1398 GI/2016
(1157)
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 569-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] ¯eLd esa
Jh vfHk"ksd] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 18 ekpZ] 2016
ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu
ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2016
S.O. 569.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
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- 14]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 27—vizSy 2] 2016] 'kfuokj@pS=k 7—pS=k 13] 1938
No. 14]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 27—APRIL 2, 2016, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 7—CHAITRA 13, 1938
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)
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri Abhishek, ASO as
Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Minsk to
perform the Consular services with effect from
18th March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 570-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk
,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds [akM
(d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] c²e?ke
esa Jh v'kksd jkor] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
22 ekpZ] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj
lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2014º
izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)
1158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 570.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause
(a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hereby appoints Shri Ashok Rawat, ASO as
Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India,
Birmingham to perform the Consular services with effect
from 22nd March, 2016.
[No. T-4330/01/2014]
PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 571.—dsUæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh èkkjk
6 ds lkFk ifBr èkkjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] >kj[akM jkT; ljdkj] x`g dkjkxkj rFkk vkink
izca/u foHkkx] jkaph dh vfèklwpuk la- 10@lhchvkbZ&607@2015&5454
fnukad 03-09-2015 ds ekè;e ls izkIr lgefr ls jkaph ftys ds
fldfnjh gkbMy izkstsDV dh foÙkh; vfu;ferrkvksa rFkk mlls
lac¼ vijk/ksa esa fd, x, nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=kksa rFkk mlh
laO;ogkj esa fd, x, vU; vijk/ksa dh tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh
fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkfèkdkj dk
leLr >kj[akM jkT; esa foLrkj djrh gSA
[iQk- la- 228@43@2015&,ohMh&II]
eks- unhe] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 571.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25
of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Jharkhand , Home Prisons and
Disaster Management Department, Ranchi vide
Notification No.-10/C.B.I.-607/2015-5454 dated 03.09.2015,
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of
the State of Jharkhand for investigation of financial
irregularities in Sikidiri Hydel Project in Ranchi District,
the abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection
with the said offences and any other offences in the
aforesaid transaction.
[F. No. 228/43/2015-AVD-II]
Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 572-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vfèkfu;e]
1981 (1981 dk 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (Ä)
ds mi&[kaM (>) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vferkHk dkar ds LFkku ij Jh jes'k vfHk"ksd
(vkbZ,,l % fcgkj % 1982)] lfpo] vkS|ksfxd uhfr ,oa laoèkZu
foHkkx (MhvkbZihih) dks vxys vkns'kksa rd Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr
cSad (,fDte cSad) ds funs'kd eaMy esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 24@27@2002&vkbZ,iQ&I (Vol-VIº
lkSE;kthr ?kks"k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2016
S.O. 572.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6
of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981),
the Central Government hereby nominates Sh. Ramesh
Abhishek (IAS : BH : 1982), Secretary Department of
Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), as Director on the
Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM
Bank) vice Sh. Amitabh Kant until further orders.
[F. No. 24/27/2002-IF-I (Vol-VI) ]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
dks;yk ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 573-—dks¯dx dks;yk [kku (jk"Vªh;dj.k)
vfèkfu;e] 1972 dh /kjk 20 ds mi&[k.M (2) rFkk dks;yk
[kku (jk"Vªh;dj.k) vf/fu;e] 1973 dh /kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M
(1) ds varxZr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæ ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk
dks;yk fu;a=kd] dks;yk fu;a=kd laxBu] dksydkrk dks mDr
vfèkfu;e ds varxZr Hkqxrku vk;qDr dks lkSais x, dk;ks± dk
rRdky izHkko ls rFkk vxys vkns'kksa rd fu"iknu djus ds fy,
fu;qDr djrh gS A
[la- 18@8@2015&,,lvks]
lathc HkV~Vkpk;Z] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2016
S.O. 573.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 the Central
Government hereby appoints the Coal Controller in Coal
Controller’s Organisation, Kolkata to perform the functions
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1159
assigned to the Commissioner of Payments under the said
Acts with immediate effect and until further orders.
[No. 18/8/2015-ASO]
SANJIB BHATTACHARYA, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 574-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
10@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@71@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2016
S.O. 574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 10 of 1997) 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 11.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/71/1995-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 10/1997
Employer in relation to the management of
Bhowra O.C.P. of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 20/01/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /71/1995-IR(C-1) dated 27/12/
1996, 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 management in denying the
regularization as assistant foremen with effect from
25/01/1991 to Sh. Deosaran Singh is legal and
justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently on behalf of the workman. Case remains
pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties
have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 575-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lhlh,y 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@1995) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@446@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 3 of 1995) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/446/1993-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 3/1995
1160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Employer in relation to the management of
Pindra Colliery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 24/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /446/93-IR(CM-1) dated
28/12/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Pindra
Colliery under Kuju Area, P.O-Kuju, Distt-Hazaribagh
in not regularizing Shri M.L.Dutta as Pit Supervisor
w.e.f. 01.02.1992 and not paying him, the difference
of wages w.e.f. 21.11.1990 is justified? If not , to
what relief is the workman entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 576-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
16@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@16@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 16 of 1994) 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 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/16/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 16/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Godhur Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 26/02/2016
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /16/1993-IR(C-1) dated 16/02/
1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Godhur
Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L in not referring the workman
Sri Mani Saw, Timber Mazdoor to Medical Board
for assessment of his age is justified ? If not, to
what relief is the workman entitled for?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. Though they took steps for certain dated,
Subsequently did not take any interest in the case by the
parties. It is resumed that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence, No
Dispute Award is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 577-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1161
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
29@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@11@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 29 of 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 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/11/2014-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 29/2014
Parties :
Employer in relation to the management of
Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Sri D.N. Banerjee, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 29/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/11/2014/ IR (CM-I), dated
04/03/2014, 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 Kustore
Colliery under M/s BCCL in not regularising Sri
Ram Kumar Saw to the post of cap Lamp Fitter is fair
and justified? To what relief the concerned workman
are entitled to?”
2.
This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
18/03/2014. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The workman files their written statement on
20/05/2014 , and the management files their written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 31.03.2015. Thereafter
rejoinder filed by the workman. No witness adduced by
both side, and no document marked by either side.
3.
Short point to be decided in the case is whether the
workman will get the designation of Cap Lamp Fitter or not.
4.
During the hearing of the case, the workman
representative submitted that he in the meantime got the
scale of cap Lamp Fitter, which is category IV Scale. But
he has not given the designation. But the workman unable
to prove how he will entitle to the designation of the cap
Lamp Fitter nor filed any document in his support.
Therefore, giving the designation of Cap Lamp Fitter is
not possible. Now the workman got his scale is sufficient
for him.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 578-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
55@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@50@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 55 of 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 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/50/2013-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
1162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference No. 55/2013
Employer in relation to the management of
Lodna Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 23/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /50/2013-IR(CM-1) dated
13/12/2013, 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 Lodna
Coke Plant of M/s BCCL in fixing less wages after
conversion from P.R. Wagon Loaders to T.R General
Mazdoor-1 in respect of Smt. Chandra Patia Kamin
and 10 others is fair and justified? To what relief the
concerned workers are entitled to?”
Annexure
List of workmen
1. Smt. Chandrapati Kamin
2. Smt. Munni
3. Smt. Chhobi
4. Smt. Jirobi
5. Smt. Jamila Begam
6. Smt. Siya Devi
7. Smt. Kabutri
8. Smt. Shanti Kamin
9. Smt. Mehroon Bibi
10. Smt. Mangri Bhuini
11. Kaleshwar Pasi
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But none appears on behalf of the workman.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between
the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 579-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lhlh,y 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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@1994) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@91@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 74 of 1994) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/91/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 74/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Giddi “C” Colliery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 25/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /91/1993-IR(C-1) dated
16/03/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub -section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action taken against Shri Lal Mohamad
to demot him from Dumper Operator, Grade-1
(B-Group) to Helper / Greaser and stopping two
increment with cumulative effect by the management
of M/s Central Coalfield Ltd. is legal and justified ?
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1163
If not, to what relief, the concerned workman is
entitled.?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. Though they took steps for certain dated,
Subsequently did not take any interest in the case by the
parties. It is resumed that the disputes between the
parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 580-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ chlhlh,y
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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
79@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@208@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.
No. 79 of 1994) 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 16.03.2016.
[No. L-20012/208/1993-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 79/1994
Employer in relation to the management of
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 26/02/2016
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /208/1993-IR(C-1) dated
29/03/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Kusunda Area in not
referring the workman Sri Sukram Mahato. Drillman
to the medical Board for determination of his age is
justified ? If not, what relief is the concerned
workman entitled to.?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. Though they took steps for certain dated,
Subsequently did not take any interest in the case . It is
resumed that the disputes between the parties have been
resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 581-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ts-ih-
,fo,'ku 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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
10@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
16-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&11012@06@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2016
S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata (Ref.
No. 10 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. J.P. Aviation and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 16.03.2016.
[No. L-11012/06/2015-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 10 of 2015
1164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of M/s. J.P.
Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
A N D
Their workman
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
:
Mr. S.R. Saha, Ld. Counsel for
Management
M/s. J.P. Aviation Services
Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Ranjan Ghosh, authorized
representative for M/s. Spice
Jet Airlines Ltd.
On behalf of the
:
None
Workmen/union
State: West Bengal
Industry: Civil Aviation
Dated: 1st March, 2016.
AWARD
By Order No.L-11012/06/2015-IR(CM-I) dated
26.02.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“(I) Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
J.P. Aviation as contractor and M/s. Spice Jet as
principal employer in not effecting the DA which is
revised by the Central Government from time to time
and also not paying the salary in time every month
and also the continuous erroneous deduction of PF,
and also not paying the stipulated rate of overtime
for the extra hour of work and not addressing to the
shortage of workmen in cargo operation etc. are
justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2.
When the case is taken up today for hearing, none
appears on behalf of the union though the managements,
viz. M/s. J.P. Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Spice
Jet Airlines Ltd. are represented by its Ld. Counsel and
authorized representative respectively. It appears from the
record that the union is absent for 2(two) consecutive
dates.
3.
From the above facts and circumstances it may
reasonably be presumed that the union is not interested
to proceed with the case further. So, no fruitful purpose
will be served in keeping the matter pending.
4.
In view of the above, instant reference is disposed
of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 1st March, 2016.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 582-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks jsy
dkjiksjs'ku ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 85@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@69@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st March, 2016
S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 85/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
and Others and their workmen, which was received by
the Central Government on 18.03.2016.
[No. L-42011/69/2014-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, DELHI
ID No. 85/2014
The General Secretary,
Delhi Karamchari Sangh,
780, Balli Maran Bhartiya
Mazdoor Sangh Delhi Pradesh,
5293 Ajmeri Gate,
Delhi-110006
...Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
8 Jantar Mantar,.
New Delhi – 110 001
2.
The Manager,
M/s S.I. Services India Pvt. Ltd.
B-36-37, 2nd Floor, IDC,
M.G. Road, Sector 14
Gurgaon-122 001
...Management
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1165
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/69/2014-
IR(DU) dated 09.09.2014, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of S.I.
Services India Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services
of Shri Shyam Kishore & 15 others is just, fair and
legal? If not to what relief the workmen concerned
are entitled to?”
2.
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.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent
to the claimant union as well as the management. Claimant
union filed claim statement in respect of only 10 claimants
out of 16. Thereafter, claimant union opted to abstain
away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed
on behalf of the remaining 6 claimants. Thus, it is clear
that the claimant union is not interested in adjudication of
the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimant union has failed to file claim
statement in respect of the remaining claimants despite
grant of various opportunities, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no other alternative, 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.
March 16, 2016
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 583-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh lkmFk 'kkgnjk tksu 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;&2]
fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 6@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@72@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 6/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
(South Shahdara Zone) and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 22/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/72/2013-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
I.D. No. 6/2014
Sh. Brij Pal S/o Sh. Shanu,
R/o 146, Old Anarkali , Krishna Nagar,
New Delhi -110051
...Workman
Versus
Deputy Commissioner (South Shahdara Zone)
MCD, Karkardooma,
Delhi -110051
...Management
Ex-parte AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
Vide Letter No.L-42012/72/2013(IR(DU)) dated 21.01.2014
referred the following Industrial Dispute to CGIT-cum-
Labour Court-II for adjudication :-
“Whether the decision of Dy. Commission, Shahdra
(South)Zone of MCD in treating the period of
suspension of Sh. Brij Pal, the Section 498 A of IPC
and debarring him from the consequential benefits
of difference of salary, suspension allowance, ACP,
difference of 6th pay commission etc. for that period
is just, fair and legal when he is already acquitted by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the charges
above? If no what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to ?”
Which was register as I.D No. 6/2014 and claimant
was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 29.05.2014. Through which he prayed as
follows:-
a)
Award compensation and damages of Rs. 10
lakhs in favour of the workman and against the
respondent /management.
b)
Set aside the office order vide reference no.
1430/SIO (P)/Vig./PC/2000/R 39 dt. 21.06.2011
of the respondent /management thereby direct
the management to release the full salary as it
was payable for the period from 2.4.2000 to 30
May 2011 to the workman alongwith all his
1166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service benefits whatsoever of any nature for
such period of times with interest as this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper.
c)
Direct the management /respondents to release
the amount of VI pay commission of the
workman /petitioner along with all arrears /
outstanding whatsoever related to such VI Pay
Commission with interest as this Hon’ble Court
deem fit and proper.
d)
Direct the respondents/management to consider
the seniority, promotion and provide all
increment, benefits of ACP Scheme for which
he is entitled from the day of beginning and
also direct the respondent/management to
release all his arrears, due and service benefits
which would accrue after considering all
possibility in interest of justice.
e)
Any other or further relief which this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper may be granted in
favour of workman /Petitioner and against the
Respondents /Management.
Inspite of several opportunities management has
not filed any reply. So case proceeded ex-parte against
management and fixed 31.3.2015 for ex-parte evidence of
workman.
On 31.3.2015 workman filed his affidavit. Which was
tendered on same day.
Thereafter I have heard the arguments of Ld. A/R
for the workman and fixed 14.1.2016 for order.
On 8.2.2016 Ld. A/R for the workman filed certified
copy of Judgment of criminal appeal passed.
Workman in support of his case filed certified copies
of Judgment of CRL.A. No. 176/2006 Roshni Versus state
and CRL.A.Nos. 39-41/2006 Brijpal & Ors. Versus State of
Delhi decided by Lordship of Delhi High Court on
17.02.2010.
Through which appeal of accused appellants Brijpal
& Ors. has been allowed and conviction of Sh. Brij Pal has
been set-aside and he has been acquitted u/s 498-A of
IPC.
Against aforesaid judgment no evidence in rebuttal
has been filed by respondent in the instant case . Although
as per question of determination No.1 of reference order.
Burden it lies on workman. Which has been proved by
workman through his reliable and unrebutted evidence.
So question of determination no.1 is liable to be decided
in favour of workman and against management. Which is
accordingly decided. Workman is entitled to relief as
prayed by him in prayer clause (b) and to (d) of claim
statement without interest.
Reference is also liable to be decided in favour of
workman and against management which is accordingly
decided and claim statement is partly allowed.
Ex-parte award is accordingly allowed and
management is directed to comply the award within period
of 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy
against this award.
Dated:-07/3/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 584-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ ,XthD;wfVo
viQlj] dSaVksuesaV cksMZ ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&13012@01@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board and Others and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 22/03/2016.
[No. L-13012/01/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
I.D. No. 29/2015
Smt. Reeta Arya W/o
Sh. Rabindra Prakash Arya,
R/o Staff Quarters, Mallital,
Nainital-263002
Versus
Sh. Prakash BPO,
M/s. Prakash BPO,
Rep, Thr. Sh. Prakash Rakhari, Prop
G-24, Asthan Radheshyam Arcade,
Lakhanpur, Ram Nagar Nainital-244715
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1167
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
Nainital-263002.
No DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide Letter No.L-13012/01/2015-IR(DU) dated 17.02.2015
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication :-
“Whether the termination/removal of Smt. Reeta
Arya from the services of Cantt Board by M/s
Prakash BPO is justified? If not, what steps the
Cantonment Board, Nainital Should take and ensure
that she is reinstated in her job with full back wages?
On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 29/15 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
Several opportunities given to workman to filed claim
statement . Neither workman nor any person on his behalf
has been appeared in the instant case nor claim statement
filed.
In this background there is no option to this tribunal
except to pass No Dispute Award because workman is
not interested to file his claim statement.
On the basis of which none of the party can be
directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no
pleadings and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award
is liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated 28/02/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 585-—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
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 113@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/2013) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 113/2013
Shri Jitender Kumar,
S/o Shri Ram Kishan,
R/- A – 491, Gali No.16,
Gagan Vihar, Bhopra,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
...Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Head Office,
7, Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi 110 007
2.
The Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Branch Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
...Managements
AWARD
Present claim has been raised by Shri Jitender Kumar,
the workman herein under provisions of sub-section 2 of
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
the Act), averring therein that he was employed as sweeper
by Punjab National Bank ( hereinafter referred to as the
management) on 03.02.2000 and was posted at Extension
Counter Dabur India Ltd. under Preet Vihar branch, which
was later on merged with Kaushambi branch, of the
management in March 2010. He was also performing duties
of peon and record keeper and was require to work full
time from 9 a.m. till closing hours and sometimes even
upto 8 pm. He had an unblemished record. He was initially
paid Rs.1800 till December 2001, Rs.2000.00 per month upto
July 2004, Rs.2200.00 till September 2009, Rs.2600.00 till
May 2011, Rs.2000.00 for June 2011 and Rs.1500 for July
2011. When he protested against reduction of his wages
and for being paid less than the minimum wages, he was
terminated on 03.08.2011, without any notice, memo, charge
sheet nor any enquiry was conducted against him. He
was deprived of all legal benefits like provident fund, ESI,
paid leaves, overtime etc. Action of the management in
1168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminating services of the workman herein is illegal,
malafide, unjustified and in violation of Section 25 F, G
and H of the Act and against principles of natural justice.
A prayer has been made that the management be directed
to reinstate the claimant will all consequential benefits.
2.
Demurral was made by the management claiming
that the workman was not employed by the management
on any substantive post but was merely a water/canteen
boy, hence not covered under the definition of ‘workman’
as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Extension
Counter at Dabur India Ltd. was merged with Kaushambi
branch but there was no question of transferring the
workman as he was doing some petty jobs, for which he
was duly paid by the management. It is inherent in the
engagement of a casual worker, he is engaged on day to
day basis depending upon the availability of work. Since
there was a water/canteen boy already working at
Kaushambi branch, services of the workman herein was
dispensed with. Copies of attendance register, vouchers,
registers etc. submitted by the claimant herein are forged
and fabricated. A complaint has also been registered
against him with the police in this regard. Finally, a prayer
has been made that since the claim does not merit any
consideration, the same may be rejected.
3.
Against this factual background, my learned
predecessor on the basis of the above pleadings, framed
the following issues vide a order dated 30.08.2013:
(i) Whether claimant had rendered continuous
service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from
the date of his termination?
(ii) Whether a casual employee has no right to seek
reinstatement, as claimed by the bank?
(iii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of
reinstatement in service?
4.
Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the
claimant. More than a dozen opportunities was given to
the claimant to adduce evidence, but neither the claimant
nor any authorized representative on his behalf appeared
before this Tribunal to adduce evidence in the matter.
Thus, it is apparent that the claimant is no more interested
in progress of the case on merits.
6.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with
no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ 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 3, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 586-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy 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
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2001)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@2@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2001) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucnow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/2/2001-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
ID No. 72/2001
L-12012/2/2001-IR(B-II) dated 27.04.2001
BETWEEN :
Sri Sumitra Tewari w/o late Sri RA Tewari
2/566, Aliganj
Lucknow
AND
The Regional Manager
Central Bank of India
Regional Office, Hazratganj
Lucknow
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/2/2001-IR(B-II) dated
27.04.2001 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 Smt. Sumitra Tiwari W/o
late Sri Ram Akshayver Teweari, Aliganj, Lucknow and
the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional
Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1169
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
ACTION
OF
THE
MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
IN AWARDING PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL
UPON SRI RAM AKSHAYVER TEWARI VIDE
ORDER DATED 21.05.1994 AND ALSO
REJECTION OF APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED
08.06.1996 WERE LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT,
WHAT RELIEF THE WIDOW OF THE WORKMAN
IS ENTITLED TO ?”
3.
The then Hon’ble Presiding Officer, CGIT, vide order
dated 27.02.2002 has asked the Government to substitute
the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi in place of late Sri Ram
Akshayver Tewari and to amend the reference order
suitably. Consequently, Central Government issued a
corrigendum and amendment was incorporated
accordingly.
4.
As per the claim statement wife of deceased workman
has submitted in brief, that her husband was working as
Clerk at Faizabad branch of the bank and he was promoted
from Sub-Staff to Clerk, and posted to work at Faizabad
and thereafter transferred to Lucknow. It has been alleged
in the claim statement that due to rivalry of employees
union, false complaints were sent against the workman
and his associates, the union exerted pressure on the bank,
and the workman was falsely implicated and the charge
sheet was served in connivance with the officials of
management.
5.
The applicant has further stated that another member
of the union Sri M.P. Mishra, Clerk belonged to the said
union, he was traped by the union and at behast of the
opposite party, was charge- sheeted and punished in
another case, has been exonerated from the charges, and
real guilty employees have not been punished by the
opposite party despite several efforts made by other
unions. It has been stated that the workman late Sri R.A.
Tewari filed appeal before the management and the mercy
appeal also made to the management, several reminders
were sent but could not get any fruitful result; he was
dismissed from service without any notice.
6.
As per the claim statement following 3 charges were
framed against him;
1. Mr. R.A.Tewari unauthorisedly opened HSS A/c
24383 fvg. Sri Bholanath Tewari in the ledger,
2. He inflated the balance twice,
3. He fraudulently withdrew Rs.9300/- from the said
A/c by forgiving the signatures of A/C holder.
7.
So called proceeding regarding the aforesaid charges
have been mentioned in brief in the claim statement. It has
further been asserted that the request of the workman’s
representative to obtain opinion of the expert was not
accepted by the management, the lady applicant has
pleaded that her husband did not get any relief despite his
appeal and mercy appeal etc., conciliation proceeding were
initiated before ALC ( C ), Lucknow and during conciliation
proceedings the workman expired, thereafter widow and
legal heir of the deceased employee but the opposite party
did not prefer to reply before the ALC ( C ) Lucknow. With
the above pleadings the applicant has requested to treat
her husband in service till the date of his death and for
payment of all wages etc. to the lady applicant. Request
for appointment on compassionate ground has also been
made by the widow.
8.
The applicant has filed certain documents as per the
list 5 dated 29.11.2001.
9.
The management has filed objection dated 16.08.2001
wherein the main allegations of the claim statement have
been denied. The opposite party has stated that the
workman is reported to have been died on 29.11.1999, the
claim cannot be filed by his wife, enquiry proceedings to
which she was not party cannot be challenged by her,
neither has she mentioned that opportunity was not
provided to her husband during the disciplinary enquiry,
her version could not be accepted by this court at this
later stage.
10.
It is submitted that the charge sheet No.RO/PRS/
DAD/92-93/10/295 dated 17.09.1992 was issued against
the claimant’s husband for his gross misconduct. A regular
departmental enquiry was held and the claimant was given
all opportunities to defend his case before the enquiry
officer. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry,
the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 10.02.1994
to the disciplinary authority and found that the charges
levelled against the claimant’s husband are proved beyond
all reasonable doubts. Claimant’s husband was given
opportunity to “Say” against the findings of the enquiry
officer by the disciplinary authority. The claimant’s
husband had chosen to exercise this right and offered his
comments to the disciplinary authority against the findings
of the enquiry officer. In turn the disciplinary authority
after considering the entire record of the enquiry containing
enquiry proceedings, exhibits, arguments put forth by both
the parties and submissions made by the claimant’s
husband found that the charges levelled against Mr.Tewari
vide chare sheet No. RO/PRS/DAD/92-93/10/295 dated
17.09.1992 as fully proved against him. Therefore, the
disciplinary authority vide his order dated 13.04.1994
proposed the punishment of “Dismissal from service
without notice” in terms of Clause 19.6 (a) of Bipartite
Settlement dated 19.10.1966, as amended upto-date. The
claimant’s husband was also given an opportunity to make
his submissions against the proposed punishment by the
disciplinary authority by offering him personal hearing
which took place on 17.05.1994 at 3 P.M. before the
disciplinary authority. After considering all aspects of the
matter, the disciplinary authority vides his order No. RO/
PRS/DA/12/94-95/77 dated 21.05.1994 awarded the
1170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment of “Dismissal from service without notice” to
the claimant’s husband.
11.
It is further submitted that claimant’s husband has
preferred his appeal before Appellate Authority, who also
gave him an opportunity of hearing on 07.06.1995 at Zonal
Office, Lucknow. The Appellate Authority vide order No.
ZO/PRS/VIG/AGM/AA/95-96/240 dated 08.06.1995
confirmed the order of disciplinary authority after
considering all facts, records and the submissions made
by the claimant’s husband in this regard. It is further
submitted that the claimant was well informed that there is
no provision of Mercy appeal in Bipartite Settlement. It is
also submitted that at this stage this matter was also raised
by the union of claimant’s husband in the joint discussions,
there also the management has informed the same to the
union also.
12.
The management has further asserted that claimant
has falsely, concocted and frivolous petition has filed with
ulterior motive; and it being untenable, is liable to be
rejected. Along with objection photo copies of several
documents including enquiry report have been filed by
the bank.
13.
In reply to the objection submitted by the opposite
party rejoinder has also been filed by the lady applicant,
reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement. The
applicant has asserted that the domestic enquiry is void
and is based on false story to terminate the services of the
workman prejudiciously.
14.
After completion of the pleadings of the parties,
following preliminary issues were framed in the presence
of the parties vide order dated 22.04.2002:
(i) D;k foHkkxh; tkap mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr Fkh vFkok
ugha \ rFkk
(i) tkap vf/dkjh ds fu"d"kZ nqjkxzgiw.kZ (perverse) gSa
vFkok ugha \
The parties were called upon to adduce their
evidence on preliminary issues. The parties filed
documents in support of their respective case; but did not
adduce any oral evidence. However, both the parties
forwarded oral arguments on preliminary issues.
15.
After hearing the parties’ authorized representatives
of the parties and going through entire material available
on record, following orders were passed on preliminary
issues vide order dated 12.03.2015:
“It is evident from perusal of the documents filed as
well the court file, that there was no undue haste
during the enquiry proceedings, management
witness were examined in the knowledge of the
workman, he was provided opportunity to cross
examine in detail the management witnesses,
moreover, sufficient opportunity was also given to
adduce defence evidence. Hence, while appreciating
the arguments advanced by the learned A/R before
this Tribunal, since there is no cogent evidence and
reasonable ground in the record to agree with the
view advanced on behalf of the lady applicant, it
can not be inferred that at this stage, that the
impugned enquiry was perverse or unfair. Therefore,
preliminary issues framed by the then Presiding
Officer on 22.04.2002 are decided against the
applicant. Put up on 28.04.2015 for final argument
on the point of quantum of punishment.”
16.
Heard, parties at length and perused entire material
available on record.
17.
It has been contended by the authorized
representative of the workman that the order of this
Tribunal on preliminary issues is wrong as he had been
denied the opportunity of proper defence during the course
of domestic inquiry, by non-supply of documents and
preset of mind of the Disciplinary Authority in the inquiry.
It was also argued that the Inquiry Officer had been
appointed with the issuance of charge sheet, even before
submission of reply to charge sheet, which shows that
the management was with preset with intention to penalize
the workman through an unfair domestic inquiry.
18.
Per contra, it was argued for management that the
Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the
evidence relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it
cannot alter the order or punishment. It was submitted
that the scope of invoking the powers given under Section
11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the
condition that the Court should interfere with the order of
punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to
the misconduct committed or it is excessively harsh and
shocking to the consciousness. It has further been argued
that in the instant case the workman was given charge
sheet for committing gross misconduct i.e. embezzlement
of the Bank’s money; and was penalized with the
punishment of dismissal, after conducting a thorough
inquiry and this Tribunal vide its order dated 12.03.2015
has held that the domestic inquiry was conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend
himself”; hence there is no scope for this Tribunal to
interfere with the quantum of punishment order as the
same is well proportionate order, as the workman was
punished for proved gross misconduct i.e. embezzlement.
It has been submitted that the embezzlement of Bank’s
money speaks ill of the honesty and integrity of the
workman concerned. This is definitely an act prejudicial
to the interest of the Bank. Such employees cannot be
kept on the rolls of the Bank. It has relied on Bank of India
vs Vishwa Mohan (1998) Lab IC 2514.
The bank management has further submitted that
the Bank being a financial institution dealing with the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1171
public money, and the employees of the Bank are required
to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to day
transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty or fraud
or misappropriation or embezzlement constitute
misconduct of serious nature warranting penalty of
removal/dismissal. As the charges levelled against the
workman were of serious/grave in nature, which were duly
proved in the inquiry, therefore, the action of the
management is justified. It has been argued by the bank
that the aforesaid act of the workman has shaken the
confidence of the bank in him and he is not fit to be kept in
the services of the Bank, therefore deserves no interference
into the quantum of punishment by this Tribunal. It has
relied on Municipal Committee, Bandugarh vs. Kishan
Baha and others, 1996 Lab IC 1050.
19.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the authorized representatives of the
parties and perused case laws relied on by them.
20.
In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted
with the allegation of ‘gross misconduct of embezzlement
by making fictitious entries and withdrawal of money by
putting forged signatures of the customer. The domestic
inquiry and its findings were upheld by this Tribunal vide
order dated 12.03.2015, holding that the domestic inquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice; and the workman was afforded all reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. Hence, after decision on
the preliminary issues in the favour of the management,
the workman has pleaded that the punishment imposed
upon her husband is disproportionate and this Tribunal
should interfere into it within the provisions provided
under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
21.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of
India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope
of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as
under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the
power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute
its own conclusion on penalty and impose some
other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,
it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
imposed appropriate punishment with cogent
reasons in support thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by
a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by
the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate
cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that
the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly
disproportionate, after examining all the relevant
factors including the nature of charges proved
against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,
the nature of duties assigned having due regard to
their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an
discipline required to be maintained, and the
department/establishment which the delinquent
person concerned works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4
SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long line of
cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative
action under English law summarized the legal position in
the following words:
“11. The common thread running through in all these
decisions is that the court should not interfere with
the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical
or suffers from procedural impropriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense
that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.
In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury
case the court would not go into the correctness of
the choice made by the administrator open to him
and the court should not substitute its decision to
that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review
is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in
decision-making process and not the decision.
12. To put it differently, unless the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/
tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further,
to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare
cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording
cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC
257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position
as follows:
“8.……… The scope of judicial review in the matter
of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary
proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere
with the punishment only if it finds the same to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charges found
to be proved.”
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak
(2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority unless shocking
to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected
to judicial review.
1172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory
of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2
SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while
exercising the power of judicial review, the High
Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the
discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,
and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard
to the imposition of punishment unless such
discretion suffers from illegality or material
procedural irregularity or that would shock the
conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of
discretion in imposition of punishment by the
disciplinary authority or appellate authority is
dependent on host of factors such as gravity of
misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties
assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty,
if any, and the discipline required to be maintained
in the department or establishment he works.
Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not
substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
23.
In the instant case the workman, was working as
Clerk in Faizabad branch of the bank and during his said
posting he committed various gross misconducts which
included fictitious entries and withdrawl of money by
putting forged signatures of a customer. The management
through evidence proved before the domestic inquiry that
the committed above irregularities and the domestic inquiry
conducted by the management was upheld by this
Tribunal vide its order dated 12.03.2015.
The Bank management has argued that the
embezzlement of the Bank’s money speaks ill of the honesty
and integrity of the workman concerned. This is definitely
an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads
to loss of faith in the workman. In Air India Corporation
Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has
been observed that:
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the
employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is
affirmed, the order of punishment must be
considered to be immune from challenge, for the
reason that discharging the office of trust and
confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case
of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be
directed.”
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory
Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 Hon’ble
Apex court laid down the test for loss of confidence to
find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that:
“(i) the workman is holding the position of trust
and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, be
commits act which results in forfeiting the same;
and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment
would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the
employee, or would be detrimental to the discipline
or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence
cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the
management. Objective facts which would lead to a
definite inference of apprehension in the mind of
the management, regarding trust worthiness or
reliability of the employee, must be alleged and
proved.”
In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi
and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the contention that
even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer
does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from
service in a case of loss of confidence. Further in A.P.
SRTC v. Raghuda Shiva Sankar Prasad AIR 2007 SC 152
Hon’ble Apex court has observed that in case of theft, the
quantum of theft is not import and what is important is the
loss of confidence of employer in employee.
24.
Thus, the Bank being a financial institution dealing
with the public money, the employees of the Bank are
required to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to
day transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty or
fraud or misappropriation or embezzlement lowers down
the reputation of Bank in public. The public loose their
confidence in Bank, which affects Bank’s business and
finally the national economy.
25.
Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases
(L&S) 721 has observed that:
“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act
as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground
that another view is possible on the material on
record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly
held and the findings are based on evidence, the
question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable
nature of the evidence will not be grounds for
interfering with the findings in departmental
enquiries. Therefore the courts will not interfere
with findings of fact recorded in departmental
inquiries, except where such findings are based on
no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The
test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal
acting reasonably could have arrived at such
conclusion or findings, on the material on record.
The courts will however interfere with the findings
in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice
or statutory regulations have been violated or if the
order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide
or based on extraneous considerations.”
26.
In the instant case the charge of gross misconduct/
embezzlement of the Bank’s money was found to be proved
and principles of natural justice were properly observed
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1173
while conducting the departmental inquiry; and also the
findings of the Inquiry Officer were not found to be
perverse. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances
and considering the laws, there is no justification in
interfering with the order of punishment imposed upon
the workman by the Disciplinary Authority for proved
gross misconduct of ‘embezzlement’. Accordingly, the
widow of the workman is not entitled to any relief.
27.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
18th January, 2016.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 587-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; esjhVkbe
;wfuo£lVh 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- 80@2014) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2014) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Indian Maritime University
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 14th January, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 80/2014
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication 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).
between the Management of Ministry of Surface Transport
and Indian Maritime University, Chennai and their
workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri J. Ravichandran
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Secretary
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
Ministry of Surface
Transport
Government of India
New Delhi-110001
2. The Management of
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Indian Maritime
University
Uthandi
Chennai-600119
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/
: Sri S. Raghupati, Advocate
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
: Sri M.R. Raghavan, Advocate
1st & 2nd Management
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under
Section 2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as
amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent
as Driver on 01.09.2008. He was doing work of permanent
nature. He has been discharging his duties to the
satisfaction of his superiors and to the best of his abilities.
The petitioner was illegally retrenched from service on
23.12.2013. The Respondent has forcefully obtained a letter
of apology from the petitioner before relieving him from
service. The petitioner was no issued with any statutory
notice under Section-9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
His retrenchment is in contravention of the standing
orders also. The petitioner was victimized in view of his
Trade Union activities. The petitioner was not issued any
notice and his retrenchment is in violation of Section-25F
of the ID Act. The petitioner has been in continuous and
uninterrupted service for more than 480 days within a period
of 24 months so he is entitled to be made permanent under
Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments
(Conferment of Permanent Status to Workman) Act, 1981.
The petitioner has filed a petition before the Asstt. Labour
commissioner (Central). The Respondent did not
cooperate with the conciliation proceedings and a failure
report was recorded by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner.
The petitioner has filed this petition in the circumstances.
An order may be passed directing the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
1174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The First Respondent is not an industry as
contemplated under the provisions of ID Act. There is no
employer employee relationship between the petitioner
and the First Respondent. The petitioner was neither
employed, nor terminated by the First Respondent. The
First Respondent has been improperly impleaded as a
party to the proceedings.
3.
The Second respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner was appointed by the erstwhile
National Maritime Academy as a Driver on contract basis
for a period of one year by Memorandum dated 06.10.2008.
When the Indian Maritime University Act was passed,
the employees of the National Maritime Academy were
transferred to the Indian Maritime University. The
petitioner’s service also stood transferred to Indian
maritime University, the Second Respondent. The service
of the petitioner was extended periodically by the Second
Respondent every six months. His last extension was on
08.08.2013 for a period of six months. On 23.12.2013 his
services were terminated on account of misbehavior with
his superior. The challenge to the order of termination is
not sustainable in law. The contract of employment with
the petitioner provided that his appointment was
temporary and would not bestow on him any claim for
permanent appointment. The contract provided for
termination without assigning any reason. The Second
Respondent terminated service of the petitioner by virtue
of the powers vested under contract of employment. The
petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification to
be appointed for the post. The allegation that an apology
was obtained forcefully without conducting a domestic
enquiry is misconceived. There was no necessity to conduct
an enquiry when the petitioner himself has admitted the
act of indiscipline. The allegation that there is violation of
Section-9A of the ID Act in terminating the service of the
petitioner is not correct. The allegation that the petitioner
was victimized, he being a Trade Union activist also is not
correct. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
allegations in the Counter Statements.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W20.
6.
The point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated
in service as claimed”?
The Point
7.
The petitioner has been working as Driver in the
service of the Second Respondent on 01.09.2008. He has
been terminated from service on 23.12.2013. The petition
is filed challenging this order of termination and claiming
reinstatement in service.
8.
The claim of the petitioner is that he has been doing
work of a permanent nature, that he has completed work
of more than 480 days in a period of 24 months and is
entitled to the benefit of Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen) Act, 1981 that in any case his termination is
in violation of Section-9A, Section-33 and Section-25F of
the ID Act and also the employment standing orders of
the Second Respondent.
9.
The First Respondent in the petition is the Ministry
of Surface Transport. The petitioner has not stated in the
Claim Statement how the First Respondent is liable for the
claim made. It is the case of the First Respondent that
there is no employer employee relationship between it and
the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have been employed
by the Second Respondent which has nothing to do with
the First Respondent. The petitioner has not established
in evidence that the First Respondent has got anything to
do with the claim. The First Respondent seems to have
been made a party to the petition without any basis.
10.
It is admitted by the Second Respondent that the
petitioner had started to work with it on 06.10.2008 and
continued in the service of the Second Respondent until
23.12.2013. Initially the appointment was for a period of
one year. Ext.W1 is the first appointment order served on
the petitioner. Though the petitioner had started to work
with the Second Respondent on 01.09.2008 the
appointment order is on 06.10.2008 only. Exts.W2 to
Exts.W7 and Exts.W9 to Exts.W13 are the orders extending
service of the petitioner during every six months. Ext.W8
is the order allotting staff quarters to the petitioner. Ext.W17
is the order by which the petitioner was terminated from
service on 23.12.2013.
11.
The main contention that is raised by the Second
Respondent in justification of the termination of the
petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis and
therefore his termination is not retrenchment as it comes
under the exemption of Section-2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Second Respondent relies upon the
conditions in Ext.W1 which states that the appointment is
for a period of one year, that it is on contract basis on
consolidated salary and that the appointment is terminable
at 24 hours notice without assigning any reasons.
However, it is difficult to accept Ext.W1 as a contract of
employment. It is only an appointment order putting certain
conditions for service. When the Second Respondent is
pleading that it is entitled to the exemption, it is upon it to
prove the same. The Second Respondent has not produced
any document to show that there was a specific contract
with the petitioner and Section-2(oo)(bb) is attracted in
view of this and termination of the petitioner will not be
retrenchment.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1175
12.
It could be seen even from the counter statement of
the Second Respondent that the petitioner was terminated
from service on a fine morning even before the six month
period of service as extended by Ext.W13 was completed.
What is stated by the Second Respondent in the Counter
Statement is that the petitioner has misbehaved with his
superior and he was terminated on account of this.
However, even as admitted by the Second Respondent no
enquiry was conducted regarding the alleged misbehavior.
The petitioner was not served with a Charge Memo and
he was not given opportunity to defend the allegation, if
any against him. Though it is stated that his termination
was on account of misbehavior the Second Respondent
takes shelter under Ext.W1 to justify the termination.
However, as stated the termination will not come under
the exemption pleaded by the Second Respondent and is
not proper or legal.
13.
Though the petitioner has claimed right of
confirmation in service under Section-3 of Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status
to Workmen) Act, 1981, it is not shown by him that he is
entitled to the benefit of this section. In the petition the
petitioner has claimed the relief of reinstatement in service.
However, the petitioner has been working only as a
temporary driver. This is why he was appointed initially
for one year and the period of service extended every six
months until he was terminated from service. There is no
case for the petitioner that he was working on a sanctioned
post. He was not recruited considering his qualification in
accordance with the Recruitment Rules. In the
circumstances, he is not entitled to the relief of
reinstatement.
14.
It is clear that termination of the petitioner is in
violation of Section-25F of the ID Act. He was not served
with any notice nor was he given any compensation.
Though not entitled to reinstatement, in such
circumstances he is entitled to compensation. The
petitioner had been in the service of the Second respondent
from 01.09.2008 to 23.12.2013. He had worked with the
Second Respondent for more than 5 years. Considering
this the compensation payable to the petitioner is fixed as
Rs. 2.00 lakhs.
15.
In the result the second Respondent is directed to
pay the petitioner Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation, within
the month of publication of the award. In default of
payment within the prescribed time, it will carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of the award.
An award is passed accordingly
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 14th January, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri J. Ravichandran
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party
:
None
/1st & 2nd Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
06.10.2008
Appointment Order
Ext.W2
12.10.2009
Extension of Service
Ext.W3
19.10.2009
Extension of Service
Ext.W4
11.02.2010
Extension of Service
Ext.W5
25.02.1010
Enhancement of Increment
Ext.W6
11.08.2010
Extension of Service
Ext.W7
28.02.2011
Extension of Service
Ext.W8
13.05.2011
Office Memorandum for
Allotment of Staff Quarters
Ext.W9
19.08.2011
Extension of Service
Ext.W10
22.03.2012
Extension of Service
Ext.W11
13.09.2012
Extension of Service
Ext.W12
15.02.2013
Office Order for Extension of
Service
Ext.W13
08.08.2013
Extension of Service
Ext.W14
June 2011
Attendance Register from
To
month of June 2011 to April 2013
April 2013
Ext.W15
Nov. 2013
Pay-Slip for the month of
October & November, 2013
Ext.W16
23.12.2013
Letter of Petitioner
Ext.W17
23.12.2013
Termination Order issued by
the 2nd Respondent
Ext.W18
23.09.2014
Failure Report CLC, Chennai
Ext.W19
-
Driving License of the
Petitioner
Ext.W20
-
Identity Card issued by the
2nd Respondent
On the Respondent’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 588-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
1176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 24@2015) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thesday, the 23rd February, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 24/2015
BETWEEN :
Sri C. Sekar
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior Regional Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent
Central Bank of India
Regional Office
No. 48/49, Montieth Road
Egmore
Chennai-600008
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
: M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
: Sri S. Ravindran, Authorized
Respondent
Representative
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under
Section-2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as
amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had joined the service of the
Respondent, a nationalized bank, on 5th July, 1982 as a
Clerk. Since then the petitioner had been working at various
branches of the Respondent Bank at Chennai, the last
branch in which he worked being Teynampet as Head
Cashier-II. The Regional Manager of the Respondent bank
suspended the petitioner from service by order dated
22.12.2009 making frivolous and past closed allegations
of misconduct. After two and half months of suspension
the Respondent served a memo antedated 31.12.2009
repeating the same allegations of misconduct, asking for
explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on
01.03.2010. On 01.07.2010 a charge sheet antedated
16.06.2010 was served on the petitioner. Based on the
charge sheet the Respondent ordered domestic enquiry.
The domestic enquiry conducted was not in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. Fearing for service
the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner on 06.12.2010. Regardless of the
conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner the Respondent proceeded with the enquiry
proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Enquiry Officer found the charges partially proved
and submitted his report. The Respondent who is
Disciplinary Authority overturned the Enquiry Officer’s
findings and held that the charge which the Enquiry Officer
found not proved and another charge which he found
partially proved are also proved. Immediately after the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner sent failure report the
Respondent issued Show Cause Memo to the petitioner
proposing penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner
filed a reply to the Show Cause Memo. Without considering
the reply the Respondent issued order on 08.10.2013
dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
However, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the
Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has not committed
any misconduct as alleged. An order may be passed
holding that dismissal of the petitioner from service is not
justified and also directing the Respondent to reinstate
the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of
service and other attendant benefits.
2.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The petitioner was an employee of the Respondent
Bank in Clerical Cadre from 05.07.1982. He lastly worked at
Teynampet branch of the Respondent as Head
Cashier-II in Clerical Cadre. The Respondent suspended
the petitioner from service on 22.12.2009 for committing
serious misconduct. Thereafter a memo was sent to his
residential address available with the bank. The memo was
returned un-served with the endorsement that the
petitioner has left the place. Two officials from Teynampet
branch were deputed to serve the memo at the address.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1177
However, the petitioner had shifted from the premises. His
changed address was informed to the bank only on
10.06.2010 and the memo could be served only
subsequently. The petitioner did not submit any
explanation to the memo issued by the Respondent. Charge
Sheet was served on him on 01.07.2010 and domestic
enquiry was conducted against him. The petitioner was
represented by the Defence Representative in the enquiry
proceedings. It is incorrect to state that the enquiry was
conducted against the principles of natural justice. The
allegation otherwise in the Claim Statement is not correct.
The Enquiry Officer entered a finding based on the
evidence placed before him that two out of the seven
charges raised against the petitioner are not proved. The
petitioner was running finance firms without obtaining
permission from the Bank. He was cheating depositors by
not repaying deposit amount. The petitioner had
transactions amounting to Rs. 37.85 lakhs between August
2007 to January 2009 through his account, though his
salary for the period was only Rs. 4.46 lakhs. Cheques
issued by him to the depositors of his finance company
were returned due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner
had issued Letter of Irrevocable Guarantee of Rs. 18.00
crores, Rs. 15.00 crores and Rs. 15.00 crores respectively
while working as Head Cashier, without any authority. Thus
the petitioner has committed serious misconduct while in
service. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
3.
In the additional counter Statement the Respondent
has stated that in case the enquiry is found vitiated it is
reserving the right to lead evidence on the merits of the
charges before this Tribunal.
4.
An additional Claim Statement has been filed,
reiterating the contentions in the first Claim Statement.
5.
Since the petitioner has raised the contention that
the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, this issue was
considered as a Preliminary Issue. This Tribunal has
entered a finding in favour of the petitioner on the issue.
The Respondent having stated in the Counter Statement
that it may be permitted to adduce evidence before this
Tribunal on the merits of the case, in case of a finding in
favour of the petitioner, the Respondent was allowed to
adduce evidence. The petitioner has adduced evidence to
rebut the evidence of the Respondent also.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of MW1 and WW1 and documents marked as Ext.M1 to
Ext.M42 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W56.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in dismissing
the petitioner from service is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points
8.
The petitioner was working in the Respondent Bank
as a Clerk from 1982. While he was working as Head Cashier
-II at Teynampet Branch he was dismissed from service on
the charges of misconduct, after conducting a domestic
enquiry. The petitioner has raised the dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai. Before
reference was received by this Tribunal consequent to
the failure report of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner the
petitioner has filed the petition before this Tribunal directly,
seeking the relief of reinstatement in service with
consequent benefits.
9.
Even though the Claim and Counter Statement are
elaborative these do not specifically mention what are the
charges leveled against the petitioner. Out of the 7 charges,
the Enquiry Officer has found two not proved. The counsel
for the Respondent has stated at the time of his argument
that he is not pressing charges 2 and 7. So only the
remaining charges need be considered.
10.
What is the first charge against the petitioner? The
charge sheet is marked as Ext.M1. The first charge states
that the petitioner has engaged in finance companies under
the name and style (i) Yogam Finance and Investments (P)
Ltd. (ii) Everbright Enterprises and (iii) Swati Investments.
It is stated that investments in FDs have been made by
several individuals in this Finance Companies and the
deposits were not repaid to the depositors on due dates
and some of them have filed suits and obtained decrees
against the petitioner. It is stated in the charge that the
petitioner has engaged in finance business outside his
scope of duties without obtaining written permission from
the Bank and he has committed the misconduct covered
by Clause-5(a) of the circular on Disciplinary Action
Procedure.
11.
MW1 has given evidence on behalf of the bank
with reference to the documents produced by it. This
witness has stated with reference to Ext.M6 to Ext.M18
that the petitioner was engaged in financial business
outside the scope of his duties without obtaining
permission from the Bank. Referring to Charge No. 1, the
petitioner has stated in his Claim Statement that he has
got nothing to do with the three companies by name Yogam
Finance and Investments (P) Ltd., Everbright Enterprises
and Swati Investments. He has stated that the Articles of
Association and Memorandum of Association of Yogam
Finance and Investments, if produced would show the
names of the Directors of the Company but the Respondent
has failed to produce the said document. He has stated
that he does not know about Bright Enterprises. He further
stated that Swati Investments is a partnership firm in which
his uncle and others are partners.
12.
Ext.M6 is one of the documents relied upon by the
Respondent to substantiate the first charge. This is a notice
sent to the Respondent Bank by a lawyer. It could be seen
1178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from this that earlier also another notice has been sent by
the lawyer and Ext.M6 is by way of assertion of the facts
stated in the earlier notice. The notice states that the
petitioner has accepted deposits from his client and issued
Fixed Deposit Receipts in which the petitioner has signed
as Director of the Finance Company by name M/s Yogam
Finance and Investments (P) Ltd. It is further revealed
from the notice that suit was filed against the petuitioenr
and his wife for recovery of the amount covered by the
Fixed Deposit Receipt as the petitioner failed to pay the
amount covered by the receipts. Ext.M8 and Ext.M9 are
photocopies of Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of
Yogam Finance and Investments (P) Ltd. It is the case of
the Respondent that these deposit receipts were issued
by the petitioner to Venkatraman the person referred to as
the client in Ext.M6 notice and his daughter. When these
documents were put to the petitioner during his cross-
examination he denied to have signed the Deposit
Receipts. However he has admitted that Ext.M10 and
Ext.M11 are copies of the cheques that were issued by
him to Venkataraman. Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 are for Rs. 1.00
lakh each. The petitioner had admitted during his cross-
examination that Exts.M10 and Ext.M11 cheques were
returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The
same Venkatraman alongwith his daughter to whom
Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 were issued had filed OS 22/2002
before the Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee and obtained
a decree for recovery of a sum of more than Rs.2.00 lakhs.
Ext.M12 is the copy of the decree. The first defendant in
the case is Yogam Finance and Investments (P) Ltd
represented by its Director, C. Sekar. The second defendant
in the case is Sri C. Sekar working in Central Bank of India,
the petitioner. It is beyond doubt that the person referred
to as defendant 1 and defendant 2 is the same, the
petitioner. The third defendant in the case is the wife of
the petitioner. There is no case for the petitioner that he is
not the person referred to as Defendants 1 and 2 in the
decree. He has stated during his cross-examinations that
he had not filed any application to set aside the decree in
OS 22/2002. The decree holders had filed execution petition
to recover the amount. Ext.M13 is the letter from the
Regional Office to Mogappair branch in which the
petitioner was working regarding attachment of salary of
the petitioner. Ext.M13 seems to have been written by the
Regional Office based on Ext.M14 a letter received at the
Regional Office from the Zonal Office in which the Execution
Petition filed by Venkataraman is also referred to. Ext.M17
is the copy of the summons issued to the petitioner
through the Branch Manager. Ext.M18 is the attachment
order in another suit OS 4968 of 2002 filed by one Chandran.
This is also an order attaching the salary of the petitioner.
Though the petitioner has denied his signature in the FDRs
of Yogam Finance and Investments marked as Ext.M8 and
Ext.M9, Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 which are admitted by the
petitioner when considered alongwith Ext.M12 would show
that signatures in Edxt.M8 and Ext.M9 also should be that
of the petitioner. For one thing the petitioner is described
in OS 22/2002 as the Director of Yogam Finance and
Investments Pvt. Ltd. The argument that merely because
of this description the petitioner cannot be said to be the
Director would not hold good. The petitioner has remained
ex-parte in OS 22/2002. That means he has submitted for a
decree in the suit that was filed by him in his capacity as
the Director of Yogam Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd.
He has not cared to challenge the decree but has allowed
the decree holders to execute the decree and recover the
amount from his salary. If he has nothing to do with Yogam
Finance and Investments P Ltd. this would not have been
the case. The admitted signatures in Ext.M10 and Ext.M11
are similar to the signatures as that of the Director in Ext.M8
and Ext.M9. It is for the petitioner to explain why he issued
Ext.M10 and Ext.M11 to Venkataraman if those were not
on account of the FDRs issued by Yogam Finance and
Investments Pvt. Ltd.
13.
The petitioner has stated in his Proof Affidavit that
the Articles of Association and Memorandum of
Association of the Companies in question Act were
deliberately withheld by the Respondent. At the time of
his cross-examination a copy of Articles of Association of
Yogam Finance and investments Pvt. Ltd. received from
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs was put to the petitioner
and he has admitted that the last page of the document
contains his name and signature. He is shown as the
Chairperson among the subscribers and the equity shares
taken by him is 100 while that of the others is only 10 each.
As already referred to, the case of the petitioner in the
Claim Statement is one of total denial to the effect that he
has nothing to do with Yogam finance and Investments
Pvt. Ltd. This is proved wrong not only by Ext.M42, the
Articles of Association but also Ext.M12 the decree in
which the petitioner is a party. So it is very much clear that
the petitioner has been indulging in business without any
permission from the Respondent.
14.
One argument that has been advanced on behalf of
the petitioner with reference to Ext.M6, the lawyer notice
is not at all sustainable. This notice refers to a letter from
the Bank. The argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that in this letter the stand of the Bank was
that the petitioner has nothing to do with Yogam Finance.
If there was such a case for the petitioner he should have
asked for the production of the document. Even assuming
that the Bank has taken such a stand earlier, in the light of
overwhelming evidence in this respect as already
discussed above, this will not be of any consequence.
15.
There is one more aspect that gives force to the
case of the Respondent that the petitioner has been
indulging in some trade or business without permission.
The third charge against the petitioner is that he had issued
several cheques in his account purportedly as repayment
of the deposits collected towards the finance companies
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1179
run by him and all such cheques were returned due to
insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner.
The Management has produced Ext.M21 to Ext.M27, all
dishonoured cheques, to prove this aspect. During his
cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that Ext.M21,
22, 23 and 24 are cheques that were issued by him and
were dishonoured. Ext.M21 and Ext.M22 require
consideration while dealing with the first charge also.
These two cheques were issued by Venkataraman on
whose behalf Ext.M6 lawyer notice was issued. Of course,
Ext.M21 and Ext.M22 would not show that those were
issued towards repayment of the deposits collected
towards finance company run by the petitioner. However,
when the cheques are considered alongwith the execution
petitions filed on behalf of Venkataraman there could not
any doubt that these must have been issued by the
petitioner towards repayment of the amount collected as
fixed deposits in the finance company run by him. Thus
these documents also fortify the case under the first
charge. There is no evidence regarding the other two
companies mentioned in the charge.
16.
The third charge, as stated, is that cheques were
issued by the petitioner and he has been engaging in trade
in business outside the scope of his duties except with
written permission of the bank and also has been doing
act prejudicial to the interests of the bank as per Clause-
5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. The
petitioner has admitted that all the cheques other than
Ext.M26 and Ext.M27 were issued by him. The argument
on behalf of the petitioner has been that these cheques
have nothing to do with the performance of his official
duties but those are only his personal affairs and he has
not committed any offence by issuing the cheques. It has
also been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner
that offence under Section-138 is a compoundable one
and for this reason also the charge will not lie against him.
I have already referred to the cheques issued to
Venkataraman while referring to the first charge. Even
otherwise incurring debt is a minor punishment. Ext.M20
Memorandum of Settlement states that incurring debts to
an extent considered by the Management as excessive is
a minor offence. When third charge alone is taken into
account without reading it alongwith Charge No. 1 it could
be treated only as a minor offence coming under Clause-
7(i) of Memorandum of Settlement. When considered by
itself it cannot be stated that the misconduct under this
charge is one that would cause prejudice to the interests
of the bank. There is the fact that several cheques were
issued by the petitioner and these were dishonored due
to insufficiency of funds.
17.
The fourth charge against the petitioner is that the
total amount credited to the account of the petitioner
during the period from August 2007 to May 2008 was very
huge and disproportionate to his known source of income
and this is covered under clause-5(i) and 5(j) of the
Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen. The total
amount transacted through the account of the petitioner
during the period is shown as Rs. 37.85 lakhs.
18.
The statement of account pertaining to the petitioner
has been produced and is marked as Ext.M28. The
transactions given in the charge are revealed from
statement of account also. The petitioner has not stated
anywhere before this evidence what these transactions
are for. As revealed form the charge itself the gross salary
drawn by the petitioner during the period is only Rs.
4,46,999/-. Before he got into the witness box the petitioner
has not stated what those transactions were about and
how he happened to have transactions for such a huge
amount and what is the source of these transactions. In
the Proof Affidavit in lieu of evidence filed by him the case
advanced by the petitioner is that the transactions were
by way of loan availed by him from the bank, personal
loan availed and most of the cash transactions are by way
of depositing the amount already withdrawn. He has further
stated in his affidavit that though it is alleged that the
transactions are beyond the source of income there had
been no proceedings initiated against him under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. He has further stated that
he was only rotating the money which he had already
withdrawn or the money which he had already got by
personal loan etc.
19.
The Respondent has proved by the evidence of
MW1 and the statement of account pertaining to the
petitioner itself that the transaction done by the petitioner
from August 2007 to April 2008 was disproportionate to
his known source of his income i.e. his salary. The
petitioner had sufficient opportunity to disprove that this
is not so. He should have proved that he had obtained all
these amounts by way of loan from Respondent itself or
that he had obtained personal loans. How could the
petitioner have dealt with so much money within such a
short period? It is for the petitioner to give an explanation.
During his cross-examination the version of the petitioner
was most evasive. He did not give a clear answer to the
questions put to him regarding the remittances made by
him during the period. He has stated that he does not
remember what were most of the transactions about,
though several of them are for amount more than a lakh.
So there is no doubt that the remittances in his account
during the period was disproportionate to his known
assets. What is stated in charge 4 is that the petitioner has
committed misconducts under clause-5(i) and (j) of the
Disciplinary Action Procedure. Clause-5(i) refers to
speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any commodity
whether on his own account or that of any other persons.
Certainly, Charge 4 will not come under this clause as there
is no evidence to show that the petitioner had indulged in
speculation in stocks, shares, securities, etc. However,
the misconduct will come under Clause-(j). This states
that doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank
1180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is a misconduct. It has been argued on behalf of the
petitioner that disproportionate assets of the petitioner, if
any will not cause any prejudice to the interests of the
Bank. It has been pointed out that what causes prejudice
to the Bank has not been defined in Ext.M19, the circular
on Disciplinary Action Procedure or Ext.M20, the
Memorandum of Settlement. Certainly the argument of the
counsel could not be accepted. It is only a matter of
evidence what causes prejudice to the interests of the
bank. If an employee is having assets disproportionate to
his known source of income that is prejudicial to the
interests of the Bank. The bank is expected to transact
with the public, to have dealings with its customers. An
employee having so many transactions and is not able to
explain the same causes prejudice to the interest of the
bank by his acts. He cannot take cover under the argument
that they are all his personal dealings and he is not
answerable to his employer for those transactions. Without
doubt the petitioner was having assets disproportionate
to his known source of his income and the Respondent
will find it difficult to allow such person who is not able to
explain his transactions deal with the customers. There is
no doubt that the charge comes under Clause-5(j) of the
Disciplinary Action Procedure.
20.
The fifth charge against the petitioner is that while
working as Head-Cashier at Mogappair Branch the
petitioner has issued irreparable guarantee to three
different firms using fabricated rubber stamps and address
stamps of the Branch and thus he has committed the
misconduct under Section-5(j) under disciplinary action
procedure. MW1 has stated that Ext.M29, M30 and M31
are the letters issue by the petitioner. All theses documents
are in the letter head of the bank. Ext.M29 is addressed to
M/s Soundarraajan Mills Ltd. and states that the cheques
for Rs. 18.00 crores in favour of Soundararajan Mills
Limited will be honoured on the due date. There is a
signature below as if that of the Branch Manager. However,
the Branch Manager’s name is given as that of the
petitioner. Ext.M30 is a letter to M/s Bhoomika Developers
in the letter head of the Bank confirming payment of Rs.
25.00 crores. Under this letter also the name of the petitioner
is written as Branch Manager and there is a seal also. This
is the case in respect of Ext.M31 addressed to M/s
Bhoomika Developers by which guarantee is accorded for
payment of Rs. 25.00 crores also. Neither in Ext.M30 nor in
Ext.M31 there are any signatures. Though Ext.M29
contains a signature, there is nothing to show that it is
that of the petitioner. Again, there is no evidence at all to
show that such letters were sent by the petitioner at all. So
the fifth charge against the petitioner is not proved.
21.
The sixth charge against the petitioner is that he
prepared vouchers to credit Rs. 15.00 crores in the account
of Krishna Builders in respect of cheque issued by Krishna
Builders but without sending any cheque for such amount,
outward cheque receivable account was debited to the
credit of the account of Krishna Builders. Regarding this
charge also there is dearth of evidence on the part of the
Respondent. Ext.M32 to 35 are marked through MW1 to
substantiate the charge. However there is no evidence to
show that the documents were prepared by the petitioner.
There is nothing to show that the entries in Ext.M33 the
statement of account of Krishna Builders has got anything
to do with the petitioner. Ext.M34 is a letter from Mogappair
Branch where the petitioner had been working to Madurai
Branch. This letter is under the seal of the Branch Manager.
Ext.M35 the letter written by the Central Bank to the Branch
Manager of Mogappair Branch also does not show any
involvement of the petitioner. So this charge also is not
proved.
22.
The argument that is being advanced on behalf of
the petitioner is that even if the offences proved are taken
into account they are only minor in nature and only minor
punishment should have been imposed on the petitioner.
Misconducts under Clasues-5(a) and 5(j) which are found
proved are those that are described as grave in the
Memorandum of Settlement and Disciplinary Action
Procedure. Grave misconducts calls for grave punishment.
23.
Still another argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that the petitioner was discriminated while
imposing punishment. Ext.W48 to Ext.W50 and Ext.W52
to Ext.W55 are the documents produced by the petitioner
to show that he was discriminated. The petitioner has
stated in his Proof Affidavit that much lesser punishments
only have been given to the Officers of the Bank against
whom severe charges were found proved. He has stated
in the affidavit that the Branch Manager of Mogappair
Branch who had authorized entry of Rs. 15.00 crores which
is the subject-matter of Charge No. 6 levelled against him
was imposed only with the punishment of compulsory
retirement though other charges were also proved against
him and Bank had lost several crores of rupees. Again,
Senior Manager of Ellis Nagar Branch, Madurai had caused
loss of crores of rupees by extending loan on fabricated
and forged documents and he is said to have been imposed
the punishment of cut of 5 increments only. Senior Manager
of Darapuram Branch who had been on indiscriminate
lending and allowed unauthorized overdraft and caused
loss of crores of rupees was imposed with the punishment
of stoppage of 15 increments for one year. The Chief
Manager of Coimbatore Mill Branch who had caused loss
of crores of rupees by lending money against forged and
fabricated documents is said to have been let off with
stoppage of increment. One Rajeshwari, Computer Terminal
Operator of Mogappair Branch who made entry of Rs.
25.00 crores of rupees in the account of Krishna Builders
was also imposed with the punishment of stoppage of
increment. Thus according to the petitioner he was
discriminated when compared with the above persons.
Ext.W50 the enquiry report in respect of Srinivasa Reddy,
Chief Manager of Coimbatore Mill Branch, Ext.W52 the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1181
Charge Sheet in respect of Muthappan, Senior Manager
of Ellis Nagar Branch, Ext.W54 the Charge Memo in respect
of Ramabadran who was Manager of Darapuram Branch
and Ext.W55, the addendum to Ext.W54 Charge Memo
and also Ext.W49, the final order in respect of
Sivagurunathan Krishnan, Senior Manager of Mogappair
Branch imposing punishment of compulsory retirement
are the documents produced by the petitioner. Other than
Ext.W49, documents showing punishment imposed on the
concerned Officers are not produced. However, the
statement made by the petitioner in proof affidavit
regarding the punishment imposed are not challenged
during cross-examination. On the other hand the cross-
examination is to the effect that the punishment referred
to are correct. In any case there is Ext.W49 which spells
out severe charges for which punishment imposed is
compulsory retirement only. So there is some justification
in the case advanced by the petitioner that more severe
punishment was imposed on him though the misconducts
alleged against him are less severe than that of the Officers
referred to earlier.
24.
The next contention that is advanced on behalf of
the petitioner is that he was dismissed from service in
violation of Section-33 of the ID Act. The petitioner had
approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC)
even when he was suspended from service. The petition
before the ALC is said to have been filed on 06.12.2010.
The ALC has sent failure report to the Ministry. The case
is that dismissal of the petitioner is even before the report
reached the Ministry and so the dismissal is in violation
of Section-33 of the ID act. It is not disputed by the
Respondent that the dismissal order was effected even
before the report reached the Ministry. The counsel for
the petitioner has referred to the decision of the High
Court of Madras in ARASU VIRAIVU POKKU VARATHU
UZHAIYAR SANGAM VS. STATE EXPRESS
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. reported in 2006 3
LLJ 245 where it was held that the conciliation proceedings
would not end with the closure thereof but continues until
the receipt of the report by the appropriate government.
So there is no doubt that during the pending of the
conciliation proceedings dismissal order was passed by
the Respondent.
25.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the
decision of the Apex Court in RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. VS. SATYA
PRAKASH reported in 2013 9 SCC 232 to advance his
argument that even if there is violation of Section-33 the
dismissal will not become illegal if misconduct against the
concerned workman is found proved. In the above case
the Tribunal had found that the concerned workman
committed the misconduct. The Apex Court has held :
“having held so the Tribunal was expected to dismiss
the complaint filed by the Respondent. It could not
have passed the order of reinstatement with
continuity in service in favour of the Respondent
on the basis that initially the appellant had committed
a breach of Section-33(2)(b) of the Act. It is true that
the appellant had not applied for the necessary
approval as required under that section. That is why
the complaint was filed by the Respondent under
Section-33A of the Act. The complaint having been
filed it was adjudicated like a reference as required
by the statute. The same having been done and the
misconduct having been held to have been proved
now there is no question of holding that termination
shall still continue to be void and inoperative. The
de-jure relationship of employer-employee would
come to an end on the date of order of dismissal
passed by the Appellant”.
26.
In answer to the argument based on the above
decision in RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION the counsel for the petitioner has referred
to the decision in JAIPUR ZILA SAHKARI BHOOMI
VIKAS BANK LTD. VS. RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND
OTHERS reported in 2002 1 LLN 639. In this the Apex
Court has held:
“The proviso to Section-33(2)(b), as can be seen
from its very unambiguous and clear language is
mandatory. This apart, from the object of Section 33
and in context to the proviso to Section-33(2)(b) it is
obvious that the conditions contained in the said
proviso are to be essentially complied. Further any
employer who contravenes the provisions of
Section-33 invites the punishment under Section-
31(1) with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months. This penal provision is a pointer to
the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply with
the conditions stated therein. To put it in another
way, the said conditions being mandatory are to be
satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal passed
under Section-2(b) is to be operative. If an employer
desires to take benefit of the said provision for
passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an
employee he has also to take the burden of
discharging the statutory obligations placed on him
by the said proviso”.
27.
It has been pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner that decision in Ram Gopal Sharma’s case referred
to above is by a five member Constitution Bench while the
decision in RSRTC referred to earlier is by a two member
bench and so the dictum laid down in the decision referred
to earlier is to be accepted and the later decision is only
per curium.
28.
The counsel for the Respondent has tried to
distinguish the two decisions. It has been pointed out by
him that RAM GOPAL SHARMA’s case has been referred
to and distinguished in the subsequent decision. In the
decision, while referring to the case it is stated that the
1182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Constitution Bench in Ram Gopal Sharma’s case was
concerned with the interpretation of Section-33(2)(b) of
the Act in the context of a reference arising out of
conflicting judgments thereon, that the present case is
not one where an application under Section-33(2)(b) of
the ID Act was filed and that the section comes into play
when the employer wants to proceed against an employer
for any misconduct not connected with the dispute that is
pending. The petitioner herein was dismissed by the
Respondent on completion of the enquiry proceedings
though he failed to wait till the failure report reached the
appropriate government. This was not the matter that came
up for consideration in Ram Gopal Sharma’s case. The
misconduct against the petitioner having been found
established it will not be proper to direct reinstatement of
the petitionr only on the ground that there is violation of
Section-33(1) of the ID Act. This will be against the dictum
laid down in RSRTC case. So the petitioner cannot take
shelter under Section-33 of the ID Act also.
29.
I have referred to the allegation of discrimination
raised by the petitioner. Certainly, when the nature of
misconduct committed by the petitioner is taken into
account he does not deserve the punishment of dismissal
from service. Though prejudice was caused to the Bank
by the said acts, the Bank has not incurred any loss on
account of the said acts. So it is only proper that the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified and
reduced to compulsory retirement from service.
In view of my discussion above, an award is passed
as below:
The punishment imposed on the petitioner is
reduced to Compulsory Retirement from service with
superannuation benefits.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
the 23rd February, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri C. Sekar
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri N. Venkatesan
Respondent
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
22.12.2009
Suspension Order
Ext.W2
01.03.2010
Reply to Suspension Order
Ext.W3
06.12.2010
Petition filed in ALC
Ext.W4
16.06.2010
Charge Sheet
Ext.W5
06.08.2010 to
Enquiry Proceeding
11.01.2011
Ext.W6
26.08.2010
Management Exhibits
Ext.W7
26.08.2010
Defence Exhibits
Ext.W8
05.02.2011
Presenting Officer Brief
Ext.W9
25.02.2011
Defence Written Brief
Ext.W10
18.04.2011
Enquiry Officer Findings
Ext.W11
13.06.2011
Disciplinary
Authority
Disagreement
Ext.W12
06.12.2012
Show Cause Memo
Ext.W13
16.01.2013
Reply to Show Cause Memo
Ext.W14
07.10.2013
ALC (C) FOC
Ext.W15
08.10.2013
Administrative Order of
Dismissal
Ext.W16
08.10.2013
Final Order of Dismissal
Ext.W17
20.11.2013
Appeal
Ext.W18
02.01.2013
Appellate Authority Order
Ext.W19
21.08.2013
M.V. Sivagurunatha Krishnan
Former : Senior Manager,
Mogappair Branch Case
Details
Ext.W20
17.08.2013
Mr. V. Ramabhadran,
Former : Branch Manager,
Dharapuram Branch Case
Details
Ext.W21
-
Mr. C. Muthappan
Former : Senior Manager Ellis
Nagar Branch Case Details
Ext.W22
-
Mr. P. Srinivasa Reddy
Former: Chief Manager,
Coimbatore Branch Case
Details
Ext.W23
12.01.2015
Raised u/s 2(a) of ID 1947
Ext.W24
12.01.2015
Notice from ALC
Ext.W25
23.01.2015
Reply from Management
Ext.W26
04.02.2015
Reply from Management
Ext.W27
17.02.2015
Reply from Management
Ext.W28
17.02.2015
FOC
Ext.W29
09.07.1982
Appointment Order
Ext.W30
02.12.2008
Memo RO/1531
Ext.W31
24.12.2008
Memo RO/1648
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1183
Ext.W32
24.10.1996
C.O. Circular 192
Ext.W33
26.07.2010
Letter to RO
Ext.W34
06.03.2012
High Court Judgment
Ext.W35
29.11.2012
Letter to ALC
Ext.W36
22.07.2013
Letter to ALC
Ext.W37
25.07.2013
ALC Minutes
Ext.W38
17.02.2015
ALC Minutes
Ext.W39
23.04.2010
Sale Agreement Copy
Ext.W40
22.08.2013
Letter to ALC
Ext.W41
01.02.1995
Partnership Deed
Ext.W42
15.12.1998
Krishna Builder A/c Statement
Ext.W43
02.09.2009 to
Mrs. V. Alamelu – Staff Cent
10.11.2010
Convenient A/c Statement
Ext.W44
03.02.1995
The acknowledgement of
registration firm issued in
respect of Swathi Investments
Ext.W45
01.02.1995
Deed of Partnership in respect
of Swathi Investments
Ext.W46
-
Certificate of Incorporation of
Yogam
Finance
and
Investments Private Limited
Ext.W47
10.01.2005
Letter of appreciation given by
the Bank
Ext.W48
25.11.2008
Complaint by the Mogappair
Branch Manager to the Police
Ext.W49
21.08.2010
Final order is in respect of V.
Sivagurunathan Krishnan,
Senior Manager, Mogappair
Branch imposing punishment
of compulsory retirement
Ext.W50
02.11.2011
Findings given by the Enquiry
Officer in respect of one
Mr. P. Srinivasa Reddy, Chief
Manager
Ext.W51
06.03.2012
Order of the Hon’ble High
Court, Madras in WP No. 5195
of 2012
Ext.W52
17.07.2012
Charge Sheet to one Mr. C.
Muthappan, Senior Manager
Ext.W53
22.07.2013
Letter of the Respondent Bank
Ext.W54
17.08.2013
Charge Memo issued to one
Mr. V. Ramabadran, Manager,
Mount Road Branch
Ext.W55
03.10.2013
Addendum to Articles of
Charge
Ext.W56
18.07.2014
Report of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner dated nil
On the Management’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
16.06.2010
Charge Sheet issued to
petitioner
Ext.M2
18.04.2011
Findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ext.M3
06.12.2012
Second Show Cause Notice
issued to petitioner
Ext.M4
08.10.2013
Order of dismissal issued to
petitioner
Ext.M5
02.12.2013
Order rejecting appeal of the
petitioner
Ext.M6
16.02.2009
Legal notice from R. Mohan,
advocate
Ext.M7
10.02.1996
Swathy Investment FD Receipt
Ext.M8
07.06.1997
Swathy Investment FD Receipt
Ext.M9
26.10.1997
Swathy Investment FD Receipt
Ext.M10
06.06.1998
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M11
29.10.1998
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M12
26.09.2003
Order in OS 22/2
Ext.M13
07.08.2006
Letter from Regional Office to
Mogappair branch
Ext.M14
02.08.2006
Letter from Zonal Office to
Regional Office
Ext.M15
03.08.2006
Letter from Regional Office to
Zonal Office
Ext.M16
31.07.2006
Letter from Mogappair Branch
to Zonal Office
Ext.M17
02.08.2005
summons in OS 22/2
Ext.M18
30.06.2006
Summons in EP 1796/05
Ext.M19
29.04.2002
Circular on disciplinary action
procedure
Ext.M20
10.04.2002
Memorandum of Settlement
Ext.M21
05.02.1998
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M22
05.03.1998
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M23
10.03.1999
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M24
25.03.1999
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M25
08.04.1999
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M26
06.05.2003
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M27
17.05.2003
Dishonoured Cheque
Ext.M28
01.06.2006
Statement
of
Account
To
pertaining to petitioner
02.06.2010
1184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.M29
22.11.2008
Petitioner’s
letter
to
Soundararaja Mills
Ext.M30
07.10.2008
Petitioner’s letter to Bhoomika
Developers
Ext.M31
-
Petitioner’s letter to Bhoomika
Developers
Ext.M32
19.12.2008
Statement of Account
Ext.M33
05.08.2010
Statement of Account
Ext.M34
19.11.2009
Letter from Mogappair Branch
to Madurai NBO
Ext.M35
20.11.2009
Letter from Madurai NBO to
Mogappair branch
Ext.M36
August 2007
Salary Statement of the
To
petitioner
Jan. 2009
Ext,M37
13.08.2002
Second Show Cause Notice
issued to petitioner
Ext.M38
31.08.2002
Punishment issued to petitioner
Ext.M39
21.06.2003
Letter from Dena Bank to
Respondent
Ext.M40
09.03.2004
Letter from Dena Bank to
Respondent
Ext.M41
25.05.2006
Letter from Dena Bank to
Respondent
Ext.M42
-
Communication from Ministry
of Corporate Affairs regarding
articles of association and
memorandum association of
Yogam
Finance
and
Investments Private Limited.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 589-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojlht
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
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 5@2015) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@81@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2015) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-12011/81/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 17th February, 2016
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 5/2015
[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 Overseas Bank and their
workman]
BETWEEN :
The Deputy General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner
All India Overseas Bank
Union
Employees Union
Admn. Office, Post Bag No. 5231
763, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Overseas Bank
Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/
:
M/s C.R. Chandrasekaran,
Petitioner Union
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s NGR Prasad, V. Stalin,
Respondent
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/81/2014-IR (B.II)
dated 21.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of IOB
regarding reduction of Pension for R.N. Prasad to
1/3rd is justified or not? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1185
2.
On receipt of the notice, this Tribunal has numbered
it as ID 5/2015 and issued notices to both sides. Both
sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed
their Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The
petitioner has filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter
Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the
petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is a union registered under the Trade
Unions Act and has under its sweep 95% of workmen
employed by the Respondent Bank. The dispute is raised
on behalf of R.N. Prasad, a member of the Union. Prasad
was issued with a Charge Sheet culminating in reduction
of his basic pension by 1/3 permanently. As per the Charge
Sheet against him he had caused damage to the property
of the Bank and its customer thus committing gross
misconduct within the meaning of Para-17.5(d) and has
also acted prejudicial to the interests of the Bank as defined
in Para-17.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. By order dated
19.10.2013 the Disciplinary Authority passed order referring
to Clause-5(d) and 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002 effective from that date only. This settlement
was not in existence when Charge Sheet was issued to
Prasad, the concerned workman on 17.07.2000. For this
reason itself the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
19.10.2013 is not legal. Punishment listed out in Para-17.6
of the Bipartite Settlement of 14.12.1966 only could have
been imposed on the concerned workman. Apart from this
the punishment has not been imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority. He has only confirmed the order of the Board
of the Bank. There is no rule or regulation to enable him to
do so being an authority under the Bipartite Settlement.
The co-delinquents of the concerned workman who have
faced similar charge sheets were given lesser punishment
only. One William Minz, who was Assistant Manager, was
given the punishment of reduction of his Basic Pay by
two stages only. Similarly, A.N. Singh, Senior Manager
who had faced identical charge sheet was also given the
punishment of reduction of Basic Pay with one stage only.
One Sardar, Assistant Manager, was given the punishment
of reduction of Basic Pay by four stages. T.N. Sinha
belonging to Clerical Cadre who faced similar charge sheet
was given the punishment of bringing down his Basic Pay
by two stages only. The Petitioner Union has filed Writ
Petition before the High Court of Judicature of Madras
against the conduct of the enquiry proceedings as
violative of Clause-17.4 of Bipartite Settlement. While
disposing the Writ Petition, the Honble High Court has
observed that considering the quantum of punishment
awarded to co-delinquents and the fact that none of them
were imposed with the major punishment of dismissal the
petitioner is to appear for the enquiry before the concerned
authority and the authority is to conclude the proceedings
at the earliest. So the only option of the Disciplinary
Authority was to accept the defence of the workman or to
take the same decision as in the case of co-delinquent by
reducing the Basic Pay by one or two stages. The enquiry
against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. Sufficient opportunity
was not allowed to the delinquent to put forth his case
during the enquiry. The concerned workman was denied
his right of appeal under the settlement as the punishment
was by the Board of Directors. An order may be passed
setting aside the punishment imposed on the concerned
workman as not justified.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
While R.N. Prasad the concerned workman was
working as Special Cadre Assistant at Dhanbad Branch
he had dishonestly and fraudulently issued pre-dated pay
orders favouring Sales and Marketing Division of Bharat
Coking Coal Limited. He was charge sheeted on 17.07.2000.
The other employees who were allegedly involved in the
above misconduct were also charge sheeted separately
on the same day. Enquiries into the charge sheets against
all other delinquents other than R.N. Prasad have been
concluded. Pre-dated pay orders were issued by R.N.
Prasad and others in favour of BCCL, Dhanbad to purchase
coal from the said establishment. The issuance of predated
pay orders induced the BCCL authorities to deliver coal
after expiry of the date of offer. CBI had submitted
chargesheet in the matter against the accused including
Prasad under different sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Prasad and others had allowed persons known to them to
obtain pay order previous to the date of application and
remittance of cash and enabled them to dishonestly utilize
the same for purchase of coal from BCCL after expiry of
dates of offer. Thus, Prasad and others have falsified
records of the Bank in perpetrating the above fraudulent
acts. While enquiry proceedings was going on the
concerned workman made a request not to continue the
enquiry till completion of the criminal trial against him.
This request was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority.
The concerned workman field Writ Petition before the High
Court of Judicature at Chennai and obtained an interim
injunction against the bank from continuing the
departmental disciplinary proceedings against him. The
Writ Petition was disposed on 19.09.2011 and the concerned
workman was directed to cooperate with the enquiry. The
workman filed Writ Appeal against this order and the appeal
was dismissed on 12.12.2011. The concerned workman
superannuated on 30.06.2011. Departmental proceedings
was continued against him and he was awarded
punishment under the Pension Regulations. The workman
had opted for pension and was governed by the Pension
Regulations of the Bank. As per the pension regulations
departmental proceedings instituted while in service shall
be deemed to be proceedings under the pension
regulations after retirement of the employee. As per the
Pension Regulations the action of the Disciplinary
1186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Authority in awarding punishment of withholding of 1/3
of pension is in order. The concerned workman had issued
46 pre-dated pay orders under his signature alongwith the
signature of another official to favour some private parties
known to him for participating in coal allocation process.
During the enquiry the concerned workman had cross-
examined the Management witnesses. The Enquiry Officer
had found the charges against the concerned workman to
be proved. It is incorrect to state that enquiry was not
conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The contention that the concerned workman had
meted out discrimination in imposition of punishment also
is without basis. The number of incidents and irregularities
in respect of the other delinquents differed and the
punishment imposed on them related to earlier period. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the
contentions in the counter statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
6.
In view of the contentions raised by the petitioner
that departmental enquiry was not conducted in a fair and
proper manner, this issue was considered as a Preliminary
Issue. By order dated 10.08.2015 this Tribunal has found
that enquiry was fair and proper. There is no necessity to
consider the issue again.
7.
The evidence in the case of consists of documents
marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W34 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M10. No
oral evidence was adduced on either side.
8.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in reducing
pension of the concerned workman to 1/3 is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the concerned
workman is entitled?
The Points
9.
The ID is raised by the Petitioner Union on behalf of
R.N. Prasad, the concerned workman against whom
disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by the
Respondent Bank while he was working as Special Cadre
Assistant at Dhanbad Branch of the Bank. Charge Sheet
dated 17.07.2000 had been issued to the concerned
workman. An enquiry had been conducted against him
and the punishment of reduction of 1/3 of the pension had
been imposed on the concerned workman by order dated
19.10.2013. The disciplinary proceedings against the
workman was started not long after charge sheet was
issued. As could be seen from the Counter Statement
examination of the Management witnesses was over and
enquiry was postponed to another date. After this a request
was made on behalf of the concerned workman to
postpone the proceedings on the ground that it cannot be
continued till completion of the criminal proceedings that
had been initiated against him. This request seems to have
been turned down on the ground that criminal case has
not reached the trial stage. The concerned workman
approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed Writ Petition
No. 39807/2002 and obtained an interim injunction order
against continuing the departmental disciplinary
proceedings. The Writ Petition was disposed on
19.09.2011. The workman filed Writ Petition 2300/2011 and
this was dismissed on 12.12.2011. In the meanwhile the
concerned workman had superannuated on 30.06.2011. It
was after disposal of the Writ Appeal enquiry proceedings
was continued resulting in long delay in the disposal of
the proceedings. It is only on 19.10.2013 the order under
challenge was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
10.
The petitioner has raised several grounds in the
Claim Petition against the order imposing penalty on the
concerned workman by which his pension was reduced
by 1/3rd. On going through the Claim Statement I do not
find any attack by the petitioner against the finding of
guilt entered by the Enquiry Officer. It is stated in the
Claim Statement that enquiry was conducted not in
compliance with the principles of natural justice, that there
was delay in proceeding with the enquiry after disposal of
the Writ Appeal by the High Court, that the punishment is
not under the provision by which the concerned workman
was charged, that the concerned workman was
discriminated while imposing punishment, etc. But
nowhere in the Claim Statement it is seen stated that the
concerned workman has not committed the misconducts
alleged. So it is to be taken that the petitioner is not
attacking the finding other than for the reason that enquiry
was not fair and proper.
11.
Even assuming that the petitioner is attacking the
correctness of the finding entered in the enquiry
proceedings, it could be seen that there could not have
been a finding otherwise. Three charges were raised against
the concerned workman by charge sheet dated 17.07.2000.
The first charge states that the workman had dishonestly
and fraudulently issued predated pay orders as per
Annexure enclosed, favouring Sales and marketing
Division of BCCL, Dhanbad at the instance of persons
known to him and thus he had allowed persons known to
him to obtain pay orders previous to the date of application
and remittance of cash and enabled them to dishonestly
utilize the same for purchase of coal from BCCL after expiry
of dates of offer. The second charge is that to cover up
the fraud referred to in the first charge, on the date of
presentation of the pay orders the dates of these orders
were altered as the dates of application for pay orders.
The third charge is that the workman had thus falsified the
records of the bank in perpetrating the fraudulent acts.
The enquiry officer found charges 1 and 3 proved. It is on
the basis of this finding the pension of the workman was
reduced by 1/3rd by the Disciplinary Authority.
12.
The annexure to the charge mentions the number,
amount, the date of pay order as per Bank’s book and the
date in the pay order in respect of 47 pay orders, the
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1187
aggregate amount of which would come to Rs. 2.06 crores.
The concerned workman has not given any explanation to
the charge, as seen from the Enquiry Officer’s report. He
has not given any evidence before the Enquiry Officer
also. MW2, the Manager of the concerned branch at that
time had given evidence referring to the pay orders. It is
mainly on the basis of this the enquiry officer has recorded
his finding. On going though the Claim Statement I do not
find any contention for the petitioner that these pay orders
are not in the handwriting of the concerned workman or
that these do not contain his signatures. What is stated in
the Claim Statement is that the pay orders are to be signed
by an Officer also. That the pay orders contained the
signature of any Officer will not make the act of the
concerned workman less grave. The concerned workman
had no authority to issue such pay orders for amount
above Rs. 10,000/-. So there is no doubt that the concerned
workman had issued predate pay orders, 47 in number for
amount aggregating more than Rs. 2.00 crores and the
records of the bank was falsified for issuing such pay
orders.
13.
Now the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
for attacking the punishment imposed on the workman
can be considered. The charge sheet was apparently
issued for misconducts under Clause-17.5(d) which is
willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property
of the Bank or any of its customers and 17.5(j) which is
doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank or
gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to
involve the Bank in serious loss as per the Bipartite
Settlement of 1966. However, the Disciplinary Authority
who imposed punishment referred to Clause-5(d) and 5(j)
of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and found
that the concerned workman had committed misconducts
under these clauses and punishment was imposed based
on these. The argument that is advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that the concerned workman having been
charged under the Bipartite Settlement of 1966, punishment
could not have been under the relevant clauses of 2002
settlement which was not in existence at the time when the
Claim Statement was issued. Certainly, punishment could
be based on the charge sheet that was issued only. So the
punishment has to be under the settlement of 1966.
However, I have gone through the relevant clauses of
Bipartite Settlement of 1966 as well as the settlement of
2002. Clause-17.5(d) and (j) in the settlement of 2002 is an
exact replica of the clauses in 1966. There is not even a
slight change in the latter. So merely because the order of
the Disciplinary Authority states that the punishment is
as per the clauses in 2002 settlement, it has not caused
any prejudice to the concerned workman whether it is
settlement of 1966 or 2002 the misconducts alleged are the
same. In all probability, since the settlement that was in
vogue was that of 2002 at the time when the Disciplinary
Authority passed its order, either because he was under
the impression that order could be only under the existing
settlement or due to oversight he might have shown it as
under the settlement of 2002. This has not changed the
situation in any manner. The concerned workman has not
been affected also by this in any manner.
14.
The second contention that is raised in the Claim
Statement is that the punishment is actually not imposed
by the Disciplinary Authority but he has only confirmed
punishment that was proposed by the Board of Directors.
The wording used by the Disciplinary Authority is that he
“is confirming the punishment of withholding of 1/3 of the
pension permanently”.
15.
There is no basis for the above contention on behalf
of the workman also. As already stated the concerned
workman had retired form service on superannuation by
the time the enquiry proceedings had been completed.
Since the workman had superannuated punishment is
imposed as per the provisions of the Pension Regulations.
The concerned workman could not have been imposed
the punishment of discharge, dismissal or other lesser
punishment provided in the Bipartite Settlement since he
had retired from service by the time enquiry was completed.
16.
Imposition of punishment based on Pension
Regulations is quite in order as could be seen from the
regulations itself. Regulation-43 of the Pension
Regulations states that the competent authority may by
order in writing withhold or withdraw pension or part
thereof whether permanently or for a specified period if
the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or criminal
breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or is found
guilty of grave misconduct. Regulation-48 states about
recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank. Regulation-
48 (1) states that the competent authority may withhold or
withdraw pension or part thereof whether permanently or
for a specified period and order recovery from the pension.
Regulation-48 (2) states that recovery shall not ordinarily
be made at a rate exceeding 1/3 of the pension admissible
on the date of retirement of the employee. As per the
proviso to Regulation-48(1) any departmental proceedings
instituted while the employee was in service, after
retirement of the employee shall be deemed to be
proceedings under the concerned regulations and shall
be continued and concluded by the authority by which
they were commenced in the same manner as if the
employee has continued in service. There is no case for
the Bank that any pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank
by the act of the concerned workman. However, the Bank
has suffered in the sense that the act of the concerned
workman had been prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.
The image of the Bank was tarnished very much by the
act. So punishment is in order under Regulation-43 of the
Pension Regulations.
17.
The argument advanced that the Disciplinary
Authority only confirmed the punishment and for this
1188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reason also the punishment is not legal also has no basis.
Once the delinquent has reached the stage after
superannuation the Board of Directors are to be consulted
before any final orders are passed, as per the proviso to
Regulation-48. It was because of this provision the
proposal for punishment of reduction in pension was sent
to the Board of Directors and it was approved by the Board.
It is because of this, the Disciplinary Authority has used
the wording that he is confirming the punishment
proposed. The proposal for punishment is in fact by the
Disciplinary Authority itself. The board has only approved
the proposal. So there is nothing illegal in the punishment
imposed, on this count also.
18.
The last argument that has been advanced on behalf
of the petitioner is that discrimination has been meted out
to the concerned workman while imposing punishment.
The Claim Statement itself refers to the names of some
other employees including three Officers against whom
charge sheets were issued for similar offences and were
punished. The contention raised on behalf of the workman
is that this other offenders were left out with lesser
punishments like reduction in the Basic Pay by two stages,
four stages, etc. For one thing, the enquiry was concluded
only after the petitioner has retired on superannuation. So
the punishment of reduction in Basic Pay or such other
punishments contemplated in the Bipartite Settlement
would not have been possible in the case of the concerned
workman. The only punishment that could have been
imposed is reduction in the pension and recovery from
pension if there was any pecuniary loss.
19.
Even on considering the punishment imposed on
the other employees, it could be seen that the claim of the
concerned workman that there was total discrimination
could not be accepted. Of course charge sheets issued to
those employees were almost for similar misconducts.
However, there is difference in the gravity of the offences
in the sense that the concerned workman had issued many
number of pay orders than that were issued by those
others. The workman had taken pains to produce the
charge sheet issued to those other employees. Ext.W12 is
the Charge Sheet issued to one T.N. Sinha. This Charge
Sheet was also issued on 17.07.2000. The charge is that he
had issued pre-dated pay orders also favouring Marketing
Division of BCCL, Dhanbad. The charge shows that he
had issued two pay orders of an aggregate amount of Rs.
7.5 lakhs. As per Ext.W13, the punishment of bringing
down the Basic Pay by two stages was imposed on him.
Ext.W14 is the Charge sheet against one William Minz,
Assistant Manager on 17.07.2000 itself alleging that he
issued pre-dated pay orders, 10 in number, the aggregate
amount being about Rs. 34.00 lakhs. By Ext.W15 the
punishment of reduction in Basic Pay by five stages in the
time scale of pay for a period of one year with further
direction that he will not earn increment on pay during the
period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period
the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future
increment as per the discipline and appeal regulations of
the Bank in respect of Officers was imposed on him. He
filed an appeal and the punishment was brought down to
reduction in Basic Pay by two stages rather than five
stages. Ext.W17 is the charge sheet issued to one A.N.
Singh on the same day for issuing pre-dated pay orders,
two in number for an aggregate amount of above Rs. 9.00
lakhs Originally, he was awarded penalty of reduction in
Basic Pay by five stages. As seen from Ext.W19, the order
in appeal this was brought down to reduction in Basic Pay
by one stage. Ext.W20 is the charge sheet issued to D.N.
Sardar, Assistant Manager on the same date for issuing 37
pre-dated pay orders, the aggregate amount being more
than Rs. 1.65 crores. As per Ext.W21, the order in appeal,
the initial order of reduction in Basic Pay by five stages in
the time scale for a period of one year was reduced to
reduction in Basic Pay by four stages.
20.
On an analysis of the above four Charge Sheets and
the respective punishment imposed on the delinquents, it
could be seen that the punishment is not the same for all
the persons. The competent authority seems to have taken
into account the number of pay orders issued by the
concerned persons and the amount involved. That is why
D.N. Sardar who issued several pay orders received the
maximum punishment.
21.
The petitioner has issued 47 pay orders and his case
could not be compared with the case of those persons
who had issued only one or two or only a few pay orders.
However, his case is somewhat similar to that of D.N. Sardar.
There is the fact that the punishment on him was reduction
in pay by four stages and that also for one year only and
if retired he might be enjoying full pension unlike in the
case of concerned workman. So to make the punishment
of the concerned workman somewhat in parity with that of
D.N. Sardar some reduction will not be out of place.
Reduction of pension by one fourth will put the concerned
workman in the same scale as that of D.N. Sardar.
Accordingly, an award is passed as below:
The punishment imposed on the concerned
workman is reduced to withholding of pension by
1/4th permanently, as per the Pension Regulations
of the Respondent.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 17th February, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1189
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
14.12.1996
Extracts of first bipartite
settlement
Ext.W2
31.03.1970
Extracts of Banking Companies
(A&T of Undertakings) Act,
1970
Ext.W3
30.04.1979
Extract of a Bipartite Settlement
Ext.W4
17.07.1994
CBI – FIR
Ext.W5
01.04.2000
Sanction Order issued by J.K.
Gupta DGM
Ext.W6
31.05.2000
Charge sheet filed by CBI
before Special Court, Dhanbad
Ext.W7
17.07.2000
Charge sheet issued by J.K.
Gupta, DGM to R.N. Prasad
(similar to 4 others)
Ext.W8
10.04.2000
Extracts of a Memorandum of
Settlement
Ext.W9
29.10.2002
R.N. Prasad’s request to recall
MW1 again for cross-
Examination
Ext.W10
26.10.2002
DA (DGM) refused to recall
MW1 for cross
Ext.W11
29.10.2002
Interim Injunction granted in
M.P. No. 59236/2002 on
admitting WP 39807/2002 by
the Hon’ble High Court
restraining the Bank from
pursuing
with
enquiry
proceedings against R.N.
Prasad
Ext.W12
17.07.2000
Charge sheet issued to Mr. T.N.
Sinha, Clerical Staff by DA/Dy.
General Manager
Ext.W13
26.06.2003
Punishment inflicted on Mr.
T.N. Sinha, Clerical Staff by
DA/DGM
Ext.W14
17.07.2000
Charge sheet issued to Mr.
William Minz, Assistant
Manager by DA/DGM
Ext.W15
07.05.2003
Order of the DA/DGM issued
to Mr. William Minz, Assistant
Manager
Ext.W16
13.11.2003
Penalty inflicted on Mr. William
Minz, Assistant Manager by
DA/GM
Ext.W17
17.07.2000
Charge sheet issued to Mr.
A.N. Singh, Senior Manager by
DA/DGM
Ext.W18
07.05.2003
Order of the DA/DGM issued
to Mr. A.N. Singh, Senior
Manager
Ext.W19
13.11.2003
Penalty inflicted on Mr. A.N.
Singh, Senior Manager by AA/
GM
Ext.W20
17.07.2000
Charge sheet issued to Mr.
D.N.
Sardar,
Assistant
Manager by DA/DGM
Ext.W21
13.11.2003
Penalty inflicted on Mr. D.N.
Sardar, Assistant Manager by
AA/GM
Ext.W22
30.06.2011
Date of Superannuation of R.N.
Prasad (conditional)
Ext.W23
19.09.2011
Order in WP 39807/2002 by
High Court dismissing it
Ext.W24
08.05.2012
R.N. Prasad to DA for copies
of MEs
Ext.W25
07.06.2012
R.N. Prasad to DA for copies
of MEs
Ext.W26
09.06.2012
DA’s reply that MEs are not
retrievable
Ext.W27
05.07.2012
DA’s enquiry findings
Ext.W28
08.12.2012
Board of Directors refused to
punish R.N. Prasad
Ext.W29
20.03.2013
Board of Directors refused to
punish R.N. Prasad
Ext.W30
19.10.2013
Punishment inflicted on R.N.
Prasad
Ext.W31
22.10.2013
Pension Cell to R.N. Prasad
advising
quantum
of
punishment
Ext.W32
29.10.2013
R.N. Prasad’s request under
RTI for Board Resolution
copies denied
Ext.W33
29.04.2014
R.N. Prasad’s appeal to the
Appellate Authority
Ext.W34
14.06.2014
DGM, the Appellate Authority
dismisses the appeal of R.N.
Prasad
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
22.06.2002
Enquiry Proceedings
1190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.M2
24.10.2002
Defence Representative of
petitioner letter to Enquiry
Officer
Ext.M3
12.12.2011
Order in WA No. 2300 of 2011
Ext.M4
14.05.2012
Enquiry Proceedings
Ext.M5
21.05.2012
Respondent letter to the R.N.
Prasad forwarding Presenting
Officer’s brief
Ext.M6
17.08.2012
Respondent letter to R.N.
Prasad informing about
hearing
Ext.M7
04.09.2012
Respondent letter to R.N.
Prasad informing about
hearing
Ext.M8
24.09.2012
Proceedings of the personal
hearing
Ext.M9
02.04.2014
Personal hearing notice in
respect of appeal dated
07.12.2013
Ext.M10
29.04.2014
Proceedings of the personal
hearing.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 590-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj psUubZ iÙku U;kl
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- 65] 67@2014)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&33011@2@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
la- ,y&33011@1@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65, 67/2014) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Chennai Port Trust and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-33011/2/2014-IR (B-II),
No. L-33011/1/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 4th February, 2016
Present :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 65 and 67/2014
[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 Chennai Port Trust and their workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri V.K. Balakrishnan
:
1st Party Petitioner in
General Secretary
ID No. 65/2014
Former Trustee of Chennai
Port Trust
The Madras Port Trust
Railwaymen Union
Bhagat House, New No. 47,
Old No. 204
Prakasam Salai
Chennai-600108
AND
The Chairman
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party
:
M/s Balan Haridas, Advocates
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party
:
Sri S.P. Patel
Respondent
The General Secretary
:
1st Party Petitioner
The MPT Railway Men’s Union
in ID No. 67/2014
V.K.B. Bhavan
Old No. 18, New No. 62
4th North Beach Road
Chennai-600001
AND
The Chairman
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Chennai Port Trust
Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party
:
Sri S.P. Patel
Respondent
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1191
COMMON AWARD
ID 65/2014
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/2/2014-IR (B.II)
dated 01.08.2014 referred the above Industrial Dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in ID 65/2014 is as under:
“Whether the action of the Chennai Port Trust
management regarding termination of Settlement OT
paid to the workers by way of sending notice as per
Section 19(2) of the ID Act, 1947 is justifiable or
not? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled
to?”
ID 67/2014
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/1/2014-IR (B.II)
dated 04/07.08.2014 referred the above Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in ID 67/2014 is as under:
ID 67/2014
“Whether the action of the management of Chennai
Port Trust regarding stoppage of OT Payment for
the technician posted in Diesel Loco Service Station
at Marshalling Yard at Chennai Port Trust is justified
or not? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”
3.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered them as ID 65 and 67/2014 respectively and
issued notices to the parties. Both sides have entered
appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioners in both cases have filed
rejoinder in answer to the respective Counter Statements.
4.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 65/2014
are as below:
The petitioner is a recognized union and it has 1106
members working with the Respondent. The Respondent
has entered into several settlements with the Petitioner
Union. The employees in the Marine Department of the
Respondent are engaged in receiving the ships to the
Chennai Port and smooth exit of the ships out of Chennai
Port. The employees are working in the Floating Craft in
the deck side, in the engine side and in the signal stations.
Because of the hazardous nature of work done by these
employees the Respondent had been paying monthly
Special Allowance to the Marine Workers of the Pilotage
Section, Mooring Section, Signal Station and the Yard Staff
of the Marine Department from 1997 onwards. The
Respondent had entered into a settlement with the
Petitioner Union on 21.10.1992 under Section-18(1) of the
ID Act by which the monthly allowance paid to the
employees was withdrawn and one hour fixed overtime at
single hourly rate was agreed to be paid with effect from
01.07.1992 onwards to each of the aforesaid categories of
workers and also workers of the service station of the
Marine Department. This one hour single hourly fixed
overtime was increased to double hourly overtime w.e.f.
01.04.1994 by order of Deputy Port Conservator dated
13.06.1994. There had been settlement under Section-18(1)
of the ID Act between the Petitioner Union and the
Respondent on 19.,03.2001 consequent to the arbitration
award dated 02.08.1999. By this settlement the Union
agreed not to implement the clause of the arbitration award
which recommended the strength of mooring crew at 180
against the existing strength of 149 and in turn the
Respondent agreed to extend one hour single overtime
per date of attendance to Floating Craft crew and signal
station staff of the Marine Department w.e.f. 01.02.2001.
This was in addition to the Overtime Allowance given
under the settlement dated 21.10.1992 which had been
increased by order dated 13.06.1994. Thus the employees
in the aforesaid categories in the Marine Department were
given double hour overtime and one hour single rate
overtime per day of attendance. Thus the employees had
been receiving overtime wages which is actually allowance
for all practical purpose, taking note of the hazardous work
done by the said categories of employees. Taking into
account the nature of work done by the Diesel Loco Drivers
the Respondent granted two hours overtime per day of
attendance w.e.f. 09.02.1997. On 08.03.2001 the Respondent
entered into a settlement under Section-18(1) of the ID
Act with the petitioner by which the two hours overtime
was extended to the yard foreman, Chief Shunting Master/
Shunting Masters and coupling porters Grade-I and II on
par with Diesel Loco Drivers w.e.f. 19.02.2000. Thus the
above categories of employees have been receiving 2 hour
overtime per days’ attendance. On 20.03.2013 the
Respondent issued notice proposing to terminate the
settlements dated 21.10.1992, 08.03.2001 and 19.03.2001.
On receipt of this notice the Petitioner Union issued a
strike notice on 24.04.2013. Conciliation was initiated by
Labour commissioner (C), Chennai but it ended in failure.
In 2004 also similar notice had been issued by the
Respondent, however, this was not acted upon. After
notice dated 20.03.2013 the Respondent had discontinued
the allowance by way of overtime given pursuant to the
settlements dated 21.10.1992, 08.03.2001 and 19.03.2001
from July 2014. The Marine Department employees have
been paid only one hour double rate of overtime from the
month of July 2014. The Loco Department employees have
been granted only half single overtime and half double
overtime from July 2014 for performance of 8 hours shift.
Unless settlement earlier referred to are replaced by another
settlement the overtime wages paid under the settlement
cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the Respondent.
When the overtime wages had become part of the service
condition in respect of category of employees in the
1192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Marine Department and in the Loco Department the same
cannot be withdrawn without notice under Section-9A of
the ID Act. Withdrawing the overtime allowances is illegal
and void-abinitio. A notice under Section-19(2) of the ID
Act will not terminate the settlements. The Respondent
should have raised a dispute to terminate the settlements
and only in the event of an award replacing the settlement
the overtime allowance can be withdrawn. The Petitioner
Union has raised the dispute in the above circumstances.
The meeting convened by the Respondent consequent to
this as advised by the Assistant Labour Commissioner
did not yield any result. An award may be passed holding
that the action of the Respondent in discontinuing the
allowance by way of overtime to the categories of Marine
Department employees covered under the Settlement dated
21.10.1992 and 19.03.2001 and the Loco Department
employees covered under the Settlement dated 08.03.2001
from July 2014 is illegal and also directing the Respondent
to restore the benefit of allowance by way of overtime to
the employees covered under the terms of the above
settlements.
5.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as below:
The dispute is not maintainable either in law or in
facts. Due to financial constraints consequent to the
stoppage of handling of iron ore, coal, etc. pursuant to a
Green Bench order of the High Court of Madras austerity
measures have been taken and orders have been passed
stopping the settlement based overtime and non-
settlement overtime granted to some categories of
employees and direction was issued to adhere to
department-wise ceiling fixed for payment of overtime on
need basis. The overtime payment has not been stopped
forthwith but only regulated as per the economic
conditions prevailing in the Chennai Port Trust. Notices
were issued terminating the 3 settlements entered into with
the Madras Port Trust Employees Union and 3 other
settlements entered with the Madras Port Trust
Railwaymen Union, the petitioner. The Respondent had
entered into settlements with the Union only to improve
productivity when it had very good business. Overtime
payment will not come under wages. It is being granted
for the employees who have worked beyond their
scheduled working hours and that too on exigency. The
National Industrial Tribunal has recommended in its award
that all kinds of wasteful and restrictive practices such as
notional booking, fixed overtime / relieving overtime etc.
should be stopped completely. The petitioner has no locus-
standi to raise the dispute. The petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
6.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the
contentions in the Counter statement and reiterating his
case in the Claim Statement.
7.
The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 67/2014
are as below:
The petitioner is a recognized union and the
Respondent has entered into several settlements with the
Petitioner Union. The dispute concerns withdrawal of
allowance given by way of overtime to the technicians
working in Diesel Loco Service Station at Marshalling Yard
of Chennai Port Trust. Because of hazardous nature of
work done by the employees working in the Diesel Loco
Service Station at Marshalling Yard there had been demand
for introduction of incentive scheme. The Respondent
approved the incentive scheme in the year 1997 and this
was recorded in the minutes of discussion held on
10.12.1999 and sent to the Government for approval. As
the matter was stuck up with the Central Government, on
discussion with the petitioner the Respondent agreed to
give 4 hours overtime wages on Saturdays in lieu of
incentives to the employees of the Diesel Loco Service
Station. The employees had been receiving this overtime
wages from 1997. This is allowance / incentive for all
practical purposes. From January 2014 the Respondent
reduced the overtime wages to 1.5 hours and discontinued
it totally from June 2014 without any notice. Overtime wages
had become part of the service condition in respect of
technicians in the Diesel Loco Service Station at
Marshalling Yard and the same cannot be withdrawn
without notice under Section-9A of the ID Act. Withdrawal
of overtime allowances is grossly illegal and void-abinitio.
The dispute is raised accordingly. An award may be passed
holding that the action of the Respondent in discontinuing
the allowance by way of overtime is illegal and also
directing the Respondent to restore the benefit of
allowance.
8.
The Respondent has filed counter Statement
contending as below:
The dispute is not maintainable either on law or in
facts. Due to financial constraints consequent to the
stoppage of handling of iron ore, coal, etc. pursuant to the
Green Bench order of the Madras High Court austerity
measures have been taken by the Respondent. The
overtime payment has not been stopped completely but
only regulated as per the economic conditions prevailing
in the Chennai Port Trust. Wages given to the employees
on Saturdays was only with regard to the extra time worked
by them and not by way of incentive as claimed by the
petitioner. The working time on Saturdays is from 07.30
AM to 12.30 PM. Due to exigencies of work that prevailed
in the year 1999 the employees were asked to work 4 hours
more on Saturdays. There is every justification for stoppage
of overtime payment for the technician employees in Diesel
Loco Service Station at Marshalling Yard. The concerned
workmen are not entitled to any relief.
9.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the
Counter Statement denying the contentions therein and
reiterating the case in the Claim Statement.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1193
10.
The two IDs were tried jointly as the parties to both
IDs are the same and the issues raised are almost similar.
ID 65/2014 was treated as the main case and evidence was
recorded in the same.
11.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W29 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M9.
12.
The points for consideration in ID 65/2014 are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Management in denying
overtime payment to the workers by sending notice
under Section-19(2) of the ID Act is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the workmen are
entitled?
13.
The points for consideration in ID 67/2014 are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondent in stopping
overtime payment for the technicians in Diesel Loco
Service Station in Marshalling Yard is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the concerned
workmen are entitled?
Points in ID 65/2014
14.
The dispute in ID 65/2014 is raised challenging the
action of the Management in terminating the settlements
dated 21.10.1992, 08.03.2001 and 19.03.2001 by issuing
notices under Section-19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
15.
The facts of the case put forth by the petitioner in
the Claim Statement are mostly admitted by the
Respondent. It is not in dispute that the three settlements
referred to earlier were entered into by the petitioner and
the Respondent and by these settlements the concerned
workmen were obtaining amount as overtime payment.
Even earlier a section of the workmen of the Respondent
were receiving amount as allowances. According to the
petitioner this was because of the hazardous nature of the
work done by the concerned workmen. Thus the employees
working in the floating craft in the deck side, engine side
and signal stations were getting such allowance. Later,
rather than allowance, overtime payment was made on the
basis of different settlements. The first settlement in this
respect was on 21.10.1992 entered into under Section-18(1)
of Industrial Disputes Act. Copy of this settlement is
marked as Ext.W1. It could be seen even from Clause-4 of
the settlement which provided for overtime rate that earlier
payment was made as allowance. Clause-4 of Ext.W4 runs
as below:
It is further agreed that consequent to the withdrawal
of payment of monthly allowance referred to in
Clause-3 in respect of the aforesaid categories of
marine workers one hour fixed overtime at single
hourly rate would be paid w.e.f. 01.07.1992 onwards
to each of the aforesaid categories of workers and
also to the workers of the service station of the
Marine Department on the days of attendance.
Clause-3 of the same settlement is to the effect that
the allowance that was being paid to the marine
workers of pilotage section, mooring section, signal
station and the yard of the marine department will
be withdrawn. It is on such withdrawal that one hour
fixed hour fixed overtime at single hourly rate was
provided as per Clause-4.
16.
Another settlement was entered into on 08.03.2001
in respect of Yard Foreman, Shunting Masters etc. Ext.W4
is the copy of this settlement. Even before this settlement
was entered into the Diesel Loco Drivers were granted
two hours overtime per day of attendance w.e.f. 09.02.1997.
By Ext.W4 settlement the respondent extended the two
hours overtime to the Yard Foreman, Chief Shunting
Masters / Shunting Masters and Coupling Porters of Grade-
I and II.
17.
Ext.W5 is another settlement entered into on
19.03.2001. An arbitration award was pronounced by
Captain Kishore on 02.08.1999. The arbitration award had
recommended that the strength of the mooring crew
should be increased to 180 from the existing strength of
149. Ext.W5 seems to have been executed as a substitute
for not implementing this suggestion. The Union agreed
not to implement this suggestion for increase in the
strength of the mooring crew. In turn the Respondent
agreed to extend one hour single hour overtime per day of
attendance to the floating craft crew and signal stations
staff of the Marine Department w.e.f. 01.02.2001.
18.
The Respondent had issued Ext.W7, W10 and W11
notices proposing to terminate the above three settlements
by which overtime payment was extended to different
sections of the employees. The case that is advanced by
the Respondent in the Counter Statement is that the
Respondent had been experiencing financial crunch for
some time and it was to ride over this difficulty that the
benefits given as per the above settlements were proposed
to be terminated. Even after issuing notice terminating the
settlements, the workmen seem to have been getting
overtime payment but for a reduced time only.
19.
According to the Respondent the payment that is
being made as per settlements under challenge are only
payments made for overtime work. It is the further case of
the Respondent that overtime wage is not part of the wages
but is given on need basis only and therefore the benefit
can be stopped at any time. Even now the workers are
getting overtime wages on need basis even though not in
the same measure as they were getting earlier, the
Respondent has stated.
20.
It is the case of the petitioner that even though the
term used in the three settlements is overtime payment, it
is in effect by way of allowance and therefore it cannot be
1194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
stopped as done by the Respondent. Before considering
the question whether the benefit can be terminated by
issuing a notice under Section-19(2) of the ID Act it is to
be seen whether the amount that was received by the
workmen is only overtime payment or allowance as claimed
by them. There cannot be any doubt that it is as a special
allowance that they were getting it though termed as
overtime payment. This is clear even from the clauses in
Ext.W1. By Clause-3 of Ext.W1 the Special Allowance that
was earlier paid to a section of workers has been withdrawn
and it was as a substitute that they were provided with
one hour fixed time at single hourly rate w.e.f. 01.07.1992.
Clause-5 of Ext.W1 makes it more clear that the payment
as per Clause-4 was only by way of allowance. As per
Clause-5, in the case of workers of pilotage and mooring
sections, two sections of workers covered under Clause-
4 also, if and when they are detained for overtime work
beyond the scheduled duty hours they would be paid
normal overtime in addition to the one hour fixed overtime
at single hourly rate referred to in Clause-4. Thus it is clear
from Clause-5 that if the overtime payment as per the said
clause was to be available to the concerned workers they
should have worked beyond the scheduled duty hours.
This itself would show that payment as per Clause-4,
though termed as overtime payment, was payable even
though the workers worked only for 8 hours which is the
normal duty hours.
21.
It is clear from the evidence given by MWs 1 and 2
also that the amount termed as overtime payment was
being paid even though the workers worked only for 8
hours, for those days in which they had attended work.
MW1 has admitted during his cross-examination that
overtime payment was given for 8 hours of work done by
them and they did not do any extra work beyond 8 hours.
MW1 also admitted that the allowance paid before Ext.W1
also was for the work done for 8 hours by the employees.
It could be read from the evidence of MW2 also that the
workers were receiving payment as overtime for the normal
duty hours during which they have worked. So the feeble
contention in the Counter Statement that the payment was
as overtime wages will not hold good. Though couched
under the term “Overtime Payment”, the amount was being
paid to the workers considering the hazard nature of work
done by them and it is only an allowance.
22.
Now the question to be considered is whether the
three settlements got terminated by the notices. As stated,
the case of the Respondent is that the Port Trust had
landed in financial difficulties and it was only to overcome
this difficulty the decision to terminate the settlements
have been taken. The main business of the Port was of
Irion ore, limestone, coal, etc. A Green Bench of the Madras
High Court passed Ext.M8 order on 11.05.2011 directing
that only clean cargoes are to be brought to the Chennai
Port and the dusty cargoes like iron ore, coal. etc. should
be distributed through Ennore Port only. Consequently,
iron ore and coal which were so far brought through
Chennai Port were directed to Ennore Port and this resulted
in loss of business in Chennai Port is the case of the
Respondent. According to the Respondent, in such
contingency payments as per the three settlements could
not be made and this has resulted in issuing notice under
Section-19(2) of the ID Act proposing to terminate the
settlement. The Respondent has also produced Ext.M9
the administration report of the Port Trust for the year
2013-2014. Page-19 of Ext.M9 gives the details of the
container traffic of the Port for years 2009-2010 to 2013-14.
The graph showing the total traffic from Chennai Port
during the years from 2009-10 to 2013-14 is shown in Page-
23 of the Report. The graphs of course shows the reduction
in the amount of traffic handled by the Port.
23.
According to the Respondent it is within their power
to impose the restrictions because of the reduced traffic
of the Port. The counsel has relied upon the decision in S.
MERRITONE ZACHARIRAJ VS. GOVERNMENT OF
TAMILNADU AND OTHERS reported CDJ 2008 MHC
3607 in support of his argument. It was a case where
teachers who were appointed on a consolidated pay on
sanctioned post had claimed that they are entitled to regular
pay. The action of the Government of Tamil Nadu in making
consolidated pay in the particular circumstances of
financial crunch of the government was upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras. However, the position of
law laid down in the above case will not come to the aid of
the Respondent in the present case. It was a case where
the very posting of the teachers was on a consolidated
pay. They had to work for 5 years on this consolidated
pay and thereafter they were to be brought into the regular
pay scale. The teachers have entered into specific
agreement with the Government that they would work
on consolidated pay. It is not the case here. The Petitioner
Union and the Respondent have entered into settlements
under Section-18(1) of the ID Act by which certain benefits
were conferred on the workmen.
24.
The question is whether the benefits conferred
could have been withdrawn by issuing notice under
Section-19(2) of the ID Act. It is pointed out by the counsel
for the petitioner that even after issue of notice under
Section-19(2) of the Act the terms of the settlement are to
be complied with until another settlement is entered into
between the parties. The counsel has relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the LIFE INSURANCE
COPRORATION OF INDIA VS. D.J. BAHADUR AND
OTHERS reported in 1981 1 LLJ 1. The Apex Court has
held in this that on issue of notice under Section-19(2) the
parties are no longer bound by the industrial status quo in
respect of matters covered by the settlement and they are
at liberty to seek an alteration of the contract. At the same
time it was further held that until altered the contract
continues to govern the relations between the parties in
respect of the terms and conditions of service. It was not
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1195
enough for the Respondent to issue notice under Section-
19(2) of the ID Act. They should have taken steps to have
an altered settlement to suit their condition. Until there is
a settlement with new terms and conditions the earlier
settlements are to prevail and the workmen are entitled to
the benefits under those settlements. So it was not proper
on the part of the Respondent to cut short the benefits
that the workmen were availing as per the three settlements
in question. The workmen are entitled to have the benefits
under the three settlements continued until another
settlement is arrived at. The points are found in favour of
the petitioner.
Points in ID 67/2014
25.
The dispute in this ID is raised by the same Union
on behalf of employees working in the Diesel Loco Service
Station at Marshalling Yard in Chennai Port. While
discussing the evidence in Id 65/2014 it has been stated
that the Petitioner Union and the Respondent had entered
into three settlements by which payment was made in the
name of overtime payment, which is already found to be
an allowance. The employees working in the Diesel Loco
Service Station at Marshalling Yard also had demanded
for incentive on account of the hazardous nature of work
done by them and the Board of the Respondent is said to
have approved the incentive scheme in the year 1997 itself.
The same was sent to the Govt. for approval but it was
pending with the Government. It was in this circumstance
the Respondent agreed to give 4 hours overtime
wages on Saturdays in lieu of incentives. It is not disputed
by the Respondent that these workmen were receiving
payments termed as overtime wages as claimed by them.
While terminating the settlements referred to in ID 65/
2014 the Respondent reduced the overtime wages the
workmen were so far receiving to 1.5 hrs. from January
2014. Then it was totally discontinued from June 2014.
The case that is advanced by the Respondent in the
Counter Statement is that the concerned workers had been
working overtime for 4 hours on Saturdays and it is
accordingly the payment was made. It is stated in the
Counter Statement that the working time on Saturdays is
from 0730 AM to 1230 PM and thereafter the workmen
have been working for four more hours for which overtime
wages has been paid. MW2 has admitted during his cross-
examination that earlier the overtime payment of 4 hours
was made for the work that was done for the normal 8
hours. He also stated that this overtime allowances was
given based on policy decision. He further stated that at
present overtime allowance is paid only for extra work
done after 8 hours. Thus it could be seen from the admission
made by MW2 also that earlier the workers were getting
wages for 4 hours more on Saturdays apart from the normal
wages received by them though they worked only for 8
hours on Saturdays also. The case of the Petitioner is that
they are actually receiving the amount by way of incentive.
The Respondent did not produce any document to show
that the working hours on Saturday is from 0730 AM to
1230 PM or that the workers were working for 4 more hours
after this on Saturdays. The admission by MW2 belies
the case of the Respondent that the payment is by way of
overtime wages. In fact it is not probable that the workmen
who were doing work so hazardous in nature would have
been asked to work for 4 extra hours on a single day. The
workers of Diesel Loco Service Station were in fact getting
the extra amount by way of incentive because of the
hazardous work done by them only. So the amount
received by them is part of the wages and not payment for
overtime work done by them.
26.
The case of the petitioner is that the incentive that
they were so far receiving were discontinued by the
Respondent without issuing notice under Section-9A of
the ID Act. Initially payment was made for 1.5 hours for a
short period and then it was discontinued totally.
According to MW2 now payment is being made only if
extra work is done. The discontinuance of the incentive
for the workers should not have been without notice under
Section-9A of the ID Act. Section-9A states that an
employee who proposes to effect any change in the
conditions of service applicable to a workman in respect
of any matters specified in the 4th Schedule of the Act
shall not effect such change without giving notice in the
prescribed manner. As per the 4th Schedule change in
compensatory and other allowances (Item-3 of the
schedule) and withdrawal of any customary concession
or privilege or change in usage (Item-8 of the schedule)
require notice under Section-9A of the Act. The payment
that was received by the concerned workmen was a
privilege enjoyed by them and it was in the nature of
allowance and not overtime payment. So the Respondent
was not justified in discontinuing payment of the amount
in question without notice under Section-9A of the Act.
The Respondent is bound to restore the said benefit to
the concerned workmen. The points are found in favour
of the petitioner.
In view of my findings above, an award is passed as
below:
In ID 65/2014 the Respondent is directed to restore
the benefit of allowance by way of overtime to the
employees covered under the terms of the
settlements entered under Section-18(1) of the ID
Act on 21.10.1992, 08.03.2001 and 19.03.2001, within
a month of the publication of the award.
In ID 67/2014 the Respondent is directed to restore
the benefit of allowance by way of overtime to the
technicians in the Diesel Loco Service Station at
Marshalling Yard, within a month of the publication
of the award.
The references are answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 4th February, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
1196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
WW1, Sri D. Purushothaman
Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri A.V. Dravidaveeran
Management
MW2, Sri K. Subramani
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
21.10.1992
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ext.W2
02.08.1999
Award of the Arbitrator
Ext.W3
19.02.2000
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ext.W4
08.03.2001
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ext.W5
19.03.2001
Settlement of u/s 18(1) of ID
Act
Ext.W6
19.04.2006
Award of the Tribunal
Ext.W7
16.03.2013
Notice u/s 19(2) of ID Act
Ext.W8
20.03.2013
Letter from the Petitioner
Union to the Respondent
Ext.W9
19.03.2013
Letter to the Petitioner Union
Ext.W10
20.03.2013
Notice u/s 19(2) of ID Act
Ext.W11
20.03.2013
Notice u/s 19(2) of ID Act
Ext.W12
20.03.2013
Notice u/s 19(2) of ID Act
Ext.W13
-
Strike Notice
Ext.W14
19.08.2013
Minutes
of
Bilateral
Discussion
Ext.W15
23.08.2013
Letter from the Respondent
Ext.W16
13.09.2013
Conciliation Proceedings
Ext.W17
13.09.2013
Conciliation Proceedings
Ext.W18
02.01.2014
Letter from the Petitioner
Union with Annexure to Strike
Notice
Ext.W19
07.01.2014
Letter from the Petitioner
Union
Ext.W20
02.01.2014
Letter from the Respondent
with Annexure
Ext.W21
14.02.2014
Letter from the Petitioner
Union
Ext.W22
25.06.2014
Letter from the Respondent
Ext.W23
28.10.2014
Letter from the Petitioner
Union with Salary Statement
Ext.W24
28.10.2014
Conciliation Notice
Ext.W25
-
Letter from the Respondent
Ext.W26
01.12.1999
Records Notes of discussion
Ext.W27
20.02.2006
Office Order
Ext.W28
09.03.2006
Letter from the Respondent
Ext.W29
05.01.2009
Letter from the Respondent
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
10.08.2015
Authorization letter
Ext.M2
10.01.2014
Memorandum of 18(1) of ID
Act 1947
Ext.M3
31.01.2014
Addendum of MOS
Ext.M4
12.06.2014
Closure of ID (conciliation
meeting)
Ext.M5
23.06.2014
Chairman’s Order
Ext.M6
-
Overtime wages calculation
rule
Ext.M7
04.08.2015
Authorization letter
Ext.M8
11.05.2011
Green Bench Order
Ext.M9
2013-2014
Administration Report of
Chennai Port Trust.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 591-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy 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
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 99@09) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@96@09&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/09) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-12011/96/09-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1197
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/99/09
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhoti Bank Karmchari Sangthan,
Central Office, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Ujjain (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandramukhi,
Mumbai
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 24-11-09 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/
96/09-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Ex-peon is
entitled for payment of difference of wages w.e.f.
19-9-2000 to December, 2006 as per the bipartite
settlement? What relief he is entitled to get?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.
The case of workman is that he was working as peon/ sub
staff. From 1-9-09, he was engaged by Branch Manager.
He was working for 8 hours per day. He completed more
than 240 days continuous service. He was paid Rs. 740
per month and Rs. 20-30 per day. His services were
terminated without notice on 31-12-06. He challenged his
termination in R/55/09 which is pending. Workman claims
that he was not paid skilled wages as per bipartite
settlement No. 4 to 8. As per settlement 4, subordinate
staff was entitled to pay scale of Rs.430-790. As per 5th
settlement, he was entitled to Rs. 815-1510, as per 6th
settlement- 1600- 3020, as per 7th settlement- 2750-5850,
as per 8th settlement 4060-7560. He is entitled to pay scale
as per above settlement. 2nd party management not paid
pay scale as per above settlements is punishable under
Section 29 of ID Act. On such ground, workman claimed
difference of wages of pay scale with interest.
3.
2nd party management filed Written Statement
opposing claim of workman. preliminary objection is raised
that Shri R.Nagwanshi so called General secretary of Daily
Wage Bank Empoyees Union is not competent to represent
the workman. The reference is not tenable. 2nd party
denies that workman was appointed on 1-9-00 as peon.
2nd party denied that workman worked more than 240 days
during each of the calendar year. Workman worked as
casual labour on temporary need basis, he was paid bonus.
As per payment of Bonus Act, Ist party workman is not
entitled to be treated as permanent employee. It is denied
that workman is entitled to wages as per bipartite settlement
as he was not regular employee of the Bank on pay role.
4.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra,
In Negative
Ex-peon is entitled for payment of
difference of wages w.e.f. 19-9-2000
to December, 2006 as per the bipartite
settlement?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Workman is
entitled to?”
not entitled
to any relief.
REASONS
5.
The terms of reference pertains to claim of workman
of pay scale as per Bipartite Settlement No. 4 to 8. The
details of the settlement are given in Para-4 of the
statement of claim. The documents produced by workman
Exhibit W-1 to W-3 are admitted by management’s witness.
Exhibit W-1 shows that in reply submitted by ALC, Bilaspur,
2nd party had contented that Ist party workman was
working as casual employee, he was not regular employee
of the Bank. Workman was paid amount of Rs.607 for the
year 2000 to 2001. Document Exhibit W-2 shows the
amount of Rs. 2802 was paid to Ist party as bonus by
Bankers Cheque dated 18-8-03. Exhibit W-3 is copy of Bank
Account of workman. The payment of bonus is not
disputed by 2nd party. The copies of the settlements are
not proved by valid evidence.
6.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting
his claim but he failed to appear for his cross-examination.
7.
Management’s witness Shri T.D.Rao in his affidavit
of evidence says that workman had not worked more than
240 days, he worked as casual labour on temporary need
basis only. That R/55/09 was closed as per order dated
14-2-2013. Management’s witness in his cross-examination
says he was not posted in Semar Cell, Belpan branch during
2000 to 2006. He had not visited said branch before filing
affidavit of evidence. He had not taken information from
the Branch Manager. Attendance Register of workman was
not maintained. Appointment letter was not given to him.
Workman was paid wages every month but he was not
aware of the rate of wages paid to workman. The evidence
of workman is not cogent and clear whether the settlements
4 to 8 are applicable to the casual employees engaged in
the Bank. The authentic copies of the settlements are not
proved by valid evidence. Therefore I record my finding
in Point No.1 in Negative.
1198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The workman is not entitled difference of wages as
per Bipartite Settlements.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 592-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy 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
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 230@99)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-03-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@23@99&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2016
S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 230/99) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
22.03.2016.
[No. L-12012/23/99-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/230/99
Shri Ashok Kumar Maratha,
116, Tatanagar Gali No.3,
Ratlam
...Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office, Shastri Nagar,
Ratlam
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of February, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 31-5-99 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/
23/99/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Regional
Manager, Central Bank of India in terminating the
services of Shri Maratha w.e.f. 1993 is justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page
2/2 to 2/11. Case of workman is that he was working as
attendant in Central Bank of India, Tripolia Gate Branch,
Ratlam from 1993. He was paid bonus in 1994. He was
regularly working against vacant post. In 1982, he worked
for 67 days in 1982, 163 days in 1983 and 59 days in 1993.
Despite of his good service, his services were verbally
terminated without any reasons. That 2nd party No.1
issued letter dated 1-1-1993 giving the details of his
working. That he was deployed against regular vacancy.
That he was not regularised in permanent vacancy. Bank
management acted arbitrarily not taking cognizance of his
bonafide work as attendance. The Central Bank of Idia
Rules and Regulations pertain to absorption of temporary
employees were prohibited by the management. Clause
3.1, 3.2 of the Regulations were not followed. Workman
was not absorbed as per rules and regulations. Ist party
workman alleges gross malafide and in humiliation attitude
adopted by the management.
3.
Ist party workman reiterates that he worked more
than 60 days artificial breaks were shown by the 2nd party
No.1,2 in his service. Workman was exploited by the Bank
management. He was not paid equal salary of equal work.
He was doing work in the postal department of the Bank.
Dispatching the RPAD to GPO at GPO Ratlam, also
distributing local post. He belongs to SC ST cadre. His
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act. Bank management will with contradiction of rules
and regulations of absorption in service. On such grounds,
workman prays to cancel verbal order dated 19-4-87, his
services be regularised with payment of back wages.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4
opposing claim of the workman. Case of 2nd party is that
the recruitment of subordinate cadre in the banks is made
as per guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry
of Finance. As per the guidelines issued by Government
and high percentage of unemployment in the country, it
was advised to all the nationalized banks that all
recruitments in the subordinate cadre should be made only
through employment exchanges. The Bank as a matter of
fact, had been following this policy/ guidelines of
Government of India and had been calling persons to be
considered for recruitment in the subordinate cadre
through local employment exchange only. Workman was
engaged by the Bank as casual temporary employee
during leave vacancy of permanent employees. It doesnot
amount to retrenchment. His non-engagement is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. workman was paid
bonus as payable to casual worker. He has not completed
240 days in preceding 12 calendar months. Violation of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1199
Section 25-F of ID Act is not denied. As per 2nd party,
working days of workman are shown 67 in 1982, 93 in 1983
and 59 days in 1993. By working of such number of days,
workman was eligible to be called for recruitment test as
per circular dated 20-9-93. No recruitment test of sub staff
was held by the Bank at Ratlam. No application was called
for recruitment. The recruitment test is conducted as per
instructions of Central/Zonal office of the Bank. Ist party
workman is not eligible for absorption on permanent post.
He not completed 240 days working in any of the calendar
years. Management has not violated Section 25-F of ID
Act. workman was not permitted. Workman is not entitled
for regularization in service.
5.
Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 6/1 to
6/2 reiterating contentions in statement of claim.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the
Termination of service
management of Regional
of Ist party workman
Manager, Central Bank of
by management is not
India in terminating the
proved.
services of Shri Maratha
w.e.f. 1993 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Workman is not entitled
workman is entitled to?”
to any relief.
REASONS
7.
The term of reference pertains to legality of
termination of services of Ist party workman. The claim for
regularization of workman in service is not included in the
terms of reference. As per pleadings in statement of claim,
workman had worked for 67 days in 1982, 163 days in 1983,
59 days in 1993. 2nd party has contented that workman
was not appointed against permanent vacant post. He
was engaged as casual temporary employee during leave
period of permanent staff.
8.
Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-2
working days of Ist party workman are shown as claimed
by Ist party workman Exhibit W-1 produced by workman
is circular dated 20-9-93 pertaining to the absorption of
temporary employees as term of reference doesnot pertain
to absorption of temporary employees as term of reference
doesnot pertain to the claim for regularization of workman.
Said document is not relevant for deciding claim pertaining
to legality of termination of his services.
9.
Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman claiming
that he worked for 67 days in 1982, 103 days in 1983 & 59
days in 1993. In his cross-examination, workman denies
that there is practice in the Bank not to allow working
more than 60 days. He denies that he not worked for 103
days in 1993. He denies that he was not called for work in
1993. He denies that as per circular dated 20-9-93, he not
submitted any application as he was not fulfilling eligibility
for absorption. He was not called for interview. As term of
reference doesnot include claim for regularization of service
by workman, evidence of the workman discussed above
has no relevance to the legality of termination of his
service.
10.
Workman died during pendency of reference, his
widow Hemlata Maratha filed affidavit of her evidence. In
her cross-examination, she says that she has little
knowledge about working of her husband in the Bank.
Her husband has left her with 3 daughters after his death.
Her evidence has no relevance to the termination of
workman.
11.
Evidence of management’s witness Manoharlal is
on the point that workman was engaged as casual
temporary employee. That workman had not worked for 67
days in 1982, 103 days in 1983, 59 days in 1993. The cross-
examination of management’s witness shows that he was
not posted in Bajaj Khana, Ratlam during 1982 to 1983,
1993 claiming ignorance about certificate dated 20-9-93
Exhibit W-1. On his submission, Exhibit W-1, W-2 were
admitted in evidence. The workman was not paid
retrenchment compensation as he was not regular
employee of the Bank. He claims ignorance whether after
interview in 1993, Shri Rajesh and Narayan were absorbed
in service of the Bank.
12.
As discussed above, the claim for regularization of
workman is not included in term of reference. The legality
of termination has been referred in the term of reference.
The evidence on record is clear that workman had not
worked for more than 240 days during any of the year
therefore protection of Section 25-F of ID Act is not
available to the workman. There is no question of
regularization of service of Ist party workman as per the
circular dated 20-9-93 as same point is not included in the
terms of reference. For above reasons, I hold that
termination of workman in violation of Section 25-F of ID
Act is not established.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under:
(1)
The termination of service of Ist party workman by
management is not established.
(2)
Workman or his LR is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 593-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e,uvkbZVh ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
1200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@03@2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@78@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUnz ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2016
S.O. 593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Malviya National
Institute of Technology and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 23/03/2016.
[No. L-42012/78/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
vuqcaèk
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 47@2006
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 47@2006
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 47@2006
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 47@2006
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 47@2006
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L-42012/78/2005–IR (CM-II) fnukad 28@04@2006
Shri Ramesh Saini S/o. Shri Bhorilal Saini,
Plot No. 48, Mansinghpura,
Hari Marg, Tonk Road,
Distt.- Jaipur (Rajasthan)
v/s
1. The Director,
Malviya National Institute of Technology,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh deys'k 'kekZ & izfrfuf/k
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh y{e.k flag dPNkok & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
% iapkV %
fnukad % 29-01-2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10
mi&/kkjk 1 [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 28-04-2006 ds vkns’k ls izsf”kr
fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj
}kjk izsf”kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
2-
“Whether the action of the management of Malaviya
National Institute of Technology, Jaipur in
terminating Sh. Ramesh Saini, S/o Sh. Bhorilal Saini,
Lab Attendant w.e.f. 29. 11. 2003 from services is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to and from which date?”
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku gS
fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij vLFkk;h
rkSj ij fnukad 1-6-95 ds vkns’k ls fnukad 1-6-95 dks gqbZ FkhA fnukad
21-2-95 rd izkjfEHkd rkSj ij izkFkhZ izkstsDV bEisDV ij yxk;k x;k Fkk
ysfdu mldh lsok;sa rFkk osru le;≤ ij c<+k;k x;kA **izkstsDV
bEiSDV** lekIr gks x;k ijUrq mlds ckn Hkh foi{khx.k fnukad 28-11-2003
rd izkFkhZ ls dk;Z ysrs jgs] blls tkfgj gS fd foi{k dks izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa
dh vko’;drk Fkh ysfdu vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 esa iznRr
vfèkdkjksa ls ofUpr j[kus ds fy, izkjEHk esa izkFkhZ dks izkstsDV ij fn[kk;k
x;k ysfdu okLro esa dk;Z ekyoh; jk”Vªh; izkS|ksfxd laLFkku] t;iqj esa
fy;k x;kA
4-
foi{khx.k vkSj Jfed us lh/kk ekfyd vkSj Jfed dk lECkU/k FkkA
lu~ 2003 esa foi{kh us vLFkk;h Jfedksa dh lsok;sa ,d fcpkSfy;s dkUVsªDVj ds
ek/;e ls n’kkZ;h tcfd okLro esa izkFkhZ Jfed vkSj foi{kh la[;k 3 ds chp
dksbZ ekfydkuk lEcU/k ugha jgk vkSj izkFkhZ Jfed foi{kh la[;k 1 ds
laLFkku esa ysc vVs.MsV ds :Ik esa dk;Z djrk jgkA
5-
vkxs izLrj 3 esa dFku gS fd iwoZ esa jktLFkku fo/kku lHkk }kjk
ikfjr jQ~rj ,DV 1999 ds izkfo/kku 3-7 vkSj 11 dh otg ls fu;fer
fu;qfDr;ksa ij izfrcU/k Fkk rFkk vLFkk;h Jfedksa dks fu;feRk djus ds
izkfoèkkku Hkh ckf/kr Fks blfy;s vk’oklu ds ckotwn foi{kh la[;k 1 us
izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsok;sa fu;fer ugha dh tcfd izkFkhZ dks ysc vVs.MsV ds in
ij dk;Z djus dk vkB lky dk vuqHko izkIr gks pqdk FkkA
6-
izLrj 4 esa ;g dFku gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh
tks/kiqj ihB us Hkokuh flag cuke jkT; ds ekeys esa jQ~rj ,DV ds izkfo/kkuksa
dks vlaos/kkfud ?kksf”kr dj fn;kA mlds ckn izkFkhZ Jfed us foi{kh ,d ds
jftLVkj ls fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z djrs gq, vkB
lky gks x;k gSa vr% mls fu;fer fd;k tk,A vkxs ;kph dk dFku gS fd
izkFkhZ dks fu;fer djus ds ctk; fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;sa funZs’kd us ekSf[kd
vkns’k fnukad 29-12-2003 ds }kjk lsok ls ;g dgdj fudky fn;k dh
vkidh lsokvksa dh vko’;drk ugha gSA
7-
izLrj 5 ds dFku ds vuqlkj foi{kh ds ;gka ysc vVs.MsV ds 26 in
Lohd`r gSa tgk¡ fujUrj dk;Z lEiknu dh vko’;drk gS vkSj blh dkj.k
lu~ 1995 ls 29-11-2003 rd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us lsok esa cuk;s j[kk FkkA
foi{k }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2
¼vkj-,-½ lifBr /kkjk 25 Vh ,oa f’kM~;wy 5 ds in la[;k 10 dk mYya?ku
gSA lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dks u dksbZ uksfVl nh x;h vkSj u gh
uksfVl ds cnys osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k vkSj u gh NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k
x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr 25&,Q ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h vkSj
izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ dksbZ ofj”Brk lwph ugha izdkf’kr dh x;h tks
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1201
vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;ekoyh 1957 ds fu;e 77 dk mYya?ku gSA foi{kh dk
laLFkku m|ksx dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr /kkjk 2
¼vks-vks-½ esa of.kZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gS] vr% izkFkhZ dh
lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf”kr fd;k tk; vkSj leLr ykHk lfgr izkFkhZ dks lsok
es iquLFkkZfir djus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
8-
;kfpdk ds izLrj 9 esa izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd foi{kh
la[;k 1 ds funZs’ku esa MkDVj ,e-jk; dh desVh us fnukad 28-10-2003 vkSj
30-10-2003 dh fefVax esa fu.kZ; fy;k gS ftlls foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z dh
vko’;drk tkfgj gksrh gS ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd Bsdsnkj lsokFkhZ
Jfed miyC/k djkus esa vleFkZ gS rks lekpkj i= esa uksfVl izdkf’kr
djokdj Bsdsnkjh ij fu;qfDr;ka dh tk; rkfd dk;Z lEiknu esa vM+pu u
vk;saA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mDr ifjfLFkfr esa mldh lsokeqfDr LOkr% gh
vuqfpr gS rFkk blls foi{k dh euekuh dgh tk ldrh gSA
9-
foi{k dh rjQ ls izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ds fo:) tokc esa ;kfpdk ds
izLrj 1]2 vkSj 3 esa izLrqr dFku ds LkEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd dksbZ fookn
ugha gSA izLrj 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] 12] 13] 14 vkSj 15 ds dFku dks
vLohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh laLFkku us
dHkh Hkh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds vLFkk;h in ij dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh vkSj
u gh fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;kA foi{kh laLFkku us izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh osru
dk Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k blfy;s izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk vLkR; ,oa euxa<r
gS fd mlds osru ls fu;ekuqlkj dVkSrh dh tkrh FkhA
10-
mYys[kuh; gS fd ;kph i{k us ;kfpdk esa fdlh Hkh izLrj esa ;g
mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd mls foi{k }kjk osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk
vkSj osru ls fu;ekuqlkj dVkSrh dh tkrh FkhA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd
oknksRrj esa ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1 yxk;r 15 ds dFku dks
vLohdkj@vfooknkLin crk;k x;k gS tcfd ;kph }kjk ;kfpdk esa dsoy
11 izLrjksa esa viuk dFku lekIr fd;k x;k gSaA ;kph i{k }kjk /kkjk 25 ,p
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku dk dksbZ ekeyk ;kfpdk esa ugha
mBk;k x;k gS ijUrq oknksRrj ds izLrj 9 esa bl lEcU/k esa tokc udkjkRed
:Ik esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
11-
vkxs oknksRrj esa ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks foIk{kh laLFkku }kjk dHkh
Hkh lsok esa ugha fy;k x;k vr% mls fu;fer :Ik ls Hkqxrku djus dk iz’u
ugha mRiUu gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDRk ugha iznku dh x;h blfy;s
lsokeqfDr dk iz’u ugha mBrk gSaA izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa dk vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls
dksbZ lh/kk lEcU/k ugha Fkk vr% izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl ;k eqvkotk fn;s tkus
dk iz’u ugha mBrk ,oa izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;ekoyh 1957
ds fu;e 77 o 78 ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr
gS fd mlus dHkh foi{kh laLFkku esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g
dguk Hkh xyr gS fd mlds gVk;s tkus ds ckn fdlh u;s O;fDr dks
laLFkku esa j[kk x;kA
12-
vkxs foi{k dk dFku gS fd foi{kh laLFkku esa ;fn dke fy;k x;k
gS rks fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls fy;k x;k Fkk vkSj ,sls O;fDr /kkjk 2 ^,l^
ds vuqlkj deZdkj dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugha vkrs gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd
vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds lkFk izkFkhZ us lh/ks :Ik esa dHkh lsok;sa ugha nh vkSj mlus
dHkh iwjs 240 fnu dke ugha fd;s vr% izkFkhZ fdlh vuqrks”k dks ikus dk
gdnkj ugha gS rFkk ;kfpdk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA
13-
izkjfEHkd vkifRr esa foi{k us dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us ;kfpdk esa bl
rF; dks fNik;k gS fd og laLFkku }kjk lsok esa ugha fy;k x;k Fkk cfYd
Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dqN le; ds fy;s dk;Z ij fy;k x;k FkkA foi{kh
laLFkku dks lkekU;r% ;fn fdUgha lsokvksa dh vko’;drk gksrh gS rks Bsdsnkj
}kjk Vs.Mj ds ek/;e ls lsok;s yh tkrh gSA Vs.Mj ds fu;e o ‘krsZa Bsdsnkj
dks Lohdkj gksus ij mfpr ,oa fu/kkZfjr lqj{kk jkf’k laLFkku esa tek
djokdj ukWu&T;wfMf’k;y LVkEi i= ij ,xzhesUV djok;k tkrk gS rRi’pkr~
fdlh O;fDr dh lsok yh tkrh gSA tc Hkh vizkFkhZ laLFkku dk dk;Z lekIr
gks tkrk gS rks mDr Bsdsnkj dks Hkqxrku dh tkus okyh jkf’k jksd yh tkrh
gS vkSj bl izdkj Bsdsnkj }kjk mDr O;fDr dh lsok,a lekIr dj nh tkrh
gSA
14-
tokcqytokc esa foi{k ds dFku dks vLohdkj dj ;g dgk x;k gS
fd mldh fu;qfDRk fdlh Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls ugha gqbZ Fkh cfYd mldh
fu;qfDr dksvkfMZusVj us dUlksfyMsVsM 832@& :- ds fglkc ls 1-6-1995 ds
vkns’k ls dh Fkh vkSj lsokvksa dk foLrkj le;≤ ij foi{k }kjk fcuk
fdlh vojks/k ds fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk fdlh Hkh izdkj Bsdsnkj ls dksbZ
lEcU/k ugha Fkk vkSj u gh Bsdsnkj izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd FkkA tokcqytokc ds
‘ks”k dFku esa ;kfpdk ds dFku dh iqujko`fRr dh x;h gSA
15-
;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls izkFkhZ Jh jes’k lSuh dh
’kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h gSA lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk foi{k }kjk dh
x;h gSA izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls fQgfjLr ls
mifLFkfr iaftdk dh QksVksizfr rFkk izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij fy;s tkus ls
lEcfUèkr vkns’k 1-6-1995 dh QksVkizfr izn’kZ MCY;w &1 ,oa lsok foLRkkj ls
lEcfU/kr vU; vkns’k dh QksVksizfr;ka izLrqr gSA
16-
foi{k dh rjQ ls Jh lokbZ flag ds;j Vsdj ,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh- t;iqj
dh ’kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h gS ftldh izfrijh{kk ;kph i{k }kjk
dh x;h gSA izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa foi{k }kjk ^^bdjkjukek vuqcU/k dh
‘krsZa** fnukafdr 10-8-98 rFkk fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa dks psd }kjk Hkqxrku okmpj
dh QksVksizfr;ka izLrqr gSA
17-
eSuas mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk
lE;~d voyksdu fd;kA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr gSaA
18-
izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls vius leFkZu esa fuEu fof/kd n‘“VkUr izLrqr
fd;s x;s gS %&
¼1½
1984 ¼1½ ,l-lh-lh i`“B &509] xSeu bf.M;k fyfeVsM & vihykFkhZx.k
cuke fujUtu nkl & izR;FkhZx.kA
1202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼2½
1984 ¼lIyh-½ ,l-lh-lh i‘“B&428] gjh eksgu jLrksxh& vihykFkhZ
cuke yscj dksVZ vkSj vU;&izR;FkhZx.kA
¼3½
1994 MCY;w-,y-vkj- i`“B&875] fxjh’k dqekj tSu& vihykFkhZx.k
cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k& izR;FkhZx.kA
¼4½
1989 ¼1½ vkj-,y-vkj- i`“B&156] ;’koUr flag& vihykFkhZ cuke
LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku & izR;FkhZx.kA
¼5½
1983 ,Q-ts-vkj- i`“B&271] Mh-ds- ;kno & vihykFkhZx.k cuke ts-
,e-,- bf.M;k fyfeVsM & izR;FkhZx.kA
¼6½
1981 ¼3½ ,l-lh-lh i`“B&225] eksgu yky& vihykFkhZ cuke esusteSUV
vkWQ eSllZ Hkkjr bysfDVªd fyfeVsM & izR;FkhZx.kA
¼7½
2015 ¼2½ lqizhe VqMs i`“B&166] tlfej flag & vihykFkhZx.k cuke
LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk & izR;FkhZx.kA
¼8½
2 ¼th½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 A
19-
foi{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`“VkUr % &
¼1½
¼2001½ 7 ,l-lh-lh i‘“B &1] LVhy vkWFkfjVh vkWQ bf.M;k fyfeVsM
& vihykFkhZx.k cuke us’kuy ;wfu;u okVjQzkUV odZlZ ,oa vU;&
izR;FkhZx.kA
¼2½
¼2004½ 7 ,l-lh-lh i`“B&112] ,-mejkuh& vihykFkhZ cuke jftLVªkj]
dks vkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht vkSj vU; & izR;FkhZx.kA
¼3½
¼2005½ 1 ,l-lh-lh i`“B&639] egsUnz ,y-tSu vkSj vU;&vihykFkhZx.k
cuke bUnkSj MsoyiesaV vFkkfjVh vkSj vU; &izR;FkhZx.k
¼4½
¼2005½ 5 ,l-lh-lh i`“B&112] ek/;fed f’k{kd ijh”kn~] ;w-ih-&vihykFkhZ
cuke vfuy dqekj feJk vkSj vU;&izR;FkhZx.k
¼5½
¼2006½ 1 ,l-lh-lh i`“B&667] LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih-&vihykFkhZ cuke
uhjt voLFkh vkSj vU;&izR;FkhZx.k
¼6½
¼2008½ 2 ,l-lh-lh i`“B&552] pUnz ‘ks[kj vktkn d`f”k ,oWa izkS|ksfxdh
fo’ofo|ky; & vihykFkhZ cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM~l dkaxzsl vkSj vU;&
izR;FkhZx.k
20-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us cgl dh gS fd foi{kh laLFkku esa izkFkhZ
dh fu;qfDr vLFkk;h prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa gqbZ Fkh vkSj izkjfEHkd
:Ik esa **izkstsDV bEiSDV** esa yxk;k x;k Fkk ftldh lsok;as le;≤ ij
foLrkfjr dh x;h vkSj **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh lekfIr ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ us
28-11-2003 rd dke fd;k ijUrq izkFkhZ dh lsok fu;fer ugha dh x;hA ;g
Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks iz;ksx’kkyk lgk;d ds in ij dk;Z djk;k x;k
rFkk ml ij laLFkk ds funsZ’kd rFkk jftLVªkj dk lh/kk fu;U=.k Fkk rFkk
ml ij fdlh Bsdsnkj dk dHkh fu;U+=.k ugha Fkk u gh og Bsdsnkj dk
deZpkjh FkkA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dks u
dksbZ uksfVl nh x;h u uksfVl ds cnys dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k vkSj u gh
NaVuh eqvkotk vnk fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr /kkjk 25
¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds mYya?ku esa dh x;hA ;g Hkh
dgk x;k gS fd lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ dksbZ ofj”Brk lwph ugha cuk;h x;h
blfy;s fu;e 77 dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ ds lkFk /kkjk 2¼vkj,½
ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf”kr vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;k x;k blfy, izcU/ku
vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dk Hkh nks”kh gSA
21-
foi{khx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd
izkFkhZ Jh jes’k lSuh foi{khx.k ds deZpkjh ugha Fks] u rks foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ
dks dksbZ fu;qfDr&i= tkjh fd;k x;k vkSj u gha lsokeqDr fd;k Xk;k]
blfy;s foi{khx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh fdlh Hkh izkfo/kku
dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh laLFkku
esa fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa u dksbZ foKkiu fuxZr fd;k x;k vkSj u gha fdlh
p;u izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk iw.kZr;k xyr
gS fd mldh fu;qfDr vLFkk;h prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa laLFkku esa dh
x;hA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd foi{kh ds laLFkku esa izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa
Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dsoy **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds mn~ns’; ls yh x;h Fkh
vkSj izktsDV ds vfLrRo esa cus jgus rd lhfer Fkh vkSj izkstsDV dh lekfIr
ds ckn izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mlds vkxs foLrkfjr dh tkuh fof/kd :Ik ls
vuqeU; ugha FkhA blds fo:) izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g
cgl dh x;h gS fd Bsdsnkj ds tfj;s izkFkhZ dh lsok;as foi{kh laLFkku dks
miyC/k djk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; i=koyh
ij ugha gSA
22-
i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa RkFkk izLrqr cgl ls fuEu fook|d fuLrkj.k
gsrq vorfjr gksrk gS %&
1
D;k izkFkhZ dh foi{kh laLFkku esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa
fu;qfDr dh x;h ;k foIk{k }kjk laLFkku esa izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa Bsdsnkj
ds ek/;e ls yh tkrh Fkh tks **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh vof/k rd
lhfer Fkh \
23-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku dksvkfMZusVj
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds vkns’k fnukad 1-6-95 ¼izn’kZ W@1½ dh rjQ vkd`“V
dj ;g cgl dh x;h fd izn’kZ W@1 izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr i= gSA foi{kh
lk{kh Jh lokbZ flag ds le{k Hkh izfrijh{kk eas izn’kZ W@1 dks j[kdj
loky iwNs x;s gS ftlds lEcU/k esa mUgksus dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ
W@1 ,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh- t;iqj }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g vkns’k Jh
jes’k lSuh dh fu;qfDRk ls Hkh lEcfU/kr gSA izn’kZ W@1 ds voyksdu ls ;g
izdV gS fd 1 tuojh] 1995 ds vkns’k izn’kZ W@1 ds ekè;e ls 2 O;fDr;ksa
dks dksvkfMZusVj **izkstsDV bEiSDV** }kjk fo’kq) :Ik ls vLFkk;h vk/kkj ij
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds fy, dk;Z ij yxk;k (engage) x;k gSA bu nksuksa
O;fDr;ksa esa dzekad 2 ij Jh jes’k lSuh izkFkhZ dks :Ik;k 832@ ij j[kk x;k
gS vkSj **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh dEI;wVj LVªhe esa yxk;k x;k gS vkSj Jh
larks”k dqekj lDlsuk dks bysDVªkfud LVªhe esa yxk;k x;k gSA Jh larks”k
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1203
dqekj lDlsuk dks vkns’k izn’kZ W@1 muds ,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh- ifjlj esa fLFkr
vkokl la[;k ,l&25 ij Hkstk x;k gSA Jh larks”k dqekj lDlsuk ds fy, Hkh
ikfjJfed 832@& :Ik;k gh gSA Jh larks”k dqekj lDlsuk dks ;kph i{k
}kjk lk{; esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls izkFkhZ ds dFku dks leFkZu
feys fd ;kph rFkk Jh larks”k dqekj dks foi{k }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr nh x;hA
Jh lokbZ flag us ;g ugha dgk gS fd izn’kZ W@1 fu;qfDr i= gS cfYd
flQZ ;g dgk gS fd izn’kZ W@1 izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ls Hkh lEcfU/kr gSA
mDr fLFkfr ls ;g Lor% Li”V gS fd izn’kZ W@1 fu;qfDRk i= ugha gS
cfYd dk;Z vkoaVu vkns’k gS ftls izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr i= dgk x;k gSA
blh lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Loa; izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd
;g lgh gS fd mldh osru 832@ :Ik;s ,deq’r fu/kkZfjr Fkh rFkk mldh
fu;qfDr ds iwoZ dksbZ foKfIr v[kckj esa ugha fudkyh x;h Fkh] u mldh
fyf[kr ijh{kk gqbZ Fkh u mldk lk{kkRdkj gqvk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd
mldk flQZ ck;ksMkVk fy;k x;k Fkk rFkk mls tc Hkh yxk;k x;k
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds in ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k rFkk mldks fu;qfDr i=
fn;s x;s Fks vkSj fu;qfDRk i= N% ekg dh vof/k ds fy, fn;s tkrs FksA vkxs
lk{kh us Loa; ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd lu~ 1999 esa tks mls fu;qfDr i=
feyk Fkk og vkxkeh vkns’k (till further order) rd ds fy, FkkA izn’kZ
W@4 es lk{kh us vafdr rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS tks fuEuor gS%&
PROJECT IMPACT (COMPUTER STREAM)
NO.
Dated : 21-2-97
NOTICE
The Project Impact is going to end on 31.3.1997. As such
notice is hereby given to the following faculty and
supporting staff who have been recruited on contract basis
for the duration of the Project Impact that their services
will stand terminated on the expiry of the Project Impact i.e.
on 31.3.1997 :-
Faculty members :
1. Shri V.K. Jain, Reader
2. Shri P.K. Agrawal, Lecturer,
Supporting Staff:
1. Shri Sanjay Bhaskar, Computer Operator.
2. Shri Vinod Dialani, Computer Operator.
3. Shri Ramesh Saini, Class-IV
Sd/-
(S.C. Agrawal)
Coordinator,
Copy to the following for information and further necessary
action :-
1.
The Principal, MERC, Jaipur.
2.
The Dy. Registrar (Accounts) MRCCE, Jaipur.
3.
Faculty members/Supporting Staff Concerned.
Sh Ramesh Saini
Signature
Coordinator.
24-
fnuakd 21-2-1997 ds vkns’k }kjk 31-3-97 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok vuqcUèk
ds vuqlkj LOkr% lekIr gks tkuh Fkh ysfdu 31-3-97 ds vkns’k ¼izn’kZ
W@5½ ls fnukad 30-9-97 rd lsok iqu% foLrkfjr dh x;hA fnukad
3-10-97 ds vkns’k ¼izn’kZ W@6½ ls izkFkhZ dh lsok dk foLrkj 31 ekpZ
1998 rd fd;k x;k] fnukad 1-4-99 ds vkns’k ¼izn’kZ W@8½ ls lsok dk
foLrkj 30-9-99 rd fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 1-5-99@28-9-99 ds vkns’k ls
lsok dk foLrkj vkxkeh vkns’k rd dj fn;k x;k ysfdu lsok dh ‘krsZa
vkns’k fnukad 3-10-97 ds ‘krksZa ij gh vk/kkfjr j[kh x;hA mDr fLFkfr esa
lsok foLrkj dh fLFkfr dks le>us ds fy, izn’kZ W@6] izn’kZ W@8 vkSj
izn’kZ W@9 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk izklafxd gS tks fuEuor% gS %&
PROJECT IMPACT (COMPUTER STREAM)-‘SSS’
NO. IMPACT/ECC/26/97/
Dated : 03-10-97
ORDER
Shri Ramesh Saini whose date of birth is 5-7-75 is
appointed as Class IV Purely on ad hoc temporary basis in
the project IMPACT (Computer Streem)- ‘SSS’ on a
consolidated salary of Rs. 850.00 PM/- period of six months
i.e. upto 31st March, 1998.
His services can be terminated at any time by one
month’s notice in writing either by employee to the
Coordinator or by the Coordinator to the employee or on
recovery of month’s pay in lieu thereof of the pay for the
period by which one month’s notice falls shor
His appointment is subject to the following
conditions : -
(a)
He should join his appointment latest by 05-10-97
falling which the appointment order is liable to be
cancelled without notice.
(b)
In addition to the normal duties of his post he will
discharge other duties as assigned to him by the
Coordinator from time to time.
(c)
He will be governed by the rules of the project
IMPACT- ‘SSS’ as framed form time to time.
(d)
If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to
him he may sign the second copy in token of
acceptance and return the same to the Coordinator,
project IMPACT, Department of Computer
Engineering, M.R. Engineering College, Jaipur-
302017.
1204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chief Coordinator
project IMPACT(Computer Stream)- ‘SSS’
Above terms and conditions accepted
Signature
Copy forwarded to the following for information &
necessary action
1. Principal
2. Registrar
3. Dy. Registrar (A/c) with one spare copy.
4. Ramesh Saini
PROJECT IMPACT (COMPUTER STREAM)- ‘SSS’
MALAVIYA REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE
CAMPUS, JAIPUR
NO. IMPACT/ECC/
Dated : 01-04-99
ORDER
Service of the following staff appointed on contract
basis under the project is extended for six months w.e.f.
01-04-99 to 30-09-99 under the sustainability support
scheme of the project.
1.
Sh.Ramesh Saini
Lab attendant
Other terms and conditions of their appointment remain
unchanged.
(Prof.S.C. Agrawal)
Chief Coordinator
Project IMPACT
Copy to:
1. Principal
2. D.R. A/cs
3. Ramesh Saini
PROJECT IMPACT (COMPUTER STREAM)-SSS’
(sustainability support scheme)
MALAVIYA REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE
CAMPUS, JAIPUR
NO. IMPACT/ECC/
Dated : 1st May, 1999
28/9/99
OFFICE ORDER
In partial modification of order No. IMPACT/ECC
dated 1st April, 1999, the engagement of Shri Ramesh Saini
appointed on contract basis under the above Project is
extended till further orders. This is under the ‘Sustainability
Support Scheme of Project’ and the incumbent will not
have any claim on the appointment in the MREC. Other
terms and Conditions will remain the same as notified vide
order NO. IMPACT/ECC/26/97/Dated 03-10-97. He will be
given a consolidated Salary of Rs. 3500/- Per Month, w.e.f.
01.05.99.
(S.C. Agrawal)
Chief Coordinator
Project IMPACT
Copy to:
1.
Principal for his kind information.
2.
Registrar
3.
Dy. Registrar (A/c) with one spare copy.
4.
Ramesh Saini
25-
izn’kZ W@9 }kjk izkFkhZ dks dk;Z dk foLrkj vkxkeh vkns’k rd
fd;k x;k tks izn’kZ W@6 fnukafdr 3-10-97 esa nh x;h ‘krksZa ds v/khu Fkh
vkSj dsoy **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds vfLrRo esa jgus rd gh izkFkhZ lsokFkZ
vuqcfU/kr Fkk vkSj **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds lekIr gksus ds lkFk izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekIr gks tkuh Fkh ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h lsok ds vk/kkj ij mls laLFkku
esa lsok ikus dk dksbZ gd iznRr ugha Fkk ftldk mYys[k lEcfU/kr vkns’kksa
esa gSA bu ‘krksZa dks izkFkhZ us Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gS ftldk mYys[k 3-10-97 ds
vkns’k esa gSaA izkFkhZ us ekSf[kd lk{; esa Loa; mYys[k fd;k gS fd lu~ 99 esa
mls tks fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k Fkk mlds }kjk mls (till further order)
rd ds fy, yxk;k x;k FkkA izn’kZ W@9 mDr vkns’k gS ftldk mYYsk[k
izkFkhZ us fd;k gSA blh vkns’k esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks MREC
esa mDr izkstsDV esa dk;Z djus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr dk dksbZ gd ugha gksxkA
izkFkhZ dk cgl esa ;g dguk fd mls **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh lekfIr ds ckn
Hkh laLFkku ds dk;Z esa j[kk x;k bl cgl dks leFkZu nsus ds fy, dksbZ
izys[kh; lk{; i=koyh ij izkFkhZ us izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us ekSf[kd
izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd **izkstsDV bEiSDV** lu~ 2000 esa [kRe gqvk gS]
foi{kh lk{kh us 2003 esa lekIr gksuk dgk gS ijUrq ;g rF; fufoZokn gS fd
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** lekIr gks pqdk gS D;ksafd Loa; izkFkhZ }kjk bl ckr dk
mYys[k cgl esa fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;kfpdk ds izLrj nks esa Hkh dgk x;k gSA
izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr lkfcr gksrk gS fd **izkstsDV bEiSDV** lekIr gksus
ds ckn Hkh mlls dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgk gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks fd;k x;k vfUre
Hkqxrku :- 3500@ dk gS tks **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh ,deq’r jkf’k gS vkSj
1-9-99@28-9-99 ds vkns’k ds vuqdwy /kujkf’k gS mDr O;k[;k vkSj fo’ys”k.k
ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij g¡w fd izkFkhZ dh lsok dsoy **izkstsDV
bEiSDV** ds vfLrRo rd lhfer Fkh rFkk i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha
gS ftlls bl vo/kkj.kk dks xzg.k djus ds fy, cy feys fd foi{k dks
vius ;gk¡ izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cuk;s dk dksbZ nkf;Ro FkkA
26-
tgka rd bl fcUnq ds fujkdj.k dk iz’u gS fd izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj ds
ekè;e ls laLFkku dh lsok esa Fkk ;k laLFkku us izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dh Fkh] bl
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1205
lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e
ls foi{k ds lsokFkZ vuqcU/k ij Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd og Bsdsnkj ds
ek/;e ls ugha fu;qDr FkkA bl rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS fd
og ldkjkRed lk{; ls fl) djs fd laLFkku us mldh fu;qfDr dh gS vkSj
foi{k dh detksfj;ksa ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha fey ldrk gSA
27-
ekyoh; jk”Vªh; izks|ksfxd laLFkku] t;iqj }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ
fu;qfDr nh x;h bldk leFkZu Lo;a izkFkhZ ds lk{; ls ugha gksrk gSA mDr
laLFkku Hkkjr ljdkj dk ,d izfrf”Br f’k{k.k laLFkku gS ftlesa gj in ij
fu;qfDr gsrq ,d izfdz;k fu/kkZfjr gSA izfrijh{kk esa ;kph us Lo;a Lohdkj
fd;k gS ,oa dgk gS fd tc mldks fu;qfDr nh x;h mlds igys v[kckj esa
dksbZ foKkiu ugha fudkyk x;k Fkk] u izkFkhZ dh dksbZ fyf[kr ijh{kk gqbZ Fkh
u lk{kkRdkj gqvk Fkk] mlls dsoy ck;ks&MkVk fy;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tc Hkh mls **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k
mls fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k tks fofHkUu vof/k ls lEcfU/kr gSA ftu vkns’kksa
dks izkFkhZ fu;qfDr i= dg jgk gS og lHkh vkns’k **izkstsDV bEiSDV** esa izkFkhZ
dh vuqcU/k ij lsok ds foLrkj dk mYys[k djrs gSaA izFke vkns’k ftldks
;kph i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us fu;qfDr i= dgk gS og fdlh Hkh n`f”Vdks.k
ls fu;qfDr i= ugha gks ldrk gSA og ,d dk;Z vkoaVu vkns’k gS ftlesa nks
O;fDr;ksa dks **izkstsDV bEiSDV** esa nks vyx&2 LVªhe esa dke vkoafVr fd;k
x;k gSA izn’kZ W@4 vkns’k esa vafdr bckjr dks izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa
Lohdkj fd;k gS ftlesa dgk x;k gS **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh lekfIr ij
fnuakd 31-3-97 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok,a lekIr gks tk;sxhA izkstsDV tkjh jgus
ij 31-3-97 ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ dh lsok dk foLrkj fd;k x;k gSA izn’kZ
W@6 rFkk izn’kZ W@9 dh ‘krksZa dks Hkh izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj
fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls tc Hkh yxk;k x;k
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds gh fy;s yxk;k x;kA izkFkhZ us dgk gS fd o”kZ 2000
esa gh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** lekIr gks x;k ijUrq ;g mldk dFku ek= gS bl
lECkU/k esa dksbZ mYys[k ;kfpdk esa ugha gS fd izkstsDV 2000 esa lekIr gqvk
u dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; izkFkhZ us i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa
izkFkhZ us dgk gS fd **izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh lekfIr ds ckn og funsZ’kd ds
dk;kZYk; esa dk;Zjr jgk ijUrq ,slk dksbZ fyf[kr vkns’k mlus ugha izLrqr
fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us dgk gS fd ;g lgh ugha gS fd mldh lsok ds foLrkj ds
lECkU/k esa ftrus vkns’k gq, lHkh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ls gh lEcfU/kr Fks ijUrq
izkFkhZ dk ,slk dguk xyr gS D;ksafd lHkh vkns’k tks i=koyh ij izn’kZ
W@1 yxk;r izn’kZ W@9 izLrqr gS og lHkh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ls gh
lEcfU/kr gSA mDr fLFkfr ls ;g Li”V gS fd izkFkhZ dks laLFkku }kjk u dksbZ
fu;qfDRk i= fn;k x;k u dksbZ fu;qDr gsrq foKkiu fd;k x;k] u dksbZ
ijh{kk vFkok lk{kkRdkj gqvkA
28-
bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh lk{kh lokbZflag ds lk{; ls tgkWa rd izkFkhZ dks
enn feyus dk iz’u gS lokbZflag us dgk gS fd izn’kZ W@1 Jh jes’k lSuh
dh fu;qfDr ls lEcfU/kr gS ijUrq mYys[kuh; gS fd lokbZflag ds dgus ls
izn’kZ W@1 dks fu;qfDRk i= dh laKk ugha nh tk ldrh gS tSlk fd mij
bl lEcU/k esa foLr`r mYys[k fd;k tk pqdk gSA
29-
Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ls lEcfU/kr Vs.Mj foi{k
}kjk i=koyh ij ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS bl rF; dks foi{kh lk{kh us i`“B
,d ij izfrijh{kk eas Lohdkj fd;k gS ijUrq foi{k dh dsoy bl deh ds
vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr laLFkku us dh
gS D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ izfdz;k gh ugha viuk;h x;h ,oa izkFkhZ dk bl
lEcU/k eas dksbZ ldkjkRed izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; Hkh i=koyh ij ugha
gSA vxj dksbZ izfdz;k ugha viuk;h x;h rks izkFkhZ dSls vfLrRo esa vk x;kA
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls izn’kZ W@11 ds vfrfjDr] tks vfUre ekg dk psd }kjk
Hkqxrku gS] dksbZ vU; Hkqxrku fooj.k i=koyh ij ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS
ftlls bl ckr dk irk pys fd Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj us fd;k gS ;k laLFkku us
fd;k gSA ist 2 vkSj 3 ij ;kph dks izfrijh{kk esa lq>ko fn;k x;k gS fd
o”kZ 95 ls osru ds en esa mls tks Hkqxrku fn;k tk jgk Fkk og fj)dj.k
,.M lUl }kjk fn;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj dqN vof/k rd chp esa mls Hkqxrku
f=yksd lksYtlZ }kjk fn;k tk jgk Fkk ftls izkFkhZ us bUdkj fd;k gS vkSj
dgk gS fd mls Hkqxrku psd }kjk fn;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mls
Hkqxrku 99 ls 2003 rd psd }kjk gksrk Fkk ftl ij jftLV~kj ds gLrk{kj
gksrs Fks ijUrq Hkqxrku LVsVesUV ls lEcfU/kr vkns’k ;k vfHkys[k mldh rjQ
ls is’k ugha gqvk gSA
30-
foi{k dh rjQ ls vyx&vyx nks vuqcU/k eSllZ fj)dj.k flag
,.M lUl rFkk dqy lfpo ds chp vU; dk;ksZa lfgr deZpkjh miyC/k djkus
ds vuqcU/k dze’k% lu~ 1996 ,oa 1998 ds izLrqr gS ysfdu blls orZeku
ekeys esa enn ugh yh tk ldrh gSA eSllZ fj)dj.k flag ,.M lUl dks
Bsds ij dk;kZsa rFkk deZpkfj;ksa ds Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr o”kZ 1995 ,oa 1996
es laLFkku }kjk fn;s x;s psd dk fooj.k i=koyh ij miyC/k gS ftlls ;g
tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ dh twu 95 esa lsok esa mlds izos’k ds le; Hkh Bsds ij
deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok ysus dk dk;Z vfLrRo esa Fkk ijUrq fufoZokn :Ik ls blls
;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd blesa izkFkhZ ds Hkqxrku dk fooj.k ‘kkfey
gSA izkFkhZ us 1995 ls 2003 rd ds chp izn’kZ W@11 ds vfrfjDr Hkqxrku
dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls tkfgj gks fd mls laLFkku
Hkqxrku djrk FkkA
31-
Jh vkse izdk’k Bsdsnkj dks fuxZr vuqHko izek.k i= dk mYys[k
lokbZ flag dh izfrijh{kk esa fd;k x;k gSA izek.k&i= fuxZr gksus dh frfFk
25-9-2000 gS ftlls ;g tkfgj gS fd og lkQ&lQkbZ ds dk;Z ls tqM+s
dfeZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] dfu”d fyfid] dEI;wVj vkWijsVj]
MkVk ,UVªh vkijsVj vkfn deZpkfj;ksa dks Bsds ij laLFkku dks foxr Ms<+
lky ls miyC/k djkrs jgs gSaA buds iwoZ Bsdk eSllZ fj)dj.k flag ,.M
lUl dk jgk gSA lokbZflag ds le{k izfrijh{kk esa eSllZ fj)dj.k flag ,.M
lUl ds Bsds dks j[kdj ;g iz’u j[kk x;k gS fd mDr Bsdk 8-4-96 dks gqvk
vkSj Jh jes’k lSuh 01-06-95 dks fu;qDr gq, rks og Bsds ds v/khu dSls vk;s \
ftlds mRrj esa mUgksaus dgk gS fd lu~ 1995 dh lEcfU/kr vof/k dk
vuqcUèk i=koyh ij ugha izLrqr gks ldk gS ijUrq fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh
1206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
igys ls Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls py jgh gSA lu~ 1995 esa vuqcU/k ls lEcfU/kr
Hkqxrku eSllZ fj)dj.k flag ,.M lUl dks fd;k x;k gS ftlds psd Hkqxrku
ds nks okmpj i=koyh ij miyC/k gS ftlesa ,d psd la[;k 648437 fnukafdr
8-9-95 #Ik;k 15]398 rFkk psd la[;k 648328 fnukafdr 25-7-95 #Ik;k 17]421
ls lEcfU/kr gSA lu~ 1995] 1996 rFkk vU; o”kksZa ds vU; dbZ psd Hkh layXu gSaA
blls bl rF; dks cy feyrk gS fd lu~ 1995 esa Hkh Bsds ij dk;Z&lEiUu vkSj
deZpkjh miyC/k djkus dh O;oLFkk fo|eku Fkh rFkk bu lkjh ifjfLFkfrtU;
lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g lqjf{kr fu”d”kZ fudyrk gS fd Jh lqjs’k lSuh Hkh Bsds
ds vk/kkj ij izkstsDV bEiSDV esa vfLrRo esa vk;s gS D;ksafd izcU/ku }kjk mUgsa
fu;qDr djus esa fdlh izdkj dk dne u mBkus dk rF; mUgksusa Lo;a Lohdkj
fd;k gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk bl fcUnq ij dksbZ LIk”Vhdj.k ugha gS fd tc nSfud
osru Hkksxh] vLFkk;h ;k rnFkZ fu;qfDr dh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** us izfdz;k ‘kq: ugha
dh rks fQj **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds lEidZ esa izkFkhZ dSls vk;s\ bl vk/kkj ij Hkh
foi{k ds dFku dks cy feyrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ls lEc)rk
Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls gqbZ gSA
32-
mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo’ys”k.k ls eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gw¡ fd ;g rF;
fcYdqy fufoZokn gS fd izkFkhZ dh lEc)rk dsoy **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds fy,
Fkh vkSj izkstsDV ds vfLrRo esa jgus rd lhfer FkhA izkFkhZ ;g rF; fl)
djus esa vlQy gS fd mldh fu;qfDr laLFkku }kjk dh x;h Fkh D;ksafd
izn’kZ W@1 fu;qfDr i= ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa foi{k us dksbZ
fu;qfDr izfdz;k ugha viuk;h FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk fof/kd :Ik ls vuqeU; u dksbZ
fu;qfDr i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ugh dksbZ lsok eqfDRk vkns’k izLrqr
fd;k x;k gSaA i=koyh ij miyC/k RkF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr ls Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e
ls izkFkhZ dh lsok foi{k dks feyus dk leFkZu feyrk gSA
33-
tgka rd foi{k }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus esa /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds
izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku rFkk mlls izkFkhZ dks feyus okys ykHk dk iz’u gS
mHk;i{k }kjk vius&vius dFku ds leFkZu esa fofHkUu fof/kd n`“VkUr izLrqr
fd;s x;s gS ftldk mYys[k mij fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds mYya?ku
dk ykHk ikus ds fy, ;g vko’;d gS fd izkFkhZ ;g fl) djs fd mldh
lsokeqfDr /kkjk 25 ¼00½ esa ifjHkkf”kr **NVUkh** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gS
tks fuEuor~ gS %&
**NVUkh*** ls fu;kstd }kjk fdlh deZdkj dh lsok dk ,slk
Ik;Zolku vfHkizsr gS] tks vuq’kklu lEca/kh dk;Zokgh ds :Ik esa fn, x, naM
ls fHkUu fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls fd;k x;k gks] fdUrq blds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr
ugha vkrs %&
¼d½
deZdkj dh LosPN;k fuo`fr] vFkok
¼[k½
vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q dk gks tkus ij deZdkj dh ml n’kk esa fuo`fRRk
ftleas fu;kstd vkSj la;qDr deZdkj ds chp gqbZ fdlh fu;kstu
lafonk esa ml fufeRr dksbZ vuqcU/k vUrfoZ”V gks] vFkok
¼[k[k½ fu;kstd vkSj lEi`Dr deZdkj ds chp gqbZ fu;kstu lafonk ds
lekIr gks tkus ij mldk uohdj.k u fd, tkus ;k fu;kstu
lafonk esa ml fufeRr vUrfoZ”V fdlh vuqcU/k ds v/khu ,slh lafonk
dk Ik;Zolku fd, tkus ds QyLo:Ik fdlh deZdkj dh lsok dk
Ik;ZolkuA
¼x½
bl vk/kkj ij deZdkj dh lsok dk Ik;Zolku fd mldk LokLF;
cjkcj [kjkc jgk gSA
34-
izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa dh x;h mijksDr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k
ls ;g izdV gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok vuqcU/k ij vk/kkfjr Fkh tks ^^izkstsDV
bEiSDV** ds mn~ns’; gsrq Fkh vkSj mldk foLrkj foi{k }kjk **izkstsDV
bEiSDV** ds lekIr gksus ds dkj.k vkxs tkjh ugha j[kk x;k D;ksafd izkFkhZ
dh lsok dsoy **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds dk;Zdky rd lhfer Fkh vr% izkFkhZ ij
/kkjk 2 ¼OO½ ¼bb½ ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gSA izkFkhZ rn~uqlkj NaVuh dh
ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS vkSj /kkjk 25 ,Q dk ykHk ikus dk gdnkj
ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa AIR 2004 S.C. page 4839, Exeutive
Engineer, Z.P. Engg. Division v/s. Digambara Rao esa ekuuh;
lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk mYys[kuh; gS ftlesa ekuuh;
lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd tgka ,d fof’k”V Ldhe esa
is;ty vkSj fuekZ.k dh lsok iznku djus ds fy, deZdkj dh fu;qfDr dh
x;h Fkh vkSj mldh lsok,a Ldhe dh lekfIr ds lkFk lekIr dj nh x;h]
,sls deZdkj ds lEcU/k esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd mls lsok esa
fu;fefrdj.k vFkok /kkjk 25 ,Q dk ykHk ekaxus dk vf/kdkj gSA
35-
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`“VkUr 1984 ¼1½ ,l-lh-lh- i`“B &509]
xSeu bf.M;k fyfeVsM & vihykFkhZx.k cuke fujUtu nkl & izR;FkhZx.k esa
ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd /kkjk 2 ¼OO½ ds
izkfo/kku ¼a½ ¼b½ ¼c½ dh ifjf/k esa u vkus okyh lsok lekfIr NaVuh gSA xSeu
bfUM;k fyfeVsM&vihykFkhZ cuke-----fujatu nkl------izR;FkhZ esa izR;FkhZ fujUtunkl
dh fu;qfDr fnukad 10-9-62 ds vkns’k ls vihykFkhZ }kjk ofj”B DydZ ds :Ik
esa dh x;h FkhA 14-9-67 dh uksfVl }kjk izR;FkhZ dh lsok ;g dgdj lekIr
dj nh x;h fd dEiuh ds dk;Z dh ek=k esa deh ds dkj.k eUnh vk x;h
gS vr% 14-10-67 ds ckn dEiuh dks izkFkhZ ds lsok dh vko’;drk ugha
jgsxhA uksfVl esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k fd Hkfo”; esa dEiuh ds fdlh
dk;ZLFky ij ;fn dksbZ dk;Z nsuk lEHko gqvk rks izR;FkhZ dks u;k volj
iznku fd;k tk;sxkA dEiuh }kjk izR;FkhZ dks uksfVl esa mlds }kjk dEiuh
esa dh x;h lsokvksa ds fy, /kU;okn Hkh fn;k x;kA izR;FkhZ }kjk mBk;s x;s
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa fook|d ;g Fkk fd D;k izR;FkhZ dh NaVuh vuqfpr ,ao
voS/kkfud gS] ;fn gka rks fdl funZs’k dh vko’;drk gS\ vkS|ksfxd
U;k;kfèkdj.k us NaVuh vuqfpr ,oa voS/k vo/kkfjr dh vkSj ;g ?kks”k.kkRed
vuqrks”k iznku dh fd tc rd fof/kd :Ik ls izR;FkhZ dh NaVuh ugha dh
tkrh og osru lfgr lsok esa ekuk tk;sxkA vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds
,okMZ ds fo:) flfoy fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; ,dyihB }kjk Lohdkj dh
x;h vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr /kkjk 25
,Q,Q,Q ds izkfo/kku ls fu;fU=r gksxh D;ksafd mudh lsokeqfDRk dEiuh
dh cUnh ds ifj.kkeLo:Ik gqbZ ftlesa lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ {kfriwfrZ dh vnk;xh
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1207
vko’;d ugha gS rFkk bl dkj.k izR;FkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk oS/k gSA ekuuh;
,dy ihB }kjk vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk iapkV fujLr dj i=koyh ihB
}kjk iqu% iapkV ikfjr djus gsrq bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr dh x;h fd
vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ;g fuf.krZ djs fd ekuuh; ,dy ihB }kjk vius
fu.kZ; esa fn;s x;s ekxZn’kZu ds vuqlkj fdl funsZ’k dh vko’;drk gSA
izR;FkhZ }kjk ekuuh; ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) izLrqr ysVlZ isVsUV
vihy esa ekuuh; [k.MihB us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k
fd ljdkj }kjk izsf”kr fjQjsUl esa gh ;g Li”V fd;k x;k Fkk fd lsokeqfDr
NaVuh Fkh vkSj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ;g fopkj.k djuk Fkk fd NaVuh
vuqfpr ;k voS/kkfud Fkh] vRk% ,dyihB dks fjQjsULk dk vk/kkj cnyus dh
NwV ugha Fkh fd ekeyk 25&,Q,Q,Q ds v/khu ^^vkS|ksfxd midze dh
cUnh** dk FkkA ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy esa ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; ds lEk{k ;g iz’u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd D;k ekuuh;
,dyihB }kjk vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi U;k;laxr Fkk
fd ekeyk 25&,Q,Q,Q }kjk vkPNkfnr ^^vkS|ksfxd midze dh cUnh** dk
Fkk ;k vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ;g vo/kkfjr djus esa lgh Fkk fd ^^NaVuh**
/kkjk 25&,Q ds izkfo/kku ls vkPNkfnr FkhA ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us
fu.kZ; ds izLrj nks ist 511 esa ;g izs{k.k fd;k gS fd mDr iz’u dk mRrj
ek= jsQjsUl ds voyksdu ls fn;k tk ldrk gS ftlesa dgha bl ckr dh
lqxcqxkgV Hkh ugha gS fd dEiuh dk fnYyh dk;kZy; cUn gksus tk jgk gSA
ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh rFkk vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k
ds fu.kZ; dh iqf”V dhA fu.kZ; ds izLrj nks esa ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us
;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “………on a true construction of the
notice, it would appear that the respondent had become
surplus on account of reduction in volume of work and
that constitutes Retrenchment even in the traditional sense
of the term ……...A
36-
orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk xSeu bfUM;k fyfeVsM
ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g LIk”V gS fd nksuksa esa dksbZ
lkE;rk ugha gS rFkk jes’k lSuh ds ekeys esa mDr n`“VkUr ls dksbZ enn ugha
yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd Jh jes’k lSuh dk ekeyk /kkjk 2 (oo)(bb) ls
vkPNkfnr gSA
37-
eksguyky &vihykFkhZ cuke—— eSUkstesUV vkWQ eSllZ Hkkjr
bysfDVªkfuDl fyfeVsM ----izR;FkhZ esa vihykFkhZ eksguyky] izR;FkhZ] eSllZ
Hkkjr bySfDVªkfuDl fyfeVsM esa vLFkk;h lsYleSu ds in ij fnukad
08-12-73 ls 520 :Ik;s ekfld osru ij fu;qDr FkkA vihykFkhZ dh lsok
fnukad 12-10-74 ds i= }kjk fnukad 19-10-74 ls vpkud ,oa vizR;kf’kr
:Ik ls lekIr dj nh x;hA vkS|ksfxd fookn esa ;g iz’u mBk fd D;k
vihykFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr fof/k fo:) ,oa vuqfpr gS] ;fn gka rks vihykFkhZ
fdl vuqrks”k dk gdnkj gS rFkk bl lEcU/k esa D;k funsZ’k vko’;d gS\
izR;FkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj vihykFkhZ izkjfEHkd :Ik esa vihykFkhZ N% ekg dh
ifjoh{kk ij fu;qDr Fkk rFkk ifjoh{kk dh vof/k 8-9-74 rd foLrkfjr Fkh
rFkk foLrkfjr ifjoh{kk ds ckn v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh lsok
lekIr dh x;hA fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k fd fu;qfDr i= esa
ifjoh{kk dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha FkkA vihykFkhZ fu;qfDr vkns’k ds ckn ikfjr
vkns’k ls izFke 6 ekg dh ifjoh{kk ij RkFkk ckn esa foLrkfjr ifjoh{kk
vkns’k ds vk/kkj ij 8-9-74 rd ifjoh{kk ij Fkk rFkk v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj
ij Ik’pkrorhZ ifjoh{kk vkns’k ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dh
x;hA rn~uqlkj fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ dh
lsok lekfIr /kkjk 2 ¼00½ lifBr /kkjk 25 ,Q ds vuqlkj NaVuh ls
ifjHkkf”kr ugha gS vr% lsoklekfIr u xyr gS u vuqfpr gS u voS/k gSA Je
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us Lohdkj
dhA ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k fd Je U;k;ky; dk fu”d”kZ
xyr Fkk fd vihykFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ifjoh{kk dh vof/k esa Fkh blfy,
lsokeqfDr vkns’k ls /kkjk 2 ¼00½ lifBr /kkjk 25,Q dk mYya?ku ugha gqvkA
ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ,d ek= ;g Ikz’u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd
izR;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr dFku ds vk/kkj ij D;k vihykFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr dk
vkns’k NaVuh dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gS\ fu.kZ; ds izLrj 5 esa ekuuh;
lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “…….The service of the
appellant was terminated with effect from October 19, 1974.
What was the nature and character of service of the
appellant from September 8, 1974 when the extended period
of probation expired and termination of his service on
October 19, 1974? He was unquestionably not on probation.
He was either temporary or permanent but not a probationer.
How is it open then to the Labour Court to record a finding
that the service of the appellant was terminated during the
period of probation on account of his unsatisfactory work
which did not improve in spite of repeated warnings? The
Labour Court concluded that notwithstanding the fact that
the appellant was not shown to have been placed on
probation in the initial appointment letter but in view of the
subsequent orders there was a period of probation
prescribed for the appellant and that his service was
terminated during the extended period of probation. This
is gross error apparent on the face of the record which, if
not interfered with, would result in miscarriage of justice.
38-
gfjeksgu jLrksxh &vihykFkhZ cuke Je U;k;ky; ,oa vU;&&
izR;FkhZx.k esa vihykFkhZ mRrj izns’k jkT; fo|qr ifj”kn esa lc LVs’ku
lgk;d ds :Ik esa iqu% fu;qDr gksdj fnuakd 4-12-1968 ls dk;Zjr FkkA ‘kgj
izHkkjh] y[kuÅ ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr jgus ds nkSjku 31-12-67 dks mldh lsok,a
lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA eksguyky &vihykFkhZ cuke .... eSllZ Hkkjr
bySDVªkfuDl fyfeVsM -----izR;FkhZ ds fu.kZ; dks n`f”Vxr j[k ekuuh; lokZsPp
U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dks foxr osru lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZfir gksus dk
vkns’k fn;kA
39-
eksguyky rFkk gfjeksgu jLrksxh ds ekeys ls izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa
dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd bu nksukas ekeyksa esa vihykFkhZx.k
1208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
,oa izR;FkhZx.k ds chp ijLij fu;ksDrk ,oa deZdkj gksus rFkk izkFkhZx.k dks
fu;qfDr nsus vkSj izkFkhZx.k ds dk;Z ds Lo:Ik ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn ugha
Fkk tcfd orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ ;g ugha fl) dj ldk gS fd mls laLFkku
}kjk fu;qfDRk nh x;h gSA foi{k }kjk fu;qfDr ds rF; ls LIk”V bUdkj fd;k
x;k gS vkSj dgk x;k gS fd lafonk ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ **izkstsDV bEiSDV**
ds fy, Bsdsnkj ds tfj;s lEc) Fkk rFkk mldh lEc)rk **izkstsDV bEiSDV**
rd gh lhfer FkhA
40-
;’koUr flag ;kno ds ekeys esa ;kph us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn
226 ds vUrxZr vius fu;qfDr&i= ds lkFk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa
;kfpdk bl dFku ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k fd og vk;qosZfnd vkS”k/kky;]
e;wjosjk] vyoj esa nSfud osru&Hkksxh] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fnukad
28-11-85 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj bl fu;qfDr dh vof/k 53 fnu dh FkhA
ckn esa fnukad 28-1-86 ds vkns’k ls mldh fu;qfDr vof/k dks foLrfjr fd;k
x;k vkSj fnukad 25-4-86 ds vkns’k ls mldh lsok dks vkxkeh vkns’k rd
foLrfjr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj mlus 13-8-87 rd mDr vkS”k/kky; esa dk;Z
fd;kA vkxs ;kph us mYys[k fd;k fd vpkud mldh lsok fnukad 13-8-87
ds dze’k% izR;kFkhZ 2 ,oa 3 ds vkns’k ls lekIr dj nh x;h rFkk nksuksa
izR;kFkhZx.k }kjk ikfjr lsok lekfIr lEcfU/kr vkns’k fnukad 13-8-87 ds gh
FksA ;kph us lsok foLrkj lEcfU/kr vkns’k fnukad 28-1-86 vkSj 25-4-86 ,oa
lsok lekfIr lEcfU/kr nksuksa vkns’k fjV ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu fd;sA
;kph us lsok lekfIr ds nksuksa vkns’kksa dks bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh
Fkh fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrXkZr og **deZdkj** rFkk
vkS”k/kky; **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr Fkk vkSj lsok lekfIr vkns’k
fnukad 13-6-87 ds Bhd iwoZ 12 dys.Mj eghuksa esa mlus yxkrkj 240 fnu
ls T;knk vof/k rd lsok dh] blfy, mldks lsok lekfIr **NVuh** dh
Js.kh esa ifjHkkf”kr gS ysfdu mldh NVuh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vkKkid funsZ’kksa
dk ikyu fd;s fcuk dh x;hA mls u uksfVl nh x;h ;k uksfVl ds cnys
osru fn;k x;k vkSj u gh {kfriwfrZ nh x;h tSlk fd /kkjk 25 ,Q esa
izkfoèkkfur gS vr% mldh ** NVuh** voS/k gSA mlus ;kpuk dh fd lsok
lekfIr lEcfU/k nksuksa vkns’k fujLr fd;s tk; rFkk fiNys lEiw.kZ osru ds
lkFk mls lsok esa okil fy;k tk;A ;kph us ;g Hkh ;kpuk dh] fd mlls
,d fu;fer prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk ysfdu mls dsoy
nSfud etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh tks ,d fu;fer deZpkjh ds osru ls dkQh de
gS vr% izR;FkhZx.k dks fu;fer deZpkjh dk osru nsus ds fy, Hkh funsZf’kr
fd;k tk;A
izR;FkhZx.k us ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, vius dFku esa ;kph dh
va’kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh prqFkZ Js.kh dehZ ds :Ik esa fu;qfDr Lohdkj
dh vkSj dgk fd ;kph dh iw.kZdkyhu fu;qfDr ugha FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k
fd pw¡fd og va’kdkfyd fu;qfDr ij Fkk blfy, **deZdkj** dh ifjHkk”kk
vkPNkfnr ugha Fkk tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 esa ifjHkkf”kr
gSA blfy, /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izkfo/kku ds ikyu dh vko’;drk ugha Fkh]
vr% ;kfpdk iks”k.kh; ugha gSaA
izR;FkhZx.k dh rjQ ls bl fcUnq ij dksbZ cpko ugha j[kk x;k fd
vkS”k/kky; **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu n`“VkUrksa dk
mYys[k djrs gq, vo/kkfjr fd;k dh vkS”k/kky; **m|ksx** dh ifjHkk”kk ls
vkPNkfnr gSA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k bl ekeys esa ;g iz’u fopkj.kh;
Fkk fd D;k va’kdkfyu deZpkjh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ esa of.kZr **deZdkj** dh
ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr gS \ bl ekeys esa ;g fo’ks”k :Ik ls mYys[kuh; gS
fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 5 esa fof’k”V :Ik ls mYys[k
fd;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp fu;qfDr dh frfFk vkSj lsok lekfIr dh frfFk]
fu;qfDr i= tkjh gksus rFkk lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k tkjh gksus ds fcUnq ij
rFkk lsok lekfIr dh frfFk rd deZpkjh ds dk;Zjr jgus ds rF; ij
mHk;i{k ds chp dksbZ fookn ugha FkkA ;|fi lsok dh Øzec)rk izHkkfor Fkh
ysfdu ;g rF; egRoiw.kZ Fkk fd lsok lekfIr ds fnu rd og dk;Zjr FkkA
bl ckr ij Hkh fookn ugha Fkk fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuqikyu esa uksfVl
vFkok osru ;k {kfriwfrZ ugha nh x;h FkhA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
us ;g dgk fd deZpkjh us /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuq:Ik yxkrkj dke fd;k Fkk
vr% ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZx.k }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dk mYya?ku
fd;k x;k FkkA vr% **NVuh** voS/k Fkh vkSj lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k rn~uqlkj
fujLr gksus ;ksX; FkkA
tgkW rd **deZdkj** dh ifjHkk”kk ls ;kph ds vkPNkfnr gksus dk
iz’u gS ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; vkSj fofHkUu
mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk n`“VkUrksa esa iznÙk fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dks m)`r djrs gq,
;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd ;kph **deZdkj** dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr Fkk
;|fi og va’kdkyhu deZpkjh FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us rn~uqlkj fjV
;kfpdk Lohdkj dh rFkk fiNys 50 izfr’kr osru ds lkFk va’kdkyhu
deZpkjh ds :Ik esa gh in LFkkfir djrs dk funsZ’k fn;k ijUrq fu;fer prqFkZ
Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa osru fn;s tkus lEcfU/kr vuqrks”k ds fy, ;kfpdk
vLohdkj dhA fu;qfDr i= dk vHkko ,oWa vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f”Vxr j[k
eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gw¡ fd ;g n`“VkUr ‘kadjyky ds orZeku ekeys esa dsoy
mlds **deZdkj** gksus ds lEcU/k esa ykxw gksrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk n`“VkUr esa nh x;h fof/k& O;oLFkk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vo/kkfjr
fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ **deZdkj** gSA
41-
;’koUr flag ;kno ds ekeys ls izkFkhZ Jh jes’k lSuh ds i{k esa dksbZ
enn ugha yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd orZeku ekeys esa foi{k }kjk izkjEHk ls gh
izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr nsus ds rF; ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ ;g fl)
ugha dj ldk gS fd foi{k us mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= fn;k tcfd ;’koUr
flag ;kno ds ekeys esa fu;qfDr fn;k tkuk] fu;qfDr dh frfFk vkSj lsok
lekfIr dk vkns’k mHk;i{k dks Lohdkj gSA
42-
Mh-ds- ;kno & vihykFkhZ cuke ts-,u-,- b.MLVªht fyfeVsM&
izR;FkhZ ds ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dh lsok,a LVSfUMax vkMZlZ ds DykWt 13¼2½¼IV½
ds izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj izR;FkhZ fu;ksDrk }kjk lekIr dh nh x;h FkhA mDRk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1209
izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj vuqeksfnr vodk’k dh lekfIr ds ckn ;fn deZdkj
vukf/kd‘r vuqifLFkfr dh vof/k esa vkB fnu ds vUnj okil vkdj lsok esa
‘kkfey ugha gksxk rks mldh lsok lekIr gksxh ;fn mlds }kjk fu;ksDrk dks
lUrks”ktud Li”Vhdj.k ugha izLrqr fd;k tkrk gSA izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj
vkB dk;Z fnolksa dh lekfIr ds ckn ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd deZdkj us lsok
dk ifjR;kx dj fn;k gS rFkk lsok esa okilh dk mls vf/kdkj ugha gSA
fu;ksDrk }kjk 12-12-80 ds i= }kjk vihykFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k x;k
fd 3-12-80 ls og M;wVh ls yxkrkj fcuk vuqefr Lor% vuqifLFkr jgk gS
vr% 3-12-80 ls og viuh lsok lekIr le>sA vihykFkhZ dk tokc Fkk fd
mlds }kjk 3-12-80 dks lsok esa mifLFkfr nsus ds ckotwn mls mifLFkfr
iaftdk esa gLrk{kj ugha djus fn;k x;k rFkk izos’k }kj ij 3-12-80 rFkk
mlds ckn vUnj tkus ls jksdk x;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd mlus 3-12-80 ds
i= esa vuqifLFkfr dk Li”Vhdj.k fn;k gSA Je U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr
fd;k fd deZdkj viuk ekeyk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk ;ksX; lkfcr ugha dj
ldk gS ,oa fu;ksDrk }kjk LVSfUMx vkMZj ds vuqlkj dh x;h dk;Zokgh
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj ^^NaVuh^^ ugha gSA Je
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k fd dksbZ
?kjsyw tkap ugh dh x;h vkSj u gh vihykFkhZ dks viuk ekeyk cpko gsrq
j[kus dk volj iznku fd;k x;k ftlls U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)kUr dk guu
gqvkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k] “In this case,
admittedly, no opportunity was given to the appellant and
no enquiry was held. The appellants’s plea put forth at the
earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on 3rd
December, 1980, and on all subsequent days and readiness
to join duty he was prevented from reporting to duty, nor
was he permitted to sign the attendance register. The
tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf.
It concluded that the management had power under clause
13 of the certified standing orders to terminate the service
of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the principles of
natural justice must be read into the Standing Order No.
13(2) (iv). Otherwise, it would become arbitrary, unjust and
unfair, violating article 14. When so read the impugned
action is violative of the principles of natural justice.”
43-
tlesj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; ,oa vU; esa vihykFkhZ nSfud
osru Hkksxh deZpkjh Fkk ftldh fu;qfDr 1-1-93 dks gqbZ Fkh vkSj fnlEcj 93
rd mlus lsok dhA mlus 240 fnu dh lsok Hkh iwjh dj yh FkhA 31-12-93
dks mldh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA vihykFkhZ dh lsok,a mlds dFkukuqlkj
/kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th ,oa 25 ,p ds izkfo/kku dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk lekIr
dh x;hA Je U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dh lsokeqfDRk dks fof/k fo:) ekuk ,oa
iw.kZ foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns’k fn;kA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dks fujLr fd;k rFkk
,dyihB ds fu.kZ; dh iqf”V ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk dh x;hA ekuuh;
lokZsPp U;k;ky; us [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy Lohdkj dh rFkk
Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf”V dhA
44-
Mh-ds- ;kno ,oa tlesj flag ds ekeys ls Hkh ;kph ds LkUnHkZ esa dksbZ
enn ugha yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd nksuksa ekeys esa fu;qfDr dk fookn ugha
FkkA Mh-ds- ;kno ds ekeys esa izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds
fl)kUr dk mYya?ku ik;k x;k ftldk vuqlj.k LVSfUMax vkMZj ds izkfo/kku
ykxw djus esa fu;ksDrk }kjk ugha fd;k x;k ,oa tlesj flag ds ekeys esa
mudh lsokeqfDr esa NaVuh dh ifjHkk”kk ls vkPNkfnr ik;h x;h tcfd jes’k
lSuh ds ekeys esa ,slk ugha gSA
45-
fxfj’k dqekj tSu cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bfUM;k ,oa vU; esa ;kph
fxfj’k dqekj tSu t;iqj fLFkr jktLFkku gkmflax izkstsDV ds fy, n
bfUtfu;fjax izkstsDV ¼bfUM;k½ fyfeVsM ds v/khu lafonk ij fu;qDr FksA
;kph dks twfu;j lqijokbtj ds in ij fu;qfDr vkns’k fnukafdr 1-2-90
}kjk vLFkk;h izkstsDV bLVScfy’kesUV esa iznku dh x;h FkhA fu;qfDr i=
fuEu Lo:Ik esa Fkk %& “You shall work as JR. Superior in our
temporary project establishment, i.e. EPI, Jaipur Housing
Project, on contract employment for a period of Two Year(s)
starting from 01.02.90 to 31.01.1992 or the completion of
the project, which ever is earlier. On the expiry of this period,
you shall automatically stand relieved from this contract
employment”.
fu;qfDr i= esa nh x;h vof/k dh lekfIr ds ckn Hkh ;kph dk;Zjr
jgs ;|fi EPI dk dguk Fkk mDr vof/k dk nks lky ds fy, foLrkj fd;k
x;k Fkk ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ izys[k izR;FkhZ us ugha izLrqr fd;s FksA
;kph dk dFku Fkk fd tc le; dh lekfIr ds lkFk ;kph dh lsok fnukad
1-1-92 dks LoRk% lekIr ugha gqbZ rFkk foLrkfjr Hkh gqbZ rks ,slh n’kk esa
;kph dh lsoklekfIr U;k;laxr ugha gSA ;kph dh lsok 2-2-93 ds vkns’k
}kjk 6-2-93 ls lekIr dh x;h FkhA lsoklekfIr ds i= ds lkFk lafonk dh
‘krksZa rFkk fof/k ds vuqlkj (Rs. 12,500,4)P dh /kujkf’k Hkh Hksth x;h Fkh
ftlesa (Rs. 2168,30) ,d ekg dh uksfVl ds cnys /kujkf’k FkhA
;kph us lsoklekfIr vkns’k dks bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh fd lafo/kku
ds vuqPNsn 12 ds vFkksZa esa izR;FkhZ **jkT;** gS vkSj cgl ds mn~ns’; ls ;g
eku Hkh fy;k tk; dh izkstsDV lekIr gks x;k Fkk rks ;g vko’;dr Fkk fd
;kph dk lek;kstu EPI ds fdlh vU; izkstsDV esa gksuk pkfg, Fkk D;ksafd
EPI lEiw.kZ Hkkjr esa fofHkUu vU; izkstsDV pyrh rFkk mldk fdz;kUo;u
djrh gS blfy, ;kph dh lsok,a lekIr ugha gksuh pkfg, FkhA ;g cgl Hkh
fd x;h fd bl ekeys eas bl fcUnq ij dksbZ fookn ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS
fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% lsokeqfDr vkns’k
^^NaVuh^^ gS blfy, vfLrRo esa cus jgus ;ksX; ugha gSA izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk us ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd ;kph /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds vUrxZr
^^deZdkj^^ ugha Fkk vkSj lafonk ij mldh lsoklekfIr ^^NaVuh^^ ugha Fkh
blfy, /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; us ;kph dks ^^deZdkj^^ ekuk rFkk ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh ,oa ;g
1210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vo/kkfjr fd;k fd /kkjk 25 ¼aa½ vkSj ¼b½ dk ikyu ugha gqvk FkkA ^^jkT;**
ds v/khu dk;Zjr laLFkkuksa ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds
izLrj 5 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “………..that in a case of
instrumentality of the State if necessity arises to terminate
the services of the employees who are governed by the
provisions of the I.D. Act then an effort should be made to
rehabilitate them or to provide them alternative employment
in other projects and if it is not possible to accommodate
them recourse should be had to dispense with their services
after complying with the provisions of the I.D. Act...
orZeku ekeys esa ;kph dh lEc)rk dsoy ^^izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds fy,
lhfer Fkh vr% ;kph ds lek;kstu gsrq dksbZ fLFkfr ugha curh gS ,oa
rn~uqlkj fxfj’k dqekj tSu ds ekeys ls izkFkhZ ds fgr esa dksbZ enn ugha yh
tk ldrh gSA
46-
foi{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr n‘“VkUr lh-,l- vktkn d`f”k ,oa
izkS|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke ;wukbVsM+ VªsM dkaxzsl ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZ nks
fnukaWd 01-07-1980 dks :i;s 40@& nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fo’ofo|ky;
esa fu;qä gqvk Fkk ftlus prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa 31-10-1991 rd ySc
vflLVsaV&de& vVSUMsUV ds :Ik esa dke fd;k ijUrq 1-11-1991 ls mlls
lgk;d DydZ dk dke fy;k tkus yxkA izR;FkhZ] ,d VªsM ;wfu;u us izR;FkhZ
nks dh rjQ ls vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;k fd deZpkjh dh lsok;sa fo’ofo|ky;
}kjk fu;fer ugha dh x;haA vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k fu.kZ;kFkZ ;g
iz’u Fkk fd **D;k fo’ofo|ky; us deZpkjh dY;k.k flag ¼foi{kh nks½ dks
tks DydZ :Ik esa dk;Zjr gS] LFkk;h deZpkjh ?kksf”kr u dj voS/kkfudrk
dkfjr dh gS ;fn gkW rks D;k deZpkjh }kjk ;kfpr vuqrks”k vf/kdkfjd gS ,oaW
fdl rkjh[k ls ,oWa fdl vk/kkj ij \**
vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fookn dks
izR;FkhZ nks ds i{k esa fuf.kZr dj fu.kZ; dh frfFk 30-5-1998 ls deZpkjh dks
LFkk;h ?kksf”kr djus rFkk vuqxkeh vkfFkZd ykHk iznku djus ds fy, funsZf’kr
fd;kA
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds iwoZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us dqN vU;
deZpkfj;ksa rFkk fo’ofo|ky; ds chp fookn ls lEcfU/kr ,d fjV ;kfpdk
deZpkfj;ksa ds i{k esa fo’ofo|ky; ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls iznÙk
dqN fj;k;r ds vk/kkj ij fuf.kZr dh FkhA U;k;kf/kdj.k us ftu vk/kkjksa ij
vius le{k yfEcr mä fookn fuf.kZr fd;k mlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk fuf.kZr mä fjV ;kfpdk dk fu”d”kZ Hkh vk/kkj FkkA
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) izLrqr flfoy eqrQdkZ fjV
;kfpdk ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEu izs{k.k ds lkFk fujLr
dh x;h %&
“11. The University statute does not provide for
appointment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis.
Respondent 2 in his written statement filed before
the Industrial Court did not make any averment that
he had been appointed in terms of the provisions of
the statute or prior thereto any advertisement
therefore was made. According to him, he being a
hard working, honest, efficient and eligible employee,
was “entrusted” with the work of a clerk from 1-11-
1991. In his written statement, it was averred:
“5. That though the worker was working against a
permanent vacant post as a clerk in a permanent
manner, however, the employer is not giving him the
actual scale of pay and other allowances and benefits
as that of a permanent clerk. However, he is still
considered as a daily wager in spite of having worked
since last 14 years continuously, which is illegal and
wrong.”
“12. A feeble attempt, however, was made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
2 to state that he had been appointed against a
permanent vacancy. In his written statement, he did
not raise any such contention. It does not also appear
from the records that any offer of appointment was
given to him. It is inconceivable that an employee
appointed on a regular basis would not be given an
offer of appointment or shall not be placed on a scale
of pay. We, therefore, have no hesitation in
proceeding on the premise that Respondent 2 was
appointed on daily wages.
The Industrial Court in passing the impugned award
proceeded on the premise that Respondent 2 had
been working for more than 240 days continuously
from the date of his engagement. It is now trite that
the same by itself does not confer any right upon a
workman to be regularized in service. Working for
more than 240 days in a year was relevant only for
the purpose of application of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for
conditions precedent to retrench the workmen. In
does not speak of acquisition of a right by the
workman to be regularized in service.”
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy esa deZpkjh fd rjQ ls
;g cgl dh x;h fd prqZFk Js.kh dehZ ds :Ik esa deZdkj us ySc vflLVSUV
ds LFkk;h fjDr in ij rFkk r`rh; Js.kh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa DydZ ds LFkk;h
in ij yEch vof/k rd lsok dh gS] bl izdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk
ikfjr fu.kZ; vkns’k U;k;kf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk ds vUnj gSA izR;FkhZ dh
rjQ ls ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ls
izR;FkhZ ls dfu”d deZpkjh dh fu;fer fd;s tk pqds Fks vr% izR;FkhZ nks
fu;fefrdj.k dk gdnkj FkkA fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls ;g
cgl dh x;h fd fu;qfDr LVsP;wVjh ¼statutory½ fu;eksa ds fo:) Fkh vr%
vf/kdj.k }kjk fu;fefrdj.k dk funsZ’k ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1211
vfèkdj.k ?kks”k.kkRed O;kns’k dh fMdzh ikfjr ugha dj ldrkA ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k]**
“17.
The Industrial Court, therefore, in our
opinion, committed a serious error in passing the
impugned award. The High Court unfortunately did
not pose unto itself a right question. It referred to a
large number of decisions. Although most of the
decisions referred to by the High Court should have
been applied for upholding the contention of the
appellant herein, without any deliberation thereupon,
the learned Judge has proceeded to determine the
question posed before it on a wholly wrong premise.
As noticed hereinbefore, it relied upon Mahendra L.
Jain which in no manner assists Respondent2.
18. What was necessary to be considered was the
nature of work undertaken by the University. It
undertakes projects. For the said purpose, it may
have to employ a large number of persons. Their
services had to be temporary in nature. Even for that
the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 are required to
be complied with. In the event, the constitutional
and statutory requirements are not complied with,
the contract of employment would be rendered illegal.
19.Services of Respondent 2 were not terminated.
He has been continuing to serve the University. We
have noticed hereinbefore that in a writ petition filed
by other employees on a concession made by the
counsel for the University, a purported scheme dated
24-4-2000 has been formulated. Dr. Padia in that view
of the matter stated before us that of Respondent 2
comes within the purview of the said scheme, his
services shall be regularized when his turn comes
therefor.
20.We place on record the aforementioned statement
made by Dr. Padia that as and when Respondent 2
becomes entitled to be considered for being absorbed
in the services of the University pursuant to the said
scheme, his case may be considered. If his turn for
consideration for regularization has already come, a
decision thereupon shall be taken as expeditiously
as possible.
21.The impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal
is allowed with the aforementioned observations and
directions. However, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj”kn ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; ds le{k LosPN;k ij ;g tkfgj fd;k fd vihykFkhZ ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj tc fo’ofo|ky; dh lsok esa
vkesfyr djus ds fy, gdnkj gks tkrk gS rc mlds ekeys ij fopkj fd;k
tk ldsxkA mä cgl dks fu.kZ; dk fgLlk cukrs gq, ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; us vihy [kkfjt dhA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds mDr n`“VkUr ls ;g tkfgj gS fd
izkFkhZ@deZdkj dks mlds ekeys esa ;kfpr vuqrks”k U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ugha
iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd mldh fLFkfr izR;FkhZx.k ls csgrj ugha gSa
,oaW izkFkhZ lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gS fd og foi{k }kjk dHkh fu;qDr fd;k
x;k gSA
47-
ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj”kn cuke vfuy dqekj ds ekeys esa izR;FkhZx.k
dks vihykFkhZ us lu~ 1986 esa vius ;gkWa dk;Z ij bl mn~ns’; ls fu;r
ikfjJfed ij vuqcfU/kr fd;k fd os ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj”kn ds lQy
ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds izek.k i= rS;kj djsxsa tks izek.k i= Nis gq, Fks vkSj mlesa
lQy ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dk fooj.k Hkjuk FkkA 100 izek.ki=ksa esa fooj.k Hkjus dk
ikfjJfed 12@& Fkk tks c<+kdj 20@& dj fn;k x;k FkkA foxr ,d&nks
o”kksZa ds cdk;k izek.k&i= Hkh izR;FkhZx.k }kjk rS;kj fd;s tk pqds Fks
ftldk lekuqikfrd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k FkkA Hkfo”; esa izek.k&i=ksa dh
rS;kjh dk dk;Z dEI;wVjhd‘r gks tkus ds dkj.k izR;FkhZx.k dh lsok;sa
Hkfo”; esa yxkrkj mi;ksx ;ksX; ugha jg x;h blfy, lekIr dj nh x;hA
lsok lekfIr ds fo:) izR;FkhZx.k us fjV ;kfpdk,Wa izLrqr dh ftUgsa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Lohdkj dh ftlls {kqC/k gksdj vihykFkhZ us
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dhA
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZx.k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl
dh x;h fd os vkdfLed (casual) deZdkj Fks ftUgksuas 240 fnu lsok;sa
iwjh dh FkhA lQy ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dk izek.k&i= rS;kj djuk vihykFkhZ dk
statutory obligation Fkk] izR;FkhZx.k@ deZdkjksa dh lsok lekfIr
fofèk fo:) Fkh vkSj os lsokesa iqu%LFkkiuk ds gdnkj FksA rn~uqlkj ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; us fjV ;kfpdk,Wa Lohdkj dh vkSj casual deZdkj ds :Ik
esa izR;FkhZx.k dks lsok esa iqu%LFkkfir djus ds fy, funsZf’kr fd;k ,oaW osru
ds lEcU/k esa ;g funsZ’k fn;k fd mUgsa og ikfjJfed fn;k tk; tks leku
dk;Z djus okyk fu;fer deZpkjh ikrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g
Hkh funsZ’k fn;k fd izR;FkhZx.k dks mudh ofj”Brk ,oa ‘kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds
vuqlkj nSfud osru Hkksxh etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij fu;fer ,y-Mh-lh- ds :Ik
esa fu;qDr djus ij fopkj fd;k tk; tc bl rjg ds in Hkjsa tk; vkSj
mudh lsok,Wa rc rd u lekIr dh tk; tc rd lHkh lsok esa fu;fer
deZpkjh ds :Ik esa lek;ksftr ugha gks tkrsA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vihy Lohdkj dh vkSj fu.kZ; ds iz’rj
5 eas vo/kkfjr fd;k]
“5.We are unable to uphold the order of the High
Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence
to which they could be said to have been appointed.
The assignment was an ad hoc one which
anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage
for them the status of workmen on the analogy of the
provision of 240 days’ work. The legal consequences
that flow from work for that duration under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are entirely different
1212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from what, by way of implication, is attributed to the
present situation by way of analogy. The completion
of 240 days, work does not, under that law import
the right to regularization. It merely imposes certain
obligation on the employer at the time of termination
of the service. It is not appropriate to import and
apply that analogy, in an extended or enlarged form
here.”
48- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mä n`“VkUr dh O;oLFkk ls ;g Li”V gS
fd izR;FkhZx.k lh/ks vuqcU/k ij vihykFkhZ }kjk vfuf’pr vof/k ds fy,
fu;qä Fks fQj Hkh mudh lsok;sa mUgsa lsok esa okil fy;s tkus ds fy, i;kZIr
ugha ekuh x;h D;ksafd mudh fu;qfä oS/kkfud rjhds ls ugha dh x;h Fkh]
vr% orZeku ekeys esa mä fof/k O;oLFkk dks n`f”Vxr j[k izkFkhZ dks ;kfpr
vuqrks”k iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl n`“VkUr ls ;g Li”V gS fd izkFkhZ
dks fu;fer djus dk iz’u ugha mBrk gSA
49-
egsUnz ,y-tSu vkSj vU;&vihykFkhZx.k cuke bUnkSj MsoyiesaV
vFkkfjVh vkSj vU; &izR;FkhZx.k esa vihykFkhZx.k 1 o 2 flfoy bfUtfu;fjax
fMxzh /kkjd ,oa vihykFkhZx.k 3 ,oa 4 flfoy bfUtfu;fjax esa fMIyksekèkkjh
us bUnkSj MsoyiesUV vFkkfjVh esa lsokFkZ vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr dh
fd vFkkfjVh esa fjDr in miyC/k gS ;|fi dksbZ foKkiu ugha fudkyk
x;k FkkA mDr vFkkfjVh us lu~ 1991 esa vihykFkhZx.k dks fu;qfDr nsdj
,d vksolht izkstsDV] **bUnkSj gSchVkV izkstsDV** esa lsokFkZ layXu dj
fn;kA fMxzh /kkjd ds fy, 63 :Ik;s vkSj fMIykek/kkjd ds fy, 52-50
:Ik;k nSfud etnwjh fu/kkZfjr dh x;hA yxHkx 17-3-97 dks ;k mDr
frfFk ds vklikl vihykFkhZx.k 1500 :Ik;k izfrekg ikfjJfed ikus yxs
vkSj mudh osru ls izkfoMs.M Q.M dh dVkSrh izkjEHk gks x;h vkSj mUgsa
vodk’k Hkh Lohd`r gksus yxkA fookn mBk fd vihykFkhZx.k dsoy mDr
izkstsDV ds fy, fu;qDr Fks ;k mudh fu;qfDRk vFkkfjVh }kjk vius dk;Z ds
fy, dh x;h FkhA vihykFkhZx.k us fookn mBk;k fd mudh lsok,a
fu;fer ugha dh tk jgh gS ftls fopkj.k gsrq Je U;k;ky;] bUnkSj dks
e/;izns’k ljdkj }kjk lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA Je U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.k
gsrq fuEu nks iz’u izsf”kr fd;s x;s %& 1- D;k lc bfUtfu;jksa dks fu;fer
u fd;k tkuk oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugh arks os fdl vuqrks”k ds gdnkj
gS vkSj fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ’k fn;k tkuk pkfg,\ 2- D;k mDr lc
bfUtfu;jksa dks vU; lc bfUtfu;j dh rjg leku dk;Z ds fy, leku
osru u fn;k tkuk oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugh arks os fdl vuqrks”k ds
gdnkj gS vkSj fu;ksDrk dks D;k funZs’k fn;k tkuk pkfg,\ Je U;k;ky;
us vihykFkhZx.k ds i{k esa vuqdwy ,okMZ ikfjr fd;k ftlls {kqC/k gksdj
bUnkSj MsoyiesUV vFkkfjVh us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk
izLrqr dh tks Lohdkj gqbZA vihykFkhZx.k us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds
fu.kZ; ds fo:) lokZsPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh tks [kkfjt
gqbZA ¼2004½ 7 ,l-lh-lh i`“B &112] ,-mejkuh& vihykFkhZ cuke
jftLVªkj] dks vkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht vkSj vU; & izR;FkhZx.k lfgr vius
vusd iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa dk voyEc xzg.k djrs gq, ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky;
us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 19 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “19 The question,
therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether
they could lay a valid claim for regularization of their
services. The answer thereto must be rendered in the
negative. Regularisation cannot be claimed as matter of
right. An illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking
recourse to regularization. What can be regularized is an
irregularity and not an illegality. The constitutional scheme
which the country has adopted does not contemplate any
back-door appointment. A state before offering public
service to a person must comply with the constitutional
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. All
actions of the state must conform to the constitutional
requirements. A daily-wager in the absence of a statutory
provision in this behalf would not be entitled to
regularization”.
Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznRr mDr n`“VkUr esa nh x;h
fof/k O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj izn’kZ W@1 dks izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr i= Hkh eku
fy;k tk; rks izkFkhZ dks ;kfpr vuqrks”k iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd
izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa laLFkku }kjk fu;qfDRk dh dHkh dksbZ izfdz;k ugha viuk;h
x;h vkSj bl ckr dk dksbZ tokc ugha gS fd fdl ekax@vkns’k ds
vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ us viuk ck;ks&MkVk izLrqr fd;k Fkk tSlk fd mldk
dFku gSA
50-
izkFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa egsUnz ,y-tSu vkSj vU;&vihykFkhZx.k cuke
bUnkSj MsoyiesaV vFkkfjVh vkSj vU; &izR;FkhZx.k] ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj”kn
mRrj izns’k cuke vfuy dqekj feJk ,oa vU;] pUnz’ks[kj vktkn d`f”k ,oa
izks|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke ;wukbVsM VsªM~l dkaxzsl ,oa vU; rFkk mRrj
izns’k jkT; cuke uhjt voLFkh es ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ
fof/k O;oLFkk iw.kZ :Ik ls ykxw gksrh gS ftlds vuqlkj voS/k rjhds ls dh
x;h fu;qfDr;ksa dks fu;fer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ dh laLFkku }kjk
vius ;gka dksbZ oS/kkfud fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h gS vr% izkFkhZ dks lsok esa
okil fy;s tkus dk gd izkIr ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks ;g gd Hkh izkIr ugha gS
fd vxj mlds 240 fnu dh fu;fer lsok Hkh dj yh gS blfy;s mls foi{kh
fd lsok esa fu;fer deZpkjh ds :Ik esa j[kk tk; tSlk fd loksZPp U;k;ky;
us pUnz’ks[kj vktkn d`f”k ,oa izks|ksfxdh fo’ofo|ky; cuke ;wukbVsM VsªM~l
dkaxzsl ,oa vU; esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gSA
51-
tgkWa rd /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ esa jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk ¼fu;kstd½ dh
ifjHkk”kk esa la’kks/ku ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ekudj
lsok esa okil fy;s tkus dk iz’u gS bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkkjrh;
lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oWa 16 dh ea’kk ds vuq:Ik foi{kh }kjk fu;qfDr dh
fu;fer izfdz;k viukdj fdlh O;fDr dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh n’kk esa gh
mls fu;efrdj.k ds lUnHkZ esa foi{kh dks funsZ’k fn;s tkus ds fcUnq ij fdlh
U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj fd;k tkuk fof/kd :Ik ls laHko gSA izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1213
foi{kh }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr izfdz;k viukdj lsok esa ugha j[kk x;k gS vr%
bl lUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lkjghu gS fd izkFkhZ dks
foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa eku fy;k tk; vkSj mls ;kfpr vuqrks”k iznku fd;k
tk;A foi{kh dh rjQ ls lafonk deZpkjh;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa LVhy vWkFkksfjVh
vkWQ bf.M+;k fyfeVsM+ & vihykFkhZx.k cuke us’kuy ;wfu;u okWVj QzkUV
odZlZ ,oa vU; dk n‘“VkUr izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fopkj.kkFkZ vU;
iz’uksa ds vfrfjDr eq[; iz’u ;g Fkk fd dkWUVªsDV yscj (Regulation
and abolition) ,DV 1970 ds vUrxZr **leqfpr ljdkj**(Appropriate
Government) }kjk Bsdsnkjksa ds ek/;e ls lsok nsus okys laohnkdfeZ;ksa ds
lafonk ij dk;Z djus ds mUewyu dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds ckn D;k
lafonkdfeZ;ksa dks Lor% iz/kku fu;ksDrk ds laLFkku dh lsok esa fu;fer
deZpkjh ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr eku fy;k tk,xk\ ;g ekeyk lafonk ds vk/kkj
ij lsok ysus dh jhfr ds mUewyu ls lacaf/kr Fkk \ ftls orZeku ekeys ds
rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS vkSj ugha mDr n‘“VkUr esa nh
xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk dk orZeku ekeys ij dksbZ vlj iM+uk gS D;ksafd orZeku
ekeys esa mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ds vUrxZr fuxZr fdlh fu”ks/kkRed
vf/klwpuk ds iz’u ij fopkj ugha gksuk gSA vr% mDr n‘“VkUr ls orZeku
ekeys esa dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrhA
52-
tgkW rd /kkjk 25 th] /kkjk 25 ,p ,oa fu;e 77 ds mYya?ku dk
iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk bl ckr dk dksbZ mYys[k
;kfpdk esa ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mls gVkrs le; mlls dfu”d fdl
deZpkjh dks lsok esa cuk;s j[kk x;kA bl ckr dk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k ugha
fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds ckn foi{k us fdlh vU;
O;fDr dks crkSj deZpkjh **izkstsDV bEiSDV** esa lafonk ij j[kk gSA tgkW rd
ofj”Brk lwph foi{k }kjk rS;kj u djus ls lEcfU/kr fu;e 77 ds mYya?ku
dk iz’u gS bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ ln`’k deZpkfj;ksa ds lUnHkZ
esa ofj”Brk lwph rS;kj djus dh vis{kk foi{k ls ugha dh tk ldrh gSA bl
LkUnHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½]
38] lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r & vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag &
izR;FkhZ esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk mYys[kuh; gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj 18 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS “……. As
regards non-compliance with section 25-G and 25-H suffice
it to say that witness vinod misra examined by the appellant
has stated that no seniority list was onaintained by the
department of daily-wagers. In the absence of regular
employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected
to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on
daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the
respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his
so called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-
compliance with provisions of the Act.”
53-
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ
ds lkFk foi{k }kjk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;k x;k tks vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vkj-,-½ lifBr /kkjk 25 Vh o f’kM;wy 5 ds dzekad
10 dk mYya?ku gS ftldk foi{k }kjk izcy izfrokn fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g
cgl fd izkFkhZ ds lkFk dksbZ vuqfpr Je O;ogkj ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj
**izkstsDV bEiSDV** dh lekfIr ds ckn izkFkhZ dks vfLRkRo esa cus jgus dk
dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk D;ksafd izkstsDV dk vfLrRo gh lekIr gks pqdk Fkk
vkSj izkFkhZ dks dsoy **izkstsDV bEiSDV** ds fy, gh lafonk ij j[kk x;k FkkA
bl lUnHkZ esa 2013 ,y-,y-vkj- 899¼fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;½ esa nh x;h fofèk
O;oLFkk mYys[kuh; gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k
gS fd vkdfLed vFkok vLFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dks dk;Z ij yxkuk /kkjk 2
¼vkj-,-½ lifBr /kkjk 25 Vh o f’kM;wy 5 dk mYya?ku ugha gSA
54-
mDr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu”d”kZ ij gWwa fd
izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa okil fy;s tkus ds fy;s vkns’k ikfjr fd;s
tkus gsrq dksbZ fof/klaxr fLFkfr ugha curh gSA
55-
i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa iznÙk izys[kh; ,oa
ekSf[kd lk{; ,oa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fof/kd n‘“VkUrksa fd mDr O;k[;k o
fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gWaw fd izkFkhZ ;g rF; fl) djus
esa vlQy gS fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ds
mYya?ku esa mldh lsok lekIr dh x;h] izkFkhZ foi{kh dh lsok esa fu;fer
:Ik ls fu;qDr deZpkjh ugha Fks vkSj mudh lsok;sa foi{kh }kjk lafonk ds
vkèkkj ij vyx&vyx vof/k ds fy;s vyx&vyx vkns’kksa ds vk/kkj ij
yh tkrh jgh gS vkSj bl ekeys esa ekyoh; jk”Vªh; izks|ksfxd laLFkku]
t;iqj }kjk lafonk ij vk/kkfjr izkFkhZ dh lsok esa vkxs foLrkj u fd;k
tkuk rFkk fnukad 29-11-2003 ls izkFkhZ Jh jes’k lSuh iq= Jh Hkksjhyky lSuh]
ySc vVsa.MsaV dh lsok,as lekIr djuk fof/kd ,oa U;k;kuqer gSA izkFkhZ fdlh
vuqrks”k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh
tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf”kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA
iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
56-
iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf”kr dh tk;A
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 594-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV vkWfiQl
èkUèkdk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ
lhthvkbZVh, la- 214@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 09-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@20@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
1214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2016
S.O. 594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGITA No.
214/2004) 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 Post Office, Dhandhka
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 09-03-2016.
[No. L-40012/20/99-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 214/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 138/1999
Post Master,
Station Road, Post Office,
Dhandhka, Dist,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Smt. Ramanbhaben G. Mali,
Ambapura,
Botadara ni Sherim
Dhandhuka Distt.,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri P.M. Rami, Advocate
For the Second Party : Kum. Ashaben Gupta, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 40012/20/99-
IR(DU) dated 21.07.1999 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 postal Department,
Dhandhuka is legal & justified in terminating the
services of Smt. Rambhaben Gandalal Mali, Water
woman? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
This reference dates back to 21.07.1999. Both the
parties were served. Second party filed statement of claim
(Ext.5) on 22.10.1999. First party filed his written statement
(Ext.8) on 24.07.2000. Thereafter second party did not give
the evidence despite giving number of opportunities. 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] 28 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 595-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] tkeuxj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ lhthvkbZVh, la- 1090@2004) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@55@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2016
S.O. 595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. CGITA
No. 1090/2004) 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 Telecom
Department, Jamnagar and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 09-03-2016.
[No. L-40012/55/97-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 24th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1090/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 20/1998
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1215
1.
The District Engineer Telecom,
Telecom Deptt.,
Jamnagar
2.
The Sub Divisional Officer,
Telegraph,
Telecom Deptt.,
Junagadh-362001
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Shri Nirmal Kumar
C/o. Saurastra Employees Union,
Umesh Commercial Complex,
Office No. 213 & 214, 2nd Floor,
Near Chaudhary High School,
Rajkot-360001
...Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval, Advocate
For the Second Party : C/o. Saurastra Employees Union
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/55/97-
IR(DU) dated 24.03.1998 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 manamgent of District
Engineer, Telecom Deptt., Jamnagar in terminating
the services of Sh. Nirmal Kumar is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 24.03.1998. Second party
filed statement of claim (Ext.2) first party filed the written
statement on 08.01.2003. Second party has been absent
since last several dates and has also not led evidence
despite giving number of opportunities. Thus, it appears
that second party are 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] 28 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 596-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWiQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] jktdksV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ lhthvkbZVh, la- 1130@2004) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@9@95&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2016
S.O. 596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. CGITA
No. 1130/2004) 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 Telecom
Department, Rajkot and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 09-03-2016.
[No. L-40011/9/95-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 18th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1130/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 37/1998
1. The General Manager,
Telecom District,
Amruta Estate,
Near Girnar Cinema,
Rajkot-360001
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman
Through the President,
Saurastra Employees Union,
‘Baba Ama’10/5, Junction Plot,
Swami Tahiliaram Marg,
Rajkot-360001
...Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval, Advocate
For the Second Party : Shri Anand Gogia, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 40011/9/95-
IR(DU) dated 13.05.1998 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 general
Manager, Telecom District, Rajkot in terminating the
services of Shri Ramesh Kanjibhai Dabhi w.e.f. 1.6.85
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
1216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
This reference dates back to 13.05.1998. Second party
has moved an application (Ext.23) along with the death
certificate indicating that the second party has expired on
01.11.2007 and the father of the second party has instructed
to not press the case. Hence, Tribunal has no option but
to dismiss the reference.
The reference is dismissed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 597-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWIVks
bysDVªkWfuDl iSQDVªh] nsgjknwu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@29@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 12/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of the Opto Electronics Factory, Dehradun
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 28-02-2016.
[No. L-14012/29/2014-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 12/2015
Sh. Devender S/o Late Sh. Satender Singh,
R/o 5/117, Chander Road,
Nai Basti (Rajesh Colony),
PO-Dalanwala,
Dehradun-248001.
VERSUS
The General Manager,
Opto Electronics Factory,
Raipur Road,
Dehradun-492001.
No DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide Letter No.L- 14012/29/2014 (IR(DU)) dated 30.12.2014
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication :-
“Whether Shri Devender’s case holds merit for
consideration for appointment on compassionate
ground being the earliest case among the equal
three? If so, the management of OEF, Dehradun,
should process accordingly in a fixed time period.
On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D No. 12/2015 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days
from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of
witnesses.
Several opportunities given to workman as well as
management but neither workman nor management filed
claim statement / Response to the reference.
In this background there is no option to this tribunal
except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not
interested to file their respective pleadings.
On the basis of which none of the party can be
directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no
pleadings and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award
is liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-08/02/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 598-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lksYVsd
bUlqys'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk
ds iapkV (lanHkZ vkbZMh la- 31@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-03-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@16@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID Ref. No. 31/
2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1217
the management of the M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd. and
Others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 28.03.2016.
[No. L-40011/16/2015-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 31 of 2015
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd.
A N D
Their workmen
Present :
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
On behalf of the
:
Mr. C.K. Chandra, Ld. Counsel
Management
with Mr. S. Bhattacharya
Ld. Counsel for both M/s. Soltek
Insolation Pvt. Ltd. and
M/s. Environ Energy Corp India
Pvt. Ltd.
None for M/s. VIOM Networks
Limited.
On behalf of the
:
None
Workmen
State: West Bengal
Industry: Telecommunication
Dated: 8th March, 2016
AWARD
By Order No.L-40011/16/2015-IR(DU) dated
05.06.2015/11.06.2015 the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d)
and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Environ Energy Corp. India Pvt. Ltd., contractor
of M/s. VIOM Networks Limited by terminating the
services of Shri Budhadev Kundu and Sri Niranjan
Pandit is justified or not? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled?”
2.
When the case is taken up for hearing today, none
appears on behalf of the union, though the managements
viz. M/s. Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Environ
Energy Corp India Pvt. Ltd. are represented by their
respective Ld. Counsel. It appears from the record that
none also appeared on behalf of the union for the last
three dates. In fact the union at whose instance the present
reference case has been initiated, has never turned up
before this Tribunal since the initiation of this reference.
3.
From such conduct of the union it may reasonably
be presumed that the union is not at all interested about
this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping
the matter pending.
4.
In view of the above facts and circumstances,
present reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute
Award”.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 8th March, 2016
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 599-—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 vizSy] 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
fgekpy izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Øe jktLo xzke dk
gncLr
rglhy@
ftyk
la-
uke@{ks=k
la[;k@gkscyh
rkyqd
1-
pkfe;ka
4
dlkSyh
lksyu
2-
dlkSyh
99
dlkSyh
lksyu
3-
e'kkscjk
158
dlkSyh
lksyu
4-
dhew ?kkV
154
dlkSyh
lksyu
5-
dlkSyh (Nkouh)
395
dlkSyh
lksyu
6-
luokjk
396] 104] 106
dlkSyh
lksyu
7-
eaxksVh
105
dlkSyh
lksyu
8-
e.Mks ekjd.Mk
107
dlkSyh
lksyu
9-
pCcy
715
dlkSyh
lksyu
10-
'kyksjk [kqnZ
956
dlkSyh
lksyu
11-
NksfV;ka
157
dlkSyh
lksyu
12-
xM+[ky
713
dlkSyh
lksyu
¹la- ,l&38013@17@2016&,l-,l- Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 599.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
1218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April 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 Himachal Pradesh namely :—
Sl.
Name of the
Had Bast
Tehsil
District
No. Villages/Area*
No./Hobli*
1.
Chamiya
4
Kasauli
Solan
2.
Kasauli
99
Kasauli
Solan
3.
Mashobra
158
Kasauli
Solan
4.
Kimu Ghat
154
Kasauli
Solan
5.
Kasauli (Cantt.)
395
Kasauli
Solan
6.
Sanwara
396, 104, 106
Kasauli
Solan
7.
Mangoti
105
Kasauli
Solan
8.
Mando Markanda
107
Kasauli
Solan
9.
Chabbal
715
Kasauli
Solan
10.
Shalora Khurd
956
Kasauli
Solan
11.
Chotiyan
157
Kasauli
Solan
12.
Garkhal
713
Kasauli
Solan
[No. S-38013/17/2016-S.S. I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 600-—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 vizSy] 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
if'pe caxky jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Øe jktLo {ks=k@
ts-,y-
uxjikfydk@
ftys ds
la-
ekStk ds uke
la[;k
xzke iapk;r
uke
1-
[kxjkckjh
89
[kxjkckjh
dwpfcgkj
xzke iapk;r
2-
cS'kxqjh
105
pkdpkdk
dwpfcgkj
xzke iapk;r
3-
dksukekYyh
160
pkdpkdk
dwpfcgkj
is'krkj>kj
xzke iapk;r
4-
pkdpkdk
107
pkdpkdk
dwpfcgkj
xzke iapk;r
5-
,;jiksVZ
125
dwpfcgkj
dwpfcgkj
uxj ikfydk
6-
U;w Vkmu
106
dwpfcgkj
dwpfcgkj
uxj ikfydk
7-
lgj dwpfcgkj
130
dwpfcgkj
dwpfcgkj
uxj ikfydk
¹la- ,l&38013@18@2016&,l-,l- Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 600.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st April 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 West Bengal namely :—
Sl.
Name of Revenue
J.L.
Name of
Name of
No. Area/Mouza
No.
Municipality/
District
Panchayat
1.
Khgrabari
89
Khgrabari Gram
Coochbehar
Panchayat
2.
Baishguri
105
Chakchaka Gram
Coochbehar
Panchayat
3.
Konamalli
106
Chakchaka Gram
Coochbehar
Pestarjhar
Panchayat
4.
Chakchaka
107
Chakchaka Gram
Coochbehar
Panchayat
5.
Airport
125
Coochbehar
Coochbehar
Municipality
6.
New Town
126
Coochbehar
Coochbehar
Municipality
7.
Sahar Coochbehar
130
Coochbehar
Coochbehar
Municipality
[No. S-38013/18/2016-S.S. I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 601-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-,l-
vkbZ- vLirky vkSj nwljs ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ
fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&15011@3@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1219
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2014)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. ESI Hospital and Other and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-15011/3/2013-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 33/2014
Smt. Allah Piari, through
The General Secretary,
Rashtriya Rajdhani Shetra Engg. &
General Mazdoor Union,
C-139, Karampura,
New Delhi
...Workman
Versus
1. The Manager,
M/s. ESI Hospital,
Sector 15, Rohini,
New Delhi 110 085
2. The Manager,
M/s. Vishakha Enterprises,
30/42, Street No.8, Main Road,
Opposite Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar,
Shahdara,
Delhi 110 015
...Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-15011/3/2013-
IR(M) dated 18.02.2014, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Vishakha Enterprises in terminating the services of
Smt. Allah Piari, W/o late Shri Murari, Ex. House
Keeper with effect from 13.01.2013, is justified or
not? If not, what relief will be given to the workman
and from which date?
2.
Claim statement was filed by the workman and written
statements were filed by both the managements and
rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman. Thereafter,
the case was listed admission/denial of documents and to
ascertain the real nature of controversy between the
parties. However, despite affording various opportunities
to the workman, neither the workman nor any authorized
representative on his behalf appeared before the Tribunal
so as to pursue his case. Thus, it is clear that the workman
is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance
nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with
no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
Dated: March 16, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 602-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bEizhtu
l£olst izk- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 88@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11011@6@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Impression Services Pvt. Ltd.
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-11011/6/2014-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI
ID No. 88/2015
Shri Dinesh & 9 others, through
The General Secretary,
Hindustan Engineering &
General Mazdoor Union,
A-193, Karampur,
New Delhi 110 015
...Workman
1220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Manager,
M/s Impression Services Pvt. Ltd,.
Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi
International Airport,
New Delhi
...Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Government of India,
Ministry of Labour vide order No.L-11011/6/2014-IR(M)
dated 18.02.2015 with the following terms:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s
Impression Services Pvt. Ltd. in not paying
subsistence allowance to ten suspended workmen
namely, S/Shri Dinesh, Mukesh, Saroj, Asaf Ali, M.D.
Chunna, Vikram, Subhajas, Rakesh, Smt.Bharati and
Smt. Shiksha with effect from 29.01.2014 for not
reporting at a place other than the place of work
every day is legal and justified? If not, what relief
are the workmen entitled to?”
2.
Both parties were put to notice and claimants herein
filed statement of claim wherein it is averred that they
have been working and doing the job of house keeping
with the management, details of which are given in para 1
of the statement of claim. Workmen have been performing
their duties sincerely ;and diligently. On 29.01.2014
management intentionally with a view to get rid of the
workmen refused to mark their presence at the place of
their duties. Workmen, S/Shri Mukesh, Dinesh and Vikram
were served with show cause notice on 02.06.2014 and
they have submitted reply to the said notice on 21.06.2014.
It is clear from the said notice that the workmen have
been placed wrongly under suspension. Thereafter, they
were not allowed to mark their attendance at the gate of
the office after 29.06.2014. Workmen were also not given
any subsistence allowance of 50% as required under the
law. Management was asking the working to mark their
presence sometimes at Gurgaon and sometimes at Kirti
Nagar whereas the place of duty of the workmen herein
was at Terminal No.3, Indira Gandhi International Airport.
Thus, all the 10 workmen were not allowed to mark their
presence at the gate of Terminal No.3 nor have been paid
any kind of subsistence allowance till date.
3.
Workmen on 08.10.2014 demanded subsistence
allowance for the period for which they were placed under
suspension and thereafter approached the Assistant
Labour commissioner for redressal of their grievances.
Management had filed reply with the Assistant Labour
commissioner. However matter could not be resolved as a
result of which the above reference was made by the
Central Government to this Tribunal. Management did
not put in their appearance despite notice. As such, they
were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2015. Even
thereafter nobody has appeared on behalf of the
management.
4.
Workmen in order to prove their case against the
management examined Shri Mukesh as WW1, who has
tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which is on similar lines
as the averments contained in the statement of claim.
Workman has also tendered in evidence documents/letters
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10.
5.
I have heard Shri Kailash Kumar, authorized for the
claimant.
6.
It is clear from the evidence from demand letter
Ex.WW1/1 that the workmen were working at Terminal
No.3 of the Airport with the management. Demand letter
further shows that when the workmen impressed upon
the management to make them regular, then the
management in a calculated manner after 29.06.2014 refused
to allow the workmen to mark their attendance. There is
another letter Ex.WW1/3 wherein reference of letter dated
16.04.2014 is made and name of the workmen herein also
find mention in the said letter . From para 3 of the said
letter, it is clear that there is reference to payment of
subsistence allowance. However, the workmen were not
given any allowance as they did not obey order of the
management. There is also reference to letter dated
24.03.2014 and it is clear from overall examination of this
letter that the same was written by the General Manager
for Impression Services Ltd. to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner when the workmen had taken the matter
for adjudication with the Government. Letter Ex.W1/4 is
written by the workmen herein which shows that the
management was not allowing the workmen herein to mark
their attendance on 29.06.2014. Workman has also
tendered in evidence the demand put forth by the union
vide Ex.WW1/5 dated 22.03.2014 regarding non payment
of subsistence allowance and refusal by the management
to mark attendance of the workmen. There is another letter
Ex.WW1/10 by the General Secretary of the Union to
Regional Labour Commissioner which shows that the
workmen have been wrongly ordered to join office at
different places and the same amounts to varying
conditions of service. Letter Ex.WW1/11 shows that efforts
were made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Government of India for resolution of the dispute.
However, success in the same could not be achieved as a
result of which matter was referred in the manner stated
above to this Tribunal for adjudication.
7.
It is apparent from the pleadings as well as
documents on record that the workmen herein were
deployed on duty at Terminal 3 of Indira Gandhi
International Airport and were doing service under the
management as house keeping staff. Workmen have also
filed photocopy of Identity Cards, which also supplements
their ase. Reference question also shows that the
workmen were in employment of the management, M/s.
impression Services Pvt. Ltd. to whom work of outsourcing
appears to have been given by Airport Authority of India
and were doing the work of house keeping since long.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1221
8.
It is further clear from the record that after 29.06.2014,
the workmen were not allowed to mark their presence at
the original place of work and this has also resulted in
suspension of the workmen. Now, the vital question which
requires adjudication is whether the workmen are entitled
for subsistence allowance after their suspension. During
the course of arguments, the learned authorized
representative for the workmen invited attention of the
Court to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946. Section 10(a) of the said Act reads as under:
10-A. Payment of subsistence allowance.
(1) Where any workman is suspended by the
employer pending investigation or inquiry into
complaints or charges of misconduct against him,
the employer shall pay to such workman subsistence
allowance-
(a)
at the rate of fifty per cent of the wages which
workman was entitled to immediately
preceding the date of such suspension, for
the first ninety days of suspension; and
(b)
at the rate of seventy-five per cent of such
wages for the remaining period of suspension
if the delay in the completion of disciplinary
proceedings against such workman is not
directly attributable to the conduct of such
workman.
(2) If any dispute arises regarding the subsistence
allowance payable to a workman under sub-section
(1), the workman or the employer concerned may
refer the dispute to the Labour Court, constituted
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
industrial establishment wherein such workman is
employed is situate and the Labour Court to which
the dispute is so referred shall, after giving the parties
an opportunity of being heard, decide the dispute
and such decision shall be final and binding on the
parties.
(3) Not withstanding anything contained in the
foregoing provisions of this section, where
provisions relating to payment of subsistence
allowance under any other law for the time being in
force in any State are more beneficial than the
provisions of this section, the provisions of such
other law shall be applicable to the payment of
subsistence allowance in that State.
9.
Thus, it is clear from bare perusal of the
aforementioned provisions, that the workmen are entitled
for grant of subsistence allowance during the period of
their suspension. Even under the general law, an employee
is entitled for subsistence allowance during the period of
his suspension. There is nothing on record to suggest
that any subsistence allowance has been to the workmen
herein nor the management has filed any documents to
show whether the workmen herein were ordered to mark
their attendance at different places, i.e Gurgaon, Kirti Nagar
etc. Since the management has not filed any reply nor
adduced any evidence in response to the reference made
by the Central Government, as such, this Tribunal is left
with only the evidence of the workmen. There long list
of decisions that in case subsistence allowance is not
paid to a workman, in that eventuality, order of
suspension itself becomes malafide and the employee is
entitled to be reinstated. In the present case, there is no
order of suspension on the record so as to show under
what circumstances the workmen herein were placed under
suspension. Accordingly, it is held that the workmen
herein are entitled for grant of subsistence allowance in
terms of provisions of Section 10(A)of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. As a necessary
corollary, it is also held that workman shall be deemed to
be in service and would be entitled to back-wages from
the date of their suspension till date as the workman herein
remained unemployed during the period. An award is
accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated: March 16, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 603-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ jktLFkku
LVsV ekbUl ,.M feujYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@9@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2015)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and
Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-29012/9/2015-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
1222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 41/2015
Reference No.L-29012/9/2015-IR(M) dated: 10.4.2015
Shri Omkar
S/o Sh. Bhaggaji Gameti
Kharbaria Tehsil Girva
Distt. Udaipur
Udaipur
V/s
The General Manager
Rajasthan state Mines and Minerals Ltd.
Jhamarkotda, HO 4 Mira Marg,
Udaipur
AWARD
22.1.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Rajasthan state Mines & Minerals Ltd., Udaipur
(Raj.) in terminating the services of Shri Omkar S/o
Sh. Bhaggaji Gameti w.e.f. 30.6.2012 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman
is entitled for?”
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,
registered notices were issued to the parties as per the
order of the tribunal fixing 17.9.2015 for filing statement of
claim. On 17.9.2015 applicant was absent, Sh. Ripan
Sandhu, Officer in-charge was present for & on behalf of
opposite party. Notice sent to the applicant was served
against him & acknowledgement attached to the notice
was back & the same is available on record of the file. In
the interest of justice the case was adjourned & 7.12.2015
was fixed for filing statement of claim.
3.
On 7.12.2015 both the parties were absent. In the
interest of justice case was again adjourned providing
opportunity to the applicant for filing statement of claim.
Next date 24.12.2015 was fixed for filing claim. After order
Sh. Anil Sharma appeared for opposite party but authority
of opposite party was not filed by him.
4.
24.12.2015 & 25.12.2015 was a public holiday &
26.12.2015 & 27.12.2015 was Saturday & Sunday, hence,
file was taken up on 28.12.2015. On 28.12.2015 both the
parties were absent & presiding officer was on leave. Next
date 18.1.2016 was fixed again for filing statement of claim
by applicant.
5.
On 18.1.2016 both the parties were absent. From
perusal of file it appeared that applicant was served on
9.9.2015 but till 18.1.2016 none appeared from his side to
file statement of claim. Looking into the fact that applicant
is not taking any interest in filing statement of claim despite
several opportunities provided to him, further opportunity
for filing statement of claim was closed & case was
reserved for award.
6.
It is pertinent to note that reference order dated
10.4.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction
to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of
receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement
of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on notice &
knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal.
It appears that applicant is not interested & willing in
submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances
& in the absence of material evidence brought on record,
tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues
referred to it on merit. Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is
passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is
answered accordingly.
7.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 604-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@65@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 604.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/65/2006-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1223
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 33/2007
1.
The Asset Manager,
ONGC Ltd.,
Ankleshwar Project,
(Gujarat)
2.
M/s Nirmal construction,
73, Virat Nagar Society,
Ankleshwar
3.
M/s Techno Fab,
T-14, Nirant Nagar,
Bor Bhata Road,
Ankleshwar-393001
...First Party
Vs.
Their workmen
Through the General Secretary,
Akhil Gujarat Kamdar Hithvardhak Union,
Bhaktinagar Socirety, Maktampur,
Bharuch
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
C/o. Akhil Gujarat Kamdar
Hitvardhak Union
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/65/2006-
IR(M) dated 08.03.2007 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 M/s Techno Fab,
Ankleshwar, Contractor of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar
in terminating the services of Smt. Sumitraben
Bhikhabhai Somiya w.e.f. 1/11/2005 is legal, proper
and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 08.03.2007. Both the
parties are served. First party also field the Vakalatanam
(Ext.4) of their advocate. But despite service on the second
party neither turn up for filing the statement of claim nor
put in his appearance. Thus, it appears that second party
has no inclination or willingness to proceed with the
reference. Thus, the 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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 605-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 94@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@14@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/14/2007-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 94/2007
1.
M/s Industrial Security Services,
2, Saraswati Society,
Near Cruth Sobha Furniture,
D-cabin, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380001
2.
The Insttitutre of Reservoir Studies,
ONGC Ltd.,
Avani Bhavan,
1224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-
3.
The G.G.M.,
ONGC Ltd.,
6th Floor, Avani Bhavan,
Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Sh. Savabhai MeghabhaiWagela
Nayaka Tampe, Managevpura,
Taluka Kheda,
Post Nayala-50
...Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
: Shri D.D. Pandya, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/14/2007-
IR(M) dated 25.09.2007 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 ONGC in
terminating the service of Shri Savabhai Meghabhai
Waghela effect from 04/10/2003 without following
the provisions of section 25F and 25G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to
what extend?”
2.
This reference dates back to 25.09.2007. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext.15) on 05.02.2009 and
first party submitted written statement (Ext.17) on
05.03.2010.
3.
Second party has been absent since last several
dates and has also not led evidence despite giving number
of opportunities. Thus, it appears that second party are
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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 606-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 212@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@16@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 606.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 212/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/16/1999-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 26th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 212/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 134/1999
1.
The Group General Manager,
ONGC Ltd.,
Avani Bhavan, Parichay Shopping Centre,
D Cabin, IOC office Road,
Gandhinagar
2.
M/s. Industrial Security Services,
Parichay Shopping Centre,
D Cabin, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Emp. Union,
434/46. Gandhi vas Naka,
Gujarat Stadium Road,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party :
C/o. Gujarat Petroleum Emp.
Union
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1225
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/16/99-
IR(M) dated 12.07.1999 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 Industrial
Security Services, Contractor of ONGC Ltd., is
justified in terminating the services of Shri Jivabhai
Hirabhai Desai, Security Guard, ONGC Ahmedabad
Project w.e.f. 1-9-97? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?” AND “Whether
ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad is having sham arrangement
of contract with M/s industrial Security Services in
employment of security guards at ONGC Ltd.,
Ahmedabad Project and how far ONGC is
responsible for termination of service of Shri Jivabhai
Hirabhai Desai, Security Guard?”
2.
This reference dates back to 12.07.1999. S.P in person
has been absent since last several dates. However, his
counsel comes in the Tribunal and he fails to produce the
workman for examination in support of his case i.e.
statement of claim(Ext.4) which has been controverted by
the first party through the written statement (Ext.9) on
04.10.2000. Thus, it appears that second party are 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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 607-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 222@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@30@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 222/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/30/1999-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 222/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 148/1999
1. The Regional Director,
ONGC Ltd.,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through the secretary,
ONGC Employees Union,
8, Samarpan Shopping Complex,
Highway Road,
Mehsana (Gujarat)- 384002
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Shri A.S. Kapoor, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/30/99-
IR(M) dated 10.09.1999 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union
in asking promotion of Shri Bhikhaji Panaji Khalasi
Gd. I in the upgraded scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 1.1.93
with all consequential benefits is justified? If so,
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
This reference dates back to 10.09.1999. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext.7) on 03.01.2000 and first
party submitted written statement (Ext.9) on 13.11.2000.
Second party has been absent since last several dates
and has also not led evidence despite giving number of
opportunities. Thus, it appears that second party are not
1226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 608-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 275@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@78@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 275/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/78/1999-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 275/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 26/2000
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Avni Bhavan,
Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2.
M/s. Tarun Enterprises,
Tarun House, Kajuwadi Chakla,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai
...First Party
Vs.
Their workman
Through the General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhvas, Koba Road,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Kum. Santoshben, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/78/99-
IR(M) dated 24.01.2000 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum
Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the
arrangement through which Shri Kanubhai D. Rabari
employee as Mali in ONGC, Ahmedabad Project is
‘sham and bogus’ and the concerned workman
who has been terminated from service w.e.f. 1.2.1999
id entitled for reinstatement and absorption is legal
and justified? If yes then to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 24.01.2000. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext.8) and first party
submitted written statement (Ext.11) on 06.04.2004 since
then second party has failed to lead evidence. Second
party has also been absent for a long period back to 2010.
Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or
willingness to proceed with the reference. Thus, the
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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 609-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 327@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@30@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1227
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 327/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30012/30/2000-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 327/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 88/2000
1.
The Group Genral Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd.,
Ahmedabad Project,
Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2.
M/s. Public Power Mazdoor
Kamdar Sahkari Mandli Ltd.,
Opp. Dudhsagar Dairy,
Highway Road,
Mehsana (Gujarat)
3.
M/s. Industrial Security Services,
Parischay Shopping Centre,
Near ‘D’ Cabin, IOC Road,
Post New Rly Colony,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380001
...First Party
Vs.
Their workman
Through the General Secretary,
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,
434/36, Gandhvas, Koba Road,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
Kum. Santoshben, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/30/2000-
IR(M) dated 18.08.2000 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum
Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the
arrangement through which Shri Nayak Jagdish
Ambalal employed as Peon in ONGC Ahmedabad
Project is ‘sham and bogus’ and the concerned
workman who has been terminated from service
w.e.f. 1.2.1999 is entitled for reinstatement and
absorption is legal and justified? If yes then to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from
which date?”
2.
This reference dates back to 18.08.2000. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext.6) and first party also
filed written statement (Ext.10) on 03.05.2002. Second party
also received the copy of the written statement on the
same date. But since then second party has been absent
and has also failed to lead evidence. Thus, it appears that
second party has no inclination or willingness to proceed
with the reference. Thus, the 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] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 610-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 574@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@91@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 574/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and
1228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2016/CHAITRA 13, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-30011/91/2002-IR(M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th February, 2016
Reference : (CGITA) No. 574/2004
Reference : (ITC) No. 48/2003
1. The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project,
P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) 394518
2. The Manager (PSD),
Te A.Eco. Ltd.,
Chinubhai Tower,
Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380009
3. M/s. Gaytech Engineering Services,
311, Race Course Tower,
Nr. Race Course Circle,
Baroda-
4. M/s. Industrial & Engineering Services,
74/441, Vijaynagar,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380013
5. M/s. AJK Association,
B-4 Kailash Apartments,
Opp. Dr. Suman Shah,
Nr. Old Sharda Mandir Road,
Elliesbridge, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat)-380006
...First Party
Vs.
Their Workman,
Through Gujarat Working Class Union,
The General Secretary,
A-772, ‘Anand Ganga’ Kasak,
Bharuch (East), Gujarat
Bharuch
...Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu, Advocate
For the Second Party
:
C/o Gujarat Working
Class Union
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/91/2002-
IR(M) dated 21.10.2003 referred the dispute for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contracts between the management
of ONGC Ltd. and their Contractors in respect of
Shri Raval Sanjaykumar K. & 9 others is sham and
bogus contracts entered into as a camouflage to
avoid the provisions of contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition)) Act, 1970?”
“Whether the demand of the union in respect of 10
contractual workmen i.e. S/Shri (1) Raval Sanajy
Kumar K., (2.) Travadi Arif F., (3) Patel Paresh M.,
(4.) Parekh Sandip R., (5) Pawar Jitendra H., (7)
Varachhiya Vijay B., (8) Pathan Gafarali M., and (9)
Joshi Nitin N. Bioler Operators engaged through
various contractors in the establishment of ONGC
Ltd. Hazira, Surat for treating them as direct and
regular employees of ONGC Ltd., from the date of
their joining, is legal, proper and justified? If so, to
what relief these workmen are entitled to and from
which date and what other directions are necessary
in the matter?”
2.
This reference dates back to 21.10.2003. Second party
submitted statement of claim (Ext.5) on 28.04.2004 and first
party submitted written statement (Ext.9) on 10.03.2005.
since then the second parties have been absent and have
also not led their evidence. Thus, it appears that second
parties are not interested in the proceedings of the
reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss
the reference in default of the second parties.
The reference is dismissed in default of the second
parties.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ekpZ] 2016
dk-vk- 611-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ [kfut
vUos"k.k fuxe fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 66@2013&14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-03-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@45@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
uohu diwj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 2] 2016@pS=k 13] 1938
1229
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2016
S.O. 611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2013-
14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation
Ltd. and Others and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 23-03-2016.
[No. L-29011/45/2013-IR (M)]
NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI CHINTA MANI TIWARI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Case No. CGIT/NGP/66/2013-14 Date: 20.01.2016.
Party No. 1 :
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Bhawan,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440006.
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary,
Indian National M.E.C. Employees
Union,
MECL Utilities Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur – 440006.
AWARD
(Dated: 20th January, 2016)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute for adjudication between the management of (The
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mineral Exploration
Corporation Ltd. and the General Secretary, Indian National
M.E.C. Employees Union, MECL) vide letter No.L-29011/
45/2013-IR(M) dated 23.08.2013, on the following
schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Mineral
Exploration Corporation Ltd., Nagpur in refusing he
restoration of payment of conveyance charge/
Hingna Allowance to the personnel deployed at
C.S.D., Hingna, MIDC area, Nagpur, is legal and
justified? If not, what relied the employees are
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to
parties to file claim and written statement.
3.
Party No. 2 has filed statement of claim for issuing
direction to Party No. 1 to revise the Hingna Allowance
from April, 1998 to make payment thereof to all employees
entitled and also issue direction to Party No. 1 to revise
Hingna Allowance and implement the revised rates with
effect from 01.01.2010.
4.
In reply Party No. 1 denied the claim of Party No. 2
and refused to restoration of above allowances.
5.
Meanwhile the management of Mineral Exploration
Corporation Ltd. and their registered union in company
namely (1). Indian National Mineral Exploration Corp.
Employees Union (2). Minexplore Employee’s Democratic
Union (3). Mineral Exploration corporation employees
Union arrived at settlement for re-opening and revision of
Transportation Allowance (Hingna allowance) under
Section 2(p) and Section 18 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 read with Rules 58(1) of Industrial Disputes Rules
1957. Party No. 1 has filed the memorandum f settlement
as annexure-I and extract of minutes as annexure – II
alongwith 236th Board Meeting Agenda, Item No. 8 dated
23.05.2015 with application on request that present
reference shall be disposed off as per memorandum of
settlement dated 04.03.2015(annexure-I).
Party No. 2 has no objection if reference shall be
disposed off in terms and condition laid down in
memorandum of settlement dated 04.03.2015 (as annexureI).
6.
Heard counsels of parties and perused the
memorandum of settlement dated 04.03.2015 (annexure –
(I) and extracts of minutes (annexure – II). On perusal of
memorandum of settlement and extract of minutes, both
sides are agreed to revise the Transport Allowances
(Hingna Allowance) at the rate of Rs. 16/- per day with
effect from the date 01.02.2015 and shall remain in force till
next 04 (four) years for non-executive employees of
company working as R.M.C. and C.S.D. on actual
attendance basis. Both management and three registered
union of company agreed on memorandum of settlement
(annexure –I). Memorandum of settlement is for benefit of
workmen working in company. It is proper to dispose off
reference in terms of memorandum of settlement dated
04.03.2015 and issue award in terms and condition laid
down in memorandum of settlement as annexure-I.
ORDER
Reference is disposed off in terms and condition of
settlement an award is issued accordingly. Agreed
Transport Allowance (Hingna Allowance) is revised for
non-executive of company working at R.M.C. and C.S.D
Hingna only with effect from 01.02.2015 and shall remain
in force till next 04 (four) years at the rate of Rs. 16 per day
on actual attendance basis. Memorandum of settlement
dated 04.03.2015 (annexure-I) shall be part of award. Party
No. 1 is directed implement the award within 30 days on
publication of award in Official Gazette.
Award is pronounced in open Court in presence
of parties and their counsels.
CHINTA MANI TIWARI, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.