3202 GI/2016

(2967)

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- 28]

ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 3—tqykbZ 9] 2016] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 12—vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

No. 28]

NEW DELHI, JULY 3—JULY 9, 2016, SATURDAY/ASADHA 12—ASADHA 18, 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

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, , , , 21 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ.

. 1350

1350

1350.—राीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9 (2) के उप-

खंड (ख) के साथ पठत बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9

क उप-धारा 3(छ) ारा द! शि$य का योग करते 'ए, के*+ीय सरकार, एत,ारा, सु/ी वेनी थापर (ज*म

ितिथः 11.01.1971) को उनक िनयुि$ क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ इंिडया के िनदेशक म3डल म5 सनदी लेखाकार (चाटड अकाउंट5ट) /ेणी के

अंतगत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 6/41/2015–बीओ–I ]

8ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव

2968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the, 21st June, 2016

S.O. 1350.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates

Ms. Veni Thapar (DoB: 11.01.1971) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on the

Board of Directors of Bank of India for a period of three years, from the date of notification of her appointment or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 6/41/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, , , , 21 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ.

. 1351

1351

1351.—राीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 9(2) के उप-

खंड (ख) के साथ पठत बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9

क उप-धारा 3(छ) ारा द! शि$य का योग करते 'ए, के*+ीय सरकार, एत,ारा, /ी एन. िन9यानंद (ज*म

ितिथः 20.05.1955) को उनक िनयुि$ क अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, से*:ल बक आफ इंिडया के िनदेशक म3डल म5 सनदी लेखाकार (चाटड अकाउंट5ट)

/ेणी के अंतगत अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 6/43/2015–बीओ–I ]

8ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the, 21st June, 2016

S.O. 1351.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 (g) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (b) of clause 9(2) of The Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates

Shri N. Nityananda (DoB: 20.05.1955) as Part-time Non-official Director under Chartered Accountant category on the

Board of Directors of Central Bank of India for a period of three years, from the date of notification of his appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 6/43/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, , , , 22 जून, , , , 2016

का

का.आ.

. 1352

1352

1352.—राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास ब क अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 6 क

उपधारा (1) के खड (ड.) ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, केीय सरकार, एत ारा, िन"िलिखत $िय को इस

अिधसूचना के जारी होने क तारीख से तीन वष' क अविध के िलए राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास ब क (नाबाड') के

िनदेशक मडल म( िनदेशक िनयु करती हैः-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2969

(i)

सिचव,

कृिष, पशुपालन एवं सहका,रता िवभाग,

झारखंड सरकार,

रांची, झारखंड।

(ii)

अपर मु-य सिचव एवं कृिष उ/पाद आयु,

म2य देश सरकार,

व3लभ भवन, भोपाल-462004

म2य देश।

[फा.सं. 7/1/2016–बीओ–I ]

8ानोतोष रॉय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22^nd June, 2016

S.O. 1352.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints the

following persons to be the Directors on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD) for a period of three years with effect from the date of issue of this notification:-

Secretary

Agricultural, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative Department

Government of Jharkhand

Ranchi, Jharkhand

ii)

Additional Chief Secretary

and Agriculture Production Commissioner

Government of Madhya Pradesh

Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal- 462004

Madhya Pradesh

[F.No. 7/1/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1353-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] fj;kn esa Jh jfo jatu iafMr] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh vkSj Jh lqIre nkl]

lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 27 twu] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy,

izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2016

S.O. 1353.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints (1) Shri Ravi Ranjan

2970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pandit, Assistant Section Officer and (2) Shri Suptam Das, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in

the Embassy of India, Riyadh to perform the Consular services with effect from 27 June, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx

miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx

miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1354-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e (3) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRikn dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS :-

vuqlwph

lwph

Hkkjrh;

ekud

la-

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu “kqYd

¼#-½

bdkbZ

LySc 1

¼#-½

LySc esa

bdkbZ;ka

'ks"k

izpkyu

frfFk

o`gn

Lrj

,e,l,ebZ

ds fy,

5631

1970

Vªkyh

midj.kksa

lknk vkSj

?kqekonkj

1 ihl

46000@&

37000@&

2-3

lHkh

29-06-2016

7083

1973

Vªkyh] nok

1 ihl

46000@&

37000@&

2-4

lHkh

29-06-2016

[lanHkZ % lh ,e Mh&3@8 % 8]

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

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumers Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given

in the Schedule :—

SCHEDULE

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

(Rs.)

Unit

Rate

Slab-1

Fee

(Rs.)

Units

Slab-

Rema-

ining

Effective Date

Large

Scale

MSME

5631

1970

Trolley,

Instrument, Plain

& Curved

1 piece

46000/-

37000/-

2.3

All

29.06.2016

7083

1973

Trolley, Medicine

1 piece

46000/-

37000/-

2.4

All

29.06.2016

[Ref. : CMD-3/8 : 8]

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2971

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1355-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e (3) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRikn dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS :-

vuqlwph

lwph

Hkkjrh;

ekud

la-

Hkkx

vuqHkkx

o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ

U;wure eqgjkadu “kqYd

¼#-½

bdkbZ

LySc 1

¼#-½

LySc esa

bdkbZ;ka

'ks"k

izpkyu

frfFk

o`gn

Lrj

,e,l,ebZ

ds fy,

15997

2012

crZuksa ,oa

jlksbZ?kj

lkf/k=ksa ds

fy, vYi

fudy

vkWLVsfuVhd

LVsuysl

LVhy dh

pknj ,oa

irh &

fof’kf"V

eS- Vu

90000

72000

240

lHkh

04-07-2016

3074

2013

eksVj okgu

gsrq] bLikr

ufydk,a &

fof’kf"V

¼rhljk

iqujh{k.k½

70000

56000

8-7

lHkh

04-07-2016

2507

1975

fLizaXl ds

fy,

dksYM&jksYM

LVhy

flVªIl dh

fof’kf"V

¼igyk

iqujh{k.k½

63000

51000

lHkh

04-07-2016

2039

1&3

1991

Lkbfdy

vkSj

lkbfdy

fjD’kk ds

fy, bLikr

ufydkvksa

dh fof’kf"V

¼nwljk

iqujh{k.k½

74000

60000

12-35

lHkh

04-07-2016

[lanHkZ lh ,e Mh&2@16 % 15997] 3074] 2507] 2039 ¼Hkkx 1&3½]

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

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of the regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given

in the Schedule :

2972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

(Rs.)

Unit

Rate

Slab-1

Fee

(Rs.)

Units

Slab-

Rema-

ining

Effective Date

Large

Scale

MSME

15997

2012

Low

Nickel

Austenitic

Stainless

Steel

Sheet and Strip for

Utensils

and

Kitchen

Appliances

–

Specification

One

90000

72000

240

All

04.07.2016

3074

2013

Steel

Tubes

for

Automotive

Purposes

–

Specification

(Third Revision)

One

Tonne

70000

56000

8.7

All

04.07.2016

2507

1975

Specification

for

Cold-Rolled Steel

Strips for Springs

(First Revision)

One

Tonne

63000

51000

All

04.07.2016

2039

1-3

1991

Steel

Tubes

for

Bicycle and Cycle

Rickshaws

–

Specification

(Second Revision)

One

Tonne

74000

60000

12.35

All

04.07.2016

[Ref. CMD-2/16 : 15997, 3074, 2507, 2039 (Pt. 1-3]

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

वा

वा य

य

य एवं प र

एवं प र

एवं प रवार क या

वार क या

वार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क याण िवभाग)

ण िवभाग)

नई 8द3 ली, 28 जून, 2016

का

का.आ.

. 135

135

1356.—जब8क भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद (संशोधन) अ2 यादेश, 2013 क धारा 3क क उप-धारा

(1) ारा द/ त शिA तय का योग करते ए 8दनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद का पुनग'ठन 8कया

गया था।

और जब8क भारतीय आयु:व;ान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1)(क) के

ावधान के अनुसरण म( 06.11.2013 से गोवा सरकार के ितिनिध के Lप म( डॉ. वी.एन. Nजदल को भारतीय आयु:व;ान

प,रषद के सदO य के Lप म( नािमत 8कया गया था।

और जब8क गोवा सरकार ने सूचना दी है 8क आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 3 (1)(क) के तहत गोवा

सरकार के ितिनिध डॉ. वी.एन. Nजदल, गोवा मेिडकल कॉलेज के डीन के पद से सेवािनवृ/ त हो गए ह और वी.एन. Nजदल

के सेवािनवृ/ त होने के प,रणामO वLप डॉ. दीप जी. नायक को गोवा मेिडकल कॉलेज का डीन िनयुA त 8कया गया है।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2973

इसिलए डॉ. वी.एन. Nजदल जो गोवा सरकार का ितिनिध/ व कर रहे थे, अब आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 3

(1)(क) के तहत भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद के सदO य नहV रहे ह ।।

अब इसिलए, गोवा सरकार के ितिनिध डॉ. वी.एन. Nजदल को त/ काल भाव से भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद का

सदO य न होना माना जाएगा।

[सं. वी-11013/02/2015-एमईपी]

अिमत िबO वास, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1356.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(a) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956

(102 of 1956) Dr. V.N. Jindal was nominated as a member of the Medical Council of India representing

Government of Goa with effect from 06-11-2013;

And whereas the Government of Goa has informed that Dr. V.N. Jindal, representing Government of Goa

under section 3(1)(a) of IMC Act, 1956 has retired from the post of Dean, Goa Medical College and consequent upon

retirement of Dr. V.N. Jindal, Dr. Pradeep G. Naik has been appointed as Dean, Goa Medical College. Therefore Dr.

V.N. Jindal has ceased to be a member of Medical Council of India representing Govt. of Goa under section 3(1)(a) of

IMC Act, 1956.

Now therefore, Dr. V.N. Jindal shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of

India representing Government of Goa with immediate effect.

[No. V-11013/02/2015-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

नई 8द3 ली, 28 जून, 2016

का

का.आ.

. 1357

1357

1357.—जब8क भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद (संशोधन) अ2 यादेश, 2013 क धारा 3क क उप-धारा

गया था।

और जब8क भारतीय आयु:व;ान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1)(क) के

ावधान के अनुसरण म( 06.11.2013 से गोवा िवW विवXालय के ितिनिध के Lप म( डॉ. िसलवानो सी.ए. िडयास सैपेको

को भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद के सदO य के Lप म( नािमत 8कया गया था।

और जब8क गोवा िवW विवXालय ने सूचना दी है 8क आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 3 (1)(ख) के तहत

गोवा िवW विवXालय के ितिनिध डॉ. िसलवानो सी.ए. िडयास सैपेको, गोवा मेिडकल कॉलेज से सेवािनवृ/ त हो गए ह तथा

उ ह( गोवा िवW विवXालय के संकाय पद पर न होना माना जाए। इसिलए, डॉ. िसलवानो सी.ए. िडयास सैपेको आईएमसी

अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 7(3) म( िनिहत ावधान के अनुसार आईएमसी अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 3 (1)(ख) के

तहत गोवा िवW विवXालय के ितिनिध के Lप म( भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद के सदO य नहV रहे ह ।

अब इसिलए, गोवा िवW विवXालय के ितिनिध डॉ. िसलवानो सी.ए. िडयास सैपेको को त/ काल भाव से

भारतीय आयु:व;ान प,रषद का सदO य न होना माना जाएगा।

[सं. वी-11013/02/2015-एमईपी]

अिमत िबO वास, अवर सिचव

2974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1357.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of

the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956

(102 of 1956) Dr. Silvano C.A. Dias Sapeco was nominated as a member of the Medical Council of India

representing Goa University with effect from 06-11-2013;

And whereas the Goa University has informed that Dr. Silvano C.A. Dias Sapeco, representing Goa

University under section 3(1)(b) of IMC Act, 1956 has retired from Goa Medical College and ceases to be a medical

faculty of the Goa University. Therefore, Dr. Silvano C.A. Dias Sapeco has ceased to be a member of Medical Council

of India representing Goa University under section 3(1)(b) of IMC Act, 1956 as per the provisions contained in Section

7(3) of IMC Act, 1956.

Now, therefore, Dr. Silvano C.A. Dias Sapeco shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical

Council of India representing Goa University with immediate effect.

[No. V-11013/02/2015-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ts ,e

cDlh vkSj daiuh 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;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&36011@04@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of J.M. Baxi and

Company and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-36011/04/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present :

JUSTICE S.P.MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/1 OF 2015

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of J.M.Baxi and Company

And

Their workman

Appearances:

For the first party/ Management

Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Adv.

Mr. Jaiprakash Sarang, Manager, Human Resources

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2975

For the second party /Union

Mr. Fransisco Rodrigues, General Secretary.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 25^th day of February, 2016

AWARD – PART I

The present Reference has been made by the Central Government by its Order dated 2.1.2015 passed 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 terms of Reference as per the Schedule to the said Order are as under:

“1.

Whether the action of the management of M/s.JM Baxi and company, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in

unilaterally implementing the insurance Cover extending medical benefits for its employees/workmen through

New India Insurance Company Ltd during the currency of the settlement (existing settlement not terminated

though expired on 31^st Dec 2011) in contravention of Section 19(2) of ID Act 1947 is justified, legal and

proper? 2. Whether the action of the management of M/s J.M.Baxi and Company, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in

not reimbursing the medical claim of Rs.38,141.00 in respect of Shri Veressimo Fernandes, Foreman, in

violation of clause of 10 of the memorandum of settlement dated 12.5.2011 is justified, legal and proper? 3.

What relief Shri Veressimo Fernandes is entitled to?”

By the Order dated 27.1.2015, notices were directed to be issued to the parties fixing 27.3.2015.

On 27.3.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Mr.Jaiprakash Sarang, Manager, Human

Resources was present for the first party/Management. However, none was present for the second party/Union despite

service of notice. As the Presiding Officer was on tour on the said date, the case was adjourned to 22.5.2015 for filing

Statement of Claim.

On 22.5.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, none was present for either of the two sides. In

the circumstances, the case was adjourned to 12.6.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.

On 12.6.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, none was present for either of the two sides. In

the circumstances, the case was adjourned to 14.9.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.

On 14.9.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Mr.Jaiprakash Sarang, stating himself to be

Senior Manager, Human Resources was present for the first party/Management. However, none was present for the

second party/Union. In the circumstances, the case was adjourned to 5.10.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.

On 5.10.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, none was present for either of the parties. In the

circumstances, the case was adjourned to 30.11.2015 for filing Statement of Claim.

On 30.11.2015, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Mr.Jaiprakash Sarang, Manager, Human

Resources, was present for the first party/Management. However, none was present for the second party/Union.

Mr.Jaipraskash Sarang, prayed for adjournment of the case. The case was accordingly adjourned and fixed on 8.2.2016

for filing Statement of Claim.

On 8.2.2016, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Mr.Jaiprakash Sarang, Manager, Human

Resources was present for the first party/Management. However, none was present for the second party/Union.

Vakalatnama of Mrs.P.S.Shetty, Advocate was filed on behalf of the first party/Management. As none was present for

the second party/Union, the case was adjourned to 25.2.2016 for filing Statement of Claim.

10.

Pursuant to the Order dated 8.2.2016, the case is put up today.

Mrs. P.S. Shetty, learned counsel for the first party/Management is present.

Mr. Jaipraskash Sarang, Manager, Human Resources is also present for the first party/Management.

Mr. Francisco Rodrigues, stating himself to be General Secretary of the second party/Union is present.

Mr. Veressimo Fernandes, Foreman mentioned in Item Nos. 2and 3 of the Schedule to the Reference Order

dated 2.1.2015, as quoted above, is present, and he is identified by Mr.Francisco Rodrigues, stating himself to be

General Secretary of the second party/Union.

11.

A perusal of the Schedule to the Reference Order dated 2.1.2015, shows that the same consists of two parts

mentioned at Item No.1 and Item Nos.2 and 3 in the Schedule to the Reference Order.

12.

Today, Consent Terms/Settlement dated 25.2.2016 have been filed on behalf of the parties in respect of Item

Nos.2 and 3 mentioned in the Schedule to the Reference Order dated 2.1.2015 namely,

2976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“2.

Whether the action of the management of M/s J.M.Baxi and Company, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in not

reimbursing the medical claim of Rs.38,141.00 in respect of Shri Veressimo Fernandes, Foreman, in violation

of clause of 10 of the memorandum of settlement dated 12.5.2011 is justified, legal and proper?

“3.

What relief Shri Veressimo Fernandes is entitled to?”

13.

Consent Terms dated 25.2.2016 have been signed by Mr. Jaipraskash Sarang, Manager, Human Resources on

behalf of the first party/Management and Mr.Francisco Rodrigues, General Secretary of the second party/Union on

behalf of the second party/Union. Mrs.P.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the first party/Management has also signed the

Consent Terms. Mr.Veressimo Fernandes, Foreman, mentioned in Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Reference

Order, has also signed the Consent Terms.

14.

Mrs.P.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the first party/Management and Mr.Francisco Rodrigues, stating himself

to be General Secretary of the second party/Union as well as Mr.Jaipraskash Sarang, Manager, Human Resources

representing the first party/Management and Mr.Verassimo Fernandes, Foreman mentioned in Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the

Schedule to the Reference Order dated 2.1.2015 state that Item Nos.2 and 3 in the Schedule to the Reference Order

dated 2.1.2015 be decided in terms of the Consent Terms dated 25.2,.2016 filed today before the Tribunal.

15.

In view of the averments made in the Consent Terms filed today and in view of the statements made before the

Tribunal as mentioned above, Item Nos.2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Reference Order dated 2.1.2015, namely, “2.

Whether the action of the management of M/s J.M.Baxi and Company, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in not reimbursing the

medical claim of Rs.38,141.00 in respect of Shri Veressimo Fernandes, Foreman, in violation of clause of 10 of the

memorandum of settlement dated 12.5.2011 is justified, legal and proper? and “3. What relief Shri Veressimo

Fernandes is entitled to” are decided in terms of the aforesaid Consent Terms / Settlement dated 25.2.2016.

16.

Award Part-I is passed accordingly. The said Consent Terms / Settlement dated 25.2.2016 will form part of the

present Award Part-I.

Justice S. P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1359-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 142@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@46@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 142/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/46/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 5^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 142/2010

1. The Asst. General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2977

Head Office,

Mandvi,

Baroda

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Shri Patel Pramodchandra Bailalbhai

Res. Jani Fliya,

At. Kavi, Taluka Jambusar,

Dist. Bharuch

…Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12012/46/2008-IR(B-II) dated 05.09.2008 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 management of Bank of Baroda, Bharuch in terminating the services of Shri Patel

Pramodchandra Bhailalbhai w.e.f. 7.1.2004 is legal, just and proper? What relief the concerned workman is

entitled to ?”

This reference dates back to 05.09.2008. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.5) on 21.01.2009.

First party submitted written statement (Ext.11) on 30.09.2009. Since then the second party has not been responding

and has also not led evidence.

It also noteworthy that on 09.12.2015, the learned counsel of the second party Shri Yogesh Patel was informed

by me on his cell phone number 9825062469 regarding the reference. He promise me to respond on the next date for

filing statement of claim on 05.04.2016 but to no result. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed

with the reference as they have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the second party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1360-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 560@2004) vkbZVhlh la- 34@2003 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@31@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 560/2004) ITC No. 34/2003 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/31/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

2978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 560/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 34/2003

The Dy. Chief Officer,

UCO Bank,

Zonal Office, UCO Bank Bhawan, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Secretary,

UCO Bank Nivrutt Parivar,

257, 2^nd Floor, Ellis Bridge,

Opp. Town Hall,

Ellisbridge,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

Shri S. N. Mishra, Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri M.C. Modi, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12011/31/2003-IR(B-II) dated 19.04.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Chief office, Pension Cell, Uco Bank, Head Ofice, Kolkata and

another in denying pension to Shri D.L Gohil, Daftari, Bhadra Branch, Ahmedabad on the plea of delayed

submission of option of pension by workman, after diverting PF contribution to Pension Fund and not

informing workman in time about invalidity option is justified and legal? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The second party has stated in his statement of claim (Ext.7) that he had been working as Daftari in Record

Department of Bhadra Branch of the first party. He joined the service in the year 1978 and obtained benefits of V.R.S.

Scheme in the year 2001. He worked approximately for 22 years.In the year 2001, the bank offered the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme to its employees wherein the workmen were to get the pension whosoever were eligible at that

point of time. In the year 1996, the workman who wanted to get benefit of the scheme had to fail the detailed prescribed

form for the Voluntary Retirement Schemeas settled between the parties. As per the scheme, workmen would have to

get the benefits of pension by filling the prescribed form within the stipulated period i.e. 25.01.1996 and same were to

be accepted by the head office.The cut of date for claiming Voluntary Retirement Scheme was 25.01.1996 by which the

prescribed form is to be submitted. He further alleged that he received a letter on 22.05.2001 from chief Officer,

Pension stating that for grant of pension second party applied on 30.01.1996 i.e. after the stipulated period. Therefore,

the benefit of the scheme cannot be granted

He has further alleged that denial of the scheme to him has caused huge loss. He was eligible for the said

scheme and he has been denied the benefit of scheme wrongly.He served required notices and made a complaint in

Central Labour Office, where no settlement arrived at and hence this reference. Therefore, he has prayed for award of

benefit of voluntary Retirement Scheme and other ancillary benefits.

The First party in his written statement (Ext.19) submitted that the whole claim made in the statement of claim

are misleading and without basis. He was given due information of the Uco Bank Employers Pension Regulation 1995

under which the second party were to exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become a

member of a pension fund and thus, the cut of date was 25.01.1996 but he exercised the option on 30.01.1996 beyond

the stipulated date i.e. 25.01.1996. Thus, as per the scheme, second party was not entitled for the benefits of the

scheme. Hence the reference has no force.

By the perusal of the pleading, following issues for decision arise:

(i)

Whether the second party was a workman?

(ii)

Whether the second party was entitled for the scheme of Voluntary Retirement?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2979

ISSUE NO. I:- Whether the second party was a workman?- The burden to prove this issue lies on the second

party. The second party D.L. Gohel has admitted in his statement on oath that he took voluntary retirement in the year

2001 and the reference has been made on 19.05.2003. Apex Court in Prem Sagar Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company,

AIR 1965 SC 111 has held that when a person has retired or is force to retire he cannot be said to be in employment

and he serious to be an employee or workman. Thus, this issue is decided in negative and against the second party.

ISSUE NO. II:- Whether the second party was entitled for the scheme of Voluntary Retirement? - The

burden to prove this issue leis on the second party. Second party D.L .Gohel in his statement on oath has not denied

that he applied for the voluntary retirement scheme on 30.01.1996. The documents (Ext.39) Uco Bank Employees

Pension Regulation, 1995 clearly indicates that an employee of the bank has to apply for the benefit of the said scheme

by 25.01.1996 and the form by which the second party applied for pension is Ext. 38 and notice (Ext.27) indicates that

he has to apply by the date 25.01.1996 but he applied on 30.01.1996. As second party did not apply for the benefit of

the scheme by the stipulated cut of date despite a sufficient notice. Hence, he cannot blame first party for his lapse in

applying for the scheme. Thus, the reference has no force and deserved to be rejected.

This is the award of the Tribunal.

PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1361-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 824@2004) vkbZVhlh la- 36@2003 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@132@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 824/2004) ITC No. 36/2003 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/132/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th January, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 824/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 36/2003

1. The Chief Manager,

Bank of India,

Ellora Park, Subhanpura,

Baroda-390007

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Ratilal C. Vasava,

3, Yogivan Society-2,

Waghodia Road,

Baroda

…Second Party

2980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

Kum. Meenaben Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

Sh. H.D. Kathrotia, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12012/132/2003-IR(B-II) dated 23.09.2003 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 management of Bank of India, Vadodara through the Chief Manager in terminating

the services of Shri Ratilal C. Vasava by way of ‘dismissal without notice’vide punishment order dated

24.08.2002 is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from

which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The second party has stated in his statement of claim (Ext.7) that he has been working as Cashier cum Account

clerk with the Samlaya Branch, Ta-Savli, Dist.: Vadodara of Bank of India (First party) at the time of impugned order.

He has been in the employment of the first party since 22.09.1976 on the aforesaid post. He was having an overdraft

account with effect from 04.03.2000 with the aforesaid branch availing a limit of Rs. 35,600/- against his National

savings certificates. He requested M.V. Rathwa, Manager of the branch to give one of the national savings certificate

number 07EE-618375 due to be matured on 26.02.2002 from the docket for the purpose of deposition of the proceeds

against the overdraft account. Accordingly, he encashed the aforesaid national savings certificate and deposited the

proceeds in the overdraft account. He further stated that at the time of statutory audit of the bank on 08.07.2002, it was

found that out of the securities of national savings certificates bearing number 07EE-618376 maturity date-26.02.2002,

and 28EE-336776 maturity date-03.03.2006, former was missing in the security docket which led to make the Rs.

8598/- as unsecured. On the basis of the audit report, first party issued a charge sheet dated 30.05.2002 to him

(workman) and also put him under suspension vide order dated 11.04.2002 prior to the issuance of the charge sheet. Sh.

N.L. Makwana was appointed as inquiry officer who held the workman guilty against the principles of the natural

justice as he had not conducted the inquiry as per the settled rules and law. He was denied the opportunity of defending

his case in the inquiry. First party did not lead any evidence regarding the misconduct as alleged by the first party.

Inquiry officer simply held him guilty of misconduct on the basis of letter date 05.07.2002. First party issued him a

show cause notice regarding punishment without providing the copy of the inquiry report. He was also dismissed vide

order dated 24.08.2002 without following the principles of natural justice.

He preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager, Vadodara on 07.10.2002 which was also dismissed vide

latter dated 23.12.2002 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. First party raised the industrial

dispute before the labour commissioner, Vadodara who got the reconciliation done but to no result, therefore, this

reference for adjudication.

He was forced to admit the guilt in the inquiry giving in writing that he took the national savings certificates

without informing the manager.

The first party in his written statement (Ext.10) denied all the averments made in the statement of claim except

admitting the fact of appointment of second party as Cashier-cum-Account Clerk and also the overdraft account as

alleged in the statement of claim. Bank also admitted that Sh. N.L. Makwana was appointed as inquiry officer who

made the inquiry as per the principles of the natural justice both parties were given the opportunity to give evidence and

after due inquiry and evidence workman (second party) was dismissed.

First party filed the papers (Ext.13) suspension order, (Ext.14) acknowledgment of suspension, (Ext.15) copy

of charge sheet, orders regarding the appointment of inquiry officer and presenting officer along with the inquiry report

(Ext.17), show case notice (Ext.18), punishment order (Ext.20), appeal (Ext.21), Minutes of personal hearing to

workman (Ext.22) , appeal order (Ext.23), proceeding of Labour Commissioner (Ext.24), reply of the bank before the

labour commission (Ext.25), list of documents (Ext.27), admission of guilt by workman before the investigating officer

(Ext.28), report of investigating officer to Zonal manager (Ext.30), application cum proposal of loan against the banks

term deposits (Ext.31), copies of National Savings Certificates besides other banks documents.

On the basis of the pleadings of the both the parties, following issues arises:

(a.)

Whether the workman was forced to admit the guilt of taking the National Savings Certificates from

the docket without the permission of the Manager ?

(b.)

Whether the workman was denied the opportunity of due hearing in the inquiry in accordance with

the principles of natural justice?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2981

(c.)

Whether the workman was dismissed vide punishment order dated 24.08.2002 without giving any

notice which makes the impugned order illegal, improper and unjustified?

FINDINGS

(a)

Whether the workman was forced to admit the guilt of taking the National Savings Certificates from

the docket without the permission of the Manager? - The burden of proof of this issue was lying on

both the parties. No oral evidence has been adduced on this issues by both the parties and the first

party was relying on the paper (Ext.28) wherein Sh. M.V. Rathwa, staff office / incharge Manager,

Samaliya Branch of the Bank submitted a report to investigating officer, Zonal Office, Vadodara

Zone stating that workman Sh. R.C. Vasava confessed his guilt that he took the National Savings

Certificates without the permission of the manager. This report is annexed with the admission of

workman Sh. R.C. Vasava and two witnesses named Sh. Soni Rajesh Pushpvadanbhai and Sh. Shah

Jagdish Rameshchandra witnessed the admission of Sh. R.C. Vasava. As workman has disputed it in

the statement of claim alleging that he was not given any opportunity of defending in the inquiry and

first party had also not lead any evidence of show cause misconduct makes it necessary for the first

party to prove the letter (Ext.29) by way of examining the aforesaid witnesses namely Sh. Soni

Rajesh Pushpvadanbhai and Sh. Shah Jagdish Rameshchandra regarding admission of second party

workman which has not been done so far. Thus, it can’t be said that Sh. R.C. Vasava, workman

confessed the taking of the National Savings Certificates from the docket without the permission of

the Branch Manager. It was also noteworthy that the branch manager was also not examined in the

inquiry to prove the charge of taking the National Savings Certificates by Sh. R.C. Vasava without

the permission of the branch Manager.It is noteworthy that Manager of the Branch was neither

examined before the enquiry officer nor before the Tribunal because of the reason that had he been

examined he would have been compelled to tell the truth. Had the second party workman stolen the

NSC from docket without the knowledge of Branch Manager of the Bank, Branch Manager would

have lodged the FIR against the workman. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, I come to the

conclusion that the questioned NSC was taken by the workman with the express consent of the

branch manager. Thus, this issue is decided in the affirmative with the remark that workman was

forced to admit the guilt of taking the National Savings Certificates from the docket without the

permission of the Manager

(b)

Whether the workman was denied the opportunity of due hearing in the inquiry in accordance with

the principles of natural justice? – The burden to prove this issue was on the first party. The inquiry

officer has neither examined the witnesses of the first party bank of India nor tried to examine the

second party workman in the departmental inquiry and he submitted his report regarding the guilt of

the workman simply on the basis of the paper (Ext.29) which is not proved as he did not examined

the aforesaid witnesses. Inquiry officer has also not examined the workman as to why he signed the

letter (Ext.29).In the said circumstances it may be said that the questioned NSC was taken from the

docket with the permission of the manager or rather manager gave the questioned NSC to the

workman to get encashed and deposit the proceeds in the bank overdraft account of the workman.

Thus, we may assume that branch manager was also guilty of misconduct of permitting the workman

employee to take the questioned NSC from the docket. Unfortunately, it is very strange that bank

manager was not charge sheeted. It indicates that bank authorities were discriminatory in taking

action against the workman and spared the branch manager from the misconduct without any basis.

Thus, the said inquiry can not be said to be just, fair, impartial and in accordance with the principles

of the natural justice.

(c)

Whether the workman was dismissed vide punishment order dated 24.08.2002 without giving any

notice which makes the impugned order illegal, improper and unjustified?- The burden of proof lies

on the first party the record reveals that the workman second party was not heard on the point of

punishment. In the first appeal workman was also not asked to appear for hearing on the point of

punishment.

Here, I would like to point out the mind-set of the authorities and high officials of the Scheduled Banks of

India. For this, I would like to quote the news given in the newspaper “THE INDIAN EXPRESS Monday January, 18,

2016” Wherein RBI Governor Mr. RaghuramRajan pained to say, “the rich and well-connected wrong-doer is virtually

going scott free” here I reproduced the whole news of the aforesaid newspapers which is as under:-

“Is India a weak state which punishes only the small and weak? RBI GovernorRaghuramRajan who made

some plain speaking to his colleagues in the central bank has said “the rich and well-connected wrong-doer” is virtually

going scot-free.

2982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In a stinging attack on the issue of culture of compliance, Rajan said, “it has often been said that India is a

weak state. Not only are we accused of not having the administrative capacity of ferreting out wrong doing, we do not

punish the wrong-doer — unless he is small and weak.”

According to the RBI Governor, this belief feeds on itself. “No one wants to go after the rich and well-

connected wrong-doer, which means they get away with even more. If we are to have strong sustainable growth, this

culture of impunity should stop,” he said in a recent message to the RBI employees.

Rajan’s observations assume significance as banks are yet to go after big loan defaulters while giving small

borrowers a raw deal. “Importantly, this does not mean being against riches or business, as some would like to portray,

but being against wrong-doing,” he said.

Rajan also raised the issue whether the RBI is taking a lenient view against malpractices in the banking sector

and said there’s “a sense that we do not enforce compliance”.

“My sense is that we need a continuing conversation about tightening both detection as well as penalties for

non-compliance throughout the hierarchy. We cannot be seen as a paper tiger,” Rajan said in a message to RBI

employees. His comments have come at a time when the RBI and the banking sector are struggling to tackle rising non-

performing assets (NPAs) and wilful defaults.

In a scathing self-criticism, Rajan said, “are we allowing regulated entities to get away year after year with

poor practices even though these are noted during inspections/scrutinise? Should we become more intolerant of sloppy

practices at regulated entities, so that these do not result in massive scams years later? Should we haul up accountants

who do not flag issues they should detect?”

“While we should be wary of regulatory overreach, we must also recognise that if we do not expand our

responsibilities, others will fill them. That is not always a bad thing, but if new regulators lead to a balkanization of

regulation and many regulatory gaps, the system will be worse off,” he said. “Let us be prepared to step up where

necessary instead of assuming others will take responsibility.”

Rajan said, “if we demand more of the regulated, we should not be found wanting ourselves. As with all

organisations, we are reliant on a few stalwarts who carry the organisation on their broad shoulders. These are the best

performers.”

There is a second tier that exceeds the needs of the job through their effort or their capabilities, but they fall a

little short of being truly excellent. A third tier consists of time-servers, for whom the job is a source of livelihood but

who have lost the desire to excel. They put in a reasonable day’s work, but not an ounce more than what is demanded

of them. “And then there are those who are overwhelmed by the work or who have lost any desire to perform. I have

encountered all these types at the bank,” he said.

“Our regulations are not always very clear, our staff sometimes is neither well informed of our own

regulations nor willing to help the customer, our responses are occasionally extraordinarily slow and bureaucratic (in

the sense of hiding behind opaque rules or avoiding a decision rather than taking a sensible course of action),” Rajan

said. The imagery that comes to mind for critics is of a traditional unimaginative organisation rather than a dynamic

intelligent one, the letter said.

Rajan said the RBI’s budget will be approved by its Central Board. “Our dividend policy is currently being

debated with the Government, but we intend to make it rule-based using cutting edge principles, so that the stability of

the bank is protected, even while the Government gets all possible dividends from ownership,” he said.

The RBI also intends to improve the board’s oversight of wage and perquisite negotiations. “Transparency and

good governance are ways to protect ourselves from roving enquiries — everyone should recognize that an effective

regulator has enemies, and like Caesar’s wife, should be above all suspicion,” Rajan said.

THE CUL TURE OF IMPUNITY

SHOULD STOP:RBIGUV

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2983

•

"No one wants to go after the rich and well-connected wrong-doer. which means they get away with even

more. If we are to have strong sustainable growth.this culture of impunity should stop. “hesaid in a recent

message to the RBI employees .

•

Rajan's observations assume significance as banks are yet to go after big loan defaulters while giving small

borrowers a raw deal, "Importantly, this does not mean being against riches.., as some would like to portray,

but being against wrong-doing," he said.”

First party has filed the written argument (Ext.45) where in it has been argued that the second party in his

statement of claim (Ext.7) expressed innocence regarding misconduct against him and denial of adequate opportunity

of hearing and demanded reinstatement of service with full back wages and consequential benefits which has been

denied in the written statement by giving documentary evidence (Ext.13 to 39). Despite the admission of the workman

second party regarding the misconduct, bank gave the workman full opportunity of hearing which he did not avail. In

support of the argument, first party referred Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital Vs. Arunaben I. Desai 2009 I CLR 403

wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that the Labour court has committed an error in interfering with the

findings recorded by the Inquiry officer when legality and validity of inquiry was not challenged by the respondent.

This judgment does not have any applicability in the present case because there appears to be no negligence on the part

of the workman because it is a case where workman was Cashier-cum-Account Clerk who was not normally in the

possession of the securities (NSC) and it can be presumed that the NSC would have been taken by the workman with

the actual or tacit consent of the branch manager. It can also be assumed that branch manager to avoid departmental

action against him has conspired with the inquiry officer and higher authorities to get the admission/confession of the

workman alluring him that no action shall be taken against him.

First party’s advocate further refereed UPSRTC VsVinodkumar (2008) ISCC (L&S) Pg 1. Wherein the Apex

Court held that workman removed from service challenged the conclusion reached by the inquiry officer and the

quantum of punishment but did not challenge the legality and fairness of the inquiry proceedings, in such case Labour

Court could not examined the findings of the inquiry officer. This judgement also does not have any applicability in the

matter because it was a case of misappropriation of passenger fares of 28 persons who were travelling in the UPSRTC

bus. Present case is a simple case of taking out the NSC certificate from the docket of the Bank which is normally in

the possession of the branch manager. Second, taking out of his own NSC does not make it a case of temporary

misappropriation of bank money as workman was the owner of the NSC, he was employees of the bank, and depositing

the interest regularly and the remaining third NSC was sufficient to meet out the proceeds of the overdraft accounts

loan.

She further, referred Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. UttamManoharNakate 2005 I LLJ Supreme Court Pg. 15,

wherein it has been held Industrial Tribunal could not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists

a statutory provision.

She further referred Ravindra N. Chaudhary Vs. Zonal Manager IDBI Bank 2012 LLR 1267 Bombay, wherein

it has been held, it is a settled law that reinstatement should not be always followed with full back wages in every

matter. Normally, no work no pay should be the formula by considering the facts, circumstances and background of the

matter.

She further referred PrabhakarTrimbakVidwans Vs. Stovec Industries Ltd . 2010 (3) GLR 2310 wherein

Gujarat High Court held that termination on grounds of loss of confidence is illegal if made without departmental

inquiry.

I considered the arguments and evidence on record of the parties and comes to the conclusion that the inquiry

in the present case is a sham. No person will admit his guilt unless some positive assurance is given. In the present case

the only misconduct on the part of the workman is taking out the NSC out of the docket of the bank. The inquiry officer

has not mentioned in the inquiry report who was the actual custodian of the docket and NSCs placed therein which is a

clear cut reflection that inquiry officer was not fair, impartial and just. The conduct of the inquiry officer reflects from

the very beginning that he was determined to save the branch manager who permitted the workman rather who gave the

NSC to the workman for encashment and to deposit the proceed in the bank against the workman’s overdraft loan

account.

The learned counsel of the workman argued that the admission/confession of the workman of taking NSC was

taken promising the workman of minor action. He further argued that after encashing the NSC workman put the money

in his house as the next day was the holiday and his wife without taking her husband- second party workman into

confidence, in advertently gave the money to her neighbour which was spent by the neighbour and it was not possible

to deposit the same day. The argument is very much tenable and thus, misconduct happened with the tacit consent of

the branch manager and inadvertent act of the workman’s wife.

2984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The learned counsel of the first party argued that the workman criminally misappropriated the amount one of

the NSC. Therefore, action taken was as per the law. Here, I would like to reproduce the provisions of Section 403 of

the Indian Penal Code:

“403. Dishonest misappropriation of property- whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own

use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Thus, if I read the section 403 of the India Penal Code, there are two ingredients to make out the offence are as

under:

There must be misappropriation of movable property.

The misappropriation must be made with dishonest intension.

Here, in this case the owner of the NSC was workman himself and NSC was submitted as a collateral security

to security overdraft account of the workman and even after encashment of questioned NSC the overdraft account was

not appears to be unsecured because the remaining third NSC was sufficient to meet out the overdraft account. It is also

nowhere in the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has not collected any evidence as to how the third NSC was

insufficient to secure the remaining amount of the overdraft account. It is also noteworthy, how an owner of the NSC

can be said to be a dishonest misappropriator of his own NSC. Thus in the light of the above discussion, the workman

cannot be said to be a dishonest misappropriator of his own NSC. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel of the first

party is untenable.

Thus, I come to conclusion, as already said, that the inquiry officer was unfair, partial and unjust inholding the

workman guilty of misconduct and saving the branch manager for likely departmental action on account of giving NSC

to the workman whose wife inadvertently gave the money to her neighbour. It is also noteworthy that inquiry report

reveals that after depositing the proceeds of the first NSC and encashment of second NSC there was only Rs. 8598/- as

unsecured loan and in my view, such a petty amount can easily be recovered from the third NSC of Rs.10,000/- on

maturity 20,000/- and also from the salary of the workman in due course.

Here, I would like to remind the statement of RBI Governor Sh. RaghuramRajan who said Banks don’t doer to

take action against the defaulters who are rich and well connected. Here, I would also like to mention that the King

Fisher Airline’s owner Sh. Vijay Malya is moving scott free even after duping the banks of thousand crores of rupees

and this poor workman has been punished arbitrarily for a petty loan remaining amount of Rs. 9000/- branding it as a

unsecured loan which could be easily recovered from the salary or the third NSC. Here, it can only be said that the

workman was merely guilty of reminding his wife that the amount placed in the house ought not to be used for any

other domestic purpose as it is to deposited in the bank against the overdraft account loan. In my view, it is mere

mistake and cannot be said to dishonest misappropriation or service misconduct. For it he ought not to be punished.

The Apex Court in Anil Kumar MohanVs Labour Court, Jullundur City and others in Civil Appeal No.

4692(NL) of 1984, dated 8^th May 1985 held that the appellant was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry. He

unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court and the High Court. Hence, the instant appeal to the

Supreme Court.

Held: It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the

principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his

mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded

his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant

did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the

evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An

enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the

Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons.

Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in

accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one.

The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an

order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to

observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order

of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India GLR Vol. XIIX (3) Pg. 2138 held

that Industrial Tribunal may interfere with the punishment awarded by the employer even if the inquiry is found to be

fair and proper but for that Industrial Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or

with the quantum punishment.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2985

Thus, It is fit case to interfere in the finding of the inquiry officer as well as the appellate authority and I come

to the conclusion that the impugned action taken by the Bank of India first party by terminating the services of Sh.

Ratilal C. Vasava by way of dismissal without notice vide punishment order dated 24.08.2002 is illegal, improper and

unjustified because inquiry report is a sham and appellate authority as well as appointing authority awarded the

punishment without giving the opportunity of personal hearing in such a petty matter and also without considering the

facts and circumstance of the case. I find it a case of reinstatement of workman in service with full back wages and

consequential benefits and to be recovered from the salary of the then Chief Manager, Bank of India, Vadodara, the

then Inquiry Officer, and also the then Branch Manager Sh. M.V. Rathwawho all conspired in the punishment awarded

to the workman.

Thus, reference is allowed and the action of the management of the bank of India, Vadodara through the Chief

Manager in terminating the services of Sh. Ratilal C. Vasava by way of dismissal without notice vide punishment order

24.08.2002 is hereby held illegal, improper and unjustified. Sh. Ratilal C. Vasava be reinstated in service with full

back wage and consequential benefits. The full back wages and consequential benefits shall be recovered from the

salary of the then Chief Manager, Bank of India, Vadodara, Inquiry Officer, and also the then Branch Manager who all

conspired in the punishment awarded to the workman.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1362-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 141@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@94@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/94/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 141/2010

The Dy. General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

South Gujarat Zone,

Nanpura,

Surat(Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Bank Workers’ Organisation,

C/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Anustu Tekri

Near Kothi Char Rasta,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

… Second Party

2986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12011/94/2008-IR(B-II) dated 06.02.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda through the Assistant General Manager, Surat

imposing punishment as reduction by two stages in time scale of pay for a period of two years form the pay of

Shri Rajnikant M. Rathod vide order dated 30.03.2004 is legal, just and proper? To what relief the concerned

workman isentitiled to?”

The reference dates back to 06.02.2009. All the parties were served. Second party submitted the statement of

claim Ext. 11 on 20.06.2012. First party did not submitted the written statement. Therefore the case was fixed for

exparty evidence of second party on 18.06.2014 but this is strange that both the parties have been absent since then.

Thus the second party does not appear to be willing to prosecute the case.

Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1363-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1247@2004) vkbZVhlh la- 8@2004 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@285@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1247/2004) ITC No. 8/2004 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Dena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/285/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 5^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1247/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 8/2004

1. The Regional Manager,

Dena Bank.

Regional Office,

Station Road,

Bhuj(Kutch)

… First Party

Vs.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2987

Their Workman,

Through the President,

Kachch Jilla Mazdoor Vikas Manch,

Vora Sat Dela, Nagar Chakal,

Bhuj(Kachch)

… Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12011/285/2003-IR(B-II) dated 08.03.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Rajkot(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Bhuj in not regularising/appointing the services of Shri

Kishor N. Chauhan on permanent basis is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 08.03.2004. Both the parties were served. Second party submitted vakalatptra

(Ext.5) Second party was issued fresh notice on 07.03.2016 through speed post but has not turned up and has also not

filed the statement of claim.Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as they have

been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1364-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 139@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@950@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/950/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 139/2010

The Dy. General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

South Gujarat Zone,

Nanpura,

Surat(Gujarat)

… First Party

2988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

v/s

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Bank Workers’ Organisation,

C/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Anustu Tekri

Near Kothi Char Rasta,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12011/950/2008-IR(B-II) dated 10.02.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda by not informing the workman Shri Rajnikant M.

Rathod for the two promotion exercises vide letter dated 29.08.2006 is amounts to unfair labour practice?

And the action of management for not informing the workman at his residence is legal, proper and just? To

what relief the concerned workman Shri Rajnikant M. Rathod is entitiled to?”

The reference dates back to 10.02.2009. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 6 on

22.02.2010. However first party did not submitted the written statement. The case was fixed for evidence of the second

party on 30.08.2011 but despite giving dozen of opportunities to lead evidence, second party did not prefer to lead

evidence. Therefore it appears that the second party has no interest in the prosecution of the case.

Thus the reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1365-—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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 183@2006) vkbZVhlh la- 1542@2008 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@51@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 183/2006) ITC No. 1542/2008 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/51/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^tst April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 183/2006

Reference: (ITC) No. 1542/2008

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2989

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

2^nd Floor, M.G.Road, Near GPO,

Rajkot

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Assistant Secretary,

Gujarat Bank Workers Union,

Rahbar, 8, Jagnath Plot,

Rajkot-360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri V. K. Mashar, Advocate

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

12011/51/2006-IR(B-II) dated 11.10.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Rajkot (A) in withdrawing the Head Cashier

Category ‘E’ allowance w.e.f. 30.09.2003 of Shri M. H. Halani is legal and justified when his junior are

getting the same and (B) not selecting Shri Halani as Head Cashier ‘E’ while he was working as Universal

Teller on probationary post with adhoc special allowances while two other employees have been selected as

Head Cashier Category ‘E’ is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 11.10.2006. Second party filed statement of claim (Ext.9) on 19.09.2008 and first

party filed the written statement (Ext.15) on 15.11.2011. Despite giving dozens of opportunities second party has not

preferred to lead evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as they have

been absent since last several dates. Thus, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1366-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k

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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 246@2004) vkbZVhlh la- 28@1999 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12013@40@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 246/2004) ITC No. 28/1999 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management

of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12013/40/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 5^th April, 2016

2990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 246/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 28/1999

1. The Asst. General Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Regional Office, Kamdhenu Complex, Polytechnic, Ambawadi,

Ahmedabad-380001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the regional President,

Vijaya Bank Emp. Union, C/o, Vijaya Bank,

Relief Road,

Patharkuwa,

Ahmedabad

…Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12013/40/98-

IR(B-II) dated 14.01.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in not granting Leave Concession to Shri Dinesh

Nandlal Gohel after 3.7.96 for the period ending on 3.7.96 is legal and justified? If not, to hat relief the said

workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 14.01.1999. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.4) on 06.10.1999.

First party submitted written statement (Ext.6) on 03.05.2000. since then second party has not been responding and has

also not present to lead evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to proceed with the reference as they

have been absent since last several dates. Thus Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

second party.

This reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1367-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@215@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/215/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2991

Ref. No. 25 of 2014

Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Patna

AND

Their workmen

Present:- Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri B.K.Garg, Law Officer

For the workman

Sri B.Prasad, Rep.

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated. 19/02/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/215/2001 -IR -(B-II), dated 19/06/2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in not regularizing the service of their

workman Shri Md. Eqbal Driver, Saharsa Branch , Shri Om Prakesh Pandit Driver, Patna Branch and Shri

Dinesh Singh, Driver of Patna Branch is justified? If not, what relief the workman are entitled to?”

This case is received by the CGIT No.2, Dhanbad on 30.07.2002 registered as Reference Case No. 50/02.

After receipt of the case, both parties were noticed, the workman files their written statement on 12.08.2002. The

management files their written statement on 12.06.2003. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the workman

and documents of workman is also marked as W-1 to W-6 before the CGIT No.2.

Thereafter vide letter No. L-12011/215/2001 IR (B-II) dated 12/02/2014 this case is received from CGIT

NO.2 on 12/03/2014, on transfer basis to proceed from the stage at which it is transferred, and registered as Reference

case No. 25/2014 before the CGIT No.1, Dhanbad.

The case of the workman is that Md. Eqbal, Om Prakash and Dinesh Singh were orally appointed to discharge

the duties of Driver of Bank's vehicle alloted to the Regional manager, Central Bank of India, in different Branches in

different dates. All are regularly driving the vehicles from 9.00 Am to 6 P.M and beyond that as per requirement.

Sometimes they have to work for 16 hours. All the vehicles were purchased by Central Bank with repairing and other

cost borne by the management.

The workmen are paid wages Rs. 2600/- and discharge all the duties of permanent driver but without any

service condition. The matter of regularising the service of the workmen was taken up by the sponsoring Union with

the management on a number of occasions but no positive steps was taken by the management accordingly an

Industrial Dispute was raised.

On the other hand the case of the management is that no Employer -employee relationship exists between the

management of Central Bank of India with Md. Eqbal , Om Prakash Pandit and Dinesh Singh. And the concerned

workmen were never selected by the selection Committee of the Bank as per the recruitment rules of the management.

The persons concerned are the personal drivers of the Executives. And they paid the wages to the concerned persons

from the allowances granted to them by the management. And reimbursed the allowance keeping them as their

personal driver.

It is also submitted by the management that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a case that the personal driver

of the executive are not the employees of the bank as such they are not entitled for regularisation in the Bank.

The short point to be decided in this reference is whether the driver engaged by the Bank officials, who are

driving the Bank's vehicle, for the bank Officers will be regularised or not.

The workmen submitted that he is giving service to the bank by driving their vehicles and also getting wages

through bank and filed the bank documents.

10.

Moreover from the documents filed by the workman, the bank people has settle guide lines for selection and

selected driver to drive bank vehicles.

2992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

The workman also filed the photo copy of log book of vehicle. The bank management though accepted that

the workman was driving the vehicle but argued that they were driving their personal vehicle but since the bank

paying them wages since long time.

12.

As per Ext W-3 the bank's chief manager issued certificate that the summer uniform and winter uniform are

issue to them. Ext. W-6/1 is contains reimbursement bill and the workman files photo copy of cheques . Moreover cost

of uniform and shoes are reimbursed to the personal Driver on production of bill. It is also mentioned in Ext.M-4 it

appears that who have completed service for one year is to be regularized.

13.

One letter No 341 dated 10.06.2000 written by Regional Manager in which he certified that Md. Eqbal is

working from 20.11.90 . He was also recommended that to appoint him on the post of Peon. On Perusal of all

voluminous document of workman it is very much clear that bank management ought to regularise them.

14.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Central Bank

Of India in not regularizing the service of their workman Shri Md. Eqbal Driver, Saharsa Branch , Shri Om Prakesh

Pandit Driver, Patna Branch and Shri Dinesh Singh, Driver of Patna Branch is not justified, Therefore the management

is directed to regularise the workman against the vacant in class IV or driver post within one month from the date of

publication of the award, as other wise they will be full back wages from the 31^st day of publication of award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1368-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 106@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@87@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/87/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 106/2011

Shri Sher Singh,

S/o Shri Babu Ram,

R/o Brij Vihar,

Flat No.6,

Loni District,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

…Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

2, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2993

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that a reference was received by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2 vide letter No. L-12012/87/2007-IR(B-II) dated 27.11.2007 with the

following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in compulsory retiring their workman Shri

Sher Singh, Messenger, Indian Overseas Bank, Janpath Branch, New Delhi with effect from 15.04.2005 is

just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?’

After issuance of notice to both the parties, workman herein, Shri Sher Singh filed statement of claim wherein

it is alleged that the workman is a scheduled caste and was deployed as safai karamchari for cleaning the office

building of eh management at Janpath vide appointment dated 20.09.1977. The workman remained hones,

hardworking, obedient and respectful towards his officers and thereafter was permanently appointed in the bank on

30.05.1978. Workman was performing his duties diligently and later on was promoted to the post of messenger.

It is averred in the para 6 of the claim that due to difficulties the workman went on leave and informed the

management. He himself used to remain ill and his wife also suffered from illness alongwith children. He sent

medical certificates to the management. Management did not consider his leave application as his medical certificate

has not been obtained from a Government hospital. In fact, the workman has received medical treatment from a private

Hospital/doctor.

Suddenly in the month of November 2004, the workman could not attend the Bank due to operation of his

wife and he himself also fell ill. His wife was later on operated. Application sent by the workman was not considered

by the management. The workman is absolutely illiterate. Management had obtained signature of the workman on

some papers taking benefit of is being scheduled case and illiterate. Management has terminated services of the

workman on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer.

The workman challenged vires of the enquiry conducted by the management on several grounds which are

fully detailed in para 11 onwards of his statement of claim. It is primarily held that the workman was not allowed to

take the help of a defence assistant. Punishment of termination/compulsory retirement awarded to the workman is

against the rules.

6. Reply to the statement of claim was filed on behalf of the management wherein preliminary objections have

been taken. It has been alleged that during the service, the workman was not obedient or hard working. He used to

remain absent most of the time. There were complaints of misconduct and misbehavior. Bank had taken a lenient view

as the workman used to regret for his misconduct and apologize for the same. He has given assurance that he would

behave in future. Despite such assurances, there was no change in his behavior and conduct of the workman. As such,

he was charge sheeted on 11.02.1984 for his riotous behavior with a lady sweeper of the hostel, wherein enquiry was

conducted and punishment of stoppage of two increments was awarded vide order dated 29.10.1985. Again the

workman was charge sheeted on 04.05.1989 for his unauthorized absence from July 1988 to March 1989 for 125 days

without prior permission. Workman has left the branch unauthorizedly from December 1988 to March 1989. For this

misconduct, he was issued ‘warning’ on 22.09.1989. Even at that time, the workman had given assurance of good

behavior in future. Later on the workman was again charge sheeted on 16.09.1996 for his unauthorized absence and

enquiry was instituted against him resulting in stoppage of one future increment without cumulative effect. The

workman was placed under suspension on 25.09.1997 for his riotous behavior with the Chief Manager of Model Town

branch of the management, resulting in award of punishment of stoppage of one future increment with cumulative

effect on 01.04.1998. Thereafter, again the workman was charge sheeted for his unauthorized absence from 09.01.2003

to 23.10.2003. Because of his frequent absenteeism, he was imposed punishment of reduction of basic pay by two

stages on 12.03.2004. It is also denied that the workman remained absent due to illness or family problems.

Workman never informed the branch officials whenever he remained absent from duties. It is also denied that he

remained absent due to severe fever/typhoid. He never sent medical certificate or filed any other document regarding

his illness. On merits, bank has denied other averments made by the workman regarding justification of his absence on

various dates as well as misbehavior with his superiors. It is finally prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

Rejoinder was filed by the workman wherein stand taken in the statement of claim was reasserted and material

averments contained in the written statement filed by the management were denied.

It is clear from the record that no specific issues were framed by my learned predecessors on the basis of

pleadings of the parties.

Vide Order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II) dated 30.03.2010, the appropriate Government transferred the case

to this Tribunal.

2994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

With a view to adjudicate vires of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management, the workman

examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A, which is on the same lines as has been

taken in the statement of claim. Management, in order to rebut the case of the workman, examined Shri Arup Ratan

Sengupta, Senior Manager as MW1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. It is very exhaustive affidavit wherein plea of the

workman regarding unauthorized absence without any cause has been reiterated. Bank also examined Shri T.J.

Bhattacharjee, Chief Manager as MW2 and his affidavit is Ex.MW2/A. Shri Ramesh Kumar was examined as MW3

by the management and his affidavit is Ex.MW3/A. This witness has tried to prove extract of attendance register for

13.11.2004 to 31.01.2005 as well as payment of salary to the workman herein. In fact, he was posted in Janpath branch

as Senior Manager from April 2004 to 2012.

11.

My learned predecessor vide a order dated 07.06.2012 considered the evidence adduced by the parties and

held that the enquiry against the workman was concluded on 22.02.2005 and it clear from perusal of the proceedings

Ex.WW1/M14 recorded on 22.02.2005 that the workman herein was not represented by defence representative before

the Enquiry Officer. He was also questioned on that date whether he understood contents of the allegations contained

in the charge sheet. He has admitted receipt of the charge sheet and requested the Enquiry Officer to explain the

charges. It was also observed by the Tribunal that no evidence worth the name regarding the allegations of willful

insubordination or disobedience of lawful orders has been adduced by the bank. As such, it was held that the enquiry

was neither fair nor proper. Resultantly, preliminary issue as to the fairness of the enquiry was answered against the

management/bank and in favour of the claimant.

12.

Thereafter, opportunity was afforded to both the parties to adduce evidence on merits regarding validity of the

allegations contained in the charge sheet. It was thereafter that Shri T.J. Bhattacharjee was examined by the

management. Shri Ramesh Kumar, Senior Manager. The workman examined himself in rebuttal and tendered in

evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/B.

13.

I have heard Shri A.K. Dubey, A/R for the workman and Shri M.P. Bansal, A/R for the management.

14.

Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions raised on behalf of either of the

parties, it is necessary to delineate the charges with which the workman herein was charged. Same are contained in

charge Ex.WW1/M12, which reads as under:

‘It is reported that while working as a Messenger at Janpath branch, New Delhi, you have committed

following act of omission and commission for which you are charge sheeted as follows:

you are very irregular in your attendance and frequently remain absent from duty without prior

permission and proper notice.

ii.

You have absented yourself from duty from 13.11.2004 and remain absent till date.

iii.

You were asked to report back for duty vide Janpath branch letters dated 16.11.2004 and 27.11.2004

but despite that you have not resumed duties

iv.

Your frequent unauthorized absence from duty causes dislocation in the branch routine.

In the disposal of the charge sheet dated 23.10.2003, the then Disciplinary Authority had taken a

lenient view due to your assurance vide your letter ate 27.0.2004 about not dislocating the branch

routine in future. You have however not acted as per your assurances and continue to dislocate the

branch routine.

The above acts if established in an enquiry will render you guilty of ‘gross misconduct’ in terms of para 5(e) ,

(j) & (p) and ‘minor misconduct in terms of para 7(a) & (b)of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002

between the Bank and its Workmen which are reproduced as follows:

5(e)

willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a

superior;

5(j)

doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss;

5(p)

Remaining unauthorisedly absent without intimation continuously for a period exceeding 30 days

7(a)

absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds;

7(b)

unpunctual or irregular attendance’

15.

It is also appropriate to mention here that the workman herein has not filed any reply to the charge sheet.

Equally important is the fact that when the workman was initially examined as WW1, his affidavit being Ex.WW1/A,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2995

he has made certain vital admissions which really proves that the workman herein is a habitual absentee. He has

admitted the factum of being served with a charge sheet and not filing of reply by him. He has also admitted service of

a charge sheet when he entered into a quarrel with a lady regarding sweeping of the floors etc. He was served with

charge sheet that in that case also and was awarded penalty of stoppage of two increments. In this regard, order passed

by the competent authority Ex.WW1/M2, reads as under:

‘Keeping in view your past record into account, I hereby pass original order of to have your ‘two increments

stopped with cumulative effect’ under para 17.6(d) of our Bipartite settlement between the bank and its

workmen dated 14.12.1966.’

16.

In his subsequent cross examination dated 09.08.2011, workman has further admitted that he was

compulsorily removed from service from the job on 15.04.2005. Record of the case further shows that vide

Ex.WW1/M7, dated 30.04.1997 pertaining to previous enquiry, the workman has voluntarily admitted the charges as is

clear from the show cause notice to the charge sheet dated 16.09.1996. The competent authority has passed punishment

of withholding of one increment, as is clear from order Ex.WW1/10. Workman further made a vital admission that he

was generally proceeding on leave without applying for the same and later on he used to express apology to the

authorities for absenting himself without sanction of leave, though he has stated that he was later on furnishing medical

certificates regarding his illness. There is nothing on record to show that the workman has filed any document

pertaining to his illness. There is no merit in the contention of the workman that management was insisting upon

production of medical certificate from a Government hospital inasmuch as there is no recording of such fact in the

enquiry nor this plea has been specifically taken by the workman in his pleadings.

17.

It is clear from documentary evidence on record right from Ex.WW1/M1 onwards to Ex.WW1/M16 that the

workman herein has been from time to time absenting from duty without moving any application or seeking permission

of the authorities as a result of which he was expressing regrets or apology resulting in various punishments.

18.

Authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workman argued that in fact the workman had applied

for leave as is clear from letter Ex.MW3/40.I have gone through this letter which shows that the workman has

mentioned that he is upset. As such, he is not in a position to attend office from 16.11.2004 t 30.11.2004. Thereafter,

management issued letter/reply to the workman vide letter Ex.MW3/41 dated 16.11.2004, which clearly shows that it

was made clear to the workman that he was frequently absenting from duties without getting leave sanctioned. He was

advised to report for duties immediately. Workman herein has not filed any reply to the above letter. Thereafter vide

another letter dated 16.11.2004, Ex,MW3/42, period of absence from 13.11.2004 onwards was treated as unauthorized

absence. There is another letter of the management Ex.MW3/43 dated 27.11.2004 addressed to the workman which

again shows that his application dated 25.11.2004 regarding leave with effect from 01.12.2004 to 31.01.2005 was

rejected as the same was not accompanied by any medical certificate. During the course of arguments, this Tribunal

asked the workman to produce any proof regarding his illness or copy of medical certificate, which he has filed with

the authorities when he was ill. The Authorized representative of the workman was not in a position to refer to any

medical certificate or even produce copy of the same from his record so as to justify his absence from duty during the

period mentioned in the charge sheet. It is further clear from the evidence of Shri Arup Ratan Sengupta MW1 that he

has made deposition on the basis of official record. He referred to the various show cause notices issued to the

workman. The workman has also filed appeal against the order of compulsory retirement, which was also rejected by

the authority. Shri T.J. Bhattacharjee was examined by the management as MW2. This witness has referred to the

extract of attendance of the workman, copy of which is Ex.MW2/2 as well as various letters issued by the bank to the

workman regarding his unauthorized absence. Letter Ex.MW2/11 clearly shows that absence of the workman from

13.11.2004 was treated as unauthorized. Further letter Ex.MW2/12 shows that regarding leave with effect from

01.12.2004 to 31.01.2005 , his request for leave was declined on the ground that it was not accompanied by any

medical certificate. Therefore, plea of the workman that he has filed medical certificate before the authority during the

course of enquiry appears to be an afterthought and is not supported by any documentary evidence.

19.

It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DTC vs. Bir Singh (2016 LLR 61) that

when an employee is a habitual absentee, who has been absenting from duty unauthorizedly without permission, such

an employee is not entitled for any leniency and merely because the leave period is finally adjusted without pay, the

same would not amount to sanctioned leave. Order passed by the competent authority regarding his removal from job

was held to be valid. In the case in hand also there is ample material on record as discussed above, that the workman

herein was remaining absent for long period and that too without any justification.

20.

Similar view has been taken in the case of Nimai Charan Raut Vs. General Manager, M/s Utkal Asbestos

(2016 LLR 29). In the said case it was held that it is not always necessary to conduct a domestic enquiry prior to

effecting of termination of service of a delinquent employee when such an employee is a habitual absentee. In the

above case also, the employee has tendered apology on several occasions but there was no improvement in his

behavior. Same is the situation in the case on hand inasmuch as the workman herein has not shown any improvement

2996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or efficiency in work and every time he was remaining absent without moving requisite application. Record of the case

also shows that the disciplinary authority, on previous occasions, taken a lenient view of the incidents.

21.

As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that the charges mentioned in the charge sheet regarding absence

from duty during the period mentioned in para 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the charge sheet Ex.WW1/M2 stands proved. As

such, action of the management in retiring the said worker on 15.04.2005 is just, fair and legal. An award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 18, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1369-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fVªfuVh de£'k;y izk- fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 12@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@44@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 20.06.2016.

[No. L-29012/44/2013-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 12/2014

No. L-29012/44/2013-IR(M), dated 03.04.2014

Date of Passing Order – 24^th May, 2016

Between:

M/s.Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of M/s. Serajuddin & Co.

Balda Block Iron Mines, At./Po. Baneikela,

Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar (Odisha), Keonjhar.

…

1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Shri Renso Munda,

At./Po. Balda, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, (Odisha),

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2997

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party - Management.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party - Workman.

ORDER

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Trinity Commercials Pvt. Ltd., and their workman Shri

Renso Munda in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-29012/44/2013 – IR(M), dated 03.04.2013

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

That the 2^nd Party-workman has filed his statement of claim on 16.06.2014. He has not filed any documents to

substantiate his case. Since he did not take any step except filing of his statement of claim the 2^nd Party-workman was

noticed on 23.03.2016 after the new P.O. Joins. Notice issued to him seems to have been duly served. But, the 2^nd

Party-workman did not appear.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2^nd Party-workman

has served a copy of statement of claim on them through post. Also, notice was issued to the 1^st Party-Management to

file its written statement on 23.03.2016 from this Tribunal, but, neither the 1^st Party-Management appeared nor any step

taken by it.

It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the case or they might

have resolved their disputes amicably out of the court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be

passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1370-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fVªfuVh de£'k;y izk- fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@43@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-29012/43/2013-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 13/2014

2998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. L-29012/43/2013-IR(M), dated 03.04.2014

Date of Passing Order – 24^th May, 2016

Between:

M/s.Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of M/s. Serajuddin & Co.

Balda Block Iron Mines, At./Po. Baneikela,

Via. Joda, Dist. Keonjhar (Odisha), Keonjhar.

…

1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Shri Champa Munda,

At./Po. Balda, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, (Odisha),

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party - Management.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party - Workman.

ORDER

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Trinity Commercials Pvt. Ltd., and their workman Shri

Champa Munda in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-29012/43/2013 – IR(M), dated 03.04.2013

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

That the 2^nd Party-workman has filed his statement of claim on 16.06.2014. He has not filed any documents to

substantiate his case. Since he did not take any step except filing of his statement of claim the 2^nd Party-workman was

noticed on 23.3.2016 after the new P.O. Joins. Notice issued to him seems to have been duly served. But, the 2^nd

Party-workman did not appear.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2^nd Party-workman

has served a copy of statement of claim on them through post. Also, notice was issued to the 1^st Party-Management to

file its written statement on 23.3.2016 from this Tribunal, but, neither the 1^st Party-Management appeared nor any step

taken by it.

It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the case or they might

have resolved their disputes amicably out of the court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be

passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1371-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

feujy ,DlIyksjs'ku dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 199@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@2@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

2999

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 199/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.06.2016.

[No. L-29011/2/1993-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference: No. 199/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present:

Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated- 09/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-29011/2/ 1993 -IR (M) dated- 28/07/1994, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd, Nagpur in retrenching Sri

P.K.Mishra and 27 others (Names in the annexure) from the service of the Mineral Exploration Ltd is justified ? If not,

to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

Note :- list of workmeeen is not enclosed with order of reference.

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for the

workman submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1372-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-

06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&27011@6@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

3000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

23.06.2016.

[No. L-27011/6/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 14^th June, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 58/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhirsangam

Keelboard, Mamangam

Salem-636302

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd.

5/53, Omalur Main Road

Jagir Ammapalayam Post

Salem-636002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

M/s. A. Nasarathinam, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s. M. R. Raghavan, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-27011/6/2015-IR (M)

dated 29.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of TANMAG Ltd, Salem in respect of not considering the revision of

contract employees on par with 6^th Pay Commission is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 58/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union formed for the welfare of the workers working in the Magnesite

industry including the contract labours. The Petitioner Union and other Unions had submitted a Charter of Demands to

the Respondent for implementation of the 6^th Pay Commission on par with staff and officers of the Respondent and also

for regularization of contract workers. A settlement under Section-18(1) of the ID Act was entered into on 06.11.2010

between the petitioner and other unions and the Management. By the said settlement the Respondent had agreed for

implementation of 6^th Pay Commission recommendations for the workmen on par with staffs and officers of the

Respondent w.e.f. 01.12.2010 and also to pay @ Rs. 40/- per day to the contract workers in addition to minimum

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3001

wages, from 06.11.2010. However, the Respondent did not implement the terms of the settlement. The Industrial

Dispute is raised accordingly. The case of the Respondent that the settlement dated 06.11.2010 was superceded by

another settlement is not correct. The settlement dated 06.11.2010 is still binding on the Respondent. An award may be

passed directing the Respondent to extend the monetary benefits agreed upon by the settlement to the members of the

Petitioner Union.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

On 06.11.2010 a settlement was arrived at between various Unions representing the workmen and

Management under Section-18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By the said settlement the Respondent agreed that

revision of wages for the workmen will be finalized on the pattern implemented to staffs and officers as per

recommendations of 6^th Pay Commission of Government of Tamilnadu. It was also agreed that the Management would

give Rs. 40/- more than the minimum wages to the contract workers. The Petitioner Union approached the Assistant

Labour Commissioner seeking implementation of the clauses in the settlement. While this petition was pending a

subsequent settlement was entered into with the very same Unions representing the workers and the Management, on

22.08.2011. Through this settlement the workmen were paid wages as per the pattern mentioned in the 6^th Pay

Commission. So far as payment of additional amount to the contract labourers were concerned it was resolved that the

issue shall be discussed and finalized through mutual discussion. A clause was incorporated in the settlement to the

effect that this would supercede all the provisions of the earlier settlement dated 06.11.2010. The dispute itself is not

maintainable. The Respondent is not the employer in so far as the contract employees are concerned. The

recommendation of the Pay Commission is in respect of regular employees of the Government only. The commission

does not fix wages for the contract employees. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the contentions in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in

the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W6.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the Respondent is bound to pay monetary benefits to the contract workers on the basis of the

recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute claiming that its members who are contract workers are entitled to

monetary benefits on the basis of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission of the Government of Tamilnadu. It

is stated in the Claim Statement of the petitioner that the petitioner and other unions have entered into a settlement with

the Respondent on 06.11.2010 and in this settlement the Respondent has agreed to implement the recommendations of

the 6^th Pay Commission and also agreed to pay rs. 40/- in addition to the minimum wages to the contract workers from

06.11.2010 in lieu of regularization of the contract workers.

The case of the Respondent is that the dispute itself is not maintainable for the reason that there is no

employer-employee relationship between it and the contract workers and therefore it is not liable to extend any benefits

to the contract workers. It is the further case of the Respondent that the settlement dated 06.11.2010 has been

superceded by another settlement on 22.08.2011 and the Petitioner Union cannot make any claim for implementation of

the terms of the previous settlement.

10.

Admittedly, the Petuitioenr Union is claiming relief on behalf of the contract workers of Tamilnadu Magnesite

Ltd., the Respondent. Thus it is apparent that the worker are not working under the Respondent directly, but working

for the Respondent only through the Contractors who have employed them. So definitely there is no employer-

employee relationship between the Respondent and the concerned workmen. For this reason itself the petitioner has no

locus-standi to raise the dispute.

11.

Even assuming that the dispute is maintainable the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The relief claimed is

on the basis of Ext.W1-the settlement entered into under Section-18(1) of the ID Act between the petitioner and some

other Unions and the Respondent. There is no clause in Ext.W1 to the effect that the wages of the contract workmen

will be revised in the pattern of the staff and officers of the Respondent as per the recommendations of 6^th Pay

Commission of Government of Tamilnadu. There is no such clause of settlement even in respect of the regular

workmen of the Respondent in Ext.W1. The first clause of Ext.W1 which is the relevant one states only that the

revision of the wages of workmen will be finalized on the pattern implemented to staff and officers as per the

recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission of Government of Tamilnadu after due negotiation and further

3002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

concurrence from the Government. The workmen referred to in the clause are apparently the regular workmen only.

Again there is no agreement to pay wages as per 6^th Pay Commission recommendations even to the regular workmen as

per the settlement. The agreement is only to have due negotiation and further concurrence from the Government.

12.

On 22.08.2011 another settlement was entered into between the same Unions including the Petitioner Union

and the Respondent. This is marked as Ext.W5. By this settlement a revised wage scale for the workmen is agreed upon

by the parties. As per the scope of the settlement it is to cover all the workmen who are drawing wages on scales as per

settlements from time to time and who are in the rolls of the Respondent as on 01.12.2010 only. Apparently, the

contract workmen are not workmen who were in the rolls of the Company as on 01.12.2010. Apart from this, there is a

specific clause i.e. Clause-18 superceding Ext.W1-the previous settlement on the basis of which the claim is made by

the petitioner. Clause-18 states that it supercedes all the provisions of the settlement dated 06.11.2010 unless

specifically stated against any item or supplement the provisions of earlier settlements. By the execution of Ext.W5

settlement Ext.W1 has become something nonest. The petitioner is not entitled to the implementation of the

recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission in respect of the contract workers for the reason that there is no such

clause in Ext.W1 and also because the settlement does not even exist at present.

13.

When the settlement itself does not exist there is no question of payment of monetary benefits agreed to as per

Ext.W1 to the contract workers also. Ext.W1 contains a clause that the Management has agreed to give Rs. 40/- more

than the minimum wages to the contract workers with effect from the date of signing of the settlement. While executing

Ext.W5 the new settlement it is stated in its preamble portion that the earlier settlement i.e. Ext.W1 could not be

implemented. Clause-20 of Ext.W5 states that the issues regarding contract labour shall be discussed and finalized by

mutual discussion. Thus the same Unions who have executed Ext.W1 settlement have given a go-by for the clauses of

the earlier settlement by agreeing for this clause regarding contract labour and also by agreeing for Clause-18 which

states that the later settlement will supercede all the provisions of the earlier settlement.

14.

In fact the term of reference and the relief claimed in the Claim Statement are quite contradictory also. The

schedule of reference is on why the Respondent has not considered revision of wages of contract employees on par

with the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission. The direction sought in the Claim Statement is to extend them

monetary benefits agreed upon as per the settlement dated 06.11.2010. In the absence of any specific reference to this

effect there is not even necessity to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in the Claim Statement. I find that the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief, considered from any angle.

In view of my discussions above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 14^th June, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri M. P. Sadasivam

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

MW1, Sri P. Palanisamy

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

06.11.2010

Memorandum of Settlement arrived u/s 18(1) of the ID Act.

Ext.W2

04.10.2011

Representation sent by the petitioner union to the Respondent

Ext.W3

31.10.2011

Representation sent by the petitioner union to the Respondent

Ext.W4

25.05.2011

Petition filed by the Petitioner Union

Ext.W5

22.08.2011

Memorandum of Settlement arrived u/s 18(1) of the ID Act

Ext.W6

19.08.2014

Reply submitted by the Respondent Management

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3003

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1373-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@16@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

23.06.2016.

[No. L-11012/16/2002-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 26/2003

Sh. Sanjay II, S/o Sh. Kishan,

C/o 58 , Tehsil Building Tees Hazari,

Delhi.

Vs.

Airport Authority of India, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan,

President Safderjung Airport,

New Delhi-110037.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. L-11012/16/2002 (IR(M) dated

24.02.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of AAI, New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Sanjay II Ex-

Sweeper w.e.f. 11.12.98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

On 26.03.2003 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.26/2003 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 2.1.2004. Where-in he prayed as follows:-

“This Hon”ble Court/ Tribunal be pleased to pass an Award in favour of workman and against the

management and the workman herein be directed to be reinstated with full back wages from 11.12.98 till the date of

reinstatement , continuity in service along with other and complete consequential benefits and the cost of the present

dispute be Awarded to the workman herein u/s 11 (7) of the I.D. Act.

Pass any other order /orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 01.11.2006. Through which management

prayed as follows:-

“It is therefore , respectfully prayed that the claim of the workman may kindly be dismissed with cost and the

reference be answered according in the interest of justice.”

3004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No issue has been framed by Ld. Predecessor. He proceeded to decide the case on the basis of questions of

determination mentioned in schedule of reference.

Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit alongwith annexed documents on 31.10.2007.

He was cross-examined at length by Sh. Priya Ranjan, Proxy Counsel , for the management and his

examination-in-chief and cross-examination is as follows:-

I tender my affidavit as evidence which is Exh. WW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit , I rely on attendance cards

issued for the month of October 1996 to January 1997, daily permit card for the period from 26.02.1996 till 22.08.1996,

from 12.09.1996 to 10.02.1997 from 20.02.1997 to 05.12.1997, identity card dated 28.02.1997, another card issued in

September 1997, affidavit given by the claimant to the management. Letter dated 23.4.1998 letter dated 11.12.1998,

written representation dated 16.12.1998, representation dated 06.01.1999 forwarded by the union,passed by Civil

Judge, order of Senior Civil Judge Granting appeal in my favour, order dated 09.01.2001 passed by High Court of

Delhi, ESI Cards, claim statement filed before the Conciliation Officer and reply filed by the management thereto,

which documents are Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/29. These documents may be read alongwith my affidavit.

I had not applied by nay application to the Airport Authority of India. No advertisement for vacancy was

publish by Airport Authority of India. Vol. I was on duty on the basis of Judgment passed by on Hon’ble Supreme

Court. I was working under a contractor and during the said period the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed an order

granting us permanent job with the management. The said Judgment can be filed on record. My specific name is not

mentioned as a party in that judgment but the said judgment was applicable to all employees /workers working with the

contractor and working in the management. In that judgment of Supreme Court Airport of India was one of the party. It

is wrong to say that Airport Authority of India was not a party in that case.

It is correct that management of Airport Authority of India has constitute a Scrutiny committee of Five

members for submitting its report after verifying the status of the workman etc. I appeared before committee. It is

wrong to suggest that I was not employee of Airport Authority after judgment of Supreme Court. It is correct that I was

in case of management . Vol. I was told that I would be regularize after one year. No appointment letter was issued to

me by Airport Authority. It is wrong to suggest that document Ex. WW1/1 to Ww1/4 are forge and fabricated. No other

document relating to attendance is with me. It is wrong to suggest that I do not have any other attendance card because

you have forged and fabricated only for attendance card for the month oct. Nov, Dec, 96 and Jan, 1997. I do not have

the originals of WW1/5 as the original was deposited with the pass section of the management.

It is correct that there is nothing printed as Airport Authority of India. Vol. It is written by the Pen.

It is issued by that Bureau of Civil Aviation. The Government of India. It is correct WW1/5 to WW1/7 to

same type of passes. It is wrong to suggest Ex. WW1/5 to WW1/7 were never issued to me. It is wrong to suggest that

since I do not have the originals that is why they were never issued to me. I had not deposit the identity card with the

department which is Exh. WW1/15 to WW1/16. It is wrong to suggest that WW1/15 is an entry pass and the same has

been forged by cutting the word entry permit and writing it on the above Identity Card. Vol. The word Identity Card

has been written by the issuing Authority that is the management.

It is correct that Ex.WW1/15 to WW1/16 were issued by the management of Airport Authority of India when I

was taken into case of the management I had submitted the affidavit WW1/17 before the scrutiny committee but the

same original copy was returned to me as there were some defects that I was told that fresh affidavit would be prepared.

(OSR)

It is wrong to suggest that the original affidavit was never submitted by me . That is why the same is with me

even today. It is correct that no date upto which alleged card was valid and is not mentioned , date of issuing is not

mentioned. It is correct that the whitener has been applied on the right hand corner of the slip.

Vol. It has been applied by the contractor. It is wrong to suggest that the same is forged and fabricated.

I am filing the originals on record. It is correct that the contractor used to have pay bills . It is wrong to suggest

that no payment has been paid by the contractor to me for the month of September to December 96. I cannot produce

the said pay bills of the contractor as despite may asking. He did not give the copy of the same to me. The Signature of

the holder on Ex. WW1/5 is not mine. The same is Exh. WW1/6 and there is no signature of holders of WW1/7. It is

correct that the signature on Ex. WW1/5 and WW1/6 and the signature of WW1/17 on the affidavit are of two different

persons. I do not remember whether I have filed a copy of ration card before the scrutiny committee. I am not sure but

may be I have not filed the copy of Ration Card in this case.

I do not remember whether there were cutting in Ration Card or not.

Learned Counsel for workman objected to the question on the ground that the workman has already stated that

he does not remember.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3005

OBSERVATION

As to whether he has filed the Ration card before the Scrutiny committee or not the ration card has not been confronted

to the witness by the Ld. Counsel of the management.

OBSERVATION

Learned Counsel for workman is creating hindrance since beginning of the cross-examination.

It is correct that five member scrutiny committed has called me inside and asked my name and father’s name.

Ques. The members of the Scrutiny committed did not recognize you as having worked at the airport.

Ans. I do not remember whether such remark was passed or not.

Ld. Counsel of workman objected that neither the names of the members of the Scrutiny Committee has been

disclosed and neither the report of the Scrutiny committee has been confronted to the witness by the Ld. Counsel for

the management.

It is wrong to suggest that I was not on duty on 6.12.1996 .

It is wrong to suggest that even on the Contractor Roll I was not there on 6.12.1996. It is correct that many

workers were not recognized as their documents were defected were not taken by the management of Airport Authority

of India. It is wrong to suggest that after the Judgment of Supreme Court in Convince with the contractor I have filed

forged and fabricated document and I have made a false claim. It is wrong to suggest that I have making false statement

and I have filed false claim for obtaining job from the management of AAI and I am deposing falsely. I am married. I

have two children. They are studying . One is eight and the other in the third. On their studies three thousands are spent.

Since I have not been engaged by the AAI I am doing labour lobs /white washing jobs and also driving Auto Riksha for

3 or 4 months in a year. I have no driving license for Auto Riksha and Motor cycle.

Several opportunities were given to management to adduce its evidence in this oldest ID. but management

failed to adduce its evidence. Then this Tribunal was compelled to close the evidence of management. Thereafter this

Tribunal on 1.3.2016 closed the evidence of management.

I have heard the arguments of Ld.A/R’s for the parties at length and perused the pleadings of evidence of

workman on record.

Question of determination No.1 in schedule of reference is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of AAI, New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Sanjay II Ex-

Sweeper w.e.f. 11.12.98 is justified?”

According to which burden of proof to prove it lies on management but in the instant case management

adduced it’s no evidence. Moreover nothing could be extracted out in cross-examination of WW1. Which may be

harmful to claimant and favorable to management. In these circumstances question of determination no.1 is liable to be

decided in favour of workman and against management. Which is accordingly decided. Question of determination no.2

relates to relief to which workman is entitled. It is proved fact Sanjay II Ex-Sweeper was employed as contractual

employee on Feb, 1996.

It is also proved fact that management of Airport Authority of India, New Delhi terminated the services of

Sanjay II ex-sweeper w.e.f 11.12.1998.

Now, it is to be determined to what relief workman is entitled?

In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages. Which shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded. In

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and the compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends of justice.

In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held thus “the award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed

240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper

by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken

a view that reinstatement is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the

Industrial Dispute Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC

486, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back

wages is also not automatic.”

3006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a Contractual Worker, thus, Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to Workman/Claimant by Management after the expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against this Award. That will meet the ends of justice.

Reference is liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management. Which is accordingly

decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-02.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1374-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-

,l-vkbZ- gkWfLiVy@fo'kk[kk baVjizkbtst 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 98@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&15011@3@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2016

S.O. 1374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ESI Hospital/Vishakha Enterprises and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.06.2016.

[No. L-15011/3/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 98/2015

The General Secretary,

Rashtriya Rajdhani Shetra Engg. & Gen. Maz. Union,

C-139 , Karampura,

New Delhi -110015

Vs.

The manager ,

ESI Hospital,

Sector-15, Rohini,

New Delhi-110085.

The Manager,

M/S Vishakha Enterprises,

30/42 , Street No.8, Main Road,

Opp, Andhra Bank, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadara

Delhi-110032.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No:- 15011/3/2015(IR)(M) dated 06.05.2015

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3007

“Whether the action of the management of ESI Hospital /Vishakha Enterprises in terminating the services of

Smt. Maya W/o Sh. Jai Prakash . Ex-House Keeper w.e.f 01.01.2013 is justified or not? If not, what relief will

be given to the workman and from which date?”

On 07.07.2015 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.98/2015 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 28.08.2015.

Through which workman Smt. Maya Ex-housekeeper prayed for her reinstatement alongwith all back wages

etc. After service of respondent has not filed their written statement nor paid cost imposed on them. They adopted

dormancy in filing of written statement . So after affording sufficient opportunity to file written statement I closed the

right to file written statement on 29.02.2016.

Then case proceeded ex-parte against management on 29.02.2016. I fixed 16.03.2016 ex-parte evidence of

workman to Smt. Maya filed her affidavit in her evidence which was tendering by her on 16.03.2016. Her cross-

examination was marked nil as case proceeded ex-parte against management.

Workman Smt. Maya filed written argument on 30.3.2016. Then I reserved the award. I perused the question

of determination mentioned in schedule of reference, pleadings and evidence of workman and written arguments of

workman. Smt. Maya Ex-House keeper.

Question of determination No. 1 mentioned in schedule of reference is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of ESI Hospital /Vishakha Enterprises in terminating the services of

Smt. Maya W/o Sh. Jai Prakash , Ex-house Keeper w.e.f 01.01.2013 is justified or not?”

Burden of proof to prove question of determination no.1 lies on management. In the instant case respondent/

management failed to file their written statement and adduce their evidence nor they cross-examined the WW1.

Hence question of determination no. 1 liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management.

Moreover uncontroverted pleadings and ex-parte evidence of workman Smt. Maya Ex-housekeeper as well as

her uncontroverted written arguments. Question of determination No.1 is liable to be decided in favour of workman

Smt. Maya, Ex-housekeeper and against management. Which is accordingly decided.

Question of determination no. 2 mentioned in schedule of reference is relating to relief to workman Smt.

Maya, Ex-housekeeper. As question of determination No1 has already been decided by me in her favour . So she is

entitled to relief as per settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of reinstatement and grant of back wages.

Which shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon

the facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and

Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana

State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the

award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act.

In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme

Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by following due procedure and as per rules. She had rendered

service with the respondent as a ex-housekeeper, thus, Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by way

of damages as compensation to Workman/Claimant by Management after the expiry of period of limitation of available

remedy against this Award. That will meet the ends of justice.

Reference is liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management. Which is accordingly

decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-02.05.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

3008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1375-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@451@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 15 of 2001) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/451/2000-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 15 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area, M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri S.K. Behra, Asstt. Manager

For the workman

None

Industry : Coal

Dated 3/05/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/451/2000-IR (C-I), dated.17/01/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bastacolla Area of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited in not

accepting the date of Birth of Sri Pankaj Kumar Verma, Attendance clerk, kuya Colliery as 03.04.1945 as per

the matriculate certificate and superannuating him w.e.f. 01.02.99 is justified, correct and legal ? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently on behalf of the workman, Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1376-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3009

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@75@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 03 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/75/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 03 of 2014

Employers in relation to the management of Koyla Bhawan, M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri N.M. Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

Shri S.C.Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 25/05/2016

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/75/2013-IR (CM-I), dated 03/01/2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether and justified the action of the management of Koyla Bhawan of BCCL in not regularising Shri

A.C.Trigunait , Clerk Special Grade in the post of Office Superintendent Is fair and justified? ? To what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to ?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 16.01.2014. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed. The workman files their written statement on 03.02.2014. The management files their written statement -cum-

rejoinder on 02.09.2014. And thereafter the Sponsoring Union files their rejoinder & document and examined himself

as witness.

The short point to be decided in the reference case is whether the workman is to be regularised in the post of

Office Superintendant from 23/12/2012 or not. .

The workman files documents marked as W-1 to W-11, some Office order as well as many Office notes are

marked.

The case of the workman as submitted in written statement that after appointment in 1971 by the erstwhile

owners of East Katras Colliery Ltd , the workman continued to work in BCCL, after nationalization of Mines on

01.05.1972. The management promoted the workman time to time from clerical Gr-II to Spl. Grade in the year 2010

on the basis of qualification.

It is further submitted by the workman that the workman posted in the man power and recruitment, division of

Koyla Bhawan initially as Spl. Grade Clerk and taking job of Office Superintendant in MP &R Division of BCCL HQ

at Koyla Bhawan, and authorities issued certificate to the concerned workman indicating designation of the workman

3010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as Office Superintendent of MP&R Division. Hence the workman is entitled to grade A & T.A Sup with post of Office

Superintendent after 6 months from the date of joining MP & R division of M/S BCCL w.e.f june 2011.

On the other hand, the case of the management that the concerned workman was permanent employee and

lastly he was posted at MP& R Deptt. w.e.f 24.12.2010. but he never worked as office Superintendent in MP&R

division of Koyla Bhawan BCCL and he was superannuated from the service of the company w.e.f. 31.08.2013 as Spl.

Grade Clerk.

It is further submitted by the management the as per relevant cadre scheme, the minimum experience of 5

years is required in clerk Special Grade for promotion to next higher Grade of Office Superintendent T &S Grade A .

The promotion of next higher grade is subject to fulfillment of eligibility norms as per cadre scheme but he had not

fulfilled the eligibility of norms of cadre scheme. Accordingly the demand of workman for regularization as Office

Superintendent is neither legal nor justified.

The workman submitted that, he has been working as office superintendent from 23.12.2012 and filed note

sheets of BCCL management, performed tour etc. in that capacity, claims for regularization in BCCL. It appears that

the workman was engaged as Office superintendent performed tour in that capacity which was duly approved by BCCL

management. But management counsel submitted that the workman though performed duty of office superintendent,

actually he was not promoted nor had eligibility to be promoted to the post of Office Superintendent.

10.

On perusal of all document marked as W-1 to W-11 , the post of workman is indicated as Office

Superintendent and all document signed from many higher officer. Now in my opinion, Since the management engaged

him in the post of Office Superintendent , he is to be regularized in the post of Office superintendent.

11.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case that the action of the management of Koyla Bhawan of

M/S BCCL in not regularising Shri A.C.Trigunait , Clerk Special Grade in the post of Office Superintendent Is not fair,

Hence it is ordered to regularise the workman in the post of Office Superintendent without any back wages. He be

given his retirement dues or arrear, if any in the initial scale of Office Superintendent

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1377-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 167@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@80@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 167 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/80/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 167 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3011

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 09/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/80/1994-IR (C-1) dated 25/27-07-1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Moonidih Project of BCCL, P.O. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad in

dismissing Shri Rohan Napit T.No. 7395 from service of the company w.e.f 17.06.93 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1378-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 175@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@221@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 175 of 1999) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/221/1999-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 175 of 1999

Employers in relation to the management of Swang Colliery of M/s. CCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

3012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 06/05/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/221/1999-IR (C-1) dated 03/11/1999, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Swang Colliery of M/s. CCL in not regularisation shri Deo

Narayan Rabidas Cat-II mazdoor as Driver Cat-V is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. Both parties appeared. But appearing for certain dates,

Ld Counsel for the workman/Sponsoring Union submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt

that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1379-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 193@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@221@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 193 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/221/1993-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 193 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of Bhatdee Colliery of M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 10/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/221/ 1993 /IR (C-1)) dated 25/28-07-1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3013

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bhatdee Colliery of BCCL, P.O. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad in

dismissing Shri Hari Deswali, Trammer w.e.f 11.06.91 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman entitled ?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1380-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 269@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30-06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@390@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 269 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-20012/390/1993-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 269 of 1994

Employers in relation to the management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 09/06/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/390/ 1993 /IR (C-1)) dated- Nil, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the chief General Manager, Dugda coal Washery of M/s. BCCL

P.O. Dugda, Dist-Bokaro in denying employment to the dependent of Shri R.M. Pathak, Welder L-6 is

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

3014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld. Counsel for the

workman submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1381-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mh-ih-,l-

(bZ-) izkbosV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@22 vkWiQ 2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-06-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@1@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2016

S.O. 1381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad (Ref.

No. 2/22 of 2010) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. Duty Free Shop (I) Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-11012/1/2010-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/22 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF DFS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. DUTY FREE SHOP

The General Manager

DFS (India) Private Ltd., Duty Free Shop

2C Air India Arrival Lounge

ChhatrapatiShivaji International Airport

Sahar, Andheri

Mumbai-400 066.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Nandkumar G. Chavan

M-906, Bhoomi Breeze

Raheja Estate

Kulupwadi

Borivali (E)

Mumbai 400 066.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. R.V. Paranjpe & Mr. Sundeep Puri, Advocates

FOR THE WORKMAN :

Mr. N.G. Kankonkar, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 25^thMay, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L-11012/1/2010-IR (CM-I),

dated 17.02.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3015

“Whether the action of the management of Duty Free Shop (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai in terminating

ShriNandkumar G. Chavan, Warehouse Assistant from the services w.e.f. 15.05.2009 as contended by the

workman concerned is justified and legal? ii)To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-4. According to him, he was employee of the first party company

since 28/03/2008. He was confirmed in the service from May 2008. His duties were to arrange for the airport entry

pass for DFS employees, visitors to the duty free shop like supplies, depositing telephone bills etc. He was performing

his duties manually and of clerical nature. He was not doing any supervisory or administrative work. According to the

second party workman he was working with the first party and his service was clean, spotless, unblemished and to the

entire satisfaction of his superiors. According to him on 14/10/2008 Mr. Vijay Patel, Country Head Manager of the

first party and Mr. Raja, Manager of loss and prevention department asked the workman and his colleague Samir

Sawantnot to attend their duties with immediate effect and compelled to surrender their airport entry passesso as to

restrain them from doing their regular work. No reason was given to the second party as to why he was suspended till

further orders. They paid him salary of October 2008. From the month of November and December the first party paid

some amount to the second party as subsistence amount. Neither show cause notice was issued, nor any charge sheet

was served on the second party. He was not given an opportunity to give any explanation. The first party all of a

sudden terminated the services of the second party by their letter dt. 15/05/2009. The second party approached to their

union. The union wrote letters to the first party. As they did not give any response, the union made a complaint to the

Labour Commissioner (C). As conciliation failed, as per the report of ALC (C), the Labour Ministry sent the reference

to this Tribunal. According to the workman the first party dismissed him from services illegally. Therefore he prays

that the order of dismissal be quashed and set aside. He also prays that he be reinstated in the service of the first party

with full back wages from 15/05/2009. He also prays that pending hearing, the first party be directed to take the second

party in the employment and allow him to do his regular work.

The first party resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement at Ex-7. According to them, the

second party is not ‘workman’ as defined under Sec 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He was doing the job of

supervisory and administrative nature. Therefore the reference is not maintainable. The second party is guilty of

suppressing the true facts hence he is not entitled to any relief. His services were terminated simplicitor vide letter dt.

15/5/2009. The action of the management is legal, proper and justified. The second party was appointed as Ware-

house Assistant and was pre dominantly performing duties of administrative nature. On 16/09/2008 workman and Mr.

Sameer Sawant made an attempt to commit theft/transfer 12 bottles of Johny Walker Black Label from 2C Departure to

2C arrival ware house without any record. While removing the bottlesMs.NehaPatil, Sales Associate asked them where

they were taking the stock and also told them that without proper billing they cannot remove the stock.The workman

told her that there was some stock taking activity at arrival section and therefore they were transferring the stock and

have removed 12 bottles of JW Black Label. Ms. Neha Patil reported it to Duty Security Guard,Mrs.Jayashree Save.

She enquired with workman and Mr. Samir Sawant. They told her that they were taking out the bottles as per the

instructions of Mr. Pai. Ms. Jayashree Save informed the incident to another security superior Mr. Dinesh Karakesia.

When he enquired with Ms. Jayshree Save she told that the workman and Mr.SamirSawant told her that money has

been handed over to Mr. Pai. Security Supervisor informed the incident to Mr.Pai and then to L.P. & Custom Manager.

On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. the workman was spotted by one Sales Assistant, Mr. J. Dewalekar exiting the 2 B

arrival gate. The workman was carrying one carry bag in his left hand, his usual office bag in his right hand and a

Johny Walker backpack bag on his back. He was unable to walk properly due to the weight of the bags he was

carrying. The backpack of Johny Walker was the same being given as GWP with JW bottles purchased by customers

at DFS.

From 7/10/2008 to 14/10/2008 there was a full-fledged inquiry conducted by Director, Talent Management,

Singapore Raja, Shri Khan- Loss Prevention Manager Singapore Vispi Patel- CEO India VirenAhuja – Joint venture

Partner – Flamingo. During the inquiry number of people were interviewed by the committee and it was concluded that

Mr.SunilRaisinghani the then Product Sales Manager, Mr. Prasanna Pai, Loss Prevention Customs Manager, Sameer

Sawant and the workman were involved in the misappropriation of liquor and fully involved in the irregularities of

custom compliances as well as theft of liquor from various locations. Mr.Raisinghani and Pai tendered their

resignations. Mr. Sameer Sawant was also terminated. He had approached Labour Commissioner for conciliation.

However later on he also resigned at his own. The workman also approached Assistant Labour Commissioner. The

workman was found guilty of mischief of theft and misappropriation therefore his services were terminated. After

termination of the services the second party is gainfully employed and earning. Hence he is not entitled to any relief.

Therefore the first party prays that the reference be rejected with cost.

This Tribunal has passed Award on 12.11.2013 and partly allowed the Reference and declared that the

dismissal of the workman, Second party was illegal. First party was directed to reinstate the second party workman in

services along with 60% back-wages, continuity in service with all other consequential benefits.

3016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

First party challenged the Award before the Hon’bleHighCourt in Writ Petition No. 7303/2014. The

Hon’bleHighCourt has confirmed the findings of the Tribunal to PointNo. 1 and held that second party workman is

‘workman’ as contemplated under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. However the Hon’bleHighCourt has observed that this

Tribunal has not deduced the evidence that was led before itand remitted the reference to this Tribunal for deciding the

issue as to whether First Party has proved the misconduct on the basis of evidence that was recorded before it.

Both the parties have not adduced evidence after the reference is remitted to this Tribunal for deciding whether

first party has proved misconduct on the basis of evidence. So the evidence led by First Party is only in the form of

deposition of Mr.Dewalekar (Ex-52) andthen there is evidence of Second Party workman.

I have heard the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. N.G. Kankonkar, for the Second Party

workman. Perused notes of arguments Ex-74. I have also heard the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Shri

Paranjpe for the First Party and perused written notes of arguments Ex-76.

Following are the issues for my determination. I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

Issues

Findings

1. Whether second party is ‘workman’ as contemplated

under section 2(s) of ID Act?

Yes

2. Whether the first party has proved the misconduct

of second party workman on the basis of evidence?

3. Whether termination of Second party workman is legal and valid?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief Sought for?

As per final order

5. What order?

As per final order

REASONS

Issue no. 1

10.

Herein the fact is not disputed that the second party was the employee of the first party. He was appointed as

Ware-house Assistant and was confirmed in the service. According to the second party he was doing the work

manually as well as clerical nature. Therefore according to him he was a ‘workman’ as defined under Sec 2 (s) of the

I.D. Act. As against this according to the first party, the second party was predominantly performing the duties of

administrative in nature. Therefore he does not come within the definition of ‘workman’. The duties of Ware-house

Assistant are given by the first party in their written statement at Ex-7. However no duty given therein is of

supervisory or administrative in nature. His few duties given in the duty list are as follows:

•

Ensure merchandise is accurately checked, sculled and labelled correctly against appropriate work.

•

Ensure orders are checked and packed against the correct paper work.

•

Identify and rotate old stock.

•

Assist in all departments within the DC when requested by management in unloading and loading of

containers, picking and packing orders, receiving, booking and checking of inwards stocktaking.

•

Be responsible for housekeeping of the entire bond stock areas (including surrounding grounds).

•

Assist stock inventorycontroller with aged stock, discrepancies stock takes etc.

•

Treat all management and fellow team members with respect to support a team environment.

•

Perform any other duties as requested in a diligent and consequence manner.

•

Health and safety

•

Take all practical measures to minimize, isolate or eliminate hazards in the work place. Ensure that

work place is safe and behave in a manner that does not impose any risk to health and safety.

•

Comply with reasonable instructions from any supervisor or authorized representative of the

company regarding health and safety matters.

•

Actively participate in the Emergency Response procedures.

•

Report any accidents, injuries of hazards in the workplace to management.

•

Actively support and comply with DFS CHS policies and procedures.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3017

•

Systems and procedures.

•

Comply with company policy and procedures relating to security and stock control.

•

Comply with all security audit requirements.

•

Actively support and comply with all health and safety policy procedures and regulations.

•

Adhere to company dress standards and punctuality.

•

Uphold the highest standard of professional grooming and presentation at all times etc.

11.

So far as this issue is concerned, it is finding of fact that Second Party workman was not performing any

administrative or managerial duties. His duties were of manual and clerical nature. He was designated as Ware-House

Assistant and his pay is higher, he has no independent power to take decision. His duties were to check stock, scull,

label correctly, ensure the orders are checked and packed against correct paper work, identify and rotate old stock,

assist in all departments. He was also supposed to assist stock inventory controller with aged stock. He was also

supposed to perform any other work in a diligent andcontentious manner. He was not empowered to take independent

decisions. He was not authorized to bind the company by his decision. Considering his duties, it was considered that he

is workman within the meaning of Sec 2(s) of I.D.Act.

12.

This finding of fact is upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition 7303 of 2014. It has been observed

that the finding to this issue cannot said to be perverse finding and the said finding is not contrary to the evidence on

record. In view of that finding that the Second party is a workman is upheld and therefore this issue is answered in

affirmative.

Issue No. 2 and 3:

13.

In respect of termination of services, it is contended on behalf of first party that, the workman was involved in

misappropriation of stock of liquor and in irregularities of Customscompliances, as well as theft of liquor from various

locations. In the written statement it is contended that from 7.10.2008 to 14.10.2008 there was full-fledged inquiry

conducted by the Director, Talent Management-Singapore, Raja, Shri Khan-Loss Prevention Manager,Singapore, Vispi

Patel-CEO India, Viren Ahuja- Joint Venture partner-Flamingo. It is further contented that during inquiry number of

people interviewed by the committee and it was concluded that Mr. Sunil Raisinghani the then Senior Product Sales

Manager, Mr. PrasannaPai Loss Prevention and Customs Manager, the workman and Mr. Samir Sawant were involved

in misappropriation of stock of liquor and fully involved in irregularities in customs compliances, as well as theft of

liquor from various locations.

14. For, it is explicit from the evidence of Mr. KailashBhushan (Ex-42) that he was working as Vice-President in the

Joint Venture Partner of First Party Company. Admittedly he is not employee of First Party. On going through his

evidence it appears that his evidence is hearsay in respect of alleged incident of theft. Whatever stated by him is that on

16.9.2008 Mr. NandkumarChavan and Mr. SamirSawant were in their day shifts. They attempted to commit

theft/transfer 12 bottles of JW Black Label from 2/CDeparture to 2C arrival ware-house without any record. According

to them while removing the bottles from the shelves from 2C Departure, they were asked by Ms. Neha Patil (Where

they weretaking the stock?). Ms. NehaPatil told them that without proper document they cannot remove stocks. That

time Mr. NandkumarChavan replied that there was some stock taking activities at arrival section. That is why they were

transferring the stock and they removed 12 bottles of JW Black Label from their shelves. So according to him this

incident was told by Ms. Neha Patil to duty Security Guard Mrs. Jayashree Save who made inquiry to Mr. Nandkumar

Chavan and Mr. Samir Sawant and that time Mr. Nandkumar replied that Mr.Pai instructed them to do so and they have

given money to Mr. Pai.

15.

He went on to say that Ms. JayashreeSave informed this incidence to Mr. Dinesh H. Karakesia and then

Dinesh H. Karakesiainformed the incidence to Mr. PrasannaPai then, LP & Customs Manager. According to him

around 8.00 p.m. on that day Mr. NandkumarChavan was spotted by one of the Sales Assistant, Mr.

JagannathDewalekar, while exiting 2B arrival gate. He saw Mr. NandkumarChavan with one carry bag in his left hand;

his usual office bag in his right hand and Johnny Walker backpack bag on his back and that time Mr.

NandkumarChavan was unable to walk properly due to weight of the bag he was carrying. This is precisely the

evidence of this witness in respect of theft or misconduct.

16.

There is no witness examined by the First Party who has allegedly seen the second party while committing

alleged act of misconduct. First Party has not adduced evidence of Ms. NehaPatil, security guard, Mrs. Jayshree Save,

Mr.Pai, Mr.Dinesh Karakesia and Mr.Jagannath Dewalekar.

17.

Learned counsel for First Party submitted that there was full-fledged enquiry from 7.10.2008 to 14.10.2008

conducted by Director Talent Management-Singapore, Raja Shir Khan-Loss Prevention Manager, Vispi Patel-CEO,

VirenAhuja-Joint Venture Partner-Flamingo and Second Party workman was present at the time of said enquiry, in

3018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whosepresence the statements of Ms. NehaPatil and Mrs. JayshreeSave,Mr. Dewalekar, Mr. Dinesh Karakesia have

been recorded and memorandum of enquiry was prepared, which is the basic evidence to prove the alleged theft and

misconduct of the workman?

18.

In this respect Mr. Dewalekar appears to have stated in his statement that he saw the second party workman

while carrying the bottles from Airport premises. As against this in the alleged statements of Mrs. Jayashree Save and

Ms.Neha Patil, they appear to have stated that 12 bottles were brought back after 15 days. Mr. Dinesh Karakesia (Ex-

51) appears to have stated that they have kept the bottles in bond ware-house. It appears therefore thatthere are material

contradictions in so far statements of Mr. Dewalekar and those of Mrs. Jayshree Save and Ms. Neha Patil. It was

therefore necessary for First Party to adduce evidence of witnesses before Tribunal, so that they ought tohave subjected

to cross-examination to find out the truth. As regards the statements before Inquiry Officer,their non-examination, in

this respect goes to the root of matter.

19.

It is pertinent to note that the alleged statements given by the employees, except that of Mrs. Jayshree Save

(Ex-50), do not bear any date. The statement given by Mrs. Jayshree Save showsthe date as 22.7.2010. The termination

was effected on 15.5.2009; Statement of Claim was filed by Second Party on 5.5.2010. It shows that the statement of

Mrs. Jayshree Save which is dated 22.07.2010 has been obtained, after the termination of services of second party

workman and even after filing the Statement of Claim. Since other statements which are relied upon by the Inquiry

Officer do not bear the date, it leads to the inference that the statementsare afterthought. Therefore these statements

cannot be accepted.

20.

First Party has produced inquiry papers. Those papers also do not bear the date. Even then Learned Counsel

for first party submitted that during enquiry second party workman was present and the other employees who were

allegedly involved have given the signatures. According to him, that would show the conduct of the second

Party/Workman who can be said to be guilty of misconduct.

21.

It is not possible to countenance the view propounded by learned Counsel for the First Party. It is because the

documents which are relied upon are self-contradictory. Suspension order dated 17.11.2008 issued to the second party

workman, mentions that company was in process of completing the investigation. Whereas the alleged inquiry papers

mention that, inquiry was conducted between 7.10.2008 to 14.10.2008. According to these documents the investigation

was completed by 14.10.2008.If the investigation is completed by 14.10.2008 then the First Party would not have stated

in the suspension order that the investigation was going on. This would again show that the alleged enquiry is after

thought.

22.

I say so because according to the evidence of Mr. Kailash Bhushan, security guard checks the employees and

does the frisking and physical checking of the employee’s belongings while they are leaving 2 C arrival office. After

the duty free shop there is custom department’s baggage hall where the custom officer on duty does the frisking of the

employees and does the scanning of employee’s belongings in the machine. After custom exist gate there is airport

security (CISF) who does the frisking of employees going out and of their belongings. From the statements of

witnesses allegedly made by them before Inquiry Officer, it appears that 12 bottles were brought back after 15 days.

This sort of evidence if being taken into consideration, then it appears improbable that employee would take out the

bottles out of airport premises as alleged.

23.

Ld.Counsel for First party ShriParanjpe submitted that this will be simple discharge on the ground that the

Second party workman has lost the confidence and trust.His termination is legal especially when internal enquiry was

held and the minutes of the meeting were held from 7.10.2008 to 14.10.2008 (Ex-48). He seeks to rely on the decision

in case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., reported in 1996 II LLJ Pg. 602 (SC 3J) to submit that the form of order by

which the employee’s services are terminated, would not be decisive, Industrial adjudicator would be entitled to

examine the substance of the matter and decide whether the termination is in-fact a discharge simplicitor or it amounts

to dismissal which has put on the cloak of discharge simplicitor.

24.

In that case (Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.) employee had been employed as a salesman on April 3, 1956, as a

probationer and he was confirmed on November 5, 1956. On December 5, 1959, his services were terminated and he

was informed that the appellant had lost confidence in him, and so, it had been decided to discharge him. In that case

management had alleged that the termination of employee’sservices was not dismissal but was dischargesimplicitor,

and according to it, thedischarge was justified by the terms of contract between the management and employee in Rule

40(1) of the Services Rules of employee. It is held that the test in such cases is to see whether the act of employer is

bonafide or not? If the act is malafide, or appears to be a colourable exercise of the power conferred on the employer

either by the terms of contract or by the standing orders, industrial adjudicator would examine the substance and would

direct reinstatement in a fit case. In that case Labour Court has made definite finding in favor of employer that its

action in terminating the services was not malafide and did not amount to victimization.

25.

In the present case the facts are different and distinguishable. In suspension letter (Ex-22) dated 17.11.2008 it

is mentioned that subsequent to certain serious allegations made against Second Party employee concerning his

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3019

involvement in breach of DFS Policy and Customs Regulations. Management is in process of completing investigation

in the said matter.

26.

In the written argument of the First Party employer (Ex-57), it has been contended that the inquiry was held in

respect of allegations made against employee. It is mentioned in written statement about holding of minutes of meeting

Ex-48. It appears that the management relied upon the letters (Ex-49, 50, 51, 52) to hold that the secondparty employee

is involved in the incidence of theft. As seen Ex-49, 51 and 52 do not bear the date. It can be seen that these letters were

obtained later on and it is in that circumstances even management has not adduced evidence of the concerned

employees namely Ms. Neha Patil, Jayshree Save and others to substantiatethe allegations. That would show that

investigation/enquiry is malafide.

27. It is held in decision in case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. (Supra) that if act of employer is not bonafide and it is

malafide, then the Court can examine the substance and not the form of standing order.

28. Hon’ble High Court has remitted the reference for deciding as to whether the employer (that is the petitioner in the

writ petition) has proved the misconduct on the basis of evidence. In view of that the burden is on the first party

employer to prove the misconduct of the employee. Even then Ld.Counsel for employer Shri Paranjpe submitted that

the burden is on employee to prove malafide of the employer and seeks to rely on the following decisions-

Orissa Cement Ltd. V/s. Their workmen and Anr, 1960 II LLJ Page 91 (S.C.).

V. K. Raj Industries V/s. 1^stLabour Court, Kanpur and Ors, 1981 II LLN Pg 498 (Allahabad HC).

Wherein it is held that the burden to prove is on the party who alleged malafide. Here in instant case the facts

are quite different and distinguishable.

29.

Ld. Counsel for Second Partyworkman seeks to rely on the decision in case of Delhi Transport Co. V/s.

DTC Mazdoor Congress1991 AIR 101, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 142 to submit that the termination of services of

permanent employee without assigning any reasons and holding enquiry is arbitrary, unfair, un-just and un-reasonable

and opposed to public policy and against the Principles of Natural Justice. On going through the termination order it

appears that there is no mention in it that the second party employee was involved in the incident of theft or as such he

has lost the confidence and therefore his services are terminated. However in the suspension order it is mentioned that

subsequent to certain serious allegations made against Second Party employee concerning his involvement in breach of

DFS Policy and Customs Regulations, Management is in process of completing investigation in the said matter. But

then it appears that no enquiry was held by the management neither show-cause notice was issued to workman nor he

was served with any charge sheet. Even the workman was not present on all the dates of alleged inquiry. He was not

even asked to remain present on all the dates of alleged inquiry. These facts are admitted by the Management witness

no.1 Mr. KailashBhushan in the cross-examination who has deposed at Ex-42. That would show that there was breach

of Principles of Natural Justice. On that ground it can be observed that the termination is illegal.

30.

Even then the ld. Counsel forfirst party employer submitted that in the written statement it is contended that

there was full-fledged inquiry held by the high officials and Ex-48 is the copy of minutes of the meetings held on

7.10.2008 to 14.10.2008 in respect of the workman. From these minutes of meetings Ex-48, it is revealed that

Committee Members interviewed some employees and found that 4 people were involved in misappropriation of stocks

of liquor and were fully involved in irregularities of Custom compliances as well as theft of liquor from various

locations and they recommended the termination of services of the workmen.Exhibit-49 is the report of Ms. Neha Patil

to HR Manager. Exhibit- 50 is the statement of witness Mrs. Jayashree Save. Exhibit- 51 is the statement of Mr. Dinesh

H. Karakesia working as Supervisor. Exhibit- 52 is statement Mr. JagganathDewalekar. As seen earlier the statements

Ex-49, 51 and 52 donot bear the dates. Even it appears that statements of these witnesses were neither recorded in

presence of workman nor they were offered for cross-examination.

31.

Ld. Counsel Shri Paranjpe submitted that, in case of theft/forgery the services of employee can be terminated

even without domestic inquiry. In support Ld. Counsel Shri Paranjpe resorted to decision in case of-

All India Institute of Medical Sciences V/s. O.P. Chauhan, &Ors2007 (113) FLR Pg. 161 (Del. HC),

wherein the Hon’ble Court in Para 14 of judgment observed that;

“It is not necessary that in every case where a person is involved in theft, forgery and where a criminal case is

registered, the management has to hold an enquiry and then only terminate the services. The management can

always terminate the services in terms of service conditions of an employee, for loss of faith and confidence,

where the employee involved is handling sensitive post or a high degree of integrity and honesty is expected

from him because of responsibilities.”

3020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

32.

In the case at hand it is alleged that the workman was involved in misappropriation and theft cases. However

no criminal case is registered against him. Therefore the ratio laid down in this ruling is not attracted to the set of facts

of the present case.

33.

Ld. Advocate forFirst Party Company further submitted that as the workman was caught removing stores

items, he was rightly dismissed by management. He seeks to rely on the decisions in case of;

(1). Escort Ltd. (tractor Div) V/s. Labour Court (P&H) 1986 FLR 273.-

In that case the Labour Court had given finding of guilty of theft. In the circumstances Hon’ble High Court

held that Labour Court cannot proceed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 A to water down quantum of

punishment.

(2). Pfizer Ltd. V/s.Mazdoor Congress & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2618-

wherein temporary workman was found committing theft. His services were terminated and the Labour Court

held that the management was not indulging in unfair labour practice.

34.

The Ld. Advocate for first party management also submitted that admittedly workman has surrendered entry

pass and even it has come in evidence that other co-workman namely Mr. Samir Sawant who was allegedly involved in

case of misconduct had resigned. So according to the Ld.Counsel for management Shri Paranjpe, suggestion was given

by the management in the cross-examination of employee and it has not been denied by him and that amounts to his

admission of committing theft by the employee.

35.

This submission is perverse and other way round. In his cross-examination the employee has specifically

pleaded ignorance as regards the resignation given by Mr. Samir Sawant. Merely because suggestion was given to him

in cross-examination to the effect that Mr. Samir Sawant has given resignation due to alleged involvement in theft case

does not amount to admission of the employee concerned in respect of the fact as regards the alleged involvement of

Mr. Samir Sawant in the said incident.

36.

Even then Ld. Counsel for the management Shri Paranjpe submitted that earlier the Second party workman

was working as Salesman and therefore it is not possible that he would have taken a job of Clerical nature. This

submission is also not acceptable since the witness of the management himself has admitted that the second party

workman was appointed as Warehouse Assistant. As such there is no suppression of facts by the second party

workman.

37.

Ld. Counsel for first party management Shri Paranjpe submitted that the second party employee was never

supported by the Union, though he was the member of Bharitya Kamgar Sena. According to him union has admitted

the Second party workman’s act of theft and in that circumstances the termination of workman is legal and proper.

38.

The submission is also not acceptable since it has come on record that second party workman met the union

people and as such there is no evidence on record that the union people have stated about the involvement of Second

party workman in incidence of theft.

39.

The fact remains that neither workman was served with show-cause notice nor any charge sheet was served on

him neither witnesses were examined in his presence nor cross-examination was offered. In short there was no inquiry

as alleged and on the other hand workman was dismissed merely on the basis of report of the officials.Even the witness

who has been examined by the management has no personal knowledge about the alleged misconduct of the second

party employee.

40.

In the light of above discussion I find that the first party management has not proved the alleged misconduct

of second party workman on the basis of evidence led by it. In this back drop it needs no further discussion to arrive at

the conclusion that the services of the second party workman were terminated illegally. Accordingly, I have answered

the above issues as indicated against each of them, in terms of above observations.

Issue No. 4.

41.

As the services of workman were terminated illegally, without any inquiry the ld. adv. for the second party

workman submitted that workman should be reinstated with full back wages. In support of his argument the ld. adv.

for the second party resorted to Apex Court ruling in UPSRTC through its MD V/s. J.P. Mishra 2003 I LLJ 224. In

that case the order of termination was held rightly set aside by High Court as the rule of natural justice requiring issue

of notice to the respondent to show-cause against the proposed action was not observed by the management. Therefore

the workman therein was reinstated by the High Court with full back wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed

the order of reinstatement with modification in the order of back wages. In that case, full-fledged inquiry was held.

After receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer, show cause notice was not issued to the workman calling upon him to

show-cause as to why action should not be taken against him. In the circumstances the Hon’ble Court upheld the order

of reinstatement of the workman with partial back wages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3021

42.

In the light of this ruling ld. Adv. for the second party workman Shri Kankonkar submitted that in the case

at hand the services of workman were terminated without any charge sheet or inquiry. Therefore he should be

reinstated with full back wages. The ld. adv. also resorted to the Division Bench ruling of Bombay High Court in

Taranjitsingh Bagga V/s. M.S.R.T.C.2008 (4) Bom C.R. 330. In that case the Labour Court and Industrial

Tribunal had given findings in respect of the inquiry that it was not fair and proper as there was violation of

Principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the workman to cross-examine the two management

witnesses. Therefore the workman therein was reinstated with full back wages. In writ before single judge the order

of directing payment of back wages was set aside. In writ appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High

Court examined the facts and circumstances and in the light of various decisions of Apex Court, the Hon’ble High

Court in Para 7 of the judgment observed that;

“In view of this, in our view, it was not necessary for the Ld. Judge to interfere with the findings of both the

Courts below that the appellant was entitled to full back wages upon his reinstatement.”

43.

Ld. Counsel for the second party Shri Kankonkar also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Jasmer Singh

V/s. State of Haryana 2015 (0) AIJEL-SC 52 to submit that;

“When the termination is void ab initio, workman is entitled to full back-wages.”

44.

Ld. Counsel for the second partyworkman also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Anjali Dilip Doke V/s

Triveni Dudha Vitaran Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. 1991 II CLR 416 to submit that;

“Once having come to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not in

accordance with law and also not justified, there was no alternative but to grant reinstatement.”

45.

On the other hand Ld.Adv. for the first party management submitted that burden was on the workman to prove

that he was unemployed and back wages should not be awarded, unless the employee shows that he was gainfully

employed. In support of his argument ld. advocate resorted to decision in case of Pawan Kumar V/s. HP State

Industrial Corporation &Anr. 2007 III LLJ 281 HP wherein the Hon’ble High Court in Para 2 of the judgment

observed that;

“When the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back wages is concerned, the employee has

to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. After and if, he places materials in

that regard, the employer can bring on record material to rebut the claim.”

46.

The ld. adv for the first party Shri Paranjpe also resorted to Apex Court ruling in Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sanghtan & Anr V/s. S.C. Sharma AIR 2005 SC 768 wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down the same principle as

law of the land.

47.

Ld. Counsel for First party management Shri Paranjpe submitted that if there is a loss of confidence

compensation would be only relief. He submitted that where the employer loses confidence in its employee, who is

discharging office of trust of confidence. There is no justification for directing his reinstatement. When there is a loss

of confidence, compensation would be the only adequate relief.

48.

In case of Air Lanka Ltd. V/s. John William Nathan and Anr.33----- 1991 I LLJ Pg. (62 FLR 953) it is

held that;

“Reinstatement had not been considered, as either desirable or expedient in certain cases where there had

been strained relations between the employer and employee, when the post held by the aggrieved employee

had been one of trust and confidence, though the order of dismissal was unsustainable, owing to some

infirmity in the impugned order and in case where it was felt that it would not be desirable or expedient to

direct reinstatement, the workman may be provided monetarily by awarding compensation instead of

reinstatement for loss of future employment.”

49.

In the case cited supra, it is finding of fact that the petitioner committed theft of the article in question. The

charge was held proved and finding in that behalf was not disturbed. But then it was considered that the past record

does not constitute sufficient basis for imposing the drastic punishment of dismissal and that the offence which held

proved against the petitioner is only a trivial act of misconduct and consequently came to the conclusion that the

punishment imposed on the first respondent is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by

the first respondent and it is clearly excessive. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that the Tribunal has to take note

of the fact that the first respondent was awarded censure and warnings on earlier occasions and ultimately was

dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct for having committed theft. In that circumstances, it was

considered that facts and circumstances ought to have been considered to decide as to whether respondent should be

reinstated or be adequately compensated in lieu of reinstatement.

3022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

50.

So far as present case is concerned, it can be said that the services of the second party employee has been

terminated without any inquiry. Even the second party employee was working as Warehouse Asst. and that he was not

holding any post of confidence to entail any security risk. Even First Party management has not proved by evidence the

alleged misconduct and his involvement in the alleged theft. There is no record to show that previously he was

censured ofalleged misconduct. Considering the facts of the present case, I think this is a fit and proper case where the

reinstatement should be awarded.

51.

Ld. Counsel for the Management Shri Paranjpe seeks to rely on the decisions in case of Kanhaiyalal Agarwal

and Other V/s. The Factory Manager & ors, 2001 AIR (SC) pg 3645 and Punjab National Bank and Anr V/s.

Shri Dugra Dutt Sharama & Ors. 2006 LIC, Vol. (4) Pg. 3760 (HP H.C.) / 2006 (2) Shim LC 316to submit that

compensation can be awarded instead of the back wages and reinstatement cannot be relief where the employer loses

confidence in employee.

52.

In the present case. It is not the pleadings of the employer that the employer has lost the confidence in the

employee, what must be pleaded and proved to invoke the principle is that-

(I)

the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence

(II)

by abusing such position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting the same;

(III)

To continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be

detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. All these three aspects must be present

to refuse reinstatement on ground of loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective

based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of

apprehension in the mind of the Management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee

must be alleged and proved. Else, the right of reinstatement ordinarily available to the employee will

be lost.

53.

These are the observations which I borrow from the decision in case of KanhaiyalalAgarwal and Other V/s.

The Factory Manager &ors, cited supra. In this case also there is neither pleading nor it is proved that the workman

has lost trust and confidence. In view of that I also find that this is fit case where the reinstatement should be awarded.

54.

In this respect ld. adv. for the first party management submitted that the workman was working as RTO Agent.

Suggestion was also given to him to that effect in his cross-examination. The suggestion has been denied by workman.

Neither workman has placed on record any material nor management led any evidence to show that workman is

working as RTO agent and he is gainfully employed. But in this respect it can be observed that workman is earning

something in order to make livelihood. It may not be sufficient or equal to his pay. The workman may have suffered a

lot as he lost his job and he required to fight the legal battle. This short of evidence I think it proper to award 60% of

the total emoluments from date of termination of his services till the date of his reinstatement. I think it proper to

reinstate him with 60% back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Accordingly I partly

allowed the reference and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The Reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.

The order of dismissal of second party from services is hereby declared illegal and the same is set aside.

The first party is directed to reinstate second party workman in service with 60% back wages, continuity in

service with all other consequential benefits.

Date: 25.05.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 62@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-07-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@125@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3023

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.07.2016.

[No. L-22012/125/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 13^th day of August, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 62/2012

Between:

The General Secretary,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana),

Singareni Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council (STNTUC),

H.No. 5-295, Indranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,

Mancherial – 504208.

Adilabad District

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampally Area, Goleti Township-504292.

Adilabad District

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent

Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/125/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 3/10/2012

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally

Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Perukala Chandraiah, Ex.Gen.

Mazdoor, MKV-5 Inc., of Bellampalli Area, with effect from 9.10.1997 is justified or not? To what relief

the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 62/2012 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

Case is posted for filing of claim statement.

At this stage, Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Inspite of giving fair

opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking any interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the

circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, ‘Nil’ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, UDC and corrected by me on this the 13^th day of August,

2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

3024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1383-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&23012@03@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Bhakra Dam, BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.07.2016.

[No. L-23012/03/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID No.26 of 2015

Reference no. L-23012/03/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 14.12.2015.

General Secretary, BBMB Workers Union, Nangal,

District Ropar-Punjab

…Workman

Versus

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam, BBMB,

Nangal Township, district Ropar (Punjab)

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Shri S.K.Goyal

AWARD

Passed on: - 14.06.2016

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L- 23012/03/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 14.12.2015

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the BBMB Workers Union,Nangal being the minority union in the establishment of BBMB(I.W.)

Nangal has the right to espouse the cause of the workman of BBMB(I.W.), Nangal by way of raising an

industrial dispute or not?”

Whether the demand of BBMB workers Union, Nangal from the management of BBMB, are legal, fair and

justified? If yes, what relief the union and the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3025

Today the case is fixed for filling of claim statement by the workman/union. None appeared for the

workman/union nor any claim statement has been filed. Shri S.K.Goel is present for the respondent. Already three

opportunities have been given to the Union to file claim statement. It appears that the Union is not interested to pursue

the present reference. In view of the above the present reference is disposed off for want of prosecution.

3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to

the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

14.06.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-07-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of SCCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.07.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 13^th day of June, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 54/2009

Between :

Sri Kamidi Sadanandam,

S/o. Odelu,

R/o Janagoan, V/o Ramagundam,

Mandal of Karimnagar District

…Petitioner

AND

The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Chennur-Incline, Chennur.

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur Area,

Post: Srirampur, Mandal: Mancherial,

Dist: Adialabad

The Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,(Admn.)

Kothagudem, Dist: Khammam

…Respondents

3026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent

Sri S.M Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Kamidi Sadanandam who worked as badli filler (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents seeking for declaring the

proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/4743 dated 5.10.2007 issued by the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and to set

aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the

consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other

reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as temporary badli filler on 25.3.2004 by Respondent No.1 on compassionate

grounds in view of his father’s death dated 23.4.1994. The Petitioner had put in 50 musters in 2004, 93 musters in

2005 and 49 musters in 2006 and 78 musters in 2007, but Respondent No.2 had terminated the services of the

Petitioner on 5.10.2007 vide order No.SRP/PER/13.008/4743. The Petitioner has discharged his duties to the fullest

satisfaction of his superiors till his removal. His father has got 20 years of qualified service and has got 10 years of

service for superannuation, but with an intention to cause wrongful loss, Respondent No.2 has foisted a charge of

absenteeism against the Petitioner under Sec.25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company and terminated the Petitioner

from service and subsequently charge sheet No.CH.2/R.3/6-564 dated 14.3.2006 was served on the Petitioner for

absenteeism during 2005. But he has improved his attendance during 2006, 2007 & 2008. The Petitioner has

requested the management to pay “three lakhs in lieu of dependent employment as Petitioner’s health is not good to

work in underground mine” in the year 2004. But, he was compelled to accept the job and discharged his duties till his

removal from service. But the Respondents has shown wrong figure of his attendance. It is stated that no fair and

reasonable opportunity was given to him to represent the matter before the management and no opportunity was given

to cross examine the management witnesses and no subsistence allowance was paid during the pendency of the enquiry.

It is further stated that the enquiry conducted by the Respondents be declared as null and void. The Petitioner sent

representation dated 18.8.2008 regarding his reinstatement into service but no reply was made from the side of the

Respondents. It is also stated that the Petitioner is on roads, along with his family. He prayed to direct the

Respondents for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

Respondents filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism after

conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice . It is submitted that the

Petitioner was appointed as Floating Badli Filler on 5.8.2004 on compassionate grounds but not on 25.3.2004. He

was issued with charge sheet dated 19.2.2007 for his absence from duty during the period from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006

on various dates with any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause under Company’s Standing Orders 25.25 which reads as

under:

“25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause.”

The Petitioner received charge sheet and submitted his explanation on 21.2.2007, which was found not

satisfactory and as such a domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted. Accordingly an Enquiry Officer was

appointed, the Petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings on 3.5.2007 and during the enquiry he has

accepted his absence from duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet. It is further submitted that the Petitioner

informed the Enquiry Officer that he met with a road accident during the month of January, 2006 and suffered from

severe back pain and due to ill-health he could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his averment. As

per the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the charge levelled against the Petitioner was proved. The Petitioner was

supplied with copies of the enquiry report and enquiry proceedings. In turn he has submitted representation dated

2.6.2007 requesting to give him another opportunity to improve himself assuring that he will put up 20 actual musters

every month. But, he had put in the following musters from the year 2004 to 2007:-

Year

Actual Musters

2004

049 days

2005

093 days

2006

042 days

2007

(Upto May)

043 days

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3027

After considering all the material on record, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Petitioner from service

vide office order No.SRP/PER/13.008/4743 dated 28.9.2007 w.e.f. 5.10.2007. The contention of the Petitioner that he

could not attend duties during the said period due to poor health and was not supported by any valid documentary

evidence nor he has taken treatment in any of the Colliery dispensaries, Area hospitals or at Main Hospital,

Kothagudem. It is submitted that there is a provision in the Respondent’s company that an option will be given to the

dependant of the deceased/medical unfit employees either to opt for a lumpsum payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs in lieu of

dependant employment or MMC(Monthly Monetary Compensation), but the Petitioner sought for dependant

employment and accordingly he was appointed as Floating Badli worker on 5.8.2004 on compassionate grounds.

Therefore, the question of payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs does not arise in this case. More over, the Petitioner was given full

and fair opportunity to defend his case during the course of enquiry. It is further submitted that subsistence allowance

will be paid only to the employees who are under suspension during the course of enquiry, but the Petitioner was not

suspended but dismissed from services, hence, the question of payment of subsistence allowance during the course of

enquiry does not arise. Further, the Petitioner was counselled on 3.5.2007 and he has given an assurance in writing that

henceforth he would perform his duties regularly and requested to excuse his mistake. But, he continued to remain

absent unauthorizedly and finally the Respondent was constrained to terminate his services on proved charges of

absenteeism. It is also stated that due to unauthorized absenteeism the work to be performed gets affected, and already

planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. As such, the Respondent is compelled to take severe

action against the unauthorised absentees. Hence, the petition be dismissed as devoid of merits.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case held as legal and valid vide order dated 28.7.2011 as it

was not challenged.

The Petitioner has filed his written notes of arguments and it has been considered. No arguments advanced

from the side of the Respondent challenging the claim of the Petitioner.

The points for consideration are:-

Whether the action of the Respondent management in dismissing Sri

K. Sadanandam, Badli Filler,

from service on 5.10.2007 is legal and justified?

II.

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

Point Nos.1 & II: As per the averments made by the Petitioner in para 3 of the claim statement that he had

put in 50 musters in the year 2004, 93 musters in the year 2005, 49 musters in the year 2006 and 78 musters in the year

2007 but Respondent No.2 terminated the services of the Petitioner on 5.10.2007. The Respondents though have not

denied the averments made in para 3 of the claim statement, stated that the Petitioner had put in 49 musters in the year

2004, 93 musters in the year 2005, 42 musters in the year 2006 and 43 musters in the year 2007 upto the month of

May, 2007. As per the allegation of the Respondents as the Petitioner did not put in minimum musters of 100 days per

year he was chargesheeted, but the Petitioner workman submitted his explanation stating that due to his ill-health he

could not be able to improve his musters in the year 2006.

Admittedly, the Respondents issued chargesheet against the Petitioner for his absenteeism in the year 2006 but

in fact the Petitioner has improved his musters in the previous subsequent years and even in the year 2007 he has put in

78 musters till his removal from service. Even though the Petitioner joined in service on 5.8.2004, he has put in 50

musters during that year. Only because Petitioner has not put in sufficient musters in the year 2006 chargesheet was

issued against him on 19.2.2007 for his absence from duty during the period from 1.1.2006 o 31.12.2006. The

Petitioner found absent unauthorizedly during the chargesheeted year but during the time of such absence he could not

have taken any kind of leave. Standing Order No.25(25) of the Respondents provides that, “habitual late absence or

habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause” amounts to misconduct, it may be without sufficient cause.

Now, it is to be seen whether there was any sufficient cause for the absence of the Petitioner from duty or not. It is

the plea of the Petitioner that due to his illness he could not be able to attend his duties and put in sufficient musters in

the year 2006. The Petitioner alleged that even though he has joined at the end of the 3^rd quarter of the year 2004, he

has put in 50 musters during that year and also put in 93 musters in the year 2005. But due to his illness he could not

put in sufficient musters in the year 2006 and after recovery, he has put in 78 musters in the year 2007. It is further

stated that even though he has requested the Respondents to improve musters in future, the Respondents did not listen

to him and removed him from service. When the workman has consistently taken the plea that due to his illness he was

unable to improve his musters in the year 2006, the Management should have considered such plea. Admittedly the

Petitioner was appointed after the death of his father on compassionate grounds and has joined in the Respondent’s

management at the age of about 25 years. Though the Petitioner has claimed that due to his illness he could not

improve his musters but he has not submitted any document showing his illness for which the Respondents did not

consider his case and awarded the punishment of dismissal. No doubt, working in the mines is very hazardous and

when a young man is appointed in such a work, it would take sometime to adjust himself in the work. When a new

work is given, it would become difficult on his part to manage himself in the working condition. In the instant case

3028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

when the Petitioner has improved his musters in the subsequent years i.e., after chargesheeted year the Respondent

should have considered his case sympathetically, but on the other hand the Respondents have imposed the gravest

punishment without considering the plight of the workman and his family members when the father of the Petitioner

died after rendering 20 years of service in their management. The materials available on record clearly indicates that

the father of the workman has put in long service of 20 years in the Respondent’s company and his son being

appointed on compassionate ground at a young age has only worked 3 to 4 years in their organization and only due to

his illness when he failed to improve sufficient musters in a particular year, his case has not been considered. Further

more, the workman is consistently stating that if an opportunity will be given, he will work under the Management

regularly, and due to the removal of service he is now on roads and his family members are suffering a lot which

clearly shows that the workman has already realised his mistake and he will work under the Management regularly in

future. It is not the plea of the Respondent that the workman was a habitual offender of misconduct or there was any

previous occasion of imposing punishment against him. As because the workman was not regular in his duty in a year,

his action amounts to misconduct under the Company’s Standing Order No.25(25). This is the first and the only

instance of misconduct for which the Respondents were prompted to initiate the proceeding and conducted the enquiry

and lastly imposed capital punishment. While imposing capital punishment, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have

seen that the workman has not been imposed any penalty prior to such order. Admittedly, dismissal from service is a

gravest punishment. So far as the service juris Prudence is concerned, the charge alleged against the Petitioner was not

that of theft, assault or misappropriation of Company’s funds which shall amount to capital punishment like dismissal

from service. In this case due to illness the Petitioner could not be regular in his duties in the year 2006, but in the

previous year and subsequent year the Petitioner has made his musters. The Petitioner was not imposed a penalty for

any misconduct previously, but for the very first event of this nature the gravest possible punishment applicable in the

Standing Order, ie., dismissal from service has been awarded to the Petitioner.

The Management has contended that the musters put in by the Petitioner during the previous year to the

chargesheeted period have not been taken note while awarding the punishment, but such action of the Management is

not proper and reasonable. The past record becomes relevant while awarding the punishment which is a previously

proven misconduct, but not the allegation only which was merely met without giving an opportunity to the workman to

improve in future. As already discussed above there is no proven misconduct on the part of the workman to impose

such a capital punishment at the first instance.

10.

The allegation regarding putting in less musters in a year has compelled the Management to issue chargesheet

against the Petitioner, who had been employed on compassionate grounds. The Respondents have stated that on

2.6.2007 the Petitioner submitted his representation requesting to give him another opportunity to improve himself

assuring that he will put up 20 actual musters in every month, but he did not raise any objection against the findings of

the Enquiry Officer. But the Respondents without considering the grievance of the Petitioner has imposed the gravest

punishment as he has not raised any objection to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has

not considered the family condition as well as the previous conduct and the request of the Petitioner and without

considering the above has awarded the capital punishment which is not at all reasonable and proper.

11.

In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the

workman is guilty of misconduct under Standing Orders No.25(25) and is liable for gravest punishment is not

acceptable and further it is to be held that the punishment awarded to the workman is grossly disproportionate to the

proven misconduct. Thus, the action of the Respondent Management i.e., M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

in terminating the service of Sri K. Sadanandam w.e.f. 5.10.2007 is held as neither legal nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

12.

Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the impugned order of dismissal from service of the

workman is to be set aside. As this is a case of unauthorized absenteeism, as the workman has not made sufficient

musters and was found absent unauthorizedly, without taking either any leave or permission from his higher authorities,

the workman is to be awarded an appropriate punishment of such lapse only. But as already stated above while

deciding Point No.I, awarding punishment of dismissal from service in the very first instance of misconduct is not

reasonable. Hence, withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect is reasonable punishment to be

awarded to the workman for the lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his absence and without taking

permission remained absent from duty. Hence, withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect is

reasonable punishment to be awarded to the workman for his lapse of not informing his superiors regarding his

absence from duty.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result:

In view of the fore gone discussion, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the workman Sri K. Sadanandam

into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without back wages, and the impugned order

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3029

No.SRP/PER/13.008/4743 dated 28.9.2007 is held as illegal and arbitrary and hereby set aside. Instead the workman

shall be ordered with a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 13^th

day of June, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1385-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@32@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ICICI Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/32/2011-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4^th day of February, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2011

Between :

Smt. K. Balamani,

W/o Late K. Swamy,

Sweeper/Helper,

C/o 6-1-119/5,

Padma Rao Nagar,

Secunderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Karkhana Branch,

Secunderabad

…Respondent

3030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. C. Suryanrayana Rao, C. Sridhar, C. Chakradhar & G. Krishna Kishore,

Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. C. R. Sridharan, G. Narender Reddy, S. Ramesh, M. Srinivas Reddy, P.V.

Durga Prasad, G.V.S.Ganesh & M. Sreehari, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/32/2011-IR(B-I) dated 4.7.2011

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of ICICI Bank Ltd., Karkhana Branch and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ICICI Bank Ltd., Karkhana Branch, Hyderabad in terminating the

services of Smt. K. Balamani W/o Late K. Swami, w.e.f. 11.8.2010, is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.30/2011 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

Pursuant to the notice, the Petitioner appeared and filed claim statement. The Petitioner workman raised

dispute against the Respondent for her illegal termination and prayed this Tribunal to direct the Respondents to

reinstate her into service with full back wages and continuity of her service, all attendant benefits with interest at 12%

p.a. on the back wages and exemplary costs.

Respondents appeared and filed their counter.

During the course of hearing of the industrial dispute, on 4.2.2016, both the parties appeared and filed one

Memorandum of Settlement stating therein that the matter has been settled between the parties and the Petitioner

workman has received her terminal benefits for her service towards full and final settlement.

In view of the settlement, the management has paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the workman vide Demand

Draft No. 501423 dated 29.1.2016 drawn on ICICI Bank, Karkhana Branch, Secunderabad, to which the Petitioner

workman has acknowledged.

In view of the aforesaid settlement reached between the parties, the dispute between the parties was settled.

The Memorandum of Settlement entered into Under Sec.18(1) read with Sec.2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

clearly indicates that the dispute between the parties has already been settled and as such there is no dispute between

parties. Thus, the Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties is accepted. The case is disposed of accordingly.

Hence, no dispute Award is passed.

The reference is answered accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 4^th day

of February, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3031

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1386-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@29@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ICICI Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/29/2010-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/16/2011

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sanghathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engineering College,

Ujjain

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

ICICI Bank,C-3, Sardar Patel Marg,

Jaipur, Rajasthan

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29^th day of January 2016

As per letter dated 4-3-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

12011/29/2010-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Rajasthan Limited , Indore in not paying wages equal to

the regular employee from March 96 to 15-1-2005 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Secretary of Daily Wage Bank Employees union

submitted statement of claim on behalf of workman Ramchandra. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as

peon by Branch Manager Shri R.G.Gatani of Shamgarh branch from April 1998. Workman was working for 8 hours

every day. He completed more than 240 days during 1998 to February 2008. When workman claimed pay scale of

regular employee, his services were terminated in violation of section 25-F of ID Act. he was not paid retrenchment

compensation or pay in lieu of notice. The dispute pertaining to termination of his service was pending before RLC

Bhopal in conciliation proceeding. Workman submits that he was not paid wages/ pay scale as per Bipartite Settlement.

That as per Para 5 to 8 of Sastry award, he is eligible for scale wages as per the bipartite settlement. That violation of

bipartite settlement is punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. On such ground, workman claims difference of wages

as per the bipartite settlement without mentioning the amount.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. preliminary objection was separately filed

that the terms of reference is not proper. The name of workman is not mentioned in the order of reference therefore the

reference cannot be adjudicated. In written Statement filed by management, above contentions have been raised. As

name of workman is not mentioned in the order of reference, his claim for difference of wages as per the bipartite

3032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

agreement could not be decided. The reference is not tenable. The daily wage employees engaged in the Bank for

cleaning, sweeping etc work are engaged on contract as casual employees. They used to work for 30-40 minutes in the

morning. That Shri Ram Nawanshi so called Union secretary was dismissed employee of the Bank is not competent to

raise the dispute. Ratio held in different cases is relied on the point. Statement of claim submitted by Ist party doesnot

raise dispute under Section 2K of ID Act. The reference deserves to be rejected. In the statement of claim submitted

by Ist party Union, period is mentioned 1998 to 2008 whereas in the order of reference, the period is mentioned 1998

to 15-1-2005. The order of reference and statement of claim are not consistent. The workman Ramchandra was

working as security guard in the Bank from June 2005. He was doing cleaning, sweeping work for 30-40 minutes. Said

workman was not working for 8 hours claimed by him. Shri Ramchandra was working on pay role of top security Ltd.

he was not appointed by Bank of Rajasthan. He is not eligible for any relief.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Bank

of Rajasthan Limited , Indore in not paying wages

equal to the regular employee from March 96 to

15-1-2005 is legal and justified?

Reference is defective, it cannot be adjudicated.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Workman is claiming difference of wages. Statement of claim is filed by Union. In statement of claim, name

of workman is shown as Ramchandra. As pointed out in argument, name of workman is not mentioned in the order of

reference. Reference order appears defective in absence of name of workman in reference order. The claim of Shri

Ramchandra shown in statement of claim could not be decided. Workman Ramchandra filed affidavit of evidence but

he did not appear for cross-examination rather Union Secretary Ram Nagwanshi submitted that workman doesnot want

to adduce evidence.

Management filed affidavit of evidence Sristi Priya supporting contentions of management in Written

Statement about name of workman is not mentioned in order of reference. The daily wage employees engaged in the

bank for cleaning work was working for 30-40 minutes in the morning. Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary is a dismissed

employee of the Bank is not competent to raise dispute. In her cross-examination, management’s witness says she was

not posted in Shamgarh branch from 1998 to 2008. She has not seen any documents pertaining to the service of Ist

party workman. she had not discussed about the matter with Branch Manager working during the relevant period. The

old documents were destroyed. She claims ignorance about working days of workman or workman was paid skill based

wages. Exhibit W-1 admitted by management is notice dated 23-9-98 inviting applications from temporary employees

for absorption who had worked for 180 days as part time employee or 80 days full time employee. Said document is not

irrelevant for deciding the claim of Ist party pertaining to the difference of wages. The zerox copies of documents about

payment of wages are denied by the management. workman has not appeared for cross-examination. Those documents

are not proved by valid evidence. Exhibit W-2 admitted by management is interview call issued to workman Shri

Ramchandra. Workman was called for interview on 15-4-98. Exhibit W-3 is copy of the written argument submitted

before RLC, Bhopal. Management had contented that Shri Ramchandra T.No.5058 was working through M/S Top

Securities during June 05 to Feb08. It is subsequent to the period of engagement mentioned in the order of reference

March 96 to 15-1-2005. Exhibit W-4 is certificate issued by Top security Ltd. workman was on its pay from June 05 to

Feb-08 subsequent period. Document Exhibit W-3 & 4 are not relevant for deciding claim for difference of wages.

Exhibit W-5 is copy of Section 29 of ID Act. evidence on record cannot establish claim of workman Shri

Ramchandra. His name is not mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 that

order of reference is defective.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Claim under reference could not be decided as the order of reference is defective.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3033

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1387-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@92@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

HDFC Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2016.

[No. L-12012/92/2009-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. 88/2010

Registered on 10.12.2010

Sh. Gurmit Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o H.No.589,

Village Maloya, U.T., Chandigarh

…Applicant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank (Formally know as Centurion Bank of Punjab),

Modern Centre ‘C’ Wingh Ground Floor, Sh. Guruji Marg,

Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011, Through its Managing Director.

2. HDFC Bank situated at SCO No.46-47, Sector 9-D,

Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3. HDFC Bank situated at SCO No.46-47, Sector 9-D,

Chandigarh, through its Zonal Manager

…Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Amit Rishi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:- 18.03.2016

Vide Order No.L-12012/92/2009-IR(B-I), dated 30.11.2010, the Central Government in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of Centurion Bank of Punjab(Now HDFC Bank) in terminating the

service of Sh. Gurmeet Singh w.e.f. 1.9.2005 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

In response, the workman submitted statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as Driver on

17.11.1995 and was deputed to work at Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. His salary was Rs.3500/- per month. His services were

illegally terminated on 1.9.2005 without serving any notice and without paying him any retrenchment compensation. It

3034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is further pleaded that the persons junior to him were retained in service as well as fresh appointments were made after

the termination of his service. Thus, the termination of his services is illegal and he be reinstated in service.

The respondent-management filed written reply controverting the averments and denied that the workman was

ever employed by it. It is pleaded that workman was the personal driver of Sh. Sarbjit Singh, Ex-MD of Bank of

Punjab, who used to pay him salary and the bank did not pay him salary.

Since the workman was not employed by the respondent-management, his services were not terminated by it.

Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence.

In support of his case, the workman appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, who filed his affidavit

supporting the stand of the respondent-management.

I have heard Sh. Sanjay Kumar for the workman and Sh. Amit Rishi for the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman had been working as Driver since the

year 1995 and his services were terminated on 1.9.2005without paying him any retrenchment compensation, as well

persons junior to the workman were retained in service and even management appoint new Drivers after the

termination of the services of the workman; and as such, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal.

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel.

It may be added at the outset that workman claims that he was appointed by the respondent-management on

17.11.1995 and he performed the duty of the Driver till 1.9.2005. The workman has deposed while appearing in the

witness-box that no appointment letter was issued to him. In the absence of any appointment letter, it cannot be said

that the workman was ever engaged by the respondent-management. Again there is nothing on the file to suggest that

any rules and regulations were followed while appointing the workman as Driver. Workman has stated that he was

getting salary from the bank but, there is no evidence on the file to show that he ever received the salary from the bank,

though, according to him, he was working with the respondent-bank from 1995 to 2005.

Rajesh Bhatia, examined by the respondent-management has specifically stated that as per record, the bank

did not pay any salary to the workman. When the workman did not receive any salary from the bank during all these

years, it cannot be said that he was ever engaged by the Bank.

There is no other cogent evidence on the file to prove that the workman was ever employed by the bank. Thus,

it is not proved on the file that there is a relationship of employers and employee between the management and the

workman and when it is so, it cannot be said that his services were terminated by the bank as alleged.

In result, the reference is decided against the workman and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1388-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

vkWiQ gSnjkckn 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 91@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2016.

[No. L-12025/01/2016-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3035

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 21^st day of April, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 91/2007

Between:

Sri M. Nageswara Rao,

S/o Late M. Suryanarayana Murthy,

R/o Plot No.54, Road No.3,

Sri Sai Nagar Colony,

Nagole, Hyderabad – 500 068

…Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

(Disciplinary Authority),

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Region-II, Secunderabad Zonal Office,

Begumpet, Hyderabad.

The Deputy General Manager,

(Appellate Authority),

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Secunderabad Zonal Office,

Begumpet, Hyderabad

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri G.V.L.N. Murthy, Advocate

For the Respondent

Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri M. Nageswara Rao, who was working as a Data Entry Computer Operator (DECO) has filed this petition

against the Respondents seeking for declaring the impugned order dated 23.3.2004 issued by the Respondent No.1 and

also the 2^nd Respondent’s order dated 27.3.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the

Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of

service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

Petitioner has made averments in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner workman was appointed as a Clerk cum Cashier in the year 1980 in the Respondent’s bank and

subsequently he was made Data Entry Computer Operator (DECO)and posted at Habsiguda branch. In the year 2003,

the workman while working at NGRI Extension counter some financial irregularity came into light and the

Respondent’s officials plotted to throw the entire liability on the Petitioner and tried to make him the scape goat for

the wrongs/offences with which the Petitioner was not at all concerned. The Respondents lodged FIR at Uppal Police

Station against the Petitioner and Police took the same vide FRI No.158/2003 for the offences U/ss. 420 & 409 of IPC.

The officials of Respondent and Police started a hunt for the Petitioner. The Petitioner being innocent, scared of the

disrepute in the society and harassment by the Police, went away in search of mental peace. After some time, the

Petitioner realized that he had no other way except to surrender before the police and to establish his innocence before

the Court of Law. Accordingly, the Petitioner surrendered himself to Uppal Police Station and he was under Judicial

Custody till he was acquitted by the Court and released from Judicial Custody on 9.6.2005 by the Hon’ble

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, from the Criminal Case No. 30/2005. The Petitioner was under

the impression that he might have been suspended due to filing of criminal Case and being remanded to Judicial

Custody. After his acquittal by the Court the Petitioner submitted a representation to 2^nd Respondent on 21.6.2005.

But in reply the 2^nd Respondent in his letter dated 26.7.2005 made it clear that the Petitioner was dismissed from

service basing upon a Disciplinary Enquiry and not on any Police case. The entire proceeding was conducted in

absence of the Petitioner and behind his back. Then the Petitioner vide his letter dated 13.8.2005 requested the first

Respondent to supply all documents relevant to the Disciplinary Proceedings and for payment of subsistence

3036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

allowance for the period of his suspension. All the documents relating to the Disciplinary Proceedings were supplied

to the Petitioner vide letter No.F/GRVII/DP/8194 dated 3.11.2006 after an abnormal delay. But subsistence allowance

paid to the Petitioner. from the charge sheet dated 17.9.2003 and subsequently the Petitioner came to know that three

charges have been framed against him.

“Charge Nos.1to 3:

While working as DECO at NGRI extension counter under Habsiguda Branch from

November, 1999 to 6.3.2003 CSE alleged to have committed certain serious acts of gross misconduct under the para

5 D & J of MOS dated 10.4.2002/Bipartite Settlement.”

The Petitioner alleged that as per the contention of the Respondents due to the above alleged serious acts of

misconducts the Respondent bank incurred a loss to the extent of Rs.17.62 lakhs and also placed the image/interest of

the Bank in Jeopardy. Therefore, the Respondents conducted an enquiry and after the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

held that charge Nos. 1 & 3 are proved and Charge No.2 was partially proved is highly erroneous which was based on

mere assumptions and the self serving statements of the concerned officers. In his finding the Enquiry Officer held that

certain fictitious entries of interest, credits and debits have been made by the Petitioner. This is an absolutely wrong

finding because the Enquiry Officer failed to see that the Petitioner was only a data entry operator and every entry

made by him had to be checked by not only the head of the Extension Counter but also the Chief Manager of the

branch. The allegation that the Petitioner made the entries without vouchers or other instruments is absolutely false

which was fabricated against the Petitioner to shift the entire irregularity on the Petitioner and to save the real culprits.

The other fact that the Petitioner being a simple data entry operator can not even enter the data pertaining to

transactions of amounts more than ten thousand rupees was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. Entry of any

amount in excess of Rs.10,000/- has to be compulsorily authorized by the supervising officer on the computer.

During the course of enquiry all the officers clearly deposed that none of them have given their ID/Password to the

Petitioner and it was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. So making false or fictitious entries by the Petitioner is

impossible and impracticable. The other allegations that the Petitioner obtained hand loans from NGRI employees and

he lived beyond his means are baseless and false. The Petitioner further submitted that on the same and similar

allegations, Respondent No.1 has lodged complaint before the Police, at Uppal Police Station on which C.C.

No.30/2005 for offences under Ss. 420 & 409 IPC was registered and after trial, the III Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar acquitted the Petitioner. During the course of trial several officers of the Respondent’s

bank and third party complainants were examined. The Learned Magistrate, in his judgement dated 9.6.2005 while

acquitting the Petitioner from the charges observed the following reproducing the statement of the witnesses:

“PW4 categorically admitted that without the permission of the Officer, the accused cannot transact for more

than Rs.10,000/-. For every withdrawal of the amount more than Rs.10,000/- the officer has to authorize the

transaction. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 is crystal clear that without the permission or co-operation or

what so ever of the Manager of the Bank, the accused who was a Data Entry Computer Operator ca not

fraudulently transfer any amount form one account to another(Para 12). No one has been examined who gave

cash to the accused for depositing in their account. There is no evidence in respect of this allegation against

the accused. (Para 14). For the mistakes and wrongs committed by other, the accused alone can not be

blamed. …… No such customer or depositor has been examined in this context and since no complaint has

been received by the bank, the accused can not be blamed. (Para 15). ……This court is of the firm view that

there is no cogent, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the accused fraudulently transferred amounts

from one account to another and cheated the bank and committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. (Para

16).

It is also submitted that though the allegation of fraud is concerned with a huge amount of money, no other

employee except the Petitioner was made liable. Even though the Petitioner did not commit any misconduct

Respondent made him scape goat for sheltering other staff that might have been responsible for the irregularities or

fraud. It is further submitted that in the ex-parte departmental enquiry conducted against the Petitioner the Enquiry

Officer failed to cross examine the management witness and to elicit the truth but simply recorded their statement

given in favour of the management and against the Petitioner. Therefore, the domestic enquiry conducted by the

Respondent management is a farce and empty formality in violation of the principles of natural justice. Causing great

injustice to the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Respondent by filing a false criminal case and inflicting

punishment of wrongful dismissal against the Petitioner, was unnecessarily put to immense financial hardship to him

besides a lot of mental agony and social degradation. Even though the Petitioner was ultimately acquitted on merits

from criminal case, he was made to suffer for a considerably long period as remand prisoner and forced to be out of

employment without his fault. It is also stated that the Petitioner was also kept under suspension from 28.3.2003 till he

was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2004. Though the Petitioner was entitled for payment of subsistence allowance

for the above said period, the Respondents did not respond to his request and did not pay any amount towards

subsistence allowance till date. Under the above circumstances the Petitioner submits to set aside the impugned order

dated 23.3.2004 passed by the first Respondent and the order dated 27.3.2007 passed by the second Respondent and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3037

to pass an award directing the Respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all attendant

benefits and full back wages etc.

The Respondents filed counter statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The Respondents in their counter while denying each and every allegations of the Petitioner made in the claim

statement challenged the case of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner is required to prove each and every allegation

made against him. In toto the Respondents submitted that the claim statement filed by the Petitioner is not

maintainable either in law or in facts. The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner while working in the

Respondents’ bank as a Data Entry Computer Operator at NGRI Extension counter, Habsiguda branch committed

grave misconduct and financial irregularity. He was issued with memo calling for the explanation dated 28.3.2003

and he was kept under suspension. At the same time the Respondent bank lodged a complaint before the Police of

Uppal Police Station against the Petitioner by filing FIR No.158/2003 for the offences under Section 420 and 409 of

IPC. The Petitioner was found absconding for long time and finally he was nabbed by the police and was sent to

judicial custody. As the Petitioner failed to submit his explanation he was issued with the charge sheet dated 17.9.2003

for the gross misconduct committed by him under the provisions of the bi-partite settlement. The allegations made by

the Petitioner that Police complaint was given against him to make him scape goat and the Respondents’ officials

plotted to throw the entire liability on the Petitioner are utterly false and baseless. It is further stated that the

Petitioner was suspended from service vide letter dated 28.3.2003 and he was issued with the charge sheet dated

17.9.2003. All the notices were sent to the Petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due which were

returned as the applicant had absconded. Thereafter, the Respondents bank appointed Sri V. Basava Raju as the

Enquiry Officer and Sri G.Srinivas, Officer in MMG II to present the case of the management before the Enquiry

Officer. The Enquiry Officer has also sent all the day to day proceedings to the Petitioner’s last known address and

they were also returned undelivered with ‘the endorsement “not claimed” “person out of station”, addressee 7 days

absent”, hence returned to the sender etc.. The Enquiry Officer fixed the preliminary enquiry on 23.10.2003 and sent

the notice by RPAD dated 13.10.2003 which was returned unclaimed. Thereafter notice was also published in the

Indian Express Daily News Paper dated 10.10.2003. As the Petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on

23.10.2003, the enquiry was adjourned to 11.11.2003 and again notice was issued by paper publication in Indian

Express dated 28.10.2003. Inspite of taking cohesive attempt to procure the attendance of the Petitioner as the

Petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was held ex-parte from 11.11.2003 to 13.11.2003 and

8.12.2003 and 9.12.2003. In the enquiry, the management has examined 15 witnesses and marked Ex. Mex.1 to

Mex.29. It is also submitted that as the applicant has inserted some spurious entries in the statement called “vouchers

received from the main branch” and fictitious entries were made in the computer by using his ID and committed

fraud and misappropriated the funds of the bank. Petitioner was issued with the charge sheet dated 17.9.2003

containing three charges and due to the serious act of misconduct the Respondents’ bank incurred a loss of Rs.17.62

lakhs and also placed the image/interest of the bank in jeopardy. The Enquiry Officer after considering the evidences,

oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner by using his password and making the entries in

several accounts without supporting vouchers or instruments and finally embezzled the amounts as stated in the

chargesheet. He has also increased the amounts in the extension counter under the columns “vouchers received from

main branch” and afforded fictitious credits to some accounts and misappropriated the funds. Even though the

Petitioner has no authority to enter the data exceeding Rs.10,000/- he has used his ID unauthorizedly and made false

and fictitious entries and taken the money from the bank. It is also stated that acquittal in the criminal case is not a bar

for proceeding in the departmental enquiry or after an employee is dismissed in departmental enquiry he has no right

to claim reinstatement on the ground that he is acquitted by the Criminal Court. It is also stated that as the Petitioner

was absconded and did not participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the departmental

enquiry as per the laid down practice and procedure by issuing notice by RPAD and also by publishing in daily news

paper. The failure of the Petitioner attending the enquiry can not be attributed to the bank and the Petitioner can not

claim that principles of natural justice were violated. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.1 and

3 were fully proved and charge No.2 was partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority after verifying the findings of

the Enquiry Officer passed the order of dismissal from service treating the period of suspension as off duty. Even

though the Petitioner preferred the appeal, the Appellate Authority was also after going through the materials placed

before him confirmed the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. As the punishment awarded

was dismissal form bank’s service, treating the suspension period as off duty, the Petitioner was not liable for any

allowance, other than the subsistence allowance which is already paid. Therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible for

any subsistence allowance as alleged by him as the enquiry was conducted fairly and reasonably following the

procedure in vogue and the principals of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Respondent is a public sector

bank dealing with public funds. The employees who are working in the bank shall work not only diligently but with

due integrity. The dishonest and fraudulent persons do not have a place to work in the organisation like the

Respondent bank which is dealing with the public funds. Misappropriation of the funds in the bank is not an

ordinary misconduct which needs any kind of sympathy for the employees. The Respondents further submitted that

3038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Apex Court in several cases have observed that the dishonest employees who commit misconduct shall not be

shown any sympathy and they are liable to be dismissed from service. Therefore, the punishment awarded against the

Petitioner is appropriate and he is not entitled for any kind of reinstatement. It is further stated that the enquiry was

held in accordance with the procedure prescribed and under the provisions of the bi-partite settlement. The Petitioner

was given ample opportunity which he has failed to avail. At no point of time the principles of natural justice have

been violated while conducting the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is

liable to be dismissed.

The Learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a memo stating not to challenge the validity of the departmental

enquiry conducted by the Respondent management. In the light of the memo, on 23.11.2011 the departmental enquiry

conducted by the Respondent management is held as legal and valid.

Both the parties advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written

arguments have also been filed by the parties and it has been taken into consideration.

As per the pleadings of both the parties, the following points are to be considered:-

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, in passing dismissal order against the

Petitioner Sri M. Nageswara Rao is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

Point No.I : The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a mere DECO, but as

some financial irregularities came into light, the Respondent management plotted to throw the entire liability on the

Petitioner and tried to make him a scape goat for the wrongs with which the Petitioner was not at all concerned. The

Respondents framed charges against the Petitioner who did not have any explanation to the charges and behind the

back of the Petitioner an enquiry was conducted and in that enquiry without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to

cross examine the management witnesses the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges and suggested to

impose punishment and the Disciplinary Authority without verifying all the materials in detail passed the punishment

of dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The Respondents had also lodged a complaint before the Police of Uppal

Police Station which was registered vide FIR No.158/2003 for the offence under Section 420 and 409 of the IPC.

Police arrested the Petitioner, remanded him to judicial custody for a long period. The III Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar after conducting regular trial acquitted the Petitioner from the charges and the Petitioner

was proved to be an innocent person. From the charges levelled against the Petitioner, it was crystal clear to the mind

of the court that the Petitioner being a DECO can not alone commit the offence. The allegation of the Respondents is

that the Petitioner has committed certain serious acts of misconduct causing damage to the reputation of the bank and

also was prejudiced to the interest of the bank. It is also alleged that the Petitioner has made some wrong entries in the

accounts of others causing financial loss to them and by committing some manipulations he has also misappropriated

the bank’s money causing a loss of Rs.17.62 lakhs. But in the case at hand the Disciplinary Authority has conducted

the enquiry ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the management witnesses. In

the criminal case the Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the judgement has observed that the accused

Petitioner is an innocent person and no cogent and satisfactory evidence was established by the Respondent to hold

the accused/Petitioner guilty of the charges. Moreover, even though the Petitioner was put to suspension the

Petitioner was not given subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension and without any fault of his the

Petitioner has been dismissed from service. He submitted to reinstate the Petitioner into service and allow the

Petitioner to get back all his back wages. He also fairly submitted that the Petitioner has already attained the age of

superannuation. So, the question of reinstatement of the Petitioner in service does not arise. Only the Petitioner is

entitled to get all the attendant benefits and full back wages. The order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner is to

be set aside and order be passed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all his attendant benefits and back wages.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent management is a

public sector bank dealing with public funds. The employees who are working in the bank shall work not only

diligently but also with due integrity. The dishonest and fraudulent persons do not have a place to work in the

organisation like the Respondents’ bank which is dealing with the public funds. The misappropriation of the funds

in the bank is not an ordinary misconduct which needs any kind of sympathy for the employees. The Petitioner being

a DECO has misappropriated public funds and due to the misconduct of the Petitioner the bank has to suffer a loss of

Rs.17.62 lakhs and for the afore said misconduct chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner and enquiry was conducted.

But even though several opportunities were given to the Petitioner to attend the enquiry, the Petitioner intentionally did

not attend the enquiry and gave no explanation. The Enquiry Officer after verifying all the materials available before

him closed the enquiry and submitted the report. Wherein the Petitioner was found guilty and the Enquiry Officer

suggested punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The Disciplinary Authority after verifying the

enquiry report passed the order of dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner made an appeal before the

Appellate Authority, but it was rejected. Even though the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, he is not

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3039

liable for reinstatement in the service. Since the punishment awarded was dismissal from service, treating the

suspension period as off duty, the Petitioner is not eligible for any allowance other than the subsistence allowance.

Moreover, even if the Petitioner was acquitted by the court from the criminal charges by judgement dated 9.6.2005 but

acquittal in a criminal case has no bar to the provisions under the departmental enquiry or if the employee is

dismissed in the departmental enquiry he has no right to claim reinstatement on the ground that he was acquitted by

the Criminal Court. In this regard law is well settled, “that acquittal in a Criminal Case is not a bar for proceeding in

the Departmental Enquiry.” Since the Petitioner has misappropriated huge amount of public funds, the Respondents

have rightly passed the order of dismissal of service against the Petitioner. He submitted for dismissal of the claim of

the Petitioner with exemplary costs.

On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides and on perusal of the materials available on record

it is seen that the Petitioner was a mere DECO and every entry made by him had to be checked not only by the Head of

the Extension Counter but also by the Chief Manger of the Bank. The allegation of the Respondents that the Petitioner

has made the entries without vouchers or for the instruments which can not be accepted. More over, the Petitioner

being a DECO can not even enter data pertaining to transaction of amount more than Rs.10,000/- and entries of amount

of more than Rs.10000/- had to be compulsorily authorised on the computer by the supervising officer to which the

Petitioner has violated and by doing such entry, the Petitioner has manipulated the bank account by causing a huge

amount of loss to the bank. Thus, in the circumstances, as stated above, when the Petitioner has no authority to make

any entry for more than Rs.10,000/-, how entries of more than Rs.10000/- was made by the Petitioner when it

requires the permission of the supervising officer, and also while making the entry who had given permission to the

Petitioner. So when the Petitioner had made the entries somebody might have given the permission. Therefore, in such

circumstances, how the Petitioner was solely responsible for the entries made in respect of huge amount of money,

when permission for entry of an amount of more than Rs.10000/- is required. So, if any misappropriation has been

made in the accounts of the bank it has been done with the collusion of other employees of the bank and a single man

like the Petitioner who was a mere DECO can not alone do it. In this regard the stand taken by the Petitioner that in

order to shift the entire liability on him, the Respondent officials plotted to throw the entire liability on him and tried

to make him the scape goat for the wrongs committed by others with which the Petitioner was not at all concerned,

can not be thrown out. Further more, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his judgement, while dealing with the

evidence of PW4, a so-called employee of the bank, have also observed that “without the permission or co-operation

or what so ever of the Manager of the Bank, the accused(Petitioner) who was a Data Entry Computer Operator can not

fraudulently transfer balance for any amount from one account to other.” The court has also observed that, “No one

has been examined who gave cash to the accused for depositing in their account. There is no evidence in respect of this

allegation against the accused/Petitioner for the misconduct and wrong committed by the Petitioner and the

accused/Petitioner alone can not be blamed.” In such a case, customer or depositor has to be examined in this context

and since no complaint has been received by the bank, the accused(Petitioner) can not be blamed. The court has

already held that there is no cogent, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the accused fraudulently

misappropriated the amount from the accounts of the bank, i.e., from one account to another, and cheated the bank by

committing offence of criminal breach of trust. The above observation of the court clearly proves that one innocent

DECO has been falsely booked in a criminal case and suffered a lot. No doubt, the domestic enquiry has been

conducted ex-parte. During the time of the departmental enquiry as the Petitioner was booked in a criminal case,

the Petitioner could not get any chance to cross examine the management witnesses. If the management witnesses

would have been cross examined by the Petitioner the real truth could have been brought to light. Only basing on

ex-parte enquiry, the Petitioner has been held guilty of the charges of misconduct. In fact, without any fault of the

Petitioner he has been given the punishment of dismissal from service. Thus, in such circumstances, the action taken

by the Management against the Petitioner is not legal and justified and as such the Petitioner is eligible to be reinstated

into service and the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent Management is liable to be set aside.

This point is answered accordingly.

10.

Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent vide

order dated 23.3.2004 is liable to be set aside. It is seen that at the time of filing of the claim petition , the Petitioner

was aged about 51 years. Now, the Petitioner is over-aged and has already lost the opportunity to serve in the

Respondents’ bank. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also clearly submitted that the

Petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation , so the question of reinstatement into service does not arise.

Admittedly, Petitioner has not been given the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension, which he is

entitled to get. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get the subsistence allowance in respect of the period of his

suspension. Petitioner is also entitled to get all attendant benefits and 50% of back wages.

This point is answered accordingly.

3040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Result :

In the result, the petition is allowed. The action of the State Bank of Hyderabad in dismissing Sri M.

Nageswara Rao from services is illegal and arbitrary and the dismissal order is hereby set aside. As the Petitioner has

attained the age of superannuation, the question of reinstatement does not arise. He is entitled for subsistence

allowance for the period from 28.3.2003 till he was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2004. Sri M. Nageswara Rao is

also entitled to get all attendant benefits and 50% of back wages.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 21^st day of

April, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

WW1: Sri M. Nageswara Rao

MW1: NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1

Photostat copy of judgement of III MMC, LB Nagar, Hyderabad dt. 9.6.2005

Ex.W2

Photostat copy of judgement in CRC No. 987/2007 dt.25.7.2007

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1389-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vks,uthlh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-07-

2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@09@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/09/1996-IR (C-I)]

M. K. 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 17^th February,2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 50/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 16/1997

1. The Director (per.),

ONGC Ltd., Tel Bhavan,

Dehradun,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3041

2. The Regional Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

WRBC., Makarpura,

Baroda

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees’Union,

8, Samarpan Shopping Centre, Highway,

Mehsana

…Second Party

For the First Party:

Shri K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party:

C/o. ONGC Employees’ Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-30012/09/96-IR (C-I) dated 12.06.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC in not allowing additional increment as per their office

order No. 20(22)/81-EP dt. 15-4-1981 at the time of induction in steno Grade III to Sh. Babuji K. George and

52 others (as per list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?”

The reference dates back to 12.06.1997. First party ONGC moved an application (Ext.9) on 17.09.1998

requesting the Tribunal to frame and decide preliminary issue assuming that statements and averments mad in the

statement of claim by the second party union are true and correct. He has alleged that present reference not

maintainable in law because looking at the prayer in para 13 and contents reproduced in para 1 it is crystal clear

whether to grant additional increments to the stenographers is absolute discretion of the management and Promotions

Regulations( herein after we called as R&P Regulations for the sake of brevity). It is a matter of policy of the first party

corporation to consider granting of advance increment in deserving cases but no candidate can claim such benefits as a

matter of right. The corporation is granting such benefits only after recommendation of selection board, meaning

thereby the selection board is exercise such discretion only after considering performance. If performance is worth to

consider for such additional increments then only the selection board recommends for that otherwise not. Hence, it is

most respectfully submitted that to grant such increments or not is matter of policy of the corporation and in my

respectful submission, this Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in such policy matters. Hence, present

reference is required to be dismissed on this grounds only. He has further submitted that if any person or workman is

having any kind of certificate at the time of interview before selection Board and if such candidate fail to show

adequate performance for any reason whatsoever then in that circumstances, the selection Board will consider only

performance and not that certificate. It is also possible that the candidate may possess certificate of having 80 wpm

for shorthand and 30 wpm for typing words per minute, but if practice of that candidate is not continuous then

naturally his performance may not meet the requirement and satisfaction of the selection board. He has further

submitted the your honour may kindly have a look at the wordings of the office Order No20(22) 81 –EP dtd.15.4.1081

reproduced in the statement of claim which clearly shows that such increments will be granted based on performance

before the selection board and not based on certificates. Thus, the decision of making reference is suffering from non-

application of mind. No relief can be granted based on such averments made in statement of claims, because as it

appears the union is under impression that the concerned workmen are entitled for such increments base on

certificates. He has further submitted that the union is raising this issue afterlong lapse of time say about fourteen years.

The first party saysthat there was no communication and/or demands duringthese fourteen years. The corporation has

not given anypromise at any such letters/correspondence of representation along with the statement of claim. Thus,

present reference is suffering from gross delay and/latches. It is also pertinent to note that it is very difficult now

tosearch old documentsafter about fourteen years. Hence, the present reference is not bonafide but the same is malafide.

Therefore, the said reference is required to be rejected. He has further submitted that the union has not raised any fresh

demand but had only made prayer of implementation of the office order dtd. 15.4.1981, which is purely apolicy matter

which is based on discretion of selection board. There is no allegation of kind of biased, discrimination, and

arbitrariness against the first party. The present reference is pertaining to policy matter of the firstparty corporation and

therefore the same is not maintainable at law and the same is required to be rejected. In support of the application the

first party has submitted the copy of the office order No. 20(22) /81/EP dated 15.04.1981. The said order provides as

under:

3042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ It has been decided that while calling application to the posts of steno Grade III , a provision may be made

at the time of issue of an advertisement that higher remuneration would also be considered by granting

suitable number of advance increments in deserving cases to the selected candidates , based on good

performance in shorthand i.e. more than 80 W.P.M. and more than 30 W.P.M. in type writing speed as laid

down in R & P Regulation, 1980 for the post of Steno Grade III.”

Since, second party has been absent since last several dates and also not filed the reply to the aforesaid

application on the point of maintainability and the aforesaid office order bars the reference. Hence, reference is not

maintainable and dismissed.

The reference is dismissed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1390-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1392@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@119@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1392/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Swamy Stone Quarry and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

30.06.2016.

[No. L-29012/119/2001-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 2^nd February,2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1392/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 18/2002

At Chorwad Gaun,

Post Kikkakoi,

M/s. Swamy Stone Quarry,

Opp. Madal Bus Stand,

Tal KillaSongadh,

Dhuliya Rd, Dt. Surat

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. Navji Dhuliya,

C/o. Surat Labour Union,

At &Post, Dr. Ambedkar Commercial Centre

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3043

111, 1^st floor, Ring Rd, Man Dharwaja,

Surat(Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

29012/119/2001-IR(M) dated 17.05.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Swamy Stone Quarry, Surat in terminating the services of

ShriNavjiDhuliyaw.e.f. 19.02.2001 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

This reference dates back to 17.05.2002. Both the parties were served. Second party submitted statement of

claim (Ext.4) on 11.12.2002. First party has not filed his written statement. But it is unfortunate that both the parties

have not been responding since 28.03.2005. Tribunal appears to be liberal in giving opportunities to the both the parties

to take interest in the proceeding but to no result. 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 both parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the both parties parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1391-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,y-

vkbZ-lh- 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 80@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17025@1@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1391.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. L.I.C. of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-17025/1/2016-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID No. 80/2012

Shri G.K. Nijhawan, S/o Shri C.L. Nijhawan,

R/o 14-B, Pocket F, Mayur Vihar,

Mayur Vihar, Phase II,

Delhi – 110 091

…Workman

Versus

The Senior Divisional Manager,

L.I.C. of India,

Delhi Divisional Office I,

3044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jeewan Prakash Building,

25, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi 110 00

…Management

AWARD

Factual matrix of the present case is that a dispute was raised under sub-section 2 of Section 2 A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) by Shri G.K. Nijhawan (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) averring

in the statement of claim that he was appointed as Typist by Life Insurance of India (hereinafter referred to as the

management ) in June 1984. At the time of the incident, he was in fact working as Higher Grade Assistant (in short

HGA) and was posted II branch of Delhi Divisional office, New Delhi of the management. Management has several

categories of employees and there are several HGAs. However, the claimant herein was assigned job of lower cadre

with ulterior motive. The claimant had an unblemished record. However, the claimant discharged the above work in

the lower cadre with the assurance that he would be assigned work of HGA category later on. Management had earlier

penalized the claimant herein by ‘reduction of two stages in the pay scale’ vide a order dated 31.03.2008. A civil suit

was also filed by the claimant, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge, New Delhi.

According to the claimant, management pressurized him to withdraw the above civil suit and also instigated

the customers to lodge false complaints against the claimant. Claimant had also informed the higher authorities about

the same and had even written letter dated 23.02.2010. Claimant, in the month of February 2010 had moved an

application under Right to Information Act. The above information was not furnished to the claimant and even appeal

was filed by the claimant before the Central Information Commission. Management after coming to know about the

second appeal filed by the claimant, issued baseless and false charge sheet dated 20.09.2010 Ex.WW1/M2 to the

claimant, alleging as follows:

That you have been repeatedly defying office instructions, displaying insubordination and not

performing office work assigned to you despite verbal warning and orders in writing. Instances in this respect

are stated herein below:

You refused to process revival under Policy No.115181018 favouring Ms.Manjula

Subramanian Nambudiri on 23.02.2010.

You refused to process revival under Policy No.114851940 favouring Shri Vikas Juyal on

24.02.2010.

You refused to process change of mode under Policy No.115870942 favouring Shri

Gagandeep Chatwal on 06.04.2010.

You refused to process change of mode under Policy No.111817254 favouring Shri Lakhi

Ram on 12.04.2010.

You refused to process revival under Policy No.114841469 favouring Shri Pearl Anupama

Daniel and under Policy No.114134793 favouring Shri Shashank Daniel on 12.04.2010.

II.

You were assigned the job of Salary Saving Scheme, including adjustment of remittance received

from P.A.s, clearance of errors etc. vide office order dated 29.04.2010 but you did not perform your duties

since 29.04/.2010 till date.

On receipt of the above charge sheet, reply was filed by the claimant on 29.09.2010 wherein claimant has

denied all the material charges alleged against him and alleged that the charge sheet has been issued with a malafide

view to pressurize the claimant herein to withdraw the civil suit filed against the management. Claimant has never

refused to work. Management never enquired about the allegations of the claimant mentioned in his letter dated

23.02.2010 wherein the claimant had named officials who were instigating customers. The claimant was a layman and

he was not informed by the Enquiry Officer regarding procedure to be followed in conduct of the above enquiry,

Enquiry was conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and biased attitude of the management was

writ large during pendency of the enquiry, inasmuch as vide order dated 01.12.2010 salary of the claimant was

stopped; Management supplied copy of the findings of the Enquiry officer vide letter dated 21.04.2011 and response

to the same was submitted by the claimant vide a representation dated 04.04.2011. Management did not consider the

representation of the claimant and another representation was submitted on 05.05.2011. Management, with a

predetermined mind, passed order of ‘removal from service’ on 14.05.2011 Ex.WW1/M13 against the claimant. It is

the case of the claimant herein that he filed appeal under Regulation 30 of the LIC Staff Regulations 1960, which was

also rejected illegally. Finally, it is prayed that order of removal dated 14.05.2011 be set aside with directions to the

management to reinstate the claimant.

Management filed reply to the statement of claim, taking preliminary objections, inter alia the claimant not

approaching the Tribunal with clean hands, suppression of facts etc. It was alleged on merits that the claimant does

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3045

not have unblemished record of service as he was earlier charge sheeted on 27.10.2007. It is also denied that the

claimant was not given job of HGA. In the Establishment Manual, such duties can be assigned to the claimant and any

HGA can be directed to perform duty of any nature. Said duty was assigned to the claimant vide office orders dated

04.02.2010 and 29.04.2010. Office order dated 04.02.2010 shows that the claimant had to pass revival paper for SA

upto Rs.2 lakh. Scrutiny of revival papers above Rs.2 lakh is the job of HGA as per official powers as well as Standing

Orders. Claimant did not perform duty of HGA as assigned to him. He did not attend to the similar job under policies

No.115181018 favoring Ms. Manjula Subramanian, 114851940 favouing Vikas Juyal, 11481469 favouring Ms. Pearl

Anupama etc. Job assigned to the claimant those of HGA and same was not below cadre job by any standard. It is

denied that the claimant was claimant was imposed punishment of ‘reduction to two sates in the timescale of pay’ on

31.03.2011. Management also denied the factum of pendency of civil suit. Management also denied that no kind of

pressure was put on the claimant to withdrawn the above civil suit. Management never instigated any officer or any

person to file complaint against the claimant herein. Management has also denied the other averments and it is alleged

that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. Enquiry Officer was not at all biased nor he violated

principles of natural justice. Reply is supported by affidavit.

5. Against this factual background, my learned predecessor vide a order dated 11.09.2012 framed the following

issues:

(i)

Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the claimant was violative of principles

of natural justice?

(ii)

Whether punishment awarded to the claimant does not commensurate to his misconduct?

(iii)

Whether he is entitled to relief of reinstatement? If no, to what relief he is entitled.

(iv)

Relief

Issue No.1, which pertained to the domestic enquiry conducted against the claimant which resulted in removal

of claimant from the job, was treated as preliminary issue.

During the course of evidence on preliminary issue, claimant tendered his affidavit in evidence, which is

Ex.WW1/A and also proved documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14 in support of his claim. Management to rebut the

case of the claimant on the preliminary issue examined Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta and Shri Anil Kumar Arora as MW1

and MW2, who proved documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/11. Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M14 and Ex.MW2/1 &

Ex.MW2/2 respectively. The Tribunal, after considering evidence on record came to the conclusion that in fact no

witness was examined by the management during the course of domestic enquiry and Presenting Officer has tendered

28 documents directly before the Enquiry Officer. It was held by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.08.2013 that the

enquiry was not conducted in accordance with principles of nature justice nor any document has been proved by the

management as required under the law. As such, enquiry was held to be perverse and issue No.1, i.e. preliminary

issue, was answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.

Thereafter, an application was moved by the management seeking permission to prove misconduct of the

claimant on merits before this Tribunal. It transpires from the record that thereafter case was listed for evidence of the

management to prove misconduct on the part of the claimant.

Management, in order to prove allegations contained in the charge sheet Ex.WW1/M2 examined Shri Lalit

Gupta, Chief Manager at MW3, whose affidavit is Ex.MW3/A. He has also tendered in evidence documents

Ex.MW3/1 to Ex.MW3/29.

10.

Claimant examined himself in rebuttal and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/B and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to

Ex.WW1/14, already proved by him.

11.

I have heard Shri B.S. Rana, authorized representative for the claimant and Shri Arun Aggarwal, authorized

representative for the management.

12.

During the course of arguments, learned authorized representatives for the respective parties fairly agreed that

after findings on domestic enquiry has been rendered by this Tribunal holding the same to be unfair and against

principles of natural justice, record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute fresh evidence in terms of

provisions of Section 11 A of the Act as those proceedings have already been found to be defective or unfair by the

Court. Such record would also not constitute material on record within the meaning of Section 11 A of the Act and

enquiry proceedings on being found to be unfair have to be ignored altogether. Thus, the only evidence to be

considered by this Tribunal for the purpose of misconduct is the evidence which has been led by the parties after

holding the domestic enquiry to be unfair.

3046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

This is in consonance with the ratio of law in Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court (1999

Lab.IC445) and Karnataka State Road Transport vs. Laxmi Narain (2001 Lab.IC 1777).

14.

Now, the Tribunal is required to evaluate the evidence adduced by the parties before this Tribunal after

enquiry has been held to be invalid or unfair by the order of the learned predecessor on 12.08.2013, as discussed above.

The only witness examined by the management to prove the charges against the claimant is Shri Lalit Gupta, who at the

relevant time was Chief Manager. It is clear from affidavit of MW3 that it is on the same lines as the stand as has been

taken in the reply to the statement of defence filed on behalf of the claimant. It is further claimed that the claimant was

admittedly in the employment of the management at the relevant time and did not comply with the office order dated

04.02.2010 issued by Ms.Sudha Shrikant. It is further alleged in Para 4 of the affidavit that on 23.02.2010 that Shri

Parameshwaran (husband of policy holder Manjula Subramanian)came to the office and complained about non-co-

operation by the claimant herein in verifying personal statement in respect of his wife. Claimant also refused to

process recovery papers under the policy. The said person filed a complaint in writing, which is Ex.MW1/5 and the

status report of the policy is Ex.MW1/3. Thereafter, claimant herein was called by Shri Lalit Gupta MW3 who

admitted the complaint but he refused to perform his duty even on his instructions. It is pertinent to note here that there

is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant herein has admitted contents of the complaint Ex.MW1/5. This

witness has further admitted in his affidavit that he ordered Shri Chanak Lal Sharma, another official of the branch to

do the work of the claimant herein.

15.

In Para 6 of the affidavit, there is reference to another complaint by Shri E.V. John who was harassed by the

claimant herein. He has approached the claimant for revival of the lapsed policy of Shri Vikas Juyal and the complaint

filed by Shri John is Ex.MW1/6. In the subsequent paras there is reference to other complaints of misbehavior of the

claimant herein filed by policy holders and other persons In a nutshell, claimant herein was not performing duties as

per directions given to him by his superiors.

16.

Shri Lalit Gupta, MW3 in his cross examination has admitted that the claimant has written letters Ex.WW1/3

to Ex.WW1/ as well as Ex.MW3/W1. It is further clear from the statement of this witness that claimant herein has filed

replies to most of the letters/memos issued to him by the management. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/3 that the

claimant has specifically mentioned in letter dated 24.02.2010 about copies of the alleged complaints against him.

However, he has not been supplied with the documents by the management. In another letter Ex.WW1/4 claimant has

specifically mentioned that no action has been taken on his representation dated 23.02.2010. He has also mentioned that

some officials of the branch are instigating policy holders/customers to lodge complaints against him but the

management has not enquired about all these facts. He had also expressed apprehension so as to involve him in false

complaint/case. In letter Ex.WW1/5, which is in fact in response to letter dated 07.04.2010, claimant has denied all the

allegations mentioned in the said letter. Claimant has again highlighted the fact that certain officials are

instigating policy holders to lodge false complaints against him. Further, in letter Ex.MW3/W1 which is in response to

letter dated 12.05.2010, claimant has again clarified regarding false and baseless charges leveled against him by certain

policy holders. This was being done so as to take disciplinary action against the claimant. In this reply there is also

reference to the civil suit which the claimant had filed before the Civil Judge, New Delhi. In the end, request has been

made to withdraw the said letters.

17.

Cross examination of MW3 (27.02.2014) shows that he has not disposed of the various representations filed

by the claimant herein. This witness further stated that Ms.Sudha Shrikant has informed that most of the time, claimant

was sitting idle. However, management has not examined Ms.Sudha Shrikant, who was the best witness to depose

regarding non-performance by the claimant. Regarding insubordination, management has not examined any other

independent witness of the management. Since there were other employees working in the branch and there were

several other employees who were holding the same post as that of the claimant herein, better course for the

management was to have examined any one of such witness in whose presence the incidents of misconduct,

misbehavior or insubordination has taken place so as to persuade this Tribunal to hold that the claimant herein is really

guilty of the misconduct. It is also clear that the present enquiry was instituted on the basis of complaints filed by

customers/policy holders whereas various representations filed by the workman, i.e. Ex.WW1/2, Ex.WW1/4,

Ex.WW1/5, Ex.WW1/6, Ex.WW1/8 and Ex.WW1/9 were not dealt with properly by the management nor any specific

order on the said representatives were passed by the management. It clearly shows that the management from the very

beginning was acting in a biased manner against the claimant herein. It is also admitted fact that when the above

enquiry was launched against the claimant herein, civil suit had already been filed against the management, which

clearly shows that the management was not happy with the style of functioning of the claimant and was looking for

appropriate opportunity so as to rope in the claimant in the enquiry. It has also come in evidence of MW3 Shri Lalit

Gupta that there were several employees in the department holding similar post as that of the claimant. However order

dated 04.02.2010 was specifically issued only against the claimant and not to the other employees working in the

Department.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3047

18.

Shri G.K. Nijhawan has examined himself, in rebuttal, as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/B. He

has specifically denied that he was assigned the job of HGA. He has not lodged any protest when this job was assigned

to him. It was strongly urged on behalf of the management that no merit was found in the various complaints filed by

the claimant with the Chief Manager or other officials. To my mind, this argument is for the sake of argument only;

when a complaint has been made in writing, it should have been disposed of by the officials of the management by

passing a reasoned/speaking order, particularly when number of such representations are many and were being filed

from time to time. It is really strange that serious action was taken on the complaints filed by the customers/policy

holders of the management and no action has been taken on the various representations made by the claimant herein.

Since there allegations of misbehavior which are vague and general in nature in most of the complaints lodged against

the claimant herein, this Tribunal is of the view that atleast one or two such complainants with whom the claimant

herein has misbehaved, should have been examined so as to throw better light on the incidents which had taken place

at the relevant time. Since nothing of the sort was done by the management so as to prove allegations of misbehavior

etc. nor there is any specific evidence regarding defiance of orders or instructions of showing insubordination by the

claimant herein.

19.

As such, it is held that solitary statement of Shri Lalit Gupta, MW3, Chief Manager of the Corporation is held

to be not sufficient so as to prove the charges against the claimant herein.

20.

It is necessary to mention that in departmental enquiry though rules of evidence and procedure of civil

procedure is not strictly applicable, in case there is involvement of serious charges of misconduct with consequences as

grave as dismissal/removal etc., standard of fairness and reasonableness will apply to meet ends of justice. Since

alleged misconduct against the claimant, in my opinion, is required to be established by cogent and reasonable evidence

of the management. Minimum requirement of rules of natural justice is that there must be satisfactory evidence on

record so as to persuade this Tribunal to hold that charges stand duly established. It is no doubt true that in

departmental enquiry proceedings, standards of proof is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond

reasonable doubt as is the position in criminal cases. Yet, as discussed above, there must be adequate and sufficient

evidence on record to prove the charges against the delinquent employee.

21.

As a sequitur my above discussion, it is held that management has not led sufficient and adequate evidence

against the claimant so as to prove charges on defence of orders as well as misbehavior with the customers/public as

contained in charge sheet Ex.MW1/2. As such, Issue No.1 is held to be not established or proved against the claimant.

22.

Since findings on Issue No.1 has been given in favour of the claimant, as such, Issue No.2 which pertains to

award of punishment by the management does not survive for consideration. Punishment of ‘Removal from Service’

awarded by the management against the claimant is held to be against the law, particularly when charges against the

claimant are held to be not established, the same is, hereby, set aside. Since the claimant herein has not reached the

age of superannuation, as such, it is held that the workman herein is entitled to relief of reinstatement with full back

wages, including all consequential benefits as if he would have been in service. 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.

June 21, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1392-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vDnkl esjhVkbe ,tsalh izk- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 36@2015) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@13@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1392.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. And Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-42011/13/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

3048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present :- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 36/2015

Sh. Dilip Singh S/o Sear Singh,

Through General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East) , 100 Foota Road,

Delhi -110093

…Workman

Versus

The manager,

M/s Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd., 32/33,

Eastern Chamber , 4^th Floor, 128/A,

Nandal Jani Marg, (Poora Street),

Mumbai-400009.

The Managing Director,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

The Manager,

M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD , Near Gazipur village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096

…Management

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-42011/13/2014-IR(M) dated

12.02.2015 referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether termination of Sh. Dilip Singh S/o Sh. Sear Singh, w.e.f. 3.1.2013 by the management No. 4 i.e.

Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. without making payment of legitiment dues is just, fair and legal? If not,

what relief will be given to the workman and from which date? Whether the management No. 1 & 2 i.e

Central Warehousing Corporation is responsible to ensure and secure continuance of employment of Sh. Dilip

Singh S/o Sh. Sear Singh in the establishment of new contractor appointed for undertaking the job of such

contractor i.e. management No. 3 M/s. Aqdas maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. If not what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?”

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 36/2015 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the parte can be directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-15.06.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3049

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1393-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksajs'ku fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa 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;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-06-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@26@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.06.2016.

[No. L-30012/26/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 29 of 2015

Reference No. L-30012/26/2015-IR(M) dated 20.01.2016

Jai Shram Shakti Refinery Thekedar Workers Union,

136/4, Bishan Sawaroop Colony, Near Labour Office,

Panipat (Haryana)

… Workman

Versus

The Dy.General Manager (Production),

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Panipat Refinery, Bholi, Haryana-132140.

M/s. D.J. Construction, Village-Gandhigram,

PO-Balrangram, Distt.- Karnal (Haryana)

M/s. HKS Infrastructure, House No. 14,

Civil Lines-II, Subhash Marg,

Railway Road, Karnal (Haryana)-132001

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management

Shri Paul S.Saini for respondent.1

None for respondent no.2&3.

AWARD

Passed on: - 06.06.2016

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L- 30012/26/2015-IR(M) dated

20.01.2016. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management No.3 in terminating the services of the workman engaged with the

management No.2 in the establishment of management No.1 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Today the case is fixed for filling of claim statement by the workman/union. None appeared for the

workman/union nor any claim statement has been filed. Shri Paul S.Saini is present for the respondent No.1 and none is

3050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

present for the other respondents. Already three opportunities have been given to the Union to file claim statement. It

appears that the Union is not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of the above the present reference is

disposed off for want of prosecution.

3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to

the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

06.06.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1394-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuiqj

{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 dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@61@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1394.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/61/2002-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 41/2003

Ref.No. L-12011/61/2002-IR(B-I) dated 04.03.2003

BETWEEN

Sri Santosh Shukla, General Secretary

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Assn.

E-564, Avas Vikas Scheme No.1, Kalyanpur

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AND

The President,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

C-38, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/61/2002-IR(B-I) dated 04.03.2003 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 Santosh Shukla, General

Secretary, General Secretary, Kanpur Kshetriya Gram Bank Employees Association, Kanpur and the President, Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur for adjudication.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3051

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA CHAIRMAN, KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR DWARA BANKING UDYOG

ME LAGU 6^TH & 7^TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT KE ANUSAR KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN

BANK KE SHAKHA OFFICES ME CHATURTH SHRENI ME KARYARARAT SABHI KARMKARO KO

DATE 01.11.1992 AUR 01.12.1997 SE DAFTARI BHATTE KO PUNRIKSHIT KAR BAKAYA KA

BHUGATAN NAHIN KIYA JANA NYONAOCHIT HAI? YADI NAHIN TO SAMBHANDIT KARMKAR

KIS ANUTOSH KE HAQDAR HAI?”

As per the claim statement A1-6, the workman has stated in brief that the employees association is registered

body under the Trade Union Act and it is competent to raise demand on behalf of its members, opposite party is

sponsored by Bank of Baroda. The applicant has stated that the dispute has arisen between the parties over non

payment of special allowances/functional allowances on the basis of of 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement, its provisions are

applicable on the employees of the present management as well, under the guidelines of N.I.T. Award and the Bipartite

Settlement, respective unions of the employees are also covered, prior to implementation of award, before 01.09.1987,

the service conditions of the employees of Kanpur Cshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur were governed by the Staff

Regulations and their pay and allowance were at par to those of employees of State of U.P and there was huge demand

by the employees of Regional Rural Banks all over the country for providing the same scale of pay equal to those

employees of Sponsor Bank on the ground that they are also discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the

employees of Sponsor Bank. The matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Tribunal was constituted by Govt. of India,

report dated 30.04.1990 was submitted by Tribunal (N.I.T), and it was held that employees of RRB are entitled to the

same pay and allowance as facilities extended to by the sponsored bank to its staff but instructions were not followed

by RRBs.

It has further been stated that 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement were applicable w.e.f. 01.11.1992 and

01.11.1997respectively and DA is also payable on the special allowance/functional allowance. The Govt. of India has

issued various orders dated 22.02.1991, 11.04.2001, 25.04.2001 and 17.04.2002, NABARD has also issued letter dated

05.07.1991, definition of pay has also been mentioned in the claim statement. Circular issued by Central Government,

Ministry of Finance has also been quoted therein. It has been alleged by the applicant that the Kanpur Kshetriya

Gramin Bank had not considered genuine demand raised by the employees/union. With the aforesaid pleadings request

has been made to issue direction that the Daftari allowance is functional allowance and it is part of pay and DA, and 6^th

& 7^th Bipartite settlement be implemented with retrospective effect and arrear accrued at reasonable interest rates be

paid and that the Cashier Incharge allowance be treated as functional allowance and it is part of the pay and DA, and 6^th

& 7^th Bipartite settlement be implemented with retrospective effect and arrear accrued therein be paid including the

interest at reasonable rates. The petitioner has filed certain documents.

The management in its written statement A2-7 has denied the main allegations leveled in the claim statement.

The management has stated that the reference is misconceived and without jurisdiction in term that opposite party has

no power to revise pay or allowance of the employees of RRBs, only the Central Govt. has got power to review, change

and to fix pay and allowance. Central Government is essential party in the case. The reference order is vague.

The opposite party has stressed that the opposite party bank is RRB establishment under RRB ACT. 1976,

only the Central Government has the powers to determine the pay scales etc. of the employees of RRBs in accordance

with the powers under the provisions of section 17(1) of RRB Act., 1976; the service conditions mentioned in Bipartite

settlements are applicable to the employees of the commercial banks only as the same have been agreed upon between

the Indian Bank Association and unions of commercial banks, many other special allowance paid to the employees of

the commercial bank which are not admissible to RRB employees like special allowance for telephone operator, audit

clerk, punh card operator, special assistant, agriculture assistant telex operator and teller etc. Similarly the PF rules and

Pension Rules for RRB employees are different from those applicable to commercial bank employees. As per the

direction of Govt. of India’s order dated 11.04.2001 and 17.04.2002 pay scale of employees have been implemented.

But the opposite party has emphasized that employees of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank are still covered/governed by

separate set of service rules than the nationalized banks. The managements of RRB are not empowered to determine the

remuneration of their employees. It is the Govt. of India who has power under Section 17(1) of RRB Act. 1976.

The management has further pleaded that Board of Directors of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin bank has complied

with the order of Govt. of India and its action is just, legal and proper, the demand of the petitioner is neither genuine

nor just, rather it is wrong, baseless and misconceived. The management has requested to adjudicate the award in

favour of the management. Along with written statement several annexures have been enclosed.

The workman has filed 13 documents as per list C-9.

While strongly denying the pleas taken in the written statement the petitioner reiterated the facts mentioned in

the claim statement and filed rejoinder A1-13.

3052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

On behalf of the petitioner, evidence of Sri Santosh Shukla was recorded and he was cross examined on

behalf of the management. Affidavit of Sri A. K. Bajpai was filed by the management, he had beenduly cross examined

on behalf of the workman. Copy of memorandum of 7^th Bipartite settlement has also been filed.

11.

For the last several years none has been appearing in the court on behalf of the workman. Several dates were

given by my learned predecessor and by me as well. Notices through Registered post, were also issued to the workman

Union. It was pointed out that perhaps the effected employees are not interested to further proceed with the case, and

the grievances might have also been resolved.

12.

In such circumstances the arguments advanced on behalf of the management were heard at length. Record was

perused thoroughly.

13.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Bipartite settlements are not followed by the opposite party/

management and the Daftari allowance as functional allowance etc. is not being paid neither it is treated as part of the

pay. The management has strongly denied this allegation.

14.

The workman witness Sri Santosh Shukla in his cross examination before this court has admitted that U/S 17

of RRB Act. 1976 only the Govt. of India is empowered for pay determination, for fixation of allowance and revision

etc. He has also admitted that in furtherance of NIT award, Central Govt. has issued directions dated 22.02.1991 to all

the RRBs for revision of pay and allowances, and the Bipartite settlement was also implemented, later on in compliance

of the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Govt. of India has issued guidelines for implementation of 6 &

7^th Bipartite Settlement, it has been made applicable in the RRBs since 01.04.2000. The witness has also admitted his

union or bank was not party in the 6^th & 7^th Bipartite Settlement.

15.

Sri A. K. Bajpai, Officer of Kanpur RRB has filed affidavit in support of written statement. Copy of Gazette

of Govt. of India dated 31.03.2008 has also been referred during the argument.

16.

It is crystal clear that the management of RRB is not independently authorized to fix the pay and allowances

payable to its employees; rather it is monitored and regulated as per the directions of the Govt. of India. Since it is

financial matter having impact on the State Ex-Chequer, therefore, different RRBs functioning in the country can not

be legitimately permitted to issue any directions regarding disbursement of salary or allowances, inconsistent with the

guidelines or in the absence of any fresh directions issued by the Govt. of India.

17.

Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner regarding sanction of the Daftari allowance and functional

allowance to be treated as part of pay, is misconceived and can not be adjudicated. It has also not been proved that 6 &

7^th Bipartite Settlement has never been unlawfully violated by the management. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

18.

Award accordingly.

13.06.2016

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1395-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuiqj

{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 dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 46@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@64@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/64/2002-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3053

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 46/2003

Ref.No. L-12011/64/2002-IR(B-I) dated 28.03.2003

BETWEEN :

Sri Santosh Shukla, General Secretary.

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Assn.

E-564, Avas Vikas Scheme No.1, Kalyanpur

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AND

The President,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

C-38, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/64/2002-IR(B-I) dated 28.03.2003 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 Santosh Shukla, General

Secretary, General Secretary, Kanpur Kshetriya Gram Bank Employees Association, Kanpur and the President, Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA CHAIRMAN, KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR DWARA BANKING UDYOG

ME LAGU BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT KE ANUSAR KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK ME IS

KARYA ME KARYRAT KARMKARO KO COMPUTER OPERATING ALLOWANCE KA BHUGATAN

NAHIN KIYA JANA NYONAOCHIT HAI? YADI NAHIN TO SAMBHANDIT KARMKAR KIS

ANUTOSH KE HAQDAR HAI?”

As per the claim statement A1-5, the workman has stated in brief that the employees association is registered

body under the Trade Union Act and it is competent to raise demand of behalf of his members, opposite party is

sponsored by Bank of Baroda. The applicant has stated that the dispute has arisen between the parties over non

payment of special allowances/functional allowances on the basis of of 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement, its provisions are

applicable on the employees of the present management as well, under the guidelines of N.I.T. Award and the Bipartite

Settlement, respective unions of the employees are also covered, prior to implementation of award, before 01.09.1987,

the service condition of the employee of Kanpur Cshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur were governed by the Staff

Regulations and their pay and allowance were at par to those of employees of State of U.P and as a result huge demand

by the employees of Regional Rural Banks all over the country for providing the same scale of pay equal to those

employees of Sponsor Bank on the ground that they are also discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the

employees of Sponsor Bank. The matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court a Tribunal was constituted by Govt. of India

dated 30.04.1990 was submitted by Tribunal (N.I.T), and it was held that employees of RRB are entitled to the same

pay and allowance and facilities extended to by the sponsored bank to its staff but instructions were not followed by

RRBs.

It has further been stated that 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement were applicable w.e.f. 01.11.1992 and 01.11.1997

respectively and DA is also payable on the special allowance/functional allowance. The Govt. of India has issued

various orders dated 22.02.1991, 11.04.2001, 25.04.2001 and 17.04.2002, NABARD has also issued letter dated

05.07.1991, definition of pay has also been mentioned in the claim statement. Circular issued by Central Government,

Ministry of Finance has also quoted therein. It has been alleged by the applicant that the Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin

Bank had not considered genuine demand raised by the employees/union. With the aforesaid pleadings request has

been made to issue direction for payment of Computer Operator @ Rs.633 + DA per month to the employees working

on Computer as Computer Operator w.e.f. the date of installation of Computers and to make payment for the arrears

alongwith interest.

3054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The management in its written statement A2-6 has denied the main allegations leveled in the claim statement.

The management has stated that the reference is misconceived and without jurisdiction in term that opposite party has

no power to revise pay or allowance of the employees of RRBs only the Central Govt. to power to review and change

and fix of pay and allowance. Central Government is essential party in the case. The reference order is vague,

The opposite party has stressed that the opposite party bank is RRB establishment under RRB ACT. 1976 only

the Central Government have the powers to determine the pay scales etc. of the employees of RRBs in accordance

with the powers under the provisions of section 17(1) of RRB Act., 1976 the service conditions mentioned in Bipartite

settlements are applicable to the employees of the commercial banks only as the same have been agreed upon between

the Indian Bank Association and unions of commercial banks, many other special allowance paid to the employees of

the commercial bank which are not admissible to RRB employees like special allowance for telephone operator, audit

clerk, punh card operator, special assistant, agriculture assistant telex operator and teller etc. Similarly the PF rules and

pension rules for RRB employees are different from those applicable to commercial bank employees. As per the

direction of Govt. of India order dated 11.04.2001 and 17.04.2002 pay scale of employees has been implemented. But

the opposite party has emphasized that employees of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank are still covered governed by

separate set of service rules than the nationalized banks. The management of RRB are not empowered to determine the

remuneration of their employees. It is the Govt. of India who has power under Section 17(1) of RRB Act. 1976.

The management has further pleaded that Board of Directors of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin bank has complied

with the order of Govt. of India and its action is just legal and proper, the demand of the petitioner is neither genuine

nor just, rather it is wrong baseless and misconceived. The management has submitted that housing loan is part of the

pay scale nor part of the allowance union has not approached to Govt. of India/NABARD/Sponsored bank in this

matter.

The workman filed certain documents as per list C-9.

It is well settled principle of law that the onus to prove the version raised in the petition in order to seek

favourable adjudication of the relief sought, lies on the petitioner himself. In this case sufficient opportunity was

provided to the petitioner, during the last 13 years, yet oral evidence/affidavit, in support of the claim statement has not

been filed, thereby no opportunity could be provided to the management to cross examine the petitioner.

10.

There are hundreds of RRBs through out the country, if complete autonomy regarding sanction of pay scale

and allowances is provided to each and every RRB, without following any uniformity in the guidelines, it may cause

financial anarchy, huge discrimination and burden also on the State Exchequer itself. Undoubtly, as per the

pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also, RRBs have to follow the guidelines issued by the Govt. of

India,sofar as the pay scale and admissibility of allowance-payment to the bank employees is concerned. There is

nothing on record which shows that the aforesaid Bipartite Settlements have been ignored by the opposite

party/management.

11.

After having heard the arguments advanced before me and gone through the record minutely, it is inferred that

there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the pleadings of the claim statement. There is no justification for sanction of

the Computer Allowance as claimed in the petition. Therefore, there was no illegality or impropriety on the part of the

management, in not sanctioning the computer operator allowance as claimed herein above. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

12.

Award accordingly.

13.06.2016

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1396-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuiqj

{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 dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@60@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3055

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1396.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/60/2002-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 32/2003

Ref.No. L-12011/60/2002-IR(B-I) dated 05.03.2003

BETWEEN :

Sri Santosh Shukla, General Secretary,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Assn.

E-564, Avas Vikas Scheme No.1, Kalyanpur

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AND

The President,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

C-38, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/35/2011-IR(B-I) dated 27.07.2011 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 Santosh Shukla, General

Secretary, General Secretary, Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Association, Kanpur and the President,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA CHAIRMAN, KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR DWARA BANKING UDYOG

ME LAGU 6^TH & 7^TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT KE ANUSAR KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN

BANK KE SHAKHA OFFICES ME ROKARH (JOINT CUSTODIAN) KA KARYA KARNE WALE

KARMKARO KO DATE 01.11.1992 AUR 01.12.1997 SE CASHIER INCHARGE ALLOWEANCES KO

REVISED(PUNRIKSHIT) KAR BAKAYA KA BHUGATAN NAHIN KIYA JANA NYONAOCHIT HAI?

YADI NAHIN TO SAMBHANDIT KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KE HAQDAR HAI?”

As per the claim statement A1-6, the workman has stated in brief that the employee’s association is registered

body under the Trade Union Act and it is competent to raise demand on behalf of his members, opposite party is

sponsored by Bank of Baroda. The applicant has stated that the dispute has arisen between the parties over non

payment of special allowances/functional allowances on the basis of of 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement, its provisions are

applicable on the employees of the present management as well, under the guidelines of N.I.T. Award and the Bipartite

Settlement, respective unions of the employees are also covered, prior to implementation of award, before 01.09.1987,

the service conditions of the employees of Kanpur Keshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur were governed by the Staff

Regulations and their pay and allowance were at par to those of employees of State of U.P and as a result huge demand

was raised by the employees of Regional Rural Banks all over the country for providing the same scale of pay equal to

those employees of Sponsor Bank on the ground that they are also discharging the same duties as are being discharged

by the employees of Sponsor Bank. The matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Tribunal was constituted by Govt. of

India, award dated 30.04.1990 was submitted by the Tribunal (N.I.T), and it was held that employees of RRB are

entitled to the same pay and allowance and facilities extended to by the sponsored bank to its staff but those

instructions were not followed by RRBs.

3056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It has further been stated that 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement were applicable w.e.f. 01.11.1992 and

01.11.1997respectively and DA is also payable on the special allowance/functional allowance. The Govt. of India has

issued various orders dated 22.02.1991, 11.04.2001, 25.04.2001 and 17.04.2002, NABARD has also issued letter dated

05.07.1991, definition of pay has also been mentioned in the claim statement. Circular issued by Central Government,

Ministry of Finance has also been quoted therein. It has been alleged by the applicant that the Kanpur Kshetriya

Gramin Bank had not considered genuine demand raised by the employees/union. With the aforesaid pleadings request

has been made to issue direction that the Cashier Incharge allowance be treated as functional allowance and it is part of

the pay and DA, and 6^th & 7^th Bipartite settlement be implemented with retrospective effect and arrear accrued therein

be paid including the interest at reasonable rates.

The management in its written statement A2-7 has denied the main allegations leveled in the claim statement.

The management has stated that the reference is misconceived and without jurisdiction, and the opposite party has no

power to revise pay or allowance of the employees of RRBs’, only the Central Govt. has got power to review, change

and fix the pay and allowance. Central Government is essential party in the case. The reference order is vague.

The opposite party has stressed that the opposite party bank is RRB establishment under RRB ACT. 1976 only

the Central Government has the powers to determine the pay scales etc. of the employees of RRBs in accordance with

the powers under the provisions of section 17(1) of RRB Act., 1976 the service conditions mentioned in Bipartite

settlements are applicable to the employees of the commercial banks only as the same have been agreed upon between

the Indian Bank Association and Unions of Commercial Banks, many other special allowances are paid to the

employees of the commercial bank which are not admissible to RRB employees like special allowance for telephone

operator, audit clerk, punch card operator, special assistant, agriculture assistant, telex operator and teller etc. Similarly

the PF Rules and Pension Rules for RRB employees are different from those applicable to commercial bank employees.

As per the direction of Govt. of India order dated 11.04.2001 and 17.04.2002, pay scale of employees has been

implemented. But the opposite party has emphasized that employees of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank are still

governed by separate set of service rules than the Nationalized Banks. The managements of RRBs are not empowered

to determine the remuneration of their employees. It is the Govt. of India who has power under Section 17(1) of RRB

Act. 1976.

The management has further pleaded that Board of Directors of Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin bank has complied

with the order of Govt. of India and its action is just, legal and proper, the demand of the petitioner is neither genuine

nor just, rather it is wrong, baseless and misconceived. The management has requested to adjudicate the award in its

favour. Alongwith the written statement several annexures have been enclosed.

The workman has filed 13 documents as per list C-9.

While strongly denying the pleas taken in the written statement the petitioner reiterated the facts mentioned in

the claim statement and filed rejoinder A1-13.

10.

On behalf of the petitioner, evidence of Sri Santosh Shukla was recorded and he was cross examined on

behalf of the management. Affidavit of Sri A.K. Bajpai was filed by the management. Copy of memorandum of 7^th

Bipartite settlement has also been filed.

11.

For the last several years none has been appearing in the Court on behalf of the workman. Several dates were

given by my learned predecessor and by me as well. Notices through Registered Post, were also issued to the workman

union. It was pointed out that perhaps the effected employees are not interested to further proceed with the case and the

grievances might have also been resolved.

12.

In such circumstances the arguments advanced on behalf of the management were heard at length. Record was

perused thoroughly.

13.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the guidelines of Bipartite settlement are not followed by the

opposite party/ management and the Cashier Incharge is not being paid properly and functional allowance etc. is not

paid by the opposite party. The management has strongly denied this allegation.

14.

The petitioner’s witness Sri Santosh Shukla in his cross examination, before this Court has admitted that the

Chairman of the RRBs has got no authority for pay fixation, or for its revision and payment of allowances etc, he has

also asserted that as per the directions of Govt. of India, Sponsored Bank issues orders for revision of pay and

allowances etc., as provided under the RRB Act.

15.

Sri A.K. Bajpai, Officer of Kanpur RRB has filed affidavit in support of written statement, copy of Gazette of

Govt. of India dated 31.03.2008 has also been referred during the argument.

16.

It is crystal clear that the management of RRB is not independently authorized to fix the pay and allowances

payable to its employees; rather it is monitored and regulated as per the directions of the Govt. of India. Since it is

financial matter having impact on the State Ex-Chequer, therefore, different RRBs functioning in the country can not

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 9] 2016@vk"kk<+ 18] 1938

3057

be legitimately permitted to issue any directions regarding disbursement of salary or allowances, inconsistent with the

guidelines or in the absence of any fresh directions issued by the Govt. of India.

17.

Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner regarding sanction of revised pay and allowances to the

employees, is misconceived and can not be adjudicated. It has also not been proved that the 6^th & 7^th Bipartite

Settlement has ever been unlawfully violated by the management. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

18.

Award accordingly.

13.06.2016

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1397-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkuiqj

{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 dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 45@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-06-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@62@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2016

S.O. 1397.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.06.2016.

[No. L-12011/62/2002-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 45/2003

Ref.No. L-12011/62/2002-IR(B-I) dated 28.03.2003

BETWEEN :

Sri Santosh Shukla, General Secretary,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Employees Assn.

E-564, Avas Vikas Scheme No.1, Kalyanpur

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AND

The President,

Kanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

C-38, Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.) 208001

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/62/2002-IR(B-I) dated 28.03.2003 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 Santosh Shukla, General

Secretary, General Secretary, Kanpur Kshetriya Gram Bank Employees Association, Kanpur and the President, Kanpur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kanpur for adjudication.

3058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 9, 2016/ ASADHA 18, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference under adjudication is:

“CHAIRMAN, KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR DWARA KANPUR KSHETRIYA

GRAMIN BANK ME KARYARAT KARMKARO KO BANKING UDYOG ME LAGOO 7^TH BIPARTITE

SETTLEMENT SAMJOHETE KE ANUSAR INCODER OPERATING ALLOWANCE KA BHUGTAN

NAHIN KIYA JANA NYOCHIT HAI? YADI NAHIN TO SAMBDHANDIT KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH

KE HAQDAR HAIN”?