881 GI/2016

(883)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2016

dk-vk- 396-—fu;qfDr laca/h eaf=keaMyh; lfefr ds

vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj] dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh vk'kh"k dkfy;k]

ihBklhu vf/dkjh Í.k olwyh vf/dj.k (MhvkjVh&III)] fnYyh

dks ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa muds dk;Z&dky ds lg&lekiu

vk/kj ij vFkok chvkbZ,iQvkj ds lekiu rd vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lnL;] vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh;

iqu£uekZ.k cksMZ (chvkbZ,iQvkj) ds in dk vfrfjDr izHkkj lkSairh

gS A

¹iQk- la- 20@02@2011&vkbZ,iQ&II ([akM&I)º

vrh'k ¯lg] funs'kd (vkbZ,iQ&II)

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- 10]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 28—ekpZ 5] 2016] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 9—iQkYxqu 15] 1937

No. 10]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 28—MARCH 5, 2016, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 9—PHALGUNA 15, 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)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2016

S.O. 396.—In accordance with ACC approval, the

Central Government hereby assigns additional charge of

the post of Member, Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction (BIFR) to Shri Ashish Kalia, Presiding

Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT-III), Delhi, co-

terminus with his tenure as Presiding Officer, or till the

abolition of BIFR, or until further orders, whichever is the

earliest.

[F. No. 20/02/2011-IF-II (Vol. I)]

ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

885

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 397.—In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules 1987, the Bureau of Indian

Standards hereby notifies the Standard Marks for the following Management Systems Certifications in accordance with

the relevant Indian Standards as given in the schedule below with immediate effect. These Standard Marks supersede the

Standard Marks notified earlier vide Notification, S.O. No. 1795 dated 13th June, 2007 and Notification S.O. No. 908 dated

6th March, 2014 for the following Management System Certifications:

SCHEDULE

Sl No.

Design of Standard Mark

Type of Management

No. of Indian Standards

Systems

Environmental Management

IS/ISO 14001

Systems

Occupational Health and

IS/ISO 18001

Safety Management Systems

Energy Management

IS/ISO 50001

Systems

[Ref. : MSCD/2 : 1 : 3]

C. B. SINGH, Addl. Director General, BIS

886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 398-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

01@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@52@2011&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 398.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 01/2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/52/2011-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute U/s 10 (1) (d)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 01 of 2012

PARTIES

: The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Vihar Building

PO: Jharia, Distt: Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Dhansar, Distt: Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/52/2011-IR(CM-I)

dt. 20.12.2011.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: Mr. K.N. Singh, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st Feb., 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

52/2011-IR (CM-I) dt.20.12.2011.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bastacolla

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Punila Teli

from the services of the company vide order dated

15/19.02.2007 is justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/52/2011-IR

(CM-I) dt.20.12.2011 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 01 of 2012 was registered on

04.01.2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned, and contested the case.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union /Petitioner and the O.P./Management through their

own Counsels respectively appeared and contested the

case.

Here is another Reference case of dismissal from

services of Shri Punila Teli, a permanent employee of

Bastacolla Colliery under M/s BCCL Management with

designation as M/Loader. He was allegedly served a charge

sheet by the Management on the ground of absentism,

against which the workman categorically replied to the

charges. On not being convinced with the reply at all, the

Management went ahead for setting up a Domestic Enquiry

and thereafter conducted the enquiry with the active

participation of the workman’s colleague giving full

opportunity and on the line of the natural justice to

substantiate the absentism charges with factual positions.

Thus finally, the Management came to conclusion to inflict

punishment of dismissal upon the workman for which he

never mentally prepared. The workman cried the alleged

action as foul, prejudice, against the natural justice and

without going into bottom of the factum of the issue after

his several representations against dismissal went

unheeded, pushing the matter for conciliation with the ALC(

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

887

C), Dhanbad where it was proved once again failure due to

adamant attitude and firmed stand posed by the

Management over the dismissal.

Though the Management was also hastened to deny

all the allegations to justify its cause of action. They went

ahead very cautiously in a calculative way after exhausting

all the avenues of channel of enquiry proceedings before

the coming to the harsher punishment. Simultaneously it

also holds good the punishment imposed on the workman

does not proportionately match the misconduct of

absentism, the workman committed. Both sides – Union

and the Management put forth their views alleging and

counter alleging to each other on the issue in their best

possible way and further asserted to stand by the

statements made before the Tribunal. Though there was

nothing adverse came into the light while going through

the record on the part of the workman. It usually does not

have an impact over the workmen who on the pretext of

illness move for leave mostly improper way that later on,

turns into a indefinite period in most cases keeping the

Management of superficial grounds .The workman’s such

act is observed being septic of the safety standards in

Mines, they have to perform in the underground Mines.

The punishment of dismissal in no way stands reasonable

and logical to the misconduct, the workman committed

whatsoever. As such the Tribunal is of the opinion there

will be nothing improper and unjust of providing a breather

to the workman to mend his ways in the interest of natural

justice and to live up to the expectations of the

Management .Therefore the workman concerned is ordered

a fresh appointment in the lowest grade with a probation

period rolling up to 2-year.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 399-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

30@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@111@2012&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 399.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 30/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/111/2012-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute U/s 10 (1) (d)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 30 of 2013

PARTIES

: The Gen. Secretary,

Sampurn Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Chalak Samiti,

At & P.O.Bagabandh, Dhanbad

The General Manager,

P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL

PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/111/2012-IR (CM-I)

dt.30.01.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr Nitish Sahay, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18^th January, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/111/2012-IR (CM-I) dt.30.01.2013.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of

Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s BCCL in not paying

the retrial benefits to Sri Ram Rata Ram, Ex-Auto

Foreman is fair and justified? To what relief is the

concerned workman entitled to ?

None representation all along since registration of

the case nor the W.S. moved by the workman or by the

Sponsoring Union. Several dates were allowed by the

888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunal during the hearing posting dates spanning a

long spell of time to the workman side to defend the case.

Whereas, contrary to it, Mr. Nitish Sahay, Ld. Advocate

for the Management made occasionally appearance.

Though three Notices dtt. 9.4.2013, 26.12.2013 and

28.03.2014 were sent to the address of the Union concerned

but in vain. The case is hovering over for filing W.S. by

the workman/Sponsoring Union, may be termed as very

crucial stage. Finally on 28.12.2015 both sides miserably

failed to make appearance whatsoever. The case is related

to upholding retrial benefits of the workman by the

Management seeking reliefs.

Form perusal of the case record, it transpires that

neither that workman nor the Union ever showed

willingness to come out for trial for adjudication as if they

were least bothered to get it to final adjudication .The

Tribunal is also of the opinion that the settlement is either

to have been made or the issue sorted out between both

the parties. So the Union or workman is no longer serious

to get the case to final adjudication, resulting in persistent

stagnation on filing WS .Under backdrop of circumstances,

it is being felt despite ample opportunity, the case is

consumed, it is of no use holding it up further due to

sheer reluctance of the workman/Union and, need not

deserve attention. So the case is closed passing as “No

Dispute Award” in existence, as of now.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 400-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

24@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@18@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 400.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 24/2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/18/2014-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 24 of 2014

PARTIES

: The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Vihar Building, PO: Jharia,

Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL,

P.O. Jharia, Dhanbad

Order No.L-20012/18/2014-IR(CM-I)

dt.23.04.2014

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. K.N. Singh, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. N.M.Kumar, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st Dec., 2015

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

18/2014-IR (CM-I) dt.23.04.2014.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Burragarh

Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Chhoteal

Bhuia, M/Loader from the services of the Company

from 27.05.2003 is fair and justified? To what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/18/2014-IR

(CM-I) dt.23.04.2014 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 24 of 2014 was registered on

09.05.2014 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

889

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

Here is another case of dismissal of the workman

named Chhoteleal Bhuia, working at Burragarh Colliery as

M/Loader labelling absentism ground as cause for

dismissal. Though the matter had been dealt in conciliation

with ALC(C), Dhanbad and thus ultimately adamant attitude

of the both sides resulted in failure, thus, giving birth to

the reference. Needles to say the workman concerned fell

ill and started absenting himself from duty unauthorizedly,

against which he was charge sheeted as alleged by the

Management .The Management was informed of the matter

about his illness , as alleged by the workman. But the

Management formally dismissed him from his service taking

into findings of the domestic enquiry dubbing it proper

and in the line with natural justice. Dismissal from service

more or less revolves around only one ground of absentism,

partially due to illiteracy and or lack of thorough knowledge

of the safety rules and regulations. The I.D. raised by the

Sponsoring Union named Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad

on his behalf.

The workman concerned, though an permanent

employee as M/Loader in Burragarh Colliery cried foul play

of the Management’s action of dismissal and made

representations as the Management turned a blind eye to

his request against dismissal . The Employer- BCCL had all

along been a track history record of countless such cases

based on absentism where Management, conducting upon

all legal formalities upon their employees do not hesitate

to sack from service . So there is nothing unusual, and

unprecedented event. Simultaneously to case out of the

Industrial unrest in principle , the Tribunal is always share

the view of having a second thought before imposing

harsher penalty rather ushering a new chapter for reform,

as they are ultimately backbone of the production and

always roped in with country mainstream. So the Tribunal

also holds the view the workman concerned be taken as

a fresh employee in the lowest grade but without back

wages whatsoever, Thus, it is being ordered for employment

of the workman concerned as fresher in lowest Grade but

without back wages, whatsoever under probation for two

years treating from date, he joins.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 401-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

25@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@22@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 401.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 25/2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/22/2014-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 25 of 2014

PARTIES

: The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Vishwakarma Colony, Nutandih,

PO: Jagjvan Nagar,

Dhanbad (Jharkhand)-826003

Vs.

The General Manager,

W.J.Area of M/s BCCL,

PO : Bhatdih, Dhanbad

(Jharkhand) -828308.

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/22/2014-

IR (CM-I) dt 28.04.2014

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. Pintu Mandal, Union Rep.

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. S.N.Ghosh, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th Jan., 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

22/2014-IR(CM-I) dt 28.04.2014

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of P.B.Area

of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Suresh Rajwar,

M/Loader from the services vide letter dated

5/12.09.2002 is fair and justified? To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/22/2014-IR(CM-

I) dt 28.04.2014 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 25 of 2014 was registered on 21.05.2014 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union Rep. /Petitioner and the O.P./Management through

their own Ld. Rep. /Counsel respectively appeared and

contested the case.

This Reference is also related to dismissal of the

workman Sri Suresh Rajwar, a permanent employee of

Hurriadih Colliery bearing Personnel No.02899639. As

stated in W.S. he sustained injury in course of duty, that

left his left leg injured and subsequently two and half inch

shorter under the impact of healing the injury. The workman

made earnest plea to the Management for accommodating

him with lighter work as against the arduous job of M.

Loader .Whereas the Management’s contention brushing

aside all the allegations of the workman and categorically

came out that the workman started absenting from duty on

the plea of the said accident against which he was formally

charge-sheeted .The Management in a calculative way

slowly and steadily stepped up further by holding an

enquiry giving the workman sufficient opportunity to

defend the case, and after exhausting all avenues of enquiry

proceedings and finding the workman guilty of the

misconduct he committed , imposed the penalty of dismissal.

The workman cried foul play the action- dismissal of the

Management, dragged the issue to the ALC©, Dhanbad

for conciliation. Ultimately utter failure in conciliation

resulted in birth of the Reference Case itself.

There is nothing new so long as it concerned to

Group of the Collieries under M/s. BCCL Management a

part of the Coal India Ltd., where numerous cases of

dismissal on such grounds may be observed piling up.

Undeniably the workmen usually are afraid of venturing

out in underground Mines due to safety hazards and

unhealthy conditions, surrendering around the site despite

safety mechanism in place. Workers being mostly illiterate

prefer resorting to proceed on leave under the plea of

absentism rather to apprise the Management of bare facts/

ordeal they face, and to take the Management into

confidence. Though allegations and counter allegations

by the both the parties respectively are set to be logical in

its form. The workman concerned had all along been

unblemished track record of service and nothing adverse

found barring this one. The punishment imposed to him to

the misconduct against the workman shielding under the

name of penalty is too harsher to bear with. As such there

is nothing improper and wrong-doings and unjust if

workman concerned who needs breather, be provided one

more opportunity by offering him fresh appointment in the

lowest Grade .Therefore it is ordered that the worker

concerned be appointed as a fresh in the lowest Grade with

two-year period as probation.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

14@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@90@2012&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 402.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 14/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/90/2012-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

891

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 14 of 2013

PARTIES

: The General Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdor Panchyat,

Chhatabad No.5, P.O. Katras,

Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Sonardih, Dhanbad.

Order No.L-20012/90/2012-IR (CM-I)

dt. 07.01.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. B.B. Pandey Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

90/2012-IR (CM-I) dt. 07.01.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of East

Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Israil

Ansari from the services of the Company without

following the terms and conditions of their Certified

Standing Order of the Company and without

following the principles of natural justice is legal and

justified? To what relief is the concerned workman

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/90/2012-IR (CM-

I) dt. 07.01.2013 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 14 of 2013 was registered on 15.01.2013 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

This is an another case of dismissal of the workman

named Israil Ansari from services in violation of the Certified

Standing Order of the Company, an bye-laws prevailing

amongst the Group of collieries under the umbrella of the

BCCL, levelling the ground of absentism as cause for

dismissal . Both the parties –workman and the opposition

party filed the written statement and W.S. cum Rejoinder

respectively levelling allegations and counter- allegations

to probe their cause. However, no adverse report against

workman was noticed. The workman was a permanent

employee of East Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL, which now

called as Akash Kinari Colliery of M/s. BCCL at under

Govindpura Area. The workman was referred to Medical

Board for his sickness and the Board found fit for duty, as

alleged by the workman in his WS. In the mean time the

Management in a very calculative move after holding

domestic enquiry and in its follow up action after findings

of the enquiry and strictly adhering the Agreements/laws

of the Company does not show some sort of leniency but

inflicted harsher punishment as dismissal upon the

workman, and workman (concerned ) in turn cried the

alleged action foul by the Management. Mostly workers

undeniably feel shy of working in underground work due

to hazardous nature of the work and deliberately evasion

to duty has been of regular feature as being scared of the

safety points while at work.

Taking certain aspects into consideration, the

punishment imposed upon the workman of dismissal does

not seem proportionate and proper to the misconduct, the

workman committed .Though much has been improved in

the working conditions but still there is a long way to be

covered in this regard. As such the workman, if assigned

one time more, there will not be any unfair and improper to

honour the request made by the workman through trails

and hence, the workman concerned is allowed to be taken

into the service but as a fresher in the lowest of the Grade.

Simultaneously he will be on probation for the term

extending up to the six months only, since his fresh joining.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

vf/dj.k@ Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

25@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@116@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 403.—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. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 25/2006) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/116/2005-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 25 of 2006

PARTIES

: The Vice President,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Vihar Building, Jharia,

Dhanbad (Jharkhand)-826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad

(Jharkhand) -826001

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/116/2005-

IR(CM-I) dt 1.6.2006

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. K.N. Singh, Ld. Adv.

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

116/2005-IR (CM-I) dt 1.6.2006.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of K.B.5/6

Pits under P.B.Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri

Raj Kumar Hari, M/Loader from the services of the

Company vide letter dated 15.11.2000 is fair and

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/116/2005-IR

(CM-I) dt 1.6.2006 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 25 of 2006 was registered on

11.09.2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union/workman and the O.P./Management through their

own Ld. Counsels respectively appeared and contested

the case.

This Reference case is related to the workman Raj

Kumar Hari, a permanent employee of K.B.5/6 Pits under

P.B. Area of M/s BCCL was charge sheeted against the

alleged unauthorizedly absentism seeking his explanation.

The workman alleged the Management went unilaterally

ahead by constituting a Domestic Enquiry and dismissed

him ex-parte, as alleged by the workman .Though workman

in his affidavit admitted guilty of the charges, the

Management brought in, The Management simultaneously

raised eye brows over the Union’s locus standi of raising

the Industrial Dispute. Though the matter was brought in

for conciliation with ALC© and everything spelt out

everything in details. Despite this all, it cannot be prevented

from converting it into Industrial Dispute

There is nothing unusual in the collieries of the cases

like this one where despite so much safety apparatus and

proper mechanism in place and periodical reviews, tragic

accidents more or less take place whatsoever of reasons.

The workers mostly illiterate deliberately or intentionally

feel panic to work in underground Mines .They tend to

resort to leave even in slightest illness, sometimes in

violation the rules and byelaws. Undeniably the working

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

893

conditions are mostly unhygienic and not conducive apart

from arduous nature of work despite lots upgradation in

Management ‘s preventive measures. The Management

countered each of the allegations justifying its cause of

action after having exhausted all avenues of channels of

proceedings before the initiating the final punishment of

dismissal, that left the workman in lurch. So long as any

adverse point to the workman concerned, it did not come

in sight only on the ground of absentism. The punishment

seems too harsher to bear upon by the poor worker like the

workman concerned to sustain livelihood with family .As

such the workman needs a little bit breather by way of

fresh employment. Hence it is ordered for employment of

the workman concerned as a fresher but in the lowest Grade.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

66@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@29@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 404.—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. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 66/2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20012/29/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

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

Reference No. 66 of 2012

PARTIES

: The Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Post Box No. 59, PO : Jharia

Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Kustore Area of BCCL

PO : Kustore, Dhanbad

Order No. L-20012/29/2012-IR(CM-I)

dt.13.08.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. S.C. Gaur, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

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

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

29/2012-IR (CM-I) dt.13.08.2012

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bhalogora

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Shiv Nandan

Bouri, Ex-NM/Loader from the services of the

Company vide order dated 10.07.2008 is fair and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/29/2012-IR

(CM-I) dt.13.08.2012 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute,

the Reference Case No. 66 of 2012 was registered on

17.09.2012, and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court

on the date fixed, and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld.

Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

This is the case of the dismissal imposed on by the

Management of Bhalgora Colliery as the workman –Shiv

Nandan Bouri went on his in-laws house for treatment

without passing on information to the Management and

894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

remained showing absence from the address, he got it

recorded to the office of the Management. The

Management made several correspondences on the

address recorded in the Office. The workman Shiv Nandan

Bouri was a P/R M/Loader at Bhalgora of the Management

admitted having made no communications with the

Management about his illness and the address, from where

he was moving. The Management constituted an

departmental enquiry to probe the allegations levelled

against the workman but the workman concerned flatly

denied having knowledge of any charge-sheet or any letter

relating to this, whatsoever. Though allegations and

counter allegations were levelled by both the parties in

their Statements filed respectively.

However the fact cannot be virtually ruled out

that the workmen in most cases often resort to absentism

sometimes intentionally due to tedious nature of the work

and unhygienic conditions prevailing in & around collieries

under which they have to work, particularly in underground

Mines. The Management will also stand by the fact that

numerous cases of this nature still set rolling in the Group

of collieries under the umbrella of BCCL Management. So

there is nothing unusual and unprecedented practice of

absentism by the workmen and the punishment imposed

by the Management upon him is of harsher in nature and

disproportionate to the misconduct, the workman

committed. Thus the Tribunal of the considered view that

in natural interest of justice there is nothing improper and

unjust if the workman is provided one more opportunity to

transform his misconduct into reality of reform in nature,

setting aside the alleged dismissal order. As such the

workman be provided one more opportunity by taking him

into service as fresher in Cat.-I without back wages,

whatsoever under the probation extending up to two

years.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSllZ fczfV'k

,;jost 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91] 92]

93 ,oa 128@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@02@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@37@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 405.—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, Chennai (Ref. Nos.

91, 92, 93 & 128 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the

Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. British Airways and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

24/02/2016.

[No. L-11012/37/2014-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 8th February, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute Nos. 91, 92, 93 and 128 of 2014

BETWEEN :

1. Ms. T. Jennifer

: 1st Party Petitioner in

Prasanna Kumari

ID 91/2014

2. Sri Ramesh Thangadurai : 1st Party Petitioner in

ID 92/2014

3. Sri Sathish Loganathan

: 1st Party Petitioner in

ID 93/2014

4. Sri Ramaraja Govindhan

: 1st Party Petitioner in

ID 128/2014

AND

1. The Regional

2nd Party/

HR Manager

1st Respondent

South Asia

British Airways,

DLF Plaza Tower

DLF City Phase-I,

Gurgaon

Haryana-122022

2. The Customer

2nd Party/

In both

Service Manager

2nd Respondent

the IDs

British Airways

Nos. 3 and 4,

New Integrated Air

Cargo Complex,

Meenambakkam,

Chennai-600027

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

Petitioners

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s. Sandeep Prabhakaran,

Respondents

Advocates

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

895

COMMON AWARD

IDs 91, 92 and 93 of 2014 are Industrial Disputes

taken for adjudication on the file under Sub-section 2A of

Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended

by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010). ID 128/2014 was taken

on file based on Reference No. L-11012/37/2014-IR (CM.I)

of Ministry of Labour dated 28.10.2014. The Schedule of

reference in ID No. 128/2014 is: “Whether the action of the

management of British Airways regarding termination of

service of the petitioner Sri Ramaraja Govindan is justifiable

or not? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The averments in the Claim Statement in ID No. 91/

2014 are as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Cargo Security Clerk

in the respondent establishment on 05.05.2008. She had

been working in the cargo complex of Chennai International

Airport since then. From the year 2011 the Respondent

had designated the Junior Cargo Security Clerks as Junior

Security Service Clerks. 12 Junior Cargo Security Clerks/

Junior Security Service Clerks were working with the

Respondent. On 16.02.2014 the Respondent issued order

terminating the service of the petitioner. It is mentioned in

the order that the Civil Aviation Department has issued

order requiring all the international airlines to stop handling

of security and to appoint an Indian domestic carrier to

carry out security functions and the airlines has appointed

a domestic carrier to carry out the security functions and

therefore the service of the petitioner is terminated. The

Respondent has also remitted Rs. 1,80,399/- in the bank

account of the petitioner towards three weeks salary for

each completed year of service and towards one month’s

notice pay. The reason given by the Respondent for

terminating the service of the petitioner is fallacious. It is

not correct to state that there is a direction from Civil

Aviation Department to the Respondent to entrust the work

of security to a domestic carrier. The handling of security

work was only a part of the work of the petitioner. She had

been doing all work relating to cargo handling. Out of the

12 Junior Cargo Security Clerks, the Respondent has

terminated the service of three more on the same reason. It

S.No. I.D. No. Direct Filing/Reference

Name of the I Party S/Sri/Ms.

Name of the II Party

91/2014

Direct Filing

T. Jennifer Prasanna Kumari

1. The Regional HR Manager (South

Asia) DLF Plaza Tower DLF City

Phase-I Gurgaon-122022

2. Customer Service Manager British

Airways Nos. 3 & 4, New

Integrated Air Cargo Complex

Meenambakkam Chennai-600027

92/2014

Direct Filing

Ramesh Thangadurai

1. The Regional HR Manager (South

Asia) DLF Plaza Tower DLF City

Phase-I, Gurgaon-122022

2. Customer Service Manager British

Airways Nos. 3 & 4, New

Integrated Air Cargo Complex

Meenambakkam Chennai-600027

93/2014

Direct Filing

Sathish Loganathan

1. The Regional HR Manager (South

Asia) DLF Plaza Tower DLF City

Phase-I Gurgaon-122022

2. Customer Service Manager British

Airways Nos. 3 & 4, New

Integrated Air Cargo Complex

Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027

128/2014

L-11012/37/2014-IR(CM.I) Ramaraja Govindhan

1. The Regional HR Manager (South

dated 28.10.2014

Asia) DLF Plaza Tower DLF City

Phase-I Gurgaon-122022

2. Customer Service Manager British

Airways Nos. 3 & 4, New

Integrated Air Cargo Complex

Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027

896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has transferred the services of two other Junior Cargo

Security Clerks to Bangalore Airport. Rest of them were

retained by the Respondent. Out of the persons retained, 4

are junior to the petitioner. One of those who had been

transferred to Bangalore is also junior to the petitioner. So

termination of the services of the petitioner is in gross

violation of Section-25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Termination of the petitioner is grossly illegal and contrary

to law. An award may be passed holding that the order

of the Respondent terminating the services of the petitioner

is illegal, set aside the same and also direct the Respondents

to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages, continuity

of service and other attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed counter Statement

contending as below:

For the purpose of security and safety of aircraft

operations and under the powers conferred with the

commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation), Bureau of Civil

Aviation Security (BCAS) certain activities pertaining to

aircraft operations were treated as security operators’

aviation security functions. The BCAS issued order No. 3/

2009 on 21.08.2009 providing that foreign airlines such as

the Respondent are required to enter into agreements with

the domestic Indian carriers having international operations

from that airport for security functions. The Respondents

had applied for approval of its aircraft operators security

program to the Deputy Commissioner of Security. The

application was returned on the basis that the British

Airways, the Respondent is self-handling the handling

security functions. Subsequently, it was informed that

foreign airlines are not allowed to do self-handling as per

order No. 3/2009. The Respondents have received several

notices whereby the BCAS directed to take corrective

measures in compliance of order No. 3/2009. A deadline

was fixed in one of the letters. In order to comply with the

order the British Airways entered into an agreement with

Jet Airways to handle its security functions. So the services

of the employees in the security functions were no longer

required. It was consequent to the compliance of the order

of BCAS, the services of the petitioner and others were

terminated. The services of the employees working as Junior

Security Service Clerk and Junior Cargo Security Clerk fell

directly within the purview of the services defined and

prohibited to be carried out by foreign airlines by order No.

3/2009. All the employees in the security functions

performing the functions of security and screening were

losing their jobs in such security functions. So there was

no question of applicability of last come first go.

Redeployment exercise was done to grant fresh appointment

to those employees in the security functions in other

functions where vacancies existed subject to suitability of

the candidates to be ascertained through a selection

process. The Respondent Management had asked all the

affected employees to complete a form to be able to apply

for alternate jobs so that the Management could conduct a

selection and redeployment exercise. A series of interviews

were conducted after this. All the affected employees

including the present petitioner participated in the

redeployment interviews. Out of the total 52 employees,

33 were redeployed in the available vacant positions. The

petitioner also participated in the interview. 18 persons

who were employed with the security department at

Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore could not be

accommodated in the redeployment exercise. So their

services were terminated after payment of compensation,

higher than the compensation provided under law.

Appointment in the vacancy under the redeployment

exercise is not automatic right but is a fresh appointment.

The Respondents followed a merit based selection process

to assess suitability for jobs. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief. The petition is to be dismissed.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to the

Counter Statement reiterating her contentions in the Claim

Statement.

The petitioners in ID Nos. 92/2014, 93/2014 and 128/

2014 also were working as Junior Security Service Clerks

with the Respondents. The petitioner in ID No. 92/2014 is

said to have joined the establishment on 02.02.2011, the

petitioner in ID No. 93/2014 on 05.02.2011 and the petitioner

in ID No. No. 128/2014 on 01.02.2011, all as Junior Security

Service Clerks. They were also terminated by the respondent

establishment alongwith the petitioner in ID No. 91/2014.

They have also challenged the termination order as illegal

and seek the relief of reinstatement in service. ID No. 128/

2014 alone is based on a reference by the Government while

the other IDs are filed by the petitioners directly. In these

three IDs also the Respondents have filed Counter Statement

advancing the same contentions as in ID No. 91/2014.

The parties to all the IDs being the same and the

issue to be considered also being one and the same the

four disputes were tried jointly. ID 91/2014 was treated as

the main case and evidence was recorded in this ID.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W19.

The Respondents did not adduce any evidence either oral

or documentary.

Points for consideration in all the IDs are:

(i)

Whether termination of the concerned petitioners

by the Respondents is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which each of the

petitioners are entitled?

The Points

The petitioners in all the IDs have joined the British

Airways, the Respondent establishment as Junior Cargo

Security Clerks subsequently renamed to as Junior Security

Service Clerks. All the petitioners were terminated from

service on 16.02.2014.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

897

9. The attempt of the Respondents has been to

justify the termination of the petitioners on the basis of the

order made by BCAS on 21.08.2009. It is the case of the

Respondents that by this order foreign airlines were

prevented from handling the security functions in the

airports and they were asked to enter into agreement with

domestic Indian air carriers having international operation

from the respective airports for security functions.

According to the Respondents, in compliance with the

order the British Airways has entered into agreement with

Jet Airways to handle its security functions. The case that

is advanced in the Claim statement is that the reason

furnished by the Respondents for terminating the services

of the petitioners are fallacious. The Respondents did not

produce the concerned order of the BCAS preventing the

foreign airlines from handling the security functions.

However during argument the counsel for the Respondents

had cited the decision FEDERATION OF INDIAN

AIRLINES AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS reported in 2001 SCC ONLINE DELHI 1140 in

support of the case that the termination was consequent

to the order of BCAS. The case referred to above was filed

by the Federation of Indian Airlines challenging the order

of BCAS by certain circulars. Validity of Order No. 3/2009

dated 21.08.2009 which is relied upon by the Respondents

was upheld by the Apex Court in the above decision. Clause-

4 of the order (reproduced in the decision) shows that

foreign airlines are prevented from handling security

functions other than through a domestic Indian carrier.

10.

The case of the petitioner is that they were carrying

out functions not only involving security but other

functions as well. The petitioner in ID No. 91/2014 has

given evidence for herself and on behalf of the petitioners

in the other three IDs. She has statd that all of them have

been doing all work relating to cargo handling such as

pelletization of cargo, release of cargo, escort of valuable

cargo, acceptance of dangerous goods, etc. So according

to the petitioner the reason given by the Respondents for

terminating their service will not hold good. Ext.W1, the

order appointing WW1, the petitioner in ID No. 91/2014 or

the other similar appointment orders do not specifically

state what actually are the duties to be carried out by the

petitioners on appointment. The appointment merely states

the job title as Junior Cargo Security Clerk or Junior Security

Service Clerk as the case may be based on the period of

appointment. The Respondents did not produce any

documents or adduce oral evidence denying the evidence

given by WW1. During her cross-examination also WW1

has stated what exactly is the nature of her job. In the

absence of any contra evidence on the part of the

Respondents the case of the petitioners that apart from the

security functions that will come under the order of BCAS,

they were performing other duties also is to be accepted.

There is nothing in evidence to show that the prime duty

of the petitioners was security functions which were to be

taken away on the basis of the order of BCAS.

11.

The contention that is raised by the petitioners with

force is that they were terminated in violation of Section-

25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. WW1 has given the

names of the 12 Junior Cargo Security Clerk / Junior Security

Service Clerks engaged by the Respondents in the order of

seniority in the Claim Statement as well as in the Proof

Affidavit. This list given by WW1 is not questioned by

the Respondents. So it is to be accepted that this is the

order of seniority in which these persons were appointed.

The grievance of the petitioners is that while juniors were

retained by the Respondents, they were terminated from

service. Of course, there is a case for the Respondents in

the Counter Statement that these persons were re-deployed

after a selection process based on interview in which the

petitioners are also said to have participated. WW1 Has

denied the case that there was an interview and she had

undergone the process of interview. According to her, they

were only made to report at a hotel and fill up a form. There

was no interview as claimed by the Respondents. Against

the claim of WW1 also there is no contra evidence.

12.

WW1 has stated in the Claim Statement as well in

proof affidavit that the order of seniority was not maintained

while terminating the petitioners, retaining some of the

employees. As seen from the evidence of WW1, out of the

six persons retained in service, Srijith Nair and Rajesh

Harikrishnan, Arun Charles and P.J. Charles are junior to

her. Again Senthil Kumar who has been transferred to

Bangalore also is junior to her. Out of 12 persons named as

those working in the security service, the petitioner in ID

No. 91/2014 comes fourth. The petitioner in ID No. 128/

2014 is in the 7th place. The petitioner in ID No. 92/2014 is

in the 9th place and the petitioner in ID No. 93/2014 is in the

10th place. The petitioners should have been retained when

those who were junior to them were retained. Termination

of the petitioners is certainly in violation of Section-

25G of the ID Act. Because of non-compliance with Section-

25G of the ID Act itself the petitioners are entitled to be

reinstated in service.

In view of my discussion above an award is passed

as below in the following terms:

The Respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioners in service with 50% backwages, continuity

of service and other attendant benefits, within a

month of the publication of the Award. The

Respondents are entitled to adjust the amount paid

at the time of termination of service, towards the

amount payable as backwages. If payment is not

made within the prescribed time, the amount will carry

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

The IDs are disposed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Ms. T. Jennifer

Petitioners

Prasanna Kumari

For the 1st & 2nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

05.05.2008

Appointment Order issued to

Jennifer Prasanna Kumari

Ext.W2

03.12.2008

Confirmation Order issued to

Jennifer Prasanna Kumari

Ext.W3

16.02.2014

Termination Order issued to

Jennifer Prasanna Kumari

Ext.W4

11.03.2014

Letter sent by Jennifer Prasanna

Kumari

Ext.W5

17.01.2011

Offer of Employment issued to

Ramesh Thangadurai

Ext.W6

04.02.2011

Order of Appointment issued to

Ramesh Thangadurai

Ext.W7

16.02.2014

Order of Termination issued to

Ramesh Thangadurai

Ext.W8

12.03.2014

Letter of Ramesh Thangadurai

Ext.W9

02.06.2014

Employment Certificate of the

Ramesh Thangadurai

Ext.W10 17.01.2011

Offer of Employment issued to

Sathish Loganathan

Ext.W11 04.02.2011

Order of Appointment issued to

Sathish Loganathan

Ext.W12 05.11.2011

Confirmation Order issued to

Sathish Loganathan

Ext.W13 16.02.2014

Order of Termination issued to

Sathish Loganathan

Ext.W14 12.03.2014

Letter of Sathish Loganathan

Ext.W15 17.01.2011

Offer of Employment issued to

Ramaraja Govindhan

Ext.W16

Order of appointment issued to

Ramaraja Govindhan

Ext.W17 04.08.2011

Confirmation Order issued to

Ramaraja Govindhan

Ext.W18 16.02.2014

Order of Termination issued to

Ramaraja Govindhan

Ext.W19 12.03.2014

Letter of Ramaraja Govindhan

alongwith postal receipt

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

04@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20013@2@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 406.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 04/2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-20013/2/2016-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

Present:

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an application under Sub-section (2)

of the Sec 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the

Industrial Disputes (amendment) Act. 2010 (24 of 2010)

I.D. CASE NO. 04 OF 2011

PARTIES

Mr. Jogi Dusadh,

Village: Kapti, P.O. Barbigha,

Distt: Munghyr (Bihar)

...Applicant

Vs.

The Project Officer/Agent,

Joyrampur Colliery,

M/s. BCCL

PO: Khasgeenagora,

Dhanbad

...O.P. Party

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. S.C. Gaur, Ld. Advocate

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

899

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January, 2016

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Joyrampur Colliery under Lodna Area of M/s BCCL

is legal and justified, in dismissing the service of Sri

Jogi Dusadh M/Loader Joyrampur Colliery on

03.11.2003. If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

Upon filing of the petition u/s 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, (Amendment Act-2010), on 01.09.2011,it

was reported that there was no delay in filing it , as after

the dismissal of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.11.2013 , on failure

of the conciliation proceedings before the ALC (C ),

Dhanbad. Hence it was admitted on 01.09. 2011, directing

to issue Notices to the O.P. concerned for needful. Notices

were issued to the O.P.

Mr. S.C.Gaur, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner/

workman and Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate the O.P./

Management appeared and contested the case.

The case of workman named Jogi Dusadh as

represented in his application. U/s 2 A of the Industrial

Dispute Act.1947 is that the workman was, an M/Loader of

Joyramur Colliery of the M/s BCCL, had been fallen ill of

Jaundice and later in the state of bed-ridden. He found

himself absolutely incapable of joining duty and the

Management taking his absence unlawful charge sheeted

him, as alleged, which rolling over later on, culminated as

dismissal from services pending his humanitarian mercy

appeal with the Disciplinary Authority. After dismissal the

matter has been under conciliation with ALC ©,Dhanbad

and the farm and adamant attitude of the Management

resulted in failure in conciliation and thus giving birth of

I.D. in the Tribunal. Though the Competent Authority left

no stone turned in efforts to exhaust the all avenues of the

process before arriving at the decision of the workman’s

dismissal, as also alleged by the Management in their

counter. To some extent, the workman also more or less

showed no hesitation in denial of the charge of misconduct

of regular absence .On riding of the cause, the Management

moved ahead justifying its action as valid reason and

proper for the dismissal.

Though allegations and counter allegations on each

other exist in a meaning full manner to justify the cause but

simultaneously it is hardly ruled out the nature of job

being more tedious and sometimes fatal and life risky they

(workmen) usually tend to willingly evade to venture out

going inside the Mines by resorting to illness or

something others, in utter defiance of the rules and

regulations as mostly being illiterate. The job naturally

needs more physical work in an unhygienic condition and

above all risky as it holds truth. And the Tribunal is of the

considered view that the inflicted punishment for dismissal

will definitely put the workman in too much hardships, for

which he never mentally prepared himself to face and

dubbed it, very harsher to the misconduct, he committed

indeed .There will not be any wrong-doing or improper if

he be provided a breather by providing afresh employment

offer to probe his worthiness.

In the light of the above, it is of the considered

opinion that the workman concerned be taken in the service

as a fresher in the lowest of the Grade of Cat.-I with

probation for first two-year rolling from the date, he joins.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhvkbZ,e,iQvkj

(lhvkbZ,lvkj) ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 18@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@228@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 18

of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the CIMFR, (CISR) and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-42011/228/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No.18/2012

Employer in relation to the management of

M/s. C.I.M.F.R

AND

Their workman

Present :

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: Shri D.K. Sah, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Science & Tech.

Dated : 9.11.2015

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/228/2011-IR (DU) dated

28/02/2012, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of CIMFR

(CISR) in not sending the name details of

S/Shri Shivtosh Sutradhar and 21 other casual workers

(List enclosed) to the competent authority regarding

grant of temporary status to get wages and other

facilities at par with the regular workers is legal and

justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

Annexure

List of workmen

SL.No.

Name of the candidate

Date of joining

Section /Divission

Shivtosh Sutradhar

2002

Flame & Explosion Lab

Subas Singh

2003

-do-

Shyamal Kumar Mandal

2003

-do-

Prakash Kumar Mandal

2001

A/C Plant

Nurul Hasan Hindvi

Nil

Respiratory Protection Lab.

Madhusudan Mahato

1997

Mine Stowing and filling

Kamal Gope

Nil

Thick Seam Mining

Kapura Devi

Nil

Canteen

Shankar Koranga

2003

Flame & Explosion Lab

10.

Darik Koranga

2003

-do-

11.

Ashoka Nand Mishra

2000

Human Resource Dev. ( HRD)

12.

Ajay Kumar Singh

Nil

Mines System Engineering

13.

Raju Koranga

2003

Mines Electronics

14.

Kartik Mandal

1988

Guest House

15.

Ashoka Nand Pathak

1993

EPABX

16.

Loknath Yadav

1998

-do-

17.

Barun Kumar Pathak

1993

Gest House

18.

Subrata Mishra

1990

-do-

19.

Swpan Kumar Banik

1989

-do-

20.

Sushanta Mitra

1989

-do-

21.

Bal Krishna Choudhary

1993

-do-

22.

Uttam Ganguli

2002

-do-

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

21.03.2012. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The sponsoring Union files their written statement

on 21.03.2013. The management also files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 05.03.2014. One witness

adduced on behalf of the workman & one document marked

on behalf of the workman i.e X ( for identification).

The case of the workmen is that shri Shivtosh

Sutradhar & 12 others have been working as casual worker

in different department of erstwhile CMRI and which is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

901

presently named CIMFR since more that 10-20 years with

entire satisfaction of higher authorities and it is also

submitted that workman has been permanently to do the

job as regular, although these workmen are doing same

and similar nature of job like that of a permanent workmen

of CIMFR.

It is also submitted that the workman has been

requested to send before the competent authority the same

of these 22 workmen as per list enclosed for granting

temporary status with a view to enable them to get wages

and other facilities at par with the regular worker but the

management inspite of their repeated assurance did not

sent their name resulting these workers could not get their

legitimate right. The workmen are entitled to get the wages

and other benefits at par with the permanent workmen as

per the equality before law and the management is bound

to follow it but the management could not do it , hence

reference arose.

The management’s case is that previously the Govt.

of India Ministry of Labour referred an industrial dispute

to the central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.-2 of same Union

that is registered as Ref. case No. 2/10. And during the

pendency of reference case No. 2/2010 of CGIT No-2, the

Sponsoring Union raised present industrial Dispute. It is

also submitted by the management that the list of workman

of both the reference workman concerned are same, and

the management is same & Sponsoring Union is same.

It is also submitted by the management that, just to

avoid conflict of judicial decision by Court of concurrent

jurisdiction from adjudicating upon both parallel reference

as the matter in issue is substantially the same. Therefore

the present reference is not maintainable.

It is also submitted by the management , that the

workman concerned is a contractor workman and not

employer-employee relationship exists between CMRI/

CIMFR and the workman. They are working under direct

control and supervision of the contractor. And the

contractor makes payment to their workmen.

Short point to be decided in this reference, is to direct

CIMFR management to give temporary status to the present

workmen concerned or not.

It is stated by the workman that they are rendering

service to CIMFR as casual employee. The workman further

prayed to give them temporary status.

10.

The workmen concerned have save and except filing

their I.D card as photocopy have not filed any document,

regarding their wages particulars. And that I.D card is also

not marked as Exhibits. Unless the workmen rendered

services to an organization more than 240 days in any

calendar year, but he is not entitled to either to be regularized

or even claim of temporary status.

11.

One of the workmen though examined in the case,

has not stated so, rather he said some of his co-workmen

filed a dispute for regularization before CGIT No-2 which is

pending. This may be situation, this Tribunal is not in a

position to grant relief to the workmen concerned.

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that the action of the management of CIMFR (CISR)

in not sending the name details of S/Shri Shivtosh Sutradhar

and 21 other casual worker (List enclosed) to the competent

Authority regarding grant of temporary status to get wages

and other facilities at par with the regular workers is legal.

Hence they are not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 408-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 108@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@101@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 108/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Department of Telecommunication

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2016.

[No. L-40012/101/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ID No. 108/2001

L-40012/101/2001-IR(DU) dated 27.06.2001

BETWEEN :

Sri Jai Prakash S/o Sri Daulat Singh

Vill. Mohan Nagar, Mohan Kuti, Maman Road

Bulandshahr-203001

902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Telecom Distt.Manager

Telecom Deptt. Babu Banarsi Das Trust Bldg.

Near Kandriya Vidalya Bulandshahr

Bulandshahr-203001

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/101/2001-IR(DU) dated

27.06.2001 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 Jai Prakash S/o Sri Daulaat

Singh, Bulandshahr and the Telecom Distt. Manager,

Telecom Deptt. Bulandshahr for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF TELECOM

DEPARTMENT IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF

SRI JAI PRAKASH S/O SRI DAULAT SINGH W.E.F. 20TH

APRIL 1999, IS JUST FAIR? IF NOT, FOR WHAT RELIEF

THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The workman has filed claim statement W-2 dated

23.07.2001, wherein briefly it has been stated that the

applicant had worked from 15.03.1997 to Oct.1997 and from

Nov.1997 to April 1999, under the subordination of AE

(installation) Telephone Exchange, Khurga distt.

Bulandshahr, and he had worked for 240 days continuously

during one year, he has also been working for the work of

MDF testing, but he was removed from service without

assigning any reason on 20.04.1999, no prior notice was

given neither any retrenchment compensation etc. was paid,

neither any enquiry was held. The applicant has alleged

that provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act., was not

followed and his seniority was not considered and principle

of “first come last go and last come first go” was also not

followed, while several employees junior to the applicant

are still working. The applicant has also pleaded that he is

unemployed and suffering from financial hardship.

The applicant has further asserted that case No.1308/

99 was filed by him before Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal where it has been ordered that the CAT had got

no jurisdiction in this matter. Pleading that his removal of

service is against the principle of natural justice as well he

has requested for his reinstatement with continuity of

service and payment of back wages etc. An affidavit has

been filed with his claim statement. As per the list 4 dated

22.02.2002, photo copies of several documents have been

filed by the workman.

The opposite party has filed written statement M-6

dated 10.09.2001, wherein main allegation of the claim

statement have been denied. The management has also

emphasized that he had never worked for MDF testing,

rather has been engaged as casual labour, the applicant

had filed case 1308/99 before Hon’ble CAT, Delhi, which

was dismissed on 11.02.2000 for want of jurisdiction and

on merits, imposing cost of Rs.250/ on the applicant but he

had not deposited the cost yet. The opposite party has

further stressed that the applicant had filed several cases

before different forums causing loss of revenue to the

department, no appointment letter was ever issued to the

workman, and there is no violation of principle of natural

justice. The management has prayed to dismiss the claim

statement alongwith cost. The management has filed several

documents as per list 6.

The applicant while denying the pleadings of written

statement has filed rejoinder, reiterating the pleas taken in

the claim statement. The applicant has emphasized that

facts can not be ascertained without summoning

attendance register and Form A,C,G-17. The workman has

prayed for his reinstatement with continuity in service

alongwith full back wages etc.

The management assertion (paper no.18) has stated

that attendance register w.e.f. 03.03.1997 to April 1999 is

missing, FIR has also been registered, ACG-17 payment

receipt is also not available since the record is very old,

regarding payment copy of ACE-2 has been annexed

alongwith written statement, record relating to MDF testing

being very old is not traceable therefore not filed.

The applicant Sri Padam Singh has filed his affidavit

dated 02.09.2002, in support of the claim statement. He has

been cross examined on behalf of the management, on

several dates. Another witness Sri Anupam Saxena has

also been examined by applicant as W-76. He was cross

examined by the management.

The management has filed affidavit M-79 of Sri Babu

Lal DE(Phones). He has been cross examined on behalf of

the workman.

10.

The applicant has filed affidavit W-79 and application

W-80, alleging therein forgery and fabrication in the affidavit

of Sri Babu Lal, requesting there by to declare the said

affidavit null & void and to take criminal action against the

deponent. Separate written submission has also been filed.

The management has filed written argument before the then

Hon’ble Judge/PO as M-88 regarding plea of applicant

pertaining to so called forged and fabricated affidavit,

objection dated 05.06.2011 has been filed by the

management. Again rejoinder dated 29.08.2011 has been

filed by the workman.

11.

The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses of each other apart from putting oral as well as

written submissions.

12.

Heard arguments of the learned representatives of

both the parties have been heard at length and perused

material available on record in light thereto.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

903

13.

The workman has come up with a case that he had

worked under Assistant Engineer (Installation), Telephone

Exchange, Khurja from 15.03.1997 to October, 1997 and

under Asstt. Engineer (NEAX) Telephone Exchange, Bud,

Bulandshahr form November, 1997 to June, 98 and thereafter

in Motibagh Exhcahge from July, 98 to April, 1999

continuously for more than 240 days in a year. It is also his

case that he was neither served upon any appointment

letter nor any termination letter while terminating his

services w.e.f. 20.04.1999 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 ACG-17

payment vouchers.

14.

In rebuttal the management has contended that the

workman has been engaged as casual labourer under

Assistant Engineer (Installation) in the year 1997-98 for 90

days; and he never completed 240 days’ continuous

working in a 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 department

intermittently; and this does not violate any of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

I have scanned entire evidence available on record

in light of the rival pleading and respective pleadings of

the parties.

16.

As pointed out above, by the learned authorized

representative of the workman, the workman has alleged

that the affidavit filed by the official of the management

should not be read in the evidence and criminal proceedings

should be initiated against him for alleged forgery and

fabrication. The workman has also asserted that on the

date and time shown in the affidavit, the deponent could

not be feasibly present before the oath commissioner for

swearing the pleas taken therein. Learned authorized

representative of the management while refuting the charges

has submitted that no forgery has been committed by any

official of the management. The management has pointed

out that Shri Babu Lal was looking after the working of

Divisional Engineer (Phones), Khurja and Telephone

Exchange, Khurja and telephone exchanges related to it

are under Shri Babu Lal and he is free to go there in relation

to day to day working and administrative obligations

assigned to him. Therefore, the verification of the said

affidavit at Khurja which was residential place of the

deponent cannot legitimately create any doubt in veracity

of the same. Any other typing error or clerical error which

has patently or inadvertently occurred should not be

highlighted unnecessarily. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid

affidavit, challenged by the workman, clearly indicates that

it cannot be discarded on mere technicalities raised by the

workman. There was no personal intention or polluted

motive of Sri Baboo Lal, a senior official of the opposite

party, in deposing and signing the affidavit.

17.

The management has relied upon following

pronouncements of Hon’ble Courts:

(i)

2010 ACJ, 176 (SC)

(ii)

2008, LCD (26) 871 (All. H.C.)

(iii)

1995 AIR 350 (SC)

(iv)

2010 ACJ 2112 (SC)

(v)

2006 ACJ 1734 (SC)

18.

The learned authorized representative of the workman

argues that the above rulings do not apply to the facts of

the present case, but no cogent reason has been assigned

for this argument.

19.

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 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.”

20.

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:

904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“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/termination letter was given

to him; likewise his services have been termination orally.

The workman also tried to summon the payment vouchers

and attendance register for the relevant period and payment

details and the at the directions of this Tribunal, the

management has filed an affidavit to the effect that the

attendance register for the relevant period has lost and an

FIR in this regard has been lodged also it has field working

details of the workman which provide that the workman

has worked for 90 days from 4/97 to 3/98. The photocopy

of the alleged attendance registers filed by the workman is

illegible and does not constitute any evidence in support

of the workman that the workman had worked for 240 days

in twelve calendar months preceding the alleged date of

termination on 20.04.1999.

21.

Admittedly no appointment/termination letter was

issued; and also, there is no evidence of the workman that

the Assistant Engineer was competent to engage any casual

labour. The details of working/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.

20.04.99. 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 Telecom

Department and he worked for 240 days during period

19.04.98 to 20.04.99 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, 1947, without giving him any

notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation.

22.

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.

23.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the

workman, Jai Prakash and I come to the conclusion that he

is not entitled to any relief.

24.

Award as above.

Lucknow

05th February, 2016

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 409-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 150@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@160@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 150/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Department of Telecommunication

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/01/2016.

[No. L-40012/160/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ID No. 150/2001

L-40012/160/2001-IR(DU) dated 28.08.2001

BETWEEN :

Sri Umesh Chandra S/o Sri Yogendra Pal Singh

Vill. Khaira, Post Khaira

Bulandshahr-203001

AND

The Divisional Engineer Telecom,

Bhur Telephone Exchange

Bulandshahr-203001

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/160/2001-IR(DU) dated

28.08.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

905

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 Umesh Chandra S/o Sri

Yogendra Pal Singh, Bulandshahr and the Divisional

Engineer Telecom . Bulandshahr for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF TELECOM

DEPARTMENT IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES

OF SRI UMESH CHANDRA S/O SRI YOGENDRA

PAL SINGH W.E.F. 30TH APRIL 1999, IS JUST FAIR?

IF NOT, FOR WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED TO?”

The workman has filed claim statement W-2 dated

05.11.2001, wherein briefly it has been stated that the

applicant had worked from 01.12.1997 to 30.11.1999,

continuously, on several assignments such as Computer,

MDF Installation and Technical work etc. He had further

stated that during the aforesaid period he had worked at

Swich Room, Bhoorh, Motibagh Exchange, Sikendrabad,

Dhankaur exchange. It has further been asserted that his

seniority was not considered, his removal from service is

against the principle of natural justice. No prior notice was

given neither any retrenchment compensation etc. was paid.

The applicant has stressed that he is still unemployed and

suffering from financial hardship. He has requested for

reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of

back wages etc. An affidavit is also filed in support of the

claim statement.

The opposite party has filed written statement M-4

dated 18.12.2001, wherein main allegations of the claim

statement have been denied. The management has also

pointed out that in the proceedings initiated before the

Labour Commissioner ( C ) Dehradun in case D 8(3)/2001

the applicant had shown his date of termination as

30.04.1999, while before this Hon’ble Tribunal he has

mentioned as 30.11.99, his version is self contradictory

and can not be accepted. The management has further

stated in the written statement that no appointment letter

or termination letter has been filed alongwith claim

statement, details regarding his so called work and

assignment has not been given by the applicant, it has

also not been shown that who had issued the appointment

letter. The question of his removal does not arise, since he

was never appointed in the department of opposite party.

The management has requested to reject the claim statement

alongwith cost.

Later on rejoinder W-3 dated 21.02.2002 has been

filed by the applicant, with the denial of the pleadings taken

in the written statement, reiterated the pleas of the claim

statement. The applicant has clarified that due to typing

error date of termination has been wrongly mentioned while

the correct date of termination is 30.04.99. The applicant

has further requested to summon the attendance register

and form AC-17 w.e.f. 01.12.1997 to 30.04.99, while working

at the exchange and switch room and other office and he

had signed on the attendance register. The applicant has

again requested for his reinstatement alongwith back wages

and continuity of service etc.

The applicant has filed affidavit dated 15.02.2003,

photo copies of several documents have also been filed.

An affidavit regarding loss of the attendance register and

lodging of FIR has been filed C-42 by the management.

Certain documents as per list C-46 have further been filed

by the management. The applicant Sri Umesh Chandra has

filed his affidavit dated 02.12.2009 W-80 alongwith an

application, alleging therein forgery and fabrication in the

affidavit of Sri Babu Lal, requesting thereby to declare the

said affidavit null & void and to take criminal action against

the deponent. Separate written submission has also been

filed. The management has filed objection/written argument

as M-82 before then then Hon’ble Judge/Presiding Officer

regarding the plea of application pertaining to so called

forged and fabricated affidavit. Separate objection M-89

has been filed by the management. Rejoinder dated

01.09.2011 has again been filed by the workman regarding

so called forgery and fabrication etc.

The applicant Sri Umesh Chandra has filed affidavit

dated 15.02.2003 in support of his claim statement. He has

been cross examined on behalf of the management; another

witness Sri Anupam Saxena has also been examined by the

applicant, he was cross examined by the management.

The management has filed affidavit M-77 of Sri Babu

Lal, DE(Phones), along with annexure. He has been cross

examined on behalf of the workman.

10.

The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses of each other apart from putting oral as well as

written submissions.

11.

Heard arguments of the learned representatives of

both the parties have been heard at length and perused

material available on record in light thereto.

12.

The workman has come up with a case that he had

worked w.e.f. 01.12.97 to 30.04.99 continuously for more

than 240 days in a year. It is also his case that he was

neither served upon any appointment letter nor any

termination letter while terminating his services w.e.f.

30.04.1999 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 ACG-17 payment vouchers.

13.

In rebuttal the management has contended that the

workman has never been appointed to perform the duties

as claimed by him and he should be put to strict proof of it.

It has also been contended that the workman has not

specified as to under whom he worked so that it could be

ascertained his working. It has been argued that the

workman never completed 240 days’ continuous working

906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in a year and there was no appointment/termination/

retrenchment at any point of time; and this does not violate

any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14.

I have scanned entire evidence available on record

in light of the rival pleading and respective pleadings of

the parties.

15.

As pointed out above, by the learned authorized

representative of the workman, the workman has alleged

that the affidavit filed by the official of the management

should not be read in the evidence and criminal proceedings

should be initiated against him for alleged forgery and

fabrication. The workman has also asserted that on the

date and time shown in the affidavit, the deponent could

not be feasibly present before the oath commissioner for

swearing the pleas taken therein. Learned authorized

representative of the management while refuting the charges

has submitted that no forgery has been committed by any

official of the management. The management has pointed

out that Shri Babu Lal was looking after the working of

Divisional Engineer (Phones), Khurja and Telephone

Exchange, Khurja and telephone exchanges related to it

are under Shri Babu Lal and he is free to go there in relation

to day to day working and administrative obligations

assigned to him. Therefore, the verification of the said

affidavit at Khurja which was residential place of the

deponent cannot legitimately create any doubt in veracity

of the same. Any other typing error or clerical error which

has patently or inadvertently occurred should not be

highlighted unnecessarily. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid

affidavit, challenged by the workman, clearly indicates that

it cannot be discarded on mere technicalities raised by the

workman. There was no personal intention or polluted

motive of Sri Babu Lal, a senior official of the opposite

party, in deposing and signing the affidavit.

16.

The management has relied upon following

pronouncements of Hon’ble Courts:

(i)

2010 ACJ, 176 (SC)

(ii) 2008, LCD (26) 871 (All. H.C.)

(iii)

1995 AIR 350 (SC)

(iv)

2010 ACJ 2112 (SC)

(v) 2006 ACJ 1734 (SC)

17.

The learned authorized representative of the workman

argues that the above rulings do not apply to the facts of

the present case, but no cogent reason has been assigned

for this argument.

18.

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 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.”

19.

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/termination letter was given

to him; likewise his services have been termination orally.

The workman also tried to summon the payment vouchers

and attendance register for the relevant period and payment

details and the at the directions of this Tribunal, the

management has filed an affidavit to the effect that the

attendance register for the relevant period has lost and an

FIR in this regard has been lodged. The photocopy of the

alleged attendance registers, filed by the workman is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

907

illegible and does not constitute any evidence in support

of the workman that the workman had worked for 240 days

in twelve calendar months preceding the alleged date of

termination on 30.04.1999.

20.

Admittedly no appointment letter was issued; and

also, there is no pleading from the workman that under

whom he worked or who engaged/appointed him in the

department. The details of working/payment relied upon

by the workman i.e. photocopy of muster roll, do not show

that the workman actually worked for 240 days in a year

preceding the date of termination i.e. 30.04.99. 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 Telecom Department

and he worked for 240 days during period 29.04.98 to

30.04.99 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, 1947, without giving him any notice or

notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation.

21.

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.

22.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the

workman, Umesh Chand and I come to the conclusion that

he is not entitled to any relief.

23.

Award as above.

Lucknow

05th February, 2016.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 410-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsyhdE;wfuds'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 106@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@100@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 106/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Department of Telecommunication

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 23/02/2016.

[No. L-40012/100/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ID No. 106/2001

L-40012/100/2001-IR(DU) dated 14.06.2001

BETWEEN :

Sri Padam Singh S/o Sri Ramji Lal Singh

Vill. Mohan Nagar, Mohan Kuti, Maman Road

Bulandshahr-203001

AND

The Telecom. Distt. Manager

Telecom. Deptt. Babu Banarsi Das Trust Bldg.

Near Kandriya Vidalya Bulandshahr

Bulandshahr-203001

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/100/2001-IR(DU) dated

14.06.2001the 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 Padam Singh S/o Sri Ramji

Lal Singh, Bulandshahr and the Telecom Distt. Manager,

Telecom Deptt. Bulandshahr for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF TELECOM

DEPARTMENT IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES

OF SRI PADAM SINGH S/O SRI RAMJI LAL SINGH

W.E.F. 20TH APRIL, 1999, IS JUST FAIR? IF NOT,

FOR WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED TO?”

The workman has filed claim statement W-3 dated

23.07.2001, wherein briefly it has been stated that the

applicant had worked from 03.03.1997 to Oct.1997 and from

Nov.1997 to April 1999, under the subordination of AE

(installation) Telephone Exchange, Khurga distt.

Bulandshahr, and he had worked for 240 days continuously

during one year, he has also been working for the work of

MDF testing, but he was removed from service without

908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

assigning any reason on 20.04.1999, no prior notice was

given neither any retrenchment compensation etc. was paid,

neither any enquiry was held. The applicant has alleged

that provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, was not

followed and his seniority was not considered and principle

of “first come last go and last come first go” was also not

followed, while several employees junior to the applicant

are still working. The applicant has also pleaded that he is

unemployed and suffering from financial hardship.

The applicant has further asserted that case No.1308/

99 was filed by him before Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal where it has been ordered that the CAT had got

no jurisdiction in this matter. Pleading that his removal of

service is against the principle of natural justice as well he

has requested for his reinstatement with continuity of

service and payment of back wages etc. A affidavit has

been filed with his claim statement. As per the list 4 dated

22.02.2002 photo copies of several documents have been

filed by the workman.

The opposite party has filed written statement M-6

dated 29.08.2001, wherein main allegation of the claim

statement have been denied. The opposite party has stated

that the applicant has worked for 20days, 90 days and 74

days only during the year 96-97, 97-98 and 98-99,

respectively, meaning thereby he had worked only for 74

days and his assertion that he had worked for 240 days is

false. The management has also emphasized that he had

never worked for MDF testing, rather has been engaged as

casual labour, the applicant had filed case 1308/99 before

Hon’ble CAT, Delhi, which was dismissed on 11.02.2000

for want of jurisdiction and on merits, imposing cost of

Rs.250/ on the applicant but he had not deposited the cost

yet. The opposite party has further stressed that the

applicant had filed several case before different forums

causing of loss of revenue to the department, no

appointment letter was ever issued to the workman, and

there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The

management has prayed to dismiss the claim statement

alongwith cost. The management has filed several

documents as per list 6.

The applicant while denying the pleadings of written

statement as filed rejoinder, reiterating the pleas taken in

the claim statement. The applicant has emphasized that

facts cannot ascertained the summoning attendance

his reinstatement with continuity in service alongwith full

back wages etc.

The management has stated that attendance register

w.e.f. 03.03.1997 to April 1999 is missing, FIR has also been

registered, ACG-17 payment receipt is also not available

since the record is very old, regarding payment copy of

ACE-2 has been annexed alongwith written statement,

record relating to MDF testing being very old is not

traceable therefore not filed.

The applicant Sri Padam Singh has filed his affidavit

dated 02.09.2002, in support of the claim statement. He has

been cross-examined on behalf of the management, on

several dates. Another witness Sri Anupam Saxena has

also been examined by applicant as W-76. He was cross-

examined by the management.

The management has filed affidavit M-79 of Sri Babu

Lal DE(Phones). He has been cross-examined on behalf of

the workman.

10.

The applicant has filed affidavit W-83 and application

W-84, alleging therein forgery and fabrication in the affidavit

of Sri Babu Lal, requesting there by to declare the said

affidavit nul & void and to take criminal action against the

deponent. Separate written submission has also been filed.

The management has filed written argument before the then

Hon’ble Judge/PO as M-85 regarding plea of applicant

pertaining to so called forged and fabricated affidavit,

objection dated 05.06.2011 has been filed by the

management. Again rejoinder dated 29.08.2011 has been

filed by the workman.

11.

The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses of each other apart from putting oral as well as

written submissions.

12.

Heard arguments of the learned representatives of

both the parties have been heard at length and perused

material available on record in light thereto.

13.

The workman has come up with a case that he had

worked under Assistant Engineer (Installation), Telephone

Exchange, Khurja from 03.03.1997 to October, 1997 and

under Asstt. Engineer (NEAX) Telephone Exchange, Bud,

Bulandshahar form November, 1997 to April, 1999 regularly

for more than 240 days in a year. It is also his case that he

was neither served upon any appointment letter nor any

termination letter while terminating his services w.e.f.

20.04.1999 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 ACG-17 payment vouchers.

14.

In rebuttal the management has contended that the

workman has been engaged as casual labourer under

Assistant Engineer (Installation) in the year 1996-97 for 20

days and in the year 1997-98 for 90 days. It has been

further asserted that he also worked under SDE (ANEX),

Bulanshahar for 74 days only and he never completed 240

days’ continuous working in a 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 department intermittently; and this does not violate

any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

I have scanned entire evidence available on record

in light of the rival pleading and respective pleadings of

the parties.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

909

16.

As pointed out above, by the learned authorized

representative of the workman, the workman has alleged

that the affidavit filed by the official of the management

should not be read in the evidence and criminal proceedings

should be initiated against him for alleged forgery and

fabrication. The workman has also asserted that on the

date and time shown in the affidavit, the deponent could

not be feasibly present before the Oath Commissioner for

swearing the pleas taken therein. Learned authorized

representative of the management while refuting the charges

has submitted that no forgery has been committed by any

official of the management. The management has pointed

out that Shri Babu Lal was looking after the working of

Divisional Engineer (Phones), Khurja and Telephone

Exchange, Khurja and telephone exchanges related to it

are under Shri Babu Lal and he is free to go there in relation

to day to day working and administrative obligations

assigned to him. Therefore, the verification of the said

affidavit at Khurja which was residential place of the

deponent cannot legitimately create any doubt in veracity

of the same. Any other typing error or clerical error which

has patently or inadvertently occurred should not be

highlighted unnecessarily. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid

affidavit, challenged by the workman, clearly indicates that

it cannot be discarded on mere technicalities raised by the

workman. There was no personal intention or polluted

motive of Sri Babu Lal, a senior official of the opposite

party, in deposing and signing the affidavit.

17.

The management has relied upon following

pronouncements of Hon’ble Courts:

(i)

2010 ACJ, 176 (SC)

(ii)

2008, LCD (26) 871 (All. H.C.)

(iii)

1995 AIR 350 (SC)

(iv)

2010 ACJ 2112 (SC)

(v)

2006 ACJ 1734 (SC)

18.

The learned authorized representative of the workman

argues that the above rulings do not apply to the facts of

the present case, but no cogent reason has been assigned

for this argument.

19.

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 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.”

20.

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/termination letter was given

to him; likewise his services have been termination orally.

The workman also tried to summon the payment vouchers

and attendance register for the relevant period and payment

details and the at the directions of this Tribunal, the

management has filed an affidavit to the effect that the

attendance register for the relevant period has lost and an

FIR in this regard has been lodged also it has field working

details of the workman which provide that the workman

has worked for 110 days from 04.03.97 to 03.03.98 and for

74 days from 04.03.98 to 03.03.99. The photocopy of the

alleged attendance registers filed by the workman is illegible

and does not constitute any evidence in support of the

workman that the workman had worked for 240 days in

twelve calendar months preceding the alleged date of

termination on 20.04.1999.

910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.

Admittedly no appointment letter was issued; and

also, there is no evidence of the workman that the Assistant

Engineer was competent to engage any casual labour. The

details of working/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. 20.04.99.

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 Telecom

Department and he worked for 240 days during period

19.04.98 to 20.04.99 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, 1947, without giving him any

notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation.

22.

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.

23.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the

workman, Padam Singh and I come to the conclusion that

he is not entitled to any relief.

24.

Award as above.

Lucknow

05th February, 2016.

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 411-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fuxe fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 139@2006º dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@2@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 411.—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. 139/2006] of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial 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 23/02/2016.

[No. L-40012/2/2006-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 5th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 139/2006

Dy. General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam ltd.

C.G. Road,

Ahmedabad

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Shri Lakshmansingh Dalsukhbhaai Patel,

Kundala Post office Sampa Tehsil,

Godhra, Dist: Panchmahal,

Gujarat

...Second Party

For the First Party

—

For the Second Party

Sh. Vijaykumar G. Chauhan,

Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 40012/2/2006-

IR(DU) dated 15.06.2006 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 Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ahmedabad by retrenching the

services of Shri Lakshman Singh Dalsukhbhai Patel

w.e.f. 31.07.1996 is legal and justified? If not , what

relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

This reference dates back to 15.06.2006. Both the

parties were served. Acknowledge of service of register

post is also received but second party did not prefer to file

the statement of claim despite filing the vakalatnama (Ext.7)

of his advocate and also seeking time vide application

(Ext.8). Thus, it appears that second party is not interested

in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal

has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

911

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 412-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

lqi¯jVsaMsaV vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQl] /ksydk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ (lhthvkbZVh,) la- 35@2004º dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@264@94&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 412.—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. 35/2004] of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Assistant

Supdt. of Post Office, Dholka and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 23/02/2016.

[No. L-42012/264/94-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 19th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 35/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 5/1996

The Asst. Suptd. Of Post Office,

Sub-division, Dholka,

Dist.: Ahmedabad

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. K.G. Prajapati,

Nani Devti,

Post Nani Devti,

Bavla Dist.,

Ahmedabad-380001

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. P.M. Rami, Advocate

For the Second Party

Sh. B.B. Thesia, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 42012/264/94-

IR(DU) dated 26.02.1996 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 Asstt. Superintendent of Post

Offices, Dholka (Ahmedabad) in removing Shri K.G.

Prajapati, EDA from service is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from what date and what directions are necessary in

the matter?”

The second party workman name K.G. Prajapati

submitted his statement of claim (Ext.2) alleging that he

joined as an ED Agent on 10.07.1984 after receiving an

appointment letter. He had been serving the Department of

Post and Telegraph for 240 days in each year till his services

were terminated. His service record was spotless despite

the same he was served with the charge sheet levelling

with baseless and false charges on 03.10.1991.

Consequently, the charge sheet and inquiry, his services

were terminated on 30.06.1998. The action was illegal,

improper and also against the principles of natural justice.

He further alleged that he was in fact orally terminated on

11.03.1991 at the time when he was not served with the

charge sheet. After a laps of time, he was reinstated but

thereafter with the service of charge sheet, he was again

terminated from the service.

There was no written complaint against him regarding

work and conduct and if it was so he was not communicated

or served with the copy of the complaint during enquiry. A

departmental enquiry was conducted but during the course

of departmental enquiry, he was not given any opportunity

defending himself or through next representative. Enquiry

was conducted violating the all set of the principles of

natural justice. Enquiry officer did not appreciate the

evidence on record properly. Copy of enquiry was not given

to him in the Guajarati language as asked by him. Thus,

inquiry report was bad and perverse in the eye of law.

Branch Post Master was prejudiced with him and with a

vested interest he sent an adverse report to the higher

authorities. Thus, the impugned action was illegal and liable

to be set aside.

The first party, the Asst. Superintendent of Post

Offices, Sub-division Dholka, Dist.: Ahmedabad submitted

written statement (Ext.6) alleging that Postal Department is

not an industry, therefore, categorisation of Extra

Departmental agents working in the department does not

come within the category of workman under the provisions

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by the Apex Court

912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in its judgement dated 02.02.1996. It is true that the second

party had been working as Extra Departmental Agents, Nani

Devti Branch office with effect from 10.07.1984 till the

removal of service from 30.09.1993. It is also true that the

second party was served for more than 240 days in each

year. But his service record was not clean and spotless.

Therefore, he was served with the charge sheet by letter

No. B/EDA/KGP/91 dated 03.10.1991. It is wrong to say

that the departmental enquiry was not conducted properly.

The truth is that it was conducted following the principles

of natural justice and provisions of Rule 8 of P&T EDA

conduct rules 1964. He was made off duty vide memo

No. B/EDA/KGP/91 dated 03.10.1991. After the conclusion

of departmental proceedings and receipt of inquiry report,

the second party was finally removed from the services

under the provisions of Rule 7 of the P&T EDA conduct

and service rules, 1964 after giving him proper opportunity

of defending himself regarding his innocence. He could

have exhausted the other available channels by way of

appeal and review before the seeking the intervention of

the Labour Court. He never made any complaint regarding

the conduct of Mrs. Taraben Barot, Branch Post Master,

Nani Devti. Moreover, Branch Post Master was not having

any power to grant or sanction any kind of leaves. Thus,

the allegations levelled in the statement of claim are against

baseless and facts.

Following issues arise by the perusal of statement

of claim and written statement filed by the second and first

party respectively:

(i)

Whether the second party K.G. Prajapati was

the workman under the definition of Industrial

Disputes Act?

(ii)

Whether the second party K.G. Prajapati was

terminated from the service without following a

due process of law i.e. without conduct a proper

departmental inquiry?

(iii)

Whether the second party K.G. Prajapati was

given the opportunity of defending himself in

the departmental inquiry?

(iv)

Whether the inquiry officer correctly appreciated

the evidence during the course of departmental

inquiry?

(v)

Whether the second party K.G. Prajapati given

the copy of inquiry report before terminating

him from the services?

(vi)

Whether the Branch Post Master was prejudiced

with the second party K.G. Party?

Before giving any finding on aforesaid issues, I would

like to discuss the oral evidence given by the both the

parties.

Second party K.G. Prajapati stated on oath that I

served as an ED Agent in Nani Devti branch Post Office.

On date 10.07.1984, I joined the service as ED Agent and

had been serving till 13.3.1991. During this time,

management did not give me any notice and did not punish

regarding any misconduct. Again on 05.12.1991,

management took me in service but terminated me by an

oral order. No departmental enquiry was held against me.

After that, I served for 1 ½ years till 30.09.1993. On 30.09.1993

I was again terminated. I was terminated by Sh Adaj , L.P.

Shri Behrambhai Dhirjibhai Makawana did work which I

was performing. Taraben Barot is the branch Post Master.

Behrabhai Dhirjibhai is appointed by Taraben. Taraben

deliberately did not send my leave report to the higher

officers. I was terminated by way of victimisation. In order

to appoint someone else on my post, I was terminated.

Since my termination, I have tried to secure job elsewhere

but in vain. Even today, I am ready to resume my duties if

the first party is ready for this. On cross-examination he

stated that I was appointed on 10.07.1984 as EDA and I

used to distribute posts . I am aware of my duties as an

EDA and whenever one proceeds on leave he has to give

his leave report and depute another person on his place. It

is not true that I proceeded on leave from 04.03.1991 to

12.03.1991 without any sanction or submitting report

thereof. We have to report branch post master. I do not

have the copy of the report submitted to the branch post

master during the aforesaid period. It is not true that from

15.02.1991 to 02.03.1991, I have not properly register money

orders, register ADs, and posts. It is true that I was give

memo on 13.03.1991 and was suspended. I was given charge

sheet on 04.10.1991 and I remained present in the

departmental inquiry wherein I also submitted my defence.

I was terminated on 30.09.1993. It is true that I received the

inquiry report thereof. I have not filed any appeal before

the appellate authority. It is not true that the charges levelled

against me were proved.

On behalf of the first party Ratnaji was examined

who stated that I have been working as Asst.

Superintendent of Post office and presently posted at

Porbandar. I know the facts of the present case. Shri Kantilal,

Second party was appointed on 10.07.1984 as EDA at Nani

devti branch post office. The second party doing the work

of bringing posts, distributing the same, taking out the

same from the post office as well as affixing stamps on the

same. The second party was not performing his duties

properly and used to remain absent on his own without

giving any report. He also used to go away while on duty.

He was given a warning regarding absent from the duty.

On 13.03.1991, the second party shri kantilal was

suspended, the copy of order thereof is produced vide

Ext.7/1 which bears my signature. I was shown Ext. 7(2)

and the same is letter dated 05.12.1991 is issued by the

higher authority for cancellation of suspension order On

that basis, the second party was taken back on work on

09.12.1991. Ext. 7(3) is the charge sheet issued to the second

party. The said charge sheet pertains to him remaining

unauthorisedly absent from 04.03.1991 to 12.03.1991 without

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

913

any permission. (2) from 26.02.1991 to 02.03.1991 , he did

not register entries of registered Ad as well as money order

given to him for distribution. (3) He had been absent from

04.03.1991 to 12.03.1991, but he signed in the branch post

office register in token of receipt of money order as well as

From 15.02.1991 to 18.02.1991, he did not visit Amathapura

village. He visited the same village on 19.02.1991 and forced

Mr. Kantibhai Bhaichandbhai Patel and put his signatures

on all the dates together in the postman visit book. These

signatures are taken in token of visit to the said village.

The charge sheet bears my signatures. He was given 10

days time to file reply against the charge sheet. The second

party gave his reply dated 07.10.1991 vide Ext. 7(4). A

departmental enquiry was initiated against the second party

for the said charges. Shri A.N . Trivedi, Asst. Superintendent

of Post Office. Gandhinagar conducted the inquiry. The

second party was afforded fullest opportunity in the inquiry

proceedings. Ext.7(5) is the inquiry report. As all the four

charges levelled against the second party were proved, he

was terminated and as copy of thereof was given to the

second party. Ext. 7(6) is the termination letter dated

30.09.1993 which is also received by the second party. Ext.

7(7) is the copy of register Ad which bears the signature of

second party. Ext. 7(8) is the copy of money receipt. The

second party was terminated after conducting departmental

inquiry. Ext. 15 is the report of inquiry proceedings. I am

not authorised to take the second party on service. On his

cross-examination he stated that I have been working at

Dholka from 16.05.1990 to 16.06.1994. Second party used

to work under me. My designation is Asst. superintendent

of post office, Dholka Sub-division. Taraben Barot was

Branch Post Master of Nani Devti post office. It is not true

that the second party had to work only at Nani Devti post

office. The second party had to take various posts from

Nani Devti post office and to distribute the same in nearby

villages. I personally used to work at Dholka. It is true that

the second party used to work under Taraben Barot. Shri

Bhathibhai Fulabhai Makwana is appointed on temporary

basis in place of the second party. He was relieved and Shri

Bhairavbhai Dhirabhai is taken on work. I did not give any

deposition before the inquiry officer in the inquiry

proceedings of the second party. The second party has

worked from 10.07.1984 to 12.03.1991 and 09.12.1991 to

30.09.1993. We also received complaints against the work

and conduct of second party during the period of 1984 to

1990. In this regard, he was also given warning notice but

the same is not produced in the present case. As the second

party made the representation against the suspension order,

consequently, the suspension order was revoked. However,

he was not paid any salary for suspension period of

13.03.1991 to 05.12.1991. I had informed the department

regarding the absence of the second party in 1991.

ISSUE NO. I:- Whether the second party K.G.

Prajapati was the workman under the definition of Industrial

Disputes Act?- Neither any evidence was adduced nor

any arguments was made by either of the parties on this

issue. Therefore, it shall be taken as K.G. Prajapati being

the temporary ED Agent.

ISSUE NO II & III:- Whether the second party K.G.

Prajapati was terminated from the service without following

a due process of law i.e. without conduct a proper

departmental inquiry?- and Whether the second party K.G.

Prajapati was given the opportunity of defending himself

in the departmental inquiry?-On these issues, K.G. Prajapati

second party, during his cross-examination has stated that

It is true that I was give memo on 13.03.1991 and was

suspended. I was given charge sheet on 04.10.1991 and I

remained present in the departmental inquiry wherein I also

submitted my defence. I was terminated on 30.09.1993. It is

true that I received the inquiry report thereof. I have not

filed any appeal before the appellate authority. Thus, from

the perusal of his statement it cannot be said he was not

given proper opportunity of hearing and defending himself.

Therefore, these issues II and III are decided in negative

i.e. against the second party.

10.

ISSUE NO.IV:- Whether the inquiry officer correctly

appreciated the evidence during the course of departmental

inquiry?- On this question the learned counsel for the

second party put forth the argument that the witnesses of

the second party were not helpful to the inquiry officer

therefore, inquiry officer disbelieve the disposition of the

witnesses of the second party. He did not properly

evaluated the evidence of the first party witness and gave

his inquiry report without any basis. Had he evaluated the

cross-examination of all the witnesses of the first party

then he did not given his finding in the inquiry report?

This arguments is not tenable because there is nothing on

record to show that the inquiry officer gave his findings

without any reason. Because the second party K.G. Prajapati

in his statement of claim (Ext.3) as well as in examination in

chief has not stated that he did not commit any misconduct

by remaining absent duty without permission or prior

sanction of leave. He has also not preferred any appeal, as

admitted by him against the inquiry report including

punishment. Thus, it cannot be said that the inquiry officer

has not evaluated the evidence properly.

11.

ISSUE NO. V:- Whether the second party K.G.

Prajapati given the copy of inquiry report before terminating

him from the services?- As regards the receipt of the inquiry

report, the second party K.G. Prajapati has not stated in his

examination that he was not given the inquiry report. Thus,

this issue is decided in negative i.e. against the second

party.

12.

ISSUE NO. VI:- Whether the Branch Post Master

was prejudiced with the second party K.G. Party?- Second

party has not given any evidence on this issue as regards

the prejudiceness of the Branch Post Master with the

second party. Thus this issue is decided in negative i.e.

against the second party.

914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

I perused the inquiry report and the evidence given

during the course of inquiry which clearly indicates that

the second party remain absent for the 04.03.1991 to

12.03.1991 without any permission and also regarding non

visit of the second party of Anantpura village on 15.02.1991,

16.02.1991 and 18.02.1991. He also obtained signatures of

one K.G. Patel in his visit book together for four days on

19.02.1991 violating the rule no. 17 of the P&T EDA (C&S)

rules 1965 by not marinating dedication to duty.

14.

The learned counsel for the second party put forth

all the arguments on the facts which were taken in the

statement of claim but no such facts were tried or attempted

by the second party to prove by either oral or documentary

evidence. He has not stated in his evidence that he ever

made any complaint against the Branch Post Master Taraben

regarding her prejudiceness against him. Similarly, he has

not imposed that enquiry officer also prejudice with him.

He has not tried to establish this fact by way of any type of

evidence.

15.

Thus, all the arguments are untenable. There were

catena decisions of the Apex court that if the workman or

the second party has not challenged the inquiry report by

way of appeal before the departmental appellate authority

in such case impugned action cannot be interfered in the

reference by way of award. In the present case, this is the

admitted fact that the second party admittedly has not

challenged the finding of the inquiry report before the

departmental appellate authority by way of appeal. Thus,

the reference is not maintainable and therefore, the

impugned action of removal of second party Shri K.G.

Prajapati by the first party cannot be set aside.

The order is passed accordingly. The reference is

dismissed. Both the parties will bear their own costs.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 413-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsØsVjh] ubZ

fnYyh E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 78@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@155@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 78/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Secretary, NDMC and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-42011/155/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No.78/2015

Shri Munshi Lal,

C/o Nagar Palika Karamchari Union,

Palika Niwas,

Lodhi Colony,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Secretary,

N.D.M.C. Palika Kendra,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi 110 001

...Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/155/2014-

IR(DU) dated 04.02.2015, referred the following industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“How far was the enquiry proceedings in consonance

with law and it there was any malafide in the enquiry?

If yes, what relief is the worker entitled to? And if the

period of suspension can be counted as period spent

and continuity of service?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, the claimant opted

not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to

the claimant as well as the management. Neither the postal

article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed

by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in

the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption

lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served

upon the claimant. Despite granting of several

opportunities, the claimant opted not to file his statement

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

915

of claim. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested

in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither filed his statement of

claim nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with

no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : February 15, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 414-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 61@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@29@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 61/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 24/02/2016.

[No. L-42011/29/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 18th February, 2016

Present :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 61/2014

[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 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and their

workman]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

BHEL Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)

Opp. Building No. 79

Tiruchirappali-620014

AND

The Executive Director

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Bharat Heavy

Electricals Ltd.

Kailashpuram

Tiruchirappalli

Tamil Nadu-620014

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s B. Rajagopal, Advocates

Petitioner Union

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

1st Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/29/2014-IR (DU)

dated 15.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand for applicability and effect of

wage revision to temporary employee artisans who

were recruited against regular vacancies w.e.f.

01.01.2007 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief

the union is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 61/2014 and issued notice 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 Claim

Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner union is affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor

Sangh and All India Federation of Public Sector Employees

National Confederation representing the workers. The

petitioner is working for the betterment of the workers. The

Respondent is a major unit of BHEL. Consequent to the

revision of wages for the workers of the Respondent

establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2007 based on the memorandum

of agreement reached on 30.12.2009, revised wages were

implemented and the arrears of wages were paid to the

workers. In the meeting of Wage Anomalies Committee

held on 17.03.2011 discussion was made regarding revision

of wage rates in respect of temporary employee artisans.

After this a circular dated 05.04.2011 was issued by which

revised wage of Rs. 11,000/- was payable to temporary

916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employee artisans who were working as on 17.03.2011, the

date of the wage anomaly committee meeting. The above

circular was amended by a circular dated 12.07.2011 and by

this the benefit of revised wages of Rs. 11,000/- was

extended to temporary workers who joined the services of

the Company on or after 01.01.2010 against sanctioned

vacancies. This has resulted in payment of consolidated

wages of Rs. 11,000/- to temporary workers who had joined

on or after 01.01.2010 whereas those who have joined on or

before 31.12.2009 received only Rs. 5,500/- even if they

belong to same batch or senior batch. This has resulted in

anomaly in consequential payments in other matters also.

The petitioner has raised industrial dispute in view of this.

While the matter was pending with the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) the Respondent issued another

circular dated 12.07.2011 extending the benefit of revised

consolidated payment to all temporary workers who had

joined the services of the Company on or after 01.01.2009

against sanctioned vacancies. They were eligible for the

amount from the date of their joining the services of the

Company. This has resulted in disturbing the equity in the

matter of payment of uniform consolidated amount. Some

workers who have joined in the year 2008 are affected by

the circular. The very purpose of issuing the circular dated

12.07.2011 making the benefit applicable to other temporary

workers also was that the earlier circular “Disturbed the

equity in the matter of payment of uniform consolidated

amount”. The circular dated 12.07.2011 defeated this very

purpose. As the wage revision is applicable from 01.01.2007,

all the temporary workers who had joined on 01.01.2007 or

thereafter are entitled to the benefit of revised consolidated

wages.

As per the wage revision agreement, the regular

employees who were on the rolls of the Company on the

date of wage revision settlement i.e. 30.12.2009 are eligible

to get 2.5 increments as the benefit of revision alongwith

the pay fixation benefit. However, this benefit was not

extended to temporary employee artisans recruited against

sanctioned vacancies who were on the rolls of the Company

as on 30.12.2009 even though they were serving like any

other employees. It is discrimination without any basis.

The stand of the Respondent that only regular employees

are entitled to 2.5 increment is without any justification.

There is no exclusion clause in the Memorandum of

Agreement dated 30.12.2009 excluding the temporary

employee artisans. As per the agreement employees who

have been regularized between 01.01.2007 and upto

31.12.2009 will also be granted 2.5 increments at 3% rate i.e.

total 7.5% of revised Basic Pay w.e.f. date of their

regularization as a special one-time dispensation. So it is

obvious that there is no bar in paying 2.5 increments to

temporary employee artisans. The conciliation before the

ALC (C) has failed and the matter has been referred to this

Tribunal. The decision of the wage anomaly committee

should be implemented from 01.01.2007 which is the date

from which the wage revision is to be effective. The splitting

up of same batch of temporary employees recruited against

sanctioned vacancies through a common advertisement

has disturbed the equity in the matter of payment of uniform

consolidated amount. Several workmen are affected by this

kind of splitting. The action of the Respondent is unfair

and is against natural justice. An order may be passed

directing that revised consolidated wages should be

paid w.e.f. 01.01.2007 or from the date on which the

respective employees joined and also directing that 2.5

increments should be paid to those who were on the rolls

of the Company as temporary employee (artisan) on

30.12.2009 the date of signing of the Memorandum of

Agreement.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The negotiation of revision of wages, allowances

and other service conditions, memorandum of

understandings and issue of circulars on those issues are

always confined to regular employees in workman category

from Grade A-1 to A-9. The temporary employee artisans is

only a period of pre-employment training for a period of

one year to enable the candidate acquainted with the work

atmosphere, appliances, operation of utilities, etc.

Absorption in the regular establishment is based on review

of their performance. No pay related issue concerning them

used to be dealt with in the direct negotiations in the

Memorandum of Understanding or in the wage revision

circulars issued by the Corporate Office of the Respondent.

The circular dated 06.02.2010 provided for fixation of pay

in the revised salary grade. Clause-7.2 of the circular made

an exception that employees who have been regularized

between 01.01.2007 and up to 31.12.2009 will also be granted

2.5 increments each of equal value at 3% revised scale of

pay w.e.f. the date of their regularization as a special one-

time dispensation. On the date of the circular dated

06.02.2010 there were a large number of temporary

employees who were getting daily rate of wages for six

months and consolidated wages for the next six months

during their temporary service. On the basis of

representation made on their behalf the Wage Anamoly

Committee which was convened on 17.03.2011 decided to

raise the consolidated amount payable to unskilled worker

as Rs. 10,500/-, semi-skilled worker as Rs. 10,750/- and to

skilled worker as Rs. 11,000/- It was also agreed upon that

the amount will be payable from the date of joining to all

the temporary employees recruited against the sanctioned

vacancies who were working in various units of the

Respondent as on 17.03.2011 as well as those to be recruited

in future. On the basis of representations that the benefit

should be given to temporary workmen prior to 17.03.2011

the benefit was extended to those temporary workmen who

joined on or after 01.01.2010 also, by circular dated

22.07.2011. In the meeting of the Joint Committee held on

30th and 31st August 2013 it was agreed to allow enhanced

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

917

consolidated amount to those who had joined as temporary

employees on or after 01.01.2009 with effect from the date

of joining the services of the Company. A circular was issued

accordingly. The minutes of the Joint Committee Meeting

held on 30th and 31st of August 2013 are binding on the

petitioner union as the Apex Body to which it is affiliated

was party to the said Joint Committee Meeting. A demand

was also made that such of those temporary employees

recruited against sanctioned vacancies who are on the rolls

of the Company as on 31.12.2009 also should be paid 2.5

increments. This demand is without any justification. The

benefit of 2.5 increments was admissible to the regular

employees on the rolls of the Company as on 31.12.2009. In

so far as temporary employees are concerned the benefit

was given only to those who have been regularized

between 01.01.2007 upto 31.12.2009 as a special one-time

dispensation. It was for this reason this category of

workmen were not considered for enhanced consolidated

wages. Apart from this the issue has been finally settled in

the Joint Committee Meeting held on 30th and 31st August,

2013. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the

Counter Statement denying the contentions therein and

reiterating its own case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext.W14 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M14.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the temporary employee artisans are entitled

to wage revision and 2.5 increments w.e.f. 01.01.2007?

(ii)

What, if any are the reliefs to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf

of a particular section of the temporary employee artisans

working with the Respondent. The claim is that

enhancement in the consolidated wages payable to the

temporary employee artisans should be w.e.f. 01.01.2007 or

from the respective dates on which they have joined

thereafter and also that 2.5 increments allowed as per the

wage revision should be allowed to these temporary

employee artisans also.

10.

As both demands of the petitioner are inter-mingled

it will be convenient to consider them together. The issue

has arisen out of the wage revision consequent to the

Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the

Respondent and the Unions on 30.12.2009. Consequent to

the memorandum of agreement circulars were issued

effecting wage revision as per the agreement. Clause 7.2 of

the circular provided for grant of 2.5 increments to

employees who have been regularized between 01.01.2007

and up to 31.12.2009 as in the case of regular employees as

a special one-time dispensation. It was thereafter three

circulars were issued by the Respondent by which

temporary employee artisans who have joined on or after

01.01.2009 became eligible for the enhanced consolidated

wages.

11.

The practice in the Respondent establishment seems

to be to take employees on sanctioned vacancies as

temporary employees. They will remain as temporary

employees for a period of one year before they are

regularized. According to the Respondent it is only on

successful completion of the period of temporary

employment during which time they are to undergo training

they will be absorbed in the regular establishment. Only

then the regular scale of pay with allowances become

payable to them. It is the case of the Respondent that the

negotiation for wage revision is always in respect of

permanent employees only and not in respect of temporary

employees. The Memorandum of Agreement dated

30.12.2009 was not meant for the temporary employees.

Apparently, this case of the Respondent is correct.

Temporary employee artisans are taken for a period of one

year with the understanding that they will be paid wages

on daily basis for the first six months and thereafter they

will be paid a consolidated amount for the next six months.

WW1, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has

joined the establishment as a temporary employee. At that

time, the temporary employment was for a period of 2.5

years only after which he was regularized. He was getting

consolidated payment of Rs. 5,500/- for the last six months

of his temporary employment. The very concept of

payment on daily wage basis and consolidated payment

and not payment on a regular scale is for the reason that

the concerned persons are only working as temporary

employees and are yet to become part of the establishment

as regular workers. The Memorandum of Agreement is only

in respect of regular workers which will not be applicable

to temporary employees.

12.

The different circulars by which the benefit of

consolidated payment was extended to temporary workers

who had joined at different years were not on the basis of

Memorandum of Agreement. There is no reference in the

Memorandum of Agreement to payment of consolidated

wages to the temporary workers. On the other hand these

benefits came by different circulars issued at different

times, circulars being Ext.W3, W4 and Ext.W6. The

argument that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is

that the enhancement in the consolidated payment should

have been made applicable to all those who joined on

01.01.2007 since this is the date from which the wage revision

to the regular employees comes into effect. It could be

seen from Ext.W3, the first circular that there was no

intention to give enhancement in the consolidated payment

to those who had joined before 17.03.2011. By Ext.W4 the

benefit was extended to those who joined on or after

01.01.2010. Subsequently it was noticed that this has caused

918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

some imparity in the sense that those who were recruited

by the same notification received different rates of

consolidated payment as they have joined on different

dates. Then it was demanded that the benefit should be

extended to those who joined from 01.01.2007. In the meeting

of the Joint Committee it was decided that it will be payable

to those who had joined as temporary employees on or

after 01.01.2009. It is stated that this provision was made

subject to the condition that this issue stands settled once

and for all and it will not be pushed back to any earlier case.

It is admitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder that the

meeting held on 30th and 31 August, 2013 by which it was

agreed to extend the benefit to those who joined on or after

01.01.2009 was attended by the organization to which the

petitioner union is affiliated. So as a matter of right the

petitioner could not claim extension of the benefit to a

further period back. The claim cannot be made on the basis

of the wage revision agreement as the same is not applicable

to temporary employees. So there is no foundation for the

claim made by the petitioner for extending the benefit of

consolidated payment further.

13.

The second demand of the petitioner is that the

benefit of 2.5 increments that is made available to those

employees who have been regularized between 01.01.2007

and up to 31.12.2009 should be made available to other

temporary employees also. It has been pointed out on

behalf of the respondent that it was because this benefit

was made available also this section of the temporary

employees were not given enhanced consolidated payment.

It could be seen that those temporary employees who have

joined after 01.01.2007 and were regularized before

31.12.2009 have received the benefit of 2.5 increments and

so the petitioner could not allege inequality on the ground

that the persons who were appointed by the same

notification were discriminated. During examination of

WW1, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has

stated that it is not the case of the petitioner that the workmen

who got the benefit of 2.5 in terms of settlement dated

30.04.2009 should also be given the benefit of higher wages

of Rs. 11,000/- for the period of temporary service. This

should be true vice-versa also. Those who got increase in

the pay as temporary employees shall not be entitled to

2.5% increments as claimed by the petitioners. This will

destroy the parity that was intended. The additional

increment was given only to those persons who did not

get enhancement in the consolidated pay. Annexure-4 to

Ext.W2 the circular dated 06.02.2010 gives an illustration

on pay fixation in respect of employees regularized between

01.01.2007 and up to 31.12.2009. This shows that by payment

of 2.5 additional increment they are getting Rs. 877.5 each

which is almost equal to the enhancement in the

consolidated pay that is allowed to those temporary artisans

who joined subsequently. So, the case that there is

discrimination in the absence of increase in the consolidated

amount payable to this section could not be accepted.

14.

The settlement is one that is accepted by the

Petitioner Union as well and it is binding on them also. The

settlement does not provide for any additional benefit of

2.5 increments for the section of workers on whose behalf

the claim is made. The agreement being in force also, the

claim could not be entertained.

In view of my discussion above, the reference is answered

against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/

WW1, Sri G. Sankar

Petitioner

WW2, Sri V. Vengadesan

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri Ajesh Sharma

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

10.02.2010

Minutes of 13th Meeting of the

Joint Committee for BHEL (2007)

held on 30.12.2009

Ext.W2

06.02.2010

Corporate Human Resource

Circular No. 007/IRX/2010

Ext.W3

05.04.2011

Corporate Human Resource

Circular

Ext.W4

12.07.2011

Corporate Human Resource

Circular

Ext.W5

20.08.2013

Notice for conciliation by ALC

(C)

Ext.W6

04.10.2013

Corporate Human Resource

Circular

Ext.W7

Employment Notice No. 1/2007

Ext.W8

22.09.2008

Offer of Appointment

Ext.W9

29.12.2008

Offer of Appointment to

19.01.2009

Mr. Mahesh Kannan R. Office

Order – Mr. Mahesh Kannan R.

joining

Ext.W10

04.07.2008

Office Order – Joining – TEA

Sri P. Thanigaiyarasu

Ext.W11

04.03.2008

Office Order – Joining – TEA

Sri M. Sankar

Ext.W12

20.04.2010

Office Order – Absorption as

Artisan Gr.IV – Sri M. Sankar

Ext.W13

18.09.2009

Office Order – Joining – TEA

Sri R. Venkatesan

Ext.W14

28.10.2010

Office Order – Absorption as

Artisan Gr.IV – Sri R. Venkatesan

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

919

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

08.08.2013

Claim under [2 (K)] of I.D. Act

filed by BMS Union before ALC

Ext.M2

26.09.2013

Reply of BHEL to ALC (C)

Puducherry

Ext.M3

14.12.2013

Reply of BHEL to ALC ©

Puducherry

Ext.M4

12.02.2014

Reply of BMS Union to ALC (C)

Puducherry

Ext.M5

07.07.2014

Letter from Additional GM (HR)

BHEL Regd. Office Delhi to the

Under Secretary to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Heavy

Industries, Public Enterprises,

New Delhi

Ext.M6

BHEL, Tiruchirappalli Employment

Notification No. 276, 277, 278,

280, 282, 283, 285 and 289

Ext.M7

10.08.1983

Corporate Personnel Circular No.

5 of 1983 – under reference AA/

PER/369 (Wage Revision Circular

from 01.09.1992 for 5 years) –

issued by BHEL, New Delhi

Ext.M8

04.07.1989

Circular No. 01/July/1989 issued

by Trichy Unit (Wage Revision

Circular from 01.09.1986 for 5

years and 3 months)

Ext.M9

Corporate Circular No. 22 of 1995

(Ref. No. AA/PER/501) (Wage

Revision Circular from 01.01.1992

to 31.12.1996) issued by BHEL,

New Delhi

Ext.M10

15.11.2000

Corporate Circular No. 045/IRX/

2000 (Ref.No.AA/PER/508A)

(Wage Revision Circular from

01.01.1997 for 10 years till

31.12.1996) issued by BHEL,

New Delhi

Ext.M11

03.02.2012

Corporate Office letter no. AA/

HR/IR/523 (AC) enclosing the

minutes of 2nd Meeting of

Anomalies Committee held on

17.03.2011 (issued by BHEL,

New Delhi)

Ext.M12

24.09.2013

Corporate Office Letter No. AA/

HR/525 (11-WS) enclosing the

Minutes of Special Session of

Joint Committee on 30th & 31st

August, 2013 (Issued by BHEL,

New Delhi)

Ext.M13

29.04.2014

Conciliation failure report of ALC

(Central)

Ext.M14

31.05.2011

Circular reconstituting Joint

Committee for BHEL (Ref. Page

No. 2 – CFF Karamchari Sangh

in Hardwar (CFFP).

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 415-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ egkjk"Vªk

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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 113@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@197@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/197/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/113/99

Shri Premlal Dahayat,

C/o Mishra, MPEB,

In front of office, Amanpur,

Jabapur, MP

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Regional Office, Wright Town,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of December, 2015

As per letter dated 7-3-99 by the Government of India,

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

920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/197/98/IR(B-

II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Jabalpur vide order No. 31/DE/ST/778/

96-97/7970 dated 1-11-96 in terminating Shri Premlal

Dahayat from service is justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1

to 3/12. Case of Ist party workman is that he is handicapped

by vision of one eye. He belongs to SC category. He was

appointed as clerk on 1-1-1989 on regular basis at Wright

town branch, Jabalpur. While working in said branch he

was suspended on 7-1-92. Chargesheet was served on him

on 7-7-1992. Enquiry Officers and Presenting Officers were

appointed. After their transfer, they could not complete

enquiry. Another Enquiry Officer was appointed,

R.W.Bhalerao was appointed as Presenting Officer.

Workman submit that evidence of 12 management’s

witnesses were recorded. Their statements did not support

allegations of management. Misconduct could not be

proved. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

Workman has submitted opinion of handwriting expert and

finger print expert Shri K.R.Pillai but the Enquiry Officer

refused to take the documents on record. the signatures

were not of the person whose specimen signatures were

submitted. Workman reiterates that charges against him

are not proved. That he was compelled to go away from the

place of posting and he was shown unauthorisely absent.

Charges alleged against him are not proved. Enquiry is not

properly conducted. On such ground, workman submits

that he be reinstated with full backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/8

opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party also submits

that the Ist party was initially appointed as clerk on

1-2-1989. He was posted at Wright town branch, Jabalpur

for the misconduct committed by him. workman was

suspended as per order dated 7-1-92. Chargesheet was

issued to him on 7-7-92. DE was conducted against him,

workman was dismissed, order of dismissal is legal. Charges

against workman were of serious nature. Irregularities and

mis-appropriation of the funds of the Bank. He fraudulently

withdrawn amounts from two accounts SB.A/C No. 4139 &

SB A/C No.K-88 forging signatures on withdrawal slip.

The details of the charges are narrated in the Written

Statement at Page 2. 2nd party also submits that 12

witnesses of management were examined before Enquiry

Officer. All the witnesses were cross-examined. Workman

examined himself. No defence witness was examined on

his behalf. It is reiterated that as per report of Enquiry

Officer misconduct is proved. Considering serious nature

of proved misconduct, punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is legal.

As per order dated 23-1-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal

In Affirmative

imposed against workman is proper

and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Workman though alleged enquiry conducted against

him was illegal on various grounds, he did not adduce

evidence in support of his contention. Evenafter finding

on preliminary issue, he has not participated in reference.

No evidence is adduced on other issues.

Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Shroti submits

that evidence of 12 management’s witnesses was recorded

before Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his report.

Personal hearing was given to workman issuing show cause

notice. The evidence of management’s witnesses is

devoted on the point that workman was working as cashier,

he was dealing with receiving and payment of money.

Enquiry Report is produced at Page 228. Enquiry Officer

has considered withdrawal of Rs.5000 dated 2-1-92 from

S.B.account No. 4139 Rs.4000 from SB.A/C. K-88. The

amount was written in payment scroll. On 23-10-91, workman

prepared himself the withdrawal slip of A/C No. 4139 of

Rs.4000/- written in the payment scroll. Other withdrawals

from A/C 4139 of Rs.29,600. Amount Rs.27,500 from

S.B.Account K-88 during the year 1991-92 by workman.

The Enquiry Officer recorded finding that charges against

workman are proved. Workman has not participated in

reference proceeding. No evidence is adduced to

substantiate his contentions. I donot find any reason to

hold that finding of Enquiry Officer are not supported by

evidence or the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

For non-participation of workman in reference proceeding,

the contentions of workman cannot be accepted. The

charges alleged against workman are supported by

evidence. That serious nature of misconduct proved by

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, punishment of dismissal

against workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons

I record my finding in Point No.1,2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of

Maharashtra, Jabalpur vide order No. 31/DE/ST/778/

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

921

96-97/7970 dated 1-11-96 in terminating Shri Premlal

Dahayat from service is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 416-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn cSad 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 vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 45@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@164@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2001) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/164/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Kishore Kumar Masih,

C-8, Adarsh Nagar, Kasaridih,

Durg (C.G)

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Allahabad Bank, AB,

Zonal Office,

Gautam Nagar,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of December 2015

As per letter dated 12-2-2001 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/

164/2000-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of the

Allahabad Bank in dismissing Shri kishore Kumar

Masih, Ex-Cashier-cum-clerk, Kasardih Branch of the

Bank from service w.e.f. 9-4-99 communicated to him

vide reference No. ROB/Per/KKM/VIG/104 dated

9-4-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 7/3 to 7/14. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

working as cashier-cum-clerk at Kasardih Branch, Distt

Durg of Allahabad Bank from December 1989 he was

deputed to staff training Centre from 24-4-95 to 29-4-95.

That one Ripu Daman Gajpal hereinafter referred as

complainant was holding A/C No. 841 in the branch. He

had complained about withdrawal of amount from his

account by cheque No. 600211 dated 12-12-94- Rs.6000/-

to Shri Raj Kumar Thakur, cheque No. 600213 dated

16-1-95- Rs.35,000 to Diesel India (Sirdar Baldee Singh),

Cheque No. 600212 dated 9-1-95 Rs.9000 payment of Roshan

Rajput on 1-2-95. Cheque No. 600214 dated 11-1-95 Rs.5000

payment to Iqbal dated 6-2-95. That the payments under

cheque were received by above persons. Cheque of

Rs.5000 payment to Iqbal is not available in the branch. It

is alleged that 2nd party obtained undated letter from

complainant after payment of disputed cheques. He letter

has been shown dated 24-4-95 in handwriting of Bank staff.

The complaint dated 24-4-95 was withdrawn by the

complainant as he was satisfied about his doubts and

requested no action was required to be taken on his

complaint. That 2nd party No.3 with malafide intention

obtained letters from recipients of amount Raj Kumar Singh

Thakur, Devendra patni, Roshan Singh Rajput, Iqbal

Hussain. 2nd party No.3 obstructed workman on 1-5-95

withdrawing his present assignment and not to access

bank record books etc. He was suspended by 2nd party.

No.2 as per order dated 16-4-95. Chargesheet was issued

to him by Regional Manager on 28-5-96. Enquiry was

commenced from 10-6-97 and completed on 27-4-98.

3. Ist party workman reiterates that the statements of

management witness No. 1 to 4 recorded before Enquiry

Officer cannot prove charge against him. That the

management did not call Raj Kumar Singh Thakur, Devendra

Patni, Roshan Singh Rajput, Iqbal Hussain for recording

their statements. That Enquiry Officer should not have

relied on evidence of management’s witnesses. The Enquiry

Officer was committed to hold that charges alleged against

workman are proved. Ist party workman reiterates that

question whether all the cheques in question were genuine

and whether cheques were in order at the time of its passing.

That the amount was withdrawn under disputed cheques

922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by complainant himself through different persons. Without

assigning any reason, the complainant Ripu Daman Gajpal

was not examined in Enquiry Proceedings. The complaint

was withdrawn by him. No connivance between workman

and witnesses receiving amount could be established. The

Enquiry Officer held amount under cheque was finally

received by workman. charge No. 1,2 & 4 were held proved.

The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The

misconduct alleged against him for fraudulent act cannot

be proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The

findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The punishment

of dismissal imposed against him is illegal. Workman has

claimed amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- towards interim relief.

Workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

4. 2nd party filed Written statement at Page 5/1 to 5/49

opposing claim to workman. Case of 2nd party is that Ist

party workman was working as cashier/ clerk at Kasaridih

branch, Distt. Durg. He committed fraudulent activities,

chargesheet was issued to workman on 28-5-96 for

misconduct under clause 19.5.j of Bipartite settlement. The

details of the charges are given in para 3 of the Written

Statement. Ist charge pertains to payment of Rs.9000/- to

Shri Roshan Rajput under Cheque No. 600212 dated 91-95

from Account No. 841 of Ripu Daman Gajpal. Charge No.2

pertain to payment of Rs.32,000/- under Cheque No. 600213

dated 16-1-95 to Diesel India through Sirdar Daljit Singh

on clearing from State Bank of India. Charge No. 3 is payment

of Rs. 5000 to Iqbal under cheque no. 600214 dated

11-1-1995, 4th charge pertains to payment of Rs.6000 to Raj

Kumar Thakur under Cheque No. 600211 dated 2-12-1994.

Workman submitting reply to chargesheet denied charges

against him, reply was found unsatisfactory and it was

decided to hold enquiry against workman. Shri R.C. Verma

was appointed as Enquiry Officer, R.J. Nagpal as Presenting

Officer. On transfer of Shri R.C. Verma, Shri S.G. Vaidya was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted on

various dates details given in Para 8 to 13. Enquiry Officer

submitted his report holding that charges 1, 2 & 4 alleged

against workman were proved. Charge No. 3 was not

proved. 2nd party reiterates that misconduct alleged against

workman is covered under clause 19.5.j of Bipartite

settlement. Enquiry was conducted properly allowing

opportunity for defence to the workman. Once complaint

is received by Bank, it cannot be left to the discussion of

complaint withdrawn at his choice. The consequences of

complaint would be based on investigation/ enquiry.

Enquiry was conducted to the full satisfaction of CSE.

There was no allegation about the enquiry conducted

against him. it is denied that the complaint was withdrawn.

MW-1 to 3 in their evidence says that the cheques were

given to them by workman. workman cannot direct

management to produce particular witness. Workman had

no objection against the Enquiry Officer. 2nd party reiterates

that enquiry was conducted as per rules following

principles of natural justice. As per findings of Enquiry

Officer, charge No. 1,2 , 4 are proved. Punishment of

dismissal is imposed considering the gravity of charges

proved against workman. workman is not entitled to any

relief.

5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to

6/49 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. It is

alleged that 2nd party has put influence on MW-1 to MW-

3. Complainant Shri R.D. Gajpal was instrument giving

colour to the episode. He has not mentioned name of

workman in his complaint for withdrawal of amount from

his account. Transaction in account No. 841 was genuine

as the concerned staff of the branch passed the

transaction. Shri R.D. Gajpal was not examined in the

enquiry. Consequently he could not be cross examined on

material aspects. Ist party prayed to quash the enquiry and

order f his dismissal contending that he had not committed

any misconduct. 2nd party was satisfied about the

withdrawal of the amount. It is reiterated that from evidence

of management’s witness, misconduct alleged against him

cannot be proved. MW-4 has admitted that the disputed

cheques fulfilled the genuiness of transaction. The evidence

of management’s witnesses is tried to be analyzed

reiterating that misconduct are not proved, the findings of

Enquiry Officer are perverse.

6. As per order dated 3-3-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found proper and legal.

7. Considering pleadings on record and orders on enquiry,

the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the charges alleged

Charge No.1, 2, 4

against workman is proved from

are proved against

evidence in Enquiry proceedings? workman

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

In view of enquiry conducted against workman is

found legal as per order dated 3-3-2014, question whether

charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be

decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Learned

counsel for workman Shri Vijay Tripathi during course of

argument emphasized that misconduct alleged against

workman is not covered under Bipartite Settlement 19.5.j

that complainant Ripu Daman Gajpal had withdrawn his

complaint. He was not examined as management’s witness.

The transaction between workman and Shri Gajpal were

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

923

Private Transaction. No evidence is adduced that cheque

book was not issued to Shri R.D.Gajpal. There is no evidence

of handwriting expert regarding the cheque book issued

to Shri R.D.Gajpal. That after payment of Rs. 32,000/-, the

dispute started between workman and Shri R.D.Gajpal in

order to setting score, R.D.Gajpal had submitted complaint

against him. That negligence on part of workman on loss

to the Bank has not been established. In support of his

argument, learned counsel Shri Tripathi relied on catena of

cases, I will deal with said cases at later part. In reply, Shri

A.K.Shashi submits that the complainant Shri R.D.Gajpal

had deposited amount in his Account No. 841. When

complaint was received about withdrawal of amount by

cheque not issued by him, management is bound to enquire

into the matter. Withdrawal of complaint cannot take away

management’s right to enquire into allegations. Ist party

workman in his pleadings in statement of claim has not

disclosed how he had received all the cheques for

withdrawal by self from Shri R.D.Gajpal. there is no evidence

that transaction was private transaction between them. The

evidence of management’s witness No. 1 to 4 is sufficient

to prove the charges. After withdrawal of complaint, Shri

R.D.Gajpal had not admitted receipt of amount withdrawn

by disputed cheques.

9. To deal with the argument whether the misconduct

alleged against workman regarding withdrawal of amount

by 4 cheques in question is covered under Clause 19.5.j,

the relevant provisions needs to be considered. Clause

19.5.j of bipartite settlement provide-

“Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank

of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss”

On the point Shri Vijay Tripathi relied on ratio held in

case between Rasiklal V.Patel versus Ahmedabad

Municipal Corporation reported in 1985(2)SCC-36.

Their Lordship held unless either in the certified

standing order or in the service regulations an act or

omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open

to the employer to fish out some conduct as

misconduct and punish the workman even though

the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended

in any of the enumerated misconducts.

In present case, chargesheet Exhibit W-6 was issued

to workman on 28-5-96 regarding payment of amount under

4 disputed chequest in view of complaint submitted by

Shri R.D.Gajpal dated 24-4-95. Said complaint was withdrawn

on 6-5-95 as per document 7/18,20. said documents

withdrawing complaint donot disclose that the amount

withdrawn by disputed cheque was received by the

complainant Shri R.D.Gajpal. The evidence of management’s

witnesses M-1 to M-3 is clear that the cheques were

handed over by Ist party workman for withdrawal of the

witnesses. The cheque of Rs.32,000 was handed over by

CSE workman to his driver who had handed over same to

MW-3 Daljit Singh Sirdar. When unauthorized withdrawal

of amount was alleged by Complainant, the misconduct

alleged against workman that the transactions were likely

to cause loss to the Bank, the chargesheet cannot be said

in proper.

10.

Turning to the evidence in Enquiry proceedings, the

Enquiry Proceedings is not legible. The typed copy of

Enquiry proceeding is made available. Witness MW-1

Roshan Singh in his statement in Enquiry Proceedings says

he was working as Driver of Ist party workman. on 1-2-95,

workman handed over cheque of Rs. 9000 for withdrawal.

He had withdrawn amount on cheque amount was paid to

workman. he had given statement Exhibit M-13 to the Bank

Officer. He admitted his signature on it. The cheque Exhibit

M-10 shown to him was the same Ist party had given to

him. The cheque bears his signature on its reverse. In his

cross-examination, MW-1 says he was working as Driver

of Ist party workman in 1995. He was unemployed for same

period. He had no other source of income. His father was

pensioner. He was acquainted with Ist party workman

through his friend. He was unable to tell his name. he had

gone for withdrawal of amount once and withdrawn amount

of Rs.9000/- by cheque. On 1-2-95, he was unable to tell

the date. The cheque was handed over to him by workman.

on same day, he had withdrawn amount around 11 – 11.30

AM. Amount was paid by him to workman. His evidence

about workman giving cheque of Rs. 9000, he withdrawn

amount and handed over to workman is not shattered. His

evidence is corroborated by Exhibit M-10, M-11. MW-2

Daljit Singh in his evidence in enquiry says he was

acquainted with workman. Once he had gone with workman.

That the car of Ist party had starting trouble. He had advised

him to repair his car at Guntur. He received telephonic

message from Ist party workman for going to guntur for

repairing of his car. Arrangement of amount was made.

Blank cheque duly signed was handed over by workman

to his Driver for purchase of engine. That diesel engine

was purchased for Rs.3000 and said cheque was handed

over after it was duly filled in name of Diesel India. In his

cross-examination MW-2 says he had gone to guntur for

repairing of his vehicle. He had long acquaintance with

workman. From Guntur, they had returned after 4-5 days

MW-2 was appointed in Punjab and Sind Bank, he used to

sign as Daljit singh. Document Exhibit M-20 bears his

signature. The witnesses had signed on it in his presence.

The evidence of MW-2 that blank cheque of Rs.32000 was

given by workman to his driver and it was filled after

purchase of diesel engine and handed over to Diesel India

is not shattered. MW-3 Raj Kumar Sahu in his evidence

says he was called by workman upstairs. The cheque of

Rs.6000 was handed over to him for withdrawal. He asked

workman when he was working in Bank, why he was asking

for withdrawal of amount under cheque. Workman explained

that he was working in Bank, if he withdraw amount, other

staff may demand money from him. As there was marriage

924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of his maid, he was intending to give amount to her. He

withdrawn amount of Rs.6000/- under cheque and paid

that amount to workman. In his cross-examination, MW-3

says he was knowing workman since 1988. He was doing

work of depositing cheque in the Bank and withdrawn

amount. He was working pension block office since

23-12-80. On 25-4-95, Bank officer inquired from him MW-3

was unable to tell to whom the cheque belong, he had

withdrawm amount the cheque of Rs. 6000/-. When he

withdraw amount anyone did not ask him in the Bank. He

admits his signature on cheque. He had signed on statement

shown to him. The statement of MW-4 Shri R.K.Sahu is

devoted on the point that complaint was received about

withdrawal of amount. The cheques were not issued by

complainant. The investigation was carried and persons

withdrawn amount were identified by their statements

recorded. The documents Exhibit M-4, 7 to11, 13,15,17 &

19 are identified by the witness. In cross-examination of all

management’s witnesses, there is absolutely no suggestion

as to what kind of transaction was between Ist party

workman and R.D.Gajpal complainant. There is absolutely

no suggestion how workman had received self withdraw

cheque from Shri R.D.Gajpal complainant. The evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings is absolutely silent that workman

had returned the amount to Shri R.D.Gajpal, complainant.

Which he received from MW-1,2 & Iqbal. The argument

advanced by learned counsel for workman that it was private

transaction between complainant and workman appears

after thought. Said amount has not been disclosed earlier

in time.

11.

Shri Vijay Tripathi during course of argument further

submits that report was submitted to police but no

prosecution was initiated against workman. MW-4 in his

cross-examination says that the cheque should be properly

drawn and should be in order. In reply to Q.27, MW-4 says

that the cheque was properly passed by Competent

Authority. Merely saying that cheque was properly passed

cannot be said that the workman had not received amount

under cheque. In reply to Q.13, MW-4 says that looking to

the cheque shown to him, genuiness of transaction has

been fulfilled. When workman has handed over cheque in

question to MW-1,2 and blank cheque was handed over to

his Driver. The amount of Rs.5000 was never returned back

to Shri R.D.Gajpal. Neither the complainant Shri Gajpal is

informed about receipt of cheque. Clause 19.5.j covers the

act likely the cause of loss to Bank. In present case, amount

of Rs. 900, 6000, 32000 and 5000 was withdrawn from his

account No. 841and complainant was submitted by Shri

R.D.Gajpal. He had not withdrawn said amount. The

evidence of witness shows that Ist party workman was

handed over cheques to witness and he received amount.

There is no evidence how CSE was entitled to received

amount under cheque in question. Any kind of private

transaction between Shri R.D.Gajpal and workman is not

established. The evidence on record sufficiently proves

that CSE received amount of cheque and amount of

Rs. 32000 was paid to Diesel India. The blank cheque in

question was handed over by CSE to his Driver which was

filled in name of Diesel India towards purchase of diesel

engine. The evidence doesnot disclose that the engine

was purchased by complainant Shri R.D. Gajpal.

12.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman relies on ratio

held in case of

Nirmala J.Jhala versus State of Gujarat and another

reported in 2013(4) SCC-301. Their Lordship held

burden of proof lay on department and High Court

erred in shifting onus upon appellant who was

delinquent in enquiry.

The ratio in the above case cannot be applied to

case at hand as management has adduced evidence of

MW-1 to MW-4.

In Case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd versua Presiding

Officer, Labour court, Meerut and others reported in

1984(1) SCC-1, their Lordship held standing orders

regarding providing for punishment should be

strictly construed.

Ratio held in the case cannot be benefitially applied

to case at hand as the term used in 19.5.j of Bipartite

settlement likely to cause loss is included as misconduct.

Ratio cannot be benefitially applied to case at hand.

In case of Ministry of Finance and another versus

S.B.Ramesh reported in 1998(3) SCC-227. Their

Lordship dealing with Departmental enquiry standard

of proof observed that if Enquiry Officer had not

attempted to question the delinquent employee

under Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules on the evidence

appearing against him although such opportunity

ought to have been afforded despite having set him

exparte, (ii) only one of 7 documents was proved by

the witness and certain documents had been marked

on the side of the delinquent by the enquiry Officer

without the delinquents consent and therefore the

inference drawn from such documents stood vitiated,

(iii) the said document allegedly containng the

statement of the lady in question was relied on by

the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority

without offering her as a witness for cross-

examination, (iv) the witness in whose presence the

said statement was allegedly made, (v) the

authenticity of the said statement had beend enied

by the delinquent employee.

The evidence of MW-1 to 4 is cogent w.r.t. cheque

handed over by workman for withdrawal of amount. The

CSE has received amount whereas amount of Rs. 32,000

was paid to Diesel India. Blank cheque was handed over to

CSE to his Driver. Ratio cannot be applied to present case

at hand.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

925

In case of M.V.Bulani versus Union of India and

others reported in 2006(5)SCC-88. Their Lordship held

disciplinary proceedings being quasi criminal in

nature, there should be some evidence to prove the

charge. Though proof beyond all reasonable doubt

as required in criminal trial is not necessary in

departmental proceedings, charges in said

proceedings has to be proved by preponderance of

probability.

The evidence of MW-1 to 4 is clear that the workman

had handed over cheques for withdrawal of amount and

received payment. The misconduct alleged against

workman is supported by their evidence. The ratio cannot

be beneficially applied to case at hand.

In case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National

Bank and others reported in 2009(2) SCC-570. Their

Lordship held mere production of documents is not

enough. Contents of documentary evidence has to

be proved by examining witnesses.

Management’s witnesses have admitted their

signatures on the cheque in question, they admitted the

statements given by them, ratio held in the case cannot be

applied to case at hand.

Case of Union of India and others versus Gyan Chand

Chattar reported in 2009(12)SCC-78. Their Lordship

dealing with charge of bribery held serious charges

like bribery held should be specific, definite and

detailed.

In present case, chargesheet issued to workman gives

details of the cheques under which amount was withdrawn.

Therefore the ratio held in the case cannot be applied to

present case.

13.

Shri A.K.Shashi supporting his contentions relies

on ratio held in

Case of Bank of India versus D.Padmanabhadu and

another reported in 1995-I-LLJ-233. Their Lordship

held temporary retention amounts to misappropriation.

Repayment would not absorb liability. Workman

being a member of ST not a relevant factor in

appreciating facts and law.

Ist party workman has received amount of cheque in

question Rs.6000, 9000 and amount of Rs.32000 was paid

to Diesel India. Enquiry Officer held charge No.3 not proved

and no evidence in that regard is found in the Enquiry

Proceedings. There is no evidence that how Shri R.D.Gajpal

had handed over blank cheque to workman. However he

handed over said cheque to the concerned for withdrawal

etc. and also received amount. The act of workman receiving

amount cannot be said bonafide.

Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case of Emco

Transformers Ltd versus S. Shouche and another

reported in 1997(LLR)-649. His Lordship of Bombay

High Court held that in criminal proceedings, the life

and liberty of a person is at stake whereas in Labour

cases the Labour Court has to examine and ascertain

as to whether the contract of employment between

employer and employee be maintained intact even

against the wishes of the parties. Thus the Labour

Court is entitled to do if there is total lack of bonafides

or a gross case of victimization or a situation where a

totally innocent person has been dismissed from

service leading to an interference of victimization.

Considering evidence of MW-1 to 4 and documents

on record of enquiry, it cannot be said that workman is

innocent when he received amount from Shri R.D.Gajpal.

In case of R.S.Saini versus State of Punjab and others

reported in 1999(8) SCC-90, their Lordship held

Enquiring authority based on record and after

considering the defence put forth by the appellant.

The conclusions have been drawn in a reasonable

manner and objectively. These conclusions cannot

be termed as perverse or not based on any material

nor it is a case where there has been any non

application of mind on the part of the inquiring

authority. His Lordship concluded that there is no

fault in the findings of the High Court.

In case between workmen of Balmadies Estates

versus management of Balmadies Estates and others

reported in 2008(4)SCC-517. Their Lordship

considering the facts when two workmen dismissed

from service on committed theft held that there was

no direct evidence to show that the two workman

had committed theft. Their Lordship held findings of

guilt was based on very slender evidence. On facts,

findings of Labour Court were perverse and can be

termed to be based on misconception of law.

The copy of award in R/117/97 is also submitted.

The evidence of said case is not comparable. In said

reference, the enquiry was initiated after acquittal of

workman but with difference that the material

witnesses examined in Enquiry Proceedings were not

examined as witness in criminal case. Therefore the

award cannot be relied even for persuasion purpose.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in Case of State

of Bank of Patiala versus S.K. Sharma reported in

AIR 1996 SC-1669. Their Lordship dealing with

principles of natural justice to be followed held the

substantive provision has normally to be complied

with and the theory of substantial compliance or the

test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a

case. In case of violation of procedural provision,

the position is this procedural provisions are

generally meant for affording a reasonable and

adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee.

926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

as per order dated 3-3-2014. Therefore ratio held in case

cannot be applied at this stage.

14.

Enquiry Report is produced at Exhibit W-8. Enquiry

Officer has separately considered evidence w.r.t. evidence

of the charges. Charge No. 1, 2, 4 are held proved. The

findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of

MW-1 to MW-4. Evidence is cogent that CSE had received

amount from MW-1,2 and amount of Rs.32,000 paid to Diesel

India, blank cheque was given by workman to his Driver

which was duly filled and amount was paid after clearing.

The withdrawal of complaint by Shri R.D.Gajpal is not

disclosing. He received the amount withdrawn by cheque.

Amount was received by workman cannot be said bonafide.

15.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Vijay Tripathi

submits that evidence in enquiry cannot prove fraudulent

act on part of workman. That complainant is not examined,

MW-4 has admitted the cheque was properly sanctioned,

the transaction was denied. Meaning of fraud as per

Chamber’s Dictionary is-

“An act of deliberate deception, with the intention

of gaining some benefit, someone who dishonestly

pretends to be something they are not, a cheat.”

The evidence in enquiry doesnot disclose how

workman received blank cheque from complainant, in what

capacity, he received amount under cheque in question,

and not returned amount to the complainant. No evidence

has been adduced about private transaction between CSE

and Shri Gajpal. However he received amount under

cheque in question- the act cannot be said bonafide. The

scope of judicial review doesnot permit re-appreciation of

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Certainly amount

received by CSE under cheque in question would

constitute an act likely to cause loss to the Bank therefore

I record my finding in Point No.1 that charge No. 1,2,4 are

proved.

16.

Point No.2- In view of my finding that Charge

No.1,2& 4 are proved against workman, he had

unauthorisely received amount under cheque in question

and CSE has been benefitted by payment of said amount

to which he was not entitled, the misconduct against

workman are of serious nature. CSE was working in the

Bank and he received unauthorised cheque, the punishment

of dismissal cannot be interfered. I therefore record my

finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

17.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of the Allahabad Bank

in dismissing Shri kishore Kumar Masih, Ex-Cashier

cum clerk, Kasardih Branch of the Bank from service

w.e.f. 9-4-99 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy cSad

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 65@99) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@167@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Punjab National Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/167/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/65/99

Shri G. G. Soni,

S/o Late Shri G.P.Soni,

LIG-13, Hathital Colony,

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Napier town, in front of Home Science college,

Wright Town,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of December, 2015

As per letter dated 25-1-99 by the Government of

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

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

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

167/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in dismissing the service of Shri

G.G.Soni, special Assistant vide their order dated

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

927

19-2-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

said workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim on

16-3-99. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working

as clerk cum cashier with 2nd party Bank in Narsinghpur

branch. His service record was unblemished. Chargesheet

was issued to him. He was also placed under suspension

pending enquiry. DE was conducted against him. Enquiry

Officer submitted his findings. Without issuing notice and

ignoring that workman was clerical staff, obeyed directions

of his superiors, the punishment of dismissal was imposed

on 13-1-94. He had submitted representation on 21-1-94 to

the management contending that the charges framed by

management without any basis. The charges were incorrect.

That enquiry was conducted against him in violation of

principles of natural justice not allowing him opportunity

for his defence. The Defence Representative Mr. Sharma

was under treatment. He was unable to attend enquiry.

Despite repeated request, the Defence representative was

not allowed to cross-examine the management’s witness

Nos.1, 2.

Ist party workman further submits that management

filed documents. That the documents were not proved in

the enquiry. Enquiry Officer did not allow defence

representative to cross-examine the witnesses of

management. Any borrower was not examined before

Enquiry Officer to prove loan and advances to them.

Workman suffered prejudice. The order of his dismissal is

illegal. That higher authorities of the Bank are responsible

for sanctioning of loan and overdraft. He was not involved

in the fraud while discharging his duties. After his dismissal,

he is out of employment suffering financial hardship. On

such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with

backwages.

2nd party filed Written Statement on 15-7-03

opposing claim of the workman. 2nd party submits that

workman was working as Special Assistant in the Bank at

Narsinghpur branch. Chargesheet was issued to him on

3-10-89 alleging various charges. Workman failed to perform

his duties of morning checking of long books of current

account, cash credit, recurring, mini deposits and fixed

deposits, he failed to incorporate deviation register, failed

to obtain Life Certificates from the pensioners while

releasing the pension. Workman committed false

recommendations while sanctioning demand loans,

fabricated supply of securities from fictitious sanction etc.

Total 27 charges were alleged against workman. Reply

submitted by workman was found unsatisfactory. Shri

V.K.Omre was appointed as Enquiry Officer and G.P. Patana

was appointed as Presenting Officer. Ist party workman

was allowed defence representative Shri P.N. Sharma. The

enquiry was conducted on various dates. Management

examined two witnesses, they were cross-examined,

workman was given opportunity for his defence. Enquiry

was conducted as per rule following principles of natural

justice. Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Charges

against workman are proved. Considering serious nature

of charges proved against workman, punishment of

dismissal was imposed against him. Unless the enquiry is

found vitiated, workman has no right to ask for production

of any documents. 2nd party submits that it is not necessary

to examine borrowers as there was no such demand by the

workman during the Enquiry Proceedings. 2nd party prays

that reference be answered in its favour.

As per order dated 17-9-2014, enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Considering pleadings on

record and findings of enquiry, the points which arise for

my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons

as below:-

“(i) Whether the charges alleged

In Affirmative

against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of

In Affirmative

dismissal imposed against

workman is proper and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Workman is

is entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

as per order dated 17-9-14. Question arise whether charges

alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Workman has not

participated in reference proceeding. He has not adduced

any evidence on preliminary issue. No evidence is adduced

by workman on other issues. Evidence of workman on other

issues was closed on 19-11-2014. Management has also

not adduced evidence on other issues. The record of

enquiry is produced at Exhibit M-1. The chargesheet issued

to workman pertains to 27 charges shown in details at Page

1 to 19 of Exhibit M-1. Charges alleged against workman

pertains to his failure of duties, checking fixed deposits,

recurring deposits, mini deposits, cash, credit account, log

books of current accounts, releasing pension without

obtaining live certificate, recommending and sanctioning

loan against Kissan Vikas Patra in excess of the limits

without authority. Management produced documents and

examined witnesses Praveen Kumar and B.B.Sopte. Enquiry

Proceedings is produced at Pages 35 to 126. Various

documents are produced at Exhibit M-2 to M-175. Enquiry

Officer submitted his report at Page 4-3 to 433. Enquiry

Officer has separately discussed evidence w.r.t. each of

the charge. For example while dealing with charge No.5

pertaining to releasing pension vouchers on 1-11-88 for

928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the period October 88, the names of 25 pensioners are

mentioned. While dealing with charge No.6, it is discussed

that on basis of recommendations of Ist party workman,

loan of Rs.7000 was sanctioned. Ist party workman has not

participated in reference proceeding. He has not adduced

evidence on preliminary issue or other issues in the matter.

Nothing is brought on record by workman how the findings

of Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence or the

findings are perverse. On the other hand, Enquiry Officer

has separately considered evidence of the management’s

witness w.r.t. each of the charges. When workman has not

participated in reference proceeding, any argument are not

advanced on his behalf, the detailed discussion of the

evidence considered before Enquiry Officer is not

necessary. It is surprise to say that evidence in Enquiry

Officer proved charges against workman. Therefore I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

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

charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings, question remains for consideration

whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman

is proper and legal. 27 charges were alleged against

workman pertaining to sanctioning the loan against the

Kisan Vikas Patra, fixed deposit exceeding the limit and

other charges proved against him are of serious gravity

therefore the punishment of dismissal imposed against

working cannot be said shockingly disproportionate or

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Punjab National

Bank in dismissing the service of Shri G.G. Soni, special

Assistant vide their order dated 19-2-94 is legaland

proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

1409@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@18@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1409/2004) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/18/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, 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 11th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1409/2004

The Asst. General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

(Surat Dist. Branch),

Saifee Buld., Dutch Road,

Nanpura,

Surat (Gujarat)-395001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Hasmukh J. Bhavsar,

175 Maher Nagar, Adajan Road,

Surat (Gujarat)-395009

...Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/18/2004-

IR(B-II) dated 31.05.2004 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda through its Officers in terminating the services

of Shri Hazmukh J. Bhavsar by way of dismissal order

dated 07.08.2001 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

what relief the concerned workman Shri Hazmukh J.

Bhavsar is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 31.05.2004. Second party

filed the Vakilpatra (Ext.3) of his advocate M.S. Mansuri

and also filed the statement of claim Ext.4 on 05.12.2005. On

18.07.2008 second party moved an application alleging that

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

929

he has served his copy of statement of claim to the first

party but first party did not prefer to submit the written

statement. Thus right of first party to submit written

statement be closed. On this application the Tribunal closed

the opportunity of filing written statement by first party.

But since then second party did not come forward to

submit his evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is

not interested in the proceedings of the reference.

Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ bafM;k

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@122@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2006) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/122/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, 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 13th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 12/2006

The Chief Manager,

Bank of India,

Rajkot Main Branch,

M.G. Road,

Rajkot-360001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Hemendra M. Mankad,

C/o. Sh. M.D. Mankad,

“Tarak”Janta Society,

Tagore Marg,

Rajkot-360001

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Kum. Meenaben Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/122/

2002-IR(B-II) dated 31.01.2006 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 Bank of

India, Ahmedabad in terminating Sh. Hemendra M.

Mankad from service vide order dated 11.12.1991 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 31.01.2006. Second party

submitted his statement of claim (Ext.7) on 26.06.2006. First

party also filed written statement on 26.06.2007 since then

number of opportunities were given the second party to

lead evidence but no evidence has been given by the second

party. Learned counsel for the first party has been present

on every date. Thus, it appears that second party is not

interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore,

Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in

default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ekgs'ojh gSaM¯yx

,tsalh izkbosV 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 vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 1223@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 14@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&37011@2@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1223/2004) (ITC No.

14/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Maheshwari Handling Agency Private Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-37011/2/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, 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 30th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1223/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 14/2003

The Manager,

M/s. Maheshwari Handling

Agency Private Ltd.

540, 12C Lilashah Circle,

Gandhidham

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

Through the President,

All India Safai Mazdoor Congress,

657, ward 11-B, Dadar Nivas,

Maharshi Valmiki Nr. Go,

Gandhidham-370240

...Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/2/2003-IR(B-

II) dated 31.03.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to

the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Maheshwari Handling Agency Private Ltd.,

Gandhidham in terminating the services of the

workmen (list as per Annexure) and denying them

salary for the period indicates is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to and

since when?”

This reference dates back to 31.03.2003. Despite

notice sent to be parties, second party did not prefer to

submit a statement of claim. Thus it appears that the second

party has no interest in proceedings of the reference

Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad 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 vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 65@2015) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@20@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2015) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 25.02.2016.

[No. L-12011/20/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 2nd February, 2016

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 65/2015

[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 Indian Bank and their workman]

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary,

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees

Association, No. 17,

Ameerjan Street, Choolaimedu,

Chennai-600001

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

931

AND

The General Manager (HRM) :2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank, Corporate Office

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai

Chennai-600014

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

Sri K. Krishnan, Authorized

Petitioner Union

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s Aiyar & Dolia,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/20/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 13.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank, Chennai regarding withdrawal of Special Pay

to SWO and recovery of excess payment is justifiable

or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 65/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through

Authorized Representative and the Respondent through

the counsel and have filed Claim and Counter statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer

to the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade

Union Act and has substantial following among the

workmen of the Respondent Bank. The Union takes up

genuine grievances of its members in the Respondent Bank.

As per the provisions of the 9th Bipartite Settlement Clerical

Staff working in the branches of the Respondent are

receiving Special Pay of Rs. 500/- a month. The Respondent

refused to pay this allowance to a section of the staff under

the pretext that they do not fall under the category of Single

Window Operator “B”. After the 9th Bipartite Settlement,

Computer Operator “A” category is merged with Computer

Operator “B” category. All the Clerical Staff are entitled to

special pay of Rs. 500/- as all of them are bound to perform

on the duties of Single Window Operator B whenever they

are allotted the work. Even when they are not allotted the

work of Single Window Operator “B”, it does not deprive

them of the allowance of Rs. 500/-. An award may be passed

directing the Respondent to restore the benefit of Special

Pay of Rs. 500/- to all the Clerks and also return the amount

that was wrongly recovered from them.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as below:

The dispute is raised on a misinterpretation of the

provisions of the 9th Bipartite Settlement. As per the

provisions of 9th Bipartite Settlement, Special Pay carrying

posts under the Clerical Cadre from 01.01.2007 till 30.04.2010

were re-designated as Single Window Operator A, Single

Window Operator “B”, Head Cashier-II and Special

Assistant. From 01.05.2010 there are only three special

allowance carrying posts in Clerical Cadre i.e. Single

Window Operator “B”, Head Cashier-II and Special

Assistant. The Respondent has issued circulars regarding

performance of functional duties, passing powers and

capability level of the Clerical Staff. With effect from

01.05.2010 all existing Clerical Staff who were not drawing

any Special Pay as on 30.04.2010 are paid Special Pay of

Rs. 1000/- per month which shall be merged with their Basic

Pay w.e.f. the date they will be designated as Single Window

Operator “A”. Petitioner has not challenged the provisions

of the Bipartite Settlement or the circulars based on them.

The work in Cash Section at branches will be assigned

among the Clerks on turn basis and the period of rotation

will be three months in a cycle. Whenever the Clerical Staff

members are drawing Special Allowance on permanent basis

they will be continued to be paid Special Allowance at the

same rates only as long as they perform the job attracting

allowances in the same branch. In terms of 9th Bipartite

Settlement, Clerical Staff who were drawing Special Pay for

the post mentioned in 8th Bipartite Settlement as on

30.04.2010 shall continue to discharge their special pay

duties as earlier. In addition, upon their re-designation as

Single Window Operator “B” they shall be liable to

discharge the duties of Single Window Operator “B” also.

With effect from 01.05.2010 all existing Clerical Staff who

are not drawing any Special Pay as on 30.04.2010 shall be

paid a Special Pay of Rs. 1000/- per month which is to be

merged with the basic pay. They shall be designated as

Single Window Operator “A” and shall be liable to

discharge the duties as provided in Part-C, Schedule-II of

9th Bipartite Settlement. The others will be in the Special

Pay earning post of Single Window Operator “B”, the

Special Pay being Rs. 500/- per month. The claim that all

the Clerical Staff are entitled to Special Pay of Rs. 500/- per

month for working in computer terminals is not correct.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the case in

the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in the Claim

Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W8. Both sides did not adduce

any oral evidence. The Respondent did not produce any

document also.

932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether there was any withdrawal of Special pay by

the Respondent as alleged?

(ii)

Whether recovery of excess payment from the

Clerical Staff by the Respondent is justifiable?

(iii)

What, if any are the reliefs to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute claiming

that as per the provisions of 9th Bipartite Settlement entered

into between the Management and the employees

associations, all the Clerical Staff working in the branches

in the Respondent are entitled to Special Pay @ Rs. 500/-

per month but this has been denied to them from 01.05.2010

and the Special Pay already drawn by the staff has been

recovered as excess payment also.

The argument that has been advanced on behalf of

the petitioner is that all the Clerical Staff are working in

computer terminals and there is no distinction between

Single Window Operator “A” and Single Window Operator

“B” and all of them are bound to perform all the duties

specified in the 9th Bipartite Settlement for the Clerical

Staff and therefore all of them are entitled to Special Pay of

Rs. 500/- per month.

10.

Adjudication of the issue is to be based on the terms

of the 9th Bipartite Settlement. The contention of the

Respondent is that the petitioner’s claim is based on the

wrong interpretation of the settlement. According to the

Respondent only those Clerical Staff who are performing

the duties of Single Window Operator “B” are entitled to

draw the Special Allowance of Rs. 500/- from 01.05.2010.

11.

Ext.W1 is the extract of the relevant portions of 9th

Bipartite Settlement regarding Special Allowances payable

and the duties to be performed by the employees. Ext.W2

is the circular issued by the HRM Department of the

Respondent based on the 9th Bipartite Settlement. The

relevant clauses of the 9th Bipartite Settlement that gives

insight into the claim of the petitioner are extracted below:

Clause-11

Special Pay

Clause-11(i) – In supersession of Clause-11 of the

Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, with effect from

1st November 2007 and upto 30th April 2010, the

Special Pay payable to the Clerical Staff and

Subordinate Staff in banks other than State Bank of

India shall be as mentioned under Part A (a), (b), (c)

and (d) in Schedule 11 of this Settlement

Clause-11(ii) – With effect from 1st May, 2010 posts

attracting Special Pay in Clerical Cadre as mentioned

in Part A (a) Schedule ii to this agreement shall stand

modified and members of the Clerical Staff performing

the said duties shall be treated as those assigned

with duties of Single Window Operator “B”.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Clause-11(iii) – with effect from 1st May, 2010, posts

attracting Special Pay and Special Pay thereon shall

be as provided in Part B of Schedule II to this

Settlement.

Clause-11(iv) – With effect from 1st May, 2010,

Clerical Staff who are drawing Special Pay for posts

mentioned in Part A (a) in Schedule-II to this

Settlement as on 30th April, 2010 shall continue to

discharge the Special Pay duties as hitherto and as

provided in Schedule-III of Bipartite Settlement dated

2nd June, 2005. In addition, upon their re-designation

as Single Window Operator “B” w.e.f. 1st May, 2010

as provided in Clause (2) above, they shall also be

liable to discharge the duties of Single Window

Operator “B”

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Clause-11(v) – With effect from 1st May, 2010, all

existing Clerical Staff who are not drawing any Special

Pay as on 30th April 2010 shall be paid a Special Pay

of Rs. 1000/- per month which shall be merged in

their Basic Pay with effect from that date. They shall

be designated as Single Window Operator “A” and

shall be liable to discharge the duties as provided in

Part C in Schedule II to this Settlement.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Clause-11(viii) – With effect from 1st May 2010, for

all the existing Clerical Staff as on 30th April 2010

and continuing in service on 1st May 2010, out of

the Special Pay payable to them, an amount of Rs.

1000/- shall be merged into Basic Pay and balance

amount shall be payable as Special pay. Basic Pay

shall stand increased accordingly on and from 1st

May 2010. Special Pay payable thereafter shall be as

provided in Para B of Schedule II to this Settlement.

Clause-11(x) – With effect from 1st May 2010, the

duties and responsibilities of Clerical and Subordinate

Staff other than in State Bank of India shall be as set

out in Schedule III to this Settlement.

12.

Schedule-II, Part-A(a) of the Bipartite Settlement

gives a list of 27 categories of Clerical Staff who were

drawing Special Pay at different rates for the period from

01.11.2007 to 30.04.2010. The note below the list states that

with effect from 01.05.2010 all those posts attracting Special

Pay stands modified and re-designated as Single Window

Operator “B”. Part-B of the schedule shows that Single

Window Operator “B” is entitled to Special Pay of

Rs. 1,500/-. Out of this Rs. 1000/- is to be merged with Basic

Pay on and from 01.05.2010 and Special Pay payable from

this date will be Rs. 500/-.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

933

13.

Part-C of the schedule refers to the duties of the

Clerical Staff with effect from 01.05.2010. It states that all

members of the Clerical staff who did not get any Special

Pay as on 30.04.2010 on regular basis shall be designated

as Single Window Operator A. The duties of Single

Window Operator “A” also are specified in the schedule. It

is further stated that apart from the 8 duties enumerated,

whenever required they will function as Single Window

Operator where he will also receive and pay cash. The

additional duties in this respect include passing and cash

payment of all cheques, withdrawal forms, etc. upto and

including Rs. 10000/-, passing independently and clearing

transfer cheques, vouchers, etc. upto Rs. 15,000/- and also

receipt of cash, issue of pre-signed drafts, cheques, etc.

upto and including Rs. 15,000/-. This part of the schedule

does not refer to payment of any special pay to those who

are working as Single Window Operator “A”. Schedule-III

of Part-D specifies the Special Pay duties. It states that

Special Pay duties do not include the routine duties of the

cadre which a workman has to normally perform but merely

refer to those special allowance duties which if performed

in addition to the routine duties will entitle a workman to a

Special Pay on the terms and conditions provided in

Chapter-5 of the 1st Bipartite Settlement as modified. It is

clarified in the schedule that the workman entrusted with

duties attracting Special Pay can be required to perform

routine duties of his cadre. The routine duties of the Clerical

Cadre which are already given in Part-C are repeated in this

schedule also. After this the schedule goes on to enumerate

the duties of Single Window Operator “B”. These are

extracted below:

Single Window Operator “B”

In addition to the duties of Single Window Operator

“A” their duties will include:

(a)

Passing and Cash Payment of all cheques/

withdrawal forms/banker’s cheques, gift

cheques, etc. upto and including Rs. 20,000/-

(b)

Passing independently clearing and transfer

cheques, vouchers, etc. (whether credits or

debits) upto and including Rs. 25,000/-

(c)

Receipts of cash and issue of pre-signed

drafts/gift cheques/travelers’ cheques/pay

order/bank orders, etc. upto and including

Rs. 25,000/-

14.

The clauses in the circular marked as Ext.W2 are

exactly in tune with the provisions in the Bipartite

Settlement. While showing the break up details of the

Special Pay the circular states that Special Pay of Rs. 1000/-

payable to Single Window Operator A will merge with the

Basic Pay and Rs. 1,000/- out of the Special Pay of Rs.

1,500/- payable to Single Window Operator “B” will merge

with Basic Pay and the remaining Rs. 500/- will be the

amount payable as Special Pay to Single Window Operator

“B”. The duties to be performed by Single Window Operator

“A” and the additional duties to be performed as Single

Window Operator “B” narrated in the bipartite settlement

are also reproduced in the circular.

15.

On a close reading of the relevant provisions of

Bipartite Settlement extracted above and the circular what

is to be seen is that all the Clerical Staff are designated as

Single Window Operator “A” w.e.f. 01.05.2010 and the

Special Pay of Rs. 1,000/- payable to them is still paid to

them in the form of pay as it has been merged with the

Basic Pay. Only those persons amongst Single Window

Operator “A” who were performing the additional duties

of Single Window Operator “B” extracted above would be

entitled to Rs. 1,500/- as Special Pay. Out of this Special

Pay Rs. 1,000/- has been merged with the Basic Pay and the

balance amount of Rs. 500/- is payable to them in case they

are performing the additional duties of Single Window

Operator “B”.

16.

It could be seen from the Claim Statement itself that

a distinction was maintained between those who were

having passing powers and other Clerical Staff who were

working in different categories and an additional amount

has been payable to those who were having the additional

work of passing of cheques, etc. As per 8th Bipartite

Settlement when the Clerical Staff were working in the 27

categories which are now converted into a single category

of Single Window Operator “B”, they were drawing a fixed

allowance while working as Computer Operator “B” in

addition to the work of Computer Operator “A”. They were

having passing powers and they were drawing a higher

amount of Rs. 1100/- as Special Allowance. Thus it is clear

that even as per the 8th Bipartite Settlement a distinction

was maintained between those who were having the duties

of dealing with higher amount and they were given an

additional amount as allowance. As per the 9th Bipartite

Settlement all the Clerical Staff who were earlier not getting

any Special Pay were re-designated as Single Window

Operator “A” and they were given Special Pay of Rs. 1,000/-

which was to be merged with the Basic Pay. As per the 9th

Bipartite Settlement those who were not entitled to Special

Pay also are given Special Pay though it was merged with

the Basic Pay while they were entrusted with the duties of

Single window Operator A, having limited powers of dealing

with the cash. In the case of Single Window Operator “B”

they are given some larger powers and they are allowed an

additional amount of Rs. 500/- as Special Pay. No doubt,

Single Window Operator “A” are functioning as Single

Window Operator “B” also but they perform the functions

of Single Window Operator “B” only when they are

specifically asked to do those duties. As seen from the

Counter Statement of the Respondent this duty is given to

Single Window Operators “A” in turn, the cycle being a

period of three months. So all of them will be getting the

opportunity to act as Single Window Operator “B”. Only

934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

at such time they are entitled to draw the Special Pay of Rs.

500/- that is allowed as per the 9th Bipartite Settlement.

The claim of the petitioner is based on a wrong

understanding of the relevant provisions. The petitioner is

not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above the reference is

answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management

: None

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

28.04.2010

Extracts of relevant ports of the

9th Bipartite Settlement with

regard to special allowances and

duties

Ext.W2

06.06.2012

Indian Bank HO, HRM

Department Circular 33/2012-13

regarding duties of Clerical Staff

members in terms of 9th Bipartite

Settlement

Ext.W3

16.12.2013

Petitioner Union letter IBEA/

GEN/283 dated 16.12.2013 for

invoking the provisions of

Section-33 against recovery of

allowances already paid to staff

Ext.W4

16.12.2013

Petitioner Union letter to the

DGM, HRM Indian Bank

informing about invocation

Section-33 and request not to

recover allowances already paid

Ext.W5

19.12.2013

Reply letter from Indian Bank

Management for the above

Ext.W6

20.12.2013

Petitioner Union letter to Indian

Bank Management reiterating

their demand not to recover from

staff allowances already paid

Ext.W7

28.01.2014

Letter by the Petitioner Union

IBEA/GEN/6/2013-16 to ALC,

Chennai raising an Industrial

Dispute seeking directions to

Indian Bank Management not to

withdraw Special Pay of Rs. 500

and not to recover allowances

already paid

Ext.W8

16.02.2015

Reply letter by Indian Bank

Management for the above letter

dated 28.01.2014

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 25 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 110@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@120@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2016

S.O. 422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/99) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/120/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/99

Smt.Lalita Sarthi, wife

Yashwant Sarthi, Kirti,

Vishal Sarthi & Usha Salam

LRs of Shri Moti Ram J.Sarthi,

Behind Lakari Dhaal Patharaguda,

Jagdalpur, PO Jagdalpur,

Bastar,

...Workman/LRs

Versus

Dy. General Manager,

Canara Bank,

CB Circle Office,

Marshall Road,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi

...Management

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

935

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of December, 2015

1. As per letter dated 4-3-99 by the Government of India,

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

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

I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/120/98/IR

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

“Whether the action of the management of Canara

Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi in dismissing the

services of Shri Moti Ram J.Sarthi from Bank is legal

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

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/6. The case of workman is that he was working

as peon at Jagdalpur branch of 2nd party. His service

record was unblemished. He was not served with any memo

or chargesheet alleging misconduct. Ist time chargesheet

was served on him on 28-5-94 alleging that on 23-2-94, he

manhandled and slapped one Vinayswamy, Sub staff

working in same branch. He denied charges filing reply to

the chargesheet. Ist party workman has narrated incident

on 21-2-91 around4.50 PM. Vinayswamy was arranging

calendars in Manager’s cabin. When he went there and

picked up few calendars, Shri Vinayak Swami attacked him

and caught hold his collar. That he had anticipated such

conduct from Shri Vinayak Swamy. He tried to separate

from Vinayak Swami, other staff Sri Sharma came to the

place of incident and separated them. Then Vinay Swamy

picked up chair and assaulted them. Workman reported

said incident to the Manager. However no action was

taken against Shri Vinayak. Due to Union activities fractions

were developed in the branch as he did not joined, he was

kept alone by his colleague. He was physically and menally

handicapped as he was placed under suspension, his son

died on 14-3-94. Management conducted enquiry. Enquiry

was not properly conducted. He was not allowed

opportunity to cross-examine management’s witness. The

enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural

justice. The findings of Enquiry Officer are illegal. Reiterating

such contentions, workman prays for reinstatement.

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

14 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that

workman was posted as peon at Jagdalpur branch. As a

result of misconduct committed by him, enquiry was held

and ultimately workman was dismissed from service on

26-6-95. 2nd party reiterates that the enquiry was conducted

as per rules. TA Advance was paid to workman for attending

enquiry. However workman did not attend enquiry

proceedings. On 22-2-95, enquiry was held at Jagdalpur.

Workman though served with notice donot attend enquiry.

On 23-2-95, Ist party appeared in the Enquiry Proceedings,

his statement was recorded. Though opportunity was given

for representation by co-worker, workman denied the same.

The workman did not ask for cross-examination of

management’s witness. Workman was given opportunity

for his defence. The misconduct alleged in the chargesheet

was proved. Considering the serious nature of proved

misconduct, disciplinary authority imposed punishment

of dismissal against workman. It is reiterated that dismissal

of workman is proper and legal.

4. As per order dated 5-1-2015, enquiry conducted

against workman is held vitiated. Workman died during

pendency of the reference. Further enquiry could not be

conducted. Management has not permitted to prove

misconduct as workman was dead.

5. Considering pleadings on record and order on

Enquiry Report, the points which arise for my consideration

and determination are as under. My findings are recorded

against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged

In Negative

against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal

In Negative

imposed against workman is proper

and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

6. Point No.1, 2- As discussed above, enquiry against

workman is found illegal and vitiated as workman died

during pendency of the reference, the management of 2nd

party could not be permitted to prove misconduct in court.

As such the misconduct alleged against workman is not

proved. In view of the misconduct alleged against workman

could not be proved, the enquiry was found vitiated,

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be considered.

As misconduct alleged against workman is not proved.

Therefore punishment of dismissal against workman is

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1,2 in Negative.

7. Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2, order

of dismissal of workman is illegal, question arises whether

the LRs of the deceased workman are entitled to full

backwages. Appointment on compassionate ground as

argued by learned counsel for Ist party Shri A.K.shashi.

The term of reference doesnot include the claim for

appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal

cannot exceed the terms of reference. As enquiry is vitiated,

workman died during pendency on 9-11-12, his LRs are

brought on record. workman was dismissed on the ground

that misconduct alleged against him having proved in the

enquiry. As enquiry is found vitiated, misconduct alleged

against workman are not proved, the deceased workman

would be entitled to backwages from the date of his dismissal

till his death. After death of workman, his LRs would be

entitled to said benefit. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.3.

936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Canara Bank, Circle

Office, New Delhi in dismissing the services of Shri

Moti Ram J.Sarthi from Bank is not legal and proper.

Order of dismissal is set-aside.

(2)

2nd party is directed to pay wages/ salary of

deceased workman from 26-6-95, date of dismissal

till his death 9-11-12 to the LRs of deceased workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

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

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

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWfiQl] vEckyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh,@235@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. LCA/

235/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Head Post

Office, Ambala and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 26/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. LCA No. 235/2008

Registered on 10.11.2008

Late Sh. Ram Sarup, Ex.ED BPM,

V&PO Lakhnaura, Tehsil Naraingarh,

District Ambala, Through Raj Pal Son

LR of the deceased

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Post Master General,

Haryana Circle, Ambala.

The Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Ambala Division,

Ambala.

The Post Master, Head Post

Office, Ambala City

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Pal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on :- 15.01.2016

This claim application under Section 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’),

has been filed by the LR of Sh. Ram Sarup to recover balance

amount of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972; pleading that his father Sh. Ram Sarup was appointed

as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in 1964. He

served till March, 1999.

Sh. Ram Sarup has expired on 1.8.2000 and he was

paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of Gratuity, which is a

very small amount and the amount payable, be computed

and paid to him.

Respondent-management filed written reply, pleading

that gratuity as Rs.18,000/- was paid as per service rules

and no amount is due.

The applicant did not lead any evidence.

On the other hand, Sh. S.K. Sharma was examined by

the respondent-management.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, that deceased Sh.

Ram Sarop served for 34 years and was to be paid gratuity

of more amount than Rs.18,000/- and the balance amount

be calculated and be paid to the applicant.

It may be added that claimant has been claiming

gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; but under

the said Act, only the ‘Controlling Authority’ appointed

under the Act, has the power to decide the matter relating

to gratuity and Section 14 bars the jurisdiction of any other

forum. Section 14 read as follow:-

“Act to override other enactments, etc.-The

provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder

shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment

other than this Act or in any instrument or contract

having effect by virtue of any enactment other than

this Act.”

Thus, the present application is not maintainable in

this Court and the same is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

937

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWfiQl] vEckyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh,@237@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. LCA/

237/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Head Post Office,

Ambala and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. LCA No. 237/2008

Registered on 10.11.2008

Smt. Jayanti Devi W/o late

Sh. Mam Raj, Ex EDBPM

V & PO Hamid Pur,

Tehsil Naraingarh,

District Ambala

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Post Master General,

Haryana Circle, Ambala

The Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Ambala Division,

Ambala

The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Ambala City

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Pal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.01.2016

Smt. Jayanti Devi has filed this claim application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’); on the averments that

her husband Late Sh. Mam Raj was appointed as Extra

Departmental Branch Post Master on 17.11.1976, who

rendered service of 24 years. He expired on 26.12.2000. The

respondent-management paid Rs.18,000/- on account of

gratuity which is lesser amount than payable under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Respondent-management filed written reply pleading

that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was paid to the applicant and no

amount is due.

In support of her case Smt. Jayanti Devi appeared in

the witness-box and filed two annexures(Annexure A-1 and

Annexure A-2).

On the other hand Sh. S.K. Sharma was examined,

who filed his affidavit reiterating the case of the

respondent-management.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh.

Ravinder Pal for the management and perused the file.

It is not disputed that Late Sh. Mam Raj served the

department for 24 years. According to the respondent-

management, a sum of Rs.18,000/- was sanctioned and paid

as gratuity as provided under the rules. The applicant

averred in the application that gratuity has not been

calculated under the provisions of the ‘Acts’ but did not

mention the Acts under which the gratuity was to be paid

more that the amount paid to her by the department. In

Annexure A-1, the amount has been calculated as Rs.38381/

- but it is not clear how the last wages drawn by the

workman were calculated. Since under the service rules, as

applicable to the workman, Rs.18,000/- was to be paid on

account of the gratuity and therefore, the amount as

mentioned in Annexure A-1, is not payable to the applicant.

It seems that amount of gratuity have been claimed

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, under which only

the “Controlling Authority” appointed under the Act has a

right to decide the matter and Section 14 of the said Act

excludes jurisdiction of this Court which reads as follow:-

“Act to override other enactments, etc.-The

provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder

shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment

other than this Act or in any instrument or contract

having effect by virtue of any enactment other than

this Act.”

In result, the applicant is not entitled to recover any

amount. Accordingly the application is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 425-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWfiQl] vEckyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh,@243@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. LCA/

243/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Head Post Office,

Ambala and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. LCA No. 243/2008

Registered on 17.12.2008

Sh. Mohinder Lal S/o

Late Sh. Damodar Das, Ex. EDBPM,

V&PO Bhurewala, Teh. Naraingarh,

District Ambala

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief Post Master General,

Haryana Circle, Ambala

The Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Ambala Division,

Ambala

The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Ambala City

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Pal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.01.2016

Sh. Mohinder Lal, workman has filed this claim

application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), pleading that his

father Sh. Damodar Das was appointed as Extra

Departmental Branch Post Master on 30.9.1963 and he

retired from service in 2001 on attaining the age of 65 years.

It is further pleaded that he was paid Rs.30,000/- as

Severance Allowance and Rs.18,000/- as Gratuity as per

service rules on account of retiral benefits.

It is further pleaded that Sh. Damodar Das might

have received a basic pay of Rs.1720/- along with D.A. @

43% and total emoluments of Rs.2460/-. The amount of

Rs.2838-/ was calculated for the payment of gratuity and

gratuity was to be paid @ of Rs.1419/- which comes to

Rs.53213/- for 37 years. But the department paid only

Rs.18,000/-. Now his son has claimed the amount of

Rs.67951/-.

Respondent-management filed written reply

admitting the services of Sh. Damodar Das and further

pleaded that he was paid gratuity etc. under the service

rules applicable to him. That Sh. Damodar Das retired in

the year 2001 and now his son has filed the present

application after expiry of period of 7 years.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

In support of his case, Sh. Mohinder Lal, workman

appeared in the witness-box and filed two

annexures(Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2).

In Annexure A-1, some calculations have been

mentioned.

On the other hand, Sh. S.K. Sharma, Senior Supdt.

was examined by the respondent-management, who filed

his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-

management.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh.

Ravinder Pal for the management and perused the file.

It was contended by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel

for the workman, that a sum of Rs.53213/- was payable on

account of gratuity to Sh. Damodar Das, who was paid

only Rs.18,000/- and therefore, he is entitled to recover the

balance amount along with interest.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel and am unable to accrue him. It is mentioned in

para 2 of the claim application that Sh. Damodar Das was

paid Rs.30,000/- as severance allowance, Rs.18,000/- as

gratuity as per departmental service rules on his retirement.

When the retirement benefits were paid as per service rules,

as pleaded by the applicant himself, it cannot be said that

any more amount was payable to Sh. Damodar Das on

account of gratuity.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

939

In para 6 of the claim petition, the applicant has

mentioned the basic pay and mentioned that Sh. Damodar

Das might have received basic pay of Rs.1720/- along with

D.A. @ 43%. But there is no supporting evidence to prove

this fact and therefore, the calculation made by the applicant

on account of said amounts, cannot be held to be valid.

It may also be added that applicant has claimed the

balance amount of gratuity under the payment of gratuity

act 1972. Under the said act, only the “Controlling

Authority” appointed under the said act has the right to

decide the matter in controversy and Section 14 of the Act

bar the jurisdiction of any other authority and it reads as

follow:-

“Act to override other enactments, etc.-The

provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder

shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment

other than this Act or in any instrument or contract

having effect by virtue of any enactment other than

this Act.”

Thus, the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act

override the provisions contained in any other enactment.

In these circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel, that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter

as per III Schedule, Clause V, of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 has not merit.

In result, it is held that claimant is not entitled to

recover any amount and his claim petition being without

merit is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWfiQl] vEckyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh,@244@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. LCA/

244/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Head Post Office,

Ambala and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. LCA No. 244/2008

Registered on 18.12.2008

Sh. Harbans Lal, retired EDDA,

from Village Bhurewala,

Tehsil Naraingarh,

District Ambala

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chief Post Master General,

Haryana Circle,

Ambala

2. The Senior Superintendent

of Post Offices,

Ambala Division,

Ambala

3. The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Ambala City

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Pal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.01.2016

Sh. Harbans Lal has filed this claim application under

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments that he

was appointed as EDDA on 14.9.1968 and served till

24.10.1998. He was paid Rs.6,000/- as gratuity on retirement.

That he is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972. The amount be calculated and be paid to him.

Respondent-management filed written reply pleading

that the amount of Rs.6,000/-as gratuity was paid to the

workman as provided under the rules. Workman has

agitated the matter after 10 years. That this Tribunal cannot

be award gratuity in view of the provisions of the Gratuity

Act, 1972.

In support of his case, Sh. Ram Kumar, son of the

deceased, appeared in the witness-box and filed two

annexures (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2), mentioning

940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certain calculations to the effect that a sum of Rs.34,689/-

is due from the respondent-management.

On the other hand, Sh. S.K. Sharma was examined by

the respondent-management, who filed his affidavit.

It was argued by Sh. R.P. Mehra, counsel for the

workman that the workman has rendered 30 years of service

and he is entitled to more gratuity under the payment of

Gratuity Act than the amount of Rs.6,000/- as given by the

respondent-management.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is not disputed that a sum of Rs.6,000/- was paid to

the workman on his retirement as gratuity. Now the workman

has been claiming more amount on account of gratuity

under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under the said

Act, the question of payment of gratuity is to be decided

by “Controlling Authority” as appointed under the said

act and Section 14 of the said Act excludes the jurisdiction

of any other forum under any other enactment and it reads

as follow:-

“Act to override other enactments, etc.-The

provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder

shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment

other than this Act or in any instrument or contract

having effect by virtue of any enactment other than

this Act.”

In result, it is held that the present application under

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not maintainable in

this Court and the same is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vkWfiQl] vEckyk ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh,@246@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. LCA/

246/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Head Post Office,

Ambala and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26/02/2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. LCA No. 246/2008

Registered on 18.12.2008

Smt. Shushma Sawhney W/o

late Sh. Jai Parkash,

R/o House No.117,

Ward No.3, Naraingarh,

Teh. Naraingarh,

District Ambala

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chief Post Master General,

Haryana Circle,

Ambala

2. The Senior Superintendent

of Post Offices,

Ambala Division,

Ambala

3. The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Ambala City

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Ravinder Pal, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on : 15.01.2016

Smt. Shushma Sawhney has filed this claim application

under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), to claim the gratuity under

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; on the averments that

her husband Sh. Jai Parkash was appointed as Extra

Departmental Branch Post Master on 10.10.1995 and

breathed his last on 17.5.2004. He was entitled to gratuity

under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but the same has

not been paid to her.

Respondent-management filed written reply pleading

that the husband of the applicant rendered service of 8

years and 7 months and since service was less than 10

years, exgratia gratuity was not payable.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

941

In support of his case, Smt. Shushma appeared in

the witness-box and filed annexure(Annexure A-1),

mentioning certain calculations and calculated the amount

of gratuity of Rs.23,575/-.

On the other hand, Sh. S.K. Sharma, Senior Supdt.

was examined by the respondent-management, who filed

his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent-

management.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh.

Ravinder Pal for the management and perused the file.

It was contended by Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel

for the applicant that the husband of the applicant served

the respondent-management for the period from 10.10.1995

to 17.5.2000 and therefore, gratuity is to be paid as per

Annexure A-1 and the said amount be paid to the applicant.

Suffice to say that the husband of the applicant

rendered a service only 8 years and 7 months and the

exgratia gratuity was to be paid to the employees, who

rendered 10 years of service. Since the deceased did not

serve for the prescribed period under the rules, he was not

entitled to any gratuity and consequently, the applicant

has no right to claim any amount by way of gratuity.

It may also be added that applicant has claimed the

gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972. Under the

said act, only the “Controlling Authority” appointed under

the said act has a right to decide the matter in controversy

and no other forum can decide the matter in controversy.

Section 14 of the Act, read as follow:-

“Act to override other enactments, etc.-The

provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder

shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment

other than this Act or in any instrument or contract

having effect by virtue of any enactment other than

this Act.”

In the given circumstances, this application being

not maintainable is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 428-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&u#djk] rkyqd&,jukM] ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@10@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 428.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Narukara in Eranad Taluk of

Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/10/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 429-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&oyacwj] rkyqd&,jukM] ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@11@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 429.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Valambur in Eranad Taluk of

Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/11/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 430-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 5, 2016/PHALGUNA 15, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&vaxkfMIiqje] rkyqd&is¯jÙkyeUuk]

ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@12@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 430.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Angadipuram in Perinthalmanna

Taluk of Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/12/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 431-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&rk"ksdksM] rkyqd&is¯jÙkyeUuk]

ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@13@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 431.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Thazhekode in Perinthalmanna

Taluk of Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/13/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 432-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&eadM+k] rkyqd&is¯jÙkyeUuk]

ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@14@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 432.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Mankada in Perinthalmanna Taluk

of Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/14/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 433-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 5] 2016@iQkYxqu 15] 1937

943

jsosU;q foYyst&iÙkkf;Ddjk] rkyqd&is¯jÙkyeUuk]

ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@15@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 433.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Pathaikara in Perinthalmanna

Taluk of Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/15/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 434-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&vkueaxkM] rkyqd&is¯jÙkyeUuk]

ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@16@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th February, 2016

S.O. 434.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Anamangad in Perinthalmanna

Taluk of Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/16/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

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.