485 GI/2016
(653)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 231-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lasUVªy cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d
Jh jktfdju jk; th- (tUe frfFk % 19-05-1962) dks muds
inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] vksfj;aVy cSad vkWiQ dkelZ
esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 231.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Rajkiran Rai G (DOB: 19.05.1962) , General Manager,
Central Bank of India as Executive Director, Oriental Bank
of Commerce for the period of three years from the date of
his taking over the charge of the post or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 7]
ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 7—iQjojh 13] 2016] 'kfuokj@ek?k 18—ek?k 24] 1937
No. 7]
NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 7—FEBRUARY 13, 2016, SATURDAY/MAGHA 18—MAGHA 24, 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)
654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 232-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lasUVªy cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d
Jh jes'k ,l- ¯lg (tUe frfFk % 09-10-1961) dks muds inHkkj
xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] nsuk cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd
fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 232.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Ramesh S. Singh (DOB:09.10.1961), General Manager,
Central Bank of India as Executive Director, Dena Bank
for a period of three years from the date of his taking over
the charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 233-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] bykgkckn cSad ds egkizca/d Jh lquhy esgrk
(tUe frfFk % 19-09-1959) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] dkiksZjs'ku cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 233.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Sunil Mehta (DOB:19.09.1959), General Manager,
Allahabad Bank as Executive Director, Corporation Bank
for a period of three years from the date of his taking over
charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 234-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds egkizca/d Jh fouksn
dqekj dFkwfj;k (tUe frfFk % 23-07-1958) dks muds inHkkj
xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 31-07-2018 rd vFkkZr~ vf/o£"krk dh
vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] ;wfu;u cSad vkWiQ bafM;k esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 234.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Vinod Kumar Kathuria (DOB: 23.07.1958) , General
Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive Director,
Union Bank of India from the date of his taking over the
charge of the post and upto 31.07.2018 i.e. the date of his
attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 235-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] fot;k cSad ds egkizca/d Jh ,-,l- jktho
(tUe frfFk % 15-05-1964) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
655
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] bafM;u cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 235.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri A.S. Rajeev (DOB:15.05.1964), General Manager, Vijaya
Bank as Executive Director, Indian Bank for the period of
three years from the date of his taking over the charge of
the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 236-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds egkizca/d Jh vkj-
lqczef.k dqekj (tUe frfFk % 15-06-1959) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k
djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] bafM;u cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd
fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 236.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri R. Subramania Kumar (DOB: 15.06.1959), General
Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive Director,
Indian Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
his taking over charge of the post or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 237-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d Jh nhu ca/q
egkik=k (tUe frfFk % 12-06-1959) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus
dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] dsujk cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 237.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Dina Bandhu Mohapatra (DOB: 12.06.1959) , General
Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director, Canara Bank
for a period of three years from the date of his taking over
charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 238-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] dsujk cSad ds egkizca/d Jh th- lqczef.k vÕ;j
(tUe frfFk % 10-04-1958) dks bl 'krZ ds v/hu fd Jh vÕ;j
fnukad 01-02-2016 dks ;k blds i'pkr~ viuk dk;ZHkkj laHkkysaxs]
muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 30-04-2018 rd vFkkZr~
mudh vf/o£"krk dh vk;q rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] ;wdks cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 238.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and sub
clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri G. Subramania Iyer (DOB:10.04.1958), General Manager,
Canara Bank as Executive Director, UCO Bank from the
date of his taking over the charge of the post and upto
30.04.2018 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further
orders, whichever is earlier subject to restriction that
Shri Iyer will take over the charge of the post on or after
01.02.2016.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 239-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] ;wfu;u cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d
Jh e;ad ds- esgrk (tUe frfFk % 12-09-1958) dks muds inHkkj
xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 30-09-2018 rd vFkkZr~ vf/o£"krk dh
vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh
igys gks] cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 239.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Mayank K. Mehta (DOB:12.09.1958) , General
Manager, Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Bank
of Baroda from the date of his taking over the charge of
the post and upto 30.09.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining
the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever
is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 240-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] fot;k cSad ds egkizca/d Jh ukxs'oj jko okbZ-
(tUe frfFk % 12-07-1961) dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] fot;k cSad esa dk;Zikyd funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 240.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Nageswara Rao Y (DOB: 12.07.1961), General Manager,
Vijaya Bank as Executive Director, Vijaya Bank for the period
of three years from the date of his taking over the charge
of the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 241-—Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad vf/fu;e]
1989 (1989 dk 39) dh /kjk (6) dh mi&/kjk (2) ds lkFk
ifBr /kjk (6) dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] flMch ds
egkizca/d Jh eukst feÙky (tUe frfFk % 28-10-1967) dks
inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad
(flMch) esa mi izca/ funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 7@1@2011&chvks&I ([kaM&II)º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 241.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section (6) read with sub-
section (2) of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development
Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Manoj Mittal, (DOB: 28.10.1967),
General Manager, SIDBI as Deputy Managing Director,
SIDBI for a period of five years from the date of his taking
over the charge of the post or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/1/2011-BO-I (Vol.-II)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
657
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 242-—Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad vf/fu;e]
1989 (1989 dk 39) dh /kjk (6) dh mi&/kjk (2) ds lkFk
ifBr /kjk (6) dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] flMch ds
eq[; egkizca/d Jh vt; dqekj diwj (tUe frfFk % 25-10-1959)
dks inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 31-10-2019 rd vFkkZr~
vfèko£"krk dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad (flMch) esa mi izca/
funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 7@1@2011&chvks&I ([kaM&II)º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2016
S.O. 242.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section (6) read with sub-
section (2) of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development
Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar Kapur, (DOB: 25.10.1959),
Chief General Manager, SIDBI as Deputy Managing
Director, SIDBI w.e.f. the date of his taking over the charge
of the post, and upto the date of his superannuation i.e.
31.10.2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/1/2011-BO-I (Vol.-II)]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 243-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] izks-
jk/k vkj- 'kekZ (tUe frfFk % 20-09-1955) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] bykgkckn cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@6@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 243.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Prof. Radha R. Sharma (DoB: 20.09.1955)
as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors
of Allahabad Bank for a period of three years, from the
date of notification of her appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/6/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 244-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
MkW- vpZuk jfoUæjk; <ksyfd;k (tUe frfFk % 04-12-1955) dks mudh
fu;qfDr dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWiQ egkjk"Vª ds
funs'kd eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@11@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 244.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Dr. Archana Ravindrarai Dholakia (DoB:
04.12.1955) as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board
of Directors of Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three
years, from the date of notification of her appointment or
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/11/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 245-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
Jh th- xksikyÑ".k (tUe frfFk % 11-03-1956) dks mudh fu;qfDr
dh vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] nsuk cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@18@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 245.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri G. Gopalakrishna (DoB: 11.03.1956)
as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors
of Dena Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/18/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 246-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh
vfer pVthZ (tUe frfFk % 25-10-1954) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] nsuk cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@19@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 246.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Amit Chatterjee (DoB: 25.10.1954)
as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors
of Dena Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/19/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 247-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
Jh vrkuw lsu (tUe frfFk % 16-07-1954) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM ¯l/ cSad ds funs'kd eaMy
esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@24@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 247.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Atanu Sen (DoB: 16.07.1954) as
Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors
of Punjab & Sind Bank for a period of three years, from
the date of notification of his appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/24/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 248-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
Jh ,e- Hkxoar jko (tUe frfFk % 25-05-1954) dks mudh fu;qfDr
dh vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fot;k cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@33@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 248.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri M. Bhagavantha Rao (DoB:
25.05.1954) as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board
of Directors of Vijaya Bank for a period of three years,
from the date of notification of his appointment or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/33/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
659
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 249-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr
cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)(t) vkSj (3&d) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh
oh-oh-vkj- 'kkL=kh (tUe frfFk % 23-04-1949) dks mudh fu;qfDr
dh vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fot;k cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@34@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 249.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri V.V.R. Sastry (DoB: 23.04.1949) as
Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors
of Vijaya Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/34/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 250-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/fu;e] 1955 (1955
dk 23) dh /kjk 19 ds [k.M (?k) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djds]
,rn~}kjk] Jh fxjh'k dqekj vgqtk (tUe frfFk % 29-05-1946) dks
mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds
fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds dsUæh; funs'kd eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer
djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@34@2014&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 250.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of Section 19 of the State Bank of India Act,
1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, in consultation
with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominate Shri Girish
Kumar Ahuja (DoB : 29.05.1946) as Part Time Non Official
Director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of
India, for a period of three years, with effect from the date
of notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/34/2014-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 251-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/fu;e] 1955 (1955
dk 23) dh /kjk 19 [k.M (?k) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk]
MkW- iq"isUæ jk; (tUe frfFk % 02-06-1953) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys
vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds dsUæh; funs'kd
eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 6@36@2015&chvks&I º
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 251.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of Section 19 of the State Bank of India Act,
1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, in consultation
with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominate Dr.
Pushpendra Rai (DoB : 02.06.1953) as Part Time Non Official
Director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of
India, for a period of three years, with effect from the date
of notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/36/2015-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 252-—jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad
vfèkfu;e] 1981 (1981 dk 61) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds
lkFk ifBr /kjk (6) dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls
ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] MkW- lR;ukjk;.k nkl (tUe frfFk %
14-03-1950) dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèklwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu
o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad (ukckMZ) ds dsUæh; funs'kd
eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 7@8@2015&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2016
S.O. 252.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-
section (2) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture
and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central
Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of
India, hereby nominates Dr. Satyanarayana Dash (DoB :
14.03.1950) as Part Time Non Official Director on the Board
of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NABARD), for a period of three years from
the date of notification of his appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/8/2015-BO-I ]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 253-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vfèkfu;e]
1981 (1981 dk 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä)
ds mi&[kaM (i) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vej flUgk (vkbZ,iQ,l % 1982)] lfpo
(bZvkj)] fons'k ea=kky; dks vxys vkns'kksa rd Jherh lqtkrk
esgrk ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad (,fDte cSad) ds
funs'kd eaMy esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 24@27@2002&vkbZ,iQ&Iº
lkSE;kthr ?kks"k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 253.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6
of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981),
the Central Government hereby nominates Sh. Amar Sinha
(IFS : 1982), Secretary (ER), Ministry of External Affairs, as
Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank
of India (EXIM Bank) vice Smt. Sujata Mehta until further
orders.
[F. No. 24/27/2002-IF-I ]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh-ih-oh- izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 254-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/kdkjh ¼'kiFk
,oa Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [akM
¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/kku dksalykokl] U;w;kWdZ esa
Jh fgeka'kq iar] vk'kqys[kd dks fnukad 3 Qjojh] 2016 ls lgk;d
dksalqyj vf/kdkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,
izkfèd`r djrh gS A
[la- Vh&4330@01@2016]
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 254.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section
2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees)
Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Himanshu Pant, Steno as Assistant Consular
Officer in Consulate General of India, New York to perform
the Consular services with effect from 3 February, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 1 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 255-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Ø-
ykblsal la-
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal /kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk-ek- la- ¼Hkkx@
la-
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½% o"kZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-
6500011492
20160105
eSllZ oh&xkMZ baMLVªhl fyfeVsM
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034% 2002
byDVªks esdSfudy oDlZ
2@113bZ] dkj;e iky;e jksM]
eSyeiV~Vh iksLV
dks;EcÙkwj&641 062
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
661
2-
6500011694
20160113
eSllZ okfguh bathfu;¯jx
lkQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472% 1998
la- 36] js.kqdk xkMZu]
vidsaæh; iqu#Riknd iEi
d#Iijk;e iky;e]
eSyeiV~Vh iksLV]
dks;EcÙkwj&641 062
3-
6500011896
20160125
eSllZ ¯gnqLrku bathfu;¯jx baMLVªht
fuEetuh; iEilsV ds
IS 9283% 2013
359] uUtqUnkiqje jksM]
fy, eksVj
jkekukFkkiqje]
dks;EcÙkwj&641 036
4-
6500011593
20160111
eSllZ fpUukUuu Tosyjh
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417% 1999
17] cktkj LVªhV]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh &
iksYykph&642 001
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
5-
6500011795
20160114
eSllZ tkQj Tosyjh
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417% 1999
54] jktk LVªhV] vfUr;wj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh &
Hkokuh&638 501
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
6-
6500011997
20160129
eSllZ Jh dqekj TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
IS 1417% 1999
490&2] dksoS eq[; lM+d]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh &
ufEc;wj]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
xkscwpsV~Vhiky;e ¼rkyqd½]
bZjksM&638 458
[la- lh,eMh@13%11]
ih- ls"kkfxjh jko] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2016
S.O. 255.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant
Name and Address (Factory)
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No.
No.
Date
of the Party
Sec. Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
6500011492
20160105
M/s. V-Guard Industries Ltd.
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
Electro Mechnical Works
2/113E, Karayam Palayam Road,
Mylampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641062
1
2
3
4
5
6
662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
6500011694
20160113
M/s. Vahinie Engineering,
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472 : 1998
No. 36, Renuka Garden,
Pumps for clear,
Karuparayan Palayam,
cold water
Mylampatti Post,
Coimbatore - 641062.
3.
6500011896
20160125
The Hindusthan Engineering
Motors for Submersible
IS 9283 : 2013
Industries, 359, Nanjundapuram
Pumpsets
Road, Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore-641036
4.
6500011593
20160111
M/s. Chinnannaan Jewellery
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
157, Bazaar Street,
Jewellery/ Artefacts -
Pollachi – 642 001
Fineness and Marking
5.
6500011795
20160114
M/s. Jaffar Jewellery
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
54, Raja Street, Anthiyur,
Jewellery/ Artefacts -
Bhavani – 638 501
Fineness and Marking
6.
6500011997
20160129
M/s. Shree Kumar Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 1999
490-2, Kovai Main Road,
Jewellery/ Artefacts -
Nambiyur, Gobichettipalayam
Fineness and Marking
(Taluk), Erode – 638 458
[No. CMD/13:11]
P. SESHAGIRI RAO, Scientist ‘E’ and Head
ubZ fnYyh] 1 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 256-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%µ
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds varxZr
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,y&
oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
frfFk
tuojh 2016 & 'kwU;
[la- lh,eMh@13 % 13]
ih- ls"kkfxjh jko] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2016
S.O. 256.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
CM/L
Indian Standard covered by the
Cancellation
licence cancelled/suspension
January 2016 - NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
P. SESHAGIRI RAO, Scientist ‘E’ and Head
1
2
3
4
5
6
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
663
ty lalkèu] unh fodkl vkSj xaxk laj{k.k ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 257-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ty vk;ksx] ubZ
fnYyh ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd
deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrh gS %
ewY;kadu funs'kky;] dsUæh; ty vk;ksx] ukxiqj
[lañ bZ &11011@16@2015&fgUnh]
ds- ,e- ,e- vfyekfYexksfr] vk£Fkd lykgdkj
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, RIVER
DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 257.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, (as amended in 1987) the Central
Government hereby notifies the following Office of Central
Water Commission, New Delhi, wherein more than 80%
staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
Appraisal Directorate, Central Water Commission,
Nagpur
[No. E-11011/16/2015-Hindi]
K. M. M. ALIMALMIGOTI, Economic Adviser
dkjiksjsV dk;Z ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 5 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 258-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa dkjiksjsV dk;Z ea=ky; ds varxZr daiuh fof/k
cksMZ dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk
dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS A
[lañ bZ&11016@1@2010&fgUnh]
,- v'kksyh pykbZ] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 258.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
Company Law Board, under Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
wherein more than 80% staff members have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E-11016/1/2010-Hindi]
A. ASHOLI CHALAI, Jt. Secy.
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 1 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 259-—jk"Vªifr] Jh eqjyh/j iz/ku] ihBklhu
vfèkdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;]
gSnjkckn dks fnukad 29-01-2016 ls Ng ekg dh vof/ vFkok
fu;fer vkèkkj ij bl in ds Hkjs tkus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa
rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds ihBklhu vfèkdkjh dk
vfrfjDr izHkkj lkSairs gSa A
¹la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&IIº
,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2016
S.O. 259.—The President is pleased to entrust the
additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bangalore to Shri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad for a period of six months with
effect form 29.01.2016 or till the post is filled on regular
basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 260-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 36 fouiQ ,;jiQkslZ]
oM+ksnjk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ
(lhthvkbZVh,) la- 134@2006º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&14012@28@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award [I.D. Reference
(CGITA) No. 134/2006] of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the 36, Winf
Airforce, Vadodara and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 25/01/2016.
[No. L-14012/28/2005-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad
Dated 14th December, 2015
Reference : (CGITA) No. 134/2006
The Commanding Officer,
36, Winf Airforce,
Makarpura,
Vadodara (Gujarat)-3900014
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Smt. Savitaben Bhagga Harijan,
Jhaver Nagar,
Behind Makarpura Bus Depot,
Vadodara (Gujarat)-3900014
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. P.M. Rami, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. Dharmendra Singh
Rajput, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-14012/28/2005-
IR(DU) dated 06.06.2006 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Airforce
Station, Baroda in terminating the services of Smt.
Savitaben Bhagga Harijan, Ex-Ayah w.e.f. November,
2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dated back to 06.06.2006. Both the
parties were served by the way of registered post on
26.07.2006. But second party did not prefer to file the
statement of claim despite his counsel Sh. Dharmendra
Singh Rajput filed the vakalatnama (Ext. 10). Thus it
appears that both the parties are not willing to proceed
with the reference. The Tribunal has no option but to
dismiss the reference in default of the parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 261-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZfM;k lsyqyj
l£olst fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV
¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 79@2013º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40011@15@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award [I.D. Reference
(CGITA) No. 79/2013] of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Idea Cellular
Services Limited and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 25/01/2016.
[No. L-40011/15/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad
Dated 14th December, 2015
Reference : (CGITA) No. 79/2013
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
M/s. Idea Cellular Services Ltd.,
Suman Towers, Plot No. 18, Sector-11,
Gandhinagar
2. The General Manager,
M/s. Idea Cellular Services Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Zade Square Complex,
Haveli Raod, Akota,
Baroda
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Mehul Arvindbhai Patel,
Through the General Secretary,
Gujarat Mazdoor Sena,
G-2, Devdarshan Appartment,
Opp. State Bank of India,
Harni Road,
Baroda
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
665
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour , New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/15/2013-
IR(DU) dated 08.04.2013 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Idea Cellular Services Ltd., Vadodara through
its officers in terminating the services of Shri Mehul
Arvindbhai Patel w.e.f. 27.12.2009 without complying
the provisions of section 25(F) (G) & (H) of the ID
Act, 1947 is legal and justified? To what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 08.06.2013. Second party
was served by way of registered post on 23.02.2015,
similarly, first party also served on 13.02.2015. But second
party did not prefer to submit the statement of claim. Thus,
it appears that both the parties are not willing to proceed
with the reference as they have been absent since last
several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss
the reference in default of the parties.
This reference is dismissed in default of the parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 262-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe
fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds
chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ
(lhthvkbZVh,) la-555@2004º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 25@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@255@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [I.D. Reference
(CGITA) No. 555/2004] of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, Ahemdabad now as shown
in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 25/01/2016.
[No. L-40012/255/2002-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad
Dated 15th December, 2015
Reference: (CGITA) No. 555 /2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 29/2003
1.
The Sub Divisional Officer (Tele),
BSNL, Deesa Telephone Exchange,
Deesa(B.K.)- 385536
2.
The General Manager,
BSNL, Palanpur Telephone Exchange,
Jorawal Palace,
Palanpur (B.K.)
3.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Deptt.,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Rameshbhai Meghrajbhai Pandya
Through the Org. Secretary,
Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment,
Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasa Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380007
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Sh. P.I. Shah, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Sh. R.C. Pathak, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/255/
2002-IR(DU) dated 17.04.2003 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, BSNL
(Telecom Department) in terminating the services of
Sh. Rameshbhai Meghrajbhai Pandya is legal, Proper
and justified? If not, to what relief the concern
workman is entitled to and since when?”
666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
This reference dates back to 17.04.2003 but despite
service on the workman(second Party), he did not prefer
to submit the statement of claim till date. Thus it appears
that workman (second Party) is not willing to proceed with
the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to
dismiss the reference in default of the workman (second
party).
The reference is dismissed in default of the second
party.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 263-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj fuxe
fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds
chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 6@2009)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@42@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 6/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 25/01/2016.
[No. L-40012/42/2008-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A,
GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. NO. 6/2009
Shri Dhyan Singh,
S/o Radhey Singh,
Vill: Milak Ajitpur , PO: Mankua,
Bijnore
Versus
1.
Chief General Manager, Telecom (West),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Windlass Shopping Complex, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun-248001.
2.
The Dy. General Manager(Adm.)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
O/o Chief General Manager Telecom (West),
Windlass Shopping Complex, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-40012/42/2008-IR(DU) dated
10.02.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun in terminating the
service of their workman Shri Dhyan Singh w.e.f.
17.01.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
On 10.02.2009 reference was received in this
Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 6/2009 and 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.
Workman Sh. Dhyan Singh, filed claim statement
alongwith his affidavit on 10.09.2009. On the basis of
contents of claim statement he prayed that he be reinstated
in service alongwith full back wages.
Against claim statement written statement has been
filed by management. On the basis of contents of written
statement management prayed that reference is liable to
be decided against workman and in favour of management
and claim statement is liable to be dismissed.
This Tribunal has not framed any issue but
proceeded to adjudicate on the basis of questions of
determination mentioned in the schedule of reference and
opportunity to workman to adduce its evidence were given.
But neither he turn up nor his Ld. A/R nor any evidence
on his behalf has been filed. So right of adducing his
evidence has been closed on 18.12.2015 . As there was no
evidence of workman so there was no need to afford to
management to adduce its evidence.
Award was reserved to pass no dispute award.
I perused the reference order, pleadings of parties.
As there is no evidence of parties on record. Inwant of
evidence of workman this Tribunal has no option except
to decide reference against workman and in favour of
management. Which is accordingly decided and claim
statement is accordingly dismissed.
No dispute award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-2/1/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
667
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 264-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1086@2005) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&23012@28@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2016
S.O. 264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1086/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
BBMB, BSL Project and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 29/01/2016.
[No. L-23012/28/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1086/2005
Registered on 20.9.2005
The General Secretary,
BCB/BBMB Power Wing Mazdoor Union,
Sundernagar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Supdt. Engineer,
Dhar Power House, Circle,
BBMB, Power Wing, Slapper,
Mandi (HP)
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on:- 12.10.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/
28/2001-IR(CM-II) Dated 6.5.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the services rendered by Sh. Ved Prakash
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal w.e.f. 17.2.1970 to 31.12.1976
and 1.1.1977 to 31.1.1981 in Beas Construction Board
(Power Wing) on work charged basis be counted for
pensionary benefits? If so, from which date?”
In response to the notice, statement of claim was
filed by the Union on behalf of the workman pleading that
workman Ved Parkash worked as ‘Work Charge Employee’
in Beas Construction Board from 17.2.1970 to 31.1.1981
and later on was absorbed in the respondent-Board from
where he retired on 30.4.2005. His service for the period
17.2.1970 to 31.1.1981 in Beas Construction Board was not
taken into consideration for granting the pensionary
benefits and he is entitled to the same.
Respondent-management filed written reply pleading
that respondent-board and the Beas Construction Board
are different organizations and the Beas Construction
Board ceased to exist on the completion of the work of the
project. That workman was appointed with respondent-
board afresh w.e.f. 1.2.1981 and he is not entitled to the
benefit of service rendered by him in Beas Construction
Board.
Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.
In support of his case Sh. Ved Prakash, workman
appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit
supporting his case as set out in the statement of claim.
On the other hand respondent-management has
examined Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, who filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand taken by the respondent-management.
During the pendency, the workman died and his LRs
were brought on record for the purpose of this reference
as find mentioned in the application moved in this respect
vide order dated 14.5.2015.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar for the workman
and Sh. Ravinder Sharma for the management.
The only question which needs determination in
the present reference is whether the service rendered by
the workman as a ‘Work Charge Employee’ from 17.2.1970
to 31.1.1981 in Beas Construction Board is to be taken into
consideration for the grant of Pensionary Benefits.
It is not disputed that the workman worked with
Beas Construction Board for the above said period and he
joined the respondent-management on 1.2.1981 when fresh
appointment was given to him after the abolition of Beas
Construction Board. Now according to the management,
the management is a different organization than the Beas
Construction Board and therefore, the services rendered
by the workman in another organization i.e. Beas
Construction Board cannot be taken into consideration
668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for the grant of pensionary benefits as much as the
workman has received the retrenchment compensation
when his services were terminated from Beas Construction
Board. The question involved came for consideration
before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
Civil Writ Petition No.15666 of 1998 titled as Sohan Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and Others wherein in similar situation
when the services rendered by the workman in the Bhakra
Dam and Beas Construction Board were not taken into
consideration for the grant of pensionary benefits, it was
held that the management was required to count the service
rendered by the workman in Bhakra Project and Beas
Construction Board while granting the pensionary benefits.
Relying on instruction dated 4.7.1991 issued by the Board
which read as follow:-
“Subject :
Grant of benefit of past service rendered by Ex-CGEs
of B.C.B. Inducted into BBMB for the purposes of
pension, Gratuity, Leave and Proficiency Step-up(S)
According to the existing instructions/orders the
past service rendered by the Ex-Central Government
Employees of B.C.B. Inducted in BBMB on fresh
appointment is not counted in the BBMB for the
purposes of grant of proficiency step-up(s).
Entitlement of Casual/Earned Leave and grant of
retirement benefits such as Pension, Gratuity, etc.
2. In partial modification of the instructions
contained in Board’s letter No. 8170-32/88208?BP/
10/1-rr dated 26.3.84, 234/31200/82/10/Irr dated
28.4.84, 9921-60/B-1200/231/I-Irr Dated 31.3.86 &
15022-164/B-2/468/86/86/R&A dated 2.5.89 and in
pursuance of the decision taken by the Board vide
Item No.142.05 of its 142nd meeting held on 11.4.1991
at Chandigarh, I am directed to convey approval of
the Board to the effect that the service rendered by
Ex-Central Government Employees in B.C.B. inducted
into BBMB on fresh appointment shall be counted
in the BBMB for the purpose of:-
(i)
grant of Proficiency step-up(s)
(ii)
for determining the entitlement of Casual/
earned leave for service in BBMB without any
claim of carrying forward the Earned Leave
earned for service in BCB;
(iii)
grant of retirement benefits of Pension &
Gratuity.”,
It was held that Board is to count the service of the
petitioner rendered by him in Bhakra Dam and under the
Beas Construction Board as qualifying service for the grant
of pension and the last para of judgement read as follow:-
“The present writ petition is allowed with a direction
to the respondent-Board to count the service of the
petitioner rendered under the Government of Punjab
in Bhakra Dam and under the Beas Construction
Board towards qualifying service towards pension
and accordingly grant pension to him.”
In view of this pronouncement of the Hon’ble High
Court, the respondent-management cannot refuse to count
the period from 17.1.1970 to 31.1.1981 for pensionary
benefits to the workman.
In result the reference is answered holding that
service of the workman from 17.2.1970 to 31.1.1981 with
Beas Construction Board is to be counted for Pensionary
Benefits and the respondent-management is accordingly
directed to count the said period for the grant of pension.
The reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 265-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihch,iQ ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1281@2006) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@238@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2016
S.O. 265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1281/
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Central Poultry Breeding Farm and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 29/01/2016.
[No. L-42012/238/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1281/2006
Registered on 13.9.2006
Sh. Harchand Singh C/o Shri H.S. Hundal,
Chamber No.112, Distt. Courts, Sector 17,
Chandigarh
...Applicant
Versus
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
669
1. The Director,
Central Poultry Breeding Farm,
Industrial Area, Phase-I,
Chandigarh
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
-
Sh. H.S. Hundal, Adv.
For the Management
-
Dr. Sushila Bhardwaj
AWARD
Passed on:-13.10.2015
Vide Order No.L-42012/238/2005-IR(CM-II), dated
11.08.2006 the Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and
Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Poultry Breeding Farm in retiring Sh. Harchand Singh,
Driver on attaining the age of 58 years is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
appointed as ‘Driver’ at Central Poultry Breeding Farm on
29.5.1968 and retired from service on 31.1.1999 on attaining
the age of 58 years. It is pleaded that Central Poultry
Breeding Farm, Chandigarh was taken over by Central
Government along with all assets and liabilities w.e.f.
1.4.1978 and option was given to employees to continue
in Punjab Pay Scale or to switch over Central Pay Scale.
The workman opted for Punjab pay scale though he was
governed by the service rules of the Central Government.
As per Service Rules of the Central Government, he was
to retire on attaining the age of 60 years but he was retired
at the age of 58 years, which is illegal. That other
employees who were similarly placed continued serving
up to the age of 60 years as ordered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide its order dated
28.2.2005.
Since the workman was retired before the completion
of 60 years, he be paid the wages for two years and other
benefits.
The respondent-management filed written statement
admitting the averments and pleaded that the workman
was governed by rules under which he was to retire on
attaining the age of 58 years and accordingly he was retired
at that age. That the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal was passed in the year 2005, whereas the workman
retired in the year 1999 and he is not entitled to get the
benefit. It is further pleaded that respondent-management
is not an industry and the workman is not a ‘workman’ as
defined under the Act.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
The reference was answered against the workman vide
award dated 27.4.2012.
The workman preferred Civil Writ Petition No.10386
of 2013 which was allowed with the following observations:-
“A reading of the judgement would go on to show
that the onus had to be placed upon the petitioner-
workman to establish the issue in hand and he would
have obviously led evidence to substantiate his claim
which then could have been adjudicated upon by
the Labour Court based on the evidence produced
by the parties so that it fell within the case of the
triple test as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board’s case(supra). Once the said
procedure was not followed, the workman has been
gravely prejudiced by the slip short method in which
the matter has been decided by the Tribunal and
without putting the workman to guard that the onus
was upon him.
Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the
Labour Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it by law and not followed the settled
procedure for adjudicating on the dispute in
question and violated the principles of natural
justice and the said award cannot be justified.
Further, merely because other employees had got
the relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal,
would not be a ground to reject the reference and it
was for the Labour Court to decide on merits.
Accordingly, the said award is quashed. The matter
is remanded to the Labour Court to decide it afresh
after taking into consideration the observations made
above, in accordance with law.”
Thus, the award was set aside.
On receipt of the order, the following issues were
framed:-
(i)
Whether respondent No.2 is an Industry.
(ii)
Relief
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
I have heard Sh. Jasvir Singh for the workman and
Dr. Sushila Bhardwaj for the management. Issue-wise
findings are as follow:-
Issue No.1:-
In support of this issue, the workman has deposed
in his affidavit that respondent-management is doing
commercial activity by producing and selling Chicks etc.
and maintaining a counter at the main gate.
On the other hand Dr. K. Ravi Kumar has simply
deposed in his affidavit that the management do not come
under the definition of ‘industry’.
670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
management that respondent-management is only engaged
in the work of uplifting poultry farm by producing chicks
etc. and giving training to farmers, and therefore, it is not
an ‘Industry, as defined in Section 2A of the Act.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water
Supply Vs. A. Rajappa and others, reported AIR1978
Supreme Court 548 considered the definition of ‘industry’
and held in para 61 of the judgement which is as follow:-
‘Industry’, as defined in S. 2(j) and explained in
Banerji (AIR 1953 SC58) has a wide import.
(a)
Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by
co-operation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is
chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or
distribution of goods and services calculated
to satisfy human wants and wishes (not
spiritual or religious but inclusive of material
things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e.
making, on a large scale Prasad or food) prima
facie, there is an industry’ in that enterprise.
(b)
Absence of profit motive or gainful objective
is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,
private or other sector.
(c)
The true focus is functional and the decisive
test is the nature of the activity with special
emphasis on the employer-employee relations.
(d)
If the organization is a trade or business it
does not cease to be one because of
philanthrophy animating the undertaking.’
Thus, where systematic activity is organized for
commercial purposes for the production and distribution
of goods, that institution is an ‘Industry’.
Workman has specifically pleaded that the
respondent-management do commercial activity by
producing and selling chicks, broilers, eggs etc. Dr. Ravi
Kumar has admitted in cross-examination that chicks are
supplied to the State Government for Poultry development
against price and the surplus chicks are also sold to the
public. Thus, the respondent-management produce chicks
etc and sell the same. In its progress report for the year
2013-14 placed on file shows the respondent-management
has shown the revenue receipts as 203.51 lacks. These
facts leave no doubt that respondent-management falls
within the definition of ‘industry’ as defined under Section
2(j) of the Act. This issue is decided in favour of the
workman.
Issue No.2:- Relief
There is no denial of the fact that the workman
worked as a ‘driver’ with respondent-management, which
was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 1.4.1978
by issuing a notification dated 31.7.1978 along with its
existing assets and liabilities along with existing staff. It is
again not denied that option was given to the employees
to opt for the pay-scales whether they want the pay-scale
of the Punjab Government or of the Central Government.
The workman opted for Punjab Pay-scales. It is only on
account of that option, that he was retired at the age of 58
years as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The option of
pay-scales and service rules are different and distinct and
once the farm along with its staff was taken over by the
Central Government, the Central Government service rules
were to be applied to the service of the workman, though
he opted for pay scale of Punjab. When it was so, he was
to retire at the age of 60 years. It is again not denied that
some of the workmen approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and they were retired
at the age of 60 years as clear from the copy of the order
dated 28.2.2005, Exb.W6.
In these circumstances the workman was to be retired
on attaining the age of 60 years but he was retired at the
age of 58 years. Therefore, he is entitled to salary for a
period of two years as he was wrongly retired on attaining
the age of 58 years whereas he was to be retire on attaining
the age of 60 years. Since the workman agitated the matter
after a long time of his retirement, he is not entitled to any
other benefits for the said period and more particularly
when he did not perform any duty.
In result the reference is answered holding that
action of the management of the respondent-management
in retiring the workman on attaining the age of 58 years is
not legal and justified and he is entitled to get salary for
the period of two years i.e. up to the age of 60 years without
any other benefit and the reference is answered
accordingly in favour of the workman.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 266-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 485@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@01@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@242@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2016
S.O. 266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
671
No. 485/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 Chandigarh as shown
in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of Chandigarh Central Division, CPWD and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/
01/2016.
[No. L-42012/242/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 485/2005
Registered on 25.8.2005
The Zonal Secretary,
All India CPWD (MRM)
Karamchari Sangathan,
CPWD Store Building,
Sector 7-B, Chandigarh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
Chandigarh Central Division,
CPWD, Chandigarh
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. S.D. Sharma, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjiv Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on:- 28.9.2015
Vide Order No.L-42012/242/2004-IR(CM-II), dated
9.8.2005 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section
2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD
in imposing condition of qualifying Trade Test for
grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in
respect of Subhash Chand and others is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
In response to the notice, the workmen appeared
and submitted statement of claim, pleading that they were
working as Wireman/Operator with the respondent-
management and having completed 12 years/24 years of
service and belong to Grade ‘C’ service. The Government
of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, introduced ACP Scheme, vide office memo dated
9.8.1999, to overcome the problem of stagnation. In view
of the said scheme, all the workmen are entitled to get the
benefits and management has withheld the same without
any reason.
The management filed written reply pleading that
workmen are entitled to financial upgradation as per ACP
Scheme introduced by the Government w.e.f. 9.8.1999. But
pleaded that financial upgradation was subject to the
condition that workmen possesses Electrical Supervisory
Certificate and also passed a Trade Test and since the
workmen did not possess the said qualifications, they were
not given the benefits.
Parties were given opportunities to produce their
evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Subhash Chand, one of
the workmen appeared in the witness-box and filed his
affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, respondent-management
examined Sh. K.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer, who filed
his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-
management.
I have heard S.D. Sharma for the workmen and
Sh. Sanjiv Sharma for the management and perused the file.
The Government of India issued memo dated 9.8.1999
for implementing ACP Scheme due to stagnation and
hardship faced by the employees and its relevant para 3
read as follow:-
3.
GROUP ‘B’, ‘C’ AND ‘D’ SERVICES/POSTS AND
ISOLATED POSTS IN GROUP ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ AND ‘D’
CATEGORIES
“While in respect of these categories also promotion
shall continue to be duly earned, it is proposed to
adopt the ACP Scheme in a modified form to mitigate
hardship in cases of acute stagnation either in a
cadre or in an isolated post. Keeping in view all
relevant factors, it has therefore, been decided to
grant two financial upgradations [as recommended
by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and also in
accordance with the Agreed Settlement dated
September 11,1997 (in relation to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’
employees, entered into with the Staff Side of the
National Council (JCM)] under the ACP Scheme to
Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees on completion of
12 years and 24 years (subject to condition No.4 in
Annexure-I) of regular service respectively. Isolated
posts in Group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories which
have no promotional avenues shall also qualify for
similar benefits on the patter indicated above.
Certain categories of employees such as casual
employees (including those with temporary status),
ad-hoc and contract employees shall not qualify for
benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. Grant of
672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme shall,
nowever, be subject to the conditions mentioned in
Annexure-I.”
Thus, the workmen belonging to Group ‘C’, were to
be given financial upgradations on completion of 12 years
and 24 years of service subject to the condition as find
mentioned in Annexure-I, attached with the said memo.
Condition No.4 of Annexure-I, read as follow:-
“The first financial upgradation under the ACP
Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular
service and the second upgradation after 12 years
of regular service from the date of the first financial
upgradation subject to fulfillment of prescribed
conditions. In other words, if the first upgradation
gets postponed on account of the employee not
found fit or due to departmental proceedings, etc
this would have consequential effect on the second
upgradation which would also get deferred
accordingly;”
Thus, upgradation is to be given subject to
fulfillment of prescribed conditions. Now, according to
the management, the passing of Trade Test and Electrical
Certificate is required for giving financial upgradation.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the
management that the workman did not pass the Trade
Test as well do not possess Electrical Supervisor Certificate
and therefore, they are not entitled for financial
upgradation as per ACP Scheme implemented by the
government. When asked to show the relevant rules which
lay the condition for passing the Trade Test and
possessing of Electrical Supervisor Certificate before
granting financial upgradation as per ACP Scheme, he failed
to mention any rules in this respect. Though the ACP
Scheme, as stated above, provides for the fulfillment of
prescribed conditions for awarding financial upgradation
to the employee, but it is not shown that any rule did exist
on the day when the ACP Scheme was implemented, nor
the learned counsel was able to show any such relevant
rules prescribing the said conditions and in the
circumstances, the benefit of ACP Scheme issued by the
Government vide memo dated 9.8.1999 cannot be denied
to the present workmen.
In result, it is held that the workmen are entitled to
get the benefit of ACP Scheme issued by the government
vide memo dated 9.8.1999.
Resultantly, the reference is answered holding that
the imposition of condition of qualifying Trade Test for
grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme to
the workman is illegal and they are entitled to the benefits
of ACP Scheme issued vide memo dated 9.8.1999 and the
reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2016
dk-vk- 267-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] èkuckn ds iapkV okn la[;k 1@2015 (lanHkZ la-
138@97 ds rgr) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
29@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2016
S.O. 267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Complaint No.
1/2015 (Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of FCI and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
29/01/2016.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.l), DHANBAD
In the matter of a Complaint U/S 33(a) of I.D. Act,1947
COMPLAINT NO. 1/2015
(Arising out of Ref. No.138/97)
Ministry Order No. 22012/170/96-IR(C-II)
Vijay Shankar Prasad, Ex-Manager (D)
Presently residing at House No. 5,
Kidwaipuri, Patna -1
...Complainant
Vrs.
Executive Director, East Zone
Food Corporation of India
10-A, Middleton Row
Kolkata -71
...Opposite party
Present :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For complainant
: Sri Vijayendra Kumar, Rep.
For opposite party
: Sri Anshu Sharma, AGM
Industry : Food
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
673
Dated : 28.12.2015
AWARD
2.
This case is filed by the complainant under section
33A of the ID Act 1947 against his penalty of reduction of
pay to initial pay scale of Manager (D) by Opp. Party.
3.
The case of the complainant is that, charge sheet
dated 19.01.2013 was issued against the complainant.
Sri M K Mundotiya, AGM FCI was appointed as enquiry
officer. Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Manager FCI, RO, Patna
was appointed as Presenting officer on behalf of the
prosecution. It is also admitted that notice was issued to
prosecution witnesses but not even a single witness was
examined and no document was exhibited on behalf of the
prosecution. No defence witness was examined but the
learned enquiry officer without examine PWs, DWs and
also without marking of document submitted his report
holding therein that the charges against the complainant
are proved beyond doubt.
4.
It is also submitted by the complaint that after
sending report to the delinquent complainant was directed
to offer his comment on the enquiry report and accordingly
the complainant has given his comment stating therein
that in fact, no enquiry was conducted in absence of non
-examination of PWs and DWs and even not a single
document was exhibited on behalf of the Opp.Party,
therefore, the inquiry itself is illegal and no action be taken
on the basis of this report but the Opp.Party has passed
an order of punishment dated 22.01.2015 of reduction of
pay to the initial pay in the time scale of pay to the post of
Manager (D) now retired with further direction that the
penalty will be effective on his date of retirement which is
illegal and unjustified.
5.
It is further submitted that as per regulation 58 of
FCI staff regulation no punishment under major penalty
shall be imposed without conducting an enquiry as
provided in the said regulation but a major penalty has
been imposed without holding an enquiry as per regulation
58 which is illegal and unjustified and clear cut abuse of
the power by Opp. Party.
6.
It is also submitted by the complainant that the
alleged charges over which he was punished he was not
responsible for the same as per FCI storage manual and
the charges was levelled against him out of bias to victimize
him illegally and it is obvious that there is force in the
contention of the complainant. This fact was not opposed
by the Opp.Party during hearing of the case. It is further
submitted that the order of penalty has been given
retrospective effect which is not permissible in the eye of
law as any order affecting the right and privilege of an
employee shall not be given retrospective effect.
7.
The case of the Opp. Party is that, it is submitted in
his written statement that the present case arises out of an
order of penalty dated 22.01.2015 passed by the
disciplinary authority. This penalty order dated 22.01.2015
has been impugned in this complaint case filed under
section 33 A of the I.D. Act, 1947. The penalty order has
been passed by the disciplinary authority on account of
misconduct committed by the complaint and for which
charge sheet dated 19.01.2013 under the major penalty
clause of regulation 58 read with regulation 60 A of the FCI
staff regulations. 1971. In the departmental inquiry, the
complainant has been found to be guilty of the charge,
following the due process.
8.
It is also submitted by the Opp.Party that the
complainant was charge sheeted on account of commission
of misconduct of excess shortage of stock which was
detected during the annual physical verification conducted
as on 31.03.2012 and found excess and shortage of stock
in different sheds in FSD, Gaya. The exess and shortage
of stock have been quantified as Rs. 1,58,88,873/- and
3,03,42,381/- respectively. For this misconduct the
complainant alongwith others was charge sheeted and
found guilty of charges and imposing a penalty of
reduction to the initial pay in the time scale of pay to the
post of manager (D) now retired. The penalty will be
effective on the date of his retirement.
9.
The above punishment dated 22.01.2015 is
challenged in this complainant petition. Notice was issued
to the Opp.Party and he appeared and filed a detailed
Written statement and also examined witnesses.
10.
The fairness of the enquiry was also challenged by
the complainant and it was mentioned in the report of the
I.O., that no PWs and DWs were examined in the case by
the I.O. as such after hearing both the parties, the enquiry
proceeding were held unfair and improper vide order dated
23.04.2015 and Opp.party was again given a chance to
lead additional evidence to justify their action and
accordingly two witnesses were examined by the Opp.Party
as Sri M.K. Mantodia (MW-1) the enquiry Officer, and Sri
Kamlesh Kr. Singh (MW-2).
11.
In cross-examination of MW-1, it is fairly admitted
that previously he was not appointed as IO, PO or DA in
any case and as such he is not aware of the rule of domestic
enquiry and is having no experience regarding enquiry.
He has further admitted that despite notice PWs were not
turned up and they were not examined. He has further said
that the PO was unable to examine MWs in their behalf. It
was also admitted by him that no document was marked
and he had not having scope to see those document. He
has further admitted that he has submitted his report on
the basis of the document shown to him by the Presenting
Officer even without examining the DWs. Lastly the IO
has confessed that, since I did not get scope to examine
the parties, I have to submit report without materials.
12.
The MW-2 was the Presenting Officer of this case
and he has said in his chief that I do not remember, whether
the Charge Officer and their witness were allowed to
adduce evidence or not. In cross-examination he said that
the enquiry records will speaks, whether witness have
been examined or exhibits are marked.
674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
The Opp. Party raised objection as preliminary issue
that complainant is not a workman and is not connected
with the pending dispute. This point has already been
decided in other cases of FCI by this Tribunal but the
Management of FCI is taking this plea only with a view to
delay the disposal of the case by adopting dilatory tactics.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has already decided in his
judgement dated 05.08.2011 in a case between FCI Vs.
Govt. of India that Manager (D) in FCI is Workman and no
appeal against this order is filed by FCI as such Opp.
Party is not at liberty to raise this matter in each and every
cases. The above attempt is being made by the Opp.Party
to keep the matter pending on one pretext and the other
only with a motive to harass the workmen and this should
not be allowed to continue.
14.
It is admitted fact that, ref. nos. 138 of 1997 was
pending before this court when the complaint was filed
and being a workman of Bihar region he is’ certainly
concerned and connected to this dispute as changing the
pay structure is certainly alteration in service condition
during pendency of dispute and it was mandatory on the
part of the OP to take prior permission from this Tribunal
failing which the order of punishment becomes ineffective
from the date it was passed. (AIR 2002 SC PAGE -643).
15.
The enquiry has already been held unfair and
improper and Opp.Party has completely failed to justify
their action even after giving chance to lead additional
evidence, therefore, entire action of the IO as well as
Opp.Party is illegal and unjustified and abuse of power to
harm a poor workman like the complainant.
16.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,
the order of the Opp. Party dated 22.01.2015, in light of
evidence of the IO and citations advanced by the
complainant, there is no difficulty in holding that the entire
enquiry proceeding and punishment is abuse of power
and the same is illegal and unjustified. Hence the
complainant is entitled to get his scale of pay restored and
he is also entitle to get post-retirement benefits accordingly.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 268-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 100@2004) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@214@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Central Public Works Department and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 03/02/2016.
[No. L-42012/214/2003-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 100 of 2004
Employer in relation to the Management of Central
Public Works Department
AND
Their workman
Present:
Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Shri Satish Kumar, Rep.
State : Bihar
Industry : Urban Development
Dated- 11/01/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-42012/214/2003/IR (C-II)) dated 22/
11/2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub
–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,
Patna in not regularizing the services of Sh. Santosh
Kumar, Motor Lorry Driver from the date of his initial
appointment is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the said workmen is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld. Representative
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
675
for the workman submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 269-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 103@2004) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@217@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Central Public Works Department and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 03/02/2016.
[No. L-42012/217/2003-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 103 of 2004
Employer in relation to the Management of Central
Public Works Department
AND
Their workman
Present:
Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Shri Satish Kumar, Rep
State : Bihar
Industry : Urban Development
Dated- 11/01/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-42012/217/2003/IR (C-II)) dated
22/11/2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,
Patna in not regularizing the services of Sh. Rajendra
Prasad Thakur, Beldar from the date of his initial
appointment is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the said workmen is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference , both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld.
Representative for the workman submits that workman is
not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the
disputes between the parties have been resolved in the
meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
104@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@216@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of Central Public Works Department and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
03/02/2016.
[No. L-42012/216/2003-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)
of I.D. Act, 1947
676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference No. 104 of 2004
Employer in relation to the Management of Central
Public Works Department
AND
Their workman
Present
:
Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
: Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
: Shri Satish Kumar, Rep
State : Bihar
Industry : Urban Development
Dated : 11/01/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-42012/216/2003/IR (CM-II)) dated
22/11/2004, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d)
of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of CPWD,
Patna in not regularizing the services of Sh. Sunil
Kumar Manjhi, Beldar from the date of his initial
appointment is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the said workmen is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld. Representative
for the workman submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh,lvkjvkbZvkj
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-
39@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@214@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Council
for Scientific Research and Ind. Research and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
03/02/2016.
[No. L-42012/214/2001-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO.33, BLOCK-A,
GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT
COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032
Present : Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA
ID. No. 39/2005
Sh. Prem Kumar,
S/o Sh. Dilbagh Singh,
C/o Sh. M.N. Singh,
X/1837, Park Marg,
Rajgarh Colony,
Delhi-110031
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Head H.R.D.G.
Council for Scientific Research
& Ind. Research,
Dr. K.S. Krishan Marg,
Pusa Raod,
New Delhi-110012
2.
M/o Science & Technology,
Technology Bhawan,
New Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi
...Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-42012/214/2001-IR(C-II) dated
27.04.2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the demand of Shri Prem Kumar S/o Shri
Dilbagh Singh from the management of CSIR that he
may be reinstated in the service with benefits of
continuity and payment of full back wages is just,
fair and legal? If so, to what relief is the workman
entitled?
On 12.05.2005 reference was received in this
Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 39/2005 and
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 20.07.2005. Through which he prayed as
follows:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
677
This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an award
in the present Industrial Dispute declaring the terminating
of services of the workman as illegal and unjustified and
thereby hold the workman entitled to reinstatement in
service alongwith its continuity and full back wages for
the forced unemployment period.
Against claim statement management filed written
statement on 08.01.2008. Through which management
prayed as follows:-
Claimant on 10.9.2008 filed rejoinder. Through which
he reaffirmed the contents of claim statement.
My Ld. Predecessor on 9.4.2013 framed following
issues:-
1.
Whether there exists any relationship of
employer and employee between the parties?
2.
Whether management is not an industry within
the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947?
3.
As in terms of reference.
Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on
7.11.2013.
Workman tendered his affidavit on 1812.2013 and
he was part cross-examined on same day. His statement of
tendering of affidavit and part cross-examination is as
follows:-
I tender my affidavit Ex. WW1/A. Which bears my
signature at point ‘A’ and ‘B’. I reply upon my documents
Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/17.
XXX:-By. Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. A/ R for the management.
I was appointed by the order of Sh. S.C. Dhawan. I
do not know whether there is any advertisement for the
vacancy or not. I do not know the procedure of
appointment in the Government offices. I was working
with Dr. Devender Sharma. There I came in contact with
Sh. S.C. Dhawan. Dr. Sharma was also working with CSIR.
I do not know whether Mr. Dhawan is appointing authority
or not. I was not given appointment letter by the
management. Vol. By Dr. S.C Dhawan I was given in writing
in green sheet that I have been appointed for six month
and the same will be extended time to time.
I do not have the copy of the order appointing me
initially right now I do not the copy. I was not given any
notice of termination.
Cross deferred.
On 10.06.2014 workman’s remaining cross-
examination was concluded. His statement of cross-
examination is as follows:-
I do not get the order voluntarily they were kept in
the office. Mr. Dhawan send a note to the department for
the extension of my job.
It is wrong to suggest that no such order ever passed
and no such noting was ever sent by Mr. Dhawan to the
department. I never received any appointment letter though
I used to demand the appointment letter from the
department. Vol. for which I was threatened to remove for
the job. There was one clerk who check my document and
take me to Mr. Dhawan.
It is wrong to suggest that I was appointed in the
establishment through contractor.
I was not given any salary slip. However in making
payment I was get to sign on the blank paper. For the first
year, I received my salary from Sh. Rajinder, Clerk and after
that from Sh. B.Kamalakar Rao, PRO who used to disbursed
the salary. It is wrong to suggest that my salary was
disbursed through management. I was appoint as helper/
peon. I was given different salary at different point of
time. I was given payment on the basis of daily wages. It is
wrong to suggest that I was appointed through contractor
who paid me. It is correct that documents filed by me in my
evidence has been issued by Mr. Dhawan but I cannot
say whether he was authority to issue those.
It is incorrect to suggest that I produce false and
forged documents. It is correct that no termination notice
was given to me but it is wrong that it was not given to me
as I was not employee of the management. No service
book was given to me by department. It is wrong to suggest
that I was terminated by contractor not by department.
In the light of contention and counter contentions
as well as written arguments of the parties I perused the
order questions of determination mentioned in schedule
of reference, Pleadings of claim statement, written
statement and rejoinder as well as evidence of workman
on record.
My issue wise finding is as follows:-
Filing on question of determination /issue no. 1.
Issue no. 1 is as follows:-
“Whether there exists any relationship of employer
and employee between the parties?”
Burden to prove this issue lies on management but
in the instant case management adduced no evidence in
spite of several opportunities.
So, this Tribunal has closed the evidence of
management on 20.8.2014 against that order management
neither moved application in this Tribunal nor filed revision
in superior court. So order of closing of right of management
evidence has become final.
In this background there is no evidence of
management to prove issue no.1 due to which issue no. 1
is liable to be decided against management and in favour
of workman. Which is accordingly decided.
Finding on question of determination/issue no. 2
Issue no. 2 is as follows:-
“Whether management is not an industry within the
meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947?”
678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Perusal of issue no. 2 makes it crystal clear that burden to
prove this issue lies on management. In the instant case
management has adduced no evidence to prove this issue.
His right of adducing evidence has been closed by this
Tribunal on 20.08.2014. Against which management has
not moved application for setting aside order of
management. Nor filed any revision against order of closing
the evidence of management. So order of closing the
evidence of management has become final. In want of
evidence of management issue no. 2 is liable to be decided
against management and in favour of workman which is
accordingly decided.
Finding on question of determination/issue no. 3
Issue no. 3 is as follows:-
“As in terms of reference”
Perusal of issue no. 3 makes it crystal clear that
burden to prove lies on workman. Workman to discharge
his burden to prove issue no. 3 filed his affidavit in his
evidence which was tendered alongwith relevant copies
of documents. Workman was cross-examined but nothing
could be extracted out in his cross-examination. Which
may favour to management.
So workman adduced his evidence which come in
the category of reliable and credible evidence. Especially
in the instant case wherein no evidence of management.
So workman is entitled for relief but in the instant case
workman claimed relief that his termination of services is
illegal and unjustified. He also claimed for reinstatement
in services along with its continuity and full back wages
for the forced unemployed period.
So it is a fit case wherein settled law of supreme
court on the point of compensation is applicable.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions
I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the
point of reinstatement and grant of back wages. Which
shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence
wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the
facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.
In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and
Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that reinstatement of workman with
continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case and the
compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana
State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. AIR 2009
Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus
“the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case
where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a
year preceding the date of termination particularly, daily
wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and
instead compensation has been awarded.” In catena of
Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that
reinstatement is not automatic, merely because the
termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the
Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative Credit and
Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC
486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus, “grant of relief of
reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back
wages is also not automatic.”
Workman of the instant case was not appointed by
following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered
service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus,
entitled for compensation.
Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman
and against Management and claim statement is liable to
be allowed. Which is accordingly decided and management
is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50000 /- (Rs. Fifty
thousand only) by way of damages as compensation to
the workman/claimant within two month by management
after expiry of period of limitation of available remedy
against Award. That will meet the ends of Justice.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-6.10.2015
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] èkuckn ds iapkV okn la[;k 6@2014 (lanHkZ la-
138@97 ds rgr) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 6/2014 (Arising
out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of FCI and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 03/02/2016.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.l), DHANBAD
In the matter of a Complaint U/S 33(a) of I.D. Act,1947
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
679
COMPLAINT NO. 6/2014
(Arising out of Ref. No.138/97)
Ministry Order No. 22012/170/96-IR(C-II)
Mahesh Sharma & 22 Others
Watchman, Presently employed at
District Office, FCI,
Dhanbad
...Complainant
Vrs.
General Manager (Region)
Food Corporation of India
New Collectriate Building
Block “A” 4th Floor
Kutchary Road
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
...Opposite party
Present :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For complainant
:
Sri Vijayendra Kumar, Rep.
For opposite party
:
Smt Shanti Neelima Kachhap,
AGM
Industry : Food
Dated.14/01/2016
AWARD
2.
This case is filed by the complainant collectively
under section 33A of the ID Act, 1947 against the notice
dated 27.09.2013 and 07.05.2014 in which all 23 workman’s
name is mentioned. The present complaint arose when
this Tribunal was in session of dispute of Ref. No. 138 of
1997.
3.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant
along with 23 others are watchmen employed at District
Office, Dhanbad. The all complainant were employed as
casual employee at FSD Koderma prior to 01.09.1985 but
were retrenched by the Opp. Party in gross violation of
Sec. 25 F of the I.D Act, 1947 and ultimately a dispute was
raised regarding illegal retrenchment and non-
regularisation of service of 24 casual workmen. The said
dispute was referred in the CGIT No.II Dhanbad by the
Govt. of India. Registered as Reference No. 94 of 1995
and ultimately an award was passed holding their
retrenchment in violation of Sec. 25 of I.D Act was illegal
and it was also directed to regularise their services w.e.f.
01.09.1985 as watchman under Cat-IV post as there was
huge vacancy against the post.
4.
It is also submitted by the complainant that the
award was passed on 17.09.1996 by CGIT No.II but a writ
petition was filed by the management of FCI before the
Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench bearing CWJC No. 559
of 1997 and the same was disposed on 04.11.97 by the
Hon’ble High Court and upheld their reinstatement as
directed by the Tribunal but modified the part of direction
regarding their regularisation w.ef. 01.09.1985 and the
matter of regularisation was left for consideration by the
FCI management.
5.
It is also submitted by the complainant that
Opp.Party/management being dissatisfied the upholding
of their reinstatement, filed LPA bearing No. 579 of 1997
against the order of the Single Judge and prayer of the
Opp.Party was rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench
vide order dated 06.04.1998.
6.
One LPA also filed by the Union against the
observation of the Single Judge about consideration of
their regularisation by FCI, Which was granted and the
award of Tribunal become fully enforceable. Thereafter
the Opp.Party filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
against both the order i.e. order of Division Bench dated
06.04.1998 and SLP No. 12393 -12393 of 1998, was listed
for hearing on 04.01.1999 but the Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed the FCI management to first reinstate all the 24
casual employee then the SLP will be taken up for hearing.
7.
Thereafter in accordance with the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Manager, FCI
Hazaribagh issued an order on 12.02.1999 and reinstated
them as casual employee with immediate effect. The Union
pointed out about date of reinstatement. The SLP was
finally disposed of re-storing the order of learned Single
Judge about consideration of their regularisation.
8.
It is also submitted by the Complainant that after
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of reinstatement w.e.f
01.09.1985 was not issued by the FCI management therefore
contempt petition no. 367-368 of 1999 was filed by the
union against D.M Hazaribagh for reinstatement date i.e.
17.09.96 instead of 01.09.1985. Thereafter Hon’ble Supreme
Court again passed modification order on 07.02.2000 in
contempt petition. Thereafter D.M Hazaribagh issued
modified order of their appointment in the post of watchman
w.e.f. 01.09.1985
9.
The regional office Patna vide letter dated 01.07.2000,
it is held that since all the 24 casual employee has already
been regularised as watchman, they are entitled to get all
other benefits w.e.f. 01.09.1985 of watchman in the time
scale of pay of FCI and accordingly they are getting pay
and allowance of watchman w.e.f. 01.09.1985 along with all
other benefits with revision of their pay scale from time to
time.
10.
The case of the Opp.Party is that the complaint
petition does not mention as to under what provision of
law it has been filed. It contains, in para-3 thereof an
allegation regarding necessity in law of prior permission
for change of condition of service as per section 33 (1) of
I.D.Act. The complaint petition in which he has impugned
a show-cause notice. It is obvious that a show cause notice
680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by itself has not brought about any change in the service
condition.
11.
It is also submitted by the opp.Party that the show
cause notice dated 07.05.2014 has not brought about any
change in the condition of service of the complaint rather
the show cause notice is an opportunity of hearing flowing
from the principle of natural justice and it is impossible to
ascertain as to how such rendering of natural justice can
result in change in service condition of the complainant.
Any change in the condition of service is a subject
provided for in section 9 A of the I.D Act as laid down
therein. It has to be read along with the fourth schedule to
the said Act. A mere glance over these statutory provision
will reveal the absence of substance in the whole case of
the complainant. Even if all the allegation are assumed to
be correct there is no change in the condition of service.
12.
It is also submitted by the Opp.Party that the present
matter of disengagement of a non-regularised casual
labourer like the complainant cannot be said to be a matter
connected with the dispute of overtime. It is said that the
complainant allegation that all the 24 casual employees
have already been regularised as watchmen vide letter
dated 01.07.2000 is completely false and incorrect.
13.
It is submitted but the Opp.Party that this present
complaint petition purportedly under section 33(1) of the
industrial Dispute Act is absolutely misconceived. Section
33(1) of the I.D Act does not grant any scope for
challenging an order of non-regularisation particularly in
the context of the reasons for the same as contained in the
said order itself which is a speaking order. Hence the
question of any change in condition of service thereby
does not arise.
14.
It is admitted case of the management that they are
getting their pay and allowances of the watchman in the
regular pay scale of FCI. It is further admitted that the post
of watchman on which they are working is a substantive
and regular post in FCI. Beside their salary in the regular
scale of pay they are also getting other fringe benefits like
LTC, Medical, lunch, Conveyance etc. which are admissible
to the regular staff of the Corporation. Their pay scale has
been revised three times from the date of their appointment.
15.
It is also undisputed that regular pay scale is being
given only to regular employee of the corporation. Fringe
benefits like EL, CL, Medical, Leave and other attending
benefits are being given to the regular employee and the
complainants are getting all the facilities since 01.09.1985.
They are being transferred from one place to other,
proceeded under staff regulation and their service book
and leave account has also been opened in which they are
shown regular and permanent. Their CPF are being
deducted and in the CPF schedule they are being shown
regular and permanent. The aforesaid facts are admitted
by the OP and also these are clear from the records filed in
this case. It it held that complainant are the regular
employee of the FCI since 01.09.1985, In view of Ext.
W-8, W-9 and W-10.
16.
It is also not under dispute that during 2000 the
SRM FCI Patna has already taken a decision and
implemented the said decision w.e.f 1.9.85 as per award
then how a junior officer who was holding temporary charge
has issued the notice in 2013 & 2014 when the matter was
set at rest during 2000 by the competent authority. In the
notice they have agitated the fact which was raised by the
management from Tribunal to Apex court but the same
was rejected by the court as such it is not open for the
Opp.Party to raise such frivolous point which has already
been decided by the Apex court.
17.
It is further said that during 2000 Bihar and Jharkhand
was one region and SRM Patna was the head of the region
and during his tenure the case of the complainants was
decided finally as such after lapses of 14 years. GM
incharge of Jharkhand region is not competent to issue
such notice & order to the complainants as it amounts to
change in grade or status of the workman and the same is
clear cut change in the service condition of the
complainant during the pendency of ref no. 138/
97,therefore, there is violation of Sec. 33(1) of the ID Act,
1947 and notice and order dated 27.9.2013 and 07.5.14 is
quite illegal and unjustified and accordingly it is liable to
be set aside.
18.
During argument it was submitted by the workmen
that the OP has stopped some of the benefits which was
being given earlier to the complainants posted under
Jharkhand region whereas the workmen posted under
Bihar region is still getting the same as such OP be directed
to extend all benefits to them also. It was further submitted
that the complainant are entitled to get their promotion in
higher post but the same is not given to them due to the
above notice as such OP be directed to give them all the
benefits including promotion .
19.
On perusal of Ext.W-15 & W-16 it is found that out
of 23 workmen 15 are posted under Bihar region 7 are
under Jharkhand region and 1 is under Odisha region. All
the regions are headed by General Manager and they are
competent to take decision in respect of the officials posted
under respective region but General Manager
JHARKHAND has issued the said order and notice against
the complainants posted under BIHAR and ODISHA
region also for which he is not competent and thus the
order issued by him is completely illegal and unjustified
being without jurisdiction. Not only this, GM FCI
Jharkhand is not competent to issue such notice against 7
complainants posted under him as the matter which has
already been set at rest by GM FCI Bihar in 2000 shall not
be reopened in 2014 by GM Jharkhand, therefore, the order
and notice issued against all the 23 workmen are illegal
and unjustified.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
681
20.
The Opp. Party i.e. FCI management has cited the
Uma Devi’s case and alleged that as per the ratio of Uma
Devi case, the backdoor entry of the workmen has been
prohibited and accordingly the management is not
regularising them even though the High Court & Apex
Court passed order.
21.
This Tribunal perused all connected documents i.e.
award of CGIT No.II, Order of High Court Single Bench,
Division Bench and the Apex Court. Moreover as per the
judgement and order of the Apex Court, the Opp.Party i.e.
FCI management reinstated the complainant in the post of
watchmen in class IV post w.e.f 01.09.1985.
22.
As per Exhibit W-10 the workmen’s notional pay
was fixed w.e.f. 01.09.1985 with all other benefits, from the
document filed by the workmen it is found that their P.F
was also deducted from the Opp.Party.
23.
Since the workmen have already been regularised
by the Opp.Party their pay etc. have been fixed as per the
order of the Apex Court in regular post, the order of
termination is not only illegal but it will create further
controversy & litigation. Therefore the order of Opp.Partty
dated 27.09.2013 and notice dated 07.05.2014 to the
workmen is illegal & unjustified. Hence it is hereby set-a
side. Accordingly they are eligible all benefits of regular
employee of the Corporation including promotion.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k 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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 79@2001)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@25@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 03-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/25/2001-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 79/2001
Ref.No. L-12012/25/2001-IR(B-II) dated 14.05.2001
BETWEEN :
Sri Amar Kumar S/o Sri Om Prakas
Through Sh. O.P.Mathur,
117/K-36, Sarvodaya Nagar
Kanpur (U.P.) 208005
AND
Asstt. General Manager
Union Bank of India
Pandu Nagar
Kanpur (U.P.) 208005
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/25/2001-IR(B-II) dated
14.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
referred this industrial dispute between Sri Amar Kumar
S/o Sri Om Prakas, Kanpur and the Asstt. General Manager,
Union Bank of India, Kanpur for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE REGIONAL
MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KANPUR
IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SRI AMAR
KUMAR W.E.F. 30.01.1999 IS LEGAL AND
JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE
CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”
3.
As per the claim statement, the workman has stated
in brief that after an interview and other formalities, he
was appointed as class IV in Oct.1994 in the Union Bank
of India, Permat branch, Kanpur, the employers
intentionally did not issue appointment letter so that the
applicant might be exploited later on. The workman has
stated that he was poor and unemployed, he was unable
to look after his family, therefore when he came to know
that there was some vacancy of Peon (class IV employee)
in the UBI he moved application before the Branch
Manager of the said branch. It has been stressed in the
claim statement that the applicant used to perform all the
duties of Peon viz., to post the documents, to get the
papers faxed and photo copy, to keep the currency notes
stapled/sewed, to provide the file regarding clearing etc.
and to keep the ledger registers as well. The claimant has
stated that his work has always been quite satisfactory,
682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he is very laborious and sincere, there was no complaint
against him before the employers.
4.
It has been asserted in the claim statement that the
applicant had regularly worked since Oct. 1994 till
30.01.1999, thereafter the opposite party/employer orally
terminated his services, which was highly improper and it
amounted to unfair labour practice. It has been alleged in
the claim statement that the bank managers did not prepare
any voucher in the name of the applicant, vouchers were
intentionally prepared bearing fake names viz. Amit Kumar,
Ajit Kumar etc. The applicant has further stated that the
work done by him for the aforesaid period in the bank was
of regular nature having continuity and essentiality. The
applicant has emphasized that the aforesaid branch of the
bank is very big branch, having sufficient work for class
IV employees, 2 employees are departmental out of them
one is disabled (deaf and dumb), therefore Branch
Manager in order to accomplish the official bank work
employs additional officials, and in order to avoid the claim
of that additional hand for regularization, vouchers were
being prepared in the fake and fictitious names.
5.
The applicant in the claim statement has also
stressed upon the fact that before termination of services
no prior notice was given nor retrenchment compensation
was provided, after dismissal of the applicant the opposite
party has employed another person named Sri Ajay.
Violation of Section 25 H of the ID Act has been alleged
by the applicant, during conciliation proceeding the
employer took the plea that the applicant is so called
appointment was not as per rules. The applicant has prayed
for severe and drastic action against such officer and his
dismissal is improper unjust and illegal and it shows the
malice of the employer. The applicant has prayed for his
reinstatement alongwith all facilities..
6.
The opposite party bank has filed written statement
paper No.7 wherein assertion of the claim statement has
been denied. The opposite party has stated that there was
no Class IV employee vacancy at Permat branch, Kanpur
at any point of time therefore no question of any
recruitment as ever arising. Pleas taken in the claim
statement have been levelled by the opposite party as
false and concocted. The opposite party has further stated
that it is an unit under notification of Govt. of India and
has got its own rules for appointment of Peons, no person
can be appointed as Peon otherwise ignoring those rules.
The opposite party has emphasized that the applicant
could never legally be employed by the Branch Manager
of the said branch, there was already sufficient strength
of the Peon at the branch and as such there could be no
occasion to appoint applicant as Peon. So called
performance of the applicant has been denied in the written
statement. While citing the pronouncement of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 1997 LIC 2075 Himanshu Kumar
Vidyarathi Vs. State of Bihar, the opposite party has
asserted that the provisions of I.D Act., do not operate in
such type of cases, the claim of the claimant pertaining to
so called illegal termination is not tenable. The opposite
party has stressed that since the applicant was not
appointed nor his alleged employment is in accordance
with rules therefore question of so called illegal termination
does not arise. The opposite party has prayed that the
applicant is not entitled to any relief.
7.
The rejoinder paper No.4 has been filed by the
claimant with the strong denial of the assertions taken in
the written statement, reiterating the pleas taken in the
claim statement. As per the list paper No.5 several photo
copies of certain documents, so called vouchers, have
been filed by the claimant.
8.
AI-37 affidavit of Amar Kumar has been adduced in
the evidence, he was duly cross-examined on behalf of
the management. The management’s AGM (Personnel)
was cross-examined by the workman. The evidence of Sri
K.P. Dixit, Branch Manager of the said bank was also
adduced, he was duly cross-examined on behalf of the
workman. The management has filed certain photo copies
attested by Notary as per list C-58.
9.
Record available before the court has been scanned
minutely. Arguments of both the parties have been heard
at length.
10.
The workman has come up with a case that he was
engaged as Class IV employee but was not served upon
any appointment letter and he continued to work as such
from October, 94 to 30.01.99 continuously; but the
employers have terminated his services without any rhyme
or reason or complying with the mandatory provisions of
Section 25 F of the Act. The workman has submitted that
the management has made him payment through payment
vouchers in his name and in other fictitious names also.
11.
In rebuttal the management has contended that the
workman was never appointed by it, as the opposite party
Bank being an undertaking of the Government of India
has got its rules for appointment of peon etc. and Branch
Manager is not authorized to appoint any one in any
capacity. It was also contended that the workman never
worked for 240 days continuously in any calendar year
and there was no termination/retrenchment at any point
of time since the workman was a casual labour whose
services were availed by the branch intermittently; and
this does not violate any of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
I have scanned entire evidence available on record
in light of the rival pleading and respective pleadings of
the parties.
13.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an action/order the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the action/order and if no evidence is produced,
the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
683
the present case, burden was on the workman to set out
the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination
order and to prove that the termination order was illegal.
It was the case of the workman that he had worked for
more than 240 days in each calendar year. This claim has
been denied by the management; therefore, it was for the
workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact
worked for 240 days in the year preceding his alleged
termination. In Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani
(2002) 3 SCC 25 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked
but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that
he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is
only his own statement in his favour and that cannot
be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or
tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman
had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record
of appointment or engagement for that period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone,
the award is liable to be set aside.”
14.
In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble
Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could
be entitled for the protection of section 25 – F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in
establishing the fact that he had been in employment with
the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases,
the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was
confined only to 12 months preceding the date of
termination to decide the question of the continuous
service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment
or engagement for that year to show that he has
worked with the employer for 240 days to get the
benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination.”
Thus, in order to substantiate the workman has filed
number of photocopy of the documents, less any
appointment letter or termination order; rather it has been
pleaded that no appointment letter was given to him;
likewise his services have been termination orally. The
workman also tried to summon the payment vouchers for
the relevant period and payment details and the at the
directions of this Tribunal to file statement regarding
payment of labour charges and expenses paid to the
workman from October, 1994 to 30.01.99; but contrary to
the claim of the workman the signatures of the workman
does not find its reference in the “Receiver’s Signature”
column. Also, the photocopy of the payment vouchers
filed by the management do not constitute that the
workman had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar
months preceding the alleged date of termination on
30.01.99. Moreover, the paper No. 5/25, filed by the
workman which is “details of vouchers payments to the
workman” also is of no help for the workman to
substantiate his claim that he worked for 240 days in the
year preceding the date of alleged termination; rather it
goes contrary to the claim of the workman where he has
claimed to be terminated w.e.f. 30.1.99 but in the said paper,
the last detail of payment is of 23.04.99, which makes his
claim vague.
15.
Admittedly no appointment letter was issued; and
also, there is no evidence of the workman that the Branch
Manager of the Bank was competent to appoint any one
in capacity of Peon. The details of payment relied upon
by the workman do not show that the workman actually
worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of
termination i.e. 30.01.99. Thus, the workman has utterly
failed to discharge the burden that lied upon him and has
failed to substantiate his pleading by cogent documentary
evidence that he was actually in the services of the
management of Union Bank of India and he worked for
240 days during period 01.02.98 to 30.01.99 i.e. one year
preceding the date of his termination; and his services
were terminated in violation of Section 25 of the I.D. Act,
2005, without giving him any notice or notice pay in lieu
thereof or any retrenchment compensation.
16.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial
burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for 240
days in a year is on the workman but he has failed to
discharge the same. There is no reliable material for
recording findings that the workman had worked for more
than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his
alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order
of termination was passed by the management.
17.
Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against
the workman, Amar Kumar and I come to the conclusion
that he is not entitled to any relief.
18.
Award as above.
Lucknow
28th December, 2015
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
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
684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 522@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@235@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 522/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 03-02-2016.
[No. L-12011/235/2001-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.522/2005
Registered on 30.1.2004
Sh. Pankaj Malik, S/o
Sh. Bhagat Singh Malik,
R/o 254, Model Town,
Ambala City
...Petitioner
Versus
The Management Punjab National Bank,
Zonal Office, PNB House, Sector-17-D,
Chandigarh through its
Zonal Manager
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.K. Parmar
For the Management
:
Sh. N. K. Zakhmi, Advocate
AWARD
Passed on:- 26.11.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/235/
2001-IR(B-II) Dated 24.5.2002, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank in imposing the punishment of
stoppage of annual graded increment to Sh. Pankaj
Malik, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Ambala City, is just and
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim and the management
filed reply.
The facts, emerging are, that the workman was
employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with the respondent bank
at Ambala and he was served with the following charge-
sheet dated 7.7.1997 and the relevant portion read as
follow:-
1.
On 26.11.1996 a customer named Sanjeev Walia
opened a SF A/c with Rs.300/- with PNB Model
Town, Ambala City. As per duty sheet you were
required to prepare the Pass Book on the same
day but you failed to prepare the same and asked
the customer to visit on next day. Next day also
when the customer visited the Bank at about 3.30
P.M. you refused to prepare the Pass Book and
said to the customer ‘TIME IS OVER’.
Thereafter your section in charge Sh. I.R. Grover,
Special Assistant asked you to prepare the Pass
Book but you did not prepare the same. After
that the Senior Manager, Sh. R.D. Kailey also
asked you to prepare the Pass Book in order to
satisfy the customer but you failed to obey the
orders.
2.
On 28.11.1996 you were served with a letter dated
27.11.96. you refused to accept the letter and
instead wrote in the dispatch register itself.
3.
On 6.2.1997 you were advised to keep the ledgers
in proper order as there were many loose sheets
in number of ledgers. To facilitate early completion
of the job you were verbally advised by your
section in charge Sh. I.R. Grover, Special Assistant
and then by Sh. A.K. Passi, Assistant Manager
working as Hall in charge on that day to do this
job exclusively and arrangement of another clerk
was made for your seat. You refused to obey the
reasonable orders of your superiors and insisted
for issuance of office order. You did not start the
work until 11.40 AM that too after the office order
was issued.
4.
About 4.30 PM on the same day i.e. 6.2.1997 on
enquiry from your section in charge Sh. I.R.
Grover, Special Assistant it was found that you
had shuffled only 2 ledgers during the whole day.
You were called to the cabin of the Senior
Manager and enquired about the progress. When
Senior Manager told you that about 8-10 times
he had gone out into the hall and had found you
missing from your seat you shouted at him.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
685
5.
On 29.4.1997 you left 22 vouchers unposted in
SF ledgers and left the office without even
informing your section incharge.
Your above acts tentamounts to gross misconduct
under Section 19.5(e) of the Bi-partite Settlement as
amended.
He submitted reply and after considering the same,
an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the
inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report finding all
the charges as proved. After serving a show cause notice
on the workman, punishment was awarded for stoppage
of one annual graded increment with cumulative effect.
Workman has pleaded that the inquiry was not
conducted as per rules and even the documents produced
by the management were not supplied to him. The findings
are not based on evidence and the punishment awarded
on the basis of unfair inquiry be set aside.
According to the management, the inquiry was
conducted fairly and as per rules and considering the
‘misconduct’ of the workman, punishment has rightly been
awarded.
The inquiry was held to be fair and proper by this
court vide order dated 12.8.2009. The finding recorded
was not challenged by the workman. Therefore, the inquiry
conducted in this case is fair and proper.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar for the workman and
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi for the management regarding the legality
of the punishment awarded to the workman.
Sh. R.K. Parmar has argued that one annual grade
increment was stopped with cumulative effect which is
harsh and the same be reduced. Suffice to say that workman
was charge-sheeted on five accounts and all the charges
were proved. It is for the punishing authority to take the
view, what punishment is to be awarded to the delinquent
official and this court cannot interfere lightly with the
punishment so awarded by the punishing authority. The
workman was charged for not performing the duty properly
and even shown disobedience and disrespect to his
superiors and in the given circumstance, the punishment
awarded to him i.e. ‘stoppage’ of one annual grade increment
with cumulative effect cannot be termed as
disproportionate to the ‘misconduct’ committed by the
workman. Thus, the punishment awarded, do not call for
any interference.
In result the reference is answered holding that the
punishment awarded to the workman is legal and valid
and he is not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks 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;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 341@2013) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@06@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 341/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 03-02-2016.
[No. L-12011/06/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present:
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Office
Case No. I.D. No. 341/2013
Registered on 19.3.2014
State Secretary,
UCO Bank Employees Association (HP State),
C/o UCO Bank Kandaghat-173215,
Distt. Solan (HP)
...Petitioner
Versus
1.
Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
Shyam Nagar, Dharamsala.
2.
Asstt. General Manager,
HRM, UCO Bank, Head Office,
10, Brabourne Road,
Kolkatta-700001(W.B.)
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Workman ex parte
For the Management
: Management ex parte
AWARD
Passed on:- 26.11.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/
06/2014 IR(B-II) Dated 3.3.2014, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Shyam
Nagar, Dharamshala and the Asstt. General Manager,
UCO Bank, Head Office, 10 Brabourne Road,
Kolkata-700001 in transferring Sh. Joginder S/o Late
Sh. Harnam Dass & Suresh Sood S/o Late Sh. P.C.
Sood is just, valid and legal? What benefits these
workmen are entitled for and what directions are
necessary in the matter?”
In response to the notice, the workmen filled
statement of claim pleading that Joginder Singh and Suresh
Sood are the employees of the respondent-bank. There is
a rotational transfer of workmen conducted as per
guidelines issued vide circular dated 10.3.1993 as well as
there is redeployment policy which is meant to facilitating
movement of surplus clerical staff. That the said persons
namely Joginder and Suresh Sood were transferred in
violation of the policy dated 9.4.2013 and despite the fact,
the workmen raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour
Commissioner and the orders were passed in the back
date.
Respondent-management filed written reply pleading
that as per Government guidelines, clerical staff is to be
transferred on completion of five years of service at a
particular Branch and Mr. Joginder was posted in the
branch since 5.1.1987 and Suresh Sood since 1.3.1987 and
now they were transferred. That there is no illegality in the
transfer orders.
The workmen appeared through Secretary of the
Union namely Sh. Ajit Puri, who did not appear after filing
claim statement. Notice were again given to the workmen
through registered cover and none appeared on their behalf
and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated
8.7.2015.
None appeared on behalf of the management on
12.11.2015 and therefore, respondent No.1 was also
proceeded against ex parte.
I have perused the file.
The dispute is regarding the transfer of the workmen
from one branch to another. The workmen did not lead
any evidence to show that transfer was made in violation
of any rules or policy. The transfer of an employee from
one station to another is feature of the service. No one
can raise an objection regarding transfer. A specific stand
was taken by the respondent-management that the
employees were transferred within the limits of
Dharamshala and that too on completion of the term of
more than five years at the branch. In the circumstances,
the transfer of the workmen cannot be termed as illegal.
In result, the reference is decided against the
workmen and they are not entitled to any relief.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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- 10@2015) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@66@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 03-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/66/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 17th December, 2015
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 10/2015
(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 Canara Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri S. Vijayakumar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Canara Bank, Circle Office
524, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai-600018
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran,
Petitioner
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/
:
Sri P. Amirtharaj, Advocate
Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
687
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/66/2014-IR (B.II)
dated 06/09.01.2015 referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of Canara
Bank, Chennai regarding termination of the services
of Sri S. Vijayakumar and declining of regularization
as Subordinate Staff is justifiable or not? What relief
the petitioner is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 10/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are as below:
The petitioner was in the service of the Respondent
Bank at its Porur Branch continuously without any break
from 20.08.2007 to 08.04.2010, the date on which he was
orally terminated. While the petitioner was in service, he
was paid wages every weekend, earlier @ Rs. 64/- per day
and later @ 66/- per day. The payment was not in
accordance with the scales of pay fixed messenger.
According to the 8th and 9th Bipartite Settlement there
has not been any fixed working hours for the petitioner.
He reported for duty around 0900 AM and remained at the
premises until 0800 to 0900 PM, till the premises was
closed. He was the first to attend the branch and open and
clean the premises and did the scavenging and toiler work.
He was entrusted with the duties of a permanent messenger
besides cleaning and scavenging work. When the Cash
Peon was on leave he was doing the work of Cash Peon
also. The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in
a period of one year during his continuous service from
28.07.2007 to 08.04.2010. The Respondent had paid him
bonus for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. He had
been repeatedly requesting the Respondent to take him
as a permanent Staff and pay him regular wages. But Porur
Branch Manager asked the petitioner not to report of duty
from 09.04.2010, thus orally terminating him. One Nithya
was appointed as Messenger in the place of the petitioner
on 09.04.2010. Earlier the petitioner had been working in
KK Nagar Branch from 2002 to 2006 mostly in leave
vacancies whenever the permanent incumbent was on
leave. Consequent to the termination of the petitioner from
Porur Branch he was raised the dispute. The conciliation
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ended in failure
and the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal. An
order may be passed holding that the action of the
Management of Canara Bank terminating the service of
the petitioner and declining his regularization is
not justifiable and that he is entitled to reinstatement in
the service of Canara Bank with all attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The terms of reference are contradictory and as such
bad in law. The Claim Statement itself shows that the
claimant was not a regular appointee of the Bank. Such
persons have no enforceable legal right for claiming
absorption or regularization in public employment. The
Respondent Bank has certain norms for recruiting
employees in each cadre. Whenever regular part-time
employee goes on leave persons are engaged on those
days and wages are paid accordingly. Since such
engagement is intermittent, no employer-employee
relationship exists between such persons and the Bank.
The contention that the petitioner was working as
Messenger is utterly false. The Porur Branch where the
petitioner claims to have been engaged from 2007 till 2010
was having permanent subordinate staff since the
inception of the Branch. The petitioner was engaged in
the branch intermittently for cleaning work. After April
2010 he did not turn up to the Branch nor was he engaged
thereafter. Now the Branch is having regular staff for
cleaning work. The petitioner was never recruited/
appointed in any of the posts of the Bank and was not an
employee in the rolls of the Bank. So the question of his
termination from service does not arise. The petitioner
has raised the dispute after a lapse of three years. Nithya
referred to by the petitioner in the Claim Statement was
engaged on daily wage basis for doing the sweeping and
cleaning work initially and later absorbed as part-time
employee in 1/3rd scale wages as vacancy accrued at the
Branch. Thereafter she was regularized as full scale time
housekeeper cum peon in terms of settlement arrived with
the majority union. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner
was working at KK Nagar Branch of the Respondent from
2002 to 2006. After opening of Maduravoyal Branch on
19.11.2014 the petitioner had asked for cleaning work if
any and the branch had engaged him intermittently for
cleaning work. The said Branch also has got a regular
housekeeper-cum-peon. There is no vacancy at the Branch.
The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W18 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.
688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating
the service of the petitioner and declining
regularization as Subordinate Staff is justifiable or
not?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8.
The petitioner has claimed that he had been working
on daily wages at Porur Branch of the Respondent Bank
without any break from 20.08.2007 until he was orally
terminated on 08.04.2010. According to the petitioner there
is no justification for the Bank for orally terminating him.
9.
What is seen from the schedule of reference of the
Government is that the petitioner is challenging the
termination as well as seeking regularization in the service
of the Respondent Bank. He has stated in the prayer portion
of the Claim Statement that the action of the Management
in terminating his service and declining his regularization
are not justifiable. However, in the later portion of his
prayer he is seeking reinstatement in the service of the
Bank only without demanding the relief of regularization.
It is to be assumed that the relief claimed by the petuitioenr
is reinstatement in the service of the Respondent only
and not regularization in the service of the Respondent.
10.
The Respondent has admitted in the Counter
Statement that the petitioner was engaged in Porur Branch
intermittently for cleaning work. According to the
Respondent the petitioner had not turned up at the branch
after April 2010 and there was no occasion to engage him
thereafter. It is the further case of the Respondent that the
petitioner was doing only cleaning work in the Branch.
The Branch was having a permanent subordinate staff
from the inception. Even from the Claim Statement of the
petitioner it is seen that there was a Cash Peon at the
Branch. The claim of the petitioner is that he was doing
the work of Cash Peon also in his absence. Thus it could
be seen from the Claim Statement and Counter Statement
that the petitioner was working with the Respondent on
daily wages, even if his claim that he was working at Porur
branch continuously for the period from 20.08.2007 to
08.04.2010 is correct.
11.
A perusal of the documents produced by the
petitioner would show that the petitioner was attending
the Bank almost continuously during the period claimed
by him. Ext.W8 is the details regarding bonus paid to the
petitioner for the year 2008-2009 and Ext.W9 is the details
regarding bonus paid to him for the year 2009-2010. Ext.W8
(Page-37) gives the details of payment made to the
petitioner from April 2008 to March 2009. It is clear from
the evidence of the petitioner that he was being paid @
Rs. 64/- or Rs. 66/- per day. Page-37 reveals that the
petitioner was paid in between Rs. 1,252 to 1,848/- in the
months from April 2008 to March 2009. This would show
that he must have been attending his work at the Bank on
almost all days. On perusal of Ext.W9 giving the details of
bonus for the year 2009-2010 (Page-40) it is seen that he
was paid in between Rs. 990/- and Rs. 1,914/-. These
payments also show that he was attending the branch
almost regularly even though there might have been some
variation in the number of days attended. Though as daily
wager he was doing work at the Bank almost on all days as
could be deciphered from these details. Ext.W6 shows
payment of wages to the petitioner starting from
20.08.2007. Most of the payments are for period of 6 days
@ Rs. 64/- per day. Payments are seen made for almost all
days except on holidays. Such payments are seen made
for the period upto 08.04.2010. From Ext.W7-statement of
expenses of Porur Branch, payments are seen made to the
petitioner towards coolie charges. Thus what is to be seen
from the documents is that the petitioner, though as a
daily wager was working at Porur Branch almost
continuously from 20.08.2007 to 08.04.2010.
12.
The case of the respondent is that the petitioner
failed to turn up after 08.04.2010 and that is why another
person was appointed in his place. When the documents
are perused this case does not seem to be correct. Ext.W6
reveals payment to the petitioner on 10.04.2010 for three
days from 06.04.2010 to 08.04.2010. On the same date
payment is seen made to Nithya for the days 09.04.2010
and 10.04.2010. so it could not have been a case of the
petitioner absenting himself and Nithya being engaged.
The fact that the petitioner was paid for 08.04.2010 and
Nithya was paid for 09.04.2010 would show that the case
of the petitioner that he was stopped from attending work
by the Brach Manager so that another person could be
engaged is correct. The same Nithya who was engaged in
the place of the petitioner as a daily wager was later
regularized in service as could be seen from Ext.M3, though
the regularization is on 26.02.2014 much later.
13.
There is no case for the Respondent that it was after
complying with Section-25F of the ID Act that the
petitioner was disengaged from service. Even though
engaged on daily basis the petitioner was entitled to the
benefits under Section-25F of the ID Act.
14.
The petitioner has claimed reinstatement in the
service of the Respondent. However even as admitted by
the Bank and is the case of the Petitioner, now the petitioner
is doing the same kind of work on daily basis in another
branch of the Respondent. The petitioner would not be
entitled to reinstatement based on his termination from
Porur Branch. The proper remedy for the petitioner would
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
689
be compensation as held by the Apex Court in several
cases. Considering that the petitioner had worked with
the Respondent in its Porur Branch for three years before
he was terminated, compensation payable to the petitioner
is fixed as Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Respondent is directed to
pay the petitioner Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation within a
month of publication of the award. If not paid within the
prescribed period, the amount will carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum.
The reference is answered accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri S. Vijayakumar
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri K.S. Murali
Management
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
19.10.1966
First Bipartite Settlement
Ext.W2
31.03.1970
Banking Companies (A & T)
Act
Ext.W3
23.06.1993
Transfer Certificate
Ext.W4
26.08.2003
Community Certificate
Ext.W5
26.06.2008
Second Party’s Circular –
Preservation of Old Records
Ext.W6
25.08.2007
Statements of wages paid in
to
Porur Branch (copies of
08.04.2010
vouchers not furnished)
Ext.W7
-
Statement of expenses in Porur
Branch (but not furnished for
11.09.2007 upto 26.03.2010)
(copies of vouchers also not
furnished)
Ext.W8
17.06.2009
Bonus for 2008-2009 with
calculations
Ext.W9
05.07.2010
Bonus for 2009-2010 with
calculations
Ext.W10
22.07.2013
Petitioner to the Bank
Ext.W11
09.12.2013
Petitioner to ALC to restore
Ext.W12
29.11.2014
Statement of wages paid in
to
Maduravoyal Branch (copies
19.03.2015
of vouchers not furnished)
Ext.W13
-
Copies of some vouchers
maintained at Maduravoyal
without details on the reverse
as to whom paid
Ext.W14
June 1962
Extracts of Desai Award (Paras
21.20 23.10 and 23.15 regarding
temporary, part-time employee,
etc.
Ext.W15
10.04.1989
V Bipartite Settlement w.e.f.
01.11.1987 Para 18 – service
conditions part-time employee
Ext.W16
27.03.2000
VII Bipartite Settlement w.e.f.
01.11.1997 Para-20 Part-time
employees hospitalization
Ext.W17
02.06.2005
8th Bipartite Settlement w.e.f.
01.11.2002 Para-21 – wages for
part-time employees with less
than 6 hours work a week
Ext.W18
27.04.2010
9th Bipartite Settlement w.e.f.
01.11.2001 Scales of Pay for full-
time sub-staff (para 4(b) & min
1/3 wages for part-time
employees (para 21) from May
2010. (2nd party circulated this
settlement on 29.05.2010)
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
23.12.1993
Recruitment
norms
of
engaging PTE and Norms for
engaging on daily wage basis.
Ext.M2
24.01.2014
Memo dated 28.01.2014
circulating the settlement
Ext.M3
24.01.2014
Regularization of Smt. Nithya
as per settlement
ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2016
dk- vk- 277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy
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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 49@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@02@2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@35@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2016
S.O. 277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/
2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab
National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 03-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/35/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 49/2014
Reference No. L-12012/35/2014-IR(B-II)
dated: 21.7.2014
Smt. Sunita Devi
W/o Shri Chandermohan
R/o E-8, Royalty Marg,
Phase 3, Jhalana Dungri,
Jaipur
V/s.
Senior Manager
Punjab National Bank
Circle Office, 2, Nehru Place,
Tank Road, Jaipur
AWARD
23.11.2015
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
¶D;k ofjCB izcU/d] iatkc us'kuy cSad e.My dk;kZy;]
Vksad jksM] t;iqj dk deZdkj Jherh lquhrk nsoh iRuh Jh
pUnz eksgu] liQkbZ deZpkjh dks ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad
24-1-2014 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa
U;k;klaxr gS \ ;fn ugha rks deZpkjh fdl vuqrks"k ikus dk
vf/dkjh gS \¸
2.
According to statement of claim the fact of the case
in brief is that the applicant Smt. Sunita Devi was engaged
as temporary Safai Karamchari at Punjab National Bank
Micer Centre Branch, Rajapark, Jaipur w.e.f 1.1.2013. After
engagement on 1.1.2013 she worked at Rajapark branch
on different occasions & as per requirement of the bank
management she worked in Malviyanagar & Jagatpura
branch also. Each of the branches as mentioned above
have issued her certificate of service of her working in
those branches which has been annexed to the statement
of claim as Annexure 1 to 4. Her services were terminated
on 24.1.2014 by Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3.
It has been further alleged in para 5 of the statement
of claim that the total number of working days for the
applicant is 177 whereas many temporary employees
whose working days were very much less than the
applicant & were junior to her were retained in service &
regularised. It has been further alleged that if an employee
has been retrenched from the establishment, such
retrenched employee should be given preference when
the employer had occasion to employ another hand. The
bank management has violated section 25-H of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 because it is mandatory under the
provision of section 25-H that a retrenched workman
should be given preference by employer while recruiting
new workman.
4.
In para 7 of the statement of claim it has been stated
that the management has violated terms of I B.P. Settlement
because clause 20(8) of I B.P. Settlement mandates that a
temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a
permanent vacancy & if such temporary workman is
eventually selected for filling of the vacancy, the period of
temporary employment by such temporary employee will
be taken into consideration as probationary period of new
appointment. It has been further alleged that bank
management has violated Rule 76 & 77 of Industrial Dispute
(Central) Rules, 1957. According to Rule 76 the
management was bound to give notice to Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central) & to the workman concerned who is intended to
be retrenched from the service. Rule 77 provides that the
employer shall prepare a list of all workman in the particular
category from which retrenchment is contemplated &
arrange according to seniority of their service in that
category & ensure posting of a copy of such seniority list
on notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of
the establishment.
5.
It has been prayed that action of the termination of
the services of the applicant be declared illegal &
unjustified & the bank management be directed to reinstate
the applicant back in service w.e..f 24.1.2014 along with
back wages & continuity in service.
6.
In reply to statement of claim beside raising
preliminary objections & issues, in parawise reply to
statement of claim statements made in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
691
8 & 9 have been denied with contention that they are not
admitted as alleged. Further, it has been alleged that
applicant Smt. Sunita Devi was neither appointed on the
post of sweeper nor she was issued any appointment letter
by the bank. She was not appointed by the bank hence,
the question of dismissing her from the service does not
arise. It has been specifically denied that she was
appointed on the post of sweeper on 1.1.2013 at Micer
Rajapark branch, Jaipur. She has not filed any document
before the tribunal regarding her appointment.
7.
In para 2 of the reply to statement of claim it has
been admitted that in the event of permanent Safai
Karamchari of Micer Rajapark branch, Jaipur proceeding
on leave applicant Smt. Sunita Devi was temporarily
appointed as casual daily wage employee only for the
leave period of permanent safai karamchari & after return
of the permanent safai karamchari applicant was not
provided any further engagement. In similar fashion as
indicated above applicant was provided engagement in
Malviyanagar & Jagatpura branch of the opposite party
as casual daily wage employee as safai karamchari.
8.
In para 3 of the reply to the statement of claim
attempt has been made by the opposite party to explain
Annexure 1 to 4 attached with the statement of claim which
has been claimed to be service certificates issued to the
applicant from respective branches. It has been alleged
that Annexure 1 to 4 are the statement of working days of
the applicant Smt. Sunita Devi as casual daily wage worker
which are the period when regular employees working on
the post of safai karamchari of the branches have been on
leave. It has been further alleged that Annexure 1 to 4 are
uncertified photocopies unfit to be accepted in evidence
& it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove these
documents by producing the original before the tribunal.
It has been alleged that the statement of the applicant is
untrue & baseless that she was removed from service on
23.1.2014 by manager of the Jagatpura branch, Jaipur as
no document has been filed in support of her contention
about removal from service.
9.
It has been further alleged that opposite party is a
nationalised bank where employees are recruited according
to Rule & Procedure & after following such rule &
procedure eligible candidates are appointed on permanent
posts. Contention of the applicant is wrong that
management has violated the provisions of section 25-H
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provision of section
25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply only in the
event of more than one employee. The applicant was not
an appointed daily wage employee or a temporary
employee of the respondent. Applicant has also not
clarified in para 7 of statement of claim that clause 20(8) of
which Bi-partite Agreement has been violated. It has been
further alleged that it is relevant to mention that between
management & employees union time to time various
settlement have been made which have been termed as Bi-
partite Agreement 1 to 9. The applicant was not a
permanent employee of the respondent hence, she is not
entitled to the benefits contained in these agreements.
Management has not violated Rule 76 & 77 of Industrial
Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. Further, it has been prayed
that statement of claim be dismissed with cost.
10.
In preliminary objections, it has been alleged that it
has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court & different High
Courts in their judgements that for creating liability under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there is pre-condition that
employment must have been made according to rules. It
has been further alleged that persons engaged for irregular
& casual work are not entitled to the benefits of I.D. Act,
1947 because such back door entries adversely affect the
competence & ability of the Industry. Reference has been
made to the cases Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Smt.
Uma Devi & State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Suresh Kumar
Verma. In matter of appointment of Smt. Sunita Devi
preliminary objection has been raised that there is no
relation of ‘employer’ & ‘employee’ between bank & Smt.
Sunita Devi because neither she has been appointed on
regular basis nor any appointment letter has been issued
to her hence, she cannot be termed as ‘workman’. It has
been further alleged that as the applicant is not a workman
the claim presented before the tribunal is not covered
within the meaning of “Industrial Dispute”. Further, in the
preliminary objection it has been alleged that applicant
has wrongly stated to have worked continuously for a
period of 177 days. It has been said that according to
provision of Industrial Disputes Act applicant is expected
to work for a period of one year immediate from the date of
termination & during period of one year she is expected to
work continuously for a period of 240 days which has not
been done by the applicant hence, her statement of claim
is prima-facie fit to be dismissed.
11.
After receipt of reference notices were issued to the
parties on 31.72014 fixing 8.9.2014 for filing statement of
claim. Statement of claim was filed by applicant on
15.1.2015 & reply to statement of claim was filed on
18.6.2015. After receiving reply to statement of claim on
10.9.2015 applicant was directed to file rejoinder &
documents on 23.11.2015.
12.
On 23.11.2015 learned representative of both the
parties appeared. Rejoinder & documents were not filed
by the applicant. An application was moved on 23.11.2015
692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by applicant through her learned representative for
withdrawal of the case. The application reads as under :-
Before : The Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur
Case No. CGIT-49/2014
Smt. Sunita Devi W/o Shri Chander Mohan, R/o E-8,
Royalty Marg, Phase-3, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur
V/s.
Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 2-
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
Application for withdrawal of the case
Respectfully, we have to submit that the workman
has raised an another demand in relation with in justice
towards the discrimination for granting age relaxation in
the matter of providing permanent appointment as part -
time employees to such ex-temporary employees who have
worked in stop gap occasions in different branches of the
bank.
2.
The bank management violated the provisions of
Banking industry BP settlement while not extending
preference to the applicant whereas two other candidates
who ware aged more than 32 years of age (Ravi Kumar
aged 32 years and Hemant Kumar aged 36 years) were
given regular jobs of P.T.S. w.e.f. 25.3.2011. It amounts
unfair labour practice on the part of Bank management
and for redressed of this grievance the applicant workman
has submitted petition under 25 T of the industrial Dispute
Act 1947 before the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central), Jaipur.
PRAYER
Since this fact is crystal clear that the subject matter
of both the demands are entirely different, as such owing
to the more appropriate demand made before the RLC
(Central) Jaipur we humbly request to the Hon. Court that
the dispute relating to termination of service of the
workman w.e.f. 24.1.2014 may kindly be treated as
withdrawn.
Humble Applicant
Jaipur
Dated: 23rd Nov. 2015
Signature Legible
(Concerning Workman)
Signature Illegible
Authorized Rep.
NO OBJECTION
Signature Illegible
23.11.2015
Monogram
Ekkuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx (Mh,lh) (PNB)
e.My dk;kZy;] t;iqj
Human Resources Development Department (DAC)
Circle Office, Jaipur
2. Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 (Rajasthan)
Phone 0141-2747107, Tel. Fax 2747109
Ref : COJ/HRD/SRLC
Date : 30.10.2015
Annexture -1
Jheku~ {ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUnzh;)
dsUnzh; lnu] [k.M ^v*]
r`rh; ry] lSDVj& 10]
fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj&23
egksn;]
fo"k; % Complaint under Section 25 T of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Jherh lquhrk nsoh] liQkbZ deZpkjh
lanHkZ% ts-ih-@ ,l-vkj-,y-lh- &50(26)@2015)
This has reference to the proceedings held on
28.09.2015 during which the union head field an applicant
asking for certain information / document i.e. detail
regarding date of birth and appointment letters issued to
Sh. Ravi Kumar PTS BO Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and Sh.
Hemant Kumar PTS BO Shatri Nagar, Jaipur to be placed
on record and your directions to produce the same on
next date i.e. 30.10.2015. In this regard it is to state as
under.
1.
It is confirmed that the date of birth of Sh. Ravi
Kumar PTS BO Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and Sh.
Hemant Kumar PTS BO Shatri Nagar, Jaipur is
15.07.1980 and 02.03.1975 respectively as per the
documents i.e. School Transfer Certificate submitted
(copy enclosed).
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
693
2.
Appointment letters dated 25.03.2011 issued to
Sh. Ravi Kumar PTS BO Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and
Sh. Hemant Kumar PTS BO Shatri Nagar, Jaipur are
enclosed.
However, it is reiterated that Sh. Ravi Kumar had
raised an Industrial Dispute for allegedly not-given Part
Time Sweeper job in the bank on regular basis whereas it
had appointment others who had worked for less number
of days than him. The dispute had been referred to CGIT-
Cum Labour Court Jaipur for adjudication vide Central
Govt. letter dated 28.11.2007(ID 1/2009). Sh. Ravi Kumar
had claimed that he had worked temporary basis in leave
arrangement for 374 days at various branches for the period
from Aug. 1997 to Dec. 2006 which was borne on bank’s
record. During the proceeding before the Hon’ble Tribunal,
the Presiding Officer had advised the bank in Feb. 2011 to
consider appointment of Sh. Ravi Kumar and settle the
dispute as Sh. Ravi Kumar had started working in the bank
in 1997 when he was quite young and had fixed the case
for Lok Adalat on 03.03.2011. The bank was kind enough
to consider his fresh appointment in the true spirit to settle
the matter amicably in the Lok Adalat in deference to the
advised of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer. Since there was
another applicant namely Sh. Hemant Kumar who had
worked on temporary basis in leave arrangement for 533
days at various branches for the period April 1994 to April
1997 which was also borne on bank’s record and is both of
them were similarly placed, the bank also appointment him
as part time sweeper along with Sh. Ravi Kumar so that
there is no discrimination.
Stamp
PANJAB NATIONAL BANK
In view of the above, your good self will appreciate
that both the cases stand than the case of Smt Sunita Devi
and bank has been quite fair to consider both these cases
in the true sprite of principle of ‘Equality’ enshrined in the
constitution. We are enclosing the award dated 18.03.2011
of the CGIT-Cum Labour Court, Jaipur and the application/
representation of Sh. Hemant Kumar along with the details
of the number of days worked by him during the period
April 1994 to April 1997 so as to enable you to consider
the matter in the proper perspective. We again request
you to close the matter as the case of Smt. Sunita Devi (ID
49/2014) is sub-judice before the Hon’ble CGIT-Cum
Labour Court, Jaipur.
Signature Illegible /Authorized Representative
Stamp
PANJAB NATIONAL BANK
Encl. A/A
13.
Order was passed after hearing learned
representative of both the parties on the application. The
order passed after hearing on application of the applicant
reads as under:-
23.11.2015
Case called out. Learned representative of both the
parties present. File has been fixed today for submission
of rejoinder and documents by applicant side. Rejoinder
and documents have not been filed today from applicant
side.
An application has been moved by applicant for
withdrawal of the case. Copy of application has been given
to learned counsel for opposite party.
Heard learned representative of both parties on
application of the applicant to withdraw the case. “No
objection” has been mentioned by learned counsel for
opposite party on the application of the applicant.
It has been requested in the application that owing
to the more appropriate demand made before the RLC
(Central) Jaipur we humbly request to the Hon’ble Court
that the dispute relating to termination of service of the
workman w.e.f. 24.01.2014 may kindly be treated as
withdrawn.
Application of the applicant has been attached with an
enclosure marked annexture-1.
In above circumstances the application of the
applicant deserves to be allowed as applicant does not
intend to continue the claim petition. Application of the
applicant is accordingly allowed. The claim petition of the
applicant is dismissed as withdrawn.
Application dated 23.11.2015 shall form part of the
award.
14.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
'kqf¼i=k
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 278-—Hkkjrh; jkti=k esa izdkf'kr lela[;d
vf/lwpuk fnukad 08@12@2015 ds varxZr dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k ] la- 1] /kuckn }kjk ikfjr iapkV (lanHkZ la- 23@2010)
fnukad 23@10@2015 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/u djrs gq, mijksDr iapkV ds
i`"B la 1 ds iSjk 2 dh iafDr;ksa dks fuEukuqlkj i<+k tk ldrk gS%
‘‘The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
08.03.2010. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
08.04.2010. And the management files their written statement
on 16.07.2014. No witness examined from both side.’’
[la- ,y&20012@95@2009&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 278.—In partial modification of Award Reference
No. 23/2010 dated 23.10.2015, pronounced by Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad under
Notification of even number dated 08.12.2015, published in
the Gazette of India; the lines of Para ?o. 2 of page
?o. 1 in the aforesaid Award may be read as follows :
‘‘The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
08.03.2010. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
08.04.2010. And the management files their written statement
on 16.07.2014. No witness examined from both side.’’
[No. L-20012/95/2009-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y 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;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@1995) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@130@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 32/1995) as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 02.02.2016.
[No. L-20012/130/1994-IR(C-1)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act,
1947
Reference: No. 32/1995
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore
Area, M/s BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri U. N. Lall, Advocate
For the workman :- None
State : Jharkhand Industry- Coal
Dated-04/01/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /130/1994-IR(C-1) /IR (C-1))
dated 29/03/1995, the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management in refusing
to correct the date of appointment of Shri Surja Prasad
Singh, Sr. Mining Sardar as 01.07.1962 by the
management of Kustore Colliery of M/S BCCL is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
and from which date?’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently on behalf of the workman. Case remain
pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence, No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
695
ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y 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;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 160@2000)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@254@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 160/2000) as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 02.02.2016.
[No. L-20012/254/1996-IR(C-1)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act, 1947
Reference: No. 160/2000
Parties: Employer in relation to the management of
Kathara Colliery, M/S CCL
AND
Their workmen.
Present: Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman :- Shri D.Mukherjee, Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry- Coal
Dated: 12-01-2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/254/96/ IR (CM-1), dated 13/
03/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the National Coal
Organisation employees of regularising Shri
A.K.Banerjee Operator Gr.I in excavation Grade from
his date of joining at Kathara Colliery and arrear
wages and not promoting him to the post of
chargeman w.e.f 24/12/80 was legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
and from which date?”
2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 20/04/2000, After receipt of the reference, both parties
are noticed. The Workman files their written statement on
01/06/2000, and the management files their written
statement on 06/12/2001. One witness examined on behalf
of the workman. Document of workman is marked as W-
1 to W-5.
3. The case of the workman is that Sri A.K.Banerjee
was appointed at Kathara Washery after compilation of
MTS training on 01.06.67, and he was promoted to the
post of Gr.I operator w..e.f. 05.04.1971, thereafter he was
appeared in DPC with his group in 1979 for the post of
chargeman but before the result declared he was transferred
to Kathara Colliery on 01,08.80. Since then the concerned
workman has been working at excavation in different section
continuously. But the management of Kathra washery did
not promote the workman to the post of chargement
allegedly on the ground that the promotion order was
issued on 23.12.80 and at that time the concerned workman
not posted at Kathara Washery.
4. It is also submitted that he was working in
Excavation Section of Kathara Washery since his joining
and accordingly the workman represented before the
management for his regularisation as Excavation operator
but the management did not take any cognization hence he
was raised Industrial Dispute before the ALC .The ALC
sent the failure report to the appropriate Govt. but the
Central Govt reject the dispute for reference by the order
dated 22.10.87. But the workman challenge the order before
the Hon’ble High Court as CWJC No. 3185/98(R) and the
Hon’ble High Court is directed the Govt. to referred the
dispute for adjudication .
5. On the other hand the case of the management is
that the dispute is belated. It is also submitted that
concerned workman dismissed from the service w.e.f.
08.04.82 for misconduct.The CGIT No. 2 Dhanbad held
that dismissal of the workman concerned was not justified.
Thereafter the management filed a writ before the Hon’ble
High Court , Ranchi being CWJC No. 342 of 1984 (R) and
challenged the Award.
696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. Thereafter the Union and the management settled
their Industrial Dispute out side the Court and filed the
same before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High
Court held that the settlement is fair. According to the said
settlement the workman was taken back in the Employment
in the post in which he was working prior to the dismissal
with continuity of service for the purpose of Gratuity.
7. It is also submitted by the management that in
the said settlement the concerned workman was agreed
that he will not claim any promotion for the period in which
he was not working nor he will claim promotion on the
ground that the junior persons to him have now been
promoted to the higher post during his absence. The entire
matter and dispute in respect of the dismissal and promotion
of the workman have been settled prior to 1984 which also
accepted by the Hon’ble High Court.
8. The promotion of the workman is an
administrative function of the management and not the
subject matter of the Industrial Disputes. But the
management has already considered the case according
to the cadre scheme and the workman concerned is not
entitled for further promotion as he reached the top of the
cadre in which he is working. Hence the demand of the
Union is not legal and justified.
9. The workman has claimed for regularisation in
the post of chargeman from the period of 24/12/1980. The
case of the workman is that he is a competent hand appeared
for DPC for the post of chargeman though he successfully
cleared the DPC, he was not given the promotion as he as
actively involved in trade Union activity .
10. On the other hand, the management submitted
that the workman was dismissed, and the matter was
taken to High Court and as per a settlement the workman
was reinstated. But curiously neither party file the said
settlement and order of Hon’ble High Court nor the Award
of CGIT No. 2 before this Tribunal. Though the workman
admitted in his evidence, regarding dismissal and also
admitted in his rejoinder regarding settlement, but not filed
the same. It is felt that the workman was hiding the entire
fact from this Tribunal. In absence of the said settlement,
this Tribunal is not in a position to give any relief to the
workman.
11. Considering the fact and circumstances of the
case, I hold that the demand of the National Coal
Organisation employees to regularising Shri A. K. Banerjee
Operator Gr.I in excavation Grade from his date of joining at
Kathara Colliery and arrear wages and not promoting him
to the post of chargeman w.e.f 24/12/80 was not legal and
justified. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief. Claim
dismissed.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y 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;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@28@2013&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 31/2013) as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 02.02.2016.
[No. L-20012/28/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10(1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act, 1947.
Ref. No. 31 of 2013
Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area
of M/s BCCL.
AND
Their workman
Present :- Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman :- Sri R. R. Ram, Rep
State:- Jharkhand Industry :- Coal
Dated: 05.01.2016
AWARD
By Order No.-L-20012/28/2013 IR-(CM-I), dated,
14.08.2013 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
697
Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
(N) Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing Shri Manoj
Kumar, from the service of the company vide letter
No. 22/26.09.2007 is fair and justified? To what relief
is the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 03.09.2013. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 26.12.2013. After long delay the management files their
written statement -cum-rejoinder on 14.11.2014. Document
of management is marked as M-1 to M-14. This is a case of
dismissal of workman.
3. Domestic enquiry held by the management is
declared as Fair & Proper. The point involved in the
reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his
services on the ground of long absence.
4. During hearing of argument on merit. it is revealed
that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on
duty. But he has already out of service for 8 years. It is felt
to give another chance to the workman to serve.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as
cat-I scale. But the workman be kept under probation for a
period two year. Therefore the question of giving back
wages does not arise at all.
This is my award
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,vjykbZul 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;] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 37@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-
02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@08@2014&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata
(Ref. No. 37/2014) as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Airlines and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
02.02.2016.
[No. L-11012/08/2014-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 37 of 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Indian Airlines
A N D
Their workman
Present:
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the : Mr. R.N. Majumder, Ld. Counsel
Management
with Mr. S. Bhattacherjee,
Ld. Counsel on behalf of Indian
Airlines.
None on behalf of M/s. Indus Trans
Liner Wings.
On behalf of the : N o n e.
Workman
State: West Bengal Industry: Civil Aviation
Dated: 13th January, 2016.
A W A R D
By Order No.L-11012/08/2014-IR(CM-I) dated
22.04.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“(I) Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Indus Trans Liner Wings, contractor of Indian
Airlines, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata in retrenching 18
no. of workmen is legal and justified? (II) Whether
the action of the principalemployer in avoiding
liability under various Labour Laws and by not
providing alternate job opportunity for contract
workmen engaged by the contractor is legal and
justified ? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing none
appears on behalf of the union, though the management is
represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record
that the union did not turn up on the last two dates. Nor
did it take any step to proceed with the case.
698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, it may
be reasonably presumed that the union at whose instance
the instant reference has been made, is not interested to
proceed with the matter. So, no fruitful purpose will be
served in keeping the matter pending.
4. In view of the above, present reference is
disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
13th January, 2016.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y 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;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@1994) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@42@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2016
S.O. 283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 82/1994) as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 02.02.2016.
[No. L-20012/42/1992-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D.Act, 1947
Reference: No. 82/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Kankanee
Colliery of M/s BCCL,
AND
Their workmen.
Present:
Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For the workman :- Sri D.Mukherjee, Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal
Dated: 06.01.2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/42/ 1992 /IR (C-1)) dated
21/09/1992, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kankanee
Colliery in terminating the services of
shri Rameshwar Ram is justified. If not to what relief
the workmen is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for
the workman submits that workman is not interested. to
contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fHkykbZ
bLikr la;a=k 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 ,ea Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
25@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@39@2002&vkbZ vkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/
2007)of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 03.02.2016.
[No. L-29011/39/2002-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
699
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/07
Shri D.Venkatesh,
R/o Behind Block No.4,
II-B, type, South Avenue, Dalli Rajhara,
Distt. Durg.
The President,
Metal Mines Workers Union,
Rajhara Branch,
Dalli Rajhara,
Distt. Durg .....Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai (Chhattisgarh) .....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 14th day of December, 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-3-07 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-29011/
39/2002-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of Shri D. Venkatesh, P/No.
078216, Ex-Sr.Bus Driver, RJM-16 Rajhara Mines of
Bhilai Steel Plant ( represented through Metal Mines
Workers Union) for reckoning his date of birth as 24-
3-46 instead of 2-6-98 and consequently reinstating
him in services with full backwages is legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief, he is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
6/1 to 6/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working
as Bus Driver KA78216 of Rajghara Mechanical Mines of
BSP. He has been prematurely superannuated by
management on 30-6-96 assuming his date of birth
2-6-38. Workman submits that he had submitted attested
copy of his date of birth registered in 1967. His date of birth
is 23-4-46. Overlooking said date of birth, he has
prematurely superannuated. Workman further reiterates that
his date of birth is 23-4-46 and not 2-6-38. Workman submits
that the age proof certificate by local state official certified
for LIC policy. His date of birth was 23-4-46. Mandal Officer
had deposed before Durg Civil Court his date of birth was
23-4-46. In CPF Nomination, same date of birth was
recorded. In medical service book, his age was shown 48
years, tallies with his date of birth in 1946. On such
ground, workman prays for his premature superannuation
and prays for his reinstatement with backwages
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/5 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party
submits that the dispute raised by workman for
correction of date of birth is highly belated and not
tenable. Workman had filed civil suit No. 6A/97 before
Civil Judge Class-2, Durg. Said suit was dismissed on
13-1-1999. Appeal 4A/99 filed by workman was
dismissed by 4th Additional District Judge n 16-3-01.
2nd party submits that the claim of workman is barred by
resjudicata. The reference is not tenable. It is further
submitted by 2nd party that workman was appointed on
3-10-64 as Khalasi and posted at Rajhara Mines of BSP.
He declared his date of birth as 2-6-38. He was examined
medically. As per medical fitness certificate dated 2-6-
73, his age was found 35 years. Management had issued
letter dated 15-2-78 notifying seniority list. Date of
birth of workman was shown 2-6-38. Workman had not
raised objection regarding his date of birth. Workman
cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal for correction
of his date of birth. As per management’s circular No.
87 dated 2-8-74, the date of birth cannot be changed
within last 5 years of service of employee. Workman
has been retired on 30-6-96. His claim has become
infructuous. 2nd party reiterates that the documents of
LIC and CPF nomination cannot be said proof of the
date of birth. Shri K.A.Raju is not employee or office
bearer. He is not competent to raise the dispute. The
correction of date of birth at fag end of service cannot
be accepted. On such ground, 2nd party prays reference
be answered in its favour.
4.Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/4
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 claim for
In Affirmative
correction of his date of birth
to 24-3-47 instead of 2-6-38
is barred by resjudicata?
(ii) Whether workman proves
Does not survive
that his date of birth is
24-3-46 and he is illegally
superannuated assuming his
date of birth 2-6-38?
(iii)If so, to what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6. The terms of reference pertains to correction of
date of birth of workman to 24-3-46 instead of
2-6-38. The management has produced copies of the
judgments in Civil Suit 6/97 at Exhibit M-1. The plaintiff
stood for correction of date of birth as claim in the present
reference was dismissed. Copy of judgment in appeal is
produced at Exhibit M-2. Appeal preferred by workman
was dismissed by 4th Additional District Judge, Durg.
7. Learned counsel for management Shri A. K. Shashi
pointed out my attention to ratio held in Case of Rajasthan
SRT Corporation versus Krishna Kaat reported in AIR 1995-
SCC-1715. Their Lordship dealing with Section 2-A, 10 of
ID Act held dispute between employer and employee,
amendment to do away with necessity of reference in cases
of industrial disputes covered by Section 2-A of ID Act.
Their Lordship under caption(6) of IID Act held the certified
standing orders framed under and in accordance with the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act are statutorily
imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon
the employer ad employees though they donot amount to
statutory provisions. Any violation of these standing
orders entitles an employee to appropriate relief either
before the forums created by the Industrial Dispute Act or
the Civil Court where recourse to Civil Court is open
according to the principles indicated above.
When Ist party workman filed civil suit for correction
of date of birth which is also subject matter of dispute
under reference as per Section 11, CPC, dispute was
decided by Competent Civil Court and appeal has also
been dismissed. The claim of Ist party workman for the
same relief for correction of his date of birth is barred by
resjudicata. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
8. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
claim of workman for correction of his date of birth is barred
by resjudicata, documents produced on record Exhibit W-
2 is copy of the decision of Revenue Officer in Civil Suit.
9. Management produced certificate Exhibit M-4 on
2-6-73, when Ist party was examined, his age was found 35
years, Exhibit M-5 is certificate dated 15-2-78. M-6 is
Instruction issued by management dated 2-8-74. Clause V
of said circular provides no change in date of birth would
be allowed if such request are received during last 5 years
of service of employee for any reason not so ever.
10. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. However
in his cross-examination workman says that the affidavit is
prepared by his Advocate. He doesnot know about its
contents. Therefore evidence of workman cannot establish
his claim.
11. Management filed affidavit of witness Rohit
Kumar supporting contentions of management in Written
Statement. From his evidence, documents Exhibit M-1 to
M-6 are admitted. Workman remained absent and failed to
cross-examine management’s witness therefore I find no
reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s witness.
12.
Learned
counsel
for
management
Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in State of Haryana
versus Satish Kumar Mittal reported in 2011(1)MPLJ-302.
Their Lordship held the application for correction of date
of birth in service record must be made within time provided
in the rules. If the time limit is not prescribed then withi
reasonable time.
Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in Civil Appeal
No. 8634/2013 & Writ Appeal No. 336/2014. The detailed
discussion of the above referred cases are not necessary.
In present case, after his superannuation, workman
filed civil suit which was dismissed. The present dispute is
raised after long 11 years. The claim of workman is not
substantiated by evidence rather claim is barred by
resjudicata in view of Judgment in civil suit and appeal.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fHkykbZ
bLikr la;a=k vkWiQ lsy 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 ,ea Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 23@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26011@3@2009&vkbZ vkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O.285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/
2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
701
the management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant of Sail and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.02.2016.
[No. L-26011/3/2009-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2010
The President,
Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC),
Dallirajhara, Durg (CG) ....Workman/Union
Versus
Executive Director(Mines),
Bhilai Steel Plant of SAIL,
Bhilai, Distt. Durg ....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of December 2015
1. As per letter dated 15-2-10 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- 26011/
3/09-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demands of Metal Mines Workers
Union (INTUC) Dallirajhara to regularize/
departmentalize seven contractual workers namely
S/Shri Rohi Das, Nandu Ram, Fagu Ram, Sampat,
Samaru Ram, Makhan and Krishna Ram w.e.f.
31-5-96 by the management of Bhilai Steel Plant as
DPR is justified? To what relief they are entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union failed to appear in the reference
proceeding despite of notices repeatedly issued. Ist party
is proceeded exparte on 11-2-2015.
3. 2nd party filed exparte Written Statement. Case of
2nd party is that Ist party Union has failed to file statement
of claim. Exparte Written Statement is filed by management.
Bhilai Steel Plant has its captive mine collectively known
as Iron Ore Complex Dalli Rajhara. The casual nature of
work are awarded to several contractors deploying local
labours. Prior to 1995, Chhattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh
had raised demand for departmentalization of contract
workers. The memorandum of settlement was arrived
before ALC, Raipur on 14-11-95. As per terms of settlement
only those workers whose age was below 50 years as on
1-11-95 and found medically fit were to be departmentalized
through the process of selection. Such selected
contractual employees were issued appointment order as
DPR by March 1996. On 19-5-96, it was agreed that
temporary appointed DPR on adhoc basis subject to their
final selection for appointment as DPR in Bhilai Steel Plant
as unskilled, skilled category. Subsequently record of note
of discussion was held between management of Bhilai
Steel Plant on 24-7-97. CMS Union had taken up issue of
188 persons earlier working as labours with their respective
contractors. Such employees were allowed to be engaged
by various contractor’s society etc. The record of note of
discussion dated 24-7-97 as well as list of 188 contract
labours is filed. The names of claimant Nandu Ram appeared
at Sl.No.13, Samaru ram appeared at Sl.No.14, Makhan at
Sl.No.23, Krishna at Sl.No.15. the benefits of settlement
dated 14-11-95 cannot be extended to them as the dispute
is raised after 15 years.
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 demands of Metal
In Negative
Mines Workers Union (INTUC)
Dallirajhara to regularize/
departmentalize seven contractual
workers namely S/Shri Rohi Das,
Nandu Ram, Fagu Ram, Sampat,
Samaru Ram, Makhan and Krishna
Ram w.e.f. 31-5-96 by the manage-
ment of Bhilai Steel Plant as DPR
is justified ?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
Workmen are
is entitled to?”
not entitled to
any relief.
REASONS
5. Though the Union has raised demand for
departmentalization/ regularization of above named 7
contract employees, Union has not participated in
reference. No statement of claim is filed. Management
submitted Written Statement details given above. Affidavit
of evidence is filed by management’s witness supporting
contentions in Written Statement. Union failed to cross-
examine witness of management, his evidence remained
unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
Documents are produced at Exhibit M-1 settlement dated
14-11-95. As Union has failed to participate in reference
proceeding, the demand of Union is not supported by any
evidence. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demands of Metal Mines Workers Union
(INTUC) Dallirajhara to regularize/ departmentalize
seven contractual workers namely S/Shri Rohi Das,
Nandu Ram, Fagu Ram, Sampat, Samaru Ram, Makhan
and Krishna Ram w.e.f. 31-5-96 by the management
of Bhilai Steel Plant as DPR is not proper.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e- ih-
LVsV ekbfuax dkiksjs'ku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 223@1993) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@49@1992&vkbZ vkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 223/
1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. M.P. State Mining Corporation
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.02.2016.
[No. L-29012/49/1992-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/223/93
General Secretary,
MP Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor
Sangathan,
PO Baradwar,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP) ....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Mines),
M.P.State Mining Corporation,
PO Baradwar,
Distt. Bilaspur ....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of December 2015
1. As per letter dated 21-10-93 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/
49/92-IR(Misc).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the claim of M.P.Khadan Swatantra
Mazdoor Sangathan, Baraduar that Shri Ram Kumar
Pandey is entitled to the scale of 800-15-1010-20-
1150-25-1200 is justified? If so, what relief is Shri
Pandey entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as office helper in Pay Scale of Rs. 380-5-425-10-
495 on 28-7-84. The pay scales of employees in State Mining
Corporation were changed time to time. The Ist party
workman said that he was not given benefit of appropriate
pay
scale.
He
was
denied
pay
scale
Rs. 800-15-1010-20-1150-25-1200. He was allowed pay scale
of Rs. 725-10-735-10-855-15-900. He claims to be entitled to
the revised pay scale of office helper. He suffered loss of
Rs. 30,000/-. On such ground, workman prays for enhanced
pay scale stated above.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/2 to
6/3 opposing claim of workman. The appointment of
workman as office helper is not denied. 2nd party denies
change of pay scale of the office helper as pleaded by the
workman. loss of Rs.30,000 claimed by workman is denied.
In Additional pleadings, 2nd party submits that pay scale of
Office Assistant Grade-I is Rs. 800-1200, pay scale of Office
Assistant Grade II was Rs. 725-900. Considering education
and other aspects, pay scale of workman was fixed
725-900. Workman was not found suitable for pay scale of
Rs. 800-1200 2nd party submits that workman is not entitled
to any relief.
4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim and submits
that he suffered loss of Rs.60,000 on account of denial of
the pay scale Rs. 800-1200. He further submits that he
passed 10th standard and certificate examination of mining
mate. Shri Setram Dehariya is drawing scale of Rs. 950/-.
Workman was appointed on 26-12-76. He was regularised
on 1-8-84. Junior employees regularised on 7-10-89 were
allowed pay scale Rs. 950.
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:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
703
(i) Whether the claim of M.P.
Ist party workman
Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor
failed to prosecute
Sangathan, Baraduar that
the reference, dispute
Shri Ram Kumar Pandey is
could not be decided
entitled to the scale of
on merit.
800-15-1010-20-1150-
25-1200 is justified?
.
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not
workman is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
6. Workman raised dispute claiming pay scale
Rs.800-1200. The claim of workman is opposed by
management. The perusal of record shows letter from
workman was received on 29-12-06 that he was not
prosecuting his claim under reference after bifurcation of
the mining corporation. He was assured of the appropriate
pay scale. Workman did not adduce evidence. His evidence
was closed on 10-12-2015. Management also not adduced
evidence. For non-prosecution of reference, the dispute
under reference could not be decided on merit. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No.1.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The claim of M.P.Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor
Sangathan, Baraduar that Shri Ram Kumar Pandey is entitled
to the scale of 800-15-1010-20-1150-25-1200 is not legal and
proper. Workman is not entitled to any relief.
(2) No dispute award is passed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vkW;y dkiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@7@2013&vkbZ vkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.02.2016.
[No. L-30011/7/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No.13 of 2013, Reference No. L-30011/7/2013-
IR(M) dated 03.04.2013.
The General Secretary, Indian Oil Corporation Refinery
Employees Union, IOCL Panipat Refinery, PO-Panipat
Refinery,Beholi, Panipat-132140.
... Union.
Versus
The Executive Director ( Incharge), IOCL, Panipat
Refinery,Panipat-132140.
....Respondent.
Appearances
For the Workman : Shri Hari Pal Singh.
For the Management : Shri P.Murlidharan.
Award Passed on:- 28.01.2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-30011/7/2013-IR(M) dated 03.04.2013
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the demand of the IPREU for a separate
settlement/agreement with respect to the modalities
of the movement/promotion of workmen to Grade-IX
in Panipat Refinery, is legal and justified? What relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
2. Today the case is fixed for settlement. Shri Hari
Pal Singh Jethuri, General Secretary of the Union made a
statement that he has been authorised by the Union to
withdraw the present reference and the same may be
returned as withdrawn. The representative of the
management has no objection to the withdrawal of the
reference.
3. In view of the above, the present reference is
returned to the Central Govt. as withdrawn. Central Govt.
be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
28.01.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ
VsyhxzkiQ vkWfiQl] fcykliqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- lh th vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj 04@94) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@161@92&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/04/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
Department of Telegraph Office, Bilaspur and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 02-02-2016.
[No. L-40012/161/92-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/4/94
Shri Prakash Das Manikpuri,
S/o ShriRamdeoManikpuri,
Q.No.2/2, D.T.O. Colony,
PO Bilaspur. ....Workman
Versus
Assistant Superintendent,
Telegraph Traffic,
Departmental Telegraph Office,
Bilaspur ....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of December 2015
1. As per letter dated 10-1-94 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-40012/
161/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
Supdt., Telegraph Traffic, DTO, Bilaspur in
retrenching ShriPrakash Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Ram
Das Manikpuri w.e.f. Feb 1992 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of
claim at page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that
he was appointed as Telegraph man at Telegraph office
Bilaspur under 2nd party as per order dated 27-4-88. He
was continuously working till 7-2-89. He was directed to
work under Telegraph master DTO Korba, he reported to
duty at K orba Telegraph Office on 7-2-89. Thereafter he
was directed back to DTO, Bilaspur as per order dated 7-
7-89. The workman reported to duty in DTO Bilaspur and
continued to work in said office. As per Ist party, he was
working for 187 days in 1988, 325 days in 1989, 271
days in 1990, 254 days in 1991 and 24 days in 1992. That
his retrenchment in February 1992 is in violation of
Section 25-F of ID Act. He approached Non-applicants
for employment but there was no response from them.
On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party is that it was
approved that workman be employed as casual labour, he
could be given work of Telephone man in case of absence
of original telegraph man or delivery man if such work
was available. Workman was to be paid daily wages at rate
Rs.28.25 per day. That it is not possible to engage anyone
as casual labour after specific instructions of Chief
General Manager, Telecom, Bhopal. That workman was
discontinued as per directions of CGMT, Bhopal dated
12-1-1990 as the official was engaged temporarily on
absenteeism and increase of work. One month’s wages in
lieu of notice was not given. Retrenchment compensation
was also not given to the workman. Working days of
workman are shown 138 days in 1988, 86 days in 1989,
200 days in 1990, 168 days in 1992. It is reiterated that
as per the instructions of CGMT Bhopal dated 12-1-90,
workman was discontinued. Workman is not entitled for
retrenchment compensation or reinstatement in service.
2nd party submits that there was no question of violation
of Section 25-F of ID Act.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. He
claims ignorance of instruction dated 12-1-90 of CGMT
Bhopal. He was terminated without notice, compensation
was not paid to him.
5. As per rejoinder, workman submits that he
worked for 187 days in 1988, 325 days in 1989, 271
days in 1990, 254 days in 1991 and 24 days in 1992.
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:-
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
705
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Asstt. Supdt.,
Telegraph Traffic, DTO,Bilaspur
in retrenching Shri Prakash Das
Manikpuri S/o Shri Ram Das
Manikpuri w.e.f. Feb 1992 is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?”
REASONS
7. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his service for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. In
support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence
stating that he was continuously working in DTO from
27-6-88 to 7-2-89. He was directed to work under
telegraph master incharge DTO, Korba. As per letter dated
7-2-89, he was also directed to report at DTO office
Bilaspur as per order dated 7-9-89. In compliance of said
order, he reported to duty at DTO, Bilaspur and worked in
said office from 27-4-88 to February 1992 without any
break. Without any reasons, he was stopped from work.
He has given details of his working days as narrated in his
statement of claim. In his cross-examination, Ist party
workman says his name was sponsored through
Employment Exchange, he was interviewed, he has not
studied in English. He denies that he was engaged for
casual work. He denies that after appointment of
permanent employee, he was discontinued. In his cross-
examination, his evidence on the point about his working
days is not challenged. Ist party workman has produced
documents Exhibit W-7 letter dated 11-11-91, workman
was directed to submit his claim as casual employee.
Exhibit W-8 period of working of workman is shown from
June 88 to January 1992. Exhibit W-9 workman was
directed to produce documents. Exhibit W-10 letter dated
3-2-09 refers to the bills from 17-6-88 to 11-11-99.
Exhibit W-11 shows that workman was engaged as casual
labour to work as Telegraph man etc. in absenteeism or
increase in delivery work Exhibit W-12 letter dated 27-6-88
workman was engaged as casual labour as telgraphman at
absenteeism/ increase of delivery work. He was directed
to report to office alongwith character certificate,
educational certificate etc. Exhibit W-13 letter dated 7-2-89
workman was directed to report at Korba Telegraph office.
Exhibit W-14 letter dated 7-9-88 workman was directed to
report to ASTT Incharge, DTO, Bilaspur. Exhibit W-15
working days of workman are shown 187 days in 1988, 325
days in 1989, 271 days in 1990, 291 days in 1991, 24 days in
1992. The evidence of workman is corroborated by those
documents.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri
A.K.Minz. Management’s witness says that management
cannot engage any casual labour in view of letter dated
12-1-90 by Chief General Manager, Telecom. Workman
was not engaged on regular basis, he not completed 240
days. Management’s witness in his cross-examination says
he was not in service in BSNL during 1988 to 1992. The
appointment of Ist party workman was not approved. He
readover Written Statement filed by management. Order
dated 27-6-88 was issued by department, it is marked Exhibit
W-1. Letter Exhibit W-2 dated 7-2-89 was issued by the
department. Letter Exhibit W-3 was issued by department,
list of casual labours is shown in it. The list is marked
Exhibit W-4. The evidence of Ist party is also corroborated
from evidence in cross-examination of management’s
witness.
9. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri
Sibanus Xalso. However the witness remained absent for
cross-examination, his evidence cannot be considered.
From evidence of workman corroborated by documents, it
is proved that workman was continuously working from
June 88 to Feb-92. His services were terminated without
notice. Though workman had completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the year, he was not
paid retrenchment compensation, termination 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 Pont No.1
termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section
25-F of ID Act, question remains for consideration whether
workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The
documents on record shows that Ist party workman was
engaged as casual telegraphman, no evidence is adduced
on record about vacant post in office of 2nd party therefore
reinstatement with backwages would not be justified.
11. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri A.K.Shashi
during course of argument submits that considering the
facts workman be reinstated without backwages. However
those submissions cannot be accepted as no evidence is
produced about vacancies. Considering termination of Ist
party is in violation of Section 25-F, 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 of Asstt. Supdt.,
Telegraph Traffic, DTO, Bilaspur in retrenching
Shri Prakash Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Ram Das Manikpuri
w.e.f. Feb 1992 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. One Lakh to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@149@00) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@247@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/149/00) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of the Department of Telecommunication,
Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 02-02-2016.
[No. L-40012/247/2000-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/149/00
Shri Afzal Sheikh,
S/o Sheikh Shafi Ahmed,
R/o Mohalla Magria,
Nr. Moti Masjid Nr. H/O Jabbar Bhai Thanedar,
Shajapur Distt. MP ....Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommuication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhoal (MP)
Telecom District Engineer,
Shajapur Distt. MP ....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 17th day of December, 2015
1.
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-
40012/247/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager/ TDE, Telecom, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Afzal Sheikh S/o
Sheikh Shafi Ahmed w.e.f. 4/6/96 is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at
page 2/1. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
continuously working more than 240 days prior to
termination of his service. He is covered as employee
under Section 25 B of ID Act. His services are terminated
in violation of section 25-F,G,N of ID Act. He prays for
his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/2 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party denied
engagement of workman. it is also denied that workman
completed more than 240 days continuous service.
Violation of Section 25-F,G, N is denied.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are
as under. My findings are recorded against each of them
for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Chief General
Manager/TDE,Telecom, Bhopal
in terminating the services of
Shri Afzal Sheikh S/o Sheikh
Shafi Ahmed w.e.f. 4/6/96 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Workman is not
is entitled to?”
entitled to any
relief.
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his
service for violation of Section 25-F,G,N of ID Act the
contentions of workman are denied. Workman failed to
participate in reference proceeding. His evidence is
closed on 1-8-2013. Management filed affidavit of
evidence of witness Shri J.K.Jethwani supporting
contentions in Written Statement. In his cross-
examination, his evidence is not shattered. As workman
failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim, issue is
answered in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Chief General
Manager/ TDE, Telecom, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Afzal Sheikh S/o Sheikh Shafi Ahmed
w.e.f. 4/6/96 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
707
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@61@96) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@01@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/61/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhopal and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 02-02-
2016.
[No. L-40011/01/91-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/96
Shri Sohan Lal Tantoy
Through Shri M.P.Singh,
Sanyukta Parimandal Sachiv,
National Union of Telegraph
Engineering Employees,
Telegraph staff and workcharge,
Satna
....Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
BSNL, Bhopal. .... Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 18th day of December, 2015
1. As per letter dated 29-9-94 and corrigendum dated
28-2-96 received by the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference
is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947
as per Notification No.L-40011/1/91/IR(DU). The dispute
under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Engineer, Satna (MP) in terminating the
services of ShriBhagwat Prasad Pandey and
Shri Sohanlal Jantoy is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?”
2. After receiving reference and corrigendum,
notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman
submitted statement of claim at Page3/1 to 3/3 & 8/1 to
8/7. Case of Ist party workman is that workman Sohanlal
was engaged as casual labour at SDO(T) Satna since 1983.
He worked for 182 days in 1983-84, 32 days in 1984-85,
90 days in 85-86, 332 days in 86-87, 267 days in 87-88,
310 days in 88-89, 294 days in 89-90, 107 days in 1990.
Workman Bhagwat Prasad Pandey was engaged in 1994.
He worked for 81 days in 1987-88, 358 days in 88-89,
365 days in 89-90, 41 days in 1990. Shri Sohanlal worked
for total 1614 days, Bhagwat Prasad worked for 1428 days.
That both the workmen have completed more than 240
days in a calendar year. Their services were terminated
on the ground for their absence without leave. No
chargesheet was issued to them. Enquiry was not
conducted against them. Their termination amounts to
retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Their
termination is illegal. It is further alleged that the
termination of those workmen is arbitrary and just. Junior
casual employees are retained in service. That Apex court
had issued direction to formulate scheme for
regularisation of casual employees completing more than
600 working days. That workmen are entitled for
regularisation as per the regularisation scheme.
3. Ist party further submits that department has
issued circulars that no casual labours would be employed
after 1985. Casual labours on roll on 31-3-85 be given
benefit of regularisation. That the workmen were on rolls
o
n
31-3-85, they were entitled to regularisation as per the
scheme. They are illegally terminated. On such ground,
Ist party workmen prays for their reinstatement with
backwages.
4. 2nd party has not filed Written Statement in the
case. The application for calling back exparte order dated
25-3-98 was rejected as per order dated 2-7-2013.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are
as under. My findings are recorded against each of them
for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Telecom
District Engineer, Satna
(MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Bhagwat
Prasad Pandey and Shri
SohanlalTatway is legal
and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6. Workman Bhagwat Prasad filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting his contentions that he worked for 81
days in 1984-85, nil in 85-86, 218 days in 86-87, 365 days in
87-88, 388 days in 88-89, 365 days in 89-90, 30 + 11 days in
1990 – total 1428 days. In his cross-examination, he says
that he was digging ditches for laying telephone line. He
denies that after completion of work, he used to be
discontinued. That the work he was doing still continues.
He did not work in the office. His evidence about working
days is not challenged in his cross-examination.
7. Workman Sohanlal also filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim.
In his affidavit of evidence, he has given details of his
working days 182 days in 1983-84, 32 days in 1984-85, 90
days in 85-86, 332 days in 86-87, 267 days in 87-88, 310
days in 88-89, 294 days in 89-90, 107 days in 1990. That
their services were terminated without notice, no
chargesheet was issued to him, any enquiry was not
conducted against them for their absence from duty.
8. Management’s witness shri S.L.Ladia filed
affidavit of his evidence. The working days of Sohanlal
are shown in para-3 of his affidavit of evidence as stated
by both workmen Bhagwat Prasad and Sohanlal in his
affidavit of evidence. The reasons for termination are
shown absence from duty. The affidavit of management’s
witness is silent about enquiry conducted against
workman. Management’s witness in his cross-examination
says he was not posted at Satna. Both workmen did not
work under him. Any of the documents about their service
are not written by him. That for termination of casual
workmen, it is not necessary to conduct enquiry. Therefore
no enquiry was conducted against both workmen. I may
mention here that when no written Statement is filed by
management, management has no right to adduce
evidence. Evidence of management’s witness is without
pleadings. As stated above, the application for setting
aside exparte order dated 25-3-98 has already been rejected
for the unreasonable delay. 2nd party has produced
documents Exhibit M-1 Sohanlal was terminated as he
was absent from duty. During the period 13-6-84 to
30-6-85, 1-7-85 to 31-12-85. Exhibit M-2 shows that Shri
Sohanlal was paid retrenchment compensation and one
months wages in lieu of notice total amount Rs. 3435/-.
exhibit M-3 shows Bhagwat Prasad Pandey was paid
retrenchment compensation and wages in lieu of one
month’s notice Rs. 2940/-. Exhibit M-4,5,6 are application
submitted by both workmen to ALC w.r.t. their grievances.
From evidence of management’s witness Shri D.S.Thakur,
documents Exhibit M-1 to M-6 are admitted in evidence.
The documents shows that workmen were paid
retrenchment compensation and one month’s wages in
lieu of notice.
9. Evidence on record doesnot show that the
seniority list of casual labours was displayed as per rule 77
of ID Act. The reasons for termination are not mentioned in
the documents produced by the management. The
termination of both workmen is in violation of section 25-F
of ID Act as reasons for termination are not shown. The
permission of Government was not taken. The violation of
section 25-G, Rule 77 as seniority list was not displayed.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
10. Point No.2- during course of argument, learned
counsel for workmen Shri A.K.shashi submits that
workmen be reinstated with backwages. In their pleadings
and evidence, both workmen have claimed that they were
denied benefit of regularisation as per the scheme
introduced as per directions of Hon’ble Supreme court.
The copy of scheme is produced on record. The eligibility
is provided in para-2 of the scheme full time casual
labours who have put in service atleast 240 days in a year
prior to 31-3-87 are entitled for the benefit of scheme.
The copy of circular dated 19-2-88 is also produced on
record. Its para-2 provides for absorption of casual
labours who have been continuously working for more
than 1 year in the department. The terms of reference
doesnot pertain to denial of regularisation to both the
workers. The terms of reference are restricted to the
legality of termination of workmen only. Therefore the
claim of Ist party workmen for benefit of the scheme for
regularisation of casual labours could not be considered
as it is beyond the terms of reference. The copies of award
in R/80/01, 90/93 are submitted by shri A.K.shashi. in
both the awards, there was cogent evidence about
workman completed 240 days prior to cut off date. As
the claim for regularisation is beyond the terms of
reference, it cannot be considered. However the
termination of workmen is illegal for violation of Section
25-F,G, Rule-77.
11. Shri M.P.Kapoor, counsel for management relies
on ratio held in
“Case of Harinandan Prasad and another versus
management of FCI reported in 2014-II-LLJ-54(SC).
Their Lordship held when relief of monetarycompensation
in lieu of reinstatement would be more appropriate in case
of Ist appellant, non-regularisation of 2nd appellant while
giving benefit of that circular to other similar situated
employees and regularizing them would be discriminatory.
The relief of reinstatement wouldnot be appropriate.
Considering the period of working, compensation
Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the workmen 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 of Telecom
District Engineer, Satna (MP) in terminating the services
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
709
of Shri Bhagwat Prasad Pandey and ShriSohanlalTatway
is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs.1,50,000/- to each workmen.
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] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr ljdkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- lh th vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj 88@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@71@2011&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/88/11) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employees in relation management of the M/s. Trust
Worthy Security Services, Bopal and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 02-
02-2016.
[No. L-42012/71/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/11
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri R.K.Vishwakarma, Security Guard
R/o Near Kamal Aata Chakki, Nayagaon,
Nai Katni, Tehsil and Distt. Katni,
Katni (MP) ....Workman
Versus
Director,
M/s Trust Worthy Security Services,
B-76, Security Tower, Kasturba Nagar,
Near Chetak Pul,
Bhopal (MP) ....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 11th day of December 2015
1. As per letter dated 23-3-2005 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/
71/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of
Director, M/s. Trust Worthy Security Services,
Kasturba Nagar, Bhopal in terminating the services
of Shri R.K.Vishwakarma w.e.f. 19-9-2010 is legal and
justified? What relief the workman is
entitled ?
2. Ist party workman is challenging his termination
in the dispute under reference. Even after issuing notices,
the workman did not participate in the proceeding, no
statement of claim is filed. Ist party is proceeded exparte on
19-3-2014.
3.IInd party management also not filed Written
Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the
parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:-
“ Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award.”
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ih th bZ ,e
vkj 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 ,ea Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
68@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-02-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@41@2006&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2016
S.O. 292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of PGIMR, Chandigarh and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 02.02.2016.
[No. L-42012/41/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID No.68 of 2006, Reference no. L-42012/ 41/
2006/IR(DU) dated 23.10.2006
Sh. Narayan Sharma C/o Shri Bishnu Dev Sharma, R/o
H.No. 2082, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh
...Workman
Versus
The Director, PGI, Chandigarh.
...Respondent.
Appearances
For the Workman: Sh.Rupesh Kumar Advocate
For the Management: Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
Award Passed on: - 27-01-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L- 42012/41/2006/IR(DU) dated 23.10.2006
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of PGIMR,
Chandigarh, in terminating the service of their
workman Shri Narayan Sharma w.e.f. 4-10-2005 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitied to?"
2. The above reference was earlier disposed off vide
award dated 15- 01-2010. Aggrieved by the above award,
the workman filed CWP No. 13469 of 2010 in the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was disposed
off by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana .vide
its order dated 8-11-2011 If by passing the following
order :
‘‘When the matter came up for preliminary hearing
on 02-08-2010, it was brought to the notice of the Court
that petitioner had moved an applicatlion for summoning
the record of the PGIMER, Chandigarh to 'prove that he
was being paid wages by the PGI directly but without
deciding the said application, the Labour Court passed the
impugned award on the premise that the petitioner was an
employee of the contractor.
The fact that the above stated application was
pending consideration .before the Tribunal, is not disputed
by the respondents also. In these circumstances and
without expressing any views on the petitioner's claim, I
allow the writ petition; set- aside the impugned award and
remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-I, Chandigarh to firstly dispose of the petitioner's
application for summoning of the record of PGIMER,
Chandigarh and thereafter decide the main reference in
accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before
the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 05-12-2011.’’
3. In compliance of the above order dated 8.11.2011
of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the
reference was proceeded further as directed.
4. Workman's applications dated 24-4-2008 and 26-4-
2012 for summoning the record of the management have
been heard together. Management filed its reply. Both the
application were allowed vide this Tribunal order dated 21-
03-2013.
5. Brief facts of the case according to the workman
are that he was appointed by the authority of PGIMER in
March 1998 as ward servant on the recommendation of Dr.
S.K.Sharma, Department of Urology, Chandigarh who
treated the workman from the diseased and he was assigned
the duty of barred servant/hospital attendant which the
workman performed without any complaint .. It is further
pleaded by the workman that his services were terminated
by the official/sanitation.superintendent/officer of the
Sanitation department of PGI. The workman approached
the health minister and health minister vide his
recommendation dated 8.4.2002 directed the Director of
the PGI ‘‘ the person be appointed on a suitable job" and
ultimately the workman was appointed and is allowed his
work as such and continued to work in the capacity of
hospital attendant, ward servant in the different department
of PGI including the operation theatre. It is also pleaded by
the workman that from the year 2002 he worked with the
PGI without any complaint till today but the official of the
sanitation department with a view to harass the workman
withheld the salary of the workman for a month i.e. March
1999 and also for the days i.e. 5.9.2003, 2.2.2004 and 29.4.2004
for which the sanitary Inspector illegally and unlawfully
put the absent of the workman with ulterior motive and
with a view to adjust their own man by terminating the
services of the workman. The workman made representation
but the grievances of the workman was not settled. It is
further" pleaded by the workman that his services were
utilized in the general gangs of the staff up to 30th of
September wherein the workman served in the main OT
from 6AM to 4 PM for the last one year and w.e.f. 1.10.2005,
the workman was ordered to work in the evening shift
started from 8PM to 4AM as per directions of the official of
the management. On 3.10.2005 the workman was forced by
the official of the management to work from 8AM to 6-30
PM i.e. more than 2 and half hours extra every day. It is
further pleaded that on 4.10.2005 the workman informed
the official of the management that he will work for 8 hours
i.e. up to 4 AM and on objection of the workman his salary
was withheld for whole of the month on the directions of
the official of the management of PGI. On 5.10.2005 when
the workman reported for duty, the sanitary inspector
Basant Ram did not mark the presence of the workman and
he was told by the official of the management that his
services stand terminated being no more required by the
management of PGI. The workman prayed that his
termination from the services is illegal, arbitrary and as no
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
711
notice or compensation as per I.D. Act, 1947 has been
paid to the workman and the action of the management of
the PGI is liable to be set-aside on this ground as well and
the workman required to be treated· in continuous service
with the management for all intents and purposes including
wages also.
6. The management filed written statement.
Preliminary objection has been taken that as the workman
was not in the employment of the management of PGI,
therefore, there is no privity of contract between the parties.
The management of PGI entered into agreement with a third
party for deployment of watch and ward, house keeping,
kitchen and sanitation services etc from time to time as and
when required. As the workman was not in the employment
of the PGI, therefore, he does not fall within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It ii further pleaded that
there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the respondent management and the petitioner as
he was never engaged by the management and was not on
the roll of the PGI management at any time. The workman
was deployed by the different contractors from time to
time for providing house keeping and sanitation services
to the management and he might have removed from the
roll by the then contractor. Those contractors made
payment of the wages of their personnel and deducted
EPF and ESI contributions from their wages and deposited
the same in the concerned department. It was well within
the knowledge of the workman that he was deployed and
paid by the contractor to the management but the workman
intentionally did not disclose this fact and made false and
frivolous allegatlons that he was engaged by the PGI. On
merits also the management of PGI denied all the allegations
of the workman. It is stated by the management that the
request of the workman was received through the health
Minister for consideration for the post of class lV. The
same was examined as per Recruitment rules and reply had
been submitted to the OSD to the President of the Instltute
(Minister of Health and Family Welfare) on 22.12.2001 and
the petitioner was never appointed by the PGI as alleged
by him. It is further submitted that as per rotation duty
roster, the staff of main OT including contractual workers
were deployed on shift basis. (round the clock from 6AM
to 2PM on morning duty, from 12 Noon to 8PM evening
duty and from 8 PM to 6 AM night duty (only for 15 days
for each work in months and also given 02 extra offs in a
week). As workman was deployed in shift duty by the
contractor, he must have been compensated for extra duty
hours. It is further pleaded that petitioner had not performed
extra duty of two and half hours daily because he left the
duty at 4AM without informing the sister in charge of duty
which caused great inconvenience to the doctors and
sisters on duty in main OT and substitute workman was
provided by the contractor at 4.15AM in the same shift.
On 4.10.2005, the workman was deployed by the
contractor in the main operation Theatre in night duty shift
starting from 8PM to 6AM, the sister incharge informed
the Sanitation Officer that the petitioner Narain Sharma
has left the main OT without any information to the
lncharge of main OT. The sanitation Inspector visited the
main OT at 4.15AM and found that the petitioner was
absent from duty. The sanitary Inspector reported the
matter to the Sanitation Officer ( hospital) for further
necessary action. The sanitation officer immediately got
a substitute from the contractor as the main OT is very
sensitive and essential area. It is also pleaded that as the
workman was not in the employment of the PGI, therefore,
the question of with holding salary for the absence period
does not arise as the" sanitation and house keeping services
were out source through difference contractors since
1997. It is further categorically pleaded that petitioner
was not in the employment of PGIMER and there is no
question of making any complaint against him and .the
services of the petitioner never been terminated by the
GIMER, therefore, there is no question for retaining any
junior. It is prayed that as the action of the management
i.e. PGIMER is legal, just, proper and in accordance in
law, therefore, no action regarding termination of the
petitioner has been taken by the respondent management,
the claim of the petitioner may be dismissed with cost.
7. Replication to the written statement filed by the
petitioner reiterating the claim made in the claim statement.
It is pleaded in the replication that termination of the
workman was done by the officers of the management and
workman never left his services on his own.
8. The workman in evidence filed his affidavit as
Ex.W1 alongwith documents Ex.W2 to W-8. The
management filed the affidavit of Tilak Raj Sharma as Ex.M1
alongwith documents in 103 pages alongwith written
statement. After the case was remanded back to this
Tribunal workman Narayan Sharma again filed affidavit
dated 28-05-2014 in evidence. The management in rebuttal
filed affidavit Ex.M2/ A of Sudhir Kumar, Senior Admn.
Officer of PGI. Both the witnesses were examined and cross
examined by the parties.
9. I have heard the parties, gone through the evidence
and documents earlier filed and also documents and
evidence recorded afresh after the case was received on
remand.
10. Management specifically denied the fact, that
workman was the employee of the management. On behalf
of the, management it is further submitted that workman
was working through out source, contractor and there was
no relationship of employer and employee. In this context
not only witness of the management Shri Tilak Raj Sharma
who was earlier examined but also workman himself in cross
examination conducted earlier clearly admitted that" no
appointment letter was issued by the PGI. I was not
interviewed by PGI. I was not sponsored by post office,
employment office or any other such office". Workman
712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Narayan Sharma further submitted that no termination
letter was given by the PGI. This fact has been corroborated
by witness of the management Shri Tilak Raj Sharma. Shri
Tilak Raj Sharma in his affidavit in para no.9 specifically
mentioned that "petitioner was deployed by different
contractors as and when required to the respondent
management for sanitation and house keeping services
which were being outsourced through the difference
contractors since 1997. The petitioner was deployed by
these contractors from time to time. The record relating to
the agreement with the difference contractors, payment
made by contractors to the petitioner, their ESI and
provident fund nos. deposit of contribution of ESI and
EPF by the contractors.
11. Workman has filed some applications written to
the then Hon'ble Health Minister Govt. of India. But
workman failed to file any appointment letter issued by the
management of PGI. Management has categorically denied
that the management of PGI appointed the workman to any
post.lt is well settled principle of law that workman has to
prove that he was engaged or recruited by the management
by following the rules of recruitment and after following
the proper procedure of recruitment. In the case in hand
the workman failed to establish this fact that-he was
rrecruited by the PGI rnanagement. Thus it is clear that
workrnan Naravan Sharrna was not the employee of the
PGI.
12. Management has filed Annexure R-I which is
list of contractors who deployed the workman to the PGI
managements. As per this list M/s. Good House keeping,
contractor provided rnan power to the management for
sanitation & House keeping Services from 18-10-97 to 28-
2-99, M/s. Amari- Security & Detective Services from 1-3-
1999, M/s. Paragon Security and Allied Services from 1-3-
2000 to 31-3-2001, Mls Prehari Security & Detevtive
Services Pvt. Ltd. from 1-4-2001 to 15-7-2002,M/s Om
Security & Cleaning Services from 16-7-2002 to 31-7-2005
and M/s. A. N. Kapur (Janitors) Pvt. Ltd. from 01-08-2005
to till date. In the list of contractor Mls Good House
keeping Services, the provident fund number of Narayan
Sharma workman has been given as 1823 at serial no.244.
All these documents give strength to the submissions of
the management that workman was never employed by
the PGI and his services were terminated by the
outsourced contractor.
13. Workman submitted that despite the order of
this Tribunal dated 21-3-2013 the management deliberately
not produced the documents for the period April 99 to
June 99 ( three months), It is submitted on behalf of the
workman that if the engagement of the workman during
this period of three months is consider, then the workman
can be presumed his working for 240 days in a calendar
year preceding to the date of termination. Management
opposes this contention and submitted that management
filed the entire record which was available in the office of
the management. It is an admitted fact that services of
the workman were terminated w.e.f. 4-10-2005. These
documents for the period from April 99 to June 99 which
were not filed by the management have no relevance as it
could not be infer that workman worked for 240 days in a
calendar year preceding tothedate of termination i.e. 4-
10-2005. Besides this management 'also submitted that
the contractor has not be impleaded as party by the
workman in the reference and management was under no
obligation to pay any retrenchment compensation, notice
of one month or pay in lieu of notice to the workman at
the time of termination of the workman as he was not the
employee of the management of the PGI.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, as workman was not the employee of the management
of PGI, therefore, the action of the management of PGIMR,
Chandigarh, in terminating the service of their workman
Shri Narayan Sharma w.e.f. 4-10-2005 can not be said to be
illegal and .unjustified. Consequently the workman is not
entitled.to any relief.
15. Reference is disposed off accordingly Central
Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent
to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh.
27.01.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj goh ,yk;
isusVsª'ku izkstsDV vkSj vnlZ 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 ,ea Je U;k;ky;] psUuS ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 05-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@21@2014&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th February, 2016
S.O. 293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Heavy Alloy Penetration Project & Others,
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 05.02.2016.
[No. L-14011/21/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
713
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR
COURT CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 27th January, 2016
Present: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 3/2015
(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 Heavy Alloys Penetration Project and
Another and their workman)
BETWEEN
The Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner Union
HAPP Contract Labours Union
1/534, 3rd South Street, Poolungudi Colony
HAPP Township Post Office
Tiruchirapalli-620025
AND
1.The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Heavy Alloy Penetration Project
Ministry of Defence
Trichy-620025
2.Mr. Ramachandran : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Managing Director,
Sri Security Services
Anna Nagar
Mathur Post
Pudukottai District
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
:
Sri D. Muthukumar, Advocate
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s M. Liagatali, Advocate
1st Respondent
For the 2nd Party/
:
Set Ex-parte
2nd Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No.L-14011/21/2014-IR (DU)
dated 22.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Heavy
Alloy Penetrator Project, Trichy directing the
Contractor to terminate Sri C. Vinayakamurthy is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 3/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner and the First
Respondent had filed claim and counter statement
respectively. The Second Respondent who was impleaded
in the ID at a later stage has remained ex-parte.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner are as below:
C. Vinayakamoorrthy, a member of the Petitioner
Union was engaged as contract labour in the First
Respondent establishment in the year 1999 to execute the
work of cleaning, sweeping and other works. Financial
irregularities were committed by First Respondent from the
year 2000 onwards through fraudulent mode of payment of
wages. Vinayakamoorthy had resisted these financial
irregularities in his capacity as General Secretary of the
Petitioner Union. He had given evidence before the Central
Vigilance Commission regarding the fraud committed by
the First Respondent in collusion with the Contractor. He
had given evidence before the CBI also against the First
Respondent Management and the CBI had indicted 17
Group “A” Level Officers of the Respondent. Such
activities of Vinayakamoorthy resulted in his criminal
intimidation. Vinayakamoorthy had made complaint against
manual cleaning of septic tank. As a consequence of all
these Vinayakamoorthy had been terminated from service
on 11.04.2011 on the basis of a direction issued by the First
Respondent. The Respondent did not comply with the
provisions of Section-25F of the ID Act while terminating
the petitioner from service. Vinayakamoorthy is without
any employment. There is no justification for the
termination. An order may be passed setting aside the
termination and directing the Respondent to reinstate the
petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and other
attendant benefits.
4. The First respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The First Respondent is not the employer of the
petitioner. Employer-Employee relationship does not exist
between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The First
Respondent is a defence production unit under the Ministry
of Defence producing arms and ammunitions. For sundry
works such as cleaning of roads, toilets, etc. contracts are
executed and the Contractors are having their own
labourers for executing the work. Vinayakamoorthy, the
concerned workman was one of the labourers engaged by
a Contractor. The allegations made by the petitioner against
the First Respondent are false. The concerned workman
did not turn up for duties for years together. He had
instigated his co-employees against the smooth functioning
of the defence installation. The petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. The Second Respondent was subsequently
impleaded as the Contractor under whom the concerned
workman was employed. This Respondent remained ex-
parte.
714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. The evidence in the case of consists of oral
evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W6. The Respondent did not adduce any evidence
either oral or documentary.
5. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is any justification in terminating
the service of C. Vinayakamoorthy, the concerned workman?
(ii) What, if any is the relief to which Vinayakamoorthy
is entitled?
The Points
7.The petition is filed on behalf of Vinayaka moorthy,
who was the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union.
Vinayakamoorthy who was doing cleaning and sweeping
work on contract basis is said to have been terminated
from service on direction by the First Respondent.
8. It is clear even from the Claim Statement that
Vinayakamoorthy was working for the First Respondent
under a Contractor and was not directly employed by the
First Respondent. The case in the Claim Statement is that
it was as directed by the First Respondent,
Vinayakamoorthy was terminated from service. During his
cross-examination as WW1 the concerned workman has
stated specifically that he was working through the Second
Respondent, the Contractor. The concerned workman
seems to have approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal claiming regularization in the services of the First
Respondent and the case was decided against him. He had
earlier raised Industrial Dispute claiming regularization
before the Central Labour Commissioner for declaration
that the contract between the First Respondent and the
Contractor is sham and nominal and for regularization of
his service with the First Respondent. This was also
decided against him. The Writ Petition filed by him
challenging the award also was dismissed. So the concerned
workman is not entitled to any relief against the First
Respondent.
9. It is clear from the evidence that the concerned
workman was working under the Second Respondent as
contract labour at the time when his service was terminated.
Ext.W2 is the letter written by the Second Respondent to
the concerned workman. This document is produced to
prove that it was at the instruction of the First Respondent
the concerned workman was terminated from service. There
was enough reason for the First Respondent to do so also.
As could be seen from the Claim Statement, the Proof
Affidavit filed by the concerned workman and the
documents produced, the concerned workman had been
raising his voice against the alleged misdeeds of the officials
of the First Respondent, Ext.W1 is the extract of the internal
enquiry in which the concerned workman had given
evidence. Ext.W3 is the enquiry report. Ext.W4 is the
reply received from Central Bureau of Investigation on
an RTI application furnishing the names of public servants
of the Respondent against whom departmental action has
been recommended. Ext.W5 is the copy of the First
Information Report based on the complaint made by the
concerned workman against the First Respondent
Management. The Second Respondent has stated in
Ext.W2 that if the concerned workman is allowed to
continue in employment, the contract with the First
Respondent will be terminated. What is stated in Ext.W2
is that work will not be provided to the concerned
workman from 11.12.2011. the concerned workman has
narrated the circumstances under which he was terminated
from service.
10. The Second Respondent has not come
forward to resist the case. It is only because of the
pressure from the First Respondent, the concerned
workman has been terminated from service. Apparently
there was no compliance of Section-25F of the ID Act
while terminating the concerned workman. No valid
reasons are given in Ext.W2 for the termination. The fact
that the concerned workman had pointed out certain
irregularities in the First Respondent Management is not
valid reason to terminate him from service. The Second
Respondent is bound to take the petitioner back in service.
11. Accordingly, the Second Respondent is directed
to reinstate C. Vinayakamoorthy, the concerned workman
in service within a month of publication of the Award with
25% backwages from the date on which the dispute was
raised, payable by the same time. In default of payment of
backwages, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is payable
from the date of the award.
An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/ : WW1, Sri C. Vinayakamoorthy
Petitioner Union
For the 2nd Party/Management:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
25.05.2011
Extract of the internal
enquiry
Ext.W2
18.06.2011
Letter issued by the
Contractor
Ext.W3
-
Extract of the internal
enquiry report
Ext.W4
-
Reply given by the CBI
under the RTI Act
Ext.W5
16.12.2013
FIR No: 21/2013
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
715
Ext.W6
23.05.2015
Extract of the order passed
by the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner
On the Management’s side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 8 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkj,e,l]
vkj,e,l&e fMoh”ku psUubZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUuS ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17] 18] 19] 20] 21] 22] 23] 24] 25] 26] 27]
28] 29] 30@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
05@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@128@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@129@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@130@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@131@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@132@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@133@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@134@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@135@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@136@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@137@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@138@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@139@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@140@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&40012@141@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th February, 2016
S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30/2014) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of RMS, RMS-M Division, Chennai and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 05-02-2016.
[No. L-40012/128/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/129/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/130/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/131/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/132/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/133/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/134/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/135/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/136/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/137/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/138/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/139/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/140/2013-IR(DU),
No. L-40012/141/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 28th January, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 17-30 of 2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of The Superintendent, RMS and Another
and their workman)
BETWEEN
1.
Ms. R. Vidya
:
1st Party/1st Petitioner
2.
Sri S. Bhoopalan
:
1st Party/2nd Petitioner
3.
Ms. S. Manjula
:
1st Party/3rd Petitioner
4.
Sri K. Jaisankar
:
1st Party/4th Petitioner
5.
Sri S. Palani
:
1st Party/5th Petitioner
6.
Sri G. Madhankumar :
1st Party/6th Petitioner
7.
Sri M. Arunkumar
:
1st Party/7th Petitioner
8.
Sri D. Mohan
:
1st Party/8th Petitioner
9.
Sri M. Dilliganapathy:
1st Party/9th Petitioner
10. Ms. G. Vadivukarasi :
1st Party/10th Petitioner
11. Sri S. Arunkumar
:
1st Party/11th Petitioner
12. Ms. L. Banumathi
:
1st Party/12th Petitioner
13. Ms. J. Malarkodi
:
1st Party/13th Petitioner
14. Ms. P. Sivasankari
:
1st Party/14th Petitioner
And
1.The Superintendent : 2nd Party/1st Respondent
RMS, RMS-M Division
Chennai-600008
2.The Sub-Record Officer : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.No
I.D. No.
Reference No. & Date
Name of the I Party
Name of the II Party
S/Sri/Smt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
17/2014
L-40012/128/2013-IR (DU)
R. Vidya
1. The Superintendent RMS, RMS-M
dated 21/25.02.2014
Division Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer RMS-M
Division Gandhi Nagar Vellore-632006
2.
18/2014
40012/129/2013-IR (DU)
S. Bhoopalan
1. The Superintendent RMS, RMS-M
dated 24/25.02.2014
Division Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer RMS-M
Division Gandhi NagarVellore-632006
3.
19/2014
L-40012/130/2013-IR (DU)
S. Manjula
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
4.
20/2014 L-40012/131/2013-IR (DU)
K. Jaishankar
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
5.
21/2014 L-40012/132/2013-IR (DU)
S. Palani
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
6.
22/2014 L-40012/133/2013-IR (DU)
G. Madhankumar
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
7.
23/2014 L-40012/134/2013-IR (DU)
M. Arunkumar
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
717
8.
24/2014
L-40012/135/2013-IR (DU)
D. Mohan
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
9.
25/2014
L-40012/136/2013-IR (DU)
M. Dilliganapathi
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
10.
26/2014 L-40012/137/2013-IR (DU)
G. Vadivukarasi
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
11.
27/2014
L-40012/138/2013-IR (DU)
S. Arunkumar
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
12.
28/2014
L-40012/139/2013-IR (DU)
L. Banumathi
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
13.
29/2014 L-40012/140/2013-IR (DU)
J. Malarkodi
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division
Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
COMMON AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide the order of references detailed above
referred the IDs to the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for
adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 2014 respectively.
In all the IDs the parties have entered appearance through
their counsel and filed claim and counter statement
respectively.
2. The Schedule mentioned in the orders of
reference in the above IDs are as under:
ID 17/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 18/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 19/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 20/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 21/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not,
to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 22/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 23/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 24/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 25/2104
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 26/2104
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 27/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
14.
30/2014
L-40012/141/2013-IR (DU)
P. Sivasankari
1. The Superintendent
dated 21/25.02.2014
RMS,
RMS-M Division Chennai-8
2. The Sub-Record Officer
RMS-M Division
Gandhi Nagar
Vellore-632006
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
719
ID 28/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not,
to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 29/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not,
to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
ID 30/2014
“Whether the action of the management of RMS-M
Division, Chennai regarding termination of the service
of the petitioner without following the provisions of
Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justifiable or not? If not,
to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”
3. The averments in each of the Claim Statements
in the above IDs are given below:
ID 17/2014
The work in the Railway Main Service (RMS) in
the Office of the Second Respondent was carried out in
two shifts, between 0200 PM and 0930 PM and between
0530 PM and 0610 AM. The work will have to be carried
out throughout the year. There was some change in the
timing of the first shift later. The work of the RMS is
permanent and perennial. The main work in RMS is
sorting of mails category-wise. The work was originally
carried out by Permanent Sorting Assistants. The Second
Respondent started employing temporary Sorting
Assistants like the petitioner to carry out the work rather
than filling up the permanent vacancies. The petitioner
was appointed by the Second Respondent as temporary
Sorting Assistant in 2010 January by an oral order. The
petitioner was directed to report for work in any one of
the two shifts depending upon the requirements. The
petitioner and other similarly placed temporary Sorting
Assistants worked alongwith the Permanent Sorting
Assistants. The temporary Sorting Assistants used to sign
the Attendance Register immediately after they reported
for work. The Attendance Register was common for
permanent and temporary employees. The Head Sorting
Assistant or the Shift Supervisor used to allot work to
the temporary Sorting Assistants. The sorting work of
Registered Post, Speed Post and Money Order would be
carried out under the control and supervision of the Shift
Supervisor. The sorting work of ordinary mails and parcels
would be carried out under the control of Head Sorting
Assistant. The petitioner and other Sorting Assistants
were paid wages on daily rated basis. Payment was made
at the end of each month. Though the Temporary Sorting
Assistants carried out the same kind of work as that of
Permanent Sorting Assistants they were not paid salary
and other allowances that were paid to the Permanent
Sorting Assistants. Payment was made to the petitioner
and other Temporary Sorting Assistants after getting their
signature in the pay-roll and the money paid receipts.
Daily report used to be sent from the Office of the
Second Respondent to the Office of the First Respondent.
This report contained the details of work allotted to each
staff including the temporary staff. The petitioner was
continuously employed on all working days without any
break. She had put in more than 240 days of service each
year. Though she was continuously employed for more 3
years and has completed 480 days of service in 24
calendar months she was not made permanent. When the
petitioner and other Temporary Sorting Assistants
reported for work on 27.03.2013 they were not allowed
to enter the office and were denied employment from
27.03.2013.The Industrial Dispute is raised accordingly.
The petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the
post of Sorting Assistant. An order may be passed holding
that the action of the Respondents in terminating the
service of the petitioner is unjustified and also directing
the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as
a Permanent Sorting Assistant with continuity of service,
backwages and other attendant benefits.
ID 18/2014
The petitioner in ID 18/2014 also claims to have
been a Temporary Sorting Assistant at the Office of the
Second Respondent. According to this petitioner he was
appointed by the Respondent as Temporary Sorting
Assistant in December, 2007. He has worked
continuously with the Second Respondent and had
completed more than 240 days of service in each year of
work. According to him he was also terminated on
27.03.2012. The relief of reinstatement as a Permanent
Sorting Assistant is claimed by this petitioner also.
ID 19/2014
The petitioner in this ID is said to have joined the
Office of the Second Respondent as Temporary Sorting
Assistant in June, 2007 orally and was turned out on
27.03.2012. She has also claimed to have been working
continuously for more than 240 days in each year of
service. The relief of reinstatement as a Permanent
Sorting Assistant is claimed by this petitioner also.
ID 20/2014
The petitioner in this ID has claimed to have joined
the Office of the Second Respondent as Temporary
Sorting Assistant by oral order in January 2010 and
worked until he was allegedly terminated from service
on 27.03.2012. This petitioner also has claimed to have
worked for more than 240 days in each year of service
720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and has claimed the relief of reinstatement as Permanent
Sorting Assistant.
ID 21/2014
The petitioner in this ID has claimed to have been
appointed as Temporary Sorting Assistant in December,
2007. He was also allegedly terminated from service on
27.03.2012. He has also claimed to have worked for more
than 240 days in each year of service and has claimed
reinstatement in the service of the Second Respondent.
ID 22/2014
The case of the petitioner in this ID is that he was
appointed as Temporary Sorting Assistant in the Office
of the Second Respondent by oral order in June 2007.
He has also claimed that he had been continuously
working with the Second Respondent for more than 6
years and had completed more than 240 days in each year.
The relief of reinstatement is claimed by this petitioner
also.
ID 23/2014
The petitioner in this ID has claimed to have been
appointed by the Second Respondent as Temporary
Sorting Assistant in December, 2007. He is said to have
worked with the Second Respondent continuously for
more than 5 years and is said to have completed 480 days
work in all the calendar years he has worked. He is also
claiming the relief of reinstatement.
ID 24/2014
The case of the petitioner in this ID is that he has
started to work with the Second Respondent in
December, 2005, had continuously worked for more than
7 years and had completed 480 days of work in 24
calendar months. He was also allegedly terminated from
service on 27.03.2012. The relief is claimed by this
petitioner also is the same.
ID 25/2014
The petitioner in this case is said to have been
appointed by the Second Respondent as Temporary
Sorting Assistant in December 2005. He too was
allegedly terminated from service on 27.03.2012. This
petitioner also has claimed to have been working
continuously and had competed 480 days of service in
24 calendar months and also put in more than 240 days
of service in each year. This petitioner also seeks the
relief of reinstatement.
ID 26/2014
The case of this petitioner is that she was appointed
by the Second Respondent as Temporary Sorting
Assistant in December 2005. She is said to have worked
continuously till 27.03.2012 on which date she was
terminated from service. She has also claimed that she
had put in more than 240 days of service in each year of
service and has completed 480 days of service within 24
calendar months. This petitioner also is claiming the same
relief.
ID 27 of 2014
The petitioner in this ID is said to have been
employed by the Second Respondent in December 2007.
According to him, he had been working continuously, had
put in more than 240 days of service in each year and had
completed 480 days of service in 24 calendar months.
He was also allegedly terminated on 22.03.2012. The
relief of reinstatement is sought by this petitioner also.
ID 28/2014
The petitioner in this ID is said to have been
appointed by the Second Respondent as Temporary
Sorting Assistant in January 2010. She has also claimed
to have worked for more than 240 days in each year of
service and completed 480 days of service in 24 calendar
months. She was also allegedly terminated on
27.03.2012. This petitioner also seeks the same relief.
ID 29 of 2014
The petitioner in this ID is said to have been
appointed by the Second Respondent in June 2007. She
has also claimed to have worked continuously putting in
240 days of work in each year and completing 480 days
of work in 24 calendar months. The alleged termination
on 27.03.2012 is questioned by this petitioner and the
relief of reinstatement is sought by her.
ID 30 of 2014
The petitioner in this ID has allegedly joined the
Second Respondent as Temporary Sorting Assistant in
June 2007 and is said to have continuously worked for
more than 5 years until she was terminated on
27.03.2012. According to her she has worked for more
than 240 days in each year of service and has completed
480 days of service in 24 calendar months and is entitled
to the relief of reinstatement.
4.
A common counter statement was filed by the
Respondents in all the IDs are as below:
The contention raised by the Respondents in all the
above IDs are the same. According to the Respondents
no Temporary Sorting Assistants were ever employed by
the Second Respondent. Only outsiders were employed
on wages prescribed by the District Collector. As there
was no appointment as temporary sorting assistant, there
is no question of reinstatement also. According to the
Respondents engagement of outsiders was on hourly
basis at Katpadi RMS on leave vacancy of departmental
staff. Service records are not available in respect of the
petitioners as they were not departmental staff. It is
further stated by the Respondents that recruitment to the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
721
post of Temporary Sorting Assistants is based on
Recruitment Rules, scheme of examination, etc. It is the
further case of the Respondents that the petitioners are
not qualified to be recruited. The Second Respondent has
no power to recruit an employee to the post of Sorting
Assistant in the Railway Mail Service also. According to
the Respondents none of the petitioners are entitled to
any relief.
5. The claim of the petitioners in all the above IDs
being that they have worked with the Second Respondent
as temporary Sorting Assistant and the relief claimed also
being the same, the above IDs were tried jointly on the
basis of the joint memo filed by the parties. ID 17/2014
was treated as the main ID and evidence was recorded in
this.
6. The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1
to WW14 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1
to Ext.W29 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M6.
7.The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the termination of the petitioners from the
service of the Second Respondent is legal and justified?
(ii) What, if any is the relief to which each of the
petitioner is entitled?
The Points
8. The petitioners in all the cases were working as
Temporary Sorting Assistants in the Office of the Second
Respondent. They have alleged that they were illegally
terminated from their job on 27.03.2012. The disputes
were raised on account of this. The schedule of reference
is regarding the legality of termination of the service of
the petitioners without following the provisions of
Section-25F of the ID Act. However, in all the Claim
Statements, the petitioners have sought the relief of
reinstatement with the First Respondent as Permanent
Sorting Assistant with continuity of service, backwages
and other benefits. This demand of the petitioners for
permanency in the job need not be considered for the
reason that it is not a matter referred to by the
Government. The reference is regarding termination of
service and not permanency of the petitioners.
9. The evidence given by each of the petitioners to
establish their case that they have been working for a
long time as Temporary Sorting Assistants can be
discussed first. Evidence in each of the cases is discussed
below separately for the sake of convenience:
ID 17/2014
The petitioner in ID 17/2014 has given evidence
as WW8. Ext.W13 to Ext.W15 are the documents marked
through this witness. This witness has stated in her
affidavit of Chief Examination that she was appointed as
a Temporary Sorting Assistant in May 2007 by an oral
order of the Second Respondent. She has stated that she
was directed to report for work in any one of the two
shifts, depending upon the requirements. She has further
stated that herself and other similarly placed Temporary
Sorting Assistants were working alongwith the Permanent
Sorting Assistants. She has also stated that the Attendance
Register was common for both permanent and temporary
employees. She used to sign the Register. She was paid
wages on daily rated monthly paid basis.
10. Ext.W13 is the Attendance Register marked
through WW8. The name R. Vidya, the name of the
petitioner appears a few times in the document. After
25.11.2011 the date shown in this is 15.07.2011 and then
19.07.2011. The document does not reveal the signature
of any Officer or any seal of the Respondent. Ext.W14 is
only copy of Provisional Certificate of the petitioner and
Ext.W15 is the Reply Statement filed by her before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner.
ID 18/2014
The petitioner in this ID is said to have joined the
Second Respondent as Temporary Sorting Assistant in
December 2007. He was examined as WW2. He has also
given evidence in tune with that of WW8. This witness
did not produce any documents in support of his case.
ID 19/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW9.
She is said to have joined the Second Respondent as
Temporary Sorting Assistant in June 2007. The evidence
regarding the working conditions given by her is the same
as that of the other two witnesses. Ext.W16 and Ext.W17
are the documents marked through this witness. Ext.W16
is the copy of the Attendance Register showing the dates
04.02.2010, 13.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. The name Manjula
appears in the document on these dates. Ext.W17 is only
the copy of Higher Secondary Course Certificate of this
petitioner.
ID 20/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW10.
He is said to have joined the Office of the Second
Respondent as Temporary Sorting Assistant in January
2010. The evidence of this witness regarding the work
done at the Office is a replica of the evidence given by the
witnesses already referred to. Ext.W18 and Ext.W19 are
the documents marked through this witness. Ext.W19 is
the Provisional Certificate of the petitioner regarding his
degree course. Ext.W18 is the Attendance Register
showing the dates 25.11.2011, 15.07.2011 and 19.07.2011.
This document is in fact Ext.W13, the document marked
through WW8 itself. The name Jayashankar, the name of
the petitioner appears in the document once and that also
as an insertion.
722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID 21/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW7
and Ext.W11 and Ext.W12 were marked through him. His
evidence regarding the manner of work done by him is
also the same as that of other witnesses. Ext.W11 is the
copy of the Attendance Register showing the dates
03.12.2011, 19.07.2011, 15.07.2011 and 25.11.2011.
Palani, the name of the petitioner appears in the document
on a few occasions. Ext.W12 is a copy of a memo issued
to the petitioner stating that during his work he had
included registered articles not relating to Arakkonam
HO in Arakkonam HO bag. He is warned by memo that if
such type of irregularity is noticed, his service as OSA
will be terminated. This definitely shows that he was
working with the Second Respondent in July 2011.
ID 22/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW1.
He is said to have joined the Second Respondent in
December 2007 by an oral order. He has supported the
case of the other witnesses regarding the manner of work
carried out. Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 are the documents
marked through this witness. Ext,W1 is a copy of the
letter to Sub-Record Office. Ext.W2 is the copy of the
sanction for payment of Rs. 1,50,252/- towards wages
for GDS (Outsiders) engaged for the period from
21.02.2012 to 20.03.2012. This is only a common
sanction order for payment to all the workers described
as outsiders. There is no reference to the petitioner in
ID 22/2014 or any other petitioner in this document.
ID 23/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW11.
He has claimed that he was appointed as Temporary
Sorting Assistant in December, 2007. The evidence given
by this witness regarding the working conditions is not
different from the evidence given by the other witnesses.
Ext.W20 to Ext.W22 were marked through this witness.
Ext.W20 is only the Higher Secondary Course
Certificate. Ext.W21 is the copy of the Attendance
Register dated 11.02.2011 and Ext.W22 is that of
13.02.2011. These two documents contain the seal of
the Head Sorting Assistant .
ID 24/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW5.
This witness has claimed that he had started to work with
the Second Respondent on 02.11.2005 and continue to
work there until 23.12.2012 on which date he was denied
employment. Ext.W7 is marked through this witness.
Ext.W7 is the copy of the Identity Card in which the
petitioner is described as Outsider SA (Temporary). This
of course would show that the petitioner was working as
Temporary Sorting Assistant.
ID 25/2014
The petitioner in this case was examined as WW4.
He has joined the Office of the Second Respondent on
07.1.2005. He has stated that he was given training for 3
days. Ext.W3 to Ext.W6 were marked through this
witness. Ext.W3 is the copy of the Attendances Register
showing the dates 12.02.2010, 13.02.2010, 18.02.2010,
23.02.2010 and 06.03.2010. The name of the petitioner
appears in the document under each dates given. Ext.W4
is the letter dated 13.02.2008 written by the
Superintendent of RMS Division addressed to the
petitioner. The letter reveals that the petitioner had
admitted to have lost a registered letter dated 13.10.2007
which was to go to Singapore. The petitioner was asked
to pay compensation towards its loss. There is no dispute
regarding the authenticity of this letter. The letter
reveals that the petitioner had been working with the
Respondent during October 2007 and also in February
2008. Ext.W5 is a letter by the Superintendent of RMS
“M” Division to the SRO of the same Division stating
that the Outsiders including Delhi Ganapathy, the
petitioner are to be given practical training for sorting
work for 3 days from 08.12.2005 to 10.12.2005. Ext.W6
is the copy of the Identity Card describing the petitioner
as Outsider Sorting Assistant (Temporary).
ID 26/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW6.
She is said to have been appointed as Temporary Sorting
Assistant on 07.12.2005. She was given training for three
days. The name of this witness also appears in Ext.W5 as
an Outsider to be given training. Ext.W8 to Ext.W10 are
the documents marked through this witness. Ext.W8 is
the Attendance Register giving the dates 08.01.2010,
26.01.2010, 14.11.2009 and 24.11.2009. The document
contains the name of the petitioner also under the dates
referred to earlier. Ext.W9 is the copy of the Money
Payment Receipt showing that the petitioner had received
Rs. 195/- on 27.02.2012 from the Department of Posts.
Ext.W10 is the copy of the Identity Card in which the
petitioner is shown as Outsider SA (Temporary).
ID 27/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW3.
He is said to have been appointed as Temporary Sorting
Assistant in December, 2007 by the Second Respondent.
He is said to have worked till 27.03.2012. He has not
produced any document to substantiate his case.
ID 28/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW12.
According to her she was appointed as temporary Sorting
Assistant in December 2007 and had continued to work
so until 27.03.2012 on which date she was denied work
alongwith the other petitioners. Ext.W23 to Ext.W26 are
the documents marked through this witness. Ext.W23 is
the copy of the Attendances Register showing the dates
24.02.2010, 01.03.2010, 02.03.2010, 11.03.2010,
14.03.2010 and 15.03.2010. Her name is there on a few
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
723
occasions in the document. Ext.W24 is the copy of
Money Payment Receipt showing that the petitioner had
received Rs. 195/- on 21.02.2012 from the Postal
Department. Ext.W25 is the certificate showing the
educational qualification of the petitioner and Ext.W26
is the copy of the petition filed by her before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai.
ID 29/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW12.
The petitioner is said to have joined the Second
Respondent as Temporary Sorting Assistant in June 2007.
She is also said to have been denied work from
27.03.2012 until which date she had worked
continuously. Ext.W27 and Ext.W28 were marked through
this witness. Ext.W27 is the document showing the
qualification. Ext.W28 is the copy of the Attendance
Register bearing the date 09.03.2011. The name of the
petitioner is at the bottom of this document. There is a
seal of the Sorting Assistant with a signature.
ID 30/2014
The petitioner in this ID was examined as WW14.
She has stated that she was appointed by the Second
Respondent as Temporary Sorting Assistant in June 2007
and she had worked until she was displaced on
27.03.2012. Ext.W2, the Higher Secondary School
Certificate is the only document marked through this
witness.
11. The Attendance Registers produced through
some of the petitioners do not give a clear picture of the
attendance of the petitioners for work. Only portions of
the Registers without any order are produced. The dates
given in most of the Registers are in juxtaposed stage.
Only a few of them contains the seal and the signature of
the concerned official. However, in spite of these
discrepancies, I assume that the documents are genuine,
even though without any seal or signature for the reason
that at least some of them are having seal and signature
and the other documents are also seen maintained in the
same fashion even though seal and signature are not there.
However, the name of all the petitioners are not appearing
on all the dates in the Registers. Of course, there is the
evidence that the petitioners were working in different
shifts as per the requirements.
12. The above discrepancies will not matter
regarding the engagement of the petitioners since it is
admitted by the Respondents in the Counter Statement
filed in all the IDs that the concerned petitioner had been
engaged as Sorting Assistant. The only case of the
Respondent is that they were engaged not as Temporary
Sorting Assistants but as Outsiders Sorting Assistants and
they cannot claim the status of Temporary Sorting
Assistants.
13.The evidence given by MW1, the Superintendent
of railway Mail Service “M” Division gives better view
of the nature of work done. It can be inferred from the
evidence of this witness that the petitioners must have
been working on a day to day basis and not occasionally
only as is claimed in the Counter Statements. It is seen
from the evidence that sorting work was carried out in
two shifts. Sorting work in the Postal Department is not
something that will be coming occasionally only. MW1
has stated that in Katpadi Division where the petitioners
were working about 40,000 ordinary posts and 3,000 to
4,000 registered posts have to be handled on a day. Apart
from these are the Speed Posts and some Money Orders.
The case in the Counter Statement that it was only during
leave vacancies outsiders were engaged is the case put
forth by MW1 also. This witness has stated during his
cross-examination that Attendance Register was not
maintained at all for Outsider Sorting Assistants.
However, the Counter Statement admits that they were
also signing Attendance Register.
14. There is a specific evidence given by all the
petitioners that they were engaged and they were working
continuously though they were paid daily wages on
monthly basis. The petitioners have discharged the burden
of proving that they were in continuous engagement and
were doing work of permanent nature through that oral
evidence. In that case it is for the Respondents to prove
that they were not engaged continuously. The documents
regarding the engagement would all be with the
Respondents. Such documents are not produced. The
petitioners have approached the Labour Commissioner
immediately after they were denied work. The case that
is put forth by MW1 is that the documents in question
must have been weeded out after expiry of the period for
which they are to be kept. However, even those
documents immediately prior to the denial of work to
the petitioners are not produced. It is admitted by the
Respondents that the petitioners were not working from
27.03.2012. However, the case is that they stopped work
on their own. On the other hand, the case of all the
petitioners is that they made some demand and it was as
a consequence they were denied work. This seems more
probable when the circumstances are considered. It is
unlikely that all the petitioners stopped work on their
own on the same date. Certainly, the petitioners must have
been working continuously on a daily basis as the number
of posts to be handled daily were voluminous. Even
though the evidence of the petitioners in this respect is
there, there is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the
Respondents. The only documents produced by the
Respondents are copies of some daily reports and money
order receipts, mostly, of the period after the dispute
was raised. These documents are not of any use in
discharging the burden that has shifted upon the
Respondents. So it is to be presumed that the petitioners
724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
must have been worked for more than 240 days in the 12
months preceding the date on which they were denied
work and even on the previous years. There is no case
for the Respondents that the petitioners were sent out
after compliance with Section-25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. So denial of work amounts to retrenchment
and is illegal in the absence of compliance with Section-
25F.
15. The claim of the petitioners is not only for
reinstatement but also for permanency. As stated this is
not a subject matter of order of reference and cannot be
considered. The only question is whether the petitioners
can be reinstated in the same position in which they were.
16. In all the Identity Cards produced, the
petitioners are described as Outsiders Sorting Assistants.
All the petitioners have stated that they were not given
any appointment order. It was not based on any
Recruitment Rules they were taken. However, there is a
fact that they were ousted from work even when work
was available with the Respondents. This is clear from
the evidence given by MW1. He has stated during his
cross-examination that even now outsiders are engaged.
That shows that work is still available with the
Respondents. So the Respondents are in a position to
take back the petitioners as Outsiders Sorting Assistants
itself. The claim of the petitioners for backwages could
not be entertained since they were working on daily wages
but paid on monthly basis. If the petitioners are not willing
to be reinstated in the same position they are to be
compensated as contemplated under Section-25F of the
ID Act. Almost all the petitioners have joined during the
same period. The compensation payable is fixed as
Rs. 2.00 lakhs for each of the petitioners. At the option
of the petitioners, the Respondents are either to engage
the petitioners in the same position or to pay
compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs within two months of
publication of the award.
17. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to
re-engage the petitioners or pay compensation @ Rs.
2.00 lakhs to each of the petitioners at their option within
two months of the publication of the award.
An award is passed accordingly.
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/:
WW1, Sri R. Madhan Kumar
Petitioner
WW2, Sri S. Bhoopalan
WW3, Sri S. Arun Kumar
WW4, Sri M. Dilliganapathy
WW5, Sri D. Mohan
WW6, Ms. G. Vadivukarasi
WW7, Sri S. Palani
WW8, Ms. R. Vidya
WW9, Ms. S. Manjula
WW10, Sri K. Jaisankar
WW11, Sri M. Arun Kumar
WW12, Ms. L. Banumathi
WW13, Ms. J. Malarkodi
WW14, Sri P. Sivasankari
For the 2nd Party/ : MW1, Sri S. Soman
Respondent
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
29.03.2012
Copy of the letter to Sub-
Record Officer (Fax)
Ext.W2
10.04.2012
Pay Sanction Order by the 2nd
Party
Ext.W3
16.02.2010
Copy of the Attendance
Register Record
Ext.W4
13.02.2008
Recover letter K3/14/07
Ext.W5
07.12.2005
Vacancy position C.O. letter
no. MLE/107-25/2005 dated
18.10.2005
Ext.W6
10.04.2012
Copy of the Identity Card
Ext.W7
-
Copy of the Identity Card
Ext.W8
08.01.2010
Copy of the Attendance
Register Record
Ext.W9
27.02.2012
Copy of Money Pay Receipt
Ext.W10
Copy of Identity Card
Ext.W11
19.07.2011
Copy of the Attendance
Register
Ext.W12
11.07.2011
Copy of the Memo (Original)
Ext.W13
25.11.2011
Copy of Attendance Register
Ext.W14
March 1997
Provisional Certificate of
R. Vidhya (ID No. 17/2014)
Ext.W15
18.06.2013
Reply counter filed by
R. Vidhya (ID No. 17/2014)
Ext.W16
02.02.2010
Copy of the Attendance
Register
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
725
Ext.W17
17.05.2002
Higher Secondary Course
Certificate of Manjula
Ext.W18
25.11.2011
Copy of the Attendance
Register
Ext.W19
01.09.2003
B.B.A. Provisional Certificate
of K. Jaisankar (ID No. 20/2014)
Ext.W20
14.05.2007
Higher Secondary Course
Certificate M. Arunkumar
(ID No. 23/2014)
Ext.W21
11.02.2011
Copy of Attendance Register
Ext.W22
13.02.2011
Copy of Attendance Register
Ext.W23
24.02.2010
Copy of the Attendance
Register
Ext.W24
21.02.2010
Copy of Money Pay Receipt
Ext.W25
25.05.1994
Higher Secondary Course
Certificate of L. Banumathi (ID
No. 28/2014)
Ext.W26
-
Petition under Section-2A of
the ID Act, 1947 filed before
Conciliation Officer by
L. Banumathi
Ext.W27
21.05.1990
Higher Secondary Course
Certificate of Malarkody
(ID No. 29/2014)
Ext.W28
09.03.2011
Copy of Attendance Register
Ext.W29
27.05.1996
Higher Secondary Course
Certificate of Sivasankari
(ID No. 30/2014)
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
01.02.2013 to
Copy of daily report for the
31.05.2013
period 01.02.2013 to
31.05.2013 as required by
petitioner
Ext.M2
01.06.2013 to
Copies of daily report for
31.12.2013
the period from 01.06.2013
to 31.12.2013 as required by
the petitioner
Ext.M3
01.01.2014 to
Copies of daily report for
30.04.2014
the period from 01.01.2014
to 30.04.2014 as required by
the petitioner
Ext.M4
01.05.2014 to
Copies of daily report for
31.08.2014
the period from 1.05.2014
to 31.08.2014 as required by
petitioner
Ext.M5
February 2012
Copies of Money Paid
Receipts obtained from the
General Manager (Postal
Accounts and Finance)
through which charges paid
to the outsiders who worked
in this division.
Ext.M6
March 2012
Copies of Money Paid
Receipts obtain from the
General Manager (Postal
Accounts and Finance)
through which charges paid
to the outsiders who worked
in this division
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 295-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkj vkj
gkWfLiVy (vkehZ gkWfLiVy) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 42@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@106@2011&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/
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 RR Hospital (Army Hospital) &
others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 08-02-2016.
[No. L-42012/106/2011-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. 42/2012
Shri Ramesh & 5 others,
C/o Samajwadi Karamchari Union,
D-212, Gali No.10, Jagatpuri,
Mandoli Road, Shahdara,
Delhi 001 093 …..Workman
Versus
726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The Medical Superintendent,
RR Hospital (Army Hospital),
Near Subroto Park,
Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi
2. Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal,
Canteen Contractor,
RR Hospital,
Near Subroto Park,
Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt.,
New Delhi
3. Shri B.M. Bansal, S/o Shri R.A. Bansal,
R/o WZ-266, Gali No.9,
Lajwanti Garden,
Delhi 110040 ....Management
AWARD
This case was referred to this Tribunal for
adjudication by Government vide letter No.L-42012/106/
2011-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2012 and the terms of reference
are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Kishan Lal Aggarwal, a Canteen Contractor of R.R.
Hospital (Army Hospital), New Delhi in terminating
the services of the workman S/Shri Ramesh, Sheelu,
Pradeep, Umesh, Sonveer and Bablu with effect from
10.07.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the
workman are entitled to and from which date?”
2. Both the parties were issued notices and upon
appearance, workman herein filed statement of claim
wherein it is averred that Kishan Lal Aggarwal(in short
Respondent No.2) has been engaged by the Medical
Superintendent of R.R. Hospital(in short Respondent No.1)
for running canteen/cafeteria for Respondent No.1. Both
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal and Shri B.M. Bansal were looking
after, managing and controlling the affairs of the canteen.
Respondent No.1 is the principal employer whereas
Respondent No.2 is an agent who was working for
Respondent No.1. Workman herein were appointed by
Respondent No.2 and they were issued ID cards. They
were performing their duties sincerely, diligently with full
devotion and dedication. Workmen herein were not issued
appointment letters, wage slip nor were they covered under
ESIC and EPF Scheme. Workmen were not paid as per
Minimum Wages Act. However, they were provided free
meal twice a day , besides boarding and lodging. Wages
of the workman, namely S/Shri Ramesh, Sheelu, Pradeep
and Umesh were not paid for six months, for the period
from January 2008 to June 2008. During this period, Shri
Ramesh was given only Rs.3500.00, Shri Sheelu Rs.2000,
Shri Pradeep Rs.5000.00 and Shri Umesh Rs.1000.00 as out
of pocket expenses. The workmen and their family
members were hard pressed due to non-payment of wages.
The workmen presented for duty on 10.07.2008 and
Respondent No.2 terminated services of the workmen by
way of refusal, without any notice. Respondent No.1 was
having overall control over Respondent No.2 and it is
also the duty of Respondent No.1 to secure payment of
monthly wages to the workman herein.
3. Written statement was filed by Respondent No.1
taking preliminary objections that Respondent No.1 has
been served wrongly. Respondent No.1 has given space
to Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal, proprietor and license was
executed 01.04.2007 to allow the licensee to use and occupy
the said premises mentioned in the deed . Shri Kishan Lal
Aggarwal was the proprietor of the business to sell tea,
coffee etc. Respondent No.1 did not have any control
over the workmen herein and there was no relationship of
employer and employee between Respondent No.1 and
the workmen. When the complaint was filed by the
claimant before the Regional Labour Commissioner,
claimants did not have any complaint against the
answering respondent. Respondent No.1 had denied the
other averments contained in the statement of claim. It is
also denied specifically that Respondent No.2 was
appointed as agent of the answering respondent to engage
any labour on behalf of the respondent. There was no
application of the answering respondent to regulate
conditions of services of the claimant.
4. It is necessary to point out here that an application
was moved on behalf of the workman herein for impleading
Shri B.M. Bansal as a party, and the same was allowed by
my predecessor on 22.05.2012 and reply was filed by them,
who in fact is the canteen contractor at present at RR
Hospital Dhaula Kuan and Shri B.M. Bansal has been
running the canteen on contract basis with effect from
01.04.2010. Therefore, workmen herein have wrongly
impleaded Shri B.M. Bansal as a party. It is also alleged
that there is no relationship of employer and employee
between the workmen and the answering Respondent No.2.
It is alleged that to the knowledge of Respondent No.2,
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal, canteen contractor used to
engage the workman in its establishment for a limited period
and for fixed tenure and services of the workman were
duly covered by proviso of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the
same has come to an end with the afflux of time.
Respondent No.2, on merits denied material averments
contained in the statement of claim and alleged that
Respondent No.2 has no role to play nor any relief can be
granted to the claimant from Respondent No. 2.
5. Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor observed that no specific issue is required to
be framed except the one referred for adjudication to this
Tribunal by way of reference under Section 10 of the Act.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
727
6. The workmen filed affidavits of S/Shri Ramesh,
Sheelu, Pradeep, Umesh, Sonveer and Bablu by way of
evidence. Workmen were granted several opportunities
to adduce evidence in support of their claim. However, it
is clear from the record that more than two dozen
adjournments were granted to the workman, but they have
not entered the witness box for the purpose of cross,
examination, as such, these affidavits cannot be taken into
consideration as a piece of evidence in support of their
statement of claim.
7. Management, in order to rebut the case of the
claimant examined Shri B.M.Bansal as MW1 and his
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A, which is on the same lines as has
been taken in the reply. It is clear from perusal of the
affidavit that Shri B.M. Bansal has alleged himself to the
licensee against payment of rent with effect from April
2009 in respect of the canteen premises belonging to
Respondent No.1, RR Hospital, Dhaula Kuan, Delhi. There
are averments in the affidavit that Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal
was his brother in law and deponent used to visit and help
him at his work place. Shri Aggarwal was the licensee in
respect of the canteen premises till 31.03.2009 and
thereafter Shri B.M. Bansal, MW1 had become the licensee.
Shri Aggarwal had appointed Shri Hari Om Gupta to
maintain and supervise the activities of the canteen but
none of the claimants were employed by Respondent No.2
at any point of time for the purpose of the canteen. Shri
Aggarwal used to maintain proper record of the
employment.
8. Shri B.M.Bansal has also proved document
Ex.MW1/1 which is temporary agreement of employment
between the workmen S/Shri Pradeep and Shri Kishan Lal
Aggarwal. He has also tendered extract of attendance
register Ex.MW1/2 in respect of the employees working in
the canteen. Document Ex.MW1/3 further shows that Shri
Kishan Lal Aggarwal was running the canteen as lilcencee
during the year 2008 and was paying wages to the workmen
employed by him.
9. Major Tejvir was examined as MW2, whose
affidavit is Ex.MW2/A. This witness has appeared on
behalf of RR Hospital, i.e. Respondent No.1. It is clear
from perusal of the affidavit, that Respondent No.1 has
clearly averred that RR Hospital has given premises on
license to one Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal with whom license
deed was executed on 01.04.2007, copy of which Ex.MW1/
1. Further there was no relationship of employer and
employee between Respondent No.1 and the workmen
herein. RR Hospital never advertised for engagement of
labour in the hospital canteen. No letter of appointment
was issued by RR Hospital to the workmen herein nor any
service record was maintained by RR Hospital of the said
workmen as they were not directly or indirectly
employees of RR Hospital, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi.
10. It is clear from resume of evidence on record
that the workmen herein in fact were engaged by Shri Kishan
Lal Aggarwal from April 2008 onwards and the workmen
at the time in the year 2008 were employed by them as is
clear from documents Ex.MW1/2 as well as Ex.MW1/3,
which bears signatures of some of the workmen as well as
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal, the canteen contractor.
11.Workmen herein have not adduced any evidence
in support of the statement of claim inasmuch as they
have simply filed their affidavit before this Tribunal but
never turned up to make deposition on oath. It is settled
law that merely filing of an affidavit would not amount
to evidence in the eyes of law and affidavit can be read in
evidence only if proper opportunity is granted to the
opposite party to cross examine the witness who is
making deposition by way of affidavit before the Tribunal.
It is further clear from perusal of the agreement/ license
deed Ex. MW1/1 that RR Hospital Head Quarter Delhi
has given the requisite space for running of canteen to
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal in the hospital complex. There
is no mention in this agreement regarding engagement
of any labour or workmen. Rather, from tenor of the
agreement, it is clear that the licensee shall use the space
for sale of tea, coffee and soft drinks for the benefit of
defence personnel and their families. Option has been
given to the licensee to renew the license and the licensee
shall not be entitled to sublet the canteen to any other
person. It is clear from the schedule attached with the
license that the same was allowed from 01.04.2007 to
31.03.2008 and the monthly license fee was
Rs.10,000.00. Stand of the workmen herein before the
Regional Labour Commissioner was not that they were
directly employees of Respondent No.1, RR Hospital,
Head Quarter, Delhi. It is further clear from perusal of
clause 3 of the letter of employment Ex.MW1/1 that
employment was for a fixed period from 12.05.2008 to
09.07.2008 and fixed wages payable to workmen is
Rs.2700.00 per month. This agreement also bears
signatures of one of the workmen, Shri Pradeep.
Similarly, there are other letters of appointment
(temporary) of Shri Umesh, Somveer etc.
12. As discussed above, workmen herein did not
depose before this Tribunal so as to prove the averments
made in the statement of claim or their affidavit; as such,
this Tribunal is left with the evidence of the management
only. Letter of employment (temporary) shows that they
were given employment for a fixed period and as such,
there is no question of service of any notice in terms of
Section 25F of the Act before their termination. Rather,
their services have never been terminated and after expiry
of period of their employment, workmen herein were no
more in service. In the case of Christopher Minj Vs.
728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Othrs (2016)
LLR 93, while dealing with the question of termination
of such an employee who was appointed for a specific
period, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that it would
not amount to retrenchment. In the said case also, there
was separate contract of employment for specific period
and it was held that their services would stand terminated
ipso facto on expiry of such period and in such a situation,
provisions of Section 2(oo) Clause (bb) of the Act would
not be applicable and termination of services of such a
workman after the expiry of the said period, would not
amount to retrenchment.
13. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, it
is held that termination of services of the workmen herein
by the management (Kishan Lal Aggarwal) is not at all
illegal and the same is justified and the workmen herein
are held to be not entitled for any relief of reinstatement or
payment of back wages etc. The reference is, therefore,
answered in favour of the management and against the
workman. 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 : February 1, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 296-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkj vkj
gkWfLiVy (vkehZ gkWfLiVy) ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@107@2011&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 296 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/
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 RR Hospital (Army Hospital) &
others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 08-02-2016.
[No. L-42012/107/2011-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. 41/2012
Shri Ramesh & 9 others,
C/o Samajwadi Karamchari Union,
D-212, Gali No.10, Jagatpuri,
Mandoli Road, Shahdara,
Delhi 001 093 …..Workman
Versus
1. The Medical Superintendent,
RR Hospital (Army Hospital),
Near Subroto Park,
Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi
2. Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal,
Canteen Contractor,
RR Hospital,
Near Subroto Park,
Dhaula Kuan, Delhi Cantt.,
New Delhi
3. Shri B.M. Bansal, S/o Shri R.A. Bansal,
R/o WZ-266, Gali No.9,
Lajwanti Garden,
Delhi 110040 ....Management
AWARD
This case was referred to this Tribunal for
adjudication by Government vide letter No.L-42012/107/
2011-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2012 and the terms of
reference are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Kishan Lal Aggarwal, a Canteen Contractor of R.R.
Hospital (Army Hospital), New Delhi in terminating
the services of the workman S/Shri Hariom Gupta,
Rakesh Kumar, Deepu, Pritam, Satish Gupta, Umesh
Kushwaha, Manoj Kumar, Rahul Gupta, Santosh and
Awadesh with effect from 10.07.2008 is legal and
justified? What relief the workman are entitled to
and from which date?’’
2. Both the parties were issued notices and upon
appearance, workman herein filed statement of claim
wherein it is averred that Kishan Lal Aggarwal(in short
Respondent No.2) has been engaged by the Medical
Superintendent of R.R.Hospital(in short Respondent
No.1) for running canteen/cafeteria for Respondent
No.1. Both Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal and Shri B.M.
Bansal were looking after, managing and controlling the
affairs of the canteen. Respondent No.1 is the principal
employer whereas Respondent No. 2 is an agent who was
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
729
working for Respondent No.1. Workman herein were
appointed by Respondent No. 2 and they were issued ID
cards. They were performing their duties sincerely,
diligently with full devotion and dedication. Workmen
herein were not issued appointment letters, wage slip nor
were they covered under ESIC and EPF Scheme.
Workmen were not paid as per Minimum Wages Act.
However, they were provided free meal twice a day ,
besides boarding and lodging. Wages of the workman,
namely S/Shri Hariom Gupta and Shri Rakesh Kumar were
not paid for the period from January 2007 to June 2008,
S/Shri Deepu, Satish, Rajul Gupta and Majoj were not
paid for the period from January 2008 to June 2008, S/
Shri Pritam and Awadesh were not paid wages for the
period June 2007 to June 2008., Shri Umesh Kushwaha
were not paid for the period from September 2007 to
June 2008 and Shri Santosh for the period from March
2007 to June 2008. The workmen and their family
members were hard pressed due to non-payment of
wages. The workmen presented for duty on 10.07.2008
and Respondent No.2 terminated services of the workmen
by way of refusal, without any notice. Respondent No.1
was having overall control over Respondent No.2 and it
is also the duty of Respondent No.1 to secure payment
of monthly wages to the workman herein.
3. Written statement was filed by Respondent
No.1 taking preliminary objections that Respondent No.1
has been served wrongly. Respondent No.1 has given
space to Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal, proprietor and license
was executed 01.04.2007 to allow the licensee to use
and occupy the said premises mentioned in the deed .
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal was the proprietor of the
business to sell tea, coffee etc. Respondent No.1 did
not have any control over the workmen herein and there
was no relationship of employer and employee between
Respondent No.1 and the workmen. When the complaint
was filed by the claimant before the Regional Labour
Commissioner, claimants did not have any complaint
against the answering respondent. Respondent No.1 had
denied the other averments contained in the statement
of claim. It is also denied specifically that Respondent
No.2 was appointed as agent of the answering respondent
to engage any labour on behalf of the respondent. There
was no application of the answering respondent to regulate
conditions of services of the claimant.
4. It is necessary to point out here that an
application was moved on behalf of the workman herein
for impleading Shri B.M. Bansal as a party, and the same
was allowed by my predecessor on 22.05.2012 and reply
was filed by them, who in fact is the canteen contractor
at present at RR Hospital Dhaula Kuan and Shri B.M.
Bansal has been running the canteen on contract basis
with effect from 01.04.2010. Therefore, workmen herein
have wrongly impleaded Shri B.M. Bansal as a party. It
is also alleged that there is no relationship of employer
and employee between the workmen and the answering
Respondent No. 2. It is alleged that to the knowledge of
Respondent No.2, Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal, canteen
contractor used to engage the workman in its
establishment for a limited period and for fixed tenure
and services of the workman were duly covered by
proviso of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the same has come to an
end with the afflux of time. Respondent No.2, on merits
denied material averments contained in the statement of
claim and alleged that Respondent No. 2 has no role to
play nor any relief can be granted to the claimant from
Respondent No. 2.
5. Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor observed that no specific issue is required
to be framed except the one referred for adjudication to
this Tribunal by way of reference under Section 10 of
the Act.
6. The workmen filed affidavits of S/Shri Hariom
Gupta, Rakesh Kumar, Deepu, Pritam, Satish Gupta,
Umesh Kushwaha, Rahul Gupta, Santosh and Awadesh
by way of evidence. Workmen were granted several
opportunities to adduce evidence in support of their
claim. However, it is clear from the record that more
than two dozen adjournments were granted to the
workman, but they have not entered the witness box for
the purpose of cross-examination, as such, these affidavits
cannot be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence
in support of their statement of claim.
7. Management, in order to rebut the case of the
claimant examined Shri B.M. Bansal as MW1 and his
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A, which is on the same lines as has
been taken in the reply. It is clear from perusal of the
affidavit that Shri B.M. Bansal has alleged himself to the
licensee against payment of rent with effect from April
2009 in respect of the canteen premises belonging to
Respondent No.1, RR Hospital, Dhaula Kuan, Delhi.
There are averments in the affidavit that Shri Kishan Lal
Aggarwal was his brother in law and deponent used to
visit and help him at his work place. Shri Aggarwal was
the licensee in respect of the canteen premises till
31.03.2009 and thereafter Shri B.M. Bansal, MW1 had
become the licensee. Shri Aggarwal had appointed Shri
Hari Om Gupta to maintain and supervise the activities
of the canteen but none of the claimants were employed
by Respondent No.2 at any point of time for the purpose
of the canteen. Shri Aggarwal used to maintain proper
record of the employment.
8. Shri B.M.Bansal has also proved document
Ex.MW1/1 which is temporary agreement of
employment between the workmen S/Shri Pradeep and
Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal. He has also tendered extract
of attendance register Ex.MW1/2 in respect of the
employees working in the canteen. Document Ex. MW1/
730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3 further shows that Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal was running
the canteen as licensee during the year 2008 and was
paying wages to the workmen employed by him.
9. Major Tejvir was examined as MW2, whose
affidavit is Ex.MW2/A. This witness has appeared on
behalf of RR Hospital, i.e. Respondent No.1. It is clear
from perusal of the affidavit, that Respondent No.1 has
clearly averred that RR Hospital has given premises on
license to one Shri Kishan Lal Aggarwal with whom license
deed was executed on 01.04.2007, copy of which Ex.MW1/
1. Further there was no relationship of employer and
employee between Respondent No.1 and the workmen
herein. RR Hospital never advertised for engagement of
labour in the hospital canteen . No letter of appointment
was issued by RR Hospital to the workmen herein nor any
service record was maintained by RR Hospital of the said
workmen as they were not directly or indirectly employees
of RR Hospital, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi.
10. it is clear from resume of evidence on record that
the workmen herein in fact were engaged by Shri Kishan
Lal Aggarwal from April 2008 onwards and the workmen at
the time in the year 2008 were employed by them as is clear
from documents Ex.MW1/2 as well as Ex.MW1/3, which
bears signatures of some of the workmen as well as Shri
Kishan Lal Aggarwal, the canteen contractor.
11.Workmen herein have not adduced any evidence
in support of the statement of claim inasmuch as they
have simply filed their affidavit before this Tribunal but
never turned up to make deposition on oath. It is settled
law that merely filing of an affidavit would not amount to
evidence in the eyes of law and affidavit can be read in
evidence only if proper opportunity is granted to the
opposite party to cross-examine the witness who is making
deposition by way of affidavit before the Tribunal. It is
further clear from perusal of the agreement/ license deed
Ex.MW1/1 that RR Hospital Head Quarter Delhi has given
the requisite space for running of canteen to Shri Kishan
Lal Aggarwal in the hospital complex. There is no mention
in this agreement regarding engagement of any labour or
workmen. Rather, from tenor of the agreement, it is clear
that the licensee shall use the space for sale of tea, coffee
and soft drinks for the benefit of defence personnel and
their families. Option has been given to the licensee to
renew the license and the licensee shall not be entitled to
sublet the canteen to any other person. It is clear from the
schedule attached with the license that the same was
allowed from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and the monthly
license fee was Rs.10,000.00. Stand of the workmen herein
before the Regional Labour Commissioner was not that
they were directly employees of Respondent No.1, RR
Hospital, Head Quarter, Delhi. It is further clear from perusal
of clause 3 of the letter of employment Ex.MW1/1 that
employment was for a fixed period from 01.03.2008 to
09.07.2008 and fixed wages payable to workmen is
Rs.2700.00 per month. This agreement also bears
signatures of one of the workmen, Shri Hariom Gupta.
Similarly, there are other letters of appointment (temporary)
of Shri Manoj Kumar, Satish Gupta, Rahul Gupta, Awdesh
etc.
12. As discussed above, workmen herein did not
depose before this Tribunal so as to prove the averments
made in the statement of claim or their affidavit; as such,
this Tribunal is left with the evidence of the management
only. Letter of employment (temporary) shows that they
were given employment for a fixed period and as such,
there is no question of service of any notice in terms of
Section 25F of the Act before their termination. Rather,
their services have never been terminated and after expiry
of period of their employment, workmen herein were no
more in service. In the case of Christopher Minj Vs.
Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Others (2016)
LLR 93, while dealing with the question of termination of
such an employee who was appointed for a specific period,
it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that it would not
amount to retrenchment. In the said case also, there was
separate contract of employment for specific period and it
was held that their services would stand terminated ipso
facto on expiry of such period and in such a situation,
provisions of Section 2(oo) Clause (bb) of the Act would
not be applicable and termination of services of such a
workman after the expiry of the said period, would not
amount to retrenchment.
13. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, it
is held that termination of services of the workmen herein
by the management (Kishan Lal Aggarwal) is not at all
illegal and the same is justified and the workmen herein
are held to be not entitled for any relief of reinstatement or
payment of back wages etc. The reference is, therefore,
answered in favour of the management and against the
workman. 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 : February 1, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 297-—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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 197@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@94@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
731
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 197/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
09-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/94/2010-IR (B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 197/2011
Registered on 5.7.2011
Sh. Moti Lal S/o Sh. Ranjit r/o Village Mahuwala, Distt.
Fatehabad.
....Petitioner
Versus
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhattu Kalan,
District Fatehabad
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman:
Sh. Arun Batra
For the Management:
Sh. S.K.Gupta
Award
Passed on:-17.12.2015
Central Government vide Notification No.
L-12012/94/2010-IR(B-I) Dated 27.5.2011, by
exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1)
Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication
to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad in
terminating the services of Sh. Moti Lal S/o Sh.
Ranjit w.e.f. 17.11.2009, is legal and justified? To
what relief the workman is entitled? ’’
In response to the notice, the workmen appeared
and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was
appointed as canteen employee-cum-sewadar in August,
2007 with Respondent No.2. His services were
terminated on 17.11.2009 without payment of
retrenchment compensation or service of notice and
termination of his services is illegal.
Respondent bank filed written reply denying that
workman was ever employed by it. The services of
workman were availed by the local implementation
committee for preparation and serving of tea. The bank
has never paid any salary to him.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their
evidence.
Sh. Moti Lal, the workman appeared in the witness
box and filed his affidavit supporting his case as stated in
the claim petition.
On the hand Sh. Raj Kumar was examined on behalf
of the respondent bank who also filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand of the respondent of the bank.
I have heard Sh. Arun Batra, counsel for the workman
and Sh. S. K.Gupta, counsel for the respondent bank and
perused the file.
It may be added at the outset that the workman did
not produce any appointment letter nor any evidence was
produced to show that the he ever received any salary
from the bank. Thus, it cannot be said that he was ever
employed by the respondent bank.
It is the case of the workman that he was appointed
as canteen employee. It is settled law that the canteen
employees engaged in the various branches of the bank
are not employees of the bank. Reliance may be placed in
case SBI and Ors. Vs. SBI Canteen Employees Union &
Ors reported in (2000)ILLJ1441SC when it held in para 41
of the judgement as follow:-
“We, therefore, hold that employees the canteens
which are run at various branches by the Local
Implementation Committees as per the welfare
scheme framed by the SBI would not become
employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having
any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation
arising under the Award to run such canteens.”
Thus the workman cannot claim himself to be
employee of the bank.
In view of the above circumstances, it cannot be
said that the services of the workman were terminated by
the Respondent Bank as he was not its employee and the
workman is not entitled for any relief.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for information and further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer,
732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 298-—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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 365@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@13@2000&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 365/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 09-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/13/2000-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 365/2005
Registered on 18. 8. 2005
Sh. R.S. Swamy, through General Secretary, State Bank of
India Staff Congress, 1304, Sector 23/B, Chandigarh
....Petitioner
Versus
1.Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-1 ,
Zonal Office, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman:
Sh. Raj Kaushik
For the Management:
Sh. S.K.Gupta
AWARD
Passed on:-16.12.2015
Central Government vide Notification No.
L-12012/13/2000 IR(B-I) Dated 14.06.2001, by exercising
its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d)
and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Chandigarh to impose the penalty
for stoppage of one increment of Shri R.S. Swamy
after conducting an enquiry is justified? If not, what
relief the workman concerned is entitled?”
In response to the notice, the workmen appeared
and submitted statement of claim to which written
statement was filed.
The facts, emerging, are that workman was posted
as Head Assistant in the respondent bank. He was charge-
sheeted on 1.5.1995 for receiving Rupees 30000 from
Sh. Mukhitar Singh for sending his son abroad and thereby
conducted a misconduct. Charge-sheet was served on the
workman who filed reply. An Enquiry Officer was
appointed, who after recording the evidence held that
charges were proved against the workman. Consequently
the Punishing Authority imposed the penalty of bringing
him down by one stage in the scale of pay for one year
without cumulative effect.
Now, according to the workman, the previous
Disciplinary Authority advised to drop the charges and it
was at the instance of Mr.Aneja, Astt. General Manager
against whom a complaint was lodged, who ordered
enquiry which was conducted against the principles of
natural justice and he was not allowed to cross examine
the witness. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed
without application of mind.
According to respondent management, charges
were never dropped and allegation against Mr.Aneja are
false. A fair and proper enquiry was conducted and on the
basis of same, punishment has correctly been awarded.
I have heard Sh. Raj Kaushik, counsel for the
workman and Sh. S. K.Gupta, counsel for the respondent
bank and perused the file.
A perusal of enquiry file shows that the charge-
sheet was duly served on the workman and witnesses were
examined in his presence. Even the workman has engaged
a defence representative. It cannot be said that he was
not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself.
The Enquiry Officer, after scrutiny of evidence,
clearly came to conclusion that the workman had received
Rs.30,000 from Sh. Mukhitar Singh for sending his son
abroad. Nothing has been pointed out that any rule or
regulation was violated while conducting the enquiry.
Thus, it is held that the enquiry conducted in the present
case is fair and proper.
It was argued by Mr. Raj Kaushik, counsel for the
workman that the punishment awarded is harsh and same
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
733
be reduced. It may be added that the workman has already
taken voluntarily retirement. Considering the gravity of
the charges, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded
is not proper and the same do not call for any interference.
In result, it is held that the action of the respondent
management in imposing the punishment on the workman
is justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for information and further
necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 299-—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 p.MhxM ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 679@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@283@2003&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 679/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 09-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/283/2003-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 679/2005
Registered on 25. 8. 2005
Sh. S.P. Sodhi, as represented by General Secretaty, SBI
Staff Congress 3030/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India, The Asstt. Manager, State Bank of
India, Region-IV, Zonal Office, Punjab, Sector 17,
Chandigarh-160017.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. Raj Kaushik, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. S.K.Gupta, Adv.
Award
Passed on-:-18.12.2015
Vide Order No.L-12012/283/2003-IR(B-I), dated
05.04.2004 the Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and
Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following
industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Chandigarh, in imposing the
punishment of lowering the basic pay of Sh. S.P.
Sodhi, Spl. Assistant by one stage with cumulative
effect, without following the principles of natural
justice during the enquiry proceedings is just and
legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to and from which date?”
In response to the notice, the workman appeared
and submitted statement of claim, to which written reply
was filed.
The facts in brief are that the workman was posted
as Special Assistant at Rajpura. He was served with a
charge-sheet that he collected donation from the bank
account holders, in a coercive manner on the promise of
inserting their advertisements in a Magazine “Banking
Era” without taking banks approval. Being not satisfied
with his reply, an enquiry officer was appointed, who after
conducting the enquiry did not find the charges as proved.
But the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the
report and obtained report of handwriting expert. It came
to the conclusion that cheques were filled by the
workman and accordingly awarded the punishment by
lowering the workman to his basic pay by one stage with
cumulative effect.
The respondent-management filed reply pleading
that a due charge sheet was served on the workman for
committing a misconduct and regular enquiry was held.
But the enquiry officer exonerated the workman to which
the Disciplinary Authority did not agree. Disciplinary
Authority obtained a report of the handwriting expert and
accordingly, awarded the punishment which is legal and
valid and do not call for any interference.
734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I have heard Sh. Raj Kaushik for the workman and
Sh. S.K. Gupta for the management.
It may be added at the outset that the action of the
Disciplinary Authority holding the workman to be guilty
of the charges was set aside vide order dated 19.11.2014
and the respondent-management was allowed to prove
the charges by leading evidence in the Court. The
respondent-management was given 6 months time to lead
its evidence. The said order vide which the enquiry was
held not to be fair and proper was not challenged and
therefore the same has become final.
The respondent-management again did not lead any
evidence in support of the charges within the stipulated
time given to it to prove the charges and respondent-
management relied on an affidavit of Sh. Anil Mangol which
was already on the file.
Since the respondent-management did not lead any
evidence in the Court to prove the charges against the
workman and therefore, it cannot be said that the workman
was guilty of collecting donations from the bank account
holders in a coercive manner and when it is so, the
respondent-management was not right in imposing the
punishment awarded to the workman.
In result, the reference is decided holding that the
action of the respondent-management in imposing the
punishment of lowering the basic pay of the workman by
one stage with cumulative effect is illegal and unjust and
the workman is entitled to full pay as per his entitlement.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the
Central Government for information and further necessary
action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 300-—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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 180@2001) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@263@2001&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 180/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 09-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/263/2001-IR(B-I)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/180/2001
Shri Baijnath Prasad Patel,
S/o Prem Narayan Prasad Patel,
Old Cherai Cantt. Colony,
Sagar (MP) ...Workman
Versus
Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Civil Lines Branch,
Sagar (MP) ..Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 11th day of December, 2015
1. 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/
263/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Sagar (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri Baij Nath Prasad Patel S/o shri Prem Narayan
Pal Patel w.e.f. 26-7-93 is justified? If not, to what
relief he is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as waterman on daily wages from 2-7-90 by 2nd
party Bank. He was also engaged in Gujarati Bazar branch
from 1-1-1991 to 2-5-91, civil line branch from 12-7-92 to
26-7-93. He worked with honesty. His services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. To avoid
regularization and absorption in service, after completing
qualifying period, workman was terminated amounts to
unfair labour practice. His termination is illegal
retrenchment. 2nd party has violated section 25-F, N of ID
Act.
3. Ist party workman further submits that on
5-11-92, he was interviewed, the merit list or waiting
list was not disclosed. The panel was not cancelled in the
year 1997. Workman was denied absorption in service.
The termination of his service is illegal. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
735
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/9 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party has
admitted engagement of workman 48 days during July
90 to Sept.90, 85 days during Jan-91 to May 91, 110
days during July 1992 to Dec-1982 and 129 days during
Jan-93 to July 93. 2nd party submits that workman was
not appointed following recruitment process. He was
engaged for casual work as per exigencies. Workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service. Engagement
of workman on daily wages came to end at end of the
day. Workman was not under obligation to come for work
on next day. Workman was not terminated. His
disengagement is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID
Act.
5. 2nd party further submits that as per settlement
dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88, 28-10-88,9-7-91, 30-7-96,
2-2-97, workman was allowed chance. Workman was
interviewed. His name was included in Waiting List much
below. The workman couldnot be permanently appointed
as there were no vacancies. The Waiting List lapsed in
1997. Workman has not completed 240 days continuous
service. He is not covered as employee under section
25 B of ID Act. On all such contentions, 2nd party submits
that workman is not entitled to reinstatement prayed by
him.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are
as under. My findings are recorded against each of them
for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank of
India, Sagar (MP) in terminating
the services of Shri Baij Nath Prasad
Patel S/o Shri Prem Narayan Pal Patel
w.e.f. 26-7-
93 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?”
REASONS
7. As per terms of reference, legality of services
of Ist party workman is referred for adjudication. Claim
for adjudication is not included in the terms of reference.
Workman has challenged termination of his service for
violation of section 25-F of ID Act. His claim is denied
by management of 2nd party. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence supporting his contentions. He worked more
than 240 days continuous service. He was working in the
Gopalganj branch from 2-7-90 to 6-9-90, Gujarati Bazar
branch from 1-1-1991 to 2-5-91, Civil Line branch from
12-7-92 to 26-7-93. His services were terminated without
notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. The
working days of Ist party workman are not disputed by 2nd
party in Written Statement. Even in his cross-examination,
Ist party workman says he worked for 48 days during July
to Sept.90 in Gopalganj branch. He worked for 85 days
during January to May 1991 as messenger in said branch.
He worked for 110 days in Civil Line branch during July to
October 1992 and 129 days as messenger during January
to July 1993 in civil line branch. The evidence about
working days is not shattered in cross-examination of
workman. the evidence of workman about he was called
for interview, his name was included in Wait List, he was
not absorbed in permanent service needs no detailed
discussion as claim for regularization is not included in
terms of reference.
8. Document Exhibit W-1 is application submitted
by workman dated 15-10-92 giving the details. Exhibit
W-2 is interview call received by him.
9. Evidence of management’s witness K.Shridhar
Rao is also clear that workman had worked in 48 days
during July to Sept.90 in Gopalganj branch. He worked
for 85 days during January to May, 1991 , for 110 days
in Civil Line branch during July to October 1992 and
129 days during January to July 1993 in civil line branch.
Management’s witness says workman had not
continuously worked more than 240 days. Working days
of workman from July 92 to June 93 comes about 220
days.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri
P.C.Chandak relies on ratio held in :
Case of Ram Kishan Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan
reported in 2006-LAB.I.C.56. His Lordship of
Rajasthan High Court dealing with Section 25-F of
ID Act held that for calculation of continuous
service, Sundays should be counted as actual
working days.
If Sundays are calculated in actual working days of
workman, his working days would be more than 240 days
during 12 months preceding his termination. The services
of workman are terminated without notice, he was not
paid retrenchment compensation therefore termination
of workman is illegal for 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 arises whether Ist party is entitled for
reinstatement with backwages. Workman in his cross says
he had not received appointment letter, he claims
ignorance whether he was appointed against vacant post
of messenger. He claims ignorance whether Wait List
lapsed in March 1997. Considering the workman was
engaged on daily wages, appointment letter was not given
to him, workman continuously worked from July 92 to
July 93.Prior to it, he was working intermittently in
1990-91, compensation Rs.30,000 would be appropriate.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of State Bank
of India, Sagar (MP) in terminating the services of Shri
Baij Nath Prasad Patel S/o Shri Prem Narayan Pal Patel
w.e.f. 26-7-93 is not proper and legal.
(2) 2nd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs.30,000/- to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum
from the date of award till its realization.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2016
dk-vk- 301-—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 ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 141@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@21@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016
S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 09-02-2016.
[No. L-12012/21/2007-IR (B-I)]
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.141/2011
Shri Vinod Dutta,
C/o The General Secretary,
State Bank of India Staff Association,
2124/2, Hari Singh Nalwa Street No.58,
Nai Wala Street,, Katol Bagh,
New Delhi
...Workman
Versus
1.The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi
2.The General Manager (Network-I),
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001
...Management
AWARD
Brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that
a reference was received from Government of India vide
letter No.12012/21/2007-IR(B-I) dated 31.05.2007 to the
following effect:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, New Delhi in dismissing the services
of Shri Vinod Dutta is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?’’
2. Notices were issued to both the parties.
Thereafter, the workman herein filed statement of claim
with the averments that the workman was a permanent
employee of State Bank of India (in short the bank ) and
was posted at Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi. He was
allegedly trapped in certain case, i.e. relating to issuance
of cheque book and encashment of two cheques from
savings bank account of one Shri Sarup Singh, holder of
account No. 36779. Thereafter, he was placed under
suspension vide letter dated 27.05.1997 by the Deputy
General Manager of the bank, without issuance of any
charge sheet. Letter of suspension does not say a word
about future action to be taken by the bank in relation to
result of the suspension.
3. It is further averred in the statement of claim
that:
(i)
The suspension letter is No. PBD.21.81 dated
27.5.1997
(ii)
The bank issued the show cause letter
No.PBD.43.24 dated 24.10.1997 by Chief
Manager (PBD) Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi. The
workman replied the said show cause vide his letter
dated 21.11.1997 denying all the allegations as
false, fabricated, baseless categorically etc.
(iii) The bank issued charge sheet No. PBD.44.85 dated
28.2.1998 after about three months of reply to
show cause by the workman. The charge sheet
clearly indicate the predetermined idea of the bank
to proceed departmentally as the very first line of
charge sheet state” it has been decided to initiate
disciplinary action against you on the following
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
737
charges. The bank should have sought the reply of
the charges sheet before ordering the initiation of
proceedings. The bank failed to even mention in
the charges sheet that the reply of the show cause
was “unsatisfactory’, which is legal departmental
procedure before proceeding further. But the bank
arbitrarily and illegality without legal sanction acted
in a way which is violation of principles of natural
justice and provisions of bipartite and awards
governing the service condition of the workman.
The workman replied the charge sheet updated,
which was received by the bank on 3.4.1998 as per
the Bank’s stamp on receipted copy, denying all the
allegations.
(iv)
The bank thereafter for about a year before starting
the enquiry as predetermined mention in the charge
sheet and issued order of appointment of Enquiry
Officer Shri Amarjeet Singh and Presenting officer
Shri I.P.S. Bhatia. The Enquiry Officer started enquiry
on 5.5.1999 and did not mention about the order of
the Disciplinary Authority appointing him and the
Presenting Officer in his proceedings on that day.
There after, the Enquiry Officer & Presenting Officer
were changed and Shri P.P. Suneja was appointed
Enquiry Officer and Shri K.K. Vohra as Presenting
Officer, which order is also not recorded in the
proceedings of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer.
(v)
The bank produced the list of documents and
witnesses at the time of enquiry only, though the
said list along with documents should have been
given to the workman at the time of issuance of
show cause or charge sheet to enable him to prepare
his proper defence on the bases of the alleged
documents and witnesses at the time of giving reply
to the said accusation. The bank has intentionally
and malafidely did not give the said documents, as
the same would have enabled the workman to give
relevant reply to the show cause and charge sheet
and in absence of the same, the bank has denied him
the reasonable opportunity of defence and thus
violated the principle of natural justice by issuing
the vague, uncircumstantial and unspecific
allegation charge sheets.
(vi)
The enquiry which started on 5.5.1999 concluded
on 3.2.2001 Without cross examination of PW4. The
produced Witnesses of the bank five, though the
bank gave a list of six witnesses. PW.1 Smt. Prem
Chhokraon page 42 of enquiry proceedings to P.O.
question No. 2 has stated “Dutta ji phaink gaye kah
gaye ki unke piche party aa rahi hai aur party aa
gai”. On page 43-45 she has stated the detailed
about the alleged incident, which clearly prove that
the workman is not involved any where in the episode
at all. PW. 3 Shri Vinod Mehra was the Teller
Operator, who made the payment of the alleged two
cheques. He has said On page 47 & 48 of
proceeding that I have made the Payment of those
two cheques after verifying the amount, Date,
Signature and whether the cheque is in order or not
and on page 48 he has stated that “yes I have taken
the signature of the drawer in front of me at the
back of withdrawal. On page 49 he has stated that
the payment was taken by some one outsider of the
Bank. PW 4 Shri Kashyap is the hand writing expert,
who could not be crossed due to paucity of time
with the Defence counsel. He deposed from page
63 to 65. PW5 is the Saving Bank Incharge Shri
R.B. Sharma. He has stated on page 69 that he has
verified the signature of the account holder on
the application and also got another signature, which
completely tallied and then gave the application to
the account holder to go to the concerned authority
for getting the cheque book. He has stated that the
time when the application came to me was about
12 ‘o’clock. He has deposed from page 68 to 75.
None of the witnesses have said that the workman
was in any way involved in the said alleged episode.
The entire Story has been cooked up in collusion
between the Enquiry Officer. And the disciplinary
authority in proving the charges, which as per
enquiry proceedings cannot be proved as per
evidence and documents.
(vii) The workman produced the documents and report
of the hand writing expert Shri M.R. Prabhu dated
9.11.2000, which was taken on record, but he was
not allowed to be produced as defence witness by
the Enquiry Officer.
(viii) The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the
Disciplinary Authority on 13.3.2001 and the
Disciplinary authority issued tentative decision
dated 4.6.2003 to the charged Employee. The charged
employee gave representation to the disciplinary
authority on the tentative decision and raised
objection and protest over the role of Enquiry Officer
and violation of principles of natural justice and
process of departmental enquiry procedure in
proving the unproved charges by abusing his
position and power and by traveling beyond his
jurisdiction. The disciplinary authority granted him
personal hearing for 14.7.2003. It took about two
years to the disciplinary authority to issue the
tentative decision after receipt of Enquiry Officer
report dated 13.3.2001. The disciplinary authority
failed to give reason-wise reply to the points of
defence and finally imposed the punishment of
dismissal vide order dated 31.12.2003.
(ix)
The workman preferred appeal against the order of
the disciplinary authority dated 14.2.2004 and
738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
personal hearing was fixed for 23.9.2005, where
also vital points of law and procedure were raised
but the appellate authority also did not give due
consideration to the defence points of view with
reasons so as to appear that justice will be given to
workman. The authority rejected the appeal in a
stereo type mechanism and the punishment of
dismissal was confirmed, vide order dated 12.4.2006.
(x)
The workman through the association filed the claim
petition before the Conciliation Officer, Curzon Road,
Delhi, which was replied by the bank on 21.9.2006
and the association replicated and the matter ended
in failure and the conciliation officer submitted the
report to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, who
in process referred the matter to this Hon’ble
Tribunal for adjudication
(xi)
That the bank has abruptly proved the charges
without any basis on evidence and documents and
the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and
Appellate Authority have failed to give reasons for
inflicting punishment.
4. After failure of conciliation, matter was referred,
matter was referred for adjudication by the Government of
India in the manner stated above. Workman has challenged
validity of the departmental proceedings on the following
grounds:
I.
The bank failed to produce the original cheque issue
register which can establish as to who has taken the
cheque book.
II.
The bank did not give the list of documents with
documents and witnesses at the time of issuance of
show cause or charge sheet as required under the
law, thus violated the provision of principles of
natural justice and awards.
III.
The bank failed to mention the reply of the shown
cause as unsatisfactory, while issuing the charge
sheet to the workman.
IV.
The bank was predetermined to initiate the
departmental proceeding against the workman as
appear from the first line of charge sheet without
even submitting the reply to it by the workman.
V.
The bank Enquiry Officer did not give proper
opportunity to defence to cross examine the PW.4
Shri Kashyap, hand writing expert.
VI.
The Enquiry Officer did not allow the defence
witness Shri Prabhu, the hand writing expert as par
with the management expert.
VII. The disciplinary authority took more than two years
to Issue the tentative decision order after receipt of
the Enquiry Officer report.
VIII. None of the witnesses have stated the involvement
of the workman in their deposition before the Enquiry
Officer, who were presented by the management,
either in taking the cheque book or payment of the
alleged cheques (2) amounting Rs. 17000.00.
IX.
The Enquiry Officer has travelled beyond his
jurisdiction and scope of Charge sheet as alleged
and imported the substance on record.
X.
That the impugned punishment order is based on
surprise and conjectures.
XI.
The Disciplinary authority and appellate authority
failed to give reasons to the defence points of view
raised in the reply to the tentative decision order in
personal hearing. The appellate authority also did
not give reasons to the defence. Points raised in
appeal and personal hearing.
XII. The bank was predetermined to punish the workman
and the enquiry is falsely based Procedure.
XIII. The charge sheet and show cause were vague and
not specific to allegation and circumstances in
absence of documents and witness and the workman
was compelled to reply them, which was not proper.
XIV. The grave injustice has been done to the workman
by the Enquiry Officer Disciplinary Authority and
the appellate authorities.
XV.
That fatal infirmities and illegalities have been
committed in The whole process of departmental
proceedings and orders thereto.
XVI. The Enquiry Officer acted illegally and showed his
pro-management bias in admitting all documents and
rejecting defence witness.
XVII. The bank has played foul play and managed the
enquiry proceedings And thereafter actions to
penalize the workman by hook or by Crook without
caring for the rules, law, Precedents and principles
of natural justices and thrown to winds, the enquiry
procedures.
XVIII.The bank did not produce Shri Sarup Singh SB
Account holder enquiry. That the workman crave
leave to add or supplement and petitioner during
the proceedings in the interest of justice.
5. Finally, workman has prayed that an award be
passed in favour of the workman by setting aside the order
of punishment of dismissal by the Deputy General
Manager on 31.12.2003 treating it to be illegal, unjust
and workman to be given all consequential benefits,
including salary etc.
6. Bank has contested the allegations contained in
the statement of claim by filing written statement. In
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
739
preliminary objections, it is alleged that the dispute is
devoid of any merit as the workman has committed acts
of falsification of accounts, criminal breach of trust and
misappropriation of money. Bank is depository of peoples
trust. For the above act, charge sheet dated 28.02.1998
was issued against the workman herein as it was not in the
interest of the institution to continue him in service. A full
pledged domestic enquiry was conducted against the
workman herein who was given full opportunity to defend
his case. Principles of natural justice were completely
followed. There is not even an iota of evidence or
circumstances to prove that principles of natural justice
are not followed. Charges leveled against the workman
herein was fully explained to him and he was fully heard
by the bank. It is because of these charges that the
workman was dismissed from service. He has filed reply
to the charge sheet and entire evidence has been
considered properly by the bank. Bank also alleged that
being a financial institution, very heavy duty is cast on it
to maintain trust and confidence of the customer. Bank
has denied the other material averments regarding
violation of principles of natural justice etc. Bank, on
merits, denied all the material averments and reiterated its
stand taken in the preliminary objections. It is alleged that
the punishment imposed upon the workman herein is
proportionate to the misconduct proved against him. Bank
has now lost faith in the workman.
7. Workman also filed replication to the written
statement filed by the bank, wherein the workman has
reiterated the stand taken in his statement of claim and
denied material averments contained in the written
statement. It is alleged that the workman was not involved
in any fraud in respect of any saving bank of the customer
while he was posted at Chandni Chowk branch nor has he
forged signatures of any Sarup Singh in the Cheque Book
Issue slip.
8. This reference petition was initially referred to
CGIT No. 2 and thereafter the same was transferred vide
order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IRC-II dated 30.03.2010 of
Government of India to CGIT No.1, Karkardooma. Record
also shows that earlier bank was proceeded ex-parte when
matter was pending for disposal before CGIT No.2.
9. Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor vide order dated 16.06.2011 held that domestic
enquiry conducted by the bank is not in accordance with
law and same is unfair as well as in violation of principles
of natural justice. It was also observed that right of cross
examination of second witness was not afforded to the
workman herein, which has resulted in violation of
principles of natural justice. Hence, enquiry conducted
by the bank was held to be unfair and not proper. Since
bank, in its written statement, has reserved its right to
adduce evidence on merits in case enquiry is found to be
unfair or against principles of natural justice, as such,
opportunity was given to the bank to adduce evidence on
merits.
10. Bank, in support of its case, examined Shri Ajay
Kumar, Manager (HR) as MW1, Shri Vinod Kumar Mehra
as MW2 and Pt. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Handwriting
Expert as MW3 and tendered in evidence certain
documents. Shri Dutta examined himself as WW1 and
also relied on some documents. It is clear from perusal of
the charge sheet dated Ex.WW1/4 that disciplinary
proceedings were initiated by the bank against the
workman herein on the following charges:
(i)
You forged the signatures of the drawer on the
request letter and got the cheque book issued on
Saving Bank account No. 36779 of Shri Sarup Singh
on 20.03.1997.
(ii)
You misused the cheque book so issued and
purportedly forged signatures on two cheques
No.175903 and 175904 for Rs. 9500.00 and Rs. 6500.00
respectively on 20.03.1997 and 21.03.1997 and
received payments, thus benefiting yourself by
withdrawing Rs.17,000.00 from the Saving Bank
Account No. 36779 of Shri Sarup Singh fraudulently.
(iii) One of the above two cheques was even posted by
you although you were not concerned with the
posting of vouchers on that seat.
(iv) You also passed these two cheques for Rs. 9500.00
and Rs.7500.00 for payment bearing forged
signatures, while officiating as Head Clerk for passing
instruments paid by Teller on counter No.18 on
20.03.1997 and 21.03.1997. Even you did not notice
the fact that the account is dormant, thus depriving
the Bank with an amount of Rs.17,000.00 (Rupees
seventeen thousand only)
(v) It has been established by the Handwriting Expert
that signatures on Cheque Requisition letter and also
on two cheques agree with your handwriting beyond
doubt.
(vi) On scrutiny of your past records, we further observe
that you have been charge sheeted on two occasions,
on 07.06.1990 and 11.07.1985 for committing serious
irregularities with an ulterior motive.
11. Workman herein has also filed reply Ex.WW1/5
to the above charge sheet wherein allegations mentioned
in the charge sheet have been denied by him. He has
specifically denied that he has either received any payment
or forged signatures in cheque book issue register in
respect of saving bank No. 36779 of Shri Sarup Singh and
the cheque under reference might have been posted by
him in ordinary course of business on the instructions of
his senior/superior as the permanent clerk was on leave.
These cheques were already paid at the Teller Counter.
Since domestic enquiry conducted by the bank has been
740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
held to be unfair and against principles of natural justice,
as such onus has shifted upon the bank to prove veracity
of the allegations leveled in the charge sheet against the
workman herein.
12. It is clear from resume of evidence on record that
gravamen of the case against the workman herein is that
he has forged the signatures of Shri Swarup Singh on the
letter of request and thereafter the workman herein
fraudulently got issued cheque book in respect of Saving
Fund Account No.36779 being maintained in the name of
Shri Sarup Singh. As a result of the above cheque book,
the workman herein forged the signatures of Shri Sarup
Singh on two cheques bearing No. 175903 and 175904 for
Rs. 9500.00 and Rs.7500.00 Ex.MW3/5 and Ex. MW3/6
respectively. As per the case of the management, the
workman herein was officiating as Head Cashier on
20.03.1997 and 21.03.1997 and he manipulated passing of
the above two cheques before forging signatures.
13. During the course of arguments, much emphasis
was laid by the management upon the report of the
Handwriting Expert Ex.MW3/1 as well as past conduct of
the workman herein. A careful appraisal of the report of
the Handwriting Expert., Pt. Ashok Kashyap shows that
the expert in his final opinion has observed that disputed
signatures marked Q1, Q2 and Q3 on the above cheques
which are Q7 and Q8, are forged and writings on the above
two cheques as well as standard writings obtained from
the workman herein are the same.
14.Per contra, Shri R.S. Saini appearing for the
workman strongly urged that the management has badly
failed to prove the case of forgery or any kind of
misconduct against the workman herein. Charges levelled
in the charge sheet dated 28.02.1998 are vague and
unspecific and workman has given detailed reply to the
same, which was not duly considered. Management has
acted in a biased manner and even before considering
reply decided to initiate departmental enquiry against the
workman herein, which is violative of principles of natural
justice and provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. It was also urged that since the domestic enquiry
conducted by the bank has been held to be unfair and
against principles of natural justice, as such onus is very
heavy upon the management to bring cogent and reliable
evidence on record so as to prove the charges against the
workman herein. In this regard, attention of the court was
also drawn to the statement of MW2 Shri Vinod Kumar
Mehra, who has not support the case of the management
on vital points. So far as statement of Shri Ajay Kumar,
MW1 is concerned, it was pointed out that at the relevant
time in the year 1997, he was not posted at Chandni Chowk
branch; rather he was posted at Subroto Park branch of
the bank. Lastly, on behalf of the workman, it was
suggested that the original complainant never turned up
to depose against the workman, which also shows that
the bank has filed to prove the charge of cheating as well
as forgery etc.
15. Having heard the learned authorized
representatives of the parties and on perusal of record,
particularly evidence adduced after holding domestic
enquiry to be in violation of principles of natural justice, I
am of the view that the Bank has not succeeded in proving
charges against the workman as required under the law.
16. It is not out of place to mention here that
disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trial as the same
are quasi judicial or quasi criminal in nature. Strict
principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt as is
applicable in criminal case does not apply to the
departmental enquiries which are to be proved by
principles of preponderance of probability. However, the
Court is to see whether there is any evidence on record to
reach a conclusion that the delinquent has committed the
misconduct, the said conclusion is to be reached on the
basis of test of what a prudent man would have done. In
this regard, on behalf of the management, reliance was
placed upon the case of State of Haryana vs. Ratan Singh
(1997) 2 SCC 491 wherein it was held that in a domestic
enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence
under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials
which are logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence
provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true
that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals
must be careful in evaluating such material and should
not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant
under the Indian Evidence Act.
17. In the case in hand, it was not disputed by either
of the parties that at the time of issuance of cheque book
to any customer who is holding a savings account in any
bank, normal practice is to obtain an application from the
holder of the account and thereafter cheque book is issued
by the saving fund incharge or the official meant for the
purpose to the said account holder. In the case in hand,
copy of said application is Ex.W2/W4, which also bears
signatures of Shri Sarup Singh. It would have been quite
profitable had Shri Sarup Singh been examined by the
bank, who in fact is the complainant and the aggrieved
person. Bank has not produced vital documents, i.e.
register meant for obtaining signatures of the account
holder at the time of issuance of cheque book. In this
regard, it is appropriate to refer to the statement of MW2,
Shri Vinod Kumar Mehra, who was cross-examined at
length by the workman. He has stated in his cross-
examination that payment normally is received by the party
or any person appearing on behalf of the party at the Teller
counter, after the cheque is through. There are certain
guidelines contained in Ex.MW2/W1 regarding the mode
of payment to customer by the Teller. He has admitted
that whenever a customer or an account holder applies for
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 13] 2016@ek?k 24] 1937
741
issuance of cheque book, he is to submit an application,
which is normally presented to the In-charge of Saving
Fund accounts. Signatures of the customer on the said
application is compared with the specimen signatures on
the account opening form. If the signatures do not tally,
then the official again obtains signatures, in his presence,
of the customer applying for issuance of cheque book.
18. In the case in hand, signatures of the customer
were not obtained and the cheque book was issued to the
said customer. This witness however clarified that
Shri Babu Ram Sharma was the Savings Fund In-charge
seat on 20.03.1997 and MW2/W3 is the photocopy of the
register which bears the initials of Shri Babu Ram Sharma,
which goes to show that the cheque book was issued by
Shri Babu Ram Sharma to the customer who has applied
for issuance of the cheque book. Shri Vinod Kumar
Mehra, MW2 further clarified that the original of
application Ex.MW2/W4 was written by Shri Sarup
Singh. He further clarified that on this application,
signatures of Shri Sarup Singh were obtained again by
the said official (Shri Babu Ram Sharma.) Shri Vinod
Kumar Mehra MW2 again clarified that this is clearly
suggestive of the fact that Shri Sarup Singh was present
in the premises on 20.03.1997 and at Point A of
Ex.MW2/W4, there is signature of Shri Babu Ram
Sharma also, which do not tally with the signatures on
Ex.MW2/W3. Ex.MW2/W2 is the photocopy of the
cheque book register. If signatures on these two
documents do not tally, then the best person to explain
of this incriminating circumstances as well as
inconsistencies was Shri Babu Ram Sharma who has
admittedly issued cheque book as well as received
application for issuance of cheque book from Shri Sarup
Singh on 20.03.1997. Management has not given any
explanation as to why Shri Babu Ram Sharma was not
examined.
19. There is another aspect of the matter which
cannot be ignored. If the workman herein has
impersonated as Shri Sarup Singh, this fact could have
been clearly known to the other officials of the bank
inasmuch as the workman had admittedly been working
in the said branch for the last many years. Shri Vinod
Kumar Mehra has further clarified in his statement that
Ex.MW1/3 is the photocopy of the of same cheques
which were presented before him and at the time of
making payment, bank officials/teller obtains signatures
of the person to whom the payment is being made. Had
the workman received the payment, as is the case of the
management herein, then this fact would have been known
to the said teller who has made the payment. It is not the
case of the management that the teller was not knowing
the workman herein, who is admittedly an official of the
bank.
20. There is force in the contention of the workman
that the original cheque book issue register should have
been produced by the management, both during the
domestic enquiry as well as before this Court for the
purpose of proper appreciation as well as comparison of
the signatures of the workman herein with the disputed
signatures on the two cheques. Equally important was
the fact that the management should have called Shri
Swarup Singh during the enquiry and obtained his standard
signatures so as to send them for comparison to the
Handwriting Expert. It is not out of place to mention here
that the Handwriting Expert, Shri M.R. Prabhu who had
also examined these documents during the domestic
enquiry had not primarily implicated the workman herein.
Since no explanation was offered by the bank for non-
production of the said register, as such this Tribunal is
going to draw adverse inference against the bank.
21. Lastly, Statement of Shri Ajay Kumar, Manager,
MW1 is not of any evidentiary value inasmuch as this
witness was not posted at Chandni Chowk branch of the
bank in the year 1997 when the above act of forgery/
impersonation took place. He has also averred in the
cross-examination that he was posted at Subroto Park
branch of the bank in 1997. Moreover, he has not uttered
even a word against the workman herein or tried to explain
anything regarding the circumstances under which the
above acts of fake/forged signatures took place.
22. So far as the statement of the Handwriting Expert,
Pt. Ashok Kashyap and his report Ex,.MW3/1 is
concerned, opinion of a handwriting expert, as is admitted
position in law, cannot be blindly accepted. He has
admitted in his cross-examination on 23.07.2011 that there
are substantial differences in signatures Q1 to Q8. Though
this witness has appeared in other such like cases, yet
evidentiary value of the handwriting expert is to be tested
on the basis of the report submitted by such an expert and
it depends upon the reasons as well as the explanation
furnished in the said report regarding conclusion drawn
by such expert so as to make it relevant under the law.
23. As discussed above, during the domestic
enquiry also, task of examination of these documents was
entrusted to Shri M.R. Prabhu and the said witness has
not directly implicated the workman herein so far as
signatures on the two disputed cheques are concerned.
24. I have gone through the ratio of law in Murali Lal
vs. State of MP [AIR (1980) SCC 531] relied upon by the
workman regarding value of the opinion evidence of the
Handwriting Expert, wherein it has been observed as under:
‘There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence
which has crystalized into a rule of law, that opinion
evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon,
unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard
to the imperfect nature of the science of identification
of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should
be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be
carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence
must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration
742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 13, 2016/MAGHA 24, 1937
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion
are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing
a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting
expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible
rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more
than a question of testimonial weight.
25. Similarly in the case of Shashi Kumar vs. Subroto
Kumar [AIR (1964) SCC 529], Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing evidential value of
handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act,
held as under:
‘The expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion-
evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of
substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it
is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence.’
26. Thus, it is clear from the ratio of judgement
discussed above that opinion of handwriting expert is to
be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by
him. Export deposes, not decides. Science of identificaion
of handwriting expert being imperfect in nature, the
approach of the official charged with the duty of taking a
decision should be one of caution, i.e. reasons for the
opinion must be carefully probed and examined. There is
always a tendency on the part of the Handwriting Expert
having a soft corner for the party seeking his opinion and
it is very true so far as Pt. Kashyap MW3 is concerned,
since State Bank of India is his permanent client. Moreover,
this Court cannot ignore the fact that on an earlier occasion
during domestic enquiry, Shri M.R. Prabhu, the
Handwriting Expert has not given opinion on the same
lines as furnished by Pt. Kashyap. Therefore, his evidence
requires more scrutiny. The evidence of handwriting
expert, at the most, is corroborative in nature so far as the
present case is concerned, and there is no substantive
evidence on record to draw a conclusion that the workman
herein has procured the cheque book fraudulently and
thereafter presented the cheques Ex.MW3/5 and Ex.MW3/6
for payment at Chandni Chowk branch of the bank.
27. Net result of the above discussion is that
charge No.1 and 2 leveled against the workman in the
charge sheet Ex.WW1/4 regarding forging of signatures
of the drawer on cheque No.175903 and 175904 for
Rs.9500.00 and Rs.7500 Ex.MW3/5 and Ex.MW3/6
respectively by the workman herein are concerned, same
stands not been proved by the management. So far as
question of passing of the above two cheques for payment
is concerned, simply because the workman herein, in a
routine manner, has posted the above cheques, would not
mean that he had forged or fabricated the signatures on
the above two cheques in any manner.
28. So far as charge No.5 regarding report of the
handwriting expert and signatures on the cheque book
requisition letter is concerned, as discussed above, report
of the handwriting expert regarding this cannot be blindly
accepted in view of the fact that MW2, Shri Vinod Kumar
Mehra has specifically stated in his statement that on the
said date that Shri Swarup Singh was present in the
premises of the bank on 20.03.1997 and there is also
signatures of Shri Babu Ram Sharma on Ex.MW2/W4. Non
examination of Shri Babu Ram Sharma regarding payment
and inconsistency of signatures etc. has dealt a crippling
blow to the case of the management as he was the best
witness to explain as to who had received payment of the
above cheques. As already discussed, in case payment
on the basis of the above cheques was received by the
workman herein, this fact would have easily come to the
notice of Shri Babu Ram Sharma, another official of the
bank, as well as other senior officials present in the branch
on that day during official working hours.
29. So far as charge No.6 is concerned regarding
misconduct on previous two occasions on 07.06.1990 and
11.07.19954 for committing serious irregularities is
concerned, the Enquiry Officer has not implicated the
workman herein in any manner. Moreover, workman herein
remained in the bank even thereafter and there is nothing
on record to suggest that his conduct was not up to the
mark. The learned authorized representative has also not
pressed this issue during the course of arguments.
30. As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held
that allegations of misconduct contained in charge sheet
WW1/4 stands not proved against the workman herein.
Resultantly, order of dismissal of the workman with
immediate effect is held to be illegal and not justified as
per law. As a necessary corollary, the workman herein,
Shri Vinod Dutta, is entitled to grant of full back wages
with all consequential benefits.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated : January 25, 2016
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.