2 GI/2017

(167)

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- 2]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 8—tuojh 14] 2017] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 18—ikS"k 24] 1938

No. 2]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 8—JANUARY 14, 2017, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 18—PAUSA 24, 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

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

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

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 66-—के सरकार दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क& धारा 6 के

साथ प'ठत धारा 5 क& उप धारा (1) +ारा ,द- त शि.य/ का ,योग करते 2ए पंजाब सरकार, गृह िवभाग, गृह-4 शाखा च6डीगढ़ क&

सहमित से दनांक 11.09.2016 क& अिधसूचना सं. 7/105/2016-4एच/1669 +ारा भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का

अिधिनयम सं.45) क& धारा 302, 34, 120-बी और सश? अिधिनयम [अथा@त् सश? अिधिनयम, 1959 क& धारा 25 और 27 (1959

का अिधिनयम 54] क& धाराC 25/27/54/59 के अधीन पुिलस टेशन साहनेवाल, िजला लुिधयाना क& एफआईआर सं.74, भारतीय

दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं.45) 302, 120-बी और िवफोटक पदाथ@ अिधिनयम, 1908 (1908 क& अिधिनयम सं. 6

क& धारा 3,4 तथा 5 के अधीन) क& धारा 3,4 तथा 5 के अधीन दनांक 04.12.2015 क& एफआईआर 185 पुिलस टेशन मकसूदन,

िजला जालंधर और पुिलस टेशन कूम कलां, िजला लुिधय़ाना, पंजाब और भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं.45)

क& धारा सश? अिधिनयम, 1959 [सश? अिधिनयम, 1959 क& धारा 25 और 27 (1959 का अिधिनयम 54] क& धाराC

25/27/54/59 के अधीन दनांक 04.04.2016 क& एफआईआर सं. 30 से संबंिधत मामल/ का अवेषण करने और ह-याC क& उ.

168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

घटनाC से संबंिधत षड़यंO को उजागर करने या उ. तPय या तPय/ से उ-पQ होने वाले अय घ'टत अपराध/ का अवेषण करने के िलए

दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन के सदय/ क& शि.य/ और यायािधकार RेO का िवतार सSपूण@ पंजाब राTय पर करती है।

[iQk- la- 228@46@2016&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2017

S.O. 66.—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 Punjab, Department of Home Affairs, Home-4 Branch, Chandigarh vide Notification No. 7/105/2016-

4H/1669 dated 11.09.2016 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment in the whole of the State of Punjab for investigation of Case FIR No. 74, dated 12.04.2011 u/s 302, 34,

120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act [i.e. Section 25 and

27 of Arms Act, 1959(Act No. 54 of 1959)], of Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, FIR No. 185 dated

04.12.2015 u/s 302, 120-B of Indian Penal Code,1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and u/s 3, 4& 5 of Explosive Act [i.e. u/s

3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 (Act No. 6 of 1908)] Police Station Maqsoodan, District Jalandhar and

Case FIR No. 30 dated 04.04.2016 u/s 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), u/s 25/27/54/59 of

Arms Act, 1959 [i.e. Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959(Act No. 54 of 1959)] Police Station Koom Kalan, District

Ludhiana, Punjab and to unearth the conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said incidents of murders and

any other offence committed in the course of the same offence or arising out the same fact or facts.

[F.No. 228/46/2016-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

िव मंालय

िव मंालय

िव मंालय

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 28 दसS बर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 67

67

67

67.—भारतीय 'रजव@ बXक अिधिनयम, 1934 क& धारा 8 क& उपधारा (4) के साथ प'ठत उपधारा (1) के खंड (क) +ारा

,दY शि.य/ का ,योग करते 2ए, केीय सरकार, एतZारा,  यूयॉक@ यूिनव\सटी –  टन@  कूल ऑफ िबजनेस म] अथ@शा O के ,ोफेसर ^ी

िवरल वी. आचाय@ (ज म ितिथ 01.03.1974) को पद का काय@भार _हण करने क& तारीख से तीन वष@ क& अविध के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश/ तक, जो भी पहले हो, डॉ. उ\जत आर. पटेल के  थान पर भारतीय 'रजव@ बXक के उप-गवन@र के पद पर िनयु. करती है।

[फा.सं. 7/1/2012-बीओ-I (पाट@)]

`ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 28^th December, 2016

S.O. 67.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-section 1 read with Sub-section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Viral V. Acharya

(DoB:01.03.1974), Professor of Economics, New York University-Stern School of Business as Deputy Governor,

Reserve Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of his taking over charge of the post or until further

orders, whichever is earlier vice Dr. Urjit R. Patel.

[F.No. 7/1/2012-BO-I(Pt.)]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

169

Ñf"k ,oa fdlku dY;k.k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 68-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Ñf"k ,oa fdlku dY;k.k ea=kky;] Ñf"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkk-Ñ-v-i-&Ñf"k Kku izca/

funs'kky; (Mhds,e,) dks ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr

djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 13&10@2009&¯gnh@10º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2016

S.O. 68.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Department of Agricultural

Research and Education hereby notifies the ICAR-Directorate of Knowledge Management in Agriculture (DKMA),

ICAR, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, Pusa, New Delhi. The DKMA where more than 80% of staff have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/10]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

आवास और शहरी गरीबी उपशमन मंालय

आवास और शहरी गरीबी उपशमन मंालय

आवास और शहरी गरीबी उपशमन मंालय

आवास और शहरी गरीबी उपशमन मंालय

(आवास भाग)

(आवास भाग)

(आवास भाग)

(आवास भाग)

आदेश

आदेश

आदेश

आदेश

नई दली, 13 जनवरी, 2017

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 69

69

69

69.—यतः भू सSपदा (िविनयमन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 2016 (2016 का 16) क& धारा 20 क& उप-धारा (1) के

तृतीय परंतुक (यहां अिधिनयम के cप म] सद\भत) म] यह dवथा क& गई है क समुिचत सरकार िनयामक ,ािधकरण के गठन होने

तक, इस अिधिनयम के अतग@त ,योजन हेतु कसी िनयामक ,ािधकारी अथवा िनयामक ,ािधकारी के cप म] कसी अिधकारी क&

िनयुि. करेगी।

और यतः, इस अिधिनयम क& धारा 43 क& उप-धारा (4) के पहले परंतुक म] यह dवथा है क अपीलीय ,ािधकरण के गठन

होने तक, समुिचत सरकार इस अिधिनयम के अतग@त अपील क& सुनवाई करने के िलए अपीलीय ,ािधकरण को त-समय ,वृ- त कसी

िविध के अतग@त कसी भी काय@रत अपीलीय ,ािधकारी क& िनयुि. करेगी;

और यतः के सरकार, इस अिधिनयम क& धारा 2 (छ) के अनुसार च6डीगढ़ संघ राTय RेO के िलए उ. अिधिनयम के

अतग@त समुिचत सरकार है।

अतः अब, इस अिधिनयम क& धारा 20 क& उप-धारा (1) के तीसरे परंतुक और धारा 43 क& उप-धारा (4) के ,थम परंतुक

+ारा ,दY शि.य/ का ,योग करते 2ए, के सरकार एतZारा इस अिधिनयम के ,योजन/ हेतु सिचव, आवास च6डीगढ़ ,शासन को

िनयामक ,ािधकारी और मूय सवं\धत कर ,ािधकरण, च6डीगढ़ संघ राTय RेO को अपीलीय अिधकरण के cप म] िनयु. करती है।

[फा. सं. ओ-17034/18/2009-एच]

सितदर पाल gसह, िनदेशक

170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(HOUSING DIVISION)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2017

S.O. 69.—Whereas, the third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stipulates that until the establishment of a

Regulatory Authority, the appropriate Government shall designate any Regulatory Authority or any officer as the

Regulatory Authority for the purposes under the Act;

And whereas, the first proviso to sub-section (4) of section 43 of the Act stipulates that until the establishment

of an Appellate Tribunal, the appropriate Government shall designate any Appellate Tribunal functioning under any

law for the time being in force to be the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals under the Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is the appropriate Government under the Act for the Union territory of

Chandigarh in terms of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20 and

the first proviso to sub-section (4) of section 43 of the Act, the Central Government hereby designates Secretary,

Housing, Chandigarh Administration as the Regulatory Authority, and the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Union territory

of Chandigarh as the Appellate Tribunal, respectively, for the purposes of the Act.

[F. No. O-17034/18/2009-H]

SATINDER PAL SINGH, Director

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 70-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@74@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 70.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/74/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2013

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

171

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Manavar Branch,

Distt. Dhar (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27^th day of September 2016

1.

As per letter dated 1-2-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12011/74/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Sanjay Solanki is entitled for full wages as paid to permanent peon for the period from 12-1-02 to

2-12-2010? If so what relief, he is entitled to? (2) State Bank of India is a Banking Industry? (3) The nearest

Tribunal is CGIT, Jabalpur.”

2.

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

through General Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union. The case of Ist party workman is that he was working as

peon in Manvar branch, Distt. Dhar from 12-1-02. He was working for 8 hours in a day, he worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. He was paid wages Rs.40,60, 80, 125, 150 per day. He was paid wages in bogus names. He

raised dispute about illegal termination of his service. the dispute has been registered. That he was working with 2^nd

party till 2-12-2010 during relevant period. The pay scale wages as per 8^th & 9^th bipartite settlement for post of peon

were Rs.4060- 7560, 5500- 11000. That he is entitled to scale wages. That SBI Karur and Vaishya, Bank of

Maharashtra have paid scale wages to temporary peons. He is not paid scale wages as per 8^th, 9^th Bipartite Settlement is

punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. On such ground, workman claims difference of scale wages.

3.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party reiterates that

workman was engaged temporarily on daily wages as Manvar branch, Distt. Dhar in erstwhile State Bank of Indore. He

was paid wages on daily wage basis. Workman was never appointed on permanent basis in the Bank. His engagement

was purely temporary on administrative exigencies. Ist party was never engaged against sanctioned post. That he

worked for some day during the period 2002 on daily wage basis. He is not entitled to claim benefits of difference of

scale wages as per bipartite settlements. Bipartite Settlements are not applicable to persons engaged on temporary

casual daily wage basis. Bipartite Settlement remained effective normally for period of 5 years. Union represents

permanent employees of the Bank. The benefits under Bipartite Settlement are payable only to permanent employees

of the Bank. 2^nd party denied that workman is entitled to benefits of scale under 8^th, 9^th bipartite settlements. All adverse

contentions of workman have been denied. 2^nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases. 2^nd party prays that

reference be answered in its favour.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether State Bank of India is Banking

Industry?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether Shri Sanjay Solanki is entitled for full

wages as paid to permanent peon for the period

from 12-1-02 to 2-12-2010?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

5.

The terms of reference pertains to whether SBI is Banking Industry? There is absolutely no pleading in

statement of claim or Written Statement that State Bank of India is an industry. Considering the 2^nd party State Bank is

engaged in Banking business, apparently it is covered as industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1.

6.

Point No.2- The term of reference also pertains to whether workman is entitled to full wages paid to permanent

peon for the period 12-1-02 to 2-12-2010. 2^nd party has admitted documents Exhibit W-1, W-2. Exhibit W-1 shows

working days of workman during the period 2002 to 2010 less than 240 days during each of the year. As per exhibit W-

2, Ist party workman was paid 8/33 % bonus amount Rs.12590. Ist party has not produced 8^th, 9^th bipartite settlement.

172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

Management’s witness Shri Narendra Kumar Mehta filed affidavit of his evidence. Management’s witness says

that workman was engaged on daily wages for some days during the period from 2002 to 2010. That workman was not

appointed as permanent employee of the Bank he is not entitled to benefit of pay scale under bipartite settlement. Only

permanent employees of the Bank are entitled to benefit of Bipartite settlement. The management’s witness in his cross

admitted documents Exhibit W-1, W-2. When regular employee used to be on leave, workman was called for work. He

has not seen any documents in that regard. The management’s witness further says policy regarding payment of wages

is not produced. He was unable to tell what was the rate of minimum wages to be paid during the period 2002 to 2010.

Ist party has not produced 8^th, 9^th bipartite settlement, it is difficult to decide whether workman engaged on daily wages

is entitled to benefit of pay scale wages under 8^th, 9^th bipartite settlement. For the reasons discussed above, I record my

finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

State Bank of India is covered as Industry under IDAct.

(2)

Ist party workman Shri Sanjay Solanki is not entitled to payment of full wages for the period from 12-1-02

to 1-12-2010.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 71-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@86@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/86/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2013

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Manavar Branch,

Distt. Dhar (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27^th day of September 2016

1.

As per letter dated 1-2-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12011/86/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

173

“Whether Shri Ganpat is entitled for full wages as paid to permanent peon for the period from 8-4-93 to 2-12-

2010? If so what relief, he is entitled to? (2) State Bank of India is a Banking Industry? (3) The nearest Tribunal

is CGIT, Jabalpur.”

2.

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

through General Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union. The case of Ist party workman is that he was working as

peon in Manvar branch, Distt. Dhar from 8-4-93. He was working for 8 hours in a day, he worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. He was paid wages Rs.40,60, 80, 125, 150 per day. He was paid wages in bogus names. He

raised dispute about illegal termination of his service. the dispute has been registered. That he was working with 2^nd

party till 2-12-2010 during relevant period. The pay scale wages as per 6^th to 9^th bipartite settlement for post of peon

were 6^th- 1600 – 3020, 7^th- 2750-5850, 8^th – 4060-7560, 9^th – 5500-11000.. That he is entitled to scale wages. That SBI

Karur and Vaishya, Bank of Maharashtra have paid scale wages to temporary peons. He is not paid scale wages as per

6^th to 9^th Bipartite Settlement is punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. On such ground, workman claims difference of

scale wages.

3.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party reiterates that

workman was engaged temporarily on daily wages as Manvar branch, Distt. Dhar in erstwhile State Bank of Indore. He

was paid wages on daily wage basis. Workman was never appointed on permanent basis in the Bank. His engagement

was purely temporary on administrative exigencies. Ist party was never engaged against sanctioned post. That he

worked for some day during the period 2002 on daily wage basis. He is not entitled to claim benefits of difference of

scale wages as per bipartite settlements. Bipartite Settlements are not applicable to persons engaged on temporary

casual daily wage basis. Bipartite Settlement remained effective normally for period of 5 years. Union represents

permanent employees of the Bank. The benefits under Bipartite Settlement are payable only to permanent employees

of the Bank. 2^nd party denied that workman is entitled to benefits of scale under 6^th to 9^th bipartite settlements. All

adverse contentions of workman have been denied. 2^nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases. 2^nd party prays

that reference be answered in its favour.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether State Bank of India is Banking

Industry?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether Shri Ganpat is entitled for full wages

as paid to permanent peon for the period from 8-4-

93 to 2-12-2010?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

5.

The terms of reference pertains to whether SBI is Banking Industry? There is absolutely no pleading in

statement of claim or Written Statement that State Bank of India is an industry. Considering the 2^nd party State Bank is

engaged in Banking business, apparently it is covered as industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1.

6.

Point No. 2- The term of reference also pertains to whether workman is entitled to full wages paid to permanent

peon for the period 8-4-93 to 2-12-2010. Workman did not adduce oral evidence. Evidence of workman was closed on

15-9-2015. Exhibit W-1 is certified copies of affidavit of Nirmal Chandra Shukla in other proceeding. Exhibit W-2 is

letter dated 23-5-12 showing working days of workman during the year 1993 to 2010. His working days were less than

240 days during each of the year. Exhibit W-3 is certified copy of affidavit of evidence of management’s witness in

R/22/12.

7.

Management’s witness Shri Narendra Kumar Mehta filed affidavit of his evidence. Management’s witness in his

affidavit of evidence has reiterated that workman was not permanent employee of the Bank. He was engaged purely on

temporary basis as per administrative exigency. That the benefits of bipartite settlement are not payable to temporary

persons engaged on daily wages. The benefit of bipartite settlement are given to the permanent employees of the Bank.

In his cross-examination, witness of the management says he was not posted in Manvar branch during 1993 to 2010.

Management’s witness says he was not working in State Bank of Indore during 1993 to 2010. He was unable to tell

how the payment was made. The wage policy is not produced in the case. He claims ignorance for how many hours,

174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman was working in the Bank. During 1993 to 2010, bipartite settlement were entered every 5 years.

Management’s witness claims ignorance what were the pay scales of sub staff during the year 2000.

8.

Ist party has not produced copy of 6^th to 9^th bipartite settlement, it is difficult to decide whether workman engaged

on daily wages is entitled to benefit of pay scale wages under 8^th, 9^th bipartite settlement. For the reasons discussed

above, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

9.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

State Bank of India is covered as Industry under IDAct.

(2)

Ist party workman Shri Ganpat is not entitled to payment of full wages for the period from 8-4-93 to

2-12-2010.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 72-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad etZ LVsV cSad vkWiQ banksj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@12) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@35@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 72.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

(Erstwhile State Bank of Indore) and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/35/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/12

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Indore),

LHO Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of November 2016

1.

As per letter dated 27-9-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12011/35/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Ravindra Ganpat Rao Lamhate is workman within the provisions of ID Act? Whether his services

have been terminated by the management of State Bank of India without following the provisions of law in an

illegal manner? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

175

2.

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

case of Ist party is that he was orally engaged on daily wages by Assistant Branch Manager Hemant Ambisht from

13-5-08. He was paid Rs.100 per day. His wages were increased to Rs.35000 per month. He worked more than 240

days during each of the year till termination of his services on 30-11-2010. He was terminated without notice or pay in

lieu of notice. He worked under Branch Manager M.P.Srivas, Trivedi, Ashok Khandelwal. Termination of his service

without notice or paying retrenchment compensation is illegal. He claims to be employee covered under Section 25 B

of ID Act. For above ground, he submits termination of his service is illegal and claims reinstatement with backwages.

3.

2^nd party filed Written Statement on 25-8-14 opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits State Bank of Indore

is merged in State Bank of India on 28-7-2010. Ist party was engaged as casual labour in central processing centre of

State Bank of Indore during 13-5-08 to 30-11-2010 for cleaning bank premises. His engagement was for exigency of

work on daily wages on casual basis. Ist party was engaged for 1-2 hours in a week maximum 10-12 days in a month.

Management was at liberty not to engage him on next day. Workman was not in continuous employment of the Bank.

He is not permanent employee of the Bank. His attendance was not recorded. Workman was not continuously working

for 240 days during any of the year. He is not entitled to protection of the provisions of ID Act.

4.

2^nd party further submits that there are recruitment rules for selection of subordinate staff like messenger, peon,

waterman. There are administrative instructions for recruitment of subordinate staff after selection by recruitment

committee. Workman was not engaged after following selection process. He was engaged for cleaning work as per

requirement on exigency of work. Ist party workman was not engaged as permanent peon. He did not worked for full

time. He was also not working on Sunday and holidays. Branch Manager has no control on affairs of the workman. Ist

party workman was engaged for work of regular peon in his absence. As Ist party not completed 240 days continuous

service, he cannot claim protection of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, 2^nd party prays reference be answered

in its favour.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether Shri Ravindra Ganpat Rao Lamhate is

workman within the provisions of ID Act?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether services of workman have been

terminated by the management of State Bank of

India without following the provisions of law in an

illegal manner?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

Parties are in dispute whether Ist party is covered as workman as workman under section 2(s) of ID act. Ist party

has not adduced oral evidence. Exhibit 21 to 26 are admitted by management are zerox copies of receipts of payments

of wages for cleaning and supplying drinking water.

Section 2(S) of ID Act defines-“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the

terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as

a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.”

From documents Exhibit W-1 to W-26, it is clear that workman was paid wages for cleaning, sweeping work as

such manual work. Casual workers are not excluded from definition of section 2(s) of ID Act therefore Ist party

workman is covered as workman under section 2(s) of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point no.1 in

Affirmative.

7.

Point No.2- The legality of services of workman is referred for adjudication. Workman has not examined himself.

2^nd party has admitted engagement of workman during 13-5-08 to 30-11-10 as per exigency. 2^nd party contends that

workman was engaged for 1-2 hours in a week maximum for 10-12 days in a month. Management’s witness Pankaj

Goel filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in written statement filed by management. In his cross-

examination, management’s witness says during 2008 to 2010, he was not posted in central office, Indore. He received

information about the matter from other officers. He claims ignorance about proceeding filed by workman before ALC

pertaining to recovery of bonus. Management’s witness denied documents pertaining to payment of bonus. In his

176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

further cross examination, managements witness did not give any reply as to what procedure was followed before

engaging workman or permission of Controlling Authority was obtained. He has not seen any register about working of

Ist party. He had not seen payment vouchers. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Whether notice was

issued to workman witness of management claims ignorance. Presently work is carried through contractors. Documents

admitted by management exhibit W-1 to W-26 shows payment of wages to ist party workman for the period 2-6-08 to

November 2010.from those documents, it is clear that workman worked more than 240 days preceding 12 months of

his termination. No evidence is adduced by management that workman was served with termination notice or

retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

8.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party shri Vijay Tripathi relies on ratio held in case between-

Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005-8(SCC)-750. Their Lordship

dealing with section 25-F, B, 2(oo) & (s) of ID Act held the facts must be proved by workman to claim protection of

Section 25-Fof the act. Facts that must be proved to claim relief from court are that (i) there exists relationship of

employer and employee, (ii) he is a workman under Section 2(s), (iii) establishment in which he is employed is an

industry within meaning of the Act and (iv) he has put in not less than one year of continuous service.

The documents exhibit W-1 to 26 clearly shows workman worked more than 240 days. As Ist party workman has

established he worked more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation or served with termination notice, termination of services of Ist party workman is illegal for violation of

section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in point No.2 in Negative.

9.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2 termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. The evidence on record shows Ist

party workman was engaged on daily wages on casual basis during the period 13-5-08 to 13-11-2010 for about 2 years

and 6 months. Ist party workman was not engaged following recruitment process against vacant post. Therefore in my

considered view, Ist party workman is not entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Considering short period, Ist

party workman was working, compensation Rs.60,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in point

No.3.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Ist party workman is covered as workman under ID Act, termination of his services is illegal violating

section 25-F of ID Act.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.60,000 to the workman Shri Ravindra Ganpat Rao Lamhate

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 73-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@11) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@07@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 73.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/07/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/11

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

177

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15^th day of November 2016

1. As per letter dated 7-6-11 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/07/2011-

IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri

Peerulal Malviya w.e.f. 14-10-08 without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

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

through General Secretary, Daily Wage Employees Union. The case of workman is from 1-5-99, he was engaged as

daily wage peon on monthly pay Rs.910/- by Branch Manager Shri R.L.Kachwaha at Saranpur branch. Monthly pay

was increased to Rs.1000, he was paid additional amount Rs.15 for supplying drinking water, he was working 6 days in

a week. Branch Manager was paying his salary. Branch Manager was reimbursed of the amount. That he worked more

than 240 days during any of the calendar year. His services were terminated without notice on 14-10-08, he was not

paid retrenchment compensation. He worked under various Branch Manager. He is covered as employee under Section

25 B of ID Act. His services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Principles of last come, first go

was not followed. Thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25 G,N of ID Act. After termination of his service, other daily

wage employees were engaged. He was not given opportunity of re-employment. Thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25

H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with backwages.

3.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party reiterates that there is local

Implementation Committee known as Welfare Committee of the staff members. Branch Manager is President of said

committee. Union Representative is the Secretary. Local Implementation Committee runs canteen. The Bank provides

subsidy for running canteen by the committee. Local Implementation Committee recruits canteen boy, Bank has no

control in it. In May 99, workman was engaged as canteen boy by the Implementation Committee. He was not

appointed by the Bank. Ist party workman was engaged intermittently for cleaning work in the Bank. He was paid

Rs.35-40 per day. In 1997-98, workman worked for 27 days, in 1999-2000 he worked for 85 days, in 03-04 he worked

for 6 days, in 2004-05 he worked for 16 days and in 2005-06 he worked for 15 days. Certain amount was paid to the

workman for his working days. It is reiterated that workman was not paid monthly wages either Rs.910/- or Rs. 1000.

Workman was not paid wages for supplying water or working as peon. Workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service. Violation of Section 25-F,G,H,N of ID Act has been denied. 2^nd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the services of

Shri Peerulal Malviya w.e.f. 14-10-08 without

following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

5.

Point No.1- Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions about working as daily

wage peon in the Bank during the period 1-5-99 to 14-10-08. He claims to have continuously worked during each of

the year. However he did not appeared for his cross examination, his evidence could not be considered.

6.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Suresh Chandra Yadav supporting contentions of 2^nd party

management. From his evidence in cross, documents Exhibit W-1(1) & 1(2), W-2/1 to 2/5, W-3, W-4 to 8 are admitted

in evidence. Management’s witness in his cross says during 1998 to 2008, he was not posted at Saharanpur branch. He

had not taken information from any Branch Manager working in said branch. The rules pertaining to appointments of

canteen boy are not produced. Register about canteen boy is not produced. He claims ignorance what procedure was

followed before engagement of workers, whether permission of Controlling Authority was taken. He claims ignorance

whether workman was paid wages in name of Shri Gopal. Management’s witness also claims ignorance whether

retrenchment compensation, notice were paid to the workman. As stated above, workman has not appeared for his

cross-examination. Documents produced by workman are admitted by management’s witness. In ExhibiM-1 payments

of wages and other expenses are recorded. Payment of wages in name of workman are dated 9-2-07- Rs.50/-, 21-2-07-

Rs.50/-, 24-2-07- Rs.50/-. Entries of payment of Rs.33, 30 are seen on 17-3-07. Entry of payment of Rs.50/- on 28-3-

07, Rs.20 on 12-4-07, 4 entries of Rs.50/- each dated 24-4-07, Rs.50 dated 28-4-07, 2 entries of payment of Rs.50/-

dated 27-2-08, 3 entries of payment of Rs.50 and 25 entries of payment of Rs.45 and 3 entries of payment of Rs.50 in

name of workman on 12^th and 18^th March 08. 4 entries of payment of Rs.45 on 5-3-08, one entry of Rs.15 dated 9-4-08,

1 entry of payment of Rs.50 on 21-6-08, 4 entries of payment of Rs.50 on 26-6-08. 3 entries of payment of Rs.50 dated

24-8-08 are seen. Document Exhibit W-1/1 to 1/2 shows 14 days working of workman during May to Sept.99. Exhibit

W-2/ to 2/5 shows payment of Rs. 910, 320, 945, 910, 1000 in the year 97-99. Document W-3/1 to 3/10 shows various

payment made to workman during the period August 03 to 18-4-05. Exhibit W-8 shows payment of bonus was

approved by Assistant General Manager for the year 1997 till 2005-06, 2003 to 2005-06. The claim of workman is

corroborated by documents. On other hand, evidence of management’s witness has no personal knowledge.

Considering the documents produced on record, it is clear that workman was continuously working more than 240

days. Documents produced on record doesnot show that workman was paid wages as canteen boy. Therefore evidence

of management’s witness that workman was engaged as canteen boy cannot be accepted. The evidence of management

is also clear that he has no knowledge of payment of retrenchment compensation or termination notice issued to

workman. Therefore termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Actg. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

7.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of Ist party workman is illegal, question remains for

consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Ist party workman has not appeared for

his cross examination. Therefore his evidence could not be accepted. There is no evidence that workman was

unemployed. Workman was engaged on daily wages. Considering the period of working of workman, compensation

Rs.75000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Peerulal

Malviya w.e.f. 14-10-08 is illegal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.75000/- to the workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 74-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@06) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@37@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

179

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 74.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/06) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/37/2006-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/06

General Secretary,

Prathadith Karamchari Kalyan Manch,

9, Sanwer Road,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore, Head Office,

Indore (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of November 2016

1. As per letter dated 27-10-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12012/37/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Managing Director, State Bank of Indore, Indore in terminating the

services of Shri D.K.Jain w.e.f. 8-2-03 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

2.

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

Page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as clerk in State Bank of Indore on 11-1-84 in

physically handicapped category. His services are covered by the settlements and rules and regulations. That workman

was issued chargesheet without any basis after 4 months of his suspension on 30-10-99 in violation of Para 19.1 of

Bipartite Agreement dated 19-10-66. He was not given opportunity to submit reply to the chargesheet violating

principles of natural justice. Without supplying any documents, enquiry was conducted exparte. Workman was

dismissed from service as per order dated 8-2-03. Order was silent that appeal should be filed within 45 days. That

appeal preferred by him was not decided within prescribed time. Workman has reiterated that enquiry was not properly

conducted, principles of natural justice was not followed. Enquiry Officer Mr. Chourasia and Presenting Officer Shri

Chouhan were interested in their TA Bills. Workman submits that on the basis of illegal enquiry, dismissal of his

service is illegal. On such ground, he prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

3.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 11/1to 11/7 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits

that State Bank of Indore was established under State Bank of India Act 1959 carrying banking business. The circulars

and rules regulations by RBI are binding on it. The services of its clerical staff are covered by Bipartite Agreement

dated 19-10-66. Ist party workman was appointed as clerk on 11-1-84. He was posted at Neemuch. Since beginning, his

service record was not unblemished. While workman was posted at Bhanpura branch, he was involved in fraudulent

acts misusing irrelevant vouchers withdrawing amount of Rs.50,000 from loan account of M/S Tongya Trading

company. Chargesheeet was issued to workman on 15-6-99. Ist party workman not given reply to the chargesheet,

punishment of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect was imposed. Workman was again

chargesheeted on 25-2-2000 for fraudulent acts committed by him and withdrawing amount fraudulently from

Accounts and deposits of the customers. Enquiry Officer G.S.Kayalwade and Presenting Officer Shri C.S.Chouhan

were appointed. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. Workman deliberately not participated in enquiry on

different grounds. The evidence of management’s witness Ramesh Chand Kothari Branch Manager was recorded. The

documents were produced. Enquiry Officer submitted report. Charge No.1,2,5,6(b,c,d,e), 7,8,9 were proved.

Considering the report submitted by Enquiry Officer and statement of witnesses and documents, punishment of

removal from service was imposed. The appeal preferred by workman was dismissed. Management reiterates that

180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. Ist party workman not shown in present despite he was

shown leniency. Workman is not entitled for reinstatement. Management also prayed for permission to prove

misconduct if enquiry is vitiated.

4.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at page 12/1 to 12/2 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

5.

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 27-9-13.

6.

Considering findings on preliminary issue and pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration

and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the charges alleged against workman

are proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of removal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

7.

As per order dated 27-9-63, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Chargesheet issued to workman

is produced at page 13/11. Various charges are alleged. Charge No.1 pertains to Ist party workman taken entry of

rs.1,14,238 instead of Rs.14238 in the ledger on 25-3-98. Charge No.2 pertains to taking entry of Rs.61,401/- instead of

1401, 45194.45 instead of 5194.40 in the ledger. Charge No.3 pertains to excess deposit of Rs.60,000, 40,000 in loan

account while closing loan account. Fraudulent acts showing excess amount in name of Laxmi bai of Rs. 5748, 21242

in name of Mohanlal, 21737 in name of Raghunath singh, Rs.25082 in name of Harsh w/o Jain, 21191 in name of

Onkarlal. Charge No.4 pertains to deposit of joint name of Smt.Laxmibai Ramchandra and Shri Mangilal Ramchandra

Rs.33000 deposit receipt. Charge no.5 pertains to same deposit of Rs.33000. Loan was sanctioned. Charges No.6 a,b,c

pertains to various amounts workman received after getting sanction of the loan of Rs.50,000. Charge No.7 pertains to

workman withdrawing amount of Rs.23000 from account of Mohanlal Onkarlal. Charge no.8 a to f pertains to

fraudulent acts and withdrawal of various amounts. Enquiry Officer held charge No.3,4, 6(a) not proved. Rest of the

charges are proved against workman. It is unfortunate that management has not produced enquiry Proceedings and

documents on record.

8.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party management Shri Shroti submits that despite vigorous effort made, the original

documents of Enquiry Proceedings are not traced. Learned counsel submits that while recording his findings, Enquiry

Officer has discussed the evidence and documents dealing with each of the charges. In statement of claim filed by

workman, no ground is raised that evidence considered by enquiry Officer was not existing and therefore while dealing

with findings of each charge, evidence discussed by Enquiry officer is to be considered. My attention is also pointed

out to reply to showcause notice given by workman at Page 13/47 to 13/53 Exhibit M-6. Workman had reiterated that

he not received documents, enquiry was not conducted following principles of natural justice. Workman has offered

explanation on the relevant aspects. He had finally submitted that he is physically handicapped employee, he ad old

parents, wife and younger children and prayed for leniency. In Exhibit M-7, reply to show cause notice submitted by

workman at Page 53 record of documents of enquiry, he had submitted that he may have committed certain mistakes.

Out of financial difficulties, certain mistakes were committed by him were admitted in presence of the Senior persons.

He assured of improvement in future. In both the reply filed by workman, he has not disputed the evidence of

management’s witness recorded during Enquiry Proceedings ad documents referred in statement of management’s

witness. I donot find reason to discard evidence considered by Enquiry Officer while submitting his report. As stated

above, Enquiry Officer has recorded findings that charge No. 3,4,6(a) are not proved as such it was not a basis for

imposing punishment of dismissal against workman. While dealing with Charge No.1 Enquiry Officer has discussed

evidence of management’s witness Kothari that workman had taken entry of Rs.,14,238 instead of Rs.14238 in general

ledger- excess of Rs. One Lakh. CSE Shri D.K.Jain had given in writing that said entry was taken in his handwriting.

Workman had intentionally taken said entry. That CSE had adjusted amount Rs. 100863 in account of his brother

Ashok Jain on 6-12-99 in sundry account. While dealing with Charge No.2, enquiry Officer has considered evidence of

management’s witness Kothari, the entry pertaining to amount Rs.1401 was recorded 61401, entry of Rs.45194.40

recorded instead of Rs. 5194.40 at ledger page 324. Excess entry of Rs.40,000+ 60000 - Rs.1,00,000 was taken by

CSE. While Enquiry Officer dealing with charge No.5 discussed evidence of management’s witness Kothari, the

entries dated 24-1-01 at Page 10,13,14,15, entries dated 1-3-01 at Page 21. Ist party workman in his handwriting shown

Rs. 33000 loan against Laxmibai Ramchandra and Mangilal. Cheque No. 41386 dated 14-5-97 was issued. Amount of

cheque was received by CSE signing on reverse side of cheque. While recording his findings, Enquiry Officer w.r.t.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

181

charge under Section 6(b),(c),(d),(e) has also discussed the evidence and documents. Ist party workman had adjusted

amount of Rs.One Lakh (60,000 + 40,000) while closing the account. Enquiry Officer has discussed evidence of

management’s witness and documents. Ist party workman had received amount deposited in Saving Account No.

1883/23. Workman had received amount and utilized for his personal use. Enquiry Officer has concluded that against

Deposit No. STD/873302/75/97 dated 31-12-97 of Rs.50,000 documents of loan of Rs. 50,000 were prepared by CSE.

Workman had withdrawn amount after signing for it.

9.

While dealing with Charge No.7, Enquiry Officer has discussed evidence of management’s witness Kothari. That

on 17-8-98, amount of Rs.23000 was withdrawn from Saving Account No. 1883/23 by CSE. Signature of depositor

was not tallying. The withdrawal form was written in handwriting of CSE Shri D.K.Jain. The signature on reverse side

of withdrawal is of Shri D.K.Jain. the deposit slip MEX-14 was also signed by Shri D.K.Jain, CSE. All the entries

were taken in writing of Shri D.K.Jain, CSE himself. The entry of deposit was not taken. The depositor was not

informed.

10.

While dealing with charge No.8, Enquiry Officer has considered evidence of management’s witness Shri Kothari.

That the withdrawal of Rs.30,496/- as per MEX-44 by customer Raghunath Singh Daulal Singh amount of Rs.10,000

was utilized by account holder. Remaining amount Rs. 20,496 was retained for adjustment of DH 19/96 by Shri

D.K.Jain CSE. Out of Rs.30,496/-, only Rs.10,000 was paid to Account Holder Raghunath remaining amount

Rs.20,496 was retained by cashier, CSE was not deposited . in Bank account, no entries were found ad vouchers were

also not found.

11.

The deposit account was closed after adjustment. While dealing with Charge No.9 a to f, Enquiry Officer has

considered the evidence of management’s witness Shri R.C.Kothari, Pramod Arbandekar, STD 922471/667/92 was

found missing. The duplicate STD was issued by the Bank. Letter of reimbursement in name of Ashok Gokru duplicate

was issued for reimbursement. Mrs. Harsh Jain, wife of Hukumchand was in acquaintance of CSE Jain. While dealing

with charge No. 9(b) Enquiry Officer considered evidence of management’s witness Kothari and various documents

and concluded that loan of Rs.18000 as per MEX-51 was sanctioned to Mrs. Harsh Jain. Said amount was deposited in

Saving account No. 1767 of Harsh Jain. The payment was to be made on maturity for Rs.35645, amount Rs. 27432 was

deducted. Amount of Rs. 8213 was deposited in Saving Account No. 1767. Amount Rs.8000 was received by CSE

Jain . Enquiry Officer had also discussed evidence that on 1-8-96, amount of Rs.25000 vide cheque No. 405793 was

withdrawn by Shri D.K.Jain i.e. CSE. While dealing with charge No. d,e, Enquiry Officer had discussed that as per

evidence of management’s witness Kothari STDR 922471 /667 /92 payment was made on basis of duplicate STD on 1-

2-96. On 24-4-97, payment was requested on original deposit receipt. On 25-4-97, as per cheque No. 4045784 amount

of Rs. 11000 was received by Shri D.K.Jain. He had signed on reverse of cheque. Payment vouchers were not

prepared. On the basis of forged receipt, amount Rs. 22000 were received by CSE. Shri D.K.Jain CSE signed on yellow

voucher. While dealing with charge 9(f), Enquiry Officer dealing with evidence of management’s witness Kothari and

documents MEX-63,64, 67, STDR 640493/44/97- Rs.22000 loan Account was dishonestly closed. Demand loan No.

24/98 amount Rs.22000 was received under yellow voucher as per MEX-64 and account was closed on 13-9-99.the

documents were written by shri D.K.Jain CSE. Evidence is in ledger sheet MEX-63. Amount Rs.26756 were got

deposited while closing the account. Enquiry Officer held charge No.1,2,5,6(b,c,d,e), 7,8,9(a to f) proved. Ist party

workman has not pleaded in statement of claim that findings of Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence

discussed by Enquiry Officer. It is not pleaded by Ist party workman that findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

12.

In preset matter, fraudulent acts are committed w.r.t. saving deposit receipt, loan accounts. Several payments are

made to the workman. However it appears that some elements in the Bank must be well wisher of the workman. It

appears reason that Enquiry Proceedings and documents considered by Enquiry Officer are not produced. The findings

of Enquiry Officer on Issue No. 1,2,5,6(b,c,d,e), 7,8,9(a to f) appears supported by evidence. Therefore for above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 that Charge No. 1,2,5,6(b,c,d,e), 7,8,9(a to f) are proved.

13.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 question remains for consideration whether punishment of

dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal. The charges 1,2,5,6(b,c,d,e), 7,8,9(a to f) proved against

workman are of serious nature of fraudulent acts proved against workman. Punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman cannot be said shockingly disproportionate.

14.

I may also refer to ratio relied by learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri Ashish Shroti in case of

Regional Manager SBI versus Rakesh Kumar Tewari reported in 2006(1)SCC-530. Deals with Section 25-G,H,

11 of ID Act. Controversy in present case is not pertaining to Section 25-G,H of ID Act. Therefore ratio held in the

case cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case between Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh versus management of Usha Breco Ltd and another reported in

2008(5)SCC-554. Their Lordship dealing with discretion under Section 1-A of ID Act held that Labour Court

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

182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

established against workmen. Labour court’s interference was not warranted.

In case between Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K.Ltd. versus Kashinath Ganapati Kambale

reported in 2009(2)SCC-288. Their Lordship dealing with Section 11-A of ID Act held Labour Court exercising its

jurisdiction is entitled to consider its jurisdiction whether punishment awarded is wholly disproportionate to the

delinquent employee or not. Discretion vested in it must be exercised in a judicious manner. Labour court ordinarily

should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the employer unless the same is found to be inconsistent with

provisions of a statute of otherwise perverse or unjust.

In case between Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport corporation versus Nanhe Lal Kushwaha reported in

2009(8)SCC-772. Their Lordship dealing with Section -11-A of ID Act held Principles of law on the basis whereof the

purported discretionary jurisdiction was sought to be exercised have not been stated. As respondent was appointed as a

conductor, it is not the amount which would be material for determining quantum of punishment. The respondent

charged for commission of similar misconducts on six occasions and misconduct found to be proved in respect of two

charges even by Labour court. The judgment of Labour Court directing reinstatement with 75 % backwages was set

aside.

In present case, considering the charges proved against workman as per the report of Enquiry Officer, workman

doesnot deserve any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Managing Director, State Bank of Indore, Indore in terminating the

services of Shri D.K.Jain w.e.f. 8-2-03 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 75-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@12) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@99@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 75.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/99/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/12

Shri Ram Bharosa,

S/o Shri Jhandulal Prajapati,

R/o Kumhar Mohalla,

Vill. Varsat, Tehsil Raghogarh,

Distt. Guna (MP)

…Workman

Versus

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

183

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

LHO, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal. (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of October 2016

1.

As per letter dated 3-1-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/99/2011-

IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the service of Shri Ram

Bharosa w.e.f. 1-3-07 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

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

6-12-12. The case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as peon on contingency basis on 1-1-02. He was

working whole day with devotion. He was paid for his working on contingency. He was continuously working his

services were suddenly discontinued from 1-3-07 on the ground that his services were no more required. He had

completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. He has acquired status of regular employee.

His services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act as he was not served with notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him.

3.

2^nd party further reiterates that termination of his services also amounts to unfair labour practice. After

termination of his service, he had submitted representation of re-engagement. When representation was not considered

by the management, instead of regularizing his services, termination of his service by management is illegal. On such

ground, Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

4.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party reiterates that

Local Implementation Committee consisting Branch Manager, Union Representative looks after the canteen.

Management has no control or supervision over the staff engaged by canteen. Bank has no authority to take any

disciplinary action against the canteen boy engaged by said committee. It is submitted that workman was engaged by

Welfare Committee as canteen boy in the year 2000 and Barsa branch District Guna. Lastly he was engaged in canteen

till January 2007. Ist party workman is not employee of the Bank. Canteen used to make payment to Ist party from its

own funds. There is no post of contingency peon in the Bank did not pay salary to Ist party he was never engaged by

the Branch Manager. There was no question of removal of Ist party by Bank. 2^nd party denied that no notice was issued

to him. It is also denied that Ist party also completed 240 days service during each of the year. It is reiterated that Ist

party is not entitled to any relief.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the service of

Shri Ram Bharosa w.e.f. 1-3-07 is legal and

justified?

Both

parties

not

participated

in

reference

proceeding, the reference could not be decided on

merit.

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. After filing statement of claim,

workman did not participate in reference proceeding. His evidence was closed on 12-2-16. Management also failed to

adduce evidence. Evidence of management is closed on 21-10-16. As both parties failed to participate in reference

proceeding, dispute under reference could not be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

7.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the service of Shri Ram

Bharosa w.e.f. 1-3-07 is legal and justified?

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 76-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lriqjk {ks=kh;

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@07) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@38@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 76.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Satpura Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/38/2007-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/07

Shri Hira Lal Bishen,

R/o Sitkuthela, Post Roshna,

Teh & Distt Balaghat,

Balaghat MP

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman/Adhyaksha,

Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Distt. Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of October 2016

1.

As per letter dated 25-9-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12012/38/2007-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara in terminating the

services of Shri Hira Lal Bishan without disciplinary proceedings is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/3

to 4/5. Case of Ist party workman is that as per circular dated 13-8-83, 2^nd party was authorized to make appointment.

As per said circular, he was appointed in the Bank. The appointment can be confirmed as per circular dated 11-2-86. As

per circular dated 8-10-84, 7-5-87, 2 posts of sweeper were sanctioned for 2^nd party Bank i.e. regular sweeper and (2)

regular part time sweeper. Appointment letters were not issued as per directions issued by Government of India dated

22-2-91. The post of messenger was converted to joint designation Messenger cum sweeper. Government of India

accepted award dated 22-2-91 by NIT providing that the employees completing more than 240 days were to be

regularized. As per letter dated 10-4-92 issued by then Branch Manager, information about employees working more

than 240 days was called. The information was submitted as per letter dated 24-4-92 confirming workman worked

more than 240 days. Workman had submitted representations through Union claiming benefits of regularization. As per

order dated 1-5-92, one employee was regularized in service.

3.

As per notification issued by Government of India dated 1-6-06, erstwhile Banks Hohangabad Regional Gramin

Bank, Chhindwara Seoni Kshetyriya Gramin Bank, Shahdol Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

185

Gramin Bank were merged in Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The services of daily wage employees were regularized.

Ist party workman was working at Samnapur branch of Mandla Balaghat Rural Bank during the period 31-12-82 to 27-

11-03. He was transferred to Bharveli branch, Distt. Balaghat on 1-9-95. His contribution 12 % of pay for PF was

deducted from 1-4-99. Workman has reiterated that he worked more than 240 days is denied, regularization benefits by

the Authorities. On such contentions, workman claims regularisation on the post of messenger with consequential

benefits.

4.

2^nd party filed Written Statement on 2-1-09 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised by 2^nd

party that Ist party is not workman, they were never appointed by management. Workman was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He had not undergone any selection process. The Board has not sanctioned any post. 2^nd party

has no authority to appoint according to the norms and rules. Master servant relationship doesnot exist between parties

therefore reference is not tenable. 2^nd party has denied workman was appointed vide order dated 13-8-83 was confirmed

vide order dated 11-2-86,. 2^nd party reiterates said post was not sanctioned. Ist party cannot be allowed back door entry.

The appointment could be made only after following procedure and sanctioned post is available considering the merits.

No appointment letter was issued to the Bank NIT award is matter of interpretation. It is denied workman had rendered

more than 240 days service in any calendar year. Ist party workman was not member of Union. Union has no authority

to file the proceeding on behalf of workman. 2^nd party denies that Ist party workman had worked at Samnapur and

Bharveli branch in Balaghat District during 31-12-87 to 27-11-03. The deduction of PF as per compliance of PF Act

doesnot give right for regularization to any person. Ist party workman was not employee of 2^nd party there was no

question of his termination or reinstatement. On such ground, 2^nd party prays claim of Ist party deserves to be rejected.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara in

terminating the services of Shri Hira Lal Bishan

without disciplinary proceedings is legal and

justified?

Ist

party

workman

failed

to

establish

his

appointment or termination by 2^nd party.

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

Ist party workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

The documents produced by Ist party are admitted by management are marked Exhibit W-1 to W-19. All of those

documents are not w.r.t. appointment of Ist party workman or his working days in the Bank. Those documents pertains

to circulars issued for regularizing services of part time farrash, part time messengers issued time and again Exhibit W-

9 pertains to information relating to working of daily wage employees would be submitted by the Bank. Exhibit W-10

is letter issued by Chairman of the Bank regarding regularization of daily wage employees. Workman remained absent

for his cross examination. His evidence is closed on 25-6-15. As workman has not appeared for his cross examination,

his evidence cannot be considered.

7.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Ravikant Saraf supporting contentions of management in Written

Statement that workman was never appointed in the Bank. The evidence of management’s witness remained

unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence. There is no evidence to support claim of Ist party workman

about his appointment, engagement or working in the Bank as part time employee/ messenger. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 that workman has failed to establish termination of his service is illegal.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman failed to establish his engagement or illegal termination by 2^nd party management.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 77-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad 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

186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@02) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@41@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 77.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/41/2002-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/87/02

Shri Jageswar Prasad, S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad,

Vill Jatashankar, Behind Ram Mandir

Damoh (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, City Branch,

Damoh (MP).

Assistant General Manager,

Region-2, State Bank of India,

Divisional Office,

Jayanderaganj,

Gwalior (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of October 2016

1.

As per letter dated 31-5-02 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12012/41/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Divisional Office, Region-2, Gwalior (MP) and

city branch, Damoh in not regularizing instead terminating the services of Shri Jageshwar Prasad S/o Shri

Hanuman Prasad Srivastav w.e.f. 30-6-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is

entitled for?”

2.

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

Page 2/1 to 2/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he entered in service of 2^nd party on 15-4-89. He worked to the

satisfaction of his superiors. On 30-9-96, his services were terminated without assigning reasons. Before terminating

his services, no chargesheet was issued. Any enquiry was not conducted. That he had worked more than 240 days as

peon. He had acquired status of permanent employee, his services could not be terminated without following statutory

provisions his services were terminated in violation of principles of natural justice. The termination of his service is

alleged to be unfair labour practice in colourable exercise of powers. Ist party further reiterates that he was appointed

against vacant post of peon. Principles of first come last go was not followed while terminating his services. Provisions

of ID Act were not complied. He was not given opportunity for his defence. His termination is illegal. On such

contentions, he prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party submits that

Ist party workman was not appointed against vacant post of peon. He was engaged for filling water at Damoh branch of

the bank. His engagement was temporary on contract basis. Workman was engaged only for 45 minutes in a day, he

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

187

was paid Rs.190 per month engagement of Ist party workman was contractual during the period 1-4-90 to August 94.

His engagement was not against permanent vacancy. The contractual wages were paid to the workman, he could not be

treated in employment in Bank service. That services of Ist party workman are not terminated in violation of

provisions of ID Act. His engagement is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Ist party workman is not entitled

to compensation under Section 25-F of ID Act. He had not completed 240 days continuous service. 2^nd party has

reiterated that the workman was engaged only for 45 minutes in a day for filling water etc. workman was not appointed

on any post. 2^nd party further submits that there was no question of employing junior employees as alleged by Ist party.

On such ground, 2^nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Divisional Office, Region-2,

Gwalior (MP) and city branch, Damoh in not

regularizing instead terminating the services of Shri

Jageshwar Prasad S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad

Srivastav w.e.f. 30-6-94 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

5.

The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization and legality of termination of services of Ist party

workman.

6.

2^nd party in para-2 of Written Statement admitted engagement of Ist party workman during the period 1-12-90 to

August 94 workman ahs not adduced evidence. His evidence was closed on 22-12-2011. 2^nd party has pleaded in its

Written Statement that the workman was engaged for 45 months per day as casual labour, contractual wages Rs.190 per

month were paid to him.

7.

2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of witness Shri Harihar Prasad Thapak supporting contentions in Written

Statement. In Para-2 of the affidavit of management’s witness, it is stated that engagement of workman was

temporarily on contract basis. He was engaged only for 45 minutes per day. He was paid Rs.190 per month.

Engagement of workman was purely contractual during the period 1-12-92 to August 94. His engagement could not

be treated as employment in the Bank. That workman had not completed 240 days continuous working.

8.

Management’s witness in his cross examination says he was appointed in Bank in 1984. From September 2011,

he was working at Damoh branch. He doesnot know workman he had not seen his record as the record was not

available. In his further cross, management’s witness sasy that he gathered information from peon and one officer Shri

Shastri. Management’s witness was unable to tell whether Mr. Sastri was in service or not. The peon given him

information that he retired 10-12 years before. He gathered information in 2012. He had gone to the peon who met him

in market therefore he had not gone to his house. He evidence of management’s witness is not supported by any

documents. His evidence is hearsay evidence. The concerned peon or Mr. Sastry are not examined. Witness of

management has no personal knowledge neither the evidence is corroborated by documents therefore hearsay evidence

of management’s witness cannot be relied. The engagement of workman during period 1-12-90 to August 94 is

admitted in para-2 of the Written Statement. The defence of 2^nd party that workman was working only for 45 minutes is

not supported by cogent evidence. The evidence of management’s witness on the above point is worth reliance. When

engagement of workman during the period 1990 to August 94 is admitted, the denial of management’s witness that Ist

party had not completed 240 days is inconsistent with pleadings in para 2 of the Written Statement. Therefore evidence

of management’s witness on above point cannot be relied.

9.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman relie on ratio held in case between

R.M.Yellatti versus Assistant Executive Engineer reported in 2006(1)SCC-06. Their Lordship held in case

involving daily wager, workman can only call upon. Their Lordship held ownus to prove working 240 days continuous

service lies on workman. Mere affidavit of self serving statement made by workman will not suffice.

In present case, evidence of working is admitted in Written Statement, therefore ratio held in the above case

cannot be applied to present case. Ist party is terminated without notice, compensation is not paid to him, termination of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act and as such illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in point

No.1 in Negative.

188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point No.2- Ist party workman has not adduced any evidence to support his claim. However in view of my

finding in Point No. termination of services of workman is illegal, Ist party workman was paid Rs.190 per month. Ist

party workman was not engaged following the recruitment process. In my considered view, considering nature of

engagement of workman, claim for reinstatement with backwages cannot be allowed. Considering the period of

working and nature of his employment, compensation Rs. 30,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my

finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of management of State Bank of India in not regularizing instead terminating the services of

Shri Jageshwar Prasad S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Srivastav w.e.f. 30-6-94 is not legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.30,000 to the workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 78-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@166@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 78.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/166/2002-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/2003

Shri Birendra Kumar,

S/o Shri Narsingh Rao,

C/o Shri Rakesh Naidu,

Q.No.383/10,

Panchara GCF Estate,

Jabalpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Bhusawal (Maharashtra)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of October 2016

1.

As per letter dated 10-2-03 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-

41012/166/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

189

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal

(Maharashtra) in stopping the services of Shri Birendra Kumar, S/o Shri Narsingh Rao w.e.f. 2-12-92 is legal and

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

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman Birendra Kumar died after the order of

reference, permission was granted to his LRs the LRs have prosecuted the reference.

3.

Statement of claim is filed by LRs of deceased workman at Page 9/1to 93. Case of LRs of deceased workman is

that deceased workman was working as Fitter under 2^nd party DRM, Central Railway, Bhusawal. He was removed

from service on 1-12-92. Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Central Railway, Bhusawal in appeal dated 30-1-01

submitted by deceased workman directed to submit appeal before DME, C.Rly Bhusawal. Deceased workman had

accordingly submitted appeal to said authority on 19-4-01. Said appeal was rejected vide order dated 11-7-01.

4.

It is further contented by the LRs of deceased that no chargesheet was served to the deceased. Any enquiry was

not conducted in his presence giving him proper opportunity as per Article 311 of the constitution. The termination of

deceased workman is illegal. It is also contented that deceased was unsound person and died of illness on 1-4-03. The

LRs prays to quash the order of termination dated 2-12-92 of deceased workman. 2^nd party filed Written Statement at

Page 10/1 to 10/3 opposing claim of Ist party. Preliminary objection is raised that the dispute is raised belatedly. The

delay is not explained. The reference is not tenable. That the deceased had worked as Helper/ Khalasi in 2^nd party. His

removal from service by Competent Authority was outcome of acts remaining unauthorisely absent from duty.

Procedure was followed while conducting enquiry. On charges being proved, disciplinary authority imposed penalty of

removal from service on 2-12-92. Deceased workman had to prefer appeal within 45 days from receipt of order as per

rules. The appeal was filed by deceased workman on 3-1-01 to DRM, Central Railway, Bhusawal. That removal from

service of deceased was consequent to his remaining absent from duty. Mercy appeal was belatedly filed after 8 years.

Deceased workman was advised to prefer appeal before Competent Authority i.e. DME, Central Railway, Bhusawal.

The appeal was not preferred after the order of removal was issued. Mercy appeal was directed against quantum of

punishment only. Mercy appeal was filed after non-availability of enquiry it is reiterated that Ist party has tried to

mislead the Court. The claim of Ist party doesnot deserve to be considered.

5.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

6.

As per order dated 13-4-12, enquiry conducted against deceased workman was found illegal. Management was

allowed to prove misconduct.

7.

Considering pleadings on record on findings on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my consideration

and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the 2^nd party management proves

charges of unauthorized absence of deceased

workman Birendra Kumar, S/o Narsingh Rao?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the punishment of removal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

8.

As per order dated 13-4-12, my predecessor held enquiry conducted against deceased workman was not legal.

Management was allowed to prove charges alleged against the deceased workman. Management filed affidavit of

witness of Shri Rajesh Parvatikar. Witness of the management has stated that he is working at Central Railway

Bhusawal. He filed affidavit on the basis of documents. That deceased was working as casual khalasi from 1982.

Deceased was remaining absent without intimation till chargesheet was issued to him. Deceased had not given

intimation about his absence since 1982 to 1992. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says when deceased

was engaged as khalasi in 1982, he was not posted at the place. When chargesheet was issued to deceased workman, he

was not working in the said office. He admits that his affidavit of evidence is submitted as per record. He has no

persona knowledge. He claims ignorance whether the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. He was not

concerned with the Enquiry Proceedings. Evidence of management’s witness is based on the documents. However any

documents of enquiry or absence of deceased workman are not produced. Even the copy of chargesheet is not

produced. It is surprise to say the charges of unauthorized absence alleged against workman are not proved. As charges

alleged against deceased workman are not proved, punishment of removal imposed against workman cannot be

190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sustained. Punishment of dismissal therefore deserves to be quashed. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Negative.

9.

Point No.3- Claim of Ist party is opposed on ground of delay. Appeal of Ist party was rejected and advised to file

Mercy appeal. Vide order dated 24-3-01, claim of Ist party is not highly delayed . In view of my finding in Point No.1,2

workman Birendra Kumar died after order of reference was issued. His LRs have prosecuted in the reference. In view

of death of workman, reinstatement could not be allowed. The deceased was removed from service on 2-12-92, he died

on 1-4-03. The particulars about age of deceased are not available. As the order of removal from service could not be

sustained, LRs of deceased workman deserves to be allowed reasonable compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs instead of

backwages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal

(Maharashtra) in stopping the services of Shri Birendra Kumar, S/o Shri Narsingh Rao w.e.f. 2-12-92 is not

legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2 Lakhs to LRs of deceased workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 79-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@03) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@130@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 79.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/130/2002-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/38/03

Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu,

S/o Shri Harilal Sahu,

Ex.Diesel Asstt.,

CLP Pathak Ward,

Katni, Kachiwada-I, Katni

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

191

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of October, 2016

1.

As per letter dated 29-1-03 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-41012/130/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the DRM, Central Railway Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar

Sahu, S/o Shri Harilal Sahu Ex Diesel Assistant w.e.f. 28-8-98 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

2.

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

Page 5/1 to 5/3. Case of Ist party is in response to advertisement by management, he participated in examination for

appointment as Apprentice Assistant Driver. After selection process, he was asked to report at office of DRM, Jabalpur

vide order dated 9-9-96 as Trainee Apprentice , Diesel in Grade Rs.950-500. As per order dated 22-7-97, he was

declared successful in practical as well as theoretical. He was posted against regular post of Diesel Assistant. On

successful training, he was appointed as Diesel Assistant at Sagar MP. He further submits that at the time of

recruitment and appointment, he had furnished all requisite information, certificates which were verified by the

Railway authorities had no objection that in order of appointment, it was not mentioned that his services would be

terminated if certificate furnished by him were found false. His services would be terminated without any enquiry that

as per order dated 3-7-98, he was suspended without assigning reasons. Further orders were not communicated to him.

He was orally informed that his services were terminated as certificates furnished by him were found false and order of

his termination was forwarded by RPAD.

3.

Ist party workman further contends that order of termination was not received by him from management. That

order of termination doesnot existed. Termination of his service is arbitrary amounts to punishment violating principles

of natural justice cannot be4 sustained. That he had rendered service more than 240 days. His termination amounts to

retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement

with backwages.

4.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/4 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party has not disputed

workman has participated in selection process. Management submits that workman has not given two facts. Workman

was recruited by Railway Recruitment rules Bhopal for post of Apprentice Diesel Assistant Grade 950-1500. Workman

was directed for training to zonal training centre, Bhusawal w.e.f. 9-10-96. On completion of training, he was found

suitable and posted as Diesel Assistant at NKJ, Jabalpur Division w.e.f. 22-7-97. Management denies that workman

was posted at Sagar after completion of training. 2^nd party reiterates that workman was terminated. Order of termination

was served on him. It is denied that his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman was

terminated as he had obtained employment in Railway in fraudulent manner producing fake certificate. At the time of

recruitment, workman submitted fake certificate of ITI. On verification by Vigilance department, it was found that the

certificate was fake. At the time of recruitment, workman was knowing the fact that if any certificate is found fake, his

services could be terminated. Workman submitted declaration and furnished attestation form at the time of entering

service. no enquiry was conducted by management against workman for the act, omission conducted by him.

Management also sought permission to prove act, omission committed by workman by adducing evidence. Statement

of claim submitted by workman is not as per rules.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action ofo the DRM, Central

Railway Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri

Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Harilal Sahu Ex

Diesel Assistant w.e.f. 28-8-98 is legal and

justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. As per order sheet dated 27-4-

2010, management was permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence. Management filed affidavit of evidence of

Shri Anil Kumar. The evidence of management’s witness is devoted on the point Ist party workman was selected by

192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal. Workman was given training at Bhusawal for post of Diesel Assistant. Workman

had produced certificate of HSc and ITI. M-1, M-2. The complaint was received to Railway Board that workman

served employment on fake documents. Complaint was sent to the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai for

enquiry. Railway Vigilence department had verified the documents through secondary school Board, MP. It was

informed that workman had failed in Physics. Marksheet produced by workman shows he passed in 3^rd Division. As per

report received from secondary school Board, mark sheet produced by workman was forged. It is produced at M-3.

Affidavit of management’s witness further devoted on the point that ITI certificate verified through Principal, ITI,

Mandira Thana as per letter dated 16-3-98 by Principal of ITI Mandira during 1986 to 1989, any student by name

Ramesh Sahu had not received ITI training. Letter is produced as Annexure 8. In school transfer certificate of Ist party

workman, his date of birth is shown 26-5-59. In marksheet of higher secondary submitted by workman, date of birth is

recorded 7-7-63 produced at Exhibit M-5. In school transfer certificate M-6, date of birth is forged. Management’s

witness in his cross-examination says in 2009-0, he is working in Loco running Section, Jabalpur. At the time of his

evidence, he was working as OS Personal Officer is higher officer working in Railway Board. He looks after

administration action, attestation form used to be filled at the time of appointment. Column No.3 in attestation provides

if the documents are found wrong, services can be terminated without enquiry. He was authorized by Personal Officer

for giving evidence in the matter. Order in writing was issued in that regard. In 2009, he had seen the record of the

case. He has given evidence on the basis of said record. Original documents were taken by vigilance team to Bombay.

He had no opportunity to see the original documents. He had not seen the complaint on which basis the action as taken.

7.

As stated above, workman had not entered in witness box. In evidence of management’s witness, no suggestion is

given that the documents submitted by workman were genuine. Management’s witness is not cross-examined about the

enquiry carried by vigilance and report received from secondary school Board, Principal, ITI about fake documents.

Shri R.C.Shrivastava emphasized during argument that the documents in question are not proved as fake therefore

termination of services of workman is illegal. When evidence of management’s witness on material points is not

challenged neither shattered. Therefore I donot find reason to disbelieve his evidence that the report received from

School Secondary Board and Principal of ITI, the documents were forged. I am not convinced that the argument

advanced by Shri R.C.Shrivastava. The evidence of management’s witness is cogent and reliable that as documents

submitted by workman, the copies produced on record were fake, the termination of services of workman is justified.

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

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the DRM, Central Railway Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu,

S/o Shri Harilal Sahu Ex Diesel Assistant w.e.f. 28-8-98 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 80-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 170@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@111@1998&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 80.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/111/1998-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

193

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/170/2003

Shri Dilip Kumar,

S/o Shri Narmada Prasad,

B-8, Himansha Apartment,

Civil Lines, Jabalpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur. (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21^st day of October, 2016

1.

As per letter dated 21-10-03 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-

41012/111/1998-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Dilip

Kumar w.e.f. 18-6-80 is justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

2.

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

Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party is he was appointed as casual labour on 21-6-1978. He worked till 17-6-1980. His

services were terminated without giving proper opportunity, without issuing showcause notice. Workman further

submits that after completion of 3 months continuous service, he acquired temporary status. Thereafter his services are

covered by Discipline and Appeal Rules of Railway. As per those rule, his services could not be terminated without

giving opportunity or issuing showcause notice. He raised dispute before ALC Jabalpur. After reference, he submitted

representation dated 10-11-98, 15-3-99 before Hon’ble High Court. The dispute has been referred vide order dated 21-

10-03. Ist party reiterates that 2^nd party failed to regularize his services. His co-worker have been regularized. His

services are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Ion such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

3.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party raised objection that as per contentions in

statement of claim, he was working till 8-6-80 in broken period and entry in his service card No. 213328. Application

was filed after lapse of 28 years before Conciliation Officer. The dispute is raised after 17 years of his disengagement

is not tenable. 2^nd party has referred to ratio held in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd versus K.P. Madhavan Kutti and

others . that Ist party workman not worked for 240 days in any calendar year, he is not entitled to protection under

provisions of ID Act. 2^nd party reiterates that service conditions of persons engaged by Railway administration are

covered by Railway Manual Chapter 20. The relevant provisions in Chjapter 20 are reproduced- “Casual labour

engaged on open line works who continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work of the same

type for more than 120 days without a break will be treated as temporary on completion of 120 days of continuous

employment.” 2^nd party submits that claim made by workman is false and fabricated. He not worked as casual labour

from 21-6-78 to 17-6-80. His name was not recorded in live register of SSE, SGO, STA and JBP. The casual service

card No.213328 which is in possession of workman is fake as in the seal of inspector of works ( doubling) Central

Railway and station SGO is not printed in the manuscript the statement of claim regarding his working is contradictory.

The particulars of his working given by his Advocate on 26-2-07 in 2^nd, 3^rd para. It is mentioned he worked under IOW

SGO. In such prospective it is mentioned that the applicant attached casual labour there is pasted seal IOW (Doubling)

etc. in Annexure II submitted before ALC, Jabalpur workman has mentioned he worked during the period 21-6-78 to

18-6-1980 under IOW (Doubling) Jabalpur. The photocopy of casual card produced as Annexure A shows period 28-2-

80 to 18-6-80 having seal of IOW STA (MP). From issuing of said casual card and upto the last working period, the

same supervisor has put his signature on the seal of IOW SGO & STA. it is reiterated that casual card is fake.

4.

That Railway has recruitment policy for appointment of regular employees. Such proceeding was not followed.

That Railway had decided to offer opportunity to ex casual workers, advertisement published in Daily Bhaskar in

March 2003. Workman had not submitted application. The dispute is raised after 17 years is not tenable. All adverse

contentions of workman have been denied. 2^nd party has referred o ratio held in various cases.

5.

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:-

194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i) Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri

Dilip Kumar w.e.f. 18-6-80 is justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence. He stated that he was in Railway service from 21-6-78 to 17-6-80. He had worked in broken period for 140

days. His services were terminated without giving opportunity or issuing showcause notice. In his cross-examination,

Ist party workman says he has passed BA privately during service. when he joined service, he passed 1th standard. He

used to sign in Hindi and English. He did not recollect whether papers related to service is to be signed in Hindi or

English. His affidavit bears his signature. I joined service around 1978, he did not recollect the date or month. He was

appointed by IOW Mr. Jaswani, he worked 6 months at Sagar, 4 months at Jabalpur, 5 months at satna. He denies that

where Mr. Jaswani was working, he was working at those places. Workman says Mr. Bhatia was IOW at Satna. He

admits that appointments are made at those 3 places. He worked at Jabalpur in 1979 but he was unable to tell the

period, he was unable to tell period of working at Satna, he received casual card at Sagar. He denies that he worked for

140 days at all 3 places. He did not remember how many working days are written in affidavit. He submitted

application in 1998-99 before ALC. Casual card signed by IOW was signed by Jaswani and other card is signed by Shri

Bhatia. He denies suggestion that during 1978 to 1990, he was not engaged as casual labour in Railway. The casual

cards referred in Written Statement filed by management and also referred in cross-examination of workman are not

produced on record.

7.

Management’s witness Shri Ramsingh in his affidavit o evidence has stated that administration never engaged for

intermittent short period. Labour of this kind is recruited from nearest available source, they are not liable to transfer.

That the workman has submitted false claim is fabricated. His name was not recorded in live register or LTI register.

That IOW, /SGO and IOW (Doubling) are different units. Those units have no relation with each other. Workman has

not worked anywhere. In March 2003, advertisement was issued in daily Bhaskar. Workman had not submitted

application at that time. Management witness in his cross says he don’t know from which place casual card of workman

was issued. He also claims ignorance about the working days and place of workman. In 986, he was not posted at

Sagar. He has not brought record of IOW. Personally he doesnot know workman. He had seen casual service card of

workman, he was not posted at the place where casual card was issued.

8.

In his affidavit of evidence, workman stated that he worked for 140 days. It is clear that workman had not worked

for 24 days therefore workman is not entitled to protection of provisions of ID Act.

9.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi argued that the dispute is raised after 23 years is not tenable. On

the point of delay, reliance is placed on ratio held in case between—

Nedungadi Bank Ltd versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others reported in AIR-2000-I-LLJ-561. Their Lordship of

Apex Court dealing with powers under Section 0 of ID Act held power to make reference to achieve above purpose

cannot be exercised at any time say after delay of 7 years and there being no industrial dispute existing or apprehended.

Reliance is also placed in Indian Iron & Steel Co.ltd versus Prahlad Singh reported in 2001(1)SCC-424. Their

Lordship dealing with Section 10 & 15 of ID Act- Latches and delay held ID raised after long 13 years of termination

of service. no reasonable explanation given for such delay . in such circumstances held the Industrial Tribunal rightly

refused to grant any relief.

In case between Chandrappagol A.G versus Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghataprabha Right Bank canal

construction reported in 2004-II-LLJ-460 held Government to exercise power in deemed industrial disputes. Dispute

can cease to exist on account of delay. Government can reject request for reference of dispute on this ground. Labour

Court can also reject stale dispute/ claim.

In case between UP State Warehousing Corporation versus Presiding Officer reported in 2013-III-LLJ-213. Their

Lordship dealing with burden of proof held person whofiles a claim is required to prove his case. Industrial Dispute

raised by Union, burden of proof is upon union and its workers to prove their claim before Labour Court.

In present case, from pleadings and evidence on records, it is clear that workman was disengaged on 13-6-80, the

dispute is raised n the year 2002 is highly belated and such stale claim could not be allowed. Besides above, the Ist

party has failed to establish he worked 240 days. The casual card of workman referred in Written Statement and

evidence is not produced on record. Therefore claim of workman that he is illegally terminated cannot be upheld. For

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

195

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Dilip Kumar

w.e.f. 18-6-80 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 81-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 98@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@37@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 81.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/37/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/98/2011

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28^th day of September 2016

1.

As per letter dated 20-10-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12011/37/2011-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt. Kranti Bai

w.e.f. 4-8-2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

2.

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

through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. Case of workman is that she was engaged on daily

wages as sweeper from 1-11-92 at wages Rs.10 per day. The wages were increased to Rs.15,25 per day. She was

working six days in a week Monday to Saturday. She completed more than 240 days during each of the year. Her

services were terminated on 3-8-2010 without notice or paying retrenchment compensation. That she had raised

dispute. After failure report submitted by conciliation officer, the dispute has been referred. That she is covered as

employee under Section 25B of ID Act. Her services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Principles

196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of last come first go were not followed. Her termination is in violation of Section 25-G, N of ID Act. After her

termination, 2^nd party engaged other persons for work. She was not re-engaged. Thereby 2^nd party violated Section 25-F

of ID Act. On such ground, Ist party prays for reinstatement with backwages.

3.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party reiterates that Ist party workman was not

appointed following recruitment rules at MLA Guest House branch. The work of sweeping and cleaning toilets is not

taken from the peons working in the Bank. Ist party was engaged as casual employee for one or two hours in a day for

cleaning sweeping work. The work of cleaning, sweeping work was carried before working hours of the Bank. Ist party

workman is not covered as workman as she is employed as daily wage casual labour Ist party workman is not entitled

to protection of ID Act. Ist party not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. Violation of

Section 25-F,G,.N of ID Act is denied. 2^nd party submits that reference be answered in its favour.

4.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt.

Kranti Bai w.e.f. 4-8-2010 is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

5.

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Documents Exhibit W-1 to 4 are

admitted by management. Workman did not examined herself in support of her claim. Evidence of Ist party workman is

closed on 8-1-2015.

6.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Shri Sanjay Gagde. Affidavit of management’s witness is

devoted that workman was not appointed as regular employee following recruitment rules. She was engaged for

cleaning, sweeping work on daily wages. Ist party not completed 240 days continuous service. workman is not entitled

to protection of ID Act. In his cross-examination, management’s witness says he is officer of State Bank of India. He

denies that there was no branch at State Bank of Indore at MLA rest house. He was not working in MLA branch during

1992 to 2010. He was unable to tell area of said branch or sanctioned opost of sub staff. Before engaging Ist party

workman, any kind of recruitment process was not followed. Cleaning, sweeping work was carried in the branch every

2-4 days as per need. Ist party was not given appointment letter. He claims ignorance whether workman was issued

retrenchment notice, compensation, bonus was paid to her. He claims ignorance about the documents produced by Ist

party regarding payment of bonus.

7.

As witness of management was not working in MLA Rest house branch of State Bank of Indore, witness of

management has no personal knowledge, his evidence is devoid of reliance. Exhibit W-1 reply submitted by 2^nd party

in conciliation proceeding before ALC. The 2^nd party has contented that workman was working one hour every day as

casual worker. She was not appointed as peon. Ist party was paid wages for her working period. Document Exhibit W-2

shows that workman was directed to be paid bonus Rs.7280 for the year 1992-93, 2008-09. In Exhibit W-3, the

calculation of bonus, working days of workman are shown more than 240 days in 1994-95, 95 to 99, 2001 -01 to 2003-

04, 2005-06 to 2008-09. Exhibit W-4 is the cheque of bonus amount Rs.7280 paid to workman. From Exhibit W-3, it is

clear that workman had worked more than 240 days during past service years. Management’s witness has not produced

documents to show Ist party workman was working only for one hour every day for cleaning, sweeping work. From

document Exhibit W-3, it is proved that workman had completed more than 240 days continuous service. her services

are terminated without notice or paying retrenchment compensation. Therefore termination of services of Ist party is

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

8.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 services of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-

F of ID Act, Ist party workman has not examined herself neither management has adduced any evidence whether

workman is in gainful employment after termination of her services. Considering Ist party was engaged on daily wages

since 1992, her services were terminated in 2010. In my considered view, considering nature of employment on casual

basis on daily wages, instead of regularization, compensation Rs. 1,50,000 would be appropriate to meet the ends of

justice. Accordingly I record my finding in point No.2.

9.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in terminating the services of Smt. Kranti Bai w.e.f. 4-8-2010 is not legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.1,50,000 to the workman.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

197

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 82-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Nrhlx<+

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-

01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@47@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 82.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Chhattisgarh

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/47/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/34/2013

The President,

Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Employees Association,

Raipur (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

The President,

Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Head Office,

15-recreation Road, Choubey Colony,

Distt. Raipur (CG).

Regional Manager,

Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank.

Vyapar Vihar,

Bilaspur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30^th day of November 2016

1.

As per letter dated 31-1-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12011/47/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of (i) President, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Head Office, 15, Recreation

Road, Choubey Colony, Distt. Raipur (CG) and (ii) The Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Vyapar

Vihar, Bilaspur CG in terminating the services of Shri Gauri Shankar alias Birbal Bareth, Ex-Messenger-cum

Daily Wages worker w.e.f. 13-4-2010 and not regularize his services as per the recommendation of Thorat

Committee by the Bank was legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief the said workman is entitled to and from

what date?”

2.

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

Page1 to 5 . Case of Ist party workman is that he was working on daily wages as sweeper/ peon from 1-2-00 to 13-11-

2010. As per Bank rules of 2010, he had submitted application for regularization as messenger. Management had taken

198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wrong action terminating his services. He raised dispute before ALC, Bilaspur. Workman reiterates that he was

working on daily wages at branch Janjgir , Chhattisgarh. He was doing work of supplying water, tea in the office, he

was also working as Daftary. He was paid less wages. Sometimes wages were paid to him in cash and sometimes by

voucher. The details of his working days are given in Para 6 of the statement of claim.

3.

Ist party workman further submits he was doing work of recovery of amount, service of notice besides the work

of cleaning, sweeping and supplying drinking water, tea etc. he was working from 9 AM to 10 PM. He was

continuously working from 2000 to 2010. He was eligible for regularization of his services. Instead of regularizing his

services, he was terminated illegally. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

4.

Though 2^nd party management has engaged Advocate but 2^nd party has failed to file Written Statement. 2^nd party

is proceeded without Written Statement on 7-9-2016.

5.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank in terminating the

services of Shri Gauri Shankar alias Birbal Bareth,

Ex-Messenger-cum Daily Wages worker w.e.f. 13-

4-2010 and not regularize his services as per the

recommendation of Thorat Committee by the Bank

was legal and proper?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

6.

The term of reference pertains to termination of service of Ist party and denying regularization in service.

2^nd party has not filed Written Statement though workman has pleaded in statement of claim that he was working from

1-2-2010 to 13-4-2010 particulars of his working days are given in Para 6 of the Statement of claim. Since the year

2000 till 2010, workman had not worked for continuous 240 days during any of the year. The working days of Ist party

are shown 50 in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, in the year 2002- his working days were 100, in 2006- for

171 days and in 2010 for 55 days. Affidavits of evidence filed by workman shows same number of his working days in

para 6 of the affidavit. Workman has not completed 240days continuous service during any of the year therefore

termination of services of workman cannot be held in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has not

established continuous service of one year as provided under Section 25 B of ID Act. The claim of Ist party workman

on regularization is based on recommendation of the Committee. Copy of Notification dated 13-7-2010 is produced by

workman is received under RTI Act. Said notification provide rules for recruitment of officers and staff. The rules are

silent w.r.t. regularization of daily wage casual employees. The rules provide for approved staffing pattern., the

documents about payment wages arte produced by workman. In view of working days shown in Para 6 of the statement

of claim and affidavit of evidence, workman had not worked for more than 240 days during any of the year, the claim

of workman for regularization also cannot be accepted. For reasons discussed above, termination of Ist party workman

cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Gauri

Shankar alias Birbal Bareth, Ex-Messenger-cum Daily Wages worker w.e.f. 13-4-2010 and not regularize

his services as per the recommendation of Thorat Committee by the Bank is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 83-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkmFk bafM;u

cSad fy- 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

199

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 83.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The South

Indian Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Monday the 31^st day of October, 2016/09^th Kartika, 1938)

ID 22/2015

Workman

:

Smt Ganamma. K. P,

W/o Tomy,

Karikkal Veedu, Puliyannoor P.O.,

Puliyannoor Village,

Meenachil Taluk – 636573.

(in Person)/(ex-parte)

Management

:

The Chief Manager,

Legal Department,

Head Office,

The South Indian Bank Ltd.,

Thrissur.

By Adv. Shri. Saji Varghese

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.10.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the

following:

AWARD

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

2.

The contentions in the application filed by the workman in brief are as follows:-

The workman was employed as 1/5 part time sweeper in the management bank since the last 24 years. While she

was working at Cherupunkal branch of the bank, some people who were having dealings with her husband filed a

complaint against her before the bank officials. On the basis of that complaint, she was terminated from the service

after disciplinary proceedings.

3.

The workman paid the amount due to the persons against whom her husband had dealings. She informed the

matter to the bank and requested to drop all the proceedings against her. In spite of which the bank proceeded against

her and imposed the punishment of removal from service. In the course of conducting the disciplinary proceedings no

opportunity was afforded to the workman to substantiate her contentions. There was denial of natural justice while

conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. Therefore the workman has requested to pass an award

directing the management to withdraw the termination order and to reinstate her with all benefits thereof.

4.

The management filed written statement denying the claim of the workman. They have stated that while working

as 1/3^rd part time sweeper in the Cherpunkal branch and the Regional Office, Kottayam the workman committed

serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the bank. While working in Cherpunkal branch she collected a sum of

` 30,000/- from one Shri. Varkey; a sum of ` 30,000/- from Shri. Roy Paul; a sum of ` 30,000/- from Shri. Jacob. P;

200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a sum of ` 38,000/- from one Shri. Rejimon P.R and while working in the Regional Office of the management bank she

collected amount from Shri. Babu. K. A. The act committed by the workman amounts to serious misconduct.

Therefore the management proceeded against her, issued charge sheet against her and after affording sufficient

opportunity, ordered domestic enquiry against her. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate her

contentions. The contention of the workman that the management denied opportunity to her to substantiate her

contentions, is false and incorrect. After the receipt of enquiry report; the management complied all the procedural

requirements and thereafter issued the order of removal from service. According to the management the punishment

imposed is in consonance with the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman. The management has stated

that they have not violated the principles of natural justice nor denied opportunity to the workman to substantiate her

contentions. They have requested to disallow the claim of the workman.

5.

After filing written statement by the management opportunity was afforded to the parties to take steps and

production of documents. Even though sufficient opportunity was afforded to the workman to prove her case; she

remained absent continuously. Therefore she was called absent and set ex-parte. The management produced the

enquiry file which is marked as Ext.M1 at the preliminary enquiry stage. As requested by the learned counsel for the

management, the validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as the preliminary point. As per the Order dated

28.10.2016 it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is valid and proper. Thereafter the matter

was posted for final hearing. The workman again remained absent at the stage of final hearing. Hence the counsel for

management was heard.

6.

The workman involved in this case preferred this industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 challenging her termination from the services under the management. According to the workman

she was working as a part-time sweeper in different branches of the management bank since the last 24 years. She has

stated that some persons who were on inimical terms with her husband filed false complaint against her before the

management. On the basis of which the management initiated disciplinary proceedings against her which culminated

in her dismissal from the services of the management bank. According to the workman the financial transactions

between her husband and the third parties were settled and she has nothing to do with those transactions. She has stated

that the action of the management is unjust and illegal.

7.

Even though the workman has stated that the management initiated proceedings against her without any just and

reasonable cause and without affording fair and reasonable opportunity to her to substantiate her contentions, there is

no evidence to prove the same. Ext.M1 file reveals that the management afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity

to the workman to substantiate her contentions. She was allowed to cross examine all the witnesses examined before

the enquiry officer. In the course of enquiry the workman has filed a statement admitting the misconduct alleged. The

workman cross examined MW2, MW3 and MW4. Regarding MWs 1 and 5 the workman has stated that she has

nothing to cross examine. In spite of the fact that the workman admitted the misconduct before the enquiry officer, the

enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry in accordance with law and afforded reasonable opportunity to the workman

to substantiate her contentions. The misconduct alleged against the workman is proved from the evidence tendered

before the enquiry officer and that aspect is clear from Ext.M1 file. It follows that the workman is not entitled to any

relief as claimed.

8.

In the result an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the application

under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

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 31^st day

of October, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman

NIL

Witness for the Management

NIL

Exhibit for the Workman

NIL

Exhibit for the Management

M1 - Enquiry File.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

201

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 84-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@82@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 84.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/82/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 10/2012

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai

2. The Divisonal Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Rajkot

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

‘Shiv Om’, 2/9, Junction Plot,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

None

For the Second Party

:

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/82/2011-

IR(B-I) dated 03.01.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the Western Railway, Mumbai & Divisional Officer, Rajkot in not

declaring the officer bearers of the union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Rajkot (Register Trade Union)

202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as protected workman violating the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Central Rules and

transferring their office bearers, Shri Manish Viradia without following the norms of transfer is justified? To

what relief the union is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 03.01.2012.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 26.03.2012.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

2.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 85-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@13@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 85.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/13/2014-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 37/2014

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Dy. General Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

28/B, Narain Park, B/h Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

None

For the Second Party

:

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

203

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/13/2014-

IR(B-I) dated 25.03.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

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

fixing the pay of Shri Jagdish R. Sr. Khalasi correctly and not granting him promotion of Artisan Gr. III even

after working on the post at par with his juniors is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 25.03.2014. After service on both the parties, today on 23.09.2016, on behalf of the

second party Shri R.S. Sisodiya, President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad submitted that the union does not

want to prosecute the case. Hence the reference decided as not pressed.

2.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 86-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 882@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

06-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@402@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 86.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 882/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State

Bank of Saurashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/402/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 19^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 882/2004

1. The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra, Head Office,

Neelambaugh,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001

2. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,

Kumbharvada Branch,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001

…First Party

204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Smt. Dudhiben Saajanbhai Bhasker,

C/o Yogeshbhai Joshi, 25, Municipal Shopping Centre,

Crescent, Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

Shri B.M. Joshi

For the Second Party

:

None

AWARD

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

12012/402/2001-IR(B-I) dated 11.03.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Kumbharvada Branch, Bhavnagar in

discontinuing Smt. Dudhiben Sajanbhai Bhasker w.e.f. 04.11.2000 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 11.03.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on 19.05.2002

along with authority letter. First party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 6, Ext. 7 and Ext. 11 on 21.11.2008, 09.12.2009

and 01.03.2011 respectively. But unfortunately despite not filing written statement by the first party, second party has

been absent since 22.12.2010 despite issuing notice to the second party on 30.12.2010 by this tribunal to all the parties

including workman to appear on 01.03.2011. The first party State Bank of India submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 11 on

01.03.2011 but second party did not bother to appear. Thus it appears that second party is not inclined to prosecute the

case. However the advocate of the first party State Bank of India appeared on 26.12.2013 and 10.04.2014. Therefore,

the tribunal has no option but to dispose of the reference in the absence of the parties.

2.

Therefore, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party and the reference is

decided in affirmative as being not contested by the second party by adducing evidence.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 87-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@116@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 87.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/116/2010-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th September, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

205

Reference: (CGITA) No. 04/2012

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway,

Churchgate,

Mumbai

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Bhavnagar Para,

Bhavnagar, Gujarat

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28-B, Narayan Park,

Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

:

Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

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

41011/116/2010-IR(B-I) dated 27.12.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for stopping harassment of Shri

Lalaram Mahor by SSE and allocation of work to him as per his post, is legal & justified? To what relief the

Union/Workman is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 27.12.2011.Both the parties were served with a registered notice dated 26.03.2012.

Neither of the parties responded to the notice by filing the statement of claim or written statement, as the case may be.

However, the second party represented by The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad Shri R.S.

Sisodiya by way of his written response expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case.

2.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 88-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@14@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 88.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/14/2008-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 14/2008

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

D.R.M. Office, Near Railway Station,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

78/9-C, National Highway,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

…Second party

For the First Party

:

Shri N.J. Acharya

For the Second Party :

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/14/2008-

IR(B-I) dated 24.06.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Ajmer and the D.R.M., Ahmedabad in not sparing on

transfer early and denial of right for appearing in the written test for the selection of Loco Inspector Grade to Sri

Ranbir Singh, Loco Pilot under SSE(L), Gandhidham, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

1.

The reference dates back to 24.06.2008. Both the parties were served. First party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext.

3 and 4 of Shri Janak R. Pandya and Shri N.J. Acharya respectively. Shri O.P. Vasishtha on behalf of the second party

moved an application Ext. 2 on 18.06.2009 seeking time to submit his statement of claim but since then the statement

of claim has not been filed. Parties are also not responding since long. On 05.01.2016, last opportunity was given to the

second party to submit his statement of claim but did not submit the statement of claim on 12.05.2016 and thereafter on

today. Therefore, it appears that second party is not serious to prosecute the case.

2.

Hence the reference is decided in affirmative and the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Ajmer and the

D.R.M., Ahmedabad in not sparing on transfer early and denial of right for appearing in the written test for the

selection of Loco Inspector Grade to Sri Ranbir Singh, Loco Pilot under SSE(L), Gandhidham, is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 89-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@06@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

207

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 89.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41011/06/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 16^th September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 51/2011

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar, Baroda

…First Party

V/s

The President Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

Smt. Sonal Patel

For the Second Party

:

Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/06/2011-

IR(B-I) dated 06.06.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for reinstating and

regularizing Shri Rameshbhai Chhaganbhai Solanki as Sweeper in the service of Railway from November, 2009

is legal and justified? To what relief the Union is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 06.06.2011. The President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Shir R.S. Sisodia

on behalf of the second party has submitted in written that he does not want to prosecute the case.

2.

Thus the reference is decided as withdrawn and the action taken by the first party is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 90-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 543@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@176@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 90.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 543/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/176/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 543/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Baroda Division,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

140, SFX – 140, Gurunagar,

Gandhidham (Kutch) – 370201

…Second party

For the First Party

:

Shri D.R. Patel &Jatin J. Vakil

For the Second Party

:

Shri O.P. Vasistha

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/176/2001-

IR(B-I) dated 26.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Western Railway KamdarSangh, Gandhidham for reinstatement of Smt. Dhanniben

Rameshbhai, Casual Labour Safaiwala with full back wages from the date of removal i.e. 19.07.2000 in the

Western Railway is justified? If yes, what relief the concerned employee is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 26.04.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 7 on 26.10.2004

and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 9 on 12.07.2005. Since then the second party has been absent and

has also not been leading evidence. Thus it appears that the secondparty is not willing to prosecute the case.

2.

Thus the reference is decided in negative and the demand of Western Railway KamdarSangh, Gandhidham for

reinstatement of Smt. DhannibenRameshbhai, Casual Labour Safaiwala with full back wages from the date of removal

i.e. 19.07.2000 in the Western Railway is not justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 91-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

209

,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 542@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@175@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 91.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 542/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-41012/175/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 542/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Baroda Division,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

140, SFX – 140, Gurunagar,

Gandhidham (Kutch) – 370201

…Second party

For the First Party

:

Shri D.R. Patel & Jatin J. Vakil

For the Second Party

:

Shri O.P. Vasistha

AWARD

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

41012/175/2001-IR(B-I) dated 19.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda Division in

denying family pension to Shri Nilesh Amrutlal Vaghela son of Late Amrutlal Kesahvalal Vaghela, T.S.

Safaiwala under SS ADI is justified? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 19.04.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 5 on 26.10.2004

but despite service the first party did not prefer to submit written statement. It is also noteworthy that both the parties

have been absent since long but as the second party submitted the statement of claim, therefore, on 05.01.2016, the case

was ordered to proceed exparte against the first party and the date 12.05.2016 was fixed for exparte evidence of the

second party. But the second party did not appear on 22.05.2016; therefore, the case was fixed today on 22.09.2016.

Again today on 22.09.2016, second party has not appeared which indicates that the second party is not willing to

prosecute the case.

210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

Hence the reference is decided in affirmative and the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Baroda Division in denying family pension to Shri Nilesh Amrutlal Vaghela son of Late Amrutlal

Kesahvalal Vaghela, T.S. Safaiwala under SS ADI is justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 92-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkcjdkaBk

xka/huxj xzkeh.k cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 279@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@421@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 92.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 279/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Sabarkantha

Gandhinagar Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/421/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 279/2004

The Chairman,

Sabarkantha Gandhinagar Gramin Bank, Himmatnagar,

Distt. S.K. (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

All Gujarat KamdarKarmachari Union, Ashapurinagar,

Nr. Swastik Char Rasta, Bhilwada Rd., Amraiwadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380026

…Second party

For the First Party

:

Shri C.S. Naidu Asso.

For the Second Party

:

Shri D.S. Gohil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/421/99-

IR(B-I) dated 17.02.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Sabarkantha Gandhinagar Gramin Bank, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) in

dismissing Shri D.S. Prajapati, Clerk-cum-Cashier Vadrad Branch from the service of the bank on the alleged

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

211

charges of misconduct vide charge sheet No. SGGB:HO:PER:1331:95-96 dated 31.08.1995 is legal and justified?

If not then to what relief the concerned employee is entitled to?”

1.

The reference dates back to 17.02.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 2 and alleged

that the first party bank is Scheduled and Nationalised Bank of Government of India and is governed by the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The second party workman had been working as cashier cum clerk with honesty, devotion and

diligence since last 8 years. On 29.07.1995, he submitted accounts papers to the Branch Manager which were found to

be true and correct and matching with the cash roll which were verified by the Branch Manager but internal auditor

submitted a report on 31.07.1995, finding a sought fall of Rs.8000/- in the chest/cash amount. The said audit report was

misguiding and against facts because all the account sheets was verified and signed by the Branch Manager. The

chairman of the bank later on 02.08.1995, forced him to sign a document with a admission that he purchase a T.V.

worth Rs.7500/- and keeping remaining Rs.500/- in pocket. He was also forced to deposit Rs.3000/- on the next

working day, Monday from the salary and remaining Rs.5000/- after borrowing. Later on 04.08.1995, he was put under

suspension and charge sheet was served on 31.08.1995 levelling the charge of mis-appropriation of Rs. 8000/-, the

aforesaid amount. Later he was subjected to departmental enquiry. During the course of enquiry on 22.05.1995, he

clarified to the first party that one Patel Ratilal Jivabhai deposits Rs.7750/- in a saving bank account No. 143 which

were credited by him in his account. Later the aforesaid Patel Ratilal Jivabhai came back and took his said cash amount

back showing urgent need which he (second party workman) forgot to debit the said amount from his account due to

heavy workload but said plea was turned down by the enquiry officer and was held guilty and the impugned order was

passed. He has also alleged that enquiry was not properly conducted. His statement was not recorded.

2.

The first party in his written statement Ext. 7 denied all the averments of the second party workman and

submitted that the second party workman misappropriated the Rs.8000/- from the bank. He was put under suspension

served with the proper charge sheet. Departmental enquiry was conducted. He was given opportunity of hearing.

Charges were proved and second party workman failed to explain the defence.

3.

The second party workman challenged the legality of the departmental enquiry. Both the parties lead evidence.

After considering the evidence and arguments of both the parties, my predecessor Shri B.K. Sinha on 02.02.2012 vide

order Ext. 25 gave a finding that the domestic enquiry held against the workman Deepak Shyamlal Prajapati was legal

and proper. Said order was not challenged in any higher court. Thus the said order is final and the defence taken by the

workman is immaterial.

4.

Thus this tribunal has the duty to give finding on punishment.

5.

In support of the arguments, the workman submitted the judgements passed in GSRTC V/s Vajabhai D. Parmar,

2001(1) GCD 37 Gujarat, GSRTC V/s KacharajiDhulajiParmar 2002(3) GLH 112 wherein the Gujarat High Court

reduced the quantum of punishment to reinstatement with 75% back wages. He also referred Assistant General

Manager, State Bank of India V/s Thomas Jose 2000(II) LLJ 191 wherein the apex court held that misappropriation of

the funds in savings bank account cannot be lightly treated. It being a misappropriation of public money, therefore, the

apex court ordered reinstatement without back wages and without increment for 10 years. He also referred Scooter

India Limited V/s Labour Court, Lucknow AIR 1989 SC 149 wherein the apex court imposed the similar sentence

explaining that the employee must be given the opportunity of reform.

6.

In counter to aforesaid pronouncements, the first party referred U.P.S.R.T.C. V/s Mohanlal Gupta 2000(87) FLR

wherein the apex court held that the question of award of any minor punishment in the facts of the matter under

consideration does not and cannot arise and neither the Labour Court could alter the punishment of termination of

service having regard to its assessment of facts and the contentions as regards the validity of the inquiry proceedings.

The employee has been found to be guilty of misappropriation and in such an event if the appellant Corporation loses

its confidence vis-à-vis the employees, it will be neither proper nor fair on the part of the Court to substitute the finding

and confidence of the employer with that if its own in allowing reinstatement.

The misconduct stands proved and in such a situation, by reason of the gravity of the offence, the Labour Court

cannot exercise its discretion and alter the punishment.

7.

Similarly in U.P.S.R.T.C. V/s Pradeep Kumar 2016 LLR 897 SC, the apex court observed as under:

“(4). We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. She submitted that labour court was not justified in

interfering with the punishment awarded as the misconduct alleged was of serious nature. What was alleged

against the workman is that he had collected fare from 78 passengers and did not issue the tickets to them, which

amounted to criminal breach of trust. Once such a misconduct was proved, reinstating the workman could not be

justified. It was submitted that though the labour court may, in an appropriate case, interfere with the punishment

awarded, but only when such punishment is not otherwise justified. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this

court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun V/s Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 SCC 108: (2006)

7 Supreme 408: 2006 LLR 1267 (SC) Relevant observations are:

212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“(7). Short question for our consideration in the present case is whether the punishment which has been modified

by the learned Single Judge is justified or not? The learned Single Judge found that the punishment awarded in

the present case is disproportionate to the guild of the delinquent. So far as, the guild of the petitioner is

concerned, in the domestic enquiry it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of not issuing tickets to the

twenty passengers and the same finding of the domestic enquiry has been upheld by the Labour Court and the

High Court. The petitioner was a Conductor and holding the position of trust. If incumbent like the petitioner

starts misappropriating the money by not issuing a ticket and pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the

Corporation then this is a serious misconduct. It is unfortunate that the petitioner was appointed in 1988 and in

the first year of service he started indulging in malpractice then what can be expected from him in the future. If

this is the state of affairs in the first year of service and if such persons are allowed to let off to the light

punishment then this will be a wrong signal to the other persons similarly situated. Therefore, in such cases the

incumbent should be weeded out as fast as possible and same has been upheld by the Labour Court. We are

firmly of the view that such instances should not be dealt with lightly so as to pollute the atmosphere in the

Corporation and other co-workers.

(8). Normally, courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shocking disproportionate if the

punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in the punishment in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction

then it will amount to abuse of the process of court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and courts

start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it

will give a wrong signal in the society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in the country have gone in red

because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents; therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt

with iron hands and not leniently.

(9). Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Regional

Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. V/s Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SSC 605: 2003 LLR 344 (SC) wherein, this court has very

categorically held that a mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice to substitute a lighter

punishment. This court held as under:

“The court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that

the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. The scope for interference is very limited and

restricted to exceptional cases. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been

indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of

justice. A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved but the

mental setup, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making

process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee

holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be

proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the

person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest

degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of

the Division Bench of the High Court are not proper.”

In view of the above observations made by this Court there remains nothing more to be added.”

(5). We find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant particularly in view of the law laid down

by this court in the case of Suresh Pal(supra), which is clearly applicable to the case in hand.

(6). Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the

award of the labour court and restore the order of punishment.”

8.

In the case in hand, the second party workman challenged the legality of the enquiry proceedings which was held

by the tribunal legal and proper. He did not challenge the findings of the tribunal regarding enquiry, therefore, same is

final. The tribunal has limited scope to go into the appropriateness of the punishment. The defence taken by the

workman that he forgot to debit the amount restored back to customer appears to be unnatural, unbelievable and

beyond truth. In the aforesaid judgements of the apex court, the punishment of dismissal is appropriate in the case of

misappropriation of the funds/money. Thus I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in awarding the

punishment of dismissal. Thus the action of the management of Sabarkantha Gandhinagar Gramin Bank, Himmatnagar

(Gujarat) in dismissing Shri D.S. Prajapati, Clerk-cum-Cashier Vadrad Branch from the service of the bank on the

alleged charges of misconduct vide charge sheet No. SGGB:HO:PER:1331:95-96 dated 31.08.1995 is legal and

justified.

9.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 14] 2017@ikS"k 24] 1938

213

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 93-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-01-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@78@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 93.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/78/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st September, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 72/2013

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Admn. Office, Sharda Chambers, 7^th Floor,

386/2, Shankarseth Road,

Pune – 411037

…First Party

V/s

Smt. Rekha Rajesh Jagtap,

S. No. 311, Bhavani Peth,

Kasewadi, Pune – 411042

…Second party

For the First Party

:

None

For the Second Party

:

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/78/2012-

IR(B-I) dated 22.03.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune in terminating the services of

Smt. Rekha Rajesh Jagtap w.e.f. 16.01.2012 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 22.03.2013. Besides informing the parties by the Ministry of Labour vide aforesaid

letter dated 22.03.2013, the tribunal also issued notice to all the parties but it is unfortunate that the notice issued to the

second party on the address given in the reference returned as unserved being not living there. Thereafter a fresh notice

Ext. 4 was issued to all the parties to appear on 11.05.2016. In response to the notice, the first party State Bank of India

214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2017/PAUSA 24, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vide letter Ext. 6 informed that the said reference has been transferred to CGIT No. 2 at Mumbai for adjudication. Same

is pending there.

2.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid letter Ext. 6.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 94-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbVsM

bafM;k ba'kksjsal daiuh fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1184@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06-01-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@18@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2017

S.O. 94.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1182/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.01.2017.

[No. L-17012/18/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1182/2004

The Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Opp. Haresh Talkies,

LohanaVidhyarthiBhavan,

Porbandar (Gujarat) – 360575

…First Party

V/s

Shri ChandreshbhaiLaxmanbhaiBamania,

Bhadrakali Temple,

Opp. Lohana Mahajan Wadi,

Porbandar (Gujarat) - 360575

…Second Party

For the First Party :

For the Second Party :

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-17012/18/2001-

IR(B-II) dated 31.10.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule: