2674 GI/2016

(2525)

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- 24]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 5— twu 11] 2016] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 15— T;s"B 21] 1938

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 5—JUNE 11, 2016, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 15— JYAISTHA 21, 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)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई द ली, 3 मई, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1134

1134

1134.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ

पठत बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग)

"ारा द# शि&य का योग करते )ए, के,-ीय सरकार, एत.ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) म/ िविन1द2 3ि& को

उ& सारणी के कालम (2) म/ िविन1द2 3ि& के थान पर कालम (1) म/ िविन1द2 देना बक म/ त5काल भाव से और अगले

आदेश होने तक, िनदेशक नािमत करती हैः-

म सं.

बक का नाम

वतमान िनदेशक का नाम

तािवत 3ि& का नाम

देना बक

7ी वी. वसंथन

7ी एस.सी. मुमू, मु:य महाबंधक, भारतीय रजव बक, आईटी

िवभाग, के,-ीय कायालय, 14वां तल, के,-ीय कायालय भवन,

शहीद भगत <सह रोड, मु>बई-400001

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

?ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

2526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2016

S.O. 1134.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of

The Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the person specified in column (3) of the table below as Director of Dena Bank specified in column (1)

thereof in place of the person specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders-

SI. No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing

Director

Name of the Persons proposed

(1)

(2)

(3)

Dena Bank

Shri V. Vasanthan

Shri S.C. Murmu, CGM, Reserve Bank of India,

Department of Information Technology, Central Office,

14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat

Singh Road, Mumbai- 400 001.

[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO.I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

(िह दी

िह दी

िह दी अनुभाग

अनुभाग

अनुभाग-2)

नई द ली, 6 जून, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 1135

1135

1135.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के

िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म राज! व िवभाग के के ीय उ$ पाद शु' क और सीमाशु' क बोड+ के अधीन

धान आयु. त का काया+लय, सेवाकर 0द' ली-1, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम+चा2रय ने िह दी का काय+

साधक 4ान ा5 त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं.ई-11017/1/2015-ए.डी.(7हदी-2)]

मीमांसक, संयु. त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2016

S.O. 1135.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby Notifies Office of the Principal Commissioner, Service tax, Delhi-1

under CBEC of D/o Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2015-AD(Hindi-2)]

MIMANSAK, Jt. Director (OL)

dkfeZd] yksd f’kdk;r rFkk isa’ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf’k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 1 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 11

1136

36.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh

mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, tks/kiqj fLFkr jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh tks/kiqj ihB esa fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk vfHk;kstu ,oa buls mRiUu fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk

vUosf"kr vU; izklafxd ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh lfpu vkpk;Z] vf/koDrk] dks mudh fu;qfDr

dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kkasZ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@10@2016&,-oh-Mh-&II]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2527

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 1st June, 2016

S.O. 1136.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sachin Acharya, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in

the Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/10/2016-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk. 1137.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk

¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, caxykSj fLFkr dukVZd mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk vfHk;kstu ,oa buls mRiUu fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk vUosf"kr

izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh ih- izlUuk dqekj] vf/koDrk dks mudh fu;qfDr dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kksaZ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 225/70/2012&,ohMh&II ¼ikVZ½]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8^th June, 2016

S.O. 1137.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central

Bureau of Investigation) in the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of

the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/70/2012-AVD-II (Pt.)]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 twu] 2016

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1138

1138

1138-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk

¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dydRrk mPp U;k;ky; ds iksVZ Cys;j lfdZV ihB esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk vfHk;kstu rFkk buls mRiUu fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½

}kjk vUosf"kr izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy] iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh jkds'k iky xksfcan] vf/koDrk dks mudh

fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kksZa ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 225/09/2016&,ohMh&II]

Ekks- unhe] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8^th June, 2016

S.O. 1138.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rakesh Pal Gobind, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) for the Port Blair

Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court for conducting prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matter arising out of the

cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/09/2012-AVD-II]

Md. NADEEM, Under Secy.

2528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2015

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1139

1139

1139-—nar fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsaæ

ljdkj ,rn~}kjk LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; ds fnukad 24 tuojh] 1984 ds dk-vk- la- 430 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku

djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

^^/kkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼?k½ ds varxZr fuokZfpr** 'kh"kZ ds rgr mDr vf/klwpuk esa fuEu izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir ds tk,axh]

vFkkZr~ %

^^MkW- fgeka’kq ,ju] izksQslj ,oa

funs’kd] lhek] nar fpfdRlk dkWyst

,oa vLirky] _f"kds'k] mÙkjk[kaM

fuokZfpr

gseorh uanu cgqxq.kk x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky; ¼,p,uch x<+oky

fo'ofo|ky;½] Jhuxj] mÙkjk[kaM

17-10-2013**

[Qk- la- oh&12025@33@2015&MhbZ]

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2015

S.O. 1139.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24^th January, 1984, namely :

In the said notification under head “elected under clause (d) of Section 3”, the following shall be inserted

therein, namely :

“Dr. Himanshu Aeran, Professor

and

Director,

Seema

Dental

College and Hospital, Rishikesh,

Uttarakhand

Elected

Hemwati

Nandan

Bahuguna

Garhwal

University

(HNB

Garhwal University), Srinagar,

Uttarakhand

17.10.2013”

[F.No. V-12025/33/2015-DE]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

Ekkuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1140-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Ekkuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds varxZr uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr]

uks,Mk ds v/hu tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;] cUnjksy] ftyk&dqYyw] fgekpy izns'k dks] ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa] ftlds 80% ls vf/d

deZpkjh&oU`n us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 11011&3@2016&jk-Hkk-,-º

lq[kchj ¯lg la/q] la;qDr lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2529

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1140.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, District

-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida under the Ministry of Human Resource Development

(Department of School Education & Literacy) as an office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11011-3/2016-O.L.U.]

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1141-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds iwohZ {ks=k

ikjs"k.k iz.kkyh& II] ds v/hu ¶400@220 dsoh eSFku midsaæ] Mkd?kj&:iukjk;uiqj] c/Zeku&713386 (i-ca-)¸] ftlds 80% ls

vf/d deZpkjh&oU`n us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 11017@10@2013&¯gnhº

MkW- vkj- lh- 'kekZ] la;qDr funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2016

S.O. 1141.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify “400/200 Kv Maithon Substation, PO-Rupnarayanpur,

Burdwan-713386 (WB)” under the Eastern Region Transmission System-II, of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi.

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

Dr. R.C. SHARMA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy flYd

cksMZ] ¯l?Hkqe ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (vkbZMh lanHkZ la- 50] 53 vkSj 55@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@250@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@246@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&42012@28@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

2530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. 50, 53 and 55 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court No.-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Central Silk Board, Singhbhum and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 31.05.2016.

[No. L-42012/250/99-IR (DU),

No. L-42012/246/99-IR (DU),

No. L-42012/28/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 50 OF 2000 (Amalgamated)

with

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 2000 (Amalgamated)

with

REFERENCE NO. 55 OF 2000

Sh.Budhan Lal Sardar,

Vill: Arwa, P.O.Arwa Kuchai, Singhbhum -833216 (Jharkhand)

And

Shri Motilal Mahato,

Vill: Moladih, PO: Kharsawan, Singhbhum -833216 (Jharkhand),

And

Sh.Turam Roy,

Sariam, PO: Kuchai Arwa, Singhbhum-833216 (Jharkhand)

Vs.

The Asstt. Director,

Central Silk Board, PO: Kharsawan, Singhbhum-833216

(Ministry's Order No.L-42012/250/99/IR (DU) dated 02.03.2000)

(Ministry's Order No.L-42012/246/99/IR (DU) dated 17.02.2000)

(Ministry's Order No.L-42012/28/2000/IR (DU) dated 31.05.2000)

respectively

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. C.Prasad, Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. Sumiran Pal, Ld.Advocate

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Textile

Dated, Dhanbad, the 13^th May, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2531

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order Nos. referred

to above under Reference heads as per the Schedules:.

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 50 OF 2000

“Whether the action of the Management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre at Kharasawan in

terminating the services of Sh.Budhan Lal Sardar, workman w.e.f 17.10.98 from the roll of BSM & TC is legal

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

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 53 OF 2000

“Whether the action of the Management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre at Kharasawan in

terminating the services of Sh.Motilal Mahato, workman w.e.f 06.02.97 from the roll of BSM & TC is legal and

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

THE SCHEDULE OF REF. NO. 55 OF 2000

“Whether the action of the Management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre at Kharasawan in

terminating the services of Sh.Turam Roy, workman w.e.f 17.10.98 from the roll of B.S.M & .T.C is justified?

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

On receipt of the Order Nos. (Ministry's Order No.L-42012/250/99/IR (DU) dated 02.03.2000) (Ministry's

Order No.L-42012/246/99/IR (DU) dated 17.02.2000) and (Ministry's Order No.L-42012/28/2000/IR (DU) dated

31.05.2000) respectively of the above mentioned references from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 50 of 2000,53 of 2000 and 55 of 2000

were registered on 28.03.2000,19.04.2000 and 13.07.2000 respectively and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on

the date fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said orders,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Workmen/Petitioners and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels appeared respectively, and contested

the case.

The case of the workmen as narrated by them in their respective W.Ss as follow : that the workmen named

S/Shri Budhan Lal Sarkar,Motilal Mahato and Turam Roy were originally appointed in the years 1983, respectively by

the Management of Basic Seed Multiplications Training Centre at Kharasawan against permanent vacancies since

1983 to the full confidence and satisfaction of Higher Ups of the Management .The workmen had been rendering

service as permanent workmen and completed 240 days in each of the calendar year and thus attained the status of

permanent workmen after having completed 240 days .The petitioners/ workmen were threatened by the Management

when they raised the issue of permanent status at par with other workmen .Ultimately they were terminated from the

services of the Management without assigning any reason whatsoever and without affording any opportunity. Riding

on the alleged action, the Management violated the mandatory provisions of Sec.25 –F, 25-N and 9-A of the I.D. Act,

1947 as they claimed in their W.S.Though the workmen preferred representations to the Management against the

arbitrary action, they were assured by the Higher Ups of the Management to wait patiently as the matter had referred to

the Higher Ups but the Management could not reinstate them with back wages .However the matter was brought before

the ALC©, Chaibasa for conciliation but the adamant and firm stand the Management stood by, the conciliation fell flat

to yield an positive result. So the whole exercise of the action of the Management, the workmen sniffed as illegal

arbitrary and unjustified and against the principle of the natural justice.

Though the Management asserted denying all the allegations of the workmen concerned that the Central Silk

Bard is a statutory body under the Ministry of Textles, Government of India highlighting the main function of research

and development arena. As the board nor its Unit are not engaged any trade or commerce so as to attribute the Centre as

Industrial status will not be justified. The Centre main focus on research and seed preparation activities stands

seasonally. Mr.Budan Lal Sardar and Mr.Motilal Mahato and Mr.Turam Roy were exclusively engaged for specific

seasons as per the pre-calculated requirement of work and approved man- days purely on casual labourers on ‘no work

–no pay’ policy and by the time the Centre had on its rolls 32 seasonal workers .The three were amongst of them .The

said seasonal farm workers were full aware of the facts that depending upon availability of work and sanction man days,

they will get work and then they will discontinued and they will work elsewhere for their livelihood. The aforesaid three

workers have not never completed 240 days continuously as their engagement were based on intermittently for purely

seasonal nature of works for a specific during the year. As the nature of work is no perennial specially in the Unit

warranting regular engagement throughout the year, The Unit cannot provide regular work to the seasonal farm workers.

2532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

So the question of termination does not arise at all nor can the Unit provide them regular worker any relief. So it is not

maintainable in the merit of the case.

In essence .the workmen concerned are daily wager only given 50 -55 days work, in a calendar year as

stated by the Management. The Daily wager workmen taken in job as & when required, and not allowed to work, when

there is no work. In this case also the Management may take the workmen concerned under the aforesaid Reference

Cases , in jobs as and when required, if they are otherwise disciplined.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu 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;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&35011@6@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-35011/6/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 15^th day of February, 2016/26^th Magha, 1937)

ID 18/2011

Union

The General Secretary,

Cochin Port Employees Organisation,

Venkitaraman Road,

W/Land,

COCHIN - 9.

By Adv. Shri Asok M. Cherian

Management

The Chairman,

Cochin Port Trust,

Willington Island,

COCHIN.

By M/s.B.S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 20.01.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 15.02.2016 passed

the following:

AWARD

This is a matter referred by the Central Government clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication before this tribunal is:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2533

“Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in going ahead with the proposal of cadre

restructuring overlooking the apprehensions of the unions about its detrimental effects on career progression is

justified? What relief the workers are entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference order No.L-35011/6/2010-IR(B-II) dated 31.05.2011, summons was issued to the

parties to appear and answer all the claims to substantiate their respective contentions. The union and the management

entered appearance through their respective counsel.

4. The union filed claim statement contending as follows:

The Cochin Port Trust as per Resolution No.143 approved the proposal to amend Cochin Port Employees

Recruitment, Seniority and Promotions Regulations 2005 and the Recruitment Rules for implementing the cadre-

restructuring orders for Class-I officers, issued by the Ministry of Shipping vide order No.A/290/18/5/99-PEI dated

06.02.2004. Union had strong objections and raised this industrial dispute for adjudication. Before the Conciliation

Officer – The Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam, the trade unions contended that if the order

aforesaid is implemented, it will adversely affect the service conditions and promotion prospects of the port employees.

Apart from that, the aforesaid order is against the terms of the existing settlement and hence the union has requested not

to implement the same.

On 29.05.2004 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the management and the union with the

understanding that “since the matter has been referred to the Government for clarification and the subject on the dispute

has also been raised by the officers also, the management agreed to discuss the matter further and addressed the concern

of the Union prior to implementing the Government Order of cadre-restructuring”.

Overlooking the assurance and mutual understanding the management proceeded with the proposal which was

opposed by the union and Class III employees in all major ports. Five recognized federations in Indian major ports

served notice of strike to the respective port managements seeking intervention of the Chief Labour

Commissioner(Central), New Delhi. On the basis of that notice, the Chief Labour Commissioner(Central)

conciliated the dispute and a memorandum of settlement was arrived at on 15.07.2008 in accordance with

Section 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947. The demands such as merger of 50% DA w.e.f.01.01.2007, grant of interim relief

w.e.f.01.01.2007 and rising of basic amount from `2,500/- to `3,500/- for computing PLR were settled in full and final.

The management of Major Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards agreed to discuss and settle the disputes relating to the

demand of “Implementation of the report of the committee constituted by Ministry to look into the effect of cadre

restructuring of Port & Dock Officers in order to protect the promotional prospects of Class III & Class IV employees

by 31.12.2008”. On the basis of which the federations agreed to withdraw the strike notice. Even though there was a

statutory settlement, the management is proceeding with the cadre restructuring process. The federations have taken up

the issue with the Union Government. A bipartite committee was constituted to look into the matter and to recommend

adequate measures to avoid adverse effects on Class III & Class IV employees while implementing the proposal for

cadre restructuring. A twelve member committee appointed by the Ministry of Shipping consists of five labour

representatives and seven officials headed by Shri R.K. Jain, the then Managing Director of Indian Ports Association.

The committee submitted their report on 19.01.2006. The anomalies and adverse effects on the promotion prospects of

Class III employees were explained in the report submitted by the committee in case the proposal was implemented in

the existing form. The management is not ready to have any meaningful discussions to evolve remedial measures so as

to remove the anomalies and adverse impact while implementing the cadre restructuring. Even though the union raised

another industrial dispute as per letter dated 07.05.2009, it did not yield any desired result due to the adamant nature of

the management. In the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 08.05.2009 draft Recruitment, Seniority & Promotion

Regulation 2009 was placed ignoring the written request of the union. The Port Trust Board resolved to approve the

Cochin Port Trust Employees (RSP) Regulations 2009. On verification it is seen that the said Regulation is detrimental

to the interest of Class I officers promoted from Class III posts. The action of the management is against the terms of

said Regulation and detrimental to the interest of Class I officers promoted from Class III posts. The action of the

management is against the terms of settlement made under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. If the said Regulation is

implemented the promotion prospects of Class III ministerial cadre will be affected by opening new avenues to new

categories of employees directly recruited on implementing the new RSP Regulation. The union has stated that the

action of the management is against the statutory settlements, practices and precedent. Therefore the union has

requested to declare that the proposed amendment to the Cochin Port Employees Recruitment, Seniority and Promotions

Regulations 2005 and the Recruitment Rules forming the part of Regulations for implementing the cadre-restructuring

of Class I officers, issued by the Ministry of Shipping and approved by the management as per Resolution No.143 dated

29.03.2006 as illegal and hence to set aside the same.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the management are as follows:

2534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

They have denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the union. They have stated that the General

Secretary, Cochin Port Employees Organisation who raised the industrial dispute, has no locus standi to raise the

dispute. The dispute relates to the cadre restructuring of Class I officers of the management. Those officers of the

management will not come within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Hence the union has no right to espouse the cause of non-workmen category. Secondly, restructuring of the cadres

of Class I officers and introduction of corresponding recruitment, seniority and promotion regulations is a major policy

decision and within the discretion of the management. The management has got the discretion and right to frame and

follow suitable measures in order to maintain efficiency, effectiveness and meeting the challenges of the organizational

structure since it is within the policy decision of the management.

The cadre restructuring proposal was prepared by two pay revision committees consisting of eminent experts on

the subject and it was approved by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Under Section 111 of the Major Port

Trust Act, 1963, the Ministry of Shipping is vested with the power to issue directions to major ports. The Board of

Trustees of the Cochin Port approved the cadre restructuring proposal as well as the Recruitment, Seniority and

Regulations submitted to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. The proposal was approved by the Ministry of

Shipping and it was notified in the Gazette of India before its implementation. The Cochin Port Staff Association and

some individual employees filed Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenging the implementation

of cadre restructuring orders for Class I officers of Cochin Port. The issue now referred is under consideration before

the Hon’ble High Court. Continuation of parallel proceedings before this court is not maintainable.

Cadre restructuring of Class I officers in the management establishment has already been implemented. The

cadre restructuring was made on all India basis for Class I officers of all the major ports for the sake of uniformity and it

has already been implemented in the management establishment. Therefore the issue referred for adjudication has

become infructuous since the issue relates to the cadre restructuring of Class I officers of all major port Trusts including

several establishments in more than one state. Therefore the issue ought to have been referred to a National Tribunal.

10.

The issue relates to Class I officers under the management. They are not made as parties to the dispute. They

are the affected parties by the outcome of the dispute. The reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

11.

The Ministry of Shipping, Government of India finalized the cadre restructuring proposal and Model

Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion (RSP) and issued order dated 06.02.2004. Again the Ministry of Shipping as per

letter dated 26.07.2004 forwarded the Model R, S & P Regulations and directed the Port Trust Boards to finalize the

Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations. The Cochin Port Trust Board as per the Resolution No.143 dated

29.03.2006 approved the Regulations and it was sent to the Ministry in the year 2006 for according sanction and

notification in the gazette. Subsequently discussions were held with the unions on the points/grievances raised by them

at the local level and national level and thereafter the Ministry vide letter dated 15.07.2008 directed the management to

consider the RSP Regulations in accordance with the Model RSP Regulations for the sake of uniformity in all major

ports. By Resolution No.20 dated 08.05.2009 the management approved the Regulations and it was sent to the Ministry

for sanction and notification. Accordingly the Ministry approved the same and it was notified in the Gazette vide GSR

No.862(E) dated 28.10.2010.

12.

The service conditions and interest of Class III and Class IV employees are not adversely affected due to the

implementation of cadre restructuring. Due to the implementation of the cadre restructuring the Class I officers and

junior officers working in the management have been elevated.

13.

The Dearness Allowance and Productivity Linked Reward (PLR) do not have any relevance to the matter in

issue. The Cochin Port Trust has followed all the procedures in accordance with law before implementing the cadre

restructuring of officers and new Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations. The Cochin Port Trust is a Central

Autonomous body. It has to operate on commercial basis without any normal budgetary support from the Government.

The Port has to follow progressive human resource policies and procedures to meet the future challenges. The main

objective of cadre restructuring is to address the anomalies in the cadre of officers in all the major ports and to integrate

isolated posts in the officers’ cadre with the main stream so as to bring out fair degree of uniformity in all major ports. It

was done as a progressive human resource policy. Therefore the management has requested to pass an award holding

that their action in implementing the cadre restructuring order is justified and that the union is not entitled to the relief

claimed.

14.

After filing written statement by the management, the matter was posted for rejoinder by the union. The union

has not filed any rejoinder. After affording sufficient opportunity to the parties for taking steps and for production of

documents, the matter was posted for evidence. On behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 to M9

are the documents marked. On behalf of the union no witness was examined and no documents were marked. Heard

both sides.

15.

The points arising for consideration are:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2535

“(i)

Whether the union has any legal right to raise the industrial dispute in relation to the cadre

restructuring of Class I officers of the management?

(ii)

Whether the reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(iii)

Whether the dispute has to be referred to the National Tribunal?

(iv)

Whether there is any illegality or impropriety on the part of the management in implementing the

proposal for cadre restructuring?

(v)

Whether the management is well within their right in proceeding with the proposal for cadre

restructuring and implementation of the new RSP Regulations?

(vi)

To what relief the workmen are entitled?"

16.

Point No.(i):-

At the instance of the General Secretary of Cochin Port Employees Organisation, Kochi-9 the

following dispute was referred to this tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in going ahead with the proposal of cadre

restructuring overlooking the apprehensions of the unions about its detrimental effects on career progression is

justified? What relief the workers are entitled to?”

17.

The union raised the dispute against the implementation of cadre restructuring orders for Class I officers in the

Cochin Port Trust. As per Resolution No.143 the Cochin Port Trust approved the proposal to amend the Cochin Port

Employees Recruitment, Seniority and Promotions Regulations 2005 and also the Recruitment Rules for the purpose of

implementing cadre restructuring for Class I officers. It was done in accordance with the order No.A/290/18/5/99-PEI

dated 06.02.2004 issued by the Ministry of Shipping. According to the union the action of the management is

detrimental to the interest of Class III and Class IV officers and there are serious anomalies affecting the promotion

prospects of Class III employees if the proposal is implemented in the present form.

18.

The management has contended that the union in this matter is representing the workman category of

employees under the management and they have no legal right to raise the dispute concerning the cadre restructuring of

Class I officers of the management. They would also state that the Class I officers working under the management will

not come under the purview of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

19.

The union in this matter has espoused the claim of Class III and Class IV employees working under the

management. The union has stated that in case the proposal is implemented in its present form without considering the

promotion prospects of the Class III and Class IV employees it will have adverse effect on the employees representing

the union. In view of the aforesaid contention by the union it cannot be held that the union has no legal right to raise the

industrial dispute in relation to the proposal for cadre restructuring. Hence the point is answered to the effect that the

union has got the legal right to espouse the claim.

20.

Point No.(ii):-

The management has contended that the dispute relates to the cadre restructuring of Class I

officers working under the management. It is stated that without impleading the Class I officers, the dispute raised in

this matter is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The matter in issue in this case is cadre restructuring of Class I

officers under the management. The union has contended that in case the cadre restructuring of Class I officers as

suggested is implemented by the management it will adversely affect the promotion prospects of Class III and Class IV

employees. The espousal of the claim by the union is in relation to the service conditions and promotion prospects of

Class III and Class IV employees. In such a circumstance it cannot be held that the reference is not bad for non-joinder

of necessary parties. Therefore the point is answered in favour of the union.

21.

Point No.(iii):-

The management has raised the contention that the cadre restructuring proposal was prepared

by two pay revision committees consisting of eminent experts on the subject and it was approved by the Ministry of

Shipping, Government of India. It is stated that the issue relates to cadre restructuring of Class I officers of all major

Port Trusts. According to the management the dispute is of such a nature that several establishments situated in more

than one state are likely to be interested or affected by such dispute and therefore the issue ought to have been referred to

a National Tribunal.

22.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:- whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in

proceeding with the proposal for cadre restructuring overlooking the apprehensions of the union about its detrimental

effects on career progression is justified. The matter in issue relates exclusively to the proposal for cadre restructuring

under the management of Cochin Port Trust. The issue referred for adjudication is confined to the management of

Cochin Port Trust and as such it cannot be held that the issue will affect several establishments situated in more than one

state. Therefore there is no necessity to refer this dispute before the National Tribunal. The point is answered

accordingly.

2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

Point Nos.(iv) & (v):-

The union has raised the industrial dispute against the implementation of the cadre

restructuring orders for Class I officers in the Cochin Port Trust. It is stated that the trade unions have raised strong

objections in this regard for the reason that if it is implemented it would adversely affect the service conditions and

career prospects of the Port employees. They have stated that the orders issued at the instance of the management for

cadre restructuring, are against the terms of the existing settlement. They have further stated that a Memorandum of

Understanding was signed between the management of Cochin Port Trust and the Cochin Port Employees Organisation

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in relation to the cadre restructuring of officers. According to the union the

understanding was that the management agreed to discuss the matter further before implementing the Government order

of cadre restructuring. The union has stated that if the management is allowed to do so it will adversely affect the

service conditions of Class III employees in all major ports.

24.

The union has further stated that the bipartite committee constituted to look into the matter recommended

adequate measures to give up detrimental effects on Class III and Class IV employees while implementing the cadre

restructuring proposal. It is stated that a twelve member committee was constituted in this regard and the committee

submitted report on 19.01.2006. The union has stated that the Ministry of Shipping, Indian Ports Association or the

respective Port Trusts have not held any meaningful discussions so as to evolve any remedial measures to remove the

anomalies and adverse impact while implementing the cadre restructuring. They have mentioned about the steps

initiated by them before the competent authorities for the redressal of their grievance. It is stated that the steps initiated

by them did not yield any positive result in their favour. According to the union the new RSP Regulations will adversely

affect the Class I officers promoted from Class III posts. According to the union the action of the management is in

violation of the settlement made under Section 12(3) of the ID Act.

25.

The management has disputed the claim of the union. According to them the restructuring of cadres of Class I

officers and introduction of corresponding Recruitment, Seniority Regulations is a major policy decision and it is within

the discretion of the management. It is stated that the management has got the authority and discretion to frame and

follow suitable decisions in order to maintain efficient persons in the managerial cadre and to meet the challenges of the

organization in a competitive environment. They would further state that the cadre restructuring proposal was prepared

by two pay revision committees consisting of eminent experts on the subject and it was approved by the Ministry of

Shipping, Government of India. Subsequently the proposal was forwarded to each major ports. It is stated that the

Board of Trustees of Cochin Port approved the cadre restructuring proposal as well as the Recruitment, Seniority and

Promotion Regulations and submitted the same to the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India for approval. Before

implementing the proposal it was notified in the Gazette. The management has further stated that in order to bring about

fair amount of uniformity in the cadres of officers in all major ports and to rationalize and streamline Recruitment,

Seniority and Promotion (RSP) procedures in the major ports and to follow progressive human resource policies and

procedures in order to meet future challenges, the Ministry initiated the process of cadre restructuring of officers in the

major ports. The management has further stated that as per the order dated 06.02.2004 the Ministry of Shipping issued

cadre restructuring orders. Subsequently the Cochin Port Trust Board as per Resolution No.143 dated 29.03.2006

approved the Cochin Port (R, S & P) Regulations and it was sent to the Ministry in the year 2006 for sanction and

Gazette Notification. It is stated that the Ministry held discussions with the major federations of Port and Dock Workers

on this subject and thereafter they issued a letter dated 15.07.2008 and directed the management to consider the RSP

Regulations strictly in accordance with the Model RSP Regulations for the purpose of uniformity in all major ports. The

management has stated that the Port Trust Board as per Resolution No.20 dated 08.05.2009 approved the Cochin Port

Employees (R, S & P) Regulations and it was sent to the Ministry for sanction and gazette notification. It is stated that

the Ministry approved the same in the year 2010 and it was notified in the Gazette GSR No.862(E) dated 28.10.2010.

According to the management the cadre restructuring orders implemented in Cochin Port Trust w.e.f.28.10.2010 have

benefited not only the Class I Officers but junior officers/officials have also been elevated in the resultant exercise

thereof. According to the management the working conditions or promotional opportunities of Class III and Class IV

eligible employees have not been adversely affected due to the introduction of cadre restructuring of officers and new

recruitment, seniority and promotion Regulation. They have also stated that the main objective of the cadre restructuring

exercise was to address the anomalies in the cadre of officers in all the major ports and to integrate the isolated posts in

the officers cadre with the main stream so as to bring about a fair degree of opportunity in the cadre of officers in all the

major ports and to rationalize and streamline the Recruitment, Seniority and promotion procedures with a view to have a

progressive human resource policy.

26.

From the contentions of the management it is evident that the proposal for cadre restructuring and the

implementation of the same in accordance with the proposal approved and accepted by the Ministry and as notified in

the gazette vide GSR No.862(E) dated 28.10.2010 was with the laudable objective of the best interest of the

management. The cadre restructuring procedure was implemented by the management strictly in accordance with the

rules and regulations and after obtaining sanction and approval from the Ministry. There is no evidence to prove that as

a result of the implementation of the cadre restructuring proposal by the management, the union or any of its members

were adversely affected. As already stated in order to have efficient man power at the Class I level and to lead the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2537

institution to meet the future prospects it is necessary to have efficient persons in the Class I level. Therefore it cannot

be held that there is any illegality or impropriety on the part of the management in implementing the proposal for cadre

restructuring. Since the management has implemented the proposal for cadre restructuring strictly in accordance with

the procedure and after obtaining the approval from the Ministry and after publication of the same in the official gazette,

it cannot be held that the management has violated the rules and regulations while implementing the cadre restructuring

proposal. Therefore the points for consideration are answered against the union and in favour of the management. Point

Nos.4 and 5 are answered accordingly.

27.

Point No.(vi):-

In view of the findings aforesaid the union is not entitled to any of the reliefs as per the

reference in this matter. The reference is answered accordingly.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 15^th day

of February, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

29.10.2014

Smt. C. Premakumari

Exhibits for the union

NIL

Exhibits for the management

True copy of the Report on the Pay Revision Committee for Port & Dock Officers –

Recommendations on Cadre Restructuring issued vide letter No.A-29018/5/99-P.E.I dated 06.02.2004

by the Under Secretary to the Govt., Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Parivahan Bhawan,

Parliament Street, New Delhi to the Chairmen of all Major Port Trusts & Dock Labour Boards.

True copy of the Model RSP Regulations of Major Ports issued vide letter No.PR-12012/1/04-PE-I

dated 26.07.2004 by the Under Secretary to the Govt., Government of India, Ministry of Shipping,

Parivahan Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi to the Chairmen of all Major Port Trusts and the

Managing Director, Indian Ports Association, New Delhi.

True copy of the Minutes of Proceedings of Meeting No.8 of 2005-06 of Cochin Port Trust Board of

Trustees held on 29.03.2006, Cochin Port Trust Board of Trustees meeting for the year 2005-06 on

Agenda Item No.C4 held on 29.03.2006 and Cochin Port Trust Board of Trustees meeting for the year

2004-05 on Agenda Item No.C16 held on 09.03.2005.

True copy of the letter No.PR-12012/7/2006-PE-I dated15.07.2008 by the Under Secretary to the

Govt. of India, Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways,

Department of Shipping, Ports Wing to the Chairman, Cochin Port Trust, Willingdon Island, Cochin.

True copy of the Minutes of Proceedings of ordinary Meeting No.1 of 2009-10 of Cochin Port Trust

Board of Trustees held on 08.05.2009 and Cochin Port Trust Board of Trustees meeting for the year

2009-10 on Agenda Item No.C6 held on 08.05.2009.

True copy of the Gazette Notification issued vide No.GSR 862(E) dated 28.10.2010

True copy of the Minutes of the 158^th meeting of governing body of Indian Ports Association & 38^th

meeting of Annual General Body of Indian Ports Association held at New Delhi on 24.10.2013

True copy of the forwarding letter by the Chief Administrative Officer(I/C), Indian Ports Association,

New Delhi vide No.IPA/GAD/158^th Meeting/122/2013 dated 06.11.2013 regarding Minutes of the

158^th meeting of the Governing Body of IPA & 38^th Annual General meeting of IPA held at New

Delhi on 24.10.2013 to the Chairman, IPA & Cochin Port Trust.

True copy of the letter No.PR-11011/1/2012-PE-I dated 05.12.2013 issued by the Under Secretary to

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing) to the Chairmen of all Major Port Trusts.

2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@27@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/27/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 23rd day of December, 2015/02nd Pausha, 1937)

ID 26/2012

Workman

Smt T Syamala Kumari,

Athira,

S N Junction,

Tripunithura – 682301.

By Adv. Shri Ashok B Shenoy

Management

The Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

Chatappuram,

CALICUT – 673002.

By M/s.Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 22.12.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 23.12.2015 passed

the following:

AWARD

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, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No-L-12012/27/2012-IR(B-II)

dated 26.09.2012 referred this industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement

on Smt T Syamalakumari for her unauthorized absence vide Order dated 30.09.2010 is justified? What relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference order No.L-12012/27/2012-IR(B-II) dated 26.09.2012, summons was issued to

the parties to appear in person and answer all the claims to substantiate their respective contentions. The workman and

the management entered appearance through their respective counsels.

4. The workman filed claim statement contending as follows: She joined as a Clerk in the services of the

management bank on 21.07.1978 at their Circle Office in Thiruvananthapuram. During July, 2007, while she was

working in the Ernakulam South branch of the management bank she was transferred to Manjeri branch. As a result of

the transfer the workman had to face several personal problems and she submitted a representation seeking modification

of the transfer order. The management refused to entertain her request. Subsequently she preferred WP(C)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2539

No.25882/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenging the transfer order. The Hon’ble High Court

dismissed the Writ Petition but allowed her to raise her grievances in an industrial dispute. She preferred a Writ Appeal

which also ended in dismissal. The management issued a chargesheet dated 07. 12. 2007 alleging “willful disobedience

to the lawful and reasonable orders of persons placed in authority” and “acting prejudicial to the interest of the bank”. It

was issued on the premise that she did not join for duty at the Manjeri branch on 15.10.2007. Subsequently the

management appointed an enquiry officer who conducted a namesake enquiry and rendered a finding that the workman

was guilty of the charges leveled against her. Thereafter the management imposed the punishment of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits. Even though she had submitted a representation before the disciplinary

authority, the earlier proposed punishment was confirmed by the authority. The workman raised the industrial dispute

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(central), Ernakulam. He could not arrive at a settlement and hence issued a

failure report on 13.12.2012. According to the workman the punishment imposed by the management is illegal, unjust

and unreasonable. The enquiry conducted by the management is only farce and namesake and no opportunity was

afforded to the workman to substantiate her contentions. The action of the management is willful and in violation of the

terms and conditions in the Bipartite Settlement. At any rate the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the

allegations leveled against the workman. Therefore, the workman has requested to declare that the punishment of

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits imposed by the management as illegal, unjust and unreasonable and

to reinstate her with full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits thereof.

The management filed written statement admitting that the workman joined the services of the bank on

21.07.1978. She was working in and around Ernakulam for about 27 years. The management issued the transfer order

in a routine manner and there was no malafides on their part in issuing the transfer order. The workman did not join

duty at the place of posting in spite of repeated instructions. Her absence from duty from 13.10.2007 to 10.11.2007 was

treated as unauthorized one without leave. Therefore the chargesheet dated 07.12.2007 was served on her in accordance

with Chapter 11, Regulation 3 clause (d) and (m) of the Canara Bank Service Code. The action on the part of the

workman amounts to gross misconduct as per the Service Code of the management bank. The management appointed

an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry after following the principles of natural justice and affording sufficient

opportunity to the workman to substantiate her contentions. Before imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority

an opportunity was afforded to the workman for personal hearing. Against the decision of the disciplinary authority she

moved before the appellate authority. The appellate authority concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority.

The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is just and proper. There

is no malafides on the part of the management in imposing the punishment on the workman. They have requested to

disallow the claim of the workman.

The validity of the preliminary enquiry was considered as the preliminary point. On behalf of the management

MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 is the document marked. Thereafter the matter was posted for hearing on the

preliminary point as to the validity of the enquiry.

At the time of hearing the workman filed a memo to the effect that she is not intending to proceed with the

industrial dispute and that she is not pressing the relief claimed in the claim statement filed by her. The learned counsel

for the workman has countersigned the withdrawal memo. In view of the withdrawal memo filed by the workman it is

evident that the workman is not interested to have an adjudication of the dispute referred for adjudication in this case.

Therefore there is no industrial dispute that remains to be adjudicated by this tribunal.

In the result it is held that there is no subsisting industrial dispute for adjudication by this tribunal. The award

is passed accordingly.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 23^rd day

of December, 2015.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

08.01.2015

Shri S. Nandakumar

Exhibit for the workman

NIL

Exhibit for the management

Enquiry File.

2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 4@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 29th day of February, 2016/10th Phalguna, 1937)

ID 4/2012

Workman

Shri V. Sukumaran,

S/o Late Vasudeva Menon,

Madhavam, Soorya Garden

Chempukavu,

Thrissur – 680020.

By Adv. Shri H.B. Shenoy

Management

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Indian Bank,

Head Office,

66, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

By Adv. Shri S. Easwaran

This case coming up for final hearing on 02.02.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.02.2016 passed

the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The contentions of the workman in brief are as follows:

The workman was employed as a Clerk/Shroff in the management bank. He joined the service of the bank on

25.08.1986. During June, 2009 while he was employed at the Kunnamkulam branch of the management bank a memo

dated 20.06.2009 was issued through their Chief Manager, Vigilance Cell, Ernakulam Circle Office. As per that memo

the management required the workman to submit explanation regarding the sanctioning of loans to his close relatives

namely his wife, to Shri. Girishkumar and to Smt.Sreeja Girishkumar. The allegation is that the workman managed to

sanction loan to the aforesaid three persons and thereby flouted the guidelines issued by the Head Office. The

management has alleged that the workman misused his position as a staff member of the bank and enjoyed undue

benefits by doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

The workman submitted an explanation dated 03.07.2009 denying the allegations in the memo and explained

the true state of affairs. He has stated that his wife, nephew and nephew’s wife were engaged in business and the loans

were sanctioned with the sincere intention that substantial chunk of business would remain with the bank. The loans

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2541

were sanctioned by providing sufficient security by way of equitable mortgage of the property as additional security.

The workman has stated that he has not intervened or influenced in any manner in order to sanction loans to the

aforesaid persons. He would further state that the name of his wife as a loanee was added at the instance of the Branch

Manager instead of extending the loan of more than `20 lakhs in the name of workman’s nephew’s wife. He would

further state that he had no bad or adverse intentions or any ulterior motives in sanctioning the loan and that his actions

are bonafide and genuine.

The workman has stated that without considering his explanation the management issued an Article of Charge

on 04.12.2009 alleging that the workman colluded with the then Branch Manager and managed to sanction and availed

three loans of `10 lakhs, `15 lakhs and `12 lakhs respectively to his wife, Sri.Girishkumar and Smt.Sreeja Girishkumar.

In the charge memo it is stated that the workman has committed acts of misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the bank

as per clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure dated 10.04.2002. The

workman submitted explanation to the memo of charges. He has denied the charges levelled against him. He has stated

that without considering the explanation to the Articles of Charge the management ordered an enquiry by appointing Mr.

N. Selvan, Chief Manager, Ernakulam Circle office as the Enquiry Officer and Mr.M.N. Philip, Manager, Ernakulam

Circle office as the Presenting Officer. The enquiry officer conducted a farce and namesake enquiry and submitted his

cryptic findings holding that the workman has committed the charges levelled against him.

On receipt of the findings from the enquiry officer the management provided the copy of the same to the

workman and sought his submissions if any. The workman submitted his comments on the enquiry report. Thereafter

the management imposed the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e., pension and/or

Provident Fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment’.

Thereafter the disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed punishment, against which the workman preferred an

appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the workman.

Thereafter the workman submitted a Review Petition before the Chairman and Managing Director of the management

and it was rejected by them. The workman preferred WP(C) No.6488/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

challenging the punishment. The Writ Petition was disposed granting the liberty to the workman to raise industrial

dispute for the same cause of action before the appropriate authorities. The workman preferred an application before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Kochi for the redressal of his grievance. The Conciliation Officer could not

arrive at a settlement. Hence the workman preferred this application. According to the workman the punishment

imposed by the management is illegal, unreasonable and unjust. His explanations were not considered by the

management at every stage of the proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated with the preconceived notion

that the workman has committed the misconduct as alleged by the management. The punishment imposed is illegal and

against the clause in Bipartite Settlement. He has requested to hold that the enquiry is invalid and that the punishment is

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:

The present application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the instance of the

workman is not maintainable. On 20.06.2009 the management issued a letter requiring the workman to explain the

reason why three loans were sanctioned to his wife, nephew and nephew’s wife, without obtaining authority of higher

officials since the Branch Manager had no power to sanction loans to the relatives of the staff. The workman submitted

a reply dated 03.07.2009 to the effect that his intention was that the substantial business should remain with the

bank and on that basis he has done the same. It was admitted that there was procedural lapses on the part of the Manager

in sanctioning the loans before obtaining permission from the higher authority. The reply submitted by the workman

was not satisfactory. Hence the management issued a memo dated 04.12.2009 to the workman. He has submitted an

explanation dated 16.12.2009 to the chargesheet. His explanation was not satisfactory. Hence the management

appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and submit report. Shri. N.Selvam, Chief Manager, Circle Office,

Ernakulam was appointed as the Enquiry officer and Shri B.G. Nair, Manager, Circle Office was appointed as the

presenting officer. The workman was given the choice of defence assistant and Shri. R. Ramesh, working as clerk at

Chalakkudy branch was the defence assistant selected by the workman.

The enquiry officer conducted departmental enquiry after affording sufficient opportunity to the workman to

substantiate his contentions and by following the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted finding on

08.06.2010. A copy of the enquiry report was given to the workman and called for his submission if any. The

disciplinary authority concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice to the

workman as to why the penalty shall not be imposed in accordance with the Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure

for workman dated 10.04.2002. Thereafter the disciplinary authority afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the

workman and after hearing him the proposed punishment was confirmed and an order to that effect was passed.

Against that order the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority

considered the contentions of the workman and passed an order concurring with the disciplinary authority. Against that

order the workman preferred Writ Petition WP No.6488/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court

2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the workman to raise an industrial dispute in accordance with

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The workman intentionally suppressed/concealed the fact that the loanees were his wife and close relatives.

The contention of the workman that the enquiry was conducted in a manner prejudicial to his interest, without affording

reasonable opportunity and without following the principles of natural justice, is false and incorrect. The disciplinary

authority as well as the appellate authority considered the contentions of the workman and imposed the punishment

which is just and reasonable. The documents marked in the domestic enquiry reveal that there was suppression of

material fact by Smt.Girija Kumari and other loanees. They have not disclosed their relationship with the workman.

The documents marked in the enquiry reveal that a sum of ` 9.94 lakhs was transferred from the Over Draft account of

Smt. Girija Kumari to the Savings bank account of the workman Shri. V. Sukumaran on 21.06.2008. So also a sum of

` 3 lakhs was transferred from the Savings Bank account of the workman to the OD account of Smt. Girija Kumari on

05.06.2009, the date on which the OD liability was adjustred. Management Witness No.2 examined in the domestic

enquiry identified the sanction ticket issued to sanction the loan for wholesale business in textile of Smt. Girija Kumari.

The enquiry officer has arrived at a finding that the workman deliberately concealed identity of Smt.Girija Kumari, as

his wife and managed to obtain the loan in her name. The intention to play fraud against the bank by the workman is

clear from the transferring of the loan amount to the Savings Bank account of the workman. The workman induced the

Branch Manager for sanctioning the loan making him to believe that it was within his power and that the workman has

suppressed his relationship with Smt. Girija Kumari. He has willfully suppressed material facts and managed to sanction

loans in the name of his wife and close relatives. He has abused his position so as to make wrongful gain without

disclosing the identity of Smt. Girija Kumari as his wife.

10.

Further enquiry by the management revealed that the loans were sanctioned in the name of the wife and close

relatives of the workman for the purpose of wholesale trade in the textile business and stationery item. But the

borrowers were not available at the place of business. Moreover, no stock was available at the time of visit. So also

proof regarding conduct of business such as bill book, stock register, account book etc. was not available at the business

premises for verification. The loanees have not obtained permission from the local authorities or from the Sales Tax

department for doing the textile business. Therefore it is evident that there was an attempt on the part of the workman to

gain undue advantage by misusing his position as a workman in the bank. It is clear that there was an attempt on the part

of the workman to get the loan irregularly sanctioned and it amounts to a serious dereliction of duty.

11.

The punishment imposed on the workman is neither excessive nor disproportionate in the charges levelled

against him. The management has requested to dismiss the claim of the workman.

12.

After filing the written statement by the management the workman filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in

the application.

13.

After affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to take steps and to produce documents, the validity of the

domestic enquiry was considered as the preliminary point. On that aspect, on behalf of the management MW1 was

examined and Ext.M1 is the document marked. As per the Order dated 22.01.2016 the domestic enquiry was found to

be valid, proper and following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter the matter was posted for further steps if any

and for further evidence. Subsequently the workman and the management side have not produced any additional

evidence or documents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

14.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the misconduct alleged against the workman is of such a nature that it requires deterrent

punishment as awarded by the management?

(ii)

Whether the punishment imposed on the workman by the management is proportionate to the charges

levelled against him?

(iii)

To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

15.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

The workman has approached this tribunal by invoking Section 2A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman joined as a Clerk/Shroff in the management bank on 25.08.1986. During

June, 2009 he was employed at the Kunnamkulam branch of the management bank, a memo dated 20.06.2009 was

issued to him through the Chief Manager, Vigilance Cell of Ernakulam Circle requiring him to explain the reason for the

sanctioning of loans by the Branch Manager to the workman’s wife, to Shri. Girishkumar and to Smt. Sreeja

Girishkumar who are his close relatives. According to the management the workman managed to sanction the aforesaid

loans by flouting the guidelines issued by the Head Office and that he had colluded with the Manager and availed the

loans clandestinely and detrimental to the interest of the management.

16.

It is stated that the workman has committed to the acts of misconduct by misusing his position as a staff

member of the bank and thereby he has done acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2543

17.

The workman submitted an explanation denying the allegations in the memo and explained the circumstances

leading to the sanction and disbursement of loans to the aforesaid persons. The workman has stated that the initial

proposal was to grant loans to Shri. Girishkumar and his wife and not to the wife of the workman. Subsequently at the

instance of the Branch Manager, instead of extending loan of more than ` 20 lakhs in the individual name of the

workman’s nephew’s wife, the name of workman’s wife was added since they were doing business jointly. He has

stated that the loans were sanctioned on personal security and also by offering collateral security by way of equitable

mortgage. According to the workman the management has not considered the circumstances under which the loan was

sanctioned. It is stated that the punishment imposed on the workman by the management was without appreciating the

issue in the correct perceptive. The workman has stated that the entire loan liability in relation to the three loans

sanctioned aforesaid was discharged. The workman has stated that the impugned punishment is illegal, unjust, harsh,

excessive and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is stated that the punishment was imposed

without considering the past record and extenuating circumstances and in violation of Clause 19.12(c) of First Bipartite

Settlement. The workman had unblemished service of 24 years with the management bank and earned good

reputation. The workman has stated that the punishment is excessive, harsh and disproportionate.

18.

The management has contended that they issued show cause notice dated 20.06.2009 requiring the workman to

explain the circumstances under which three loans, one to his wife, one to his nephew and other one to his nephew’s

wife were sanctioned without obtaining permission from the higher officials. It is stated that the Branch Manager has no

power to sanction loans to the relatives of the staff. The management has stated that before imposing the punishment

they conducted a domestic enquiry and afforded sufficient opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions.

After obtaining the enquiry report, copy of the same was provided to the workman and his submissions were called for

and only after considering his submissions the management imposed the punishment. Thereafter he approached the

appellate authority. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority. The management

has stated that they imposed the punishment for the reason that the workman misused his position as a staff working

under the management and to make undue gain without disclosing the identity of his spouse Smt. Girija Kumari.

19.

The management has stated that there was serious dereliction of duty on the part of the workman. The learned

counsel for the workman has submitted that the punishment imposed by the management is harsh, excessive and

disproportionate. It is submitted that the management has not considered the factual state of affairs and the service

records of the workman. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the charges levelled against the

workman are grave and hence they have imposed the punishment.

20.

The learned counsel for the workman referred to the Ruling reported in Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. General

Secretary, Federal Bank Staff Union and Others 2006(2) KLT 434 and submitted that this Tribunal has got the powers to

interfere with the punishment that if it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. In that

Ruling the Hon’ble High Court has filed that “Imposition of punishment – Held, dehors the powers under S.11A –

Power of Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to examine whether management has violated the terms of a binding

settlement while imposing the punishment and to interfere with the punishment if so required”. The learned counsel for

the workman also referred to another Ruling reported in Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways,

Hissar 2014 (10) SCC 301 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – S.11A – Object of –

Mandatory statutory duty cast on Labour Court to adjudicate dispute on merits on basis of evidence produced to

examine proportionality of punishment imposed where alleged misconduct is proved” and “Labour Law –

Domestic/Departmental Enquiry -- Doctrine of proportionality has to be followed by employer at the time of taking

disciplinary action against employees to satisfy principles of natural justice and safeguard their rights – On facts held,

applying doctrine of proportionality to instant case, order of termination was disproportionate to gravity of

misconduct”.

21.

The punishment imposed on the workman by the management is “compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits i.e., pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from

future employment”.

22.

The charge against the workman is that he managed to obtain loans in the name of his wife, nephew and

nephew’s wife without informing the matter to the higher authorities and without obtaining permission from them. It is

stated that the workman misused his position as a staff under the management and induced the Manager to sanction the

loan in the name of the aforesaid three persons. According to the management the action of the workman is a serious

misconduct and requires deterrent punishment. The workman has not obtained permission from the higher authorities

before sanctioning loans in the name of his wife, his nephew and nephew’s wife. The loanees have not disclosed their

relationship with the workman. The contention of the workman is that the loan applications were submitted before the

management bank with the bonafide intention that the major portion of the business activity will be retained with the

management and that it will be beneficial for the management bank. According to the management the workman

misused his position as a staff under the management and managed to sanction the loans clandestinely and with sinister

intention.

2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

The learned counsel for the management referred to the Ruling reported in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs.

Management of Usha Breco Limited and Another (2008) 5 SCC 554. In that Ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held “Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.11-A - Discretion available to Labour Court - Law laid down in

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. case, (1973) 1 SCC 813 - Explained and further held, must be exercised

judiciously and with restraint – Labour Court ought not substitute its own view merely because two views are possible

on the basis of evidence on record – However, Labour Court can examine aspect of proportionality – Labour Court

concluding that domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and findings in the

enquiry report were not perverse, yet it interfering with the management decision and holding that no charge was

established against workmen – No fresh evidence was introduced by either side before Labour Court - Held, Labour

Court’s interference not warranted – Analogy of Law laid down on Civil Procedure Code, S. 96, also invoked – Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 – S.96 – Administrative Law – Proportionality”.

24.

In this case this tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was just, proper and by

following the principles of natural justice and hence it is valid. After entering a finding to the effect that the enquiry is

valid and proper, no additional evidence has been adduced or additional documents were produced to prove that the

punishment imposed by the management is unjust or excessive or disproportionate. In the absence of any additional data

to prove that the punishment imposed by the management is excessive or disproportionate there is no justification on the

part of this tribunal to interfere with the punishment awarded. Moreover the management has stated the lonees were not

doing any business in the premises and that there was transferring of the loan amount to the savings bank account of the

workman. The aforesaid acts on the part of the workman is grave misconduct and requires deterrent punishment. It

follows that the punishment awarded by the management is just, proper and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Therefore the points for consideration are answered accordingly.

25.

Point No.(iii):-

In view of the Point Nos.(i) and (ii) the workman is not entitled to any relief claimed in this

application. In the result the claim of the workman is disallowed. The point is answered accordingly.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 29^th day

of February, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

20.02.2014

Shri N. Selvam

Exhibit for the workman

NIL

Exhibit for the management

Enquiry File.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1146-—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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40@07) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@156@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 02.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/156/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2545

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVRNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 40 of 07

The Secretary ( Raj Deep),

PNB Employees Union (UP),

940/18 Radha Vihar Rawatpur,

Kanpur.

And

The Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional Office,

Birhana Road,

Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12011/156/2006-IR(B-II) dated 30.08.07, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Kanpur, not regularizing Sri Rajdeep and at

the same time refusing him to employ w.e.f. 17.12.05 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled?

In short the case of the workman is that while he was studying in class IV, he was appointed as temporary

employee in terms of RMO Circular dated 03.03.92. Regional office is not maintaining seniority for the appointment of

part time and full tim sweeper in terms of PD Circular No.50/88 dated Nov.7, 1988, in contravention with the provision

of law. Bank appointed a sweeper named Shashi in terms of BP Settlement who was working as temporary employee at

BO Jageshwar at Extn. Counter of B.O. Gwaltoli. Worker being the senior most and next to Shasi as well a in terms of

circular no.50/88 dated 07.11.88. The union requested the bank to appoint the worker in terms of B.P. Settlement at

Extn. Counter of B.O. Gwaltoli under the provisions of section 25G & H of th Act by their letter dated 09.10.04. The

bank ignoring the seniority of Raj Deep appointed one PTS at B O Gwaltoli in the year 2004 who was not even in the

service of the bank at any branch as a temporary employee in Kanpur, even for a day. The bank appointed number of

juniors since 2004 ignoring the seniority of worker and still several juniors are working and fresh hands have been given

regular appointment but Sri Raj Deep has been refused from the employment illegally and arbitrary.

Therefore, the worker has prayed that by giving the benefit of banks circular 50/88 dated 7.11.88 and also by

giving benefit of section 25G and H of the act direct the bank to appoint the worker with effect from 07.12.05 along with

payment of salary from the same date.

The claim of the worker has been denied vehemently by the opposite party by filing written statement wherein

it is alleged that on the basis of photocopies of mark sheet and School Leaving Certificate annexed with the claim

statement, filed before ALC© Kanpur, it is very much evidence that the workman has passed Class V in the year 1996 as

per mark sheet and School Leaving Certificates, whereas a per circular no.12/85 dated 08.02.85 he is not eligible for

appointment as part time sweeper. It is clearly mentioned in para 3 of the said circular that it has been further decided

that part time appointment in the subordinate cadre hence forth should be confined to those who have not studied beyond

4^th class/standard and even those who have no formal education may be considered. Worker is not entitled for the job as

he has already passed class 5^th and he does not fulfils the criteria for appointment in part time sweeper category. He has

not worked for 240 days continuously in any of preceding 12 months, therefore, neither the provisions of the Act are

attracted in present case nor he is otherwise entitled to claim regularization or absorption or appointment on permanent

basis in the bank on facts or in law. Worker is the son of Sri Raja Ram who is full time permanent sweeper at BO Shastri

Nagar, Kanpur and as and when he proceeded on leave, his son Sri Raj Deep undertook the job of sweeping / cleaning at

Bo: Shastri Nagar, Kanpur.

On merit it has been denied by the bank that worker was appointed by the bank as temporary employee in place

of full time sweeper rather he was engaged in leave arrangement whenever the full time sweeper proceeded o leave. As

per instant guide lines only a rosters for recruitment of full time / part time sweeper is maintained and not for those who

are engaged in stop gap arrangement during the leave of FTS/PTS. Smt. Shashi had been working at Bo Gwaltoli,

Kanpur on consolidated basis on wages of Rs.740/- p.m. only on recommendation of the incumbent in charge of the

branch as per bank rules and posted at Extension Counter Jal Sansthan. Thereafter she was elevated on 1/3^rd scale basic

2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as per banks guidelines. It is denied that the worker was the senior most. The name of the worker does not figure either

in the list of part time Sweeper or on consolidated basis. According to the terms of circular dated 07.11.88 read along

with circular dated 28.12.79 the worker being 5^th pass was over qualified and not eligible to be appointed as part time

sweeper and the provision of the Act are not applicable in his case as he is not a retrenched employee.

Lastly it is alleged that the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being misleading, misconceived and

devoid of merit.

The bank has also filed copies of personal division circulars three in number vide document paper no.4/1. The

worker along with his statement of claim has also filed photocopies of papers running from paper no.2/4-18.

The worker vide paper no.12/1 has also filed salary bills which are for the month of Feb.01, March 01, April

01, May 01, June 01 and November 01 pertaining to Branch Office Shastri Nagar, Kanpur.

10.

Whereas worker has examined himself as WW1 in support of his claim, management examined Sri Anil Kumar

Mishra as M.W.1 in support of their claim.

11.

In his examination in chief worker has stated that in July 95 when he was engaged in the bank he was qualified

up to class 4^th and at that time Sri Agrawal was the branch manager who asked him to continue the work in the branch

and he will made him permanent in the bank. At the time of his working he was being paid Rs.20 or 25/- per day as

wages and said Sri Agrawal was fully satisfied with his work. He goes on to state that he continued his study on the

advice of Sri Agrawal to the effect that in case he qualifies class 5^th he will see that worker may get permanent

employment in the bank. Apart from Mr. Agrawal, Sri Tiwari, Sri Mishra and Sri Satish Rai had been the managers of

the branch with whom the worker had worked. His working hours in the branch was from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. He

moved an application for making him permanent in the service of the bank on 16.02.2004. Upon it he was advised to

continue with the work at the branch and he will be given appointment on permanent basis. Some time he was paid his

wages through vouchers and some time payment was transferred in his account. He also received bonus in the year 2005,

which was Rs.488.29. He clarified the reason as to why he filed the present case against the bank which was that junior

to him by name Rinku and Bablu were appointed by the bank after terminating his services.

12.

In his cross examination worker Rajdeep has deposed that he was engaged by Sri Agrawal, Manager, PNB

Branch Shastri Nagar in july 1995 and ha done his work continuously up to 17.12.2005. He stated that right from 7.00

a.m. to 8.00 a.m. he worked for sweeping the branch, thereafter, in the absence of peon he was doing that work also. He

stated that he was engaged on stop gap arrangement. He was not knowing as to what educational qualification is

required for a sweeper. He has filed paper no.2/8 to show that he has passed class 4^th thereafter on the assurance of Mr

Agrawal, Manager of the branch for getting him appointment he has passed class 5^th in 1996. It is wrong to say that he

was terminated from the service because he had attained qualification up to class 5^th , but his services were terminated

because he has filed his case for appointment on permanent basis. He further deposed that from 95 to05 he has worked

for more than 240 days continuously in every calendar year. He has admitted that in paper no. 2/14-16 period of his wok

is shown as 38 days in 04 and 48 days in 05 which is correct.

13.

Management has examined Sri Anil Kumar Mishra Senior Manager as W.W.1 who has stated in his affidavit

that worker Sri Raj Deep son of Sri Raja Ram who was full time sweeper at the branch office and as and when he

proceeded on leave his son present worker undertook the job of sweeping and he has not worked for 240 days

continuously preceding 12 months from the date of his termination of service. He has never been appointed in place of

full time sweeper as temporary employee rather he was engaged in leave gap arrangement. As per circular dated 3.3.92

issued by Regional Office Kanpur educational qualification of sweeper should to be beyond class 4^th.

14.

In his cross-examination he has deposed that worker was engaged in leave gap arrangement as part time

sweeper and has not worked up to 240 days in any calendar year. He has moved his application for his appointment.

15.

Both parties representative were heard at length and I have also gone through the entire record of the case

carefully.

16.

Worker has himself filed working details of worker prepared by the bank and filed before the ALC© Kanpur,

which clearly establishes that the worker has not worked for 240 days continuously in any of the calendar year of 1995

to 2005. Rather it appears from the working details that he has worked for 38 days in 04 and for 48 days in 05.

17.

In the statement of claim the worker has alleged that bank has appointed number of juniors since 04 ignoring

his seniority and also stated in his evidence that Rinku and Bablu were appointed by bank who were junior to him.

18.

From the evidence and documents it is clearly established that worker has been engaged only on leave vacancy

occurred due to absence of his father who was permanent employee as full time sweeper. As such worker cannot claim

any right to the post being engaged under stop gap arrangement a sweeper. Besides this as per circular of Regional

Office of the bank educational qualification for the post of sweeper is up to class 4^th pass and admittedly during the

course of his engagement he has passed class 5^th thus he became over qualified for the post of sweeper.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2547

19.

Therefore, on the basis of above discussions, my finding is that as the worker was working against leave

vacancy in stop gap arrangement it cannot be said that he was working as temporary employee against any permanent

vacancy of sweeper, therefore, his services cannot be regularized in any manner whatsoever. Besides this there is no

necessity for giving the benefit of notice or notice pay in lieu of retrenchment compensation a from the evidence it is

clear that he had never completed 240 days of continuous service preceding 12 calendar months from the date of

termination of his services or refusing employment by the bank.

20.

Accordingly reference is decided against the worker and in favour of the management holding that the worker

cannot be held entitled for the relief claimed by him in his claim statement.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@08) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@199@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/199/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVRNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 2008

Sri Khem Chand S/o of Sri Bhagwan Das

House No. 31/62, Rawli,

Agra (U.P.)

And

The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

1^st Floor, Jiwan Prakash,

Sanjai Place,

Agra.

AWARD

Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi vide notification No. L-12012/199/2007-IR (B-II) dated 2.2.08 has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Agra, in terminating the services of

Sri Khem Chand driver with effect from 18.08.06 is just fair and legal? If not to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?

Case of the worker in short is that the Regional Manager of the Bank is the appointing authority in respect of

award staff and subordinate staff in the year 1991. The worker was engaged as driver of the bank on 10.01.91 by the

Regional Manager to drive the banks vehicle No. UMW 9345. The worker continued to work as driver till 18.08.06,

when the services of the worker were dispensed with by the bank in an arbitrary manner without showing any cogent

reasons and without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act inasmuch as at the time of dispensation

with the service of the worker neither he was paid any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. During the

2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

period of his engagement he had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding 12 months from the date of his

removal from service. Therefore, the termination of the service of the worker is bad in law and he is entitled to be

reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages and continuity of service.

The opposite party has refuted the claim of the worker on a number of grounds inasmuch as the worker is not a

workman within section 2 (s) of the Act; the answering bank is a public sector bank and it has to strictly follow the

recruitment rules, regulations and directions issued by Government from time to time. It is also alleged that the bank has

neither appointed the worker nor has terminated his service. Bank has also denied that the worker at any point of time

was appointed as driver to drive the banks car. No service rules are applicable on the worker and the bank has no

disciplinary control over the worker. The worker had never been paid any wages by the bank. The worker had never

gone through the selection process. Therefore, the claim of the claimant is devoid of any merit and is liable to be

rejected.

Worker has not filed rejoinder in the case.

Worker Khem Chandra has examined himself as W.W.1 and the management has examined V. kurian as

M.W.1.

Worker has filed two documents in original and no documentary has been adduced by the management.

Heard party’s representatives at length and perused records of the case.

Worker W.W.1 Khem Chandra has stated on oath that he was engaged by Sri S. K. Mathur of Bank of India in

1992 as driver and he also performed the work of placing records of the bank from one table to another. He was driving

bank’s car no. UP-80-AD-469 Esteem and some time bank’s cash van also.

10.

Paper no. 5/8 was issued to him at the time of curfew and paper no.5/9 is curfew pass. He was receiving wages

through vouchers and he was not given any appointment letter and also he was not given any notice or retrenchment

compensation at the time of dispensation of his services by the bank. He had worked continuously in the bank during the

period 1992 to August 2006 and was receiving wages at Rs.5000/- per month and sometimes Rs.6000/-.

11.

In his cross-examination he has stated that he has not been appointed through prescribed procedure. He has

further admitted that if a senior officer is given a car he is entitled to receive driver allowance. He further deposed that

he does not know whether he has driven the car of Mr. Mathur in personal capacity and has no concern with the bank.

But Mr. Mathur gave him payment through voucher but he has not filed any such vouchers.

12.

M.W.1 manager of the bank has stated on oath that driver is appointed through prescribed procedure by calling

the names from the employment exchange. Khem Chandra has never been appointed through prescribed procedure nor

had worked as casual worker. There is no record of payment made to the worker. Zonal Manager is given allowance and

if he wishes he can appoint driver in personal capacity which has no concern with the bank. Paper no. 5/8 appears to be

forged as it is typed in English and blank columns are filled in Hindi.

13.

From perusal of evidence it appears that even worker has stated that he does not know whether he was

appointed in personal capacity by manager of the bank or not and M.W.1 V. Kurian has stated that Zonal Manager is

given allowance and if he wishes he can take the services of driver in personal capacity.

14.

As far as the documents filed by the worker, he himself has admitted that these documents have been issued at

the time of curfew.

15.

Besides this he has not filed any documents or voucher through which at any point of time he had received

wages from the bank nor has summoned ay register or voucher I which his payment is endorsed, while M.W.1 has stated

that there is no such record in the bank.

16.

One more aspect is necessary to mention that worker is not sure of his wages as he has stated that he was

receiving Rs.5000/- per month and sometimes Rs.6000/-. It can only happen in the cas of the driver appointed I the

personal capacity of a Manager of the bank.

17.

Worker Khem Chandra has failed to prove that he was ever engaged by the bank as driver and that he ever had

received wages from the bank through vouchers.

18.

Therefore, on the basis of analysis of facts and evidence of the case it is held that the services of the worker had

never been retrenched by the bank as such he is held entitled to no relief.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2549

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 38@06) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@147@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/06) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/147/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVRNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 2006

In the matter of dispute between-

Sri Sudhir Kumar Gupta,

Son of late Radha Krishna Gupta,

Mohalla Mohan,

House No.0737, Chitra Gupta Colony, Ganda Nala,

Kasganj, Etah.

And

The Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank,

Centre Point,

Aligarh.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-12012/147/2005-IR(B-II) dated 24.5.06, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating Sri Sudhir Kumar Gupta son of late

Radha Krishna Gupta from service with effect from 28.1.05 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

In short the case of the worker is that he was appointed at the post of Daftary as daily rated worker on

03.08.2000 at branch office Bhargain District Etah and in this way his total service period is more than 4 yars four

months. It is alleged by the claimant that by way of adopting unfair labor practice he was removed from the service of

the bank. The worker made repeated representation for regularizing his service but the said act of the worker was

disliked by the branch manager and he started in search of some opportunity to remove him from the service of the bank.

On 03.01.05 the branch manager orally directed the worker to contact with the Manager Regional Office, where the

branch manager informed the worker that till date no orders have been received. He remained continuously in touch with

the branch and on 22.1.05 branch manager informed the worker that orders have been received that you are permitted to

joint your duties with effect from 24.01.05. On 28.01.05, the worker was called by the manager and he orally informed

that his services stands terminated and he is not required to attend his duties and that a sum of Rs.740/- being wages

have been deposited in his account. It is alleged that the action of the branch manager is arbitrary, illegal and unfair

inasmuch as he was neither given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of his

service. The action of the bank is also in violation of rules of natural justice and unfair labour practice.

Accordingly he has prayed that the action of the bank in terminating his service be declared illegal, unjust and

unfair and he be directed to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages, continuity of service etc. etc.

2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The worker along with his statement of claim has also filed 14 documents per list dated 12.06.06, relevancy of

the same will be examined at the appropriate stage.

The opposite party bank has filed written reply against the claim petition of the worker vehemently denying the

averments of the claim petition on a number of grounds i.e. that the claimant was empanelled a daily wager by the bank

for Etah district to meet the exigencies and he was never appointed by the bank. He was allotted to Burgain branch and

was being engaged as such by the branch. On joining of regular incumbent he was relieved by the branch. Te claimant

was engaged purely on temporary basis to meet the exigencies as and when required. His engagement was for a specific

work and for specified period. When the work entrusted to him was completed his engagement automatically came to an

end and non renewal of the same is not retrenchment. Since the worker continues to be in the panel of daily wagers the

question of termination of his services or compliance of provisions of section 25F of the Act does not arise. From the

reply of the bank it is also clear that the bank had not denied the continuous working of the worker except saying that the

worker continues to be in the panel of daily wagers the question of termination of his services or compliance of

provisions of section 25F of the Act does not arise. It is also alleged by the bank that in the facts and circumstances of

the case there was no need of compliance of the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

Apart from the above the bank has simply given a detail procedure of recruitment process for appointing

regular and permanent employees with which the workers case has no concern as admittedly he was engaged by the

bank on need basis and his services came to an end by efflux of time on the expiry of exigency of work, under these

circumstances it is not a case where requirement to comply with the provision of section 25F of the is must.

On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the worker.

Worker has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been mentioned therein except reiterating the facts already

pleaded in the claim petition.

10.

Worker has filed original pass book vide paper no.17/1.

11.

Bank also has filed 7 documents vide paper no.14/1 which are in the nature of correspondence between worker

and bank.

12.

Whereas worker has examined himself as W.W.1, opposite party has examined Sri Vinod Kumar, M.W.1 and

Sri Anand Kumar as M.W.2.

13.

I have heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length and have perused the record carefully.

14.

W.W.1 Sudhir Kumar in his evidence has stated that he was appointed on 03.08.2000, as daily wager at branch

bhargain in District Etah, and he was also doing the work of daftary. He worked for 4 years and four months and getting

payment as daily wager. When a vacancy of sub staff occurred he applied for the same on 27.07.2000 and he started

working with effect from 03.08.3000. He raised his demand for his remuneration before the authorities of the bank the

same was ignored then he submitted repeated representations. He has worked for 240 days. On 28.01.2005 his services

were terminated and Rs.740/- was transferred in his account as his wages. He has filed original pass book. He has also

filed photocopies of representations and pass book through list paper no.2/8 which are paper no.2/9-35 and has also filed

original pass book through list 17/1 which is paper no.17/2-17.

15.

From perusal of his pas book it appears that this pass book account was opened on 01.09.2000, wherein entries

of payment of wages made for the period 01.09.2000 to 28.01.05.

16.

Management has also filed request letters of worker through list paper no.14/1 which are paper no.14/1-1 to

14/1-6, which also reveals that the worker worked as daily wager and requested to absorb him a permanent sub-staff but

there is no such document filed by either side to establish that worker was ever absorbed as sub-staff.

17.

M.W.1 Sri Vinod Kumar has also stated in his evidence that worker was engaged against leave vacancy but in

his cross-examination he has admitted that worker was engaged as daily wager near about August 2000 and he was paid

his wages at the end of the month as daily wager. He further admitted that he was given one or two days gap after his

working of 90 days and again he used to be engaged as daily wager. He further admitted that he was being paid wages as

daily wager and it can be established through payment voucher when gap was given. He further admitted that no such

voucher on record. He was asked a question whether services of worker were terminated arbitrarily on 28.01.05, to

which the answer of the witness is given as service of worker were terminated following the established policy of the

bank.

18.

Likewise M.W.2 Sri Anand Kumar has given his statement stating that6 daily wager are engaged from the

panel if regular employee proceeds on leave and has also admitted that name of Sudhir Kumar was called from

employment office for his engagement as daily wager and his name was there in the panel prepared by the bank.

19.

From the above evidence it is established that Sudhir Kumar Gupta was engaged by the bank as daily wager

and his name also finds place in panel prepared by the bank for providing employment on daily wager in case any

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2551

regular employee proceeds on leave and in this way he worked as daily wager from August 2000 till 28.01.05. If

evidence of M.W.1 is admitted to the effect that the worker was given one or two days gap after 90 days which he could

not prove for want of payment voucher. Therefore it can be very well established that the worker Sudhir Kumar Gupta

had worked continuously for 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination i.e. 28.01.05. It

was the duty of the bank to produce payment vouchers as the vouchers were in the custody of the bank and as they failed

to produce the same adverse inference can be drawn against the management. It is also not disputed that the services of

the worker has been terminated in breach of provision of section 25F of the Act, inasmuch as neither he was given any

notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, therefore, termination of the services of the worker is held to be

neither just, fair nor legal. Consequently worker is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back

wages and all consequential benefits.

20.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1149-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@27@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2016

S.O. 1149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/27/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 29th day of January, 2016/09th Magha, 1937)

ID 21/2010

Workman

Shri. B. Sivadasan,

S/o late Balakrishnan,

Vilayil Puthen Veedu,

Kallelibhagom P.O.,

Karunagappally,

Kollam District.

By Adv. Shri R.V. Sujit Kumar

Management

The Assistant General Manager, (Kerala Region)

Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office,

Vasudeva Buildings, T.D. Road,

Ernakulam – 682011.

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This case coming up for final hearing on 20.01.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.01.2016 passed the

following:

AWARD

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, the Central Government referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“(1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted into the charges levelled against Shri B. Sivadasan, Daftary was

proper and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? (2) Whether the quantum of

punishment awarded to the workman was proportionate to the misconduct committed by him?”

After receipt of the reference order No.L-12012/27/2010-IR(B-II) dated 02.06.2010, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the workman and the management to appear and answer all

material aspects relating to the dispute and produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions. The workman

and the management appeared through counsels and submitted their pleadings.

The workman filed claim statement contending as follows:

The workman was employed as Daftary at the Mavelikkara branch of the management bank. While so, he was

chargesheeted by the management bank on 09.01.2007 without issuing a show cause notice. The charges levelled

against the workman are:

1) willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior

2) committed breach of rules and thus committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

3) unauthorizedly absenting to avoid arrest and have thus tarnished the image of the bank and thus

committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

4) neglected work as an employee of the bank

5) remained absent without leave and

6) incurring excessive debts.

On the same day the management ordered an enquiry against the workman. Mr. M.C. Jose, Senior Manager,

Adoor branch of the management bank was appointed as the enquiry officer and Mr. C. P. Ananthakrishnan, Manager,

Pathanamthitta branch as the management representative. The enquiry officer conducted a farce and namesake enquiry,

without affording reasonable opportunity of defence, depriving the workman to prove his innocence. The enquiry

officer has not followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. The enquiry officer has submitted

the findings dated 21.05.2007 holding that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the

management bank issued a notice dated 10.08.2007 to the workman intimating that he is guilty and that they are

proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from the service. Subsequently as per the final order dated 23.08.2007

the management imposed the punishment of ‘removal from bank’s service with superannuation benefits i.e., Pension

and/or PF Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time without

disqualification from future employment’. Against that order the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate

authority. The appellate authority concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority.

The punishment imposed by the management on the workman is illegal, unreasonable, unjust, bad in law and

against the terms of the Bipartite Settlements. The finding that the workman is guilty is based on an erroneous, perverse

and biased action on the part of the management. He was punished on the basis of conjectures, surmises, mere suspicion

and with no positive evidence against him. The workman is innocent and has not committed any act of misconduct as

alleged by the management. The punishment imposed on the workman is harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the

facts and circumstances of the case. His past record with the management bank has not been considered while imposing

harsh punishment. The workman has requested to declare that the punishment of removal from services with

superannuation benefits, imposed on him is illegal and unjust; to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of

service and other attendant benefits.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:

The management has denied all the allegations levelled against them. They have stated that the workman was

chargesheeted by the management under the following counts:

a) Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior (5(e) of the

bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2553

b) Breach of rules and thus doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. (5(j) of the bipartite

settlement dated 10.4.2002)

c) Remaining unauthorisedly absenting to avoid arrest and have tarnished the image of the bank and

committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank (5(j) of the bipartite settlement dated

10.4.2002)

d) Neglect of work as an employee of the bank, (7(C) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

e) Absent without leave (7(a) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

Incurring excessive debt (7(1) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

Out of the six charges levelled against the workman, three are gross misconduct and the remaining three are

minor misconduct on his part. The management ordered domestic enquiry and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry

in a fair and judicious manner, following the principles of natural justice and by affording sufficient opportunity to the

workman to substantiate his contentions. After obtaining the enquiry report, opportunity was afforded to the workman

to make submissions on the findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority considered the submission of the

workman and imposed the punishment of ‘removal from banks’ service with superannuation benefits’. Against that

order the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered all relevant

aspects and concurred the findings of the disciplinary authority.

The workman was a habitual absentee from duty on loss of pay for more than 320 days from 24.05.1990 till

June 2007. The management has stated that the enquiry officer has judiciously and independently analyzed the evidence

and submitted his findings. The management has stated that the enquiry is conducted in a just and proper manner,

following the principles of natural justice and that there is no illegality or impropriety in conducting the enquiry. On

earlier occasions as per order dated 22.06.2004 and 17.03.2005 the workman was punished for financial indiscipline.

The management has stated that the punishment imposed on the workman is proportionate to the charges levelled against

him.

10.

After providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to take steps and produce documents, the validity of the

domestic enquiry was considered as the preliminary point. On that point the management side examined MW1 and the

enquiry file was marked as Ext.M1. As per the Order dated 15.05.2014, this tribunal held that the domestic enquiry

conducted by the management was invalid and vitiated as it is violative of the principles of natural justice and denial of

reasonable opportunity.

11.

Thereafter the matter was posted for taking further steps if any, to produce additional documents and to adduce

further evidence. At this stage the management side examined MW2 and Exts.M1 to M35 were marked. After

completing the evidence on the side of the management the matter was posted for the evidence of the workman. At this

stage the workman and his counsel remained absent. Thereafter notice was issued to the workman it was returned

‘unserved’ with the endorsement that the “addressee left out of station”. Hence the workman was called absent and set

ex-parte. Heard counsel for the management.

12.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman was just, legal, proper and proportionate

to the misconduct alleged against him?

(ii)

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

13.

Point No.(i):-

The workman herein Shri B. Sivadasan was employed as Daftary at the Mavelikkara branch

of the management bank. The management bank issued the charge sheet dated 09.01.2007 against him. The charges

levelled against the workman are:

a) Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior (5(e) of the

bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002).

b) Breach of rules and thus doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. (5(j) of the bipartite

settlement dated 10.4.2002)

c) Remaining unauthorisedly absenting to avoid arrest and have tarnished the image of the bank and

committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank (5(j) of the bipartite settlement dated

10.4.2002)

d) Neglect of work as an employee of the bank, (7(C) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

e) Absent without leave (7(a) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

2554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Incurring excessive debt (7(1) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002)

14.

The management appointed an enquiry officer to conduct a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted

the enquiry and submitted report holding that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The validity of

the domestic enquiry was challenged by the workman. That was considered as a preliminary point. As per the Order

dated 15.05.2014 this tribunal held that the domestic enquiry is vitiated and hence invalid.

15. In the claim statement the workman has stated that the punishment of ‘removal from bank’s service with

superannuation benefits i.e., Pension and/or PF Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations

prevailing at the relevant time without disqualification from future employment’ imposed by the management is not

sustainable for the reason that the charges levelled against him by the bank are false, patently vague and lacking in

material particulars. The workman has stated that at any rate the punishment is harsh and disproportionate to the

allegations levelled against him by the management. He has stated that the evidence relied on by the management to

prove that he is guilty of the charges levelled against him is tainted, partisan and without any legal basis. He has

requested to declare that the punishment imposed on him by the management as illegal, unjust and to reinstate him with

full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and to pay costs of this proceedings.

16.

The management has contended that they have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman and he

was chargesheeted for the misconduct on his part. Out of the charges alleged against the workman, three were gross

misconduct and remaining three were minor misconduct. They have stated that the management appointed an enquiry

officer who conducted domestic enquiry and submitted finding to the effect that the workman is guilty of the charges

levelled against him. According to the management they have considered the submission of the workman before

imposing the punishment of ‘removal from banks’ service with superannuation benefits’. They have stated that the

appeal preferred by the workman before the appellate authority was dismissed confirming the findings of the

disciplinary authority. According to the management the workman was habitually absent from duty while in service.

They have stated that during the period from 24.05.1990 to June, 2007 he remained absent on loss of pay for more than

320 days. According to the management the misconduct alleged against the workman is grave and required deterrent

punishment. They have stated that the punishment imposed on the workman is as per the provisions of the Bipartite

Settlement. They have stated that the workman is not entitled to the relief claimed in the claim statement.

17.

As stated earlier, as per the preliminary order dated 15.05.2014 this Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry

conducted by the management is vitiated and hence invalid. The management imposed punishment of grave nature on

the workman mainly relying on the findings of the enquiry officer. While examined as MW2 the second witness on the

side of the management has denied the suggestion that the workman had submitted leave application and requested leave

from the management bank. MW2 has stated that the police came to the bank and arrested the workman and at that time

there were other customers in the bank. According to MW2 there was oral complaint against the workman to the effect

that he misbehaved towards the customers. He has denied the suggestion that he is speaking falsehood to wreck

vengeance against the workman.

18.

Ext.M2 is copy of the attendance register of the Mavelikkara branch of the management bank for the period

from 03.09.2006 to 03.11.2007. Ext.M3 is copy of the Order dated 17.03.2005 issued by the management to the

workman. As per Ext.M3 the management has imposed stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect.

Ext.M4 is copy of the letter issued by the Assistant General Manager of the management bank to Sub-Inspector of

Police, Mavelikkara intimating the residential address of the workman. Ext.M5 reveals that the Senior Branch Manager

of the Mavelikkara branch has intimated the Deputy General Manager of the management bank about the unauthorized

absence of the workman. It also reveals that the workman was on loss of pay for 121 days from May 2006 to

26.04.2007. On previous occasions he was on loss of pay for 199 days. In Ext.M5 the Manager has explained in detail

about the police cases and instances of salary attachment from the KSFE and Bank of Baroda Employees’ Cooperative

Society, in the name of the workman. Ext.M6 is copy of the letter issued by the Senior Branch Manager, Kollam branch

to the Deputy General Manager of the management bank. Ext.M6 document reveals a cheque for `40,200/- issued by the

workman was returned due to insufficiency of fund. Ext.M7 is copy of the letter dated 17.01.2007 issued by the Senior

Manager, Mavelikkara branch of the management bank to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally intimating

that the workman was on sick leave from 09.11.2006 to 11.01.2007. They also informed the Judicial First Class

Magistrate that the workman is attending the bank from 12.01.2007. Ext.M8 is copy of the letter issued by the Judicial

First Class Magistrate to the Branch Manager, Mavelikkara branch. Ext.M9 is the intimation given by the Senior Branch

Manager, Mavelikkara branch to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam intimating that the

workman was arrested by the police on 20.01.2007. Ext.M10 is copy of the arrest warrant issued by the Judicial

1^st Class Magistrate, Karunagappally in the name of the workman. Ext.M11 is the copy of letter issued by the Senior

Branch Manager, Mavelikkara branch to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam intimating the

unauthorized absence of the workman. Ext.M12 is copy of the letter by the Sr. Branch Manager, Mavelikkara branch to

the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam intimating that the workman submitted casual leave

application for three days from 23.01.2007 to 25.01.2007. In that the Manager suggested that the workman can be

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2555

permitted to join duty. Ext.13 is copy of the letter dated 27.01.2007 by the workman to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara branch. In that the workman has stated that he had indebted to one Mr.Rajendran about two years ago and

that he had repaid the amount in time. He has also stated that Mr.Rajendran trapped him in a case and on the basis of

which he was arrested at 02:10 pm on 20.01.2007 and he was released on bail by 11:00 am on 22.01.2007. Ext.M14 is

copy of another letter issued by the Senior Branch Manager, Mavelikkara branch to the Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Ernakulam intimating that the workman has not reported for duty on 01.02.2007. It is noted in Ext.14

that the management bank received a fax message from the workman. Ext.M15 is copy of the letter dated 01.02.2007 by

the workman to the Branch Manager, Mavelikkara. In that workman was stated that a false case was foisted against him

by Mr.Rajendran and in that he was trapped and arrested by the police and released on bail on 22.01.2007. As per that

letter he sought permission to join duty. Ext.M16 is copy of the letter by the Senior Manager (HRM), Regional Office,

Ernakulam to the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara. As per that letter the Senior Manager(HRM)

has informed the Senior Branch Manager, Mavelikkara branch that the Assistant General Manager has permitted to

allow the workman to join duty subject to production of necessary application for his absence from 23.01.2007.

Ext.M18 is copy of the letter of the workman to the Manager of the Mavelikkara branch explaining the circumstances

under which he issued the cheque and the subsequent settlement in presence of the Panchayath member. Ext.M19 is

copy of the letter dated 12.01.2006 issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar(RR), Kottayam to the Branch Manager,

Mavelikkara branch. As per Ext.M19 the revenue recovery authority requested the Branch Manager to attach and

recover from the salary of the workman @`2,000/- per month. The total amount to be recovered as noted in Ext.M19 is

`1,10,355/- + 12% + 5%. Ext.M27 is copy of the letter by the Chief Manager(Ops. C.S & O&M) of the management

bank to the Assistant General Manager, Kerala Region intimating that a letter has been received from Shri. P.

Venugopal, Advocate, Mavelikkara on behalf of his client Shri. R. Rajendran. Ext.M29 is copy of the letter by the

workman to the Manager explaining the circumstances under which he had to borrow money in connection with the

construction of his house and the difficulty experienced by him in repaying the loan availed from several persons. In

that letter the workman has made an assurance that he will repay the debt as early as possible and inform the bank about

the same. Ext.M30 is copy of the letter by the Manager, Mavelikkara branch to the Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Ernakulam explaining the factual state of affairs in relation to the workman. In Ext.30, the Manager

has requested to initiate appropriate action against the workman. Ext.M31 is copy of the medical certificate issued by

the Medical Officer, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Karunagappally to the workman. In that the doctor has

opined that the workman requires absence from duty for seven days from 16.11.2006. Ext.M32 is another letter by the

Senior Branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam.

19.

The documents aforesaid marked on behalf of the management together with the evidence tendered by MW2

reveal that the workman was unauthorizedly absenting from duty on several occasions for one reason or other. He was

regularly irregular in attending office without obtaining leave from the competent authority. It is true that on earlier

occasions the workman was punished for his unauthorized absence from duty. He has not improved his attendance in

the bank. The question for consideration is whether there was insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of superiors. Regarding this aspect it is seen that the workman was indebted to several persons. He has

not shown any earnest effort to see that the liability is cleared by some way or other. Instead he remained absent

unauthorizedly from the bank. His action amounts to willful disobedience of the lawful orders of superiors.

20.

The next aspect to be considered is whether the workman has done any act prejudicial to the interest of the

bank. In this regard except that he incurred debt disproportionately to his earnings there is no evidence to prove that he

has done any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. In such circumstance it cannot be held that the workman is guilty

on that ground.

21.

The other aspect to be considered is whether the workman has given any satisfactory explanation for his

absence from duty. Copy of the letter issued by Shri. Venugopal, Advocate for the complainant in the cheque case filed

by Shri. R. Rajendran reveals that the complainant in the cheque case and his counsel wanted to see that the workman is

arrested while on duty. On this aspect it cannot be held that the workman has tarnished the image of the bank and

committed any act causing prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

22.

The other aspect to be considered is whether the workman has neglected the work as an employee of the bank.

The evidence tendered by MW2 and documents relied on by the management reveal that the workman was not prompt in

doing the work as a responsible employee of the bank. His action amounts to neglect of work as an employee of the

bank.

23.

The other two grounds alleged in the chargesheet are: absence without leave and incurring excessive debt.

Regarding this aspect the evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked on behalf of the management reveal

that the said charges are true and proved by the management. Therefore, it is evident that the workman is guilty for

disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of superiors; that he was guilty of neglect of work as an employee of

the bank; that he was absenting without leave and that he has incurred debt disproportionate to his earnings. The action

2556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the part of the workman is violation of the stipulations in the Bipartite Settlement. He is liable to be proceeded for

the misconduct.

24.

The management has awarded a punishment of ‘removal from the service of the bank with superannuation

benefits’ to the workman. The meaning of the words “Removal from service” as seen from the ‘Concise Law

Dictionary’ by Shri P. Ramanatha Aiyar, third edition reprint 2006 at page 1006 is as follows: “Removal from service –

The only distinction between dismissal proper and dismissal in the shape of removal from service was that the former

ordinarily disqualified from future employment but the latter did not do so. The word ‘dismissal’ is comprehensive

enough to include removal from service”.

25.

In the decision reported in Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar – 2014 (10) SCC

301 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – S.11A – Object of – Mandatory statutory duty cast on Labour Court to

adjudicate dispute on merits on basis of evidence produced to examine proportionality of punishment imposed

where alleged misconduct is proved”.

26.

In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred above and on the basis of

the meaning of the word ‘removal from service’ as stated earlier it is seen that this tribunal is well within its powers in

interfering with the punishment awarded by the management for the reason the punishment imposed by the management

is disproportionate to the charges proved against the workman.

27.

Considering the charges proved against the workman and the facts and circumstances of the case it has to be

held that the punishment imposed by the management on the workman is excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate to

the charges proved against him. Even though the workman remained absent and set ex-parte in the final stage of this

proceedings, from the case file and the documents marked in this case, it is evident that the punishment imposed by the

management is excessive and disproportionate. The point is answered accordingly.

28.

Point No.(ii):-

On this point the matter to be considered is what exactly will be the punishment to be

imposed in proportion to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case it is held that the punishment of stoppage of increment for three consecutive years with

cumulative effect will be just and reasonable. The workman will not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits while he was

out of service i.e., from the date of removal from the service by the bank till he rejoins duty. He will be treated as not on

duty during that period. He will not be entitled to any service benefits during that period. The workman shall be

allowed to rejoin duty on any day before the expiry of two months from the date of publication of the award in the

Official Gazette, provided a request in writing is given by the workman to the management during that period. If he fails

to report for duty within the time stipulated above, he shall be removed from the services of the bank in accordance with

the punishment imposed by the bank at the first instance. The reference is answered accordingly.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 29^th day

of January, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the workman

NIL

Witnesses for the management

MW1

16.04.2013

Shri Jose

MW2

27.10.2014

Shri K.R. Mohan Chand

Exhibits for the workman

NIL

Exhibits for the management

Enquiry File.

True copy of the register of employment in the Mavelikkara branch of the management bank for the

period from 03.09.2006 to 03.11.2007

Copy of the Order dated 17.03.2005 issued by the Senior Manager(HRM), Regional Office, Bank of

Baroda, Thiruvananthapuram to the workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2557

Copy of the letter No.RO:KER:HRM:28/309 dated 25.02.2008 issued by the Asst. General Manager,

Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Ernakulam to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mavelikkara Police

Station

Copy of the letter No.MAV/30/171 dated 26.04.2007 addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Bank

of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Sr. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara

Copy of the letter No.KLM:HRM:39/120 dated 25.04.2007 addressed to the Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office(Kerala), Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Kollam.

M6(a)

Copy of A/c Payee cheque bearing No.0265888 dated 23.04.2007 for an amount of `40,200/- issued

by the workman to Chungath Prince Jewellery and front page of Savings Bank Pass book issued to the

workman

Copy of the letter No.MAV/30/30 dated 17.01.2007 addressed to the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate,

Karunagappally by the Sr. Manager(Acting), Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara branch

Copy of the letter No.63/06 dated 10.01.2007 addressed to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara by the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate, Karunagappally

Copy of the letter No.Mav/Stf/30/36 dated 20.01.2007 addressed to the Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara branch

M10

Copy of the Warrant of Arrest dated 20.01.2007 issued by the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate,

Karunagapally against the workman.

M11

Copy of the letter No.Mav/Stf/30/31 dated 17.01.2006 addressed to the Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager(Actg), Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara branch

M12

Copy of the letter No.Mav/30/43 dated 27.01.2007 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Bank

of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager(Actg), Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara branch

M13

Copy of the letter dated 27.01.2007 addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara branch

by the workman

M14

Copy of the letter No.Mav/30 dated 01.02.2007 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Bank of

Baroda, Regional Office(K), Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara

branch

M15

Copy of the letter dated 01.02.2007 to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara by the workman

M16

Copy of the letter No.RO:KER:HRM:27/205 dated 01.02.2007 issued by the Senior Manager(HRM),

Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Ernakulam to the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara.

M17

Copy of the letter No.Maveli/Stf./25/114 dated 16.03.2006 addressed to the Assistant General

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office(K), Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of

Baroda, Mavelikkara branch

M18

Copy of the letter dated 07.03.2006 addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara by the

workman

M19

Copy of the letter dated 12.01.2006 issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar(RR) to the Senior Branch

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara by the workman

M20

Copy of the letter dated 16.12.2005 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office, Trivandrum by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara

M21

Copy of the letter No.RO:KER:HRM:25/3109 dated 09.12.2005 issued by the Assistant General

Manager, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Thiruvananthapuram to the Senior Branch Manager, Bank

of Baroda, Mavelikkara branch.

M22

Copy of the letter No.Maveli/Stf./28/512 dated 01.12.2005 issued by the Senior Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara branch to the workman

2558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M23

Copy of the leave availed particulars of the workman.

M24

Copy of leave application dated NIL addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara by the

workman.

M25

Copy of the letter No.Maveli/stf./28/323 dated 20.09.2005 addressed to the Assistant General

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Trivandrum by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of

Baroda, Mavelikkara branch.

M26

Copy of the Prohibitory Order No.SDT/KTM/4521/05-06 issued in the month of September, 2005 by

the Special Deputy Tahsildar(RR), KSFE Limited, Kottayam to the Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara.

M27

Copy of the letter No.HO:CS:98:808 dated 25.05.2006 issued by the Chief Manager (Ops. C.S. & O &

M.), Customer Service Dept., Head Office, Suraj Plaza Bldg., Sayajigunj, Baroda to the Assistant

General Manager(Kerala Region), Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam.

M28

Copy of cheque bearing No.426855 dated 16.05.2006 for an amount of `25,000/- drawn in favour of

Shri. S. Satheendran by the workman.

M29

Copy of the letter dated 05.06.2006 addressed to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara by the

workman.

M30

Copy of the letter No.MAV/ADV/30/354 dated 16.11.2006 addressed to the Assistant General

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mavelikkara

branch.

M31

Copy of the Medical Certificate dated 16.11.2006 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Governmet Taluk Head

Quarters Hospital, Karunagappally to the workman.

M32

Copy of the letter No.MAVELI/30 dated 23.11.2006 addressed to the Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Ernakulam by the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Mavelikkara branch.

M33

True copy of the transactions made by the workman during the period from 04.05.2014 to 02.09.2006.

M34

True copy of the transaction enquiry details report maintained by Bank of Baroda, H.O.:Mandvi,

Baroda for the period from 04.02.2005 to 02.09.2006 in respect of the workman at the Mavelikkara

branch.

M35

Copy of the request for loan dated 28.07.2005 submitted by the workman to the Assistant General

Manager(Kerala), Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Trivandrum.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1150-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjyk;al

usDLV ¯yd izkbosV fyfeVsM] lfClfM;jh vkWiQ fjyk;al dE;qfuds'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 58@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@04@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 58/ 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour-Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd., a subsidiary of Reliance Communication (P) Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-40012/04/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2559

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 58/2013

Ref.No. L-40012/04/2012-IR(DU) dated 14.08.2013

BETWEEN :

Sri Gulab Chandra Shukla

33 A/8, Kamalarnav Kunj, Near Singh Highway,

Petrol Pump, Chak, Mundera, Begumsarai

Allahabad

AND

The HR (Network) M/s Reliance Next Link (P)Ltd.,

A Subsidiary of Reliance Communication (P) Ltd.,

IInd Floor, Magnum Plaza,

Eldeco Greens Gomti Nagar

Lucknow

Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Area Manager

M/s Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd.

A Subsidiary of Reliance Communication (P) Ltd.

Road Near Naithani Hospital Civil Lines

Allahabad

AWARD

By order No. L-40012/04/2012-IR(DU) dated 14.08.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Gulab Chandra Shukla, Allahabad

and the HR (Network)/Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd. Lucknow/Allahabad for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

LUCKNOW IN RETRENCHMENT OF SRI GULAB SHUKLA W.E.F. 11.03.2011 IS JUST, FAIR AND

LEGAL? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

As per the claim statement, the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed vide letter dated 4.8.2005,

under the administrative supervision of the opposite party, before joining this service he was earlier working as Jr.

Warrant Officer in the Indian Air Force for 21 years, the opposite party management has advertised vacancy in several

news papers for ex-soldiers, and it was also notified that the job offered was of permanent nature.

The workman has asserted that he had left his service of Indian Air Force, and joined the opposite party

establishment where he has worked for more than 5 years with devotion and sincerity, there was no complaint against

him, but suddenly on 10.03.2011 he was telephonically informed by Sri A.K. Singh the then Cluster Manager,

Allahabad that since he had completed 49 years of age he should relinquish the job, then the workman immediately

sought information through Email and sent registered letters to Registered Office of the company but he did not get any

reply; rather through another letter dated 12.3.11 his services were terminated.

The applicant has further stated that other junior employees Sri A.K.Ojha, Sri S.K.Shukla, Sri S.K. Tewari,

Sri R.P. Singh, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Sri R.C. Pandey, Sri K.S. Pandey, Sri R.N. Shukla and Sri A.N. Dubey are still

employed there, the opposite party employer has violated the legal provisions of I.D. Act., and the action of the opposite

party is illegal and improper. It has also been stressed that after termination of the services of the applicant, several other

persons namely Sri Manish Kumar, Sri Narendra Pandey and Sri Akhilesh Pandey have also been appointed, while there

was no prior notice or retrenchment compensation or salary in lieu of notice given to the applicant, neither any

information was sent to Government by the opposite party.

It has further been asserted in the claim statement that the applicant has worked from 11.8.2005 to 11.3.2011,

worked continuously comprehensive for more than 240 days, even then direction in Section 25F of the I.D. Act., was not

followed by the opposite party, the opposite party management has clearly violated the I.D. Act. Rules framed

thereunder. With the above pleadings the applicant has prayed for his reinstatement along with back wages and

consequential benefits.

2560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per list W11 several documents pertaining to the assignment of the workman with the opposite party, etc.

have been filed. In support of the claim statement an affidavit W-12 dated 11.09.2015 has been filed in evidence.

Several notices were issued to the opposite parties through registered post during the tenure of my learned

predecessor , and again in compliance of my directions as well. But none appeared in the court on behalf of the opposite

party. On 01.06.2015 under these circumstances ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the management. Even

thereafter on six occasions the case was fixed for argument, but any officer or AR of the opposite party did not appear in

the court.

Arguments of the learned AR for the workman have been heard at length. Record has been perused thoroughly.

10.

It is the case of the workman that he was appointed in M/s Reliance Next Link, a subsidiary of M/s Reliance

Communications Private Limited vide appointment letter dated 04.08.2005 and he worked continuously w.e.f.

11.08.2005 to 11.03.2011 for more than 240 days in each years. It is also the case of the workman that his services have

been terminated by the company vide their letter dated 12.03.2011 without any notice or retrenchment compensation, in

violation of the provisions of the section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The workman has also come up with the case that the

management terminated his services but retained many other persons junior to him; the names of the juniors still working

have been given in the statement of claim.

11.

In the present case the onus was on the workman to set the grounds for his claim that his services were

terminated in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act and the workman has discharged his burden and has proved by

way of its affidavit that he got job vide appointment letter dated 04.08.2005 and he worked continuously w.e.f.

11.08.2005 to 11.03.2011 for more than 240 days in each year and his services had been terminated vide letter dated

12.03.2011 of the opposite parties; wherein though there is mention of notice pay in letter dated 12.03.2011 but there is

no evidence of payment of same. The workman has specifically stated in his affidavit that his services were terminated

without any notice or retrenchment compensation. The management has not turned up to rebut the facts stated by the

workman in its evidence.

12.

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2006) 3 SCC 276 State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal

Srivastava & others the statement of the witness, having not been controverter would be deemed to be admitted. In the

present case the workman has sustained his case of having worked for w.e.f. 11.08.2005 to 11.03.2011, approximately

for six years in total by filing his affidavit and in view of non-filing of any written statement or affidavit by the

management in rebuttal to controvert the workman’s claim of statement, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of

the workman given on oath.

13.

The workman has filed photocopy of relevant documents, in support of his claim, including his appointment

letter, acceptance letter attendance status, termination letter etc.

14.

Also, in 2004 (100) FLR 109 State of UP & another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra & another

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the award given by the Labour Court; wherein the

Labour Court held the order of termination as illegal and unjustified. In the said case the employers neither appeared nor

led evidence before the Labour Court in support of their case; whereas workman examined himself and proved that he

had worked as a clerk. Therefore, Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement with full back wages.

15.

In the instant case, it is the case of the workman that he worked w.e.f. 11.08.2005 to 11.03.2011, approximately

for six years continuously and in the absence of any rebuttal from the management, it is well proved that the workman

had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar years preceding the date of alleged termination and his services

has been terminated without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Indusial Disputes Ac, 1947.

The management has not turned up in spite of repeated registered notices. Since the notices sent to opposite party No. 1

were not received back in the office therefore the service upon the opposite parties is well presumed. However, the

notices sent to opposite party No. 01 were received back with remark that “बना पता बताए घर छोड़ कर गए”. It is also

noteworthy to mention here that the opposite parties appeared before conciliations and were well aware of Failure of

Conciliations, therefore it was incumbent upon them to pursue the case; but they completely failed in doing so.

16.

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and law

pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court, I am of the considered view that the action of the management of

reliance next link (P) Ltd. subsidiary company of reliance communications limited Lucknow in retrenching the services

of Shri Gulab Shukla w.e.f. 11.03.2011 is unjust, unfair and illegal; and accordingly, I come to conclusion that the

workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service within 08 weeks of publication of

the award, failing which, the back wages shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

17.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

25^th May, 2016

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2561

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj {ks=kh;

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k]

iVuk ds iapkV ¹lanHkZ la- 12 (lh)@2004 107@2003º dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@163@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. Case No. 12 (C) of 2004. 107 of 2003] of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/163/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No.:- 12 (C) of 2004

107 of 2003

Between :

The Chairman, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Motihari, Dist.- East Champaran ( Bihar )

and

Their workmen Sri Baidyanath Pandit

For the management

Sri Surendra Pathak, Regional Manager( Bank Representative) Sri Rajesh Kumar,

Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank R.O. Motihari (North) (Bank Representative).

For the workman

Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association.

Present

Bipin Dutta Pathak, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, the 14^th March, 2016

By notification order No.- L-12012/163/2003-IR(B-I) New Delhi, dated- 31.10.2003 Govt. of India,// Bharat

Sarkar Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘ the Act ‘ ) the following dispute

between The Chairman, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Motihari, Dist.- East Champaran

(Bihar) and their workmen Sri Baidyanath Pandit for adjudication to the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Dhanbad No.-1.

SCHEDULE

“ (a) Whether the action of the management of Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank in conducting enquiries free

or biased? (b) Whether the punishment of dismissal w.e.f. 22.03.2002 ordered to Sri Baidyanath Pandit is in

proportionate to the charges framed is legal and justified? If not, to which relief Sri Baidyanath Pandit is

entitled to?”

Since the reference was in the matter of conduct enquiries free or biased is to be looked into. So no separate has

been passed to look into whether the enquiry was free biased or proper or not?

Thereafter a letter dated- 25.11.2003 was issued under signature of Ajay Kumar, Desk Officer. To the

Chairman, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Motihari, Dist.- East Champaran ( BIHAR ) in which it has

been asked from the Chairman whether he had any objection to transferred the case from C.G.I.T No.-1 Dhanbad to

Industrial Trtibunal, Patna or not?

2562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thereafter vide order dated- 12.03.2004 Central Govt. with drew the proceeding in relation to the said dispute

pending for CGIT No.-1 Dhanbad and transferred the same to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna with a

direction to proceed with the proceeding from the stage at which they are transfer to it and disposed of the case according

to law. Thus the case was transferred to this tribunal.

Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman ( before CGIT No.-1 Dhanbad ) is that the

reference is split in two part. The first part deals with the enquiries whether the same was free or biased. Second part

deals with the order of punishment of dismissal w.e.f. 22.03.2002 passed by the management against the workman.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was in proportionate to the charges.

Workman was appointed in Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a Clerk-cum-Cashier w.e.f. 27.09.1980. He

worked in different branches of the bank and was promoted to officer grade in the year 1984 but was capriciously

reverted to clerical cadre in the year 1985 after the probation period was over. Workman took a leading role in the Trade

Union activities. Charge sheet was issued and he was dismissed from the service of the bank and he was reinstated he

was placed on the initial basic pay. He was denied his incremental benefits. He was placed under suspension vide order

No.- H.O./25/2000/Sec/59 dated- 09.03.2000 without issuance of show-cause notice or a charge sheet prior to

suspension. Explanation letter dated- 08.06.2000 was replied by him. Management issued a charge sheet dated-

16.08.2000 but no opportunity was given to the workman for replying those charges. Departmental enquiry was

instituted and enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed. Domestic enquiry was held on various dates.

Enquiry Officer held the enquiry in a most unfair and improper manner and did not furnished copy of the

findings to the workman. Enquiry Officer was under constant pressure from the disciplinary authority. Entire

proceedings of the Enquiry Officer suffers from unfairness and impropriety on the following grounds.

(i)

The workman was not given an opportunity to reply the charge as contained in the charge sheet.

(ii)

That the learned Enquiry Officer violated the principles of Natural Justice while conducting the

enquiry.

(iii)

That the entire proceedings suffer from biasedness and manifests the one sided approach of the enquiry

officer.

(iv)

That the learned Enquiry Officer failed to function as a quasi-judicial Authority while conducting the

enquiry.

(v)

That the Enquiry Officer failed to supply a copy of his findings to the workman who was very much

aggrieved due to the action of the management.

After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. The Chairman who also happened to be the disciplinary authority

issued a second show cause and finally dismissed the workman from the services of the bank vide order dated-

22.03.2002.

The workman preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal but no relief was given to the workman. He

raised industrial dispute and the Asst. Labour commissioner (Central) Patna intervened in the matter and held

conciliation proceedings but due to the rigid attitude of the management, the conciliation ended in failure. Ministry of

Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication.

The action of the management in passing order of dismissal against the workman w.e.f. 22.03.2002 is not legal

not justified on grounds mentioned:-

(i)

That the management failed to issue any show-cause/charge sheet to the workman prior to suspension.

(ii)

That the workman was not given opportunity to reply the charges as contained in the charge sheet.

(iii)

That the learned Enquiry Officer failed to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the workman.

(iv)

That the learned Enquiry Officer did not hold the enquiry fairly and properly.

(v)

That the findings of the learned Enquiry Officer suffers from perversity of findings.

(vi)

That the learned disciplinary authority did not apply his mind properly and formed his opinion on the

bais of perverse findings.

(vii)

That the learned disciplinary authority failed to discharge his duties as a quasi-judicial authority and

acted with closed mind, biased approach and ignored the principles of natural justice while passing the

order of dismissal from the services of the bank.

It has been stated that workman is innocent and did not commit any misconduct.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2563

Reliefs claimed is:- for setting aside the order of dismissal, direction to reinstate with full back wages w.e.f.

22.03.2015, direction to pay full salary and allowance for the period of suspension and to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten

Thousand ) as a cost of contesting the dispute.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management submitting point wise comment on statement of

claim dated- 29.12.2003 of the dismissal workman. It has been stated that with regards to captioned subject and referred

letter sent by Sri Baidyanath Pandit addressed to the Presiding Officer, central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.-1, Dhanbad.

Management has already forwarded comments to the Research Officer, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India vide letter

no.- HO/2003-04/CS/II/176, dated- 11.08.2003.

It has further been stated that concerned enquiries have always been conducted without any prejudice or bias.

The punishment imposed on Sri Pandit is quite commensurate/ proportionate to the serious irregularities/misconduct

including cash embezzlement committed by him.

Under the normal promotion process, he was promoted from clerk-cum-cashier to the post of Field Supervisor

w.e.f. 01.08.1984. As per norms of the Service Regulation as well as the facts as contained in para-II of the promotion

letter, he had to render his services satisfactorily as a probationer for 2 years w.e.f. 01.08.1984 to 01.08.1986. Probation

period would be of 2 years and the promote would be confirmed on the promoted post of Field Supervisor, only if his

services had been found satisfactorily during the probation.

During probation period Mr. Pandit was found involved in financial irregularities for an explanation vide letter

no.- HO/10/85/PRS/989 dated- 25.07.1985 and explanation was called for from him. Explanation reply by him on

26.08.1985 was not satisfactory. There was provision to revert the probationers to the substantive post on being found

their services unsatisfactory. Mr. Pandit was reverted to post of clerk-cum-cashier vide letter no.- HO/18/85/PRS/1111,

dated- 09.09.1985.

Mr. Pandit made his appeal on 23.09.1985 and finally appeal was rejected.

Mr. Pandit never took any active part in any trade union. He did not amend his behaviour and after being

reverted to the post of clerk-cum-cashier, he was again found involved in gross misconduct of misappropriation of cash

at Bakhari Bazar branch for which he was suspended and charge sheeted vide letter No.- HO/14/89/CS/337 dated-

03.07.1989. He refunded the defrauded money and submitted his explanation on 01.08.1989 which was not satisfactory

and the departmental enquiry was set up on 07.08.1989. After conducting the departmental enquiries as per the principles

of natural justice, inquirying officer submitted his findings to Head Office on 18.02.1991. Second show-cause memo was

issued proposing the gross punishment ‘Dismissal’ on 05.10.1991. He replied the 2^nd show cause and was heard

personally and final order imposing punishment of dismissal from the bank was issued on 13.12.1991. He made an

appeal dated-09.01.1992 and appellate board taking lenient view he was reinstated in bank service at the initial stage of

the pay scale.

Mr. Pandit accepted in writing the relief/terms conditions decided by the Appellate Board and was reinstated in

service of the clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 09.07.1992. All the annual increments for which Mr. Pandit was entitled to, had

been released / granted. Mr. Pandit aggrieved with the decision of the disciplinary authority and appellate board, filed a

writ petition CWJC No.- 11698 of 1998 before Hon’ble Patna High court which was dismissed. Having got punished

twice on two different occasions by the management and also with the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the

workman. Mr. Pandit did not take lesson / care to work in accordance with rules and regulations honestly and faithfully

and he again third time committed cash embezzlement of Rs 69,100/- ( Public money ). He was placed under suspension

w.e.f. 09.03.2000. This action of the management was in accordance with rules and service regulations of the bank. Soon

after suspension a memo letter no. Pra. Ka. /25/2000/ A.Sachi/151 dated- 08.06.2000 stating therein details of

irregularities committed by him, was issued. Which replied on 18.07.2000. A memo of explanation had been issued and

its reply dated-18.07.2000 was found unsatisfactory, hence the charge sheet letter and letter of appointment of inquirying

officer to investigated into the charges, were issued on 16.08.2000. Inquirying Officer and presenting officer were

appointed only after receiving clarification from Mr. Pandit.

During departmental enquiry, enquiry officer heard both parties and given proper and reasonable opportunities

of the defence. Defence failed to disprove any one of the charges rather accepted them. Thus all the charges were found

proved by the Enquiry Officer.

Charge sheeted workman was given proper opportunities of defence in the conducting departmental enquiries

on various dates by the Enquirying Officer. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was made available to Mr. Pandit vide

Pra. Ka. / 2001-02/ A. Sachi. / II / 54 dated- 06.02.2002 and was called for his comments which was replied by Mr.

Pandit on 18.02.2002. Enquiry officer submitted his findings independently after hearing both the parties. Enquiry

officer conducted enquiry proceedings according to the principles of natural justice. On 10.04.2001 in the presence of Sri

Chandra Mohan Prasad, defence representative, himself accepted all the charges levelled against him, willingly, without

any pressure and with healthy mind and understandings. The portion of the proceeding were signed by the all the

2564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

concerned. Findings of enquiry officer has been made available to Mr. Pandit after receiving his reply 2^nd show cause

memo proposing punishment of ‘ Dismissal ’ was issued. Mr. Pandit also replied this memo and was heard personally by

the disciplinary authority. Defence failed in not proving the charges. Consequently taking into account previous records,

gravity of charges etc. Mr. Pandit was finally awarded the punishment of ‘Dismissal’ from the Bank’s service on

22.03.2002 for third time defalcation and serious misconduct. He preferred appeal, appellate authority dismissed the

appeal. The reliefs desired by the workman were not considerable. Management was not inclined to make any

conciliation. Even after working on a responsible post in the financial institution, Mr. Pandit has been committed cash

embezzlement. He was reverted from field. Supervisor to subsequent post of clerk-cum-cashier in 1985. Again he

committed cash embezzlement at Bakhari Bazar branch for which he was dismissed in 1991, he was reinsntated in

service by the appellate authority. His writ petition was dismissed on 09.03.1999. But third chance committed a

voluminous fraud of public deposits at Sargatia branch for which he was finally dismissed in 2002. The appellate board

also confirmed the findings and the order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority. Enquiry is free, without prejudice

and the punishment of dismissal of ‘ Dismissal ’ from bank service awarded Sri Pandit is completely proportionate

visavis charges.

Charge sheet was issued vide letter dated- 16.08.2000 in which it has been stated that at Sargatia branch

workman while posted as clerk-cum-cashier as committed financial irregularities. There was 11 charges against him.

Charge no.-1 is that withdrawal of Rs. 2000/- ( Rs. Two Thousand ) from the account of Awadh Sah and counter file was

issued under his signature and entry was made in pass book and ledger but entry of cash deposit was not made and

misutilised the money for his own purpose. Later on he deposited the said amount on 24.02.2000.

Charge no.-2 that is receiving eleven thousand cash on 18.11.1999 in the S.B. Account of Rajendra Sah he

issued counter file made entry in cash deposit but that was not entered in respective register and misutilised the money

for his own purpose. Later on he deposited the amounting in respective account on 28.02.2000.

Charge no.-3 is similar in respective of account of Sri Lal Babu Prasad. Charge no.-4 is the same in respect of

account of Sri Kanti Sah. Charge no.-5 is respective of the account of Sri Jagarnath Sah .Charge no.-6 the related to the

account of Sri Chandeshwar Singh. Charge no.-7 is related to account of Sri Kanti Sah. Charge no.-8 is related to amount

of Sri Ayub Alam. Charge no.-9 is relalted to amount of Imamul Ansari and charge no.-10 is that he was relieved for

election duty on 18.02.2000 at 3.00 P.M but on 30.02.2000, Sunday he illegally opened the branch and committed

irregularities. The branch was closed on 19.02.2000 from 2.30 to 21.02.2000 and during that period Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs.

Thirty Thousand ) was missing. Charge no.-11 is that he was punished twice and he did not amend him though even he

was punished earlier.

It appears that seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and two witnesses examined on

behalf of the workman.

Management witness no.-1 Sri Arun Kumar Sinha is branch manager of the bank at Motihari. He stated that in

the year 1989 he was internal auditor of the bank. He audited bakhari branch and at that time Baidyanath Pandit clerk-

cum-cashier was there. Misappropriation was detected in four saving accounts and two R.D account details of the

accounts has been stated by this witness. Workman had taken the amount and has not deposited in the bank. In cross-

examination he stated that he was not presenting officer nor enquiry officer for the occurance of 1989. This reference

case is related to dismissal of workman. When he was dismissed was not remembered by him.

Management witness no.-2 Sri Kanti Bhushan Mishra was also branch manager at Sargatia branch in 1997 to

2001 and posted as branch manager, at that time Sri Baidyanath Pandit was posted as cashier. Due to Parliamentary

election in the year 2000 he was relieved for election duty. But after being relieved he opened the bank on one Sunday

and mismanaged the documents on next date Monday. This witness opened the bank and found less amount in the chest.

Villagers stated that Sri Baidyanath Pandit had arrived and have opened the bank. This facts was stated by this witness

and informed to head office by written and telephonic and two officers arrived to investigat and many enteries were

found. During investigation Ext.-ME-1 to ME-60 were produced photo stat of which has been marked as Ext.-M/1 series.

He stated about Ext.-ME-11,12,14,17,22,23 that amount was deposited by the customers to the workman but that was not

deposited in the bank account. Similar amount of Ext.-ME-29 was not deposited. Further delinquent had withdrawn

Rs. 15000/- as per Ext.-ME-28 while there was no such amount in the account. Similar delinquent had withdrawn the

amount as per Ext.-ME-30.

In cross-examination he stated that three persons were posted at Sargatia branch. One was this witness, one was

messenger. There is double custodian of the cash safe one key was retained by workman and another retained by this

witness. He further stated that taking and giving of the key entered in key register. Key of main safe retained by

workman.

He further stated that balancing of book and saving bank ledgers was maintained by this witness and delinquent.

After business hour deposit and withdrawal slip was entered in supplementary register. That register, cash book, general

ledger balance was maintained by delinquent. This witness used to check the register. About irregularities this witness

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2565

did not inform to higher authority because that irregularities did not appear before this witness. This witness used to sign

on withdrwal ship and cash slip. He used to compare deposit and withdrwal slip by keeping into the ledger. Depositor

used to pay the amount some time in bank and same time out side the bank. He himself had not seen delinquent by

taking the amount and not depositing the amount. He further stated that domestic enquiry, the delinquent contested. He

used to attend on all dates. Depositor were examined during enquiry. Fraud was detected during audit in February 2000.

This witness remained in field duty for two – three days in each week. Safe was not broken, the amount was missing.

Management witness no.-3 Naveen Kumar Verma is Scale one officer in the bank and posted in head office. He

joined head office on 08.12.1997. Sri Baidyanath Pandit joined on 27.09.1980 as clerk-cum-cashier. He was promoted on

01.08.1984 to the post of Field Supervisor, probation period was two years. On 09.09.1985 he was reverted, he was not

active member of union. He was dismissed in the year 1991 but board of appeal took linient view and he was reverted in

initial scale. He in writing agreed to follow terms and condition after reinstatement. He preferred writ application, which

was dismissed. While he was posted at Sargatia branch then in the year 1999-2000 then he misappropriated Rs. 69,100/-

from the account of accout holder. He was again suspended on 09.03.2000. Departmental proceedings was intitated on

06.02.2002 enquiry officer submitted his findings. All the charges against were delinquent found proved. Thereafter he

was dismissed from bank service on 22.03.2002. In cross-examination he stated that he joined head office on 10.08.1980

on the post of clerk-cum-cashier. Sri Baidyanath Pandit was not posted with him. He was not witness in enquiry

proceedings. This witness was never posted at Sargatia branch. He had not seen Sri Baidyanath Pandit committing

defaulcation. He had seen statement of Sri Jagarnath Sah and Awadh Sah, they have alleged that Sri Baidyanath Pandit

took amount from them and defaulcated the amount. Show cause memo was given to delinquent before suspension.

Surendra Pathak was Enquiry Officer. Chairman was Sri Prakash Narain Awasthi. He had given charge sheet in respect

of three-four defaulcation.

Management witness no.-4 is Bhikham Thakur, clerk-cum-cashier in head office of the bank at Motihari. He has

stated that Sri Baidyanath Pandit was working at cashier at Sargatia branch. He had defaulcated about Rs. 69,000/- in

that branch. He used to receive the amount from creditor and used to grant receipt in token of deposit. He used make

entry in pass book of the customer and used to make entry in ledger but he did not enter the amount in bank cash deposit

Eleven charges were framed against him. There are also same charges against some other matter. Before issuing

the charge sheet in respect of all eleven points memo was given to him and explanation was received. Which explanation

was not satisfactory. So charge sheet was issued and Enquiry Officer was appointed for departmental enquiry.

Enquiry Officer heard both the parties about 80 Exts were produced by presenting officer and five witnesses

were examined.Out of them three witnesses were those, from whose account defaulcation was done. During

departmental enquiry Sri Pandit by submitting application accepted all the charges. During enquiry it was asked by the

Enquiry Officer, whether Sri Pandit has accepted all the charges then pandit replied yes. At that time defence

representative was present there. Mr. Pandit also stated that he accepts the guilt in healthy state of mind. Enquiry Officer

submitted his report which was signed by Enquiry Officer. In enquiry there were signature of Sri Pandit his defence

representative and representative of management. One copy of enquiry report was given to Sri Pandit. Enquiry report

was submitted on 06.02.2002. Sri Pandit replied of the enquiry report on 18.02.2002. After perused of reply of Sri Pandit

and other documents of the enquiry and antecedent of Sri Pandit and circumstances, disciplinary authority had issued

second show cause notice. In which it has been stated apart from another punishment, about removal from service. Mr.

Pandit was given opportunity to submit his reply. Which was submitted by him on 02.03.2002 and remained present for

personal hearing before disciplinary authority. His reply was not satisfactory and order was passed on 03.03.2002 for

dismissal of his service. Mr. Pandit preferred appeal before board of appeal but appeal was rejected. He also stated about

Ext.-W and W/1. From Ext.-W it appears that defaulcation was done by Anil Kumar Jaiswal and Sri Narendra Kumar

Tiwary, Branch Manager did not examine many entries. From Ext.-W/1 it appears that mainly Anil Kumar Jaiswal had

defaulcated the amount as accepted by him before notary public Bagaha in affidavit. Branch manager was confidence

that entries were confirmed. When Sri Pandit was field supervisor he was reverted to post of clerk. Again Sri Pandit

defaulcate in 1991 and in 1991 he was removed from service but board of appeal taking linient view reinstatement him

on basic initial scale. Seeing his previous to antecedent he was again dismissed from service. In the present reference

case management got conducted departmental enquiry and gave opportunity of personal hearing on 21.03.2002.

In cross-examination he has stated that Sri Pandit joined on the post of clerk-cum-cashier on 05.12.1983. This

witness had not worked at Sargatia branch. He had not seen Sri Pandit taking the amount and granting counter foil of the

receipt. He has also not seen making forged entries in the ledger. This witness was not management representative,

enquiry officer or as a witness. Disciplinary authority of the worker is general manager and appellate authority is the

Chairman. Prior to suspension no explanation was asked from Pandit. General Manager is disciplinary authority in

respect of clerical staff since 2000.

2566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management witness no.-5 is Nishith Kumar Verma is clerk-cum-cashier of extention branch, Motihari. He

accepted that in the year-1984 Sri Baidyanath Pandit joined as clerk-cum-cashier. Thereafter he was promoted on the

post of Field Supervisor. Thereafter in the year 1985 in fraud case he was reverted to post of clerk-cum-cashier and in the

year 1991 in fraud case he was dismissed but in the year 1992 he was reinstated at the basic scale. He was again suspend

in the year 2000 at Sargatia branch in fraud case by the then chairman and in the year 2002 the then chairman Mr

Awasthi dismissed him. He did not get written, written acceptance from Mr. Pandit.

In cross-examination it has been stated that he in service of the bank in 01.11.1983. Mr Awasthi, chairman was

posted since 2001 to 2004. He did never work with Mr Pandit.

Management witness no.-6 Kusheshwar Kant Verma, is branch manager in the bank. He stated that Mr Pandit

was appointed in Septemebr, 1980 on the post of clerk-cum-cashier and in August 1984 he was promoted to the post of

field supervisor but in case of fraud committed at Bakhari Bazar he was reverted back in Septemebr 1985 again he

committed fraud at Bakhari branch and he was dismissed in Septemebr, 1992 he was reinstateted in July, 1992. Again in

March 2000 in the matter of fraud he was again suspended and in March, 2002 he was dismissed from service.

In cross-examination he stated that he never worked with Mr. Pandit. Nothing more important asked from this

witness.

Management witness no.-7 Anil Kumar Sinha has also stated that in September, 1980 Baidyanath Pandit was

appointed on the post of clerk-cum-cashier and he was promoted in 1984 to the post of field supervisor but in the year

1985 he was reverted back to the post of clerk. In the year 1989 he was suspended in second fraud case and he was

dismissed from service after departmental enquiry. In the year 1992 board of director reinstated him on several

condition. He has filed writ petition which was also rejected. Again third time he committed fraud at Sargatia branch and

in March 2000 he was suspended thereafter in August 2000 charge sheet was issued. Show cause was asked and

departmental enquiry was initiated in Septemebr, 2000. During examination of management witness Mr Pandit in writing

accepted all the charges. Enquiry report was submitted and he was dismissed. During enquiry proceeding his defence

representative remain present and in his presence of Mr Pandit accepted all the charges. Mr. Pandit stated before enquiry

officer that he is mental healthy and there is no pressure on him and there was no inducement.

In cross-examination he has stated that he did not work with Mr. Pandit. He did not participated in the enquiry.

He did not see Mr. Pandit commiting fraud.

10.

Two witnesses has been examined on behalf of the workman.

W.W-1 is Imamul Ansari, cultivator of Sargatia he stated that Mr. Pandit was posted at Sargatia branch as

cashier. This witness has account in that branch. Mr. Pandit did not commit any fraud from his account. He has stated

that Mr. Mishra was posted as manager and he stated there was same misappropriation in the account of this witness and

bank will be shifted from there. He asked for giving in writing and he had written on the dictation of branch manager.

In cross-examination he has stated that his account no was 520. He had not written himself. Manager had

written and manager had put signature and this witness has put also signature. He had not read over what was written by

manager.

W.W-2 is Baidyanath Pandit, in affidavit he has stated that he joined the bank at clerk-cum-cashier on

27.09.1980 and in 1984 he was promoted to officer grade but reverted as clerk in the year 1985 due to active role in trade

union. In the year 1989-90 he was dismissed from service of the bank and was reinstated in the year 1991. He was not

allowed incremental benefit after reinstatement.

Vide order dated 09.03.2000 he was placed under suspension. Charge sheet was issued on 16.08.2000. No

opportunity ws afforded to him for replying those charges. Enquiry was instituted without hearing from him. The enquiry

officer and presenting officer were appointed. Enquiry officer was hand in glove with the presenting officer and

conducted the enquiry unfairly and improperly. He was coerced and tempted by the chairman to accept the charges.

Accordingly, he accepted the charges under undue influence. During enquiry, enquiry officer was under constant

pressure from the chairman. He submitted his finding which were perverse. As per service condition general manager

was disciplinary authority and the chairman as appellate authority. Against my service condition chairman being the

appellate authority passed the order of dismissal in the capacity of disciplinary authority.

In cross-examination he has stated that he had not filed writ against dismissal. Charges of fraud was framed,

against him. In further cross-examination he has stated that he replied the charges in Sargatia branch. He has not

committed fraud. Chairman dismissed him due to caste filling. He did not accept any charges against him. But his

defence representative in writing did not submit acceptance of charges. He must have to be fixed the signature on it

enquiry proceeding.

11.

Matter under reference is that “ (a) Whether the action of the management of Champaran Kshetriya Gramin

Bank in conducting enquiries free or biased? (b) Whether the punishment of dismissed w.e.f 22.03.2002 ordered to Sri

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2567

Baidyanath Pandit is in proportionate to the charges framed is legal and justified? If not, to which relief Sri Baidyanath

Pandit is entitled to?”

12.

We are only concerned with the punishment of dismissal w.e.f. 22.03.2002 of Sri Pandit and the enquiry against

him in respect of those matter. Though statement has been made in written statement of the workman about his reverting

from the post of officer grade in the year 1984 but was capriciously reverted to clerical cadre in the year 1985 and there

was also his dismissed from service of in the year 1991. That the present case is related about the charge sheet dated

16.08.2000.

13.

Management its written statement stated about the previous fraud and other matter. Several time Mr. Pandit was

suspended and he was also reverted from the post of officer grade from the clerk grade. Previous charges were also in

respect financial irregularities and fraud.

But in the present case is related to suspension vide memo no.- Pa. Ka./25/2000/A.Sachi/151 dated- 08.06.2000

and explanation submitted by Mr. Pandit and the charge sheet dated- 16.08.2000. From annexure-7, it appears C.W.J.C

No.- 11698 of 1997 was filed by the Mr. Pandit against the management ( Bank ) challenging the validity of the order

dated- 9^th July 1992, whereby and where under the Appellate Authority on consideration of his appeal has reduced the

punishment of dismissal from the bank by his reinstatement at the initial stage of pay scale with certain conditions

mention therein. The writ petition was dismissed.

Suspension memo was issued on 08.06.2000 and explanation was asked from Mr. Pandit. This was mainly

about receiving the amount from account holder Mr. Awadh Sah and others and not make entry in cash book. There were

11 charges as per annexure-10 of the written statement of the management. Since explanation was not found satisfactory

so charge sheet was issued on 16.08.2000.

It appears from departmental proceeding that departmental proceeding was initiated on 20.09.2000, Mr.

Surendra Pathak was enquiry officer and Mr. Devendra Nath Roy was management representative. Management

representative stated that after 31.08.2000 Mr. Baidyanath Pandit did not arrive at on branch, so registered letter sent to

him which was retruned back. Enquiry was adjourned to 27.09.2000 and it was decided to send letter to him at

resisdence from special messenger and it was directed to Mr. Baidyanath Pandit to be present on the fixed place on time

otherwise ex-parte hearing will be done. Thereafter on 11.10.2000 Baidyanath Pandit remained present. Management

representative read over the charge against him, which was not agreed by delinquent. Management representative was

directed to produce all the document, list of witnesses. Management representative Exhibited Nine ( 9 ) documents and

list of witnesses.

Ext.-1 was photo stat of the ledger of the account of Sri chandeshwar Singh.

Ext.-2 was photo copy of account in the name of Sri Awadh Sah.

Ext.-3 is photo stat of the account his name of Sri Rajendra Sah.

Ext.-4 is photo copy of ledger of account of Lal Babu Prasad.

Ext.-5 is the photo stat of the account holder of Sri Kanti Sah.

Ext.-6 is the photo stat of the account holder of Sri Jagarnath Sah.

Ext.-7 is the photo copy account holder of Mr. Ayub Alam.

Ext.-8 is the photo stat of account of Imamul Ansari.

Ext.-9 is the photo copy of account holder of Ramashis Kushwaha.

Further management representative stated that he will produce further Exhibit. Delinquent was asked to susbmit

name of defence representative and delinquent stated that on next date, he will submit the name of defence representative

with consent letter, list of documents etc. Enquiry was adjourned. Delinquent submitted a letter stated that his mother &

some family members are ill. So defence representative expressed inability to participate in the enquiry. He asked one

month time. Delinquent stated that his defence representative is unable to attend enquiry. Enquiry was adjourned to

25.10.2000. On 25.10.2000 delinquent stated the name of Sri Chandra Mohan Prasad, Clerk-cum-Cashier for his defence

representative and submitted consent letter. Delinquent further submitted that his representative will submit list of

witnesses and documents. Management representative further submitted many documents which are ME-10 to ME-58.

Enquiry was adjourned to 06.11.2000. It appears that since defence representative was busy so enquiry was conducted on

15.11.2000. In which defence representative was also present. Defence representative requested for production of some

document. Defence submitted 10 documents. Further defence representative stated that he may file some other

documents. List of witness was also submitted from defence. Management witness no.-1 was Kanti Bhushan Mishra who

is branch manager at Sargatia branch since 15.12.1997. M.W-1 stated that in ledger in the last there was cutting of entry

it can not be read. Balance as on 10.07.1999 has been stated Rs. 12,209/-. He further stated that on ME-12 which is

2568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

counter foil of S.B.Account No.-725 which is of Sri Awadh Sah of Rs. 2000/- counter file was issued by Baidyanath

Pandit, amount was not entered in the scroll & in cash book. Further he stated that HSS ledger N-1 entry 249 in account

of 456 there is cutting which is not clear. He also stated that ME-14 related to counter foil of HSS 456 dated- 18.12.1999

of Rs. 11,000/- issued to Sri Rajendra Sah by delinquent. He further stated that the amount have not been entered neither

in ledger nor in scroll and nor in cash book. Balance amount on that date in pass book is 65,550.50 but in ledger enteries

is 54,550.50. Thereafter balance on 02.12.1999 in ledger in 59,550.50 in pass book there is entry 70,550.50. In ME-13

other column is blank because pass book seized by auditor. ME-15 is cash credit voucher of HSS 456 of Sri Rajendra.

Delinquent deposited on 28.02.2000 Rs. 11,000/-. It has been written that amount Rs. 11,000/- deposited by account

holder was not entered by Mr. Baidyanath Pandit. In scroll book and it was mention in counter foil and pass book.

Defence representative filed a petition that he want to peruse some record of the branch and it was directed by enquiry

officer to management representative to make arrangement for same. Enquiry was adjourned to 22.11.2000. Further he

stated that all the three entries of pass book was entered by delinquent. In ledger there is entries which was not confirmed

by MW-1. On 24.01.2000 in receipt book there were only two enteries of Rs.2000 and 300/-. Thereafter 03.02.2000 there

was posting of ledger of Rs. 1600/- which was not in receipt book nor any pass book. Which is suspected entry. Ext.-

ME-17 is counter file of account no.- 735 of Lal Babu Prasad of Rs. 1600/- issued on 24.01.2000. ME-18 were deposit

slip is name of Chotai Lal Sah on 23.02.2000 which was signed of depositor. HSS is name of Chotai Lal Prasad.

Delinquent was absent in the branch and arrieved on 24.02.2000 and submitted three deposit slips of HSS of 725, 67 and

735 of Rs. 2000/-, 3000/- and 1600/- respectively. Full deposit slip was of Rs. 6600/- but delinquent submitted of rs.

6500/- and withdraw of Rs. 100/- which on the instruction of Chairman was deposited 6500/- in CD Sunday. ME-11, 25,

ME-18 are respectively of Rs. 2000/- 3000/- and 1600/-. Amount was received by delinquent on 23.02.2000. Ledger was

posted by Mr. Pandit. On ME-18 there is no signature of cash receiving. Further he stated about ME-21 HSS 618 of

Kanti sah and entry was not in scroll. Similar matter of Jagarnath Sah, Ayub Alam have been stated. This witness further

stated that on 23.02.2000 delinquent was not present in the branch but in his writing entry of Rs. 5000/- was done in HSS

914 and whose balance was Rs. 10981/- but in the scroll dt-03.02.2000 there is no entry of that amount. Even there is no

such entry on 23.02.2000 and that amount is lying with delinquent.

14.

Further M.W-1 stated that in pass book 914 there is cutting and on 22.12.1999 by cash of Rs. 5000/- was

deposited but that has not been entered on 22.12.1999 in ledger or scroll. Further this witness has stated that on

24.12.1999 balance should have been Rs. 16,646/- in last column ME-31 but that has been over written and amount has

been made Rs. 10646/- all enteries has been verified by delinquent. Further in reply of question put by MR. he has stated

that on comprision ME-7 and ME-31 it appears that Rs. 5000/- was dues on 22.12.1999 and on 03.02.2000 Rs. 5000/-

was further dues that amount has not been deposited by delinquent. On 03.02.2000 delinquent was present in branch and

on 23.02.2000 he was not present but in ledger by putting the letter 2 date has been made 23.02.2000. On 03.02.2000 one

Imamul Ansari has deposited Rs. 6500/- but that has not been entered in scroll register. On 23.01.2000 was Sunday and

on 23.02.2000 due to election delinquent was absent. But in ledger and pass book entry has been shown by delinquent. It

appears that by putting the letter 2 before 3 making 2 as 1 the entry has been shown dated- 03.02.2000. Further he stated

that there was no entry in scroll on 03.02.2000. In pass book date was entered 03.02.2000 and in ledger date was shown

03.02.2000 both entry were of Rs. 6500/-. So on suspension stopped payment was done. This witness has further stated

that delinquent kept Rs. 6500/- till 06.03.2000 ( 32 days ). Enquiry further continued in 12.12.2000. This witness has

further stated about the several discripency in HSS 788 pass book of Sri Chandeshwar Singh. He has further stated that

on 10.04.1999 amount Rs. 15000/- was not deposited. This witness was incharge on that day but Mr. Baidyanath Pandit

posted the amount Rs. 15000/- as deposited on 10.04.1999. He made entry and confirmed the entry. On that date

Baidyanath Pandit entered Rs. 15000/- in his amount and confirmed the entry himself. But there was no posting in the

ledger dt-10.04.1999. On 24.09.1999 there was withdrawal by Mr. Baidyanath Pandit of Rs. 15000/- specimen and

signature on withdrawal form does not tailly. On 24.04.1999 Baidyanath Pandit was the incharge in the branch. Similarly

on 10.06.1999 amount deposited of Rs. 15000/- was shown and balance was Rs. 39,800/- and on the same date

10.06.1999 there is withdrawal of Rs. 39,600/-. ME-29 HSS 788 with the deposited slip of Chandeshwar Singh which

has been filled by the delinquent. ME-27 is photo copy of pass book of Sri Ramashis Kushwaha and there is withdrawal

of Rs. 15000/- on 10.06.1999 and signature does not tailly with the specimen signature. Delinquent was on election duly

on 20.02.2000 ( Sunday ) and delinquent has opened Sargatia Branch. This matter was informed to the chairman by

telephone along with branch manager of the Baisakhawa and Gukhalia. Cross- examination appears have been done from

this witness.

15.

Further proceedings was done on 18.12.2000 and M.W-2 Ramashis Kushwaha was examined. This witness has

stated that prior to election he had gone to bank for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- and Mr. Baidyanath Pandit stated he will

pay the amount at his home to his son and took away the pass book. After 2-3 days Mr. Baidyanath Pandit had given his

pass book at his home. After about a month auditor and manager arrived and asked pass book, they stated that 7-8 month

before rs. 15000/- has been withdrawn from his account. He enquired the matter from cashier ( Baidyanath Pandit ) who

stated that he will further pay Rs. 5000/-. He asked for parden. This witness further stated that entire amount have been

paid to him. In cross- examination he has stated that about out of the error of Rs. 15000/-, Rs. 14000/- has been paid to

him.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2569

16.

Next witness was M.W-3 Imamul Ansari, he has stated that he has given Rs. 6500/- on 2 or 3 dates which was

not depositded thereafter cashier returned those amount. This witness was not cross-examined. M.W-4 was Rajendra Sah

holder of account no.- 456. He has stated that he has deposited Rs. 3000/- but manager told that only Rs. 2000/- has been

deposited. This witness asked for amount Rs. 11,000/- deposited by him and manager replied, that has not been entered

in ledger. This witness was also not cross- examined. M.W-5 was Awadh Sah he has stated that he deposited Rs. 2000/-

but amount was not deposited by cashier. M.W-6 is Harendra Sah he has stated that he arrived in the bank on the dated

21^st. He has stated that he had gone to bank for withdrawal of the amount, manager was uneasy and told that there is no

amount thereafter he and manager gone to Baisakhawan branch and to Betiah and in the evening they paid the amount.

On 25.01.2001 no one appear on behalf of the defence. It has been stated that on 18.01.2001 by one registered letter it

has been informed to enquiry officer and it has been stated that delinquent has requested by written application to

disciplinary authority to decide the matter after personnel hearing. Management representative stated that knowingly

delinquent does not want to participate in the departmental enquiry. On 06.02.2001 defence representative ( DR) cross-

examined to M.W-1. Nothing important has been gathered in cross-examination in respect of the charge levelled against

the delinquent. Cross-examination of M.W-1 was over on 10.04.2001 and delinquent accepted charge sheet it was

marked DE-12. It was stated to delinquent that after proving the charge there is provision for punishment under

Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank service regularisation. In reply to question delinquent stated that he is accepting the

charge without any pressure. Further he replied that he is accepting the charges voluntarily in healthy state of mind.

Charge no.-1 was read over to him which was accepted by the delinquent.

He accepted the charge no.- 2,3,4,5,6,7. He also accepted charge no.- 9,10,11. Thus he accepted and agreed with

the all the charge. Next date of proceeding was fixed on 19.04.2001.

It appears that further proceeding was done on 24.04.2001 it has been stated that during the proceeding

delinquent Sri Baidyanath Pandit accepted all the charges. Defence representative (D.R) submitted some documents in

defence which were circular no.- 17/92/15 dt- 30.09.1992 and 17/92/22 dated- 18.05.1992 which was marked as DE-13.

Another documents were letters of delinquent dt-15.01.1998, 28.01.1998, 10.03.1998, 26.03.1999 marked as

Ext- DE14, 15, 16, 17. Next document was letter of head office no.- 24/99/165 dt- 15.04.1999 marked as Ext.-DE-18.

Proceeding was concluded. Management representative submitted application of Jagarnath Sah dated- 18.10.2000

marked ME-60. Letter of MR dated- 19.01.1981, 10.04.2001, letter of MR dated- 24.04.2001. It has been stated that

there is no need to file defence brief. Enquiry officer submitted his findings. He has stated that charge sheet was issued

from office of heard office vide letter dt- 16.08.2000. Representative of the management was Sri Devendnra Nath Ray,

Assistant Branch Manager, Lohiaria branch and defence representative was Chandra Mohan Prasad. Enquiry was

initiated. On 10.04.2001 defence representative (DR) submitting an application of the workman which is marked as DE-

12. Delinquent accepted all the charges it was stated to delinquent in presence of DR ( defence representative ) that

charge is proved, then as per Champaran, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Staff Service Regulation, there is provision of

punishment. Delinquent and is representative agreed with this.

Delinquent was asked some question and he stated that he is accepting the charges without any pressure and

voluntarily in healthy state of mind.

Thereafter charges has been explained, each and every charges was explained and delinquent accepted all the

chages one by one. Enquiry officer stated that charge no.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were found proved because

delinquent accepted all the charges. Enquiry officer further stated that management representative (MR) and defence

representative (DR) has submitted written argument which is not required because delinquent in presence of defence

representative accepted all the charges. This report was sent to Chairman, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank cum

disciplinary authority.

17.

From annexure-13, it appears that vide no.- /2001-02/II/54 dated- 04.02.2002 disciplinary authority sent letter

to Baidyanath Pandit to submit his comment on enquiry report. From annexure-14, delinquent accepted the guilt before

enquiry officer. He was in mental tension due to miserable economical condition but he had not given any benefit. He

has stated that account holder of Sarghatia branch have not made any complain. He has stated that he will not give any

opportunity of complain in future. He requested for setting –aside suspension. Vide order dt- 22.03.2002. Disciplinary

authority dealt the matter he agreed with the conclusion of enquiry officer and all the charges were found proved. He has

stated that in respect of charge no.- 1 to 7 punishment is given for dismissal. In respect of charge no.-8 to 11 there is

provision for permanent stoppage of increments this was communicated to Baidyanath Pandit.

18.

Disciplinary authority vide letter dt- 8/9.03.2002 issued show-cause to Baidyanath Pandit for punishment

proposed to be given to him was dismissal from bank service. If he had to say anythig then on 21.03.2002 in the head

office, he may stated other wise, it will be deemed that he has nothing to say and punishment will be awarded to and on

22.03.2002 finally order of dismissal from bank service was given and period of suspension was not treated for the

delinquent as on duty. On 19.08.2002 delinquent has given mercy petition to Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority and

Board of director of bank. Even the Appellate Authority Board had rejected appeal of Baidyanath Pandit on 12.07.2002.

2570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

During proceeding before this tribunal Arun Kumar Sinha, Branch Manager of the bank, Motihari was

examined who was auditor of the bank. He stated about the misappropriation and stated that misappropriation was

detected and which is clear that delinquent taken the amount but not deposited in the bank. In cross-examination nothing

has been gathered from this witness. M.W-2 Kanti Bhushan Mishra, who was branch manager at Sarghatia branch. He

has stated that Baidyanath Pandit was relieved for election duty as he inspire of relieving he on one Sunday opened the

bank and manipulated the record. Matter was investigated and many fraud was detected. In cross-examination nothing

has been gathered from this witness. M.W-3 was Naveen Kumar Verma he has stated that Baidyanath Pandit joined the

bank on 27.09.1980 on the post of clerk-cum-cashier on 01.08.1984 he was promoted to Field Supervisor. He has also

stated about the conduct the Baidyanath Pandit which is not relevant. In cross- examination nothing has been gathered

about the present matter in reference. M.W-4 is Bhikhan Thakur, he has stated that Baidyanath Pandit was clerk-cum-

cashier on Sarghatia branch and he misappropriation about Rs. 69000/-. 11 charges were framed against him. Show

cause was asked from him. During enquiry Baidyanath Pandit accepted the charges. Disciplinary Authority after hearing

punished him and his appeal was rejected. In cross-examination he stated that he joined the bank on 05.12.1983. He

never worked at Sargatia Branch. He was not management representative, enquiry officer or witness in this reference

case. He has stated that at present disciplinary authority for the worker is General Manager and Appellate authority is

Chairman. He further stated that for clerical staff disciplinary authority is General Manager after the year-2000. M.W-5

is Nishist Kumar Verma his evidence is not relevant but in cross-examination he has stated that in the year 2001-2004 Sri

P.N.Awasthi was Chairman of the Bank. In para-12 he has stated that many cases are pending against Mr. P.N.Awasthi

in Motihari court, one rape case is pending against him. M.W-6 Kusheshwar Kant Verma has stated that in August-1984

Baidyanath Pandit was promoted to the Field Supervisor on probation. Due to misappropriation done by him, he was

reverted. Baidyanath Pandit commited fraud in March-2000 at Sargatia Branch in March-2002 the then Chairman Mr.

P.N.Awasthi dismissed him. In cross-examination he has stated that he has no concern in suspension, dismissal of Mr.

Pandit. He has also stated that many cases were lodged in Motihari court against Mr. Awasthi. M.W-7 was Anil Kumar

Sinha, he has stated that 3^rd times at Sargatia Branch Mr. Pandit committed fraud. Departmental proceeding was done

against him. During proceeding Mr. Pandit accepted all the charges. On the basis of enquiry report he was dismissed. In

cross-examination he has stated that this witness did not participate in enquiry.

20.

W.W-1 Imamul Ansari has stated that at Sargatia Branch Baidyanath Pandit did not commit any fraud in his

account. He has stated that branch manager Mr. Mishra stated that fraud was commit in the account on his dictation he

has written. In cross-examination he has stated that he is acquainted with Baidyanath Pandit. He has stated that he put his

signature on the writing of manager. W.W-2 Baidyanath Pandit has stated that vide order dt- 09.03.2000 he was placed

under suspension. Charge sheet dt- 16.08.2000 was issued. No any opportunity was given to him for replying to the

charges. He was coerced and tempted by the Chairman to accept the charges. He was again contacted by some person for

giving money to the Chairman for which he was not capable. He has stated that General Manager was disciplinary

authority and chairman was Appellate Authority. He did not commit any misconduct. In cross-examination he has stated

that replied the charges and he did not commit fraud.

20.

The reference for adjudication is (a) “ Whether the action of the management of Champaran Kshetriya Gramin

Bank in conducting enquiries free or biased? (b) “ Whether the punishment of dismissal w.e.f 22.03.2002 ordered to Sri

Baidyanath Pandit is in proportionate to the charges framed is legal and justified? If not, to which relief Sri Baidyanath

Pandit is entitled to?”

21.

Written argument has been filed on behalf of the management mainly stating antecedent of the workman. The

present charge sheet was related to dt- 08.06.2000. He has been stated that no witness has been produced on behalf of the

defence and all the charges were accepted by the delinquent.

22.

So far the charges are concered since the delinquent agreed with all the charges and admitted all the charges so

it can not be said that departmental enquiry was not fair. Hence award is answered that action of the management of

Champaran Kshtriya Gramin Bank in conducting enquiries was free, fair and proper because all the charges were

admitted and accepted by the workman namely Baidyanath Pandit.

23.

Now to adjudicate “ Whether the punishment of dismissal w.e.f 22.03.2000 ordered to Sri Baidyanath Pandit is

in proportionate to the charges framed is legal and justified? If not, what relief Sri Baidyanath Pandit is entitled to?”

24.

In order dated- 22.03.2002 disciplinary authority had stated the provision against the charges which was

dismissal in respect of charge no.- 1 to 7 which were proved. Nothing has been argued on behalf of the delinquent about

the punishment in respect of the charges which were proved.

25.

On behalf of the defence a web copy of the decision of Hon’ble Court of Supreme Court of India in Surjit

Ghosh Versus Chairman & Managing Director has been filed. In which Deputy General Manager had acted as the

disciplinary authority when he was in fact named under the Regulation as an Appellate Authority. It was argued on

behalf of the respondent bank that no prejudice is caused to the appellant because Dy. General Manager is higher in rank

then the disciplinary authority. The Hon’ble Supereme Court answered that order of dismissal suffers from an inherent

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2571

defect and has to be set-aside. But no regulation has been filed here to demonstrate that disciplinary authority was

Appellate Authority. So this decision is not applicable in the present case.

26.

It appears that Sri Baidyanath Pandit have also preferred appeal and appeal was rejected on 12.07.2002. In

which N. K. Sinha Chairman of the Appellate Board, P.K. Chakarwarti, Sri Anil Jha and Promod Kumar all member of

Appellate Board there present. So award is answered that punishment of dismissal w.e.f 22.03.2002 ordered to Sri

Baidyanath Pandit was in proportionate to the charges framed and was legal and justified. In the result, therefore,

workman Sri Baidyanath Pandit is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly awards is answered as stated above.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

BIPIN DUTTA PATHAK, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 115@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@17@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour-Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-41011/17/2012-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 29^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 115/2012

1. The Dy. Chief Engineer (construction),

Western Railway,

Kalupur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager,

Western Railway,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

B/28, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad

…Second Party

2572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41011/17/2012-IR(B-I) dated 31.07.2012 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 Deputy Engineering (Construction), Western Railway, Ahmedabad

in not crediting the Provident Fund balance of Shri Sukhdev Fakira Patil, Jeep Driver deducted by Railway

Electrification Department and Transferred to Sr. Accounts officer (construction) Western Railway,

Ahmedabad on 22.08.1997 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 31.07.2012. Second party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the

order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be dismissed as

not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 146@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@27@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour-Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-41011/27/2013-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 29^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 146/2013

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda

2. The Divisional RailwayManager

Western Railway,

Near Chamunda Bridge,

Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2573

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

B/28, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad-382470

…Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41011/27/2013-IR(B-I) dated 22.07.2013 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 the Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad against

the Divisional Railway Manager, W.R. Ahmedabad against the Divisional Railway Manager, W.R. Ahmedabad

to promote Shri Gogaji as Cabinman in the scale Rs. 4000-6000 with all back wages and benefits from

04.09.1999 is legal, fair and justified? If so, then to what relief the above workman areentitled to?”

This reference dates back to 22.07.2013. Second party Union representative R.S. Sisodia has note down on the

order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to peruse the reference and the same may be dismissed as

not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1154-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 87@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@22@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour-Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-41012/22/2005-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 4^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 87/2005

2574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Division Office,

Rajkot

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Nr. Vishwakarma Temple,

Jawahar Chowk,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Janak R. Pandya,Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P.

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41012/22/2005-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2005 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 Divisional Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot in imposing the

punishment of reduction of lower stage in the existing scale for a period of five years without future effect to

Sh. FakruddinVeersingh, Khalasi on the basis of charge sheet for absenteeism with effect from 10.07.96 to

5.11.96 is legal and justified? If not, to what the workman concerned is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 19.09.2005. Both the parties were served. First party filed the vakalatpatra (Ext.8)

of his advocate Shri Janak R. Pandya but second party did not respond to file statement of claim. He has also been

absent since then.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] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1155-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 675@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 25@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@81@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 675/2004) (ITC No. 25/1999) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour-Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-41012/81/99-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2575

Dated 18^th March, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 675/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 25/1999

The General Manager,

Western Railway, H/Or. Building, Churchgate,

Mumbai

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)-390004

The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Power)

Western Railway, Railway Yard, Pratapnagar,

Vadodara -390004

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Mr. KantilalLaxmanbhai,

C/o. J.K. Ved, Secretary,

General Workmen’s Union, Sinduri Mata Devsthan,

ST Nagar Road, P.O. Godhra-389001

(Panchmahal)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.S. Mishra,

For the Second Party

Shri J.K. Ved, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41012/81/99/IR-IR(B-I) dated 25.08.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Baroda(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration through the Divisional Electrical Engineer (power)

Western Railway, Pratapnagar, Baroda and its officers in terminating the services of Mr. Kantilal Laxmanbhai

by way of punishment of ‘Removal from Service with immediate effect vide NIP dated 18.12.1990 is legal,

proper and justified?

AND

“Whether the punishment of ‘Removal from services with immediate effect’ is proportionate to the gravity of

the misconduct? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Shri KantilalLaxmanbhai is entitled to and what

other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The second party in his statement of claim (Ext. 3) alleged that second party had been working with the first

party as a permanent employee and served more than 12 years without any breakbut his services were terminated

illegally with effect from 18.12.1990 and till date no termination order has been served on him.He raised the Industrial

Dispute,the first party appeared and stated there that the services of the second party has been terminated. He was not

paid any monetary benefits or compensation at the time of termination of his service. The second party served the notice

dated 22.01.1997 vide registered post on first party but the first party did not respond to it. The second party has raised

the disputes before the Asst. Labour Commissioner under section 10 (A) and 2 (A) of the I.D. Act, since the first party

did not give reply to his aforesaid notice. The first party appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and filed

the reply. Aforesaid reply dated 17.12.1998 was submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central),Vadodara. The first party levelled the charge of long absence from 23.01.1988 to 12.12.1988 in the Charge

sheet. However, the aforesaid charge sheet till date has not been served on him. But before the Conciliation Officer, the

first party stated that the aforesaid charge sheet was sent by registered post to him. But the said notice was received as

unserved and further alleged that the said charge sheet was affixed on notice board on 19.01.1989. He further stated that

first party did not follow the principle of natural justice in the departmental proceeding and conducted the inquiry

2576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ex parte wherein the first party has taken the evidence of its choice and terminated the second party illegally. He further

alleged that since he was the Railway employee hence all provision of I.D. Act is applicable. The first party cannot

terminate the second party without affording the opportunity to defend himself as per the provision of Article 311(2) of

the constitution of India though the first party has conducted the ex parte inquiry and terminated second party illegally.

The second party further alleged that he was terminated as per circular No. E/308/7/8/98 dated 29.12.1990. He has

further alleged that he expected that the first party will produce the said termination order along with the written

statement. He further alleged stated that he was charged for absence from duty from 10 months on account of sickness

while he was under the treatment of a private doctor. He has further alleged that the said documentary evidence will be

produce at the relevant time and also informed the first party accordingly. The second party further alleged that as per

the provisions of railway manual the he as an railway employee, hecan be treated medically by a private doctor. He has

further alleged that since he was a permanent employee of the railway department and hence he can get the sick leave,

PL and CL. Aforesaid leave are generally given to the permanent employee with full wages. He further alleged that there

was balance of leave in his account and hence he demanded the sick leave. He has further alleged that even if no leave is

in balance there also the sick leave can be granted without wages. He has further stated that the first party has without

considering the aforesaid fact marked him absent by misusing their power. The second party alleged that since the

second party was class IV employee and he cannot pressure the first party in any manner and not able to stop them but

doing false activity. He has further alleged that by misusing their powers first party illegally terminated him.The second

party alleged that at the time of imposition of penalty of termination the first party has not considered the truth and real

facts and terminated the service of the second party making him unemployed. He has further alleged that at the time of

filling statement of claim he was 40 years old. He has further alleged that he had tried to secure job elsewhere but he

could not get the same. If first party take him back on job, he is ready to resume his duty. He has further alleged that if

Hon’ble Tribunal impose any lesser punishment exercising its power under section 11(A) of the I.D. Act. He prayed

forset aside the termination dated 18.12.1990 and reinstatement on his original post with full back wages.

In response to the statement of claim, the first party submitted the written statement (Ext.6) and denied all the

allegation of the statement of claim and submitted that no industrial dispute as per the provisions of section 2(A) have

never arisen in the matter. Reference is time barred. The Industrial Tribunal have no jurisdiction over the matter. Second

party had never been a permanent employee. He never served the first party for continuous 12 years. His services were

not terminated illegally. His services were terminated with due process of law. Second party was serving as cleaner as

appointed on 04.02.1981. He had been absent from duty without prior permission and getting his leaves sanctioned from

23.01.1988 to 12.12.1988. Thus, his absence was unauthorised one which was more than 12 months. Thus, the major

penalty was awarded vide charge sheet no. E/308/9/3/98 dated 03.08.1989 was as per the railway manual and law. The

said charge sheet was sent to second party by register post which was received as unserved, therefore, the charge sheet

was posted on the notice board of Senior Electrical Foreman (SEF (M) PRTN) on 19.01.1989 in the presence of two

witnesses which may be treated as deemed service. Thereafter, N.H. Chanchlani, SS Electrical was appointed as inquiry

officer on 20.02.1989. Copy of the said order of appointment of Inquiry Officer vide standard from No. 7 was sent to the

second party asking him to submit the name of the defence counsel in the departmental inquiry to defend him vide letters

dated 01.04.1989 and 16.08.1989. The second party submitted his representation to cancel the charge sheet on

09.02.1990. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer fix the date 05.09.1990 for appearance of the second party to appear at SEF (M)

PRTN and informed the second party vide letter dated 21.08.1990. But second party didn’t prefer to appear, therefore,

inquiry was held ex parte. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence of the witnesses held him guilty for the

charges levelled against him. Copy of the inquiry report was sent to the second party but he did not prefer to defend

himself again within the prescribed period. Therefore, second party was awarded punishment of removal from service

vide notice No. E/308/7/3/98 dated 18.12.1990 with immediate effect.

From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are arises for passing award:

(I)

Whether the second party was a permanent employee?

(II)

Whether the second party was ill and could not attend the duty and he underwent medical treatment

from a private doctor as permissible under the railway manual?

(III)

Whether the second party was served with the charge sheet regarding his long absence from duty?

(IV)

Whether the second party was given opportunity of hearing and defending himself in the departmental

inquiry as per the principles of natural justice?

(V)

Whether the punishment order is excessive?

First party filed the 16 documents vide index (Ext. 24).

Second party did not prefer to file any documents in support of his statement of claim.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2577

Second party Kantibhai Laxmanbhai Vadodara preferred to examine himself in support of his case which is

Ext.9 wherein he stated on oath that he was appointed in the electrical department of Railway on 04.02.1981. He was a

permanent employee and was terminated on 18.12.1990 and the order of termination has not been received till date. He

stated that it is true that the charge sheet was against him for long absence from duty. Departmental inquiry was held

against him and he was present in the inquiry. Medical certificate was produced by him but railway did not give him any

documents. His signature was on sign-3 and the details which was mentioned in it, is true. He is ready to join the duty if

the management take back him on his job. He was trying to get the job but failed. He further stated that he had been

working in electrical department of Western Railway in Pratapnagar, Baroda but he had been on leave staying in Godhra

during medical illness. He had been working since last 7 years and the documents of the same were in record. His

services were terminated prior to the completion of 10 years’ service but he did not remember the year of termination.

There are 4 members in his family and lived with his elder brother and he helped him for his family. He was mentally

upset and suffering with the mentally illness, therefore, he had to be absent from his service and to get medical

treatment. He also obtained medical certificate for the same. He further stated that it is wrong that notice was sent to

him by the management and no notice was received by him and he was received only one paper. It is also wrong that he

was called for enquiry by the registered post.

On behalf of the first party Naina P. Amin was examined and submitted the affidavit Ext.23 in the form of

examination-in-chief and reiterated the facts alleged in the written statement (Ext.6). In his cross-examination, he stated

he does not know as to whether the second party Kantibhai was permanent employee or not .It can only be told by the

personnel department of the railway. Second party was served by the charge sheet on 03.01.1989. Here, in the whole

cross-examination of the witness nothing has been asked by the second party’s learned counsel regarding the violation of

the principle of natural justice or unfairness or illegality, if any, being committed by the first party in the departmental

inquiry. Nothing has also been asked as to whether the second party had been on long absence from the duty without any

valid reason.

ISSUES NO. I:- Whether the second party was a permanent employee?- The second party Kantibhai in his

statement on oath stated that he was a permanent employee and first party has not filed any documents which may prove

that he was not the permanent employee. It is also noteworthy that witness of first party Naina P. Amin has also

expressed ignorance regarding this fact. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid evidence, it can be assumed that second party

was a permanent employee of the first party.

10.

ISSUES NO. II:-Whether the second party was ill and could not attend the duty and he underwent medical

treatment from a private doctor as permissible under the railway manual?- The burden to prove this issue was only

second party. Second party Kantibhai Laxmanbhai Vadodara in his statement on oath has stated that he was mentally ill

and had been under medical treatment consequently he was absent from duty for a long period. But he has not submitted

any documentary evidence regarding his mental illness and medical treatment thereof. Therefore, in the light of the

aforesaid evidence, it can be assumed that he has failed to prove the aforesaid facts of medical illness and treatment and

justification of long absence form duty for valid reason. Thus, this issue is decided in negative and against the second

party.

11.

ISSUES NO. III:-Whether the second party was served with the charge sheet regarding his long absence from

duty?- The burden to prove this issue was again on second party. He has failed to give any evidence to prove the fact of

non-service of charge sheet which the first party has very well explained by the examination of Naina P. Amin.

12.

ISSUES NO. IV:-Whether the second party was given opportunity of hearing and defending himself in the

departmental inquiry as per the principles of natural justice?- The burden to prove this issue was also on the second

party. He has not uttered a single word in his evidence as to how he was not given opportunity of hearing and defending

himself in the departmental inquiry as per the principles of natural justice. Thus, this issue is also decided in negative

and against the second party.

13.

ISSUES NO. V:-Whether the punishment order is excessive? – It is admitted fact by both the parties that the

second party was absent for 12 months. He has failed to explain the reasons of absence from duty by way of

documentary evidence as being necessary in case of illness and medical treatment thereof. Thus , the punishment

awarded cannot be said to be excessive. Hence. Reference has no force and fit to be rejected.

Order is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

2578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1156-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,e,lvkbZvkjlhVhlh 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 116@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2015) 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 M/s.

I.R.C.T.C. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-12025/01/2016-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 116/2015

Shri Pawan Kumar and 6 others, through

Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Sangh Regd.,

Affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

5239, Ajmeri Gate,

Delhi-110 006

…Workman

Versus

M/s I.R.C.T.C.,

Corporate Office, 9^th Floor,

Bank of Baroda Building, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001

M/s Shomukh Engineering & Consultancy Services,

G-I, Ground Floor,

South Extension Part II,

New Delhi – 110 049

…Managements

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case is that Shri Pawan Kumar and 6 others, (hereinafter referred to as the

workmen herein) filed a case before this Tribunal under sub section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(in short the Act) with the averment that the workmen herein were in the employment of management of IRCTC

since 01.06.2005 on different posts. They were doing work under different contractors. At the relevant time, they were

working under the contractor, M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi in the canteen of IRCTC,

Northern Railway, New Delhi. They were working for more than 12 hours in a day at a monthly wage of Rs. 8600.00,

which is much less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The workmen

herein were deprived of the various facilities which are available to the workmen under the provisions of the Act as well

as other labour laws made for the welfare of workmen. Management was obtaining signatures and thumb impression of

the workmen herein on blank papers and the working had put their thumb impression/signatures in good faith that they

would be given suitable employment, alongwith wages.

It is also the case of the workmen herein that they are members of the union and were working in the base

kitchen of IRCTC, Northern Railway. Their work is regular and perennial in nature. Work being obtained by the

contractor from them was in violation of Contract Labour and Regulations Act, 1970. The workmen herein were told by

the contractor that after 07.02.2014, their services would not be required and they could look somewhere else for their

employment. No notice was served upon the workmen herein when their services were verbally terminated on

07.02.2014. Workmen herein were also not paid wages in the month of January and February 2014. When the

workmen approached the management again to continue them in service, management flatly refused. The workmen

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2579

herein were not served with any kind of notice or charge sheet nor any enquiry was held against them before termination

of their job. Action of the management has been alleged to be totally arbitrary and illegal. Demand notice was also sent

by the workmen herein to the management by post but no reply was filed by the management to the same. Thereafter,

the workmen, through their union, lodged a complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Labour

Department. Despite sending of several notices by the Labour Department, nobody appeared on behalf of the

management before the ALC. This action of the management is totally against the interest of the workmen.

Notice of the petition was served upon the management, who did not turn up despite notice. Accordingly,

management was proceeded ex-parte vide a order dated 01.10.2015.

Workmen, in support of their claim, examined Shri Pawan Kumar as WW1, who has submitted a detailed

affidavit, which is on the same lines as the stand taken in the statement of claim. This witness has also proved demand

letter Ex.WW1/1, postal receipt Ex.WW1/2, copy of ID Card as Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW1/4. There is also copy of

minutes dated 03.02.2014 which shows that a meeting of the union took place on the above date, wherein they have

vented their grievance regarding less payment of wages and termination from the job. They have also authorized Shri

B.S. Rawat to pursue their case before the competent authority. Copy of report of the Conciliation Officer is Ex.WW1/6,

which also shows that the workmen herein has also approached the said officer for settlement of their dispute but to no

use. There is also a certificate dated 14.08.2014 issued by the ALC, namely Shri Dinesh Narain, which shows that the

Conciliation Officer took up the matter on 07.05.2014 and thereafter; however, no settlement could be reached. After

expiry of mandatory period of 45 days, workmen herein directly filed their claim under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of

the Act.

I have heard Shri B.S. Rawat, authorized representative for the workmen herein.

It is clear from the averments made in the statement of claim as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the workmen

herein were employed with the Contractor, M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi,

Management No.2, to whom work has been outsourced by Northern Railway. Perusal of the demand letter Ex.WW1/1

shows that the workmen through their union have approached the management of Northern Railway for settlement of

their dispute regarding demands of the workmen herein who have been working in the base kitchen of Northern

Railway. They have also alleged commission of unfair labor practice by the contractor as they are not being paid

minimum wages as required under the law. Further perusal of the Identity card of Shri Pawan Kumar Ex.WW1/3 shows

that he was deployed by M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management No.2 at IRCTC

from 11.02.2012 to 10.01.2013. Similarly, Shri Pawan Kumar was deployed as Shift Supervisor and his main job was

bed roll services provided on railway system by IRCTC. It is also clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/6 that matter was

taken up by the workmen through their union before the ALC who vide order dated 14.08.2014 tried to settle the matter

but no settlement could be reached between the parties.

There is force in the contention of the workmen herein that they were not served with any kind of notice as

required under Section 25F of the Act before termination of their services. Section 25F of the Act clearly provides

that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the

notice. Now the legal position is fairly settled by various judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Courts

that compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act is mandatory and same would be applicable even in the case of

termination of contract labour or casual worker.

Since from the Identity card as well as proceedings of conciliation held before the ALC, it is clear that neither

Management No.1 nor the contractor M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management

No.2 has cared to be present and settle the matter with the workman. Not only this, even before this Tribunal, none has

appeared on behalf of M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management No.2. Thus, there

is no evidence to the contrary adduced by the contractor so as to dislodge the case of the workmen herein. In such a

situation, it is held that the workmen herein were in the employment of M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy

Services, New Delhi, i.e. Management No.2 and their services were terminated without any show cause notice or

payment of one month salary in lieu of such notice, as required under Section 25F of the Act. Resultantly, action of M/s

Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management No.2 is held to be totally illegal and against

principles of natural justice.

It has come in the evidence of the workmen herein that they were not suitably employed after termination at

any other place and no evidence has been led by the managements so as to show that after termination of the workmen,

they were gainfully employed at some other place. To my mind, in such a situation, workmen herein are also entitled for

full back wages from the date of their termination till reinstatement.

10.

As a sequel to my discussions made herein above, it is held that order of termination/retrenchment of the

workmen herein with effect from 07.02.2014 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against provisions of the Act and the

workmen herein are entitled to arrears of back wages from 07.02.2014 and liable to be reinstated. In case wages are not

2580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 11, 2016/JYAISTHA 21, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

paid by M/s Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management No.2, arrears of wages would be

paid by the principal employer, i.e. IRCTC, who shall have every right to recover the amount so paid from M/s

Shomukh Engineers and Consultancy Services, New Delhi, Management No.2 from moneys due to them. 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 : April 29, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 688@2004) (vkbZVhlh la- 30@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-06-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@32@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2016

S.O. 1157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 688/2004) (ITC No. 30/1999) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour-Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.06.2016.

[No. L-42012/32/99-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 4^th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 688/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 30/1999

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway, H/Or. Building,

Churchgate,

Mumbai-400001

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)-394220

3. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRO),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) 394220

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the Dy. Geenral Secretary, (Zonal),

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole,

Kothi,

Baroda-394220

…Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 11] 2016@T;s"B 21] 1938

2581

For the First Party

Sh. Jatin J. Vakil, Advocate

For the Second Party

Sh. J.K. Ved, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

42012/32/99/IR(B-I) dated 13.09.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the inaction on the part of the Railway Administration i.e. General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai,

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda Divisional & Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRO), Western

Railway , Baroda for not granting the benefit of stepping up of pay to Shri A.K. Shrivastav& all others, If any (who are

senior to Shri L.R. Rajpal) at par with the basic pay of Mr. L.R. Rajpal as on 01.04.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-

3200, is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief Shri A.K. Shrivastav & all others are entitled to and from which

date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

This reference dates back to 13.09.1999. Both the parties appeared. Second party submitted their statement of

claim (Ext. 4) first party despite putting appearing did not prefer to submit written statement.

But both the parties have been absent since last several dates.Thus, it appears that both parties are not interested

in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1158-—उपदान संदाय अिधिनयम, 1972 (1972 का 39) (िजसे इसम इसके प चात् उ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है)

क धारा 5 क उपधारा (2) के अधीन नई द ली नगर पािलका प"रषद् ने छूट के िलए आवेदन कया है;

और के/ 0ीय सरकार क राय म उ त 1 थापन के िनयिमत कम3चा"रय4 5ारा 6ा7 य उपदान के फायदे; जो के/ 0ीय िसिवल सेवा

(प शन) िनयम 1972 के अधीन आते ह;, उ त अिधिनयम के अधीन के 6द= त फायदे से कम नहं ह;

अत: अब, के/ 0ीय सरकार, उ त अिधिनयम क धारा 5 क उपधारा (2) 5ारा 6द= त शि तय4 का 6योग करते @ए, नई द ली

नगरपािलका प"रषद् के िनयिमत कम3चा"रय4 को उ त अिधिनयम के उपबंध4 के 6चालन से छूट देती है, जो के/ 0ीय िसिवल सेवा (प शन)

िनयम, 1972 के अधीन आते ह; ।

[सं. एस-42014/01/2009-एसएस-2]

सुभाष कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2016

S.O. 1158.— Whereas the New Delhi Municipal Council has applied for exemption under sub-section (2) of

the section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the gratuity benefit receivable by the regular employees

of the said establishment who are covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not less favourable

than the benefit conferred under the said Act;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby exempts the regular employees of the New Delhi Municipal Council who are covered under the

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 from the operation of provisions of the said Act.

[No. S-42014/01/2009-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.