4388 GI/2016

(4339)

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- 39]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 18—flrEcj 24] 2016] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 27—vkf'ou 2] 1938

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 18—SEPTEMBER 24, 2016, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 27— ASVINA 2, 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] 20 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1950-—िनयुिक्त संबंधी मंितर्मंडलीय सिमित के अनुमोदन के अनुसार, केन्दर्ीय सरकार, एत᳏ारा, ऋण

वसूली अिधकरण (डीआरटी-II), िदल्ली के पीठासीन अिधकारी शर्ी गोट्टूमुक् कला वᱶकट कृष्ण राजू को िदनांक 05.08.2016

से 31.12.2016 तक अथवा औ᳒ोिगक एवं िवᱫीय पुनिनमार्ण बोडर् (बीआईएफआर) के समापन तक अथवा अगले आदेशᲂ

तक, जो भी पहले हो, बीआईएफआर के सदस्य के पद का अितिरक्त कायर्भार सᲅपती है।

[फा.सं. 20(02)/2011-आईएफ-II (खंड-III)]

राजीव शमार्, अवर सिचव

4340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2016

S.O. 1950.—In accordance with ACC approval, the Central Government hereby assigns additional charge of

the post of Member, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) to Shri Gottumukkala Venkata Krishnan

Raju, Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-II), Delhi, w.e.f. 05.08.2016 to 31.12.2016, or till abolition of

BIFR, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

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

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1951-—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] LVkdgske esa Jh vej ukFk 'kekZ] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

30 vxLr] 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@2015º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2016

S.O. 1951.—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 Amar Nath Sharma,

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

services with effect from 30 August, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1952-—कᱶदर्ीय सरकार एतद् ᳇ारा िदल् ली िवशेष पुिलस स् थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का

अिधिनयम सं. 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पिठत धारा 5 की उपधारा 1 ᳇ारा पर्दत् त शिक्तयᲂ का पर्योग करते हुए िबहार राज् य

सरकार, गृह िवभाग (पुिलस शाखा), पटना, िबहार की अिधसूचना सं. 1/सी.बी.आई.-80-06/2016 एच.पी.-3805 पटना,

िदनांक 16 मई 2016 - ᳇ारा पर्ाप् त सहमित िसवान िजला के िसवान टाउन थाना के अंतगर्त शर्ी राजदेव रंजन की हत् या

संबंिधत िसवान टाउन थाना केस सं. 362/16, िदनांक 13.05.2016 मᱶ भारतीय दंड संिहता की धारा 302/120 बी/34

तथा 27 आम् सर् एक् ट के अंतगर्त उक् त अपराध से संबंिधत पर्यासᲂ, दुष् पर्ेरणाᲐ और "kM;a=kksa तथा उसी संव् यवहार मᱶ िकए गए

िकन् हᱭ अन् य अपराधᲂ के अन् वेषण करने के िलए िदल् ली िवशेष पुिलस स् थापना के सदस् यᲂ को शिक्तयᲂ और अिधकािरता का

िवस् तार सम् पूणर् िबहार राज् य मᱶ करती है।

[iQk- la- 228@21@2016&,ohMh&II]

MkW- ch- oh- vkj- lh- iq#"kksÙke] mi lfpo

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4341

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1952.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Bihar, Home Department (Police Branch), Patna, Bihar vide Notification No.1/C.B.I- 80 - 06/2016 HP -

3805 Patna dated 16 May, 2016, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the state of Bihar for investigation of case No.362/16 dated 13.05.2016 U/s 302/120(B)/34

IPC and 27 Arms Act registered at Siwan Town, P.S (Bihar) relating to murder of Reporter Rajdev Ranjan and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or

offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F.No. 228/21/2016-AVD-II]

Dr. B. V. R. C. PURUSHOTTAM, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1953-—कᱶदर्ीय सरकार एत᳏ारा िदल् ली िवशेष पुिलस स् थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं. 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पिठत धारा 5 की उपधारा (1) के ᳇ारा पर्दत् त शिक्तयᲂ का पर्योग करते हुए, राजस् थान सरकार,

गृह िवभाग, सिचवालय, जयपुर ᳇ारा पर्ेिषत पतर्/ अिधसूचना सं. एफ.19(15)होम-5/2012 िदनांक 02.06.2014 ᳇ारा

पर्ाप् त सहमित से पर्ाथिमकी सं. 293/2009 िदनांक 22.06.2009 थाना नोहर, िजला हनुमानगढ़ मᱶ दजर् अपराधᲂ के संबंध

मᱶ या उन् हᱭ तथ् यᲂ से उदभूत िकसी अन् य अपराध या अपराधᲂ का अन् वेषण करने के संबंध मᱶ िदल् ली िवशेष पुिलस स् थापना के

सदस् यᲂ की शिक्तयᲂ और अिधकािरता का िवस् तार सम् पूणर् राजस् थान राज् य मᱶ करती है।

[iQk- la- 228@40@2014&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1953.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.V) Department, Jaipur vide Notification No.F.19(15)Home - 5/2012 dated

02.06.2014, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole of the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of FIR No.293/2009 dated 22.06.2009 registered at Police Station

Nohar, District Hanumangarh or any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the

said case.

[F. No. 228/40/2014-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

रेल मंतर्ालय

(रेलवे बोडर्)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1954-—रेल मंतर्ालय (रेलवे बोडर्), राजभाषा िनयम 1976 (संघ के शासकीय पर्योजनᲂ के िलए पर्योग) के

िनयम 10 के उपिनयम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ दिक्षण पूवर् रेल के नागपुर मंडल के रेल हेल्थ यूिनट, गᲂिदया जहां 80

पर्ितशत से अिधक अिधकािरयᲂ/कमर्चािरयᲂ ने िहदी का कायर्साध क ज्ञान पर्ाप् त कर िलया है, को एत᳏ारा अिधसूिचत करता

है ।

[सं. िहदी 2015/रा.भा.1/12/2]

ds- ih- lR;kuanu] funs'kd] jktHkk"kk

4342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2016

S.O. 1954.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursurance of Sub Rule(2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the

Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify The RAIL HEALTH UNIT,

GONDIA of Nagpur Division, South East Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. Hindi 2015/O.L.-1/12/2]

K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (OL)

सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म मंतर्ालय

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1955-—कᱶदर्ीय सरकार, सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म िवकास अिधिनयम, 2006 (2006 का 27) की

धारा 3 की उपधारा (3) ᳇ारा पर्दत शिक्तयᲂ का पर्योग करते हुए, सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म मंतर्ालय मᱶ राज्यमंतर्ी शर्ी

हिरभाई परथीभाई चौधरी को रा᳦ीय सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म बोडर् के पदेन उपाध्यक्ष के रूप मᱶ िनयुक्त करती है और

उक्त पर्योजन के िलए भारत सरकार सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म मंतर्ालय की अिधसूचना संख्या का.आ.226(अ) तारीख

23 जनवरी, 2015 मᱶ िन᳜िलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथार्त:-

उक्त अिधसूचना मᱶ कर्म संख्या 2 और उससे संबंिधत पर्िवि᳥यᲂ के प᳟ात के िलए िन᳜िलिखत कर्म संख्या और

पर्िवि᳥यां अत:स्थािपत की जाएंगी, अथार्त् -

“ 2(क). शर्ी हिरभाई परथीभाई चौधरी, राज्यमंतर्ी

उपाध्यक्ष- पदेन’’

सू᭯म, लघु और मध्यम उ᳒म मंतर्ालय

[फा.सं. 1(19)/2013-एनबीएमएसएमई]

सुरेन्दर् नाथ ितर्पाठी, अपर सिचव

िटप्पण:-

मुख्य अिधसूचना का.आ. 226(अ) तारीख 23 जनवरी, 2015 के अधीन भारत के राजपतर्, असाधारण मᱶ

पर्कािशत की गई थी ।

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1955.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Micro, Small and

Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Haribhai

Parathibhai Chaudhary, Minister of State in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises as ex officio Vice-

Chairperson of the National Board for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and for the said purpose makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises number S.O. 226(E), dated the 23^rd January, 2015, namely:-

In the said notification after serial number 2 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial number and

entries shall be inserted, namely :-

“2 (A) Shri Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary, Minister of Vice Chairperson –ex officio”

State, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

[F.No. 1(19)/2013-NBMSME]

SURENDRA NATH TRIPATHI, Addl. Secy.

Note: -

The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary vide number S.O. 226(E),

dated 23^rd January, 2015.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4343

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2016

dk-vk- 1956-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fefuLVªh

vkWiQ dE;wfuds'ku ,aM vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ ,ylh, la- 287@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

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

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2016

S.O. 1956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. LCA No. 287/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

in relation to the management of the Ministry of Communication and Others and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 06.06.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

LCA No. 287/2013

Registered on 14.5.2013

Sh. Sat Parkash S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, House No.34, Ward No.13,

Gali No.5, Amargarh Gamri Karnal, District Karnal

…Petitioner

Versus

Through its Secretary Ministry of Communication

Government of India, New Delhi.

The Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle Ambala.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Kurukshetra,

Division Kurukshetra.

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office Kurukshetra

…Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on:-28.04.2016

Sh. Sat Parkash, has filed this claim application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’) for computation of salary as full time Chowkidar; on the averments that he was

appointed on 17.8.1989 as part time Chowkidar and used to perform his duties from 5 PM to 9AM. His services were

disengaged in July 2011 and now he perform his duty for 12 hours. The Government came out with a scheme called

‘Casual Labourers’(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)Scheme dated 7.11.1989 and he is entitled to the

4344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

grant of temporary status under the said scheme. That various similar situated employees filed application before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and the orders were passed in their favour.

Being so, the workman is also entitled to wages as given to full time employees and the same be calculated and

paid to him.

The respondent-management admitted that the workman was appointed as part time Chowkidar and has been

continuing as such. He cannot claim parity with the employees who were employed on full time basis. That the case of

the other employees who filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal has no relevancy.

In support of their respective case, parties filed their affidavits and even Sat Prakash appeared in the witness-box

and supported his case.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management and perused the file.

It was vehemently argued by Sh. Mehra, counsel for the workman that similarly situated workmen were granted

temporary status under the ‘Casual Labourers’(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)Scheme dated 7.11.1989

and since the workman has been discharging the same function, he is entitled to the said status as well wages as full

time employees.

It is suffice to say that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, the Court can only compute the benefits in terms of

money which the workman is entitled to and this Court is not to declare first the status of the workman and then

calculate the amount. If the workman wants to get wages as full time employees, he is to approach to appropriate forum

for the ‘Grant of Temporary Status’ under the said Rules and this Court cannot grant him the wages by considering him

as full time employees as it is the case of the workman himself that he was appointed as part time Chowkidar, which is

also supported by the letter(Annexure R1).

Thus, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2016

dk-vk- 1957-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 110@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@06@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2016

S.O. 1957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 110 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.08.2016.

[No. L-40011/06/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of March, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2014

Between:

The District Secretary,

National Union of BSNL Workers FNTO,

West Godavari District,

Eluru.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4345

The District Secretary,

Telecom Employees Progressive Union,

W.G.Distt Branch, Eluru-2

…Petitioner/Union

AND

The General Manager,

Telecom District, BSNL,

Eluru, W.G.Dist.,

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

Sri William Burra, Advocate

For the Respondent

Party in person/Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011/06/2014-IR(DU) dated 2.6.2014 referred

the following dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and their workman under section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demands of the workmen of BSNL, Eluru is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 110/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of documents by the Petitioner.

Inspite of availing several opportunities to file documents, the Petitioner union failed to file documents and

remained absent. No steps are taken on their behalf inspite of repeated calls which clearly indicates that the dispute of

the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has

got no claim to raise. Hence, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 18^th day of

March, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1958-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-09-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@08@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

4346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 23 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-20012/08/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 23/2009

Employer in relation to the management of Amlo Project, M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 23/08/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/08/2009-IR (CM-1) dated 09/04/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Amlo Project of M/s. CCL in not providing dependant

employment to Miss Uttari Kumari, d/o Late Maharathi, Driver under the provision of NCWA is justified

and legal? (ii) To, what relief is the dependant daughter of Late Maharathi entitled ?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 24.04.2009. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, the Workman files their written statement on 04.06.2009. The management files their written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 03.03.2010. One witness each examined by both side. And documents of workman is marked as W-1 to

W-4. Management’s documents marked as M-1 to M-6.

The case of the workman is that Late Maharathi was a permanent employee of Amlo Project working as a

Driver who died on 24.02.2002 while in service of M/s. CCL. Miss Uttari Kumar is the legal unmarried daughter of

Late Maharathi who is entitled to employment of dependant of the deceased employee under the provision of NCWA.

It is also submitted by the workman that the photo Medical Card issued by the management , Miss Uttari

Kumari has been shown as the daughter of Late Maharathi, and she has been provided free treatment by the employer

from time to time as the daughter of the deceased employee.

It is further submitted by the workman that CMPF department accumulation of Late Masharathi to Miss Uttari

Kumari as daughter of Late Maharathi and issue cheque to the name of Miss Uttari Kumari and ALC Hazaribagh also

vide his order dated 27.01.2004 allowed Gratuity to Miss Uttari Kumari being one of the share to her from gratuity

amount as one of the daughter of deceased , all material facts available on the record of the employer but application of

miss Uttari kumari for employment on campassionate ground under NCWA was rejected by the management hence

Industrial dispute arose.

On the other hand, the case of the management is that Late Maharathi, Ex-driver of Amlo Project was an

employee has expired on 27.04.2002. The deceased employee submitted service excerpt , LTC option form before the

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4347

management and according to the service sheet Smt. Tulsimati Devi , Uma Kumar and Gayatri Kumari are his

dependent.

It is further submitted by the management that deceased employee has not informed the management during his

life time that Miss Uttri Kumari is his daughter and the name of Uttari Kumari as daughter does not appear in the

service sheet and in any other record like DHO-16, LTC Option ect. As per provision of NCWA is provided to the

dependant whose name appears in the company’s record but the name of Uttari Kumari does not appears in any record

of company . As such she is not entitled for compassionate employment.

The applicant claims for job in the place of her deceased father and file documents that she is the daughter of

the deceased but the management submitted that the name of the applicant does not find place in the service excerpt of

the workman, hence they do not believe that the applicant is the daughter of the workman. The applicant files school

leaving certificate, Medical Card . Moreover on the death certificate of the workman , the name of daugher Uttari

Kumari applicant finds flace.

The management could not produce, any material or document that the documents filed by the applicant are

false. Moreover the witness of the management Mr. Victor Kujur (MW-1) admitted that the Gratuity amount has been

paid to the applicant. Hence the management is directed to give the applicant job atonce , of course after verifying her

proper identification afresh.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1959-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-

09-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@379@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 14 of 2001) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-20012/379/2000-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 14/2001

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Shri K.N. Singh, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 25/08/2016

4348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/379/ 2000 /IR (C-1)) dated 12/01/2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has,

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s BCCL in denying to regularize the services of the workman Shri

Akhileshwar Tewari, working as Driver Since 25/27.06.1991 in Golakdih open cast project of M/s BCCL is

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

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for the

workman submits that workman is not interested. to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties

have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1960-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 166@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-09-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@64@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 166 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-20012/64/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 166/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 18/08/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/64/ 1994 /IR (C-1)) dated 25/27.07.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4349

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General manager, Govindpur Area No. III M/s. BCCL P.O. Sonardih ( Dhanbad) in

striking off the name of Shri Mangra manjhi, Badli Mine/ Loader from the rolls of the company is justified? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled-?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates, Ld Counsel for the

workman submits that workman is not interested. to contest the case. It is felt that the disputes between the parties

have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1961-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 231@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-09-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@211@1994&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 231 of 1994) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-20012/211/1994-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 231/1994

Employer in relation to the management of Keshalpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 19/08/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /211/1994-IR(C-1) dated 31/08/1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Keshalpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not paying subsistence

allowance w.e.f. 18/02/1991 and dismissing Sri Raja Ram B.P. Ex – Miner/ Loader w.e.f. 5/6 .11. 92 is

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

4350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1962-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-09-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@303@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 89 of 2003) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-20012/303/2002-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of Reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 89/2003

Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry:-Coal

Dated 22/08/2016

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/303/2002-IR (CM-1) dated 19/08/2003, the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Akashkinari Colliery in denying employment to Sri Laxmi Prasad

Kewat S/O Late Hiru Kewat after the death of Late Hiru Kewat, P/Loader is legal and justifified? If not, what

relief the son of deceased employee is entitled to?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 06.10.2003. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, But after long delay the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 28.01.2005. The management also

long delay files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 08.02.2012. One witness examined on behalf of the

Workman and document of workman is marked as W-1 to W-5.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4351

The cae of the workman is that Late Hiru Kewat was a permanent employee of Akashkinari Colliery designated

as P/Loader operator who died on 14.03.1994 due to fatal accident in mine while on duty but at the time of death of the

employee the dependant son of the employee was minor and as such it was decided and agreed by the management on

15.03.1994 to provide his son Laxmi Kewat in employment as soon as he will attain the age of eighteen years.

It is also submitted by the workman that after attaining the age of eighteen years , the said dependant son of the

em-ployee submitted an application on 10.10.2000 in view of agreement dated 15.03.1994 between the union and the

management but the management did not take any action. Hence Industrial dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is that late Hiru kewat an employee of Akashkinari Colliery, who

died on 14.03.1994, but after the death of concerned workman none of his dependant applied for employment under

compassionate ground. But lapse of several years. Sri Laxmi Kewat submitted an application for employment on

compassionate ground stating therein that at the time of death of his father he was minor and now he became major.

It is also submitted by the management that there is no provision to reserve the employment for minor sons of

the employee and the dependant of an employee has got no vested right to get employment whenever they submit

application.

The applicant files an application to the management for dependant employment, But the management

regretted the application on the ground of delay. The deceased workman died while on job in the year 1994. The

applicant , son of deceased workman applied for job in the year 2000 . His claim was at the time of death of his father

he was minor and after attaining majority he applied job.

Management’s case that there was no provision in NCWA to take person in job who applied for job in lapse of

time .

As per Ext-W-2 written by Dy Chief personal Manager , Govindpur Area, in which he admitted that “ It is a

fact that an agreement was signed to provide employment to the son of Lt. Hiru Kewat on attaining the age of 18 years”

It is also a fact that the dependant son Sri Laxmi Kewat applied for employment in the year 1999 which was

forwarded in BCCL Hq for approval” The agreement arrived between the Sponsoring Union and the Higher level

Management marked as Ext W-5 in which the management agree for employment of Laxmi Prasad Kewat dependant

son of deceased workman.

Premature death gives blow to the family where there isminor children , condition is more serious. However the

workman applied for job in 1999 , by now 17 years is going to pass.

10.

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

Colliery in denying employment to Sri Laxmi Prasad Kewat S/O Late Hiru Kewat after the death of Late Hiru Kewat,

P/Loader is not legal and justifified. Therefore the management is directed to take the applicant in job in place of his

father within 30 days from the publication of the award in Gazettee of India.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1963-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u js;j vFkZ fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 9@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@12@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

09.09.2016.

[No. L-29012/12/2010-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

4352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Tuesday the 02^nd day of August, 2016/11^th Shravana, 1938)

ID No. 9/2012

Workman

Shri. V. Nandakumar,

Nandanam,

Puthucadu, PO Chavara,

Kollam District (Kerala).

By Adv. Shri. Aype Joseph

Managements

1. The Head,

Indian Rare Earths Limited,

Chavara PO, Distt. Kollam,

Kollam (Kerala) – 691583.

2. The Chief General Manager,

Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

Chavara,

Chavara (Kerala) – 691583.

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 12.07.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 02.08.2016 passed

the following:

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10 sub-sections (1) clause (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Act 14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara in dismissing the services of Shri

V. Nandhakumar, Ex. Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f.11/12/2009 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled?”

The dispute was originally referred before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai for adjudication. Subsequently as per the order dated 06.12.2011 in WP(C) No.28005/2011, the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala directed to withdraw the dispute from Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai and transfer to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. Accordingly, as

per Corrigendum No.L-29012/12/2010-IR(M) dated 31.10.2011 the dispute was referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

After the receipt of reference Order No.L-29012/12/2010-IR(M), issued by the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit their pleadings and produce documents to

substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons the parties entered appearance through counsel

and submitted their pleadings.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:

The workman involved in this reference Shri Nandakumar. V was employed as junior Clerk-cum-Typist in the

management company. He applied for granting earned leave from 25.05.2007 to 07.06.2007 for the purpose of nursing

his father-in-law, who was sick and bedridden at Sharjah. The leave request was granted. At his request extension of

leave was granted from 08.06.2007 to 07.07.2007. On the expiry of the leave sanctioned by the management, he did

not join duty since the condition of his father-in-law was serious and there was nobody to look after the affairs.

Accordingly he applied for extension of leave. In the meantime he was bedridden due to chickenpox and could not

return back from Sharjah. He applied for extension of leave due to ailment. In the meantime the management initiated

disciplinary proceedings against the workman alleging unauthorized absence.

The charges levelled against the workman are not sustainable in law. The enquiry conducted by the

management was without following the principles of natural justice and without affording reasonable opportunity to

the workman to substantiate his contentions. On 15.07.2008 the workman requested the enquiry officer to postpone

the enquiry for the reason that he underwent surgery at the Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam. He produced a medical

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4353

certificate along with the request for postponing of enquiry. The enquiry officer failed to consider the request made by

the workman. He proceeded with the enquiry and submitted an ex-parte enquiry report. Based on that report, the

management dismissed the workman from service with immediate effect.

According to the workman the finding of the enquiry officer is vitiated on the ground of malafides, non-

application of mind, not affording reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions and without

following the principles of natural justice. The workman has stated that that the punishment imposed by the

management is harsh and highly disproportionate in relation to the charges framed against the workman. The workman

has requested to pass an award setting aside the punishment, to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service

and all other benefits thereof.

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

The workman Shri V. Nandakumar joined the services of the management on 01.01.1994 as a worker (Bag

stitching). Subsequently he was promoted and redesignated as junior Clerk-cum-Typist on 01.01.2004. While in

service he applied for leave for the period from 25.05.2007 to 07.06.2007 and his request was allowed. Subsequently

he requested for extension of leave from 08.06.2007 to 07.07.2007. His request was allowed by the management. On

the expiry of the leave granted he failed to report for duty on 08.07.2007. As per the letter dated 13.08.2007 the

management directed the workman to report for duty on or before 31.08.2007. The letter sent by the management by

post to his last known address was returned un-served with the endorsement that the “Addressee Left India”, returned

to sender”. Again as per letter dated 08.09.2007 the management directed the workman to report for duty on or before

20.09.2007. That letter was received by the workman and the management obtained postal acknowledgment

evidencing for the receipt of that letter by the workman. Even after the receipt of that letter the workman failed to

report for duty. He failed to inform the management explaining the reason for his absence from duty. Thereafter the

management issued a show-cause memo dated 01.10.2007 to the workman. He has not submitted any reply to the

show-cause notice. Therefore the management issued a charge sheet dated 16.11.2007 to the workman. The charge

sheet cum enquiry notice was sent by Registered Post to his last known address and his known address in Sharjah.

Both of them were returned un-served. Accordingly, the management charge sheeted the workman as per clauses 41(1)

and 41(21) of the standing orders applicable to the workman under the management. The management ordered an

enquiry by appointing Shri R. V. Viswanath, Manager(Projects) as enquiry officer. As per letter dated 16.11.2007 the

disciplinary authority directed the workman to appear before the enquiry officer on 10.12.2007. On that day the

workman failed to turn up for enquiry. He did not inform the reason for his absence. Again vide notice dated

13.12.2007, intimation was given to the workman to report for enquiry on 10.01.2008. The said letter was returned by

the postal authorities with the endorsement that “Addressee Left India”. He did not report before the enquiry officer on

10.01.2008. Again a notice dated 05.04.2008 was issued to the workman directing to appear before the enquiry officer

on 28.04.2008. He acknowledged the same and failed to report for enquiry on 28.04.2008. Instead he sent a letter

dated 25.04.2008 informing that he is continuing treatment for chickenpox and expressed willingness to appear before

the enquiry after curing the ailment.

As per letter dated 20.05.2008 the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 16.06.2008. The workman

acknowledged the same and made a request to prepone the date of enquiry. At his request the enquiry was preponed to

03.06.2008. On that day he failed to attend the enquiry. On 10.06.2008 as per the oral request of the workman the

enquiry was postponed to 12.06.2008. As per letter dated 15.07.2008 the workman intimated the disciplinary authority

that he is not in a position to attend the enquiry till 15.10.2008 since he underwent a surgery and taking rest.

10.

Subsequently as per the notice dated 06.01.2009 the date of enquiry was scheduled to be held on 24.01.2009

and intimation regarding the same was given to the workman. The workman failed to report before the enquiry officer

on 24.01.2009. On that day the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry, recorded the evidence of the witnesses on

behalf of the management. On the basis of the available records and evidence adduced, the enquiry officer submitted

the report before the management with the finding that the workman is guilty in respect of the charges levelled against

him. The management issued the punishment order after complying all the procedural formalities and the workman

was dismissed from service w.e.f.11.12.2009.

11.

The reason for the absence from duty, stated by the workman is not true to facts. The punishment imposed by

the management is in proportion to the gravity of the charges levelled against the workman. The enquiry officer

conducted the enquiry in a fair, just and proper manner and by following the principles of natural justice. The conduct

of the workman reveals that he is not interested in continuing employment under the management. The management

has requested to uphold their contentions and reject the claim of the workman.

12.

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

claim statement.

4354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Thereafter opportunity was afforded to the parties to take steps and produce documents to substantiate their

contentions. The management produced the enquiry file. As requested by the learned counsel for the management the

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

the enquiry officer was examined as MW1 and the enquiry file was marked as Ext.M1. As per the Preliminary Order

dated 04.03.2016 this Tribunal held that the enquiry conducted by the management is valid, just and proper. Thereafter

the learned counsel appearing for both sides were heard.

14.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management against the workman Shri

V. Nandakumar is just and proper?

(ii)

Whether the punishment imposed by the management is in proportion to the gravity of the

misconduct alleged by the management?

(iii)

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

15.

Point Nos.(i) to (iii):-

The workman involved in this reference Shri V. Nandakumar joined the services of

the management on 01.01.1994 as a worker (bag stitching). He was subsequently promoted and redesignated as junior

Clerk-cum-Typist on 01.01.2004. He applied for earned leave for the period from 25.05.2007 to 07.06.2007 for the

purpose of nursing his father-in-law who was bedridden at Sharjah. His request was allowed by the management.

Subsequently he requested for extension of leave from 08.06.2007 to 07.07.2007. His request was allowed by the

management. The workman has stated that after the expiry of the extended tenure of leave, he could not rejoin duty for

the reason that the health condition of his father-in-law was serious and there was nobody to look after the affairs. He

has stated that in the meantime he was affected with chickenpox and could not return from Sharjah. He sought

extension of leave on medical ground. According to the workman the management in the meantime initiated

disciplinary proceedings against him for unauthorized absence. He has stated that he could not report for duty for the

reason that he underwent surgery and continuing treatment thereafter. It is stated that the workman requested the

management to sanction leave and it is supported by a medical certificate issued by the doctor. The grievance of the

workman is that the management failed to appreciate the factual state of affairs in the correct perspective. Instead they

ordered disciplinary proceedings and appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry in relation to the charges

levelled against him. According to the workman the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the

management and the proceedings of domestic enquiry by the enquiry officer are vitiated for want of natural justice and

failure on the part of the management to allow reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions.

The workman has stated that at any rate the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management is

highly disproportionate in relation to the gravity of the charges alleged by them.

16.

The management has refuted the allegations made by the workman. According to them the workman

unauthorisedly absented from duty and failed to appear before the enquiry officer even after granting sufficient

opportunity. The management has stated that they proceeded against the workman after issuing the show cause notice

dated 01.10.2007. It is stated that the workman failed to report for duty even after granting repeated opportunities. It is

stated that the workman has committed misconduct as stipulated under clauses 41(1) and 41(21) of the standing orders

of the management company.

17.

The contention of the workman is that the enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the enquiry officer failed to

provide sufficient opportunity to the delinquent or his representative. According to the management there was willful

default on the part of the workman in reporting for duty.

18.

While examined as MW1 the enquiry officer has stated about the procedure followed during the enquiry. MW1

has stated that he has submitted an enquiry report after evaluating the evidence tendered during the proceedings.

19.

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman could not report for duty initially for the

reason that his father-in-law was bedridden and subsequently for the reason that the workman underwent surgery and

bedridden. It is stated that the punishment of dismissal from service for unauthorized absence imposed by the

management is highly disproportionate.

20.

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the punishment imposed is just, proper and in

consonance with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman.

21.

Admittedly the charge against the workman is unauthorized absence. It is true that a workman who is employed

in an industry has to perform his duties with due diligence, promptness and efficiency. In this case there were latches

on the part of the workman in reporting for duty on the expiry of the leave granted by the management. The workman

failed to report before the enquiry officer even after obtaining sufficient opportunity. The explanation of the workman

is that he was bedridden, underwent surgery and taking rest and hence he could not report before the enquiry officer.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4355

22.

On going through the documents marked in the domestic enquiry and the evidence tendered by MW1

probabilise the fact that the workman absented from duty from 25.05.2007. It is submitted that the workman had no

bad remarks in his career under the management. Considering the fact that the workman had gone to Sharjah to nurse

his ailing father-in-law and at a later stage he was bedridden due to ailment, it cannot be held that the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed by the management is in consonance with the gravity of misconduct committed by the

workman. Except the allegation of unauthorized absence there is no other charge against the workman. The fact that

the workman had to look after his ailing father-in-law is a mitigating circumstance enabling this Tribunal to reduce the

quantum of punishment imposed by the management.

23.

Considering the factual state of affairs and that there is no bad remark against the workman while he was in

service it will only be just and reasonable to set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and to direct the

management to allow the workman to rejoin duty. It is made clear that the workman will not be entitled to get salary

during the period he was out of service from the management company. He shall be reinstated within two months from

the date of publication of award in this case. He shall get the benefit of continuity of service while calculating the

period of employment. He shall not be entitled any other benefit other than the continuity of service. The points are

answered accordingly.

24.

In view of the finding on the points for consideration the dispute referred for adjudication is answered as

follows:

“that the workman shall be allowed to rejoin duty within two months from the date of publication of this

Award. The period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement shall be treated as ‘period not on duty’.

He shall not be entitled to get wages and other benefits during the period he was not on duty. He will get

continuity of service for the purpose of calculating service benefits.”

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 02^nd day

of August, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the managements

MW1

27.10.2014

Shri. R. V. Viswanath

Exhibit for the workman

NIL

Exhibit for the managements

Enquiry file

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1964-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bf.M;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@13@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mimbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

4356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

09.09.2016.

[No. L-11012/13/2007-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

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

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/ 54 of 2007

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

The Airport Director

M/s. Airport Authority of India

CST International Airport

International Airport Division

Mumbai- 400 099

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Ashok Kumar Khandekar

Arjun Chawl, Room No. 2

Tank Pakhedi

Sahar, Andheri (E)

Mumbai- 400 099

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mrs. Geeta Raju, Advocate i/b.

M/s. M.V. Kini & Co.

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 20^thJuly, 2016.

AWARD

Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment by its order No L-11012/13/2007- IR(M) dated

22/10/2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal.

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Ashok Khandekar for reinstatement in service of the Airport

Authority of India, Mumbai in view of the Judgment of Conviction stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Rajasthan vide his application No. 1038 of 2004 is justified and proper? If so, what relief the workman is

entitled to? If not, then, what Order?”

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

workman has filed Statement of Claim (Ex-6).According to the workman, he was employed by the first party

management of Airports Authority of India, Mumbai w.e.f. 16/08/1995 in the capacity of Draughtsman Grade II

(Electrical).The said post has been re-designed as Senior Assistant (Drawing Electrical). However, by order dated

13/1/1998, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 31/1/1998 on the ground that the case against him in respect of

criminal offence was under investigation. The Airport Director of the first party by his order dated 1/3/2002 revoked

the suspension and allowed him to report for his duty on and from 13/3/2002 without prejudice to the right of the first

party to take such disciplinary action and to treat the period of suspension as may be warranting based on the final

outcome of the court verdict. Thus the Airport Director, of the first party by order dated 8/7/2004 imposed him the

penalty of Compulsory Retirement w.e.f. 8/7/2004 on the ground that the Hon’ble Additional District Judge No1 (Fast

Track), Jaipur by order dated 25/11/2013 has punished him for three years imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000/-.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4357

According to the second party workman, he preferred Appeal dated 6/8/2004 to the Member (Personnel and

Administration) of the first party against the order dated 8/7/2004 passed by the Airport Director of the first party. He

in continuation to his Appeal dated 6/8/2004 submitted Additional Appeal dated 6/6/2005 to the Appellate Authority

bringing to his notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court by order dated 2/6/2005 in Application No. 1038 of 2004

in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1712 of 2003 was pleased to stay the Judgment of Conviction dated 25/11/2003 passed by

Learned Additional Session Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, he is entitled to be

reinstated in service by setting aside the punishment order dated 8/7/2004 passed by the Airport Director of the first

party. According to workman, since Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court was pleased to stay the Judgment of Conviction

25/11/2003, the punishment order dated 8/7/2004 passed by the first party only on the basis of the said Judgment of

Conviction, is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be reinstated in service. However, the Assistant Manager of the

first party by his letter dated 12/1/2007 informed the second party that the Appellate Authority has decided not to

interfere in the punishment order dated 8/7/2004. Therefore,workamn raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central),Mumbai for his reinstatement in services. Therefore second party workman prays that

he be reinstated in services w.e.f. 8/7/2004 with full back wages and consequential benefits by setting aside or

modifying the punishment order dated 8/7/2004.

The first party resisted the Written Statement in reply to the statement of claim of the workman Ex-9.

According to them, second party workman was arrested by Jaipur Police on 27/12/1997; as he was involved in criminal

case demanding dowry. He was produced beforethe Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on

28/12/2007 who remanded him to police custody for five days. During the police remand period, he was brought back

to Mumbai in hand-cuffed position, as per Court’s order dated 28/12/1997. Thereafter, he was remanded in jail custody

for a period from 2/1/1998 to 5/1/1998. In terms of the provisions of Regulation 23 of the International Airports

Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987,Workman was placed under

suspension w.e.f. 13/4/1998 by order dated 13/4/1998 issued to him. He did not appeal against the said order of

suspension. His suspension was however revoked in terms of the provision of Regulation 23(5) of the Discipline

Regulations, 1987, by an order dated 1/3/2002 as the criminal case filed against the workman by the State would not be

disposed of in the near future and he was being paid a subsistence allowance @ 75% of the basic pay and allowances

without doing any work; thereby caused monetary loss to the public exchequer. However, the said revocation of

suspension was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the management to take such disciplinary action and

to treat the period of suspension, as may be warranting; based on the final outcome of the Court verdict on the case

pending against him. Later on by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/11/2003 passed by

Additional Session Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 128 of 2001, he was found guilty

and punishment for three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon him. In view of the said

punishment imposed upon workman, the penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the Authority with

immediate effect was imposed upon him by the Airport Director of the Authority, vide order dated 8/7/2004 in terms of

the provisions of Regulation 33(1) (i) of the Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)

Regulations, 2003.

It is contended by the management, Second party workman filed an appeal in High Court of Rajasthan against

the said order dated 25/11/2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1(fast Track), Jaipur City; which is still

pending. The workman also preferred the appeal before the Authority by his letters dated 6/8/2004 and 6/6/2005

addressed to the Appellate Authority against the said order dated 8/7/2004 imposing the penalty of compulsory

retirement from the services of the Authority upon him.The appeals dated 6/8/2004 and 6/6/2005 of the workman have

been considered by the Appellate Authority; who is of the opinion that the High Court of Rajasthan by its order dated

2/6/2005 has only stayed the sentence during the pendency of the appeal and has not set aside the order of conviction;

which will be decided at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the provisions of the Conduct and

Discipline Regulations of the Authority are applicable & the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was as per

the existing norms and rules.Therefore, there was no need to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority at

that stage. However, after a decision on the pending appeal in the High Court; the decision would be taken by the

Authority in terms of the judgment passed in the appeal.The said decision of AppellateAuthority was conveyed by its

Head Quarters at New Delhi to the Airport Director, C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai by a letter dated 30/6/2006 which was in

turn, communicated by the Authority to the workman by a letter dated 14/7/2006. Under the circumstances, the

workman was not entitled to be reinstated in service by setting aside the order dated 8/7/2004 passed by Airport

Director. So according to them, the contents of the Statement of Claim are false. The Reference is devoid of merits. The

workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service and therefore prays that Reference be dismissed.

Following are the issues for my determinations. I record my findings there on for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Is second party workman entitled for reinstatement?

No.

What order?

As per order below.

4358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Issue No. 1

Second party workman has not led any evidence.He remained absent since 8/12/2014. In the circumstances first

party management has lead evidence of Smt. SunitaTirkey, Manager (HR) by filing Affidavit Ex-12.Since workman

remained absent, there is no cross-examination of the witness of the management and her evidence remained unshaken.

It is undisputed that second party workman was employed w.e.f. 16/8/1995 in the capacity of Draughtsman

Grade II (Electrical) and said post has been re-designed as Senior Assistant (Drawing Electrical). Undisputedly second

party workman was arrested by Jaipur police as he was involved in criminal case. He was produced before Additional

Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on 28/12/2007 who remanded him to police custody for five days.

Thereafter, he was remained in jail custody for a period from 2/1/1998 to 5/1/1998. Undisputedly therefore second

party workman was put under suspension on the ground that he wasinvolved in criminaloffence which was under

investigation and subsequently in that criminal case he was convicted by Additional District Judge Jaipur by order

dated 25/11/2003 and he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 10,000/-. It appears that

second party workman has filed Appeal before High Court of Rajasthanagainst the said order of conviction and

sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track), Jaipur City; and the High Court Rajasthan has

stayed the said Judgment of conviction. Thus the question is whether in such circumstances second party workman is

entitled to be reinstated in services.

As a matter of fact first party by its order dated 13/4/1998 placed the second party under suspension in terms of

the provision of Regulation 23 of the International Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and

Appeal) Regulations, 1987. Subsequently the said suspension was revoked and he was allowed to report for his duty

because the criminal case filed against him by the State would not be disposed of in the nearfuture and hewas being

paid a subsistence allowance @ 75%of the basic pay and allowances without doing any work. But then the fact remains

that subsequently he has been convicted in that criminal case by order of Additional Sessions Judge No1 (fast Track)

Jaipur City, Jaipur. After the order of conviction the penalty of compulsory retirement from the services was imposed

on workman by Airport Director of the Authority, vide order dated 8/7/2004 in terms of Provisions of Regulation

33(1)(i) of the Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003. This

punishment of compulsory retirementwas imposed on 8/7/2004and thereafter as per the order of High Court of

Rajasthan conviction and sentence passed was stayed on 2/6/2005.As such Hon’ble High Court Order was subsequent

to the order dated 8/7/2004 passed by the Airports Director imposingpenalty of compulsory retirement from the

services on the workman.

10.

That apart the question creeps is whether in view of the said order passed by the Hon’ble High Court Rajasthan,

whereby the order of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge Jaipur is stayed, the second party workman is

entitled for reinstatement.

11.

It is made clear in Written Statement that after decision on the pendingappeal in the High Court; the decision

would taken by the Authority; in terms of the judgment passed by the High Court in the said appeal. The dispute under

Reverence is whether the demand of workman for reinstatement of services of Airports Authority of India in view of

stay given by the High Court of Rajasthan is justified and proper. The Reference does not refer to any demand of the

workman for reinstatement, in case the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge No1

(Fast Track) Jaipur, would be set aside by High Court in the said appeal. That apart in the Written Statement, it is stated

by the management that decision would be taken in that respect after the decision of appeal in the High Court and in

terms of the judgment passed by the High Court in appeal.At this stage it is to be seen whether, in view of the order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the workman is entitled for reinstatement.

12.

In the context hand can be led on the decision in case of RadheshyamAgarwal V/s The State Of Madhya

Pradesh Writ Petition No. 333/2011 whereinit is held that,

“Even if the conviction of sentence has been suspended, the disqualification attached to the conviction is

not taken away and pendency of the appeal and suspension of sentence is not a ground for continuing the

employee in service. In-spite of this, the employer has a right to terminate the services and in this regard

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Director of Collegiate Education V/s. S. Nagar,

1995 (3) SCC 377 may be taken note of.”

13. In view of this legal position the second party workman is not entitled to reinstatement; in view of the stay order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthanvide application No. 1038 of 2004 filed by second party workman.

Accordingly the Head quarters at New Delhi conveyed the decision of the Appellate Authority, vide its letter dated

30/6/2006, stating that appeals filed by the workman dated 6/8/2004 and 6/6/2005 have been considered by the

Appellate Authority, who is of the opinion that the High Court of Rajasthan by its order dated 2/6/2005 has only stayed

the sentence during the pendency of the appeal and has not set aside the order of conviction. In view of legal position

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4359

cited above suspension of sentence is not a ground to continue the employee in service. As such there is no question of

reinstatement of second party workman on the ground that the Judgment of conviction is stayed. Hence, I hold that

second party workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service. Above issues are answered accordingly as indicated

against each of them.

14. In the result I pass the following Order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to cost.

Date: 20.07.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1965-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 09@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17025@1@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Employees State Insurance Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-17025/1/2016-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 09 of 2016

Between :

Naresh Pal Arora,

Son of Sri Desh Raj Arora,

D-29 ESIC Nikunj,

Sarvodaya Nagar,

Kanpur-208005.

And

Employees State Insurance Corporation,

Through its Regional Director,

Panchdeep Bhawan,

Kanpur and others.

208005.

AWARD

Worker Naresh Pal Arora has filed the present claim petition under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, before this tribunal on the ground that the present claim petition is being filed directly as he was removed from

service by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and his conciliation application filed on 18.11.13 is still

pending though it is about three months now. It alleged that he joined the service of the opposite party on 29.01.80 and

was removed by imposing punishment of compulsory retirement which matter is under contest separately. It is also

4360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged by him that while in service the workman availed leave from 06.02.14 to 22.03.15 and the same had been

granted vide office order no.26 of 2015 dated 15.5.15 but the payment of leave salary remained pending therefore the

workman requested for early payment vide his letter dated 6.6.15 whereupon the granted leave has been revoked

arbitrarily without any valid reason vide order no.31 of 2015 on the ground that the leave has been granted

inadvertently without considering the pending charge sheet against the worker. It is therefore, prayed that the action of

the department is arbitrary illegal and without any basis, the same may kindly be set aside and the opposite party may

be directed to pay salary for the leave period from 06.02.14 to 22.3.15.

Worker has also filed certain documents with his claim petition.

Opposite party has filed objection and alleged that the so called dispute raised by the worker is not an industrial

dispute under section 2A(1) of the Act as the same is not any way connected with or arising out of any discharge

dismissal retrenchment or termination of the workman. Rather the cause of dispute is a leave revocation order dated

30.06.15 and nonpayment of salary. As such the present petition is not maintainable being devoid of merit hence is

liable to be dismissed.

On 31.05.16, when the case was taken up for hearing the worker appeared in the case and moved an application

that he wants to with draw the above case for personal reason and requested to allow his application and also does not

press this case.

Considering the prayer of the worker the tribunal has no option but to decide the case against the worker and he

will not be entitled for any relief as claimed by him.

Award is passed accordingly against him.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1966-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 107@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@11@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Diamond Cement and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

09.09.2016.

[No. L-29012/11/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 107/2014

Sri Ajuddhi Patel alias Afodi Patel

S/o Late Babu Lal

C/oSh. Suresh Modi,Underground Freedom Fighter

Baradwari,

Civil Wart No.3,

Damoh (MP)

470661

And

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4361

The Factory Manager

Diamond Cement,

Prop.Heidelberg Cement India Limited,

Mandaura,

Distt.

Jhansi(UP).

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-29012/11/2014-IR (M) dated 02.09.2014, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the demand of Sh. Ajuddhi Patel alias Afodi S/o Late Babu Lal regarding engagement by the

management of Diamond Cement Prop. Heidelberg Cement India Limited Jhansi and subsequently termination of the

services w. e. f. February 2002 in violation of the provision of ID Act 1947, is just fair and legal? If not to what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

Worker through post has filed his claim statement stating that in February 2006, Diamond Cement Factory, had

retrenched 160 workers without any notice and with the help of police and miscreants workers were compelled to leave

Jhansi by train and the worker Sri Ajudhi alias Afodi Patel was one of them, who has contested through Freedom

Fighter Cell and is filing photocopies available with him. He has further stated that he started working in the factory at

Rs.8/- per day when he was 8 years old and worked in the packing department for 21 years.

It is pertinent to mention that this claim statement of the worker was submitted through Sri Suresh Modi,

Freedom Fighter but Suresh Modi has not filed any authority on behalf of the worker.

Management has submitted its written statement denying the averments of the claim statement and has further

stated that the claimant was never ever been the employee of the answering opposite party in any capacity and there

never existed the relationship of master and servant between the employer and the worker. The claim of the worker is

devoid of merit.

Worker has submitted photocopy of the documents and photocopy of his affidavit and affidavit of Sri Suresh

Modi and has sent several letters to this tribunal through post for deciding the reference in his favor. He has also

submitted written arguments without examining him as witness before this tribunal. He has further submitted

photocopies of cuttings of News Papers which has no relevancy with merit of the present case. Photocopies submitted

by the worker cannot be relied upon unless originals are produced in the court and proved by the worker.

The facts alleged in the claim statement that worker was working with the opposite party when he was only 8

years old and was getting Rs.8/- per day as wages cannot be believed as a young boy of only 8 years of age can never

be in the employment of the employer.

From the above it is abundantly clear that the worker has failed to prove his case before this tribunal by

adducing acceptable evidence in support of his claim. As such the claim of the worker is bound to be answered against

him in the absence of evidence and proof.

Reference is answered against the worker holding that he is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him

pursuant to the present reference order.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1967-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ctkt vkfy;kat ykbiQ ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@10@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

4362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-17012/10/2011-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 2011

Between :

Sri Pawan Kumar Jain,

Son of Late Sri Trilok Chand Jain,

41/1 Gusainpura, Jhansi.

And

The Divisional Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd,

Jhansi.

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-17012/10/2011/IR(M) dated 11.05.11, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Whether the action of the management of Bajaj Allianz Life Insorance Com. Ltd., Jhansi in terminating the

services of Sri Pawan Kumar Jain son of Late Sri Tilok Chand Jain with effect from 01.05.2010 is just fair and legal?

To what relief the workman concerned is entitled?

In short the case of the worker is that he was appointed at the post of Assistant Sales Manager vide appointment

order dated 15.05.09 under the establishment of the opposite party at basic pay of Rs.6000/- per month. It was also

mentioned in the appointment order that Rs.1250/- per month will be paid as medical allowance. The probationary

period of the worker was one year which was completed by the worker four months left to one year still the opposite

party did not regularized the services of the worker. It is also the case of the worker that he was never given any kind of

training relating to his job, however he was completing the target of work allotted to him by the company. When the

worker raised his voice and demanded the medical claim, the officers of the opposite party became annoyed against

him and orally terminated his services with effect from 01.05.2010, without there being any charge sheet or inquiry,

without making payment of notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as provided under section 25F of

industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the oral termination of the services of the worker is voilative of section 25F of

the Act ignoring the hard fact that the worker had completed more than 24days of continuous service preceding 12

calendar months from the date of his termination as such it is liable to be set aside. Worker is also entitled for his

reinstatement with full back wages, seniority and with all consequential benefits.

It is also pleaded by the worker that as per condition no. 8 (a) of appointment order, which is under the heading

of termination (during probation) which, inter-alia, provides that during the period on probation as Assistant Sales

Manager, either party can terminate this engagement without assigning any reason or giving one weeks’ notice in

writing or on paying to the other an amount equivalent to 1 week’s basic salary in lieu of notice.

It is also pleaded by the worker that neither the opposite party gave any notice as provided under clause 8(a) of

the appointment letter not paid basic salary of one week in lieu of notice, therefore, the action of the opposite party is

also against the terms and conditions of the appointment letter hence is liable to be set aside.

At any rate the worker is entitled for his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, with all

consequential benefits.

Management after service did not file any written statement in the case or any documents nor anyone appeared

in the tribunal from the side of the management for cross examining the worker w.w.1 and all the opportunities of the

management were closed.

Thereafter management moved application 14/1 along with affidavit 14/2-5 on 3.6.15 for recalling the order

dated 20.02.12, 04.07.2013 and 27.08.13. After moving the application none appeared for management to pres this

application for several dates and therefore by order dated 28.12.15 it was rejected in default by the management.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4363

Worker has adduced his evidence as w.w.1 and he was not cross examined by the management, hence his

evidence remains uncontroverted and thus is acceptable.

10.

Management did not adduce any evidence. Worker has also filed documents in support of his claim, which will

be discussed at the appropriate stage.

11.

Worker w.w.1 in his evidence has stated that with the help of appointment letter dated 15.05.09 he joined the

post of Assistant Sales Manager. Although it was intended by the opposite party in the appointment order that he will

be paid Rs.16000/- as salary but he was never paid this much amount as salary rather he was never paid more than

Rs.6000/- per month. With regard to the nature of job done by the worker he has stated that they are shown in paper no.

Annexure III(1) to III(XV). He has also stated that he always done clerical work and had never performed

administrative or managerial work under the opposite party. He further stated that he never sanctioned any leave of any

employee of the company nor ever awarded punishment to any employee of the company nor ever issued any

appointment letter.

12.

Considering the own pleading of the worker that he was appointed at the post of Assistant Manager Sales by the

opposite party it has become essential to first examine the issue whether the worker as per his own statement and

evidence is a workman as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

On perusal of copy of appointment letter 9/6-15 filed by the applicant and evidence adduced by applicant on

affidavit it appears that applicant has no administrative powers or powers to act through which company is bound by

his act. Although the worker was selected and designated as Assistant Sales Manager, but in his evidence he has

categorically stated that he never discharges managerial function at any point of time being designated as Assistant

Sales Manager.

14.

It is settled legal position of law that glorified designation of a post is not a decisive factor to examine whether

post belongs to the category or workman or officer. What matters is the responsibility and nature of duties performed

by a person having glorified designation of a post in any establishment to decide whether it attracts the definition of

section 2-(s) of the Act, if answer is in affirmative then glorified designation becomes redundant and person will be

deemed to be a workman within section 2(s) of the Act and his case is amenable under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

Therefore, considering the uncontroverted evidence of the worker and documents filed by him it is held that by

nature of work performed by the worker, it is held that Sri Pawan Kumar Jain is a workman as defined under section

2(s) of the Act, as such reference order is maintainable in the eye of law before this tribunal.

16.

From the records of the case it is also very much clear that the services of the worker were dispensed with by

oral order without assigning any reason or without complying with the condition no. 8(a) of the appointment order or

even otherwise the action of the management as referred to in reference order cannot be upheld because it has been

done in breach of section 25F of the Act.

17.

Therefore, at any rate the action of the management of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company ltd. Jhansi in

terminating the services of Sri Pawan Kumar Jain son of late Sri Tilok Chand Jain w.e.f. 1.5.2000 is neither just nor

legal? He is therefore held entitled for his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all

consequential benefits.

18.

Reference is therefore answered in favor of the worker and against the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1968-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

pSUubZ isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 69@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30011@1@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-30011/1/2015-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

4364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 12^th August, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 69/2015

(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 Doshion Veolia Desalination Water

Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The Tamil Nadu Petroleum & Gas Workers Union

: 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

27, Mosque Street, Chennai-600005

AND

The General Manager (HR)

: 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Desalination Plant, Manali

Chennai-600068

M/s Doshion Veolia Desalination Water

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

7^th Floor, KRD Jee Complex

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai

Chennai-600004

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Sri V. Ajoy Khose, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Sri S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Sri K. Kalimuthu, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-30011/1/2015 (IR(M) dated

15.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Doshion Veolia Desalination Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in

denying one month wages as bonus to the workmen is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 69/2015 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 a memo to the effect that a settlement was entered into between the parties and the

Management has paid the amount due to the workers on 01.08.2016.

As could be seen from the memo produced on behalf of the petitioner their grievance is settled out of the Court.

The petitioner does not require any relief through this forum

Therefore, 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 the

12^th August, 2016)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Management

None

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Management :

None

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4365

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1969-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@35@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-17012/35/2011-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 12

Sri Dalveer Singh,

Son of Sri Mahraj Singh,

Resident of village Bana,

Post Raya,

District Mathura.

And

The Senior Divisional Manager,]

LIC of India,

543, Laxmi Bhawan,

Ramghat Road, Aligarh.

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-17012/35/2011-IR(M) dated 06.03.12, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Aligarh in terminating the service of Sri Dalveer Singh

son of Sri Maharaj ingh with effect from 22.1.11 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed by the then branch manager of Life Insurance

Corporation of India at branch office – 2 Junction Road Mathura at the post of peon on 22.04.99 and worked there till

22.01.11 and he was paid Rs.1958/- per month as wages. With a view to deprive the worker for claiming regular

employment the management used to pay him salary in different names whereas hard fact remains that the worker

4366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

himself had worked. This practice on the part of the management amounts to unfair labor practice as defined under

section 2 (ra) of the Act. Coming to know the fact that appointment process to appoint regular peon, the then branch

manager to earn money by getting appointed some new hand, he removed him from the service with effect from

23.01.11 by saying that now there is no need of his services. He requested the branch manager not to terminate his

services and allow him to remain in the employment and when nothing fruitful came in the matter he gave a legal

notice to the management n 13.06.11. Worker remained in continuous employment of the opposite party during the

period 22.4.99 to 22.01.11.

The worker therefore, has prayed that the action of the opposite party be held to be bad in law and he be

allowed his reinstatement in the service with full back wages continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

The management has filed written statement in which it is alleged that the opposite party is a public sector

organization and it has to work according to the guidelines issued by Government of India from time to time. There are

set rules of recruitment and the worker had never been subjected to such rules in the matter of his appointment,

therefore, the worker is not entitled for regular employment in the opposite party. It is also alleged that the worker by

means of this reference is trying to seek back door entry in the public employment; therefore, his claim is liable to be

dismissed. It is denied that the worker had ever completed 240 days of continuous service under the management as

such he is not entitled for any benefit.

On merit of the case it is alleged that in summer season there arises need of a waterman in the branch as such

the applicant was engaged by the branch manager as casual waterman with effect from 22.04.99 and worked till

31.07.99 and was paid his wages by the branch manager at the rate of Rs.1630/- per month. After the end of summer

season his services automatically came to an end and the worker did not work thereafter. The worker fraudulently

obtained the work of peon in branch office No.2 vide letter dated 13.3.07 issued by the Divisional Office Aligarh for a

fixed period of 85 days during the period 17.03.07 to 09.06.07 as such in view of the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb),

his disengagement is not a retrenchment as such the worker is not entitled for any benefit. It was clearly mentioned in

the fixed term appointment letter that engagement for 85 days will not confer upon him any right to claim regular

employment in LIC and the worker accepted the terms of his appointment and joined on 17.03.07 at branch office -2

Mathura as such he is not entitled to claim any relief on the basis of aforesaid engagement. The brother of the worker

Sri Megh Shyam is working as Assistant at the branch office on regular and permanent basis and whenever any casual

work arises at the branch, on the request of Sri Megh Singh the services of the worker were utilized at the branch. The

worker had never completed 240 days in any of the year. The claim of the worker is misconceived; baseless and based

on untrue facts hence is denied. The management has denied that the services of the worker had ever been terminated at

any point of time what to say on 23.01.11.

On the basis of above it has been prayed that the claim of the worker is devoid of merit and is liable to be

rejected.

The worker with his claim petition has filed papers 3/1-113 which are in the shape of photocopies.

In the rejoinder filed by the worker nothing new has been pleaded therein.

10.

Worker has also summoned certain documents from the management vide application supported by affidavit

dated 10.05.13 and the management filed the summoned documents as is clear by order dated 09.10.13.

11.

The worker examined himself as w.w.1 whereas the management examined Sri I.P. Singh as M.W.1.

12.

Tribunal has heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length and has also perused the record of the case

carefully.

13.

A short question which is involved in the case is as to whether worker had worked continuously for 240 days

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of alleged termination i.e. 22.01.11.

14.

In the claim statement worker has alleged that he had been appointed by the branch manager LIC Mathura on

the post of peon on 22.4.99. His monthly salary was fixed at Rs.1958/- per month ad he had continuously worked for

12 calendar years up to 22.1.11 and he was being paid wages in others name with a motive that he may not claim any

regularization. Worker has also filed his affidavit in evidence stating same facts that he was appointed at the post of

peon on 22.4.99 and worked continuously for 12 year up to 22.1.11 on monthly wages of Rs.1958. He was being paid

his wages in the name of others. He has filed the payment vouchers to prove it.

15.

In the cross-examination he has denied that he had worked as casual labor in summer season from 22.4.99 to

31.7.99. He has also denied that he had not worked from 31.7.99 to 17.3.07. He has further deposed that his name was

set through employment exchange and he was appointed after taking interview but no appointment letter was given to

him. He has not made any complaint in receiving payment in the name of others. His brother Megh Shyam was also

permanent employee of LIC. He has denied the fact that the management has taken his service for misc work on the

recommendation of his brother. H has denied that he has not worked continuously for 240 days. He has admitted that he

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4367

has not filed any proof of payment from 09.06.07 to 22.1.11. He has further admitted that he has recovered the payment

for the period he worked and no payment is due on the management.

16.

Management in its written statement has alleged that appointment on any post is done according to guide lines

issued by Government of India. It is further alleged that in summer season there arises need of waterman in the branch

and the worker was engaged by the then branch manager as waterman w.e.f. 22.4.99 and worked till 31.7.99 and was

paid his wages at the rate of Rs.1630/- per month. The worker fraudulently obtained the work of peon vie letter dated

13.3.07 issued by the Divisional Office for a fixed period of 89 days from 17.3.07 to 09.06.07.

17.

In support of its contention management examined M.W.1 Sri I P Singh, branch manager who has stated on

oath that worker Dalveer Singh was never appointed according to prescribed procedure and no appointment letter was

issued to him. He was engaged from 22.4.99 to 31.7.99 and 17.3.07 to 09.06.07 as casual waterman and no other work

was taken from him and denied that payment was done in the name of others. He further deposed that Raj Kumar and

others were appointed in compliance of direction of Hon’ble Apex Court and papers regarding their appointment are

filed which are paper no.15/2-16.

18.

In his cross-examination he stated that no letter was issued to worker for his appointment for fixed period from

22.4.99 to 31.7.99. He has further stated that paper No.3/39 was not issued by the department and paper No.3/87 and

3/96 are forged.

19.

From the above discussions, it appears that worker is claiming his regular appointment at the post of peon while

management denying it alleging that worker was only engaged as casual waterman for a fixed period and was never

appointed against any regular vacancy.

20.

On perusal of paper No.17/2-3 and paper No.17/4 filed by the management it is clear that worker was appointed

on the post of peon for a fixed period of 85 days. It cannot confer any right to worker for claiming regular appointment.

21.

Besides this worker has filed several documents like photocopies of payment vouchers and papers showing

other misc work taken by worker which are paper No.3/5-97 but on perusal of these papers it is apparent that papers

regarding receiving of wages are not filed and all these papers relates to the payment for misc. work done by hm.

22.

Paper No.3/101 is reply of management given on the legal notice of worker 3/100 wherein it was informed that

worker was only appointed for a fixed period of 85 days as peon and he is wrongly claiming for his regular

appointment. It is also pertinent to mention that the brother of the worker admittedly working in the branch on the post

of clerk and misc. work and other work of waterman appears to have been given to worker on the recommendation of

his brother.

23.

Lastly worker has failed to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from

the date of alleged termination.

24.

For the reasons given above it is held that the action of the management of LIC of India in terminating the

service of the worker with effect from 22.1.11 is legal and justified and the worker is not entitled to any relief.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSgj

LVksu ,.M ykbe da- izk- fy-@,u-,e- nqck'k LVksu ,.M ykbe LVksu da- izk- 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

51@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@5@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Maihar Stone & Lime Co. Pvt. Ltd./N.M. Dubash Stone & Lime Co. Pvt. Ltd. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-29012/5/2014-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

4368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/2014

Shri Shiv Poojan Singh

S/o Shri Bake Bahadur Singh,

R/o Ward No.13, Vivek Nagar,

Rewa Road, Maihar Distt.

Satna (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Mine Owner,

Maihar Stone & Lime Co.Pvt.Ltd.,

Through Mr, Shailendra Ora,

Station Road, Maihar Distt.

Satna (MP)

The Mine Owner

N.M. Dubash Stone & Lime Co.Pvt. Ltd.,

Through Mr. Shailendra Ora,

Station Road, Maihar Distt.

Satna (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of July, 2016

As per letter dated 5-6-2014 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-

29012/5/2014-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Mine Owner (Through Shri Shailendra Ora) N.M.Dubash Stone &

Lime Company/ Maihar Stone & Lime company Ltd., Satna in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Poojan Singh S/o

Shri Bake Bahadur Singh w.e.f. 31-12-12 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party instead of appearing in reference

proceeding, sent application supported by affidavit that workman has failed to participate in reference proceeding.

2^nd party management appeared through Advocate Shankar Singh and filed application for dismissal of reference

instead of filing ex parte Written Statement. Both the parties have contented that Ist party workman is not prosecuting

his claim under reference. As per the application submitted by 2^nd party, Ist party workman has been superannuated, he

was not terminated from service. That the matter was fixed for verification of contentions of management. Parties have

not appeared. Considering the copies of application by workman started by affidavit and applications submitted by 2^nd

party management, it is clear that no dispute exists between parties. Therefore No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 11@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26011@2@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]

lehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th September, 2016

S.O. 1971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4369

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

09.09.2016.

[No. L-26011/2/2007-IR (M)]

SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2008

The President,

Metal Mines Workers Union,

Dallirajhara,

Durg (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager(Mines),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai Durg (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21^st day of July, 2016

As per letter dated 7-2-08 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-

26011/2/2007-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether demand of Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC), Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (CG) for regularization/

promotion of S/Shri Ashvini Kumar, S.R.Churendra, S.K.Baghel, Tukaram Rangari, N.K.Dutta, A.K.Dutta,

Bala Ram Mankar, K.K.Nuruti to the post of Shovel Operator/Sr.Operator (Excavation), Grade S-6 is legal

and justified? If so, to what relief these workers are entitled to?”

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

Case of Ist party Union is that workers pertaining to the dispute S/Shri Ashvini Kumar, S.R.Churendra, S.K.Baghel,

Tukaram Rangari, N.K.Dutta, A.K.Dutta, Bala Ram Mankar, K.K.Nuruti were engaged for operating excavation in

Dali Mech.Mines. those workers are presently working in different grades shown in the list. Those 8 workers were

regular members of the Union, they were honestly working with the management to the satisfaction of their seniors.

They are covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Those workers have been appointed on vacant post

following procedure procedure. That in Dali Mech Mines, about 23 workers are working for operating excavators.

Management engaged them from different grades. Out of 23 workers, 15 workers are working in Grade S-6 and

remaining 8 workers are working as Grade S-6 but were being paid salary of Grade S-3. That despite of their

satisfactory work, they are not regularized on Grade S-6 post neither they are promoted in said grade, those workers are

working for considerable long time shows that there was regular need of the skilled workers in the department. Action

of the management not paying same salary paid to the regular incumbents in violative of Article 39 of the constitution.

That as per Company’s rules, Shovel has to be operated by the Sr.Operators of S-6 and above grade. That all those 8

workers operating shovel but they are paid emolument of S-3 post, action of management is illegal for violation of

equal pay for equal work. During conciliation proceeding, management had suggested that Union should accept the

offer of 20 % more in the present motivation package for operators involved in the present dispute. That those workers

have acquired experience, they are fully qualified to work on post of Grade S-6 by virtue for their continuity and

experience in the service. They claim regularization/ promotion from S-3 to S-6 with retrospective effect.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that 8 workers related to the

dispute under reference were not appointed for exclusive operation of Excavator, 7 of them were appointed as

Attendants in Cluster A and subsequently selected and upgraded to the higher post of Operative cum Technician in

Cluster B. Shri Ashwani Kumar was initially appointed as OCT. Workmen are required to take care of related jobs and

also acquire knowledge of shovel operation. It is contented that as per Company’s rule, an employee is promoted to

higher post of Senior Operator in S-6 grade in Cluster C only on completion of a minimum period of 3 years of service

in S-5 grade in cluster B on passing trade test for the higher post and on availability of vacancies. Disputed workers

are in S-4 grade. They have not reached S-5 grade yet in their existing cluster. Therefore demand of direct promotion

4370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the post of Senior Operator in S-6 grade which is two grades higher is totally unjustified and in violation of the

company’s promotion policy.

2^nd party further submits that OCT is a job of skilled nature, Sr. Operator (Excavation) is a job of higher skilled

category. An OCT is considered for promotion to the post of Senior Operator (Excavator) on completion of 3 years of

service in S-5 grade and only on passing the trade test. The operation of shovel is a part of the job of OCT as a skilled

workman. That several punishments were imposed against Ashwani Kumar- suspension without wages for two days

vide order dated 13-1-03, (ii) censured on 13-1-03 for the misconduct of remaining absent from duties without prior

permission of sanction of leave for 12 days, (iii) suspension without wages for a period of four days w.e.f. 6-5-03 for

misconduct of remaining absent from duties without prior permission, (iv) reduction of pay by one stage for a period of

two years with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1-2-05, (v) reduction to the minimum basic pay of the pay scale of S-4 grade for

a period of 3 years, (vi) reduction to the minimum basic pay of the ipay scale of S3 grade for a period of one year

without cumulative effect w.e.f. 1-6-06, (vii) Reduction to the minimum basic pay fo pay scale of S3 Grade for a period

of 3 years without cumulative effect w.e.f. 1-12-06, (viii) reduction to the minimum basic pay fo the pay scale of S3

grade for a period of 4 years, (ix) reduction to the minimum basic pay of the pay scale of S3 grade for a period of one

year. Shri B.R.Churendra was imposed (i) warning letter issued on 20-12-04 for stoppage of work and causing loss of

production, (ii) censured on 18-6-06 for misconduct of remaining absent from duties without prior permission, (iii)

charge sheet issued on 16-8-2010 for misconduct of remaining absent from duties without prior permission or sanction

of leave. Shri A.K.Dutta was censured on 11-8-08 for the misconduct of Fraud and dishonesty with the company’s

business and property. Above contentions are reiterated that the disputed workers were not eligible for promotion as per

rules and policy of the company. The disputed claimants are granted amount of Rs.250 per month as per agreement

read with recognized Union dated 25-8-05. Disputant claimants are not entitled for regularization or promotion to the

post of Grade S-6. They are paid extra amount Rs. 250 per month for operation shovel in addition to their emoluments.

Only after completion of 3 years service in S-3 grade, claimants would be absorbed or re-designated in S-6 grade. On

such ground, 2^nd party submits that reference be answered in its favour.

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 demand of Metal Mines Workers Union

(INTUC), Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (CG) for

regularization/ promotion of S/Shri Ashvini Kumar,

S.R.Churendra, S.K.Baghel, Tukaram Rangari,

N.K.Dutta,

A.K.Dutta,

Bala

Ram

Mankar,

K.K.Nuruti

the

post

Shovel

Operator/Sr.Operator (Excavation), Grade S-6 is

legal and justified?

In Negative

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

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to demand of Union for regularization/ promotion of 8 claimants workers

mentioned in the order of reference to S-6 Grade Post. Ist party Union failed to adduced evidence in support of his

claim. Evidence of Ist party is closed on 3-6-2014.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Rohit Kumar supporting contentions of 2^nd party in Written

Statement. Affidavit of management’s witness clearly speaks that as per company’s policy, an employee is promoted/

upgraded to the higher post of Senior Operator in S-6 Grade in Cluster C only on completion of a minimum period of 3

years of service in S-5 grade, in cluster B on passing the trade test for higher post and on availability of vacancies. The

demand for direct promotion to the post of Sr. Operator S-6 grade is unjustified. That OCT is job of skilled nature,

senior operator is job of higher skilled category. An OCT is considered for promotion to the post of Senior Operator

(Excavator) on completion of 3 years service in S-5 grade and only on passing the trade test. The operation of shovel

is part of the job of OCT as a skilled workman. An OCT is required to qualify the trade test for the post of Senior

Operator Excavator and then will be considered for promotion to their higher post of Sr. Operator (Excavator) only

through practical experience of operating a shovel. Affidavit of management’s witness is further devoted about various

punishment imposed against Shri Ashwini Kumar, B.R.Churendra and Shri A.K.Dutta. That disputant claimants are

exposed to shovel operational jobs they are being granted an amount of Rs.250/- per month in accordance with the

agreement reached with the Union on 25-8-05. From evidence of management’s witness documents M-1 to M-5 are

admitted in evidence. In his cross-examination, management’s witness admit that 23 employees are doing work of Sr.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4371

Shovel Opertor. Out of it, 15 are of S-6 Grade, 8 are of S-3 Grade. He denies that employees of S-3 & S-6

Grade are doing similar work. Employees of S-6 Grade are doing highly skilled work. He denies that all the employees

were doing job of operator excavator since their initial appointment. Management’s witness denies that 8 claimants in

S-3 Grade- work of S-6 grade is extracted from them. Management’s witness was unable to tell about vacant post of S-

6 Grade from 25-8-05. Management’s witness admits that documents M-3 to M-15 received by claimants disputant are

not produced.

Exhibit M-1, 1-A to G are appointment orders of claimants dated 30-12-96, 27-6-96, 6-2-96, 7-8-95, 1-10-93,

Exhibit M-2 is order dated 11-10-05 claimant and others were engaged in Shovel Operations allowing to draw Rs.250

per month from 1-8-05. M-3 is order of punishment against Ashwini Kumar. Exhibit M-4 to 13 are the order of

punishment imposed against disputants/claimants. Exhibit M-14 is memorandum issued to Barata Ram Churendra.

Similar set of documents are also produced on record. As evidence of Ist party w.r.t. promotion to the post of Grade S-

6, 3 years working in S-5 Grade and passing trade test is not shattered. Therefore demand of Union is not legal. For

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

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of Union is not legal and proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1972-—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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 27@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@106@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12011/106/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 2007

The General Secretary,

Bank of Baroda Staff Association,

Madhav Bhawan,

15/222A Civil Lines, Kanpur.

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Agra Region,

13 M.G.Road,

Agra.

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12011/106/2006-IR(B-II) dated 01.05.07, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

4372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in imposing the punishment of reduction of three

stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect on Mr. Badam Singh vide order dated 30.10.04 and dismissing

the appeal vide order dated 14.04.05 are just fair and proper? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

Worker’s case in short is that bank issued an illegal and arbitrary charge sheet dated 16.01.04 followed by

corrigendum dated 3.2.04. Enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. Enquiry was conducted in utter

violation of principles of natural justice and the inquiry officer failed to consider the issues raised by the worker and the

witness of the worker were not allowed by the inquiry officer nor was any reason recorded by the inquiry officer in not

allowing the defense witnesses. Worker has raised certain preliminary issue at the start of the inquiry but the same has

not been considered by the enquiry officer. Interested witnesses were examined in the inquiry by the enquiry officer.

Finding of the enquiry officer is perverse as it is not based upon material evidence available on record. The reply of the

worker against the inquiry report has not been considered by the enquiry officer in right perspective. The punishment

awarded to the worker has not been enumerated in the disciplinary rules of the bank and the punishment order passed

by the disciplinary authority is totally non application of mind and without jurisdiction. Accordingly it is prayed that

the punishment awarded to him be set aside.

The opposite party filed its written statement stating therein that the worker had been charged on four counts i.e.

1. You did acts of riotous and indecent behavior in the premises of the bank; 2. You disobeyed the lawful and

reasonable order of your superior; 3. You did acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and 4 you did acts of effecting

the customers service and tarnishing the image of the bank.. The worker on 2.4.13 while working at SB counter as

computer operator ad left the counter at about 10.10 a.m. and approached joint manager and asked for his job rotation

immediately upon which the manager advised him to attend the customers who were waiting at the counter. He did not

follow the advice of the Manager, thereafter the matter was taken up with the Sr. Branch Manager who advised the

worker to go immediately at the seat to attend the customers and the worker was further advised that any discussion

over the matter is required will be discussed later on but the worker did not pay any heed to the instructions of the

branch manager and started thumping with fist the table of the branch manager forcely and uttered following in loud

and violent manner that “NAHI BAITHOONGA NAHI BAITHOONGA NAHI BAITHOONGA TUM MERA KYA

KAR LOGE”, therefore, charge sheet dated 16.1.04 followed by corrigendum dated 3.2.04 was issued to the worker

leveling the above charges against the worker. On the basis of charges inquiry was conducted against the worker and

the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and after issuing show cause notice to the

worker passed final order. Appeal preferred by the worker did not find favor. The witnesses named by the worker were

not the relevant witness and therefore, the inquiry officer rejected the request of the worker to summon witnesses which

is according to the principles of natural justice and no injustice has been done in the matter. The inquiry has been

conducted in fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority

has full jurisdiction to impose punishment upon the worker and the punishment awarded to the worker fully

commensurate with the proved misconduct accordingly the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being devoid of

merit.

Worker has filed rejoinder but nothing new has been narrated therein.

Along with the claim statement worker has filed 9 documents which are in the nature of photocopies.

Management has filed entire enquiry proceedings file in original.

During the domestic inquiry Management examined three witnesses whereas worker has also examined three

witnesses in support of his case.

My predecessor has framed a preliminary issue regarding fairness of inquiry on 5.11.08 and fixed a date for

hearing on the issue. As both the parties agreed not to lead any evidence on preliminary issue, therefore the case was

heard on merit.

10.

A.R. for the management has moved an application paper no. B.1 requesting to decide the issue along with

merit of the case on the ground that the punishment awarded to the worker is reduction of three stages in the time scale

of pay with cumulative effect. Worker did not appear for the last several years. I have heard arguments of A.R. of the

management and perused the records.

11.

The court has to consider whether enquiry conducted against the worker was in accordance with the principal of

natural justice.

12.

On perusal of domestic enquiry file, it appears that worker was charge on four counts amounting to indecent

behavior in the premises of bank and this obedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superior, acts prejudicial to

the interest of bank effecting customer service and issued show cause notice to the worker, paper no. 8/5 which was

replied by the worker paper no. 8/86, wherein he has stated that he requested branch manager for change of his duty

from computer operator and the branch manager assured him to change his duty w.e.f. 1^st April. On 2^nd April 2003 he

again requested for job rotation to joint manager than he took him I the chamber of senior branch manager.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4373

The manager again assured him and asked him to his duty and the worker while returning to his seat, branch manager

felt that the worker is coming to his side. He has not committed any deliberate mistake and if any mistake is committed

by him, he may be excused and he will not give any chance of complaint in future.

13.

Therefore from his explanation it is proved that on 02.04.2003 he was in the chamber of senior branch manager

and gave his submission stating therein, in case he had committed any mistake, he may be excused. Therefore from his

explanation it is proved that the worker on 2.4.03 was present in the chamber of Sr Branch Manager. It appears that

worker had half heartedly accepted the charge in his written submission feeling sorry to what had happened in the

chamber of the senior branch manager.

14.

Management has examined three witnesses in the inquiry who were thoroughly cross examined by the

authorised representative for the worker and thereafter worker has also examined three witnesses in the inquiry in

support of his contention. During the course of inquiry the enquiry officer has rightly refused to summon the called for

witnesses by the worker as their evidence was not considered to be relevant having regard to the allegations leveled

against the worker. By a bare perusal of the inquiry finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the tribunal finds that the

inquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in a fair and proper manner inasmuch as the enquiry officer afforded full

opportunity to the worker in his defense.

15.

The tribunal has also gone through the findings of the enquiry officer and find that the enquiry officer has dealt

with the evidence in a very rational manner and found charges to be proved against the worker. Thereafter show cause

noticed was issued to the worker by the disciplinary authority and after considering the reply of the worker the

disciplinary authority passed his final order finding that all the charges are proved by the enquiring authority imposed

the punishment upon the worker as referred to in the reference order and he also ordered for with drawl of computer

operator allowance. He also gave his concurrent findings and agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer, thereafter

worker has preferred an appeal whim was rejected by the appellate authority,. Therefore, it is held that the inquiry was

conducted by giving every and reasonable opportunity to the worker at every stage which is held to be in accordance

with rules of natural justice and there does not appear any perversity or infirmity in the conduct of inquiry by the

enquiry officer or in the final order read with appellate order passed by the appellate authority. The worker was

working in the bank as computer operator in the bank and in the inquiry senior officers like senior branch manager and

joint manager has stated that worker has started thumping with fist the table of the branch manager and uttered in loud

and violent manner and refused to back on his seat and thereafter other members of the branch by consoling the worker

took outside the chamber of the manager thereafter worker started his work. While in his defense worker himself has

admitted that he went to the chamber of the branch manager along with joint manager meanwhile some body called the

joint manager and when the manager asked him to go on his seat and he went outside through the door,

16.

It is pertinent to mention here that branch manager and other senior officer of the branch were not having any

grudge against the worker therefore there does not appear any reason as to shy th evidence of these senior officer

should not be believed.

17.

Lastly it is held that inquiry against the worker was conducted in a fair and proper manner by the enquiry officer

and there does not appear any infirmity in the findings of the enquiry officer which is held to be just and fair and also

that it is not a case of dismissal from service, therefore, tribunal lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment

awarded to the worker under the provisions of section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such the worker has

rightly been awarded punishment on proved misconduct by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority has

rightly rejected the appeal of the worker finding no merit therein.

18.

Accordingly the worker cannot be held entitled for any relief as prayed by him.

19.

Reference is therefore, decided against the worker / union and in favor of the bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 01@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@75@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

4374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/75/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 01 of 11

Between :

Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta,

Son of M. P. Gupta,

B-28/63, A-1, A-2, Ghosari Tola,

Durga Kund,

Varanasi, U. P.

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Circle Office,

S-20/56D.

The Mall,Cantt,

Varanasi, U. P.

221002

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-12012/75/2010-IR (B-II) dated 20/30.12.2010 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank Varanasi in awarding punishment of compulsory

retirement from service to Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, Special Assistant Bhadohi Branch with effect from 30.12.09 is

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed on the post of clerk and considering his performance he

was assigned the duties of greater risk and was posted as special assistant on permanent basis at Branch Office Bhadohi

in the year 2006.

The worker was illegally kept under suspension vide order dated 23.06.06 in contemplation of disciplinary

proceedings and after two years from the date of suspension on 11.06.08, the circle head issued a charge sheet to the

worker which is dated 11.06.08. The allegations that were leveled against the worker are that he exerted undue pressure

on employee and manager of the bank for making entries in his account and thereafter removing vouchers from the

bank and utilizing the amount. It is also alleged that along with the charge sheet bank has not furnished the basis of

charge sheet to the applicant for giving his explanation so also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in

his defense. The worker by his application dated 24.06.06 moved before the disciplinary authority had stated that the

charge sheet is incomplete as it does not furnish the full particulars of the charges and that the disciplinary authority has

abdicated his statutory function of preparing a list as contemplated in relevant rules in favor of the presenting officer. It

is also alleged that the charge is based merely on suspicion as the disciplinary authority does not have the material on

which charges are supposed to be based with him when h issued the charge sheet.

The Assistant General Manager all of a sudden assumed the power of disciplinary authority ad without giving

proper opportunity to the worker to defend his case and submit an explanation to the charge sheet as requested by him

and application dated 29.09.08 conveying his decision to hold departmental inquiry and appointed the inquiry officer

and presenting officer in the case. During the course of domestic inquiry the worker has denied the charges leveled

against him. Bank during the course of inquiry has not produced any person or oral witness in support of the charges,

therefore, in the eyes of law there was no evidence.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4375

The enquiry officer, has performed the role of prosecutor than that of a judge as he has advanced arguments

which ought to have been advanced by the presenting officer in order to prove the allegations. There are basic errors,

irregularities, violation of principles of natural jutice and rules governing the inquiry and appreciation made by the

enquiry officer in his report have not been independent.

The Disciplinary authority issued notice along with the report of the enquiry officer and directed to the worker to

submit his submissions. From the enquiry report it is clear that inquiry officer has proved only two charges against the

worker. The finding of the inquiry officer is perverse.

After considering the submission of the worker preferred by him before the disciplinary authority after receipt of

the enquiry report the disciplinary authority on 31.07.2009 issued show cause proposing tentative punishment to be

awarded on the worker .e. to award punishment of compulsory retirement from service and thereafter the disciplinary

authority by order dated 30.12.09 has confirmed the punishment as proposed by him in the show cause notice. As such

punishment of compulsory retirement is wholly illegal, unjust arbitrary and against the provisions of Bipartite

Settlement as also against the principles of natural justice. The appeal preferred by the worker was also dismissed by

the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.03.2010.

Thus the worker has prayed that the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Varanasi in awarding

punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.12.2009 is liable to be held as unjustified and

opposite parties may very kindly be directed to reinstate the worker in the service of the bank with all back wages and

consequential benefits, rights and privileges for which the worker has been entitled had the above punishment been not

passed against the worker. The worker is also entitled to all such benefits as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems proper in the

interest of justice.

10.

The Bank has filed its written statement denying the whole allegations of the worker pleaded in his claim

petition. However, it is admitted by the bank the worker was suspended, he was issued charge sheet, enquiry was

conducted against him by the enquiry officer, he was issued show cause notice, his reply was considered by the

disciplinary authority with open mind and thereafter the proposed punishment was confirmed by the disciplinary

authority and appeal too was rejected by the Appellate Authority as pleaded by the worker.

11.

It is also alleged by the bank that during the course of domestic enquiry the worker had been given full and

adequate opportunity of his defense by the enquiry officer. It is denied by the bank that charge sheet is illegal as no

supporting documents were enclosed therewith because provisions of Bipartite Settlement do not so provide. The

presenting officer submitted documents marked as ME-1 to ME-15 in support of the charges. It is also pleaded by the

bank that the documents once accepted by other side need not be proved. It is also denied by the Bank that Enquiry

Officer had ever acted like a prosecutor. The Disciplinary Authority has legally and rightly passed the punishment

order and the same fully commensurate considering with the gravity of charges found proved against the worker. The

appellate authority after due consideration to the points raised by the worker in his appeal has rightly rejected the

appeal.

12.

In the last, it is submitted that the claim petition is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

13.

The management to substantiate their pleadings has filed completed enquiry proceedings before this tribunal out

of which some documents are in orginal and some are the photocopies.

14.

Considering the pleading of the parties, this tribunal by order dated 24.03.15 had framed a preliminary issue to

the effect whether enquiry conducted by management is fair and proper?

15.

This Tribunal by order dated 01.05.2015 decided the issue holding that enquiry conducted by the management

against the worker is neither just nor legal and accordingly the management was given opportunity to prove the

charges.

16.

After recording evidence of the MW-1 on 14.10.15, the management moved application for adducing evidence of

more witnesses upon which management was directed to submit list of witnesses before the tribunal by 26.11.15.

Management however, has not submitted any list of witnesses but examined MW-2 8.12.15 and closed its evidence.

Thereafter, the worker Santosh Kumar Gupta filed his affidavit in evidence on 01.01.2016 who was cross examined on

27.01.2016. Worker also did not adduce any other evidence in his defense.

17.

On perusal of records it appears that charges leveled against the worker in charge sheet paper no. 3/8 are as

under-

While you working on 30.01.06 at branch office Bhadohi by using undue pressure upon Gur Prasad you got

deposited Rs.17481.01 in your OD Account No. 1236009400015083 and the said amount was not

authorized by the competent officer despite that you created pressure upon Sri S K Jain you got passed the

4376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

amount from him and thereafter you removed the voucher of the said amount and you also utilized the said

amount which was got deposited in your account authorizedly.

On 01.06.06 you by creating under pressure upon Sri Basant Lal at Bhadohi Branch got deposited Rs.

7634.28 in your OD A/c No. 1236009400015995 by transfer entry whih was not authorized by the

competent officer despite that you by using undue pressure upon Sri S K Jain Manager you got passed the

amount deposited in your account and later you utilized this amount and removed the concerned vouchers.

Apart from above, you also removed vouchers of dated 30.01.05 for Rs.27940.29, dated 30.01.06 by

Rs.1283.00, dated 30.01.06 for Rs. 11772.34, dated 01.06.06 for Rs.3880.00 and dated 01.06.06 for

Rs.3754.00.

Thus, you committed gross misconduct under para 5(d), 5(i) and 5(j) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.02.

18.

Tribunal has heard arguments of both the sides and have gone through the whole record carefully. It is pertinent

to mention here that the relevancy of the documents filed by the management shall be discussed at the appropriate

stage.

19.

Learned Authorized Representative for the worker argued that worker has no authority to post or pass the

voucher in his favour and there is no evidence on record that he pressurized branch manger Sri S K Jain for passing

voucher in his favour nor a subordinate staff can ever pressurized or compel his senior for the same. Moreover, when

he was informed that the money was wrongly created in his account, he felt sorry and deposited the same without any

compulsion. Further he has argued that there is no evidence on record nor he has ever admitted that he removed the

vouchers from the bank. It is also the contention that during the course of domestic enquiry no witness was examined

and without examination of Sri S K Jain in evidence during enquiry or before this Tribunal, it cannot be presumed that

that he has pressurized the persons or officers named in the charge sheet. Learned Authorized Representative for

worker also empathically argued that the then Branch Manager Sri S K Jain was also given a charge sheet by the bank

and after domestic enquiry he was held liable for passing the vouchers in favor of the worker without ensuring its

genuineness and without verifying it. And the branch manager was also punished on this count.

20.

Learned Authorized Representative for the management has contended that worker Sri S K Gupta, got the

vouchers posted by Sri Basant Lal M.W.1 and got it passed by pressurizing the then branch manager Sri S K Jain

fraudulently. He further contended that he has examined two witnesses before this tribunal to prove the charges leveled

against the worker. But he has not disputed the fact that the charge sheet was also issued to Sri S K Jain for passing the

vouchers in favor of the worker Sri S K Gupta without verifying its genuineness and after domestic inquiry branch

manager Sri S K Jain was found responsible and suitably punished by the management for the above said irregularly

passing the vouchers.

21.

As it was held by the tribunal that the domestic inquiry held against the worker was neither just nor proper and

management was given opportunity to lead evidence before this tribunal for proving the charges against the worker and

the management has examined only two witnesses as referred to above.

22.

Now it is to be seen whether on the basis of evidence adduced by the management before this tribunal

management has been able to prove the charge against the worker or not.

23.

On perusal of statements M.W.1 Basant and M.W.2 Sanjay Bahadur it is evident that they have not given any

statement regarding removal of vouchers from the records of the bank by the worker. They have not uttered a single

word in this regard therefore, charge relating to the removal of relevant vouchers by the worker is not found proved.

24.

As far as other charges are concerned M.W.1 has stated that he was posted at Bhadohi Branch in the yaar 2008.

As far as he remember that during the service period on 01.06.06 Sri S K Gupta came to him asking for posting the

vouchers because he is in nee of money. He was doing some work Sri Gupta had requested him to stop the work and

got posted vouchers. He had further proved paper no. 16./36 statement of account of S K Gupta showing credit of

Rs.7634.28 on 01.06.06.He has further proved the letter dated 17.06.06 given by Sri S K Jain branch manager to Chief

Manager, which shows that Sri S K Jain the then branch manager has written in reply to the letter of chief manager

dated 14.and 16.06.06 informing him that Sri S K Gupta came to him several times for passing vouchers for Rs.3880/-

and Rs.3754.28 and thereafter again on 30.01.06 he came to him for passing the vouchers and requested to pardon him

for the mistake committed by him. This witness has further proved copy of voucher paper no. 16/25-26 showing that an

amount of Rs.7634.28 was debited from the account of Sri S. K. Gupta and further proved letter of worker Sri S K

Gupta that he received Sthappan Bhatta arrear of Rs. 17461 and Rs. 7634.28 on 30.01.06. He has utilized Rs.17461.00

Now it is to be seen how this mistake was committed but in the interest of the bank the amount may be appropriated

and he be given arrears of allowances and he may be excused if any mistake is committed. In his cross examination he

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4377

has deposed that it is correct that whatever work is done by him, its genuineness is seen by seniors and they will not

verify it if any mistake is found.

25.

It is clear that witness M.W.1 was examined after more than 9 years of the incident. He cannot supposed to

remember actually what happened on 01.01.06 Further he has stated in his evidence that he is giving his evidence on

the basis of his memory. It was his prime duty to post the vouchers after seeing the record whether the amount given in

voucher is actually due on the bank in favour of worker as arrears and without seeing any calculations chart regarding

arrears he posted the voucher and in the same manner S ri S K Jain , the then branch manager had passed it who was

also punished for the above act. Had Sri Basant Lal and the then branch manager checked the calculation chart and

remained vigilant in their work voucher of the amounts in question would not have been posted and passed. This

witness has not given any evidence showing that Sri S K Gupta worker had ever put undue pressure on him or on the

then branch manager Sri S K Jain for posting and passing the vouchers.

26.

Management has further examined M.W.2 Sanjay Bahadur who was the presenting officer of the domestic

inquiry conducted against Sri S K Gupta, he had stated about the proceedings of the domestic inquiry but it is not

relevant to discuss as has already been held to be not just and fair by this tribunal. Secondly he is not a witness of fact

hence not relevant to prove the fact alleged in the charge sheet. But has proved paper no. 16/23 dated 16.06.06,

showing Sri S K Gupta has transferred the amount Rs.17461.01 by debit voucher and in this way adjusted the amount

received by him. He has admitted in his cross examination that he was not posted at the branch during the incident. He

has further admitted that it is the duty of the officers to see whether the entries in debit and credit vouchers are correct

or not at the time of passing the vouchers therefore, from the evidence of this witness it is apparent that he was not

posted in the branch where the incident took place and h was simply presenting officer in domestic inquiry against the

worker and he had admitted that the amount of arrears received by the worker stands appropriated by the worker. As

such from his evidence only this much is established that the amount received by the worker got deposited and adjusted

by him and the officer of the bank is responsible for passing the relative vouchers.

27.

Worker S K Gupta has examined himself as w.w.1 who has stated that he received the amount as arrears of8th

Bipartite Settlement and the officers by entering into conspiracy and in order to conceal the material evidence removed

the vouchers to falsely inculpate him in some misconduct and got issued illegal charge sheet to him by the senior

officers of the bank. He has further stated that the amount received by him was adjusted by the bank. In his cross

examination he supported his version and nothing has come from his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence.

28.

On considering the evidence led by the parties and the documents produced by the management and as discussed

above it is found in this case that official of the bank Basant Lal of the bank had posted the voucher in favor of the

worker which were passed by the then branch manager without perusing as to whether the amount mentioned in the

voucher is actually due to worker by way of arrears of pay or not and did not bothered to see any calculation chart and

without seeing the genuineness of the vouchers and without verifying the amount credited the account of the worker Sri

S K Gupta. Worker has also been charged for removing the vouchers and the said charges were not proved. On the

contrary worker has alleged that these vouchers were released by the bank officer just to involve him in a false case. As

the amount credited in the account of the worker has been debited by the bank, therefore, bank has not suffered any

financial loss. Worker S K Gupta was not having any seat in the bank to post and pass the vouchers and the alleged

illegal act was not done by the worker in crediting the amount in his account but it is done by the bank official and the

then branch manager. Management has further failed to prove that worker has pressurized any of official or branch

manager in posting and passing the vouchers and it is not denied by the management that branch manager was punished

after domestic inquiry for passing the voucher in favor of the worker. If branch manager was innocent he would not

have been punished. Thus there appears no role of the worker as given in the charge sheet as well as in passing and

posting of relevant vouchers.

29.

From the above discussion of evidence, documentary and oral it is proved that the bank has palpably failed to

prove the charges leveled against the worker. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to Sri S K

Gupta is set aside being illegal and bad in law.

30.

Consequently it is held that the action of the management of Punjab National Bank Varanasi in awarding

punishment of compulsory retirement from service to Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, Special Assistant with effect from

30.12.09 is neither justified nor legal and therefore, worker Sri S K Gupta is held entitled for reinstatement in the

service of the bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits. In case he had attained the age of

superannuation he will b entitled to receive full back wages seniority and all consequential benefits o the premises as h

had never been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank.

31.

Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the worker and against the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 10@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@167@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/167/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 10 of 2002

Between :

Sri Sanjay Kumar Awasthi,

62/201 Harbans Mohal,

Kanpur – 208001

And

The Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank,

Circle Office,

04 Sapru Marg,

Lucknow – 226001.

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no.L-12012/167/2000-IR(B-II) dated 02.03.2001, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in discharging from service with superannuation benefits

and without disqualification from future employment to the workman Sanjay Kumar Awasthi clerk cum typist vide

order dated 03.03.97 and appellate order dated 16.12.97 were legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is

entitled?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed by the bank as clerk cum typist and joined Paldi Branch

on 01.08.88 at Ahmedabad and later on he was transferred to Lucknow and joined in S.R. Section Circle Office,

Lucknow on 21.01.93. He was temporarily deployed to Kanpur Overseas Branch from 17.07.95 to 22.07.95 and he was

ordered to report back on 24.07.95. While working at Kanpur Overseas Branch on 21.07.95 he received a telephonic

massage through branch manager at 4.00 p.m. about the serious illness of his son and death of his one relative. While

tallying the cash workman found excess cash of Rs.1.50 lacs and cause of excess cash could not be detected by him

despite his serious and sincere efforts. The workman informed the branch manager about the excess of Rs.1.50 lacs and

requested for vouching the same so that cash may be closed and he may proceed for his home to arrange treatment for

his ailing son. The branch manager asked the worker to keep the excess cash separately in his cash cabin and deliver

the keys to the joint custodians of the cash. The worker handed over the keys to Sri R Sampath the first key holder of

the double lock who checked the cash and found correct and thereafter he left the branch. He reported back to circle

office Lucknow on 24.07.95. The worker vide his reply dated 04.10.95 informed the bank that he was nowhere at fault

and there was no financial loss to the bank and he had done everything rightly, correctly and under good faith.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4379

By order dated 02.03.96, he was placed under suspension by the authorities of the bank and was also served with

a lengthy chare sheet dated 12.04.96 stating that the worker caused willful damage to the property of the bank and had

thereby committed gross misconduct of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank. He submitted his

reply dated 03.06.96 refuting the allegation of charges. Enquiry and Presenting officers were appointed. During inquiry

the bank produced four witnesses one was formal who had conducted the investigation into the matter and three

witnesses S/Sri A K Asthana, R. Sampath and B.N. Ramaswamy were the delinquent officers connected with the

charges. The bank also withheld the first hand information submitted by the branch manager to the controlling office.

The bank did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the charges leveled against him. Sri Sukhlal

was the independent eye witness of fact but the management could not take out anything otherwise from his mouth.

The enquiry officer submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority who proposed the punishment of discharge to

facilitate lenient punishments for the real delinquents and after granting personal hearing to the worker discharged the

worker from the service vide punishment order dated 03.03.97. Against the order of the punishment the worker

preferred an appeal which too was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 16.12.97. In the meantime the

bank imposed penalty of censure upon the other three delinquent officers.

The worker has challenged the inquiry conducted by the bank on a number of ground viz., inquiry officer acted

like prosecutor, disciplinary authority did not apply its mind properly to the evidence and circumstances of the case

while concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority before imposing the punishment

sought instructions from chief vigilance officer who is superior to him and thereafter acted at his whims and fancies;

there was nothing on record documentary or oral that workman ws given excess cash in the morning but the inquiry

officer and disciplinary authority erred in presuming the same.

Therefore, the worker on the basis of above has prayed that the action of the bank in imposing penalty of

discharge from service of the bank and upheld by the appellate authority be set aside and the worker be reinstated in the

service of the bank with full back wages, continuity of service and with all consequential benefits.

The worker with his claim petition has also filed photocopies of certain documents from 7/21-115.

The management filed its reply in which the allegation of the worker has been denied on a variety of grounds. On

21.07.93 the worker was working at overseas branch of the bank at Kanpur as cashier. In the morning Sri R Sampath

and B N Ramaswamy who were the key holders have handed over to the claimant a cash of Rs.6,55,950/- which was

taken out from the double lock and the same was duly acknowledged by the worker. However inadvertently the key

holders have handed over to the worker 6133 pieces of notes of Rs.50 denomination instead of 3133 amounting to a

total sum of Rs.8,05,950/-. As such the worker had taken / received excess cash of Rs.1.50 lacs in the denomination of

Rs.50/- which was not recorded. The claimant with a view to misappropriate the said amount did not disclose the above

facts to the bank officials and on the said date the worker left the branch at about 4.00 p.m. after obtaining permission

to attend some personal work. In the evening on the same day while keeping the closing cash inside the double lock and

while physically verifying the cash balance in the double lock, a shortage of Rs.1.50 lacs in the rupees 50/-

denomination was noticed by the key holders and a search was immediately made in the branch premises and in the

search process Rs.50,000/- in Rs.50/- denomination was recovered from the drawer of the cash cabin where the

claimant had kept the cash.

The Manager Sri A K Asthana along with other staff members rushed to the house of the worker and on finding it

locked left a message at the house advising him to come to the branch immediately on his return. At about 9.30 p.m. on

the same day the worker has come to the branch. He was informed about the cash shortage and other things. On being

enquired by the bank officials the claimant took the manager and other staff members to is house and returned to the

branch carrying Rs.1,00,000/- in a shoulder bag and had returned the amount which makes it quite clear that the

claimant has misappropriated the above amount and as such committed a gross misconduct.

10.

Under the circumstances of the case a departmental proceeding was initiated against the worker in which the

worker duly participated. The worker was defended by the representative of his choice and he has cross examined the

management witnesses. During the inquiry the worker was given full opportunity of defence. A proper and fair inquiry

was conducted and all the provisions of natural justices were duly complied with. The charges were fully proved in the

inquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding the worker guilty of the

charges. After providing copy of the inquiry report along with show cause notice and after considering the reply of the

worker and after providing him personal hearing in the matter passed final order of discharge from the service of the

bank against the worker. Appeal of the worker was also dismissed by order dated 16.2.97. It is also alleged by the

opposite party that Canara Bank Service Code which is in consonance with the bipartite settlement is applicable to the

claimant. As per Chapter XI Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 20(1) of the said Canara Bank Service Code, the Deputy

General Manager of the Circle and General Manager of Head Office, Personal Wing are the disciplinary authority and

the appellate authority respectively for the worker as such the action taken by them are legally valid and within

authority.

4380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

Lastly it is stated that the claim petition of the worker be rejected being devoid of merit.

12.

Management vide application dated 11.09.2001 has filed photocopies of 31 document.

13.

On perusal of records it appears that my predecessor had framed two preliminary issues as follows on 11.09.01.

Whether the domestic inquiry culminating into punishment to the worker was proper and fair?

ii.

Whether the findings of the inquiry officer suffers with vice of perversity?

14.

By order dated 18.12.01 preliminary issue no. (i) was decided in favor of the worker and it was held that

domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and the management was given opportunity to prove the charges before the

tribunal and it was also observed that preliminary issue no. ii on the point of perversity of finding does not need

deliberation as domestic inquiry was held to be not fair and proper.

15.

This order was challenged by the management before Hon’ble High Court in writ petition no. 617 of 02 which

was dismissed in default of the petitioner by the Hon’ble Court by order dated 22.01.13, thereafter Hon’ble High Court

in Misc Single No. 617/02 by order dated allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the tribunal, meaning

thereby that domestic inquiry conducted by the management was held just and proper and it was left open for the

tribunal to consider preliminary issue no. ii which was not considered on account of finding recorded by the tribunal on

first preliminary issue.

16.

On 02.11.15, both the authorized representatives of the parties have moved joint application with the prayer that

issue no.2 may be decided along with the merit of the case.

17.

As preliminary issue regarding fairness of the inquiry was decided in favor of the management none of the parties

led any oral evidence.

18.

I have heard the parties representatives at length and have gone through the findings recorded by the inquiry

officer in the domestic inquiry at length.

19.

As preliminary inquiry has been held to be just and fair now it is to be seen whether the findings of the inquiry

officer are based on the evidence recorded during the inquiry are perverse and whether disciplinary authority has

committed any error or illegality in concurring with the inquiry report and whether the orders passed by the appellate

authority is legal and justified or not.

20.

Paper no. 7/20-23 is charge sheet issued to the charge sheeted employee (hereinafter to be referred as CSE).

According to charge leveled against CSE is that on 27.07.95 he was entrusted with the work of cashier at the branch.

As per the cash register the closing cash in double lock on previous day i.e.20.07.95 was Rs.3537980/- and on 21.07.95

he had acknowledged the receipt of cash taken out from the double lock is Rs.655950/-. On the same day at about 1.00

p.m. he had indented further cash and a sum of Rs.280000/- was taken out from the double lock and was handed over to

him. On the said day he had made 22 payments amounting to Rs.691230/- and one receipt of Rs.33/- At the end of the

day he had handed over the closing cash to the cash officer amounting to Rs.244050/- and after handing the cash he had

left the branch at 4.00 p.m. obtaining permission to attend some personal work. In the evening of the same day while

physically verifying the cash balance in the double lock a shortage of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Rs.50’s denomination were

noticed by the key holder. It was found that at the time of handing over cash to him an excess of Rs.1, 50,000/- was

hand over to him. Thereafter a search was made immediately n the branch premises and in the process Rs.50, 000/- in

Rs.50’s denomination was recovered from the cash drawer of the cash cabin where it had been kept by him. The

manager Sri A K Asthana, along with other staff members had then rush to his house and finding it locked left with

message requesting him to come to the branch immediately on return. He returned to the branch at 9.30 p.m. on the

same day and on being told about the cash shortage. He had taken the manager and other staff to his house and returned

to the branch carrying a shoulder bag and handed over Rs.1,00,000/- in the denomination Rs.500x1 and Rs.100x995.

This amount was kept in double lock after making necessary entries. This shortage of Rs.1,00,000/- in Rs.50’s

denomination in the closing has been subsequently shown as put into double lock by making entry of Rs.500x1 and

Rs.100x995. He has deliberately and with ulterior motive suppressed the excess cash dishonestly and not in the best

interest of the bank and thereby committed gross misconduct.

21.

On perusal of domestic inquiry and report of inquiry report of inquiry officer it appears that management has

examined 4 witnesses in domestic inquiry comprising of M.W.1 Sri R. Sampat, M.W.2, Sri B.L. Ramaswamy, M.W.3

Sri A K Asthana, Branch Manager and M.W.4 Sri V. Ramesh Kumar, Manager and investigating officer and the

presenting officer has relied upon investigation report M.E.1, Cash Register M.E.2, Cash Book M.E.3, Double Lock

Asthana, B.N. Ramaswamy, R. Sampat and oral submission of Sri P S Bajpai respectively and ME-7 to 10 were relied

upon by the presenting officer in domestic inquiry. On behalf of worker D.W.1 Sri Sukhlal has been examined and the

worker has not examined himself as defence witness.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4381

22.

Inquiry officer in his report has submitted that on 21.07.95 Sri S K Awasthi CSE was entrusted with the work of

cash and while working out the cash from double lock an excess amount of Rs.1500000/- in 50’s denomination were

received by the CSE. CSE with ulterior motive suppressed the fact of receipt of excess cash. CSE has left the bank with

permission and after his leaving the bank it was detected that excess cash of Rs.1500000/- was given to the CSE out of

which Rs.50, 000/- was recovered from the last drawer of the cash cabin which was kept by CSE and the balance

Rs.100000/- in cash was taken out by CSE to his house who has misappropriated the amount. Branch Manager along

with staff visited his house and it was found locked. Then they left the message for him and thereafter CSE visited the

branch at about 9.30 p.m. with a shoulder bag from his house containing Rs.1,00,000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- and

Rs.100/- The matter was investigated by M.W.4 Sri V Ramesh Kumar who has also found after investigation that CSE

has received Rs.150000/- in excess in the denomination of Rs.50’s and failed to report the same.

23.

Sri R Sampat M.W.1 has stated in inquiry that an excess payment of Rs.150000/- was made to the CSE from

double lock. He also supported the version how the amount of Rs.150000/- was recovered who stated that Rs.50,00/-

was recovered from the last drawer of cash cabin in 50’s denomination and Rs.1,00000/- was returned by the CSE

brought in a shoulder bag from his residence in the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.100x995. This fact has also been

supported by M.W.2 B N Ramaswamy who has also replied in his cross examination stating that if I had been in CSE’s

position I would have informed the excess payment to the officer of the branch. Besides this S K Asthana M.W.3 has

also supported the version of other witness as to how the recovery of Rs.150000/- was made. The witnesses of the

management have also proved the documents filed and relied upon by the presenting officer.

24.

Besides defense witness Sri Sukh Lal who was working in the bank as sub staff had admitted that 21.07.95 while

putting the cash in double lock there was some difference in the cash. He also stated that officers of the bank have

visited the house of CSE and returned after 2 hours then they visited cash cabin an found 2 bundles of cash in the

denomination of 50 and 100. Then the branch was closed and he went to his house. Therefore, this fact is also admitted

to the defence witness that Rs.50000/- was recovered from the drawer of cash cabin and thereafter he left the bank.

25.

On the basis of evaluation of oral as well as documentary evidence, inquiry officer found charge leveled against

CSE as proved and CSE has deliberately suppressed th fact with the ulterior motive of misappropriating the amount an

held CSE to be guilty of the charge.

26.

Thus it is found that no other opinion other than opined by the inquiry officer is possible to be arrived at

considering the facts ad circumstances of the case as it was the duty of the CSE to have informed the officers of the

branch of having receipt of excess payment of Rs.150000/-, from double lock and by keeping Rs.50,000/- in the last

drawer of his cash cabin and returning Rs.1,00,000/- in different denomination after being called by the branch

manager further confirms the malafide intention of CSE to misappropriate the amount.

27.

Therefore, it is held that the inquiry officer has not committed any error or illegality in recording his findings as

such it cannot be said that the inquiry findings suffers from infirmity or is perverse.

28.

Tribunal has also examined the final order of punishment given to the worker as also the appellate order passed

by the appellate authority and find that these authorities have taken a lenient view by imposing the punishment of

discharge with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment. As such orders of the

appellate authority also cannot be said to be suffering from bias.

29.

Therefore in result it is held that the action of the management of Canara Bank in discharging from service with

superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment to the workman Sanjai Kumar Awasthi

clerk cum Typist by order dated 3.3.97 an appellate order dated 16.12.97 are legal an justified and worker is not entitled

to any relief.

30.

Reference is therefore answered against the worker and in favor of the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1975-—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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 11@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@73@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

4382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/73/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 11 of 2012

Between :

Sri Ram Kumar Rathore,

Son of late Amar Nath Rathore,

House No. 37/35 Gilish Bazar,

Kanpur.

And

Assistant General Manager (Kanpur Area),

Bank of Baroda,

118/33 Kaushalpuri,

Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12012/73/2011-IR(B-II) dated 23.01.2012 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Kanpur/Lucknow in imposing the punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits upon Sri Ram Kumar Rathore, Head Cashier, Bhitargaon Branch,

District Kanpur vide order dated 05.03.09 and dated 17.06.2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?

The applicant while posted at Bhitargaon Branch of the bank and FIR was lodged by the bank and later on he was

placed under suspension vide order dated 29.10.2007. It is also alleged that the suspension of the applicant was illegal

as the authority that had suspended him i.e. Deputy General Manager was not the competent authority in respect of the

worker who admittedly belongs to award staff of the bank. Subsequently he was served with a charge sheet by the said

authority in his capacity as disciplinary authority against provision of paragraph 16 of Bipartite settlement dated

10.04.2002. An inquiry was ordered without affording to submit his explanation and without considering the same in

terms of paragraph 1 of the said settlement. The inquiry commenced on 27.03.08 and was concluded on 22.08.08 by the

enquiry officer and thereafter he submitted his inquiry report on 15.09.2008 to the Asstt. General Manager Kanpur

Region of the Bank, who in the capacity of disciplinary authority who forwarded a copy of inquiry report to the worker

for submitting his comments over the same thereafter a show cause notice dated 28.01.09 proposing punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and or provident fund and gratuity as would be due

otherwise under the rules and without disqualification from future employment and he was granted a perfunctory

personal hearing where after he inflicted the punishment order as was proposed by order dated 05.03.09 against which

the applicant preferred an appeal which too was rejected by order dated 17.06.09 by the disciplinary authority. On the

basis of above the applicant has assailed the action of the bank on a number of grounds viz. that after lodging of FIR

over the same alleged acts as contained in the charge sheet no inquiry proceedings can be held in terms of para 4 of

Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.02 till one year and as the same was instituted on 27.03.08 after lodging FIR, the same

is illegal and deserves to be set aside; mere issuance of charge sheet cannot be held to be the basis of holding the

inquiry unless reply to the charge sheet is given by the charge sheeted employee and found to be unsatisfactory,

therefore, the inquiry is illegal and deserves to be set aside; there was denial of natural justice in the course of inquiry

and after quoting instances of violation of natural justice worker has prayed that the punishment inflicted upon him as

upheld by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold the action as

referred to in the reference order as illegal and unjust and the applicant be reinstated in the service of the bank with full

back wages and all consequential benefits.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4383

Bank filed written statement in which it is alleged that the worker left the cash cabin on 13.10.07 without locking

the door and handing over the keys to some other employee and he was charged for major as well as minor misconduct.

It is also alleged that the worker took with him Rs.230100/- from the bank’s cash and returned the money to the bank

on 5.11.07; inquiry was instituted in the matter against the worker to find out the correctness of the allegations as

leveled in the charge sheet and after conclusion of inquiry and considering the reply of the worker tentative punishment

as proposed was confirmed by the disciplinary authority and the same was also upheld by the appellate authority;

disciplinary authority issued charge sheet to the worker on 7 counts, inquiry in the matter was started and after

considering the consent of both the parties the same was finally concluded after following the rules of natural justice;

FIR that has been lodged by the bank has no relation in the matter of charge sheet; fair and proper inquiry was

conducted against the worker and he was rightly awarded punishment by the disciplinary authority for proved charges.

Therefore, there arises no question of interference in the same at the hands of this tribunal.

Rejoinder has also been filed in the case in which nothing new has been described by the worker.

After exchange of pleading between the parties a preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic inquiry was

framed by the tribunal by order dated 23.10.13.

The worker moved an application on 09.04.15 requesting therein that fairness of the inquiry is not being

challenged by him therefore it was held that the inquiry held against the worker was just and fair.

Worker by application dated 24.09.13 has filed 17 documents which are in the nature of photocopies and again by

application dated 13.2.15 has again filed 9 papers and against the same the management by application dated 19.05.15

has filed 3 documents and also by application dated 14.10.15 and 19.08.15 two more documents were filed by the

management, the relevancy of these documents will be considered at the appropriate stage.

I have heard parties representative and have perused the record of the case.

10.

As discussed above, worker has not challenged the fairness of domestic inquiry and on his application inquiry

conducted against him has been held to be fair and proper.

11.

Now in this case it is to be seen whether on the evidence collected by enquiry officer in domestic inquiry whether

charges stands proved or not.

12.

Now coming to the charge sheet which is paper no.12/3-4 it reveals that several charges were framed for minor

and major misconduct. 1^st charge is framed regarding leaving branch premises without closing the cash at about 12.30

p.m. without permission or information and did not return to office on 13.10.07 while working as head cashier at

Bhitergaon Branch of the Bank. Other charges from 2 to 5 are regarding un-authorizedly leaving branch without

completing the work without locking the door of cash cabin from outside, without locking drawer of cash cabin and

without handing over the keys of cash safe and the cash is in his possession. 6^th charge is regarding checking of cash at

his counter and a shortage of Rs.230100/- was detected in the amount of cash in his tilt at the counter and the 7^th charge

is regarding cash shortage of Rs.230100/- was detected and debited to G.L. suspense account and the days cash counter

be closed on that date.

13.

He has not submitted any reply to the charges and inquiry was conducted and FIR was lodged against him.

14.

It has come in the inquiry that the amount found short by Rs.23000/- was deposited by worker on 5.11.07 though

DD No.464780 dated 2.11.07 of Vijaya Bank as is clear by paper o.18/1 application of worker given to the branch

manager and same application for depositing the short amount Rs.230100/- was made to the branch manager by his

sons on same day i.e. 05.11.07. Therefore, it is also evident that the worker ha deposited the amount without any protest

or condition. He has not challenged his default for the shortage of amount but he has simply moved application for

depositing the amount along with demand draft. If he was not responsible for shortage of amount of Rs.230100/- he

would have given the reasons in the application dated 05.11.07 for depositing the amount or would have deposited the

amount under protest.

15.

Now coming to the evidence recorded in the domestic inquiry.

16.

Management has examined 4 witnesses. M.W.1 Govind Ji Pandey branch manager has proved the letter sent by

him to DGM, Bank of Baroda same day wherein it is mentioned that at about 1.00 p.m. head cashier Sri Ram Kumar

Rathore suddenly left h cabin with open cash and key of cash and escaped from the branch. Customers have

complained about this ad bank officials went in market and other possible places in search of worker, but he was not

found. Thereafter, in the presence of all the employees cash was counter and a shortage of rs.2,30,100/- was detected.

FIR was registered and when his son was contacted he told that Sri Rathore has taken some piosoness thing at Naubasta

House and they are taking him to Hallet Hospital. Some customers have found him going away with a bag. He also

4384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stated that Sri R K Rathore had deposited the amount of rs.230100/- by demand draft dated 2.1.07 which is paper

no.22/14.

17.

In his cross-examination he has admitted that cash was counted at about 2.30-3.00 p.m.

18.

M.W.2 Sri Nagendra Kumar has also supported the charges. He also stated that at about 11.15 a.m. Rs.3,00,000/-

were taken out from cash and about 12.15 p.m. customers were complaining delay in payment. At the time of opening

the cash Sri Rathore had told him that he had to go to attend natural call then Mr. Jai Ram Singh has told him that Mr.

Rathore had gone by keeping his bag across the counter and taking the same with him.

19.

In his cross-examination he stated that as per his statement cash of Rs.3,00,000/- from joint reserved and he , Mr.

Rathore and peon Mr. Udai went to take out the cash and head cashier was required to make entry in joint ledger book.

He has further admitted that shortage of Rs.2,30,100/- was made good by depositing D.D.

20.

M.W.3 Manish Kumar Singh Computer Operator has also supported the version of MW.1 and 2.

21.

M.W.4 Jai Pal Singh has also been examined.

22.

Charged employee examined DW.2 Dr J S Sachan who has stated that Sri Rathore was brought to hospital and it

was suspected to be case of poisoning and he was referred to Hallet Hospital and he stayed in hospital for 2-3 minutes.

CSE has not examined Sri Chandra Mohan Gupta nor CSE has examined himself in defense but has moved an

application on 22.08.08 which is paper No.12/9 wherein he has mentioned that after finishing the work he had left the

bank as he was not well and suffering with loose motions and as he was feeling weakness he informed joint manager

and went to the medical store for medicine and taken the medicine and thereafter he became unconscious and fell

down. On 16.10.07 he recovered his sense and he was told by Chandra Mohan Gupta and family members that FIR has

been lodged for shortage of Rs.230100/- and then he arranged the money and deposited the same in the bank. He

further stated that shortage of amount is wrong because on 13.10.07 only Rs.1,00,000/- was given to him by Sri

Nagendra Kumar and was not taken from joint reserved book as he was not signed the joint reserved book. He

requested that his statement be taken on record which has been accepted in inquiry but he has not examined himself as

defense witness nor could the management get the opportunity to cross examine him.

23.

From the above discussions, it appears that charged employee has given different version at different stages.

Firstly his son has told branch manager that Sri Rathore has taken some piosoness substance at Naubasta house ad

taken to hospital, while in the application give by Mr. Rathore to branch manager on 5.11.07 while depositing the

amount he has stated that due to unsound mental state he left the bank on 13.10.07 without informing the branch

manager and in the application dated 22.08.08 it is mentioned by him that he was suffering from loose motion and after

informing the joint manager he left the bank and has taken some medicine from the shop and was felling uncomfortable

and fell down and became unconscious and recover his sense on 16.10.07. Therefore, different version were given by

CSE at different stages which makes his defense doubtful although it is not disputed that he was hospitalized in Hallet

Hospital and remained there up to 18.10.07 but as Mr. Rathore had deposited DD of Rs.2,30,100/- without any protest

or mentioning that he was not responsible for shortage of amount but still he is depositing the amount found short.

24.

Now in view what has been discussed above, the tribunal also gave its anxious considerations to the findings of

the inquiry officer and find that the inquiry officer has well discussed the evidence available on the file of domestic

inquiry. Therefore, no other view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case as has been given by the inquiry

officer in his finding. Therefore, it is held that the inquiry findings do not suffer from infirmities and the inquiry officer

has rightly proved the charges against the worker and the Tribunal is also in conformity with the findings of the inquiry

officer.

25.

Coming to the point of punishment awarded to the worker by the disciplinary authority which has been

considered by the tribunal and it is found that the disciplinary authority has already taken a very lenient view in the

award of punishment upon the worker considering his length of service and his past records therefore, question of

applicability of the provisions of section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise in the given facts and

circumstances of the case. Accordingly punishment awarded to the worker by the disciplinary authority and confirmed

by the appellate authority is up held by the Tribunal.

26.

Accordingly in view of foregoing the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Kanpur/Lucknow in

imposing the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits upon Sri Ram Kumar Rathore, Head

Cashier, Bhitargaon Branch, District Kanpur vide order dated 05.03.09 an dated 17.06.2009 is legal and justified.

Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

27.

Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4385

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 07@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@80@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/80/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 07 of 2010

Between :

Ram Naresh Diwakar,

House No. 638, N-2 Block,

Yashoda Nagar,

Kanpur.

And

The Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

RO-Raj Bhawan Complex,

Canal Road,

Kanpur.

AWARD

Central Government MoL, New Delhi vide notification No. 12012/80/2009-IR (B-II) dated 15.01.2010, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Kanpur, in imposing punishment of removal from

services of the bank vide order dated 09.10/06 of the disciplinary authority on the applicant Sri Ram NareshDiwakar is

just and proper? What relief the applicant is entitled to?

In short the worker in his claim statement has alleged that he was appointed on 01.02.77 at the post of cash-cum-

account clerk on permanent basis. On 07.01.06 while the worker was working at banks RatanLal Nagar Branch he was

working as receiving clerk and paying clerk and due to rush of customer while closing the cash a sum of Rs.1,73,605/-

was found short for which he was innocent. He further alleged that after taking loan from others he adjusted the

shortage and thereafter he was placed under suspension by order dated 09.01.06 of the branch manager which is illegal

and bad in law as branch manager was having no authority to suspend the worker. Zonal Manager vide memorandum

dated 31.01.06 directed the worker to reply the said memorandum without conducting any preliminary inquiry in to the

said incident. Subsequently he was issued a charge sheet dated 26.5.06 on two counts and in this regard vide order

dated 26.05.06 enquiry officer and presenting officers were appointed toinquire into the charges. The charges levelled

against the worker are absolutely false and baseless. Enquiry officer under the pressure of the management recorded the

statements of the management witnesses in twisted form and when it was opposed the enquiry officer said that later on

it will be seen. He received a show cause notice dated 21.09.06 with which copy of inquiry report was also enclosed

wherein both the charges were found established. The disciplinary authority by his order dated 09.10.06 removed the

services of the worker with superannuation benefits. Appeal preferred against the punishment order was also rejected

4386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vide communication dated 02.02.07 in a cursory manner by the appellate authority. It is further pleaded by the worker

that the whole inquiry held against him is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly it is prayed that the

punishment order along with appellate order be set aside and he be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back

wages continuity of service and with all consequential benefits.

The opposite party filed its written statement refuting the whole claim of the worker alleging that the charges

levelled against him were found fully proved by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer gave full opportunity to the

worker to defend his case in the inquiry. The witnesses of the management were fully cross-examined by the defence

representative at length. The enquiry officer, after applying his mind to the records of enquiry and evidence available

on record have recorded a rational findings as per rules of natural justice. The disciplinary authority concurred with the

findings of the inquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice proposing punishmentof dismissal on charge No.1 and

bringing down to two stages on charge No.2. After providing personal hearing to the worker the disciplinary authority

on charge No.1 awarded punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits and on the punishment on

charge No.2 as proposed by him was maintained.

Worker preferred an appeal against the punishment order and the appellate authority by its order dated 20.01.07

maintained the punishment awarded to the worker by the disciplinary authority.

On the basis of above it is alleged that the claim of the worker is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected and

accordingly should be rejected.

Worker has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been pleaded therein except reiterating the facts already

pleaded in his claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties preliminary issue regarding the fairness of domestic inquiry was framed on

11.12.13 and parties were given opportunities to lead evidence if any. Parties did not adduce any evidence and worker

absented from the proceedings before this tribunal and none appeared on his behalf to argue on preliminary issue.

Therefore, argument of learned representative of the management were heard and by order dated 04.08.15 preliminary

issue was decided against the worker holding that domestic inquiry held in this case is just and fair and a date was fixed

for final arguments in the case but after availing several opportunities the worker did not make his submissions

therefore, the arguments of learned representative for the management were heard in this case.

Management in this case has filed entire proceedings of enquiry along with enquiry report, show-cause notice,

final order and order of appeal.

10.

Now the tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case has to examined the findings of the enquiry officer as

to whether the enquiry officer has recorded his findings after properly appreciating the evidence oral as well as

documentary adduced before him by the parties during the course of domestic inquiry and as to whether on the basis of

same the enquiry officer has been able to prove the charges levelled against the worker by the bank.

11.

Now looking to the charge it appears that the worker has been charged on two counts i.e. No. 1 That Sri Diwakar

committed defalcation of banks cash to the tune of Rs.173605/- on 07.01.2006 while functioning as cashier in-charge

and deceitfully tried to cover of the same by placing Rs.5/- and Rs.100/- denomination notes between packet of

Rs.500/- denomination. To cover up the shortage a stand was taken by him that it may be due to excess payment made

by him. On his inability to make good the cash found short the branch suspense debit genesis 30 account was debited

by Rs.173605/- in order to close the cash.

12.

Charge No.2 is that on 07.01.06 after business hours he closed the cash and brought the cash for lodgement in the

safe and Sri Rajeev Officer proceeded to physically verify the cash held by him with the balance recorded by him in the

DCB for this day. In a grossly irregular manner he caught hold of his hand and physically obstructed him from carrying

out his duty. As a result Sri Rajeev had to call out for help. Hearing this call for help Sri Tilak Raj Manager came out

with his subordinates after which only he allowed Sri Rajeev to commence incomplete the physical counting of cash.

13.

In the inquiry management examined M.W.1 Mr. Rajeev, M.W.2 Mewa Lal,M.W.3Tilak Raj and M.W.4 Sri S K

Baijal who were duly cross-examined by the defense representative. Presenting officer has also filed documents during

the inquiry which were marked as ext. M-1 to M-10 and these documents were also inspected by the defence

representative on 09.06.06. CSE Sri Diwakar did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence nor examined himself.

14.

In the proceedings held on 07.06.06 CSE Sri Diwakar has admitted the charges levelled against him in the charge

sheet. In the proceedings of 12.06.06 Presenting Officerrequested to the enquiry officer that since the CSE has admitted

the charges in unequivocal terms therefore, enquiry should be concluded but this request was not acceded to by the

enquiry officer and on the same day presenting officer handed over the copies of Ext.M-1 to M-10 and defense

representative confirmed that the he has inspected the documents produced by the presenting officer.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4387

15.

It also appears from the statements of management witnesses recorded in the inquiry before the enquiry officer

that all of them had supported the charges levelled against the worker with one voice and the worker was not able to

controvert them anddid not adduce any evidence in his defense nor examined himself before the enquiry officer.

16.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case tribunal is of the opinion that the enquiry officer

has adopted a fair and proper procedure in holding inquiry and he gave full opportunity to the worker to adduce his

evidence but for the reasons best known to the worker he did not avail the opportunity given by the enquiry officer and

did not produced any witness nor examined himself in his defense.

17.

By perusing the enquiry findings it also reveals that the enquiry officer after properly appreciating the evidence

of the management has rightly concluded that the charges stands proved against the worker and it cannot be said that

the findings of the enquiry officer suffers from infirmities as pleaded by the worker in his statement of claim.

18.

It is also pertinent to mention here that all the management witnesses were properly cross examined by the

defense representative but from the evidence available on domestic inquiry the tribunal is unable to conclude that the

defense representative has been able to show that the evidence of the witnesses is not reliable and as such cannot be

accepted. As the tribunal is of the opinion that the enquiry officer after giving his anxious consideration to the facts and

circumstances of the case as also to the material on record as also evidence available has rightly concluded that the

charges levelled against the worker stands fully proved and as such it cannot be said that the findings of inquiry officer

suffers from infirmity or is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is held that the finding of the enquiry

officer is just and fair and need not be interfered at the hands of the tribunal.

19.

Next it will be examined whether the punishment imposed upon the worker by the disciplinary authority on the

proved misconduct is just and fair. From the records of the case it is quite evident that disciplinary authority after

receipt of the inquiry report provided a copy of the same to the worker and after giving opportunity of personal hearing

the disciplinary authority by modifying the proposed punishment of dismissal from service awarded the punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits by order dated 09.10.06.

20.

To the mind of the tribunal considering the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct by the worker disciplinary

authority has already taken a very lenient view in the matter of award of punishment and converted the proposed

punishment into removal from service with superannuation benefits instead of dismissal from service as proposed by

him in his show cause notice.

21.

Appeal preferred by the worker was also rejected by the appellate authority and the punishment awarded to the

worker was maintained.

22.

Thereafter worker has filed a mercy petition but the same was not considered as it was beyond the scope of

bipartite settlement.

23.

It also appears to the tribunal that considering the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the worker and

which was fully established against him the disciplinary authority after taking lenient view inflicted punishment of

removal from service with superannuation benefits which under no circumstances can be said to be stigmatic and needs

no interferenceunder section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

24.

Having concluded that the charges stands proved against the worker which is of serious nature by the enquiry

officer and the disciplinary authority had also taken a lenient view in awarding punishment the tribunal confirms the

finding of the enquiry officer and punishment awarded to the worker. As a result of which worker is not entitled for any

relief as claimed by him and it is held that the action of the management Bank of India in imposing the punishment of

removal with superannuation benefits upon CSE Ram NarainDiwakar vide order dated 09.10.06 is just and fair.

25.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 24@07) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@24@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

4388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/24/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 24 of 07

In the matter of Dispute between :

Sri R P Singh,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh.

And

The Deputy General Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Sanjay Place,

Agra-28001.

AWARD

Central Government MoL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12012/24/2007-IR (B-II) dated 04.07.2007, has

referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Agra dismissing Sri R P Singh

son of Late Sri Kalyan Singh from the bank services vide order dated 20.10.05 of disciplinary authority ad confirming

the same by appellate authority vide order dated 09.01.06 is legal and fair? If not what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?

Brief facts of the case are that the workman Sri R P Singh was appointed on 11.01.71 by the opposite party at the

post of clerk and thereafter the bank promoted him at the post of Special Assistant in 1992 with retrospective effect

1987 and in this way the total length of the service of the worker in the bank remained for about 34-35 years. His work

and conduct remained satisfactory. It is also alleged that the worker took active participation in trade union activities

which was highly disliked by the authorities of the bank and as a result of the same the authorities of the bank started

feeling animosity against the worker. It is also the case of the worker that he used to represent his coworker in

disciplinary cases and being trade union worker he raised several industrial disputes before the conciliation machinery

as provided under the I. D. Act but the authorities of the bank felt their personal insult and started searching appropriate

opportunity to remove the worker from the service of the bank by hook or crook.

In the year the worker was transferred from Agra to Aligarh and was posted as In-charge of Extension Counter of

main branch of Aligarh where he was placed under suspension by order dated 17.02.04 for so called acts of misconduct

and the misconduct that were leveled against him do not come within the parameter of defined misconduct. Here it

would not be out of place to mention here that only the worker was transferred from Agra to Aligarh and none staff of

the branch was even shifted from their respective counters. The worker challenged the said suspension order before the

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, by filing CMWP No. 8430/04 and the Hon’ble High Court granted stay order against

the impugned order of suspension. Thereafter the worker was served with charge sheet dated 16.03.04 by the competent

authority of the bank in which the gravity of the charges were enhanced in an arbitrary manner and even the worker

was not given any opportunity to reply the charge memo. In this way the worker was prevented from his legitimate

right to reply the charge memo. In the charge memo competent authority has also appointed enquiry officer and

presenting officer which is against the rules of natural justice.

It may be pointed out that apart from above pleadings, the worker has raised such pleadings touching the fairness

of inquiry, which keeping the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad given by Division Bench, in mind are not

necessary to be adumbrated. Enquiry officer submitted his findings before the disciplinary authority copy of which was

never supplied to the worker prior to the issuance of notice of proposed punishment order.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4389

It is also alleged by the worker that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer after evaluating the evidence on

record is absolutely perverse and no ordinary man can arrive at such a conclusion that has been arrived at by the

enquiry officer and on the basis of such finding worker could not have been punished.

It is also alleged that one clerk of the bank by name Sri Surendra Kumar was also found responsible in putting the

bank for suffering financial loss of Rs. 7.90 lacs who after inquiry was issued propose punishment of discharge from

service by his disciplinary authority but later on while passing final order he was awarded with the punishment of

reduction of two stages in time scale of pay by the disciplinary authority and his suspension was revoked. As such the

punishment awarded to the worker is discriminatory and with malafide intention. The appellate authority has also

confirmed the punishment awarded to the worker without proper application of mind. Thus the whole procedure right

from the stage from placing the worker under suspension till the stage of passing final order and appellate order is

against the rules governing the service conditions as also against the principles of natural justice. As such it has been

prayed by the worker that the action of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority be set aside and the worker be

reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits including seniority.

The bank has filed its reply against the claim petition of the worker and it is stated that the worker does not have

sound integrity and has not discharged his duties in the bank with sincerity and due diligence at all times which is clear

from the charge sheet dated 08.08.88, in which he was awarded punishment of censure by the disciplinary authority.

The worker prima-facie was found involved in the fraud of Rs.7.90 lacs took place at the extension counter at Aligarh

and considering the gravity of the misconduct committed by the worker he was rightly placed under suspension vide

order dated 17.02.04 and he was directed to reply the charges within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of

the charge memo. It is admitted by the bank that the worker had approached the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad and the

Hon’ble High Court had stayed the suspension order of the worker with the direction that the enquiry as contemplated

against the worker my go on and thereafter the worker replied the charge memo which was not found satisfactory by

the disciplinary authority and it was decided that a regular inquiry should be constituted to inquire in to the acts of

omission and commission committed by the worker and he was issued charge sheet dated 16.03.04 by the disciplinary

authority. Enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed. Management has also submitted that the worker has

not whispered even a single word in his claim petition that what kind of prejudice has been caused to him if the

appointment of the enquiry officer and presenting officer has been done prior to receipt of the reply of the worker. The

claimant was given adequate opportunity of his defence and the claimant was present during the course of inquiry

throughout and the enquiry officer has complied with the rules of natural justice for conducting the domestic inquiry

against the worker. The courier service that was utilized by the worker was not approved by the bank and the FSCM

was never received by the bank by branch office Panchkula. The copy of the inquiry report was duly provided to the

worker along with show cause notice for proposed punishment. It is also alleged by the bank that the degree of

misconduct committed by the worker is much higher than that of misconduct committed by Sri Surendra Kumar Clerk

of the bank and there is no illegality in the action of the disciplinary authority if the disciplinary authority has modified

its tentative decision by awarding reduction of two increments, as such both the cases are at different footings and the

claimant cannot be allowed to take any benefit with the punishment awarded to the worker. It is further alleged that the

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in special appeal no. 251 of 2006 has held that since the enquiry was conducted fairly

and the charges do not appear to be moonshine, the writ court cannot interfere excepting on certain well settled

principles, as such it can safely be presumed that the enquiry was held against the worker in a fair and proper manner.

The bank has lost confidence in the worker as such the worker has rightly been awarded punishment on proved

misconduct. The bank has also reserved its right to prove the charge afresh before the tribunal in case this tribunal for

any reason comes at a conclusion that the inquiry conducted by the bank is not fair and proper. Lastly it is alleged that

it is settled position of law that what punishment is to be required to be imposed upon the delinquent employee found

guilty of gross misconduct is the sole discretion of the disciplinary authority and under no circumstances the same can

be interfered by the courts adjudicating the issue on merits.

Lastly it is prayed by the employer that the claim petition of the worker be rejected out rightly being devoid of

merit holding that the worker is not entitled for any relief.

10.

Both the parties have filed documents which shall be discussed at the appropriate stage.

11.

I have heard the party’s representatives at length and perused the records.

12.

On perusal of records, it appears that worker Sri R. P. Singh had filed CMWP No. 77/26 of 2006 against Sri A.

K. Bajpai and two others assailing the show cause notice and order of suspension. Hon’ble High Court Allahabad vide

Order dated 16.02.2006 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy. Thereafter, worker Sri R. P.

Singh being aggrieved by this order of single bench of Hon’ble High Court had filed special appeal no. 251/2006

against said Sri Bajpai and two others. The special appeal had also been dismissed by order dated 27.03.2006 with

observation dated since the enquiry was conducted and the charges don’t appear to be moon sign, the writ court can’t

interfere accepting on certain well settled principles.

4390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

As Hon’ble High Court in special appeal had held that domestic enquiry to be fair my Ld. Predecessor vide order

dated 18.05.2011 also held that domestic enquiry is held fair on the basis of Order of Hon’ble High Court.

14.

Thereafter, worker has moved an application for cancelling the proceedings of the enquiry on the ground that it

was done with malafide intention against the worker. The application of the worker was rejected on 01.05.2015 on the

basis of Order of Hon’ble High Court passed in special appeal where in it was held that enquiry was fairly conducted.

15.

AR, of the management has moved an application that entire enquiry proceedings as well as prosecution

documents in support of charges are not traceable as the same were destroyed in fire, on which Regional Manager of

Central Bank of India, Agra, Sri J. S. Sahney was examined as CW-1 who has stated on oath that enquiry proceedings

are not traceable and possibility can’t be ruled out that documents and enquiry file might have been burnt In 2010 in a

Fire Stroke in Zonal Office and Regional Office, Sanjay Place, Agra.

16.

On this bank was given further time to search and file the relevant records.

17.

Management thereafter filed enquiry proceedings and documents.

18.

As in this case domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, it is to be seen whether findings of Enquiry

Officer is in accordance with the evidence recorded in the enquiry or perverse and whether Disciplinary Authority has

acted judiciously and impartially while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer and whether or not

Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are justified in recording the punishment of dismissal against the

worker, is just and fair.

19.

From perusal of Charge Sheet Paper No. 3/5-9, it appears that charge sheet was issued to the worker on 10

counts. In brief, the crux of the charges are that Sri R. P. Singh, Special Assistant, Regional Office, Agra, while

working at Extension Counter “KSGA” of main branch of the Bank at Aligarh, during the period from October, 2003 to

February 2004 has committed the acts of misconduct by opening CD Account No. 176 of Rajesh & Co. on 18.09.2003

without issue of any cheque book and has taken away all the relevant documents relating to opening of account with

malafide intention to suppress his misdoings. He also opened HSS Account No. 3825 of Sri Rajesh Kishore without

obtaining address proof on wrong address and issued letter of thanks to address of the Hotel and not issued any letter of

thanks to his introducer and in the new account of Sri Rajesh Kishore heavy amount i.e. Rs.160000/, 310000/ and

320000/ were collected and withdrawals were allowed against the guidelines of Central Office. He also issued second

cheque book to Sri Rajesh Kishore while remaining cheques of earlier cheque book were not presented and 3 cheques

for heavy amount were returned for insufficient balance.

20.

It is surprising and appears against disciplinary rules as well as principles of natural justice that no specific reply

of charge sheet was called upon from the worker and in the absence of reply of the worker, enquiry was held. During

the course of enquiry proceedings, management examined two witnesses S/Sri G. S. Siddhu, Senior Manager as MW-1

and Sri S. K. P. Singh, Senior Manager, ZO Agra (formerly RO Agra) as MW-2 and has filed 44 documents in support

of charges.

21.

On behalf of Defense worker has examined DW-1 Sri Rajendra Prasad CTO, DW-2 Sunaina Chatterjee, DW-3

Bhagwati Prasad and DW-4 Satish Chandra Varshney and submitted 50 documents. However, worker did not examine

himself in defense.

22.

I have also examined the findings of the enquiry officer based on the evidence recorded during the enquiry

proceedings and come to the conclusion that the enquiry officer after giving due deliberation and after applying his

mind has come to a concrete decision that the charges leveled against the delinquent employee is found established as a

result of which the bank has to suffer financial loss of Rs. 7.90 lacs. Thus there remains no doubt that due to negligent

working of the worker and considering the charges leveled against him, it is very difficult to deviate from the findings

of the enquiry officer, which is found to be just and fair particularly under the circumstances that the worker did not

examine himself before the inquiry. Therefore, considering the whole inquiry proceedings held against the delinquent

employee the tribunal is of the opinion that the enquiry has been held against the worker was in a fair and proper

manner and the inquiry officer has rightly came to the conclusion that the charges stands proved against the worker.

Likewise it is also held that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has rightly concurred with the

findings of the enquiry officer.

23.

Now it will be examined if the punishment awarded to the worker in the light of proved misconduct is just and

proper or the same is shockingly disproportionate considering the nature of the charges proved against the worker

comparing with the punishment awarded to the Special Assistant by name Sri Surendra Kumar.

24.

In this connection M.W.2 Sri SKP Singh Sr. Manager has admitted in his cross examination that it was the

responsibility of offices of the bank to compare the signatures from realizing branch i.e. Panchkula by telephone or by

fax or by letter and it is further admitted that in case signature of concerned officer are not tallying on FSCMs then the

responsibility of the concern officer was not to pass FSCMs and immediately after confirmation from realizing branch

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4391

he should have vouched FSCMs. He has further admitted in question no.38 that amount was deposited in the account

on credit advice received in form 6.

25.

From the evidence of M.W.2 SKP Singh it is clear that if the officer of the bank posted in the main branch would

have remain vigil before sending the advise to extension counter branch and before passing FSCMS would have tallied

the signatures of officers of Panchkula Branch the amount n question would not hve been credited in the concerned

account.

26.

Worker in his pleadings has pleaded that the fact that Sri Surender Kumar posted in the main branch had send the

advice to the extension counter after passing FSCMs and on the basis of the same worker had no authority to further

verify the same except giving credit of the amount of cheque. In its reply the bank admitted that Surender Kumar was

also responsible for the loss of Rs.7.90 lacs for his acts of lapses by passing FSCMs but has alleged that his

responsibility was less therefore, less punishment was awarded to him.

27.

Worker has filed final order of the disciplinary authority in the case of Surender Kumar, Special Assistant Main

Branch which is dated 02.03.0. As the worker was awarded punishment much earlier to this therefore, it could not be

presumed that the worker could be in position to file the same in his domestic inquiry. Therefore, this final order cn be

looked into as explanatory document in support of the pleadings of both the parties, which is paper o. 3/68-75, which

worker has filed along with his claim statement wherein it is held that Surender Kumar has passed FSCMs without

tallying the signature of the officers of Panchkula Branch with the specimen signatures and it was also held that he was

negligent in performing his duties as per banks rules and due to his negligence bank has to suffer a loss of Rs.7.90 lacs

and was punished by reduction ot two stages in time scale for a period of 5 years.

28.

Therefore, from the above discussions of evidence and facts and circumstances of the case it can be safely held

that both Surender Kumar Special Assistant and the worker Sri R P Singh, In-charge of Extension counter of main

branch of the bank at Aligarh both are wholly and jointly responsible as both of them has acted against the norms ad

rules of the bank causing financial loss of Rs.7.90 lacs to the bank.

29.

Worker has submitted that he might have committed certain irregularities in opening of accounts as it was not

done in accordance with the rules of the bank, but he can’t be made sole responsible for releasing the payments of Rs.

1,60,000/, 3,10,000/ and 3,20,000/ to Sri Rajesh Kishore as the payments of these amounts were made by him on the

advise issued by Sri Surendra Kumar, Special Assistant working in the main branch of the bank. He further contended

that Sri Surendra Kumar was also charge sheeted for passing the FSCMS without tallying the signature of officers of

Pachkula Branch with the specimen signature held on record of the branch.

30.

After conducting domestic enquiry, he was found guilty of the misconduct which was of grave nature and

Disciplinary Authority in the case of Sri Surendra Kumar proposed the punishment of Discharge with superannuation

benefits and thereafter in the final order, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reduction by two stages in

the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years.

31.

It is contended by the worker that punishment of dismissal awarded to him is highly disproportionate taking into

consideration of the punishment awarded to Sri Surendra Kumar whose misconduct is equally of serious in nature who

was found passing FSCMS without verifying the Signatures of Officers of Pachkula Branch from the specimen held on

record of the branch and in that circumstances, the worker Sri R.P. Singh was under obligation to release the amount.

32.

AR for the management contended that worker Sri R.P. Singh was wholly responsible of opening the Savings

Bank and Current Accounts dehorning the relevant rules of the bank and further contended that this Tribunal is not

competent to take into consideration any other documents filed by the worker which are not part of the domestic

enquiry as given in the proviso of Section 11-A of the ID Act.

33.

To appreciate the arguments advanced by the representative for the bank, the tribunal would like to advert to the

pleadings of the worker raised in paragraph no.23 of statement of claim and reply thereof submitted by the bank in its

written statement. It is categorically pleaded by the worker in paragraph no.23 that special assistant of main branch of

the bank Sri Surendra Kumar was found guilty for vouching the instruments without verifying the signatures of the

officers of the Panchkula Branch as a result of which the bank suffered a financial loss of Rs.7.90 lacs and accordingly

at the first instance, the disciplinary authority had proposed him the punishment of discharge from the services of the

bank but later on in the final orders passed by the disciplinary authority, Surendra Kumar was awarded punishment of

reduction by two stages in time scale of pay. In reply to this the bank has submitted in its written statement that the

degree of misconduct committed by the worker is higher than Surendra Kumar, Special Assistant of the main branch,

therefore, the worker cannot be allowed to take any benefit of the punishment awarded to Sri Surender Kumar, Special

Assistant of the main branch of the bank.

34.

It is pertinent to mention here that both the worker and Surender Kumar were sailing in the same boat and due to

their joint misdeeds bank has to suffer financial loss. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the tribunal has to weigh the

4392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

punishment awarded to both the persons for the same cause in a judicious and impartial manner. The bank would not

have suffered the financial loss had the instruments would not have been vouched and send to the extension counter of

the branch the amount in question would not have been mis-utilized by the account holder. As such it is held that the

punishment awarded to the worker is highly discriminatory which cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law.

35.

Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter the tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the

worker is shockingly disproportionate when compared with the punishment awarded to Sri Surender Kumar. The

tribunal is clothed with ample powers under the provisions of section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to

interfere with the punishment if it is found to be by way of unfair labor practice, discriminatory etc.etc., at provided in

the 5^th Schedule of the Act.

36.

Since the tribunal has already held that the punishment awarded to the worker is quite harsh and disproportionate

as compared to the punishment awarded to Sri Surender Kumar, the tribunal is of the opinion that the ends of justice

would be met if the punishment awarded to the worker is modified into compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits and accordingly the punishment of dismissal from the service awarded to the worker is hereby modified into

compulsory retirement from service with superannuation benefits from the date when the punishment of dismissal was

made effective.

37.

Accordingly in view of above discussions, it is ordered that the worker would be deemed to have compulsorily

retired from the service of the bank with superannuation benefits instead of dismissal from the service of the bank.

38.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the worker and against the bank.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 67@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@95@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12011/95/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 67 of 2015

Between :

The General Secretary,

Central Bank Employees Congress (UP),

C-1241 (MIG) Rajajipuram,

Lucknow - 226017

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

372/18-B, Civil Lines,

Gwalior Road,

Jhansi – 284001.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4393

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification No.L-12011/95/2014-IR(B-II) dated 06.09.2015, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management in declining the payment of medical bills to Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma is

just and proper and if not what relief is entitled to?

After receipt of reference order several notices were issued to the claimant for filing his claim petition along with

relevant documents but neither he appear in person before court nor filed any claim petition. It thus appears that he is

not interested in prosecuting his case before the tribunal.

The tribunal in the above circumstances has become absolutely handicapped except to answer the reference

against the claimant for want of pleadings and proof.

Accordingly it is held that the worker is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker / union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@11) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@31@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.09.2016.

[No. L-12012/31/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 76 of 11

Raj Kapoor son of late SN Kapoor,

House No.439/E-2 Single Story,

Barra-2,

Kanpur.

And

The Chief Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Zonal Office,

113/58, Swarup Nagar,

Kanur-208002.

AWARD

Central Govt. MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No.L-12012/31/2011-IR(B-II), dated 18.08.11 has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

4394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank Kanpur in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

the services of the bank on Sri Raj Kapoor vide order dated 16.02.10 is just and proper? What relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?

The case of the worker in short is that while he was working as special assistant at bank’s Govind Nagar, Kanpur

Branch, he was placed under suspension by the Deputy General Manager vide order dated 11.06.08, without assigning

any cogent reasons with the condition that during the period of suspension he will not enter into the premises of the

Zonal Office, Kanpur of the bank or any other branch/office of the bank and he may only enter the premises of the

branch where his saving bank account is maintained with proper permission of the manager of that branch for the

purposes of operating his savin g bank account and or drawing the subsistence allowance payable to him. The bank

further by letter dated 24.06.08 paper no. 14/37 informed the worker on the subject of operation of SB/STF/77 which is

in the name of the worker that the bank had instructed Chief Manager, Govind Nagar Branch to open a new account in

which his pay and allowance as per rules in the case of suspended employee from the month of June 08 onwards will be

credited in that account. The wife of the worker had moved before the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad by filing writ

petition no. 40225 of 08 for issue of writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to release the amount in favor of

the petitioner from saving bank account no. SB/STF/77. The said petition was finally decided by the Hon’ble High

Court Allahabad by order dated 19.08.08 leaving it open to the petitioner to submit an application before respondent

no.2 raising her grievance which may be considered and appropriate decision may be taken by respondent no.2

expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of the application along with a certified

copy of the order.

Thereafter the worker was issued a charge sheet dated 18.12.08, which inter-alia goes on as under.

While posted and functioning as Special Assistant at Bank’s Govind Nagar, Branch during the period from

06.08.01 to 10.06.08 you have allegedly committed the acts of omission and commission as under-

On 11.09.06, Smt. Tara opened a saving bank account baringno.22577 with Rs.250/- in cash and did not make

any deposit in the account therein after 27.04.07 but her account shows various transaction by way of transfer from

bank’s overdue FDR account on different dates without any voucher to afford credit in her account which were created

by you by issuing the user ID of other officials at the branch.

On the basis of such unreal balance, the other official allowed drawings from the account through withdrawal forms

signed by the accountholder on various dates and payment of which was received by you. Thus an amount of Rs.

248744/- was fraudulently with drawn from bank through the said account with connivance of the account holder.

On 25.09.07 Sri Kishan, Kumari Anjali and Smt. Tara opened a saving bank account baring no.24844 with

Rs.500/- I cash and did not make any deposit in the account thereafter but her account shows various transaction by

way of transfer from banks overdue FDR/ Reinvestment fund account on different dates without any voucher to afford

credit in their account which were created by you by issuing the user ID of other officials of the branch.

On the basis of such unreal balance the other officials allowed drawings from the account through withdrawal forms

signed by the account holder on various dates and the payment of which was received by you. Thus an amount of

Rs.929064/- was fraudulently withdrawn from Bank through this joint account with connivance of the account holder.

The reply to the charge sheet submitted by the worker was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority

therefore it was decided by him to hold a regular inquiry into the alleged charges and enquiry officer and presenting

officers were appointed by order dated 27.01.09.

It is pertinent to mention here that the worker did not participate in the inquiry nor adduce any evidence in the

case.

On behalf of the management apart from adducing documentary evidence, management has examined 12

witnesses in support of the charges.

After concluding the inquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority who

concurred with it and issued show cause notice to the worker but the worker did not choose to avail the opportunity.

Finally the disciplinary authority passed his final decision dated 16.02.10, whereby penalty of dismissal was awarded to

the worker.

10.

Apart from above it is also alleged by the worker that the punishment order dated 16.02.10 is liable to set aside

even without entering into the merits of the case as the same is absolutely in violation of statutory instructions/

directions of vigilance department of the Head office of the Bank. It is also pleaded that various circulars such as dated

10.10.03, 09.02.09, 20.04.10 and 23.10.10 have been issued by the head office of the bank from time to time in

consultation with the vigilance department as per guide lines issued by the Reserve Bank of India invariably prescribes

the same method to investigate the cases of fraud and misappropriation of banks fund. In circular dated 23.10.10, issued

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4395

by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank it is categorically mentioned therein that in all cases of fraud it is mandatory

to lodge FIR immediately after detection of fraud not only to nab the culprits / fraudsters to recover the involved

amount and or to restrict them from further defrauding others but also to legally pursue with the police/CBI/ other

prosecuting agencies and to obtain permission for closure of the case from Reserve Bank of India. It is also alleged that

the worker through Right to Information Act, 2005 obtained copies of Vigilance Manual dated 10.10.03, which

categorically provide that in cases of financial frauds of the value of Rs.1,00,000/- and above which involve outsides

(private parties) and bank staff should be reported by the zonal Office/Zonal Heads concerned to a senior officer of the

State CID/Economic Offence Wing of the state concerned as per instructions issued by the head office of the bank vide

circular dated 04.02.04.

11.

The worker on coming to know about the fact through the reply of the Chief Manager of the bank that the bank is

suspecting the involvement of the worker in some fraud case, the worker without causing undue delay made a

representation dated 07.10.08 to the senior manager clearly stating therein that from the contents of your letter the

allegations are of very serious nature which require thorough probe from some outside agency like police authorities or

CBI, as the case may be, that are competent to investigate the matter and to find out the real culprit involved in the

alleged fraud but at any rate it is not open for the authorities of the bank to initiate the disciplinary action against him to

find out real culprit involved in the present fraud which is never less than an act of criminal nature. It was also

mentioned in the said representation that the term ‘fraud, forgery’ and ‘misconduct’ are having entirely different and

distinct meaning with each other. The above terms cannot be equated with the kind of misconducts as defined under

para 19.5 or 19.6 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary matters. Therefore, investigation

of fraud or forgery is absolutely outside the ambit and scope of the disciplinary rules and that cannot be held to be a

good or valid ground for placing the worker under suspension.

12.

The worker has also mentioned in the letter dated 07.10.08 that as a branch head it was his legal and official

obligation to have lodged FIR with the police authorities soon after noticing the alleged fraud at the branch situate at

Govind Nagar Kanpur without disclosing the name of the officers or staff remained posted at the branch. If it was done,

the correct picture of the case would have been certainly come out after investigation by the authorities of police or CBI

and in such situation the real culprit connected with the alleged fraud would have also been flashed and would have

been produced before competent court of law their trial.

13.

It is also alleged by the worker in reply to the show cause notice of the bank which is dated 10.10.08, that the

worker vide application dated 19.10.08 demanded the documents from the branch relating to copy of report of

preliminary investigation in the matter as alleged in the letter dated 27.08.08 of the Chief Manager, Govind Nagar

Branch, Kanpur, and copy of memorandum, if any, issued by the bank to such officers or officials of Govind Nagar

Branch, Kanpur, seeking their explanation in the matter together with their reply for misuse of their ID numbers and

Pass words created by them.

14.

It is also pleaded by the worker in his claim statement that he vide letter dated 02.01.09 clearly informed the bank

/ disciplinary authority that it is not known to the petitioner as to which authority is competent to act as disciplinary

authority in his case either the Deputy General Manager and competent authority which has placed the petitioner under

illegal suspension or the chief manager and the disciplinary authority which has issued show cause notice and charge

sheet to the worker. Both the above authorities are not competent to act as such in view of provision of Para 14 of

Memorandum of Bipartite Settlement inasmuch as they have never been nominated to act as an appellate authority or

the disciplinary authority by name and designation.

15.

The worker has also challenged the legality and proprietary of the charge sheet, procedure adopted by the enquiry

officer, inquiry findings, second show cause notice and the final order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing

the service of the worker from the bank.

16.

In view of above it has been prayed by the worker that the impugned charge sheet dated 18.12.08 was exclusively

the subject matter of investigation by outside agencies like CBI/Police or Economic Offence Wing in view of various

circulars and vigilance manual of the bank and the bank was not competent to investigate the same taking it to be a case

misconduct under service rules against the petitioner and this Hon’ble Tribunal be further pleased to hold the entire

exercise in the name of disciplinary action and the impugned order of punishment dated 16.02.10 as absolutely without

jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eye of law and that this Hon’ble Tribunal be further pleased to grant the

petitioner the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits.

17.

The worker along with his claim petition has filed entire documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings

including show cause notice and final order passed in his case by the disciplinary authority.

18.

The management has filed its reply but from the reply it is very much clear that the reply of the management is

not specific but in a cursory manner to the effect that paras of the claim petition are matter on record need no reply.

However it is alleged by the management that the worker was suspended vide order dated 11.06.08 by DGM and

4396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

competent authority of the bank, show cause notice dated 10.10.08 was issued by Chief Manager Allahabad Bank

Zonal Office, the disciplinary authority and the reply to above show cause notice was given by the worker vide his

letter dated 19.10.08. Being dissatisfied with the reply filed by the worker he was issued charge sheet dated on

18.12.08. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the worker for defrauding the bank of the sum of

Rs.1177808/- by misusing the user ID of other officials at Govind Nagar Branch and the worker did not participate in

the inquiry despite publication in the news papers and after recording the evidence of the management witnesses

inquiry officer submitted his report whereupon the copy of the enquiry report was also provided to the worker with a

show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from the service of the bank upon the worker but the

applicant did not submit any reply thereto. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed its final order dated 16.02.10

dismissing the worker from the service of the bank.

19.

In reply to para 50 of the claim petition of the worker it is alleged by the bank that other erring officials of the

branch were also punished in the same matter and appropriate punishment has also been awarded to them. It is also

pleaded by the bank that appropriate action for lodgment of FIR in the matter had been taken by the bank and on

account of misappropriation of public money, the worker was found guilty of gross misconduct therefore, the bank has

lost confidence reposed in him. Therefore, in view of the facts mentioned above the worker is not entitled for any relief.

20.

No rejoinder has been filed by the worker in the case.

21.

Worker has filed documents along with claim statement which are paper no. 14/34-322 which are proceedings of

inquiry and rules and regulations of the bank and papers filed by the worker is from 14/34-163 and the same are

admitted by the management’s representative and the management has also filed documents relating to copies of

inquiry proceedings and the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer which are paper no. 25/2-164.

22.

I have heard the party’s representative at length and have perused the records of the case carefully.

23.

Two charges are given in the charge sheet which is paper no 14/57 and is dated 18.12.08. The charge sheet is

discussed earlier in the claim part of the worker and the amount mentioned in the charge sheet was corrected vide

corrigendum dated 13.05.09 and in charge no.1 amount Rs.248744/- was corrected as Rs.248921/- and in charge no.2,

amount Rs.920064/- was corrected as 923500/- which are alleged to be fraudulently with dawn by the worker and third

correction in the charge sheet was mentioned as the date 13.11.06 instead of 11.09.06 of the date of opening the saving

bank account no.22577 and the copy of corrigendum was given to the worker.

24.

It appears from the perusal of record that issue with regard to fairness of domestic inquiry was not framed

because the worker representative has moved application paper no. 18/1 with the prayer that applicant concedes that no

illegality has been committed by the enquiry officer and the procedure adopted by him is just and fair. It is further

stated that the worker has attained the age of superannuation in Feb, 2012; therefore, he is not interested to contest the

issue of fairness of inquiry.

25.

On the basis of admission of worker inquiry was held to be just and fair by order dated 07.04.16 of the tribunal.

26.

On perusal of inquiry proceedings it is clear that the worker has neither participated in the domestic inquiry nor

had adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of the management witnesses as examined in domestic inquiry.

27.

Management has examined M.W.1 Sharad Tiwari, M.W.2 Rakesh Tiwari, .W.3 Anurag, M.W.4, R P Pandey,

M.W.5 K. K. Saxena, M.W.6 B.S. Gaur, M.W.7 Smt. Asha Arora, M.W.8 A.N. Shukla, M.W.9 Anjali account holder,

M.W. 10 Smt. Tara Account holder, M.W.11 S K Khatri, and M.W.12 Smt. S K Chawla in the domestic inquiry and

also filed 72 documents which are mentione4d as ME-1 to ME-72.

28.

As the worker has not made any cross examination of any of the 12 management witnesses produced in the

inquiry, therefore, the evidence of these witnesses remained uncontroverted.

29.

In the light of the facts and circumstances stated above, the tribunal now has to examine as to whether the enquiry

officer was justified in submitting his findings proving all the charges against the worker or not and whether or not the

enquiry officer has appreciated the evidence judiciously and according to the principles of natural justice.

30.

Authorized representative for the bank has contended that the charges leveled against the worker regarding

various transactions by way of transfer from OD accounts on different dates without any voucher in the account of

account holder by misusing the user I.D of other officers and fraudulently withdrawing the amount mentioned in the

charge sheet through withdrawal forms signed by the account holder on different dates.

31.

As per contra the representative for the worker has contended that the worker cannot operate the computer

systems unless he knows the pass word of the officer and official of the bank and the officers of the bank have denied

in their evidence before the enquiry officer that at any point of time they had ever leaked their pass word to any of the

officers or officials of the bank particularly to the delinquent employee Sri Raj Kapoor. As regards second part of the

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4397

charge of having fraudulently withdrawing the amount by the worker on several occasions by submitting withdrawal

forms of account holder on which he had already obtained the signatures of the account holder on the reverse side of

the withdrawal forms are concerned in this regard considering the rival contentions of the parties and also considering

the evidence available on domestic inquiry file, the tribunal is of the opinion that the worker cannot be held solely

responsible for misusing the pass word of other officials and officers of the branch and fraudulently with drawing the

amount without connivance of other officials and officers of the branch.

32.

As far as question regarding payment of amount through withdrawal forms is concerned, in this respect it is

necessary to mention that the same would have been presented by the account holder themselves and if any official of

the bank submits the withdrawal forms on several times for payment, such with drawal forms should not have been

passed by the concerned officer of the bank and payment thereof also should not have been made to worker in person.

33.

The observation of the tribunal is also corroborated from the Preliminary investigation report dated 30.06.08

which is paper no. 17/2-4, wherein the investigating officer has disclosed several serious lapses that has been found to

be made by Sri A N Shukla, paying cashier for making payment directly to the worker without making any query from

the him and for not filling the names and other columns in the payment register, Smt. Sashi Kanta Chawla, clerk cum

cashier, has committed lapses for not detecting the fraudulent activities that her user ID was used 25 times from

25.09.07 to 07.06.08.

34.

Likewise Sri Sitaram Khatri, clerk cum cashier, Smt. Asha Arora, officiating special assistant, B.S. Gaur, clerk

cum cashier, Sri S C Verma, special assistant, Sri R K Khanna, special assistant, are also found to have committed

several serious lapses and also in the same fashion Sri R P Pandey, officer, Sri K K Saxena, Manager Operations, Sri U

C Srivastava, Manager are also found to have authorized all the transactions except few in these two accounts.

35.

It is also found by the investigating officer that these officers have committed lapses in not comparing the books

on daily basis and further that they have failed in their duties allotted to them as comparing of transfer scroll which was

entrusted to S K Saxena.

36.

Besides this other lapses are also found which are-

No token book was in operation;

Comparing was not done;

Over dependence o an employee of all members of the branch;

Some system failure of soft ware

And lastly it has also been observed in the preliminary investigation report that the Chief Manager could

not monitor the competence of system and procedure in the branch.

37.

It is relevant to mention that it appears to be case of cyber crime and the management did not approach cyber cell

or lodged any FIR in the matter.

38.

It also reveals from the facts as mentioned in the preliminary investigation report, that other officials and officers

of the bank such as manager including Chief Manager have also been held responsible to have committed several

lapses which mean that they are jointly responsible for the alleged fraud.

39.

It also appears that charge sheet were also given to these officers and officials by the bank and after receiving the

replies Sri Umesh Srivastava, Manager Advances, Smt. Asha Arora, Smt. Sashi Kant Chawla, Smt. Ravinder Kaur and

S.C. Verma were only cautioned on their lapses and Sri K K Saxena, Sri A. N. Shukla and R P Pandey were only given

penalty of Censure which shows that their cases were dealt with leniency to the maximum.

40.

The tribunal is also of the view that bank having found liability of almost all the officers of the bank in the

alleged fraud as observed in the preliminary investigation report had not lodged any FIR in the matter with the police

authorities with the motive to save the skin of all of these officers and officials of the branch otherwise police might

have registered the case against all staff including the Branch Manager of the bank.

41.

From over all evaluation of inquiry findings tribunal finds that the enquiry officer has given full opportunity to

the worker to defend himself but worker did not avail such opportunity as a result of which inquiry was concluded ex-

parte against the worker. As there is no direct evidence that the worker has misused the pass word of officers and

officials of the branch in transferring the amount of interest accrued on matured FDRs to the account of the account

holders and inquiry officer has considered this point on probabilities only.

4398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42.

Secondly from perusal of withdrawal forms filed by the bank relating to the alleged withdrawals, it is clear that

on the reverse side of the withdrawal forms signature of the account holder appears and there appear no signature of

worker Raj Kapoor in token of having received the amount. In the absence of this simply on the basis of oral evidence

of management witnesses it is difficult to belief that th worker Raj Kapoor had received the amount in question.

43.

As the worker did not cross examine any witness of the bank on facts and documentary evidence and did not

produce any defense witness, therefore, the enquiry officer has correctly submitted the report against the worker by

accepting oral as well as documentary evidence available before him. The tribunal also does not find any infirmity in

the inquiry findings.

44.

Now it has to be seen whether punishment of dismissal awarded to the worker is justified under the circumstances

of the case as discussed above or the punishment of the worker is fit to be modified under section 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

45.

From the perusal of records of this case and charge sheet it appears that the bank has suffered financial loss of

more than 11 lacs which was not realized either from the worker Sri Raj Kapoor or from any of the delinquent officers /

employees of the branch for committing the lapses and negligence on their part for this financial loss.

46.

It may also be pointed out here that the money lying with the bank is PUBLIC MONEY and the officers and the

employees of the bank including the worker were the sole custodian of public money and in the event of financial loss

to the bank happens, it is the liability of senior responsible officer of the bank to make good the financial loss suffered

by the bank in public interest and the senior officers should have realized the money from the worker and other

delinquent officers and officials of the branch to the extent of their negligence and fraud to restore public confidence in

the bank.

47.

The authorized representative for the bank could not be able to place any evidence to show that the responsible

officers of the bank have made any sincere efforts to recover the financial loss suffered by the bank. Contrary to it, it is

admitted by both the parties that the amount of full gratuity payable to worker was paid to the worker by the bank.

48.

As the present case appears to be a case of joint liability of officers and officials of the branch for causing

financial loss to the bank by allowing the credit unlawfully in the account of the account holders and thereafter

allowing withdrawals of the amount mentioned in the charge sheet against rules and regulations without insisting the

appearance of the account holder with their respective pass book at the time of making payment of the amount as has

been observed by the Investigating Officer in its preliminary investigation report dated 30.06.08, which clearly

establishes that a caucus of officers and the employees was in existence at the relevant time in the branch to commit

fraudulent withdrawals and to save the skins of other senior officer of the branch and remaining other delinquent

employees and no FIR was lodged with the police authority by the Zonal Head of the Bank nor the matter was referred

to cyber crime cell and the management relying upon the preliminary investigation report has issued charge sheets to

several officers and staff and except worker other officer and staff were only given the penalty of censure or letter of

caution but worker Raj Kapoor was dismissed from the service of the bank. This does not appear to be fair on the part

of the bank.

49.

From the above circumstances of the case, it is apparently clear that it is a fit case in which tribunal is inclined to

interfere with the punishment of the worker on the ground that the punishment of dismissal from the service of the bank

awarded to the worker seems to be highly disproportionate as compared to the punishment awarded to the other

delinquent officer and official of the branch of Govind Nagar, Kanpur.

50.

As it has also been argued on behalf of Sri Raj Kapoor that he had already attained the age of superannuation in

the month of February 2012, therefore, it will be in the interest of equity, justice and fair play that after exercising the

powers as conferred upon the tribunal under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the tribunal is inclined

to interfere with the punishment awarded to the worker Sri Raj Kapoor and instead of dismissal according to the

confirmed view of the tribunal Sri Raj Kapoor, is deemed to have been compulsorily retired from the service of the

bank with pension and other superannuation benefits applicable under rules from the date of passing of the punishment

order by disciplinary authority instead of dismissal from the service of the bank.

51.

Accordingly the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the

service of the bank on Sri Raj Kapoor vide order dated 16.02.10 is held to be neither just nor proper.

52.

Therefore, it is held that the punishment awarded to Sri Raj Kapoor in the shape of dismissal from bank service is

modified to the extent of compulsory retirement with pension and with superannuation benefits applicable under rules.

53.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4399

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1980-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ch-bZ-,y-

vkWiVªksfud fMokfll fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh&2@89 of 2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. CGIT-2/89 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to the management of the BEL Optronic Devices Limited and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-14011/11/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/89 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF B.E.L. OPTRONIC DEVICES LTD.

The Chief Executive Officer

BEL Optronic Devices Ltd.

EL-30, ‘J’ Block, MIDC

Pune 411 026.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President

BEL Optronic Devices Employees’ Union

EL-30, J-Block

MIDC

Pune 411 026.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. S. N. Desai, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

Mr. Umesh Vishwad, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 22^nd August, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-14011/11/2014-IR (DU), dated

16.09.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of BEL Optronic Devices Ltd., Bhosari, Pune in signing the

settlement on wage anomalies without discussion with the union is justified? If not, to what relief the union is

entitled to?”

4400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receipt of the reference, both parties were served with notice. The reference was fixed for filing of

Statement of Claim by the Union. In response to the notice, Second party union filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-7.

First party Management resisted the Statement of claim by filing their Written Statement at Ex-9.

The matter was fixed for framing issues. Today second party Union filed application (Ex-11) along with

affidavit in support for withdrawing the Reference. Representative (General Secretary) of the Second Party Union

prayed to dispose of this Reference as they are not interested in pursuing it further. After hearing both parties on Ex-

11, Orders were passed on Ex-11. As the Second Party Union does not want to pursue this matter, the Reference is

disposed of. Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Date: 22.08.2016

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1981-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkuxj

VsyhiQksu fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh&2@104 of 2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. CGIT-2/104 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to the management of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-40011/17/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/104 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.

The Executive Director

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

MTNL Telephone House, 15^th floor

Veer Savarkar Marg

Dadar (W)

Mumbai 400 028.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

The General Secretary

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Karmachari Front

Parel Telephone Complex

Post Office Lane

Pare

Mumbai 400 012.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4401

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

No appearance

FOR THE WORKMAN :

No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 10^th August, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-40011/17/2014-IR (DU), dated

22.12.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the 5 points Charter of Demands of MTNL Karmachari Front, Mumbai against the management of

MTNL, Mumbai as per Exhibit I enclosed is just and legal? IF so, what relief the workmen/ Union are entitled

to?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on the

second party Union is at Ex-4. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second

party/ Union. Neither second party/ Union appeared before this Tribunal nor filed their statement of claim. Without

Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Thus I pass the

following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 10.08.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWVkseksfVo

fjlpZ ,lksfl,'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh&2@90 of 2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@127@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref. No. CGIT-2/90 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to the management of the Automotive Research Association of India and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-42012/127/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/90 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

The Director

Automotive Research Association of India

Vetal Tekdi

4402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Off Paul Road

Kothrud

Pune 411 004.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Shri N.D. Dhumal

Rajendra Nagar PMC Chawl 2/94

Opp. Shankar Temple

Pune 411 030.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. A.M. Jalisatgi, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 19^th August, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42012/127/2014-IR (DU), dated

18.09.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the actions of the management of Automotive Research Association of India over the matter of

alleged illegal termination of Shri N.D. Dhumal from services w.e.f. 20.04.2004 are legal and justified? If not

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on the

second party Workman is at Ex-4. On the first date of hearing, First party/ management filed Vakalatnama of Shri

A.M. Jalisatgi. Second party workman also remained present and sought adjournment. Thereafter the matter was

adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by workman. Neither second party/ workman appeared

before this Tribunal nor filed his statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on

merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 19.08.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1983-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pD;w 61]

lc ,fj;k dSaVhu vkWjx ,-ih-vks- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 10@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14012@20@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the HQ 61, Sub-area Canteen Org. APO and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-14012/20/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4403

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 10 of 2016

Reference No. L-14012/20/2016/IR (DU) dated 21.07.2016

Sub-Maj. (Retd.) Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Zorawar Singh, VPO-Dewas,

Tehsil & Distt.-Mohindergarh, Haryana – 123034

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman, HQ 61, Sub-Area, Canteen Org/Cell, 56 A.P.O.

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Sh. Satyander Kumar, advocate

For the Management

None

AWARD

Passed on 23-08-2016

Central Govt. vide No. L-14012/20/2016/IR (DU) dated 21.07.2016 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of HQ 61 Sub-Area, 56/APO in terminating the services of Sub-Maj.

(Retd.) Balbant Singh S/o Zorawar Singh w.e.f. 11-09-2015 is just, valid and legal? If not then to what relief the

workman is entitled for and from which date?”

Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement by the workman. Shri Satyander Kumar representative of

the workman moved an application for withdrawal of the reference on 9-8-2016 and today also made a endorsement on

the order sheet that workman has authorised and instructed him to withdraw the reference with liberty to file afresh if

needed. In view of the application and endorsement of the representative of the workman, the reference is returned as

withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh if needed.

Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

23.08.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1984-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-

MCY;w-Mh- djuky ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 22@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-

08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@150@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 22/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of the CPWD Karnal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 29.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/150/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

4404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 22 of 2015

Reference No. L-42011/150/2015/IR (DU) dated 02.12.2015

Shri Jonny, S/o Sh. Balraj, through All Indian Central PWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan, H.No.4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahadara, Delhi-110032

…Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Karnal Central Division,

Central Public Works Department, Karnal(Haryana) -132001

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Workman in person alongwith Sh.Raj Kumar

For the Management

Shri G.C.Babbar, advocate

AWARD

Passed on 23-08-2016

Central Govt. vide No.L-42011/150/2015/IR(DU) dated 02.12.2015 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Central Public Works Department , in terminating the services of

the workman Sh. Jonny S/o Balraj, sewer man is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

Today the case was fixed for filing of written statement by the management. The workman appeared alongwith

his representative Sh. Raj Kumar and filed application for withdrawal of the reference. The workman also made

endorsement to this effect on order sheet. In view of the above, the reference is returned as withdrawn.

Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

23.08.2016

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1985-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vpsZvksykftdy losZ vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ lhvkj la- 08@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@04@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. CR No. 08/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Archeological Survey of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 14.09.2016.

[No. L-42012/04/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4405

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 30th AUGUST, 2016

PRESENT :

Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

CR No. 08/2015

I Party

II Party

Smt. Vijayalakshmi,

The Superintending Archologist,

D/o Doraiswamy,

Archeological Survey of India,

8^th Ward, Garibhavi Colony,

5^th Floor, Kendriya Sadan,

Hospet Taluk,

17^th Main, Koramangala,

Bellary -583221

Bangalore -560034

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/04/2015 – IR(DU) dated 23.02.2015 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Archaelogical Survey of India, Kamalpur, Hampi, Sub-circle,

Karnataka in terminating the services of Smt. Vijayalaxmi, of Kamalapur, is proper, legal & justified? If not,

to what relief the said workman entitled to?”

After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have been

sent for both parties. Mr. Kumar Guru, Advocate and Additional Solicitor General Counsel filed memo of appearance

for II party. I party called absent for the hearing on 08.04.2016. On 16.08.2016, once again notice for hearing, has

been sent to I party by RPAD and also this Tribunal received served postal acknowledgment from Department of Posts,

India. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.

Unfortunately, the Ist party has failed to make appearance before this Tribunal. Further, in the present matter, the

Ist party has been furnished with sufficient and adequate opportunities to make her submissions, in the present case. It

is the settled law, that the particular matter has to be judged, in the light of its facts and circumstances of the said

matter only. Already, reasonable opportunities have been granted to the Ist party to make her submissions. Therefore,

it would be laying down the proposition, a little too broadly, to say that, even in an Award passed rejecting the Award

for non-prosecution, it must be supported by elaborate reasons and details. After going through the material records,

this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the Ist Party. Further more it is seen that, the

contentions of the Ist Party cannot be accepted for the above mentioned reasons also. Moreover, on the perusal of the

material records, it can be very well said that the Ist Party is not interested to contest the present matter, on the question

of fact and also on the question of law.

In the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear in the present matter, that the Ist party has no

interest to contest the present matter. It is for the Ist party to make out a case that she has a right to continue in service

of management and that the management has done a mistake in discontinuing her services

Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further, no case has been

made out by Ist party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non-prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view

the conduct of Ist party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, despite due service of the notice, that too by way of

RPAD and her conduct, in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal clear that the Ist party

is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above mentioned facts and

situations, it has to be held the present reference has to be rejected, for non-prosecution and no useful purpose will be

served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following order

ORDER

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30th August, 2016)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

4406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1986-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh

bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@56@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 56/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/56/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of July, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2015

Between:

The General Secretary,

BHPV National Employees Union (Affiliated to INTUC)

Visakhapatnam

…Petitioner Union

AND

The Executive Director,

M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited,

Heavy Plates and Vessels Plant,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) 530012

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri B. V. Rao, Authorised representative

For the Respondent

M/s. D. V. Subba Rao & D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/56/2015-IR(DU) dated 18.6.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. BHEL and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Heavy Plates and Vessels

Plant, Visakhapatnam in not considering the regularization of services of 1. Shri Badrinath Mishra and 2. Shri

Abdesh Kumar working as casual workers since 1984 and 1995 respectively is legal and justified? If not to

what relief they are entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.56/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The workman filed his Claim Statement against the Respondent on 27.01.2016 and the matter was posted for

counter of the Respondent/ Management.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4407

Today i.e. on 29.07.2016 the Management counsel present and filed a memo stating that both parties have

resolved their dispute through an Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and a copy of the Arbitration Award is enclosed

to the memo.

Petitioner also filed a memo with a prayer to permit to withdraw the present case as the matter was settled

through Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and respondent has informed the petitioner that it is accepting the

directions as set out in page No. 11 and 12 of the said Award. It is further stated in the memo that Petitioner agreed to

the Arbitration Award, which clearly indicates that the dispute between the parties have been resolved. Thus, the

memo filed by the Petitioner to withdraw the dispute is accepted. The case is disposed of accordingly. Hence, no

dispute Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, typed by him and corrected by me on this the 29^th day of

July, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1987-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh

bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@107@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 76/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/107/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of July, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE I.D. No. 76/2015

Between:

The General Secretary,

BHPV National Employees Union (Affiliated to INTUC)

Visakhapatnam

…Petitioner

4408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Executive Director,

M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited,

Heavy Plates and Vessels Plant,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) 530012

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri B. V. Rao, Authorised Representative

For the Respondent

M/s. D. V. Subba Rao & D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 42011/107/2015-IR(DU) dated 11.9.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. BHEL and their workman. The reference is

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Heavy Plates and Vessels

Plant, Visakhapatnam in not considering the regularization of services of (1) Shri G Appala Naidu and 13

others working as casual workers since 1994 to 2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are

entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.76/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The workman filed his Claim Statement against the Respondent on 27.01.2016 and the matter was posted for

counter of the Respondent /Management.

Today i.e., on 29.07.2016 the Management counsel is present and filed a memo stating that both parties have

resolved their dispute through an Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and a copy of the Arbitration Award is enclosed

to the memo.

Petitioner also filed a memo with a prayer to permit to withdraw the present case as the matter was settled

through Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and respondent has informed the petitioner that it is accepting the

directions as set out in page No. 11 and 12 of the said Award. It is further stated in the memo that Petitioner agreed to

the Arbitration Award, which clearly indicates that the dispute between the parties have been resolved. Thus, the

memo filed by the Petitioner to withdraw the dispute is accepted. The case is disposed of accordingly. Hence, no

dispute Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, typed by him and corrected by me on this the 29^th day of

July, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1988-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr gSoh

bysfDVªdYl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@108@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4409

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 77/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

the management of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2016.

[No. L-42011/108/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of July, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE I.D. No. 77/2015

Between:

The General Secretary,

BHPV National Employees Union (Affiliated to INTUC)

Visakhapatnam

…Petitioner Union

AND

The Executive Director,

M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited,

Heavy Plates and Vessels Plant,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) 530012

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri B. V. Rao, Authorised Representative

For the Respondent

M/s. D. V. Subba Rao, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 42011/108/2015-IR(DU) dated 11.9.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of BHEL and their workman. The reference is

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Heavy Plates and Vessels

Plant, Visakhapatnam in not considering the regularization of services of (1) N.V. Bhaskar Rao, (2) M.

Gangadhara Rao, (3) Badarla Srinivas Rao, (4) Upendra Kumar Sha, (5) R. Deva Raj, (6) Dadi Govinda Rao

and (7) Md. Shabir working as casual worker since 1986 to 2006 is legal and justified? If not to what relief

they are entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.77/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The workman filed his Claim Statement against the Respondent No.2 on 27.01.2016 and the matter was posted

for counter of the Respondent/Management.

Today i.e. on 29.07.2016 the Management counsel is present and filed a memo stating that both parties have

resolved their dispute through an Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and a copy of the Arbitration Award is enclosed

to the memo.

Petitioner also filed a memo with a prayer to permit to withdraw the present case as the matter was settled

through Arbitration Award dated 21.01.2016 and respondent has informed the petitioner that it is accepting the

directions as set out in page No. 11 and 12 of the said Award. It is further stated in the memo that Petitioner agreed to

the Arbitration Award, which clearly indicates that the dispute between the parties have been resolved. Thus, the

memo filed by the Petitioner to withdraw the dispute is accepted. The case is disposed of accordingly. Hence, no

dispute Award is passed.

4410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, typed by him and corrected by me on this the 29^th day of

July, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1989-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj baVsfytsal

,iQ-,l- xzqi ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-09-

2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1989.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 77/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Intelligency F.S. Group and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

09.09.2016.

[No. L-42025/03/2016-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No.77/2014

Shri Anand Singh

S/o late Shri Govind Singh,

R/o S/170/187, Zharsa Gaon,

Delhi Cantt., Delhi-110 010

…Workman

Versus

The Commanding Officer,

No.1 Directorate of Headquarter,

Intelligence F.S. Group (M-1-25),

C/o Station Headquarter,

Delhi Cantt., Delhi-110 010

…Management

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by the claimant, Shri Anand Singh, under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act). It is averred in the statement of claim that the workman herein was appointed by the

management, Commanding Officer, Directorate of Headquarter, Intelligence FS Group on the post of Car Driver on

29.09.2004 at a monthly salary of Rs.7000.00. He worked continuously from 29.09.2004 till 07.08.2014 without any

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4411

break. He initially drove an Esteem bearing No.DL4 CG 4008 and at the time of his termination, he was driving a

Honda CRV bearing No.DL 4C AB 4645 and both these vehicles taken by the Government but shown as private

vehicle. Management issued temporary pass and visitor slip from time to time in his favour, due to the sensitive

nature of job of the management. There were seven other drivers who were employed alongwith the workman. Due to

the same treatment meted out to them, some of them have left and fresh engagements have been made in their place.

The workman used to mark his attendance regularly from 29.09.2004 to 07.08.2013, in the register maintained by the

management, thus rendering more than 8 years of unblemished service. On 08.08.2013, when the workman reported

for duties, he was not allowed to join his duties and he was terminated without complying with Section 25F of the Act,

leaving him and his family in destitution. He approached the management several times to take him back on the job but

to no avail. Subsequently, he sent a legal notice through his counsel on 04.09.2013, to which no reply has been given

by the management. He then approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation of the matter but due to

arbitrary and predetermined action of the management, no conciliation could be arrived at. The claimant projected that

a period of 45 days stood expired from the date of his filing a claim statement/application before the Conciliation

Officer, hence the claim statement was filed under the provisions of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act. Finally, a

prayer has been made to declare the termination as illegal and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

Written statement was filed by the management, taking various preliminary objections, i.e. management not

being an industry, claim statement not being supported by affidavit etc. On merits, the management has averred that

the workman was never in their employment, either as temporary or permanent employee, whatsoever. Temporary

passes were issued to him to enable him to enter the cantonment area to carry out errands or as domestic help and

drivers to the officers/staff in their personal capacity on need basis for specific period of time with intermittent long

breaks. The workman’s activities/nature of work had no relation with the management in any official capacity. Since

the workman was never employed by the management, the question of his termination is simply falsification of facts.

The workman was called by the officer concerned in his personal capacity and it is absurd that for any personal work of

any official, the management is responsible. No salary slip or any official document has been filed by the workman to

establish the relationship of master and servant between the parties. Mere production of any pass or visitor slip by the

workman does not in any way improve any evidentiary value and the said claim has been filed with an intention to

obtain wrongful gain. Hence, it is prayed that the claim, being devoid of merits, may be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.01.2016:

(i)

Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections of the management?

(ii)

Whether services of the workman herein were illegally terminated by the management on 07.08.2013, as

alleged?

Thereafter, the reference was listed for evidence of the claimant. However, despite affording of three

opportunities, neither the claimant nor any authorized representative on his behalf put in their appearance. It is,

therefore, apparent that the claimant is no more interested in adjudication of the case on merits. Hence, this Tribunal is

left with no other alternative but to pass a ‘No dispute/claim’ award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award

be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

September 6, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1990-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p,uch

x<+oky lsaVªy ;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@47@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1990.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 94/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

4412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the management of the HNB Garhwal Central University and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-42011/47/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 94/2011

Km. Kamla Bhandari, D/o Shri. J.S. Bhandari,

C/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jain, Adv.

Sri Nagar, Distt., Pauri (UK),

Uttrakhand

…Workman

Versus

The Registrar,

HNB Garhwal Central University,

Sri Nagar Garhwal (UK),

Garhwal

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42011/47/2011 -IR(DU) dated 10.10.2011

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

“Whether the action of the management of HNB Garhwal Central University, in terminating the services of

workman Km. Kamla Bhandari D/o Sh. J.S Bhandari w.e.f. 30.10.2001, without complying with Section 25 F, G

& H is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

On 11.11.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 94/11 and claimant was

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

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 12.04.2012. Through which she prayed as

follows:-

“It is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that the workman may kindly be reinstated with full back wages and

continuity of service along with the benefits attached to her service under the law.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be

awarded to the workman in the interest of justice.

Previously case proceeded ex-parte against management and workman in support of her case filed her affidavit .

Which was tendered on 2.05.2013 and marked as Exht. WW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit , she relied on letters dated

24.07.2001, 26.07.2001, copy of certificates dated 09.07.2001, 27.12.2008 and another certificate dated 27.12.2008 ,

joint representation submitted to the management, letter dated 10.05.2007, reply submitted by the management under

Right to information Act, besides the documents supplied thereto, copy of letter dated 10.05.2007 sent by the

management , copy of letter dated 13.09.2007 , letter dated 07.12.2001, representation dated 10.05.2007, letter dated

30.10.20152 and office orders issued by the Registrar, these documents are Exh. WW1/1 to Exh. WW1/37.

Management moved an application for setting aside order dated 17.12.2013. Which was allowed on 28.1.2014

and management was permitted to file written statement.

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 4.03.2014. Through which management prayed

as follows:-

“ It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly dismiss the reference petition with costs.”

Against which workman filed rejoinder on 1.04.2014. Through which she re-affirmed the contents of claim

statement.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4413

On 6.5.2014 I framed following issues:-

Whether the action of the management of HNB Garhwal Central University, in terminating the services of

workman Km. Kamla Bhandari D/o Sh. J.S Bhandari w.e.f. 30.10.2001, without complying with Section 25

F, G & H is legal and justified? If so its effect?

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

Workman again tendered her affidavit on 14.08.2014 . Her re-examination-in -chief is as follows:-

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit. My affidavit is Exht. WW1/B. I rely upon the documents WW1/1 to

WW1/18.

On 26.05.2015 workman was partly cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the management. Her partly cross-

examination is as follows:-

I was appointed in 1999.

I was appointed by the Registrar of the management.

It is on record.

My appointment was approved by Vice Chancellor.

I was appointed on regular post.

I was appointed on monthly salary basis.

My appointment was not on contractual basis.

On 29.01.2015 workman was further cross-examined and her further cross-examination is as follows:-

It is incorrect to suggest that I was temporary appointed.

I was regular appointee.

Appointment letter is on record.

No termination letter was communication to me.

When management orally refused to come inside the campus of management then I came to know that

management is not wisher to continue my services in management.

I am unaware of the fact whether letters of termination are issued by registrar of University.

It is incorrect to suggest that I was legally appointed as appointment are not issued by University.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of management witness and MW tendered his affidavit and he

was cross- examined on same day i.e. on 15.3.2016. His statement of tendering of affidavit and cross-examination is as

follows:

I tender my affidavit as evidence Exht. MW1/A. Which bears my signatures at point “A” .

XXXX:- By Sh. O.P. Sharma, Ld. A/R for the workman.

Registrar of University authorized me to give evidence in this Case.

Q. Whether the Vice Chancellor of the University has given the approval for the appointment of claimant?

Ans. In University appointing authority is registrar of University not Vice Chancellor.

Vol. Stated, In University registrar is appointing authority for non-teaching and Vice Chancellor for teaching

staff.

Q. Whether appointment letter Exht. MW1/W1 was issued by the Vice Chancellor or University?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Whether the claimant continued to workman after initial appointment without any break?

A. I am not aware of this Fact.

Q. Whether the claimant has been working from June, 2001, continuously according to Exht. WW1/5?

A. As letter is not on letter pad. So it is not authentic it may be forged.

4414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Q. Whether letter Exh.WW1 /7A, B & C which are on letter pad are genuine or not?

A. I do not know.

To Court:- Ans. Witness keeping mum.

Observation conduction of witness is that be suffering defect to support the management as he is employee of

management.

Q. Whether the copy of to attendance under Exht. WW1/11A, WW1/11 B , , WW1/11 C, , WW1/11 D , WW1/11

E , WW1/11 F , WW1/11 G are supplied under R.T.I so her attendance in the register.

Ans. Documents are Genuine.

I am not aware of the fact that management has ever issued any notice, charge-sheet after any compensation at

the time of her illegal termination.

I do not know whether any other employee was appointed on the post on which claimant was working.

Contents of para 16 of my affidavit are correct.

I am not aware of the fact whether at the time of appointment of other employee workman in the instance case is

called for or not.

It is correct that salary of workman is drawn from Head of Physics Department.

It is incorrect to suggest after termination of workman other person were employee and no opportunity given to

workman.

I am deposing falsely.

Management filed written arguments on 07.06.2016. Contents of written arguments are as follows:-

That the University was a state university upto 14 Jan 2009 and was upgraded as a Central University under the

Central Universities Act 2009 w.e.f. 15.01.2009.

That that at the time of said up gradation of the university there were 171 contractual/daily wager employees,

engaged by the Head of the Department/Project Incharge/Sectionals Heads of the university which are not the

appointing authority nor any order of engagement/said appointments was ever issued by the university to the said daily

wager/contractual employees. In the said list the name of the petitioners were not available. These petitioners were not

engaged by the University.

That during the tenure of the State University, some of the departments may have engaged daily wagers without

the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the competent authority hence illegal and void ab initio.

That it is submitted the said daily wager/contractual laboursmay have been engaged for a period of one to three

months showing some urgency of the section without following any provisions of law and with a view to provide a

back door entry in the university.

That it is also worth mentioning here neither any permission or approval was ever obtained from the university

for such illegal engagement nor the said engagement was ever extended with the permission or approval of the

university but it seems that under some connivance with the officers of the university this category of employees were

illegally provided the wages without any permission or approval from the university hence illegal and void ab initio.

That it is also worth mentioning here that none of these 171 contractual/daily rated employees were engaged

against any substantive post.

That it is also worth mentioning here that the state govt. issued a Govt. order in the year 1998 sanctioning 418

post in the university clearly specify that no further engagement of daily wagers would be made in the university and as

stated above these 171 daily wager/contractual labours were engaged by the project in charge or by the self finance

departments and their payments were released from the self financing budget head of the department.

That six of them were removed but after a lapse of 4 to 6 years these persons were engaged in the department and

yet again without any permission or approval from the university and these persons started claiming their seniority by

including the period they were out of their engagement.

That out of the aforesaid 171 daily wager/contractual employees 5 were working on Group C post while there is a

specific direction from the state that there shall be no engagement of daily wager in Group C. the details of

engagements are mentioned below;Group- C- 45, Fourth Class- 85, and Sweeper- 41.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4415

10.

That while making the said illegal engagement the officials of the university have not cared to ensure the

compliance of the reservation policy and the percentage of reservation is alarming.

11.

That, presently, 37 posts are lying vacant in Group C including technical posts in the university and 104 Posts

are lying vacant in Group D posts (now re-designated to MTS-Group C posts)

12.

That these daily wager/contractual employees have paralyzed the functioning of the university by putting lock on

the gates of the university (Talabandi) by proceeding on agitation, by resorting to proceed on a strike and they also

extended threats to the university officers and are demanding their regularization.

13.

That it is submitted that when the said fact of illegal engagement and back door entry in the service of the

university was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, the State Govt. constituted a committee by appointing Chief

Development Officer Pauri namely Shri Dilip Jawalkar to enquire into the matter.

14.

That the enquiry committee so constituted submitted a report to the State Govt. pointing out that the complaint in

regard to the irregularities and illegalities in the appointments of Group C and D post are established and further

recommended that the State Govt. may take decision fastening the liability in the matter.

15.

That a writ petition No. 516 of 2009 (S/S) “Shambhu Prasad Chamoli V/s HNBGU and others” came up for

consideration before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to take cognizance of the report and

was pleased to direct the university to re-consider the appointment made in the said writ petition keeping in view the

report dated 21.04.2008.

16.

That it is submitted that the present petitioners are also amongst those 187 daily wager/contractual employees

who were engaged without any permission or approval of the university and by the authorities who are not the

appointing authority as the power to appoint Group C and D Employees vests in the Registrar of the university and no

one else. It is emphatically argued before this Hon’ble Court that none other and none of the petitioner’s before the

court has filed any valid/original appointment letter issued by the Registrar of the University and any other appointment

letter by any other authority of the university is illegal and does not give any right or entitlement to any illegal

appointee.

17.

The matter of regularization was placed before the Executive Council of the University. The EC has decided

considering the Supreme Court Judgment on Uma Devi Case there is no provision of regularization. Hence it is humbly

argued before the Hon’ble Court that any regular re-appointment to the petitioner shall be in violation of the ratio laid

down by the Hon’bel Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v Umadevi 2006 4 SCC 1.

18.

That the petitioner was never legally appointed in the university weather on contract or on dailey wage or in any

other capacity. In the light of such illegal appointment petitioner have no claim in any manner under Industrial Dispute

Act. Petitioner cannot claim herself as a workman as she was never legally appointed in the university.

19.

That the petitioner has not even arrayed the head of the department of the concerned department as a party who in

collusion with the petitioner, illegelly allowed her to work in contractual capacity. University cannot be answerable for

such illegal appointments and back door entries.

20.

That the attendance register shown by the petitioner are can not be relied upon in the absence of valid legal

appointment of the petitioner. Even as per the alleged attendance register, the alleged claimant was never a workman

under Section 2 (s) of the Act neither claimant ever been into continuous service legally for not less than one year with

the respondent institution hence the claimant was never a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act nor the

alleged retrenchment as alleged can be challenged under the Industrial Disputes Act as it was never a retrenchment as

the ID Act. An Illegal appointment if terminated cannot be termed as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

21.

That in absence of any legal valid post on which the person is appointed there cannot be any legal right of the

workman for asking to be appointed on that post. Post creation is purely executive function and there cannot be any

regularization or compensation for a post which legally does not exist.

Petitioner’s post was never in existence as regular post in the University neither tere is any such regular post

today and in the absence of such regular post petitioner can not be continued in service. This position has already been

laid down in the following Supreme Court Judgments

(i) State of Maharashtra and another v. R.S. Bhonde and others: (2005) 6 SCC 751.

(ii)

Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Ors. v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union and Ors. (2001 (7)

SCC 346)

(iii) Ahmadnagar Zilla Shetmajoor Union v. Dinkar Rao Kalyanrao Jagadale (2001 (7) SCC 356)

4416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22.

That under these circumstances it is expedient in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly dismiss

the reference petition with costs.

Workman filed written arguments on 14.4.2016. Contents of written arguments are as follows:-

That the present statement of claim arises out of reference No. L-42011/51/2011-(IR(DU) forwarded by the

learned Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Delhi vide letter

dated 10.10.2011 and the terms of the reference is as under:-

SCHEDULE

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF HNB GARHWAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY,

IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE WORKMAN MS. KAMLA BHANDARI DAUGHTER OF

SHRI J.S. BHANDARI, W.E.F. 30.10.2001, WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE SECTION 25F, G & H

IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

That the CLAIMANT was appointed as Clerk against the vacant post and with prior approval of the Vice

Chancellor vide order dated 8.1.2001 in the department of physics at Birla Premises, Shri Nagar on the consolidated

salary of Rs.3000/- per month.

That the CLAIMANT worked with all her honesty, diligence and sincerity till 31.10.2001, when her services

were illegally terminated/retrenched as she was prevented to join her duty in the morning when she reported. During

her tenure with the Management, the CLAIMANT had unblemished record.

That the Management has terminated/retrenched the services of the CLAIMANT illegally, without any just and

sufficient cause or reason whatsoever in violation of the provisions of the laws. Even the basic principle of the natural

justice was ignored.

That the CLAIMANT has worked continuously with the Management since her appointment dated 08.01.2001

till illegal termination/retrenchment of her services on 30/10/2001.

That the CLAIMANT was appointed as Clerk in physics department at Birla Premises, against the Permanent

vacancy after the approval of the Vice Chancellor HNB Garhwal University Srinagar (Uttarakhand) on consolidated

monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. As such the appointment of the CLAIMANT was made as Clerk against the Permanent

Post lawfully with approval of competent authority. That at no point of time the CLAIMANT ever worked as daily

wager or contractual worker. Her appointment was made against permanent post on regular basis and was not made for

any fixed period or for any urgency, same was against permanent post and was not a back door entry.

That at the time of appointment of the CLAIMANT, the Management was governed by the State Government, as

the University was enacted under State Statute at the relevant time. That along with the CLAIMANT, many other

employees were also appointed on different posts and at different times on the same terms and conditions.

That on 30.10.2001 the management of the University has arbitrarily, without following the provisions of law and

illegally terminated/retrenched the services of the CLAIMANT.

That the CLAIMANT aggrieved with the illegal act of the Management raised an Industrial Dispute under

U.P.Industrial dispute Act before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, Dehradun, than

Uttaranchal.

That then the competent Govt. i.e. Govt. of Uttaranchal now Uttarakhand referred the Industrial dispute before

the Labour Court Dehradun for adjudication vide order No.4837/Shramseva/631/Shram/2002 dated 24.10.2002 as CP

No. 47/2003 before the labour court Dehradun vide letter dated 29.04.2003.

That the CLAIMANT preferred the statement of claim before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Dehradun wherein the Management also filed its written statement taking a false and vague defense which was

untenable.

That during the pendency of the aforesaid Industrial Dispute and without following the provisions of law and

arbitrarily reinstated some of the workmen whose services were illegally terminated/retrenched along with the

CLAIMANT, vide order No. Admn/2007/1817 dated 1.9.2007 whereby seven such employees who had completed 240

days were reinstated on regular basis and the case of the CLAIMANT was not at all considered for the reasons best

known to the Management. Even the juniors of the CLAIMANT were also re-instated; their cases were also pending

before the Labour Court, Dehradun.

That during the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, when the dispute was at the advance stage, the

Management filed an application alleging that it has now become the Central University w.e.f. 1.3.2009 and the Labour

court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present industrial dispute and requested for dropping the

proceedings/adjudication.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4417

That he learned Labour Court Dehradun vide its order dated 12.10.2010 has dropped the proceedings pending

before the Hon’ble Court on the ground that now the Management has become the Central University, so the court has

now no jurisdiction and consigned the file to record room without answering the reference made by the State

Government, though the act of the learned Labour Court in not deciding the reference was against law.

That thereafter, as directed the CLAIMANT raised the industrial Dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central)/Conciliation Officer, Dehradun for amicably resolving of the dispute between the CLAIMANT and the

Management, but again the conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute was referred by the Conciliation Officer to

the Competent Govt. /Central Govt. i.e. Secretary Labour, Govt. of India, referred the dispute with the above said terms

of reference for adjudication to this Hon’ble Court.

That the service record of the CLAIMANT remained clear throughout and no notice or show-cause or charge

sheet was ever served upon her, no enquiry / disciplinary proceedings whatsoever were ever initiated by the

Management against the CLAIMANT at any point of time. That during her service with the Management and even

thereafter, CLAIMANT never indulged in any illegal activities, strike or join any agitation or extend any threats to

Management Officials or put locks on the main gate of the University. The CLAIMANT has completed 240 days in the

preceding year as such the retrenchment of the CLAIMANT was made in violation of section 25F, G & H of I.D Act.

No retrenchment compensation was offered or paid to the CLAIMANT at the time of her illegal

termination/retrenchment from the services to her best knowledge the Management did not display of vacancies were

arranged on notice board in the premises of University heaving details of those vacancies. No intimation of those

vacancies were given by registered post to the CLAIMANT, as such CLAIMANT was deprived of her lawful benefits

and violate the provisions of ID Act and Rules frame thereunder.

That the last drawn salary of the CLAIMANT was Rs. 3000/- per month and the same was being drawn by the

Department from the main head of the Management/University and not from any self financing Budget Head of the

department.

That in spite of the best efforts of the CLAIMANT she could not get any job or work, as such the CLAIMANT

is unemployed since the date of her illegal termination/retrenchment and is surviving on the earning of other family

members.

That the CLAIMANT has made various correspondence/requests/visits individually as well as jointly with other

terminated / retrenched employees for her re-instatement on the service. CLAIMANT also wrote letters dated

31.10.2001, 3.12.2001 and 4.12.2001 to the above said effect but the Management did not care for the same. The

Management also issued various certificates confirming the services of the CLAIMANT who has completed 240 days

in the preceding year with management. Even otherwise the dispute of the CLAIMANT fully covered under the

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 specially the section 25G of the said Act. The Management has issued

certificates dated 09.07.2007, 27.12.2008 & 27.12.2008.

10.

That the CLAIMANT was never served with any notice, order or reason for the termination/retrenchment of her

services nor CLAIMANT was offered any salary in lieu of the notice. That the CLAIMANT was not paid or offered

any compensation at the time of illegal termination / retrenchment of her services which is alleged to have been

retrenched under the garb of some cut out date.

11.

That the Management never offered any re-employment to the CLAIMANT after her illegal

termination/retrenchment, whereas in 2007 the Management re-employed various workmen on the similar category

appointed on the same terms and conditions and their services were also illegally terminated/retrenched along with the

CLAIMANT and their disputes were also pending before the Labour Court at Dehradun, but to the knowledge and

documents supplied by the Management under RTI, the Management has reinstated many of such employees who were

illegally terminated/retrenched and Junior to CLAIMANT against the provisions of Section 25-G of I.D.Act 1947 as

well as the settled principle of law/rule *first come last go* and as such the Management has not acted fairly, which is

crystal clear from the letter of Management dated 13.09.2007.

12.

That the CLAIMANT, who is a citizen of India, was not given any opportunity by the Management to offer her

re-employment or give preference to her, rather the Management employed many other employees, as such the act of

the Management is totally in violation of provisions of Section 25F, G & H of the I.D.Act 1947 as the persons re-

employed on the basis of pick and choose, who are Junior to the CLAIMANT and their re-employment was made even

after 18^th August, 1997. The CLAIMANT along with other similar workman made an representation before the Vice

Chancellor of Management which was not considered.

13.

That during pendency of aforesaid ID, Management did not filed written statement in spite of several

opportunities and ultimately this Hon’ble Court was pleased to proceed Ex-parte vide order dt. 06/11/2012 and Ex-

parte evidence of CLAIMANT was recorded as WW1 and matter was fixed for award. The predecessor Presiding

Officer could not passed award due course when regular Presiding Officer was appointed and matter was put for

4418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proceeding. During this period, Management filed an application for set-asiding Ex-parte order 06/11/20012. This

Hon’ble Court was pleased to set-aside the Ex-parte order with cost and Management was allowed to file W.S. W.S

was filed on 04/03/2014 wherein following frivolous pleas were taken in defense.

14.

That the Management university was state university till 14/01/2009 and was up- graded as central university

and has submitted that at time of up-gradation there were 171, contractual / daily wages employs, engaged by the Head

of Dept/ Project / Sections Head of university which was not appointed authority. In the said list the name of petitioners

were not available. Management further stated that daily wages/ contractual labours may have been engaged for a

period of one to three months showing some urgency of section, without following any provision of law and with a

view to provide a back door entry in university.

The Management has stated in para(xi) of preliminary objection that presently , 37 posts are lying vacant in

Group C including technical posts in the university and 104 posts in Group D posts ( now redesigned to MTS- Group C

posts).

The Management further submitted in his W.S para (xvi) of preliminary objection that the present petitioners are

also amongst those 187 daily wages / contractual employees who were engaged without any permission or approval of

the university and by the authorities who are not the appointed authority, as power to appoint Group C and D

employees vests in the Registrar and on none other.

CLAIMANT filed replication and contradicts the contentions made by Management in their W.S and affirmed

the contention of claim.

CLAIMANT entered in evidence box and examined herself as WW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit

dt. 14/08/2014 as Exh. WW1/B. The CLAIMANT also proved documents exhibited as WW1/1 to 18 in her favour.

15.

That various representation and demand of re-instatement was made by CLAIMANT individually as well as

jointly and through union and those are exhibited as WW1/1 to WW1/3, WW1/8 & WW1/9, WW1/14 & WW1/17. The

letter issued by Management the deptt, V.C and finance officer is Exh. WW1/5 & WW1/6 and service certificates dt.

09/07/2007, 27/12/2008 and 27/02/2008 which are Exh. WW1/7 (colly). During pendency of ID CLAIMANT sought

various documents and relevant information through the process of RTI, application filed under RTI are exhibits

WW1/10. Under RTI the Management supplied various records/copy of the attendance register which are exhibit

WW1/11 (colly), WW1/12 and WW1/13(colly).

To prove her case, the Claimant/ Workman examine herself as WW1 and adduce her evidence by way of

affidavit which is Exhibits as WW1/A & WW1/B. Management also examine one Sh. Suraj Kumar Prasad as MW1

and filed evidence by way of affidavit. Management relied nor filed any document, as such no document was proved.

Even Management has not rebutted the claim of Workman / Claimant.

Issue No. 1

Admittedly Claimant was appointing on 08/01/2001 as clerk, in this deptt of Physics at Birla Premise of Sri

Nagar Garhwal of the Management. Fact has been duly proved by the appointment letter MW1/W1. The V.C is

Supreme Authority in Management University and appointment on his approval is proper and made by higher

authority, same admitted in his cross examination by MW1. The submission of Management that Registrar is

appointing authority has no substance to challenge the appointment order MW1/W1. The Management witness MW1

has admitted the documents WW1/11A, 11, C to G as genuine, which clearly stated that Claimant has worked

continuously and only on monthly wages. Last drawn salary was Rs 3000/- Exh WW1/11 clearly evident that Claimant

was paid monthly salary and has worked till 30/10/2001.

Salary slips of various months clearing showing wages paids and period or numbers of days Claimant worked in

particular months.

Admittedly the services of claimant was terminated illegally without assigning any reason as such fully covered

under the head “RETRENCHMENT” as provided in section 2(oo) of ID Act, the services of Claimant was not

terminated as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action nor falls under any provision (a) to (c) as given in

section 2(oo). Thus it attracts the provision of section 25F of ID Act. From the documents as well the evidence of

Management, it clearly establishes that the Workman has worked continue and fixed wages were paidly on monthly

basis, as such question of daily wages or contractual service does not arise. No document or evidence was adduce by

Management in this respect, which clearly show that her services of regular nature and not temporary. Salary

slips/attendance register are exhibited as WW1/11(colly) and service certificate as WW1/7(colly). Only attendance

forms showing attendance of daily wages, does not in way change Claimant status of regular appointment on monthly

wages.

To attract provision of section 25F of ID Act, conditions precedent are calculating 240 days in preceding year to

ascertained it, one had to move back ward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of termination/retrenchment

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4419

and ascertain whether the Workman had rendered service for a period of 240 days. Admitted the service rendered by

Claimant is continue without any break and completed 365 days in preceding year.

On this point Claimant relied on case title 1986 Lab IC 98 where Hon’ble “Apex Court held” Sundays and

other paid holidays should be taken into account for purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the

workman could be said to be have actual worked. The continuous service has been clearly define in Section 25 B

and more particularly sub Section 2(a)(ii).

Services of Claimant was neither as daily wages nor causal, Claimant wages were fixed, revised and paid on

monthly basis, as such case attracts provision of Section 25F of ID Act, being retrenched without complying the

provision of law and law of natural justice violated. No compensation was paid or offered to Claimant at time of illegal

termination. Admittedly claimant is citizen of India and is or was not offered any re-employment at any point of time,

no required notice\ call to re-employed was served on Claimant, as mandatory required Section 25 (H) and (G) of ID

Act. It is well settled proposition that

“First come last go “was also totally ignored. The documents Exh WW 1/1, WW1/3 clearly established that

Claimant has been requesting for re-employment and further vide document Exh WW1/4, WW1/7 and WW1/10

Claimant proved that Management has re-employed some of similarly placed workman who were junior to Claimant.

Thus Management has violated the provision of Section 25 (G) & (H) of ID Act. No mandatory provisions were

followed and claimant was deprived of the benefit of which she was legally entitled. It is further established that

vacancy were existing and were of permanent nature, because Management has made various appointment during

pending of present dispute including on post on which Claimant was working.

Claimant relied on the judgment tilled as 208(2014) DLT 44 where in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has

held” Deleting the name of respondent and retaining juniors and co-workers would conclusively prove violation

of Section 25 (G) & (H) of ID Act”.

That the Apex Court in the judgment cited as Central Bank of India Vs S.Stayam &ors (1996)5 SSC 419, in

which the Apex Court has held that The plain language of Section 25-H speaks only of re-employment of

retrenched workmen. The ordinary meaning of the expression 'retrenched workmen' must relate to the wide

meaning of 'retrenchment' given in section 2(oo). Section 25- F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment

but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words "workmen.... who

has been in continuous service for not less than year". Section 25-G prescribes the principle of retrenchment and

applies ordinarily the principle of "last come first go" which is not confined only to workmen who have been in

continuous service not less than one year, covered by Section 25-F.

Section 25-H is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-

F. It does not require curtailment of the ordinary meaning of the word 'retrenchment' used therein. The

provision for re-employment of retrenched workmen merely gives preference to a retrenched workmen in the

matter of re-employment over other person. It is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is

no reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the enactment without causing any

prejudice to a better placed retrenched workmen. Chapter V-A, in which Section 25-H occurs, provides for

retrenchment and is not enacted only for the benefit of the workmen to whom Section 25-F applies but for all

cases of retrenchment and, therefore, there is no reason to restrict the application of Section 25- H therein only

to one category of retrenched workmen.

In another case cited as I (2010) SLT 448 case title Harginder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp. where

in Apex Court held as Applicability of Section 25 G- Workman not required to prove that he had worked for a

period of 240 days during twelve calendar months preceding termination of his service- It is sufficient for him to

plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, employer violated rule of 'last come first go'without any

tangible reason.

On this point, citation relied upon by the Management are not applicable in the present case because Uma Devi

case is of 2005 whereas the service of claimant were terminated in 2001 and no re- employment made even, after the

said judgment case of Mahatam Phule Agricultural University is in respect of daily wages, whereas in the present case

claimant were employment on regular monthly wages. The case of R.S Bhonde was on seasonal work, whereas is

present case claimant work for regularly and continuously not as seasonal or causal work.

The Management has miserable failed to produce evidence to show that while terminating services of Claimant it

complied with the requirement of Section 25G ID Act or has offered any compensation, or served any notice or issue

any chargesheet or leveled any allegation of misconduct. Management further failed to prove that while employing or

making appointment of the post held by Claimant has adhere to settled law or mandatory requirement. Hence issue No.

1 be likely to be decided in favour of Claimant.

4420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 2

Admittedly the Claimant has stated in his claim that she is unemployed since her illegal termination and also

proved the same in her evidence, in para 8 wherein has specifically stated that inspite of the best efforts she could not

get any job or work, as such she is unemployed since the date of her illegal termination and is surviving on the

earning of other family members. Ans same has been reiterated in her evidence affidavit WW1/B, in para 19.

And this fact remain unchallenged, as Management has neither put up question on claimant in her cross

examination nor give any rebuttal in their evidence. The Apex Court has held in the case cited has (2005) 2 SSC 363

Burden of proof- Held, initial burden is on employee- He has to show that he was not gainfully employed- It is

thereafter that the employer can bring on record materials to rebut the claim of employee.

The Apex Court in the further held in the case title P.G.I of medical education research Vs Raj Kumar cited as

1(2001) 2 SSC 54, wherein it was held that "Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it

has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be envolved,

though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety".

The aforesaid finding was again reiterated in "Hindustan Motors Ltd Vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya

cited as 2 (2002) 6 SSC 41 and in another case titled as Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar

cited as 3 (2003) 4 SSC 579.

Hence this issue stands to in favour of the claimant and claimant is entitled full back wages.

On the facts and circumstances stated above the workman/Claimant is entitled for re-instatement from the date

illegal termination with full back wages along with all consequential benefits.

As such the present reference may kindly be decided in favour of Claimant and against the Management.

It is relevant to mention here that in case of Municipal Committee Karnal Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors. 2016 L.L.R.

P. 513. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court laid down following principle:-

“If there is non-compliance of S. 25-F ID. Act i.e. retrenchment compensation has not been provided to workman

then termination of workman shall be illegal because he has completed 240 days service in a calendar year.” Hence

workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.

In case of PathanKot Vehicleades Pvt Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur & anrs. 2016 L.L.R 461

Lordship of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that reinstatement appropriate when termination is violative of I.D Act.

In case of H.D. Singh Vs. R.B.I 1985 S.C.C (L &S) 975 their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

adverse inference appropriate when employer fails to produce attendance /wages register and other service

record.

On the basis of aforesaid settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court , Lordship of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case

of Bright Export Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Trustees E.P.F organization 2016 L.L.R P. 487. Specified that burden

lies on party who pleads as per provisions of S.103 Indian Evidence Act.

Their Lordship of Delhi High Court further held that since it is within the special knowledge of the employer that

a particular employee is employed with him or not hence burden lies on him to produce attendance register/wages

When case was proceeding ex-parte against management. Then workman in support of her case filed her affidavit

which was tendered on 2.05.2013 as Exht. WW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit , she relied on letters dated 24.07.2001,

26.07.2001, copy of certificates dated 09.07.2001, 27.12.2008 and another certificate dated 27.12.2008 , joint

representation submitted to the management, letter dated 10.05.2007, reply submitted by the management under Right

to information Act, besides the documents supplied thereto, copy of letter dated 10.05.2007 sent by the management ,

copy of letter dated 13.09.2007 , letter dated 07.12.2001, representation dated 10.05.2007, letter dated 30.10.20152 and

office orders issued by the Registrar, these documents are Exh. WW1/1 to Exh. WW1/37.

It is relevant to mention here that aforesaid documents have not been challenged by management during its cross-

examination with WW1.

Moreover they have already been proved by workman through her evidence. In addition to it these documents are

documents on record of this case so judicial notice in respect of those documents can be taken u/s 56 of Indian

Evidence Act.

Which is accordingly taken and these papers are being treated as documentary evidence of workman.

No ruling in reply by management in support of its case has been cited by Ld. A/R for the management.

Moreover there is sufficient required evidence of workman which comes within category of reliable and credible

evidence .

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4421

Workman has completed 240 days service in each calendar year. So she shall be deemed to be in continuous in

service under the employer as per provision of section 25-B(2) (A) (ii) ID. Act .

Hence she is entitled to be reinstatement with full back wages in the light of principle laid down in the aforesaid

rulings.

In these circumstances this Tribunal is of considered view that issue no. 1 framed by me is liable to be decided in

favour of workman and against management on the basis of reliable and credible evidence of workman supported with

settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Hon’ble High Courts. Which is accordingly decided and management

is required to be directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages since her termination i.e. 30.10.2001.

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

and claim statement is allowed.

Management is directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages since her termination i.e. 30.10.2001

within two months after expiry of period of available remedy against this Award.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 26.08.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 1991-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p,uch

x<+oky lsaVªy ;wfuo£lVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-09-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@49@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

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

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2016

S.O. 1991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 96/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the HNB Garhwal Central University and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.09.2016.

[No. L-42011/49/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 96/2011

Smt.Godambari Devi , W/o Sh. Devi Prasad,

Kaushalya Niwas, Kedar Mohalla,

Kamleshwar, Sri Nagar, Pauri Garhwal,

Garhwal(UK)

…Workman

Versus

The Registrar,

HNB Garhwal Central University,

Sri Nagar Garhwal (UK),

Garhwal

…Management

4422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42011/49/2011(IR)(DU) dated 10.10.2011

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

“Whether the action of the management of HNB Garhwal Central University, in terminating the services of

workman Smt. Godambari W/o Devi Prasad w.e.f 11.10.2001 , without complying with Section 25 F, G, & H is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to”

On 11.11.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 96/11 and claimant was

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

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 12.04.2012. Through which she prayed as

follows:-

“It is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that the workman may kindly be reinstated with full back wages and

continuity of service along with the benefits attached to her service under the law.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be

awarded to the workman in the interest of justice.

Previously case proceeded ex-parte against management and workman in support of her case filed her affidavit.

Which was tendered on 2.05.2013 and marked as Exht. WW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit , she rely on letters of the

claimant addressed to Vice Chancellor, reply submitted by the management under Right to Information Act, letter dated

02.07.2009 , list of employees, letter dated 18.03.2009 , attendance sheets, letter dated 13.04.2007, another letter dated

13.04.2007, letter dated 13.01.2007, letter dated 16.04.2007 , letter dated 29.05.2007, letter dated 01.03..2007 , another

list of employees, letter dated 07.12.2001, letter dated 02.07.2002, letter dated 06.01.1998 , letter dated 30.12.1997 ,

joint representation of employees, office order dated 04.10.1999 , letter date15.12.2008 , letter dated 15.07.2007 ,These

documents have been marked as Exht. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/42. Management moved application for setting aside order

dated 17.11.2012. Which was allowed on 28.1.2014 and management was permitted to file written statement.

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 4.3.2014. Through which management prayed as

follows:-

“It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly dismiss the reference petition with costs.”

Against which workman filed rejoinder on 1.04.2014. Through which she re-affirmed the contents of claim

statement.

On 6.5.2014 I framed following issues:-

1. Whether the action of the management of HNB Garhwal Central University, in terminating the services of

workman Smt. Godambari, W/o Sh. Devi Prasad, w.e.f. 11.10.2001, without complying with Section 25 F, G & H is

legal and justified? If so its effect?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?

Workman again tendered her affidavit on 14.08.2014 . Her re-examination-in –chief is as follows:-

I tender my evidence by way of affidavit. My affidavit is Exht. WW1/B. I rely upon the documents WW1/1 to

WW1/18.

On 26.05.2015 workman was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the management. Her cross-examination is as

follows:-

I was appointed in October 1999.

I was appointed on the post of Chowkidar.

The appointment letter was issued by Sh. Shaklani.

Sh. Shaklani was the Vice Chancellor of management at that time.

I do not know whether post was sanctioned or not.

I do not know whether my post was published or not.

I came to know for vacancy through Mr.Rana.

I was posted in Alakh Nanda Hospital. Mr. Rana, who told me about the post was Chief Warden.

I was appointed on the basis of monthly pay.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4423

If I filed register of attendance for daily wages than I can assign no reason for filing such document.

I do not know the date of my termination.

I was terminated about 15 years ago.

I was orally terminated .

I was informed through persons in office.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of management witness and MW tendered his affidavit and he

was cross- examined on same day i.e. on 15.3.2016. His statement of tendering of affidavit and cross-examination is as

follows:

I tender my affidavit as evidence Exh. MW1/A. Which bears my signatures at point “A” .

XXXX:- By Sh. O.P. Sharma, Ld. A/R for the workman.

Registrar of University authorized me to give evidence in this Case.

Q.Whether the Vice Chancellor of the University has given the approval for the appointment of claimant?

Ans. In University appointing authority is registrar of University not Vice Chancellor.

Vol. Stated, In University registrar is appointing authority for non-teaching and Vice Chancellor for teaching

staff.

Q.Whether appointment letter. Exht. MW1/W1 was issued by the Vice Chancellor or University?

Ans. Yes.

Q.Whether the claimant continued to workman after initial appointment without any break?

A. I am not aware of this Fact.

Q. Whether the claimant has been working from June, 2001, continuously according to Exh. WW1/5?

A. As letter is not on letter pad. So it is not authentic it may be forged.

Q. Whether letter Exh.WW1 /7A, B & C which are on letter pad are genuine or not?

A. I do not know.

To Court:- Ans. Witness keeping mum.

Observation conduction of witness is that be suffering defect to support the management as he is employee of

management.

Q. Whether the copy of to attendance under Exh. WW1/11A, WW1/11 B , , WW1/11 C, , WW1/11 D , WW1/11

E , WW1/11 F , WW1/11 G are supplied under R.T.I so her attendance in the register.

Ans. Documents are Genuine.

I am not aware of the fact that management has ever issued any notice, charge-sheet after any compensation at

the time of her illegal termination.

I do not know whether any other employee was appointed on the post on which claimant was working.

Contents of para 16 of my affidavit are correct.

I am not aware of the fact whether at the time of appointment of other employee workman in the instance case is

called for or not.

It is correct that salary of workman is drawn from Head of Physics Department.

It is incorrect to suggest after termination of workman other person were employee and no opportunity given to

workman.

I am deposing falsely.

Management filed written arguments on 07.06.2016. Contents of written arguments are as follows:-

1. That the University was a state university upto 14 Jan 2009 and was upgraded as a Central University under

the Central Universities Act 2009 w.e.f. 15.01.2009.

4424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. That that at the time of said up gradation of the university there were 171 contractual/daily wager employees,

engaged by the Head of the Department/Project Incharge/Sectionals Heads of the university which are not the

appointing authority nor any order of engagement/said appointments was ever issued by the university to the said daily

wager/contractual employees. In the said list the name of the petitioners were not available. These petitioners were not

engaged by the University.

3. That during the tenure of the State University, some of the departments may have engaged daily wagers

without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the competent authority hence illegal and void ab initio.

4. That it is submitted the said daily wager/contractual labours may have been engaged for a period of one to

three months showing some urgency of the section without following any provisions of law and with a view to provide

a back door entry in the university.

5. That it is also worth mentioning here neither any permission or approval was ever obtained from the university

for such illegal engagement nor the said engagement was ever extended with the permission or approval of the

university but it seems that under some connivance with the officers of the university this category of employees were

illegally provided the wages without any permission or approval from the university hence illegal and void ab initio.

6. That it is also worth mentioning here that none of these 171 contractual/daily rated employees were engaged

against any substantive post.

7. That it is also worth mentioning here that the state govt. issued a Govt. order in the year 1998 sanctioning 418

post in the university clearly specify that no further engagement of daily wagers would be made in the university and as

stated above these 171 daily wager/contractual labours were engaged by the project in charge or by the self finance

departments and their payments were released from the self financing budget head of the department.

8. That six of them were removed but after a lapse of 4 to 6 years these persons were engaged in the department

and yet again without any permission or approval from the university and these persons started claiming their seniority

by including the period they were out of their engagement.

9. That out of the aforesaid 171 daily wager/contractual employees 5 were working on Group C post while there

is a specific direction from the state that there shall be no engagement of daily wager in Group C. the details of

engagements are mentioned below; Group- C- 45, Fourth Class- 85, and Sweeper- 41.

10. That while making the said illegal engagement the officials of the university have not cared to ensure the

compliance of the reservation policy and the percentage of reservation is alarming.

11. That, presently, 37 posts are lying vacant in Group C including technical posts in the university and 104

Posts are lying vacant in Group D posts (now re-designated to MTS-Group C posts)

12. That these daily wager/contractual employees have paralyzed the functioning of the university by putting lock

on the gates of the university (Talabandi) by proceeding on agitation, by resorting to proceed on a strike and they also

extended threats to the university officers and are demanding their regularization.

13. That it is submitted that when the said fact of illegal engagement and back door entry in the service of the

university was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, the state govt. constituted a committee by appointing Chief

Development Officer Pauri namely Shri DilipJawalkar to enquire into the matter.

14. That the enquiry committee so constituted submitted a report to the state govt. pointing out that the complaint

in regard to the irregularities and illegalities in the appointments of Group C and D post are established and further

recommended that the state govt. may take decision fastening the liability in the matter.

15. That a writ petition no. 516 of 2009 (S/S) “Shambhu Prasad Chamoli V/s HNBGU and others” came up for

consideration before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to take cognizance of the report and

was pleased to direct the university to re-consider the appointment made in the said writ petition keeping in view the

report dated 21.04.2008.

16. That it is submitted that the present petitioners are also amongst those 187 daily wager/contractual employees

who were engaged without any permission or approval of the university and by the authorities who are not the

appointing authority as the power to appoint Group C and D Employees vests in the Registrar of the university and no

one else. It is emphatically argued before this Hon’ble Court that none other and none of the petitioner’s before

the court has filed any valid/original appointment letter issued by the Registrar of the University and any other

appointment letter by any other authority of the university is illegal and does not give any right or entitlement to

any illegal appointee.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4425

17. The matter of regularization was placed before the Executive Council of the University. The EC has decided

considering the Supreme Court Judgment on Uma Devi Case there is no provision of regularization.Hence it is humbly

argued before the Hon’ble Court that any regular re-appointment to the petitioner shall be in violation of the

ratio laid down by the Hon’bel Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v Umadevi 2006 4 SCC 1.

18. That the petitioner was never legally appointed in the university weather on contract or on daily wage

or in any other capacity. In the light of such illegal appointment petitioner have no claim in any manner under

Industrial Dispute Act. Petitioner cannot claim herself as a workman as she was never legally appointed in the

university.

19. That the petitioner has not even arrayed the head of the department of the concerned department as a

party who in collusion with the petitioner ,illegelly allowed her to work in contractual capacity. University

cannot be answerable for such illegal appointments and back door entries.

20.That the attendance register shown by the petitioner are can not be relied upon in the absence of valid legal

appointment of the petitioner. Even as per the alleged attendance register, the alleged claimant was never a

workman under Section 2 (s) of the Act neither claimant ever been into continuous service legally for not less

than one year with the respondent institution hence the claimant was never a workman as defined under the

Industrial Disputes Act nor the alleged retrenchment as alleged can be challenged under the Industrial Disputes

Act as it was never a retrenchment as the ID Act. An Illegal appointment if terminated cannot be termed as

retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

21. That in absence of any legal valid post on which the person is appointed there cannot be any legal right

of the workman for asking to be appointed on that post. Post creation is purely executive function and there

cannot be any regularization or compensation for a post which legally does not exist.

Petitioner’s post was never in existence as regular post in the University neither tere is any such regular

post today and in the absence of such regular post petitioner can not be continued in service. This position has

already been laid down in the following Supreme Court Judgments

(i)

State of Maharashtra and another v. R.S. Bhonde and others: (2005) 6 SCC 751.

(ii)

Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Ors. v. Nasik ZillaShethKamgar Union and Ors. (2001 (7)

SCC 346)

(iii) Ahmadnagar Zilla Shetmajoor Union v. Dinkar Rao KalyanraoJagadale (2001 (7) SCC 356)

22. That under these circumstances it is expedient in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly

dismiss the reference petition with costs.

Workman filed written arguments on 14.06.2016 . Contents of written arguments are as follows:-

That the present statement of claim arises out of reference No. L-42011/51/2011-(IR(DU) forwarded by the

learned Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Delhi vide letter

dated 10.10.2011 and the terms of the reference is as under:-

SCHEDULE

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF HNB GARHWAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, IN

TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE WORKMAN SMT. GODAMBARI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI DEVI

PRASAD, W.E.F. 11.10.2001, WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE SECTION 25F, G & H IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

That the Claimant was appointed as Chowkidar against the vacant post and with prior approval of the Vice

Chancellor, vide order dated 4.10.1999 of Chief Superintendent of Hostel, at Sri Nagar Birla, Girls Hostel, on the

consolidated salary of Rs.1400/- per month.

That the Claimant worked with, all her honesty, diligence and sincerity till 11.10.2001, when her service was

illegally terminated/retrenched as she was prevented to join her duty in the morning on next day, when she reported for

duty. During her tenure with the Management the Claimant had unblemished record.

That the Management has terminated/retrenched the services of the Claimant illegally, without any just and

sufficient cause or reason whatsoever in violation of the provisions of the laws. Even the basic principles of natural

justice were ignored.

That the Claimant has worked continuously with the Management since her appointment dated 4.10.1999 till

illegal termination/retrenchment of her services. The appointment of the Claimant was made as Chowkidar against the

4426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Permanent Post lawfully with the approval of competent authority. At no point of time the Claimant ever worked as

daily wager or contractual worker. Her appointment was made against permanent post on regular basis and was not

made for any fixed period or for any urgency, same was against permanent post and as such was not a back door entry.

At the time of appointment of the Claimant, the Management was governed by the State Government, as the University

was enacted under State Statute at the relevant time. Along with the Claimant, many other employees were also

appointed on different posts and at different times on the same terms and conditions. On 11.10.2001 the management of

the University has arbitrarily, without following the provisions of law and illegally terminated/retrenched the services

of the Claimant.

That the Claimant aggrieved with the illegal act of the Management raised an Industrial Dispute under

U.P.Industrial dispute Act before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, Dehradun, than

Uttaranchal. The Ld Assistant Labour Commissioner held the conciliation Proceedings and tried to resolve the dispute,

but conciliation proceedings failed due to the adamant attitude of the Management, thereby the Conciliation Officer has

sent the failure report to the Competent Govt. i.e. the Govt. of Uttaranchal now known at Uttarakhand. The competent

Govt. i.e. Govt. of Uttaranchal / Uttarakhand referred the Industrial dispute before the Labour Court Dehradun for

adjudication vide order No.1180-84 MRIR-1(ref) dated 14.2.2003.

That the Claimant preferred the statement of claim before the Ld Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun

wherein the Management also filed its written statement taking a false and vague defence which was untenable. During

the pendency of the aforesaid Industrial Dispute and without following the provisions of law and arbitrarily reinstated

some of the workmen whose services were also illegally terminated/retrenched along with the Claimant. Vide order No.

Admn/2007/1817 dated 1.9.2007 wherein seven such employees who had completed 240 days were reinstated on

regular basis and the case of the Claimant was not at all considered for the reasons best known to the Management.

Even the juniors of the Claimant were also re-instated, their cases were also pending before the Labour Court,

Dehradun.

That during the proceedings before the Hon’ble Labour Court, when the dispute was at the advance stage, the

Management filed an application alleging that it has now become the Central University w.e.f. 1.3.2009 and the Labour

court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present industrial dispute and requested for dropping the proceedings/

adjudication. The Hon’ble Labour Court Dehradun vide its order dated 12.10.2010 has dropped the proceedings on the

ground that now the Management has become the Central ordered to University, so the court has now no jurisdiction

and consigne the file to record room, without answering the reference made by the State Government. Though the act

of the Hon’ble Labour Court in not deciding the reference was against law.

That thereafter, as directed, the Claimant raised the industrial Dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central)/Conciliation Officer, Dehradun for amicably resolving of the dispute between the Claimant and the

Management, but again the conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute was referred by the Conciliation Officer to

the Competent Govt. i.e Central Govt. Secretary Labour, Govt. of India, referred the dispute with the above said terms

of reference for adjudication to this Hon’ble court.

That the service record of the Claimant remained clear throughout and no notice or show cause or charge sheet

was ever served upon her, no enquiry/disciplinary proceedings whatsoever were ever initiated by the Management

against the Claimant at any point of time. That during her service with the Management and even thereafter, Claimant,

never indulged in any illegal activities, strike or join any agitation or extend any threats to the Management Officials or

put locks on the main gate of the University as alleged. The Claimant has completed 240 days in the preceding year, as

such the retrenchment / termination of the Claimant was made in violation of section 25 F, G and H of ID Act. No

retrenchment compensation was offered or paid to the Claimant at the time of her illegal termination / retrenchment

from the services. To her best knowledge the Management neither display of vacancies nor arranged on notice board in

the premises of the University, having details of those vacancies. No intimation of those vacancies were given by

registered post to the Claimant, as such, Claimant was deprived of her lawful and mandatory requirement and also

violate the provisions of ID Act and Rules framed there under.

That the last drawn salary of the Claimant was Rs. 1400/- per month and later revised to Rs 2500/- and the same

was being drawn by the Department from the main head of the Management/University and not from any self financing

Budget Head of the department. That inspite of the best efforts of the Claimant, she could not get any job or work, as

such the Claimant is unemployed since the date of her illegal termination/retrenchment and is surviving on the earning

of other family members.

That the Claimant made various correspondence/requests/visits individually as well as jointly with other

terminated/retrenched employees for her re-instatement on the service. She also wrote letters dated 31.10.2001,

3.12.2001 and 4.12.2001 to the above said effect but the Management did not care for the same. The Claimant along

with the other employees who have been illegally terminated/retrenched by the Management, made a written

representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of State of Uttaranchal now known as Uttarakhand and on the said

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4427

representation the Ld Secretary of the Chief Minister, vide its letter dated 7.12.2001 directed the Registrar of the

Management to maintain the earlier condition of their appointment and the payment of their dues be made immediately

and inform the said office about the consideration on the representation of the said employees, but the Management did

not care for the same and has neither reinstated the Claimant nor made the payment of the dues so far or consider the

Claimant representation.

That the act of the Management is totally illegal, unlawful, malafide, against the provisions of the

I.D.ACT/U.P.Industrial Act and the principles of natural justice in violation of section 25F, 25G AND 25H of ID Act.

The Claimant has worked continuously without any break with the Management since her joining the service till

11.10.2001, the date of illegal termination/retrenched and this fact is substantiated by the records of the Management,

the copy of which was supplied to the Claimant under RTI application.

That the Management failed to adhere to the provisions laid down under the I.D. Act as well as U.P. Industrial

Act, as the Management/University has made the appointments of various employees thereafter on pick and chose basis

i.e. after the illegal termination / retrenchment of the Claimant and other similar workmen of same category of the post

of the Claimant. It is pertinent to submit that at no point of time there was any agreement arrived between the Claimant

or the Union and the Management for re-employment as provided in Section 25-G of the I.D.ACT.

That the Management never offered any re-employment to the Claimant after her illegal

termination/retrenchment, whereas in 2007 the Management re-employed various workmen of the similar category,

appointed on the same terms and conditions and their services were also illegally terminated/retrenched along with the

Claimant and their disputes were also pending before the Labour Court at Dehradun, but to the knowledge of Claimant

and documents supplied by the Management under RTI, the Management has re-instated many of such employees

who were illegally terminated/retrenched and were Junior to Claimant in violation of provisions of Section 25-G of

I.D.Act 1947 as well as the settled principle of law/rule *first come last go* and as such the Management has not acted

fairly and has illegally terminated/retrenched services of Claimant. The Claimant, is a citizen of India, was not given

any opportunity by the Management to offer Claimant for re-employment/re-instatement or give preference to Claimant

for which she is legally entitled as Claimant have preference over the others, rather the Management employed many

other employees, as such the act of the Management is totally in violation of provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D.Act

1947 as the persons re-employed on the basis of pick and choose, who are Junior to the Claimant and their re-

employment was made even after 18^th August, 1997. The Claimant along with other similarly placed workman made an

representation before the Vice Chancellor of Management which was not considered.

That during pendency of aforesaid ID, Management did not filed written statement in spite of several

opportunities and ultimately this Hon’ble Court was pleased to proceed Ex-parte vide order dt. 06/11/2012 and Ex-

parte evidence of CLAIMANT was recorded as WW1 and matter was fixed for award. The predecessor Presiding

Officer could not passed award and in due course the regular Presiding Officer was appointed and matter was put for

proceeding. On fresh notice, Management filed an application for set-asiding Ex-parte order 06/11/20012. This Hon’ble

Court was pleased to set-aside the Ex-parte order with cost and Management was allowed to file W.S. W.S was filed on

04/03/2014 wherein following frivolous pleas were taken in defence.

That the Management university was state university till 14/01/2009 and was up- graded as central university

and has submitted that at time of up-gradation there were 171, contractual / daily wages employs, engaged by the Head

of Deptt/ Project / Sections Head of university which was not appointed authority. In the said list the name of

petitioners were not available. Management further stated that daily wages/ contractual labours may have been

engaged for a period of one to three months showing some urgency of section, without following any provision of law

and with a view to provide a back door entry in university.

The Management has stated in para(xi) of preliminary objection that presently , 37 posts are lying vacant in

Group C including technical posts in the university and 104 posts in Group D posts ( now redesigned to MTS- Group C

posts).

The Management further submitted in his W.S para (xvi) of preliminary objection that the present petitioners are

also amongst those 187 daily wages / contractual employees who were engaged without any permission or approval of

the university and by the authorities who are not the appointed authority, as power to appoint Group C and D

employees vests in the Registrar and on none other.

CLAIMANT filed replication and contradicts the contentions made by Management in their W.S and affirmed

the contention of claim.

CLAIMANT entered in evidence box and examined herself as WW1 and adduces evidence by way of affidavit as

Exh. WW1/B. The CLAIMANT also proved documents exhibited as WW1/1 to 18 in her favour.

4428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 24, 2016/ASVINA 2, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On pleadings of the parties, Hon’ble Court was pleased to frame following issues:-

Whether the action of Management of HNB G. Central University, in 1.terminating the services of Workman

Smt. Godambri Devi W/O Sh. Devi Prasad w.e.f 11.10.2001 without complying with section 25 F, G & H is legal and

justified? If so its effect?

2. To what relief the Workman is entitled? If so what relief?

The prove her case, Workman /Claimant filed her evidence by way of affidavit Exh. WW1/A to WW1/B and also

proved documents Exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/18. Management also examine one Sh. Suraj Kumar Prasad as MW1 by

way his affidavit Exh MW 1/A, and has not relied or filed any document in support of his case. Admittedly the

Workman was appointed as Chowkidar vide appointment letter dt 04/10/1999, Exh. MW1/W1. Same has been admitted

by the Management witness MW1 in his Cross Examination.

To prove her case, the Claimant/ Workman examine herself as WW1 and adduce her evidence by way of

affidavit which is Exhibits as WW1/A & WW1/B. Management also examine one Sh. Suraj Kumar Prasad as MW1

and filed evidence by way of affidavit Management relied nor filed any document so no document was proved. Even

Management has not rebutted the claim of Workman / Claimant.

Issues No.1

The Claimant was appointed on 04/10/1999, as Chowkidar at Girls Hostel, by Hostel Sup dt vide appointment

letter dt 04/09/1999 Exhibit MW1/W1. Admittedly the appointment of claimant was made for 89 days, but being

permanent post and vacant, was continue till illegal termination dt 11/10/2001. That the service was continue, without

any break and on monthly wages, which were increased from Rs 1400/- month to Rs 2500/- month w.e.f Nov. 2000.

These facts are proved vide documents Exh. WW1/6 (colly) & also Exhibit as WW1/6-18 Salary slips of various

months clearing showing wages paids and period or numbers of days Claimant worked in particular months.

Admittedly the services of claimant was terminated illegally without assigning any reason as such fully covered

under the head “RETRENCHMENT” as provided in section 2(oo) of ID Act, the services of Claimant was not

terminated as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action nor falls under any provision (a) to (c) as given in

section 2(oo). Thus it attracts the provision of section 25F of ID Act. From the documents as well the evidence of

Management, it clearly establishes that the Workman has worked continue and fixed wages were paidly on monthly

basis, as such question of daily wages or contractual service does not arise. No document or evidence was adduce by

Management in this respect. Salary of Workman was revised from Rs 1400/- month to Rs 2500/- month in month of

Nov. 2000, so which clearly show that her services of regular nature and not temporary. Salary slips of Nov. 2000 is

Exhibited as Exh WW1/6 (colly). Only attendance forms showing attendance of daily wages, does not in way change

Claimant status of regular appointment on monthly wages.

To attract provision of section 25F of ID Act, conditions precedent are calculating 240 days in preceding year to

ascertained it, one had to move back ward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of termination/retrenchment

and ascertain whether the Workman had rendered service for a period of 240 days. Admitted the service rendered by

Claimant is continue without any break and completed 365 days in preceding year.

On this point Claimant relied on case title 1986 Lab IC 98 where Hon’ble “Apex Court held” Sundays and

other paid holidays should be taken into account for purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the

workman could be said to be have actual worked. The continuous service has been clearly define in Section 25 B

and more particularly Sub-Section 2(a)(ii).

Services of Claimant was neither as daily wages nor causal, Claimant wages were fixed, revised and paid on

monthly basis, as such case attracts provision of Section 25F of ID Act, being retrenched without complying the

provision of law and law of natural justice violated. No compensation was paid or offered to Claimant at time of illegal

termination. Admittedly claimant is citizen of India and is or was not offered any re-employment at any point of time,

no required notice\ call to re-employed was served on Claimant, as mandatory required Section 25 (H) and (G) of ID

Act. It is well settled proposition that “First come last go “was also totally ignored. The documents Exh WW 1/1,

WW1/3 clearly established that Claimant has been requesting for re-employment and further vide document Exh

WW1/4, WW1/7 and WW1/10 Claimant proved that Management has re-employed some of similarly placed workman

who were junior to Claimant. Thus Management has violated the provision of Section 25 (G) & (H) of ID Act. No

mandatory provisions were followed and claimant was deprived of the benefit of which she was legally entitled. It is

further established that vacancy were existing and were of permanent nature, because Management has made various

appointment during pending of present dispute including on post on which Claimant was working.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 24] 2016@vkf'ou 2] 1938

4429

Claimant relied on the judgment tilled as 208(2014) DLT 44 where in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has

held” Deleting the name of respondent and retaining juniors and co-workers would conclusively prove violation

of Section 25 (G) & (H) of ID Act”.

That the Apex Court in the judgement citiatd as Central Bank of India Vs S.Stayam &ors (1996)5 SSC

419, in which the Apex Court has held that The plain language of Section 25-H speaks only of re-employment of

retrenched workmen. The ordinary meaning of the expression 'retrenched workmen' must relate to the wide

meaning of 'retrenchment' given in section 2(oo). Section 25- F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment

but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words "workmen.... who

has been in continuous service for not less than year". Section 25-G prescribes the principle of retrechment and

applies ordinarily the principle of "last come first go" which is not confined only to workmen who have been in

continuous service not less than one year, covered by Section 25-F.

Section 25-H is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-

F. It does not require curtailment of the ordinary meaning of the word 'retrenchment' used therein. The

provision for re-employment of retrenched workmen merely gives preference to a retrenched workmen in the

matter of re-emplyment over other person. It is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is

no reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the enactment without causing any

prejudice to a better placed retrenched workmen. Chapter V-A, in which Section 25-H occurs, provides for

retrenchment and is not enacted only for the benefit of the workmen to whom Section 25-F applies but for all

cases of retrenchment and, therefore, there is no reason to restrict the apllication of Section 25- H therein only to

one category of retrenched workmen.

In another case cited as I (2010) SLT 448 case title Harginder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp. where

in Apex Court held as Applicability of Section 25 G- Workman not required to prove that he had worked for a

period of 240 days during twelve calender months preceding termination of his service- It is sufficient for him to

plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, employer violated rule of 'last come first go'without any

tangible reason.

On this point, citation relied upon by the Management are not applicable in the present case because Uma Devi

case is of 2005 whereas the service of claimant were terminated in 2001 and no re- employment made even, after the

said judgement case of Mahatam Phule Agricultural University is in respect of daily wages, whereas in the present case

claimant were employment on regular monthly wages. The case of R.S Bhonde was on seasonal work, whereas is

present case claimant work for regularly and continously not as seasonal or causal work.

The Management has miserable failed to produce evidence to show that while terminating services of Claimant it

complied with the requirement of Section 25G ID Act or has offered any compensation, or served any notice or issue

any charge sheet or leveled any allegation of misconduct. Management further failed to prove that while employing or

making appointment of the post held by Claimant has adhere to settled law or mandatory requirement. Hence issue No.

1 be likely to be decided in favour of Claimant.

Issue No. 2

Admittedly the Claimant has stated in his claim that she is unemployed since her illegal termination and also

proved the same in her evidence, in para 8 wherein has specifically stated that inspite of the best efforts she could not

get any job or work, as such she is unemployed since the date of her illegal termination and is surviving on the

earning of other family members. Ans same has been reiterated in her evidence affidavit WW1/B, in para 19.

And this fact remain unchallenged, as Management has neither put up question on claimant in her cross-

examination nor give any rebuttal in their evidence. The Apex Court has held in the case cited has (2005) 2 SSC 363

Burden of proof- Held, initial burden is on employee- He has to show that he was not gainfully employed- It is

thereafter that the employer can bring on record materials to rebut the claim of employee.

The Apex Court in the further held in the case title P.G.I of medical education research Vs Raj Kumar cited as

1(2001) 2 SSC 54, wherein it was held that "Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it

has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be evolved,

though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety".

The aforesaid finding was again reiterated in "Hindustan Motors Ltd Vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya

cited as 2 (2002) 6 SSC 41 and in another case titled as Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar

cited as 3 (2003) 4 SSC 579.

Hence this issue stands to in favour of the claimant and claimant is entitled full back wages.

4430