers, copy of award dated 13.02.2013 passed by

this Tribunal and copy of espousal resolution and I would

be discussing the same in the subsequent paras.

Management No.1 and 2, to rebut the case of the

workmen, examined Shri Chaman Lal Executive Engineer

as MW1, who also tendered in evidence documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3.

I have heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned

authorçed representative for the workmen and Shri C.S.S.

Tomar, learned authorçed representative for the

management.

Issue No. 1, 2 and 3

10.

All these issues are being taken up together for the

purpose of discussion as they are interrelated and can be

conveniently disposed of. Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma,

appearing as WW1 has tendered in evidence his affidavit

as Ex.WW1/A, which is quite comprehensive and is on

similar lines as per averments contained in statement of

claim. It is clear from overall examination of the affidavit,

Ex.WW1/A that both the workmen were engaged as

wiremen on 01.04.1998 by Executive Engineer Shri A.K.

Srivastava and Assistant Engineer, Shri B.M. Sarkar. He

was being allotted work by the Junior Engineer and was

looking after complaints of electricity at various places.

He was also issued I Card by the department, copy of

which is Ex.WW1/3. Management has also issued circulars

which shows that work of the workmen were satisfactory.

In his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A, he has also referred to the

contractor, M/s. Sharma Brothers and that management

had also withheld wages of the workmen at the instance

of the said contractor. Later on, workmen came to know

that they have been shown to be engaged by the contractor

and are not directly under the principal employer, i.e.

CPWD. Finally their services were terminated on 16.06.2009.

Even at that time, arrears of wages was not paid to the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4633

workmen despite demands made by the workmen. It was

thereafter that the workmen had approached the union

who took up the matter on behalf of the workmen. MW1

Shri Chaman Lal has also made reference to the writ petition

decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 26.05.2000

wherein directions was given to the Labour Department

for constitution of Board so as to pass appropriate

notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act

in consultation with the Union. After constitution of

the Board and in consultation with the officials of CPWD

as well as the Union, Government has issued necessary

notification wherein contract labour system was

prohibited in respect of 15 posts. In his cross examination,

Shri Surender Kumar Sharma, WW1 has clarified that he is

not working under the contractor and workmen were

engaged by CPWD as wiremen. He has also referred to his

ITI certificate and that initially he was paid Rs.1800 per

month as wages in cash. No salary slip was issued to him.

Later on, he approached the Junior Engineer, Shri B.N.

Kulwant Singh when posts of wiremen fell vacant in the

department, who also conducted his interview and he

was engaged as workmen. He is not made any complaint

in writing regarding payment of less wages. However,

oral complaints were made to the Assistant Engineer. His

attendance was being marked by the Junior Engineer and

his duty hours were from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. He has further

stated in his cross examination that he is not claimed any

relief against the contractors M/s. Bhardwaj Brothers,

M/s Ramesh Electrical Works, M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises

and M/s. Sharma Brothers

11.

To the same effect is the statement of Shri Kanwar

Pal Singh, WW2, whose affidavit is identical with that of

Shri Surender Kumar Sharma WW1 and submissions made

by this witness is on the same lines as that of WW1 Shri

Surender Kumar Sharma.

12.

Management in support of its case examined Shri

Chaman Lal, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. It is clear from

perusal of the above affidavit that the management has

held both the workmen to be employees of the contractors,

for which contracts were awarded in favour of the

managements No.3 to 6. Workmen, as per submissions of

these witness never remained employed with Management

No.1 and 2. He has further mentioned in para 8 of the

affidavit that regular employees working as Wiremen are

getting timescale as per government rules, whereas

contractors are making payment to the contractor workers

as per Minimum Wages regarding their employment. And

record is with the contractor and it is up to the contractor

to engage and comply with the contract conditions.

13.

It is clear from the resume of evidence on record that

the workmen herein were appointed in the year 1988 and

factum of their employment has not been specifically

denied by Management No.1 in its written statement. There

is also ample evidence on record to suggest that the

workmen have diploma in ITI Trade and even prior to their

employment in the year 1998, they were doing similar work

with different employers. It is clear from perusal of

certificate Ex.WW1/1 that Shri Surender Kumar Sharma

has passed middle examination from S.H.Int. College

Bhadsiana Ghaziabad in the year 1991. There is also

diploma certificate in ITI Electrical which shows that Shri

Surender Sharma, the workman herein during the year 1987

to 89 has passed ITI Electrical Diploma from Duhai,

Ghaziabad. Workmen has also tendered in evidence extract

of enquiry office message register Ex.WW1/5 to Ex.WW1/

23 which shows that both the workmen from time to time

during the year 2008-09 were attending to the electric

complaints at the respective places, description of which

is given in the above documents. There is also a certificate

issued by AE, ECD-V, CPWD, which clearly shows that

the workman Shri Surender Kumar was an electrical from

01.04.2003 to 1.1.2008. There is yet another certificate by

Assistant Engineer, EX.WW1/26 which establishes that

Shri Surender Kumar, workman herein was working in

HUDCO Complex, New Delhi as wireman. During the

course of arguments, attention of the Tribunal was also

drawn to documents/complaints, Ex.WW1/27 and

Ex.WW1/28 which is addressed to the Executive Engineer

which shows that minimum wages were not paid to the

workmen by the Contractor M/s. Bhardwaj Brothers from

the year 2009. The workmen has also relied upon due and

drawn statement Ex.WW1/28, which again goes to show

that the workmen were being paid less than minimum wages

during the year 1998 onwards. There is a representation

Ex.WW1/30 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer of

the Department wherein unfair labor practice being

committed by the Executive Engineer in respect of

deployment of workmen on contract basis has been

highlighted. It is specifically mentioned in the said

representation that contract system has been abolished

in respect of the above post and the workmen should

have been regularçed consequent upon abolition of the

post on contract basis. They are also not being paid full

wages and instances of the same have been mentioned in

the above representation.

14.

Lastly, the workmen primarily relied upon the

notification issued by the Government of India, Ex.MW1/

W4(also marked as Ex.WW1/35), which clearly shows that

under the exercise of powers conferred under sub-section

1 of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970, Central

Government in consultation with the Central Advisory

Contract Labour Board has prohibited employment of

contract labour in respect of wiremen. It has also come in

evidence that copy of this notification was circulated to

all the Departments and this fact is also established from

Office Order Ex.WW1/36 and proceedings in this regard

with members of the union and officials of the Board is

Ex.WW1/37. Workmen also referred to the award passed

by my learned predecessor on 13.02.2013 Ex.WW1/14

4634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wherein similar question was involved and workmen in

the said award were ordered to be regularçed in service.

15.

Shri CSS Tomar, learned authorçed representative

appearing on behalf of the management strongly urged

that the workmen herein were never in the direct

employment of the management and their services were

hired from time to time by different contractors, i.e

management Nos. 3 to 6. Therefore, there is no relationship

of master and servant between the Management No.1 and

2 and the workmen. Learned authorçed representative also

relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of

Bengal Nagpur Cloth Mills vs. Bharat Lal (2010) INSC 1084

Ex.MW1/1 and Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi

(2006) (4) SCC I). I would be referring to the ratio of the

above judgements in subsequent paras while drawing my

conclusions.

16.

Before I proceed to consider ratio of the judgements

cited on behalf of management Nos.1 and 2, it is necessary

to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the cases of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.

National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7

SCC 1, on the subject wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered extensively various provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Contract Labour Act, 1970

along with relevant notification issued under Section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, 1970. A critical appraisal of

the above judgement would show that the Hon’ble Apex

Court has taken into consideration the entire spectrum of

the case law on the subject and held in para 107 as under:

107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above,

shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where

contract labour is engaged in or in connection with

the work of an establishment and employment of

contract labour is prohibited either because the

industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of

contract labour or because the appropriate

Government issued notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the

contract labour working in the establishment was

ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a

sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which

case the contract labour working in the establishment

of the principal employer were held, in fact and in

reality, the employees of the principal employer

himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition

of contract labour but present instances wherein

the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position as a fact at the stage after employment of

contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in

discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a

canteen in an establishment the principal employer

availed the services of a contractor the courts have

held that the contract labour would indeed be the

employees of the principal employer.

17.

The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance

of a notification by the appropriate Government under

sub-section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case (1974 (3)

SCC 66), the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the

establishment. The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall

in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai

(1978 Lab. I.C. 1264) was considered by the Apex Court in

the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said

precedent falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court

concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification

under section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an

industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour

in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial

Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether

the contractor has been interposed either on the ground

of having undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of

the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but

a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have

to be treated as employees of the principal employer who

shall be directed to regularçe the services of the contract

labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the

conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose.

18.

As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of a

prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result in the

establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the

work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is

a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial

legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits

therein. Thus it was ruled that a contract labour can raise

a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his

conditions of service and in case the contract is found to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4635

be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called

contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the

principal employer. Also see Standard Vacuum Refining

Co. of India Ltd. (1960 (II) LLJ. 233), which was referred

with approval in Steel Authority of India.

19.

In Shivnandan Sharma (1955(1) LLJ 688), the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

“If a master employs a servant and authorçes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master.”

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first

time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

20.

In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time,

the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial

dispute that they were denied employment by the

petitioner. On reference of that dispute, the labour court

passed an award against the petitioner. When matter

reached the Apex Court, on examination of various factors

and applying the effective control test, it was held that

though there was no direct relationship between the

petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the veil and looking

at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the

naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper

arrangement, was that the real employer was the petitioner,

not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court stated law

in following words:

“Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other

is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control

over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the

worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers

have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or

looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, we discern the naked truth, though

draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that

the real employer is the management, not the

immediate contractor***. If the livelihood of the

workmen substantially depends on labour rendered

to produce goods and services for the benefit and

satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious

intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of

detachment from the management cannot snap the

real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference

defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off.

Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between

the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-

life terms, by another. The management’s

adventitious connections cannot ripen into real

employment.”

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

21.

In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been ruled

that the term “contract labour” is a species of workman. A

workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without

the knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is

hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment

by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely

acts as an agent so there will be master and servant

relationship between the principal employer and the

workman. But when a workman is hired in or in connection

with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either

because he has undertaken to produce a given result for

the establishment or because he supplies workmen for

any work of the establishment, a question might arise

whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in

Hussainbhai’s case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals

Corporation case (1999 (6) S.C.C. 439) etc.; if the answer is

in affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of

the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative,

the workman will be a contract labour.

22.

This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the

Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act are

essentially social and beneficial legislation. The scheme

of the Contract Labour Act, 1970 is to regulate conditions

of workers under the contract labour system and to provide

for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided

under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 7 of the Act

requires the principal employer to get itself registered.

Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from

undertaking or executing any work through contract labour,

except under and in accordance with a licence issued.

Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of

4636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provisions of the Act punishable thereunder. There is

also requirement for the principal employer of the

establishment to get itself registered under the Act so as

to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

23.

Reliance was also placed upon the case of

Management of Ashok Hotel vs. Their Workmen decided

on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No. 14828/2006 wherein similar

question was involved. It was a case where various

workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/

Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were

alleged to be working directly under the contactor who

has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e.

Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the

workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India

(supra) and contention of the management to the effect

that workmen were employees of the contractor was

rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to

be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship

of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

24.

I have carefully gone through the ratio of law in

Bharat lal (Supra) relied upon by Management No.1 and 2.

No doubt, in the said case, initially Labour Court has

passed an award in favour of the workmen and directed

the management to reinstate the first respondent to his

previous post with full back wages. In the above case

also management has come with the plea that none of the

workmen were in idirect employment of the management

and there was ample evidence on record to suggest that

the workmen were working under the direct supervision

of the contractor who was also paying wages directly to

them. It was because of the above two reasons that the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that the principal employer does

not have any control over the workmen, as the workmen

was being paid salary directly by the contractor. In such

circumstances, the workmen were held to be working

directly under the contractor instead of the management.

A critical appraisal of the judgement would show that in

that case, the employee has suppressed material facts

deliberately and rather misrepresented material facts as is

clear from para 10 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex

Court. Moreover, in the said case, there was strong

evidence that everything was within the control of the

contractor and the management was not exercising any

control as principal employer over the said workmen. There

is nothing in the above judgement to show that prohibition

notification was issued by the Government under the

Contract Labour Act or not. However, situation in the

case in hand is different. There is ample evidence on

record to suggest that supervision, their working and mode

of functioning of the employee was directly with

management No.1 and 2. It is clear from certificate Ex.WW1/

25 that the AE(E) IV, CPWD, New Delhi has issued

certificate to the effect that Shri Surender Kumar was

working with the department and is working as Electrician

from 01.04.2003 to 01.01.2008. There is another certificate

Ex.WW1/26 and the same is also issued by AE(E), ECD V,

New Delhi which shows that the workman Shri Surender

Singh was working in HUDCO Complex. There is also a

due and drawn statement, Ex.WW1/28, which shows that

the workmen was working though under the contract of

M/s. Bhardwaj Brothers, but they were being paid less

wages and this factum was brought to the notice of the

management vice complaint, which representation is

Ex.WW1/29, wherein factum of payment of less wages

has been highlighted. Shri Chaman Lal, Executive

Engineer, appearing on behalf of the Management No. 1

and 2, also admitted that Certificate Ex.WW1/4 bears

signatures of the SDO. He has also admitted the

representation filed by the workmen, copy of which is

Ex.MW1/6 (also marked as MW1/W6 and Ex.WW/9). He

has admitted regarding filing of representation Ex.MW1/7

(also marked as MW1/W7 and Ex.WW1/30), which was

filed by the workmen after termination of their job. I have

seen photocopy of the agreement Ex.MW1/1(marked as

Ex.MW1/W1), which entered into between the management

and contractor, which is a standard document and the

department while outsourcing work to the various

contractors, has used the same for the purpose of awarding

the work. In the case in hand there is nothing on record

that the contractor was a duly licenced contractor as

required under Section 12 of the Contract Labour Act. All

these things were required to be proved by the principal

employer, i.e. the management No.1 and 2 before awarding

contract to a private contractor.

25.

There is also another aspect of the matter, which

cannot be ignored. It is clear from perusal that in

notification Ex.WW1/35 that the Government has issued

notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act,

1970 prohibiting employment, where there is mention of

15 categories. Workmen in the present is wiremen, and

against entry No. 5 of the Notification, there is mention of

post of wiremen. Thus, it is clear that the Government is

prohibited from engaging contract labour so far as post of

wiremen is concerned. The above notification was ordered

to be circulated vide OM Ex.WW1/36.

26.

Despite issuance of prohibition notification,

Ex.WW/35, it is clear that management No.1 and 2 has

outsourced work to private contractors on the basis of

various agreements entered into between the management

and the contractors, Management Nos.3 to 6. Since award

of contract to a private contractor, Management No.3 to 6,

is patently against the provisions of contract labour Act,

1970, as well as notification issued under Section 10 of the

said Act vide Ex.MW1/W4 (also marked as Ex.WW1/35).

As such, these contracts are legally held to be null and

void.

27.

The learned authorçed representative of

management No.1 and 2 also relied upon the case of State

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4637

of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (1998) SCC 1A. I have carefully

gone through the ratio of the above authority and the

same is not applicable so far as the question of engagement

of contract labour through contractor is concerned.

Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC vs. Petroleum Coal Labour

Union (2015) Lab IC 2483, has considered the ratio in Uma

Devi (supra) and held that even if due procedure was not

followed in the appointment of concerned workmen in the

post of watch and ward security, this does not disentitle

them of their right to seek regularçation of their services

by the Corporation under the provisions of certified

standings orders as they have rendered more than 240

days of service in a calendar year from the date of their

appointment in the year 1988. In the said case also,

Corporation has outsourced security to private contractor.

However, in 1976, notification was issued for abolition of

contract labour for the post of watch and security men

etc. In the said case also strong plea was raised on behalf

of the management that in view of ratio of law in Uma Devi

case, workers are not entitled to be regularçed after

abolition of contract labour. This contention of the

management/Government was rejected by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in ONGC (supra):

‘Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and

Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act

to order permanency of the workers who have been

victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the

posts on which they have been working exist.

Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the

powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in

passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the

MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour practice

on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule

IV is established.”

28.

There are specific observations in the above

judgement that provision of the Industrial Disputes Act

and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts were

not at all under consideration in Uma Devi case. Issue

pertaining to unfair labor practice was neither the subject

matter of decision nor the same was denuded in Uma Devi

Case. Therefore, reliance placed by the management herein

upon Uma Dev Case so far as question of contract labour

being sham or camouflage agreement is concerned, is

totally misplaced and is of no help to Management No.1

and 2. Since in the case in hand, engagement of contract

labour through private contractor is specifically prohibited

in view of the notification issued by the Central

Government, as such deployment of wiremen through so

called contractor is held to be of no use and the said

contract as stated above are stated to be legally null and

void. Act of the management are means of unfair labour

practice.

29.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Pal Singh

vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2015) 6 SC 321

again considered ratio of Uma Devi case (supra) relied

upon by the management and held as under:

‘When no such plea is taken by the employer in the

order of retrenchment that the workman was

appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India or in violation of any statutory

rule or his appointment was a backdoor appointment,

while Page 15 15 granting relief, the employer cannot

take a plea that initial appointment was in violation

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in

absence of a reference made by the appropriate

Government for determination of question whether

the initial appointment of the workman was in

violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India or statutory rules. Only if such reference is

made, a workman is required to lead evidence to

prove that he was appointed by following procedure

prescribed under the Rules and his initial

appointment was legal.”

30.

Since in the case in hand, there is no reference made

by the appropriate Government for determination of the

question whether appointment of the workmen herein are

in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution or their

initial appointment are illegal or against the statutory rule,

as such, Uma Devi case is not at all of any legal help to the

case of the management. It is also necessary to mention

here that there is ample evidence on record that the

workmen herein were not even being paid minimum wages,

which is statutory requirement under the Minimum Wages

Act and the same amounts to commission of unfair labour

practice. It is strange that despite the fact that the workers

have specifically made a representation Ex.WW1/30 to

the competent officials regarding malpractice being

committed and lesser wages being paid to them, but the

same was not found enough to awaken the administration

from its slumber. Net result of the above discussion is that

the contracts which have been referred by Shri Chaman

Lal, Executive Engineer, in his statement, though not filed

with the affidavit, are not of any use so as to hold the

workmen hereunder to be in the employment of the

contractor inasmuch as issuance of prohibition notification

under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act 1970, where

post of wiremen is mentioned in the prohibition clause.

After issuance of the above notification, management was

required to fill up the post (wiremen) in accordance with

rules and regulations. Management has admitted that still

there are some regular workmen working in the department.

It also shows that the work of wiremen is regular and

perennial in nature. In such situation, the so called

agreements between the contractor and the management

herein are held to be legally void, sham and camouflage so

as to bar the workmen herein from claiming status of being

in the employment and control of Management No.1 and

4638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.

It is clear from perusal of contract/agreement

Ex.MW1/W1 that the same was entered between the

principal employer Management No.1 and 2 and M/s.

Bhardwaj Brothers and the said agreement was valid with

effect from 25.09.1998 to 24.09.1999. Though the other

agreements with the other co respondents have not been

exhibited, yet a careful perusal of the same would show

that they are same in every respect. Since they are standard

documents and only name of the contractors from to time

has been changed, all these agreements are admittedly for

a period of one year. As already held, the above documents

are simply sham and camouflage so as to deprive the

workmen of their status of being directly under

employment of the principal employer, i.e. Management

Nos. 1 and 2, as such, these documents/agreements are

even otherwise contrary to the notification, Ex.MW1/

W4(also marked as Ex.WW1/35) issued under Section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, 1970, as such legally void. As

a result of the above discussion, it is held that there is no

privity of contract between the workmen and Management

Nos.1 and 2. Since there is no evidence on record to

suggest that the workmen herein abandoned their services

from M/s. Bhardwaj Brothers when they were transferred

to Dwarka project, as such issue No.1 to 3 are decided

against the management and reference is answered in

favour of the workman herein.

Relief

28.

As a sequitur to my aforesaid discussions, it is held

that the workman are entitled to be reinstated after their so

called termination without any notice with effect from

16.06.2009 and payment of back wages with all

consequential benefits since they remained unemployed

after 16.06.2009 till date. An award is accordingly passed.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : November 30, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,uVhihlh]

,iQ,lVhihih ds çcaèkra=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 17@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@18@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 17

of 2015) 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 NTPC, FSTPP and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 9/12/2015.

[No. L-42011/18/2015-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 17 of 2015

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management

of NTPC, FSTPP

A N D

Their workmen

Present :

Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the management

None

On behalf of the workman

None

State: West Bengal

Industry: Thermal Power

Dated: 26th November, 2015

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/18/2015-IR(DU) dated

24.03.2015 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.

UTC Fire & Security Services, contractor of NTPC,

FSTPS, Murshidabad in terminating services of 4

No. of workmen namely Sri Shamik Khan, Sri

Mubarak Hussain, Sri Fafikul Sk. & Sri Zaminul Sk.

without following statutory rules and regulations is

justified or not? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled for?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of any of the parties. It appears from the

record that the union at whose instance present reference

has been made has not turned up for three consecutive

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4639

dates in spite of service of notice. From the above conduct

of the union it may reasonably be presumed that the union

is not at all interested to proceed with the case further. So,

no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter

pending.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 26th November, 2015

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhvkbZ,e,iQvkj

(lhvkbZ,lvkj) ds çcaèkra=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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 18@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@228@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 18

of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the CIMFR (CISR) and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42011/228/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No.18/2012

Employer in relation to the management of

M/s. C.I.M.F.R

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D.K. Sah, Rep

State : Jharkhand

Industry-Science & Tech.

Dated : 9.11.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/228/2011-IR (DU) dated

28/02/2012, 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 referr4ed the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of CIMFR

(CISR) in not sending the name details of

S/Shri Shivtosh Sutradhar and 21 other casual

workers (List enclosed) to the Competent Authority

regarding grant of temporary status to get wages

and other facilities at par with the regular workers is

legal and justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

ANNEXURE

List of Workmen

Sl.

Name of the candidate

Date of

Section/Div.

No.

joining

Shivtosh Sutradhar

2002

Flame &

Explosion Lab

Subas Singh

2003

-do-

Shyamal Kumar Mandal

2003

-do-

Prakash Kumar Mandal

2001

A/C Plant

Nurul Hasan Hindvi

Nil

Respiratory

Protection Lab.

Madhusudan Mahato

1997

Mine Stowing and

Filling

Kamal Gope

Nil

Thick Seam

Mining

Kapura Devi

Nil

Canteen

Shankar Koranga

2003

Flame &

Explosion Lab

10. Darik Koranga

2003

-do-

11. Ashoka Nand Mishra

2000

Human Resource

Dev. ( HRD)

12. Ajay Kumar Singh

Nil

Mines System

Engineering

13. Raju Koranga

2003

Mines Electronics

14. Kartik Mandal

1988

Guest House

4640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. Ashoka Nand Pathak

1993

EPABX

16. Loknath Yadav

1998

-do-

Barun Kumar Pathak

1993

Gest House

Subrata Mishra

1990

-do-

Swpan Kumar Banik

1989

-do-

Sushanta Mitra

1989

-do-

Bal Krishna Choudhary

1993

-do-

Uttam Ganguli

2002

-do-

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

21.03.2012. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 21.03.2013. The management also files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 05.03.2014. One witness

adduced on behalf of the workman & one document marked

on behalf of the workman i.e "X" ( for identification).

The case of the workmen is that shri Shivtosh

Sutradhar & 12 others have been working as casual worker

in different department of erstwhile CMRI and which is

presently named CIMFR since more that 10-20 years with

entire satisfaction of higher authorities and it is also

submitted that workman has been permanently to do the

job as regular, although these workmen are doing same

and similar nature of job like that of a permanent workmen

of CIMFR.

It is also submitted that the workman has been

requested to send before the competent authority the same

of these 22 workmen as per list enclosed for granting

temporary status with a view to enable them to get wages

and other facilities at par with the regular worker but the

management inspite of their repeated assurance did not

sent their name resulting these workers could not get

their legitimate right. The workmen are entitled to get the

wages and other benefits at par with the permanent

workmen as per the equality before law and the

management is bound to follow it but the management

could not do it, hence reference arose.

The management’s case is that previously the

Govt. of India Ministry of Labour referred an industrial

dispute to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.-2 of

same Union that is registered as Ref. case No. 2/10. And

during the pendency of reference case No. 2/2010 of CGIT

No-2, the Sponsoring Union raised present industrial

Dispute. It is also submitted by the management that the

list of workman of both the reference workman concerned

are same, and the management is same & Sponsoring

Union is same.

It is also submitted by the management that, just

to avoid conflict of judicial decision by Court of concurrent

jurisdiction from adjudicating upon both parallel reference

as the matter in issue is substantially the same. Therefore

the present reference is not maintainable.

It is also submitted by the management, that the

workman concerned is a contractor workman and not

employer-employee relationship exists between CMRI/

CIMFR and the workman. They are working under direct

control and supervision of the contractor. And the

contractor makes payment to their workmen.

Short point to be decided in this reference, is to

direct CIMFR management to give temporary status to

the present workmen concerned or not.

It is stated by the workman that they are

rendering service to CIMFR as casual employee. The

workman further prayed to give them temporary status.

10.

The workmen concerned have save and except filing

their I.D card as photocopy have not filed any document,

regarding their wages particulars. And that I.D card is also

not marked as Exhibits. Unless the workmen rendered

services to an organçation more than 240 days in any

calendar year, but he is not entitled to either to be regularçed

or even claim of temporary status.

11.

One of the workmen though examined in the case,

has not stated so, rather he said some of his co-workmen

filed a dispute for regularçation before CGIT No.-2 which

is pending. This may be situation, this Tribunal is not in a

position to grant relief to the workmen concerned.

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of CIMFR (CISR)

in not sending the name details of S/Shri Shivtosh

Sutradhar and 21 other casual worker (List enclosed) to

the competent Authority regarding grant of temporary

status to get wages and other facilities at par with the

regular workers is not legal. Hence they are not entitled to

get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lw{e rjax

vuqj{k.k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k]

dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@1995) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-08-2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@08@94&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4641

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 15/1995)

of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Suksham Tarang

Sanrakshan and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 06-08-2015.

[No. L-40012/08/94-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh’k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ’k çdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&15@1995

fnukad LFkkfir % 19@6@95

çlax%

çlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns’k

Øa- ,y&40012@8@94&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½ fnukad 9@6@95

funsZ’k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ o mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e] 1947

e/;

1- uouhr flag iq= Nhrj

2- lwjtey iq= j?kqukFk eh.kk

}kjk la;qDr egklfpo] fgUn etnwj lHkk] jktLFkku]

caxkyh dksyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk

&&çkFkhZx.k Jfed

,oa

,oa,oa

lgk;d vfHk;Urk&II lq{e rjax vuqj{k.k] u;kiqjk] dksVk

&&vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr %

çkFkhZx.k Jfed dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh v:.k ‘kekZ

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls çfrfuf/k

Jh ‘;ke xqIrk

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad % 3@9@2015

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds çklkafxd vkns’k fnukad

9@6@95 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ’k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½

,oa mi&/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEçsf”kr

fd;k x;k gS%&

^^D;k çcU/ku lgk;d vfHk;Urk] f}rh;k] lq{e rjax vuqj{k.k] u;kiqj]

dksVk }kjk deZdkj loZJh uouhr flag iq= Jh Nhrj ,oa lwjtey

eh.kk iq= Jh j?kqukFk eh.kk dh lsok;sa esa fn- 18@12@90 ls lekIr

djus dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks lEcfUèkr

deZdkj fdl vuqrks”k ds gdnkj gSa\^^

funsZ’k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa çkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr

i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA

çkFkhZx.k uouhr flag ,oa lwjtey eh.kk dh vksj ls la;qDr :i ls

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k Dyse LVsVesUV çLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd

çkFkhZx.k dks lgk;d vfHk;Urk&II] lw{e rjax vuqj{k.k] u;kiqjk] dksVk us

lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k FkkA çkFkhZ uouhr flag dh fu;qfDr frfFk 13@10@89

gS o çkFkhZ lwjtey dh fu;qfDr frfFk 11@12@89 gSA çkFkhZx.k dh çFke

fu;qfDr lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ekbZØksoso çkstsDV ds ;gk¡ gqbZ Fkh] ogk¡ ls

çkFkhZx.k dks fnukad 1@8@90 dks LFkkukUrfjr dj fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ Hkstk

x;k Fkk] ijUrq vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us çkFkhZx.k dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s o

fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds vpkud fn- 18@12@90 ls ukSdjh ls voS/k :i ls

gVk fn;kA çkFkhZx.k us viuh çFke fu;qfDr fnukad ls gh fu;kstd ds ;gk¡

fn- 17@12@90 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, mDr vof/k esa 240 fnu ls

vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] ijUrq vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us çkFkhZx.k dks

vkS-fo- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds çko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj lsokls

fu”dkflr dj fn;kA vçkFkhZ fu;kstd us vkS-fo- fu;eksa ds fu;e 77 ds

vuqlkj ofj”Brk lwph dk çdk’ku ugha fd;k] çkFkhZx.k dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s

tkus ds le; muls dfu”B dbZ vU; Jfed fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa ekStwn

Fks] bl çdkj çkFkhZx.k dks ckn vk;s igys tk;s fl)kar dh vogsyuk dj

ukSdjh ls fudkyk tkuk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&th dk mYya?ku gSA

çkFkhZx.k us fnukad 7@8@91 dks dsUnzh; ç’kklfud U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds

le{k fookn çLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa fn- 13@12@93 dks ;g fu.kZ; fn;k

x;k fd çkFkhZx.k dk fookn] vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkrk gS rFkk bl

vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr gh çkFkhZx.k dk;Zokgh djs] bl dkj.k ;g fookn nsjh

ls çLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA ifj.kker% mDr Dyse LVsVesUV çLrqr dj

çkFkhZx.k us Lo;a dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o leLr fgrykHkksa lfgr lsok esa

cgky fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh gSA

mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZx.k

}kjk fn- 1@8@90 ls vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa nSfud dk;Z djuk Lohdkj

fd;k gS o fn- 18@12@90 ls çkFkhZx.k dks dk;Z ij ugha fy;s tkus dk rF;

Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS] ijUrq vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZx.k }kjk fn- 1@8@90 ls

17@12@90 rd dqy 139 fnu gh nSfud dk;Z djuk O;Dr fd;k gS o bl

ekeys esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q] th o vkS-fo-fu;eksa ds fu;e 77 ds

çko/kku ykxw gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA tokc dh fo’ks”k vkifRr;ksa esa vçkFkhZ

}kjk çkFkhZx.k dks fn- 1@8@90 ls nSfud dk;ZdrkZ ds :i esa bl ‘krZ ij

ckjka o vUrk esa dk;Z ij j[kk tkuk dgk x;k gS fd fu;fer Jfedksa dh

fu;qfDr gks tkus ij mudh lsok;sa Lor% lekIr le>h tk;saxhaA bl ‘krZ ds

4642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlkj fu;fer Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr gks tkus ij çkFkhZx.k dks fnukad

18@12@90 ls dk;Z ij ugha j[kk tkuk dgk x;k gS o iqu% çkFkhZx.k }kjk

fnukad 1@8@90 ls 17@12@90 rd dqy 139 fnu gh dk;Z djus ls

çkFkhZx.k dks vf/kfu;e ds çko/kkuksa dk dksbZ ykHk çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh

ugha gksuk O;Dr djrs gq, çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çLrqr Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt

fd;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh x;h gSA

5- lk{; esa çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls Lo;a çkFkhZ lwjtey o uouhr flag rFkk

vçkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lhrkjke ds ‘kiFk&i= çLrqr fd;s x;s] ftuls nksuksa

i{kksa ds çfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ,d&nwljs i{k ds ‘kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;hA

çys[kh; lk{; esa çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çn’kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-7 rd

ds çys[k çLrqr dj çnf’kZr djok;s x;sA vçkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ

çys[kh; lk{; çLrqr ugha gqbZA

mHk;i{k ds fo}ku çfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] mudh vksj ls

fyf[kr cgl Hkh çLrqr dh x;h] ftldk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o

lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA

çkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku çfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k rdZ j[kk gS

fd çkFkhZ uouhr flag dks fn- 13@10@89 ,oa çkFkhZ lwjtey dks

fn- 11@12@89 ls vçkFkhZ }kjk lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk bu

nksuksa çkFkhZx.k Jfed us fn- 17@12@90 rd vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj

dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] ijUrq vçkFkhZ

}kjk fn- 18@12@90 ls çkFkhZx.k dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q] th o vkS-

fo-fu;eksa ds fu;e 77 dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj lsok ls fu”dkflr dj fn;k]

vr% çkFkhZx.k fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o leLr fgrykHkksa lfgr

lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA

blds foijhr nwljh vksj vçkFkhZ ds fo}ku çfrfuf/k dh vksj ls rdZ

j[kk x;k gS fd çkFkhZx.k dks fnukad 1@8@90 dks vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ bl ‘krZ

ij ckjka o vUrk esa dk;Z ij j[kk x;k Fkk fd fu;fer Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr

gks tkus ij mudh lsok;sa Lor% lekIr le>h tkosaxhaA çkFkhZx.k us fnukad

1@8@90 ls 17@12@90 rd dqy 139 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gS blfy, os

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q o vU; çko/kku dk ykHk çkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh

ugha gSA

çkFkhZx.k dk i{k jgk gS fd çkFkhZ uouhr flag fn- 13@10@89 o

çkFkhZ lwjtey fn- 11@12@89 ls vçkFkhZ lgk;d vfHk;Urk&II] lw{e rjax

vuqlj{k.k] u;kiqjk] dksVk ds ;gk¡ fu;ksftr gksus ds mijkUr mudh çFke

fu;qfDr ekbZØksoso çkstsDV ds ;gk¡ gqbZ Fkh] ogk¡ ls çkFkhZx.k dks

fn- 1@8@90 ls LFkkukUrfjr dj mDr fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ Hkstk x;k o

fn- 17@12@90 rd çkFkhZx.k us vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk dk;Z

fd;k gS] ijUrq vçkFkhZ }kjk mUgsa vpkud fn-18@12@89 ls ukSdjh ls voS/

k :i ls gVk fn;k x;kA tc Hkh dksbZ deZdkj fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa

fujarj 240 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gS rks bl rF; dks fl)

djus dk Hkkj Lo;a deZdkj ij jgrk gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr frfFk ls Bhd

iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu rd fu;kstd ds

fu;kstu esa dk;Z fd;k gS] tSlk fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius

fuEu U;k;fu.kZ;u esa vfHker çdV fd;k x;k gS%&

(1) “Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat & Anr. v.

Gangaben Laljibhai & Ors.-2006(2)ACJ 408(SC)”

10- U;k;n`“Vkar **vkj-,e- ;sYV~Vh cuke lgk;d vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk&2006¼108½

,Q,yvkj 213 ¼,llh½** ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk

;g Hkh çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd deZdkj ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke

djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS] mlesa deZdkj }kjk dsoy ek=

vius ‘kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke

fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq mls fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{;

ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq”V gks ldsA bl

lEcU/k esa U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la[;k 17 fuEukuqlkj gS%&

“Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is

clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms

do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying

general principles and on reading the aforestated

judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in

a given year. This burden is discharged only upon

the workman stepping in the witness box. This

burden is discharged upon the workman adducing

cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In

cases of terminating of services of daily wages

earner, there will be no letter of appointment or

termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of

payment. Thus in most cases, the workman

(claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce

before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given

period, the letter of appointment or termination, if

any, the wage register, the attendance register etc.

Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would

depend thereafter of facts of each case. The above

however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-

serving statements made by the claimant/ workman

will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the

burden placed for 240 days in a given year. The

above judgments further lay down that mere non-

production of muster rolls per se without any plea

of suppression by the claimant workman will not be

the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse

inference against the management. Lastly, the above

judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact

recorded by the Labour Court unless they are

perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of

each case.”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4643

gLrxr ekeys esa çkFkhZ uouhr flag us vius i{k leFkZu esa Lo;a dk

‘kiFk&i= çLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k gS fd mls fn- 13@10@89 ls lgk;d

vfHk;Urk] ekbZØksoso çkstsDV ds ;gk¡ lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk o mls

LFkkukUrfjr dj vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ dk;Z gsrq Hkst fn;k x;k FkkA mlds }kjk

‘kiFk&i= esa vkxs ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ us vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡

fn-13@10@89 ls 17@12@90 rd fujUrj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk dk;Z dj

fy;k gS] ijUrq vçkFkhZ }kjk vpkud fcuk dksbZ iwoZ lwpuk ds fn- 18@12@90

ls çkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;kA viuh ftjg esa ;g lk{kh O;Dr djrk gs

fd bl lk{kh us fdl le; rFkk fdl vf/kdkjh ds ikl dk;Z fd;k] bls

ekSf[kd tckuh ;kn ugha gSA bl çdkj lk{kh dks ;g /;ku ugha gS fd blus

vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ fu;ksftr gksus ij fdl le; rd fdl vf/kdkjh ds ;gk¡ dk;Z

fd;k gSA blh çdkj çkFkhZ lwjtey us Hkh vius i{k leFkZu esa Lo;a dk

‘kiFk&i= çLrqr dj fn- 11@12@89 ls lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ekbZØksoso

çkstsDV ds ;gk¡ fu;ksftr gksus o rnqijkUr fn- 1@8@90 ls LFkkukUrfjr

gksdj vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ dk;Z gsrq Hkstk tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS o vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡

11@12@89 ls 17@12@90 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls vf/kd

le; rd dk;Z djuk O;Dr fd;k gSA viuh ftjg esa ;g lk{kh Lo;a dks

dk;Z ij j[ks tkus dk dksbZ fu;qfDr&i= fn;s tkus ls bUdkj djrk gSA bl

lk{kh us loZçFke Lo;a dh fu;qfDr >kykokM+ esa gksus o 8 fnu >kykokM+ esa]

rnqijkUr fn- 17@12@89 ls njk LVs’ku ij 8 fnu o iqu% njk LVs’ku ij

15 fnu dke djuk O;Dr fd;k gSA njk LVs’ku ds ckn ;g lk{kh dksVk esa

,d ekg dke djuk O;Dr djrk gS] rnqijkUr cwWnh] cksjkckl] vkj,ihih

jkorHkkVk] ckjka o vUrk esa dke djuk O;Dr djrk gS o vfUre ekg ds osru

ds vykok vU; lkjs dke dk iSlk çkIr gksuk O;Dr djrk gSA bl lk{kh us

viuh ftjg esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tc bls vUrk ls gVk;k

x;k rks blds LFkku ij LFkk;h deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr gks x;h FkhA

12-

bl çdkj mijksDr ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij çkFkhZx.k] vçkFkhZ ds

fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh

vof/k] vFkkZr fn- 18@12@89 ls 17@12@90 rd dh lqlaxr vof/k esa

fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA

bl lEcU/k esa çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çLrqr dh x;h nLrkosth lk{; ls çdV

gksrk gS fd çn’kZ McY;w-1 i= nksuksa gh çkFkhZx.k vius&vius ‘kiFk&i=ksa esa

lgk;d vfHk;Urk] ekbZØksoso çkstsDV ds ;gk¡ ls Lo;a dks LFkkukUrfjr dj

vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ Hksts tkus ds lEcU/k esa fn;k tkuk dgrs gSaA çkFkhZx.k ds

fo}ku çfrfuf/k }kjk mDr i= ds vk/kkj ij çkFkhZx.k dk vçkFkhZ ds

fu;kstu esa gksus dk rF; çekf.kr gksuk dgk x;k gSA mDr i= çn’kZ

McY;w-1 ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd mDr i= esa lgk;d vfHk;Urk]

lw{e rjax vuqj{k.k] u;kiqjk] dksVk }kjk çkFkhZx.k dks lwfpr fd;k x;k gS

fd mUgsa ekbZØzksoso çkstsDV ls esUVhusUl esa fnukad 1@8@90 ls yksu ij

fy;k x;k gS vkSj fu;fer etnwjksa dh fu;qfDr gksus rd gh çkFkhZx.k dks

ukSdjh ij j[kk tk;sxkA etnwjksa dh fu;qfDr gksrs gh mUgsa okil çkstsDV dks

ns fn;k tkosxkA bl çdkj ;)fi fnukad 1@8@90 ls çkFkhZx.k }kjk

vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ dk;Z ij etnwjh gsrq j[ks tkus dk mYys[k gS] ijUrq mDr

nLrkost ds ek/;e ls çkFkhZx.k }kjk vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lqlaxr vof/k esa

240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA vr% mDr nLrkost

çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrk gSA çn’kZ McY;w-2 dsUnzh; ç’kklfud

U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj }kjk fnukad 13@12@93 dks ikfjr vkns’k dh çfr gS

ftlesa çkFkhZ lwjtey o vU; dks igys vkS-fo-vf/kfu;ekUrxZr miyC/k

mipkj gsrq ç;kl fd;s tkus ds funsZ’k fn;s x;s gSaA bl çdkj mDr

nLrkost Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus

esa dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWpkrk gSA çn’kZ McY;w-3 çkFkhZ lwjtey }kjk lgk;d

Je vk;qDr¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk ds le{k çLrqr dh x;h f’kdk;r dh çfr gSA

blh çdkj çn’kZ McY;w-6 Hkh çkFkhZ uouhr flag }kjk çLrqr f’kdk;r&i=

dh çfr gS] ijUrq mDr nLrkost Hkh çkFkhZx.k }kjk 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s

tkus ds rF; dks çekf.kr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWspkrs gSaA

çn’kZ McY;w-7 çkFkhZ uouhr flag o çn’kZ McY;w-4 çkFkhZ lwjtey ds ekeys

esa çkFkhZx.k }kjk çLrqr f’kdk;r&i= ds lEcU/k esa vçkFkhZ }kjk çLrqr

tokc dh çfr;ka gSaA mDr nLrkost Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ

fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWpkrs

gSaA blh çdkj çn’kZ McY;w-5 çkFkhZx.k ds lEcU/k esa Je foHkkx }kjk

l{ke ljdkj dks çsf”kr vlQy okrkZ çfrosnu dh çfr gS tks mDr nLrkost

Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s tkus ds rF; dks çekf.kr djus esa

dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWpkrk gSA

13-

bl çdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/

kkj ij çkFkhZx.k] vçkFkhZx.k ds ;gk¡ fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s

tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA

14-

bl lEcU/k esa vçkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls çLrqr lk{kh lhrkjke] lc

fMfotuy bathfu;j us lk{; esa çLrqr vius ‘kiFk&i= esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd

çkFkhZ lwjtey us fn- 1@8@90 ls 17@12@90 rd chp&chp esa dke

NksM+dj viuh ejth ds vuqlkj 139 fnu nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i

esa 33-50 iSls çpfyr jsV ij dk;Z fd;k gS o çkFkhZ uouhr flag us vçkFkhZ ds

v/khu fn- 1@8@90 ls 17@12@90 rd nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa

dk;Z fd;k gSA ;g lk{kh mDr nksuksa çkFkhZx.k }kjk fu;fer Jfedksa dh

fu;qfDr gksus rd dk;Z fd;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gSA bl lk{kh us çkFkhZx.k

}kjk Dyse LVsVesUV esa vafdrkuqlkj lqlaxr vof/k vFkok fdlh Hkh dys.Mj

o”kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k gS o çkFkhZx.k }kjk

dsoy ek= dqy 139 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS o fu;fer

Jfedx.k dh fu;qfDr gks tkus ls çkFkhZx.k dh lgefr vuqlkj gh mUgsa dk;Z

ls gVk;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çLrqr

nLrkost çn’kZ McY;w-1 ds voyksdu ls Hkh çdV gksrk gS fd vçkFkhZ }kjk

çkFkhZx.k dks etnwjh gsrq fu;fer etnjksa dh fu;qfDr gksus rd gh yxk;k

x;k FkkA Lo;a çkFkhZ uouhr flag viuh ftjg esa çn’kZ McY;w-1 Lo;a dks

çkIr gksuk o blh vk/kkj ij Lo;a ds }kjk dk;Z fd;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gS

o çkFkhZ lwjtey Hkh viuh ftjg esa Lohdkj djrk gS fd tc ls vUrk ls

gVk;k x;k rc blds LFkku ij LFkk;h deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr gks x;h FkhA

bl çdkj çkFkhZx.k dk i{k jgk gS fd mUgksaus çn’kZ McY;w-1 vk/kkj ij

4644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vçkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ dk;Z djuk çkjEHk fd;k Fkk rFkk mDr nLrkost esa fu;fer

etnwjksa dh fu;qfDr gksus rd gh çkFkhZx.k dks etnwjh dk;Z ds fy, yxk;k

tkuk çdV gksrk gS o mDr nLrkost çn’kZ McY;w-1 ls Hkh çkFkhZ }kjk vçkFkhZ

ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF; çekf.kr ugha gksrk

gSA bl çdkj çkFkhZx.k ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vçkFkhZ

ds fu;kstu esa lsok ls fu”dkflr fd;s tkus dh frfFk] vFkkZr~ 18@12@90 ls

Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus

ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSaA

15-

;)fi çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls nkSjku cgl vfUre o fyf[kr cgl ds

ek/;e ls ,d rdZ ;g Hkh j[kk x;k gS fd lkekU; ç’kklfud çfØ;k ds

vUrxZr yksu ij fy;k tkuk LFkkukUrj.k dk i;kZ; gS o Li”V :i ls mUgsa

çkstsDV esa Hkstus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd yksu ij nsus okys

foHkkx dh dk;Z dh vko’;drk fdlh Hkh :i esa yksu ij ysus okys foHkkx

}kjk vkadfyr ugha dh tk ldrhA çkFkhZx.k dk iwoZ foHkkx gh mudh

vko’;drk ds vuq:i fu.kZ; ysxkA vr% çkFkhZx.k dks vçkFkhZ }kjk fn-

18@12@90 dks fcuk dkj.k crk;s vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e ds çko/kkuksa dh ikyuk

fd;s cxSj lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;kA ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa lEçsf”kr jsÝsUl

vçkFkhZ i{k }kjk fnukad 18@12@90 ls çkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekfIr dh

dk;Zokgh dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu’p; fd;s tkus gsrq bl U;k;kfèkdj.k

dks çsf”kr fd;k x;k gS] vr% bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks bl fookn esa çkFkhZx.k dks

yksu ij ysus okys foHkkx@vçkFkhZ ds d‘R; dk gh fofu’p; fd;k tkuk

gSA vr% tgk¡ rd çkFkhZx.k dk fookn yksu ij nsus okys foHkkx ls lEcfU/

kr gS] og i‘Fkd ls dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, Lora= gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa

çkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls mBk;s x;s mDr rdZ esa ge dksbZ cy ugha ikrs gSaA

16-

;)fi çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ,d rdZ ;g j[kk

x;k gS fd vçkFkhZ }kjk çkFkhZx.k ds dk;Z ls lEcfU/kr nLrkost çkFkZuk&i=

ds ek/;e ls ryc djk;s tkus ds mijkUr Hkh vçkFkhZx.k }kjk mUgsa

U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr% vçkFkhZ ds fo#)

foijhr mi/kkj.kk yh tkdj çdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkosA bl lEcUèk

esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd ;)fi fn- 3@10@07 dks

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls çkFkZuk&i= çLrqr fd;k tkdj vçkFkhZ ls gkftjh

jftLVj vkfn nLrkostkr ryc djk;s tkus dh çkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh

x;h Fkh] ijUrq mDr çkFkZuk&i= dk tokc çLrqr dj vçkFkhZ us çkFkhZx.k

}kjk fnukad 13@10@89 ls Lo;a ds v/khu dk;Z fd;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k

gS cfYd çkFkhZx.k }kjk fn- 1@8@90 ls 17@12@90 rd dh vof/k esa ek=

139 fnu gh dk;Z djuk O;Dr fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr vçkFkhZ us

nLrkostkr Lo;a ds ikl miyC/k ugha gksuk Hkh tokc çkFkZuk&i= esa

vafdr fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk

U;k;n`“Vkar ^^2004 Mh,uts 857 ¼,llh½&E;wfufliy dksjiksjs’ku Qjhnkckn

cuke Jh fuokl^^ esa ;g vfHker çdV fd;k x;k gS fd tgk¡ deZdkj@Jfed

;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ

12 dys.Mj ekg esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS o U;k;kf/kdj.k

}kjk ;g fu”d”kZ fudkyk x;k Fkk fd deZdkj@Jfed }kjk 184 fnu rd

dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq mPp U;k;ky; us Jfed ds i{k esa mi/kkj.kk ysrs

gq, Jfed ds i{k esa lsok dh cgkyh dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;kA mijksDr

fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHker çdV fd;k x;k fd

mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vçkFkhZ çcU/ku ds fo#) vfHkys[k çLrqr ugha fd;s tkus

dh tks mi/kkj.kk yh x;h og U;k;laxr ugha Fkh] lkFk gh ;g Hkh vfHker

çdV fd;k x;k fd lk{; vf/kfu;e ds leLr çko/kku Je ,oa vkS|ksfxd

lEcU/kh ekeyksa ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPpre

U;k;ky; ds bl U;k;fu.kZ; dk eq[; ‘kh”kZd fuEu çdkj ls gS%&

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec. 25-F & 25-B-

Evidence Act, 1872— Sec. 114 (f)- Retrenchment-

Applicability— Respondent failed to prove that he

had worked for 240 days in preceding year- Tribunal

held that appellant- workman had worked for 184

days- However, High Court adverted to presumption

in favour of workman and directed reinstatement-

Held, High Court was not justified in invoking

adverse presumption against appellant- Provisions

of Evidence Act per se not attracted to industrial

adjudication.”

17-

blh çdkj ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;n‘“Vkar

^^2007¼3½vkj,yMcY;w- 1999¼jkt-½&ps;jesu] E;wfufliy cksMZ cuke egkohj

çlkn ‘kekZ ,oa vU;^^ esa ;g vfHker çdV fd;k x;k gS fd Li”V lk{; ls

;g lkfcr djus dk lcwr Hkkj deZdkj ij jgrk gS fd mlus vfUre

dys.Mj o”kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k FkkA deZdkj dk ek= ‘kiFk&i= çLrqr

djuk gh i;kZIr ugha gS o fu;kstd@çcU/kd }kjk vfHkys[k is’k ugha djus

ls çcU/kd ds fo#) çfrdwy vuqeku fudkyus dh U;k;ky; dks vuqefr ugha

gksxhA

18-

gLrxr ekeys esa Hkh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr m)`r^^lqjsUnz

uxj fMfLVªDV iapk;r ,oa vU; cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ ,oa

vU;&2006¼2½,lhts 408¼,llh½ rFkk vkj-,e-;sYV~Vh cuke lgk;d

vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk&2006¼108½ ,Q,yvkj 213¼,llh½** U;k;n`“Vkarksa esa

çfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr frfFk ls

Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus

ds rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj çkFkhZx.k Jfed ij Fkk] ijUrq çkFkhZx.k }kjk

mDr rF; dks lkfcr djus gsrq dsoy ek= Lo;a ds ‘kiFk&i= çLrqr fd;s

x;s gSa o mDr rF; dh iqf”V fdlh nLrkosth lk{; ls ugha dh gSA vr%

çkFkhZx.k mDr rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSa] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa

ge mDr m)`r ^^egkohj çlkn^^ ,oa ^^Jhfuokl^^ okys U;k;n`“Vkarksa dk

voyEc ysrs gq, vçkFkhZ ds fo:) foijhr mi/kkj.kk fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr

ugha ikrs gSaA

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4645

19-

;)fi çkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku ifjf’k”V&5 dh vksj Hkh

vkdf”kZr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq çFker% mDr nLrkost U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k

çnf’kZr ugha djok;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr mDr nLrkost esa çkFkhZx.k ds

ukeksa dk dksbZ vadu ugha gS] vr% mDr nLrkost Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk

ugha igqaWpkrk gSA

20-

;)fi çkFkhZ }kjk çkFkhZ ds dk;Z ls lEcfU/kr ekfld jsdkMZ i=koyh

ij miyC/k gksuk O;Dr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq mDr jsdkMZ çnf’kZr ugha

djok;k x;k gS] fQj Hkh mDr jsdkMZ ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd mDr

jsdkMZ çkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡pkrk gSA

21-

çkFkhZx.k dk ,d i{k ;g Hkh jgk gS fd vçkFkhZ }kjk mUgsa fn-

18@12@90 ls voS/k :i ls vpkud fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s lsok ls

fu”dkflr dj fn;k x;k] ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa çn’kZ McY;w-1 Lo;a çkFkhZx.k

dh vksj ls çLrqr nLrkost ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd mDr nLrkost

esa vçkFkhZ }kjk çkFkhZx.k dks ekbZØksoso çkstsDV ls esUVhusUl esa fnukad

1@8@90 ls yksu ij fy;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS o fu;fer

etnwjksa dh fu;qfDr gksus rd gh çkFkhZx.k dks ukSdjh ij j[kk tkuk Hkh çn’kZ

McY;w- 1 esa vafdr fd;k x;k gSA nksuksa gh çkFkhZx.k us çn’kZ McY;w-1 Lo;a

dks vçkFkhZ }kjk fn;k tkuk vius ‘kiFk&i=ksa esa O;Dr fd;k gS o blh

nLrkost esa çkFkhZx.k dks etnwjh ds dk;Z ds fy, ,d lhfer vof/k ds fy,

yxk;s tkus dk mYys[k gSA Lo;a çkFkhZ uouhr flag us viuh ftjg esa çn’kZ

McY;w-1 Lo;a dks çkIr gksuk o blh vk/kkj ij dke djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS

o çkFkhZ lwjtey us Hkh viuh ftjg esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd

tc bls vUrk ls gVk;k x;k rc blds LFkku ij LFkk;h deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr

gks x;h FkhA bl çdkj çkFkhZx.k dks ,d lhfer vof/k ds fy, yksu ij

fy;k tkuk çdV gksrk gS o lhfer vof/k ds fy, çkFkhZx.k dks dk;Z ij

yxk;k x;k Fkk rFkk mDr vof/k lekIr gksus ij çkFkhZx.k dh lsok;sa tkjh

ugha j[kuk vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ¼vksvks½¼chch½ tks NaVuh ds viokn

Lo:i gS] dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, mDr ekeyk NaVuh dk ugha ekuk tk

ldrkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ge çkFkhZ dk ekeyk NaVuh dk gksuk ugha ekurs

gSaA

22-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n‘“Vkar ^^2015 Mh,uts¼,llh½ 143&

tlesj flag cuke LVsV vkQ gfj;k.kk ,oa vU;^^ is’k fd;k x;k gSA mDr

U;k;n`“Vkar esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds eqrkfcd deZdkj }kjk fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;k x;k Fkk ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa deZdkj ds lsok ls fu”dklu fd;s tkus ds

Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk lgh Bgjk;k

x;k] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa çkFkhZx.k }kjk vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj

240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF; çekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gS] bu ifjfLFkfr esa

mDr U;k;n`“Vkar ls çkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡prk gSA

23-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n`“Vkar ^^2005¼105½,Q,yvkj

1067¼,llh½&eSustj vkjchvkbZ cSaxyksj cuke ,l-euh ,oa vU;^^ is’k fd;k

x;k gSA mDr U;k;n`“Vkar esa of.kZr vuqlkj ;fn fdlh deZdkj dh NaVuh vkS-

fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk mYya?ku djrs gq, dh x;h gS rks ml

ifjfLFkfr esa og {kfriwfrZ çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa

çkFkhZx.k] vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks

lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA blds vfrfjDr çkFkhZx.k dk ekeyk NaVuh

dk Hkh ugha gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDr U;k;n`“Vkar çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk

ugha igq¡pkrk gSA

24-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n`“Vkar ^^,vkbZvkj 2010 ,llh 1116&gjftUnj

flag cuke iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dksjiksjs’ku rFkk 2006¼111½ ,Q,yvkj

1202¼,llh½&Hkksxiqj dks&vk¡ijsfVo ‘kqxj feYl fy- cuke gjes’k dqekj^^

is’k fd;s x;s gSaA bu U;k;n`“Vkarksa esa of.kZr vuqlkj tgk¡ NaVuh dks bl

vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh x;h Fkh fd ckn vk;s igys tk; fl)kar dh vogsyuk

dj NaVuh dh x;h gS rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa deZdkj dks ;g fl) djuk

vko’;d ugha gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj

ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu iw.kZ dk;Z fd;k ;k ugha] ijUrq gLrxr

ekeys esa çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ lk{; çLrqr ugha dh x;h gS ftlls

çdV gksrk gks fd çkFkhZx.k dh vçkFkhZ }kjk NaVuh dh x;h gksA bu

ifjfLFkfr esa mDr U;k;n`“Vkar Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWpkrs gSaA

25-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n`“Vkar ^^vkj,yvkj 2005¼3½ i`“B 63&

eS- feRry LVhy esU;qQsDpfjax daiuh cuke NksVkjke ,oa vU;^^ is’k fd;k

x;k gSA mDr U;k;n`“Vkar esa fu;kstd ds fo#) foijhr mi/kkj.kk fy;s

tkus dh ifjfLFkfr dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;

ds mDr mn`r U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2004 Mh,uts 857 ¼,llh½&E;wfufliy dksjiksjs’ku

Qjhnkckn cuke Jh fuokl^^ esa çfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks’kuh esa çkFkhZx.k dh

vksj ls çLrqr mDr U;k;n`“Vkar çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡pkrk gSA

26-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n`“Vkar ^^,vkbZvkj 2010 ,llh

1236&Mk¡;jsDVj fQ’kjht VehZuy fMfotu cuke Hkh[kkHkkbZ] es?kkthHkkbZ

pkoMk^^ is’k fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fu;kstd ij deZdkj }kjk 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj cnyus dh ckr dgh x;h gS]

ijUrq mDr U;k;n`“Vkar [k.MihB }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k U;k;n`“Vkar gS]

tcfd gLrxr ekeys esa mDr mn`r ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;k;n`“Vkar

vkj-,e-;sYV~Vh cuke lgk;d vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk&2006¼108½ ,Q,yvkj

213¼,llh½**tksfd o`gn ihB }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] esa Li”V :i ls ;g

çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd deZdkj }kjk fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus

ds rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj deZdkj ij gh jgrk gSA vr% çkFkhZx.k }kjk

çLrqr mDr U;k;n`“Vkar çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha

igq¡pkrk gSA

27-

çkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;n`“Vkar ^^1993¼66½ ,Q,yvkj 345¼jkt-½

&gsejkt xwtZj cuke LVsV vkQ jktLFkku^^ is’k fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq gLrxr

çdj.k esa çkFkhZx.k dk ekeyk NaVuh dk ugha gS rFkk çkFkhZx.k lsok lekfIr

frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z

4646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2015/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iw.kZ fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSa] ,slh

ifjfLFkfr esa mDr U;k;n`“Vkar Hkh çkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igq¡pkrk gSA

28-

bl çdkj mijksDr lEiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij ge ;g ikrs gSa fd

çkFkhZx.k] vçkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk fn-18@12@90 ls

Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s

tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSaA çkFkhZx.k dk

ekeyk NaVuh dk ugh gSA vr% bu leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZx.k

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q o th ds çko/kukUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k çkIr djus

ds vf/kdkjh ugha gksus ls vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fo#) dksbZ vuqrks”k çkIr djus

ds vf/kdkjh gksuk ugha ik;s tkrs gSa ,oa funsZ’k@jsÝsUl Hkh blh vuq:i

mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk çklkafxd

vkns’k fnukad 9@6@95 ds tfj;s lEçsf”kr funsZ’k@jsÝsUl fookn dks blh

vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd çkFkhZx.k Jfed uouhr flag o lwjtey]

vçkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr frfFk fn- 18@12@90 ls Bhd

iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s tkus

ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSaA çkFkhZx.k dk ekeyk

NaVuh dk ugha gSA vr% bu leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZx.k vçkFkhZ fu;kstd

ds fo#) dksbZ vuqrks”k çkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugh gSaA

Jherh vfurk ‘kekZ] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xks;y daLVªD'ku

,aM bathfu;lZ ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 23@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@180@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 23/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Goel Construction and Engineers

and Others and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42012/180/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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. 23/2015

Shri Joginder Sharma,

Through Indian Steel and

Metal Workers Union,

1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi 110 019

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s Goel Construction & Engineers,

C – 503, JVTS Garden,

Chhattarpur Extension,

New Delhi 110 074

2. Health and Family Welfare Centre,

Baba Ganga Nath Marg,

Munirka,

New Delhi

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/180/

2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Joginder

Sharma S/o Shri Kewal Ram by the management of

M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers a sub contractor

of NPCC in the establishment of National Health

and Family Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f.

01.02.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Joginder Sharma

opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the workman herein as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor

was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services

remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,

every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above

notice was served upon the workman herein. Despite

service of the notice, initially nobody was appearing on

behalf of the workman herein on several dates of hearing

and later on, despite granting of opportunities workman

herein opted not to file his statement of claim. Thus, it is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 12] 2015@vxzgk;.k 21] 1937

4647

clear that the workman herein is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman herein has neither filed his

statement of claim nor has 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 : December 4, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk- 2285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xks;y daLVªD'ku

,aM bathfu;lZ ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=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;] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 18@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 09@12@2015 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@175@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2015

S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 18/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Goel Construction and Engineers

and Others and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 09/12/2015.

[No. L-42012/175/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

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.18/2015

Shri Mani Ram,

Through Indian Steel and

Metal Workers Union,

1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi 110 019

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s Goel Construction & Engineers,

C – 503, JVTS Garden,

Chhattarpur Extension,

New Delhi 110 074

2. Health and Family Welfare Centre,

Baba Ganga Nath Marg,

Munirka,

New Delhi

...Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/175/2014-

IR(DUI) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Mani

Ram S/o Shri Teeju Lal by the management of M/s.

Goel Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of

NPCC in the establishment of National Health and

Family Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f.

12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Mani Ram opted

not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent

to the workman herein as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article, referred above, was received back nor

was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services

remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,

every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above

notice was served upon the workman herein. Despite

service of the notice, initially nobody was appearing on

behalf of the workman herein on several dates of hearing

and later on, despite granting of opportunities workman

herein opted not to file his statement of claim. Thus, it is

clear that the workman herein is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman herein has neither filed his

statement of claim nor has 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 : December 4, 2015

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer