3329 GI/2016

(3071)

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- 29]

ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 10—tqykbZ 16] 2016] 'kfuokj@ vk"kk<+ 19—vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

No. 29]

NEW DELHI, JULY 10—JULY 16, 2016, SATURDAY/ASADHA 19— ASADHA 25, 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)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1402-—chekadd vf/fu;e] 2006 (2006 dk 35) dh /kjk 26 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lqJh eqfnrk feJk] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks Jh ,u- Jhfuokl jko ds LFkku ij rRdky

izHkko ls ,oa vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Hkkjrh; chekadd laLFkku ifj"kn }kjk xfBr vuq'kklukRed lfefr esa lnL; ukfer djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 97(11)@2003&chek&III º

,l- ds- eksgUrh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the, 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1402.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Actuaries Act, 2006

(35 of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms. Mudita Mishra, Director, Department of Financial

Services as member to the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India vice

Shri N. Srinivasa Rao with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 97(11)/2003-Ins.-III]

S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.

3072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1403-—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] oklkZ esa Jh lanhi dqekj xkSre] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 6 tqykbZ]

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 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1403.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sandeep Kumar

Gautam, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Warsaw to perform the Consular

services with effect from 6 July, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंᮢालय

(उ᭒ चतर िशᭃा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा ᮧभाग)

नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 4 जुलाई, 2016

का.आ. 1404.—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम

10 के उप-िनयम 4 के अनुसरण मᱶ, मानव संसाधन िवकास मंᮢालय (᭭ कूल िशᭃा एवं साᭃरता िवभाग) के अंतगᭅत

िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलयᲂ को, ऐसे कायाᭅलय के ᱨप मᱶ, िजसके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक कमᭅचारी-वृ᭠ द ने िह᭠ दी का कायᭅसाधक

᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है :-

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय ᮓ. सं. - 2, रीवा,

िसिवल लाइंस, रीवा,

म᭟ य ᮧदेश - 486001

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय उमᳯरया,

िसिवल लाइंस, उमᳯरया,

म᭟ य ᮧदेश - 484661

कᱶᮤीय िव᳒ालय ᮓ. सं. - 2, सतना,

पॉिलटेᳰᲣक भवन,

िसिवल लाइंस, सतना

म᭟ य ᮧदेश - 485001

[सं. 11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर ᳲसह संधु, संयु᭍ त सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3073

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2016

S.O. 1404.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Rewa,

Civil Lines, Rewa

Madhya Pradesh - 486001

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Umariya,

Civil Lines, Umaria,

Madhya Pradesh - 484661

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Satna,

Polytechnic Bhawan, Civil Lines,

Satna, Madhya Pradesh - 485001

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

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨ याण मंᮢालय

(᭭ वा᭭ ᭝ य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨ याण िवभाग)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1405-—nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 3 ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæ ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 24 tuojh] 1948 dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 430 esa

,rn~}kjk fuEu la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

2- mDr vf/lwpuk esa ¶/kjk 3 ds [kaM (?k) ds rgr fuokZfpr¸ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr mlesa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %

MkW- foosd 'kekZ

fuokZfpr

jktLFkku vk;q£oKku fo'ofo|ky;]

11-05-2016

izksisQlj rFkk foHkkxkè;{k]

t;iqj] jktLFkku

izksLFkksMksafVDl foHkkx]

n'kZu MsaVy dkWyst]

mn;iqj] jktLFkku

¹iQk- la- oh&12025@77@2016&MhbZº

iznhi dqekj iky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2016

S.O. 1405.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

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

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

3074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

therein, namely :

Dr. Vivek Sharma,

Elected

Rajasthan University of

11.05.2016

Professor and Head,

Health Sciences,

Department of Prosthodonitics,

Jaipur, Rajasthan

Darshan Dental College,

Udaipur, Rajasthan

[F. No. V-12025/77/2016-DE]

PRADIP KUMAR PAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1406-—nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 3 ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæ ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 24 tuojh] 1948 dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 430 esa

,rn~}kjk fuEu la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

2- mDr vf/lwpuk esa ¶/kjk 3 ds [kaM (?k) ds rgr fuokZfpr¸ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr mlesa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %

MkW- ;ksxsUæ dqekj igkfM+;k]

fuokZfpr

ftokth fo'ofo|ky;]

15-02-2016

izksisQlj] nar fpfdRlk foHkkx]

Xokfy;j

th-vkj- esfMdy]

Xokfy;j

¹iQk- la- oh&12025@46@2016&MhbZº

iznhi dqekj iky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2016

S.O. 1406.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

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

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

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

therein, namely :

Dr. Yogendra Kumar Paharia,

Elected

Jiwaji University,

15.02.2016

Professor, Department of Dental Surgery,

Gwalior

G.R. Medical College,

Gwalior

[F. No. V-12025/46/2016-DE]

PRADIP KUMAR PAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1407-—nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 3 ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæ ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 24 tuojh] 1948 dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 430 esa

,rn~}kjk fuEu la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %

2- mDr vf/lwpuk esa ¶/kjk 3 ds [kaM (?k) ds rgr fuokZfpr¸ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr mlesa fuEufyf[kr dks var£o"V fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3075

izksisQlj] (MkW-) fj;kt iQk#d

fuokZfpr

d'ehj fo'ofo|ky;

13-04-2015

iz/kukpk;Z@Mhu] ljdkjh nar fpfdRlk

egkfo|ky; rFkk vLirky]

f'kjhu ckx] Jhuxj]

tEew ,oa d'ehj

¹iQk- la- oh&12025@142@2015&MhbZº

iznhi dqekj iky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1407.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

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

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

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

therein, namely :

Prof. (Dr.) Riyaz Farooq,

Elected

University of Kashmir

13.04.2015

Principal/Dean,

Government Dental College and

Hospital, Shireen Bagh,

Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir

[F. No. V-12025/142/2015-DE]

PRADIP KUMAR PAL, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1408-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dEiksftV

jhtuy lsaVj iQkWj ilZUl foFk fMlsfcfyVh] Hkksiky ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la-

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@3@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@156@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/3/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disability, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.07.2016.

[No. L-42012/156/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/2011

Shri Santosh Singh Thakur,

S/o Meharban Singh Thakur,

I/24, Satpura Staff Qtr.,

Near Divisional Electrical Office,

Satpura Bhawan Road,

Bhopal

…Workman

3076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Director,

Composite Regional Centre for Persons with Disability,

Punarvas Bhawan, Khajuri Marg,

Piplani, Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 8-2-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-42012/156/2010- IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Industrial Dispute Act is applicable to the Composite Regional Centre for persons with Disability, Bhopal on

autonomous body under the administrative control of Chairperson, Executive Council of National Institute of Menytal

Handicapped, Secunderabad? If so, whether workman Shri Santosh Singh Thakur was engaged for 240 days in a year?

If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of Ist party workman is in the year 2000, 2^nd party management issued advertisement for various posts. Workman

had applied for post of attendant/ peon. He was selected on 23-7-00. Thereafter Nodal Officer had issued a certificate

with regard to appointment of workman on 2-1-2001. He was paid consolidated honorarium. It was revised time to

time. Workman was continuously working from 23-7-00 till February 2006. His performance in service was

satisfactory. In February-06, his services were dispensed with without issuing notice, without assigning any reasons.

Orally workman was asked not to come to office. His services were terminated without issuing notice under Section

25-F of ID Act, retrenchment compensation was not paid by the management. Workman tried to meet officer incharge

in Regional Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped at Bhopal. Workman was informed that in the year 2002, his

services were transferred under M/S G.S.Gupta a cleaning contractor at Composite Regional Centre for persons with

Disabilities, Bhopal on contractor basis. That the transfer of his service to contractor without consent is arbitrary. That

the workman is not highly qualified, his not aware of the technalities of the matters. Workman was submitting

representations to the management for his reinstatement. He filed original application 176/06 before CAT Jabalpur.

Said application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the management found that the organization was not notified

under Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985. Liberty was allowed to workman for redressal before appropriate forum.

After the workman raised dispute under Section 10, the dispute referred in this Tribunal.

Workman reiterates that his services are terminated without notice or assigning any reason. Termination of his

service amounts to unfair labour practice. Termination of his service is in violation of section 25-F of ID Act. He could

not be expelled from service without following procedure prescribed by law. That workman was inducted in service on

23-7-00, he worked at composite Regional Centre, Bhopal till December 2000. He was paid consolidated honorarium

which was revised to Rs.1500 per month from January 2001. In February 2006, he was paid wages from Centre Muster

Roll. His attendance was regularly taken. Workman had attained status of regular employee. He continuously worked

more than 240 days in each of the calendar year. Management cannot discharge itself from liability claiming that his

services were transferred to M/S G.S.Gupta contractor. That other employees Shyam Singh, Mevalal, Mahipal and

Ravikant who were employed through employment notice with him are still working. Management had inducted

certain new persons as attendant are still working with the management. For violation of Section 25-F,H of ID Act, he

prays reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party failed to participate in reference proceeding on 11-4-2013, management was proceeded without Written

Statement.

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 Industrial Dispute Act is applicable to the

Composite Regional Centre for persons with Disability,

Bhopal on autonomous body under the administrative control

of Chairperson, Executive Council of National Institute of

Menytal Handicapped, Secunderabad?

In Affirmative

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3077

(ii) Whether Ist party workman Shri Santosh Singh Thakur

was engaged for 240 days during 12 calendar months

preceding his termination in February 2006?

In Affirmative

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

The terms of reference pertains to whether the establishment of Regional Centre for persons with disability ,

Bhopal is covered by provisions of ID Act? In substance whether establishment of 2^nd party is covered as industry

under ID Act? 2^nd party has not participated in reference proceeding. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting statement of claim. That he had submitted application for post of attendant helper as per advertisement

published in the year 2000. Workman has produced document Exhibit W-1, advertisement issued by2nd party –

Composite Regional Centre for persons with disability, Bhopal. From Exhibit W-1, it is apparent that the 2^nd party

Composite Regional Centre for persons with disability is certainly not carrying sovereign functions. Such centre is

engaged for benefit of the handicapped persons.

Under Section 2(j) of ID Act, industry is defined as:- “ Industry means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture of calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial

occupation or a vocation of workmen.

In my considered view, considering pleadings and affidavit of evidence of workman, 2^nd party is covered as

an industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act as establishment of 2^nd party is not engaged in any kind of sovereign functions.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- workman has filed affidavit of his evidence and says that he was working with 2^nd party from 23-7-00

till Feb-06. He was working without break. The documents Exhibit W-3shows workman was working with 2^nd party

from 19-8-00 on consolidated basis. As per Exhibit W-4, he was working with 2^nd party from 23-7-00 to 5-3-01 on

consolidated wages Rs.1500. As per Exhibit W-5, workman had submitted his resume. He was working till 12-1-01.

Workman produced documents Exhibit W-7/2, 7/3, 7/4, 7/5, 7/6, payment vouchers since January 2001 till Sept.02.

evidence of Ist party workman that he was continuously working from July 2000 till February 2006 remained

unchallenged. Management of 2^nd party has failed to participate in reference proceeding. Therefore I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of workman that he was continuously working from July 2000 to Feb-06. Workman had completed

240 days continuous service during each of the calendar year. His services are orally terminated, notice of termination

was not issued to workman, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Other persons were appointed after

termination of his services. From reasons discussed above, it is clear that termination of services of workman is in

violation of provisions of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1, establishment of 2^nd party is an industry under Section 2(j) of

ID Act, in view of my finding in Point No.2- services of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25 H of ID

Act, question remains for consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Evidence of

workman that he was engaged after advertiseme4nt following recruitment process that he was transferred as employee

of Shri G.S.Gupta, contractor without his consent. When he was engaged as attendant on establishment of 2^nd party, his

transfer to contractor Shri G.S.Gupta appears illegal. The transfer of service of workman without issuing notice under

Section 9-A of ID Act appears illegal. Therefore the workman deserves reinstatement. In para-7 of his affidavit,

workman says after removal from service, he could not get employment else where. Said evidence remained

unchallenged. Therefore workman is also entitled to backwages. For above reasons, I hold that workman is entitled for

reinstatement with backwages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The establishment f 2^nd party is covered as Industry and provisions of ID Act are applicable to it.

(2)

Workman had worked more than 240 days in each of the year. Termination of his service without

notice is illegal.

(3)

Management is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service and backwages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

3078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1409-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xu dSfjt

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@6@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14012@65@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/6/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour-Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 06.07.2016.

[No. L-14012/65/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/6/2001

Shri Rakesh Kumar Patel,

H.No.1976, Baldi Bori ki Dafai,

East Ghamapur,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of June 2016

As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

14012/65/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of their

workman Shri Rakesh Kumar Patel w.e.f. 11-10-95 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of workman is that his father Shri Churaman Patel was working as Driver in GCF Jabalpur. His

father was medically boarder out due to chronic disease of TB and epilepsy. Ist party workman was appointed on

compassionate ground on 15-10-92 on probation of 2 years. He worked satisfactorily. However due to sickness of his

father, his father remained absent sometimes. He submitted leave application with medical certificate. His probation

period was extended time to time for six months. He was regularly attending his duties. However without prior notice,

his services were terminated as per order dated 11-10-95. Appeal preferred by him to the Board of Ordnance Factory

was also rejected on 27-10-95.

Workman submits that he is terminated illegally without giving retrenchment compensation. His termination

without notice is illegal. After retrenchment without paying compensation, he is facing hardship. He is required to look

after his ailing father. On such ground workman prays to reinstate workman with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that

termination of ist party workman is illegal. Workman is not entitled to any relief. Ist party workman was appointed on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3079

compassionate ground from 15-10-91 on probation of 2 years. His attendance was not satisfactory during probation

period. Probation of workman was extended for six months w.e.f. 15-10-92. Letter dated 12-10-93was issued to

workman advising to improve his attendance. Despite it, there was no improvement in his attendance. Probation was

extended thrice for six months each. There was no improvement in performance and attendance of workman despite 3

chances given to him and advisories issued. Finally his services were terminated on 11-10-95. Appeal preferred by

workman was rejected on 23-9-95. Workman was terminated for poor performance during probation period. The

termination of workman doesnot amount to retrenchment. Workman was given opportunity to improve his attendance

but he failed. Workman had regularly absented from duties and did not show any improvement. Termination of

workman is not illegal. 2^nd party prays workman is not entitled to 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 Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Rakesh Kumar Patel

w.e.f. 11-10-95 is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. In support of his

claim, workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That his father was

working as Driver. Workman was appointed on compassionate ground as Darbar on 5-10-92. That he worked

satisfactorily. For illness of his father, he was required to attend his father. His probation period was extended the

advisory notes was issued to him for improvement etc. From evidence of Ist party, documents Exhibit W-5 to W-8 are

admitted in evidence. In ohis cross-examination, workman says he received appointment letter Exhibit M-18. The

employees of 2^nd party received free medical treatment. The prescription pertaining to Exhibit W-6 was deposited in

the department. Ist party workman was unable to tell the year of receiving documents under RTI Act. He admits that

before the documents were received under RTI Act, Exhibit W-6 was produced in the case. Whenever he suffered

from illness, he received treatment from GCF Hospital, he received documents of treatment under RTI Act. Workman

admit that he was appointed on compassionate ground on 15-10-91 on probation of 2 years. His probation was

extended twice for six months as his attendance was poor. He denies that he was remaining absent without submitting

application supported by Medical Certificate. He admits that he had availed full CL, EL to his credit and remained

absent beyond the period of CL, EL. He remained absent even beyond medical leave was granted to him.

Management’s witness Shri C.Ngullie filed affidavit of his evidence narrating the details about extension of

probation period of workman and leave particulars. The extension of probation period of workman was made 4 times

and issuing notices to the workman. The documents are produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-10. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says Ist party workman was working from October 91 to October 95. During said period he was

not working in the establishment., the reasons for termination of workman were irregular attendance and unsatisfactory

performance during probation period. The procedure for taking leave is submitting prior application for leave. The

notices and documents Exhibit M-3, 6 & 10 its receipt from workman is not seen, probation period was extended 4

times. Everytime its information was sent to workman, M-6,10 are information sent to workman. On documents

Exhibit M-6 & M-10, receipts of workman is not seen. The leave record of employee is maintained. Witness is unable

to tell for how much period, leave record of workman was preserved.

Documents Exhibit M-18 is appointment letter, condition II is that workman was appointed on probation

period of 2 years, his services could not be terminated without notice. Exhibit W-6 is copy of prescription. Exhibit W-7

shows that father of Ist party workman received treatment in hospital. Exhibit M-1 is copy of appointment order of

workman, similar to Exhibit M-1`8, M-2 is copy of service book of workman shows different leaves availed by

workman time to time. Exhibit M-4 is report submitted w.r.t. workman, LWP for 18 days, 31 days, 29 days were

regularized. Exhibit M-5, 8 & 9 are report submitted by the Incharge. The leave period of workman is mentioned.

Document M-6 shows the service details of workman. M-6 is report submitted by the Administration about the

performance of workman during probation period was poor. The document M-9,10, reports submitted by concerned

Officer about performance of workman. Similar documents are produced at Exhibit M-11,12,13. Leave availed by

workman are also shown in other document. As per Exhibit M-14, name of workman are struck off from factory.

Exhibit M-15 is the copy of appeal memo. M-16,17 are order passed by Appellate Authority rejecting his claim.

3080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Document Exhibit W-1 shows erstwhile Ist party workman had filed Original Application 371/98. CAT

Jabalpur passed order for considering the representation of workman within 2 months. Exhibit W-2 is copy of

application submitted to ALC. W-3 is copy of rejection of appeal. W-4 is order passed under RTI that the copies of

leave application requested by workman could not be supplied. The details of leave availed by workman are enclosed

alongwith Exhibit M-4. Workman availed total 274 leave of different kinds. Out of it, workman was on LWP for 68

days. When workman was appointed on probation period, his probation was extended 4 times for poor performance. As

per conditions in appointment order, the services of workman were liable to be terminated without notice during

probation period. The documents produced in the case shows that workman availed different kind of 274 leaves

including 68 LWP. The termination of workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding on

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1410-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xq#

?kklhnkl lsaVªy ;wfuo£lVh] dks.kh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@26@14) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@158@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/26/14) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 06.07.2016.

[No. L-42012/158/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/14

Shri Nagendra Sharma,

S/o Shri D.P.Sharma,

R/o New Sarkanda,

Bangalipara, Gali No.6,

Bilaspur (CG)

… Workman

Versus

Registrar,

Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni,

Bilaspur CG

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 24-2-14 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

42012/158/2013-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3081

“Whether the action of the management of Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur through its Registrar &

Dy.Registrar (Admn.) in terminating/ discontinuing the services of Shri Nagendra Sharma, Ex.Daily Wage Clerk w.e.f.

11-6-12 was legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of Ist party is that Ist party Nagendra Sharma was appointed on 21-8-98 as daily wage clerk against vacant post in

establishment of 2^nd party. His service record was unblemished. Ist party was continuously working till 11-6-12. His

services were terminated on 11-6-12. Workman had completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of his

termination. Explanation of workman was called w.r.t. news in daily news paper “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 9-6-12. That

Ist party corrected papers receiving the amount. Workman had denied allegations against him as false. Without giving

any opportunity for his defence, management terminated his service, no enquiry was conducted against workman w.r.t.

alleged charges. If enquiry could have been done, workman would have been exonerated. That workman completed

more than 14 years service with the management of 2^nd party. His services are terminated without holding enquiry.

Principles of natural justice are not followed. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of his

service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Rule 76, 76-A of Industrial Rules are not followed. Workman is not

paid retrenchment compensation. On such ground, workman prays for setting aside order of his termination and prays

for reinstatement with back wages.

After notice, 2^nd party appeared through Advocate. On application of 2^nd party, case was adjourned for filing

Written Statement on 22-8-12, 11-12-12. Management did not filed Written Statement. On 23-8-2015, 2^nd party was

proceeded without Written Statement.

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 Guru

Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur through its

Registrar & Dy.Registrar (Admn.) in terminating/

discontinuing the services of Shri Nagendra

Sharma, Ex.Daily Wage Clerk w.e.f. 11-6-12 was

legal, proper and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination/ discontinuing services of workman. 2^nd party is

proceeded without Written Statement. Workman filed affidavit under Order 18 on most of his contentions in statement

of claim that he was appointed on 21-8-98 by 2^nd party. He was continuously working till 1-10-12. He completed more

than 240 days continuous service. That his services were terminated as per order dated 11-6-12 on the ground that his

services are no more required. That his explanation was called on 9-6-12. That he was collecting papers except money.

No enquiry was held against him. From evidence, Exhibit W-1 to W-6 are admitted in evidence. Evidence of workman

remained unchallenged. For unknown reasons which appears suspicious, 2^nd party has not filed Written Statement, not

participated in the reference proceeding. Management of 2^nd party may take its notice as to what were the reasons

Written Statement were not filed and whether it was a motive to support claim of Ist party workman unreasonably.

However as 2^nd party has not participated in reference, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of workman. As services

of workman are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation not paid, any enquiry is not conducted,

termination of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, termination of services of workman is illegal. Counsel for Ist

party submitted written notes of argument instead of arguing before undersigned. Learned counsel has relied on ratio

held in

Case of Gauri Shanker versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 STPL(Web)321 SC. Their Lordship dealing

with Section 25-F, H of ID Act held that the Single Judge and the Division Bench under their supervisory

jurisdiction should not have modified the award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is

contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down in the catena of cases by Apex Court. The award of

Labour Court is restored. So far as order of reinstatement, respondent department further directed to reinstate

workman in its post and pay 25 % backwages.

3082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Learned counsel has also relied on ratio held in Mackinon Mackenzie & Company versus Mackinon

Employees Union reported in 2015-STPL(web) 142 SC. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F clause (b) of ID Act

held since no evidence has been produced by respondent Union to prove further no calculation has brought as to

amount received by way of retrenchment compensation and also the actual amount sought to have been paid to the

retrenched workman. Further with regard to provision of Section 25-F clause(b), Appellant Company has not been able

to produce cogent evidence. Retrenchment was held void-ab-initio. Moulding of relief was not upheld.

Considering reasons discussed above, termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID

Act. The reinstatement of workman with 50 % backwages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman on same status he was working with 50 % back wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1411-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Oghdy

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@19@09) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@15@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2016

S.O. 1411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/19/09) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour-Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06.07.2016.

[No. L-14011/15/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/09

General Secretary,

Ayudh Nirmani Vahan Chaalak Sangh,

MP Zone,

Qr.No.2287/A, New Type-II, Sector-I,

VFJ, Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

Sr.General Manager,

Vehicle Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of June 2016

As per letter dated 3-3-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

14011/15/2008-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3083

“Whether the demand of the Ayudh Nirmani Vahan Chaalak Sangh, MP Zone for half an hour lunch from the

management of Vehicle Factory for their workman Shri P.S.Biswas, Leading Hand Fire, Fire Brigade Section

since 1973 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party failed to appear in the reference

proceeding despite repeated notices. On 10-2-16, information was received that Ist party workman died, his LRs have

not brought on record.

2^nd party has filed written Statement. The contentions of 2^nd party are that claim of workman pertains that

management should pay additional wages for additional 30 days beyond normal 8 hours duty. When he was

compelled to work 8 ½ hours instead of 8 hours duty and pay arrears along with interest @ 18 % w.e.f. the date of

arrears fell due till realization. Claim of workman was opposed by management on the ground that claim is vague,

claim has become stale as same is very old. There is no justification for raising such a dispute at belated stage. The

claim of workman deserves to be rejected. Ist party workman is essential category of staff. The factory under

management has been registered with the Factory Inspector under Factory Act, 1948 and MP Factories rules framed

thereunder. The duty hours of workman along with other workman in the factory are 8 hours daily. Timing of each

workman is depending on the nature of work detained. After 5 hours duty, workman is given 30 minutes break which is

usually given for lunch, dinner or for taking rest in the night shift. Workman is an essential category staff, his duty hour

was rotated in shift. It is reiterated that 30 minutes interval is given after 5 hours continuous work, the same is utilised

for lunch, rest etc. workman is not entitled for extra wages for the interval period.

Under section 54 of Factories Act, adult worker be required to be allowed to work in factory for not more than

9 hours. As per section 55 of Factories Act, duty of adult workers are required or allowed to work in a factory for more

than nine hours in any day subject to maximum 48 hours in any week. As per Section 55 of Factories Act, duty of adult

worker in a factory in each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed 5 hours and that no worker shall work for

more than 5 hours before he has had an interval for rest of atleast half an hour. In view of above statutory provisions

and the practice being followed in the factory, workman was not compelled to perform duty beyond 8 hours in a day

and in all 48 hours in a week. Workman has been paid extra wages as per factory Act.

2^nd party has filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Rajendra singh supporting contentions in Written Statement.

Ist party workamn failed to participate in reference proceeding, workman died during pendency of reference,

his LRs are not brought on record. Therefore No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1412-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku

bysDVªkWfuDl ,aM baLVªwesaV~l fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ dsl la- 2@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-07-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@110@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 2/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour-Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Rajasthan Electronics abd Instruments Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.07.2016.

[No. L-42011/110/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 2/2015

Reference No.L-42011/110/2014-IR(DU) dated: 18/19.12.2014

3084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh

Regional Office -42A, Patel Colony,

Sardar Patel Marg, C-skim,

Jaipur -302012.

V/s

The Managing Director

Rajasthan Electronics and

Instruments Limited, 2, Kanakpura

Industrial Area, Sirsi Road,

Jaipur -302012

Present :

For the applicant

Self

For the non-applicant

Sh. Neeraj Saxena, Additional General Manager, ( P & IR).

AWARD

31.5.2016

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

¶D;k izca/u jktLFku bysDVªksfud ,.M bULVª™esaV fy- (jhy)] t;iqj ds }kjk Hkjrh; etnwj la?k lefFkZr ;wfu;u dks laLFku ifjlj esa ubZ

dk;Zlfefr jktLFku bysDVªksfud ,.M bULVª™esaV fy- deZpkjh la?k ds uke ls xfBr ugha djus nsuk ,oa iwoZ deZdkj jkekvorkj tkafxM dks mDr

dk;Zlfefr dk v/;{k u ekuuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugh rks ;wfu;u fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dh vf/dkjh gS\¸

Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to both the parties after

registration of the case fixing 22.6.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 22.6.2015 Sh. Rajbihari Sharma, Secretary of

the Union was present on behalf of applicant & Sh. Neeraj Saxena, Additional General Manager, ( P & IR) was present

on behalf of opposite party. Oral request was made by applicant which was granted & 3.8.2015 was next date fixed for

filing statement of claim. On 3.8.2015 presiding officer was on leave. Sh. Ramavatar Jangid, President of the Union

was present on behalf of applicant who requested further time to file statement of claim. None appeared on behalf of

opposite party. Next date 14.9.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On 14.9.2015 both the parties were present.

Adjournment application was moved from applicant side with request that this case has to be withdrawn by Central

Government & action is in progress for the same. In the application it has been alleged that the Central Government

had made reference in this case considering dispute between the parties whereas the case is for proceeding with a

complaint before the competent court against the opposite party for unfair labour practice. It has been further alleged

that a representation dated 11.2.2015 has been submitted to Central Government, Labour Department which has been

sent for necessary action before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur which is pending for disposal. The

above adjournment application was allowed fixing 9.11.2015 for filing statement of claim or application for withdrawal

of reference.

On 9.11.2015 both the parties were absent. Neither any one appeared from both the side nor statement of

claim was filed till the closure for the day. In the interest of justice case was adjourned providing last opportunity to the

applicant for filing statement of claim on 20.11.2015. On 20.11.2015 none appeared from applicant side. Sh. Neeraj

Saxena, Additional General Manager, ( P & IR) & Sh. Subhash Agrawal, AGM (Fin.) were present on behalf of

opposite party. Neither statement of claim nor application for withdrawal of reference was filed. Once again adjourning

the case last opportunity was given to the applicant fixing 30.12.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 30.12.2015

neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor statement of claim was filed. Sh. Neeraj Saxena, Additional General

Manager, ( P & IR) & Rakesh Chopra, GM (Ele.) were present on behalf of opposite party. It was strongly opposed by

opposite party that applicant is neither filing statement of claim nor application for withdrawal of reference. The case

was again adjourned by the tribunal in the interest of justice providing last opportunity to file statement of claim or

application for withdrawal of reference on 28.1.2016.

Prior to 28.1.2016 an application was submitted by opposite party on 22.1.2016 to adjourn the case on

28.1.2016 owing to their inability to appear on 28.1.2016. On 28.1.2016 none appeared on behalf of applicant &

statement of claim was not filed. None appeared on behalf of opposite party in view of application dated 22.1.2016. It

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3085

was observed that despite providing opportunities applicant neither appears nor files statement of claim. It was also

observed that applicant has been provided last opportunities also. However once again last opportunity was provided to

the applicant fixing 15.2.2016 for filing statement of claim. On 15.2.2016 both the parties were absent & presiding

officer was on leave. 14.3.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim. On 14.3.2016 none appeared on

behalf of applicant. Sh. Neeraj Saxena, Additional General Manager, ( P & IR) & Sh. Rakesh Chopra, GM

(Electronics) were present on behalf of opposite party. statement of claim was not filed. Once more last opportunity

was given fixing 18.4.2016 for filing statement of claim by applicant. It was further ordered that reminder be sent to the

applicant to appear & file statement of claim.

On 18.4.2016 both parties were absent and presiding officer was on leave. 26.4.2016 next date was fixed for

filing statement of claim. On 26.4.2016 both the parties were absent. Concerned official of CGIT, Jaipur was directed

to send the reminder to applicant for filing statement of claim by next date 26.5.2016 providing once more last

opportunity to applicant for filing statement of claim. After order on 26.4.2016 representatives of opposite party came

in appearance who were made aware of the order passed on 26.4.2016. On 26.5.2016 applicant neither appeared after

service of letter of reminder nor filed statement of claim. Sh. Neeraj Saxena, Additional General Manager, ( P & IR) &

Sh. Ajay Bhargava, G.M. (C.P.& H.R.) were present for opposite party. In above fact & circumstance there appeared

no further need to adjourn the case & provide further opportunity to applicant for filing statement of claim.

Accordingly opportunity was closed & case was reserved for award.

It is pertinent to note that on 17.4.2014 reference order was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to file

statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim

on the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears that

applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances & in the absence of

material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.

Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1413-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 71@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@145@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41012/145/2004-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

3086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 71/2005

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai – 400008

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004.

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Divisional Office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

Shri Anil Kumar Pal,

664/12, R.H. Railway Colony,

Maninagar,

Ahmedabad (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-41012/145/2004-IR(B-I) dated 24.08.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway in fixing the seniority of Shri Anil Kumar H. Pal

below his original seniority, is proportionate to the mistake committed by the applicant or not? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 24.08.2005. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 8 of his advocate on

25.01.2006 and second party also filed his vakalatpatra of his advocate on 20.08.2009 but the second party has not

preferred to submit his statement of claim, consequentially, first party has also not filed the written statement. The

conduct of the second party indicates that he has no willingness to prosecute the reference. Thus, the tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1414-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 67@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@40@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/40/2004-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3087

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 67/2005

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai – 400008

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

…First Party

v/s

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E-209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (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-41011/40/2004-IR (B-I) dated 10.08.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway by placing Shri Jagdish Y., Pointsmen, Sabarmati

(M.G.) below to his juniors in the seniority list is justified and legal? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and to what extent?”

The reference dates back to 10.08.2005. Both the parties were served to registered post and first party

submitted the Vakalatpatra Ext. 4 of his advocate on11.01.2010 and Ext. 13 on 25.01.2006 and could not filed the

written statement in the absence of statement of claim. Second party, The General Secretary, Paschim Railway

KarmachariParishad was issued notice twice. Both were received unserved on account of refusal. It is also noteworthy

that the second party despite having knowledge of the reference by way of service of the copy of the reference directly

send to him by M/o Labour and Employment, has been absent continuously. Thus it appears that second party has no

intent to prosecute the case.Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1415-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

vkWiQ lkSjk"Vª 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- 03@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@213@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

of Saurashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/213/2004-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 03/2005

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,

Head Office,

Neelam Baug,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

… First Party

V/s

Mr. Manishkumar S. Solanki, (Vanand),

Sardar Patel Society,

Ravapar Road, Near Geeta Mozaia,

Morvi(Gujarat) – 363641

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.B. Gogia

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

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

L-12012/213/2004-IR(B-I) dated 04.01.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of Shri Manish Kumar S. Solanki, that he was engaged as a peon by the management of

State Bank of Saurashtra during the period form 02.08.1997 to 23.06.2000 on continuous basis is correct? If

so, whether the action of the management in terminating him with effect from 23.06.2000 is legal and justified

and what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 04.01.2005. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on 27.05.2004

and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 7 on 14.07.2011. Since then second party has been either absent on

most of the dates or present formally on one or two dates but did not prefer to lead evidence. The case is too old and in

such circumstances, the litigation cannot be taken as luxury. Thus in the said circumstances, when the

workman/second party is not serious in the prosecution of the case. The tribunal has no option but to treat the case as

dead.

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

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3089

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1416-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 147@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@72@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/72/2012-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 147/2012

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

100/B, Railway Colony, Vatva,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Navin S. Vaghela

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

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

L-41011/72/2012-IR(B-I) dated 24.09.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Ahmedabad in not considering ShriMukesh V.

Rathod as a ST candidate and not giving him promotion against ST quota is legal and justified? To what relief

the workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 24.09.2012. Both the parties were served to registered post and first party also

filed the vakalatpatra Ext. 5 of his advocate ShriNavin S. Vaghela. Since then the second party has been absent and has

also not submitted the statement of claim. On 18.12.2015, second party was given the last opportunity but to no result.

Thus it appears that second party has no intent to prosecute the case.Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

case in default of the second party.

3090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 169@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@77@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 169/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/77/2013-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 169/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Mumbai Division,

Western Railway, Mumbai Central,

Mumbai – 8

…First Party

v/s

The Dy.General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

33, Moti Bhavan, 2^nd floor, Dr. D’silva Road,

Dadar (W),

Mumbai – 28

…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-41011/77/2013-IR

(B-I) dated 23.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Western Railway,Divisional Railway Manager, Mumbai in not giving

family pension to Ms. Neelam, daughter of Late Shri Rajaram Pal Ex-Gangman is legal, just and proper? To

what relief M.S. Meelam is entitled?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3091

The reference dates back to 23.09.2013.The second party, Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari

Parishasd, Baroda received the notice in person on 02.06.2014 since then the aforesaid party did not submit the

statement of claim and also absent. 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] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV 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- 104@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@39@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/39/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 104/2004

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Main Branch,

Bhadra,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…First Party

Vs.

Shri Devendrabhai Shivrumbhai Chauhan,

A/3 Siddhi Society,

B/h Veejnath Mahadeve Temple,

Vejalpur,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…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-12012/39/98-IR(B-I)

dated 28.08.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

3092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of themanagement of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri

Devendrabhai Shivrumbhai Chauhan, w.e.f. 23.11.96 and not considering for regular employment is justified?

If not what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 28.08.1998. The second parties submitted the statement of claim on 09.10.1998.

And first party filed the written statement on 04.02.1999. Since then the second party has not come forward to lead his

evidence.

Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to proceed with the reference. The learned advocate of the

second party has also expressed unwillingness to proceed with the reference. Thus the tribunal has no option but to

dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

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

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 172@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@55@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/55/2013-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 27^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 172/2013

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai – 400020

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Divisional Office,

Bhavnagar Division,

Bhavnagar Para

…First Party

v/s

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3093

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

B/28, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad(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-

41011/55/2013-IR(B-I) dated 30.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management in relation to Bhavnagar Division of Western Railway in showing the

name of Shri Barmeshwar Nath, T.C. at Sr. No. 19 in the seniority list circulated vide letter No.

EC/1030/03/06 Vol. VII dated 15.09.2010 of DRM, Bhavnagar and, in not including his name in the panel of

candidates suitable for promotion circulated vide letter No. EC/1026/23 Vol. II dated 02.11.2010 of the DRM,

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

The reference dates back to 30.09.2013. The second party, The President, Paschim Railway

KarmachariParishad received the notice in person on 03.06.2014, since then second party has not submitted the

statement of claim. Thus it appears that second party has no intent to prosecute the case.

Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 161@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@20@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/20/2013-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

3094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 161/2013

The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda

…First Party

v/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole,

Kothi,

Baroda(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-41011/20/2013-IR(B-I) dated 20.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Baroda to give appointment in

Railway service to Shri Mahesh Kumar S., S/o Shri Shantilal Mathur, Ex. Gangman, who opted VRS w.e.f.

07.04.2011 as per Railway Board’s instruction is legal, proper and just? If so, to what direction is necessary in

this matter?”

The reference dates back to 20.09.2013. The second party, Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari

Parishasd, Baroda received the notice in person on 02.06.2014 since then the aforesaid party did not submit the

statement of claim and also absent. 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] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 845@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@259@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 845/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41012/259/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3095

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. 845/2004

The Divisional Electrical Engineer(Power),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda - 390004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai

The Assistant Electrical Engineer,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

…First Party

v/s

The Hon. Secretary,

General Workmen’s Union, Sindurimata Devasthan,

ST Nagar Road,

Godhra(Gujarat) – 389001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

Shri J.K. Ved

AWARD

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

L-41012/259/2003-IR(B-I) dated 22.03.2004 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 Assistant Electrical Engineer (P), Western Railway, Baroda in

removal from service of Shri Budhabhai V. Patel w.e.f. 30.10.2002 is legal, proper and justified? If not to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

The reference dates back to 22.03.2004. All the parties were served. Second party submitted the statement of

claim Ext. 4 on 12.06.2006. First party filed the vakalatpatra Ext. 7 of his advocate on 13.06.2006 but he did not filed

the written statement. On 17.12.2015, the case was fixed for exparty hearing on account of non-filing of written

statement by first party but today on 26.04.2016, second party did not respond to lead evidence. It is also noteworthy

that both the parties have been absent since last several dates. 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

3096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV 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- 144@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@177@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/177/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 144/2004

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Main Branch,

Bhadra,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…First Party

Vs.

Shri Dinesh Somabhai Parmar,

158 Rami’s Chawl,

Rakhial Road,

Ahmedabad – 380021

…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-

12012/177/98-IR(B-I) dated 13.01.1999 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 State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh

Somabhai Parmar w.e.f. 07.05.1995 and not considering him for regular employment is justified? If not, what

relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 13.01.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Exhibit - 4 on

06.10.1999. The first party filed the vakalatnama Exhibit – 5 of his advocate on 15.12.1999 and written statement

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3097

exhibit – 7 on 08.02.2000. Since then second party has been avoiding to lead evidence. The learned advocate of the

second party today on 21.04.2016 expressed unwillingness to proceed with the reference.

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

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cacbZ

eds±Vkby lgdkjh cSad 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@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 67@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10-05-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@75@94&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-12012/75/94-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 67/2007

The General Manager,

The Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Rustum Kama Marg,

Khanpur,

Ahmedabad

…First Party

Vs.

Shri Nayan S. Shah,

21, New Kundan Nagar Society,

Rajendra Park,

Highway Road,

Ahmedabad – 382415

…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-12012/75/94-

IR(B-I) dated 19.07.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

3098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad in dismissing

the services of Shri Nayan S. Shah w.e.f. 12-11-1991 is legal, justified & proper? If not, to what relief, the

workmen is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 19.07.1995. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on

15.09.1995. First party filed the vakalatnama Ext. 5 on 15.09.1995 and written statement Ext. 7 on 27.11.1995.

Today on 21.04.2016, Advocate for second party has moved an application ext. 67 for withdrawal of the

reference on the ground that the dispute has been settled between the parties before the Reconciliation Officer on

13.07.2015 agreeing to pay Rs.50, 000 to the second party as a full and final settlement. Thus the application was

allowed.

Thus the reference is dismissed as withdrawn by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 162@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@21@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2016

S.O. 1424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 162/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.05.2016.

[No. L-41011/21/2013-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 162/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda

The Sr. Divisional Engineer,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda

The Sr. Section Engineer(P. Way),

Western Railway,

Platform No. 6,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

… First Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3099

v/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole,

Kothi,

Baroda (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-41011/21/2013-IR(B-I) dated 20.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Baroda to give increment to

Shri Mahiji Madilal, Gangman w.e.f. 27.07.1988 till his retirement and also give the benefit of ACP or MACP

and to pay the arrear payment along with 16% interest is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief the

concerned workman Shri Mahiji Madilal, Ex-Gangman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 20.09.2013.The second party, Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari

Parishasd, Baroda received the notice in person on 02.06.2014 since then the aforesaid party did not submit the

statement of claim and also absent. 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] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1425-—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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 82@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@148@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Delhi 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 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/148/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 82/2001

The General Secretary,

Bank of Baroda Employee’s Union,

4824/24, Ansari Road.

Darya Ganj, Ansari Road

…Workman

Versus

3100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager, BOB, Zonal Officer, 16,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi -110001

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-12011/148/2001( IR(B-II)) dated

16.05.2002 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, North Zone, New Delhi in imposing

upon Sh. Attar Singh the punishment of reduction of 5 stages in pay scale with cumulative effect and

withdrawal of Head Cashier Allowance permanently vide order dated 02.06.1999 is reasonable , valid , legal

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

On 26.11.2001 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 82/2001 and claimant

union was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to

be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 11.07.2002. Through which he prayed as

follows:-

“It is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly pass award holding the orders of punishment are illegal

and invalid and are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above. It may further be held that the workman

is entitled to all consequential benefits including pay-revisions and increments fallen, etc.”

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 4.04.2003 Through which it prayed as

follows:-

To hold that the order of references are invalid and illegal incapable of being entertained and

answered by the Tribunal in accordance with law save to declare the same as prayed above;

To hold that the domestic enquiry held by the Bank and the findings of the enquiry officer are

substantially just, fair and in conformity with the mandate of law as well as pronouncements of law

and that no prejudice has been caused to the workman;

To hold that the punishment imposed on the workman is not disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct found proved against him;

Against which workmen filed rejoinder on 4.11.2003. Where-in he prayed as follows:

“It is prayed to the Hon’ble Tribunal that award holding that the orders of Disciplinary and Appellate

Authority are illegal and invalid and set-aside the same and it may further be held that the workman is entitled

to the increments illegally stopped and also entitled to Head Cashier Allowance and other consequential

benefits including pay revisions and increments fallen during the intervening period and seniority. Interest @

10% per annum also be awarded to the workman on the amount payable to the workman on account of the

imposition of punishment. Prayed accordingly.

“My Ld. Predecessor on 19.04.2005 framed following issues:-

Whether the reference in questions is invalid?

Whether the departmental enquiry is fair and proper or was conducted fairly? OPM

Whether the present reference is not maintained in written statement? OPM

In terms of reference?

Several opportunities were given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed then on 11.03.2014.

Evidence of workman was closed and 21.04.2014 was fixed for management evidence. On 17.10.2014 management

filed affidavit of management witness Sh. S.S. Khemka Enquiry Officer which was tendered on 8.10.2015.

Statement of MW1 is as follows:-

I tender my affidavit in my evidence Exh. MW1/A. Which bears my signature at point A and B. I rely upon

the documents Exh. M1/1 & MW1/4. Which are already relied upon by the workman and filed alongwith his statement

of claim.

I did not want to Exh. MW1/2.

XXX:- Nil as none present to cross-examine the witness.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3101

MW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the workman.

So his evidence is unrebutted MW1 is Retired Officer of Bank. So his evidence comes within category of

reliable and credible evidence which cannot be overlooked.

However after long gap application on behalf of workman moved under order 18 R 17 read with S.151 C.P.C.

Through which workman prayed for setting aside order dated 11.03.2014 and 3.12.2016 and sought permission to lead

his evidence in this old I.D. of 2001 as well as sought permission to cross-examine MW1 which was rejected by

detailed order on 6.4.2016. Aforesaid order has not been challenged by workman.

Workman and management filed written arguments.

On the basis of written arguments I perused the pleadings and evidence of parties on record.

My issuewise findings are as follows:-

Findings on Issue no. 1 and 3 .

Burden to proof to prove Issue No. 1 and 3 lies on management but management adduced no evidence on this

point hence Issue No.1 and 3 liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management . Which are

accordingly decided .

Findings on Issue no. 2

Burden of proof to prove Issue no. 2 lies on workman as well as management .

In the instant case workman even after several opportunities adduced his no evidence to show that principles

of natural justice were not followed hence enquiry is not just, proper , fair and legal.

But management through its unrebutted reliable and credible evidence proved that departmental enquiry was

conducted fairly hence it was just, proper and legal. Hence Issue No.2 is liable to be decided against workman and in

favour of management. Which is accordingly decided.

Finding on Issue No. 4

It is related to relief to workman. But issue No. 2.has already been decided against workman. So workman is

entitled to no relief. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided.

Reference is liable to be decided in favour of management and against workman. Which is accordingly

decided. Claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-14.06.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@05@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/05/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

3102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/ 25 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal 1501,

Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Organizing Secretary

Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sena

25, Union House, 1^st floor

Brelvi Marg, Fort

Mumbai-400 023

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. S.Z. Chowdhary, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30^thMay, 2016

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment by its order No.L-12011/05/2013 IR(B-II) dated

18.4.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause(d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act,1947 (14 of 1947) has referred the following Industrial Dispute to the Tribunal to the

adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bank of Maharashtra, Pune denying the ‘Compassionate

Allowance’ to Shri Mukund M. Ghate, Ex-employee is proper and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receipt of Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, Second party

workman has filed Statement of Claim Ex-4. According to him, he had been in the employment of bank w.e.f.

12.09.69. He was terminated w.e.f. 28.3.2000 after completing 30 years of employment. At the time of termination of

his services, he was designated as Head Cashier and was posted in Dwarka Nasik Branch of the Bank. The Provident

Fund Account No of the workman is 2714. He was paid his PF accumulations in the year 2008. He is entitled to interest

on the PF amount till the date of payment. However, instead of paying interest on the PF amount till the date of

payment, he was paid interest on the said amount only for 3 months. He, therefore, repeatedly approached the bank for

the payment of interest for the balance period, but the bank has not paid the same to him till date.

According to him after termination of his services, he had repeatedly approached the bank-management for

Compassionate Allowance to which he is entitled to under the rulesof the Bank. However, the same has not been paid

to him till date on false, baseless and concocted premises.

According to him his financial condition is not sound, his wife is not working in the bank and his son is also

not residing with him or maintaining him. The Compassionate Allowance has been denied to him without following

Principles of Natural Justice in as much as no personal hearing was given to him before taking decision adverse to his

interests. The action of the Bank management is, therefore per se illegal and bad in law.

According to him in this regard he has sent several letters to the Bank apart from visiting the bank. He had

also sent letter of demand dated 12^th March, 2012 to the General Manager of the Bank which has been duly received by

him. However, there is no response whatsoever from him in the matter. He therefore, had sent another letter of demand

dated 16^th April, 2012 to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Bank. Though, both the authorities have duly

received the said letters, they have failed and neglected to respond the same.

He therefore approaches the Conciliation Officer with request to intervene in the matter as per the provisions

of the I.D. Act, 1947. As the conciliation failed, the Labour Ministry sent the Reference to the Tribunal. According to

the workman, he is entitled to receive interest on the PF accumulation till the date of actual payment. He is also entitled

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3103

to Compassionate Allowance, he is therefore asking for an award directing, the employer to pay the interest on PF

(Provident Fund) accumulation and arrears of Compassionate Allowance with interest @ 20% p.a. along with cost.

The first party management resisted the Statement of Claim by filing the written statement Ex-7. According to

it, the workman was served charge-sheet dated 29.12.1999 for the misconduct or misappropriation of the Bank’s funds

to the tune of Rs. 3.54 lakhs for which he was charge sheeted under clause 19.5(j) and 19.5(d) of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 1996. By doing the said act which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving Bank in serious

loss which is major misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement 1996 and by causing by willful damage

to the property of the Bank which is major misconduct under 19.5 (d) of Bipartite settlement 1996.

According to the bank in the charge sheet, it is alleged that- Second party workman was working as Cashier

in Charge at Dwarka Branch, Nasik since 14.07.1999. On 03.11.1999 the Branch Manager undertook surprise cash

verification before the commencement of the business hours in the morning in his presence. During the cash

verification, it was revealed that as per cash docket, the closing balance of cash as on 02.11.1999 was Rs. 10, 98,148.06

but the actual cash balance found to be only Rs. 7,43,642. Thus, there was a cash shortage of Rs. 3,54,498.06.

Employee has confessed vide his letter dated 03.11.1999 addressed to the Branch Manager Dwarka branch, Nasik that

he has misappropriated the above amount of Rs. 3,54,498.06 without the knowledge of Bank Officials. He had made

good the amount subsequently on 5.11.1999. Therefore the bank holds him responsible for the said cash shortage and

for false reporting of the cash balance in the cash docket, knowing fully-well that the amount of cash actually held was

less by Rs. 3, 54,498. The Bank therefore issued him charge sheet.

According to the Bank for the said misconduct, an inquiry was held after giving the workman a fair

opportunity to defend. Notice of inquiry was given to workman and workman attended the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer

read out the Charge Sheet to the workman and asked him whether he had received the charge sheet and has understood

the charges. The workman sated that he had understood the charges. In the inquiry the Inquiry Officers asked workman

whether he is admitting the charges. The workman replied he has understood both the charges and he is admitting both

the charges. The Inquiry Officer also asked to workman whether he wanted to defend his case through his defense

representative. The workman stated the he does not want to defend his case through any representative, but he has

admitted all the charges leveled against him. During inquiry Presenting Officer submitted about 11 documents in the

inquiry. The workman has accepted the documents produced by the presenting officer. Even permission was given to

the workman to submit his arguments. In view of these documents submitted by both the parties, the charges leveled

against Second party workman are proved beyond doubt. Since the workman admitted his misconduct unconditionally

without any reservation, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that all the

charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry report and after giving the workman an

opportunity of personal hearing and after considering all the submissions made by the workman, the workman is

dismissed from service vide order dated 25.3.2000.

10.

According to the management before taking disciplinary action, the bank has followed the Principles of

natural justice and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are fair, proper, legal and justified. The punishment

awarded to the workman is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him.

11.

It is contended by the management that the Compassionate Allowance is paid under clause 31(1) of Bank of

Maharashtra Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995. The competent authority had rejected the claim of workman for

Compassionate Allowance as the workman Mr. Ghate had committed the gross misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) and

Clause 19.5 (d) of Bipartite Settlement 1996. The decision of competent authority was based on facts. The Bank had

lost trust in him. The integrity and the honesty of the employee i.e. Mr. Ghate is of vital importance. Due to breach of

trust and dishonesty of Mr. Ghate he did not deserve any special consideration for sanction of Compassionate

Allowance. His request for reconsideration for payment of Compassionate Allowance was disallowed by competent

authority and decision was conveyed to him vide letter dated 9.5.2011.

12.

According to the First party management, the workman is not entitled to payment of interest on the Provident

Fund and Compassionate allowance as per the provision of Bank of Maharashtra Employee’s P.F. Rules. Hence, he is

not entitled to any relief. Hence First party Bank prays that Reference be rejected with cost.

13.

Following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr no. Issues

Findings

Whether the action of the management in denying the

‘Compassionate Allowance’ to Shri Mukund M.

Ghate, Ex-employee is proper and justified?

Yes.

3104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

Not entitled to any relief.

What Order?

As per final order.

Reasons

Issue No. 1:

14.

Herein the fact is not disputed that the workman had been in employment of the bank from 12.9.1969. He

was terminated w.e.f. 28.3.2000 after completing of 30 years of employment. In his cross-examination the workman

has admitted that he was served with Charge Sheet for misappropriation of Rs. 3,54,498.06. As per his glaring

admission in the inquiry, he has admitted the charge. He even admitted that the misconduct on his part was of major

nature and he was dismissed from the service. He even admitted that, it being major misconduct, the competent

authority had not granted Compassionate Allowance. He even admitted that he is not entitled to Compassionate

Allowance, this glaring admission in his Cross-examination disentitles him from claiming Compassionate Allowance

when he himself admitted that he is not entitled to any Compassionate Allowance.

15.

It is significant to note that in his statement of claim the workman has not even stated that he was served with

the Charge sheet dated 29.12.1999 for the misconduct of misappropriation of Bank’s fund to the tune of Rs 3.54 lakhs.

He has not stated in statement of claim that the inquiry was held in respect of misconduct but then admitted in cross-

examination that in inquiry he had admitted the charge and also repaid the misappropriated amount to the bank. In

Statement of Claim he has stated that he had been terminated 28.3.2000 but in Statement of claim, he has not stated that

he has been terminated after inquiry as regard the alleged misconduct of misappropriation of huge amount to the tune

3.54 lakhs. That would show that workman Shri Mukund M. Ghate has tried to suppress the material facts.

16.

In his evidence Mr. Sushil S. Chavan, Chief Manager, Zonal Office Bank of Maharashtra has specifically

stated that notice of inquiry was given to the workman and workman attended the inquiry. He then stated that the

workman admitted all the charges leveled against him and even 11 documents submitted by management were admitted

by workman and the workman even did not want inspection of these documents. In his evidence, he has stated that

opportunity was given to workman to defend himself through his defense representative to which he denied. The

Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report and on the basis of inquiry report, after giving an opportunity to the

workman of personal hearing and after considering all the facts he was dismissed from service vide order dated

25.3.2000. This sort of evidence of management is acceptable since his cross-examination in this respect has not been

shattered.

17.

The workman has not challenged the termination, so the only decisive question is whether he is entitled to

Compassionate Allowance.

18.

In this respect it is useful to refer clause 31(1) of the Bank of Maharashtra Employees’ Pension Regulation

1995. It reads as under-

“An employee, who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension”

Provided that authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate him from service may, if-

Such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after the 1^st day of November 1993; and

The case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a Compassionate Allowance not exceeding

two-thirds of the Pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying

service rendered up to the date of his dismissal, removal or termination.

19.

On going through this clause 31(1) of Bank of Maharashtra Employees’ Pension Regulation 1995, it is clear

that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate employee may consider the

case in respect of Compassionate Allowance and if the case is deserving special consideration then only the authority

may sanction a Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two thirds of the pension. In the case in hand, it is clear that

the competent authority has considered and rejected the claim of the second party employee in respect of

Compassionate Allowance on the ground that Mr. Ghate had committed gross-misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) Clause

19.5(d) of Bipartite Settlement dated 1996. It appears that the decision of the competent authority was based on facts

and the said decision was conveyed to the workman Mr. Ghate by letter dated 19.6.2012.

20.

Charges against Mr. Ghate are in respect of misappropriation of huge amount of the funds of Bank to the

tune of Rs. 3.54 lakhs. He was in-charge at Dwarka Branch and was doing job in respect of handling of cash of the

Bank which is the matter of trust and confidence. By committing misappropriation of such a huge amount concerned

employee Mr. Ghate had lost trust and confidence and considering misconduct his claim for Compassionate Allowance

is rejected twice, since integrity and honesty of employee is of vital importance in the Banking Industry which deals

with public money. In view of that the admission of second party employee Mr. Ghate in his cross-examination is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3105

sufficient to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to Compassionate Allowance. I find therefore that the action

of Management in denying the Compassionate Allowance to ex-employee Mr. Ghate is proper and justified. Issue No.

1 is answered accordingly in the affirmative.

Issues Nos.2 and 3:

21.

So far contentions go, it is contended by the second party employee in his Statement of claim that he is

entitled to interest at the rate of 20% p.a. on PF accumulation till the date of actual payment. It is contended that PF and

Compassionate Allowance has been ‘with-held’ by employer bank without any justification.

22.

In this respect, in his affidavit Mr. Ghate has stated that he was paid PF accumulation in the year 2008. He

admits that he was paid interest on the said amount for the period of 3 months. So far claim as regards interest on the

PF accumulation amount, it appears that he has received the interest on the accumulated PF as per the provisions of

Bank of Maharashtra Employees Provident Fund Rules.

23.

It is not the case that the second party workman has not received the interest on PF amount, so it cannot be

said that the management has illegally withheld the amount. When admittedly second party employee has received the

interest for 3 months on the accumulated PF amount, then he is not entitled to further interest on the said amount. Even

in his evidence second party employee has not made it clear as to how he is entitled to such interest on accumulated PF,

since in his evidence he has not stated on which date, he has received accumulated PF amount and even in Statement of

Claim he has concealed the facts that he has received interest for the period of three months on accumulated PF

amount. Considering his evidence, I find that he is not entitled to claim interest on accumulated PF amount as claimed

by him. For these reasons, I find that the claim of second party workman is not sustainable and the Reference deserves

to be rejected. Hence order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to cost.

Date: 30.05.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 42@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@12@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/12/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 13^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 42/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

3106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BETWEEN :

Sri G. Tamilmani

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. T. Ramkumar, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Sri K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/12/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 18.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in connection with termination of

the petitioner, Sri G. Tamilmani is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 42/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statements respectively.

The petuitioenr has filed a rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are these:

The petitioner has joined the service of the Respondent on 01.12.2008. He was engaged as a Temporary

Messenger on daily wages and was paid on weekly basis. He was to do the work of cash remittances, loan recovery,

buying stationery items, going to the post office and so many other works assigned to him by the Branch Manager. He

was also to keep the work premises clean and tidy. In spite of continuous service by the petitioner the Respondent did

not regularize him. The Respondent entered into a settlement on 17.02.2011 for absorption of temporary messengers

and sweepers. The petitioner was eligible to be absorbed in service. The petitioner submitted an application for

absorption with necessary documents. Though he was called for interview, he was not selected or absorbed in service.

When the petitioner reported for duty on 16.12.2013 he was denied work. He was informed that he has been terminated

from service. The petitioner had been employed continuously without any break from the date of his initial

appointment. Having worked continuously for more than 480 days the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the

permanent service of the respondent. Termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The termination of the petitioner from service is in an arbitrary manner, the petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated in service. A direction may be issued to the Respondent to this effect.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Respondent Bank has a system of proper recruitment procedure for Officers, Clerks and Subordinate

Staff. Some Branch Managers have engaged casual labour under certain exigencies like leave vacancy, sudden increase

in work, etc. without following the recruitment procedure. The petitioner was engaged as casual labour not based on a

proper selection process. The All India Overseas Bank Employees Union had raised Industrial Dispute for

regularization of persons who were engaged as sweepers and messengers. After discussion with the Union, as a one-

time measure the Respondent entered into a settlement with the Union on 17.02.2011 agreeing to absorb casual and

temporary messengers and sweepers, subject to certain conditions and fulfillment of the Bank’s recruitment norms. The

temporary persons to be so absorbed should have completed 240 days or more in the service of the Respondent in a

calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and should have continued to work in the establishment. Educational Qualification

for messengers and sweepers to be absorbed also were fixed. The petitioner had not worked as temporary messenger

for the requisite period to be eligible for absorption under the settlement. The petitioner has not produced any document

to prove his claim that he had worked at Vallur Branch of the Respondent. His disengagement from the Bank cannot be

construed as retrenchment. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating his

contentions in the Claim Statement.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3107

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W4 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in terminating the petitioner from service is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?”

The Points

The petitioner has raised the dispute challenging his alleged termination from service by the Respondent on

16.12.2013. According to the petitioner, he had joined the service of the Respondent Bank at its Vallur Branch

as temporary messenger on 01.12.2008. He is said to have been assigned duties of cash remittance, buying stationery

items, post office works, etc. and also cleaning the premises. He had applied for absorption in service based on the

settlement entered into by the Management and the recognized union on 17.02.2011. However, he was not absorbed in

service by the Respondent. He was terminated by the Bank on 16.12.2013. According to the petitioner he had worked

for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding 16.11.2013. In spite of this, he was terminated from service in

violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has claimed that his termination is not justified,

and seeks to be reinstated in the service of the Respondent with full back wages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits.

The Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that the petitioner was not eligible to be absorbed in

service as he did not meet the conditions prescribed in the settlement which is marked as Ext.M1. It is further stated by

the Respondent that the petitioner had not worked in the Bank from 2008 as claimed by him.

10.

The case of the petitioner is that he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated from service by the Respondent

in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act even though he had worked for more than 240 days in the

calendar year preceding the date of his termination. He is not claiming absorption on the basis Ext.M1 settlement. So

the only question to be considered is whether the termination of the petitioner, if any is justified and whether the

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

11.

The petitioner has asserted in the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination that he had been working in Vallur

Branch of the Respondent Bank as temporary messenger from 01.12.2008. However, apart from this assertion made by

him he has not produced any document to prove his case. Ext.W1 is the undertaking said to have been given by the

petitioner stating that he is covered by the settlements dated 17.02.2011 and is eligible to be absorbed in the service of

the Bank as messenger. However, this undertaking does not show the date from which the petitioner has started to work

in the bank. Even a date is not available in the document. Ext.W2 also will not serve any purpose for the petitioner.

This is the form of a certificate from the Branch Head to certify that the petitioner had been engaged as temporary

messenger and had worked for more than 240 days in the Bank preceding 15.11.2010. However, this document does

not contain any signature. It is not known for what purpose this document is produced. So there is no evidence to

show that the petitioner has started to work in the respondent establishment from the year 2008. Ext.M6 and Ext.M7 are

the GL Statements produced by the Bank to establish that the petitioner had not worked in the Bank from December

2008 as claimed by him. The name of the petitioner does not appear anywhere in these documents during the period

from December to the cut-off date given as per Ext.M1. So the Respondent has established by these documents that he

had not worked in the Bank during the period. So he could not have been absorbed in terms of Ext.M1.

12.

Even though the Respondent has denied the case of the petitioner that he has been working in the Bank from

2008, it is admitted by MW1 examined on behalf of the Respondent that he had been working in the Bank as daily

labour for few hours from 25.03.2011 but not continuously. It is further stated that he was not eligible to be absorbed in

the service of the Bank as he had not worked in the Bank before the cut-off date of 15.11.2010 mentioned in Ext.M1.

Thus, though the Respondent has not admitted in the Counter Statement that the petitioner had worked in the

Respondent Bank at all it is clear from the Proof Affidavit filed by MW1 that he had been working in the Bank at least

from 25.03.2011. If the petitioner had worked in the Bank continuously for 240 days prior to the date of his

termination it will be in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The details of the engagement of the

petitioner could be deciphered to some extent from Ext.M6 and Ext.M7, the GL Statements filed by the Respondent. It

could be seen from the statement that the petitioner was being engaged by the Respondent continuously from

25.03.2011. On this date he is seen paid Rs. 130/- towards office cleaning charges. After this, there is payment of Rs.

600/- on 28.03.2011 to the petitioner towards cleaning charges.

13.

The case of the petitioner is that he was terminated from service on 16.12.2013. This case of the petitioner is

not denied by the Respondent specifically. What MW1 has stated during his cross-examination is that after 16.12.2013

the petitioner was not engaged at Vallur Branch. This statement pre-supposes that he had been working at the Branch

until 16.12.2013 as claimed by him. Though the Respondent would contend that the petitioner was being engaged only

3108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

intermittently, the GL Statements upto the date of the termination of the petitioner are not produced by the Respondent.

If GL Statements pertaining to the period from December 2008 to March 2011 could have been produced, statements

subsequent to this also could have been produced by the Respondent. the petitioner has discharged his burden of

proving that he had worked continuously upto 16.12.2013 by his evidence itself and also through the admission made

by the Respondent. If this was not otherwise the Respondent would have been able to prove it by producing the

subsequent GL Statements. Non-production of these documents calls for an adverse inference that the petitioner had

been continuously working at Vallur Branch of the Respondent Bank until 16.12.2013 starting at least from

25.03.2011, the date from which he was engaged according to the Respondent. Thus the case of the petitioner that he

had worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding 16.12.2013, the date of his termination is to be accepted.

14.

The claim of the petitioner is for reinstatement in the service of the Bank. In the normal course this relief

could have been given to the petitioner. However, the Respondent Bank had resorted to absorption of temporary

messengers and sweepers as an one-time measure and it was for this purpose Ext.W1 settlement was entered into by the

Respondent and the recognized Unions. The petitioner was found to be not eligible to be absorbed in service as he did

not meet the conditions prescribed by Ext.W1. So rather than reinstatement the proper remedy for the petitioner would

be compensation as per the dictum laid down by the Apex court in several judicial pronouncements. Compensation is

payable to the petitioner on account of his illegal termination and the same is fixed as Rs. 50,000/- considering the fact

that he started to work in the Bank only from March 2011 to December 2013.

15.

In view of my discussion above the Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner as

compensation within a month of publication of the award. In default of payment of the amount, the same will carry

interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the award.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 13^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri G. Tamilmani

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri O.K. Ganesh

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

23.03.2014

Application/Undertaking letter of the petitioner with enclosures for the purpose of

absorption of his services as messenger

Ext.W2

23.03.2014

Certificate of employment given to the petitioner by the Branch Head of the

Respondent Management

Ext.W3

13.02.2013

Letter given by the Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank, calling upon the

petitioner to attend the interview for the post of Messenger

Ext.W4

05.11.2014

2-A dispute filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

Ext.M2

23.03.2011

Circular issued by Second Party Bank (Reference No. EST/71/2010-11)

Ext.M3

10.02.2015

Failure of Conciliation

Ext.M4

18.03.2015

Reference Order

Ext.M5

13.04.2015

Notice

Ext.M6

GL-7451-Wages Temporary Messengers from 01.12.2008 to 16.12.2013

Ext.M7

GL-7490-Sundry charges from 01.04.2009 to 15.11.2010

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3109

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1428-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@10@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/10/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 13^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 40/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri G. Sudhakaran

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. T. Ramkumar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Sri K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/10/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 19.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in respect of termination of the

service of the petitioner Sri G. Sudhakaran, Messenger is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 40/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

3110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent Bank in January, 2009. He was not given any written order

of appointment. He was engaged on daily wage basis and was paid weekly. Duties such as cash remittance, buying

stationery items, post office works and such other works used to be assigned to him by the Branch Manager. He was to

keep the premises clean and tidy also. In the meanwhile, on 17.02.2011, the Respondent entered into a settlement for

absorption of temporary messengers in the Bank’s services. The petitioner who was working as a Temporary

Messenger was eligible to be absorbed in the services of the Bank. The petitioner furnished the necessary documents

for absorption and on verification of the details furnished by him he was selected and appointed as Messenger in the

Respondent Bank by order dated 25.08.2012. He was placed on probation for a period of six months and was confirmed

in the service of the Bank on expiry of six months period, by order dated 27.02.2013. While so, the petitioner received

an order of termination dated 31.07.2014 terminating his service with immediate effect. The Respondent has alleged

that the petitioner submitted false certificate of experience to obtain appointment in the Bank. This allegation is false.

Before terminating the petitioner he was not issued with a Charge Memo nor was an enquiry conducted by the

Management. The petitioner was not given opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The petitioner was

having requisite educational qualification of 10^th standard fail and had completed more than 240 days of continuous

service in the calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and was entitled to be appointed in the service of the Bank. The order

of termination on the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the service regulations and is against principles of

natural justice. There is no justification in terminating the petitioner from service. The dispute is raised accordingly. An

award may be passed holding that the action of the Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is unjustified

and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and

other attendant benefits.,

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

On 17.02.2011 a settlement was entered into between the recognized union and the management of the

respondent under Section-12(3) of the ID Act for absorption of temporary messengers/sweepers as one-time absorption,

subject of satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. The temporary messengers /

sweepers must have worked for 240 or more days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and should have been continued

to be working to be eligible for absorption. The petitioner submitted an application as if he is eligible for absorption

stating that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 in Arani Branch. Based on

the declaration given by the petitioner an interview was conducted and the petitioner was absorbed as Messenger in the

service of the Respondent. He was served with an appointment letter dated 25.08.2012. Subsequently, on verification

by the Respondent it was found that the petitioner did not work in the branch during the period claimed by him. His

statement in the application that he was working from January 2009 at Arani branch is not correct. The First Party has

given an undertaking to the Bank that if the declaration made by him regarding the period of engagement is found to be

false or any documents submitted by him in support of his age, qualification, caste, etc. are found to be bogus, he will

be liable to be terminated from service. The declaration given by the petitioner having been found false the Respondent

terminated him from service by order dated 31.07.2014. The petitioner had obtained false certificate of service period

in connivance with the Manager of the Arani Branch. The contents of the application submitted by the petitioner was

tainted with fraud. The CBI, Chennai has conducted investigation and registered cases against Office Bearers of the

Trade Union for fraudulently obtaining appointments. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is liable to

be dismissed.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations 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 Ex.W1 to

Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M17.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service is justifiable?”

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?”

The Points

The Respondent Bank had entered into a settlement on 17.02.2011 with the recognized Trade Union under

Section-12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act by which it has agreed to absorb temporary messengers / sweepers as one

time absorption subject to the satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. On the basis

of this the petitioner made application for absorption in the Bank and he was selected and appointed as Messenger by

order dated 25.08.2012. He was confirmed in service by order dated 27.02.2013 on completion of probation. However

the Respondent terminated the petitioner from service by order dated 31.07.2014 even without conducting any enquiry.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3111

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Respondent in the month of January 2009. As per

Clause-2 of Ext.M1 the Memorandum of settlement entered into by the Bank under Section-12(3) of the ID Act casual /

temporary messengers / sweepers who have worked for more than 5 years in any of the branches / offices in permanent

vacancies and completed 240 or more days continuously in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and are still working shall

be absorbed in the Bank in Phase-I before 30.06.2011 subject to their submitting their required information /

certificates. Under Phase-II those who have worked for more than 3 years and less than 5 years and completed 240 or

more days in a calendar year as on the same date were to be absorbed in Phase-II. Those who have completed 240 or

more days continuously in a calendar year in permanent vacancies for less than 3 years as on 15.11.2010 and are still

working were to be absorbed under Phase-III after absorption under Phase-II is completed, also subject to

their submitting their certificates. The petitioner stated in his application marked as Ext.W1 that he had joined Arani

Branch of the Bank in January, 2009 and continued to work on the date on which he made the application. Ext.W2 is

the certificate issued by the Manager of Arani Branch to the effect that the petitioner had been engaged in the branch

since January, 2009 that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and he was still

being engaged in the branch. The petitioner seems to have been selected for absorption on the basis of his assertion in

his application supported by the certificate issued by the Branch Manager.

10.

The Respondent had terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that he actually did not join the

Bank in 2009 but he had obtained a false certificate from the Branch Manager, that he played fraud on the Bank and

therefore he is not entitled to continue in service. Ext.W5 is the order of termination issued by the Bank to the

petitioner stating that he had submitted false certificate in support of his experience to obtain appointment in the Bank

and the said act of submitting false certificate has disqualified him from employment and thus he is terminated from

service.

11.

The case that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the stand of the Respondent that he had not

completed 240 days of continuous service before 15.11.2011 is not correct. It is also contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the act of Respondent in terminating the petitioner form service without conducting any enquiry is

against the terms of the Bipartite Settlement and is against principles of natural justice and for these reasons there is no

justification in the termination of the petitioner from service.

12.

Before adverting to the question whether the action of the Bank in terminating the petitioner without

conducting any enquiry is proper, the question whether the petitioner had become eligible for absorption as per the

terms of Ext.M1 settlement can be addressed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had entered service of the

Bank in the year 2009 and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and had been working in the Bank

at the time when he submitted his application based on Ext.M1. Apart from stating this in his Claim Statement the

petitioner had asserted it in the Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him also. However, the petitioner

has not produced a single piece of paper in support of his assertion that he started to work in the Bank as casually

engaged in the year 2009 itself. The attempt of the petitioner has been to put the burden of proving that he has not

worked in the establishment for more than 240 days on the Respondent. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to

the relevant judicial pronouncements in this respect. Reference was made to the decision of the Madras High Court in

WP No. 14059/98 where it was held that the question of burden of proof is a concept that keep shifting from time to

time and though the necessary burden is on the workmen to prove the total number of days he had worked, the fact that

the Management had denied employment to the workman and that he had produced several pay-slips which were

available with him as well as inaction on the part of the Management in not producing statutory registers proves that the

burden has shifted to the Management and the Management had not discharged their obligation under law. The counsel

for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7463/2009 in this respect. The

Apex Court has held in this that the workman having been hired on daily wage basis he would have difficulty in having

access to all the official documents, muster rolls, etc. in connection with the service and he having deposed that he had

worked for more than 240 days the burden of proof shifts on the employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days

of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.

13.

As already stated the petitioner has not produced even a single piece of paper in support of his case that he

was engaged by the Bank in 2009 itself and he had been continuously working in the Bank until Ext.W1 application for

absorption was given by him on 11.04.2011. There is only his oral assertion by his affidavit that he had joined the

service of the Respondent in 2009 itself.

14.

Assuming that the petitioner has discharged his burden of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days

and had become eligible to be absorbed in the service of the Bank in terms of Ext.M1 settlement, the burden had shifted

on the Respondent to prove otherwise. It can be considered whether the Respondent has succeeded in discharging this

burden. The Respondent has examined MW1 in this respect. He was deputed by the Bank for conducting investigation

on the allegation that fraud was committed in the absorption of certain employees on the basis of Ext.M1. Apart from

the other documents the GL Statements maintained by the Bank were marked as Ext.M15 and Ext.M16, through this

witness. The witness has stated that these are statements generated on daily basis. The statements from 02.01.2009 and

3112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

upto 11.04.2011 are produced. A perusal of these two documents would show that all miscellaneous transactions of the

Bank find a place in these statements on a daily basis. These documents show that the Arani Branch where the

petitioner claimed to have been working from 2009 had not made any payment to the petitioner. On the other hand it

could be seen from this that during different periods the branch had been paying wages for Messengers to other persons

who are named in the statements. The names vary from period to period. However, the name of the petitioner does not

find a place anywhere during the relevant period. The case of MW1 is that there is no practice for the Bank in

maintaining Attendance Register for casual employees. The only document that would be available would be the

statement entered into the computer regarding the transactions on a daily basis. On a perusal of Ext.M15 and Ext.M16

it could be seen that this could not have been documents manipulated. In fact the petitioner has not even made a request

to have the documents with the Bank produced to have his case proved. The documents were produced by the Bank on

its own to substantiate its case that the petitioner had not been engaged at all before 15.11.2010. By producing the

above two documents the Bank has sufficiently discharged its burden of proving that the petitioner had not worked in

the Bank during the relevant period.

15.

It is clear from the evidence given by MW1 and the documents produced that the petitioner happened to be

absorbed in the service of the Bank as a result of fraud. The only document that the petitioner had to rely upon to

substantiate the case that he worked for more than 240 days is Ext.W2 a certificate of experience issued by the Branch

Manager to the effect that he had been engaged in the branch since January 2009 and continued to be engaged as a

Messenger. However, in the light of Ext.M15 and Ext.M16 it is very much clear that the certificate was falsely issued

by the Branch Manager without any verification. MW1 has stated under what circumstances the petitioner happened to

be absorbed. The petitioner as well as several others had been absorbed by the Bank based on such false certificates

issued by the Managers. A criminal case has been initiated against one Umapathy, a Trade Union leader and an

employee of the Bank who is said to have been instrumental in obtaining appointments based on false certificates. After

the fraud was found out the Bank has issued a Charge Sheet to the Branch Manager. This is marked as Ext.M12. In

Ext.M13 the reply to the charge sheet the Branch Manager has stated that Sasikumar, the Branch Secretary of AIOBEU

had been mounting pressure on him for signing the certificates. According to him he had signed the certificate in good

faith. It is stated in the Investigation Report marked as Ext.M6 that the petitioner had written a letter on 21.06.2014

confessing that he had been working in the Arani Branch as temporary messenger only from 2010. One need not go to

the Investigation Report to decide on the genuineness of the certificate. The very fact that the name of the petitioner

does not find a place in Ext.M15 and Ext.M16 would show that the petitioner had not worked in Arani Branch during

the period in question. From this itself it can be concluded that the certificate is a false one. He was not eligible for

absorption as per the terms of Ext.M1.

16.

Now the question is whether the Bank had acted illegally in terminating the service of the petitioner without

conducting any enquiry. As stated, the argument advanced is that the termination is against the terms of the Bipartite

Settlement and against principles of natural justice. In support of his argument the counsel has referred to the decision

reported in 1996 1 LLJ 253 of the Madras High Court. It has been held here that if the termination of the employee is

held to be based on conduct attaching stigma disciplinary proceedings were necessary as a condition precedent to

infliction of termination as a measure of punishment. Since there was no enquiry the termination was found to be

vitiated in law. Reference was also made to the decision in 2000 1 LLJ 1388. The Apex Court has held here that if an

order had been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature it was the duty of the Respondents to hold a

regular departmental enquiry and they could not have terminated the services of the Appellant arbitrarily by paying him

retrenchment compensation. Lastly reference was also made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Writ

Appeal 1334/15 where also it was held that the order of termination being not a termination simplicitor but being

stigmatic the Tribunal was right in quashing the order of termination while reserving liberty to the Bank to proceed in

accordance with the law.

17.

According to the petitioner, the Respondent having been terminated his service on the ground that the

certificate produced by him was false, it is punitive in nature and therefore an enquiry should have been conducted. In

answer to this argument, the counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that if it is a case of fraud it vitiates the very

appointment itself and therefore there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry before terminating the petitioner from

service. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal 5868/2006 (Superintendent of Post

Vs. Valasina Babu). The allegation in the case was that the concerned workman had produced a false community

certificate. The Apex Court referred to previous decision where it was held that if the employee concerned had played

fraud in obtaining appointment he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof as the very foundation of the

appointment collapses. The Court held that it was not necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the

workman in the background of the case. Reference was also made to the decision in CIVIL APPEAL No. 347/2004

(Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar) where the Apex Court has held that equity jurisdiction cannot

be exercised in the case of a person who got appointment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate by playing fraud.

Equity of Compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in case where an individual acquired a status by

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3113

practicing fraud, it was further held. Thus it is clear that if it is a case of fraud it is not necessary that a departmental

enquiry has been conducted.

18.

Even if the case of the petitioner that enquiry should have been conducted is accepted the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief in view of the finding entered into by this Tribunal regarding his non-eligibility for absorption as

per the terms of Ext.M1. Even though the Bank had not conducted any enquiry the petitioner had sufficient opportunity

before this Tribunal to prove that he was eligible for absorption as per the terms of Ext.M1, that he had worked in the

Bank for more than 240 days continuously before the cut-off date prescribed in Ext.M1. On the other hand the Bank

has successfully established that the petitioner got absorption only because of the certificate falsely obtained by him. So

the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 13^th May, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri G. Sudhakaran

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri R.S. Mani

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

11.04.2011

Application/Undertaking letter of the petitioner for the purpose of absorption of his

services as Messenger

Ext.W2

11.04.2011

Certificate of employment given to the petitioner by the Branch Head of the

Respondent Management

Ext.W3

25.08.2014

Order of the Respondent Bank, appointing the petitioner as Messenger

Ext.W4

23.05.2013

Order of confirmation i/ssued to the petitioner

Ext.W5

31.07.2014

Order of termination issued to the petitioner

Ext.W6

05.11.2014

2-A dispute filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Ext.W7

29.12.2014

Reply filed by the Management

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

Ext.M2

23.03.2011

Circular issued by Second Party Bank (Reference No. EST/71/2010-11)

Ext.M3

11.04.2011

Undertaken/Declaration given by First Party

Ext.M4

25.08.2012

Appointment Order issued to First Party

Ext.M5

10.10.2012

Application submitted by First Party

Ext.M6

23.06.2014

Investigation Report filed by Investigation Officer

Ext.M7

21.06.2014

Confession given by the First Party regarding his non-working in the Second Party

Bank

Ext.M8

31.07.2014

Termination Order issued to First Party

Ext.M9

CBI case filed against Umapathi

Ext.M10

News published in print media

Ext.M11

Record ceased by CBI

3114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M12

18.06.2014

Charge sheet issued to the Branch Manager who issued false service certificate and

reply received from them

Ext.M13

17.07.2014

Reply to charge sheet

Ext.M14

07.07.2014

Request letter for extension of time to give reply to charge sheet

Ext.M15

GL Statement 7490

Ext.M16

GL Statement 7451 and 7452

Ext.M17

11.12.2015

Realization of DD for salary in lieu of notice period.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1429-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 39@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@09@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/09/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 13^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Selvakumar

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s T. Ramkumar, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Sri K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocates

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3115

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/09/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 18.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in connection with the termination of the

petitioner P. Selvakumar is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 39/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Claim Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner joined the service of the First Respondent on 11.09.2009 in Tiruvellaivoil Branch. He was

engaged as Sweeper-cum-Messenger on daily wages which was paid on weekly basis. His duties included cash

remittance, buying stationery items, post office works, delivery of returned cheques to the Head Office and also

keeping the place clean and tidy. One Vasu was the permanent messenger in the Bank. After he was transferred in the

month of March 2012 the petitioner alone was discharging the entire duties of Messenger / Sweeper in the Branch. On

17.02.2011, the Respondent Bank had entered into a settlement for absorption of temporary messengers / sweepers in

the service of the Bank. Though the petitioner submitted his application for absorption this was not considered by the

Management. The petitioner had been working in the branch on all days except Sundays. On 22.07.2014, when he

reported for duty, he was arbitrarily denied work. The petitioner having worked continuously for more than 480 days in

the period of two consecutive years in the Respondent Bank he was entitled to be absorbed in the permanent service of

the bank. Rather than absorbing the petitioner, he is terminated from service in violation of Section-25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The action of the Respondent amounts to unfair labour practice. The petitioner is entitled to be

reinstated in service. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back

wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Respondent Bank has entered into a settlement with the recognized union on 17.02.2011 for absorption of

temporary messengers subject to certain conditions and fulfillment of the Bank’s recruitment norms. Applications were

called for on the basis of the settlement and eligible persons were selected and appointed. Though the petitioner claims

to have worked as Sweeper-cum-Messenger in Tiruvellaivoil Branch of the Respondent from 11.09.2009, he had not

worked for the requisite period to be eligible for regularization under the settlement. So he was not considered for

absorption. The disengagement of the petitioner cannot be construed as retrenchment. So Section-25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act cannot be invoked in the case of the petitioner. After the process of absorption, the entire process of

recruitment was made through open recruitment. Sweeping work was thereafter being done through outsourcing

process. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his 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

W5 and Exts.M1 to M6.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner is said to have started to work in the Respondent establishment at its Tiruvellaivoil Branch on

11.09.2009. According to him, while he was so working, the bank had entered into a settlement for absorption of its

temporary messengers/sweepers. He too have submitted application for absorption, but his application was not

considered. According to the petitioner apart from denying absorption which was rightfully due to him he was

terminated from service also by the Respondent on 22.07.2014. It is claimed by the petitioner that his termination is in

violation of Section-25F of the Indsutrial Disputes Act and is entitled to be reinstated in service.

3116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Respondent has denied the claim of the petitioner that he has started to work in the Bank on 11.09.2009.

The case of the Respondent is that the petitioner did not satisfy the norms and conditions of the settlement dated

17.02.2011 on the basis of which absorption was given to temporary employees. It is not disputed by the Respondent in

the Counter Statement that the petitioner had been in the temporary service of the Bank. However, the Counter

Statement does not specify on which date the petitioner had joined service or on which date he was terminated from

service. It is seen from the Counter Statement that he was not considered for absorption as he has not become eligible

to be appointed as per the norms and conditions of the settlement for absorption.

10.

The only claim that is raised by the petitioner in the Claim Statement is that he was wrongly terminated from

service in violation of Section-25F of the ID Act while he was working as temporary sweeper-cum-messenger and he is

liable to be reinstated in service. The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 to substantiate his case that he has been in

the temporary service of the Respondent from 11.09.2009. Ext.W1 seems to be the copy of the application given by the

petitioner for absorption. In this he is shown to have been in service as temporary messenger from 11.09.2009. There is

also Ext.W2, a certificate from the Branch Head stating that he had been employed as Messenger from 11.09.2009 and

continued to work as temporary messenger when the certificate was issued. Ext.W3 is the copy of the forwarding letter

by which the application for absorption was forwarded. This is dated 15.04.2011. So the petitioner must have been in

service on 15.04.2011.

11.

The case of the Bank is that the petitioner had not worked in the Bank as claimed by him. Ext.W1 is a self-

serving statement so far as the period of service is concerned. The authenticity of Ext.W2 is not established by

examining the official who issued the same.

12.

MW1, the Chief Manager was examined on behalf of the Respondent. Though the Counter Statement does not

specify from which date the petitioner had started to work in the Bank, the Proof Affidavit of MW1 states that he

started to work from 09.08.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner should have worked for more than 240 days in a

calendar year prior to the cut-off date of 15.11.2010 given Ext.M1-the Memorandum of Settlement for absorption and it

was because he did not comply with this condition he was not absorbed to the post of permanent messenger-cum-

sweeper.

13.

The initial burden is certainly on the workman to establish that he had worked for the requisite period to

enable him to claim the benefit under Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is of course the oral evidence

given by the petitioner that he had started to work in the establishment from 11.09.2009. The case of the Respondent

itself is that there was no practice of maintaining Attendance Register for temporary workers. They used to be paid on

cash vouchers raised by the respective Branch Managers. So certainly, so far as a temporary workman is concerned, he

will be left without any material to discharge the burden of proving his period of service by any documentary evidence.

So his burden of proving his period of service is to be treated as satisfied by his oral assertion. In that case, the burden

shifts on the Respondent to prove that the case of the petitioner is not correct, that he did not work during the period

claimed by him.

14.

It is in order to rebut the evidence given by the petitioner the Respondent has produced Ext.M6-the GL

Statement of Tiruvellaivoil branch. The statement is of the period from 16.09.2009 to 15.04.2011. This is probably

intended to show that the petitioner did not satisfy the period of 240 days referred to in the settlement prior to the cut-

off date. This GL Statement is based on the entry made daily and is a computer generated one. There is no reason to

suspect the genuineness of this document. The entries in the document must be treated as generated on the basis of the

entries that were made daily in the ordinary course of business transaction by the Bank.

15.

On going through Ext.M6, I find sufficient data to prove the case of the Respondent that the petitioner had not

worked in the establishment for more than 240 days prior to the cut-off date i.e. 17.02.2011 given in Ext.M1 settlement.

The claim of the petitioner is that he had started to work in the establishment from 11.09.2009. The details of

transaction from 16.09.2009 are available in Ext.M6. The name of the petitioner as temporary messenger comes up in

the document only from 09.08.2010. On this date he is seen paid Rs. 300/- towards wages. Thereafter payment is seen

made on 14.08.2010 for the period from 09.08.2010 to 14.08.2010. Such payments are there on subsequent dates also.

It could be deciphered from this that the payment was being made at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. Calculated on this

basis it could be seen that the petitioner was working regularly in Tiruvellaivoil Branch of the Respondent from

09.08.2010. However, such entries regarding payment to the petitioner do not find a place on dates prior to 09.08.2010.

Even if the petitioner had worked continuously until the cut-off date mentioned in Ext.M1 the petitioner would not

have been able to complete more than 240 days of work by that time. So it is only natural that he was not considered

for absorption.

16.

The case of the petitioner, rather than challenging the denial of absorption, is that he was terminated in

violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As stated, the Counter Statement does not state either the date

of engagement or the date of absorption. In the Proof Affidavit filed by MW1 the date of engagement is shown.

However, the date of termination is not given even in this. According to the petitioner he was terminated from service

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3117

without any notice on 22.07.2014. It has come up during cross-examination of MW1 that the petitioner was not

engaged in the Bank from 22.07.2014. That means he had been working in the Bank until 22.07.2014 and he was

terminated on this date. It is also admitted by MW1 that no notice of termination or any compensation was given to the

petitioner before his termination. MW1 has denied the suggestion that the petitioner had been continuously working in

the Bank for more than 240 days in the 12 months prior to 22.07.2014. When the petitioner has discharged the burden

of proving that he had worked continuously till 22.07.2014 in the Bank, it was for the Respondent to rebut the evidence

by producing reliable evidence. The GL Statement for the period upto 22.07.2014 would have been the best evidence to

prove that he had not been in continuous service. The non-production of the GL Statement for the relevant period itself

calls for an adverse inference that those are not produced since it would disprove the case of the Respondent that the

petitioner did not work for more than 240 days continuously within 12 months prior to the date of his termination. So it

is clear that the petitioner was terminated from service in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17.

In a normal course, the petitioner would have been entitled to the relief of reinstatement. However, the Bank

had resorted to absorption of temporary messengers as a one-time measure and the petitioner was not eligible for

absorption. The petitioner had worked in the Bank only for a limited time. The Bank has a recruitment policy of its

own. It was in compliance with the directions of the Uma Devi’s case Ext.M1 settlement was entered into and

absorption was given to some temporary employees based on certain terms and conditions. In the circumstance he is

not entitled to reinstatement. The Apex Court has stated that the proper remedy in such cases will be compensation.

Considering the period of service of the petitioner in the service of the Bank, compensation due to him is fixed as Rs.

1,00,000/-. Accordingly, an award is passed as below:

The Respondent is directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation

within a month of publication of the award. In case of default of payment within the prescribed period, the

amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the award.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 13^th May, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri P. Selvakumar

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, O.K. Ganesh

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

15.04.2011

Application/Undertaking letter of the petitioner for the purpose of absorption of his

services as messenger

Ext.W2

15.04.2011

Certificate of employment given to the petitioner by the Branch Head of the

Respondent Management

Ext.W3

05.04.2011

Letter of the Senior Manager of the Respondent Bank, forwarding application for

absorption submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Regional Manager

Ext.W4

07.11.2014

2-A dispute filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Labour

Ext.W5

29.12.2014

Reply filed by the Management

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement under Section-12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

Ext.M2

23.03.2011

Circular issued by Second Party Bank (Reference No. EST/71/2010-11)

Ext.M3

10.02.2015

Failure of Conciliation

Ext.M4

18.03.2015

Reference Order

Ext.M5

13.04.2015

Notice

Ext.M6

GL-7490 – Sundry charges from 01.09.2009 to 15.04.2011.

3118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1430-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 38@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@08@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/08/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 13^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 38/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Smt. P. Vijaya

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

The Chief Manager

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Periyar Nagar Branch

Chennai-600082

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s V. Sivalingam, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Respondent

Sri K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/08/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 18.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in connection with the termination

of the petitioner Smt. P. Vijaya, Part-Time Sweeper without conducting enquiry is justifiable or not? If not, to

what relief the petitioner, P. Vijaya is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3119

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 38/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Claim Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper in the Respondent Bank, Periyar Nagar Branch on

consolidated pay, in the year 1998. Though she made several representations to the Respondents to regularize her in

service, they have not taken any steps. On 30.08.2011 the petitioner submitted an application to the Respondents to

appoint her in the vacancy for the post of Sweeper. She was appointed as Sweeper by order dated 07.09.2011 after

scrutinizing all the certificates. While she was working as such, she was terminated from service on 21.01.2014 on the

ground that she has submitted bogus certificate of educational qualification at the time when she joined the Bank. The

petitioner has worked for more than 2 years continuously on regular basis. The petitioner was not issued with any

Charge Memo nor was an enquiry conducted by the First Respondent Bank before she was terminated from service.

The termination of the petitioner is illegal and non-sustainable in law. The petitioner had studied upto 5^th standard in

Gummidipundi Panchayat Union Elementary School. When she requested for a duplication transfer certificate she was

told that records are not available in the school. The petitioner having been terminated from service illegally she is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, backwages and other benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The First Respondent Bank has entered into a settlement with the recognized union for one-time absorption of

casual / temporary messengers / sweepers. The educational qualification for the post of Sweepers was fixed as pass in

5^th standard but should not have passed 8^th standard, as per the above settlement dated 17.02.2011. the petitioner was

absorbed as permanent sweeper in the service of the Bank based on the declaration made by her regarding her age,

educational qualification and prior service. On verification by the Regional Office it was found that the educational

qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner is a fraudulent one. It was revealed on enquiry that she has not

studied in Gummidipundi Panchayat Union School with Admission No. 603, the Admission Number shown in the

certificate submitted by her. The petitioner has gained employment in the Bank wrongfully. She has not satisfied the

terms and conditions of settlement dated 17.02.2011. While joining the post of Messenger the petitioner has given an

undertaking that if the declaration made by her regarding her engagement is false she is liable to be terminated from the

service of the Bank. Having found the certificate submitted by the petitioner to be bogus, she was terminated from

service by order dated 21.01.2014. No enquiry was required before termination of the petitioner as she has obtained

employment by playing fraud. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as

Exts.W1 to W9 and Exts.M1 to M11.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the First Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

Indian Overseas Bank represented by the First Respondent had entered into a settlement with its recognized

union on 17.02.2011 by which it has agreed to absorb casual / temporary messengers / sweepers on certain conditions.

Ext.M1 is the Memorandum of Settlement entered into by the Bank with the Union. One of the conditions for

absorption was that those who are seeking absorption in the post of Sweepers should have passed 5^th standard or its

equivalent but should not have passed 8^th standard. The petitioner who had been working as temporary sweeper at

Periyar Nagar Branch of the Bank had also applied for the post of Sweeper and she was selected and appointed in the

post by order dated 07.09.2011. Ext.M4 is the order of appointment. Ext.M5 is the copy of the application submitted by

the petitioner for getting appointment. The application included an undertaking to the effect that if the declaration made

by the petitioner regarding the period of engagement, qualification, etc. Is found bogus she would be liable to be

terminated from service. There is a further undertaking that in case the certificates produced by her are found to be

forged or tampered with she is liable to be terminated from service with one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s

salary in lieu of notice.

According to the Respondents, the petitioner was selected to the post of Sweeper only based on the declaration

made by her regarding her educational qualification, prior service, etc. On primary verification by the Regional Office,

it was found that the petitioner had not studied in Gummidipundi Panchayat Union School with Admission No. 603

where she had purportedly studied and had produced a certificate having Admission no. 603. The investigating Official

deputed by the Bank is said to have made further investigation on which it was found that the certificate of educational

qualification produced by the petitioner is bogus. The petitioner is said to have been terminated from service on

3120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

account of this, without conducting any enquiry. Ext.M8 is the order of termination issued to the petitioner. As referred

to in the undertaking, in lieu of one month’s notice a draft for one month’s salary was given to the petitioner before she

was terminated from service.

The case of the petitioner is that the action of the Respondent in terminating her even without conducting any

departmental enquiry is illegal and unjustified. According to her, she having been selected to the regular post of

Sweeper in the service of the Respondent she is governed by the terms of the Bipartite Settlement and she should have

been issued with a charge sheet and an enquiry should have been conducted before deciding to terminate her from

service. The stand of the Respondent is that such an enquiry was not required in view of the very undertaking given by

the petitioner and also because there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry as the case is one involving fraud.

10.

Before going to the question whether an enquiry was required or not is necessary to consider whether the

certificate of educational qualification submitted by the petitioner for getting appointment in the Bank is a genuine one.

Ext.W1 is the copy of the mark sheet produced by the petitioner. This is purportedly issued by the Headmaster of the

Gummidipundi Panchayat Union School. The Admission Number of the petitioner is shown is 603 in this. She is shown

to have been promoted from 5^th standard in the year 1983. Ext.W5 is the copy of the affidavit submitted to the Manager

of the Bank regarding her educational qualification.

11.

MW1 is the one who had conducted investigation in the fraud allegedly committed by the petitioner and some

other employees who had been appointed on the basis of Ext.M1 settlement. This witness has stated that the

Headmaster of the concerned school had stated that the Record Sheet produced by the First Party while joining the

service of the Bank was not matching with the records of the school and it is a bogus and forged one.

12.

The present Headmaster of Panchayat Union School, Gummidipundi had been examined by the Respondents

to show that the Record Sheet submitted by the petitioner is a bogus one. The witness have brought the original Record

Sheet maintained at the school and also produced a photocopy of the same. On comparing the photocopy with the

original the same has been marked as Ext.M11. The Headmaster has stated that the original record is usually

maintained in the school as one original and one duplicate. The duplicated is kept unfilled. The practice was that

whenever the student wanted the records the duplicate will be filled up, signed and issued. When such duplicate is

issued that will be recorded in the original record sheet also. The witness has stated that Admission No. 603 is in

respect of a student by name Anjala and not that of Vijaya, the petitioner. He has further stated that the duplicate of the

original Record Sheet is not available in the Record Sheet book. He has further stated that he has not issued the

duplicate record sheet and that Ext.W1-Record Sheet is not a genuine document. In Ext.M11 the copy of the original

record sheet, the date of birth of the student is given as 25.05.1974. In Ext.W1 the date of birth shown is 08.08.1974.

there is difference also in the community, father’s name and the marks entered in the columns for the same. MW2 has

stated that the signature in Ext.W1 is not that of Sri Subramaniam, the previous Headmaster. The date of issue of the

Record Sheet is not shown in Ext.W1. On the other hand, Ext.M6 includes the copy of the mark sheet that was

issued by the previous Headmaster Subramaniam on 18.06.2013. MW2 has stated that he can identify the signature of

Subramaniam in Ext.M6. The version of MW2 regarding the Record Sheet was not challenged in cross-examination.

There is no reason to reject the evidence given by MW2 to the effect that Ext.W1-record Sheet is a bogus one. It is very

much clear from the evidence of MW2 that the duplicate Record Sheet in respect of the student, Anjala which was kept

unfilled alongwith the original Record Sheet was utilized to manipulate a false Record Sheet in the name of the

petitioner. This must have been done only to satisfy the requirement of Ext.M1-Settlement that the candidate for the

post of Sweeper must have passed 5^th standard and not passed 8^th standard. Thus it is very much clear that the

appointment of the petitioner was based on false record sheet that was submitted by her to the Bank alongwith an

undertaking.

13.

There is the very undertaking given by the petitioner that she is liable to be terminated from service in case the

details regarding her qualification, the period of prior service, etc. are found to be bogus. In terminating the petitioner

from service the Bank has been acting on the basis of the undertaking given by her.

14.

Now the question whether the Bank had acted illegally in terminating the service of the petitioner without

conducting any enquiry can be considered. As stated, the argument advanced is that the termination is against the terms

of the Bipartite Settlement and is against principles of natural justice and so illegal. In support of this argument the

counsel has referred to the decision reported in 1996 1 LLJ 253 of the Madras High Court. It has been held here that if

the termination of the employee is held to be based on conduct attaching stigma disciplinary proceedings were

necessary as a condition precedent to infliction of termination as a measure of punishment. Since there was no enquiry

the termination was found to be vitiated in law. Reference was also made to the decision in 2000 1 LLJ 1388. The Apex

Court has held here that if an order had been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature it was the duty of

the Respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry and they could not have terminated the services of the

Appellant arbitrarily by paying him retrenchment compensation. Lastly reference was also made to the decision of the

Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal 1334/15 where also it was held that the order of termination being not a

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3121

termination simplicitor but being stigmatic the Tribunal was right in quashing the order of termination while reserving

liberty to the Bank to proceed in accordance with the law.

15.

According to the petitioner, the Respondent having terminated his service on the ground that the certificate

produced by him was false, it is punitive in nature and therefore an enquiry should have been conducted. In answer to

this argument, the counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that if it is a case of fraud it vitiates the very appointment

itself and therefore there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry before terminating the petitioner from service. The

counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5868/2006 (Superintendent of Post Vs.

Valasina Babu). The allegation in the case was that the concerned workman had produced a false community

certificate. The Apex Court referred to previous decision where it was held that if the employee concerned had played

fraud in obtaining appointment he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof as the very foundation of the

appointment collapses. The Court held that it was not necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the

workman in the background of the case. Reference was also made to the decision Civil Appeal No. 347/2004 (Bank of

India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar) where the Apex Court has held that equity jurisdiction cannot be

exercised in the case of a person who got appointment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate by playing fraud. Equity

of Compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in case where an individual acquired a status by practicing

fraud, it was further held. Thus it is clear that if it is a case of fraud it is not necessary that a departmental enquiry has

been conducted.

16.

Even if the case of the petitioner that enquiry should have been conducted is accepted the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief in view of the finding entered into by this Tribunal regarding his non-eligibility for absorption as

per the terms of Ext.M1. Even though the Bank had not conduct any enquiry the petitioner had sufficient opportunity

before this Tribunal to prove that the Record Sheet produced by her was a genuine one and not bogus as claimed by the

petitioner. She has not brought in any evidence in this respect. She did not even challenge the evidence given by MW2

regarding the forgery in the Record Sheet produced by her. On the other hand, the Bank has successfully established

that the document of qualification produced by her was bogus. So the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 13^th May, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Smt. P. Vijaya

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Management

MW1, Sri R.S. Mani

MW2, Sri M. Sudhakar

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

Record Sheet of the petitioner

Ext.W2

11.09.2001

Pay Receipt of the Petitioner

Ext.W3

01.04.2001

Petitioner made representation to the First Respondent

Ext.W4

09.08.2011

Chief Manager sent letter to Regional Office

Ext.W5

Petitioner affidavit relating educational qualification

Ext.W6

22.08.2011

Community Certificate of Petitioner

Ext.W7

21.01.2014

Termination Order of Petitioner

Ext.W8

07.02.2014

School Head Master sent letter to the petitioner

Ext.W9

10.02.2015

Failure report of the Conciliation Officer

3122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement under Section-12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ext.M2

23.03.2011

Circular issued by Second Party Bank (Ref.No. EST/71/2010-11)

Ext.M3

11.04.2011

Undertaking/Declaration given by First Party

Ext.M4

07.09.2011

Appointment Order issued to First Party

Ext.M5

30.08.2011

Application submitted by First Party

Ext.M6

18.06.2013

Verification report received from the Head Master of School

Ext.M7

09.01.2014

Investigation Report filed by Investigating Officer

Ext.M8

21.01.2014

Termination Order issued to First Party

Ext.M9

CBI case filed against Mr. M. Balasubramaniam

Ext.M10

News published in Print Media

Ext.M11

15.03.2015

Record Sheet.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1431-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@07@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/07/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 13^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 37/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Sivakumar

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3123

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s T. Ramkumar, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Sri K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/07/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 18.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in respect of termination of the

petitioner Sri Sivakumar is justified or not? If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 37/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and 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 joined the service of the Respondent Bank in February 2008. He was not given any written

order of appointment. He was engaged on daily wage basis and was paid weekly. Duties such as cash remittance,

buying stationery items, post office works and such other works used to be assigned to him by the Branch Manager. He

was to keep the premises clean and tidy also. In the meanwhile, on 17.02.2011 the Respondent entered into a settlement

for absorption of temporary messengers in the Bank’s services. The petitioner who was working as a Temporary

Messenger was eligible to be absorbed in the services of the Bank. The petitioner furnished the necessary documents

for absorption and on verification of the details furnished by him he was selected and appointed as Messenger in the

Respondent Bank by order dated 11.06.2012. He was placed on probation for a period of six months and was confirmed

in the service of the Bank on expiry of six months period, by order dated 11.12.2012. While so, the petitioner received

an order dated 31.04.2014 terminating his service with immediate effect. The Respondent has alleged that the petitioner

submitted false certificate of experience to obtain appointment in the Bank. This allegation is false. Before terminating

the petitioner he was not issued with a Charge Memo nor was an enquiry conducted by the Management. The

petitioner was given opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The petitioner was having requisite

educational qualification of 10^th standard fail and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the

calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and was entitled to be appointed in the service of the Bank. The order of

termination on the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the service regulations. There is no justification in

terminating the petitioner from service. The dispute is raised accordingly. An award may be passed holding that the

action of the Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is unjustified and also directing the Respondent to

reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.,

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

On 17.02.2011 a settlement was entered into between the recognized union and the management of the

respondent under Section-12(3) of the ID Act for absorption of temporary messengers/sweepers as one-time absorption,

subject of satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. The temporary messengers /

sweepers must have worked for 240 or more days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and should have continued to

work to be eligible for absorption. The petitioner submitted an application as if he is eligible for absorption stating that

he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 in Nazarethpet Branch. Based on the

declaration given by the petitioner an interview was conducted and the petitioner was absorbed as Messenger in the

service of the Respondent. He was served with an appointment letter dated 11.06.2012. Subsequently, on verification

by the Respondent it was found that the petitioner worked from 28.12.2010 to 26.09.2011 which is the period after the

cut-off date only. His statement in the application that he was working from February 2007 to April 2011 at Nazareth

Branch was not correct. The First Party has given an undertaking to the Bank that if the declaration made by him

regarding the period of engagement is found to be false or any documents submitted by him in support of his age,

qualification, caste, etc. are found to be bogus, he will be liable to be terminated from service. The declaration given by

the petitioner having been found false the Respondent terminated him from service by order dated 31.05.2014. The

petitioner had obtained false certificate of service in connivance with the Manager of the Nazarethpet Branch. The

contents of the application submitted by the petitioner was tainted with fraud. The CBI, Chennai has conducted

investigation and registered cases against Office Bearers of the Trade Union for fraudulently obtaining appointments.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

3124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations 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 Ex.W1 to

Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service is justifiable?”

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?”

The Points

The Respondent Bank had entered into a settlement on 17.02.2011 with the recognized Trade Union under

Section-12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act by which it has agreed to absorb temporary messengers/sweepers as one

time absorption subject to the satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. On the basis

of this the petitioner made application for absorption in the Bank and he was selected and appointed as Messenger by

order dated 11.06.2012. He was confirmed in service by order dated 11.12.2012 on completion of probation. However

the Respondent terminated the petitioner from service by order dated 31.05.2014 even without conducting any enquiry.

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Respondent in the month of February 2008. As

per Clause-2 of Ext.M1 the Memorandum of settlement entered into by the Bank under Section-12(3) of the ID Act

casual / temporary messengers / sweepers who have worked for more than 5 years in any of the branches / offices in

permanent vacancies and completed 240 or more days continuously in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and are still

working shall be absorbed in the Bank in Phase-I before 30.06.2011 subject to the submitting the required information /

certificates. Under Phase-II those who have worked for more than 3 years and less than 5 years and completed 240 or

more days in a calendar year as on the same date were to be absorbed. Those who have completed 240 or more days

continuously in a calendar year in permanent vacancies for less than 3 years as on 15.11.2010 and are still working

were to be absorbed under Phase-III after absorption under Phase-II is completed, also subject to their submitting their

certificates. The petitioner stated in his application marked as Ext.W1 that he had joined the Nazarethpet Branch of the

Bank in February 2008 and continued to work on the date on which he made the application. Ext.W2 is the certificate

issued by the Manager of Nazarethpet Branch to the effect that the petitioner had been engaged in the branch since

February 2008, that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and he was still being

engaged in the branch. The petitioner seems to have been selected for absorption on the basis of his assertion in his

application supported by the certificate issued by the Branch Manager.

10.

The Respondent had terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that he actually did not join the

Bank in 2008 but he had obtained a false certificate from the Branch Manager, that he played fraud on the Bank and

therefore he is not entitled to continue in service. Ext.W5 is the order of termination issued by the Bank to the

petitioner stating that he had submitted false certificate in support of his experience to obtain appointment in the Bank

and the said act of submitting false certificate has disqualified him from employment and thus he is terminated from

service.

11.

The case that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the stand of the Respondent that he had not

completed 240 days of continuous service before 15.11.2011 is not correct. It is also contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the act of Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry is

against the terms of the Bipartite Settlement and is against principles of natural justice and for these reasons there is no

justification in the termination of the petitioner from service.

12.

Before adverting to the question whether the action of the Bank in terminating the petitioner without

conducting any enquiry is proper, the question whether the petitioner had become eligible for absorption as per the

terms of Ext.M1 settlement can be addressed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had entered service of the

Bank in the year 2008 and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and had been working in the Bank

at the time when he submitted his application based on Ext.M1 settlement. Apart from stating this in his Claim

Statement the petitioner had asserted it in the Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination filed by him also. However,

the petitioner has not produced a single piece of paper in support of his assertion that he started to work in the Bank as

casually engaged, in the year 2008 itself. The attempt of the petitioner has been to put the burden of proving that he has

not worked in the establishment for more than 240 days on the Respondent. The counsel for the petitioner has referred

to the relevant judicial pronouncements in this respect. Reference was made to the decision of the Madras High Court

in WP No. 14059/98 where it was held that the question of burden of proof is a concept that keep shifting from time to

time and though the necessary burden is on the workmen to prove the total number of days he had worked, the fact that

the Management had denied employment to the workman and that he had produced several pay-slips which were

available with him as well as inaction on the part of the Management in not producing statutory registers proves that the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3125

burden has shifted to the Management and the Management had not discharged their obligation under law. The counsel

for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7463/2009 in this respect. The

Apex Court has held in this that the workman having been hired on daily wage basis he would have difficulty in having

access to all the official documents, muster rolls, etc. in connection with the service and he having deposed that he had

worked for more than 240 days the burden of proof shifts on the employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days

of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.

13.

As already stated the petitioner has not produced even a single piece of paper in support of his case that he

was engaged by the Bank in 2008 itself and he had been continuously working in the Bank until Ext.W1 application for

absorption was given by him on 23.03.2011. There is only his oral assertion by his affidavit that he had joined the

service of the Respondent in 2008 itself.

14.

Assuming that the petitioner has discharged his burden of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days

and had become eligible to be absorbed in the service of the Bank in terms of Ext.M1 settlement the burden had shifted

on the Respondent to prove otherwise. It has to be considered whether the Respondent has succeeded in discharging

this burden. The Respondent has examined MW1 in this respect. He was deputed by the Bank for conducting

investigation on the allegation that fraud was committed in the absorption of certain employees on the basis of Ext.M1.

Apart from the other documents the GL Statements maintained by the Bank were marked as Ext.M13 and Ext.M14,

through this witness. The witness has stated that these are statements generated on daily basis. The statements from

24.02.2007 and upto 09.04.2011 are produced. A perusal of these two documents would show that all miscellaneous

transactions of the Bank find a place in these statements on a daily basis. These documents show that Nazarethpet

Branch where the petitioner claimed to have been working from 2008 had not made any payment to the petitioner prior

to 15.11.2011. On the other hand it could be seen from this that during different periods the branch had been paying

wages for Messengers to other persons who are named in the statements. The names vary from period to period.

However, the name of the petitioner does not find a place anywhere during the period. The case of MW1 is that the

Bank has no practice of maintaining Attendance Register for casual employees. The only document that would be

available would be the statement entered into the computer regarding the transactions on a daily basis. On a perusal of

Ext.M13 and Ext.M14 it could be seen that this could not have been documents manipulated. In fact the petitioner has

not even made a request to have the documents with the Bank produced to have his case proved. The documents were

produced by the Bank on its own to substantiate its case that the petitioner had not been engaged at all before

15.11.2010. By producing the above two documents the Bank has sufficiently discharged its burden of proving that the

petitioner had not worked in the Bank during the relevant period.

15.

It is clear from the evidence given by MW1 and the documents produced that the petitioner happened to be

absorbed in the service of the Bank as a result of fraud. The only document that the petitioner rely upon to substantiate

the case that he worked for more than 240 days is Ext.W2 a certificate of experience issued by the Branch Manager to

the effect that he had engaged in the branch since February 2008 and continued to be engaged as a Messenger.

However, in the light of Ext.M13 and Ext.M14 it is very much clear that the certificate was falsely issued by the

Branch Manager without any verification. MW1 has stated under what circumstances the petitioner happened to be

absorbed. The petitioner as well as several others had been absorbed by the Bank based on such false certificates issued

by the Managers. A criminal case has been initiated against one Umapathy, a Trade Union leader and also an employee

of the Bank who is said to have been instrumental in obtaining appointments based on false certificates. After the fraud

was found out the Bank has issued a Charge Sheet to the Branch Manager. This is marked as Ext.M11. In Ext.M12 the

reply to the charge sheet the Branch Manager has stated that Umapathy had been mounting pressure on him for

signing the certificate. According to him he had signed the certificate in good faith. MW1 has stated in the

Investigation Report filed by him and marked as Ext.M6 that most of the certificates about which enquiry was made

were in the handwriting of Umapathy and the date of signing has been put as 15.04.2011 in all the certificates and this

also was in the handwriting of Umapathy. He has concluded that signatures of Managers were taken by Umapathy in

Blank Certificate Form and columns were filled up by himself. One need not go to the Investigation Report to decide

on the genuineness of the certificate. The very fact that the name of the petitioner does not find a place in Ext.M13 and

Ext.M14 would show that the petitioner had not worked in Nazarethpet Branch during the period in question. From this

itself it can be concluded that the certificate is a false one. According to the Respondent the petitioner had joined the

Bank only on 28.12.2010. This is subsequent to the cut-off prescribed in Ext.M1 so he was not eligible for absorption

as per the terms of Ext.M1.

16.

Now the question is whether the Bank had acted illegally in terminating the service of the petitioner without

conducting any enquiry. As stated, the argument advanced is that the termination is against the terms of the Bipartite

Settlement and against principles of natural justice and so illegal. In support of his argument the counsel has referred to

the decision reported in 1996 1 LLJ 253 of the Madras High Court. It has been held here that if the termination of the

employee is held to be based on conduct attaching stigma disciplinary proceedings were necessary as a condition

precedent to infliction of termination as a measure of punishment. Since there was no enquiry the termination was

3126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

found to be vitiated in law. Reference was also made to the decision in 2000 1 LLJ 1388. The Apex Court has held here

that if an order had been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature it was the duty of the Respondents to

hold a regular departmental enquiry and they could not have terminated the services of the Appellant arbitrarily by

paying him retrenchment compensation. Lastly reference was also made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in

Writ Appeal 1334/15 where also it was held that the order of termination being not a termination simplicitor but being

stigmatic the Tribunal was right in quashing the order of termination while reserving liberty to the Bank to proceed in

accordance with the law.

17.

According to the petitioner, the Respondent having terminated his service on the ground that the certificate

produced by him was false, it is punitive in nature and therefore an enquiry should have been conducted. In answer to

this argument, the counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that if it is a case of fraud it vitiates the very appointment

itself and therefore there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry before terminating the petitioner from service. The

counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal 5868/2006 (Superintendent of Post Vs. Valasina

Babu). The allegation in the case was that the concerned workman had produced a false community certificate. The

Apex Court referred to previous decision where it was held that if the employee concerned had played fraud in

obtaining appointment he should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof as the very foundation of the appointment

collapses. The Court held that it was not necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the workman in the

background of the case. Reference was also made to the decision CIVIL APPEAL No. 347/2004 (Bank of India and

Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar) where the Apex Court has held that equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the

case of a person who got appointment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate by playing fraud. Equity of Compassion

cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in case where an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud, it was

further held. Thus it is clear that if it is a case of fraud it is not necessary that a departmental enquiry has been

conducted.

18.

Even if the case of the petitioner that enquiry should have been conducted is accepted the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief in view of the finding entered into by this Tribunal regarding his eligibility for absorption as per

the terms of Ext.M1. Even though the Bank had not conducted any enquiry the petitioner had sufficient opportunity

before this Tribunal to prove that he was eligible for absorption as per the terms of Ext.M1 that he had worked in the

Bank for more than 240 days continuously before the cut-off date prescribed in Ext.M1. On the other hand the Bank

has successfully established that the petitioner got absorption only because of the certificate falsely obtained by him. So

the petuitioenr is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion 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 13^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri P. Sivakumar

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri R.S. Mani

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

23.03.2011

Application/Undertaking letter of the petitioner for the purpose of absorption of his

services as Messenger

Ext.W2

23.03.2011

Certificate of employment given to the petitioner by the Branch Head of the

Respondent Management

Ext.W3

11.06.2012

Order of the Respondent Bank appointing the petitioner as Messenger

Ext.W4

04.01.2013

Order of confirmation issued to the petitioner

Ext.W5

31.05.2014

Order of termination issued to the petitioner

Ext.W6

05.11.2014

2-A dispute filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Ext.W7

29.12.2014

Reply filed by the Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3127

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947

Ext.M2

23.03.2011

Circular issued by Second Party Bank (Reference No. ERST/71/2010-11)

Ext.M3

15.04.2011

Undertaken/Declaration given by the First Party

Ext.M4

11.06.2012

Appointment Order issued to First Party

Ext.M5

11.06.2012

Application submitted by the First Party

Ext.M6

28.12.2013

Investigation Report filed by Investigation Officer

Ext.M7

03.12.2013

Confirmation given by the existing Branch Manager regarding his non-working of

First Party

Ext.M8

31.05.2014

Termination Order issued to First Party

Ext.M9

CBI case filed against Umapathi

Ext.M10

News published in Print Media

Ext.M11

02.04.2014

Charge Sheet issued to the Branch Manager who issued false service certificate and

reply received from them

Ext.M12

06.05.2014

Reply to charge sheet

Ext.M13

GL Statement 7451

Ext.M14

GL Statement 7490

Ext.M15 11.12.2015

Realization of DD for salary in lieu of notice period.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1432-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@35@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/35/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 4^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

3128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Dispute No. 94/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

No. 6, Moore Street

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The General Manager (HRM)

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank, Corporate Office

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai

Chennai-600014

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri J. Suresh, Authorized Representative

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/35/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 11/17.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank regarding not providing the terminal benefit to Sethu

Subbaiah, ex-employee of Indian Bank is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief Sri Subbaiah is entitled?”

After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 94/2015 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed

a rejoinder in answer to the Claim Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below:

The dispute is raised on behalf of Sethu Subbiah who was an employee of the Respondent Bank. Sethu

Subbiah was initially empanelled as a temporary Sub-Staff and was subsequently absorbed in to the permanent service

of the Bank as Peon. At the time of his appointment he had produced his community certificate as instructed. Though

Sethu Subbiah is a member of the Scheduled Caste community he was appointed under the General Category only.

After 13 years service as Peon he was promoted as Clerk in the year 1996. In the promotion circular the name of Sethu

Subbiah was included under the category of Scheduled Caste. The Respondent has referred the community certificate

of Sethu Subbiah to the district Collector, Coimbatore for verification and he had issued orders cancelling his

certificate. Sethu Subbiah had filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and had obtained stay for

the order of the District Collector. Sethu Subbiah attained the age of superannuation on 03.01.2012. Instead of

relieving him from service of the Bank he was given communication dated 24.08.2012 stating that he would be

separated from the service of the Bank on 31.08.2012 and his terminal benefits would be withheld. The action of the

Respondent in denying the terminal benefits to Sethu Subbaiah is illegal and unjustified. Order may be passed holding

that the action of the Management withholding the terminal benefits is illegal and also directing the Respondent to

disburse all the terminal benefits to Sethu Subbiah.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The matter arises out of cancellation of the community certificate of Sethu Subbaiah. The state level scrutiny

committee, Chennai and District Level Scrutiny Committee, Coimbatore are the verifying authorities regarding the

community and they are necessary parties to the claim. Sethu Subbiah was appointed as Peon on 19.04.1983 under

Scheduled Caste category subject to verification of his community certificate. In the Appointment Order it was

specified that the employee will not be confirmed in service until verification report is received from the concerned

authorities. Sethu Subbiah was promoted as Clerk with effect from 07.08.1996. As community certificate verification

report was not received the matter was once again referred to the District Collector, Coimbatore. By proceedings dated

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3129

21.08.1999 the District Collector cancelled the Community Certificate issued in favour of Sethu Subbiah. Sri Sethu

Subbiah filed Writ Petition before High Court of Madras and obtained interim stay against this order. By judgment

dated 01.09.2003 the order of the District Collector was quashed and direction was given for verification of the

community certificate by three member District Level Vigilance Committee. In the meanwhile, Sethu Subbaiah was

placed under cessation on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.08.2012. Since the final report on verification of the

community certificate was awaited the employee could not be allowed to retire on superannuation and at the same time

he had to be separated from the service of the Bank as on the date of his attaining the age of 60 years. In his

application to the post of Sub-Staff Sethu Subbiah had mentioned his community status as Scheduled Caste. He was

promoted as Clerk under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. It is not correct to state that the candidature of

Sethu Subbiah was under the General Category. The Community Certificate issued to Sethu Subbiah has been

subsequently cancelled by the District Level Scrutiny Committee by order dated 03.05.2013. The action of the

Respondent in separating Sethu Subbiah from the service of the Bank is in order. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief. The claim is liable to be rejected.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating the claim

in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W16 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M5. No

oral evidence was adduced by either side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in not providing terminal benefits to Sri Sethu Subbiah is

justifiable or not?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any to which Sri Sethu Subbiah is entitled?

The Points

The dispute is raised on behalf of Sethu Subbiah who had been working in the Respondent Bank as Clerk until

31.08.2012, the age of his superannuation. Sethu Subbiah was working with the Respondent initially as a Temporary

Sub-Staff. He was subsequently absorbed in permanent service of the Bank. He was promoted as Clerk in the year

1996. Though Sethu Subbiah reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2012 the Respondent did not relieve him

from service. On the other hand, he was given a letter, a copy of which is marked as Ext.W7 stating that he will be

separated from the Bank on 31.08.2012, the date of his attaining the age of 60 years and his terminal benefits would be

withheld (except his contribution to the Provident Fund) till such time as the final report on verification of his

community certificate is completed and communicated. The Petitioner Union has taken up the issue and has raised the

dispute on the ground that withholding of terminal benefits due to Sethu Subbiah is illegal and the same is payable to

him immediately.

The case of the Respondent is that Sethu Subbiah was appointed as Peon under the Scheduled Caste category

and subject to verification of his community certificate, he was promoted as Clerk under Scheduled Caste category

w,ef. 07.08.1996. Even then community certificate verification report was not received. So the matter was again

referred to the District Collector, by Ext.M3 order, the District Collector cancelled the community certificate of Sethu

Subbiah. He approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by a Writ Petition and got the order of the District

Collector quashed. Ext.W6 is the order of the High Court. As could be seen from the order of the High Court, the order

of District Collector was quashed only on the ground that the District Collector is not the competent authority. The

order gave liberty to the District Level Committee or a State Level Committee which is the competent authority as the

case may be to verify the social status of the petitioner. On the basis of this order of the High Court the Bank referred

the matter to the District Level Verification Committee for verification of the certificate. It was while the matter was

pending Sethu Subbiah reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012. The Respondent took the stand that the

release of retirement benefits to Sethu Subbiah would be based on the outcome of the verification done by the

concerned committee. It is accordingly Ext.W7 letter was written by the Bank to Sethu Subbiah stating that his

terminal benefits would be withheld till such time the final report on verification of the community certificate is

completed and communicated. It was further stated that the payment of terminal benefits will be based on the outcome

of the findings of the committee referred to earlier.

10.

After the dispute was raised the District Level Committee has by Ext.M4 proceedings dated 03.05.2013

decided that Sethu Subbiah having converted to Christianity long before he entered service of the Bank he could not be

treated as a member of the Scheduled Caste. Sethu Subbiah does not seem to have challenged this order of the

committee.

11.

The argument that is advanced on behalf of Sethu Subbiah is that he entered service of the Respondent not in

the category of Scheduled Caste but in the Open Quota and for this reason the decision of the Committee is not of any

3130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

consequence so far as the payment of terminal benefits are concerned. It is further argued that even promotion of Sethu

Subbiah as Clerk was under the General Category only and not in reservation quota and for this reason also his terminal

benefits should not have been withheld. The Authorized Representative of the petitioner has referred to Ext.W4, the

appointment order issued by the Respondent in this respect. It is by this order dated 19.03.2013 Sethu Subbiah was

appointed as Peon in the service of the Bank. The order does not specifically state whether he is appointed in the quota

reserved for Scheduled Caste category. However, in the order, there is a direction to the Branch Office to verify the

particulars such as date of birth, qualification and category of the employee. In Ext.M1 the application filed by Sethu

Subbiah for appointment to the post of Sub-Staff it is stated that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. In Ext.W13

the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Ext.W14, the transfer certificate Sethu Subbiah is shown as

member of Adi-Dravida Community which is a Scheduled Caste. Ext.W15 is the Community Certificate issued in

favour of Sethu Subbiah stating that he belongs to Adi-Dravida Community. It is this certificate that was cancelled by

the District Level Verification Committee as per Ext.M4 order.

12.

When the available documents are perused it could be seen that there is no basis for the case put forth by the

petitioner that Sethu Subbiah was given employment and given promotion under open quota and not under reservation

quota. Ext.W5 is the order by which several employees working as Sub-Staff in the Respondent Bank were promoted

to Clerical Cadre. This is a common order issued by the Bank. It is stated in the order itself that the promotees are

being individually advised. However, the order of promotion is not produced by the petitioner to substantiate the case

that his promotion was under the Unreserved Category. Even as per Ext.W5 it could be seen that the promotees

coming under the category of Scheduled Caste are separately listed while the list of persons coming under the General

Category are also given separately. The name of Sethu Subbiah is included in the category of Scheduled Caste. So it is

clear that it is on the basis of the claim of Sethu Subbiah that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste that he was given

promotion in the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has produced Ext.W16 at the last stage in an

attempt to show that Sethu Subbiah comes under Unreserved Category and not under the category of Scheduled Caste.

Ext.W16 is the copy of the relevant portion of the post-based roster. However, this document does not show that Sethu

Subbiah comes under the Unreserved Category. On the other hand what is seen from this document is that Sethu

Subbiah was given posting to an unreserved post as a member of the Scheduled Caste category. It could also be seen

that it was to make up for the shortfall in the posting of persons under the Scheduled Caste category that this posting

was done. It is not a case of posting of Sethu Subbiah in the Unreserved Category as claimed on behalf of the

petitioner. So the argument that Sethu Subbiah having been appointed and promoted under open quota, cancellation of

the community certificate by the District Level Verification Committee is not of any consequence could not be

accepted. The promotion of Sethu Subbiah was certainly based on a certificate which now stands cancelled so he

would not be entitled to the terminal benefits.

13.

Sethu Subbiah has been working in the Respondent establishment for several years. In all the documents

starting from Secondary School Leaving Certificate he is shown as the member of the Adi-Dravida Community. It is

only because he converted to Christianity he lost the status of member of Scheduled Caste. There is no case for the

Respondent that Sethu Subbiah has committed any misconduct in the entire career in the Bank starting from 1983. So it

is a case where the employee deserves some leniency on the part of the Bank. I think it is a case where the Bank can

invoke Section-31 of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations which provides for compassionate allowance for

an employee who is dismissed, removed or terminated from service. It is for the Bank to decide how much is the

allowance that can be paid to the employee.

With the above observations 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 4^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

25.10.2012

Letter to ALC (C), Chennai raising the ID

Ext.W2

19.03.2013

Counter to the above dispute

Ext.W3

01.04.2013

Rejoinder to the Counter

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3131

Ext.W4

19.03.1983

Appointment order issued by Indian Bank

Ext.W5

11.07.1996

CO/Personnel Department Circular No. 38/96-97

Ext.W6

01.09.2003

Copy of order WP No. 15571 of 1999 & WMP 22519 of 1999

Ext.W7

24.08.2012

Letter from CO/HRM Department of Indian Bank to Sri Sethu Subbiah

Ext.W8

21.09.2012

Letter from Sri Sethu Subbiah to General Manager (HRM)

Ext.W9

29.09.2012

Letter from CO/HRM Department of Indian Bank to Sri Sethu Subbiah

Ext.W10

22.09.2012

Letter to General Manager (HRM)

Ext.W11

05.09.2013

Letter to General Manager (HRM)

Ext.W12

03.09.2013

Letter from Mr. Sethu Subbiah to Executive Director

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

Application form dated 01.10.1977

Ext.M2

Circular No. PRN:38/96-97 dated 11.07.1996

Ext.M3

District Collector’s proceedings Ref No. 99888/97 dated 21.08.1999

Ext.M4

DLVC proceeding No. 38139/2008/KA3 dated 03.05.2013

Ext.M5

Award dated 15.05.2015 in ID No. 53/2014

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1433-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@34@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/34/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 11^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 73/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

3132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

No. 6, Moore Street

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The Deputy General Manager (HRM)

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank DO:HRM Department

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah

Chennai-600014

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri J. Suresh, Authorized Representative

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/34/2015-IR (B-II)

dated 22/28.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai regarding denial of promotion to Sri S.

Arunachalam, Sub-Staff of the Respondent Bank as per the promotion policy settlement dated 26.02.2010 is

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

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 73/2015 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through Authorized Representative and the Respondent through counsel

and 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 Respondent Management had entered into a settlement with the Federation of Indian Bank Employees

Unions on 26.02.2010 regarding direct recruitment of Officers, direct recruitment in Clerical Cadre, promotion to

Award Staff and provision of Special Assistant Posts. In terms of the above promotion policy all eligible and willing

Sub-Staff members have to pass a written test in computer operations and fundamentals of banking to get promoted as

Clerks. The employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending for gross misconduct or court cases are

pending shall be eligible to appear for the test for promotion. If such employees are found eligible for promotion the

promotion will be kept in a sealed cover. In the event of the employee being exonerated of the charges in the

disciplinary proceedings or the court proceedings as a case may be the sealed cover shall be opened and acted upon. If

the employee is awarded punishment in the disciplinary proceedings or acquitted in the criminal proceedings by giving

benefit of doubt or on technical grounds or convicted in the criminal proceedings, the sealed cover shall not be acted

upon. If the departmental proceedings or court case have not been completed within 2 years from the date of the charge

sheet / filing of the case and the employee is not under suspension his case can be reviewed as per Para-3 of the

settlement. After such consideration, in case it is decided to promote the employee, he shall be promoted on an ad hoc

basis in the next available vacancy after expiry of the 2 year period from the date of charge sheet / filing of court case if

he is otherwise eligible for promotion. S. Arunachalam on whose behalf the present dispute is raised was working as

Sub-Staff at Devarshola Branch. He has appeared for the qualifying test for promotion from Sub-Staff to Clerical Cadre

held during the year 2011 and was successful. In spite of that he was not promoted as a case has been pending against

him. The case is at the CBI Court and there is no chance for the conclusion of the proceedings in Court in the near

future. So the Respondent should have invoked Para-3 of the settlement and given promotion to Arunachalam. An

order may be passed promoting Arunachalam with retrospective effect from the year 2013 with all arrears of pay and

other attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

Arunachalam on whose behalf the dispute is raised has joined the services of the Respondent Bank on

25.01.1993 as Sub-Staff. While working at Gudalur Branch he was transferred to Devarshola Branch on his request.

The CBI has filed Charge Sheet against a few staff members including Arunachalam on the allegation that the loan

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3133

sanctioned by the Bank to the workmen of Tea Estate of India Ltd. and Parry Agro Industries Ltd. were actually not

disbursed to the workers. The amount involved in the case is more than Rs. 3.00 crore. Arunachalam is 5^th accused in

the case charge sheeted by CBI. On account of the gravity of the misconduct involved and complaints raised by

hundreds of estate workmen, the issue of promotion of Arunachalam was not subjected to any review as per the

disqualification clause of the promotion policy settlement dated 26.02.2010. A review of cases cannot be demanded as

a matter of right. It is within the discretionary powers of the Bank. The case of Arunachalam was not considered

because of the case pending before the Court of Law. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in

the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W6. The Respondent did not

produce any documents on its side. Oral evidence was not adduced by either side also.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent regarding denial of promotion to Sri S. Arunachalam, Sub-

Staff is justifiable or not?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the concerned workman is entitled?

The Points

The dispute is raised on behalf of Arunachalam who is working as Sub-Staff at Devarshola Branch of the

Respondent Bank. The grievance of the concerned workman, Arunachalam is that he was denied promotion from the

post of Sub-Staff to the post of Clerical Cadre without any justification.

According to the petitioner, Arunachalam had appeared for the qualifying test for promotion from Sub-Staff to

Clerical Cadre in the year 2011 and had come out successful. This is not denied by the Respondent. The case of the

Respondent is that Arunachalam was not considered for promotion since a charge sheet has been filed against

Arunachalam alongwith some other staff members and the same is pending. According to the Respondent, because of

the pendency of the criminal case the Bank is not bound to consider the case of Arunachalam for promotion.

According to the petitioner, even if a criminal case is pending against Arunachalam the Respondent is bound

to consider Arunachalam for promotion since the criminal case has been pending for more than 2 years and there is no

probability of the case being disposed in the near future.

10.

The Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that the case against Arunachalam and others is as a result

of the complaint that was raised by Trade Unions affiliated to All India Organizations like CITU and AITUC in the

year 2010. As seen from the Counter Statement, loans to the Estate Workmen of M/s. Tea Estates of India Ltd. and

Parry Agro Industries Ltd. availed from Gudalur Branch of the Respondent Bank wherein Arunachalam had earlier

worked were not received by the concerned workmen. More than 400 borrowers are said to have availed loan

involving an amount of more than Rs. 3.00 crores but those workers have not received the loan amount at all.

Arunachalam, the workman concerned is the 5^th accused in the case and the case is now pending before a CBI Court.

11.

Neither the petitioner nor the Respondent has produced any documents pertaining to the charge regarding

which Arunachalam is facing trial. It is seen from Ext.W5, the letter written by the Petitioner Union to the Corporate

Office that charge sheet in the case has been filed in Court on 29.06.2010 and 40 out of 84 prosecution witnesses are

still to be examined.

12.

The petitioner is relying upon the common terms and conditions for Part “A” and “B” in promotion policy

settlement entered into between the Respondent and Federation of Indian Bank Employees Unions on 26.02.2010 and

marked as Ext.W1 in support of its contention. Para-2 of the disqualification clause under the above terms and

conditions provides for the manner in which employees against whom disciplinary proceedings or Court cases are

pending are to be dealt with. It states that if such employees are found to be eligible otherwise for promotion after

going through the promotion process set out in the settlement the promotion would be kept in a sealed cover and in the

event of the employee being exonerated of the charges the employee shall be deemed to have been promoted for the

purpose of seniority from the date when his or her immediate junior was promoted but would not be entitled to receive

any arrears of salary on account of such notional promotion.

13.

The criminal case in which Arunachalam is an accused being still pending, it is not yet time for invoking Para-

2 of the disqualification clause. The petitioner is relying upon Para-3 of the clause which provides for cases which

were pending for more than 2 years. This para states:

3134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Para-III -

where the departmental proceedings or court case have not been completed within 2 years from the date of

the charge sheet / filing of the case and such employees is not under suspension his / her case may be

reviewed to consider the following :

Whether the charges are grave enough to warrant continued denial of promotion and

the promotion of the employee will be against public interest.

Whether there is no likelihood of the case coming to conclusion in the near future?

Whether the delay in finalization of the proceedings whether departmental or in a Court

or Law is not directly or indirectly attributable to the employee concerned?

After such consideration of the facts enumerate above, in case it is decided to promote him / her, he / she shall

be promoted on an ad hoc basis in the next available vacancy after expiry of 2 years period from the date of charge

sheet / filing of court case, if he / she is otherwise eligible for promotion.

In case the departmental proceedings / court case has arisen out of investigation conducted by CBI ad hoc

promotion shall be given after taking the CBI’s view into account.

14.

The stand of the petitioner is that more than 2 years have elapsed after CBI has filed charge sheet against the

concerned employee on 29.06.2010 and yet the Bank has not invoked Para-3 of the disqualification clause to give

promotion to him.

15.

It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the case pending against the concerned employee is very grave in

nature and it is because of this reason his case was not reviewed. It is not disputed by the Respondent that the

concerned employee has undergone the process for promotion successfully and the promotion is kept in a sealed cover

to be dealt with based on the result of the criminal case. However, this stand of the Respondent is not correct. As seen

from Para-3 of the disqualification clause the case of the employee is to be reviewed and the matters enumerated in the

Paragraph are to be considered to decide whether promotion is to be given to the employee or not. So far as this

Tribunal is concerned no data is available to decide whether the charges against the employee are grave enough to

warrant continued denial of promotion or whether the promotion of the employee will be against public interest. So

also there is no way to know if there is likelihood of the case coming to a conclusion in the near future or whether it is

attributable to the concerned employee. In any case it is very much clear that the criminal case is proceeding at a very

low pace since there are several witnesses in the case. Now more than 6 years have elapsed after CBI has filed charge

sheet in the case also. So it is incumbent upon the Respondent to review the case of the concerned employee and

consider the matters enumerated in Para-3 referred to earlier. It is for the Respondent to take a decision based on the

process of review conducted by it. In case the matters enumerated are found in favour of the concerned employee the

Respondent is bound to give ad hoc promotion to the concerned employee and retain him on ad hoc promotion until

result of the case is pronounced. It is not proper on the part of the Respondent to deny such promotion to the

employee if the charge against him is trivial and he has not contributed for the delay in the conduct of the case.

Accordingly an award is passed as below:

The Respondent is directed to conduct a review of the case regarding promotion to the concerned employee

and take a decision and pass an order based on the result of the review, within a month of publication of the

award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 11^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^stParty/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

27.02.2010

Promotion Policy Settlement between Indian Bank Management and Federation of

India Bank Employees Unions

Ext.W2

14.05.2014

Dispute with ALC, Chennai

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3135

Ext.W3

11.12.2014

Counter submitted by Indian Bank Management

Ext.W4

15.12.2014

Rejoinder to the Counter

Ext.W5

26.03.2013

Letter to the Indian Bank Management

Ext.W6

12.03.2014

Letter to the Indian Bank Management

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1434-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@33@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/33/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 11^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 72/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

No. 6, Moore Street

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The Deputy General Manager (HRM)

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank DO:HRM Department

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah

Chennai-600014

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri J. Suresh, Authorized Representative

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

3136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/33/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 22/28.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai regarding denial of Special Assistant Post to

Sri R. Azhagianambi is justifiable or not? If not so, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 72/2015 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through Authorized Representative and the Respondent through counsel

and 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:

As per the Industry Level Bipartite Settlement the post of Special Assistant in the Bank is one among the

various special pay carrying post in Clerical Cadre. It carries a Special Pay of Rs. 1180/- per month. The posts of

Special Assistant as well as posts of Head Cashier and Single Window Operator are assigned on rotation basis among

the clerical staff in the branch and they are paid the Special Pay whenever they are designated as such. The post of

Special Assistant used to be referred to candidates who have put in 20 years of service as on the relevant date and

applied in response to the circular that is issued. Selection will be based on service seniority among the candidates who

applied for the post and are found eligible. For the year 2013 the Respondent Bank had issued circular calling for

willingness from the employees for the posts of Special Assistant. Azhagianambi on whose behalf the dispute is raised

had applied for the post. However, he was not selected for the post. The Bank management informed that disciplinary

proceeding clearance is applicable to the post of Special Assistant also. But this is not correct. The settlement dated

26.02.2010 provides for disciplinary proceeding clearance only in the case of promotions and not for intra-cadre

postings. On 05.06.2013 the disciplinary proceedings against Azhagianambi was closed after inflicting the punishment

of censure. The Bank called for applications for the posts of Special Assistants in the year 2014 also. However,

Azhagianambi did not apply in response to the circular calling applications as he was under the impression that one

of the unfilled vacancies for the year 2013 will be released to him. However, this time also he was not given the post of

Special Assistant. There is no justification in the Respondent not granting the post of Special Assistant to the concerned

employee. An award may be passed directing the Respondent to provide the post of Special Assistant to the concerned

employee with retrospective effect from April 2013 with arrears of Special Pay and allowances thereof.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

While considering applications for the post of Special Assistants for the year 2013 the names of

Azhagianambi, the concerned employee and another employee were not considered as disciplinary proceedings were

pending against them on the relevant date. As per the Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984, in the matter of filling up

of posts of Special Assistants in the Clerical Cadre suitability is to be determined by interview of senior employees

with weightage for qualification. Thus it is clear that the post of Special Assistant is a promotional cadre and so

clearance of departmental proceedings is required before filling up the positions. Azhagianambi was issued with a

charge sheet on 16.05.2012 for certain lapses and commissions and he was imposed the punishment of censure by order

dated 05.06.2013 by the Disciplinary Authority. The post of Special Assistant is vested with the passing power of cash

instruments upto Rs. 35,000/- and clearing and transfer cheques, vouchers, etc. upto and including Rs. 1,50,000/- and

thereby carries higher responsibilities. In the year 2014 Azhagianambi did not choose to respond to the circular calling

application for the post of Special Assistant. If the concerned employee chooses to apply for the post of Special

Assistant his case will be considered subject to his fulfilling other requirements.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in

the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W9. No oral evidence was adduced

by the parties. The Respondent did not produce any documents also on its side.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the Respondent is justified in denying the post of Special Assistant to Azhagianambi?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the employee is entitled?

The Points

Azhagianambi on whose behalf the dispute is raised is working as Clerk in the Respondent Bank. According

to the petitioner, Azhagianambi was denied the post of Special Assistant unjustly. Though he had applied for the post in

response to the circular calling applications for the year 2013 his name is not considered for the post alongwith another.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3137

It is stated that in 2013 there were 150 posts of Special Assistants but only 148 were filled up and yet Azhagianambi

and another were not considered for the post.

The case of the Respondent is that Azhagianambi was not considered for the post though he had applied for

the post in the year 2013 as disciplinary proceedings has been pending against him. It is further stated by the

Respondent that in the year 2014 when application was called for he did not apply for the post even though disciplinary

proceedings has been over and so there was no reason to consider him for the post in this year also.

10.

The case of the Respondent that the post of Special Assistant is a promotion post is not correct. Employees

from the post of Clerical Cadre used to be deputed on rotation to the post of Special Assistant, post of Single Window

Operator, etc. Such posts carried a special pay also. The Bipartite Settlement describes it as “Special Pay carrying posts

in Clerical Cadre”. So definitely it cannot be considered as a promotional post.

11.

The next aspect to be considered is whether the contention of the Respondent that clearance of the disciplinary

proceedings is required to be considered for the post of Special Assistant. The common terms and conditions providing

for disqualification clause in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.02.2010 and marked as Ext.W1 refer to the

condition of disposal of disciplinary proceedings only for cases of promotion. Only in the case of promotion the

procedure of keeping the promotion in a sealed cover and considering it after disposal of the disciplinary proceedings is

referred to. This exercise is not required so far as the post of Special Assistant which is within the Clerical Cadre itself

is concerned. So it was not proper on the part of Respondent in not considering the request of Azhagianambi to the post

of Speical Assistant in response to his application in the year 2013. In 2013 itself, by order dated 05.06.2013 the

disciplinary proceedings against Azhagianambi seems to have been closed after imposing the punishment of censure

against him. So it is clear that the misconduct committed by Azhagianambi was only minor in nature.

12.

According to the petitioner, Azhagianambi did not apply for the post in the year 2014 under the impression

that his application given in 2013 would be considered. However, there was no reason for this since persons are

selected to the post of Special Assistant based on the application called for every year.

13.

Though the post of Special Assistant is a post in the Clerical Cadre itself, it is not necessary that all the

persons who had applied for the post are allowed to act as Special Assistant. The Bipartite Settlement dated 17.09.1984

states that in the matter of filling up the posts of Special Assistants in the Clerical Cadre suitability is to be determined

in member banks having the posts of Special Assistant by interview of senior employees with weightage for

qualification. So it is clear that a selection process is involved in the selection to the post of Special Assistants.

14.

The Respondent has no case that Azhagianambi was not otherwise qualified for the post. The only reason for

not considering his application in 2013 is that a disciplinary proceeding has been pending against him. The proceedings

are already disposed. So the disqualification which existed according to the Respondent is not there now. So there is no

hindrance for the Respondent in considering the employee for the post.

15.

The relief claimed in the Claim Statement is that the post of Special Assistant should be provided to the

employee with retrospective effect and arrears of Special Pay should also be given to him. However, such a prayer

could not be allowed. The employee could not be paid for the work he has not done especially because it is only an

allowance in case he had worked in the post. However, the Respondent can consider the employee for the post of

Special Assistant as if his application is pending, without seeking another application from him.

Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to consider Azhagianambi, the concerned employee for the post of

Special Assistant, within a month of publication of the award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 11^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^stParty/Petitioner Unions :

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

27.02.2010

Promotion Policy Settlement between Indian Bank Management and Federation of

Indian Bank Employees Unions

Ext.W2

14.05.2014

Dispute with ALC, Chennai

3138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W3

22.08.2014

Counter submitted by Indian Bank Management

Ext.W4

10.12.2014

Rejoinder to the counter

Ext.W5

16.04.2013

Letter to the Indian Bank Management

Ext.W6

10.06.2013

Letter to the Indian Bank Management

Ext.W7

17.12.2012

CO:HRM Circular

Ext.W8

16.05.2012

Charge Sheet issued to Mr. R. Azhagianambi

Ext.W9

05.03.2013

Punishment Order

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1435-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 99@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@36@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/36/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 11^th May, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 99/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

No. 6, Moore Street

Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The Deputy General Manager (HRM)

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank DO:HRM Department

264, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah

Chennai-600014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3139

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri J. Thomas Jayaprabakaran, Authorized Representative

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/36/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 19.06.2016 and Corrigendum dated 20.10.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai regarding imposition of voluntary cessation

on Ms. Shanti Radhakrishnan, Clerk and denial of pensioner benefits to her is justifiable or not? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 99/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner appeared through Authorized Representative and the Respondent through counsel and and 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 dispute is raised by the Petitioner Union on behalf of Shanti Radhakrishnan who was Clerk in Nandanam

Branch of the Respondent Bank. Ms. Shanti Radhakrishnan joined the services of the Bank as Clerk on 12.06.1982.

The Respondent Bank had introduced an extraordinary leave scheme for its employees. Shanti Radhakrishnan had

applied for three years extraordinary leave from 31.10.2007 and this was sanctioned by the Respondent Bank. While

she was on leave the Bank had come out with a scheme offering its serving employees as well as past employees to join

the Pension Scheme. Shanti Radhakrishnan had complied with the terms for joining the Pension Scheme. Shanti

Radhakrishnan was not in a position to report for duty on expiry of the leave on 31.10.2010 due to her ill-health. So she

applied for extension of leave for three months upto 31.12.2010. This request was rejected by the Respondent. So

Shanti Radhakrishnan submitted an application to the Bank on 27.12.2010 for voluntary retirement from the service

of the Bank. This request was also turned down by the Respondent. The Respondent then issued notice to Shanti

Radhakrishnan on 24.03.2011 directing her to report for duty within 30 days. Thereafter another notice was sent and

later she was removed from service by letter dated 25.06.2011, invoking Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement. The

Appeal filed by her requesting to modify the punishment as Compulsory Retirement was rejected by the Appellate

Authority. The dispute is raised accordingly. There was no reason for the Respondent to reject the voluntary retirement

application of Shanti Radhakrishnan. The Respondent has adopted a vindictive attitude to the concerned employee.

Other employees who were in similar position were inflicted with the punishment of Compulsory Retirement making

them eligible for terminal benefits. An order may be passed holding that the action of the Management in denying

pension benefits to Smt. Shanti Radhakrishnan by rejecting her application for voluntary retirement and terminating her

service under Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement is illegal and also directing the Respondent to extend pensionery

benefits to her accepting the voluntary retirement application submitted by her and allowing voluntary retirement with

retrospective effect from 27.1.2010 and disbursing the arrears of pension to her.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

Smt. Shanti Radhakrishnan joined the service of the Bank as Clerk on 12.06.1982. She went on extraordinary

leave on 31.10.2007. The maximum period of leave that can be availed under the scheme for extraordinary leave is

only three years. The employee proceeding on leave under the scheme has to compulsorily join duty on completion of

three years. Shanti Radhakrishnan who proceeded on leave on 31.10.2007 should have joined duty on or before

30.10.2010. While on leave Shanti Radhakrishnan had applied for joining the Pension Scheme. Shanti Radhakrishnan

did not join the service of the Bank even after expiry of the period of leave. She submitted an application on 27.12.2010

seeking voluntary retirement from the service of the Bank while requesting for extension of leave. This request was

rejected. She was given first notice on 24.03.2011 asking to report for duty within 30 days. As she failed to report for

duty a second notice was issued on 03.05.2011. As there was no correspondence from her even after this the Bank

invoked Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement and ordered voluntary cessation of her service on 25.06.2011. There is

no provision for payment of pension in the case of voluntary cessation. As per Regulation-22(1)(A) of the Pension

Regulations, resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of the employee from the service of the Bank shall entail

forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionery benefits. The Petitioner Union

who is the signatory to the Settlement has no right to raise the dispute. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in

the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W11 and Exts.M1 to Ext.M3. No

oral evidence was adduced by either side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in imposition of voluntary cessation on Ms. Shanti

Radhakrishnan is justifiable or not?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the employee is entitled?

The Points

Shanti Radhakrishnan on whose behalf the dispute is raised by the Petitioner Union has been working as Clerk

of the Respondent Bank. On the basis of the extraordinary leave scheme of the Respondent for its employees Shanti

Radhakrishnan applied for 3 years extraordinary leave from 31.10.2007 and this was sanctioned. She should have

joined duty on 31.10.2010 on expiry of the leave. However, rather than joining duty she applied for extension of leave.

But the Respondent refused to extend the leave on the ground that there is no provision for grant of extraordinary leave

for a period beyond 3 years. The Bank asked her to join duty. However, she failed to join duty. The Bank removed her

from service invoking Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement for voluntary cessation from service. The relief claimed in

the Claim Statement is that Shanti Radhakrishnan should be extended pension benefits by accepting the request for

voluntary retirement made by her.

The stand of the Respondent is that by failing to join duty Shanti Radhakrishnan had ceased to be in service

and she was removed from service and she is not entitled to pensionery benefits as she has forfeited her claim for

pension.

10.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has failed to join duty even after expiry of the period of extraordinary

leave of 3 years that was granted to her. Ext.M1 is the copy of the scheme for extraordinary leave. Clause-D of the

scheme states that the period of extraordinary leave shall be for a minimum period of one year and for a maximum

period of three years. It is further clarified that the maximum period of leave that can be availed under the scheme is

not more than three years during the entire service of an employee. Since Shanti Radhkrishnan has failed to join duty

even after the expiry of the period of her leave Ext.M2 notice dated 24.03.2011 has been issued to her by the Bank

stating that she has been absenting herself from duty unauthorizedly since 31.10.2010, the date of expiry of the

sanctioned leave. By the notice she was asked to report for duty within 30 days of the notice in terms of Clause-33 of

the Bipartite Settlement. Even after this she has failed to join duty and one more notice dated 03.05.2011 was issued to

her by the Bank, again asking her join duty within 30 days. Still she failed to comply with the direction and it was

thereafter the Bank has issued order dated 25.06.2011 informing her that in terms of Clause-33 of 8^th Bipartite

Settlement she has voluntarily left the services of the Bank and vacated employment in the Bank from the date of the

letter.

11.

There is no case for the petitioner that the action of the Respondent in treating the concerned employee as

ceased to have been in service is not proper. Even in Ext.M1 the request made by the employee, she has not stated

anything about the order of the Respondent treating her to have ceased to be in service. In Ext.W1 she has asked only

for pension on the basis that she has opted for pension scheme. Since her request for pension was refused on the ground

that she is not eligible for pension as she has voluntarily ceased to be in service, she sent Ext.W2 letter to the Bank on

14.09.2012 requesting that the order of voluntary cessation of service imposed on her is to be modified and any other

punishment should be imposed on her so that she is able to draw pension from the Bank. Then there is one more letter

i.e. Ext.W3 which is stated to be an appeal against the order of “punishment of cessation of service”. In this she has

requested that the order should be modified as Compulsory Retirement instead of Voluntary Cessation from Service so

that she will be eligible to draw pension as per the Pension Regulations. In the meanwhile, on 27.12.2010 the

concerned employee seems to have filed an application for voluntary retirement also. Though a copy of the application

is not seen produced, Ext.W5 the letter by the HRM Department of the Respondent shows that such an application has

been filed. It is referred to in the Counter Statement also.

12.

The argument that is advanced on behalf of the concerned employee is that she was eligible for pension even

if she has failed to report for duty after expiry of the leave. In is argued on her behalf that she has already joined the

Pension Scheme and so she was eligible for pension. No doubt, the concerned employee has joined the Pension Scheme

while she was still under extraordinary leave.

13.

However, merely because the petitioner has joined the Pension Scheme it will not make her eligible for the

benefit of pension. The employee has refused to join the service of the Bank in spite of notices issued to her and she has

accepted the order of voluntary cession from service also. She has challenged it only after her request for pension was

refused. Having been unauthorizedly absent and her absence having been treated as voluntary cessation from service

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3141

will be employee be entitled to pension as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement? Clause-22 (i) of the Pension

Regulations states that resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank

shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionery benefits. As seen from

Clause-22 (2) an interruption in the service of the Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service except in the case

of authorized leave of absence, suspension where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, transfer to a non-

qualifying service in the establishment under the control of the government or bank if such transfer has been ordered by

a competent authority and joining time while on transfer from one post to another. Thus, it is clear that even if there is

no specific reference to voluntary cessation from service it is more drastic in nature than resignation from service and

the period of absence in between is an interruption in service entailing forfeiture of service. So in view of the very

Bipartite Settlement entered into by the Petitioner Union and the Respondent Bank the concerned employee would not

be entitled to the benefit of pension having, voluntarily ceased to be in service.

In view of my above discussion the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 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 11^th May, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

20.07.2011

Letter to General Manager (HRM)

Ext.W2

14.09.2012

Letter to General Manager (HRM)

Ext.W3

18.05.2012

Appeal against the punishment

Ext.W4

24.03.2011

Letter from Zonal Office, Chennai (South)

Ext.W5

25.08.2012

Letter from CO/HRM Department

Ext.W6

25.06.2011

Letter from Zonal Office, Chennai (South)

Ext.W7

14.01.2011

Letter from Zonal Office, Chennai (South)

Ext.W8

08.12.2010

Letter from CO/HRM Department

Ext.W9

05.03.2014

Dispute raised by the petitioner

Ext.W10

26.09.2014

Counter reply by the Respondent Bank

Ext.W11

03.12.2014

Rejoinder to the counter reply.

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

EOL Scheme dated 08.01.2007

Ext.M2

Notices dated 24.03.2011, 03.05.2011 and 25.06.2011

Ext.M3

Regarding 22(1) of the Pension Regulations – Relevant Extract.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1436-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 112@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@73@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

3142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 112/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/73/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 15^th June, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 112/2014

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri M. Sathis Kumar

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office

No. 65-A, East Car Street

Tuticorin

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s C.R. Chandrasekaran, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s NGR Prasad, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/73/2014-IR (B.II)

dated 25.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the termination from service in respect of Sri Sathis Kumar by the Management of Indian Overseas

Bank is legal and justified? What relief the petitioner is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 112/2014 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner has joined Oppillan Branch of the Respondent as temporary Messenger on 05.08.2005 and had

worked there upto 09.02.2010 continuously without any break. Then he was posted to Kamudi Branch and had worked

there from 10.02.2010 to 27.09.2011 continuously. He was again posted to Oppillan Branch and worked there from

28.09.2011 to 28.06.2012. Then the Respondent had taken the petitioner as Messenger in regular scale of pay with

effect from 29.06.2012 by order dated 22.06.2012. The petitioner was to report for duty around 0930 AM and had to

remain till the premises was closed for the day. The petitioner was to go for local delivery of letters and cheques, to the

Post Office, for payment of electricity bills, etc. as instructed by the Manager. He was doing other duties also as any

other subordinate staff. At Kamudi Branch the petitioner was additionally attending to Clerical duties like making

entries in various registers. By order dated 02.05.2014 the Respondent Bank terminated the petitioner from service

without giving any notice stating that on verification of the records of Oppillan Branch they have found that the

petitioner had never worked at Oppillan Branch as Temporary Messenger. The Oppillan Branch had rightly issued a

certificate certifying that the petitioner was engaged as Messenger in the Branch and was continuously engaged for

more than 240 days preceding 15.11.2010. Kamudi Branch also has issued a certificate to this effect. It was on the basis

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3143

of these two certificates the petitioner was interviewed and was appointed as Messenger. By order dated 22.06.2012 the

petitioner was on probation for a period of 6 months and was confirmed in the service of the Bank with effect from

29.12.2012. The Respondent had terminated the petitioner from service on the unfounded allegation that he did not

work as Temporary Messenger in Oppillan or Kamudi Branch of the Respondent. The petitioner had raised the dispute

accordingly. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to

reinstate the petitioner in service.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

A settlement was entered into between the recognized Trade Union and the Second Respondent on 17.02.2011

under Section-12(3) of the ID Act, for absorption of Temporary Messengers/Sweepers as one-time absorption, subject

to satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. On the basis of the settlement the

Respondent issued circulars to all the Regional Offices. The Regional Offices were instructed to collect declaration in

the prescribed form from the eligible Temporary Messengers/Sweepers. The petitioner submitted application form

stating that he is eligible to be appointed to the post of Messenger having worked in Oppillan and Kamudi Branch for

more than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner was selected for appointment of messenger and he was informed

of this by order dated 26.06.2012. On subsequent verification of the branch records it was found that the petitioner had

not worked at the branches as Temporary Messenger. He had made a false declaration regarding his temporary service.

The petitioner has not complied with the essential condition of working period as provided in the settlement dated

17.02.2011. Before appointment the petitioner had given an undertaking that if his declaration is found false he is liable

to be terminated from the service of the Bank. The application given by the petitioner for absorption is tainted with

fraud. The absorption of the petitioner in service was not lawful at the very inception. So he deserved to be terminated

from service. Natural justice cannot be afforded to a person who has committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect

of his working period in his application. There was no necessity to give opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself,

according to Chapter-17 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.12.1996. Termination of the petitioner from service is

fully justified. He is not entitled to any relief. The dispute is liable to be dismissed.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W20, Ext.M1 to Ext.M14 and C1 to C7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

Ext.W10 is the settlement that was entered into by the Respondent Bank and the recognized Trade Union on

17.02.2011 regarding absorption of Temporary Messengers/Sweepers as one-time measure. As per this settlement

opportunity for absorption was given to Casual/Temporary Messengers/Sweepers who have worked for more than 5

years in any of the branches / offices in permanent vacancies and completed 240 or more days continuously in a

calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and are still working on the date of the agreement. Such persons were to be absorbed in

Phase-I before 30.06.2011. Under Phase-II those who have worked for more than 3 years but less than 5 years and

completed 240 or more days continuously in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 were to be absorbed. So also under

Phase-III those who have completed 240 or more days continuously in a calendar year and had been engaged for less

than 3 years as on 15.11.2010 and were still working were to be absorbed. The petitioner had applied for absorption

under Phase-I of the settlement and had been appointed as regular Messenger by the Respondent and was posted at

Oppillan Branch by order dated 26.06.2012. According to the petitioner he had worked at Oppillan Branch from

05.08.2005 to 09.02.2010, then at Kamudi Branch from 10.02.2010 to 27.09.2011 and again at Oppillan Branch from

28.09.2011 during which time he was given regular appointment. The petitioner had joined Oppillan Branch as regular

Messenger, had completed his probation period of 6 months and was confirmed in service. However, by order dated

02.05.2014 the Bank terminated him from service. They have taken the stand that on verification of the records of

Oppillan and Kamudi Branch it was revealed that the petitioner had not worked in those branches during the relevant

period to make him eligible to be absorbed as per the terms of Ext.M10, the settlement dated 17.02.2011. According to

the Respondent, the petitioner was absorbed on the basis of a declaration given by him that he had worked as

Temporary Messenger. At the time of appointment he had given undertaking that in case his declaration regarding his

temporary service and other details are found incorrect he is liable to be terminated from service. The Bank, acting

on the undertaking had terminated the petitioner from service, having found that the declaration furnished by him is

false.

The Respondent had not conducted any domestic enquiry before terminating the petitioner from service. Its

stand is that the very appointment of the petitioner is tainted by fraud and misrepresentation and the absorption was not

3144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lawful at the inception itself and there was no necessity to conduct a formal enquiry before terminating the petitioner

from service.

The initial question to be considered is whether the petitioner had actually been in the temporary service of the

Respondent to justify his absorption as regular Messenger in the rolls of the Respondent. The petitioner had given

evidence as WW1 to substantiate his case. He has reiterated his case in the Claim Statement, in his Proof Affidavit in

lieu of Chief Examination, in his attempt to justify his stand. The petitioner had also marked Ext.W1 to Ext.W20 to

prove his case. Out of the documents produced by him the documents relevant on the aspect of temporary service are

Ext.W3 and Ext.W5 and also Ext.W17, Ext.W18 and Ext.W20. Ext.W3 and Ext.W5 can be dealt with while discussing

the evidence of MW1 as these are the certificates issued by MW1 in his capacity as the Branch Manager and by another

Branch Manager respectively. Ext.W17 and Ext.W18 are the computer printout of GL transactions produced by the

petitioner to show that he had been working in the Bank. However, these are printouts for the period from 2011 only.

As per Ext.M10 a person a temporary employees who seeks absorption should have been in service as on 15.11.2010.

According to the Respondent the petitioner worked on temporary assignment only after this relevant date. Ext.W17 and

Ext.W18 do not serve any purpose so far as the petitioner is concerned for the reason that these are subsequent to the

cut-off date given in Ext.M10. Of course, payment is seen made to the petitioner on certain dates as per Ext.W17 and

Ext.W18. There are also the vouchers marked as Ext.W20 series showing the petitioner as Temporary Messenger. But

all these vouchers are also after the cut-off date and will not support the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner was able

to produce such vouchers and even able to get computer printout of GL transactions of the Bank for the period from

2011 onwards it would not have been difficult for him to get a computer printouts of previous transactions also. So

also the voucher for the relevant period also should have been available with him or could have been made available by

him if he had actually worked prior to the cut-off date mentioned in Ext.M10. As it is, apart from the oral evidence of

the petitioner and Exts.W3 and W5 certificates no other evidence is available on the side of the petitioner to

establish the case that he had worked in Oppillan and Kamudi branches of the Respondent Bank for more than 240 days

prior to the cut-off date i.e. 15.11.2010.

10.

Ext.W3 is the certificate containing the signature of MW1 who was the Manager of Kamuthi Branch. The

certificate states that the petitioner has been engaged as Messenger in his Branch since 10.02.2010 and he had been

engaged continuously for 240 days or more preceding 15.11.2010 and continued to be engaged as such on the date

when the certificate was given i.e. on 06.04.2011. Ext.W6 is the certificate of such kind given by the Manager of

Oppillan Branch stating that the petitioner was engaged in the Branch since 05.08.2005, had been continuously

engaged for more than 240 days preceding 15.11.2010 and continued to be engaged as such on 06.09.2011, the date on

which the certificate was given. MW1 has stated in his Proof Affidavit that he had issued Ext.W3 certificate to the

petitioner under the influence of his father, Sri Muthuraj who was the Regional Committee Member of a Trade Union

and Thomas Balan who was additional General Secretary of Tuticorin Region of the Union. He has further stated that

the petitioner had not worked as Temporary Messenger as detailed in the certificate issued by him. He had further

stated that even after the cut-off date given in Ext.M10 the petitioner has not rendered service as Temporary Messenger

but did sweeping work only. As seen from his evidence, on receipt of complaints regarding malpractice in absorption,

the Bank had investigated the matter and found out that what is stated in the certificates are false. The CBI also had

registered cases against the Office Bearers of the Trade Union including Thomas Balan and father of the petitioner.

MW1 himself has given a confession statement and this was marked as Ext.M5. He has stated in this that the certificate

was wrongly given by him as instructed by the Office Bearers of the Union. He has stated in his cross-examination that

though action was not initiated against him for issuing false certificate to the petitioner charge sheet was issued to him

on a similar issue and enquiry in that matter is still going on.

11.

The case of the petitioner is that the certificates were issued by the respective Branch Managers only on the

basis of his temporary service. The petitioner has sought production of documents by the Bank to prove his case that he

had worked in Oppillan and Kamudi branches as Temporary Messenger. The Bank had produced Ext.C1 to Ext.C7 at

the instance of the petitioner. These documents were marked by the petitioner during cross-examination of MW1.

Ext.C7 is the GL Statement regarding other sundry charges for the period from 10.02.2010 to 06.04.2011 in respect of

Kamudi Branch. In this there are two entries showing payment to the petitioner. On 30.04.2010 Rs. 1,800/- is seen paid

to the petitioner. On 31.01.2011 another Rs. 2,200/- is seen paid to him. The case of the petitioner is that he had

worked in Kamudi Branch from 10.02.2010 to 27.09.2011. As requested by the petitioner the Respondent has produced

the entire GL Transaction Statement of Kamudi Branch for the period starting from 10.02.2010. As stated, the cut-off

date to become eligible for absorption is 15.11.2010. The only entry showing that the petitioner had worked at Kamudi

Branch before 15.11.2010 is the entry made on 30.,04.2010 for payment of Rs. 1,800/-. MW1 has admitted that this is

the wage paid for 18 days which would show that the petitioner must have been at Kamudi Branch for 18 days prior to

the entry referred to. The suggestion that was made during cross-examination of MW1 is that other payments also were

made to the petitioner without referring to his name. Each transaction is seen correctly entered in the GL Transaction

Statement in respect of Kamudi Branch. According to MW1, one Jayakodi who was the Sweeper at the time was

attending to Messenger work also. The GL Statements of the Branch reveals payment made to Jayakodi frequently also.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3145

The name of the petitioner alone could not have been omitted if payment was made to him. There is nothing in the GL

Transaction Statement in respect of Kamudi Branch to show that the petitioner had been continuously working in the

Branch from 10.02.2010 to 15.11.2010. The GL Transaction Statements in respect of Oppillan Branch from

06.02.2009 also are available in Ext.C.7. According to them the details of the transaction prior to the period are not

available. If the petitioner is to become eligible for absorption he should have continuously worked for more than 240

days in a calendar year prior to 15.11.2010. So even with the details of the transactions from 06.02.2009 it could be

found out if the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days with the Respondent prior to the cut-off date. On going

through the transactions of Oppillan Branch I am not able to find out the details of any payment made to the petitioner.

At the same time payments are seen made to others towards cleaning and scavenger charges. It is not pointed out to me

that the name of the petitioner appears anywhere in the document in respect of Oppillan branch. I had been going

through the document but I was not able to find out any such entry also. Thus the GL Transaction Statements produced

by the Respondent at the instance of the petitioner would show that the petitioner had not worked for more than 240

days in any of the two branches of the Respondent Bank as claimed by him. No other documents are produced by the

petitioner also.

12.

The documents other than Ext.C.7 produced by the Respondent at the instance of the petitioner were marked

as Ext.C1 to Ext.C6 through MW1. These are the dispatch register, account opening register, cheque return register,

local cheque register, etc. MW1 was asked about the handwriting in these documents but he was not able to identify the

hand by which those were written. There is nothing unnatural in it for the reason that the Branch Manager could not be

expected to remember the handwriting of all his subordinate staff in all the branches he had worked. At the time of his

examination MW1 was not in the branch at all. The attempt on behalf of the petitioner seems to have been to make out

that these documents contain the handwriting of the petitioner also. This attempt has failed in the absence of

identification of the handwriting by the witness. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is connected to these

documents in any manner. Thus the available documents would not show that the petitioner had worked with the

Respondent as Temporary Messenger for than 240 days continuously prior to 15.11.2010 and he continued to work

with the Respondent on that date. On the other hand as per the documents there is no data to show that the petitioner

had worked in the Bank as claimed by him, for the relevant period.

13.

One contention that has been raised by the petitioner in the Claim Statement is that he was terminated from

service without any notice and without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner seems to have been terminated from

service without notice, but paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The Respondent has contended that the

petitioner has given undertaking at the time of appointment that he is liable to be terminated from service in case his

declaration are found false and so there was no necessity to give opportunity to him to defend himself. Even though

enquiry was not conducted by the Respondent, there was sufficient opportunity for the petitioner before this Tribunal to

establish that he was eligible for absorption as per terms of Ext.M10 in which case he would have been entitled to an

order of reinstatement. However, as already stated, he was not able to establish his case here. On the other hand the

Respondent has sufficiently established that his case is false. So the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the discussion above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 15^th June, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri M. Sathis Kumar

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

MW1, Sri A. Sampath

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

14.12.1996

Extracts from Settlement

Ext.W2

05.04.2011

Oppillan Branch to Kamudi branch certifying First Party having working at

Oppillan

Ext.W3

06.04.2011

Kamudi Branch Certificate

Ext.W4

06.04.2011

Letter of First Party in Annexure-A to Central Office of the Second Party certified

by the Kamudi Branch

3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W5

06.09.2011

Oppillan Branch Certificate

Ext.W6

18.05.2012

Advice for interview

Ext.W7

22.06.2012

Appointment Order

Ext.W8

27.06.2012

Order posting to Oppillan Branch

Ext.W9

17.08.2013

Confirmation w.e.f. 29.12.2012

Ext.W10

02.05.2014

Termination Order

Ext.W11

16.05.2014

dispute raised before the ALC-cum-Conciliation Officer

Ext.W12

14.07.2014

Reply of the Second Party

Ext.W13

15.07.2014

Rejoinder of the First Party

Ext.W14

12.08.2014

Rejoinder of Second Party to rejoinder of the First Party

Ext.W15

28.08.2014

Failure of the Conciliation Report

Ext.W16

25.11.2014

Reference of Dispute to the Hon’ble CGIT-cum-LC, Chennai

Ext.W17

Sept.2011

Computer print-out of GL Purpose Transactions in [7490] relating to “Other

To June 2012

Sundry Charges”

Ext.W18

03.12.2011

Computer print-out of GL Purpose Transactions in [7451] relating to “Wages-

To 23.06.2012

Temporary Messengers”

Ext.W19

01.10.2011

A list prepared manually from Item 1 to 3 hereinabove to prove that the petitioner

To 23.06.2012

worked on all days from Sept. 2011 to June 2012

Ext.W20

Various Dates

Some available vouchers relating to payments made to the petitioner

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

23.03.2011

Bank circular regarding absorption

Ext.M2

06.04.2011

Declaration form in the form of Annexure-A

Ext.M3

22.06.2012

Appointment Order

Ext.M4

Application form

Ext.M5

09.12.2013

Confession statement by the Branch Manager who issued false service certificate

Ext.M6

11.04.2014

Confirmation by the existing Branch Manager,

Ext.M7

15.04.2014

Confirmation by the present Branch Manager, Kamudi

Ext.M8

15.04.2014

Investigation Report

Ext.M9

02.05.2014

Termination Order

Ext.M10

17.02.2011

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section-12(3) of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947

Ext.M11

28.04.2014

Admission letter given by Mr. A. Sampath, the then Manager of Kamudi Branch

Ext.M12

29.10.2013

First Information Report in RC MA 1 2013 A 0044

Ext.M13

02.08.2014

News of job scam issued various Newspapers – A Serial

Ext.M14

02.05.2014

Demand Draft in the name of First Party alongwith his statement of account.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1437-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3147

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 121@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@74@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2016

S.O. 1437.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2016.

[No. L-12011/74/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No 121 of 2013

Reference No. L-12011/74/2013-IR (B-II) dated 16.11.2013.

Shri Jitender Kumar, Ex- Temporary Attender c/o the State Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Employees’ Union (NZ) States Committee. Rohtak

…Workman

Versus

1. The Deputy General Manager,Syndicate Bank, Regional Office,

48 Bhadana Bhawan, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad-(Haryana)

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Shri R.P.Rana Advocate.

For the Management

Shri Randeep Singh Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on: - 06 -06-2016

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. . L-12011/74/2013/IR (B-II) dated 16.11.2013;

the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Faridabad in serving a

Show cause Notice to Sri Jitender Kumar, Ex-Temporary Attender vide reference No.0656/FRO/PD/TRJ/12

dated 14.06.2012 for his apprehensing termination alleging him that he had concealed the Education

qualification after a gap of two years is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which dated?”

Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that he got his name registered in employment exchange

for the job with educational qualification of matriculation vide regd. No.7/04 dated 6-8-2004 regd. SL no.2902/04 and

he passed 10+2 examination in 2006 and approached the employment exchange for addition of educational

qualification in their record, but the authorities avoided him and said that they will add his higher education only after

graduation only and his 10+2 qualification could not be added in the employment exchange. It is further pleaded that

the management called the candidate from the employment exchange to prepare a panel of attendar for Faridabad Distt.

And the name of the workman was sent by the employment exchange to the management and workman was called for

interview in 2007 and workman was selected and empanelled and subsequently he was given appointment as attendar

in regional office Faridabad on 13-9-2010. The workman submitted that he was neither asked about his qualification

nor he was asked to submit any certificate of qualification during interview and workman since then doing his job with

sincerity and honesty. The workman further submitted that on 14-6-2012 management served show cause notice upon

the workman alleging that workman had concealed the educational qualification as on the date of applying for panel of

temporary attended and there was a discrepancy in educational qualification in comparison with detail submitted at the

time of interview and Deputy General Manager asked him vide show cause notice dated 14-6-12 as to why his services

should not be terminated for concealing the facts. The workman submitted that he never concealed his educational

3148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

qualification as his name was forwarded by the employment exchange and during the interview he was never asked

about his educational qualification. The show-cause notice is after thought and unlawful as the workman was appointed

by following all the recruitment rules of the bank. It is further submitted that workman himself disclosed his

qualification when he was asked by the bank to furnish the details as per bio-data. The workman never gave any false

information. The workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year from 13-9-2010 and the show-cause

notice is mockery and illegal as possessing of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and the workman

already given undertaking to the management that on the basis of higher qualification he will not claim any promotion

or any other benefits of service. It is further pleaded by the workman that in a similar matter another employee Mr.

Subhash Chand of the management was charge sheeted for mentioning his qualification as 8^th pass and subsequently it

was found that he was matric. He was removed from service but Appellate Authority reinstated him on the same

position. It is prayed by the workman that show-cause notice dated 14-6-2012 being illegal and bad and may be

quashed.

The management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that petition is not

maintainable being premature as the management has not passed any order of termination. The show-cause notice

regarding explanation of the workman about his educational qualification and workman filed reply which is still

pending and the present dispute is liable to be dismissed as the workman deliberately concealed his educational

qualification being 10+2 passed while filling up the application form for the post of temporary attendant. The

management in order to fill up the casual and leave vacancies in the cadre of attendar required to maintain district wise

penal of temporary attendar and from this panel the list of candidate provided by the employment exchange to the

management. The management placed an indent with concerned employment exchange prescribed the educational

qualification required for the post as per the bank policy. The educational qualification has been fixed as 8^th standard

passed and should not have passed 12^th standard. In view of the above indent the name of the workman was one of the

candidate forwarded by the employment exchange Faridabad. The workman was separated for the interview and

workman during interview submitted employment exchange card No. 07/04 dated 6-8-2004 as per which his

qualification was 10^th pass and the workman was empanelled as temporary attendar and entrusted with duty at regional

office Faridabad. Later on it come to the notice of the management that workman has passed 12^th examination in the

year 2006 . From this it is clear that workman has passed 12^th examination in the year 2006 whereas in his application

dated 12-5-2007 he has mentioned his qualification has 10^th pass and he was possessing higher educational

qualification at the time of submitting his application for employment and workman concealed his higher educational

qualification at the time of interview. The workman was served show-cause notice to which workman filed his reply in

which he mention that on the basis of his higher qualification he will not claim any benefit which is not acceptable by

the bank. It is further pleaded by the management that the workman never informed the management that he has

passed +2 examination at the time of interview. It is further pleaded by the management that empanelment of workman

is in violation of the guide lines issued by the Govt. of India and appointment of the workman is void ab-abnitio. The

management prayed that the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and may be dismissed.

The workman filed replication to the written statement reiterating the claim made in the claim petition. The

workman further sub mitted in the replication that he was appointed on 13-9-2010 and since than he is doing his job

with sincerity and honesty and he himself disclosed his qualification on the asking of the bank to furnish the details as

per bio-data given by bank to him and he has not given any false information to the management to securing the job

and allegation in the show cause notice are wrong and only a attempt to terminate his service.

In evidence the workman filed his affidavit as Ex.W1. The workman also relied upon documents Ex.W2 bio-

date form dated 18-8-2011 and Ex.W3 letter dated 7-10-2011 written by the workman to the management regarding

permission to avail leave for reappearing in B.A.final examination which contain endorsement of the management of

the same date. The management filed the affidavit Ex.M2 of one Sh. K.S. Karunakara , Assistant General Manager

regional office, Faridabad. The management also filed documents Ex.M1, Ex.M3 to Ex.M7. Both of the witnesses of

the parties were cross-examined.

I have heard the parties, gone through the record and evidence produced by the parties.

The workman filed his affidavit in evidence. The management has cross-examined the workman. ( WW1

Jitender Kumar). In his cross-examination WW1 Jiternder Kumar stated that “ I am BA pass.I passed the matric in the

year 2004. I appeared in 12^th exam in 2006 in which I was to appear for compartment examination; therefore, I

appeared in September October 2006 in compartment examination of class 12^th. I was declared pass mark sheet was

sent to me in July 2007. Mark sheet are issued late but the result is declared earlier”. The management’s witness MW1

K.S. Karunakara Assistant General Manager was cross-examined by the representative of the workman. MW1 K.S.

Karunakara in his cross-examination stated that workman was called for interview from the employment exchange to

the management bank on the basis of qualification mentioned as matric. Workman filled the form Ex.M1mentioning his

qualification as 10^th pass. Ex.M4 senior Secondary certificate examination is dated 20.12.2006. On a specific question,

this witness answered “ I do not know whether the workman qualified the examination as supplementary in July 2007

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3149

as there is no documentary evidence”. To another question this witness stated that the workman himself filled the form

Ex.W2 mentioning his qualification as BA part-II after senior secondary certificate 2006.

Representative of the workman submitted that workman never concealed any information regarding his

educational qualification. Workman himself submitted the form mentioning his educational qualification for updating

.The workman also relied upon the document Ex/W3. This is the application of the workman addressed to the Deputy

General Manager Syndicate Bank for seeking permission to avail leave for re-appearing in BA Final Examination. In

this application the bank authorities mention the following endorsement:-

“We may permit Shri Jitender Kumar temporary attender to avail leave on 8^th October and 11^th October 2011(

2days) for appearing in BA exams on referred above subject to availability”.

This document shows and indicates the bonafide move of the workman. The representative of the management

submitted that this reference is pre-mature as no action has been taken by the management so far against the

workman.Rebutting to this arguments, the learned counel for the workman cited para3 G of the claim petition quoting

that in a similar matter an employee of the respondent bank namely Shri Subhash Chand was charge sheeted for

mentioning his educational qualification as 8^th pass and subsequently it was found that he had completed his

matriculation examination also. He was removed from the service of the bank but his appeal was accepted by the

appellate authority and he was reinstated on the same position. In view of the above fact the workman has reasonable

apprehension and it cannot be said that the claim of the workman is pre-mature. The management cited two case laws.

Ashok Kumar Verma and others Vs. Container Corporation of India and ors. Reported in 2015(2) CLR 193 , Poonam

Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013 (3) JLJR 619. With due respect to the case laws of the Hon’ble High Courts, the

above cited case law the facts and circumstances were quite different from the facts and circumstances of the present

case and are not applicable on the case in hand.

The learned counsel for the workman cited case law Charanjit Singh Vs. Punjab Agriculture University and

anothers 1994 (3) RSJ page 295. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:

“Constitution of India, Arts,226/227-Appointment letter-withdrawal of-Clear from the record that the posts

were duly advertised-Petitioner possessed much higher qualifications that those which had been prescribed-

Was eligible-Was duly selected- Given an offer of appointment vide letter dated July 14, 1992-There was

nothing except the intervention of the Union which may have compelled the respondents to withdraw the

orders-Authorities have merely succumbed to pressure and compromised on principles – Withdrew the offer

of appointment which had been made to the petitioner after he had been duly selected-Action was arbitrary –

Is liable to be set-aside”.

10.

The representative of the workman also cited case law Smt. Tajinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and

another 1993(3) RSJ page 162. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:-

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is a considerable force in the arguments of

the learned counsel for the petitioner. B.Ed qualification is certainly higher that JBT qualification and a person

possessing higher qualification is not debarred from being appointed against a post for which lower

qualification are required.”

11.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the show-cause notice dated 14-6-2012 held to be

illegal, unfair and arbitrary and has to be quashed. Consequently the show cause notice No.0656/FRO/PD/TRJ/12

dated 14.06.2012 is hereby quashed.

12. Reference is answered 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] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1438-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 840@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@38@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 840/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41011/38/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 840/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 13/2004

The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer

Western Railway,

Baroda-390004

The Divisional Raiwlay Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda-390004

…First Party

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi

Baroda

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P.

AWARD

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

41011/38/2003-IR(B-I) dated 08.03.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to promote Shri Ambalal R. Khalasi for the post of Sr. Khalasi is legal,

proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Ambalal R. is entitled to and from

which date?”

This reference dates back to 08.03.2004. Second party has been absent since last several dates and also not

filed statement of claim despite giving dozens of opportunity.Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or

willingness to proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3151

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1439-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- 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- 179@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@148@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 179/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/148/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 179/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 81/1999

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda-39009

…First Party

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees Union,

8, Samrapan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana-384002

…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-30012/148/98-IR(B-I) dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of Shri Shankar Soma, Khalasi Gd-I

upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01-93 with all consequential benefits is justified or not? If

yes, what relief the workman is entitled?”

3152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This reference dates back to 15.03.1999.Second party filed the statement of claim (Ext.4) on 22.11.1999 and

first party filed written statement (Extr.5) on 13.12.2000 since then the second party has been absent and has not been

leading evidence despite giving dozen of opportunity.Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or willingness

to proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1440-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 191@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@19@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 191/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/19/2006-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 191/2006

The Dy. Chief Material Manager,

Western Railway, Dahod,

DAHOD (Gujarat)

… First Party No.1

The Asstt. Material Manager,

Western Railway, Pratap Nagar,

Baroda

…First Party No.2

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3153

AWARD

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

L-41012/19/2006-IR(B-I) dated 17.11.2006 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 Western Railway represented by Dy. Chief Material Manager,

Western Railway, Dahod in not giving promotion to S/Shri Ramubhai K; Baldev R; Maganbhai T; Jaswant D

& Madhusudan H, Group D employees for the post of clerk-cum-typist is legal, proper and just? If not, to

what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 17.11.2006. Second party Union representative Shri R.S. Sisodia has note down

on the order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to proceed with the reference and the same may be

dismissed as not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1441-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV 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- 159@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@182@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 159/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-12012/182/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 159/2004

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kabir Chowk Branch, Kabir Chowk,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

Shri Dagdu KesavSakpal,

Room No. 13, Vanikchand,

Gulabchand, Hatim Khadki, Shanpur

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… Second Party

3154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

Shri P.K. Ohja

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

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

12012/182/98-IR(B-I) dated 29.01.1999 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 State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Dagdu

Kesav Sakpal w.e.f.09.01.1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 29.01.1999. Both the parties appeared. Second party submitted the statement of

claim Ext. 5 on 10.09.1999 and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 9 on 18.01.2001. Second party workman

also filed affidavit/examination-in-chief but did not come forward to get him cross-examination since the year 2006.

The conduct of the second party indicates that he has no willingness to prosecute the reference. Thus, the tribunal has

no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1442-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1450@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@40@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1450/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/40/2004-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1450/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratap Nagar,

Baroda

…First Party

Vs.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3155

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41012/40/2004-IR(B-I) dated 27.09.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand raised by the union Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for the same seniority of

Shri Keshav Parmar should be given according to the existing rule of mutual transfer and to give the due

promotion to him is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief the concerned workman Shri Keshav

Parmar is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 27.09.2004. Second party Union representative Shri R.S. Sisodia has note down

on the order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to proceed with the reference and the same may be

dismissed as not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1443-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 635@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@87@94&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 635/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/87/94-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 635/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Paschim Railway,

3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

Shri Rajendra Kumar Goswami,

C/o Mahendra R. Karatia,

Near Debar Chowk,

HariKilla, Rajkot (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Janak R. Pandya

For the Second Party

Shri M.R. Karathia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/87/94-

IR(B-I) dated 19.07.1995 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 Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway, Rajkot in discontinuing services of

Shri Rajendra Goswami, cook in the Railway Canteen w.e.f. 12.02.1990 is valid, justified and legal? If not, to

what benefits the workman / employee is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 19.07.1995. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 2 on 26.08.1994

and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 7 on 19.02.1997. Since then second party has not lead evidence

since 13.10.2003. The conduct of the second party indicates that he has no willingness to prosecute the reference.

Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1444-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- 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- 180@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@149@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 180/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/149/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd February, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3157

Reference: (CGITA) No. 180/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 82/1999

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda-390009

…First Party

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees Union,

8, Samrapan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana-384002

…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-

30012/149/98-IR(B-I) dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of Shri A.D. Keskar, Khalasi Gd-I

upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01-93 with all consequential benefits is justified or not? If

yes, what relief the workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 15.03.1999. Second party field statement of claim (Ext.4) on 12.11.1999 and first

party filed written statement (Ext. 5 13.12.2000 since then the second party has been absent and has not been leading

evidence despite giving dozen of opportunity.Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or willingness to

proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1445-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 913@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@135@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 913/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/135/2001-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 7^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 913/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratap Nagar,

Baroda-390004 (Gujarat)

…First Party

Vs.

Shri Jitra Galji,

C/o Shri Mukesh Dhanik, Guard,

C/o Station Superintendent,

Western Railway,

Anand-388001

…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-

41012/135/2001-IR(B-I) dated 25.01.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda Division in removing Shri

Jitra Galji, Gangman from service w.e.f. 02.11.1991, proportional to his fault is justified? If not, what relief

the concerned applicant is entitled?”

The case is pending since long. Both the parties have not been responding since last several dates though

Second Party files the statement of claim (exhibit 3) on 17.02.2002. On last date i.e.; 11.12.2015 as First Party did not

prefer to file Written Statement therefore order for exparte hearing was passed. Again today on 07.04.2016, neither of

the parties have been responding.

Thus, it appears that both the parties are not willing to prosecute/proceed with the reference. Thus the

reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1446-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@60@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41011/60/2011-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3159

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

Reference: (CGITA) No. 88/2011

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratap Nagar,

Baroda

… First Party No.1

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai

…First Party No.2

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Vice President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41011/60/2011-IR(B-I) dated 23.11.2011 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 Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for compassionate appointment to Shri

Bharat Kumar, S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar V. and family pension to Smt. Kamlaben widow of deceased

employee is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 23.11.2011. Second party Union representative Shri R.S. Sisodia has note down

on the order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to proceed with the reference and the same may be

dismissed as not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1447-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 232@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@199@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 232/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/199/99-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 232/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Divisional Office,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot-360001

… First Party

v/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Sarvottam Nagar, Nr. New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380019

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

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

41012/199/99-IR(B-I) dated 15.11.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad against the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Divisional Office, Rajkot that Shri Phool Singh, Sr. Typist be

placed senior to Shri G.A. Gohil (SC) and Shri S.R. Chaure (ST) and should be promoted as Head Typist with

all consequential benefits is just, valid and legal? If so to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 15.11.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on

12.07.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement on 10.04.2006. Since then the second party has been

absent and has not lead the evidence. Thus, it appea rs that second party has no intent to prosecute the case. Thus, the

tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1448-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3161

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 151@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@179@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/179/2005-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 151/2006

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratap Nagar,

Baroda-390007

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Vadodara-390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41012/179/2005-IR(B-I) dated 19.07.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union that Shri H. J. Gupta presently working as ELF Gr.III should be given

seniority and pay fixation w.e.f. 1.9.1998 at par with his juniors who were promoted and given the seniority

w.e.f. 1.9.1998 by the management of Western Railway, Vadodara is justified? If so, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 19.07.2006. Second party Union representative Shri R.S. Sisodia has note down

on the order sheet of the reference that second party does not want to proceed with the reference and the same may be

dismissed as not pressed.

Thus, the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1449-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 580@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@100@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 580/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/100/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 24^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 580/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 54/2003

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Divisional Officer

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot-360001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Nr. New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380019

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Janak R. Pandya, Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41012/100/2003-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2003 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 Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot giving 15% higher capacity

allowance for working on higher ad hoc post from 09.02.1992, 13.05.1996 instead of giving higher ad hoc pay

for working on that post was proper and legal? If not, then what relief?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3163

“This reference dates back to 19.09.2003. Second party filed statement of claim (Ex.4) on 04.06.2004 but the

first party did not submit the written statement despite giving number of opportunities. First party filed the

Vakalatnama of his Advocate Janaka R. Pandya (Ext.6) on 12.01.2010 but first party did not prefer to submit written

statement. In the said circumstances, second party moved an application (Ext.8,9 and 10) on 26.12.2011 and

27.01.2012 respectively stating that the first party has failed to submit written statement for more than 7 years.

Therefore, case be proceeded after closing the opportunity of filing written statement. Thereafter, second party

submitted the examination-in chief/affidavit (Ext.11) of second party workman Shri Babulal supporting his version in

the statement of claim.None came forward on behalf of the first party to cross examine him.Thus, in the said

circumstances, the affidavit (Ext.11) is uncontroverted. Therefore, reference deserves to be allowed.

Thus, in the said circumstances, I give the award that the impugned action of the first party was not proper and

legal. First party be directed to pay ‘UCHH STHANAPANN PAY’ to the second party for the period 09.02.1990 to

13.05.1996.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1450-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 637@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@08@93&vkbZvkj (ch& I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 637/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41011/08/93-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 637/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Paschim Railway Workshop,

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Party

v/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

18, Saraswati Nagar,

Zona A

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

Shri B.K. Sharma

3164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/08/93-

IR(B-I) dated 28.08.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of PRKP for seniority to Shri Batukbhai J. and 12 other workmen in Diesel Shed, NPON

(wagon) shop as initiated in the demand notes at Annex. A. is legal & justified? If so, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 28.08.1995. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 2 on 30.07.2002

but first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite filing the Vakalatpatra of his advocate. Therefore,

case was fixed for evidence of the second party but did not lead his evidence. The conduct of the second party indicates

that he has no willingness to prosecute the reference. Thus, the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the case in default

of the second party.

Thus, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1451-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1435@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@3@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1435/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41011/3/2004-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 1^st April, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1435/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Baroda-390001

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda

…Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3165

For the First Party

Shri Jatin Vakil, Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41011/3/2004-IR(B-I) dated 20.08.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for fixation of revised to S/Shri D.S. Sharma, Jagdish I. Panchal, Iqbal

Hussain, Mustuffa, Gambhir, A.K. Joshi, Niranjan, Fatehsingh R. Baria, and Poonam M. Solanki w.e.f.

1.1.1986 and to pay the dues to them as per the existing Rules is proper, legal and justified? If so, to what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled to from which date?”

This reference dates back to 20.08.2004. Second party has been absent since last several dates and has also not

filed statement of claim despite giving dozens of opportunity.Thus it appears that second party has no inclination or

willingness to proceed with the reference. Thus, the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1452-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- 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- 176@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@152@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 176/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/152/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 176/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 77/1999

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

Western Region,

Makarpura,

Baroda-390009

…First Party

3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees’ Union,

8, Samrapan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana-384002

…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-

30012/152/98-IR (B-I) dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of Shri D.A. Solanki, Khalasi Grade-I

upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01.93 with all consequential benefits is justified or not? If

yes, what relief the workman is entitled?”

This reference dates back to 15.03.1999. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.4) and first party

consequently filed written statement(Ext.5) on 13.12.2001. Since then second party was given opportunity of leading

evidence. First party advocate is always present but second party neither appears not come forward to lead evidence.

Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in

the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second

party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1453-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- 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- 181@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@150@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 181/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/150/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3167

Reference: (CGITA) No. 181/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 83/1999

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

Western Region,

Makarpura,

Baroda-390009

…First Party

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees’ Union,

8, Samrapan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana-384002

…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-

30012/150/98-IR (B-I) dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of S/Shri H.B. Vankar & B.D. Boila,

Khalsai Gd-I upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01.93 with all consequential benefits is

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

This reference dates back to 15.03.1999. Second party submitted statement of claim (ext.4) on 09.12.1999 and

first party consequently filed written statement (Ext.5) on 13.12.2001.Since then second party was given opportunity of

leading evidence. First party advocate is always present but second party neither appears not come forward to lead

evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal

has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1454-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

fy- 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- 178@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@147@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 178/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ONGC Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-30012/147/98-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 178/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 80/1999

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

Western Region,

Makarpura,

Baroda-390009

…First Party

Vs.

Their workmen

Through the General Secretary,

ONGC Employees’ Union,

8, Samrapan Shopping Complex, Highway,

Mehsana-384002

…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-

30012/147/98-IR (B-I) dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Employees Union in asking promotion of Shri Jeenaji Pradhanji, Khalasi,

Grade-I upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 2532/- w.e.f. 01.01.93 with all consequential benefits is justified or

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

This reference dates back to 15.03.1999. Second party submitted statement of claim (Ext.4) on 22.11.1999 and

first partysubmitted the written statement (Ext.5) on 13.12.2000. Since then second party was given opportunity of

leading evidence. First party advocate is always present but second party neither appears not come forward to lead

evidence. Thus, it appears that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal

has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1455-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 617@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@135@93&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3169

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 617/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/135/93-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 12^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 617/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 26/1995

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Kothi Compound,

Rajkot

…First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Matru Chhaya Junction,

Rajkot

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Janak R. Pandya, Advocate

For the Second Party

C/o. P.R.K.P

AWARD

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

41012/135/93-IR dated 03.05.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Paschim Rly. Karmachari Parishad Rajkot that the seniority of Shri Ashok B.

Pandit, cleaner under chief wagon Suptd. (C&W), Rajkot should be determined from the date the employee attained

temporary status i.e. w.e.f. 2.11.79 in consonance with memorandum No. EM.891/5/1 dt 23.9.83 of the DRM W.Rly.,

Rajkot and not from the date of empanelling, is justified and legal? If so, to what benefits the workman is entitled for

and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

This reference dates back to 03.05.1995. Both the parties were served and were represented by their advocates.

Second party submitted his statement of claim (Ext.5) and first party submitted his written statement (Ext.6) on

17.03.1998. Since then second party has not led his evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities.Thus, it appears

that second party is not interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss

the reference in default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2016

dk-vk- 1456-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 129@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@258@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

j.kchj ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2016

S.O. 1456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2016.

[No. L-41012/258/2003-IR (B-I)]

RANBIR SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 129/2006

The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai

The Chief Project Manager,

Western Railway, BG Station Building,

2^nd Floor, PO Railwaypura,

Ahmedabad-02

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad Division,

Ahmedabad

The Chief Permanent Way Inspector (C),

Western Railway,

Viramgam Railway Station,

Viramgam,

Dist.-Ahmedabad

…First Party

Vs.

Their workman

Through the Organising Secretary,

Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Flats, Near Swaminarayan Chowk,

Jawaharnagar Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad

…Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 16] 2016@vk"kk<+ 25] 1938

3171

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

(C/o. Association of Railway and Post Employees)

AWARD

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

41012/258/2003-IR(B-I) dated 23.05.2006 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 western Railway, in terminating the services of Shri

RamjiMansing, Ex-Casual labour w.e.f. 21.7.84 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to and

from which date?”

The second party workman RamjibhaiMansing in his statement of claim (Ext.11) has alleged that the first

party western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai through its General Manager, Divisional Manager, Ahmedabad and Chief

Permanent way Inspector is an “industry” within the meaning of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, herein after

referred to as Act, and second party workman himself was working under the control of the first party management,

herein after referred to as “Management”. The second party is a workman within the meaning of the Act. He was

engaged by the management as EDDA since 1969 and had been working continuously till the date of termination on

21.07.1984. His services were terminated without following the due procedure of law. Neither notice pay including

retrench pay was paid to him violating the procedure provided under section 25(F) of the Act. However, management,

at the time of the termination of his service, retained number of juniors in the service violating the provisions of section

25(G) of the Act.No seniority list was prepared or published by the management on the notice board violating the

provisions of rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, herein after referred to as Rule. At the time of

termination of his service, neither he was charge sheeted alleging any misconduct nor he was subjected to any

departmental inquiry. He was not heard at the time of termination of service which violates the principles of natural

justice. After his termination of service fresh recruitment on the said post was made but he was not given any

opportunity to be re-employed which also violates the provisions of section 25(H & N) of the Act as approval for

recruitment was not obtained.

He further alleged he had been doing the permanent nature of work under the Management which is increasing

day by day. He was not given any benefits available to the regular workman. He had been working continuously and

satisfactorily from initial date of appointment till the date of his termination of service. Thus, he has a prima facie case

to be reappointed. He has further alleged that second party be also asked to submit the record related to his service.

The first party in his written statement (Ext.19) has denied the allegations levelled in the statement of claim

(Ext.11) and alleged that dispute referred for adjudication in the reference is not industrial dispute within the meaning

of the Act. Same is barred by delay, latches and acquaintances. Dispute was raised in 2002 and referred on 23.05.2006

is time barred. The first party is under obligation to retain records of casual labour for a period of 3 years. The right to

claim relief of reinstatement with full back wages is equitable relief same does not stand in favour of a person to keep

silence for the years together. A casual labour employed on temporary basis on daily rated basis has no right to

regularisation on permanent post. It is wrong to say that second party was appointed as casual worker in the year 1959

by Public Way Inspector, Viramgam. Second party has a burden to prove his engagement as casual labour. Xerox copy

of the project casual labour card not attested and signed by engaging authority is not admissible. Said letters are forged

and dubious. Thus, the second party workman is not entitled for any relief.

After perusal of pleadings, following issues are to be decided by this Tribunal:

(a.)

Whether a second party was a workman with the first party?

(b.)

Whether second party did work for 240 days during preceding year to the termination of service of

second party?

(c.)

Whether the impugned action as referred in this case is illegal?

Second party workman RamjibhaiMansing examined himself as witness and stated on oath that he worked as

casual labour in the first party management since the year 1969. He was appointed with due process of recruitment

through oral interview. He was appointed for general work at any project of the first party for a long period but he was

not given any appointment letter. He had been working till the date of termination in the first parry management. He

was terminated on 21.07.1984. He had been performing his work and duties continuously and satisfactorily. He was

working more than 240 days in the last year of termination as well as in every calendar year. He also stated that at the

time of termination neither any notice and notice pay nor any compensation/wages was paid to him. No seniority list

3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2016/ASADHA 25, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was prepared by the management on the notice board. More than 100 workers were working in the first party

management. At the time of termination, permission was not taken from Labour Commissioner. He further stated that

he worked as casual labour or daily wages employee and there were no difference of work between thethem and the

permanent employees. But salary paid to him was less than permanent employees and the benefits like leaves, uniform,

provident fund etc. were not given to him and on demand for benefits, the first party terminated him. He further stated

thatin the first party organisation,the workers who were junior to him were permitted to continue. The employees junior

to him were (1.) Bhikha Dahyabhai (2.) Yakub Sultan (3.) RasulKasim (4.) NanjiMagan. He further stated that he

continue to work with the first party organisation continuously and the work in the first party organisation increased

day by day, but after his termination of service, fresh recruitment on the said post was made but he was not given

opportunity to be re-employed.He signed under the statement of claim and the details in it, is true. He further stated that

during his service, the attendance register was maintained and the details of salary were also maintained in the muster

roll and he used to put his signature on the vouchersof the first party organisation. All these documents like muster

roll, and salary vouchers were in the custody of office of first party management. Service card was provided by the first

party management was true and the letter dated 13.01.1994 by the railway was true in which there were sign and seal of

the railway official. After the termination, he tried to work elsewhere but failed. He reiterated his aforesaid statement

while being examined by the first party advocate.

First party examined Ahmedhusen Yakub Bagvala in support of his written statement. He stated on oath that

he has been working as Chief Project Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad. He has been aware with all the fact of

the case. All the documents related to service of the second party regarding attendance and wages of the second party

being 3 years old have been destroyed as per the rules framed by the organisation, therefore, adverse inference cannot

be drawn in the non-production of the said documents. The project in which second party was working was seasonal,

intermittent and extended for a short period therefore, payments were made from the contingencies. Matter has been

adjudicated with a long delay, latches and acquaintances. The termination of service of second party on 21.07.1984, 18

years ago, therefore, now he cannot raised the dispute for such a delay. He has further stated that matter was taken up in

the office of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) where his name was mentioned as RamjiMansinghbhai and in

some other papers , his name was mentioned as GorajChahuRsai. Thus, his identity is disputed. He further stated that

provision of section 25(F) is not attracted because prior to the year 1987 no casual labour seniority list was maintained.

Railway board also banned engagement of casual labours. Tribunal cannot fasten a burden to engage the second party

as employee after a two decade. He was not doing a permanent work. Casual labours are not and never appointed as

regular employee. It is further said that the second party never oppose any authority till the year 2002 while he was

alleged to be terminated on 21.07.1984.During this period, he never made representation to any authority regarding his

termination. He further stated that prior to the year 1987, no seniority list of casual labour were maintained and it is

being done after Supreme Court direction in the later years. Therefore, the provisions of section 25 (F, G,& H) cannot

said to be attracted. In his cross examination, he has not stated anything contrary to his own version which may support

the claim of the second party.

ISSUE NO. I, II and III – all the issue are taken up together as being inter related. I perused the evidence of

the both the parties it is true that second party has alleged his termination from service from 21.07.1984 but he has not

denied that he took up the matter for reconciliation before RLC (Central) in the year 2002. He has failed to give any

explanation as to why he kept himself inactive or silent for 18 years. He has also failed to prove that he was a

workman and worked 240 days in the first party organisation in the preceding year to his termination of service or

earlier years which he could have proved this fact by examining of his co-employees or by filing the

documents/vouchers which would have been given to him during service for example some memo, notice or any other

type of letter. Matter being so old, Tribunal cannot blame first party for non-production of documents which the second

party tried to ask the first party to produce. Thus, the second party has failed to prove his case by any stretch of

imagination. Reference is also definitely barred by delay and latches. Thus,reference has no force and fit to be

dismissed.

This is the award of the Tribunal.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by the Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.