2978 GI/2017

(2839)

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- 20]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 14—ebZ 20] 2017] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 24—oS'kk[k 30] 1939

No. 20]

NEW DELHI, MAY 14—MAY 20, 2017, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 24—VAISAKHA 30, 1939

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय

िवीय

िवीय सेवाएं

सेवाएं

सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1237

1237

1237.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

8 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ प)ठत, बककारी कंपनी (उप+म, का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उपधारा

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, इि"डयन ओवरसीज बक के कायपालक िनदेशक ;ी

आर. सु?मिणकुमार (ज7म ितिथ 15.06.1959) को पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से दनांक 30.06.2019 तक अथात उनक

अिधवGषता क तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, इि"डयन ओवरसीज बक मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3 करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(1)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

2840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1237.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri R. Subramaniakumar (DOB:15.06.1959) Executive Director,

Indian Overseas Bank as MD&CEO in Indian Overseas Bank w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge of the post and

till 30.06.2019 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further order, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(1)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1238

1238

1238.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, ओ)रयंटल बक आफ कामस के कायपालक िनदेशक

;ी राजकरण राय जी. (ज7म ितिथ 19.05.1962) को दनांक 01.07.2017 को या इसके पOात पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से

तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3 करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(2)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1238.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Rajkiran Rai G (DOB: 19.05.1962) Executive Director,

Oriental Bank of Commerce as MD&CEO in Union Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of his

taking over charge of the post on or after 01.07.2017 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(2)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1239

1239

1239.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, कापPरेशन बक के कायपालक िनदेशक ;ी सुनील

मेहता (ज7म ितिथ 19.09.1959) को पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से दनांक 30.09.2019 तक अथात उनक अिधवGषता क

तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल बक मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर

िनयु3 करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(3)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O.1239 .— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2841

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Sunil Mehta (DOB: 19.09.1959), Executive Director,

Corporation Bank as MD&CEO in Punjab National Bank w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge of the post and till

30.09.2019 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further order, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(3)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1240

1240

1240.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, केनरा बक के कायपालक िनदेशक ;ी दीनबंधु

महापाQा (ज7म ितिथ 12.06.1959) को पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से दनांक 30.06.2019 अथात उनक अिधवGषता क तारीख

तक अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ इंिडया मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3

करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(4)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1240.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Dinabandhu Mohapatra (DOB: 12.06.1959), Executive

Director, Canara Bank as MD&CEO in Bank of India w.e.f the date of his taking over charge of the post and till

30.06.2019 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(4)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1241

1241

1241.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, बक आफ इंिडया के कायपालक िनदेशक ;ी

आर.ए. शंकर नारायणन (ज7म ितिथ 23.01.1960) को दनांक 01.09.2017 को या इसके पOात पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से

दनांक 30.01.2020 तक अथात उनक अिधवGषता क तारीख तक या अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, िवजया बक मI बंध

िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3 करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(5)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1241.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri R. A. Sankara Narayanan (DOB: 23.01.1960), Executive

Director, Bank of India as MD&CEO in Vijaya Bank w.e.f. the date of his taking over charge of the post on or after

01.09.2017 and till 31.01.2020 i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(5)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

2842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1242

1242

1242.—राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, पंजाब नैशनल बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय

कायकारी अिधकारी ;ीमती ऊषा अनंतसु?मिणयन (ज7म ितिथ 01.10.1958) को पदभार Aहण करने क तारीख से 13.08.2018

तक क उनक शेष कायाविध तक अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बक मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3 करती है।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(6)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1242.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Smt. Usha Ananthasubramanian (DOB: 01.10.1958), MD&CEO,

Punjab National Bank as MD&CEO in Allahabad Bank w.e.f. the date of her taking over charge of the post and till the

remainder of her term upto 13.08.2018 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/(6)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 5 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1243

1243

1243.— राीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1), खंड 6 और ख"ड

(3) के खंड (क) /ारा द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के78ीय सरकार, एतn~/ारा, बक आफ इंिडया के बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय

कायकारी अिधकारी ;ी मेलवीन ओसवाड रेगो (ज7म ितिथ 19.07.1959) को दनांक 01.07.2017 से 13.08.2018 तक क उनक

शेष कायाविध तक Vसिडकेट बक मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुJय कायकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु3 करती है। ;ी रेगो दनांक

30.06.2017 तक अिनवाय तीWा मI रहIगे।

[फा.सं. 4/4/(7)2017-बीओ-I]

Mानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1243.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 6

and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Melwyn Oswald Rego (DOB: 19.07.1959), MD&CEO,

Bank of India as MD&CEO in Syndicate Bank with effect from 01.07.2017 and till the remainder of his term upto

13.08.2018. Shri Rego will continue to be on compulsory wait till 30.06.2017.

[F.No. 4/4/(7)2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 8 मई, 2017

का

का.आ.

. 1244

1244

1244.—राX Yीय आवास बक अिधिनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख) /ारा

द0 शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, के7 8ीय सरकार, एत[ारा, डॉ. चरन Vसह को अिधसूचना क तारीख से 03 वष क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश, तक, जो भी पहले हो, राीय आवास बक (एनएचबी) के िनदेशक मंडल मI गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु3

करती है।

[फा.सं. 24/9/2015-आईएफ-II]

राजीव शमा, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2843

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1244.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Charan Singh as a Non-Official

Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank, for a period of 03 years from the date of notification, or

untill further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 24/9/2015-IF-II]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

(jktLo foHkkx)

(¯gnh vuqHkkx&2)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1245-— dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu dsaæh; mRikn] lhek'kqYd ,oa lsokdj] oM+kSnjk&2 vk;qDrky; ds varxZr gkyksy&1 eaMy dk;kZy;]

gkyksy&2 eaMy dk;kZy;] edjiqjk eaMy dk;kZy;] ok?kksfM;k eaMy dk;kZy;] lsokdj eaMy dk;kZy; dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹फा. la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

vkuan dqekj] mi&funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

(Department of Revenue)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2017

S.O. 1245.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Halol 1 Division Office, Halol 2 Division Office,

Makarpura Division Office, Vaghodia Division Office, Service Tax Division Office under Commissionerate Central

Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vadodara under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1246-— dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu eq[; vk;qDr dk;kZy;] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd] lhek'kqYd ,oa lsokdj] ukxiqj tksu] ukxiqj vkSj

vk;qDr dk;kZy;] dsaæh; mRikn 'kqYd] lhek'kqYd ,oa lsokdj] ukxiqj&1 dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹फा. la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

vkuan dqekj] mi&funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2017

S.O. 1246.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise,

Customs and Service Tax, Nagpur Zone, Nagpur and Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and

Service Tax, Nagpur-1, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

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

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (OL)

2844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1247-— dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu] lhek'kqYd vk;qDrky;] yqf/;kuk dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk

dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹फा. la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

vkuan dqekj] mi&funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2017

S.O. 1247.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Commissionerate, Customs, Ludhiana, under the

Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1248-— dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu lhek'kqYd (fuokjd) vk;qDrky;] ve`rlj dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us

¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹फा. la- bZ&11017@1@2015&,-Mh- (¯gnh&2)º

vkuan dqekj] mi&funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2017

S.O. 1248.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Commissionerate, Customs (Preventive), Amritsar,

under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (OL)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2017

dk-vk- 1249-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] ;kaxksu esa Jh ouyky pq¡xk gyoupw] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 5 vizSy]

2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017

S.O. 1249.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2845

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

Consular services with effect from 05th April, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2017

dk-vk- 1250-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx nwrkokl] dEikyk esa Jh banjizhr ¯lg] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

13 vizSy] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2017

S.O. 1250.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Kampala to perform the Consular

services with effect from 13th April, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2017

dk-vk- 1251-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] tykykckn esa Jh euoj ¯lg] futh lgk;d dks fnukad 25 vizSy] 2017

ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2017

S.O. 1251.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Personal Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Jalalabad to perform the Consular

services with effect from 25th April, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1252-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] lsaV ihVlZ cxZ esa Jh jkgqy cfj;kj] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

2 ebZ] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

2846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2017

S.O. 1252.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, St. Petersburg to perform the

Consular services with effect from 2nd May, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 ebZ] 2017

dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk- 1253

1253

1253-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ

vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 3548¼v½] rkjh[k 23 uoEcj] 2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 25 uoEcj]

2016 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 272-429 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½

;k 673-17 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofgr dh xbZ mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa

dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS(

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu

vuqlwph esa of.kZr 272-358 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 672-99 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus vkSj mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k muds

Åij lHkh vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(

fVIi.k 1

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@509] rkjh[k 24 ekpZ]

2017 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk & dksfj;k ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk &

700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds

dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2

fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k fd;k x;k gS%&

^^8- vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa-& ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr] tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc)

gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/kdkjksa

dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k

Li"Vhdj.k-&bl /kkjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Loa; [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh] vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a

lqus tkus dk ;k fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp]

;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i'pkr] tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe ds ;k ,slh

Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdMksa ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k

esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVsZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds

fofu'p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstukas ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk] tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk gdnkj gksxk]

;fn Hkwfe ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA^^

fVIi.k 3

fVIi.k 3 % dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu

vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii) esa rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987

esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2847

vuqlwph

fpfjfejh vkslh,e] fpfjfejh {ks=]

ftyk& dksfj;k ¼NRrhlx<+½

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@509] rkjh[k 24 ekpZ] 2017½

lHkh vf/kdkj

lHkh vf/kdkj %

¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe la[;k

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk

la[;k

rglhy dk

uke

ftyk dk uke

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

fpfjfejh

[kM+xaok

dksfj;k

140-358

Hkkx

HkaMkjnsbZ

[kM+xaok

dksfj;k

14-379

Hkkx

HkqdHkqdh

[kM+xaok

dksfj;k

5-621

Hkkx

dqy % 160-358 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 396-24 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼[k½ ou Hkwfe%

Øe la[;k

ou dk izdkj

dEikVZesaV la[;k

Js.kh

izHkkj

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

vkjf{kr ou

549] 550

fpfjfejh

dksfj;k

112-000

Hkkx

dqy % 112-000 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 276-75 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx ¼d$[k½ 272-358 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 672-99 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke fpfjfejh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%

3@1 ¼Hkkx½] 7@1] 11@1] 17@1] 18@1] 19@1] 20@1] 36@1 ls 36@3] 36@5 ls 36@11] 37 ls 44] 46@3] 50@1]

50@2] 51] 52] 53@1] 53@2] 54 ls 56] 57@2] 68@1] 69@1 ls 69@8] 69@9d] 69@9@[k@1] 69@9@[k@2] 69@10]

69@12] 70@1] 71@1] 72@1] 115@1] 120@1] 121]122] 123@1] 123@14] 123@15] 124 ls 126] 127@1] 127@2] 128]

129@1] 129@2] 131 ls 138] 139@1 ls 139@4] 140] 141@1] 141@2] 142] 143@1] 143@1@d] 143@1@[k]

143@1@x] 143@1@?k] 143@2] 143@3] 144 ls 148] 150@1 ls 150@3] 150@6 ls 150@9] 151@1 ls 151@11] 152 ls

155] 156@1 ls 156@4] 157 ls 160] 161@3] 162] 163@1] 163@3] 164@1] 164@4-

xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%

45@3] 103] 105@3] 108@1] 108@2@d]108@2@[k] 112] 113@1] 113@2] 114@1] 114@2] 115@1 ls 115@3]

116@1] 116@2] 117] 118] 119@2] 120@1] 120@2] 121@1] 121@2] 122 ls 126-

xzke HkqdHkqdh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 37] 38] 287-

lhek o.kZu %

Cykd & 1 %

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;k 549 ls gksdj 549 ds Hkkxr% mRrjh lhek ls gksrh

gqbZ] IykV la[;k 120@1] 120@2 ls gksdj 121@2] 119@2 ds mRrjh lhek] 103 ds if’peh] iwohZ vkSj mRrjh lhek]

113@1] 113@2 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

2848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 114@2 ds if’peh lhek] dEikVZesaV la[;k 550 ls

gksdj] 550 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkqdHkqdh ds IykV la[;k 287 ds if’peh lhek ls gksdj xzke fpfjfejh esa izos”k

dj IykV la[;k 36@11] 36@1] 36@2] 44] 46@3] 130] 50] 50@2] 57@2] 69] 70 ds if’peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ 71] 72]

3@1] 17 ls gksdj 18@1 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 18@1 ds if’peh ,oa mRrjh lhek] 3@1 ds mRrjh ,oa

iwohZ lhek] 72] 71] 70 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 117@1] 115] 120@3] 165] 151@9] 151@1] 150@1

ls gksdj 150@4 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 149 vkSj xzke fpfjfejh&HkqdHkqdh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij

feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkqdHkqdh ds IykV la[;k 287 ls gksdj 38 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjf{kr ou

dEikVZesaV la[;k 549 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&d

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;k 549 ls gksdj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 126]

124 ds nf{k.kh lhek] dEikVZesaV la[;k 549 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd & 2%

t&>

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 7 ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **>** ij

feyrh gSA

>&´

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 7 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **>** ij

feyrh gSA

´&t

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 7 ds if’peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **t**

ij feyrh gSA

Cykd & 3%

V&B

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 11 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **B** ij feyrh

gSA

B&M

js[kk fcUnq **B** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 11 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **M** ij

feyrh gSA

M&V

js[kk fcUnq **M** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 11 ds if’peh ,oa mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

vkjafHkd fcUnq **V** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd & 4 %

<&.k

js[kk fcUnq **<** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 36@6 ds mRrjh] 36@6] 36@7] 36@5 ds iwohZ lhek

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **.k** ij feyrh gSA

.k&r

js[kk fcUnq **.k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 36@5] 36@3 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 36@3 ds if’peh lhek

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **r** ij feyrh gSA

r&<

js[kk fcUnq **r** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fpfjfejh ds IykV la[;k 36@3] 36@6 ds if’peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd

fcUnq **<** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd &

Cykd & 5%

Fk&n

js[kk fcUnq **Fk** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 108@2[k] 108@1] 105@3 ds iwohZ] 105@3 ds nf{k.kh

lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **n** ij feyrh gSA

n&/k

js[kk fcUnq **n** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 108@2d ds nf{k.kh ,oa if’peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

fcUnq **/k** ij feyrh gSA

/k&Fk

js[kk fcUnq **/k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 108@2d] 108@2[k ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

vkjafHkd fcUnq **Fk** ij feyrh gSA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2849

Cykd & 6 %

u&i

js[kk fcUnq **u** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 550 ds if”peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **i** ij

feyrh gSA

i&Q

js[kk fcUnq **i** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 550 ds mRrjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **Q** ij

feyrh gSA

Q&u

js[kk fcUnq **Q** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 550 ds iwohZ Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **u** ij

feyrh gSA

Cykd & 7 %

c&Hk

js[kk fcUnq **c** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 45@3 ds nf{k.kh vkSj if”peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq

**Hk** ij feyrh gSA

Hk&e

js[kk fcUnq **Hk** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 45@3 ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **e** ij

feyrh gSA

e&c

js[kk fcUnq **e** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkaMkjnsbZ ds IykV la[;k 45@3 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **c**

ij feyrh gSA

¹Qk- la- 43015@19@2016&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2017

S.O. 1253.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 3548(E), dated the 23^rd November, 2016 published in the Gazette of India, part II, section 3, sub-section (ii),

dated the 25^th November, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 or 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government gave notice of

its intention to prospect for coal in 272.429 hectare (approximately) or 673.17 acre (approximately) of the land in the

locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed

in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 272.358 hectare (approximately) or

672.99 acre (approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1 : The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/509, dated the 24^th March, 2017 of the area

covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) or at the

office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields

Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2 : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

“8. Objection to Acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section

7 has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any

part of the land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation.- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires

to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken by

the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in

respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make

different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government,

containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the

decision of that Government.

2850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act. ”

Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 has been appointed by the Central Government

as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the 20^th March,

1987, published in part II, section 3,sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Chirimiri OCM, Chirimiri Area,

District – Korea (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 509, dated the 24^th March, 2017]

All Rights:

A. Revenue Land:

Sl.

No.

Name of village

Patwari halka

number

Tahsil

District

Area in

hectare

Remarks

Chirimiri

Khadgawan

Korea

140.358

Part

Bhandardei

Khadgawan

Korea

14.379

Part

Bhukbhuki

Khadgawan

Korea

5.621

Part

Total:160.358 hectare (approximately) or 396.24 acre (approximately)

B. Forest Land:

Sl.

No.

Type of

Forest

Compartment

number

Range

Division

Area in hectare

Remarks

Reserve

Forest

549, 550

Chirimiri

Korea

112.000

Part

Total: 112.000 hectare (approximately) or 276.75 acre (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B)= 272.358 hectares (approximately)

or 672.99 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chirimiri (Part): 3/1(P), 7/1, 11/1, 17/1, 18/1, 19/1,20/1, 36/1 to 36/3, 36/5 to

36/11, 37 to 44, 46/3, 50/1, 50/2, 51, 52, 53/1, 53/2, 54 to 56, 57/2, 68/1, 69/1 to 69/8, 69/9Ka, 69/9/Kha/1,

69/9/Kha/2, 69/10, 69/12, 70/1, 71/1, 72/1, 115/1, 120/1, 121, 122, 123/1, 123/14, 123/15, 124 to 126, 127/1, 127/2,

128, 129/1, 129/2, 131 to 138, 139/1 to 139/4, 140, 141/1, 141/2, 142, 143/1, 143/1/Ka, 143/1/Kha,

143/1/Ga,143/1/Gha, 143/2, 143/3, 144 to 148, 150/1 to 150/3, 150/6 to 150/9, 151/1 to 151/11, 152 to 155, 156/1 to

156/4, 157 to 160, 161/3, 162, 163/1, 163/3, 164/1, 164/4.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhandardei (Part): 45/3, 103, 105/3, 108/1, 108/2/Ka, 108/2/Kha, 112, 113/1,

113/2, 114/1, 114/2, 115/1 to 115/3, 116/1, 116/2, 117, 118, 119/2, 120/1, 120/2, 121/1, 121/2, 122 to 126.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhukbhuki (Part): 37, 38, 287.

Boundary description:

Block – 1 :

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2851

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in Reserve Forest through compartment number 549, along partly

northern boundary of 549, through plot number 120/1, 120/2, along partly northern boundary of 121/2,

119/2, western, northern and eastern boundary of plot number 103, northern boundary of 113/1, 113/2 and

meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Bhandardei along western boundary of plot number 114/2,

through compartment number 550, along northern boundary of compartment number 550 and meets at

point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Bhukbhuki along western boundary of plot number 287

then enter in village Chirimiri and passes along western boundary of plot number 36/11, 36/1, 36/2, 44,

46/3, 130, 50, 50/2, 57/2, 69, 70, through 71, 72, 3/1, 17, along southern boundary of 18/1 and meets at

point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Chirimiri along western and northern boundary of plot

number 18/1, northern and eastern boundary of 3/1, through 72, 71, 70 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Chirimiri through plot number 117/1, 115, 120/3, 165,

151/9, 151/1, 150/1, along southern boundary of 150/4, through 149, partly common boundary of villages

Chirimiri-Bhukbhuki and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Bhukbhuki through plot number 287, along eastern

boundary of 38, through compartment number 549 of Reserve Forest and meets at point ‘G’.

G-A

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes through Reserve Forest compartment number 549, along southern

boundary of plot number 126, 124 of village Bhandardei, through compartment number 549 and meets at

starting point ‘H’.

Block – 2 :

H-I

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes in village Chirimiri along northern boundary of plot number 7 and

meets at point ‘I’.

I-J

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes in village Chirimiri along southern boundary of plot number 7 and

meets at point ‘J’.

J-H

Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes in village Chirimiri along western boundary of plot number 7 and

meets at starting point ‘H’.

Block – 3:

K-L

Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes in village Chirimiri along eastern boundary of plot number 11 and

meets at point ‘L’.

L-M

Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes in village Chirimiri along southern boundary of plot number 11 and

meets at point ‘M ‘.

M-K

Line starts from point ‘M’ and passes in village Chirimiri along western boundary of plot number 11 and

meets at starting point ‘K’.

Block – 4 :

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes in village Chirimiri along northern boundary of plot number 36/6,

eastern boundary of 36/6, 36/7,36/5 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-P

Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes in village Chirimiri along southern boundary of plot number 36/5,

36/3, western boundary of 36/3 and meets at point ‘P’.

P-N

Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes in village Chirimiri along western boundary of plot number 36/3, 36/6

and meets at starting point ‘N’.

Block – 5 :

Q-R

Line starts from point ‘Q’ and passes in village Bhandardei along eastern boundary of plot number

108/2Kha, 108/1, 105/3, southern boundary of 105/3 and meets at point ‘R’.

R-S

Line starts from point ‘R’ and passes in village Bhandardei along southern and western boundary of plot

number 108/2Ka and meets at point ‘S’.

S-Q

Line starts from point ‘S’ and passes in village Bhandardei along northern boundary of plot number

108/2Ka, 108/2Kha and meets at starting point ‘Q’.

2852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Block – 6 :

T-U

Line starts from point ‘T’ and passes in Reserve Forest compartment number 550, through western part of

compartment number 550 and meets at point ‘U’.

U-V

Line starts from point ‘U’ and passes in Reserve Forest compartment number 550, through northern part of

compartment number 550 and meets at point ‘V’.

V-T

Line starts from point ‘V’ and passes in Reserve Forest compartment number 550, through eastern part of

compartment number 550 and meets at starting point ‘T’.

Block – 7 :

W-X

Line starts from point ‘W’ and passes in village Bhandardei along southern and western boundary of plot

number 45/3 and meets at point ‘X’.

X-Y

Line starts from point ‘X’ and passes in village Bhandardei along northern boundary of plot number 45/3

and meets at point ‘Y’.

Y-W

Line starts from point ‘Y’ and passes in village Bhandardei along eastern boundary of plot number 45/3 and

meets at starting point ‘W’.

[F. No. 43015/19/2016-LA&IR]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 19 मई, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1254

1254

1254.-के78ीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क इससे उपाब_ अनुसूची मI वGणत प)रWेQ क भूिम मI से कोयला

अिभा` होने क संभाaता है ;

और उ3 अनुसूची मI वGणत भूिम के WेQ के िववरण अंतGवb करने वाला रेखांक संJयांक जीएम/जेएनआर/लड/

सीबीए/2016/1, तारीख 1 दसdबर, 2016 का िनरीWण िनदेशक तकनीक ( पी ए"ड पी ), ईटन कोलफeस िलिमटेड, संकतोिड़या,

डाकघर दशेरगढ़, िजला ब_वान (पिOम बंगाल), िपन कोड-713 333 के कायालय मI या मुJय महाबंधक (खोज भाग), सIYल माइन

hलाVनग ए"ड िडजाइन इ7टीiयूट िलिमटेड, ग,डवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, राँची (झारखंड) के कायालय मI या कोयला िनयंQक, 1,

काउंिसल हाउस Yीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के कायालय मI या िजला कलेlटर, िजला ब_वान-713 333, पिOम बंगाल के कायालय मI

कया जा सकता है ।

अतः, अब, के78ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक WेQ (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) ( िजसे इसमI इसके

पOात उ3 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) /ारा दत शि3य, का योग करते 6ए, उ3 अनुसूची मI वGणत भूिम

मI कोयले का पूवnWण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

उ3 अनुसूची मI वGणत भूिम मI िहतब_ कोई aि3 –

(i)

संपूण भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम मI या उसके ऊपर क7हp अिधकार, के अजन पर आWेप कर सकेगा; या

(ii)

उ3 अिधिनयम क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गई कसी कारवाई से का)रत 6ई या संभाa qप से का)रत

होने वाली नकुसानी के िलए उ3 अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

(ii)

उ3 अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप - धारा (1) के अधीन, समा` हो गई पूवnWण अनुMि`य, के संबंध मI या उ3

अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप- धारा (4) के अधीन समा` हो गये खनन पrे के िलए ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा और

उ3 अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) मI िविनsदb मद, के संबंध मI उपगत aय को

उपदGशत करने के िलए उ3 भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचQ,, सारिणय, और अ7य दतावेज, को,

इस अिधसूचना के राजपQ मI काशन क तारीख से नtबे दन, के भीतर िनदेशक (तकनीक) (पी ए"ड पी ), ईटन कोलफeस

िलिमटेड, संकतोिड़या, डाकघर दशेरगढ़, िजला ब_वान-713 333 (पिOम बंगाल) के कायालय को सुपुद करेगा ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2853

अनुसूची

झांजरा – जामगोरा tलॉक, रानीगंज कोलफeस

िजला - बदवान (पिOम बंगाल)

( रेखांक संJयांक जीएम/जेएनआर/लड/सीबीए/2016/1, तारीख 1 दसdबर, 2016)

+म सं॰

मौजा

( Aाम)

जे.एल. संJया

पुिलस टेशन

(थाना)

िजला

WेQ हेlटेयर मI

)टhपिणयां

ितलबोनी

फरीदपुर

बदवान

0.85

भाग

लौदोहा

फरीदपुर

बदवान

6.26

भाग

चक लौदोहा

फरीदपुर

बदवान

14.64

भाग

जामगोरा

फरीदपुर

बदवान

8.25

भाग

कुल: 30 हेlटेयर (लगभग) या 74.13 एकड़ ( लगभग )

सीमा

सीमा-वणन:

वणन:

पैच-1

क– ग

रेखा Vबदु ‘क’ से ारंभ होकर (जोक तािवत WेQ और मौजूदा WेQ क सिdमिलत Vबदु) और Vबदु ‘ख’ क

तािवत और मौजूदा WेQ क सीमा से होते 6ए और िब7दु ‘ग’ ( मौज़ा जामगोरा और चक लौदोहा क सामा7य

सीमा) पर िमलती है ।

ग- थ

रेखा िब7दु ‘ग’ से ारंभ होकर और Vबदु घ, ड., च, छ, ज, झ, ञ, ट, ठ, ड, ढ, ण, और त से होते 6ए और मौज़ा

चक लौदोहा से िमलती है और Vबदु ‘थ’ (मौज़ा जामगोरा और चक लौदोहा क सामा7य िब7दु है ) पर िमलती है।

थ –द

रेखा Vबदु ‘थ’ से ारंभ होकर और मौज़ा जामगोरा से िनकलती है और Vबदु ‘द’ पर िमलती है ( मौज़ा जामगोरा

और चक लौदोहा क सामा7य सीमा है) ।

द – ध

रेखा Vबदु ‘द’ से ारंभ होकर और रेखा मौज़ा चक लौदोहा से िनकलती है और Vबदु ‘ध’ मI िमलती है (मौज़ा

जामगोरा और चक लौदोहा क सामा7य सीमा) ।

ध – क

रेखा Vबदु ‘ध’ और ‘न’ से ारंभ होकर और मौज़ा जामगोरा से िनकलती है और Vबदु ‘क’ मI िमलती है (जोक

तािवत WेQ के ारंिभक िब7दु पर िमलती है ) ।

पैच-2

1 – 9

रेखा Vबदु 1 से ारंभ होकर (जोक तािवत WेQ और मौजूदा WेQ क सिdमिलत Vबदु है) और Vबदु 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7 और 8 से गुजरती है और तािवत और मौजूदा WेQ क सीमा रेखा से हो कर और Vबदु 9 मI िमलती है (जोक

मौज़ा लौदोहा और मौज़ा ितलबोनी का सामा7य िब7दु है) ।

9 – 11

रेखा Vबदु 9 और िब7दु 10 ारंभ होकर, मौज़ा ितलबोनी से गुजरते 6ए और Vबदु 11 पर िमलती है (जोक मौज़ा

ितलबोनी और लौदोहा का सामा7य िब7दु है) ।

11- 1

रेखा Vबदु 11 और 12 से ारंभ होकर,मौज़ा लौदोहा से गुजरती है और Vबदु 1 पर िमलती है (जोक तािवत WेQ

और मौजूदा WेQ का सामा7य Vबदु है) ।

[ फा. सं. 43015/15/2017-एलए ए"ड आईआर]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

2854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th May, 2017

S.O. 1254.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality described in the schedule annexed hereto ;

and, whereas, the plan bearing number GM/JNR/LAND/CBA/2016/1, dated the 1^st December, 2016

containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Director

Technical ( P and P), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P. O. Disergarh, District- Burdwan (W.B.), PIN Code-

713333 or at the office of the Chief General Manager( Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design

Institute Limited, Gandwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House

Street, Kolkata- 700001 or at the office of the District Collector, District Burdwan-713 333, West Bengal.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 4 of Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule.

Any person interested in the land in the land described in the said Schedule may, –

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or

(ii)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any

action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof ; or

(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to

have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the

expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of

the said Act,

to the office of the Director (Technical) (P and P), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District

Burdwan-713333 (West Bengal) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the

Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Jhanjra – Jamgora Block , Raniganj Coalfields

District – Burdwan ( West Bengal)

( Plan bearing number GM/JNR/LAND/CBA/2016/1,dated the 1^st December, 2016)

Sl. No.

Mouza (Village)

J.L.

number

Police Station

(Thana)

District

Area in

hectare

Remarks

Tilaboni

Faridpur

Burdwan

0.85

Part

Laudoha

Faridpur

Burdwan

6.26

Part

Chak Laudoha

Faridpur

Burdwan

14.64

Part

Jamgora

Faridpur

Burdwan

8.25

Part

Total : 30.00 hectare (approximately) or 74.13 acre (approximately)

Boundary Description:

PATCH - 1

A – C

Line starts from point A ( the common point of the proposed area and the existing area ) and point B

passes through the boundary line between proposed and existing area and meets at point C (common

point of Mouza Jamgora and Chak Laudoha) .

C – Q

Line starts from point C and point D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P all passes though

Mouza Chak Laudoha and meets at point Q (common point of Mouza Jamgora and Chak Laudoha) .

Q – R

Line starts from point Q and passes through Mouza Jamgora and meets at point R ( common point of

Mouza Jamgora and Chak Laudoha) .

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2855

R – S

Line starts from point R and passes through Mouza Chak Laudoha and meets at point S ( common

point of Mouza Jamgora and Chak Laudoha) .

S – A

Line starts from point S and Point T passes through Mouza Jamgora and meets at point A (the

starting point of the proposed area).

PATCH - 2

1 – 9

Line starts from point 1 ( the common point of the proposed area and the existing area ) and point 2,

3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 passes through the boundary line between proposed and existing area and meets at

point 9 (common point of Mouza Laudoha and Tilaboni) .

9 – 11

Line starts from point 9 and point 10 passes through Mouza Tilaboni and meets at point 11 ( common

point of Mouza Tilaboni and Laudoha) .

11- 1

Line starts from point 11 and point 12 passes through Mouza Laudoha and meets at point 1( the

common point of the proposed area and the existing area ).

[F. No. 43015/15/2017-LA&IR]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1255-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

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

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

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

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 21^st April, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 93/2015

BETWEEN :

Sri J. Alwin Edwin

1^st Party/Petitioner

2856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Functional Manager – HRD

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Punjab National Bank

HRD Department, Circle Office

PNB House, Kailasapuram

Trichy-620014

The Branch Manager

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Punjab National Bank

Palani

Dindigul District

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri R. Sivakumar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Sri S. Jayaraman, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

None

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by

Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010)

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner worked in Punjab National Bank, Palani Branch as a Peon during the period from 09.03.2012 to

16.07.2012 in the vacancy that has arisen on the death of a permanent employee. Before employing the petitioner he

was interviewed and all his certificates were scrutinized. The petitioner was getting a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,000/-

a month. The petitioner was dismissed from service without any notice and without conducting any enquiry, after 130

days of service. The termination of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice. An Award may be

passed directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petition is not maintainable under Section-2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the government having

refused to refer the matter for adjudication. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner was appointed in the Respondent

Bank on 09.03.2012 after interview and scrutiny of his certificates of qualification. The averment that the petitioner

was appointed in the place of a permanent employee who died on 07.03.2012 also is denied. The averment that the

petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- also is not correct. So also the claim that the petitioner was

dismissed from service after completion of 130 days also is not correct. The petitioner was never appointed by the Bank

and so there was no question of issuing notice or dismissing him also. There was never any employer-employee

relationship between the Respondents and the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Counter Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W13 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the petitioner was an employee of Punjab National Bank?

(ii)

Whether the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Respondent?

(iii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner has filed the Claim Petition seeking an Award for his reinstatement in the service of the Punjab

National Bank. According to the petitioner he had worked in the Bank for 130 days during the period between

09.03.2012 and 16.07.2012 in the vacancy that has occurred on the death of a permanent employee. He has alleged that

he was dismissed from service unceremoniously without any issuing any notice as contemplated by law and without

conducting any enquiry. The stand of the Respondents is that the Punjab National Bank has never employed the

petitioner and there was never any employer-employee relationship between them. So there was no question of the

petitioner being dismissed from service also. It is also contended by the Respondents that the appropriate government

having refused to refer the matter for adjudication, the petition is not maintainable at all.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2857

The contention raised by the Respondents regarding maintainability of the petition is without any basis. Section-

2A does not state that reference by the appropriate government is a precondition for making a claim under the Section.

On the other hand it is intended as swift remedy for individual workman without the backup of a Trade Union for

appropriate relief. The only restriction is that the remedy will be available only if he is discharged, dismissed or

otherwise terminated from service and the dispute is arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination and also that is should have been filed after expiry of 45 days of from the date he has made application to

the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute and is filed within 3 years from

the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, etc. The petitioner has approached this Tribunal with the Claim

complying with these pre-conditions.

Has the petitioner got a case on merits? The Respondents have contended that the petitioner was not an

employee of the Bank at all. In fact the petitioner does not seem to have produced any documents to prove his claim

before the Conciliation Officer and the refusal of the appropriate government to refer the dispute for adjudication was

on account of this. Before this Tribunal, the petitioner has given evidence as WW1 and marked some documents

on his side. Ext.W1 to Ext.W12 are not of any use in deciding the question whether the petitioner was ever an

employee of the Bank. Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 are all representations said to have been by the petitioner. There is no proof

as to whether these were received by the addressees. Ext.W5 is the certificates regarding educational qualification of

the petitioner. Ext.W6 is his employment card and Ext.W7 is the community certificate issued to him. Exts.W9 to

Ext.W12 are all documents pertaining to the conciliation proceedings before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central). None of these are of any use in deciding the question whether the petitioner had been an employee of the

Bank.

There is of course the oral evidence given by the petitioner that he had been working in the Bank during the

period specified. Though he has claimed in the Claim Statement that he was interviewed before he was appointed,

during his cross-examination he has stated that there was no such interview. He was not issued with any dismissal order

also. He had not signed any attendance register in the Bank. Though he had stated that Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 are the

representations given by him seeking regularization to the Manager of the Branch, there is nothing to show that these

were sent or were received by the concerned addressees.

10.

The only document that remains and requires consideration while deciding whether the petitioner was employed

by the Bank or not is Ext.W3 containing a series of photocopies of cash payment vouchers of various dates of 2012.

These enlarged photocopies described as Cash Payment Vouchers contain a column for the signature of Manager,

Officer and Daftary. The petitioner has in fact produced these documents after getting the evidence re-opened, at the

last stage. According to the petitioner, these are the voucher bundle slips and will be tied over the bundle of vouchers.

The petitioner has stated that the vouchers contains his signature and also the signature of the particular Officer whom

he was accompanying. He stated during his cross-examination that four photocopies in the series are the slips placed

outside the bundle of vouchers and the remaining are portions of page of Dak Delivery Register. According to him, he

has taken photocopies of these documents while he was working, intending his safety in service.

11.

The genuineness of Ext.W13 (series) are denied by the Respondents. In the documents in the series there is

column for signature of Manager, Officer and Daftary. Initials are found in some of them. The case of the petitioner is

that he is one who has put initial as Daftary in this. So also he has claimed that he has put his initial in the pages of Dak

Delivery Register also. With these initials supported by oral evidence of the petitioner alone it will be difficult to accept

the case that he was an employee of the Bank.

12.

MW1, a retired Manager of the Punjab National Bank has been examined on behalf of the Respondents.

According to this witness he was the Manager of the Palani Branch from October 2010 and had been there will October

2013. Thus according to him he was the Manager during the period claimed by the petitioner to be in employment of

the Bank at Palani Branch. This witness has stated that the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Branch is

not true. He stated that the Branch Manager has no powers at all to appoint anyone. According to him Manoharan was

the Peon when he was in that Branch. On death of Manoharan no one was appointed as Peon. Ext.M6 (series) are

produced and marked through MW1 to disprove the case put forth by the petitioner through Ext.M13. These are

described as voucher bundle card. These are original documents. In these cards there is column for signature by the

Manager, Officer and Daftary. But only the Manager has signed in these vouchers. The column for signature of Officer

and Daftary are seen left blank. One does not know if these are the genuine vouchers or whether Ext.W13 (series) are

the photocopies of the genuine vouchers. However, in the absence of any other evidence, on the basis of Ext.W13 alone

it is difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that he was working in the establishment.

13.

Even if the case of the petitioner that he had worked in the establishment for 130 days is assumed to be true,

what is the relief that is available to him? Section-25F of the ID Act is applicable only if the workman has been in

continuous service for not less than one year. There was no question of serving notice or paying in lieu of notice or

2858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

paying compensation as he was in service only for 130 days. The relief of reinstatement would not have been available

to the petitioner in any case. So the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the above discussion the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

21^st April, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri J. Alwin Edwin

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents

MW1, Sri N.R. Sukumar

On the Petitioner’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

10.05.2012

Representation letter

Ext.W2

27.06.2012

Representation letter

Ext.W3

07.07.2012

Representation letter

Ext.W4

27.08.2012

Representation letter

Ext.W5

Certificates showing educational qualification

Ext.W6

16.06.1988

Employment Card

Ext.W7

Community Certificate

Ext.W8

Petition filed by the petitioner

Ext.W9

Counter filed by PNB

Ext.W10

02.05.2014

Rejoinder

Ext.W11

31.05.2014

Failure Report

Ext.W12

20.10.2014

Appeal rejection order

On the Management’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

04.01.2013

Letter from the Bank to Mr. Jayaraj (Ex-employee and father of petitioner) in

reply to his letter dated 19.12.2012

Ext.M2

03.02.2014

Petition filed by the petitioner before the A.C.L. (Central) under Sect.2-B of the

I.D. Act

Ext.M3

27.01.2014

Reply filed by the Bank

Ext.M4

31.05.2014

Conciliation failure report submitted by the RLC (Central), Madurai to the

Government

Ext.M5

20.10.2014

Order of the Government declining to refer the matter for adjudication

Ext.M6

17.03.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

(series)

20.03.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

17.05.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

11.06.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

20.06.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

30.06.2012

Voucher Bundle Card

Ext.M7

21.11.1985

Clean typed copy of the above circular

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2859

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1256-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 10@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@61@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1256.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/61/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 10 / 2008

Hkjr ik.Ms;

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- ,y&12011@61@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II) fnukad 11/1/2008

The General Secretary,

Association of Punjab National Bank Employees,

C-13, Ojhaji ka Bagh,

Gandhi Nagar Mod,

Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan)

V/s

The Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank

Regional Office, Near Bus Stand,

Alwar – Rajasthan

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh vkj- lh- tSu & izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh jktsUnz vjksjk & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 16-03-2017

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1[k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad

11-1-2008 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr

fookn fuEuor~ gS %&

“Whether the action of the management in debarring Shri Gyanchand Sharma, Peon for the

promotion to clerical cadres in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 07.12.2001 is legal and just? If

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

;kfpdk esa fn;s x;s rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd Jh KkupUn 'kekZ] iatkc us'kuy

cSad] 'kk[kk&cMkSnk eso ¼ftyk vyoj½ esa pijklh@nQ~rjh ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA

2860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jh KkupUn 'kekZ nloha ikl gksus ds dkj.k 'kk[kk esa vko';drk ds vuq:i fyfidh; oxZ dk LFkkukiUu dk;Z

djrs jgs gSA

cSad ds 'kk[kk izcU/kd] cMkSnk eso }kjk dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k 17 @06 fnuakd 02-05-2006 }kjk Jh KkupUn

'kekZ dks iz/kku [katkph ds in ij dk;Z djus ,oa dS'k dh pkfc;ka lEHkkyus ds funZs'k fn, x;saA

Jh KkupUn 'kekZ }kjk dk;kZYk; vkns'k ds izR;qRrj esa fy[kdj fn;k x;k fd **eS gSM dSf'k;j dk dSl esa dke

ugha dj ldrk vkSj dk;Z crk,a eSa djus dks rS;kj gw¡**A

cSad }kjk cgqer izkIr dkexkj laxBu vkWy bafM;k ih-,u-ch- ,EiykbTk QsMjs'ku ls fnukad 6-12-2001 dks ,d

le>kSrk lEiUu fd;k x;k ftls foi{kh cSad }kjk ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ifji= la- 52 fnukad 7 fnlEcj 2001 ds

tfj, tkjh fd;k x;kA bl le>kSrs ds iSjk 3-4 esa iz-[k- Js.kh **lh** ds dk;Z ds fy, dkexkj }kjk euk djus ij iz-[k-

Js.kh **bZ**] **lh** ,oa Js.kh **,** ds fy, inksUufr ,oa LFkkukiUu ds voljkas ls nks o"kZ ds fy, oafpr ¼fMckj½ fd, tkus

dk izko/kku FkkA ;g izko/kku foi{kh cSad esa fnuakd 31-05-2006 rd ;Fkkor ykxw Fks rFkk foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk cMkSnk

eso esa iz-[k- Js.kh **lh** dk in mDr fnol dks Lohd`r FkkA

fcUnq Øekad 5 esa of.kZr izko/kkuks ds vuq:i tc fdlh fyfid }kjk iz-[k- Js.kh **,** vFkok **lh** ds dk;Z ds

fy, euk fd;k tkrk gS rks mls lEcfU/kr iz-[k- dh Js.kh ds fy, inksUufr ,oa LFkkukiUu ds voljksa ls ofUpr fd;k

tkrk gS u fd fyfid in ls ofUpr fd;k tkrk gSA

foi{kh cSad ds 'kk[kk izcU/kd] cMkSnk eso ds }kjk fcUnq Øekad 5 esa of.kZr f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds izko/kkuksa dh

vogsyuk dj izkFkhZ dks i= fnuakd 02-05-2006 ds ek/;e ls fyfidh; laoxZ esa dk;Z gsrq oafpr ¼fMckj½ djus ds vkns'k

Fkek fn, x,A

izkFkhZ }kjk bl ckcr fnuakd 30-05-2006 dks fojks/k i= fn;k x;k ftlesa crk;k x;k fd muds }kjk ek= iz/kku

[ktkaph ds dk;Z ls euk fd;k x;k gS] fyfidh; dk;Z ds fy, ugha] vr% le>kSrs dh 'krksZa ds vuq:i mUgsa fyfidh;

laoxZ ds dk;Z gsrq fMckj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

10- foi{kh cSad esa fdlh Hkh v/khuLFk oxZ ds deZpkjh dks iz/kku [ktkUph dk LFkkukiUu HkRrk ugha fn;k tkrk gS]

ek= fyfidh; dk;Z djus dk HkRrk fn;k tkrk gSA vkxs dgk x;k gS] **;fn v/khuLFk deZpkjh dks iz-[k- dk HkRkk ns;

gksrk rks foi{kh cSad lEcfU/kr izko/kku ,oa cSad ds fdlh Hkh ,d v/khuLFk dehZ dks ;g HkRrk fn;k x;k gks rks mls

voxr djk,A**

11-

foi{kh cSad }kjk v/khuLFk laoxZ ls fyfidh; laoxZ gsrq fnuakd 17-12-2006 dks vk;ksftr fd, tkus okyh fyf[kr

ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu ekaxs x,A Jh KkupUn 'kekZ }kjk vkosnu fd;k x;k ysfdu foi{kh cSad }kjk izkFkhZ ds vkosnu dks

Lohdkj ugah fd;k x;kA

12-

foi{kh cSad }kjk gekjs 'kh"kZ laxBu ds vpay lfpo Jh KkupUn 'kekZ dks fyfidh; laoxZ gsrq vuqfpr rjhds ls

fMckj dj] fyfidh; laoxZ dh ijh{kk esa cSBus ls tcju jksdk x;k rFkk ckn esa {ks=h; Je vk;qDr] t;iqj ds gLr{ksi

ls vuqefr iznku dh xbZ ysfdu ifj.kke vHkh rd ?kksf"kr ugah fd;k x;k gSA vkxs ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd Jh KkupUn

'kekZ dks fyfidh; oxZ ij dk;Z djus ij fnuakd 02-05-2006 dks fn;s x;s fMckj ds vkns'kksa dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fujLr

djus dh d`ik djsaA Jh KkupUn 'kekZ dks vuqfpr fMckj dj muls dfu"B pijklh Jh gfjjke eh.kk dks fnuakd

02-05-2006 ls fyfidh; loaxZ dk tks HkRrk iznku fd;k x;k gS mlds vuq:i gh Jh KkupUn 'kekZ fyfidh; oxZ ds

LFkkukiUu HkRrs ,oa leLr ,fj;j rFkk vU; ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS ,oa izkFkhZ ,fj;j dh jkf'k ij 18 izfr'kr

dh nj ls C;kt lfgr gtkZ ikus dk Hkh vf/kdkjh gS] vr% foi{kh ls ;kfpr vuqrks"k ,oa /kujkf'k gtkZ lfgr fnyk;k

tk,A

13-

izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ds izLrjokj tokc esa izLrj ,d ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jh KkupUn

'kekZ cSad dh 'kk[kk cMkSnk eso cSad ftyk vyoj esa pijklh@nQ~rjh ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA

14-

izLrj nks ds dFku dks va'kr% Lohdkj djrs gq, dgk x;k gS fd dFku bl gn rd Lohdkj gS fd izkFkhZ ds

nloha ikl gksus ds dkj.k mls cSad ds fu;eksa ds vUrxZRk vko';drkuqlkj le;≤ ij fyfidh; dk;Z dk nkf;Ro

Hkh fn;k tkrk jgk rFkk ml dk;Z ds fy, mls vuqeU; HkRrs Hkh fn;s x;sA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks 'kk[kk

izcU/kd] cSad us fnuakd 02-05-2006 dks fyf[kr vkns'k fn;k fd izkFkhZ LFkkukiUu ds :i esa [ktkUph dk dk;Z djs ijUrq

izkFkhZ us fyf[kr :i esa dk;Z djus ls bUdkj djrs gq, 'kk[kk izcU/kd] ds fyf[kr vkns'k ij fuEu fVIi.kh fy[kh %&

**dSl esa dke ugha dj ldrk vr% vkSj dk;Z crk,a** mDRk bUdkj ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks fyfid laoxZ esa inksUufr ,oa

LFkkukiUu gsrq fMckj fd;k x;k ftlesa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ;k voS/kkfudrk ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ;g dk;Zokgh cSad

ds ifji= la[;k 1289 fnuakfdr 21-6-91 ds fcUnq 8 ds vuqlkj dh x;hA

15-

izkFkhZ us ;kfpdk ds izLrj pkj eas ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mlus 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds vkns'k fnuakd 02-05-2006 ij

bUdkj ds lEcU/k esa tks fVIi.kh dh Fkh og fuEuor~ gS%& **eS gSM dSf'k;j dk dSl esa dke ugha dj ldrk vkSj dk;Z

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2861

crk,a eSa djus dks rS;kj gw¡**A foi{k us izkFkhZ }kjk Lohdkj dh x;h mDr fVIi.kh ds lecU/k esa oknksRrj ds izLrj pkj esa

tokc nsrs gq, ;g dgk gS izkFkhZ us mDr fVIi.kh ds lEcU/k esa ;kfpdk ds izLrj pkj esa xyr mYys[k fd;k gS vkSj ewy

fVIi.kh ds izkjEHk esa **eS gSM dSf'k;j dk** vkSj vUr esa **eSa djus dks rS;kj gw¡** bckjr tksM nh gSA cSad dk dFku gS fd

izkFkhZ us mDr vfrfjDr bckjr tksM+dj cSad dh fjdkMZ esa NsMNkM dhA bl lEcU/k eas izkFkhZ ls 'kk[kk izcU/kd] us

Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax i= fnuakd 26-05-2006 ¼vuqyXud&3½ }kjk dh gSA vuqyXud ,y&1 'kk[kk izcU/kd] dk vkns'k

fnuakd 02-05-2006 gSA vuqyXud&3 i=koyh ij ugha gSA

16-

izLrj 3-5]7]8]9]10 ,oa 11 ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj vfrfjDr dFku ;g dgk x;k gS fd

;kfpdk ds izLrj ikWp esa izkFkhZ us ftl ifji= fnukad 7-12-2001 rFkk le>kSrk fnukad 6-12-2001 dk mYys[k fd;k gS

og izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd le>kSrk fnukafdr 6-12-2001 dsoy dSf'k;lZ ¼

fyfidh; oxZ½ dh fofHkUu Js.kh dh iksLVks **,** **lh** ,oa **bZ** ij ykxw gksrk gS u fd pijklh@nQ~rjh vkfn dks

fyfidh; dk;Z LFkkukiUu ds :i esa lkSius ij ykxw gksrk gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd bl iwjs le>kSrs esa dgh Hkh

v/khuLFk deZpkjh dks LFkkukiUu :i esa fyfidh; oxZ dh ftEesnkjh lkSis tkus gsrq izfdz;k fu/kkZfjr ugha dh x;h gSA

bl gsrq cSad }kjk tkjh ifji= la[;k 1289 fnuakfdr 21-6-91 ykxw gksrk gSA mDr ifji= la[;k 1289 ds izLrj 8esa

O;k[;k izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ykxw gksrh gS tks fuEuor~ gS %&

**The Bank Management may provide opportunity to workmen in the subordinate cadre than Armed Guards,

Chowkidars, Full time Sweepers or farashes or Cleaners drawing full scale wages, the basis of branch wise-

department-wise seniority to officiate in clerical cadre, who are either graduate or have passed matriculation

examination in first class or to those who are at least matriculate with a minimum of 2 years service. This

opportunity to officiate in clerical cadre shall be given as per the requirement of the bank and subject to

fitness of the workmen concerned to work in the higher post. No opportunity to officiate in clerical cadre

shall be given to the non matriculate sub staff or to the Armed Guards, Chowkidars, Full time Sweepers or

Cleaners or farashes drawing full scale wages even though they are matriculate or graduate. Such officiating

opportunity shall, however not be given in a routine manner or as a matter of course. Refusal by a workmen

in subordinate cadre to officiate in clerical cadre in the same branch/department shall debar him from

promotion as well as giving of opportunity to officiate in clerical cadre for one year w.e.f. the date of such

refusal.

cSad deZpkfj;ksa dks nks eq[; dSVxjht esa ckVk x;k gS& odZesu ,.M uksu odZesuA odZesu ds vUrxZr lcksZfMusV

LVkQ o Dysfjdy LVkQ vkrs gS vkSj gSM dSf'k;j dh dksbZ vyx dSVxjh ugha nh xbZ gSA gSM dSf'k;j Hkh fyfidh;

oxZ esa vkrs gS ftUgsa mudh gSM dSf'k;j dh M;wVh lEiUu djus gsrq fyfidh; osru ds vfrfjDr fo'ks"k HkRrk fn;k

tkrk gSA

vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku fd 6-12-2001 ds le>kSrk ds izko/kku Jh KkupUn 'kekZ ds izdj.k esa ykxw gksrs gS]

drbZ lgh ugha gSA vr,o Jh 'kekZ }kjk dS'k esa dke djus ls euk djus ij le>kSrk fnukafdr 19-6-91 ds izko/kkuksa

dks ykxw djrs gq, fnuakd 02-05-2006 dks gh 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk Jh 'kekZ dks lwfpr dj fn;k x;k fd fnuakd 02-05-

2006 ls mUgsa fyfidh; laoxZ esa dk;Z djus gsrq fMckj fd;k tkrk gSA

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds iSjk N% ds dFku ls vizkFkhZ cSad bl gn rd lger gS fd lUnfHkZr iSjk esa Hkh fyfid

oxZ iz/kku [ktkUph ds fofHkUu inksa ij LFkkukiUu ls euk djus ij fMckj ds ckjs esa fy[kk x;k gS u fd vf/kuLFk oxZ

}kjk fyfid oxZ esa dke djus ls bUdkj djus ij fMckj fd, tkus ds ckjs esa fy[kk x;k gSA vr% bl iSjk esa fyf[kr

dFku dks izdj.k dk feF;k fu:i.k djus gsrq gh lanfHkZr fd;k x;k gS tcfd okLrfodrk izdj.k vf/kuLFk oxZ }kjk

fyfidh; laoxZ esa dk;Z djus ls bUdkj djus ij fMckj djus dk gSA **

17-

vkxs ;g dgk x;k cSad us fdlh f}i{kh; le>kSrs dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k gS ,oa izkFkhZ dks ,d o"kZ ds fy,

fyfidh; oxZ esa dk;Z djus ls ,slk jksduk mfpr oS/kkfud ,oa le>kSrs ds vuq:i gSaA iz/kku [ktkUph Hkh fyfidh;

laoxZ esa vkrk gS vkSj ifjfLFkfr vuqlkj v/khuLFk deZpkjh dks mlds }kjk fyfidh; laoxZ esa LFkkukiUu dk;Z djrs

le; iz/kku [ktkUph dh M;wVh Hkh lkSih tk ldrh gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa blh vuqlkj dk;Z lkSik x;k FkkA

18-

vkxs dgk x;k gS fd 'kk[kk cMkSnk eso cSad Jh y{e.kflag iz/kku [kTkkUph fnuakd 03-05-2006 ls vodk'k ij

tkus okys Fks ftl dk;Z dks lkSius ds fy, 'kk[kk esa dksbZ vU; fyfid miyC/k ugha Fkk vr% izkFkhZ dks funsZf'kr fd;k

x;k ftlus bUdkj dj fn;kA bUdkj djus ds dkj.k fnuakd 17-12-2006 dh vk;ksftr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh

izkFkhZ dh vkosnu vLohdkj dh x;h tks fof/k fo:) ugha gSA bl rF; ls foi{k us bUdkj fd;k gS fd deZpkjh laxBu

ds fdlh in ij gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEEkfyfr gksus dh vkosnu vLohdkj dh x;h ,oa ,slk djus dk

vk/kkj ifji= fnukafdr 19-6-91 crk;k x;k gS ,oa ;kfpdk [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

19-

izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk ¼LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse½ ds fo:) izLrqr tokc dh izkjfEHkd vkifRr esa dgk x;k gS fd fjQjsUl

esa nh x;h f}i{kh; le>kSrk fnukafdr 7-12-2001 izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa le>kSrs dk lgh lUnHkZ ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k

gS fd lgh le>kSrk fnukafdr 19-6-91 gS ftlds vUrxZr izkFkhZ dh inksUufr jksdh x;h Fkh blfy, izcU/ku bl ekeys esa

fjQjsUl esa la'kks/ku gsrq ekeys dks eU=ky; ds le{k mBk jgk gS ,oa la'kksf/kr fjQjsUl izkIr gksus ds ckn foi{k u;k

2862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mRrj izLrqr djus ds vf/kdkj dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, izkFkhZ ds Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj jgk gSA ;gkW mYys[kfu; gS

fd foi{k dh rjQ ls fjQjsUl eas la'kks/ku gsrq eU=ky; dks i= Hkstus ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ lwpuk i=koyh ij ugha

izLrqr dh x;h gS u gh vc rd dksbZ la'kksf/kr fjQjsUl eU=ky; ls izkIr gSA

20-

foi{k }kjk izLrqr tokc ds fo:) ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ fjTok;UMj ugha izLrqr gSA

21-

;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ;kph dh rjQ ls dksbZ izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; ugha izLrqr gSA

22-

foi{k dh rjQ ls fnukad 9-4-13 dks fQgfjLr ds lkFk N% vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gS ftlesa nks vkns'k

fnuakfdr 2-5-2006] Jh KkupUn 'kekZ dh vkosnu fnuakfdr 30-5-06] ljD;wyj fnuakfdr 21-6-91] nks ljD;wyj fnuakfdr

7-12-01 'kkfey gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls fnukad 12-1-17 dks ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k fd ;kph dh rjQ ls fdlh

lk{; ds vHkko esa foi{k dks dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr djuk gS] vr% foi{k dk lk{; lekIr fd;k x;kA

23-

eSaus foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds

fo}ku dfu"d izfrfuf/k Jh jktsUnz xqIrk us dksbZ cgl ugha dhA

24-

;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ cgl vFkok dFku ugha izLrqr dh x;h gSA foi{k ds fo}ku

izfrfuf/k us cgl izLrqr dh fd ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr gS vr% ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tk,A

25-

i=koyh dh vkns'k rkfydk ds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gS fd 22-1-10 dks foi{k us Dyse dk tokc izLrqr fd;k

vkSj i=koyh 26-2-10 dks izkFkhZ }kjk fjTok;UMj izLrqr djus gsrq fu;r dh x;hA izkFkhZ dks vusd volj fn;s tkus ds

ckn tc izkFkhZ }kjk fjTok;UMj ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k rks fnukad 15-11-11 dks rRdkyhu fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us

fjTok;UMj izLrqr djus dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA fnukad 15-11-11 dks vxyh frfFk 11-1-12 nksuksa i{kksa gsrq

vfHkys[k izLrqr djus gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 9-4-13 dks foi{k us nLrkost izLrqr fd;k ,oa fnuakd 9-4-13 dks ;kph

i{k }kjk nLrkost izLrqr djus gsrq 11-6-13 frfFk fu;r dh x;hA 11-1-12 ls 11-6-13 rd ;kph i{k }kjk nLrkost ugha

izLrqr fd;s ;|fi le; fn;k tkrk jgkA fnukad 4-8-15 rd ;kph i{k us vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;s] foi{k ds vkxzg

ij i=koyh 7-10-15 dks ;kph dks lk{; gsrq fu;r dh x;h vkSj 4-8-15 dks ;kph i{k us ekSf[kd dFku fd;k fd dksbZ

vfHkys[k gksxk rks vxyh frfFk dks izLrqr dj fn;k tk;sxkA vc rd ;kph i{k }kjk dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k

x;k vr% fnukad12-1-17 dks ;kph dk lk{; lekIr fd;k x;kA ;kph vusd frfFk;ksa ij vuqifLFkr Hkh jgk gS ftlls

bl ekeys ds izfr mldh mnklhurk ifjyf{kr gksrh gSA

26 mDr fLFkfr ds voyksdu ls rFkk i=koyh ds lE;d~ voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd ;kph us i=koyh ij ;kfpdk

izLrqr djus ds vfrfjDRk ekeys ds fof/klEer fuLrkj.k ds fy, dksbZ ldkjkRed dne ugha mBk;k gSA ;kph us u rks

lk{; esa 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS u izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr gqvk gSA mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa rFkk i=koyh ij foi{k dh

rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwW fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd

foi{kh izcU/ku }kjk Jh KkupUn 'kekZ] pijklh dks fnukad 7-12-01 ds f}i{kh; le>kSrs ds vuqlkj fyfidh; laoxZ esa

inksUufr gsrq jksduk mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr ugha gSA ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk

[kkfjt dh tkrh gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr

fjQjsUl dk mRrj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1257-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhdky

ykstsfLVd 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 126@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&33011@02@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SICAL

Logistics Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-33011/02/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2863

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 11^th April, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 126/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of SICAL Logistics Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Madras Port & Dock Employees Union

New No. 55, Old No. 26,

Moore Street, 1^st Floor

Chennai-600001

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

M/s SICAL Logistics Ltd.

No. 23/2, Vittal Mallya Road

Bangalore-560001

The Chief Executive Officer

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

M/s SICAL Logistics Ltd.

Chennai-600001

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

M/s K.C. Karl Marx, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party 1^st & 2^nd Respondent

M/s M. Kandasamy, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-33011/02/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 06.11.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Sical Logistics Ltd. (Coffee Day) in transferring the 17 employees

from work related to port activities at Chennai Port to work connected with mining activity at Orissa without

following any modalities is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 126/2015 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a Union recognized under the Ministry of Shipping. It is espousing the cause of workers and

employees in and around the vicinity of the Port of Chennai. The Respondent is a Stevedoring Company having license

from Chennai Port Trust for loading and unloading cargo in and out of the ships. Workers belonging to the Respondent

have joined the Petitioner Union on 17.09.2014. All these workers have been transferred from Chennai to Orissa

changing their area as well as the nature of their job. Such transfer is unfair labour practice. Having come that the

workers have joined the Petitioner Union the Respondent has approached the Union through its manpower agent,

Sudar. Sudar and his Manager informed that the Officer of Human Resources of the Respondent is willing to have

discussion with the Union and asked to send the Charter of Demands and list of the workers who have joined the Union

to the personal e-mail of ID of Karthik, the Manager of Sudar. Accordingly, the e-mail was sent. Subsequently, Sudar

arranged a meeting with the Respondent and the meeting took place at Woodlands Hotel on 29.10.2014. The

representatives of the Respondent insisted that they do not want the Union functioning in their establishment and asked

not to include their workers as members of the Union. On 30.10.2014, Sudar approached the Vice-President of the

Union and requested not to form any Trade Union in the Respondent’s concern. The Vice-President warned him against

involving in such matters. Thus the efforts made by the Respondent to stop the formation of the Union in the

establishment has ended in failure. On 31.10.2014 the Union was informed by the workers that all the Union members

2864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

were called to meet the Officers of the Respondent. When the workers assembled they were told that they were

transferred to Orissa. When the representative of the Petitioner Union had discussion with the Human Resources

Personnel of the Respondent they have agreed to withdraw the transfer orders. However, on 31.10.2014 they sent

transfer orders to the residence of the some of the workers. The Union representative again requested to withdraw the

transfer and not to victimize the employees for joining the Trade Union. The Union also sent strike notice on

05.11.2014. After conciliation commenced also the transferred employees were allowed to sign the Attendance

Respondent issued a letter to Chennai Port to cancel the Harbour Entry Permit to the transferred workers. After

receiving the strike notice also some workers were transferred to Orissa. The Respondent has victimized the workmen

by transferring them to Orissa within a few days of their joining the Trade Union. Even an employee who was about to

retire on superannuation has been transferred. Most of the workers who were transferred are above the age of 50 years.

The Respondent is indulging in unfair labour practice and victimizing the workers for joining the Trade Union. The

Respondent ought to have issued notice under Section-9A of ID Act before transferring the workers. In Chennai Port

the workers were involved in loading and unloading of cargo in and out of the ships. In Orissa there is no cargo-

handling and the workers have to work in surface mining. An Award may be passed setting aside the transfer orders as

null and void and directing the Respondent to reinstate the transferred workers will full backwages and attendant

benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Respondent has transferred its 17 employees who are concerned in the dispute from Chennai to Orissa as

per the service conditions applicable to them. All the 17 employees have received the transfer orders. They have

deliberately failed to comply with the orders and are remaining unauthorizedly absent. In the absence of complying

with the order they are liable for disciplinary action. The Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to represent the interests

of the employees of the Respondent as it has not recognized the said Union as a bargaining agent. The Respondent

Company has been incurring loss in its Port Division due to reduced business and change in business conditions. It has

lost almost its entire business at Chennai Port. As on date it has only one customer at Chennai Port. In the absence of

any business the Respondent will be constrained to shut its business at Chennai Port. The Respondent had succeeded in

obtaining tenders from the Surface Mining and Transportation Division invited by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Orissa. In

order to commence the project under the Mahanadi coalfields there was requirement of manpower in its locations at

Orissa. So the Respondent Company had transferred many of its existing employees working in various locations to

Orissa. Instead of retrenching the manpower which was remaining idel at Chennai Port Division the Respondent

transferred them to its Surface Mining and transportation Division. The workmen have disobeyed the transfer orders

and had pressurized to withdraw the transfer. On 04.11.2014, one Narendra Rao representing the Union demanded

cancellation of the transfer orders issued to the employees. He also threatened that the Respondent Company would be

continuously prevented from handling its Stevedoring Operation at Chennai Port. The Respondent had suffered huge

loss due to illegal strike by the Petitioner Union. The concerned employees have joined the Petitioner Union only after

transfer orders were issued to them. All the allegations made in the Claim Statement regarding victimization and

otherwise are denied. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W14 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M10

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in transferring the employees to works connected with mining

activity in Orissa is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the concerned workmen are entitled?

The Points

The dispute is raised on behalf of 17 workmen working under the Respondent which is Stevedoring Company

having license for cargo operations in Chennai Port. The workmen have been transferred to the worksite belonging to

the Respondent at Orissa. None of the workmen have complied with the order of transfer or joined at Orissa. As per the

schedule of reference the employees are transferred from work related to Port activities at Chennai Port to work

connected with mining activity in Orissa without following modalities. Thus, if the schedule of reference is interpreted

strictly the challenge is against the transfer of the employees in violation of modalities. However, in the Claim

Statement the petitioner has given an additional reason for the transfer and has stated that it is by way of victimization

as the workmen have joined the petitioner union and had raised certain demands with the Respondent. The Respondent

has contended in the Counter Statement that it was because of the particular circumstances that have arisen transfer was

effected. According to the Respondent, its business at Chennai Port Trust had been running in loss. In the meanwhile it

had obtained business in Orissa. It has participated in the Surface Mining and Transportation tenders invited by M/s

Mahanadi Coalfields, Orissa and had been successful. So there was a requirement of manpower in its location at Orissa.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2865

Rather than retrenching the employees working in Chennai Port Trust on account of its loss in the business it had

decided to transfer the employees to Orissa. The transfer is said to have been effected accordingly.

The Respondent has also contended that the petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute. According to the

Respondent the petitioner has not been recognized as the bargaining agent of the Respondent nor the employees have

informed the Respondent that they have joined the Union. According to the Respondent an unrecognized union has no

locus-standi to raise the dispute.

The contention that the petitioner is not entitled to raise the dispute has no basis. To espouse the cause of the

workmen it is not necessary that the Union should be recognized by the petitioner. The petitioner is a registered trade

union and it is not sufficient that the employees are members of the Union. So the objection regarding maintainability

of the dispute is to be rejected.

10.

There is no doubt that the Respondent has right to transfer its employees. This is made clear in the Appointment

Order itself. Clause-3 of the Appointment Order states that although the appointment of the concerned employees is at

Chennai the employees are liable to be transferred to / from Head Office / Branches of the Company and to any other

places in India as the Company may require without being entitled to any other additional monetary benefits. In fact

there is no contention for the petitioner that the Respondent has no power to transfer the employees. The only

contention is that the transfer is by way of victimization and it is not fair. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to

the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD. AND ANOTHER VS.

PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR AND OTHERS reported in 2016 1 LLJ 353 (E&H)

where it was held that malafide transfer of a workmen from one place to another under the guise of following

management policy is an unfair labour practice and that right of transfer cannot be used arbitrarily but only reasonably.

11.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the Apex Court decision regarding the circumstances under

which a transfer can be effected. In the decision in CANARA BANKING CORPORATION LTD. VS. U. VITTAL

reported in 1963 2 LLJ 364 the Apex Court has held that the Management is in the best position to judge how to

distribute its manpower and whether a particular transfer can be avoided or not. One exception that has been laid down

is where there is reason to believe that the Management has resorted to transfer malafide by way of victimization, unfar

labour practice or some other ulterior motive not connected with the business interest. The counsel for the Respondent

has also referred to the decision in BHARAT IRON WORKS VS. BABUBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS

reported in AIR 1976 SC 98 (1) where it has been pointed out that victimization is a serious charge by an employee

against an employer and therefore it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the

charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. It has also been observed that the fact that there is a Union

espousing the cause of the employees in legitimate Trade Union activity and an employee is a member or acting Office

Bearer thereof is perse no crucial instance. Reference is also made to the decision in AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF

INDIA VS. RAJEEV RATAN PANDEY AND OTHERS reported in 2009 4 LLN 130 where it was held that the

burden of providing malafides is on the person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy. Mere assertion or

bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of

malafides but must be supported by requisite materials, it was further held.

12.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to judicial pronouncements of the Madras High Court also

regarding circumstances of transfer. In the decision in BALUSAMY VS. ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER,

REGIONAL OFFICE, SBI, MADURAI reported in 1996 2 LLN 843 it has been held that it is not enough that

petitioner feels that the transfer is due to Union activity. Courts do not usually undertake the supervisory control over

the order of transfer for the very simple reason that it is necessary concomitance of every service and a transfer should

not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and non-

justifiable, it has been held. Reference was also made to the decision in MANAGEMENT OF ERINKADU ESTATE

VS. PRESIDING OFFICE, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER reported in 2001 1 LLN 820 where

it was held that merely because a person has been serving for long 15-20 years it does not become obligatory on the

Company not to transfer him to another place. So also the question of juniority and seniority does not become

relevant in the matter of transfer, it was held. Reference was also made to the decision in MANAGING DIRECTOR,

INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI LTD. VS. SRINIVASAN reported in 2001 1 LLN 417 where it has been pointed out

that normally Courts will not interfere in the orders of transfer. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run

smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals shall not interfere with the work of the system unless they are violated by

malafide or extraneous consideration, it was held.

13.

In the light of the proposition of law revealed through the above judicial pronouncements it is to be seen

whether the transfer of the concerned employees is malafide or not. The only circumstance under which a Court can

interfere in the order of transfer by an employer is if the transfer is by way of victimization or is tainted by malice.

What is the evidence in this respect? It has all along been held that there must be specific plea regarding victimization

2866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or malafides and it should be sufficiently established also. The case that is put forth by the petitioner is that the

concerned workmen have joined the Petitioner Union on 17.09.2014 and it was as a consequence of this that all the

workmen have been transferred to the far off place at Orissa. The petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement that even

before the Union could communicate the Management about the joining of the workers in the Trade Union and submit

a Charter of Demands the Respondent who came to know about this had approached the Union through its manpower

agent, one Sudar and Sudar alongwith his Manager, Karthik had approached the Union on 28.10.2014 and had

informed that the Human Resources Officer of the Respondent who has come from Bangalore is willing to have a

discussion with the Union and had wanted the Charter of Demands to be sent to the personnel e-mail of Karthik. The

list of members who joined the Union and the Charter of Demands of the Petitioner Union are said to have been sent

accordingly. It is the further case of the petitioner that there was a meeting in a Hotel at Chennai on 29.10.2014 in

which WW1, the Vice President of the Union and General Secretary, Krishnamurthy had participated in the discussion

with the Human Resources Manager who is examined as MW1, another Officer of the Human Resources and also

Sudar, the manpower agent. It is alleged by the petitioner that the representatives of the Respondent have insisted that

they do not want a Union in their establishment and had even offered some financial assistance as a consideration for

not setting up Union activity in the establishment. There is also an allegation that on the next day Sudar went to the

house of WW1 and pressurized him not to form any Union. According to the petitioner it was on the next day, on

31.10.2014 transfers were effected by the Respondent.

14.

WW1, the Vice-President of the Petitioner Union has filed Proof Affidavit repeating the case of the petitioner in

the Claim Statement. However, as has been admitted by WW1 during his cross-examination there is nothing to show

that the petitioner has informed the Respondent that the workmen of the Respondent have joined the Union or that a

Charter of Demands has been sent by the Petitioner directly to the Respondent. WW1 stated during his cross-

examination that the Union did not inform the Respondent in writing that the workmen have joined the Union. Ext.W4

is an e-mail sent to the e-mail ID of one Karthik said to be the Manager of Sudar, the manpower agent of the

Respondent. The Respondent has denied that it had anything to do with these two persons. It has denied the case of the

petitioner that a discussion had taken place between the Union leaders and the representatives of the Respondent also.

When such blanket denial is there on the part of the Respondent it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove any such

discussion by more specific evidence rather than that the oral version of WW1. The person to whom Ext.W4 is

addressed or even the manpower agent could not have anything to do with the affairs of the Respondent. Even if it is

accepted that the manpower agent has acted as a middleman between the Company and the petitioner, in the normal

course communication could not have been addressed to a person who has nothing to do with the Respondent. WW1

has claimed that he is a seasoned union worker and has participated in several conciliation proceedings and had signed

settlements with various managements. Yet the petitioner has not taken steps to see that the Respondent is informed of

the fact that his Union has got a footing in the Respondent establishment, its employees having joined the Petitioner

Union. One is at a loss to know why a charter making some demands from the Respondent should be sent to a person

who has nothing to do with the Respondent. The manpower agent or its Manager has not come forward to speak for the

Union also. Apart from this is the fact that the petitioner has not examined any of the aggrieved persons. The case is

that the 17 persons were transferred only because they have joined the Union. As is pointed out by the Respondent,

even as per one of the membership forms marked as Ext.W3 (series) one of the workman involved had joined the

Union earlier, two years ago. However, the Respondent had not acted malafide on account of this immediately. In fact

there is no acceptable evidence to show that the transfer was the result of the petitioner having its hold among the

employees of the Respondent, and was by way of victimization.

15.

The case that is projected by the Respondent is that its business at Chennai Port was running from loss to loss

and it was because of this it had to take the extreme step of transferring the employees to Orissa rather than retrenching

them on account of scarcity of work in the Port. MW1 has given evidence in this respect. According to the Respondent,

due to various circumstances including the Stevedoring policy of Chennai Port Trust business had come to be on loss

and they were not in a position to retain the workmen at Chennai Port. In the meanwhile they were able to capture

business at Mahanadi Coalfields at Orissa where workmen were required and the workmen at Chennai numbering 17

are said to have been transferred to Orissa. MW1 has stated in the Proof Affidavit that the license of Stevedoring

business of the Respondent is limited to liaison / coordinating between the Port authorities and the vessel/ship operator

for loading and unloading on intimation and the Port will be deploying its own manpower to do the loading and

unloading work. The Respondent is only supervising the loading/unloading activities. It is stated that the Port has now

introduced other policies where the Stevedorer is compelled to use mobile harbor crane from the designated service

provider for loading and unloading. Apart from this the existing Stevedoring license will be cancelled and all the Port

Operators are to apply for fresh Stevedoring license after competitive bidding which was to come into force from

01.08.2016, but has been deferred and in any case will soon be implemented. In that case the license of the Respondent

will stand revoked. MW1 has stated that the business in Chennai Port has consistently incurred loss for the past three

years due to low volume of work, high operating costs and bans imposed on dusty cargo, iron ore mining, etc. by the

Courts. According to the Respondent at present it has got only one customer in Chennai Port.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2867

16.

Ext.M8 is the new Stevedoring policy of the Chennai Port Trust which provides for revoking the existing license

and insisting on new license. Ext.M3 is the profit and loss statement of the Respondent for its Chennai Port Operations

for the period from 2012 to 2016. During the financial year 2012-2013 the Respondent had profit of more than 15

crores. However, in the year 2013-2014 the profit had reduced to Rs. 13.00 crores. In 2014-2015 it had incurred loss of

almost of Rs. 5.00 crores. In 2015-2016 the loss is more than Rs. 1.5 crores. It could also be seen from this Profit and

Loss Account that the volume of work handled by the Respondent had diminished considerably. I did not find any

contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that this profit and loss statement is a false one. During his cross-

examination MW1 has stated that at present only three or four employees are working on board at Chennai Port. There

is no evidence to show that after 17 workmen were transferred to Orissa the Respondent has recruited new workmen to

fill the gap at Chennai Port Trust. If new persons have come it would have been easy for the petitioner to prove this in

which case it could have been assumed that the Respondent is continuing its work in the Port Trust with the same

number of men as done earlier even after transfer of the concerned workmen. In the absence of such evidence, the

claim of the Respondent that no new persons were taken in has to be accepted.

17.

As instance of malafides it has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that even an employee who was to

retire from service within two months has been put under orders of transfer. According to MW1, employees used to be

retained even after the date of their superannuation and there was nothing unusual in the transfer because of this. He

has stated that usually extension would be given if the employee agrees and discussion regarding this used to be held

only two weeks before the date of superannuation. It is the further case of the Respondent that being a new undertaking

at Orissa, they wanted experienced persons at Orissa and this was also a reason for the transfer. The Respondent has

produced Ext.M5-letters of acceptance by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. of the tender by the Respondent on various dates

to show that it had got business in the coalfields not long before the transfer of the employees.

18.

There is also a contention for the petitioner that the transfer is in violation of Section-9A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. When the evidence is considered it could be seen that even this contention of the petitioner could not be

accepted. None of the workmen have been examined to prove the nature of work done by the them. According to the

Respondent these workmen were doing only supervising the loading and unloading and not doing the loading and

unloading work itself. What the petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement and in the Proof Affidavit of WW1 is that

in Chennai Port the workers are involved in the work of loading and unloading of cargo operations in and out of the

ship, but in Orissa there is no cargo handling and the workers have to work in surface mining and thus they are forcibly

transferred to work in a different service condition and yet notice was not issued under Section-9A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. WW1 has admitted during cross-examination that he is not an employee of the Respondent. However, he

is aware and admitted that the transferred employees were not physically handling the cargo but they were only

supervising the loading and unloading carried out by the dock labours. They were to furnish the import-export figure to

their immediate superior. He also admitted that he came to know from the transfer orders of the employees that they are

to do the work of surface mining in Orissa. He then states that he has no personal knowledge of the work do be done by

them in Orissa. None of the workers have gone to the place of transfer. None of them have come forward to state what

is the nature of work to be done by them. MW1 has stated that as done by the workmen at Chennai Port they are to do

supervisory work only in Orissa also. There is no reason to reject this evidence given by MW1. Whether the work is

connected with Port activity or mining activity, the concerned workmen are expected to do only the type of work they

are doing even earlier. So there is no change in the condition of work except that earlier the worksite was Port whereas

it is surface mining at the place of transfer. This is not change in service conditions in so far as they are to do only work

which is supervisory in nature.

19.

No circumstances are brought out by the petitioner to come to the conclusion that the transfer is the result of

malafides or is by way of victimization. A transfer is a normal incidence of service and in the normal course it is for the

Management to decide how its workforce is to be distributed. In so far as victimization is not proved, the Court is not

expected to interfere in the decision of the Management in the distribution of its manpower. For the above reasons, the

concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

20.

The workmen have not joined their place of transfer policy probably expecting a favourable order. In spite of

this, the Respondent is to allow them and given them opportunity to join their join at the place of transfer. The

workmen can do so within a month.

In view of the above discussion, the reference is answered against the petitioner. Award is passed accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri T. Narendra Rao

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri A. Arockia David

2868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

Appointment orders issued to the transferred employees

Ext.W2

Salary revision orders issued to some of the transferred workers

Ext.W3

Membership forms submitted by the employees of the Union

Ext.W4

Charter of Demands sent by the Union via mail

Ext.W5

Transfer Orders issued to the workers

Ext.W6

05.11.2014

Strike Notice issued by the Union

Ext.W7

05.11.2014

Conciliation notice issued by the authority

Ext.W8

Extracts of the Attendance of the transferred workers

Ext.W9

07.11.2014

Letter sent by the management to the Chennai Port to cancel the harbor entry

permit

Ext.W10

Affiliation certificate of the petitioner union with C.I.T.U.

Ext.W11

Letter to show that the petitioner union was recognized by the Chennai Port

Trust

Ext.W12

Receipt to show the affiliation of the petitioner union with the Water Transport

Workers Federation of India

Ext.W13

05.01.2015

Letter sent by one of the workers transferred to the Respondent

Ext.W14

Proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner to show that Mr. Sudar is the

manpower agent of the Respondent

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

10.07.2015

Counter Statement filed by the Respondent before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner

Ext.M2

Various dates

Copies of electronic attendance register extracts from Chennai Harbour On

Board Division from July 2014 to January 2015

Ext.M3

Various dates

Profit and Loss Statements of the Respondent Company for its Chennai Port

Operations for the period between April 2012 – March 2013, April 2013 –

March 2014, April 2014 – March 2015 and April 2015 – March 2016

Ext.M4

Various dates

Copies of inter office notes dated 01.09.2014, 22.09.2014, 17.10.2014,

20.10.2014, 03.11.2014, 11.12.2014, 23.12.2014 and 16.04.2015

Ext.M5

Various dates

Copies of letters of acceptance dated 10.03.2014, 08.05.2014, 17.07.2015 issued

by Mahanadi Coalfields, Orissa to the Respondent Company regarding award of

mining contracts

Ext.M6

04.11.2014

Picture of union’s flat hoisted on the gangway ladder of the Respondent

Company’s customer vessel M.V. Storm Rider berthed at JD3, Chennai Port on

04.11.2014

Ext.M7

Various dates

Orders passed in OA No. 876 of 2014 in CS No. 706 of 2014 by Hon’ble High

Court of Madras

Ext.M8

14.06.2016

Chennai Port’s new stevedoring policy revoking the existing stevedoring license

Ext.M9

List of employees transferred/deputed for work to the mining division from

other divisions and locations of the Respondent Company since July 2014

Ext.M10

15.06.2015

Trade Notice dated 15.06.2015 issued by Central Port regarding engaging harbor

cranes.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2869

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1258-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 11@2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@93@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/93/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 11^th April, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 11/2017

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Punjab National Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Smt. R. Venkateswari

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Functional Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Punjab National Bank, HRD Department

Circle Office, Khandha Enclave

No. 179, Sarojini Street, Ram Nagar

Coimbatore-641009

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Absent

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

Absent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/93/2016-IR (B-II)

dated 28.02.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Coimbatore in stopping Smt. R.

Venkateswari, an Ex-Part Time Sweeper from service w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and consequential attendant benefits are

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

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 11/2017 and issued notices to both sides

and both were served.

The case came up for appearance of parties on 27.03.2017. Though both sides were served, both have remained

absent. In spite of the absence the case was postponed to today for appearance of the parties. Today also the parties

have not appeared.

2870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner who has remained absent on both hearing dates does not seem to be interested in prosecuting the

case. In the absence of her appearing and submitting any records to substantiate her case, she is not entitled to an

Award in her favour.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 11^th April, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1259-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@22@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/22/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 21^st April, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 57/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Smt. P. Raju

1^st Party/Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2871

AND

The Chief Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

IR Department

P.B. No. 3765/763, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri T. Ramkumar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/ Management

M/s. NGR Prasad, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/22/2015-IR (B-II) dated

27.04.2015 referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the dismissal of service of Sri P. Raju by the Management of Indian Overseas Bank is justified or not?

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

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 57/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both parties have entered appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has

filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are as below:

The petitioner has joined the service of the Respondent as Clerk on 26.06.2000. He was posted at Kakkur

Branch. In the year 2009 he was promoted as Special Assistant and was transferred to Abiramam Branch. He was

working in this Branch until he was dismissed from service. The petitioner was a member of all India Overseas Bank

Employees Union. During September 2010, Muthuraj, a Regional Committee Member of the Union contracted the

petitioner by phone and asked him to furnish his Bank Account Number and the petitioner obliged. Later Muthuraj

called the petitioner and informed him that a friend of his will be depositing a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the account of

the petitioner. The petitioner did not know who will be depositing amount in his account. Later a person who

introduced himself as Vellaichamy informed the petitioner that Rs. 1,50,000/- has been remitted in his account as

instructed by Muthuraj. He also requested the petitioner to give the amount to Muthuraj. Vellaichamy was not a person

known to the petitioner. As instructed by Muthuraj, the petitioner remitted the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the account

of the daughter of Muthuraj. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 14.03.2013. A Charge Memo

dated 09.07.2013 was subsequently served on him. This Charge Memo contained false and baseless allegations against

the petitioner. The Charge Sheet states that the petitioner was aware that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- credited to his

account was bribe amount and he had facilitated Muthuraj and Thomas Balan to collect the bribe amount from

Vellaichamy through his SB Account. It is also alleged that the petitioner abetted Muthuraj and Thomas Balan in

accepting the bribe money from a prospective recruit. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. The

petitioner never asked Vellaichamy to deposit amount in his account. He did not know for what purpose the amount

was deposited in his account. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the Charge Sheet denying the allegations

made in it. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry was not

conducted in a fair and proper manner. On the basis of the report of the enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from

service by order dated 03.05.2014. the appeal filed by the petitioner against the same has been dismissed. The dispute is

raised accordingly. There is no justification for the punishment imposed on the petitioner. An Award may be passed

directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other

attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner was working as a Clerk assigned with the duties of Special Assistant in Abhiramapuram Branch

when the Charge Sheet was issued to him. He was privy to Thomas Balan, Regional Secretary of AIUBEU and

Muthuraj, Regional Committee Member of Tuticorin Branch of the Respondent Bank for receiving bribe of Rs. 2.5

lakhs from Vellaichamy for getting a bogus educational certificate. Vellaichamy had studied up to 11^th standard and

was not eligible to be employed as Messenger. Certificate was obtained to the effect that Vellaichamy had failed 10^th

Standard. Thus the petitioner and the other two had arranged to get spurious documents in respect of Vellaichamy.

Vellaichamy was later dismissed from service for producing spurious certificate. Vellaichamy had given a complaint

alleging that the petitioner, Thomas Balan and Muthuraj were privy to the fraud. He had stated that these three had

demanded Rs. 3.00 lakhs from him for arranging job as Permanent Messenger. The amount was settled as Rs. 2.5

lakhs. Vellaichamy had alleged that he paid Rs. 50,000/- to Thomas Balan in cash and had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in

the account of the petitioner at Abhiramapuram Branch of the Respondent Bank as instructed by Thomas Balan.

Vellaichamy had given evidence in the enquiry. The claim of the petitioner that he knew nothing about the bribe is not

correct. The charge against the petitioner that he knew nothing about the bribe is not correct. The charge against the

2872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

petitioner has been established in the enquiry proceedings. A person with tainted integrity cannot be permitted

to work in a financial institution dealing with public money. The petitioner had caused damage to the reputation of the

Bank and had done act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank by acting as an abettor in taking the bribe. This amounts

to gross misconduct within the Memorandum of Settlement between the Bank and the workmen. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

The petitioner had held rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

The petitioner having contended that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles

of natural justice, this issue was decided as a Preliminary Issue. This Preliminary Issue was answered in favour of the

petitioner. On account of this the Respondent has adduced evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate the case. The

petitioner has also given evidence to rebut the case of the Respondent.

The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.W1 to W5

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the Respondent is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

At the time of his dismissal from service, the petitioner was working as Clerk assigned with Special Assistant

duties, at Abhiramapuram Branch of the Respondent Bank. The allegation against the petitioner is that he acted privy to

the Thomas Balan, Regional Secretary of All India Overseas Bank Employees Union and Muthuraj, a regional

Committee Member. The petitioner is said to have received Rs. 1.5 lakhs in his account as remitted by one

Vellaichamy, a prospective recruit as Messenger in the Respondent Bank as instructed by Thomas Balan. Even in the

Claim Statement it is admitted by the petitioner, that one Vellaichamy had deposited Rs. 1.5 lakhs in his account.

According to the petitioner, Vellaichamy was not a person acquainted with him. Muthuraj, the Regional Committee

Member of the Union of which he was also a member is said to have contacted him by phone and obtained his account

number and had also informed that a friend of his will be depositing some amount in his account. Subsequently,

Vellaichamy is said to have called by telephone and informed him that the amount has been deposited as instructed by

Muthuraj. Later at the instruction of Muthuraj the petitioner is said to have transferred the amount to the account of

the daughter of Muthuraj. The stand of the petitioner is that it was only as a good gesture as requested by Muthuraj he

had given the account number and also had obliged Muthuraj by remitting the amount that has come to his account to

the account of the daughter of Muthuraj.

10.

What is the charge against the petitioner? The statement of allegations in the Charge Sheet marked as Ext.M1

refers to Thomas Balan and Muthuraj accepting bribe from the staff members in the region in their capacity as Union

Office Bearers. There is a specific reference to the demand said to have been made for Rs. 3.00 lakhs from

Vellaichamy who was engaged as a Temporary Messenger in one of the branches of the Bank so that he would get

employment as a Permanent Messenger. The articles of charges states that the petitioner was aware that the amount

remitted to his account was bribe and he had facilities Muthuraj and Thomas Balan to collect bribe money from

Vellaichamy through his SB Account maintained at Abhiramam Branch. The charge proceeds to state that Vellaichamy

had remitted Rs. 1.5 lakhs to his account and he had transferred the amount to the account maintained by the daughter

of Muthuraj at Kadaladi Branch of the Bank for payment to Thomas Balan. Thus the petitioner has abetted Thomas

Balan and Muthuraj in accepting the bribe money from a prospective recruit, it is stated.

11.

What is the evidence available to substantiate the case against the petitioner? MW1 is the one who has

investigated the allegations against the petitioner and has submitted report. After referring to the allegations, MW1 has

stated in his Proof Affidavit that the case of the petitioner that he did not know anything about the bribe obtained from

Vellaichamy is not correct. MW1 does not know anything about the happenings after he submitted Investigation

Report. According to MW1 investigation was made on the basis of the complaint given by Vellaichamy. It was

admitted by MW1 that as per the complaint given by Vellaichamy, bribe was demanded from Vellaichamy by Thomas

Balan and Muthuraj. He has further stated during his cross-examination that it was as per the instruction given by

Thomas Balan, Vellaichamy had deposited the amount in the account of the petitioner. The request made by

Vellaichamy in his complaint was to take action against Thomas Balan, he has further stated. He has also stated that in

his Investigation Report he has not stated that the petitioner conspired with Thomas Balan and Muthuraj in committing

the act of fraud.

12.

Vellaichamy has been examined in the enquiry proceedings. However, the management did not examine him

before this Tribunal. The evidence given by Vellaichamy before this Tribunal need not be looked into as the enquiry

has been found not fair and proper. However, even on going through the evidence given by Vellaichamy in the enquiry

proceedings it could be seen that Vellaichamy never had a case that the petitioner had got anything to do with the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2873

arrangement of job for him or receipt of money for this purpose. The very case of Vellaichamy as revealed from the

evidence in the enquiry proceedings is that Muthuraj and Thomas Balan had contacted him and had instructed him to

remit the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in the account of the petitioner. He has specifically stated that he did not know the

petitioner at all. He had spoken to the petitioner only after he remitted amount in the account of the petitioner. Thus it

could be seen that Vellaichamy had no case that the petitioner had approached him for bribe or that he was party along

with other two persons in receiving bribe. The only case of Vellaichamy himself is that he had remitted the amount in

the account of the petitioner as instructed by Thomas Balan. The complaint (M.15, Page 183) also does not state

anything against the petitioner except that amount was remitted in the account.

13.

MW2 is the Disciplinary Authority who has dismissed the petitioner from service on the basis of the enquiry

report. He has no personal knowledge of the transaction in question. A perusal of the dismissal order would go to show

that the Disciplinary Authority had gone beyond the charge and had attributed the entire act of arrangement of job for

Vellaichamy and receipt of amount along with two others. The charge sheet is only that the petitioner had facilitated

Muthuraj and Thomas Balan to collect the bribe money from Vellaichamy.

14.

It is beyond dispute that Vellaichamy had remitted Rs. 1.50 lakhs in the account of the petitioner. It is not in

dispute that the entire amount has been dutifully transferred by the petitioner to the account of daughter of Muthuraj as

instructed. The petitioner himself has given evidence as WW1. He has reiterated his case in the Claim Statement that he

never knew anything about the misdeeds of Thomas Balan and Muthuraj. According to him, Muthuraj had been

misusing his account, the number of which he had given out of good gesture.

15.

It is the case of the Management that the petitioner had received Rs. 1.5 lakhs in his account with the knowledge

that it is bribe amount and that he was a party to the entire misdeeds committed by Thomas Balan and Muthuraj. As

stated, Vellaichamy himself never had such a case. The Management has to prove by acceptable evidence that the

petitioner had received the amount with the knowledge that the amount was remitted in his account as bribe. To state

simply what is the act done by the petitioner? Some amount was remitted in his account at the instance of

Muthuraj who was a Regional Committee Member of the Union of which he is also a member. After a few days this

amount has been transferred to the account of the daughter of Muthuraj as instructed by Muthuraj. The petitioner has

not retained even a single rupee out of this amount. He had dutifully obliged a colleague for whom he has received

some amount in his account without raising any question. This alone is the act that could be attributed to him. If this is

to become a mideed amounting to a misconduct, the Bank has to prove that the amount was credited to the account of

the petitioner with his full knowledge that it is the bribe amount. The Bank should also establish that he had been a

party to the entire misdeeds alongwith Muthuraj and Thomas Balan. There is absolutely no evidence in this respect.

Even according to MW1 Vellaichamy’s complaint was only that Thomas Balan and Muthuraj demanded bribe from

him. There is no evidence at all to prove that the amount was remitted to the account of the petitioner with his

knowledge, that it was bribe amount or that he has anything to do with the remittance of the amount in his account. In

so far as these facts are not established the charge against the petitioner remains un-established. There was no

justification in a finding by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and MW2 dismissing him, acting upon that. The

petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Accordingly an Award is passed as below:

The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with the entire backwages

and attendant benefits. In case of default in payment of backwages within two months it will carry

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 20^th April, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri P. Raju

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri K. Viswanathan

MW2, P.G. Sankarakrishnan

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

09.07.2013

Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner

Ext.W2

20.07.2013

Explanation submitted by the petitioner

2874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W3

03.05.2014

Order of dismissal issued to the petitioner

Ext.W4

09.12.2014

Dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947

Ext.W5

Reply filed by the Respondent Management

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

14.03.2015

Suspension Order issued to the petitioner

Ext.M2

20.09.2013

Respondent letter to petitioner informing about the date and venue of enquiry

Ext.M3

05.10.2013

Enquiry Officer letter to petitioner informing about the date of enquiry

Ext.M4

18.10.2013

Enquiry Officer letter to petitioner informing about the date of enquiry

Ext.M5

28.10.2013

Enquiry Officer letter to petitioner informing about the date of enquiry

Ext.M6

02.12.2013

Enquiry Proceedings

21.12.2013

Ext.M7

30.12.2013

Presenting Officer’s written brief submitted to Enquiry Officer

Ext.M8

28.02.2014

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ext.M9

10.01.2014

Concurrent suspension order issued to petitioner

Ext.M10

20.03.2014

Disciplinary Authority letter to petitioner

Ext.M11

01.04.2014

Notice of personal hearing to petitioner

Ext.M12

10.04.2014

Notice of personal hearing to petitioner

Ext.M13

22.12.2014

Appellate Authority letter to petitioner

Ext.M14

04.02.2015

Order of Appellate Authority

Ext.M15

Management Exhibits ME 1 to 41 and Defense Exhibits DE 1 & 2 filed in the

departmental enquiry

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1260-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-

2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@102@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/102/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2875

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/18 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

The Chief Regional Manager

Indian Overseas Bank

Maker Tower ‘E’, 5^th floor

Cuffe Parade, Colaba

Mumbai 400 005.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Assistant General Secretary

All India Overseas Bank Employees Union

Mumbai Metro Office, Indian Overseas Bank

Bakhtawar Building

Nariman Point

Mumbai 400 021.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. S.V. Alva, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 30^th March, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-12011/102/2014-IR (B-II),

dated 18/24.02.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the work of transportation of cheques to service branch from the branches and vice-versa and the

work of watch and ward Staff including Armed Guards are IT related specialized area of activities and

whether the outsourcing of such work by Indian Overseas Bank under RO-I and RO-II Mumbai is in violation

of clause 31(H) of 8^th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005? What relief the union and or the management

are entitled to ?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on

the second party Union is at Ex-4. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second

party/ Union. Again notice (Ex-5) was served on second party / Union. Second party/Union neither appeared before

this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and

the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 30.03.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1261-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ dSfiVy ekdsZVl vkSj vU; rhu ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V

2876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 27@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&16025@4@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Institute of Capital Markets & 3 Others and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-16025/4/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/27 of 2016

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

(1) The Director

Indian Institute of Capital Markets

(UTI Institute of Capital Markets)

Plot No.107, Sector-15

Sakal Bhavan Marg

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

(2) Prof. K.R.S.Murty, Chairman

Indian Institute of Capital Markets

No.335, 1^st E-Cross, 6^th Block, Phase-II

Banashankari, 3^rd Stage

Bangalore 560 085.

(3) Dr. M. Thiripalraju, Director

Indian Institute of Capital Markets

Flat No.301, Balaji Co-op. Hsg. Soc.

Plot No.II-1, Sector-15

Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706.

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

(4) Shri Sandip Ghose, Governing Council Member, IICM

Director

National Institute of Securities Markets (NISM)

C/o. NISM Bhavan, Plot No.82

Sector-17, Vashi

Navi Mumbai 400 705.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Anil Gangaram Labde

Laxmi Niwas, Datta Nagar

Behind Prashant Printing Press

H.N. Bus Stop, Gategaon

Mohane, Ambivali (E)

Kalyan, Thane 421 102.

Shri. V.V. Varghese, Secretary

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2877

Prafullaben Society

R.K. Vaidya Road

Dadar (W)

Mumbai-400 028.

APPEARANCES :

FOR EMPLOYER NO.1 & 2

Mr. Sonulal N.Gautam, Representative.

FOR THE WORKMAN

In person.

FOR THE UNION

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 17^th April, 2017.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-16025/4/2016-IR (B-II), dated

17.10.2016 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

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

“Whether the action of the management in issuing the administrative circular no.140 of 2014-15 dated

02.03.2015 thereby intimating the employees that the Indian Institute of Capital Markets (IICM) is amalgamated

with National Institute of Securities Markets (NISM) on the closing hours on 31.03.2015 thereby discontinuing

their employment with IICM and the offer of fresh employment by NISM on contractual and on suitability basis

during the pendency of conciliation proceedings in the industrial dispute under reference no.B.ALC-

III/8(9)/2015 is amounting to violation of Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947? If so, complaint filed by Shri Anil

Gangaram Labde one of the workmen complainant no.1 and Shri V.V. Varghese, Secretary of Bhartiya Kamgar

Sena, Complainant no.2 vide their application dated 26.05.2015 is maintainable or not? If so, what action ?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to parties. Second party Workman Shri Anil Labde appeared

before this Tribunal and sought adjournment for filing Statement of Claim. Second party no.2, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena

remained absent though served with notice.

Today Second party no.1, Mr. Anil G. Labde filed application for withdrawing the Reference stating that the

matter has been amicably settled between them. Representative of First party no.2, Mr. Sonulal N. Gautam has no

objection for withdrawing the Reference. In respect of First party no.1, it is submitted that the First party no.1 is

amalgamated with first party no.2. Orders were passed on Ex-4. Accordingly I pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

Date: 17.04.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1262-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 22@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@04@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1262.—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 No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Mumbai

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-31011/04/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

2878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/22 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House, 2^nd floor

S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust General Workers’ Union

Kavarana Building, 1^st floor

26/4, P.D’mello Road

Wadi Bunder, Masjid (E)

Mumbai 400 009.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate

FOR THE UNION

No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 30^th March, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/04/2014-IR (B-II), dated

18.02.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

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

“Whether the demand of the Mumbai Port Trust General Workers’ Union, Mumbai vide its Strike notice dated

29.01.2014 in not effecting the transfer of Shri Chandravilas V. Shelatkar Muccadam, as per transfer order

No.BI/CGIT/867 dated 21.01.2014 as per rotational transfer policy under CGIT Award dated 30.06.1984 from

Jawahar Dweep to Pirpau is just and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on

the second party Union is at Ex-4. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second

party/ Union. Second party/Union neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without

Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the

following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 30.03.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1263-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@05@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2879

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-31011/05/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/13 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House, 2^nd floor

S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust General Workers’ Union

Kavarana Building, 1^st floor

26/4, P.D’mello Road

Wadi Bunder, Masjid (E)

Mumbai 400 009.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate

FOR THE UNION

Mr. V. Narayanan, Representative

Mumbai, the 7^th April, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/05/2014-IR (B-II), dated

05.02.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

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

“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in issuing the order of reversion vide reference

No.MEED/E/1-ABP/8219 dated 20.01.2014 in respect of Shri Ajay Appa Kadam and Shri Genubau Mahadeo

Auti both Wiremen to the post of Mazdoors and in denying the payment of promoted post of Wireman to the

said employees on and from 13.12.2013 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Second party Union filed their Statement

of Claim vide Ex-3. First party resisted the Statement of claim of Union by filing their Written Statement (Ex-5).

Thereafter matter was fixed for framing of issues.

Today Second party/ union and First party/ management filed joint purshis stating that the matter has been

amicably settled and may be treated as withdrawn. Orders were passed on Ex-6. Accordingly I pass the following

order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

Date: 07.04.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

2880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1264-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@03@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-31011/03/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/21 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

Port House, 2^nd floor

S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock and

General Employees’ Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Sadan

Mazgaon

Mumbai

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate

FOR THE UNION

No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 30^th March, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/03/2014-IR (B-II), dated

17/23.02.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10

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

“Whether the action of the Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees’ Union in

opposing to the outsourcing of 99 vacant posts of Class-IV Para Medical Staff in Mumbai Port

Trust Hospital and demanding filling up of the said posts by regular employees is just and

proper? What relief the union is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2881

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on

the second party Union is at Ex-4. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second

party/ Union. Second party/Union neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without

Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the

following order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 30.03.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1265-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@44@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/44/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Tuesday the 14^th day of March, 2017/23^rd Phalguna, 1938)

ID No. 1/2013

Union

The Secretary,

Canara Bank Staff Union,

BEFI Centre, Mele Thampanoor,

Trivandrum,

Kerala – 695001.

By M/s.ANP Associates

Management

The General Manager,

Canara Bank, HRM Section,

Circle Office, MG Road,

Trivandrum,

Kerala – 695001.

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 21.02.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 14.03.2017 passed

the following:

2882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication before this Tribunal is:

‘Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank to recruit 2000 Probationary Officers in the

Junior Management Grade Scale I in the Generalist cadre contrary to the 80:20 ratio fixed for

promotion from ranks and direct recruitment as per the terms of Settlement dated 25.8.2010, is in order

and justified? Whether the Settlement dated 14.3.2012 signed between the management of Canara

Bank and the Canara Bank Employees Union, when the Industrial Dispute on the same issue raised by

the Canara Bank Staff Union was pending before a Conciliation Officer, is legal and justified? What

relief the concerned union is entitled to?’

After the receipt of reference Order No.L-12011/44/2012-IR(B-II) dated 22.11.2012, issued by the Ministry of

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

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

and submitted their pleadings.

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

The promotion post for the workmen employed in the non-subordinate cadre namely clerical cadre in the

management bank is the higher post of officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. The mode of promotion is

governed by the terms and conditions in the memorandum of settlements signed between the management bank and

their workmen from time to time. One such memorandum of settlement is dated 22.02.2006. As per the terms of that

settlement the direct recruitment of officers to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I is restricted to 20% of the total

vacancies declared each year and that the remaining vacancies in the posts thereof shall be filled up by promotions

effected from among the workmen employed in the non-subordinate cadre as clerical workmen who satisfy the

necessary eligibility norms. The said ratio – 20:80 was reiterated in the subsequent memorandum of settlement dated

25.08.2010. The relevant clause reads as follows:-

“Vacancies in Junior Management Scale-I shall be filled in by promotion from clerical ranks and through

direct recruitment at 80% and 20% respectively.”

The head office of the management bank as per Memo No.59/2011 dated 17.10.2011 initiated steps for the

promotion of workmen who are eligible as on 01.04.2011 from the clerical cadre to the higher post of Junior

Management Grade Scale-I. Subsequently Memo No.76/2011 was released by the management on 17.10.2011

whereby the management notified 200 vacancies to be filled up by promotion to the higher post of Junior Management

Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre. In response to that memo 1242 workmen in the clerical cadre appeared for the

written test conducted by the management and out of which 192 were promoted.

On 28.01.2012 the management bank advertised the process for direct recruitment of 2000 officers in Junior

Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre and applications were invited online from eligible candidates

possessing valid Inter Bank Personnel System Score Card.

The said action of the management for direct recruitment of 2000 officers in Junior Management Grade Scale-I

is illegal and in gross violation of the terms and conditions in the memorandum of settlement dated 25.08.2010. The

said action by the management adversely affects the promotion prospects of the workmen in the clerical cadre. On

17.02.2012 the union raised an industrial dispute in this regard before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Thiruvananthapuram. During the conciliation proceedings the management representative filed written statement on

24.03.2012 enclosing the amendment to the memorandum of settlement dated 25.08.2010 which provides that the terms

of settlement shall not be applicable for the current recruitment process of 2000 officers, initiated by the management

bank. The amendment thereof was made on 14.03.2012 by way of a memorandum of settlement signed between the

management bank and Canara Bank Employees Union. On the basis of that amendment the management announced

the interview schedule for the candidates who applied online for direct recruitment to the post of officers and sought to

defend their actions. The contention of the union was that the amendment dated 14.03.2012 made to the memorandum

of settlement dated 25.08.2010 is bad in law for the reason that it was made during the pendency of the conciliation

proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Thiruvananthapuram. The amendment to the

memorandum of settlement amounts to alteration of the service conditions of the workmen and it caused serious

prejudice to them and it is prohibited in law. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and thereafter the dispute is

referred for adjudication before this Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2883

The action of the management to effect appointments by direct recruitment to 2000 vacancies in the post of

officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre is illegal and unjust and it is contrary to and in

violation of outer limit of 20% of the declared vacancies fixed by the management as per the terms and conditions of

memorandum of settlement dated 25.08.2010. As per that settlement the management is permitted only 20% of the

declared vacancies in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 80% to

be filled by promotion from the clerical cadre workmen. As on 01.04.2011 the management filled 192 posts of officer

in Junior Management Grade Scale-I by promotion and hence they could have recruited only 48 officers in the same

cadre by direct recruitment. The action of the management is illegal and breach of the terms of settlement. They have

recruited 1952 officers in excess of the permitted ratio. The action of the management amounts to “unfair labour

practice” as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 falling under Item No.13 in Part-I of the

Fifth Schedule to the Act. Moreover it is punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The action of the management in entering into an amendment of memorandum of settlement dated 14.03.2012

with the Canara Bank Employees Union is intended to subvert and scuttle the demands made by the union in this case

especially when the conciliation proceedings were pending before the competent authority. The action of the

management is clear violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management did so with the

deliberate intention to scuttle the demands made by the union in this case. As per the terms of settlement dated

25.08.2010 the management is obliged to ensure and maintain the strength of officers in the Junior Management Grade

Scale-I by promotion of 80% of the required staff and by direct recruitment of 20% of the remaining required staff.

Since the management initiated steps to recruit 2000 officers by direct recruitment, 8000 officers from the clerical cadre

should have been promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I. They have promoted only 192 officers and the

remaining 7808 posts ought to have been filled up by promotion from among the clerical cadre. Therefore the union

has requested to pass an award to the effect that the action of the management in recruiting 2000 probationary officers

in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre is contrary to the 80:20 ratio fixed for promotion as per

the terms of settlement dated 25.08.2000 and therefore it is illegal and unjust and that the settlement dated 14.03.2012

signed between the management and Canara Bank Employees Union during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute as

illegal and unjust and further to declare that the management is bound to give promotion to 7808 workmen in the

clerical cadre to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I. The union has also requested to restrain the management from

filling up the post by direct recruitment and to restore the ratio as per the settlement dated 25.08.2010 and to allow cost

of this proceedings.

10.

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

The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement except those that are specifically admitted.

The reference is bad in law for the reason that there is no subsisting industrial dispute to be adjudicated by this

Tribunal. The matter in issue is covered by the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 14.03.2012, entered into

between the management of the Canara Bank on the one hand and the Canara Bank Employees Union on the other,

which is representing more than 70% of the workmen employed by the bank. Therefore the dispute is not

maintainable.

11.

Without prejudice to the contentions raised above the management has stated that the recruitment and

promotion of the employees of Canara Bank are governed by the terms and conditions in the Bipartite Settlement

entered into by the management and the majority union, from time to time. On 22.03.2006 a settlement was entered

between the management on the one hand and the majority union on the other, whereby it was agreed that the vacancies

arising in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I shall be filled up by promotions from ranks and through direct

recruitment at the ratio 80% and 20% respectively and that any vacancy arising out of death, resignation etc. of the

officers be taken from direct recruits. The same clause was retained in the subsequent settlement dated 25.08.2010. In

the year 2012, due to the changed scenario, business expansion by way of opening of new branches in large scale and

the high rate of competition, the bank felt the need for future recruitment. Moreover it was noticed that sufficient

number of people from the feeder cadre were not coming forth or were not successful in the last promotion process.

Accordingly, to meet the requirement and to build up a competent work force for the future benefit of the bank, an

advertisement was notified inviting applications for 2000 posts of probationary officers. The signatory union to the

settlement was informed about the same and they were agreeable to the bank in resorting to the fresh recruitment

procedure and that the ratio of 80:20 mentioned in the earlier settlement shall not stand in the way of direct recruitment.

Accordingly a settlement dated 14.03.2012 was entered into between the management and the majority union. As per

the terms of that settlement it was agreed that the ratio as provided in the previous settlement shall not be applicable to

the fresh recruitment process of probationary officers, initiated by the bank. Even though the Canara Bank Staff Union

preferred a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissiner, the matter was not proceeded in view of the settlement

dated 14.03.2012. It is the accepted principle of law that nothing prevents the parties to a settlement for altering and

modifying or replacing an existing settlement. The action of the management to recruit 2000 probationary officers was

in the light of the settlement dated 14.03.2012 and therefore it is just and legal.

2884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

The union in this reference is relying on the clause in the settlements dated 22.03.2006 and 25.08.2010. The

union at whose instance this dispute is raised is not a signatory to the aforesaid two settlements. If the signatory to the

settlement agrees for modification of the terms thereof, a union which is not a signatory to the settlement cannot

question the same. Since the union in this reference accepts and approves the terms and conditions of the settlements

dated 22.03.2006 and 25.08.2010, the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 14.03.2012 are binding on them.

Therefore they are precluded from challenging the settlement dated 14.03.2012 entered into between the management

and the majority union.

13.

The management released a memo notifying 200 vacancies to be filled up by promotion, for which 1242

candidates appeared for the written test and out which 192 candidates came out successfully in the promotion process

and they were promoted. The notification for recruitment of 2000 officers issued by the bank is for the future

requirement and hence it has no bearing on the vacancy declared for promotion. The contention of the union in this

reference - that the management has no right to alter, vary or modify the terms of settlement, is absolutely false. The

signatory to the earlier settlements agreed that the settlement dated 14.03.2012 and the terms and conditions thereof are

valid and binding on the parties.

14.

The complaint filed by the union in this reference before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not

maintainable. The contention of the union that the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice, is false

and incorrect. The settlement dated 14.03.2012 has not altered any of the service conditions. The contention to the

contra raised by the union is absolutely false. The union in this reference is having only 8.5% of the membership of the

workmen and they are representing only 8.1% of the clerical employees. They have no legal right to interfere with the

terms and conditions in the settlement entered into between the management and the majority union. There is nothing

illegal, unjust or improper in the settlement dated 14.03.2012. The contention of the union in this reference that 8000

officers will have to be promoted from the clerical cadre is absolutely baseless. Therefore the management has

requested to uphold their contentions and to pass an award disallowing the claim of the union.

15.

After filing written statement by the management, the union filed replication contending as follows:-

The union has stated that the settlement dated 14.03.2012 was entered into at a time when the conciliation

proceedings were pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Thiruvananthapuram and as such it has

no legal validity. The contention of the management that the settlement was entered into by the representatives of more

than 70% of the workmen employees, is incorrect. They have called upon the management to prove the same. They

have stated that the action of the management inviting applications for filling up 2000 posts of probationary officers is

clear violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 25.08.2010. According to them no notice of change

in the terms of settlement was issued to them before entering into agreement dated 14.03.2012. According to the union

the action of the management in altering the terms and conditions of the earlier settlement during the pendency of the

conciliation proceedings is clear violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to them the

management cannot unilaterally or bilaterally modify the terms and conditions of the service which is applicable to all

the employees. They have requested to uphold their contentions.

16.

After affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to take steps and for production of documents, the matter

was posted for evidence. On behalf of the union WW1 was examined and Exts.W1 to W23 are the documents marked.

On behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 to M10 are the documents marked. Heard both sides.

17.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the dispute raised at the instance of the union in this reference is bad in law as contended

by the management?

(ii)

Whether the action of the management in initiating steps to recruit 2000 probationary officers in

the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre is just, proper and legal?

(iii) Whether the action of the management is in violation of the ratio fixed for promotion from ranks

in accordance with the terms of the settlement dated 25.08.2010?

(iv) Whether the action of the management in entering into a settlement dated 14.03.2012 is just, legal

and proper?

(v)

To what relief?”

18.

Point No.(i):-

The dispute referred for adjudication as per this reference is:

‘Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank to recruit 2000 Probationary Officers in the

Junior Management Grade Scale I in the Generalist cadre contrary to the 80:20 ratio fixed for

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2885

promotion from ranks and direct recruitment as per the terms of Settlement dated 25.8.2010, is in order

and justified? Whether the Settlement dated 14.3.2012 signed between the management of Canara

Bank and the Canara Bank Employees Union, when the Industrial Dispute on the same issue raised by

the Canara Bank Staff Union was pending before a Conciliation Officer, is legal and justified? What

relief the concerned union is entitled to?’

The union in this reference challenged the action of the management in initiating steps to recruit 2000

probationary officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre. According to the union the

action of the management is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 25.08.2010, copy of

which is marked as Ext.W2 in this case. The management has contended that the reference is bad in law for the reason

that there is no subsisting industrial dispute which requires adjudication by this Tribunal. It has come out in evidence

that after publishing the notification for recruiting 2000 probationary officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I

by direct recruitment, the union in this reference raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central), Thiruvananthapuram challenging the action of the management on the ground that it is clear

violation of the terms of Ext.W2 settlement. The union in this reference is not a party to Ext.W2 settlement. This was

a settlement entered into between the management on the one hand and the majority union on the other which is

representing more than 70% of the workforce in the management bank.

19.

The learned counsel for the union submitted that the action of the management is clear violation of the Section

9A, Section 19(2) and Section 33A of the Indstrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention of the union in this reference is

that there was change of service condition during the continuance of its settlement dated 25.08.2010. Since the union

in this reference challenged the action of the management alleging that there was a change in the terms of employment,

there is no illegality in referring this dispute for adjudication. Hence the point is answered to the effect that the

reference made at the instance of the union in this case is maintainable.

20.

Point Nos.(ii) to (iv):-

This reference was made at the instance of the Canara Bank Staff Union. The

union is challenging the action of the management to recruit 2000 probationary officers in the Junior Management

Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre. According to the union the action of the management is clear violation of the

terms and conditions of the settlement dated 25.08.2010 which is marked as Ext.W2. The union is relying on the

earlier settlement dated 22.02.2006 also to substantiate their claim. According to the union as per the terms and

conditions of the settlement aforesaid the direct recruitment of officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I can be

only for 20% of the total vacancies declared each year and for the remaining 80% it shall be by promotion, from among

the non-subordinate cadre – from clerical workmen who satisfy the required eligibility norms.

21.

The union has stated that on 28.01.2012 the management bank advertised the process for direct recruitment of

2000 probationary officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre. According to the union the

action of the management is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 25.08.2010. It is stated

that the union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Thiruvananthapuram

and during the continuance of that proceedings, the management entered into another settlement dated 14.03.2012

thereby permitting them to continue the recruitment process by direct recruitment. It is stated that the action of the

management is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Ext.W2 settlement. They have stated that there is

legal bar in entering into a settlement restricting the promotion avenues of the clerical staff. They have challenged the

right of the management in altering or varying the terms of earlier settlement. The management has contended that the

recruitment and promotion of employees of Canara Bank are governed by the terms and conditions in the Bipartite

Settlement entered into between the management and the majority union from time to time. It is stated that as per the

settlement dated 22.03.2006 it was agreed that the vacancies arising in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I shall be

filled in by promotion from ranks and through direct recruitment at the ratio 80:20 and that any vacancy arising out of

death, resignation etc. of the officers, all taken as direct recruits and shall be filled up by the process of direct

recruitment. The same clause was retained in the subsequent settlement dated 25.08.2010. The management has stated

that in the year 2012 due to the changed scenario, business expansion by way of large scale opening of new branches

and high rate of attrition, the bank felt the need for future recruitment. The bank also noticed that sufficient people

from the feeder cadre were either not forthcoming or not successful in the procedure for promotion process.

Accordingly, in order to meet the requirement and to develop a competent workforce for the future requirement of the

bank, an advertisement was notified inviting application for 2000 posts of probationary officers. Before doing so, the

management informed the signatory union to the settlement about the need and requirement and they were agreeable

for direct recruitment and that the ratio of 80:20 mentioned in the earlier settlement shall not stand in the way of the

fresh recruitments and accordingly a settlement dated 14.03.2012 was entered into between the management and the

majority union of the bank whereby they have acknowledged the need and requirement of the bank. The management

has stated that even though the Canara Bank Staff Union raised a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

in view of the settlement dated 14.03.2012 the matter was not proceeded. The management has stated that nothing

prevents the parties to an agreement to alter, vary, modify or replace the terms of an existing settlement and entering

2886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

into a new settlement incorporating the terms thereof. According to the management they are well within their right in

inviting applications for the posts of 2000 probationary officers by direct recruitment and their action will not in any

way restrict or modify or against the terms and conditions of the earlier settlements especially in view of the fact that

the signatory union to the earlier settlement agreed and accepted the new proposals and executed a settlement dated

14.03.2012. The management has stated that the terms and conditions in the settlement dated 14.03.2012 is valid and

binding on the parties.

22.

While examined as WW1 the witness examined on behalf of the union has stated that the settlement was entered

into between the management and the majority union. WW1 has no direct knowledge about the execution of Ext.W2

settlement or the earlier or later settlements. The union in this case is asserting on their claim on the basis of the terms

and conditions in the settlement dated 22.03.2006 (Ext.W1) and the settlement dated 25.08.2010 (Ext.W2). Ext.W9 is

the memorandum of settlement dated 14.03.2012 entered into between the management on the one hand and the

majority union on the other. It is made clear in Ext.W9 of the memorandum of settlement that the ratio of 80:20 for

promotion and recruitment mentioned in Ext.W2 agreement will not in any way restrict the right of the management to

recruit 2000 probationary officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the Generalist cadre. While examined as

MW1 the witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that they are well within their right in notifying the

2000 posts of probationary officers to be filled up by direct recruitment. It has come out in evidence that the

management conducted online examination for promotion from among the feeder category, for which 1254 candidates

appeared and out which 701 was successful in online test. They are adopting the procedure for promotion in

accordance with the accepted principles. The terms and conditions in Ext.W9 settlement will not in any way restrict

the right of the management to call for applications for the post of probationary officers by direct recruitment especially

in view of the fact that the management desired to ensure that they require competent workforce for the future

requirement of the bank and it is in the best interest of the bank. Since the union involved in this reference is not

a signatory to the settlements dated 22.03.2006 and 25.08.2010, they are not entitled to challenge the right of the

signatory union to execute further settlement for altering, varying or modifying the terms and conditions in the earlier

settlements.

23.

The learned counsel for the management referred to the Ruling reported in M/s.Binny Limited Vs. Presiding

Officer and Others - 1986 (1) LLJ 220. In that Ruling the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that:

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Ss.9A, 19(2) and 33A – Workmen and Management reaching a settlement in

the course of conciliation superseding the terms of earlier settlement without issuing notice of termination –

Few aggrieved workmen filing complaint under S.33A – Maintainability of such complaints – Notice under

S.9A – Whether necessary – There is no bar for reaching fresh settlement with consent of both parties in

regard to terms covered by earlier settlement without issuing notice of termination of earlier settlement even

during the operation of the period of earlier settlement.”

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that “When a later valid contract between the parties

covers matters which were covered by an earlier contract, by necessary implication, the earlier contract stands

superseded and the later prevails and binds the parties and S.62 of the Contract Act expressly provides for the same,

though there is no specific clause in the later settlement superseding the corresponding clause in the earlier

settlement”. It is also observed that “Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is inapplicable since the change is

effected in accordance with the proviso to S.9A”. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision referred above, the

management is well within their right in inviting application for recruitment of 2000 probationary officers in the Junior

Management Grade Scale-I by direct recruitment. It follows that the union in this reference is not entitled to get any

relief as per this reference. The points are answered accordingly.

24.

Point No.(v):-

In view of the finding on Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) the union is not entitled to the relief claimed.

The point is answered accordingly.

25.

In the result an award is passed holding that the union is not entitled to get any relief as per this reference.

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 14^th day

of March, 2017.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

WW1

25.02.2015

Shri. S. S. Anil

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2887

Witness for the management

MW1

21.01.2016

Shri. Mahesh Kumar. S.

Exhibits for the union

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.03.2006 entered into

between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union

in the matter of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.08.2010 entered into

between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union

in the matter of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

True copy of the Memo No.76/2011 dated 24.12.2011[AHUX] issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, Canara

Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

True copy of circular No.CB/RP/1/2012 dated Nil inviting online application

for recruitment to the post of Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

True copy of a statement dated 17.02.2012 filed before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central), Trivandrum by the Secretary of the union.

True copy of the letter No.07(03)/2012/ALC/TVM dated 23.02.2012 issued by

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Ministry of

Labour & Employment, Thiruvananthapuram to the General Manager, Canara

Bank, HRM Section, Circle Office, M. G. Road, Trivandrum and the Secretary,

Canara Bank Staff Union, c/o BEFI Centre, Mele Thampanoor, Trivandrum.

True copy of relevant page of the Order Sheet No.1037/2012/ALC/TVM dated

05.03.2012 of the ALC(Central).

Reply statement dated 24.03.2012 filed by the Deputy General Manager, Circle

Office, Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum in ID No.07(03)/2012/ ALC/TVM in the

matter of recruitment of officers in Generalist cadre in excess of the permissible

numbers – Industrial Dispute raised by CBSU.

True copy of the Memo No.13/2012 dated 16.03.2012 (AGWA) issued by the

Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations

Section, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore (Memorandum of Settlement

dated 14.03.2012 to amend the Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.08.2010

entered into between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank

Employees’ Union in the matter of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior

Management Grade Scale-I).

W10

An application dated 04.04.2012 filed by the Secretary of the Canara Bank Staff

Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum in ID

No.07(03)/2012/ ALC/TVM.

W11

Reply statement dated 13.04.2012 filed by the Assistant General Manager,

Circle Office, Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum in ID No.07(03)/2012/ ALC/TVM in the

matter of Industrial Dispute alleging violation of Section 33(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

W12

An application dated 16.04.2012 filed by the Secretary of the Canara Bank Staff

Union before the Hon’ble Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Trivandrum

in ID No.07(03)/2012/ ALC/TVM.

W13

Rejoinder dated 02.05.2012 filed by the Secretary of the Canara Bank Staff

Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Trivandrum in ID

07(03)/2011/ALC/ TVM.

2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

W14

Letter No.07(03)/2012/ALC-TVM dated 04.06.2012 addressed to the Secretary

to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti

Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central), Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Thiruvananthapuram.

W15

True copy of the Memo No.3/2013 dated 12.01.2013 (AGAV) issued by the

Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations

Section, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W16

True copy of the Memo No.17/2013 dated 26.02.2013 (AJIR) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Human Resources Wing,

Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W17

True copy of the Memo No.19/2013 dated 27.02.2013 (AJNA) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Human Resources Wing,

Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W18

True copy of the Memo No.2/2014 dated 07.01.2014 (AFOT) with Annexure-I

letter issued by the General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Human

Resources Wing, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W19

True copy of the Memo No.21/2014 dated 01.03.2014 (ADIT) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Human Resources Wing,

Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W20

True copy of the Memo No.23/2014 dated 04.03.2014 (ADWO) issued by the

Manager, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations Section, Canara Bank,

Head Office, Bangalore.

W21

True copy of the Memo No.33/2014 dated 01.04.2014 (ADIT) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Human Resources Wing,

Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W22

True copy of the Memo No.78/2008 dated 01.12.2008 (ADIT) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, Canara

Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

W23

True copy of the relevant pages of Memo No.45/2010 dated 30.08.2010 (AJRO)

issued from the Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, Canara Bank,

Head Office, Bangalore.

Exhibits for the management

Copy of the Minutes of the joint conference held on 10.10.2000 and 11.10.2000

between the representatives of the management of Canara Bank and the

representatives of the Canara Bank Employees’ Union at Head Office,

Bangalore.

True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11. 10.2000 entered into

between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union

in the matter of promotion and direct recruitment to Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

Statement submitted by the Manager, Canara Bank dated Nil showing year-wise

promotion from direct recruitment to the vacancies arisen out of death,

resignation etc. of officers taken as direct recruits.

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 12.01.2013 to amend the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.08.2010 entered into between the

management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union in the matter

of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade Scale-I.

True copy of the Memo No.23/2014 dated 04.03.2014 (ADWO) issued by the

Manager, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations Section, Canara Bank,

Head Office, Bangalore.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2889

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.03.2006 entered into

between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union

in the matter of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.08.2010 entered into

between the management of Canara Bank and Canara Bank Employees’ Union

in the matter of promotion of clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade

Scale-I.

True copy of the Memo No.13/2012 dated 16.03.2012 (AGWA) issued by the

Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations

Section, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore.

True copy of the Memo No.59/2011 dated 17.10.2011 (AGYE) with Annexure-I

proforma of letter of willingness and Annexure-II letter issued by the General

Manager, Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, Canara Bank, Head

Office, Bangalore.

M10

True copy of the Memo No.76/2011 dated 24.12.2011 (AHUX) issued by the

General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, Canara

Bank, Head Office.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1266-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lMhdsV

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 276@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@142@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 276/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/142/1999-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 16^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 276/2004

The Dy. General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office,

P.B. No. 4112, Neptune Towers,

Ashram Road, Opp. Nehru Bridge,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009

…First Party

2890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

The Chairman,

State Committee, Syndicate Bank EmployeesUnion,

C/o Gujarat Bank Employees Union,

Rahbar, 8 Jagnath Plot,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.S. Chari

For the Second Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/142/99-

IR(B-II) dated 07.02.2000 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 Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad in issuing notice of

change vide letter dated 01.04.1999 and changing the designation of Shri M. Kailasbhai from Driver-cum-

Attender to Attender w.e.f. 01.05.1999? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 07.02.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 13.12.2000

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 01.05.2006 along with number of documents vide list Ex.

14 and vakalatpatra Ex. 15 of his advocate. Second party has been absent since last several dates. Therefore, a notice

was issued to the second party Ex. 16 on 05.01.2017 to appear on 16.02.2017. The acknowledgement of notice Ex. 17

is received by the tribunal but the second party workman is still absent today on 16.02.2017. The state secretary of the

second party union Syndicate Bank Employees Union submitted a letter Ex. 18 informing that the workman is not in

their contact. He has also superannuated. Now there is no dispute pending between the parties and requested for closure

of the reference.

It is noteworthy that the workman was represented by the aforesaid union, therefore, the reference is disposed of

as not pressed with the observation as under: “the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office,

Ahmedabad in issuing notice of change vide letter dated 01.04.1999 and changing the designation of Shri M.

Kailasbhai from Driver-cum-Attender to Attender w.e.f. 01.05.1999is legal and justified.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1267-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/zk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2014 ,oa 4@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

09-05-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@69@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

la- ,y&12011@70@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2014 & 4/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/69/2013-IR (B-II),

No. L-12011/70/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2891

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 29^th day of March, 2016/08^th Chaitra, 1939)

ID 1/2014

Union

The Assistant Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Association,

49/746, ‘Krishna’, Karama Road,

Elamakkara,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682026.

By Adv. Shri. K. Shri Hari Rao

Management

The Zonal Manager,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

4/1, Zenith Chambers,

Anjaneyaswamy Temple Road, Off.Hosur Road,

Bangalore – 560027.

By Adv. Shri. Abraham Mathew

ID 4/2014

Union

The Assistant Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Association,

49/746, ‘Krishna’, Karama Road,

Elamakkara,

Kochi (Kerala) – 682026.

By Adv. Shri. K. Shri Hari Rao

Management

The Zonal Manager,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

4/1, Zenith Chambers,

Anjaneyaswamy Temple Road, Off.Hosur Road,

Bangalore – 560027.

By Adv. Shri. Abraham Mathew

These cases coming up for final hearing on 07.03.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 29.03.2017

passed the following:

COMMON AWARD

These are the disputes referred by the Central Government as per clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication in ID 1/2014 is:

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank in terminating the service of Shri.

Jayachandra P. Attender/Sub Staff in Kasargode Branch of Andhra Bank is justified? What relief the

concerned workman/union is entitled?”

After the receipt of reference order No.L-12011/69/2013-IR(B-II) dated 22.11.2013, issued by the Ministry of

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

adduce evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons the parties entered appearance

through counsel and submitted their respective pleadings.

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

The workman involved in this reference Shri. Jayachandran was employed continuously as an Attender (Sub

Staff) at the Kasaragod branch of the management bank with effect from 13.10.2003. Right from the said date there

was no interruption in his employment as an Attender (Sub Staff) at the Kasaragod branch of the management bank.

The workman was employed continuously for the past 100 months at the Kasaragod branch of the management bank.

2892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per the existing rules and regulations the workman Shri. Jayachandran is eligible for the post of Sub Staff

and entitled to get the service regularized and to obtain the salary and other benefits. The workman submitted several

representations requesting to regularize his services. Being a native of Kasaragod the workman was assisting the bank

in canvassing deposits and for recovery of money due to the bank.

The management bank is a member of Indian Banks Association (IBA). They are bound to follow the

provisions in the Bipartite Settlement. The management bank terminated the services of the workman Shri.

Jayachandran as a Sub Staff in the year 2012 for the reason that he raised an industrial dispute through the union for

regularizing him in service. The action of the management is totally an unfair labour practice, clear violation of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and violation of the right of guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

Moreover the management has appointed an outsider as Sub Staff as a substitute in place of the workman.

There is no rational basis for appointing a fresh hand ignoring the experienced service of the workman for the last 8

years.

Therefore the union has requested to pass an award declaring that the termination of his service from 2012 as

illegal and arbitrary and to regularize his service in the bank as Sub Staff from the date of entry in service with all

consequential benefits including seniority, pay etc.

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

The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the union, except those that are

specifically admitted. The Syndicate Bank Association is not having any right or authority in espousing the cause of

the workman Shri. Jayachandran. P. He cannot be a member of the Syndicate Bank Staff Association.

10.

Andhra Bank is a public sector bank and it is governed by certain rules and regulations in all matters including

the matter of recruitment. The branches have no power to make any appointment including any casual/temporary

appointment. It appears that the services of the workman was utilized by the Managers of Kasaragod branch on casual

basis, without any authority or power vested in them and clear violation of the norms.

11.

When the vacancy of a subordinate staff arose at Kasaragod branch, it was notified along with the vacancies of

similar posts in other branches of the bank. The workman Shri. P. Jayachandran applied for that vacancy. Since he

was not having the eligibility criteria notified by the bank, his candidature was rejected.

12.

The Andhra Bank is a public sector bank and will come under the purview of “State” as provided under Article

12 of the Constitution of India. No person can be appointed in any post in violation of the recruitment norms. The

management has laid down the policy and procedure to be followed in the matter of recruitment of persons in the

subordinate staff cadre, including part-time sweepers. As per that policy, the vacancies identified are to be notified

with the concerned Employment Exchange for sponsoring the eligible candidates. Apart from that, notification is

published through print and electronic media inviting applications from eligible candidates.

13.

The workman was not continuously working at the branch since the year 2003. The claim of the workman for

regularization is untenable as it is against law and against the recruitment norms. The intention of the workman is to

enter the service of the bank through back door methods.

14.

In the year 1990 the Government of India issued an Approach Paper to address the problem of temporary

employees working in the public sector banks in subordinate staff cadre who are appointed unauthorisedly and who

used to raise industrial dispute claiming regularization of their services. As per the guidelines communicated in

Approach Paper dated 16.08.1990, the temporary employees who had put in a minimum service of 90 days or more

during the period 01.01.1982 were to be kept on panels and they were to be regularized in the service of the banks

when permanent vacancies arise in the in the said cadre in the order of their seniority in the panels and subject to the

rules regarding reservations for SC, ST, etc. In terms of the said Approach Paper issued by the Government of India,

the management bank also prepared the panels of such temporary employees District-wise for utilizing their services

initially in leave vacancies on rotation and to consider their eventual absorption as and when permanent vacancies arise

subject to rules regarding reservation for SC, ST etc. All the temporary employees thus kept on panels were

regularized in the course of time. The workman herein did not put in the required service during the stipulated period

for being considered for empanelment in terms of the said Approach Paper. Therefore his case cannot be equated to the

claims of the temporary sub-staff kept on panels in terms of the aforesaid Approach Paper of the Government of India.

15.

The unauthorized utilization of the services of the workman by the branch will not confer any right on him. The

management has requested to reject the claim of the workman.

16.

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

claim statement. The union has stated that the management has no right to reject the claim of the workman involved in

this reference.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2893

17.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the union involved in this reference has any legal right to espouse the cause of the

workman involved in this case?

(ii)

Whether the management is justified in terminating the services of Shri. Jayachandran. P,

Attender/Sub-Staff in its Kasaragod branch?

(iii)

Whether the workman Shri. Jayachandran. P., is entitled to get appointment/reinstated in the

services of the management bank as Attender/Sub Staff with continuity of service and other

benefits?

(iv)

To what relief the union is entitled?”

18.

The dispute referred for adjudication in ID 4/2014 is:

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank in terminating the service of Shri. Anees,

Attender/Sub Staff in Kanhangad Branch of Andhra Bank is justified? What relief the concerned

workman/union is entitled?”

19.

After the receipt of reference order No.L-12011/70/2013-IR(B-II) dated 13.12.2013, issued by the Ministry of

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

adduce evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons the parties entered appearance

through counsel and submitted their respective pleadings.

20.

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

The workman involved in this reference Shri. Aneesh. K was employed as Attender (Sub Staff) at the

Kanhangad branch of the management bank with from the year 2004. He was employed in that branch continuously

from the year 2004.

21.

As per the existing rules and regulations, Shri. Aneesh is eligible for appointment to the post of Sub Staff. He

made several representations to the bank requesting to regularize his service in the bank. He studied up to 10^th

standard. His name is registered in the Employment Exchange. The workman was assisting the bank for canvassing

deposits and for effecting recovery.

22.

The management terminated the services of the workman w.e.f.01.02.2012 for the reason that he raised an

industrial dispute through the union for regularization of his services. The action of the management amounts to unfair

labour practice and clear violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also the rights guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

23.

The management has appointed an outsider as a substitute in place of Shri. Aneesh. There is no basis for

appointing an outsider ignoring the rights of the workman Shri. Aneesh.

24.

Therefore the union has requested to pass an award declaring that the action of the management in terminating

the services of Shri. Aneesh. K, as illegal and arbitrary and to regularize him in the services of the bank as Sub Staff

from the date of entry in service with back wages, seniority and all other attendant benefits.

25.

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

The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the union, except those that are

specifically admitted. The Syndicate Bank Association have no right or authority to espouse the cause of the workman

Shri. Aneesh. K who is not a member of that Association.

26.

The Andhra Bank is a public sector bank and is governed by certain rules and regulations in all matters

including the matter of recruitment. The branches have no power to effect any appointment including a

casual/temporary appointment. It appears that the services of the workman was utilized by the Managers of Kanhangad

branch on casual basis, without any authority or power vested with them. When a vacancy in subordinate staff cadre

arose at Kanhangad branch, it was notified along with other vacancies in the same cadre at other branches of the bank.

Shri. Aneesh. K also applied for that vacancy. Since he was not having the eligibility criteria notified by the bank, his

candidature was rejected.

27.

The Andhra Bank is a public sector bank and will come under the purview of “State” as provided under Article

12 of the Constitution of India. The bank cannot appoint any person to any post in violation of the recruitment norms.

Any appointment against the recruitment norms is void abinitio. The claim of the workman is against law.

28.

As per the recruitment policy and procedure, the vacancies in subordinate staff including part-time sweepers are

to be identified and are to be notified with the Employment Exchange concerned for sponsoring eligible candidates.

2894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Apart from this, notification will be published in the district concerned through print media, calling for applications

from eligible candidates considering for appointment if found suitable.

29.

The contention of the workman that he was working in the branch continuously from the year 2003 is incorrect.

His claim for continuous service is not sustainable in law. His claim for regularization in service is not maintainable in

law and also in view of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision – The Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and others.

30.

As per the guidelines in the Approach Paper dated 16.08.1990 issued by the Government of India, temporary

employees who were put in a minimum service of 90 days or more during the period 01.01.1982 were to be included in

the panels and they were to be regularized in the service of the bank as and when permanent vacancies arise in the in

the said cadre in the order of their seniority in the panels and subject to the rules regarding reservations for SC, ST, etc.

In accordance with the terms of the Approach Paper issued by the Government of India, the management bank also

prepared the panel of such employees District-wise for utilizing their services initially in leave vacancies on rotation

and to consider their eventual absorption as and when permanent vacancies arise, subject to the rules regarding

reservation. All the temporary employees kept on the panels were regularized in the course of time. The workman was

not having the required service during the stipulated period to be considered for empanelment in terms of the Approach

Paper. Hence his claim cannot be equated with the claims of temporary sub-staff kept on the panels in terms of the

Approach Paper issued by the Government of India.

31.

Therefore the management has requested to disallow the claim put forward by the union.

32.

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

claim statement.

33.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the union involved in this reference has any legal right to espouse the claim of the

workman involved in this case?

(ii)

Whether the management is justified in terminating the services of the workman involved in this

reference Shri. Aneesh. K, Attender/Sub-Staff in its Kanhangad branch?

(iii)

Whether the workman Shri. Aneesh. K., is entitled to get appointment/reinstated in the services

of the management bank as Attender/Sub Staff with continuity of service and other benefits?

(iv)

To what relief the union is entitled?”

34.

As per the Order in IA No.16/2016 dated 16.02.2016, the trial of ID No.1/2014 and ID No.4/2014 are

consolidated. Hence common evidence was recorded in ID 1/2014. On behalf of the union WW1 to WW3 were

examined and Exts.W1 series; W2 series; W3 series and W4 to W17 were the documents marked. On behalf of the

management MW1 was examined. No documents were marked on behalf of the management. Heard both sides.

35.

Point No.(i) in ID 1/2014 and in ID 4/2014:- ID Nos.1/2014 and 4/2014 were registered on the basis of the

reference orders dated 22.11.2013 and 13.12.2013 respectively issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India,

New Delhi. The dispute referred for adjudication in ID 1/2014 is relating to the termination of the services of one Shri.

P. Jayachandra, Attender/Sub Staff in the Kasaragod branch of the management bank. In ID 4/2014 the dispute is

relating to the termination of the services of one Shri. Aneesh. K, Attender/Sub Staff in the Kanhangad branch

of the management bank. The union involved in both cases is one and the same – i.e., The Assistant Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Association, Elamakkara, Kochi. The management involved in both cases is - The Zonal

Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore. The workman involved in ID 1/2014 has contended that he was

employed as Attender(Sub Staff) at the Kasaragod branch of the management bank from the year 2003 and his services

were terminated illegally from the year 2012. The workman involved in ID 4/2014 has contended that he was

employed as Attender (Sub Staff) at the Kanhangad branch of the management bank from the year 2004 and his

services were terminated illegally from 01.02.2012.

36.

The management has contended that the union involved in both cases – i.e., The Assistant Secretary, Syndicate

Bank Staff Association has no legal right to espouse the claims of the workmen employed in Andhra Bank. While

examined as WW1 – the workman involved in ID 1/2014 has stated that he is not a member of the union involved in

this reference. He has also stated that the union involved in this reference has not recognized him as their member. He

came to be associated with the union involved in this reference only after his termination from the services of the

management. While examined as WW3, the Assistant Secretary of the union has stated that the union has not produced

any document to prove that the workmen involved in these references are members of the union. So also the union has

not produced any document to prove that they have the legal right to espouse the claims of the workmen Shri. P.

Jayachandra and Shri. Aneesh. K involved in these references. Except the oral statement by the WW3 there is no other

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2895

supporting evidence or documents to prove that the union involved in these cases have the locus standi to espouse the

claims of the workmen involved in both cases.

37.

The learned counsel for the workmen referred to the Ruling reported in M/s.Dharam Pal Prem Chand

(Saugandhi) vs. M/s.Dharam Pal Chand (Saugandhi) – AIR 1966 SC 182 and submitted that the union involved in

these references is having the legal right to espouse the cause of the workmen in these cases. The learned counsel for

the management submitted that the facts and circumstances discussed in the decision referred above have no connection

with the facts in these two cases. It is submitted that at present each bank is having its own trade unions and each

organization is having its own trade unions. In such circumstance there is no relevance a competency for the trade

union of another organization to espouse the cause of the workmen in these cases.

38.

After the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, as per Act 24 of 2010, which came into force from

15.09.2010; the workmen has got the right to agitate their cause independently and without the conjunction of the union

of another establishment.

39.

Even as per the admission of the workmen involved in these cases, they approached the union in these cases

only after their services were terminated by the management. In such circumstance it will not be just or reasonable to

allow a third party union to agitate the cause of the workmen involved in another establishment.

40.

Moreover in the decision referred above workmen involved (18 members) were members of the union –

‘Mercantile Employees’ Association’ even before their dismissal from the services of the management. The said union

espoused the claim of the dismissed workmen involved in that case. In such factual state of affairs, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the reference in that case is maintainable as an industrial dispute.

41.

In IDs 1/2014 and 4/2014, the workmen involved who gave evidence as WW1 and WW2 respectively stated that

they were not members of the Syndicate Bank Staff Association – the union involved in these references. There is no

acceptable evidence to prove that the workmen involved in these references have got any membership or association

with the union in these cases.

42.

It follows that the union involved in both cases have no legal right to espouse the claims of Shri. Jayachandra. P

and Shri. Aneesh. K, the workmen involved in both cases. Hence the point is answered against the union in both cases.

43.

Point Nos.(ii) and (iii) in ID 1/2014 and in ID 4/2014:- The workman involved in ID 1/2014 is Shri.

Jayachandra. P. The workman involved in ID 4/2014 is Shri. Aneesh. K. Both of them are claiming that they were

employed in the management bank at the Kasaragod and Kanhangad branch respectively as Attender/Sub Staff. Shri.

Jayachandra. P, has stated that he was employed in the Kasaragod branch right from 13.10.2003 and he was

terminated from service from 2012 without any rhyme or reason. Shri. Aneesh. K has stated that he was employed

in the Kanhangad branch of the management bank from the year 2004 and his services were terminated with effect

from 01.02.2012. Both of them have contended that the management has no legal right to terminate their services.

According to them the decision of the management is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of their right to continue in

employment.

44.

The management has contended that the workmen involved in both references have no legal right to claim

continuity of service or permanency in their appointment. It is stated that both of them were not appointed on regular

or permanent basis by the bank. It is stated that no appointment order or termination order was issued to the workmen

involved in these cases. It is stated that the workmen involved were engaged by the managers of the respective

branches purely on temporary or casual basis and any such engagement cannot be accepted as a ground for claiming

permanency in service under the management.

45.

While examined as WW1, the workman involved in ID 1/2014 has stated that he has not received any

appointment order from the management bank. He has further stated that he was working as a daily wage employee in

the bank. He has stated that he got the opportunity to work in the bank as a result of his association with Shri.

Venkatesh, the then Manager of the bank. WW1 has stated about the daily wages received by him while he was

working in the management bank.

46.

While examined as WW2, the workman involved in ID 4/2014 has stated that he was working as a daily wage

employee on temporary basis. He has stated that he used to get wage @ `100/- per day and it was being paid

fortnightly. He has stated that he has not received any appointment order or termination order.

47.

While examined as MW1, the Chief Manager of the management bank has stated that the workmen involved in

these cases were not employed by the bank as attender. He has stated that they were only casual labourers engaged by

the respective Managers subject to the requirements.

48.

The learned counsel for the workmen referred to the Ruling reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others – (2006) 4 SCC 1 and submitted that the workmen in both cases are entitled to be

2896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regularized in the services of the management bank. Even as per the admission of WW1 and WW2, they were engaged

by the management only on daily wage basis and they were paid the wages for the number of days they worked in the

respective branches of the management bank. Moreover, the management has not issued any appointment order to

them. There was no selection process or appointment to any sanctioned posts under the management. Apart from this

even though the workmen involved in these cases have claimed continuous service right from the year 2003 and 2004

respectively, that was not acceptable to substantiate the same. Occasional engagement by the management bank on

daily wage basis will not confer any right to claim permanency in employment under the management.

49.

The learned counsel for the workmen referred to the Rulings reported in –

State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Kamal Prasad and Others (2014) 7 SCC 223;

State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247;

Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Other (2013) 14 SCC 65; and

Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Another

(2016)1 SCC 521.

The dictum laid down in the decisions referred above have no application to the facts of the cases involved in

these two references.

50.

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the workmen involved in these two cases participated in

the selection process conducted by the management and they failed to qualify for appointment to the regular posts and

in such circumstances they have no legal right to claim continuity or permanency in service.

51.

In view of the dictum laid down in the decision Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and

Others – (2006) 4 SCC Page(1) the workmen involved in these references have no legal right to claim continuity of

service or regularization in service especially for the reason that they were engaged on daily wage basis as and when

the necessity arises by the respective Branch Managers of the management bank. The persons who engaged the

workmen on daily wages basis have no right or authority to appoint them in service. Hence the workmen had no right

to get the relief as per the references in both cases. Therefore the points for consideration are answered against the

workmen and in favour of the management.

52.

Point No.(iv) in ID 1/2014 and in ID 4/2014:- In view of the findings on Point Nos.(i) to (iii) in ID Nos.01/2014

and in 04/2014, the workmen involved are not entitled to get any relief as per these two references. The point is

answered accordingly.

53.

In the result a Common Award is passed in ID 1/2014 and ID 4/2014 to the effect that the workmen involved are

not entitled to get any relief as per these references.

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

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29^th day of March, 2017.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the union in ID Nos.1/2014 & 4/2014

WW1

16.02.2016

Shri. Jayachandra. P

WW2

17.03.2016

Shri. Aneesh. K

WW3

02.08.2016

Shri. K. S. Bhat

Witnesses for the management in ID Nos.1/2014 & 4/2014

MW1

19.09.2016

Shri. M. Ambrose Joseph

Exhibits for the union in ID Nos.1/2014 & 4/2014

True copy of the 1^st page of the Pass Book in respect of Shri. Jayachandra. P in

the Kasaragod Branch of Andhra Bank.

W1(a)

True copy of the Statement of Account for the period from 22.11.2003 to

27.01.2009 in respect of Shri. Jayachandra. P in the Kasaragod Branch of the

management bank.

True copy of the 1^st page of the Pass Book in respect of Shri. Aneesh. K in the

Kanhangad Branch of Andhra Bank.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2897

W2(a)

True copy of relevant pages of Pass Book in respect of Shri. Aneesh. K. for the

period from 31.01.2009 to 09.07.2011

True copy of the 1^st page of the Application dated 24.03.2005 for the post of Sub

Staff in Andhra Bank , Kasaragod Branch submitted by Shri. Jayachandra. P.

W3(a)

True copy of the 2^nd page of the Application dated 24.03.2005 for the

post of Sub Staff in Andhra Bank, Kasaragod Branch submitted by

Shri Jayachandra. P.

W3(b)

True copy of Annexure III – Form of certificate to be produced by other

Backward Classes applying for appointment to posts under the Government of

India dated 22.02.1999 submitted by Shri. P. Jayachandra.

True copy of Bio-Data dated 22.07.2008 submitted by Shri. P. Jayachandra

True copy of the letter No.1143/19/0001 dated 19.03.2008 issued by the

Manager, Andhra Bank, Kasargod Branch to the Senior Inspector, Legal

Metrology, Office of the Controller of Legal Metrology, Kasaragod.

True copy of the letter No.1143/3/40 dated 14.07.2011 issued by the Manager,

Andhra Bank, Kasargod Branch to the General Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal

Office, Bangalore.

True copy of Form D showing the Annual Return – Bonus paid to employees for

the accounting year ending on the 31^st March, 2009 in the Andhra Bank,

Kasaragod Branch.

True copy of Form C showing Bonus paid to employees for the accounting year

ending on the 31.03.2010 in the Andhra Bank, Kasaragod Branch.

True copy of the Application dated 06.07.2011 for the post of Sub-Staff in

Andhra Bank at Kanhangad Branch BIO-DATA submitted by Shri. Aneesh. K.

W10

True copy of the letter No.1144/3/2011 dated 14.07.2011 issued by the

Manager, Andhra Bank, Kanhangad Branch to the General Manager, Andhra

Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore.

W11

True copy of the letter No.1144/3/2011 dated 07.07.2011 issued by the

Manager, Andhra Bank, Kanhangad Branch to the General Manager, Andhra

Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore.

W12

True copy of the Certificate bearing No.1144/3/1022 dated 08.02.2012 issued by

the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kanhangad Branch.

W13

True copy of the Legal Notice dated 25.07.2011 issued by the Inspector, Legal

Metrology, Kanhangad in respect of Shri. Aneesh. K.

W14

True copy of the Debit Voucher No.00225036 dated 31.08.2010 for `720/- for

the amount paid to Shri. Aneesh.

W15

True copy of the Debit Voucher No.00203767 dated 01.03.2011 for `3,600/- for

the amount paid to Shri. Aneesh.

W16

True copy of the letter No.Nil dated 12.07.2011 issued by Shri. B. K. Prakash

Advocate, Kasaragod to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Kanhangad Branch.

W17

True copy of the letter No.1144/3/2011 dated 14.07.2011 issued by the

Manager, Andhra Bank, Kanhangad Branch to the General Manager, Andhra

Bank, Zonal Office, Bangalore.

Exhibits for the management

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1268-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

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

2898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-30011/17/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/12 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

O.N.G.C. LTD.

The Executive Director

Western Offshore, ONGC Ltd.

1-High, Bandra Sion Link Road

Dharavi

Mumbai 400 017

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri S. Mishra

President

Oil Field Employees Association

E-4/5, Sector-1, CBD Belapur

Navi Mumbai-400 614.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. S.V. Alva, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated the 4^th April, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-30011/17/2014-IR (M), dated

23.01.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

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

“Whether the demand of the Union for withdrawal / review of transfer orders issued in respect of 23/20

contract Security Guards w.e.f. 12/12/2013, vide transfer order No.CISB/Operations/ Transfer letter/2013

dated 12/12/2013 without its compliance is justified?” Whether continuation of strike without complying

formalities of Section 22 (I) of the ID Act, 1947 in relation to Oil Filed Establishment is legal and justified?

If not, what legal remedy exists ?”

After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Matter was adjourned on several

occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second party/ Union. Again notice vide Ex-3 was issued to parties. Second

party/Union neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the

Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Orders were passed on Ex-1.

Accordingly I pass the following order:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2899

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 04.04.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1269-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@52@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-29012/52/2006-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 5^th APRIL, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 43/2007

I Party

II Party

Shri Nagappa,

The Managing Director,

S/o Late Ninge Gowda,

Mysore Minerals Limited,

Chattanahalli Village,

No.39, M.G. Road,

Anathi Post, Bagur Hobli,

Bangalore – 560001

Channarayapatna Taluk,

Hassan District

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/52/2006–IR (M) dated 07.03.2007 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

‘Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd in imposing the punishment of forceful

retirement from the services w.e.f 29/09/1998 by way of order of discharge dated 17/11/1998 on Sh. Nagappa,

Mining Worker, Allayanpura Mines, Nanjangoodu of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd., is legal, and justified? If not,

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

After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have

been sent for both parties. None appeared for the Ist party and Ist party also called absent for the hearing before this

Court.

2900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Unfortunately, the Ist party has failed to make appearance before this Tribunal. Further, in the present matter,

the Ist party has been furnished with sufficient and adequate opportunities to make his submissions, in the present case.

It is the settled law, that the particular matter has to be judged, in the light of its facts and circumstances of the said

matter only. Already, reasonable opportunities have been granted to the Ist party to make his submissions. Therefore,

it would be laying down the proposition, a little too broadly, to say that, even in an Award passed rejecting the Award

for non-prosecution, it must be supported by elaborate reasons and details. After going through the material records,

this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the Ist Party. Further more it is seen that, the

contentions of the Ist Party cannot be accepted for the above mentioned reasons also. Moreover, on the perusal of the

material records, it can be very well said that the Ist Party is not interested to contest the present matter, on the question

of fact and also on the question of law.

In the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear in the present matter, that the Ist party has

no interest to contest the present matter. It is for the Ist party to make out a case that he has a right to continue in

service of management and that the management has done a mistake in discontinuing his services. Further, on behalf

of II party, Office superintendent, has appeared before this Tribunal and also, reported that, as per the provisions of

law, the said action has been taken by the II party.

Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has been

made out by Ist party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in

view the conduct of Ist party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, and his conduct, in not filing claim statement, in

support of the said reference, it is crystal clear that the Ist party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II

party. In the result and also in above mentioned facts and situations, it has to be held the present reference has to be

rejected, for non prosecution and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending.

Hence the following order

ORDER

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 5th April, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@1@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-29012/1/2008-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 5^th APRIL, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 24/2008

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2901

I Party

II Party

Shri Naganna,

The Managing Director,

S/o Late Ninge Gowda,

Mysore Minerals Limited,

Chattanahalli Village,

No.39, M.G. Road,

Anathi Post, Bagur Hobli,

Bangalore – 560001

Channarayapatna Taluk,

Hassan District (Karnataka)

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/1/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the Termination of Shri Naganna by the Management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f.

1/6/1998 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have

been sent for both parties. None appeared for the Ist party and Ist party also called absent. In fact, notice of hearings

have been sent to the I party by RPAD through the Department of Posts, India and Still, no representation has been

made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.

On perusal of records, already notices have been sent and, the said notices have been served to both the parties.

Hence, it is found that inspite of giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I

party has not made any appearance. In such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of

entire records brought on record.

Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I

party has no interest to contest the present matter. It is for the I party to make out a case that I party is entitled to get

the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a mistake by denying the said benefits. Further, on

behalf of the 2^nd party, Mr. K. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate of the 2^nd Party filed vakalat on 02.07.2010 and reported

that the 2^nd party has not violated any provisions of the Rules and also, already granted all the legitimate benefits to the

I party and also, as per the provisions of law, the relevant benefits have been granted by the 2^nd Party. Under the above

mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the

perusal of materials available on record.

Since, no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has been

made out by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non-prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view

the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party by way

of RPAD and the conduct of I Party in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal clear

that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the Counter statement, the II Party has

vividly pointed out that the I Party herein is not entitled to get any relief, in the present matter. In the result and also in

above mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution

and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.

AWARD

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 5^th April, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@2@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

2902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-29012/2/2009-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 5^th APRIL, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 26/2009

I Party

II Party

Shri K. Rangamma,

The Managing Director,

S/o Late Kannappa,

Mysore Minerals Limited,

R/o Indira Colony, Kumsi Post,

No.39, M.G. Road,

Shimoga Taluk & District

Bangalore – 560001

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/2/2009-IR(M), dated 02.06.2009 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of Smt K. Rangamma by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f

06.06.1998 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have

been sent for both parties. None appeared for the Ist party and Ist party also called absent. In fact, notice of hearings

have been sent to the I party by RPAD through the Department of Posts, India and Still, no representation has been

made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.

On perusal of records, already notices have been sentby RPAD to both parties. Hence, it is found that inspite of

giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I party has not made any

appearance. In such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of entire records brought

on record.

Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I

party has no interest to contest the present matter. It is for the I party to make out a case that I party is entitled to get

the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a mistake by denying the said benefits. Further, on

behalf of the 2^nd party, Mr. A.K. Vasanth, Advocate of the 2^nd Party filed vakalat on 12.05.2010 and reported that the

2^nd party has not violated any provisions of the Rules and also, already granted all the legitimate benefits to the I party

and also, as per the provisions of law, the relevant benefits have been granted by the 2^nd Party. Under the above

mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the

perusal of materials available on record.

Since, no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has been

made out by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in

view the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party

by way of RPAD and the conduct of I Party in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal

clear that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above

mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution and no

useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2903

AWARD

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 5^th April, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-

ch- ewolZ ,.M fyÝVlZ izk- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- tsM&16025@3@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. S.B. Movers & Lifters Pvt. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. Z-16025/3/2017-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of March, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 65/2007

Between:

Sri V. Ramalingeswara Rao,

S/o Chidananda Rao,

R/o D.No.2-144, Purushottapuram Colony,

Pendurthi Mandal,

Visakhapatnam – 530 026

…Petitioner

AND

The Manager,

S.B. Movers & Lifters Pvt. Ltd.,

Flat No.111C, D.No.47-11-8,

Kuppili apartments,

1^st Lane, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam – 530 016.

The Managing Director,

S.B. Movers & Lifters Pvt. Ltd.,

DSIDC Shed No.16,

OKHLA Industrial Estate, Phase-I,

New Delhi – 110 020.

The Regional Manager,

Steel Authority of India,

2904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Near Harbour Police Station,

Port Area, Visakhapatnam

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Party in person

For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

M/s. K. Sai Rama Murthy, K. Jayashree,& M. Phani Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent No. 3

M/s. C.R. Sridharan, G. Narender Reddy, S. Ramesh, M. Srinivasa

Reddy, GVS Ganesh & PSS Prasanna, Advocates

AWARD

Sri V. Ramalingeswara Rao, who worked under the Respondents (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents seeking for declaring

the oral termination as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents

to reinstate

the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all

other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The Petitioner submitted that he has joined as a skilled workman under the Third Respondent on 20.4.1997 and

one Jai Hanuman Transport Company used to pay him the wages. While so, on 14.10.2006 the Petitioner was

prevented from attending duty without any reason or communication. Though he has issued demand notice to the

Respondents, no response was received by him in this regard. Hence, this claim petition.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition filed by the Petitioner. It is

submitted that the Petitioner is not a contract labour at Visakhapatnam under the direct administrative control of the 3^rd

Respondent. The Petitioner was appointed by a contractor but not by Respondent No.3. On 12.10.2006 Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 have given a notice informing all the concerned staff that their present contract will expire by 14.10.2006

and those who are interested to continue their services with them can submit their applications in writing in prescribed

proforma on or before 14.10.2006, but there was no response from the Petitioner. As such, he was not taken into the

fresh contract. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

On 23^rd March, 2017, both the parties filed one joint memo stating to close the case as the claim of the

Petitioner has already been settled. Perused the memo. Heard the Petitioner and one Senior Manager of the

Respondents’ management.

In view of the joint memo filed by the parties the same is accepted and the case is closed as withdrawn for the

interest of justice.

Accordingly, a ‘No Dispute’ award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected by me on this the 23^rd day of

March, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2905

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43012@27@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-43012/27/1995-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 22/1996

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated- 27/04/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-43012/27/1995-IR(M) dated 25/04/1996, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited/ Indian Copper Complex,

mosabani mines in his missing Shri Swapan kumar Nad, Ex- Sr. Store- keeper ( Hospital) B. No. 5128

from the company’s service is correct and justified. If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”

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

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

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-

,l-,e-Mh-lh- dksMjek ekbdk ;wfuV 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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@25@1991&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

2906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Kodarma Mica Unit and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-29011/25/1991-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 36/1996

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Kodarma Mica Unit

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mica

Dated- 24/04/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-29011/25/1991-IR(M) dated 25/03/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“whether the action of the management of BSMDC kodarma Mica Unit, P.O. Kodarma, Distt.

Hazaribagh in not making the payment of dues to Shri Ganesh Modi and Bhola Singh is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

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

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

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-

,l-,e-Mh-lh- fyfeVsM] dksMjek ekbdk ;wfuV 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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@1996) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@48@1991&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2907

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Ltd., Kodarma Mica Unit and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-29011/48/1991-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 37/1996

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Mica Mines, Kodarma

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mica

Dated- 21/04/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-29011/48/1991-IR(M) dated 21/02/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the system prevailing in this organization of M/s. Bihar State mineral Development

Corporation Ltd. For the workmen, working in Koderma Mica Unit is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief these workmen are entitled to?

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-

,l-,e-Mh-lh- fyfeVsM] dksMjek 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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@30@1991&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

2908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Ltd., Kodarma and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-29011/30/1991-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 38/1996

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. B.S.M.D.C. Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mica Mines

Dated- 25/04/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-29011/30/1991-IR(M) dated 07/04/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of B.S.M.D.C Ltd. Koderma by not making the legal

dues to their workman Shri Verma and five others is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he

is entitled to?

Note :- List of workmen is not enclosed alongwith order of reference

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

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

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

cksdkjks bLikr la;a=k (lsy) 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;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@42@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2909

management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.05.2017.

[No. L-29011/42/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 39/2013

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL)

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri K. K. Mishra, Advocate

Industry : Steel

Dated- 20/04/2017

AWARD

By order no . L- 29011 /42/2013-IR (M) dated 26/ 08/2013, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in not paying 20% special

Allowance to the workers, working in Bokaro General Hospital is legal and justified? What relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

ANNEXURE

S. No.

STNO

NAME

GRADE

CLS

DESDESCP

280107

SHASHI KANT KUMAR SINHA

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

325416

VIDYA SAGAR KUMAR

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

338211

YADU NANDAN PRASAD

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

381210

SHAUKAT ALI

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

392093

UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH

S10

MULTI SKLD TECH

401224

MS PRATIMA ROY

S11

NURSING SISTER

410746

ADITYA KUMAR

S10

DRESSIER

414342

BLANDINA TUDU

S11

NURSING SISTER

439499

JAI KANT SINGH

S11

CHIEF PHARMACHIST

453522

JWALA PRASAD

S11

SR PHARMACHIST

453530

SATISH KUMAR PRASAD

S11

SR PHARMACHIST

459778

YADU NANDAN PRASAD

S11

STENOGRAPHER

467276

K.S.N.NAIR

S11

SR X-RAY TECHN

469892

MD PHOOL HASSAN

S11

LAB TECHNICIAN

2910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

484965

KAUSHAL KISHOR MISHRA

DRESSER

491514

USHA RAJ MOHAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

491522

MEENA SINHA

S11

NURSING SISTER

491564

FLORENCE KISKU

S11

NURSING SISTER

491697

THRESIAMMA RAJAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

491720

ROSHAN CHAKRABORTY

S11

NURSING SISTER

502220

RADHE SHYAM SINHA

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

606642

MAHBOOB ANSARI

MESS/JR TECH

611104

SUSARI GURIA

S11

NURSING SISTER

620337

LAKSHMI BHATTA CHARYA

S11

NURSING SISTER

620353

TAPTI DAS

S11

NURSING SISTER

620379

PRABHAWATI BARLA

S11

NURSING SISTER

620387

REMONY MATHEW

S11

NURSING SISTER

620402

RASHMI MATHAI

S11

NURSING SISTER

620444

SARAMMA SAMUEL

S11

NURSING SISTER

620460

JAYANTI STYAM

S11

NURSING SISTER

620478

KOCHUTHRESIA GEORGE

S11

NURSING SISTER

642753

SUSHILA GAGRAI

S11

NURSING SISTER

644048

SAMIRENDORA NATH

BHATTACHARJEE

S11

S/MED SOCL W/C

644220

SARAMMA BABY

S11

NURSING SISTER

644337

NANDITA ROY

S11

NURSING SISTER

644353

ESRAN MALWA

S11

NURSING SISTER

644379

REGINA VINCENTAI KERKETTA

S11

NURSING SISTER

644395

DIPALI CHOWDHURY

S11

NURSING SISTER

644410

SAROJ KUJUR

S11

NURSING SISTER

644741

ASHA VENUGOPAL

S11

NURSING SISTER

644759

SANTHAMMA

KAITHAKUZAHYYIL GOPAL

S11

NURSING SISTER

644808

RAMAWATAR PRASAD

S11

CHIEF PHARMACIST

644832

NELI BARLA

S11

NURSING SISTER

644866

NILMANI TIRU

S11

NURSING SISTER

647092

SALY SEBASTIAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

647117

MARIAMMA VARGHESE

S11

NURSING SISTER

647175

KALPANA GHOSH

S11

NURSING SISTER

647133

KRISHNA GHOSH

S11

NURSING SISTER

647167

AGNESIA LINDA

S11

NURSING SISTER

647183

SHEELA SRIDHARAN NAIR

S11

NURSING SISTER

647216

KUMUDINI KERKETTA

S11

NURSING SISTER

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2911

647240

SUNITA TIWARI

S11

NURSING SISTER

647258

BINITA THAKUR

S11

NURSING SISTER

647414

FRANCISCA KUJUR

S11

NURSING SISTER

647836

THRESIAMMA JOSE

S11

NURSING SISTER

647844

MARY JOSEPH

S11

NURSING SISTER

647860

ANNA MATILDA SURIN

S11

NURSING SISTER

648454

RAMASWAMY LATA

S11

NURSING SISTER

650037

NILIMA BANDOPADHYAY

S11

NURSING SISTER

650045

ROUSHAN JAHAN ANSARI

S11

NURSING SISTER

650053

INDIRA KONCHAKUZHYIL

PRAVAKRAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

655582

RAMA RANI BANERJEE

S11

NURSING SISTER

655615

LILLY SUSHANTI SURESH

S11

NURSING SISTER

655623

ALEYAMMA JOSEPH

S11

NURSING SISTER

655631

USHA KIRAN PRASAD

S11

NURSING SISTER

655657

ROSAMMA JAMES

S11

NURSING SISTER

655665

ALCY KUTTY THOMAS

S11

NURSING SISTER

655673

ROSHNI KHALKHO

S11

NURSING SISTER

655681

SUSAN MATHAIKUITY

S11

NURSING SISTER

665167

ASHA SHARMA

S11

NURSING SISTER

661175

PUSH PAMMA TOMY

S11

NURSING SISTER

661208

SANGITA CHATTERJEE

S11

NURSING SISTER

661224

CELINE KOSHY VARGHESE

S11

NURSING SISTER

661240

SUBHRA MANNA

S11

NURSING SISTER

661307

ANNA SASIDHARAN SAM

S11

NURSING SISTER

664020

UPENDRA KUMAR

S11

SR PHARMACIST

664038

HEM CHANDRA SINGH

S11

SR PHARMACIST

664046

SURESH KUMAR

S11

WARD KEEPER

664062

SATYA DEO PRASAD

S10

LAB TECHNICIAN

664070

BINODA NAND SINGH

S10

LAB TECHNICIAN

665755

BIJAY KUMAR

S11

SR PHARMACIST

665763

NARESH PRASAD MAHTO

S11

SR PHARMACIST

665888

LYSAMMA GEORGE

S11

NURSING SISTER

665929

LIZY VARGHESE

S11

NURSING SISTER

665937

CHANDESHWAR SAH

S11

SR PHARMACIST

665987

NILMADHAB SEN

S11

SR PHARMACIST

666000

MANJU MAZUMDAR

S11

NURSING SISTER

666018

BANANI SAHA

S11

TUTOR

666026

SAMPA MALLICK

S11

NURSING SISTER

2912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

673203

VIJAYAM RAMACHANDRAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

674946

KABITA BANERJEE

S11

NURSING SISTER

674954

SUMITA DAS

S11

NURSING SISTER

674996

LEELAMMA JOHN

S11

NURSING SISTER

675001

BHARATI GANGULY

S11

TUTOR

675019

CHANDRA GHOSH

S11

NURSING SISTER

675043

ALEYAMMA VIJAYA

S11

NURSING SISTER

675051

SWAPNA MANDAL

S11

NURSING SISTER

675069

REKHA SAHA

S11

NURSING SISTER

675077

ANJALI MISHRA

S11

NURSING SISTER

100

675085

SHEEKHA RANI DEY

S11

NURSING SISTER

101

675100

REBA ROY

S11

NURSING SISTER

102

675118

VALSALA THULASI DHARAN

PILAI

S11

NURSING SISTER

103

675134

SUKALA SINGH

S11

NURSING SISTER

104

675142

UMA MONDAL

S11

NURSING SISTER

105

675150

SOSAMMA ALEX

S11

NURSING SISTER

106

675598

BABY ACHARYA

S11

NURSING SISTER

107

676827

CELINE JOHN

S11

NURSING SISTER

108

676877

DIPA SARKAR

S11

NURSING SISTER

109

676885

MARY VARGHESE

S11

NURSING SISTER

110

676900

DAISY JOY

S11

NURSING SISTER

111

676918

NEETA SHEE

S11

NURSING SISTER

112

677023

RAJAMMA VISWANATHAN

S11

NURSING SISTER

113

679045

SHIBANI MUKHERJEE

S10

NURSING SISTER

114

679053

ANUSHREE ROY

S10

NURSING SISTER

115

679087

LATHA MADHU

S10

NURSING SISTER

116

679095

SHIKHA CHAKRABOTY

S10

NURSING SISTER

117

679110

KANAK DURGA MAHAPATRA

S10

NURSING SISTER

118

679128

MANI AMMA ROY

S10

NURSING SISTER

119

679136

ALIAMMA PHILIPOSE

S10

NURSING SISTER

120

679178

DEEPTY RAY

S10

NURSING SISTER

121

679201

JAYA RAJU

S10

NURSING SISTER

122

679219

SUBHRA ROY

S10

NURSING SISTER

123

679227

MARY PHILIP

S10

NURSING SISTER

124

680282

SWAPANA JAISWAL

S10

NURSING SISTER

125

680290

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

S11

SR PHARMACIST

126

681941

GHAN SHYAM SHARMA

S10

SR X RAY- TECHN

127

682428

KRISHNA YADAV

S11

SR PHARMACIST

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2913

128

682444

TANUJHA CHOUDHARY

S10

NURSING SISTER

129

682519

MARIAM SURIN

S10

NURSING SISTER

130

682527

SUSMITA SINGO MURMU

S10

NURSING SISTER

131

682569

LALAN KUMAR SINHA

S11

SR PHARMACIST

132

682650

RASH BIHARI PRAAD SINGH

S11

SR PHARMACIST

133

682767

SHAILA MANORMA KHALKHO

S10

NURSING SISTER

134

682866

EDITH BARWA

S10

NURSING SISTER

135

682907

RENUJ MINZ

S10

NURSING SISTER

136

683169

PANNA LAL PRASAD

S10

SR LAV TECGB

137

683187

BIBEKANANDA MUKHERJEE

S10

SR LAV TECGB

138

683492

FULMANI TOPPO

S10

NURSING SISTER

139

683898

ASHIS KUMAR

CHAKARABORTY

S11

SR MASTER (SG)

140

683939

ASIYAN BAHALEN TOPNO

S10

NURSING SISTER

141

683955

JIRAN PAUL PARDHIYA

S10

NURSING SISTER

142

684432

BERONICA KHESS

S10

NURSING SISTER

143

684599

STELLA TIRKEY

S10

NURSING SISTER

144

684680

RAYMOND PASCHAL

S10

SR X RAY- TECHN

145

684698

EMERENCIA KIRO

S10

NURSING SISTER

146

688278

KAULESHWAR CHAUDHARY

LAB TECHNICIAN

147

688286

MANOJ KUMAR OJHA

LAB TECHNICIAN

148

688264

JAGAR NATH RAJAK

LAB TECHNICIAN

149

691156

SANGEETA MUNDA

S10

NURSING SISTER

150

691164

AMBIKA BALACHANDRAN

S10

NURSING SISTER

151

691180

MARYAMMA BABU

S10

NURSING SISTER

152

691213

SHAILA JOHNSON

S10

NURSING SISTER

153

691255

BEENA SABU

S10

NURSING SISTER

154

691263

ALEYAMMA JESTO

S10

NURSING SISTER

155

691271

THRESIAMMA

EZHUTHUPURAYIL JOSE

S10

NURSING SISTER

156

691289

PRATIMA TOPPO

S10

NURSING SISTER

157

691297

ANITA TOPPO

S10

NURSING SISTER

158

691304

PUSPA KANTI KINDO

S10

NURSING SISTER

159

691312

MEWA PUSHPA

S10

NURSING SISTER

160

691320

NEERA SATISH KUMAR

S10

NURSING SISTER

161

691346

UMA DEVI UNNIKRISHNA

S10

NURSING SISTER

162

691354

RAJESHWARI SURESH

S10

NURSING SISTER

163

691362

ABHA KUJUR

S10

NURSING SISTER

164

691370

KABITA DESHMUKH

S10

NURSING SISTER

2914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

165

691396

NUTAN AMRIT

S10

NURSING SISTER

166

694003

RAJALAKSHMI SURESH

S10

NURSING SISTER

167

691883

JAYASHRI

S10

NURSING SISTER

168

752742

NUTAN RUNDA

NURSING SISTER

169

752776

MEETA SARKAR

S10

NURSING SISTER

170

752817

ILLA BAXLA

S10

NURSING SISTER

171

752825

TANDRA BOSE

S10

NURSING SISTER

172

752833

CECILIA TIRKEY

S10

NURSING SISTER

173

752859

MOUSUMI GHOSH

S10

NURSING SISTER

174

752867

LALITA KUMARI

S10

NURSING SISTER

175

752883

ANITHA VINAY

S10

NURSING SISTER

176

752916

RETNAMMAS RAJAN

S10

NURSING SISTER

177

752954

VALSALA JOSEPH

S10

NURSING SISTER

178

752966

BIRSI TIGGA

S10

NURSING SISTER

179

753188

SHEEBA SURESH

S10

NURSING SISTER

180

753287

PURNIMA SINGH

S10

NURSING SISTER

181

753641

NIHAR KANTI SINGH

S10

RADIO THERA/TEC

182

754920

MOYNA MONDAL

NURSING SISTER

183

754946

SHIRANJEET KAUR CHADHA

NURSING SISTER

184

754954

MOW SINGH

NURSING SISTER

185

754962

ARCHANA S KUMAR

NURSING SISTER

186

754988

MADHU SINGH

NURSING SISTER

187

754996

SUMAN PANDIT

NURSING SISTER

188

755027

JILANTI MINZ

NURSING SISTER

189

755051

USHA RANI MOHANTI

NURSING SISTER

190

755069

SUDHA GIRI

NURSING SISTER

191

755077

SRI DEVI

NURSING SISTER

192

755093

SUSHILA PASWAN

NURSING SISTER

193

755110

SHUBHA PRAKASH

NURSING SISTER

194

755118

RAJITA EKKA

NURSING SISTER

195

755134

MADHU BANI MINZ

NURSING SISTER

196

759566

SUSHMA KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

197

756615

NILAM KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

198

759623

KANCHAN KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

199

756931

SWAMYANTHAN SREEJA

VENUGOPAL

NURSING SISTER

200

759649

GOPA DEY

NURSING SISTER

201

759681

MONIKA TIGGA

NURSING SISTER

202

759847

VIKASH KUMAR KATIYAR

S10

ORTHOPIST

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2915

203

760208

JAYANTA GHOSH

TECHN/X-RAY

204

760448

LAKSHMI KANTA DIAN

TECHN/X-RAY

205

760860

TERESA MINJ

NURSING SISTER

206

760878

MARIAM BHENGRA

NURSING SISTER

207

760886

KISHORI PRABHA KUJUR

NURSING SISTER

208

760894

SITA KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

209

760901

PRASAN KUJUR

NURSING SISTER

210

760919

ANU VERMA

NURSING SISTER

211

760927

GIRTALI MALLICK

NURSING SISTER

212

760935

MANJU KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

213

760943

MANJIT RANI

NURSING SISTER

214

760951

BABITA KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

215

760969

URMILA PRASAD

NURSING SISTER

216

760993

SARASWATI DEEP

NURSING SISTER

217

761008

RENU KUMARI

NURSING SISTER

218

761032

ANITA DEVI

NURSING SISTER

The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 17.09.2013. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 28.11.2013. After long delay the management files their

written statement on 26.11.2014. Thereafter rejoinder and documents filed by the parties. Three witnesses examined on

behalf of the sponsoring Union and one witness examined on behalf of the management. Documents of the workman

marked as W-1 to W-13 and one document with parts of management also marked as M-1 series.

The case of the workmen is that the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital

particularly Nursing and para Medical Staff are governed by the Service Rules of Bokaro Steel Plant. It has been

admitted by the management of Bokaro Steel during concilliation proceedings vide letter No. pers/IR/2012-1209 dated

21.11.2012 that the employees of Bokaro steel Plant working in Bokaro General Hospital are governed by service

Rules, Standing orders and Executive Orders issued from time to time and these employees have been getting all the

benefits under service Rules.

It is further submitted by the union tha the non-executive employees of Bokaro Steel Plant , who are covered

under service rules are required to perform duties from Monday to Friday from i.e 9.30 AM to 5.00 PM with one hour

lunch break and on staurdays from 9.30 AM to 1.00 PM So, the duty hours of employees of Bokaro steel Plant who

are governed by service Rules is 36 Hours in a week . This can be further seen from the Circular No. GM (P&A)/2008-

7267 dated 12.12.2008 issued by GM (P& A) of BSP categorically clarifying the working hours of the non executive

employees governed by Standing Orders and Service Rules as follows:-

Standing Orders

8.30 AM to 5.00 PM (With half an hour lunch break)

Service Rules

Monday to Friday 9.30 AM to 5.00PM ( with one hour lunch break), Staurday

9.30 AM to 1.00PM

It is further submitted by the Union that the Nursing and Para Medical staff of Bokaro General Hospital are

covered under Service Rules, they are working for 48 hours in a week and are also performing Shift wise duties.

It is clear that the Nursing and Para Medical Staff of Bokaro General Hospital are performing 12 hours

additional duty every week compared to other employees who are also governed by the service Rules of Bokaro Steel

Plant. It is also submitted that employees who are governed by service Rules and working in the sales Accounts and

EDP centre of Bokaro Steel Plant and who are required to work for 48 hours in a week in shifts are paid 20% of their

Basic pay and DA as Special allowance to compensate for the extension at the time of change in working hours from

36 to 48 hours. They are also getting incentive and reward in addition to the aforesaid allowance of 20% of basic pay &

DA.

2916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is further submitted by the union that the Nursing and Para Medical staff of Bokaro General Hospital are

deprived of their genuine legal rights for a long time and are exploited through unfair labour practice by the

management . it is also submitted that the Nursing and Para Medical staff of Bokaro General Hospital are getting all the

benefits as per service rule but they have been deliberately deprived of their rights of 20% of their basic pay DA as

special allowance as though they work hour from 36 to 48 hours and also working in shift wise duty.

On the other hand, the case of the management is that the names of workmen concerned are not incorporated

alongwith the order of reference , in absence of names of workmen concerned the present reference is indefinite and

vague. It is said that the inception of Bokaro General Hospital and introduction of shift wise duty, the employees of

Bokaro General Hospital whose service condition are governed by service Rule have been performing 48 hours duty in

a week.

It is further submitted by the management that 8 hours duty per shift in other words it is said that employees

working at Bokaro General Hospital staff have been performing 48 hours duty in a week , 8 hours duty per shift since

the date of joining in the Bokaro General Hospital of Bokaro Steel Plant. The workmen of Bokaro steel Plant who have

been working 48 hours duty in a week are entitled to get enhanced incentive and reward of 50% . and who are working

less then 48 hours in a week are getting 36% of incentive and reward.

10.

It is also submitted by the management that the management never changed the service condition of the

workmen who are working at Bokaro General Hospital from service Rule or standing order as such there has seen no

violation of the provisions of section 9A of I.D ACT 1947.

11.

It is further submitted by the management that employees of Bokaro General Hospital governed by service Rule

have been getting all the benefits of service Rules, they have also been getting enhanced incentive and reward of 50%

which is applicable for the employees working for 48 hours in a week for several years. The employees of Bokaro

General Hospital whose service are governed by provision of service rule are enjoing all facilities including leave

applicable as per service rules. Hence the demand of union for payment of 20% special allowance to the workers

working in BGH is neither legal nor justified.

12.

The hospital staff of Bokaro Steel Plant are claiming 20% extra allowance, which are recived by the other staff

of Bokaro Steel Plant. But the management submitted that in the terms of the reference, the names of the concerned

workmen was not there, and as such the reference is vague. It is challanged by management before the Hon’ble High

Court but no relief allowed by Hon’ble court. Moreover according to placitum of rulling of Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in 2000 (84) FLR 162 “ Industrial Tribunal is the creation of statue- cannot go into the question of validity

of reference”

“The Union sponsoring the dispute had not the support of an appriciable number of workmen of

employer cannot assume the character of an Industrial dispute – it being a pure question of fact could be

decided before the Labour Court by leading evidence on the basis of necessary pleadings.” Hon’ble

Patna High Court 1995(2)P.L.J.R-721.”

13.

The Union submitted the list of the Bokaro Hospital staff including all technical staff but the management

unable to deny the same or to say such particular workmen are fake. In the reference the medical staff is only

mentioned. Therefore there will not be any difficulty to indentify the same and in no way any fake person get benefits

of the order if passed.

14.

It is the admitted case that all techinical staff of Bokaro Steel plant receiving 20% extra wage from the date of

introduction of scheme, baring the Bokaro General Hospital Staff. Bokaro hospital is looking the health of all officer,

workmen of the Bokaro Steel Plant, they are also rendering emergency duty, if any accident in the factory occurred.

15.

In the last line of the evidence the management admitted in the suggestion that the workmen of the Bokaro

General Hospital should not be debarred of 20% extra wage from the date of the scheme introduced. A few portion of

Cross examination is quoted below:-

Xxxx

There is no document to support paragraph 3 of the examination in chief. I also can not say the truth

ful ness i.e. documents of para 4 of my chief. If is a fact that after attending the monthly production

the employees are entitled to get incentive and reward. It is not a fact that, the para-6 of my affidavit

is not partially wrong. The concerned workmen are not getting 20% extra wages. But many persons

in BSL get 20% which called special machine allowance. It is not a fact that workman are not entitled

to get 20% extra allowance.

16.

On perusal of evidence of management it is noticed that she has admitted that the concerned employees of this

dispute are not getting 20% allowance like special /machine allowance which is being paid to other employees in

similar situation.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2917

17.

Therefore, considring the facts, the Bokaro Steel Management is directed to pay forthwith the 20% extra

allowance to all the Bokaro General Hospital Staff as per list provided by the Union which is given as annexure from

the time the scheme introduced including arrear soon after the publication of the award.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1278-—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 02@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@33@94&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2017) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/33/94-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 April, 2017

Review Application (CGITA) No. 02/2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 30/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kothi Compound,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E-209, Sarvottamnagar, 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-41012/33/94-

IR(B-I) dated 15.06.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

2918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot & Assistant Mechanical

Engineer, Rajkot in terminating the services of Shri Ashok B. Pandit, Cleaner, C&W Rajkot w.e.f. 20.09.1993

by way of “Removal from Railway Services” vide N.I.P. dated 20.09.1993 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

In this matter, the award was passed on 18.10.2016 which is reproduced as under:

“The reference dates back to 15.06.1995. The second party in his statement of claim alleged that Ashok

BabulalPandit was serving as cleaner (as class 4^th employee) at Carriage and Wagon Depot, Rajkot under the Divisional

Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot. He had been earlier posted at Carriage and Wagon Depot, Ahmedabad

and was an active worker of Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad. He used to raise employees problems/issues before

the railway administration. Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad is a recognized trade union working all over western

railway. The railway administration has been envious to the Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad activities and used

to harass the employees affiliated to the Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad. The workman Ashok B. Pandit had

been a class 4^th employee and his seniority was maintained Depot wise instead of Railway Division wise. Due to his

union activities, he was transferred to The Carriage and Wagon Depot, Rajkot which was against the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act being the unfair labour practice provided in Para 7 of the 5^th Schedule under Section 2(r)(a) and

Section 25 U of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the matter was raised before The Labour Commissioner,

Ahmedabad and Ministry of Labour, Government of India in 1992 but to no result, consequently he resumed his duty at

new place that is The Carriage and Wagon Depot, Mehsana where he was directed to join duty at Rajkot. In obedience

to the order of the railway administration, the later joined at joined where he was served with a charge sheet on

18.02.1992 and after a colourable exercise of inquiry he was removed from service on 20.09.1993. The said action was

totally illegal. He approached the appropriate authority against the said action and after a favourable decision he

immediately resumed his duties and to call it an unauthorised absence was totally wrong. He further alleged that for

the period of absence, railway administration deducted his pay or other allowances which comes with in the definition

of punishment but later for the same charge, the punishment of removal was awarded which is against the principles of

natural justice. He further alleged that the railway administration also infringed the provisions of the Section 33 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as Industrial Disputes No. ADI/8/11/93 was pending before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Ahmedabad by removing the second party workman from the service. He further alleged that the

railway administration be restrained to engaged any advocate as per the provisions of the I.D. Act and prayed that the

action taken of removal from service vide NIP dated 20.09.1993 be declared null and void and to reinstate with all

consequential benefits including back wages and other relief as tribunal deems fit.

The first party Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway vide written statement Ext. 22 submitted that the

reference is not maintainable, barred by delay, latches and acquiescence as no explanation has been giving regarding

the delay and latches. All the averments made in the statement of claim are false and incorrect because workman Ashok

B. Pandit was posted in Carriage and Wagon Department at Sabarmati at the relevant time under the administrative

control of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot. Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad is not a

recognised trade union. It is incorrect to say that railway administration used to harass the employees like enemy due to

trade union activities. It is not true and correct to say that workman Ashok B. Pandit, a cleaner at C&W, Depot,

Sabarmati was transferred due to trade union activities and raising disputes about fellow workman. His transfer was a

routine transfer due to administrative exigency being a condition of service which was legal and justified. The cause of

remaining absence and not joining at the transferred place was not explained. He raised the dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner by demand notice but it was not referred for adjudication by failure report. The second party

workman attempted to resume duty at transfer place Mehsana on 26.02.1992 without any intimation for his absence;

therefore, he was directed to approach DRM, Rajkot. He did not comply the transfer for more than 19 and half months.

Therefore departmental inquiry was initiated serving with the charge sheet dated 18.02.1992 by way of SF- 5. It is

wrong to say that departmental inquiry was a colourable exercise of power. The transfer order was also challenged

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who did not refer the matter for adjudication and the non-payment of wages

was based on the policy of no work no pay, therefore, it cannot be said to be punishment and violative of Section 33 of

the I.D. Act. The truth is that the second party workman Ashok B. Pandit was working as cleaner at Sabarmati

ADI(MG) with in the Rajkot Division. He was transferred and relieved vide order no. ECW/2A/177 to C&W Depot,

Mehsana and to resume duty there within 10 days. But instead of joining, he raised the dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner who did not refer it for adjudication. The said order became final as being not challenged in the

Gujarat High Court. During the course of proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, he remained absent;

therefore he was subjected to departmental inquiry by serving charge sheet SF-5. He was given full opportunity to

defend himself. All the witnesses were examined in his presence with an opportunity to cross-examine them. After a

full-fledged inquiry, he was removed from service. It is noteworthy that he did not challenge the transfer order in the

present reference. Thus the reference is devoid of merits and deserved to be rejected.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2919

On the basis of the pleadings and the reference following issues are to be addressed by the tribunal:

(i)

Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot & Assistant Mechanical

Engineer, Rajkot in terminating the services of Shri Ashok B. Pandit, Cleaner, C&W Rajkot w.e.f.

20.09.1993 by way of “Removal from Railway Services” vide N.I.P. dated 20.09.1993 is legal, proper

and justified?

(ii)

To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

Issue No. (i): The burden to prove it was on the second party workman Ashok B. Pandit stated on oath by way of

affidavit/examination in chief that he was serving as cleaner class 4^th staff in 1990 in Carriage and Wagon Depot,

Ahmedabad under in Divisional Railway Manager, Rajkot. During the said year 1990, the seniority of the class 4^th

employee was maintained Depot wise and their transfer was not permissible as per Western Railway Establishment

Manual.On 16^th of June, 1990, Chief Depot Officer, Ahmedabad issued a letter no. E/839/2 dated 16.06.1990 for his

transfer to work under Chief Carriage & Wagon Superintendent, Mehsana. Before accepting the said transfer and letter,

he questioned the validity of the letter as to under what circumstances he (workman) was transferred to outside

Ahmedabad Carriage & Wagon Depot but to no reply, he accepted the letter. Thereafter, he approached the proper

authority for questioning the legality of the letter but he was relieved from the Ahmedabad Depot and his name was

removed from the Muster roll. He also stated that as he questioned the legality of the order, therefore, it is questionable

as to how he was treated as absence from duty. On 12.02.1992, he resumed duty at Mehsana where he was directed to

DRM, Rajkot and there he received letter of his transfer from Mehsana to Rajkot which he carried out and joined the

duty. On 18.02.1992, he was issued charge sheet SF-5 by B.L. Kapadia, AME Rajkot charging him that he remained

unauthorised absent from 18.02.1990 to 12.02.1992, he was subjected to inquiry. The inquiry officer permitted the

examination of 7 witnesses instead of 3 witnesses mentioned in SF-5 being violative of B.A. Rule 1. In the said inquiry,

he was held guilty of long unauthorised absence and was punished from removal of service. In his cross-examination,

he stated that vide order dated 16.06.1990 he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Mehsana to resume duty being the

order illegal and also being challenged before the appropriate authority. He admitted that he did not apply for the

extension of joining time. He also admitted that he did not join from 16.06.1990 to 11.06.1992. He participated in the

departmental inquiry and as a punishment he was removed from service.

In reply to the aforesaid evidence UmneshHarivadan Trivedi Divisional Personal Officer, Rajkot Division stated

on oath that the workman was appointed as cleaner at Carriage & Wagon Depot, Ahmedabad later vide order in

question, he was transferred to C & W, Mehsana in the same scale and post and later he was transferred to Rajkot on

the administrative exigency which was one of the service condition. At the time of transfer from C & W, Mehsana, he

raised no. of demands by submitting a charter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Same were after

reconciliation, culminated in to failure. He has not raised any dispute regarding the transfer before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. Therefore, the said transfer was final. The Railway Administration vide office memorandum DRM(E)

RJT Memorandum Member ECW/CA/177 dated 11.06.1990 Ashok Pandit was transferred to C&W Mehsana giving

him 10 day time to join there and was relieved from duty at Ahmedabad. But he flouted the order and absented without

following the departments leave rules. He remained absent for a long time therefore he was served a charge sheet dated

12.02.1998. He was subjected to enquiry and was punished under going through departmental enquiry. In his cross-

examination, he has failed to explain as to why he was transferred against the spirit of Western Railway order no. E.P.

839/2 dated 28.01.1970 wherein it has been provided that transfer should take place strictly according to the seniority

of the staff. The aforesaid order also provided that according the Railway Boards letter no. E(NGY66-TR2/2) dated

27.07.1966. The junior most employees should be transferred first whenever any contraction took place. The aforesaid

witness of the first party has failed to explain in his cross-examination as to whether the workman Ashok B. Pandit was

junior most and was transferred as per the Railway Board’s directions.

Thus in the light of the aforesaid evidence of the first party witness, the action of the first party prima fasciae is

against the directives and order of the Railway Board which can be said to be biased and vindictive. Thus the action

taken deserves to be struck down.

Thus in the light of the aforesaid reasoning, I come to the conclusion that the action taken by the first party was

illegal, improper and unjustified.

The award is passed accordingly.”

Now the second party workman has moved an application that in the aforesaid award passed by the tribunal, the

tribunal has forgotten to grant relief despite holding the action of the first party as illegal, improper and unjustified.

Therefore, he has sought for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

I have gone through the award and relief sought to second party appears to have been missed in the award.

Therefore, the award is modified in the manner below:

2920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus the award is modified with respect to the relief that the first party will reinstate the second party workman

with all consequential benefits whatsoever may be applicable in this case as per the Accounts and Financial Rules of

the department, within 60 days of publication of this award.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1279-—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 87@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@68@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2014) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/68/2014-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 20^th April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 87/2014

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge,

Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Vice President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Near Vishwakarma Temple, Opp. Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)

AWARD

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

L-41011/68/2014-IR(B-I) dated 29.09.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2921

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad for not considering the transfer of Shri Hyder

Khan, Fuel Fitter (RCD) BLDI to SSE (LOCO) MSH by the management of Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Ahmedabad is justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 29.09.2014. After notice to the parties, both the parties did not prefer to submit their

written statement and the statement of claim as the case may be. Now today on 20.04.2017, Shri R. S. Sisodia, the

General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the second party workman expressed

unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1280-—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 92@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@81@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2014) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/81/2014-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 20^th April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 92/2014

The Divisional Railway Manager (E),

Western Railway, Divisional Office,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Dy. General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narain Park,

B/h Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

2922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

For the Second Party

Shri R. S. Sisodia (Union Representative)

AWARD

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

41011/81/2014-IR(B-I) dated 20.10.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Divisional

Office, Rajkot in not granting the benefit of safety related retirement scheme to 12 numbers of Gangman

working at different stations of Rajkot Division is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief these 12 numbers

of Gangman are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 20.10.2014. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 alleging that

the 12 Gangmen posted at different stations of Rajkot Division of western railway demanded the employment benefit

under Safety Related Retirement Scheme as they have completed 52 years of age and 20 years of active railway service

but same was not given despite making number of written request to the first party western railway.

The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite service by registered post. Therefore, the

case was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 06.01.2017.

Thereafter, on the next date, the second party submitted the affidavit namely Kanubhai, Takhubha, Kherua,

Tulsi, Karubha, Anandubha, Bhavsingh Harisingh along with the applications of their son for employment under the

aforesaid scheme reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. As the averments made in the statement of

claim are supported with affidavit and have not been rebutted by the first party by filing written statement and affidavit,

therefore, the dispute referred in the reference in question deserves to be allowed and accepted.

Thus the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the management of Divisional

Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Divisional Office, Rajkot in not granting the benefit of safety related

retirement scheme to 12 numbers of Gangman working at different stations of Rajkot Division is illegal, improper and

unjust.”

The first party is directed to give employment to the sons/ward of the second party workmen aforesaid who have

submitted the affidavit within 60 days of the publication of this award.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1281-—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 696@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@252@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 696/2004) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/252/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2923

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 696/2004

The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction),

Western Railway, Churchgate,

Mumbai - 400001

The Dy. Chief Engineer (C&S),

Western Railway, Baroda Division,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/252/99-

IR(B-I) dated 11.01.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of union for appointment of Shri Fatesingh Gama, S/o Late Gama Bhutar, Gangman, on

compassionate grounds is legal, proper and justified?”

And

“Whether the demand of the union for granting the family pension and settlement of final dues in favour of the

wife of Late Shri Gama Bhutar is proper, reasonable and justified? If so, to what relief all the concerned are

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

The reference dates back to 11.01.2000. After issuing the notice to both the parties, the second party submitted

the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 17.09.2001 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 20 on 06.04.2016.

Since then the second party has not been leading evidence. Since then neither of the parties has been appearing. Now

today on 20.04.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, the General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the

second party workman expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1282-—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 1455@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@7@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

2924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1455/2004) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/7/2004-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 20^th April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 1455/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kalupur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/7/2004-

IR(B-I) dated 20.08.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad regarding in

correcting payment of leave encashment on retirement to Shri Kadamban V. PWI-III by the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda and Ahmedabad is justified and proper? If so, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 20.08.2004. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 12.12.2005

through Shri R.S. Sisodia, the General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad and Shri V.K. Sharma the

General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad on 21.03.2011. The first party submitted the written

statement Ex. 14 on 10.01.2012. The case was fixed for evidence of the second party since last several dates but now

today on 20.04.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, the General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the

second party workman expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2925

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1283-—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 15@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@04@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2015) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/04/2015-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 April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 15/2015

The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination),

Western Railway, Asarwa,

Nr. Chamunda Bridge,

Ahmedabad

The Assistant Divisional Engineer (North-West),

Western Railway,Saraspur-Kalupur,

Ahmedabad

…First Party

V/s

The Dy. General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

28/B, Narain Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380019

…Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/04/

2015-IR(B-I) dated 04.03.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management, Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Western Railway, Ahmedabad

to awarded penalty vide NIP daed 30.12.2012 against Shri Jagannath Y. gangman (Chabiwala) is legal, fair and

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

2926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 04.03.2015. After notice to the parties, both the parties did not prefer to submit their

written statement and the statement of claim as the case may be. Now today on 21.04.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, the

General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the second party workman expressed

unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1284-—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 690@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@77@99&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 690/2004) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/77/99-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 21^st April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 690/2004

The General Manager,

Western Railway, H/Qr. Building,

Churchgate, Mumbai – 400001

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Baroda Division,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Power),

Western Railway, Railway Yard,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

The Sr. Electrical Foreman (South),

Western Railway, Railway Yard,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

…First Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2927

V/s

The Hon. Secretary,

General Workmen’s Union, Sinduri Mataa Devasthan,

ST Nagar Road,

Godhra (Gujarat) - 389001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Rajesh Singh

For the Second Party

Shri J.K. Ved

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/77/99-

IR(B-I) dated 23.09.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration through the Chief Electric Foreman (S), Western Railway,

Pratapnagar, Baroda in imposing a penalty of ‘stoppage’ of 2 increments falling due next with temporary effect

vide NIP dated 27.08.1996 is legal, proper and is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct? If not, to what

relief the workman Shri Ashwin S. Salvi is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 23.09.1999. After issuing the notice to the parties, the second party submitted the

statement of claim Ex. 3 on 24.07.2000 and the first party submit the written statement Ex. 11 on 21.10.2011. Now

today on 21.04.2017, Shri J.K. Ved, the Hon. Secretary, General Workmen’s Union representing the second party

workman expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1285-—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 753@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@54@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 753/2004) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/54/2001-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 21^st April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 753/2004

2928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Baroda Division,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda – 390004

The Assistant Electrical Engineer (BG),

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Nr. New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380019

…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-41012/54/

2001-IR(B-I) dated 03.09.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, 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 in

withholding Shri Jayantilal C. who was promoted as Armachar Winder Gr. II w.e.f. 13.09.1995 but not relieved

and issuing another order dated 28.06.2000 consequently relieving him w.e.f. 29.06.2000 and then denying

economic benefits on promoted post w.e.f. 13.09.1995 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

The reference dates back to 03.09.2001. After service to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of

claim on 13.10.2004 through Shri B.K. Sharma, The General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad. The

first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite issuing fresh notice on 05.02.2013 reminding the first

party to submit the written statement on 05.04.2013. Now today on 21.04.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia The General

Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad representing the second party workman expressed unwillingness to

prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1286-—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 78@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@59@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2017

S.O. 1286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2014) 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 11.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/59/2014-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2929

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th April, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 78/2014

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004

The Asstt. Divisional Engineer (Works),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

—

For the Second Party

Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/59/

2014-IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of union to reimburse the deducted wages along with arrears and to give the second

MACP from 01.09.2008 to the workmen (1) Smt. Kami Limba, Sr. Khalasi (2) Smt. Hathudi Thavaria

(3) Shri Nathu Velji, Sr. Khalasi (4) Shri Rangit Limba, Sr. Khalasi, (5) Smt. Bachudi Bhalji (6) Shri Rama

Jesingh, Sr. Khalasi (7) Shri Dhira Magan, Sr. Khalasi (8) Smt. Chokli Magan, Sr. Khalasi (9) Shri Ramsu

Sadiya, Sr. Khalasi (10) Shri Amarsingh Bijal and (11) Shri Mansingh Radha is legal, proper and just? If so, to

what relief these concerned workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 13.08.2014. After notice to the parties, both the parties did not prefer to submit their

written statement and the statement of claim as the case may be. Now today on 20.04.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, the

General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the second party workman expressed

unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj >kj[akM

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; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

17-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@31@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

2930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Jharkhand Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/31/2010-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 20/2011

Employer in relation to the management of Jharkhand Gramin Bank

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated- 24/04/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/31/2010-IR(B-I) dated 29/03/11, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has,

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Jharkhand Gramin Bank employees Association for deleting the provisions

of minimum aggregate marks from promotion procedure adopted by the management of Jharkhand

Gramin Bank is legal and justified? To what relief the Union/workman is entitled?”

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

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

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1288-—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; ua- 1] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@28@1994&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2931

Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai 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 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/28/1994-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/42 OF 1994

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

State Bank of India

And

Their workmen (R.N.Patil)

Appearances :

For the Management

Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.

For the workman

Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 10^th day of April, 2017

AWARD

1..

As per the Schedule of this Reference, the following Industrial dispute was referred to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Dondaicha Branch, in discharging

R.N.Patil, Clerk-Cashier from service w.e.f. 25.7.1991 is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman

entitled to?”

The facts giving rise to this Industrial dispute, in brief are that the workman R.N.Patil, was working as

Clerk/Cashier in State Bank of India at Dundaicha Branch in Dhulia District, Maharashtra for the last 14 years. He

was initially given chargesheet on 6.10.1989. Enquiry proceedings from 16.1.90 to 16.2.1990 remained exparte and

the Enquiry Officer submitted its finding to the Disciplinary Authority on 26.3.1990. During pendency of this enquiry

on 15.1.1990, the Bank issued another chargesheet against the workman with different charges. Subsequently, it was

agreed between the parties that one single consolidated enquiry shall be held on both the charges on day to day basis

and Mr.M.M.Deshpande was appointed the Enquiry Officer. This enquiry commenced on 22.5.1990 and concluded on

14.8.1990. The charges were found to be proved and on the basis of the same, R.N.Patil was dismissed from service.

This Tribunal vide its Award Part – I dated 23.10.2002 reached the conclusion that enquiry held against the workman

was in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same was set aside and the Bank was directed to lead

evidence to prove the charge. The main charge against R.N.Patil was that he on three occasions used very filthy

language against S.T.Pawar, the then Branch Manager. Apart from it he was in the habit of remaining absent from

duty and was irregular in attending in coming to the bank. There were some other charges that he purchased property

and was indulged in other business without permission. During the course of argument mainly the two charges were

pressed first is of the grave misconduct of using filthy and abusive language against the then Bank Manager and the

second was of his irregular presence on duty.

The defence of the workman was that he was the Secretary of the local unit. He used to bring business for the

Bank and in that connection he has to remain out of the Bank. His behavior was very cordial with all Staff members

and also with the customers. One Mr.Bhoge took charge as Cash Officer in 1988. His behavior with the lady staff was

very offending. He used double meaning language with them. Being the Secretary of the local unit of the Union such

complaints were made to him by the lady staff personnel. He took such complaints to Branch Manager, S.T.Pawar for

redressal but S.T.Pawar took no action and such incidents continued. It has also been argued that all the staff Officers

Union united against him and gave a notice of strike that they shall not work if R.N.Patil is directed to work in the same

Branch when his suspension was withdrawn after ex parte enquiry. The case of the workman was that under the

pressure of the Staff Officers Union, created by giving notice of strike, he was victimized by the Management and was

removed from service.

2932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After the first part of the Award in order to prove its case on behalf of the Management, Management has filed

affidavit of evidence of S.T.Pawar, the then Branch Manager. Mr.Navin who worked as Accountant in the said Branch

and Mr.Vasudev Balwant Rao who also worked in the said Branch at the relevant time. In his defence, on behalf of

the workman, 8 witnesses have been examined. WW-1 is Nana S.Patil who was a customer. He has stated about the

good and honest behavior of the workman R.N.Patil and also stated that he used to bring business and he has never seen

R.N.Patil using filthy or abusive language in the Branch. WW-2 Vijay C.Agrawal who is also a customer. His

evidence is similar to the evidence of WW-1. WW-3 is Chetan G. Shirsat who was a Cashier-Clerk in the said Bank.

He has stated that Patil used to bring business. His behavior was cordial. He assisted customers. He used to approach

Branch Manager S.T.Pawar for solving grievances of the staff. Pawar used to create stressful atmosphere and used to

victimize the staff persons by issuing memos to them. He has stated that no incident of misbehavior as alleged took

place. WW-4 Subhash G.Jain, another customer has also given similar evidence as stated above. WW-5 is Vinita

B.Joshi who was Agricultural Assistant in the Bank. Her evidence also corroborates the evidence of other two staff

members. WW-6 is Lata D. Thakur, Head Messenger in the Branch. She has stated that in the year 1988 Mr. Bhoge

took charge of Cash Office. His behavior towards lady staff was offending. He used double meaning language while

communicating with the lady staff. She complained to the branch Manager in writing (copy of the same has been

filed)and also to the Secretary of the local unit Mr.R.N.Patil. She has also stated that behavior of R.N.Patil was good

with the Staff persons. He used to help the staff members and bring business to the Bank. WW-7 Pratibha Jayant

Thomre, another lady staff personnel, who has also supported the statement of WW-6 Latha Dongre Thakur and has

stated that she was also a victim of ill behavior of Mr.Bhoge. WW-8 Rajedra Bhika Chavan who joined the Bank in the

year 1986 as Cashier-cum-Clerk. His statement corroborates the statement of other staff members mentioned above.

The argument of the learned counsel for the State Bank of India is that the witnesses MW-1 and MW-2 have

given first hand evidence of the misbehaviour and of using of filthy language by R.N.Patil . MW-1 S.T.Pawar was the

victim of such bad behavior. In his evidence he has narrated the actual words which were used by workman R.N.Patil

against him. Apart from these witnesses they have stated about the irregular attendance of the workman. MW-3

Vasudeo Rao has also stated that R.N.Patil was not punctual in attending his duties. He had quarreled with him and

threatened him because he had made a complaint of R.N.Patil to the Bank Manager. He has also stated that the

behavior of R.N.Patil with the customers was arrogant. However neither the name of any such customer was disclosed

nor any customer was examined in support of such charge.

On the strength of this evidence it has been argued that the Management has successfully proved its case of

misbehavior and irregular attendance of Mr.R.N.Patil. He has also argued that R.N.Patil has already attained the age of

superannuation perhaps in the year 2010. So there is no question of his reinstatement. He was only discharged from

service with all retiral benefits. Keeping in view his serious misconduct the punishment awarded to him cannot be said

to be disproportionate or shocking. He has also argued that there is no evidence of victimization of R.N.Patil under the

pressure of the Staff Officers’ Association.

In support of his argument learned counsel for the Management has placed reliance on the pronouncement of

Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited versus N.B. Naravade Etc. 2005 (0) AIJEL

– SC 16758 and has drawn attention towards para 20 which reads as under:

It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of

discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment

awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of

discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it is

certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which

can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment

being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the

existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of

the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such

factor existing, the Labour Court can not by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A

of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed herein above atleast in two of the cases cited before us, i.e.

Orissa Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), this Court held: "punishment of dismissal for

using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate." In this case all the forums below have held

that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the

workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such abusive language against a

superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an

indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to herein above.

Reliance has also been placed on pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of M.P.Electricity Board v.

Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2205 3 Supreme Court cases 401 and attention was drawn towards para 9 of this

judgement which is reproduced below:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2933

In the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the

work place, obviously in the presence of other employees. This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in

the organization. Discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non

for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer

terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the

punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. We have already referred to the

views of this Court. To quote Jack Chan, "discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour which helps

maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of

society at large." Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an organization like the

employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not

violative of one's natural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its

employees. When in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a

superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it

cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour

Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The

Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.

On point of appropriate punishment he has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Honourable

Apex Court in (2009) 10 SCC 32 Biecco Lawrie Limited and another vs. State of West Bengal and

another. Paragraph 54, 55, 56, 57 and 59 reads as under:

54.

Moreover, in our view, the punishment was not harsh in comparison to the charges levelled against

the respondent. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of this Court in UP State Road

Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Others [AIR 2000 SC 1163]. Here the charge against the

respondent was that he in a drunken state along with the conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash

room of the appellant and demanded money from him. When the Assistant cashier refused, the respondent

abused him and threatened to assault him.

55.

On these facts, this Court observed as follows -

"It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent. In such circumstances, the

Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service

when the charge against him stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised by the Labour

Court in the circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified.

It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly

disproportionate" to the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our opinion, the High Court

failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the

erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage

of justice."

56.

Similarly in L.K.Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd (2006) LLR 296 (SC), it was observed that -

" as regards the quantum of the punishment is concerned suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been

held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. Once the appellant accepted that he had

made utterances which admittedly lack civility and he also threatened a superior officer it was for him

to show that he later on felt remorse therefore and should have tendered an apology".

57.

From a perusal of these observations, made in the aforesaid decisions of this Court as noted herein

above, it is crystal clear that the general trend of judicial decisions is to minimize the interference

when the punishment is not harsh and definitely for charges that are leveled against the respondent

and in the instant matter, dismissal is absolutely not shocking to the conscience of the court.

59.

The argument that the work assigned to the respondent was not a part of his job even, if accepted does

not entitle him to abuse his superiors and create an unhealthy atmosphere where the remaining might

just take a clue from the unruly behaviour and subsequently use it to the detriment of the company.

Further the letter by which he accepted all the charges sets up a strong proof against the respondent

beyond which nothing remains to be analyzed.

Reliance has also been placed on pronouncement in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Balwant

Singh Vs . New Sutlej Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1988 (0) AIJ-PH 1608394and our attention was drawn

towards para 7 which reads as under:

2934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“7.

Equally devoid of merit was the other point canvassed, namely, that raising of provocative and

abusive slogans in the premises of the workshop could not be held to be misconduct. It was claimed that this

had been so held by the Supreme Court as a matter of law and in such wide general terms. Counsel, of

course, failed to point out the case or the occasion for the Supreme Court to have so ruled. On the face of it,

the proposition urged is too far-fetched to be countenanced.”

On behalf of workman it has been argued that behavior of the workman with the customers and staff members

was very cordial. He used to bring business for the bank and for that purpose he had to go out of bank. There is

evidence of customers and staff members on this point while the management could not disclose even the name of any

customer who was misbehaved by the workman. Branch Manager was not taking any action for redressal of grievances

of the staff members. Under pressure of staff Officers Association created by giving notice of strike he was

victimized. On behalf of the workman reliance has been placed on the pronouncement of Honourable Apex Court in the

case of Colour Chem Limited vs. A.L.Alaspurkar. Relevant part of this judgment is being reproduced as under:

The term `victimisation' is not defined by the present Act. Sub-section (18) of Section 3 of the Act which is

the Definition Section lays down that, `words and expressions used in this Act and not defined therein, but

defined in the Bombay Act, shall, in relation to an industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act apply,

have the meanings assigned to them by the Bombay Act; and in any other case, shall have the meanings

assigned to them by the Central Act'. Bombay Act is the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946 and the

Central Act is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as laid down by Definition Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act.

The term `victimisation' is defined neither by the Central Act nor by the Bombay Act. Therefore, the term

`victimisation' has to be given general dictionary meaning. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Edn., the term

`victimisation' is defined at Page 1197 as follows :

"make a victim; cheat; make suffer by dismissal or other exceptional treatment"

Thus if a person is made to suffer by some exceptional treatment it would amount to victimisation. The term

`victimisation' is of comprehensive import. It may be victimisation in fact or in law. Factual victimisation

may consist of diverse acts of employers who are out to drive out and punish an employee for no real reasons

and for extraneous reasons.”

In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement, it has to be considered whether the Management has been

successful in bringing the charges against him and whether the punishment awarded to the workman R.N.Patil was

proportionate or there exist any extenuating circumstances in favour of the workman..

So far as charge of using filthy language is concerned all the witnesses of the Management have fully supported

the case. First 2 witnesses of the Management have given first hand evidence of this incident and have also quoted the

words used by R.N.Patil. Nothing material could be ilicited in their cross—examination to show that their evidence is

unreliable.

10..

It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian

Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is

no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities

and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly

speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.

11.

The evidence of the workman’s witnesses shows that they have given the evidence regarding general good

behavior of the workman R.N.Patil. They have also stated that he used to bring business to the Bank and for that

purpose he used to visit town. The submission of the learned counsel for the workman has substance that in connection

with bringing business for the Bank he used to visit the town which was within the notice of his Officers but simply in

order to victimize him chargesheet was filed against him. The evidence of the workman’s witnesses shows that though

they have stated that no incident of using filthy language by R.N.Patil to the Branch Manager S.T.Pawar took place but

specific date and time was not stated by any of the witness that on the said date they were present at the relevant place.

The evidence of the two lady staff members goes to show that the behavior of Mr.Bhoge was very offending with the

lady staff member and being the Secretary of the local unit, R.N.Patil was informed about such behavior and request

was made to him for redressal of their grievances. Thus, after going through the entire evidence and material available

on record, I am fully satisfied that though the Management has been successful in proving the charge of using filthy

language against the workman but so far as other charges are concerned, the Management has failed to prove the other

charges as virtually there is no sufficient evidence to prove the other charges. Nor the said charges have been pressed

during course of argument.

The argument of the learned counsel for the Management is that this charge of using filthy language itself calls

for Major punishment of discharging from service. On the contrary, the argument of the learned counsel for the

workman was that keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment inflicted on the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2935

workman R.N.Patil was disproportionate. His argument is that R.N.Patil was Secretary to the local unit. Mr. Bhoge

used to misbehave with the lady staff. Being the Secretary, he was contacted by the lady staff members for redressal of

their grievances. He met several times with the Branch Manager but no action was taken. The argument of Mr.Abhay

Kulkarni that these circumstances actually provoked him to use such filthy language. In view the evidence of other staff

members and the customers there was no complaint against R.N.Patil regarding his general misbehavior with Staff

members or with customers rather there is evidence that his behavior was good with staff and customers and was

helpful. There are eight witnesses who have given such evidence. Therefore, it is only an exceptional incident which

was the outcome of provocation caused by the inaction of S.T.Pawar, in taking action against Mr. Bhoge. Past good

behavior, bringing business to the bank, helping the customers in their bank dealings are really extenuating

circumstances in the peculiar facts of the present case. Keeping in view the pronouncement relied upon by learned

counsel for the Management though such type of conduct calls for the punishment of removal from service but the

competent authority was also obliged to consider the extenuating circumstances existing in favour of the workman

which have not been considered.

12.

After going through the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the submission of Mr.Abhay

Kulkarni has much force. So while on one hand the charge of using of filthy language stands proved on the contrary,

there are circumstances which justifies that it was the result of provocation caused by the inaction of S.T.Pawar against

Mr.Bhoge and also for the redressal of the grievances of other staff members. There is sufficient evidence on record

that the general behavior of R.N.Patil with the customers and staff members was very cordial. He was helpful to the

customers and also used to bring business to the Bank. Thus in this perspective when the quantum of punishment is

examined, I am of the considered view that the punishment of discharging from service was on the higher side and

deserves to be set aside keeping in view the above mentioned extenuating circumstances. Since the workman R.N.Patil

has already attained the age of superannuation and has already been paid the retiral benefits, therefore, the damage

caused to the workman R.N.Patil may be compensated by awarding a lumpsum compensation which is quantified to

the tune of Rs.1.25 lakhs.

Thus to conclude that as per the evidence of charge of using filthy language stands proved but as stated earlier it

was the result of inaction of S.T.Pawar towards redressal of the grievances of the lady staff members. Therefore, the

sentence of discharging from service is hereby set aside. Keeping in view that he has already attained the age of

superannuation therefore, he shall be paid a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs as one time damages.

13.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE S.V.S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uhypky

X;kE;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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-

05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Neelachala

Gyamya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

2936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 27/2015

Date of Passing Award – 2^nd November, 2016

Between:

The Branch Manager,

Neelachala Gyamya Bank,

Junei Branch, At./Po./Ps. Konark,

Dist. Puri, Odisha – 752 111

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Nirakar Mishra,

S/o. Gadadhar Mishra,

Village – Badatara, Po. Gadarupas

Via-Gop, Dist. Puri, Odisha – 752 110

…2^nd Party-Applicant

Appearances :

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

Shri Nirakar Mishra

…

For Himself the 2^nd Party-Applicant

AWARD

This award is directed against an application under section 2-A(2) filed by one Shri Nirakara Mishra wherein

grievances have been high-lighted against the Management and prayer has been made to appoint him against a regular

post under the office of the Management.

Briefly stated, the case of the applicant is that, he was working as a temporary Messenger under the Management

in its branch at Junei, when the regular Messenger of the Bank remained absent and he was receiving Rs. 25/- towards

daily wage which is subsequently enhanced to Rs. 70/- per day. He was earning Rs. 200/300 per month by such

engagement. Inspite of recommendation by the concerned Branch Manager the Regional Office of the Management did

not absorb him as a regular Messenger. In the month of September, 2012 he could not attend the branch office due to

his spinal problem and went to Olatapur for his treatment. On his return from Olatapur after eight days he went to the

branch office to discharge his duty. Surprisingly he found a new person to have been engaged by the Branch Manager

without any intimation to him. He raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and

when no action was initiated on his complaint he was compelled to prefer the present application resorting to the

provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act.

Inspite of notice by Regd. Post the Management neither made its appearance nor contested the dispute raised by

the applicant for which it has been set exparte.

The points for consideration in the present adjudication is whether refusal of employment to the applicant as

temporary messenger by the Management is illegal, unjustified and the adjudication is maintainable under the

provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act.

In support of his allegations the applicant has filed his statement through sworn affidavit and filed documents

like xerox copy of letter dated 30.7.2011 of Branch Manager to Regional Manager, Pipili, for accordance of permission,

xerox copy of votor I-Card xerox copy of B.P.L. card etc.

On a mere reading of the pleadings and statement of the applicant it is coming-forth that the engagement of the

applicant was on need basis in the event of absence of regular Messenger. Nothing specific has been either pleaded in

the statement of claim or in the sworn affidavit that the applicant was working as a casual wager or temporary

Messenger for 240 days continuously either preceding to the date of refusal of employment to him or in any year in

between 2002 to 2012. Moreover, the pleadings itself suggest that his engagement was purely on daily and need basis

when the regular Messenger remained absent from his duty. Besides, not a single scrap of paper has been filed in the

proceeding to show that he was ever engaged or appointed as a temporary Messenger in the establishment of the

Management. He has not also made any prayer to call for muster roll, wage register or contingent expenses register of

the Management to establish that he was ever engaged as a temporary Messenger or paid any amount by the

Management for such alleged engagement though the settled principle requires the applicant-workman to establish that

he is appointed as a casual labourer/Messenger temporarily for 240 days continuously in a year prior to his

termination/retrenchment/dismissal etc. and his alleged retrenchment/dismissal/removal was not in conformity to the

provisions as mentioned in Section 25-F of the Act in order to get any relief. Having failed to establish that he was ever

approached by the Management to work as a temporary Messenger or he was engaged as such Messenger in the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2937

establishment of the Management and also his engagement of 240 days continuously in a year, the dispute raised by

him does not seem to have any merit.

Further, it cannot be over-looked that as per his own pleadings he was engaged on daily wage basis when the

regular Messenger fails to attend the office of the Management. There is no evidence or claim that when he went to the

branch office after his treatment at Olatapur, he was under employment in any capacity either as a casual worker or as a

substitute against the regular Messenger. His engagement seems to be conditional to the absent of regular Messenger

from his duty and as such he was not in job when he found a new person had been engaged temporarily to discharge the

job of the regular Messenger. Be that as it may, the action of the Management in employing another person as a daily

wager cannot be termed as dismissal, removal, discharge or otherwise termination of service of an individual workman

as specified in the provisions of Section 2-A(1) of the Act giving the applicant-workman a scope to redress his

grievance directly before this Tribunal resorting the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter

the present application is also apparently not maintainable in the eye of law.

Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to any relief under any provisions of the I.D. Act.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfM'kk

xzkE;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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@10@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Odisha

Gramya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/10/2015-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 05/2015

No. L-12011/10/2015-IR(B-I), dated 09.02.2015

Date of Passing Order – 18^th October, 2016

Between :

The Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank, HQ,

Kokila Residency, Ananta Vihar, Pokhariput,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

2938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Secretary,

Odisha Gramya Bank Karmachari Sangha,

VA-cum-Managing Director, Oil India Ltd,

Plot No. 19, Sector-16A, Nodia, 23/3, Unit-II,

Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751 009

…2^nd Party-Union

Appearances :

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending of

notices to them through regd. as well as ordinary post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2^nd party-Union regd.

notice was issued on 19.07.2016 fixing 17.08.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the

2^nd party-Union caused appearance today nor filed any statement of claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-Union is

not interested in prosecuting its case. However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf

of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its

end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1291-—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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@61@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 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 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/61/2006-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01/2007

Date of Passing Award – 23^rd January, 2017

Between:

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2939

III/1, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Bhubaneswar – 751 001, Orissa.

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Treasury Branch,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Bhubaneswar – 751 001, Orissa

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Jyoti Bhusan Das,

S/o. Banshidar Das,

At. Kajidhia, Po. Madhupatna,

Cuttack – 10, Orissa

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. S.M. Dwibedi, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 1 & 2.

M/s. N.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The award is directed against a reference with following schedule:-

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Government Treasury Branch, is justified in

terminating the service of Shri Jyoti Bhusan Das Ex-Messenger with effect from 1.6.2005 even after clear cut

order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in O.J.C No. 8108 of 1993 as well as the order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 314 of 2004?

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)

of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter No. L-

12012/61/2006 – IR(B-1), dated 29.12.2006.

Undisputed fact giving rise to the reference, in short, is that the 2^nd party-workman joined as a Messenger on

daily wage basis in the Treasury Branch of SBI, Bhubaneswar in the month of March, 1989. As his service was

terminated with effect from 9.6.1990 in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Management was directed to reinstate

him with back wages and other service benefits in an exprte award given by this Tribunal in an earlier reference. The

Management preferred a Writ Appeal against such exparte award before the Hon’ble High Court and the said Writ was

dismissed on contest. Being aggrieved by such dismissal of the Writ Appeal the Management approached the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a S.L.P which was disposed of in admission stage with following observations:-

Looking into the nature of the case we decline to interfere into special leave petition, which is accordingly,

dismissed. It is however, directed that as the award is ex-parte, the respondent employee shall be paid only 50% of the

back wages”.

Pursuant to such order the workman was reinstated and allowed to join as a Messenger in the SBI, Treasury

Branch, Bhubaneswar on 1.1.2005 and he was again disengaged from service on 31.5.2005 on a plea that the

Management decided to discontinue the practice of giving employment to the casual workers on daily wage basis. He

was paid an amount of Rs. 1,775/- towards notice pay for a month and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards

compensation.

The retrenchment order is challenged on a contention that some casual/daily paid messengers junior to him were

absorbed against permanent vacancy of the Management during the period of his earlier termination. Had he been

continued in the service he had a good opportunity of being absorbed against permanent vacancy. His termination

within six months of his reinstatement pursuant to the findings of an Award amounts to unfair labour practice and as

such he should be reinstated with back wages and other service benefits including regularization of his service like

regularization of service of his juniors. Plea has also been raised in the statement of claim that compensation is very less

than to his entitlement.

The 1^st Party-Management-Bank has taken a stand that the disputant workman Shri Das was engaged

intermittently on daily wage in the 1^st Party-Management at Government Treasury Branch on need basis. When his

service was terminated with effect from 9.6.1990, a dispute was raised before the Tribunal vide I.D. Case No. 27/1991.

In an exparte award of this Tribunal the Bank was directed to reinstate the disputant workman in service with full back

wages. The said award was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in a Writ Petition bearing O.J.C. No.

8108/2003. The writ was dismissed and the award of the Tribunal was upheld against which the Management-Bank

2940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

preferred a S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court. While dismissing the said S.L.P. the Hon’ble Apex Court modified

the award of the Tribunal to the extent that the workman would be paid only 50 percent of the back wages. Pursuant to

such order of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Courts the workman was reinstated in service on daily wage basis with

effect from 1.1.2005 at the Govt. Treasury Branch of the Bank. On the date of his earlier termination the workman was

getting an amount of Rs. 18/- per day from the branch and as such, he was paid Rs. 9/- from the date of his termination

till the date of his reinstatement. It is the further stand of the Management-Bank that practice of engaging messenger on

daily wage basis was dispensed with as a result of which the disputant workman Shri Das was disengaged with effect

from 1.6.2005 after payment of necessary retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of notice in due compliance with

the requirements of the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Since the disputant workman was employed

temporarily on daily wage and his service was discontinued due to cessation of practice of engagement of daily labourer

after compliance of statutory requirement as per provisions of Section 25-F, there was no illegality or irregularity in

retrenchment of the workman. According to the Management the 2^nd party-workman has filed a contempt petition

bearing No. 111/2006 in the Writ Appeal O.J.C. No. 8108/1993 against the Management-Bank after his retrenchment

with a prayer to direct the Management to comply with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed in the Writ and

for regularization of his service. The Management has appeared in the said contempt proceedings and filed its reply.

When the self same matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court the reference is not maintainable.

Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for proper adjudication of the

dispute.

ISSUES

Whether the reference is maintainable?

Whether the termination of service of the workman after being reinstated as per the order of

Hon’ble High Court in O.J.C. No. 8108/1993 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 314/2004 is justified?

Whether the termination of workman was justified and in accordance with law?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

Both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to support their respective stands. Besides

examining himself as W.W.-1 the workman has relied upon documents like award of the Industrial Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar arising out of I.D. Case No. 27/2991 (Central), marked as Ext.- 3 order/judgement of the Hon’ble High

Court of Orissa arising out of O.J.C. No. 8108/1993 marked as Ext.- 4, order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.

314/2004 marked as Ext.- 5, his representation dated 01.01.2005, marked Ext.- 1 and termination letter dated 31.5.2006

marked Ext.-2. On the other than the Management-Bank has adduced oral evidence through its Asst. General Manager

as M.W.-1 to refute the allegations raised by the disputant workman.

ISSUES NO. 2, 3 & 4

Since the above issues are inter-related to each other, they are taken into consideration simultaneously for the

sake of convenience as well as for better appreciation of the reference made to this Tribunal. It is emerging from the

pleadings, contentions and evidence adduced by the parties that there is no serious dispute that the 2^nd party-workman

was reinstated in service on daily wage from 1.1.2005 at the Government Treasury Branch, Bhubaneswar of the

Management pursuant to the award of CGIT in I.D. Case No. 27/1991 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa as well as Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the award was given exparte as the Management did not appear

and contest the reference. In the earlier reference it was the stand of the disputant workman that he was appointed as a

Messenger with effect from 21.8.1989 in the Management-Bank and his service was terminated with effect from

9.6.1990 without compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act despite worked for more than 240 days within a

year preceding to his alleged termination. Direction was given in the award for his reinstatement with full back wages

on account of the dismissal being violative of provisions of the I.D. Act which was modified by the Hon’ble Apex

Court to an extent of 50% of back wages. Neither the stand of the 2^nd party-workman nor the award in Ext.- 3 discloses

that the workman was engaged as a permanent messenger prior to his alleged dismissal without compliance of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Moreover, the workman has not claimed specifically that he was reinstated as a

Messenger on permanent basis pursuant to the above award. Further, in his evidence the workman has claimed that

Akshya Parida and Salila Kumar Das, who were junior to him, have been retained as Messengers. But in his cross

examination he has admitted that both of them were working on daily wage basis and there was a recruitment test in the

year 1992 for regularization of temporary messengers. Similar selection recruitment test was conducted in the year

1994. He did not appear in those tests because of his discontinuance of service and for want of service experience

certificate whereas services of Akshya Parida and Salila Kumar Das were regularized on the basis of above recruitment

test/selection conducted for temporary workers. Be that as it may, it can be safely concluded that the disputant workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2941

was reinstated to his service as on daily wage basis as a temporary messenger and he continued as such till his dismissal

with effect from 01.06.2005.

It is also emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that practice of engagement of temporary

messenger was discontinued and the disputed workman has admitted in his cross examination that no person is

appointed as a Messenger on daily wage basis temporarily after his reinstatement. There is no dispute that the workman

was given notice pay for one month as per the daily wage received by him prior to his disputed dismissal and a

compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. Taking the above facts into consideration it cannot be said that disengagement or

termination of the workman was violative of provisions of the 25-F and 25-H of the Act. Furthermore, the award of the

CGIT so also the order of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court do not mandate that his reinstatement

would put him to a position of permanent employee or extend protection i.e. usually given to a workman of permanent

nature. The same also do not mandate regularization of his service. The earlier award of CGIT was given in favour of

the workman as his earlier termination was violative of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The said award

cannot be treated as permanent protection to the workman against a legal and justified retrenchment made with due

observance of laws. Hence it cannot be concluded or accepted that the Management was prohibited from terminating

his service after due compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act till he attains the age of superannuation. Thus,

in the case at hand the workman was appointed and reinstated on a purely temporary basis and his earlier appointment

was without following due process of law i.e. his name was neither sponsored by the employment exchange nor any

advertisement was issued for the purpose of filling up of such post of temporary messenger. No fact or evidence is

emerging to suggest that any person in similar footing to the disputant workman was given permanent appointment in

the office of the Management. In the industrial adjudication, an order of termination is declared illegal if it is not in

accordance with law but, it did not mean that the temporary workman had substantive right to hold the post for all time.

It has been set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited –Versus-

Ashok Ranghba Ambre passed in Civil Appeal No 391 of 2008 reinstatement by virtue of an award under the I.D. Act

does not mean confirmation and such order would not necessarily entitled the workman to claim the benefits of status

of permanency. In the above backdrops it cannot be said that the alleged termination of service of the disputant

workman was an unfair labour practice or the same was illegal and unjustified.

10.

Further, as per the settled principles of the Hon’ble Apex Court when there is a wrongful termination of service

of a daily wager because of unfair labour practice or on account of non-compliance of the provisions of I.D. Act, such

an employee is not entitled to reinstatement automatically. It is not in every case of illegal or unjustified termination,

the order for reinstatement in service should be passed. While giving such direction for reinstatement with full back

wages, it is necessary to take into consideration host of factors, such as, manner and method of appointment, nature and

period of employment etc. Even, it is accepted in argument sake that the disputant workman was retrenched by adopting

unfair labour practice, he cannot be reinstated into service automatically except being compensated more particularly

when the practice of engaging temporary messengers has been discontinued in the establishment of the Management.

11.

However, it cannot be over-sighted from the pleadings and evidence of the parties more particularly from the

oral testimony of M.W.-1 that back wages of the disputant workman, while reinstating him pursuant to the earlier

award, was calculated on the basis of the wage of Rs. 18/- per day on account of the reason that he was receiving said

amount as wages per day as a daily wager at the time of his dismissal i.e. on 09.06.1990. Judicial notice can be taken to

the fact that minimum wages of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled daily wagers are being revised from time to time.

The disputant workman was paid Rs. 62.50 per day towards his daily wage at the time of his reinstatement i.e. on

01.01.2005. Undoubtedly, the disputant workman could have claimed and realized his back wages to be calculated on

the basis of minimum wage fixed from time to time by taking resort to the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In

view of admission made by M.W.-1 that back wages of the workman was computed fixing his wage at Rs. 9/- per day,

it can be said that the back wages of the workman was not properly computed and he was not paid appropriate back

wages to which he was entitled. That apart, it cannot be over-looked that had he been continued in the post of

temporary messenger during the period of his disengagement, he could have appeared the recruitment/selection test for

the post of messengers and in case of his success in the said test he could have been appointed on regular basis like his

juniors namely Salila Kumar Das and Akshya Parida. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances it appears

that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- given in lieu of compensation during the alleged retrenchment does not appear to be

sufficient. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of litigation it would be just and appropriate to direct the Management to

compute/calculate 50% of his back wages for the period from 9.6.1990 to 31.12.2004 on the basis of wage fixed from

time to time for such casual/daily wager. Besides an amount of Rs. 25,000/- more shall be paid to the disputant

workman towards compensation in lieu of his retrenchment.

ISSUE NO. 1

12.

In view of my findings given above this issue needs no answer.

2942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Accordingly, it can be safely held that the dispute raised by the workman is devoid of any merit except to the

observations made in supra with regard to his back wages and compensation in lieu of termination.

14.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1292-—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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@65@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 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 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/65/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 60/2011

Date of Passing Award – 9^th December, 2016

Between :

Shri Surajit Mishra (Contractor),

M/s. Udyog Engineering & Construction,

Plot No. 2047, Hatasahi, Old Town,

Bhubaneswar – 02, Orissa.

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri S.K. Swain,

C/o. S.N. Das, Lift Operator,

Main gate Lift, A.G. Office,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. S.M. Dwibedy, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 1.

M/s. Amar Sahoo, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 2

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2943

AWARD

The award is directed against a reference with following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Udyog Engineering and Construction, newly engaged

contractor working under CGM, State Bank of India, LHO, Bhubaneswar in not considering the engagement of

Shri S.K. Swain, Electrician in Electrical Maintenance works is appropriate and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)

of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter No. L-

12012/65/2011 – IR(B-I), dated 11.11.2011.

Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the reference may be stated as follows:-

The 2^nd party-workman namely Shri Suresh Kumar Swain filed his claim statement for regularization of his

service claiming that being an I.T.I. qualified Electrician he was employed by the Management No. 1 SBI to look after

the installation of various electrical fittings and repair of the same in the office and residential buildings of the

Management. To deprive him regular pay and other benefits extended to a regular employee of the Management he was

being shown engaged as a contract labourer. According to him all paper transactions, if any, for showing such electrical

works being entrusted to a contractor are sham and camouflage in nature. Though he was working as Electrician

directly under the S.B.I. Management for the period from May, 1993 till his termination of his service i.e. December,

2010, he was shown as a labourer working under different contractors from time to time. When he raised a claim before

the Management for his absorption and regularization of service he was disengaged.

Refuting the allegations raised by the workman the Management submitted its written statement wherein stand

has been taken that in no point of time Shri Swain was given any appointment or job work to repair and maintain

electrical fittings of the office and residential building of the Management. Such work of maintenance was being done

through contractors. As such there was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the Bank

Management. It is the further case of the Management that such maintenance work was entrusted to the contractor

Management No. 1 in the year 2010 and the allegations raised by the workman being frivolous and baseless the

reference should be answered against the workman. The Management No. 2 did not make his appearance and file any

written statement for which he has been set exparte.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties issues like (1) Whether the 2^nd party-workman was ever engaged by the

1^st Party-Management No. 1 and worked under it? (2) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Udyog

Engineering and Construction, newly engaged contractor working under CGM, State Bank of India, LHO,

Bhubaneswar in not considering the engagement of Shri S.K. Swain, Electrician in Electrical Maintenance works is

appropriate and justified? and (3) To what relief the workman is entitled were settled on 07.01.2013 where-after the

case was posted for taking evidence of the parties. But, the workman did not come forward to adduce his evidence and

remained absent inspite of several adjournments accorded to him. Ultimately when he failed to lead any evidence

inspite of being noticed repeatedly the matter was heard exparte. The Management did not choose to adduce any

evidence except relying on his pleadings.

Law is well settled that in order to avail any benefit under the provisions of I.D. Act the initial burden lies on the

workman to establish that he was appointed or employed by the Management and he worked continuously for a period

of more than 240 days in a year prior to his alleged disengagement. But, the disputant workman has neither come

forward to adduce any oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of his claim that he was being engaged as an

Electrician to maintain and repair various electrical fittings in the office and residential buildings of the S.B.I

Management. Not a single scrap of paper is also filed along with his statement of claim to show that he was ever

entrusted with such work by the Management-Bank. Thus, having failed to discharge his initial onus to prove his

employment or engagement directly under the supervision of the Management-Bank it is hard to believe that there was

any relationship of employer and employee between the disputant workman and the Management-Bank. Therefore, the

disputant workman has no scope to raise any dispute under the provisions of the I.D. Act to ventilate his grievances and

seek any relief.

Hence, it can be said that neither the reference is maintainable nor the workman is entitled to any relief from the

Management-Bank. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

2944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2017/VAISAKHA 30, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1293-—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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@64@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 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 17.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/64/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 61/2011

Date of Passing Award – 9^th December, 2016

Between :

Shri Surajit Mishra (Contractor),

M/s. Udyog Engineering & Construction,

Plot No. 2047, Hatasahi, Old Town,

Bhubaneswar – 02, Orissa.

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Abhimanyu Mallick,

C/o. S.N. Das, Lift Operator,

Main gate Lift, A.G. Office,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. S.M. Dwibedy, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 1.

M/s. Amar Sahoo, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 2

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The award is directed against a reference with following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Udyog Engineering and Construction, newly engaged

contractor working under CGM, State Bank of India, LHO, Bhubaneswar in not considering the engagement of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 20] 2017@oS'kk[k 30] 1939

2945

Shri Abhimanyu Mallick, Electrician in Electrical Maintenance works is appropriate and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled?”

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)

of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter No. L-12012/61

/2011– IR(B-I), dated 11.11.2011.

Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the reference may be stated as follows:-

The 2^nd party-workman namely Shri Abhimanyu Mallick filed his claim statement for regularization of his

service claiming that being an I.T.I. qualified Electrician he was employed by the Management No. 2 S.B.I to look after

the installation of various electrical fittings and repair of the same in the office and residential buildings of the

Management. To deprive him regular pay and other benefits extended to a regular employee of the Management he was

being shown engaged as a contract labourer. According to him all paper transactions, if any, for showing such

electrical works being entrusted to a contractor are sham and camouflage in nature. Though he was working as

Electrician directly under the S.B.I. Management for the period from February, 1988 till his termination of his service

i.e. December, 2010, he was shown as a labourer working under different contractors from time to time. When he raised

a claim before the Management for his absorption and regularization of service he was disengaged.

Refuting the allegations raised by the workman the Management submitted its written statement wherein stand

has been taken that in no point of time Shri Mallick was given any appointment or job work to repair and maintain

electrical fittings of the office and residential building of the Management. Such work of maintenance was being done

through contractors. As such there was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the Bank

Management. It is the further case of the Management that such maintenance work was entrusted to the contractor

Management No. 1 in the year 2010 and the allegations raised by the workman being frivolous and baseless the

reference should be answered against the workman. The Management No. 1 did not make his appearance and file any

written statement for which he has been set exparte.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties issues like (1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Udyog

Engineering and Construction, newly engaged contractor working under CGM, State Bank of India, LHO,

Bhubaneswar in not considering the engagement of Shri Abhimanyu Mallick, Electrician in Electrical Maintenance

works is appropriate and justified? (2) Whether the 2^nd party-workman was ever engaged by the 1^st Party-Management

No. 1 and (3) To what relief the workman is entitled were settled on 07.01.2013 where-after the case was posted for

taking evidence of the parties. But, the workman did not come forward to adduce his evidence and remained absent

inspite of several adjournments accorded to him. Ultimately when he failed to lead any evidence inspite of being

noticed repeatedly the matter was heard exparte. The Management did not choose to adduce any evidence except

relying on his pleadings.