6344 GI/2017

(8625)

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- 44]

ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 29—uoEcj 4] 2017] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 7—dk£rd 13] 1939

No. 44]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 29—NOVEMBER 4, 2017, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 7—KARTIKA 13, 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)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

मंालय

(कामक और िशण

कामक और िशण

कामक और िशण िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का

का.आ. 2549

. 2549

. 2549.— के सरकार, दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क& धारा 6

के साथ प'ठत धारा 5 क& उप धारा (1) +ारा ,द- त शि.य/ का ,योग करते 2ए असम रा4य सरकार, क& सहमित से दनांक

04.08.2017 क& अिधसूचना एचएमए 19021/19/2017-पॉिल'टकल (ए)- एच एंड पी (ईसीएफः 27889)/9 के तहत गुमनाम

बंदूकधा'रय/ +ारा दनांक 01.08.2017 को ऑल बी.टी.सी. माइनॉरटी टूड@Aस यूिनयन (एबीएमएसयू), कोकराझार के अCयD

लफ&कुल इलाम अहमद क& ह-या के संबंध म@ सशG अिधिनयम (1956 का अिधिनयम सं. 104) क& धारा 25 (1-ए)/27(3) के साथ

प'ठत भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं. 45) क& धारा 120 बी, 302, 326, 34 के अधीन कोकराझार पीएस केस

नं. 492/2017 से संबंिधत अपराध/ तथा उपयुJ. अपराध/ के संबंध म@ या Kम म@ कसी अय अपराध/अपराध/, ,यास//दुM,ेरण/ और

षडयंP तथा इसके समान तQय/ के उ-पR होने पर समान संSवहार क& कारJवाई म@ कए गए कसी अUय अपराध/अपराध/ का अवेषण

करने तथा इसके साथ-साथ दोषी Sि.य/ के िवVW आपरािधक अिभयोजन शुZ करने के िलए दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन के सदय/

क& शि.य/ और यायिधकार DेP का िवतार स[पूणJ असम रा4य पर करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/36/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. िPपाठी, अवर सिचव

8626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2549.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

Government of Assam vide Notification No. HMA.19021/19/2017-Political(A)-H&P(ECF:27889)/9dated 04/08/2017

hereby extends the Powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Whole of

the State of Assam for Investigation of the offences relating to Kokrajhar PS Case No.492/2017 under sections 120-B,

302, 326, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) read with section 25 (1-A)/27(3) of Arms Act,

(Act No.104 of 1956), in respect of killing of one Lafikul Islam Ahmed, President of All B.T.C Minority Students’

Union (ABMSU), Kokrajhar on 01.08.2017 by unidentified gunmen and any other offence/offences, attempts,

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

offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts and simultaneously

launching of criminal prosecution against the guilty persons.

[F. No. 228/36/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2550

2550

2550.—के सरकार, द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25)

क! धारा 6 के साथ पठत धारा 5 क! उपधारा (1) 'ारा (द) शि*य, का (योग करते /ए असम रा1 य सरकार, क!

सहमित से दनांक 04.08.2017 क! अिधसूचना एचएमए 19021/19/2017 – पॉिलटकल (ए) – एच एंड पी (ईसीएफ :

27889)/9 के तहत गुमनाम बंदूकधारय, 'ारा दनांक 01.08.2017 को ऑल बी.टी.सी. माइनॉरटी टूड?@स यूिनयन

(एबीएमएसयू), कोकराझार के अB यC लफ!कुल इ लाम अहमद क! हE या के संबंध म? सश F अिधिनयम (1956 का

अिधिनयम सं. 104) क! धारा 25 (1-ए)/27(3) के साथ पठत भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं.

45) क! धारा 120 बी, 302, 326, 34 के अधीन कोकराझार पीएस केस नं. 492/2017 से संबंिधत अपराध, तथा उपयुK त

अपराध, के संबंध म? या Lम म? कसी अ य अपराध/अपराध,, (यास,/दुM (रेण, और षडयंF तथा इसके समान तP य, के

उE प न होने पर समान संQ यवहार क! कारKवाई म? कए गए कसी अ य अपराध/अपराध, का अ वेषण करने तथा इसके साथ-

साथ दोषी Q यि*य, के िवRS आपरािधक अिभयोजन शुR करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापन के सद य, क!

शि*य, और यायिधकार CेF का िव तार सV पूणK असम रा1 य पर करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/36/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. िFपाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2550.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

Government of Assam vide Notification No. HMA. 19021/19/2017-Political(A)-H&P(ECF:27889)/9 dated 04/08/2017

hereby extends the Powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Whole of

the State of Assam for Investigation of the offences relating of Kokrajhar PS Case No. 492/2017 under sections 120-B,

302, 326, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act, No. 45 of 1860) read with section 25 (1-A)/27(3) of Arms Act, (Act

No. 104 of 1956), in respect of killing of one Lafikul Islam Ahmed, President of All B.T.C Minority Students’ Union

(ABMSU), Kokrajhar on 01.08.2017 by unidentified gunmen and any other offence/offences, attempts, abetments and

conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed

in the course of the same transaction arising out of the same facts and simultaneously launching of criminal prosecution

against the guilty persons.

[F. No. 228/36/2017-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8627

संचार मंालय

(डाक िवभाग)

नई द ली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2551

2551

2551.—मंिFमंडल क! िनयुि* संबंधी सिमित, काWमक एवं (िशCण िवभाग के पF सं. 24/8/2016/-

ईओ (एसीसी) दनांक 09.10.2017 और आरबीआई के पF सं. डीबीआर एपीपीटी सं. 4092/29.92.006/2017-18

दनांक 27.10.2017 के अनुसरण म? तथा बै\कग िविनयामक अिधिनयम, 1949 क! धारा 35ख के अनुसार, के ीय

सरकार 'ारा ]ी सुरेश सेठी (ज म ितिथ 30.03.1965) पूवK (बंध िनदेशक, वोडाफोन एम-पैसा िलिमटेड को वेतनमान

2,05,400 – 2,24,400/- ^. ( तर 16) म? इंिडया पो ट पेम?@स ब_क (आईपीपीबी) के (बंध िनदेशक एवं मु` य कायKकारी

अिधकारी के Rप म?, पद का कायKभार aहण करने क! तारीख से 3 वषK क! अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो

भी पहले हो, के िलए िनयु त करती है।

[फा. सं. 1-8/2016 – पीबीआई (खc ड -II)]

मधुिमता दास, उप-महािनदेशक (पीबीआई)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2551.—In pursuance to Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), DoPT letter number 24/8/2016-EO

(ACC) dated 09.10.2017 and RBI’s letter No. DBR. Appt. No. 4092/29.92.006/2017-18 dated 27.10.2017 and in

accordance with Section 35B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Suresh Sethi (DoB 30.03.1965), former Managing Director, Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. As Managing Director and

Chief Executive Officer (MD&CEO) of India Post Payments Bank (IPPB) in the scale of pay Rs. 2,05,400 – Rs.

2,24,400/- (Level 16), for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1-8/2016-PBI (Vol-II)]

MADHUMITA DAS, Dy. Director General (PBI)

कोयला मं ालय

नई द ली, 2 नवV बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2552

2552

2552.—कोयला धारक CेF (अजKन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम? इसके

पd चात् उ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क! धारा 9 क! उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपF, असाधारण, भाग II,

खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 29 मई, 2017 'ारा (कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंFालय क! अिधसूचना

का. आ. सं` यांक 1709(अ), तारीख 26 मई, 2017 के (काशन पर उ त अिधसूचना से संलf न अनुसूची म? वgणत भूिम और

ऐसी भूिम, (िजसे इसम? इसके पd चात् उ त भूिम कहा गया है), म? के सभी अिधकार, उ त अिधिनयम क! धारा 10 क!

उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम, से मु त होकर, आE यंितक Rप म? के ीय सरकार म? िनिहत हो गए है ;

और, के ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, क वे टनK कोलफ! hस िलिमटेड, नागपुर-440 001, महाराM i

(िजसे इसम? इसके पd चात् उ त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन, और शतk का, जो के ीय सरकार इस िनिमE त

अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ;

8628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अत:, अब, के ीय सरकार, उ त अिधिनयम क! धारा 11 क! उप-धारा (1) 'ारा (दE त शि तय, का (योग करते

/ए, यह िनदेश देती है, क इस (कार िनिहत भूिम 36.98 हे टर(लगभग) या 91.38 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली उ त भूिम

म? या उस पर के सभी अिधकार तारीख 29 मई, 2017 से के ीय सरकार म? इस (कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए,

िनV निलिखत िनबंधन, और शतk के अधीन रहते /ए, सरकारी कंपनी म? िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथाKत् :—

(1) सरकारी कंपनी, उ त अिधिनयम के उपबंध, के अधीन यथा अवधारत (ितकर, l याज, नुकसािनय, और वैसी

ही मद, क! बाबत् कए गए संदाय, क! के ीय सरकार को (ितपूWत करेगी ;

(2) शतK (1) के अधीन सरकारी कV पनी 'ारा के ीय सरकार को संदेय रकम, का अवधारण करने के (योजन, के

िलए उ त अिधिनयम क! धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और कसी ऐसे अिधकरण

और अिधकरण क! सहायता के िलए िनयु त Q यि तय, के संबंध म? उपगत सभी Q यय, सरकारी कंपनी 'ारा

वहन कए जाएंगे और इस (कार िनिहत उ त भूिम म? या उस पर के अिधकार, के िलए या उनके संबंध म?

अपील, आद जैसी सभी िविधक कायKवािहय, क! बाबत् उपगत, सभी Q यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी 'ारा वहन कए

जाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कंपनी, के ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय, क!, ऐसे कसी अ य Q यय के संबंध म? CितपूWत करेगी, जो

इस (कार िनिहत उ त भूिम म? या उस पर के अिधकार, के बारे म?, के ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय, 'ारा

या उनके िवRS क हm कायKवािहय, के संबंध म? आवd यक हो ;

(4) सरकारी कंपनी को के ीय सरकार के पूवK अनुमोदन के िबना उ त भूिमय, को क हm अ य Q यि तय, को

अंतरत करने क! शि त नहm होगी ; और

(5) सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश, और शतk का पालन करेगी, जो के ीय सरकार 'ारा, जब कभी आवd यक हो, उ त

भूिम के िविशM ट CेF, के िलए दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं ।

[ फा. सं. 43015/16/2017 –एलए एc ड आईआर]

आर.एस. सरोज, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 2nd November, 2017

S.O. 2552.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S. O. 1709(E), dated the 26^th May, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 29^th May, 2017, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land)

vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said

Act ;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, District

Nagpur-440 001, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to comply with such

terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby direct that the said land measuring 36.98 hectares (approximately) or 91.38 acres

(approximately) with all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from 29^th May, 2017 instead of

continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms

and conditions, namely :-

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government company under condition (1) and all expenditure

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8629

incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne

by the Government company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vesting, shall also be borne by

the Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other persons without the prior

approval of the Central Government ; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[ F. No. 43015/16/2017 – LA&IR]

R.S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2553-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik”pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2469 ¼v½ rkjh[k 7

flrEcj] 2015] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 11 flrEcj] 2015] esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu

vuqlwph esa fofufn’V Hkwfe esa

fcgkj jkT; esa ^^iVuk & eksfrgkjh & cSrkyiqj “kk[kk ikbiykbu** ds vUrxZr ftyk

iwohZ pEikj.k esa isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs”ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,

mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks’k.kk dh Fkh (

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 11 vizSy] 2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vf/ku dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik”pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus

ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu”p; fd;k gS (

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk “kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g

?kks’k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj

dk vtZu fd;k tk, (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk “kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ”k

nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks’k.kk ds izdk”ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs”ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA

isVªksfy;e vksj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksZjs”ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ

okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA

vuqlwph

ftyk % iwohZ pEikj.k

jkT; % fcgkj

ekStk @xzke

losZ @ Cykd @ la- ¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho&la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

vkjs

oxZ ehVj

ljksrkj

8743

Fkkuk ua- % 33

8740

8742

8741

8736

8737

8738

8630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8735

8734

8732

8731

8727

8723

8724

8726

8725

8714

8713

8709

8710

8708

8711

8695

8423

8424

8428

8429

8430

8427

8446

8433

8434

8435

8444

8443

8441

8440

8477

8478

8479

8480

8484

8485

8492

8491

8490

8499

8488

8500

8519

8520

8518

8517

8515

8516

8514

8534

8513

8555

8558

8557

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8631

8559

8556

8571

8570

8575

8574

8577

8580

8581

8582

8579

8588

8589

8590

8591

8592

8593

8594

8603

8604

8605

8606

8607

8621

8622

8623

7859

8624

8630

7845

7844

8634

7843

8635

8636

7828

8854

7827

7825

8855

8856

8857

8858

8859

8861

7824

7799

7798

8867

8866

7798

8868

8876

8632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8877

7797

7794

7793

7792

7806

7791

7789

7790

7788

7779

9016

7195

7194

9017

9018

7193

9019

9020

7190

7189

7188

7185

7187

7186

7204

7182

7205

7206

7207

7208

7211

7212

7215

7214

7218

7213

7228

7229

7230

7131

7130

7129

7128

7127

7126

7124

7125

6920

6921

6922

6923

7100

6936

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8633

7099

7097

7013

7012

7011

7015

7016

7088

7087

7017

7085

7020

7079

7080

7081

7083

7078

7082

7074

7076

7075

7053

7068

7056

7057

7058

5328

5327

5339

5337

5338

5340

5341

5343

5584

5344

5406

5405

5404

5387

5386

5385

5384

5357

5382

5381

5380

5359

5360

5352

753

752

747

8634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

748

746

749

745

779

744

785

786

596

595

594

592

317

319

336

337

340

341

360

361

433

434

432

435

428

426

436

425

422

423

414

413

411

1754

1753

1762

1760

1761

1759

1758

1810

1810@9339

1809

1808

1806

1807

1806@9329

1804

1803

1802

1864

1865

1862

1880

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8635

1882

1883

1886

1884

1885

1888

1891

1939

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1933

1931

1932

1935

1922

[Qk- la- vkj&25011@17@2013&vksvkj&I@39760¼ikVZ&I½]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2017

S.O. 2553.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas 2469 (A) dated the 07^th September, 2015, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (here inafter referred to as the said

Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 11^th September, 2015, the Central Government declared its intention

to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

“Patna - Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline” for the transportation of Petroleum Products in East Champaran District

the state of Bihar by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 11^th April, 2017;

And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the

Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central

Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P & MP

Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the

pipeline.

8636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District : East Champaran

State : Bihar

Mouja / Village

Survey/Block

No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

SAROTAR

8743

THANA NO. 33

8740

8742

8741

8736

8737

8738

8735

8734

8732

8731

8727

8723

8724

8726

8725

8714

8713

8709

8710

8708

8711

8695

8423

8424

8428

8429

8430

8427

8446

8433

8434

8435

8444

8443

8441

8440

8477

8478

8479

8480

8484

8485

8492

8491

8490

8499

8488

8500

8519

8520

8518

8517

8515

8516

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8637

8514

8534

8513

8555

8558

8557

8559

8556

8571

8570

8575

8574

8577

8580

8581

8582

8579

8588

8589

8590

8591

8592

8593

8594

8603

8604

8605

8606

8607

8621

8622

8623

7859

8624

8630

7845

7844

8634

7843

8635

8636

7828

8854

7827

7825

8855

8856

8857

8858

8859

8861

7824

7799

7798

8867

8866

7798

8868

8876

8877

7797

8638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7794

7793

7792

7806

7791

7789

7790

7788

7779

9016

7195

7194

9017

9018

7193

9019

9020

7190

7189

7188

7185

7187

7186

7204

7182

7205

7206

7207

7208

7211

7212

7215

7214

7218

7213

7228

7229

7230

7131

7130

7129

7128

7127

7126

7124

7125

6920

6921

6922

6923

7100

6936

7099

7097

7013

7012

7011

7015

7016

7088

7087

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8639

7017

7085

7020

7079

7080

7081

7083

7078

7082

7074

7076

7075

7053

7068

7056

7057

7058

5328

5327

5339

5337

5338

5340

5341

5343

5584

5344

5406

5405

5404

5387

5386

5385

5384

5357

5382

5381

5380

5359

5360

5352

753

752

747

748

746

749

745

779

744

785

786

596

595

594

592

317

319

336

337

340

8640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

341

360

361

433

434

432

435

428

426

436

425

422

423

414

413

411

1754

1753

1762

1760

1761

1759

1758

1810

1810/9339

1809

1808

1806

1807

1806/9329

1804

1803

1802

1864

1865

1862

1880

1882

1883

1886

1884

1885

1888

1891

1939

1925

1926

1927

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8641

1928

1929

1930

1933

1931

1932

1935

1922

[F. No. R-25011/17/2013/OR-I/39760(Pt.I)]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

म और रोजगार मं ालय

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2554

2554

2554.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार पिpम रेलवे के (बंधतंF के संबंS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म? िनqदM ट औoोिगक िववाद म?

के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण नं. 1, मुV बई के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 39/2004) को (कािशत करती है, जो के ीय

सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-41012/91/2003-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-41012/91/2003-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

Present :

JUSTICE S.V. S. RATHORE , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/39 OF 2004

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Western Railway, Mumbai

And

Their workman (Dhruv Charan Pandav)

8642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the first party

: Ms. Fernandes, Adv.

For the Union

: Mr. M.B. Anchan, Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 5^th July, 2017

AWARD PART-II

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. As per the schedule of the Reference, the

following question was referred to this Tribunal.

Whether the action of the Management of Western Railway Administration, Churchgate, Mumbai by

dismissing the services of Shri Dhruv Chavan Pandav w.e.f.20.10.2003 after imposing the penalty is justified?

If not, what relief the workman, Shri Dhruv Charan Pandav is entitled to?

Notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the workman statement of claim was filed by the

workmen’s union. The facts necessary for the purpose of this second part of the Award may be summed up as under.

According to the statement of claim filed by Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Mumbai (hereinafter

referred to as the Union) the workman Dhruv Charan Pandav was appointed substitute Bungalow Peon in the scale of

Rs.2550-3200 (RSRP) attached to Mrs. Rashmi Kapoor, FA & CAO (C-II), Western Railway, Churchgate, with effect

from 17.10.2000. The workman fell ill from 5.11.2001 and, therefore, he could not attend his duties for three days i.e.

from 5.11.2001 to 7.11.2001. He informed the office and Mrs. Kapoor about his illness. On 8.11.2001 when he went

to the bungalow with medical certificate for resuming duty Mrs. Kapoor and family were not at the bungalow and the

bungalow was locked. He, therefore, went to the office and met Mr.Gupta, SAO (Admn.) and apprised him the

circumstances under which he could not attend his duties from 5.11.2001 to 7.11.2001. Mr.Gupta asked the workman

to work in office as Mrs.Kapoor had gone out of Mumbai. He worked in the office from 8.11.2001 to 11.11.2001. On

12.11.2001 he went to the bungalow to resume his duty as directed by Mr.Gupta. However Mrs. Kapoor sent him back

to Mr.Gupta. On 12.11.2001 Mr.Gupta was on leave and, therefore, he went back to the bungalow but he was not

allowed to resume his duty by Mrs.Kapoor. He went to the office. Mr.Gupta issued him a warning letter and told him to

bring his guardian and report at the bungalow. Since his guardian was not available he went to the bungalow alone on

13.11.2001 but he was not allowed to resume his duty. Thereafter the workman daily reported for work at the

bungalow and the office but he was not given any work either at the bungalow or at the office. On 29.11.2001 he was

issued a chargesheet. The workman denied the charges levelled against him. The workman was suspended by order

dt.10.1.2002. Subsequently the workman was dismissed from service by order dt. 20.10.2003. The workman preferred

an appeal which was not considered by the Appellate Authority. According to the Statement of claim the charge of

remaining absent unauthorisedly is baseless as the workman was not given work and he was paid full wages for the

months of November 2001, December 2001 and January 2002. As regards the charge no.2 regarding failure to apprise

the telephonic message received by him to Mrs. Kapoor this charge is also baseless because it does not mention date,

time and the source from where the message was received. According to the statement of claim since the charges are

baseless, therefore, the enquiry held against the workman is vitiated. The first party has not followed the Disciplinary

Rules and as such the enquiry is illegal. The workman was not given copies of documents and he was not provided

adequate opportunity to defend himself and thus the enquiry is against the principles of natural justice. It has,

therefore, been prayed that the workman be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.

The first party has filed written statement wherein it has denied the entire story narrated in the statement of

claim. The question of giving any work to the workman did not arise as he never attended the office from 5.11.2001 to

29.11.2001. The workman while serving as bungalow peon was found to have committed gross misconduct

exhibiting lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of railway servant violating Rule 3.1 (ii) and (iii)

of the Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966. The salary of bungalow peon was drawn in different section and the

presence of employees was marked in different section and, therefore, on account of lack of communication the salary

for the month of November 2001, December 2001 and January 2002 was erroneously drawn. The first charge against

the workman was of remaining absent without informing from 5.11.2001 upto 29.11.2001. Even after receiving the

chargesheet on 5.12.2001 the workman reported for duty only on 10.1.2002 on which date he was placed under

suspension. The workman absented from duties for a period of 67 days. The workman never produced any medical

certificate. It has been denied that the first party did not follow Disciplinary Rules. According to the written statement

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties the following issues were framed.

(1)

Whether the enquiry held against the workman was not fair and proper?

(2)

Whether the findings given by the Enquiry Officer was perverse?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8643

(3)

Whether the action of the management by removing the workman Dhruv Charan Pandav from service

w.e.f. 20.10.2003 is justified?

The Tribunal vide Award-Part I dated 28.2.2013, has already decided Issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the

workman and an opportunity was given to the first party to prove the charges against the workman by leading evidence

before this Tribunal. Thereafter on behalf of the first party affidavit MW-2 Gladwin Outram was filed on 10.10.2013

for the second part of award. MW-1 Palliyani Bhuwandas was examined and workman Dhruv Charan Pandav also

filed his affidavit of evidence. The witnesses were cross-examined by the rival parties. Documentary evidence in

support of the oral evidence was also filed. On behalf of the first party entire enquiry proceedings including the

warning letter, suspension orders and the letters showing conduct of the workman were filed. The workman has filed

his application for sanctioning his medical leave and the medical certificate dated 7.11.2001 and has also filed a

certificate of payment of wages to show that he was paid wages for November, December 2001 and January 2002.

On behalf of the management it has been argued that the appointment of the workman was only as a substitute

worker and was without following due procedure. He had completed only one year and 17 days of service. It has also

been argued that on the basis of the documentary evidence and oral evidence it was crystal clear that the conduct of the

workman was not proper. He remained absent without permission and information. He declined to follow the orders

of his superiors. It has also been argued that the salary for the month of November, December 2001 and upto 10^th of

January 2002 was given to him due to mistake and it would not mean that his absence was regularized. Reasons for

payment of salary have been explained by the witnesses in their evidence. It has also been argued that the workman

has not filed any medical certificate during enquiry. He had taken part in the enquiry and was duly represented by the

defense representative. He has himself admitted in his evidence that he had taken part in the enquiry proceedings and

was represented through a defence representative. It has also been argued that from 5.11.2001 he remained

continuously absent and his assertion that on 8.11.2001 he went to the bungalow of his Officer and thereafter he came

to the office and kept on running in between the bungalow and office for a long time is absolutely false and baseless.

Documents have been filed on behalf of the management showing his misconduct which have been admitted by the

workman and, therefore, on the basis of admitted facts itself, it was sufficient to conclude the misconduct of the

workman.

On behalf of the workman it has been argued that as per the chargesheet issued to the workman there were

only two charges. First charge was regarding his absence which as per the statement of claim of the workman was only

for three days and the management has wrongly claimed that he remained absent continuously since 5.11.2001. It has

also been argued that even if absence of 3 days is proved even then for such short absence, punishment of removal

from service was not appropriate punishment. It has also been argued that regarding the second charge there was no

evidence to prove the said charge.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the management argued that in the statement of imputation of charge all the

details of the misconduct were mentioned and keeping in view his past conduct removal from service was the

appropriate evidence. Keeping in view the fact that he was appointed only as a substitute home peon and it was

mentioned in his appointment letter that in case his services are not required then his services will be terminated as per

norms.

Now in view of the rival submissions evidence is to be scrutinized.

During first part of the Award, the Enquiry Officer was examined and the perusal of the first part Award

shows that this Tribunal decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the workman and has observed as under.

“A perusal of the enquiry report makes it clear that the Enquiry Officer has not discussed the evidence on the

basis of which he has reached the conclusion that the workman remained unauthorisedly absent without

intimation or that he failed to apprise the officer the telephonic message that he received at her residence.

There is no evidence as to what was the message and what was its date, time and source and how the failure to

apprise caused any trouble, distress or embarrassment to the officer.

In view of the above the irresistible conclusion is that the enquiry held against the workman is not fair and

proper and as such findings given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

Issues Nos.1 and 2 are, therefore decided in favour of the workman and against the first party”.

10.

The submission of the learned counsel for the management is also to the effect that the workman was

appointed only as a substitute bungalow peon and as per the terms of appointment his services could be terminated on

joining on transfer by any other employee or for any reasons his serviceds are not required by the Officer with whom

he is attached. Therefore, he was a temporary substitute workers and for termination of his services even disciplinary

enquiry was not required but inspite of that an opportunity of hearing was given to him by following the prescribed

procedure and the Enquiry Officer has rightly held him guilty.

11.

Before proceeding further it is necessary to go through the appointment letter of the workman.

“O.O. No. S&C/ADM/HQ/PRTN/NG/88

Date 1.11.2000

8644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sub :Appointment of NG staff Class IV in Category of Substitute Bungalow Peon Rs. 2550-3200 (RSRP).

Ref. : FA & CAO

On being declared fit medically in C2 category by SR.DMO-CCG’s fit certificate No.A-287292 dated

16.10.2000, as advised vide O.O. No. under reference, Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab, is appointed as fresh face

susbstitute Bungalow Peon in grade Rs. 2550-3200 (RSRP) attached to FA&CAO( C) II, in FA&CAO

(S&C)’s Office CCG w.e.f. 31.10.2000 (BN), on the following terms.

If the services of the above name employee are not required by the concerned officer for one or other reason or

he is rendered surplus due to the transfer of the officer o otherwise, his services will be terminated as per

norms.”

Thus, a perusal of the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter makes it abundantly clear that

the services of the workman could have been terminated if his services were not required by the concerned officer for

one or other reason. Words “one or other reason” are wide enough to bring into its domain the dissatisfactory services

of the workman. Before proceeding further in this matter and appreciating the evidence on record, I would like to

mention that keeping in view the defence taken by the workman himself, it is abundantly clear that after coming back

from his service he made several efforts to go to the duty but the officer with whom he was attached has not permitted

him to join. Thus this admission of the workman in his own statement of claim, it would give rise to the conclusion

that the officer with whom he was attached did not require his services any more. The reasons for not permitting him

to join so would obviously be the past conduct of the workman himself which finds support from the documentary

evidence which shall be dealt with in the later party of the Award. The main thrust of argument on behalf of the

workman was that there were only two charges against him and as per the first charge was of his absence w.e.f.

5.11.2001 upto date. As per the defence of the workman he fell sick for three days so he could not join and thereafter

when he went to join on 8.11.2001 then he was not permitted to join. The second charge was that he failed to

deliver/apprise telephonic message received at residence of FA& CAO (W&S in her absence causing embarrassment to

the Officer. The workman in his cross-examination has admitted that he had received the memorandum which is

marked as Ex.M-1. M-1 is standard form of chargesheet which contains the charge-sheet and there is already a column

of imputation of misconduct of misbehaviour in support of Article of charge and there is also a column for mentioning

the documents which shall be considered as evidence against him. In the said columns, it is mentioned that separate

sheet is enclosed. Thus the first the Article of charge contains two charges and the second enclosure is statement of

imputation which reads as under:

STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION

Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab, while functioning as Bungalow Peon in FA&CAO (W&S) has committed the

following gross misconduct in as much as:-

Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab is in the habit of absenting from duty without intimation to the office or the

Officer with whom he is attached.

In December 2000, when the employee had hardly put in 2 months of service, he was absent without

intimation for 2 days.

The employee has a tendency of being careless, negligent and has utter disregard for instructions given to him.

For his repeated failures, he was also served with a written warning by SAO (ADM) and Staff Officer on

8.6.2001.

Even after repeated counselling by FA&CAO(W&S)-CCG, to perform his duties assigned to him with care as

Bungalow Peon, he has shown no improvement.

Despite issue of warning and repeated counselling, he has again remained absent unauthorisedly from

5.11.2001 to date.

He failed to deliver telephonic messages received from the office of DY.CAO(W&S) all as well as other

messages.

Thus, by his above mentioned acts, Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab violated Rule No. 26 for Article No.1 and

exhibited lack of devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant for Article No.

2 thereby violated Rule 3 (1)(ii) & (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.”

The third enclosure to this Memorandum is the list of documents by which Article of charges framed against the

workman were proposed to be proved. This documents reads as under:

List of documents by which the article of charges framed against Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab, as proposed to

be obtained.

Note of FA&CAO (W&S) under whom Shri Pandab is working as Bungalow Peon dated 15.5.2001.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8645

Acknowledgement of Warning letter dated 8.6.2001.

Muster Roll

Letter dated 6.11.2001 to Shri Pandab intimating his absence from 5.11.2001.

Note of FA&CAO(W&S) under whom Shri Pandab working as Bungalow Peon dated 29.10.2001

regarding negligence on his part.”

This Memorandum and its three enclosures are signed by the Disciplinary Authority and all the above mentioned

documents are dated 29.11.2001. The workman in his cross-examination has admitted that he had received the

documents M-2 and M-2. M-2 is a Hindi translation of M-1. Thus the entire material evidence and the allegations

against him were duly communicated to the workman. He has filed his explanation to this. Almost similar explanation

was given by the workman which has been stated in his Statement of Claim but he has nowhere stated in his

explanation that he had obtained any medical certificate from any Doctor regarding his illness while no such medical

certificate was filed by him during enquiry proceedings. The said medical certificate was filed by him for the first time

alongwith affidavit filed at the stage of second part of the Award. At this juncture, I would like to mention that the

standard of proof required in a departmental proceedings are entirely different from the standard of proof required in

criminal prosecution. In a criminal prosecution the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but a departmental

enquiry can proceed against the workman on the basis of pre-ponderance of probabilities.

12.

The argument of the learned counsel for the workman is that in this case, actual officers who have made

complaint against him or have issued warning to him were not examined and the management has proved the said

documents only through the executive witness. Law is settled on the point that in procedural irregularity in such

proceedings which does not go to the root of the case, no any adverse inference can be drawn against the management

on this score alone. To get any benefit from such procedural lacunae the workman must show that his defence was

prejudiced by such lapse but during the course of argument nothing could be brought to the notice of the Court which

could have adversely affected him in his defence.

13.

Now I come to the evidence of the management. The first management witness was Pallayani Bhuwandas

who was the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry. He has given entire details of the allegations against the

workman and also the details of the enquiry conducted against him. After going through the evidence of this witness, it

is clear that the workman has fully participated in this enquiry. He was represented by a defence representative. He

was given due notice of each date and time and place of hearing. In paragraph 19, 20 and 21 of the affidavit of evidence

he has given details as to how efforts were made by the workman for not cross-examining the witness. He has also

stated that all the documents in the enquiry were already given to him and he was also given day to day enquiry

proceedings and he was also given an opportunity to submit his final brief but the workman with malafide intention to

disturb the enquiry proceedings did not seriously attend the enquiry. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that

this is not correct to say that statement of the workman was recorded in the absence of his defence representative. He

has also denied the suggestion of the learned counsel that the workman was not given the documents alongwith the

chargesheet as stated in para 10 of his affidavit. Attendance was marked by Janitel and Janitel was not examined

because his supervisor Mr. G.R. Avtram was a witness. The perusal of the enquiry proceedings shows that during

enquiry proceedings the workman has given application dated 17.6.2002 wherein he has made several allegations

against the management and has made derogatory remarks against the Enquiry Officer. It is true that the workman was

paid wages for the month of November, December 2001 and January 2002 but witnesses of the management have

explained it that the wages is prepared in anticipation of the presumption that the workman must have worked. Since

several sections are involved in this matter and because of lack of communication the wages were paid to the workman.

On this ground the argument of the learned counsel for the workman was that since he was paid wages for the

aforementioned period, therefore, it would mean that his absence was condoned/regularized so he cannot be punished

for his absence. After the first part of the Award, affidavit of Gladwin Avtram was filed on behalf of the management.

He has deposed on the basis of the record of the office Western Railway regarding the case of the workman. He was

Section Officer at the relevant time and was acquainted with the facts of this case. He has also stated that workman

was appointed as substitute on temporary basis as a Bungalow Peon w.e.f. 17.10.2000. He was not appointed against

regular and permanent post and he had not completed 3 years of service. He has also stated that from date of his

appointment he had not discharged his duty and responsibilities to the best interest of the administration and

satisfaction of his Officer. This statement was given by him on the basis of several documents details of the same have

been furnished in the affidavit. This witness has also proved the documents which were sent by Mrs. Rashmi Kapoor

with whom the workman was attached. (Ex.M-23) dated 15.5.2001.

“This is to place on record that Shri Dhruba Charan Pandab, my Bunglow Peon walked out of the place last

week leaving the work entrusted to him half way and stated that he is not interested in working as a Bunglow

Peon, but wants to work in the office. He came back subsequently in a resentful mood regarding his action.

He was advised by me that he has been engaged with the personal approval of the General Manager and

without following the usual recruitment procedures by which office staff are engaged, for the specific purpose

8646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of working as my Bunglow Peon. This is not intended to be an indirect method for giving employment in the

office.

He had behaved similarly earlier also in the month of December, when he had barely put in two months of service. As

he was new and this was the first instance for which he later apologised, I merely counselled him verbally.

Administration may kindly take note of his conduct for suitable action.

(No. FA/W&S/P.File/2001 dated 15.5.2001).”

He has proved the signature of Rashmi Kapoor on this document. He has also proved the warning letter dated 8.6.2001

issued by Senior Accounts Officer to the workman advising him to improve his performance and desist from showing

disobedience to the instructions given to him. He has proved the signature of K.R.Gupta, Sr. Accountant on warning

letter. This warning letter bears the acknowledgement signature of the workman. He has also proved the note of

Rashmi Kapoor dated 6.11.2001 wherein she has intimated to the Administration that her Bungalow Peon Dhruv

Charan Pandab is unauthorisedly absent since 5.11.2001. He has neither taken permission nor sent any intimation

regarding his absence. He has also proved a confidential note sent by Rashmi Kapoor with whom the workman was

attached as Bungalow Peon wherein she has mentioned that “This is to place on record that Dhruv Charan Pandav,

Bungalow Peon attached to the undersigned has been negligent in his duties in as much as he has failed to

deliver/apprise me of a very important message received by him at my residence on 26.10.2001 from Dy.CAO (W&S).

On enquiring him on the next day, he has admitted his negligence. Such act of negligence on his part has been noticed

in the past also and he was counselled by the undersigned”. This confidential note is dated 29.10.2001 whereby

Rashmi Kapoor has also recommended for taking necessary action against the employee for his failure to discharge his

duties in appropriate manner.

14.

Learned counsel for the workman has also filed his written arguments regarding second part of the Award.

The sum and substance of the said arguments is that this Tribunal is vested with the power to interfere in the

punishment if the same is found to be disproportionate. The submission is that the absence was for three days but this

is virtually the defence of the workman and not the charge against him. As per charge-sheet he remained continuously

absent from 5.11.2001 . The fact that medical certificate dated 8.11.2001 was issued in his favour was mentioned by

the workman for the first time when evidence was led on the second part of the Award. No explanation could be

furnished by the workman as to why the said certificate could not be filed during departmental proceedings. This

argument on behalf of the management that during departmental proceedings there was no such certificate and it was

subsequently procured by the workman by some private doctor. Being a Government employee of the Railways, the

workman was entitled to medical facilities of the Railway Hospital and he has not furnished any reason as to why he

did not go to the Railway Hospital and preferred to go to a private hospital for his treatment. This submission has

substance and leads to an inference that the said medical certificate was subsequently procured. The workman in

support of his defence could not produce any other witness to support that he remained present in office after

8.11.2001. The argument of the learned counsel for the workman that the wages for the month of November,

December 2001 and January 2002 were paid to him would lead to the conclusion that his absence was regularized and

his conduct was condoned. This Tribunal does not find any substance in this submission because in a Government

Office unless and until the Competent Authority issues an order to stop salary, the salaries are prepared in a routine

manner as different sections of the department are involved in that regard. So simply because his salary was paid for

the period during which he remained absent cannot be a ground to hold that his absence were condoned by the

department.

15.

So far as the second party is concerned, the confidential note of Rashmi Kapoor referred above, itself is

sufficient to hold the negligent conduct of the workman. It is nowhere the case of the workman that Rashmi Kapoor

was having any grudge against him or she was annoyed with him. Why an officer to whom the workman was attached

as a Bungalow Peon would write repeated notes against him without any fault or mistake of the workman. It does not

appeal to reason. This misconduct of not giving the information received by the workman to the Officer with whom he

was attached is also a serious misconduct. Due to such lapse on the part of the workman the Officer must have to

suffer serious embarrassment before her superiors. After appreciating the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the

considered view that the Management was successful in proving the charges against the workman.

16.

Now coming to the question of appropriate punishment. The above discussion shows that Rashmi Kapoor

wrote three notes against him informing the misconduct of the workman. The law is settled on the point that while

considering the sentence the past conduct of the workman can also be looked into. It transpires from the material

available on record that a warning was also issued to him. For the argument sake, defence of the workman is taken to

be true, it shows that Rashmi Kapoor did not permit him to work at her residence would mean that his services were not

required by the Officer with whom he was attached. As per the terms of appointment as mentioned earlier this by itself

was a ground to terminate his service because his appointment was only temporary as a substitute Bungalow Peon and

he was not even confirmed in the post. Therefore, keeping in view the past conduct as established by the material on

record, the punishment of dismissal of removal from service was appropriate punishment and no interference is called

for.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8647

17.

However, it is hereby made clear that the salary already paid to the workman for the period for which he has

remained absent shall not be recovered from him.

JUSTICE S.V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2555

2555

2555.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार उ)र पिpम रेलवे के (बंधतंF के संबS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म? िनqदM ट औoोिगक

िववाद म? के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 14/2011) को (कािशत करती है, जो

के ीय सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल- 41012/94/2010-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North West Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-41012/94/2010-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 14/2011

Reference No. L- 41012/94/2010-IR (B-I)

Dated: 24.5.2011

Sh. Ram Singh Rawat

S/o Sh. Mangal Singh Rawat

R/o Kalaidi Poat Kanakhedi via Sri Nagar

District Ajmer.

V/S

Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer (Store)

North West Railway

GM Office, Near Railway Hospital, Jaipur.

AWARD

Date : 2.8.2017

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

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

adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of North west Railway, Jaipur terminating services of Sh. Ram Singh

Rawat, Ex-Khalasi, vide order dated 29.3.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

According to statement of claim briefly fact of the case is that applicant workman was appointed vide order

No. E/Praka/615/1(Bungalow Khalasi ( Awazee) dated 6.2.2003 to the post of ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ by Deputy

Chief Personnel Officer, NWR, Jaipur. The applicant was appointed in Vigilance Department (Store) with consent of

General Manager to work as ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit.

According to para 4 of statement of claim after completion of satisfactory service of 120 days he was given ‘ temporary

status’ on 6.6.2003 according to Railway Establishment Manual, 1987.

8648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It has been further alleged in para 7 of statement of claim that he was entitled to all the benefits except

seniority available to temporary employees because he had acquired ‘ temporary status’ on 6.6.2003 hence, any action

against him could take place only under provision of “The Railway Servants ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968”.

Further, in para 8 of the statement of claim it has been alleged that he was carrying out his work satisfactorily but

suddenly on 13.1.2004 Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit directed him not to come on work & assured him that he will be called

for work when required. Applicant has further alleged that Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit took the mobile number & address of

the applicant at Jaipur & applicant on the above assurance stayed in Jaipur on rental house & had to bear the expense of

rent till March, 2006.

Further, in para 9 of statement of claim applicant has alleged that after direction of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit on

13.1.2004 not to come on work applicant was called on 8.8.2004 & engaged on work with Sh. O.P.Sharma, C.M.M.

who had come on transfer from Sikanderabad & worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma for one & half month. He has not

received payment for the said one & half month period till the date of filing statement of claim. He has further alleged

that he was waiting to receive a call from the railway for further engagement but he received a letter dated 8.3.2006

wherein applicant was asked to explain his continuous absence from 13.11.2004 which was replied by applicant vide

his letter dated 17.3.2006. Rejecting the explanation of the applicant he was removed from Railway Service without

approval of General Manager vide order dated 24.3.2006 which was an order in complete derogation of the provision of

Constitution, Law, Rule & Sub-Rule.

Further, in para 11 to 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that his removal from service is against the

principle of natural justice & against Sub-rule 9 of Rule, 1968 wherein issuing of charge sheet followed by enquiry is

necessary for imposing major penalty of removal from service. Removal of the applicant is further against the provision

of Section 25-T (prohibition of unfair labour practice) of I.D.Act, 1947 which is punishable u/s 25(U) with

imprisonment for a term of Six month or with a fine of Rs.2000/- or both. It has been prayed that order of termination

dated 24.3.2006 be cancelled declaring null & void & reinstating the applicant in the service with back wages & all

consequential benefits.

Reply to statement of claim consists of two part wherein part I is preliminary objection & part II is parawise

reply to statement of claim. In parawise reply to statement of claim statements in para 1,5,6,7,8,9,11,13 &14 have been

denied. About para 3 & 10 it has been alleged that they require no answer & are based on record. Against para 2 it has

been alleged that nothing has been done against the law by non-applicant & all steps taken by non-applicant is within

the law. Statement in para 4 has been partly admitted & has been alleged that content of this paragraph is far from

reality because applicant has given exaggerated version in his statement. In addition to above denial & admission it has

been further alleged that applicant was appointed as ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ & worked continuously till

13.1.2004 & thereafter without informing the non-applicant left the work place on 13.11.2004. His absence from

13.11.2004 was without authority & thereafter he did not give any information to the non-applicant. He neither

contacted the non-applicant nor made demand of any remaining wages thus, the applicant is absent since 13.11.2004

without authority. In para 7 of reply referring to the content of appointment letter it has been alleged that the condition

mentioned in the appointment letter as indicated below was accepted by the applicant thus, it is clear that applicant has

knowingly violated the condition of appointment letter hence, he is not entitled to any relief. The content of the

appointment letter referred in para 7 of the reply reads as under :—

iz/kku dk;kZy;]

t;iqjA

lwpuk

Jh jkeflag jkor lqiq= Jh eaxy flag jkor dks jsyos fpfdRld }kjk ch&1 oxZ esa ijh{k.k fQV

eheks la- 126190 fnukad 05@02@2003 fn;s tkus ij egkizcU/kd dh vuqefr ls ¼Hk.Mkj½

foftysUl 'kk[kk esa Jh jkds'k jkt iqjksfgr in mi eq- lrdrkZ vf/kdkjh dk ,soth caxyk

[kyklh osrueku #- 2550&3200@& esa #- 2550@& izfrekg ,oa HkRrksa ij rRdky izHkko ls

rhu ekg ds fy, fjDr in ds rgr HkrhZ fd;k tkrk gSA

vkidh HkrhZ iw.kZr% rnFkZ gS rFkk rhu o"kZ dh lsok mijkUr gh vki fof/kor LØhfuax ds ik=

gksxs vr% rc rd v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh }kjk Hksth tk jgh =Sekfld dk;Z fjiksVZ larks”ktud gksus

ij gh vkids dk;Zdky dks vkxs c<+k;k tk,xk] ;fn ;s fjiksVZ vlarks’ktud gqbZ vFkkZr vkids

dk;Z foeq[k gksus@vuqifLFkr jgus@nqO;Zogkj djus o v;ksX; ik;s tkus ij @vkSj vko';drk

u jgus ij @bu n'kkvksa esa vkidks jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk,xk ftlds fy, vkidks dksbZ iwoZ

lwpuk ugha nh tk,xhA vkidks bl 'krZ ds lkFk HkrhZ fd;k tkrk gS fd vki orZeku esa

vf/kdkjh ds mijkUr u, vkxUrqd vf/kdkjh ds lkFk dk;Z djrs jgsxsa] ;fn os ,slk ugha pkgsxs

rks vkidks jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;sxkA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8649

mijksDr n'kkvksa esa jsy lsok ls gVk fn;s tkus ij vki prqFkZ Js.kh ds fdlh Hkh oSdfYid in

ij HkrhZ ds nkosnkj ugha gksxsaA

gLrk{kj viBuh;

6@2@03

mi eq[; dkfeZd vf/kdkjh

t;iqjA

la- bZ ¼izdk½@615@1¼izdk½ ¼caxyk [kyklh½ fnukad 6@2@2003 izfrfyfi lwpukFkZ % &

Jh jkds'k jktiqjksfgr &mi eq[; lrdZrk vf/kdkjh m-i-jsyos] t;iqjA

Jh jke flag jkor lqiq= Jh eaxy flag jkor dks muds izkFkZuk i= fnukad

08@01@2003 ds lanHkZ esaA

lfpo egkizcU/kd] m-i-tksu] t;iqjA

osru fyfid A

ekLVj QkbZyA

fo- l- ,oa ys- v-] t;iqjA

In para 8 of the reply it has been alleged that applicant worked continuously till 13.1.2004 & became absent

w.e.f. 13.11.2004 & remained absent without authority of the department & without intimation to the department & did

not contact the department. In para 9, 10 & 11 it has been alleged that since 13.11.2004 he is absent. It has been alleged

that applicant is not entitled to any relief & his statement of claim is liable to be dismissed.

In preliminary objection it has been alleged that he was appointed as ‘ Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ & worked

on that post till 13.1.2004 continuously & thereafter remained absent w.e.f. 13.11.2004 without any authority &

without giving any intimation to the department. It has further alleged that he did not contact to the department hence,

statement of claim of the applicant is liable to be dismissed. In para 2 of the preliminary objection reference has been

made to the condition of appointment letter which has already been mentioned above.

It has been further alleged that he was engaged for a fixed period on fixed wages & he was not appointed on

any permanent post hence, on this ground also his statement of claim is liable to be dismissed. It has been further

alleged that he has been removed due to his continuous absence from duty hence, he is not entitled to any relief.

10.

In rejoinder, parawise reply of non-applicant has been denied & content of statement of claim has been

reiterated. Against the contention of absence w.e.f. 13.11.2004 it has been alleged that applicant was directed not to

come on work w.e.f. 13.11.2004 & it is wrong to say that applicant remained absent w.e.f. 13.11.2004 without

intimation to the non-applicant or without authority of the non-applicant. It has been further alleged that between

14.11.2004 to 7.3.2006 applicant was not enquired about his absence & notice dated 8.3.2006 was sent. It has been

further alleged that thereafter he was called on 8.8.2005 after arrival of Sh. O.P.Sharma, CMM & he worked with him

for one & half month.

11.

In reply to preliminary objection it has been alleged that he was appointed as ‘Awazee’ on 6.2.2003.

Applicant has quoted the provisions about definition of ‘Substitute’, ‘Emoluments payable to Substitute’ & ‘Rights &

privileges admissible to the Substitutes’. He has alleged that he worked till 13.11.2004 & did not come after 13.11.2004

on the direction of non-applicant & he further worked for one & half month with Sh. O.P.Sharma, CMM when he was

called for work on 8.8.2005. Applicant has alleged that on his own accord neither he stopped working nor he was

absent without authority as alleged by non-applicant.

12.

Applicant has filed his affidavit in evidence on 16.4.15 in support of his claim & has been cross examined on

24.6.15. Affidavit of Sh. Lakhpat Singh Chaudhary Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer has been filed in evidence on

7.12.16 by non-applicant & the witness has been cross examined on 2.1.17.

13.

Heard the argument of learned representative of both the parties & perused the record carefully.

14.

Following cases have been referred by learned representative of the applicant :-

AIR 1980 Supreme Court 840, The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others…

Appellants v/s Vijay Narayan Vajpayee… Respondent.

8650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2012 (2) All India Services Law Journal, 19 SC, Krushnakant B. Parmar…. Appellant v/s. Union of

India & Anr…..Respondents.

15.

Following cases have been referred by learned representative of non-applicant :-

(2011) 9 SCR 1, Union of India & Anr. ……Appellant v/s Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors.

……Respondents.

16.

It has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that after working for the period of 120 days

applicant was given the status of a temporary employee but he was removed from service by non-applicant without

issuing any chargesheet & conducting any enquiry & providing any opportunity of defence. It has been further argued

that notice of absence was given to applicant which was replied by him but instead of following the procedure of

enquiry & providing opportunity of defence to the applicant, non-applicant has passed the order of dismissal which has

resulted into failure of natural justice. It has been further argued that as the applicant was temporary employee at the

time of dismissal non-applicant was under an obligation to follow the procedure laid under rule 9 of “The Railway

Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968” hence, order of dismissal is liable to be set aside & applicant is liable to

be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Reliance has been placed on the case reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court

840, The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others… Appellants v/s Vijay Narayan Vajpayee…

Respondent & 2012 (2) All India Services Law Journal, 19 SC, Krushnakant B. Parmar…. Appellant v/s Union of

India & Anr…..Respondents.

17.

Countering the above argument it has been argued by the learned representative of the non-applicant that

conditions of service of the applicant was to be regulated according to the conditions provided in the appointment letter

wherein he has been shown to have been appointed as ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ & it has been provided in the

conditions of appointment that in the event of absence, unsuitability or misbehaviour or in the absence of need of the

applicant to continue his services, he will be removed from the service without intimation. It has been further alleged

that applicant left the job without intimation & remained continually absent without leave of absence. It has been

further argued that provision of the “The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968” does not apply in case

of the applicant & a notice was given to him to explain his absence which was answered by him & finding the

explanation submitted by the applicant to be false he was removed from service vide order dated 24.3.2006 which is

just & proper. Reliance has been placed on the case reported in (2011) 9 SCR 1, Union of India & Anr. ……Appellant

v/s Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. ……Respondents.

18.

Before I proceed to discuss the arguments advanced by either side it appears necessary to consider the

conditions of appointment letter, content of notice sent to the applicant to explain his absence without intimation & the

order of removal passed by the non-applicant. Content of notice to the applicant & order of his removal from service

are as mentioned below:-

19.

Notice sent to the applicant for his unauthorised absence reads as under :-

mRrj if'pe jsyos

lrdZrk foHkkx

iz/kku dk;kZy;]

t;iqj

jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk

i=kad fot@2006@,soth caxyk vf/kdkjh fnukad 08@03@2006

Jh jkeflag jkor] iq= Jh eaxyflag jkor]

,soth caxyk [kyklh] xk¡o dkysMh] iks- dkuk[kkMh]

ok;k& Jhuxj] ftyk&vtesj fiu&305025

lwpuk

fo"k; %& jsy lsok ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkfr ckcrA

eq[; dkfeZd vf/kdkjh@,p D;w] mRrj if'pe jsyos] iz/kku dk;kZy;] t;iqj ds lwpuk la- bZ

¼izdk½@615@¼caxyk [kyklh½ fnukad 6@2@2003 ds lanHkZ esa vkius ,oth caxyk [kyklh

rnFkZ :i ls ¼vLFkkbZ rkSj½ osrueku #- 2550&3200@& #- 2550@& izfrekg ij mi eq[;

lrdrkZ vf/[email protected]] m-i- jsyos] iz- dk-] t;iqj ds v/khu fnukad 06@02@2003 dks dk;Z

xzg.k fd;k FkkA mlds mijkUr 120 fnu dh vof/k iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr mi eq[; dkfeZd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8651

vf/kdkjh@,p D;w] ds dk;kZy; vkns'k la- bZ@iz-dk-@jkeflag jkor@caxyk [kyklh@ih&QkbZy

fnukad 04@15&03&2004 vkidks vLFkkbZ inoh fnukad 6@6@2003 ls Lohd`r dh xbZA

fnukad 13@11@2004 ls fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn;s vki vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr gS] tks

fd xEHkhj vuq'kklughurk gSA

,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vki bl in ij dk;Z djus ds bPNqd ugha gSA vki d`i;k nl

fnuksa ds vUnj Li"Vhdj.k nsa fd D;ksa u vkidks jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;s\

gLrk{kj viBuh;

jkds'k jktiqjksfgr

mi eq[; lrdZrk vf/kdkjh@HkaMkj

m-i- jsyos] iz- dk-] t;iqjA

20.

The order of removal of the applicant from the service dated 24.3.2006 reads as under :-

mRrj if'pe jsyos

lrdZrk foHkkx

iz/kku dk;kZy;]

jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk

t;iqjA

i=kad fot@2006@,soth caxyk vf/kdkjh fnukad 24@03@2006

Jh jkeflag jkor] iq= Jh eaxyflag jkor]

,soth caxyk [kyklh] xk¡o dkysMh] iks- dkuk[kkMh]

ok;k & Jhuxj] ftyk&vtesj fiu&305025

fo"k; %&jsy lsok ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkfr ckcrA

bl dk;kZy; ds lela[;d i= fnukad 08@03@2006 }kjk vkidksa uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk

fd vki fnukad 13@11@2004 ls fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn, vukf/kd`r :i ls dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr

gSA ;g d`R; xEHkhj vuq'kklughurk gSA vkils 10 fnu ds Hkhrj Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k Fkk fd

D;ksa u vkidks jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;sA

vkius vius i= la[;k fuy fnukad 17@03@2006 tks fd bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad

20@03@2006 dks izkIr gqvk] }kjk viuk Li"Vhdj.k fn;k gSA vkids Li"Vhdj.k ij eSuas

/;kuiwoZd fopkj fd;k gS ,oa esjh enokj fVIi.kh fuEu izdkj ls gS %&

iSjk &1 dFku rF;kuqlkj gS] blfy;s dksbZ fVIi.kh ughaA

iSjk &2 dFku rF;kuqlkj gS] blfy;s dksbZ fVIi.kh ughaA

iSjk &3 vkius fy[kk gS fd vkius 13 tuojh 2004 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k tks fd Bhd ugha

gSA vkius 12 uoEcj 2004 rd dk;Z fd;k Fkk ,oa mlds i'pkr ;kfu 13 @11 @2004 ls vki

fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn, vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr gks x;sA u rks vkius v/kksgLrk{kjdRrkZ dks

mifLFkfr nh vkSj u gh bl dk;kZy; esaA

iSjk &4 vkius mlds i'pkr u rks dk;ZLFky ij vkSj u gh dk;kZy; esa mifLFkfr nhA u gh

vkius v/kksgLrk{kjdRrkZ ls lEidZ fd;kA

iSjk &5 ;g Hkh vk'p;Ztud gS fd vkius fnukad 13@11@2004 ls vuqifLFkr jgrs gq;s 3

vxLr 2005 dks fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh ds ;gka mifLFkfr nh] tcfd vkidks fu;qfDr

v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds caxyk [kyklh ds :i esa FkhA u rks vkids dksbZ LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k tkjh

8652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gq;s vkSj u gh v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ us dksbZ ,sls vkns'k fn;sA vr% vki fnukad 13@11@2004 ls

vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSA

iSjk &6 vkius mlds i'pkr~ u rks dk;ZLFky ij vkSj u gh dk;kZy; esa mifLFkfr nhA u gh

vkius v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ls lEidZ fd;kA

iSjk &7 vki fnukad 13@11@2004 ls dk;ZLFky ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSaA vkidks

u vkus ds dksbZ Hkh vkns'k tkjh ugha gq, gSA

iSjk &8 vki fnukad 13@11@2004 ls dk;ZLFky ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSA vkidks

dk;ZLFky ij u vkus ds dksbZ Hkh vkns'k tkjh ugha gq, gSaA

**vkidks ,oth caxyk [kyklh dh HkrhZ ds le; i= la- bZ ¼izdk½@615@1 ¼izdk½ ¼caxyk

[kyklh½ fnukad 6@2@2003 }kjk ;g Li"V funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd vkidh HkrhZ iw.kZr% rnFkZ

gS rFkk rhu o"kZ dh lsok mijkUr gh vki fof/kor LØhfuax ds ik= gksaxsA vr% rc rd

v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh }kjk Hksth tk jgh =Sekfld dk;Z fjiksVZ larks’ktud gksus ij gh vkids

dk;Zdky dks vkxs c<+k;k tk,xk] ;fn ;s fjiksVZ vlarks’ktud gqbZ vFkkZr~ vkids dk;Z foeq[k

gksus@vuqifLFkr jgus@nqO;Zogkj djus o v;ksX; ik;s tkus ij@vkSj vko';drk u jgus ij

@bu n'kkvksa esa vkidks jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk,xk ftlds fy, vkidks dksbZ iwoZ lwpuk ugha

nh tk,xhA vkidks bl 'krZ ds lkFk HkrhZ fd;k tkrk gS fd vki orZeku esa vf/kdkjh ds

mijkUr u, vkxUrqd vf/kdkjh ds lkFk dk;Z djrs jgsaxs] ;fn os ,slk ugha pkgsaxs rks vkidks

jsy lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;sxk**A bu 'krksZa dks vkius fu;qfDr vkosnu i= esa Lohdkj Hkh fd;k

FkkA

vkidk Li"Vhdj.k fdlh Hkh izdkj ls larks"ktud ugha gS rFkk lR; ls ijs gSA vkidk

dk;ZLFky ls fnukad 13@11@2004 ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jguk dk;Z ds izfr foeq[krk

,oa xEHkhj vuq'kklughurk gSA vr% vki jsy lsok esa dk;Z djus gsrq v;ksX; gSA vr% vkidks

rqjUr izHkko ls jsy lsok ls ,oth caxyk [kyklh in ls gVk;k tkrk gSA

gLrk{kj viBuh;

jkds'k jktiqjksfgr

mi eq[; lrdZrk vf/kdkjh@HkaMkj

m-i-jsyos] iz- dk-] t;iqjA

izfrfyfi lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq&

mi eq[; dkfEkZd vf/kdkjh@eq[;ky;@t;iqjA

osru fyfid A

lsok iaftdk A

foRr lykgdkj ,oa eq[; ys[kkf/kdkjhA

21.

From the perusal of appointment letter it appears that applicant has been appointed as ‘Awazee Bungalow

Khalasi’ of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit, Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer on 6.2.2003 for a period of three months. The

appointment is very specific that he will work as ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit. The

conditions of appointment letter further provides that the appointment is purely on ad-hoc basis & after completion of

three years service he will be entitled for screening & till then if quarterly report submitted by the concerned officer is

found to be satisfactory his tenure will be extended further & if the quarterly report is unsatisfactory he will be removed

from Railway Service without pre-intimation. The unsatisfactory conditions consists of unwillingness from

work/absence/misbehaviour or found to be unfit for work & cessation of work. The conditions of service further

provides that after Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit he will work with new officer & if the new officer does not so desire then he

will be removed from service & the applicant will not be entitled to any alternate class IV post in the event of removal

from service in the above circumstances.

22.

The notice dated 8.3.2006 was given by Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit, for whom the applicant was appointed as

‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’. The notice is regarding unauthorised absence of the applicant from the place of duty

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8653

which says that the applicant had joined the duty on 6.2.2003 as ‘Awazee Bungalow Khalasi’ & he was given

‘temporary status’ on 6.6.2003. The notice further says that he is absent without authority since 13.11.2004 which is a

serious act of indiscipline & it appears from nature of his absence that he is not interested in further working. He has

been directed to explain within 10 days as to why he should not be removed from Railway Service.

23.

In reply dated 17.3.2006 against above notice applicant has alleged that he was given temporary status w.e.f.

6.6.2003 & he worked with Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit till 13 January, 2004 & on 13.1.2004 Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit told

him not to come from tomorrow onwards & he will be summoned when required. In para 4 of reply he has alleged that

after 13.1.2004 he contacted Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit & he said that applicant will be taken in the service soon. Later on

8.8.2005 he was engaged by Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit to work with Sh. O.P.Sharma, another officer who had come on

transfer from Secanderabad where he worked for one & half months & again he was told that he will be called when

required. He has further alleged in reply to notice that he was removed from service without reason on 13.11.2004 &

later in September, 2005. In para 8 of reply of notice he has alleged that he has never been absent from duty & he has

acted according to direction of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit, the officer who had given him notice of absence dated 8.3.2006.

24.

It shall appear from perusal of conditions of appointment provided in appointment letter that applicant was to

work continuously with Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit only till the time Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit was posted at North Western

Railway, Jaipur & only after departure of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit, he was to work with any new coming officer if the

new coming officer so desired & if the new coming officer did not desire to keep engaged with him applicant was to be

removed from service. This was one condition of engagement of applicant according to his appointment letter beside

other conditions. In light of above conditions of appointment there was no occasion for the applicant to remain absent

from duty at the bungalow of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit & there was no occasion for Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit to ask the

applicant not to come on duty after 13.1.2004. Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit in his order of termination rebutting the

contention of applicant he has said that applicant has worked on his bungalow till 12 November, 2004 & from

13 November, 2004 till the date of show cause dated 8.3.2006 applicant remained continuously absent without

information to office or to Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit. Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit has further alleged that applicant was never

ordered to work with Sh. O.P.Sharma & he is not aware about such working of the applicant. Against para 6 of notice

he has denied specifically that applicant neither contacted Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit nor reported in the office hence, there

was no question of assurance given to applicant that he will be soon taken on duty. Against para 5 of explanation Sh.

Rakesh Rajpurohit has specifically denied that applicant has worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma because the applicant was

never transferred to work anywhere except with Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit. He has further reiterated that applicant

remained absent since 13.11.2004. Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit has further mentioned in para 7 of his order of removal that

applicant remained absent since 13.11.2004 without authority & there was neither any order to work with Sh.

O.P.Sharma nor he was ordered to discontinue the work with Sh. O.P.Sharma as alleged by applicant. He has denied

specifically that applicant was never ordered not to come on duty. Based on above assessment & referring to conditions

of appointment given in appointment letter order has been passed by him regarding removal from service.

25.

From perusal of order of removal it is evident that there was no order to work with Sh. O.P.Sharma & there is

no evidence on record to support the contention of the applicant that he worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma. Further, the

applicant has not explained any satisfactory reason for his absence looking into the denial of Sh. Rakesh Rajpurohit that

applicant never contacted him after 13.11.2004. From perusal of cross-examination of the applicant it is evident that

applicant has admitted that he is aware of the conditions of appointment given in appointment letter & he was

appointed subject to conditions mentioned in appointment letter. Applicant has further admitted that according to

conditions of appointment letter he could be removed from service anytime without notice within the period of 3 years

from the date of his appointment. He has further admitted that he was removed from service on 13 January, 2004 & not

from 13.11.2004 & he had not made any complaint to higher authorities against his removal from service. He has

further admitted that he had made no complaint against non-payment of salary for one & half month period during

which he has alleged to have worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma. It is pertinent to mention that he has specifically admitted in

page 3 & 4 of cross-examination that railway had given him notice after laps of nearly one & half year from the date of

his absence which shows that contention of the applicant that he worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma is false. He has further

admitted that he had not submitted any representation or appeal before higher authorities of railway against his order of

removal dated 24.3.2006 from the service. Applicant has neither filed any documentary proof of working with

Sh. O.P.Sharma nor has produced Sh. O.P.Sharma in evidence that applicant had worked with him. He has also not

produced any co-worker to support his allegation that he worked with Sh. O.P.Sharma. His explanation of absence in

reply to the notice appears to be false & contradicting from his own oral statement.

26.

From cross-examination of witness for non-applicant Sh. Lakhpat Singh Chaudhary, Deputy Chief Vigilance

Officer it is evident that he has admitted that Sh. Ramsingh Rawat, applicant has been removed from service on the

basis of conditions given in appointment letter & rule of natural justice was followed in adopting the procedure of his

removal from service. The witness has alleged that notice dated 8.3.2006 given to applicant was opportunity extended

to him to explain his absence which was replied by him & keeping in view the reply made by applicant order of

removal from service was passed. He has admitted that before removal of applicant from service enquiry was not

conducted but provisions contained in appointment letter was followed & order of removal was passed accordingly.

8654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27.

Referred by learned representative of the applicant, in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 840, The Managing Director,

U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others… Appellants v/s. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee… Respondent,

Sh. V.N. Vajpayee, respondent was an employee of corporation on the post of Wareshouseman. He was posted at

Kanpur Warehouse at the relevant time. There was a complaint of theft, misappropriation of Stocks & various other

irregularities against the respondent. A preliminary enquiry was held by Managing Director of the corporation &

charges were framed against him & serviced on 23.11.1960 to submit explanation by respondent & to indicate

evidence, if any, to be adduced by him in defence. On receipt of charge sheet respondent requested Managing Director

to furnish certain document which was given to him. After receipt of documents respondent submitted his explanation

on 19.1.1961 wherein he specifically demanded that he wanted to cross-examine certain witnesses mentioned by

management. He further gave the particular of other witnesses he wanted to examine them in defence. Thereafter, no

further step was taken regarding enquiry or opportunity to applicant to cross-examine the witness of management &

further produce his own witnesses in defence. On April, 14, 1961 Managing Director passed the order of dismissal of

respondent from service w.e.f. the date of suspension. Later on respondent was further required to remit a sum of

Rs. 549.61 due to corporation on account of cost of certain commodities alleged to have been misappropriated by

respondent on account of short realisation of storage charge by him. Aggrieved by order of termination respondent filed

writ petition before Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of

dismissal on the ground that it was violative of the principle of natural justice because he had not been given

opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and establish his innocence. He further prayed for a direction that the

Corporation be restrained from recovering the sum of Rs.549.61 from him. Countering the above contention it was

stated by appellant that certain material facts had been admitted by respondent during preliminary enquiry & he had

also cross-examined the witnesses. It was further submitted that there was no regulation provided for conducting an

enquiry in a particular manner and, therefore, the remedy of respondent was by way of a suit & he had no locus standi

to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further pleaded that

writ petition was time barred. The writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge of the High Court holding that

corporation was not required to act in quasi-judicial manner & that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution

were not applicable in the facts of the case. Aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge respondent preferred

special appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench wherein judgement of the Hon’ble Single judge was reversed & held

that corporation was required to act in quasi-judicial manner. The Hon’ble Division Bench remanded the case for a

fresh decision by Hon’ble Single Judge on merits. The Hon’ble Single Judge by his judgement dated 7.12.66 allowed

the writ petition & quashed the order of dismissal of respondent but refused to grant an injunction against realisation of

Rs.549.61 from the respondent, holding that principle of natural justice had been violated. The appellant corporation

again preferred an special appeal to the Hon’ble Division Bench which was dismissed on 6.8.1969. The appellant

further preferred appeal against order of Hon’ble Division Bench before Hon’ble Supreme Court. In para 14 of the

judgement it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, “…………. A regular departmental enquiry takes place only after

the charge-sheet is drawn up & served upon the delinquent & the latter’s explanation is obtained. In the present case no

such enquiry was held & the order of dismissal was passed summarily after perusing the respondent’s explanation. The

rules of natural justice in this case were honoured in total breach. The impugned order of dismissal was thus bad in law

and had been rightly set aside by the High Court.” Accordingly, the order of the the Hon’ble Division Bench of the

High Court with regard to quashing of the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of its being invalid was

upheld but direction for payment of full back wages was set aside. With above medication the appeal was dismissed.

28.

Referred by learned representative of the applicant, in 2012 (2) All India Services Law Journal, 19 SC,

Krushnakant B. Parmar…. Appellant v/s Union Of India & Anr…..Respondents, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court that if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that

absence is wilful & in absence of such finding the absence will not amount to misconduct. In the case of Sh. Ram

Singh Rawat it is evident from his own evidence that his contention that he was not absent has been proved to be

untrue.

29.

Referred by non-applicant, in (2011) 9 SCR 1, Union of India & Anr v/s Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors, the

respondents were engaged as part time contingent casual labourers purely on temporary basis in the office of

Commissioner of Central Excise in the year 1999. According to offer of appointment, they were required to work on

the basis of need of the office for which they were to be paid @ Rs.10/- per hour with no guarantee as regards

minimum number of hours in a month. In para 7 of the appointment letter it was stated that appointment letter would

not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department as also any automatic right to be considered for

selection to any permanent post in the department. Most of the respondent were in the continuous employment for the

periods ranging from 8 to 14 years. It was contention of the appellant that none of the respondents fall within the

preview of 1993 Scheme, which was notified on 10.9.1993 for conferring temporary status & regularisation of casual

workers, who were in employment on 1.9.1993. All the respondents were engaged after 1.9.1993.

30.

On 2.5.2005, in compliance with directions issued by Ministry of Finance appellant dispensed with the

services of all such casual labourers & handed over the work which was carried out by them to contractors. Aggrieved

by the action of appellant, respondents approached the tribunal preferring an original application for regularisation of

their services which was dismissed by the tribunal. Respondents preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court

against the order of tribunal. The writ petition was allowed by Hon’ble High Court with direction to appellant to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8655

consider the matter afresh in light of circular dated 11.12.2006 issued by Personnel Department & circular issued by

Ministry of Finance dated 7.9.2007 & 13.9.2007. These circulars were issued pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v/s Uma Devi & others, inter-alia directing the Union

of India, State Governments & their instrumentalities to take steps to regularise, as one time measure, the services of

such irregularly appointed employees, who are dully qualified in terms of statutory Recruitment Rules for the post &

who have worked for 10 years or more in dully sanctioned post but not under cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals.

According to direction of Hon’ble High Court, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise found that respondents were

not eligible for regularisation of their services as they did not satisfy the criteria laid down in the case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka & others v/s Uma Devi & others & office memorandum dated 11.12.2006 issued by Department of

Personnel as indicated above.

31.

On 14.1.2008 Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, issued a notice inviting applications for

recruitment of 40 persons to the post of Sepoy ( General Central Service Group D). The prescribed age limit for general

candidate was 27 year , for SC/ST 32 year & for OBC 30 years on 1.1.2008. There was further age relaxation of 5 years

& 3 years for SC/ST & OBC candidates respectively. Initially respondents were permitted to participate in the

recruitment process but later on realising that SC/ST & OBC candidates has crossed the prescribed age they were not

called to participate in further selection process & there applications were rejected as age barred. Aggrieved by the

above decision of the department refusing age relaxation respondents filed original application before the tribunal. The

tribunal directed the appellants to consider the case of respondents for appointment by relaxing the prescribed age-

limit, if necessary, in view of long service rendered by them. In giving such direction the tribunal was of the view that

the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagendra Chandra & Ors. V/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.

(2008 1 SCC 798) was applicable to the case of the respondents & therefore, they were entitled to same relief as was

granted in Nagendra Chandra’s case. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal appellants preferred writ petitions before

the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed with modification of the order of the tribunal to the effect that relaxation

in the age-limit could be upto 3 years & 5 years for OBC & SC/ST candidates respectively. Appellants further preferred

appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble High Court.

32.

The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether in the matter of relaxation of age-limit

prescribed as eligibility criteria for appointment on a particular post, any principle of law has been laid down in the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagendra Chandra’s case? If so, whether it could be applied to the facts of the

present case for directing the relaxation in age-limit?

33.

Referring to first part of the question it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgement

as under:-

“…………..In the said decision it has clearly been held that the courts are not expected to issue any direction

for absorption/regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wagers or adhoc

employees merely because such an employee is continued for a long time beyond the term of his appointment. It has

also been held that such an employee would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent,

merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of

selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. Therefore, in our opinion, the said observation cannot be said to be an

exposition of general principle of law on the point that a long length of service, dehors the relevant recruitment rules

for the post, is a relevant factor for waiver or relaxation of any eligibility criterion, including age-limit for further

regular selections for the post. Obviously, the observation general in nature was made by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot be treated as a binding precedent. It

has to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case.”

34.

It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgement that respondents were engaged

as part time contingent labourers for doing all type of work as may be assigned to them by the office which was need

based for which they were to be paid on hourly basis. It has been further observed that nowhere it has been stated that

they were recruited or ever discharged the duties of a ‘sepoy’ for which process of recruitment was initiated vide notice

dated 14.1.2008. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court at the end of paragraph 14 as under :-

“……..in our opinion, the engagement of the respondents as casual labourers even for considerable long

duration did not confer any legal right on them for seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age-limit. We have no

hesitation in holding that Nagendra Chandra’s case (supra) has no application on facts in hand and the impugned

direction by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court based on the said decision, was clearly unwarranted.”

35.

Referring to the terms & conditions of appointment letter issued to the respondents by appellant it has been

observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20 of the judgement as under :-

“It is plain from the terms of the letter of appointment that the respondents were told in unambiguous terms

that their appointments were temporary and would not confer any right to claim any permanent post in the department.

It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time, during their engagements with the appellants, a promise

was held out to them by the appellants that they would be absorbed as regular employees of the department. In fact, no

such promise could be held out in ivew of the Government O.M. dated 7^th June, 1988 banning the employment of

8656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

persons in regular posts.” Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court & judgement of the Hon’ble

High Court was set aside.

36.

From perusal of decisions in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 840, The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing

Corporation and others… Appellants v/s Vijay Narayan Vajpayee… Respondent & (2011) 9 SCR 1, Union of

India & Anr v/s Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors, referred by learned representative of the applicant & respondent

respectively it is apparently clear that in case of ‘The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others v/s

Vijay Narayan Vajpayee’ charge-sheet was issued to the respondent which was replied by him by submitting his

explanation & he had also given the list of witnesses to be cross-examined by him & the list of witnesses to be

produced by him in defence but without adopting any enquiry proceeding & without giving opportunity to the

respondent to defend himself order of dismissal was passed by the Managing Director in utter violation of principle of

natural justice hence, order of dismissal was set aside. No benefit can be given to the applicant from the decision of

‘The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others v/s Vijay Narayan Vajpayee’ because fact &

circumstances of the case does not fit to the case of applicant Sh. Ramsingh Rawat. Shri V.N.Vajpayee was a regular

employee working on the post of wareshouseman governed by the service conditions of the corporation. There was no

special condition of service provided for Sh. V.N.Vajpayee as provided in appointment letter of Shri Ram singh Rawat.

When charge-sheet was served on Sh. V.N.Vajpayee then enquiry was mandatory, hence finding in the case of shri

v.N.Vajpayee cannot be applied to the case of shri Ram singh Rawat.

37.

It has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that Rule 9 of ‘The Railway Servant (Discipline

& Appeal ) Rule, 1968’ applies to the applicant & he will not be governed by the conditions of appointment letter.

Countering the above argument it has been argued by the learned representative of the non-applicant that ‘The Railway

Servant (Discipline & Appeal ) Rule, 1968’ does not apply to the case of applicant & terms of appointment letter will

govern the service condition of the applicant until he acquires the status of regular employee which was to take place

only after screening of the applicant after the expiry of a period of three years. In support of his argument learned

representative of non-applicant has placed reliance on the case reported in (2011) 9 SCR 1, Union of India & Anr v/s

Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. Looking into the argument of both the parties it is necessary to examined whether ‘The

Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal ) Rule, 1968’ is applicable to the applicant as argued by his learned

representative. Referred by learned representative of non-applicant Chapter 17, page 359 of Railway’s Establishment

Rules & Labour Laws, 1993 contains the provision relating to ‘Discipline & Appeal Rule, 1968’. In its application it

has been mentioned as given below :-

“APPLICATION”

These rules shall apply to every Railway servant but shall not apply to ----

(a)

Any member of the All India Services;

(b)

Any member of the Railway Protection Force as defined in the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957;

(c)

Any person for whom special provision is made, in respect of matters covered by these rules by or under

any law for the time being in force or by or under any agreement entered into/by or with the previous

approval of the President before or after the commencement of these rules, in regard to matters covered

by such special provisions.

The President may, by order, exclude any class of Railway servants from the operation of all or any of these rules.”

38.

The learned representative of non-applicant has repeatedly referred to para (c ) of the “application” &

submitted that the case of applicant is covered by para (c ) & special provision has been provided to deal with the

applicant in appointment letter itself. From perusal of appointment letter as mentioned above it is clearly evident that

till the expiry of the period of 3 year when screening of the applicant is to take place he is necessarily required to be

governed by the terms of appointment letter. To continue his services, it is the terms of the appointment letter which

requires a quarterly report in relation to applicant that he is satisfactorily performing his work & can be continue for the

next quarter. From perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr v/s Arulmozhi

Iniarasu & Ors also it is clear that appointment letter is an effective legal instrument to deal with the affair of an

employee based on the terms of conditions of the service mentioned therein. Applicant has failed to demonstrate with

reason that on what ground Rule 9 is applicable in relation to the applicant & why the terms & conditions of

appointment letter are not attracted to deal with him in event of his unauthorised absence from place of duty.

Accordingly, I am of the view that terms & conditions of appointment letter are applicable to the applicant wherein it

has been provided that he may be removed from service without notice. Applicant has been given opportunity to

explain his absence vide notice dated 8.3.2006 which has been replied by him. His reply has been proved to be false as

discussed above. Dissatisfied with the explanation applicant has been removed from his post by competent authority. In

the facts & circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there has been violation of principle of natural justice.

Based on above discussion, I am of the view that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr v/s

Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors is applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case & argument of the learned

representative of applicant is not sustainable that there has been failure of natural justice by not following the provision

of Rule 9 of ‘The Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal ) Rule, 1968’.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8657

39.

Based on above discussion, I am of the view that applicant has failed to prove that action of the management

of North Western Railway, Jaipur terminating the services of Sh. Ram Singh Rawat, Ex-Awajee Bungalow Khalasi

vide order dated 29.3.2006 is illegal & unjustified. Applicant is not entitled to any relief. His statement of claim is

dismissed accordingly.

40.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 2556

2556

2556.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार भारतीय टेट ब_क के (बंधतंF के संबंS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म? िनqदM ट औoोिगक

िववाद म? के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, नं. 2, मुV बई के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 29/2013) को (कािशत करती है, जो

के ीय सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-12012/106/2012-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

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 25.10.2017.

[No. L-12012/106/2012-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/29 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Admn Office, Sharda Chamber,

7^th Floor, 386/2, Shankarseth Road,

Pune – 411 037.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Shri K. P. Selvam,

1390, Bhimpura,

Galli No.6,

Pune – 411 001.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shri M.G. Nadkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. Umesh Vishwad, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 27^th July, 2017.

8658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour

& Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/106/2012 – IR (B-I) dated 09.05.2013. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune in terminating the services

of Shri K. P. Selvam w.e.f. 16.1.2012 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives. Second party workman filed statement of claim Ex.6. According to the concerned workman,

he was working with the first party bank since 1981 as a Sweeper. He has worked continuously from 1981 to

16.1.2012 with the first party bank. He was doing the work of cleaning and sweeping the premises of Zonal Office

Pune and the officers’ quarters of the first party bank under direct control and supervision of the first party bank. His

work is regular and perennial. The first party bank was making payment to him. As such there is direct employer-

employee relationship between first party bank and second party workman.

According to the second party workman, a group of workmen raised the industrial dispute against the

management of first party bank, Mumbai for non-absorption of workmen engaged through contractors in services of the

first party bank. The agreement was arrived at and the contract workers were absorbed in the service of Central office

and Mumbai Main Branch of the first party bank. However, the first party bank has failed to absorb the contact

employees working in Pune and were discriminated in same situation. Therefore, the union namely Thekedar Kamgar

Sangh has made demand of absorption of second party workman and other workers. The said union has filed writ

petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The said petition was disposed of in the year

2006 in view of law laid down in case of Steel Authority of India. Since 1998, the first party bank has stopped paying

wages to the second party workman through the contractor and has started direct payment to the second party

workman. There is no contractor since 1998 and the wages were directly paid by Pune Zonal office of the first party

bank. Even after disposal of the said writ petition the second party workman was in service and wages were paid to

him directly by the first party bank.

It is contention of the second party workman that He was in continuous service and had put continuously 240

days and more continuous service in every completed year of the service. However, the first party bank has terminated

the services of the second party workman without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

Therefore the said termination is illegal, improper, arbitrary and unjust. It also amounts to unfair labour practices. The

second party workman is therefore asking to declare that the termination of his services by the first party bank is illegal.

He is also asking for re-instatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits from the date of

termination till actual date of re-instatement along with interest and cost.

First party bank has resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.7. According to the first party bank, the

bank had engaged the contractor named M/s. Golden Enterprises since June 1981 who was entrusted with the job of

house-keeping at the Zonal office, located at East Street, Gulmohar, Pune and also at the bank’s residential quarters

namely Madhuban Bank House and Ashirwad Bldg. at Nagar Road, Pune. The bank was making payment to the

contractor for the service rendered to the bank and the contractor was in turn effect the payment to the workers engaged

by him for carrying out the job given to him by the bank. The said contractor abandoned the contract in November

1998 and ran away. The bank terminated the contract with M/s. Golden Enterprises sometimes in 1999 – 2000.

However, with reference to the letter and sprit of the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2006, the bank

continued to engage the contract labours for doing the house-keeping jobs at the bank premises. Bank used to give

money to Shri Selvam, the Supervisor against the production of the bills. Subsequently, there was inter-se dispute and

the contract labours requested bank to pay money directly to them. Accordingly, the arrangement was worked out

whereby Shri Selvam used to submit bills and bank credited the amount to the account of each contract labour.

It is also contention of the first party bank that on 10.9.2010 the bank publiHed tender notice in local

newspaper for maintenance and house-keeping of the banks premises. The bank also suggested the contract labours to

form a society, partnership firm or a company for participating in the tender process. Contract labours did not pay heed

to the suggestion made by the bank. The tender process was completed on 16.12.2011 and the contract for maintenance

and house-keeping of the bank premises was awarded to contractor who had quoted the lowest rates. The new

contractor displayed the notice on the bank’s notice board stating that he was given contract for maintenance and

house-keeping of the banks premises and invited those who were interested to work with him to approach him.

However, the concerned workman and other workers did not avail this opportunity.

It is also contention of the first party bank that there is no employer-employee relationship between the bank

and concerned workman. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in question. Even as per order in

writ petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the concerned workman did not approach the

competent authority to get the matter referred to tribunal for adjudication and as such dispute referred for adjudication

in the present reference has been raised belatedly. It is quite stale. The reference is not maintainable on that ground.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8659

According to the first party bank, the concerned workman was engaged by the contractor named M/s. Golden

Enterprises. The bank was making payment to the said contractor who in turn was effecting the payment to the

workmen engaged by him and therefore the claim of concerned workman that He was engaged by the bank is not

maintainable. It is, thus, contention of the bank that it has not discriminated the contract employees working at Pune

and therefore the claim of the workman is completely untenable.

It is also contention of the first party bank that provisions of section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 are not applicable

in the factual matrix of the case since the service of the concerned workman automatically came to an end after new

contractor was engaged by the bank after duly following tender process.

10.

It is then contention of the first party bank that the settlement / agreement that might have been reached at

Mumbai has no relation whatsoever with the present dispute and the workman concerned cannot base his claim on the

basis of settlement entered into in a different case. On this premises, the first party bank has sought rejection of the

reference.

11.

Following issues are framed at Ex.8. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the reference is maintainable ?

Yes

Whether there exists employer-employer relationship between the first party bank &

concerned workman?

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services

of Shri K. P. Selvam w.e.f. 16/01/2012 is legal and justified ?

Yes

If not, whether the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in the services of first

party with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits ?

What Order ?

As per final order

Reasons :

Issue No. 1 :

12.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that admittedly the union namely Thekedar Kamgar

Sangh has made demand of absorption of second party workman and other workers. The said union has filed writ

petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The main prayer of the petitioner was for

issuance of writ of mandamus to the bank for regularizing the services of the concerned workers in the banks service.

He submits that the said writ petition wad disposed of by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide

order dated 9.3.2006. In the said order the Hon’ble Bombay High Court made it clear that in view of law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Steel Authority of India & Ors. V/S. National Union Waterfront Workers &

Ors., the relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted and that only remedy available to the petitioner was to seek a

reference to the tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners were given liberty to make necessary application to the

competent authority within two weeks from the date of order and the competent authority was directed to make

reference as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the receipt of application of

the petitioners. Submission is to the effect that the petitioners in the writ petition did not approach the competent

authority to get the matter referred to the tribunal for adjudication within time. The contact labours of M/s. Golden

Enterprises filed industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Pune through Zilla Mazdoor Sangh vide their

letter dated 23.12.2011. As such the dispute referred for adjudication in the present reference is belated i.e. after about

7 years from the date of order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In view of this the submission is that the reference

is not maintainable.

13.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank seeks to rely on the decision in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

V/S. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors. 2000 (II SCC 455) to submit that the power of the appropriate government to exercise

its powers under section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears

to be no rational basis on which the Central Govt. has exercised the powers in this case after a lapse of about 7 years of

the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As such the dispute is stale and could not be the subject matter of the

reference under section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

14.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Reserve Bank of India V/S. Gopinath Sharma & Anr. 2006

(6 SCC 221) to submit that delay of 4 years in raising the dispute even after re-employment of the most of the workmen

was held to be fatal.

8660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

He then seeks to rely on the decision in case of State of Karnataka & Anr. V/S. Ravi Kumar 2009 III LLJ (206

SC) to submit that 14 years delay to challenge the termination was stale reference and the reference ought to have been

rejected on the ground alone.

16.

However, in view of the facts of the present case it is to be seen whether the second party workman and other

workers were diligent in raising the dispute before competent authority. We have document at Page 2 of list of

document dated 11.3.2016. It is a copy of the letter dated 31.5.2006 (Ex.15) addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of

Labour, Pune requesting him to intervene in the dispute and making reference within the time prescribed by the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court. That would show that Thekedar Kamgar Sangh has made an application for making the

reference within time prescribed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

17.

So far contention go, it is also a contention of the second party workman that even after the disposal of the

said writ petition second party workman was in service and the wages were paid by the first party bank to him directly.

As per his contention, the first party bank has terminated the services of the second party workman and as such the

dispute was raised by the second party workman for regularization of the services of the concerned workman. It is the

submission of the second party workman that the reference has not been arisen out of the demand of the union but the

said reference has arisen out of the demand of the individual workman. The demand is not for regularization but the

demand is for re-instatement of service. In view of these facts, it can be said that the individual workman has made the

demand for regularization of his service and the reference has arisen out of his demand. Even before that in 2006 it is

the union who has made application to the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune requesting him to intervene into the

dispute and make the reference within the time prescribed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The said letter dated

31.5.2006 is at Ex.15. Therefore it can be said that the union was diligent in making the reference but then subsequently

the demand is made by the individual workman for re-instatement and not for regularization. It cannot be said therefore

that the reference is belated or otherwise it is stale and not maintainable. This point is therefore answered accordingly

in negative.

Issue No.2 & 3:

18.

This is the main contentions issue. At the first brush I would observe that admittedly M/s. Golden Enterprises

was engaged by the bank as a contractor since 1981 for doing house-keeping at Pune Zonal office and bank’s quarters

at Pune. In his evidence also the second party workman has stated that he has joined the services in 1998. He then

admits that M/s. Golden Enterprises has abandoned the contract in November 1998 and the trade union namely

Thekedar Kamgar Sangh has filed writ petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 on behalf of the contract workers in the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Admittedly, in the writ petition they have made averments categorically that they have

been employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises. In para 3(a) of statement of claim it is stated that they were on the muster

of M/s. Golden Enterprises. It is admitted that they were not under the disciplinary control of the bank. Even it is

admitted that they were not getting the facilities as available to the other bank employees. In view of above categorical

and clear admission, the second party workman involved in the present reference cannot take a contradictory and

inconsistent plea and cannot claim employer-employee relationship with the first party bank.

19.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that after termination of the contract

in between the first party bank and M/s. Golden Enterprises, second party workman was continued in service and the

workers were directly paid by the bank at the same daily wages rate which was paid by the contractor. Submission is to

the effect that the contract workers of M/s. Golden Enterprises were engaged by the State Bank of India and therefore

they cannot be treated as contract employees because the contract of the contractor M/s. Golden Enterprises with the

bank was cancelled and since cancellation of the contract they were continued to be in the service which would show

that first party bank was the principal employer.

20.

In this respect, if we see the evidence of the concerned workman, He admits that in the writ petition it was

categorically shown that the contract labours were employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises and they are working on

behalf of the M/s. Golden Enterprises in the premises of bank at Pune. Admittedly, in the statement of claim in para

3(a), He and other workers were shown on the muster of M/s. Golden Enterprises. It is admitted by him that before

1998 M/s. Golden Enterprises use to make payment to them. He even admits that He and other workers were not under

the disciplinary control of the bank. Admittedly they were not getting the facility as available to the other bank

employees. In view of this it can be said that the concerned workman being the employee of the contractor, the

ultimate supervision and control was of the contractor.

21.

In this respect the evidence has come on record that one Shri Selvam used to submit the bills in respect of

work of concerned workman and other workers and then the bank used to credit the amount in the account of each of

the contract labour. The question is whether the said arrangement which was worked out is sufficient to show and

establish the employer-employer relationship in between the concerned workman and the first party bank. When

initially the concerned workman was engaged by the contractor and after termination of the contract in between the said

contractor and the bank He has been continued with such arrangement in respect of payment of wages to him by the

bank by depositing his wages directly in his account after the production of bills by the said Shri Selvam, then that

would not be sufficient to say that first party bank being the principal employer was making payment of wages to the

concerned workman. Merely because the amount was credited to the workman/s account under circumstances narrated

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8661

above does not in any way alter the factual position that the concerned workman was a labour contractor and not an

employee of the bank.

22.

I say so because there is well defined procedure in the bank for recruitment and employment in the bank is

done by inserting advertisement, holding competitive test for the employment, selection procedure through merit etc.

etc. No such procedure was adopted at the time of engagement of the concerned workman as a Sweeper. The fact

remains therefore that He was a contract labour for doing the house-keeping job at the banks premises and therefore He

continued to be a contract labour even after the contract between said contractor and bank was terminated somewhere

in 1999-2000.

23.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that the bank continued to engage contract labours for

doing the house-keeping jobs at the bank premises in view or order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2006

whereby the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in view of petition by the petitioners took out a motion for clarification of

order passed on 9.3.2006 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also protection till reference is made at the instance

of the petitioners to the tribunal for adjudication. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that they do not see any

protection granted by the court which was sought to be continued but then the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed

that the contract labours employed by the bank should be continued subject to the requirements and by following

statutory obligations including payment of wages etc. and they need not be dis-continued only because the petition has

been disposed of. That would show that in view of this order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the concerned

workman was continued in services as per the requirement and after cancellation of contract with first party bank and

the contractor namely M/s. Golden Enterprises, the subsequent arrangement was made in respect of payment of wages

of the concerned employees who were engaged by the contractor and therefore the payment was made to them by

depositing the amount in their bank accounts on submission of the bills by one shri Selvam. That would again show

that the concerned workman was not considered to be the employee of the first party bank. All the while He was

continued to be contract labour even after the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court till his services automatically came

to an end.

24.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that the employees were the

employees of M/s. Golden Enterprises till that contract was not abandoned or cancelled. After cancellation of the

contract in 1999-2000 M/s. Golden Enterprises ceased to be contractor and these employees were ceased to the

employees of M/s. Golden Enterprises. He submits that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has not directed to keep contract

employees of M/s. Golden Enterprises in service in orders passed on 19.1.1999 and 1.2.1999. Therefore the relation

between the S.B.I. and M/s. Golden Enterprises as principal employer and the contractor came to an end and after

cancellation of the contract in 1999-2000 the services of the employees employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises for

performing the job of cleaning, sweeping, house-keeping of S.B.I. premises automatically came to an end. These

employees were ineligible to work with S.B.I. as contract workers of M/s. Golden Enterprises. So after termination of

contract of M/s. Golden Enterprises and S.B.I., by oral orders by S.B.I. the employees were appointed to carry out the

house-keeping, cleaning, sweeping work and then since that date till the date of termination the concerned workman

were employed continuously by S.B.I. They worked for 10 – 12 years continuously on the basis of said oral order of

S.B.I. and therefore there exists employer-employee relationship in between bank and concerned employees.

25.

This submission is other way round and is not acceptable. A definite stand was taken by the concerned

employees in the WP No. 6247/1998 that they are employees employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises which has been

given a contract of house-keeping of S.B.I., Pune, Regional Office Pune has been employing several workers for

carrying out the same work. It would thus not lie in their mouth to take contradictory and inconsistent plea that they are

the workmen of the principal employer i.e. bank. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law.

Such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised. Common law principle of estoppel waiver and

acquaintance are applicable in the industrial adjudication. In the context the hand can be laid on decision in case of

Steel Authority of India V/S. Union of India 2006 (12 SC 243) wherein in para 28 of the judgment it has been observed

that such inconsistent plea is not permissible.

26.

On going through the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said WP No. 6247/1998 it has been

observed as follows:

“We have gone through the orders passed by this court on 19.1.1999 and 1.2.1999 and we do not see any

protection granted by this court and as sought to be continued. Undoubtedly the contract labours employed by

Respondent bank shall be continued subject to the requirement and by following the statutory obligations

including the payment of wages etc. and they need not be dis-continued only because this petition has been

disposed of.”

27.

In view of these observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court even after the termination of contract in

between M/s. Golden Enterprises and the bank the concerned workmen were continued and were paid wages by the

bank by depositing the wages in their respective bank accounts. That does not mean that the bank has orally appointed

them as its employees on regular basis even without following the statutory procedure.

8662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman / union submitted that the bank was paying bonus to the

concerned employees. He refers to Ex.17 to submit that the bank was making payment through bankers’ cheque.

Therefore the submission is that as per Section 10 of Payment of Bonus Act, the employer is bound to pay the bonus.

Section 2(14) of Payment of Bonus Act defines employer and it says that in relation to any other establishment the

person who or the authority which was the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and the managing

agent is the employer. He submits that as per section 21(4) the principal employer is not liable to pay bonus, gratuity as

wages does not include it. He is liable to pay only wages if the contractors fails to pay wages. Since S.B.I. has paid

bonus to the concerned employees it can be said that S.B.I. has engaged concerned workman directly and the bank is

the employer of the concerned workmen who are covered under the Payment of Bonus Act.

29.

This submission is also not acceptable since in the decision in case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. V/S. State

of West Bengal & Ors. 2011 (4 LLM 158), Calcutta, it has been observed in para 20 of the judgment that,

“There is no warrant for the proposition that in every case where the bonus is paid to an employee, the same is

an indicator of the employee being a regular employee. The company is an establishment in public sector. The

provisions of bonus act would apply to it only if it satisfies the conditions mentioned in sub section (1) of

section 20 thereof. If indeed the company was obliged to pay bonus to its regular employees and had in the

process shared its profits with the contract labours by paying the bonus in terms of bonus act, the very action

of extending benefits of the social welfare legislation to said labours would not change their status to regular

employees of the company.”

30.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that the contractor did not obtain

necessary licence. In this respect also it is necessary to refer the observations in para 20 of the citation cited supra. It

has been observed that if at all the contractor did not obtain the licence it would open to the authority concerned to take

action against it under section 23 of CLRA Act but for that the company cannot be penalized and the contract labours

employed by such erring contractor be thrust upon it. Non-obtaintion of licence without anything more would not

clothe the Respondent with any legal right to claim that they are the direct employees of the company and hence

entitled to continue in service despite the contract with KNYCEE not being renewed.

In view of this legal position it can be said that even if the contract between the bank and the contractor namely M/s.

Golden Enterprises was cancelled and could not be renewed that does not give right to the concerned employee / union

to claim that they are direct employees of the bank.

31.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that there is no documentary evidence to

show that Shri Selvam was the contractor after the contract of M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned. He submits

that before RLC the settlement of Minimum wages was reached between the bank and workman / union and the bank

has accepted to pay the minimum wages to the concerned workman. In view of that the submission is that after the

contract with M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned, it was the bank who paid the wages to the concerned employees

by depositing the wages in their bank account and thereby the bank has accepted it to be the employer of the concerned

workman.

32.

It is no doubt true that there is no documentary evidence to prove that Selvam was submitting the bills on the

basis of which the wages were deposited in the bank account of each workman. But then Selvam was one of the

worker along with other employees. Even the workman himself has admitted in his cross-examination that due to inter-

se dispute between the workers they requested the bank to make the direct payment and arrangement was worked out.

In view of that it can be said that some arrangement was worked out in respect of payment to these workmen after the

contract between the bank and M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned.

33.

In view of this, it is the submission of Learned Counsel for the bank that the workmen concerned were

continued to be engaged by K.P. Selvam as a contract labour after original contractor ran away and no wages were

directly paid to them by the bank. In view of admission of the concerned workman that the arrangement was worked

out after the inter-se dispute between the workers it can be very well said that the concerned workmen were paid wages

directly in their bank account by way of this arrangement which was worked out. Therefore that will not give them the

status of regular employees since initially they were engaged by the contractor and then there is no documentary

evidence to show that the concerned workman was appointed by the bank.

34.

It is then submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that the concerned workman was doing

the work of sweeping and cleaning under the direction, control and supervision of first party bank. He refers to copies

of attendance register to submit that those registers are maintained by the bank and it bears the signatures of Waze,

Kulkarni and Bhosale who are the bank officers. In view of this it is submitted that the bank officers were having

control over the work carried out by the concerned employees.

35.

In his cross examination witness Sudhir Ramchandra has denied the suggestion to the effect that the bank was

having control over the work carried out by the concerned employees and that Mr. Jatar, Sudhir Pawar, Dube,

Karkhanis were supervising the work and were allotting the work to the concerned employees. Even if some anxious

consideration is given to this submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman then also it can be said that

merely because the contract labour work is under the supervisions of officers of principal employer it cannot be taken

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8663

as evidence of direct employment under the principal employer. In the decision in case of International Airport

Authority of India V/S. International Air Cargo Union and Anr. 2009 (13 SCC 374) it has been observed in para 54 of

the judgment that,

“Exercise of some control over the activities of the contract labour while they discharge their duties as labours

is inevitable and such exercise is not sufficient to hold that the contract labour will become the direct

employee of the principal employer.”

36.

In the light of above observations I hold that there does not exist employer-employee relationship between the

first party bank and second party workman. But then it is submission of the Learned Counsel for the concerned

workman that the concerned workman had worked for 240 days and continuously in every completed year of service

and his services came to be terminated without following the procedure laid down under section 25 of I.D. Act, 1947.

In this view the submission is that the said termination is illegal and improper.

37.

This submission is also not acceptable since the fact remains that the concerned workman was engaged by the

contractor and after termination of the contract his services came to an end.

38.

For it is explicit from the evidence of Sudhir Jalanwar, the witness of the bank that on 10.11.2010 the bank

publiHed tender notice in local newspapers for maintenance and house-keeping of bank premises. The bank also

suggested the contract labours to form a society, partnership firm or a company for participating in the tender process.

Contract labours did not pay heed to the suggestion made by the bank. The tender process was completed on

16.12.2011 and the contract for maintenance and house-keeping of the bank premises was awarded to contractor who

had quoted the lowest rates. The new contractor displayed the notice on the bank’s notice board stating that he was

given contract for maintenance and house-keeping of the banks premises and invited those who were interested to work

with him to approach him. However, the concerned workman and other workers did not avail this opportunity to work

under the new contractor. The fact remains therefore that after termination of earlier contract the services of the

concerned workman automatically came to an end.

39.

In view of this, the Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that though concerned workman had

worked for 240 days in a year, his appointment was not from the regular stream of appointment and therefore is not

entitled for regularization. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Dena Bank V/S. Ashraf Yalu Shaikh 2009 III

CLR 426 to submit that since the appointment of the concerned workman was not from the regular stream of

appointment they are not entitled to reinstatement but only compensation, as envisaged under section 25 of I.D. Act,

1947.

40.

So far the submission of the concerned workman to the effect that first party bank has terminated his services

without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947, it can be said that there is no employer-

employee relationship between the bank and workman and that the services of the workman automatically came to an

end after the new contractor was engaged by the bank after following tender process. It is not therefore possible to

accept the submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that the termination is illegal on account that it

was without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

41.

Realising this difficulty, Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that by way of settlement, the

similarly situated workmen and employees in Mumbai were absorbed in services of the bank and therefore the first

party bank has violated the principles of equity before law and gave different treatment to some set of employees in

Mumbai by neglecting section 12(3) and 18(3) of I.D. Act, 1947 and therefore the termination is illegal. The

submission is again other way round. There is no evidence of such discrimination. If any such agreement has been

reached then it has no relation with the present dispute. The present dispute is squarely covered by W.P. No.

6247/1998 and the same has to be dealt with in the light of order passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said

writ petition. In view of that the concerned workman cannot base a claim on the basis of settlement entered into in a

different matter under different circumstances.

42.

Considering all these facts, I hold that action of management in terminating the services of concerned

workman w.e.f. 6.1.2012 is legal and justified. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as against each of

them in terms of above observations.

Issue No. 4 & 5.

43.

In view of my finding the above issues, the concerned workman is not entitled to be re-instated in the services

of first party bank with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. He is not entitled to relief claimed.

Thus order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 27.07.2017

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

8664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2557

2557

2557.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार भारतीय टेट ब_क सौराM i के (बंधतंF के संबंS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म? िनqदM ट

औoोिगक िववाद म? के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 48/2006) को (कािशत

करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-12012/26/2006-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Saurashtra

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-12012/26/2006-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of August, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 48/2006

Between:

Sri T. Suresh Babu,

S/o T.S. Sekhar,

D.No.6-169, Balajinagar,

Simhachalam,

Visakhapatnam – 530029.

…Petitioner

AND

Sl. No.

As per reference

Substituted by order dated 3.3.2009 of this

Tribunal on Memo dated 3.3.2009 filed by Present

Respondent.

The Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,

D.No.29-2-16, Vattikuti Complex, Prakasarao

Peta, jagadamba Centre, Visakhapatnam –

530003.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Jagadamba Junction Branch,

Prakasaraopeta,

Visakhapatnam – 2.

The Asst. General Manager-III,

State Bank of Saurashtra, Zonal Office,

A-24, Shyam Gokul Swastic Society, C.G. Road,

Navarangapur,

Ahmedabad

–

380

009.

(Gujarat)

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office / Regional Office,

Balaji nagar, Siripuram,

Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8665

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Sri M. RamdasAdvocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 26/2006-IR(B-I) dated 10.8.2006 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Prakasarao Peta, Visakhapatnam in

terminating the services of Shri T. Suresh Babu, Ex-Temporary Sub-Staff w.e.f. 1.8.2005 is legal and

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

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 48/2006 and issued

notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective

counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner submitted that he was appointed as sub-staff with the 1^st Respondent bank w.e.f. 7.9.2000. Initially he

was paid Rs.50/- per day and later it was increased to Rs.75/-, Rs.90/-, Rs.125/- and Rs.130/- as on the date of

termination. It is submitted that the Petitioner used to perform the duties of cleaning of office, fetching water, voucher

stitching, filing of documents, cash bundling and routine messenger’s job and his working hours are from 9AM to

9PM, everyday till the accounts tallied with the cash. Apart from these duties he was entrusted with dispatch and

inward work since November, 2004 till termination. It is stated that due to chronic anemia and general weakness the

Petitioner could not attend to his duties and he informed over phone about his absence and after one week he sent his

father with sick certificate for grant of leave for 15 days. The Respondent No.1 did not accept the leave application and

informed the father of the Petitioner to join duties after recovery. When the Petitioner reported to duty on 1.8.2005, he

was informed by Respondent No.1 that he was discharged from service as his service was no more required. Then the

Petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Visakhapatnam who conducted conciliation

proceedings which ended in failure, and finally culminated the present reference. The Petitioner discharged his duties

upto the satisfaction of his superiors and worked continuously from 2000 onwards i.e., 92 days in the year 2000, 286

days in 2001, 283 days in 2002, 281 days in 2003 and 268 days in 2004. The Respondent’s management has not

followed the principles of natural justice and terminated the services of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the

workman is put to terrible mental agony due to lack of employment, and facing severe financial hardships. It is prayed

to declare the action of the Respondents in terminating the Petitioner as illegal and unjustified and consequently direct

the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant

benefits.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments in brief as follows:

The Respondent while denying the averments of the claim statement, stated that the services of the Petitioner was

occasionally utilized by Respondent No.1 on daily casual basis as and when ever work arise in the branch i.e., only for

the purpose of shifting records, cleaning the Branch premises, etc.. The Petitioner was never appointed on permanent

basis in any regular vacancy of the Bank. The Respondent Bank has forwarded the appointment of the Petitioner to

the Head Office for appointment of Peon and it would not constitute appointment against a regular vacancy in the

Bank. The Respondent No.1 has no authority to appoint anybody. The Petitioner has never sent any leave letter nor

he was informed that his services are no more required on 1.8.2005 when reported. It is submitted that in all cases of

daily wags, it is the settled legal position that the contract of employment commences in the morning of the day when

he was engaged and ends in the evening. Further, daily wage workers are not entitled for any benefits that are

available to regular employees. As such, the reference be rejected.

The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and marked some documents as Ex.W1 to W4 in series in support

of his claim. The management examined Sri Chamarthy Suryanarayana, the Branch Manager, Jagadamba Junction

Branch as MW1, but no documents were marked in support of their claim.

Both the sides advanced their argument in support of their respective claim.

The Points for consideration are:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Prakasarao Peta, Visakhapatnam

in terminating the services of Shri T. Suresh Babu, Ex-Temporary Sub-Staff w.e.f. 1.8.2005 is legal

and justified?

II.

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

8666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was working as a sub-staff

with the first Respondent with effect from 7.9.2000. Initially he was getting Rs. 50/- and there after his pay was

increased to Rs.75/-, Rs. 90/-, Rs.125/- and Rs.130/- as on the date of termination. It is further contended that the

Petitioner used to perform the duties of cleaning the office, fetching water, voucher stitching, filing of documents, cash

bundling and doing routine messenger’s job and his working hours are from 9AM to 9PM, everyday till the accounts

tallied with the cash. Apart from these duties he was entrusted with dispatch and inward work since November, 2004

till his termination. But due to chronic anemia and general weakness the Petitioner could not be able to attend to his

duties and he informed over phone about his absence and after one week he sent his father with sick certificate for

grant of leave for 15 days. But, Respondent No.1 did not accept the leave application and informed the father of the

Petitioner to join duties after recovery. When the Petitioner reported to duty on 1.8.2005, he was informed by

Respondent No.1 that he was discharged from service as his service was no more required. It is also contended that

MW1 in his evidence has admitted that as per the vouchers vide Ex.W4 series, the workman was working in the

Respondents’ bank for 240 days in a year and as per Ex.W1 Respondent No.1 has asked Respondent No.2 to avail the

services of the Petitioner as a one third employee. Further MW1 has further admitted that the nature of duties which

the Petitioner used to discharge are perennial in nature. MW1 has also admitted that similarly situated employees like

the Petitioner are regularised as per the requirement of the bank. MW1 has also admitted that no notice has been served

on the Petitioner before his termination. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the admission of the

management witness is sufficient to hold that without following due procedure, the Petitioner had been terminated

from service and similarly situated employees like the Petitioner have been regularised in the Respondents’ bank as per

the requirement of the bank but the case of the Petitioner has not been considered. The duties of the Petitioner are

perennial in nature and he has completed 240 days in a year during the time of his service in the Respondents’ bank.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the Petitioner

was occasionally utilised by Respondent No.1 on daily wage basis as and when work arises in the branch. The

Petitioner was never appointed on permanent basis against any regular vacancy of the bank. The Respondent bank has

forwarded one letter regarding the appointment of the Petitioner as a Peon to the head office and it was not constituted

as appointment against the regular vacancy in the bank. Respondent No.1 has no authority to give appointment to

anybody. The Petitioner has never sent any leave application nor he was informed that his services are no more

required on 1.8.2005 when he reported to duty. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents further contended that the

daily wage workers are not entitled for any benefit which are available to the regular employees.

On consideration of the rival contentions of the advocates of both the sides it is seen that: admittedly, the

workman had been engaged as a sub-staff in the Respondents’ bank and used to work under Respondent No.1 and was

getting remuneration as per Ex.W4 series. The Respondents’ bank has issued vouchers to the Petitioner towards his

work. It also shows that the workman has worked for more than 240 days during the years 2001-2004. Further more,

as per the admission of MW1 even though no attendance registers were being maintained for the casual employees, but

the work of the Petitioner was perennial in nature. The Respondents have not denied about the engagement of the

workman in their office from the year 2000 to 1^st August, 2005. Further, the Respondents have admitted that

Respondent No.1 has forwarded the application of the workman to Respondent No.2 for his regularization as an one

third employee. This shows, that the workman’s work was found satisfactory during his service period. But without

any rhyme and reason he was terminated from service, and at the time of termination neither any notice nor any

compensation has been paid to the workman before his termination. This shows that the Respondents have violated the

procedure required under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without following proper procedure the

Respondents have terminated the workman.

10.

Admittedly, Respondent No.1 has forwarded the application of the workman to Respondent No.2 to absorb in

the post of Peon but, it was not considered. While the Respondents have terminated the workman orally, he

approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) and afterwards, the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central),

Visakhapatnam conducted conciliation. But as the conciliation was ended in failure, the matter was referred to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment , in turn it was referred to this Tribunal. Even though, similarly situated

employees have been absorbed in the Respondents’ office, it is not known what prevented the Respondents to consider

the case of the workman as a casual labour in their office.

11.

The Petitioner has worked for more than five years continuously, as a sub-staff under Respondent No.1 with

the knowledge of Respondent No.2 and he comes under the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. When the Petitioner was retrenched, the Respondents are expected to retrench the workman as per the

provisions contained under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the termination or retrenchment of

the Petitioner workman is in violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the Respondents have not

shown the reasons for retrenchment of the workman and even the workman was not in receipt of any notice of

termination or notice pay/one month pay and further the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation of 15

days average pay for every completed year of service, the retrenchment or termination of the Petitioner workman is

illegal.

Thus, Point Nos. I & II are answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8667

ORDER

In the circumstances stated above it is held that the termination of service of the Petitioner workman Sri T.

Suresh Babu, Ex-Temporary Sub-staff with effect from 1.8.2005 is illegal and not justified and the Respondents are

directed to reinstate the Petitioner workman in duty without back wages as a Sub-Staff in their office. It is further

directed that the Respondents should consider the Petitioner for his appointment as a causal labour under the relevant

scheme and rules. If the Petitioner is not eligible under the rules for his appointment as a casual labour, the

Respondents are at liberty to retrench the Petitioner only by following the procedure laid down for retrenchment under

the relevant Act.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 1^st day of

August, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri T. Suresh Babu

MW1: Sri Chamarthy Suryanarayana Murthy

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Photostat copy of fax message dt.2.8.2002

Ex.W2: Photostat copy of leave application with sick certificate

Ex.W3: Photostat copy of Minutes of conciliation proceedings

Ex.W4: Photostat copies of bunch of payment vouchers from 2.8.2004 to 4.2.2005

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2558

2558

2558.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार मB य रेलवे के (बंधतंF के संबंS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म? िनqदM ट औoोिगक िववाद म?

के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 208/2000) को (कािशत करती है, जो के ीय

सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-41012/180/2000-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 208/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-41012/180/2000-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

8668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 208/2000

Ref .No. L-41012/180/2000/IR(B-I) dated 30.11.2000

BETWEEN :

Sri Veer Singh S/o Sri Dattar Singh

H.No. 165, Bhagat Singh Ward

Bina, Distt. Sagar

Madhya Pradesh

AND

1. The DRM.

Central Railway,

Jhansi-284001.

2. The Asstt. Engineer

Central Railway, Gwailor-424001

3. The Divisional Engineer

Central Railway, Jhansi-284001

Permanent Way Inspector

Central Railway, Gwailor-424001

AWARD

By order No. L-41012/180/2000 IR(B-I) dated 30.11.2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Veer Singh S/o Sh. Dattar Singh,

Madhya Pradesh and the DRM/Asstt. Engineer/Divisional Engineer/PWI, Central Railway, Jhansi/Gwailor for

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CENTRAL

RAILWAY, GWALIOR IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SRI VEER SINGH VIDE ORDER

DATED 22.12.1995 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS

ENTITLED?”

As per the claim statement W-3 the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed as casual labour on

19.2.1977 under the Jhansi Division, Central Railway by the management of opposite party; at the time of his

regularization, Casual Labour Card No. 2578272 was issued. He has worked for about 17 years and as per the existing

Railway Rules MRCL was also issued, PF was regularly deducted and the facilities of railway pass, PTO and medical

amenities were also provided. He has been a regular and permanent railway employee till his termination, and his

monthly salary was Rs.1500/-. The petitioner has further stated that as per the charge sheet dated 19/20.05.1994, he was

charged for having forged and fabricated Casual Labour Card No. 257827, a explanation was submitted by him for the

charges leveled against him, and charges were denied by him, request was made to conduct enquiry under the

prevalent Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1968, the management appointed Sri R.P. Agarwal, Chief PWI as enquiry

officer. Information for the date fixed 01.12.1994, 09.12.1994, 08.05.1995 and 24.04.95 in the enquiry was sent to him,

he appeared before the enquiry officer but the enquiry was not conducted as per Rules neither any opportunity was

provided to him to cross examine the management witness and to adduce his documentary and oral evidence in

defence. Principles of natural justice were ignored and after conclusion of the enquiry report was submitted, thereafter a

show cause notice dated 21.9.95 was sent and punishment for removal from service was proposed, to which reply was

submitted by the petitioner, even then without looking into the grounds taken in his explanation punishment of removal

from service was imposed vide letter dated 22.12.1995.

The workman has stressed that procedure provided in the Disciplinary and Appeal Rule 1968 has not been

followed, although being summoned off and on during the enquiry the statement was not recorded in his presence

neither any query was made nor any document was provided by any cogent witness, opportunity was not provided to

defend himself, principle of natural justice was not followed, PWI Bharua who had issued Casual Labour Card was not

produced in the evidence neither any evidence was recorded nor any statement of concerned Clerk of his office was

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8669

recorded. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made to declare the dismissal order dated 22.12.1995 as illegal,

and to reinstate him in the service with full salary and consequential benefits etc.

The management in its written statement M-7 has denied the allegations leveled in the claim statement. It has

been categorically stated that the petitioner was not engaged w.e.f. 19.2.1977 neither any Casual Labour Card no.

257827 was ever issued in his name. The opposite party has asserted that the said labour card was a forged and

manufactured document, it was not issued by the competent authority and perhaps on the basis of aforesaid Labour

Card the workman succeeded his engagement in the Railway, he was initially engaged as daily rated casual labout at

Lalitpur, after having worked for required number of days he was granted status of monthly rated Casual Labour, after

being transferred from one place to another zone he was posted at Gwalior in the year 1991 but during all this process

his services were never regularized.

The opposite party has stressed that Railway Administration found that several persons on the basis of their

fake and forged Casual Labour Card and fake certificates have been able to get employment under the Railway

Administration and they were continuing to work as also availed consequential benefits of Railway Servant. Under the

scrutiny process certain casual labour card and working certificates on being verified were found to have been forged

and therefore such employees were disengaged/removed/terminated from the services, as per their status. Similarly the

Casual Labour Card of the workman on being verified was also revealed to be fake and forged card, no such card was

ever issued by the competent authority. Further its details were not mentioned in any of the relevant records such as

LHTI register etc. The PWI concerned has categorically denied the authenticity or genuineness of the aforesaid card.

So the major penalty charge sheet was submitted in the aforesaid case of the workman. Enquiry officer was appointed,

thorough and comprehensive enquiry was conducted. In his explanation the workman denied all the charges, seven

dates were fixed in the enquiry, due information was sent through registered post, adjournment was sought by the

workman, copies of the relevant record were provided to him but he did not submit any further reply and did not

attend the enquiry on 22.7.95, further date was fixed. Under such circumstances enquiry officer concluded the enquiry

and the enquiry report was prepared. After conclusion of the enquiry, further a show cause notice alongwith copy of

reprt was sent but the applicant did not submit any representation or reply, after going through the findings of the

enquiry officer the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the applicant but the applicant did not avail the

statutory remedy of filing any appeal. Due to non cooperation and non participation of the applicant in the enquiry

proceedings, the enquiry officer was compelled to proceed with the enquiry as per Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1968.

With the aforesaid averments the request has been made by the opposite party to adjudicate the matter in its favour.

While denying the main allegation leveled in the written statement, rejoinder and reply dated 14.5.2001 has

been filed alongwith annexures, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

The management has filed certain documents annexed with application M-8 dated 2.8.2001, another

application M-9 dated 30.8.2001. Stay order dated 3.7.2002 passed by Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

in writ petition 3459/02 has also been filed by the management.

The workman has moved application W-50 dated 8.12.2015 enclosing therewith copy of the order dated

4.11.2015 passed by Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in SS 3459/02.

10.

The affidavit of Sri Veer Singh W-54 has been filed by the petitioner in evidence. He has been thoroughly

cross examined.

11.

The management has filed affidavit M-67 of Sri Ramesh Lal Rawat and M-71 of Sri Sanjay Kumar Rajjak in

evidence. They have been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the workman.

12.

Preliminary issue was framed by the then Hon’ble PO/Judge vide order dated 21.3.2001. Order dt. 18.1.2002,

regarding aforesaid preliminary issue, passed by the then PO, was challenged before Hon’ble High Cour, Lucknow

Bench, Lucknow through Writ Petition S/S 3459/02. Hon’ble High Court vide its order dt. 04.11.2015 quashed the

above order dated 18.1.2002, and remitted to this Tribunal for deciding it afresh.

13.

After providing sufficient opportunity to both the parties and having heard at length, preliminary issue dated

21.05.2001 was decided against the management by me on 30.03.2016. The management was directed to file list of

witness and reliance, so as to prove the charges leveled against the workman, before this Tribunal. Being aggrieved by

this order again the writ petition was filed before Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow bench Lucknow vide MS 30366/16.

Hon’ble High Court has directed this Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2016 to adjourn the case to next date. Similar

direction was given by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 01.03.2017.

14.

Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated

29.3.2017, with the following observations;

“After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, as agreed between the parties,

the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to decide the matter in accordance with law after giving adequate

8670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

opportunity to the parties concerned to prove their case without influenced by the observations as given

in the order dated 30.3.2016 passed in the matter in issue expeditiously, say, within a period of six

months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.”

15.

Arguments of both the parties on the preliminary issue as well as on merits of the case, have been heard at

length, quite comprehensively. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

16.

Learned Authorized Representative for the workman has submitted that the petitioner being initially appointed

as casual labour on 19.2.1977 under the management of Central Railway and after having worked for about 17 years,

his services were terminated on the flimsical and unbelievable ground of alleged fabrication and forgery committed in

his Casual Labour Card. The domestic enquiry has also been challenged on the ground of perversity and unfairness.

Right to defend was also not provided to the petitioner. Taking strong objection to this averment, learned authorized

representative for the opposite party has stressed that several persons on their fake and forged Labour Cards and false

certificates have been able to get employment under the Railway Administration, petitioner was one of those, when

enquiry was conducted the casual labour card and working certificates were found to have been forged, thereafter

comprehensive domestic enquiry was conducted as per rules, sufficient opportunity was also provided and when the

petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was found guilty so his

services were terminated after having served a show cause notice to him. The management has also emphasized that the

petitioner did not avail the opportunity to prefer any appeal against the termination order.

17.

During the course of arguments, this point was highlighted on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged show

cause notice appears to have been given to the employee on 21.9.95 was actually served on 6.12.95 but the Railway

Authority did not wait for the proper service of the notice and imposed penalty on 21.9.95 itself. In this regard

following portion of the document M8/14 may be quoted:

“………I have come to the opinion that service card no. 257827 that this card is fake and forged and I

found Sri Veer Singh, Datar Singh MRCL guilty of submitting a fake card to enter in Railway Service.

Hence I impose on him the penalty of Removal from Service.’’

18.

This document has been filed before the Court on behalf of the management. Therefore it can not be denied

legitimately by the opposite party. However, learned authorized representative for the management submits that the

above mentioned version is infact ‘internal noting on the file’ and it was not acted upon by the management on

21.09.1995. Due procedure was followed. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (M8/13), seeking explanation

within 15 days. The show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 06.12.95(M8/7) and thereafter since no reply

and explanation was submitted by the petitioner workman, his services were terminated vide comprehensive order

dated 22.12.95 (paper No. M8/6).

19.

It is evident from the record and this office note sheet dated 21.09.95 that an opinion has been mentioned there

in that the said service card no. 257827 was found fake and forged, and it has also been inferred by the authority to

impose the penalty on workman from removal from service. However, this fact can not be ignored that the

comprehensive show cause notice/memo dated 21.9.95 was also issued to the workman, which was perhaps

served on 6.12.95. After a gap of 15 days order of removal from service was sent on 22.12.1995 informing

thereby that it will be effective on 31.12.1995.

20.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the main witness was PWI but he was not examined during

the course of enquiry rather some other railway officials who are not directly concerned with the issuance of the

Service Card or maintenance of the record were examined. In this regard the management has submitted that Sri Hari

Prakash Verma was the appropriate official to elaborate the genuineness of the service card, so he was examined. The

opportunity was also given to cross examine him. When opportunity was further provided to management to adduce

evidence before this Court Sri R.L. Rawat, Chief Office Supdt and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rajjak, Time Keeper have filed

their affidavit and they have been cross examine as well. It has also been pointed out by the management that out of the

concerned PWIs, Sri M.P. Sood ( posted at Bharwa, Sumerpur from 04.08.72 to 31.8.77) has retired prior to 1.3.2002

and Sri SCA Tewari ( posted at Bharwa, Sumerpur from 1.9.77 to 3.4.78), has retired prior to 1.3.2002, and their

present status is not known to the management. Another PWI Sri M.A.Khan who has been posted as PWI from 4.4.78

to 6.1.82, is no more alive. The petitioner asserted that Sri MP Sood and Sri SCA Tewari ought to have been adduced

in evidence and their whereabouts could be easily traced by the management. Learned AR for the management in

reply to this submission, has explained that more than 14 years period has elapsed after their retirement, it is not known

to the management where they are actually residing viz either with their family members or living alone any where in

the country or settled at abroad. It has also been further elaborated on behalf of the management that generally the

pension- amount is directly credited by the bank to the account of the retired employee and bank has got no authority to

enquire every week or every month, where the retired employee is actually residing.

21.

Learned AR for the management has relied on the following citations;

AIR 1966, Supreme Court, State of Punjab Vs Amar Singh Harika page 1313.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8671

Civil Appeal No. 263/13, State Bank of India Vs Narendra Kumar Pandey, Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Judgment dated 14.01.2013.

Civil appeal No. 6573/04, A.Sudhakar Vs Post Master General, Hyderabad, Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Judgment dated 24.3.2016.

Learned AR for the workman submits that the aforesaid prouncements do not apply to the fact of the present

case.

22.

The photo copy of the enquiry report (M8/16) reveals that enquiry was conducted on 21.10.94,

09.12.94,23.12.94, 16.02.95, 04.05.95, 27.05.95 and 22.07.95. The workman attended the proceeding on 09.12.94 and

27.05.95, request was made by him to further adjourn the enquiry which was accepted by the enquiry officer. However,

on subsequent dates, neither any letter or application was submitted by the workman nor he himself attended the

enquiry. Any sufficient explanation for his absence has not been submitted by the petitioner. This fact is also very

crucial that the said service card has not been recorded in the Service Card Register. No entry regarding said service

card has been found in the concerned official document such as LHTI register etc. It is an admitted fact that prior to the

knowing of the alleged forgery the petitioner has been working as a Railway employee and he was also paid salary etc.

for the said period. Learned AR for the workman emphasizes that the workman has been working for more than 17

years but the alleged forgery was never found, neither any FIR was lodged against him for the so called fabrication or

forgery. Learned AR for the management stressed in reply, that it is not required, neither it is mandatory to lodge an

FIR, and when the administration came to know regarding fabrication, comprehensive departmental enquiry was

conducted and in its furtherance punishment was ultimately awarded as per established Railway Rules.

23.

Certified copy of the Casual Labour Card and photo copy of the service record of the petitioner have been

filed by the management as per application M-9 dated 30.08.2001. On paper no. M-9/15 the date of birth of the

petitioner has been mentioned as 01.07.58, and his initial employment date has been mentioned as 01.01.76, meaning

there by that the age of the petitioner on the date of initial employment was 17 years and six months. Further another

date 19.02.77 (which has been over written) has also been mentioned. Moreover, the petitioner himself in his cross

examination dated 18.08.2017 has asserted his date of birth as 01.07.1960 and he has also stated on oath that his date of

joining was 19.02.77. In his affidavit W-54 dated 23.05.2016 filed before the Tribunal, the deponent Veer Singh shown

has his age as about 57 years which impliedly reflects that the date of birth 01.07.60 mentioned by the petitioner might

be approximately correct. As per service record M-9/5 if his date of joining is considered as 01.01.76 then his age was

less than 16 years and if it is considered as 19.02.77 then his age comes to about 17 years, meaning thereby in every

condition, the petitioner workman was definitely a minor boy. No such railway Rules or guidelines have been produced

before this Court which can permit a minor boy to get the employment as casual labour under Railway Administration.

24.

After having heard the intellect arguments of both the parties, in the light of the prudent analysis of the record

available before the Court, it is inferred that the alleged illegality of the impugned termination order dated 22.12.95

passed by the management, has neither directly nor impliedly been reflected, on the basis of the evidence available on

the record. The workman is therefore not entitled to any relief.

25.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

22.09.2017

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2559

2559

2559.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

सरकार मैससK कूटर इंिडया िलिमटेड उ)री रेलवे के (बंधतंF के संबंS िनयोजक, और उनके कमKकार, के बीच अनुबंध म?

िनqदM ट औoोिगक िववाद म? के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 04/2012) को

(कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2017-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

8672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Scooters India Limited

Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 04/2012

BETWEEN :

Sri Suresh Kumar Pal

S/o Sri Baboo Lal Pal,

R/O 555 K/183, Village Kanausi

P.O Manak Nagar, Lucknow(U.P.)

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

M/s. Scooters India Limited,

Northern Railway

Store Alambagh,

Lucknow,

AWARD

The workman has filed petition under section 2A of the I.D. Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) against the Chairman-

cum-Managing Director, Scooters India Limited, Lucknow for adjudication.

As per the claim statement W-1, the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed as unskilled worker in

the office of the opposite party on 4.2.1975, his service number was 02457. It has been stated that the petitioner was

appointed after completing all the necessary formalities prevalent in the establishment of the management and later on

he was confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1976 after completion of probation period and his work and conduct has been

satisfactory during entire service period.

The workman has submitted that he remained absent w.e.f. 23.11.1983 due to his ailment and so could not

attend his duties. It has been emphasized that since his appointment he has completed more than 240 days service in

every year but due to his absence the management terminated his services vide letter dated 12.12.1983 without

conducting any enquiry or without affording any opportunity of hearing under the garb of clause 9.3.12 of the Standing

Orders of the Company. The workman could not have knowledge of letter dated 12.12.1983 due to his ailment, when

he became fit he went to join duty but he was not permitted. He wrote a letter dated 28.5.1985, thereafter through letter

dated 5.6.1985 the opposite party provided him the order of termination. The petitioner has asserted that several

requests were made by him through representations to reinstate him in service but all his efforts went in vain.

Ultimately Writ Petition was filed before Hon’ble High Court. Due to wrong advice he moved Hon’ble High Court but

alternate remedy was available. Vide judgment dated 18.11.2002 Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition with

liberty to avail the alternate remedy available in law. Then the workman approached the authority before the State

Government and the reference was made by the State Government vide order dated 11.8.2008 proceedings were

initiated before Industrial Tribunal-II U.P. Lucknow through AC No. 131/2008, in the meantime the management has

moved an application mentioning therein instructions dated 5.5.2008, thereafter the State Industrial Tribunal terminated

the proceedings and observed that the workman should raise the dispute under the I.D. Act.

The workman has stressed that in pursuance of the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,

request was made to the RLC ( C ) Lucknow for redressal of his grievance , efforts for conciliation was made but no

settlement could be arrived and after expiry of the mandatory period of 45 days, workman sought permission to

withdraw the case and to approach this Court on 24.11.2011. The order of termination has been alleged illegal and void

ab initio. 1998(6) S.C.C. 538 Case has been referred in the claim statement alongwith other cases as well. With the

aforesaid pleadings request has been made to declare the termination order dated 12.12.1983 as illegal and unjustified

and to get the workman reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including back wages, service benefits etc.

Letter dated 30.11.2011 sent by the RLC ( C ) Lucknow has been annexed with claim statement.

Preliminary objections/written statement M-5 has been filed by the opposite party stating therein that totally

incorrect and false and misconceived case has been presented before this court after lapse of about 28 years and case is

highly time barred and is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party has admitted that the petitioner was appointed as

unskilled worker on 1.10.1975, and since inception his service record was very poor and charge sheet was issued,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8673

several times for his frequent unauthorized absence. Warning letter dated 6.10.1980 has also been referred for

unauthorized absence for 41 days during the year 1979, one increment with cumulative effect was stopped vide letter

dated 12.5.1981 for another unauthorized absence for 19/1/2 days; through letter dated 21.11.1981 one increment with

cumulative effect was stopped for 16 days unauthorized absence. Other instances have also been given by the opposite

party in the written statement M-5.

The opposite party has asserted that through letter dated 20.1.1983 enquiry was constituted against the

workman. Although several reminders were issued, charge sheet and warning letters were issued but the workman

adopted unauthorized absence, then under such circumstances he was served dated letter on 12.12.1983 under clause

9.3.2012. Certified Standing Orders of the Company. After lapse of one year and five months, petitioner’s letter dated

28.5.1985 was received in the office of the opposite party that he could not obtain letter of termination and request was

made for duplicate copy. The opposite party has asserted that the termination of the workman is fully legal and

justified. Facts regarding proceedings before Hon’ble High Court and UP Industrial Tribunal have been mentioned by

the opposite party also. The contents of the petition have been alleged to be misconceived and false. With the aforesaid

averments, opposite party has requested to reject the claim of statement of the workman. Notices through registered

post were sent to opposite party no.1, Balaji Securities Services but none appeared on behalf before the court, neither

any written statement nor reply was submitted by opposite party no.1.

While strongly refuting the contrary version taken by the management in its written statement rejoinder W-6

has been filed by the workman, reiterating the facts mentioned in the claim statement.

As per list W-7 several documents have been filed by the workman. Further the workman has filed certain

documents with list W-3.

The management has requested to keep the copy of the Standing Orders on record, as per application M-14.

10.

The petitioner has adduced himself in evidence. He has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the

management. The management has filed affidavit of Sri A.K. Chatterjee, Manager Marketing as M-20. He has been

cross examined by the learned AR of the workman.

11.

Arguments of both the parties ;have been heard at length and record has been scanned thoroughly. It is an

admitted fact to both the parties that the petitioner has been working under the administrative control of opposite party

as unskilled worker. The petitioner has alleged that his service has been illegally terminated without any reason. No

opportunity was provided to him to defend himself, directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in other case were also

not followed by the management. The management has submitted that the petitioner since inception of his service has

been habitually absentee, his service record was very poor, he has been warned and charge sheeted several time for his

unauthorized absence. This allegation has been denied by the workman.

12.

On page 2 of the written statement the opposite party has cited following specific instances besides other facts;

That he has been warned vide letter dated 6.10.1980 for remaining unauthorized absence for 41

days during the year 1979.

That his one annual increment with cumulative effect was stopped of Sri S.K. Pal vide letter

dated 12.5.1981 for remaining unauthorized absence for 19 ½ days during period of 6 month

i.e. from January 1980 to June 1980.

That again one annual increment with cumulative effect was stopped of Sri S.K. Pal vide letter

dt. 21.11.1981 for remaining 16 days unauthorized absence during the period from July 1980 to

March 1981.

d. That Sri S.K. Pal again was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 17.3.1982 for remaining

unauthorized absence for 36 days during the period July 1980 to March 1981 and was brought

to the lowest stage of his basic wage scale.

e. Sri S.K. Pal was again charge sheeted vide letter dt. 15.10.1982 for remaining 26 days

unauthorized absence during the period from January 1982 to June 1982 and was given 48 hrs.

times to submit written explanation of the above charge sheet.

That an inquiry was instituted against Sri S. K. Pal vide letter dated 20.1.1983.

13.

The petitioner has submitted that no warning was ever issued to him, he has been working very sincerely and

diligently, but due to certain ailment he could not attend his duty for which formal request alongwith medical certificate

was submitted. The opposite party has refuted this submission and it has been alleged that without any prior sanction by

the competent authority the petitioner often used to abstain himself from duty. Therefore, as per clause 09.03.2012 of

the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, without issuing any notice the company of his own accord terminated

the petitioner’s service with company since he has remained absent without any leave/intimation for more than 10 days.

8674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 4, 2017/KARTIKA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

The workman has pleaded that the so called termination order was not delivered to him properly, when he

made a written request to the management then the said letter was sent to him.

15.

The management has filed certain documents as per list M-8. This list besides other documents, consist of

letter dated 6.10.1980, 12.5.1981, 21.11.1981, 17.3.1982, 15.10.1982 etc. wherein the period of unauthorized absence

has been mentioned. In another letter dated 20.1.1983 an enquiry officer was appointed for holding formal enquiry

against the petitioner. Earlier in response to the charge sheet dated 15.10.1982 an explanation dated 7.12.1982 was also

submitted by the petitioner. Although the documents referred by the management have not been admitted, even then

denial or non admission, does not falsify all the documents submitted as per list M-8. It would not be a prudent

presumption that the documents have been falsely or fraudulently framed by the management in order to terminate his

service.

16.

Another important letter dated 23.5.1985 sent by the petitioner to the management wherein he has submitted

that due to his metal disbalance he could not know all the facts regarding ailment and termination letter was not

traceable is quite imaterial. This letter reflects that the so called mental dis-balance medical papers and applications

were not submitted by the workman to the management in time and in proper manner.

17.

Learned AR for the management has raised a preliminary legal point that the petition is highly belated, and it

has been filed after about 28 years of leaving the services of the company. Learned AR for the workman has submitted

that after receiving the so called termination letter, writ petition was preferred before Hon’ble High Court, due to wrong

advice given to him while alternate remedy was available. Thereafter the matter was raised before Industrial Tribunal-

II, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow but due to notification dated 5.5.2008 another notification dated 3.7.98 has rescinded.

Thereafter the workman approached RLC( C ) and after the lapse of mandatory period of 45 days, petition under

Section 2 A of the I.D. Act has been moved before this Court. Explanation submitted by the working regarding delay is

quite satisfactory.

18.

Learned AR for workman has relied on the following citation;

1. 1998(6) SCC Uptron India vs Shammi Bhan page 538;

2. Civil Appeal No. 1471/99 Scooters India Ltd. Vs. M.Mahammad Yaqub Hon’ble Supreme Court.

19.

Learned AR of the management submits that the above Rulings do not apply to the present case. He has

referred the following citation:

Appeal (Civil) 638/2000 Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs K.P. Madhavankutty & others Judgment date 28.1.2000.

20.

Learned AR for the workman has stated that the above submissions of the management and the aforesaid

prouncement is not applicable to the present case.

21.

After having heard the intellect arguments of both the parties at length in the light of the principles laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid rulings and perusal of the record available before the Court, it is

inferred that since the petitioner has been habitual absentee, the application of the Certified Standing Order by the

management is quite legal and justified. The order dated 12.12.1983 issued by the management can not be adjudicated

as illegal and improper. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

22.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

9.07.2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ

का.आ. . . . 2560

2560

2560.—औoोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क! धारा 17 के अनुसरण म? के ीय

िववाद म? के ीय सरकार औoोिगक अिधकरण, नं. 2, मुV बई के पंचाट (संदभK सं` या 19/2013) को (कािशत करती है, जो

के ीय सरकार को 25.10.2017 को (कािशत /आ था।

[सं. एल-12012/73/2012-आईआर (बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबM ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 4] 2017@dk£rd 13] 1939

8675

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

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 25.10.2017.

[No. L-12012/73/2012-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/19 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Admn Office, Sharda Chamber,

7^th Floor, 386/2, Shankarseth Road,

Pune – 411 037.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Smt. Sarika Ramesh Shinde,

S. No. 311, Bhavani Peth,

Kasewadi,

Pune – 411 042.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Shri M.G. Nadkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN :

Mr. Umesh Vishwad,Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 27^th July, 2017.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour

& Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/73/2012 – IR (B-I) dated 21.03.2013. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune in terminating the services

of Smt. Sarika Ramesh Shinde w.e.f. 16.1.2012 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives. Second party workman filed statement of claim Ex.6. According to the concerned

workman, she was working with the first party bank since 2000 as a Sweeper. She has worked continuously from 2000

to 16.1.2012 with the first party bank. She was doing the work of cleaning and sweeping the premises of Zonal Office

Pune and the officers’ quarters of the first party bank under direct control and supervision of the first party bank. Her

work is regular and perennial. The first party bank was making payment to her. As such there is direct employer-