7755 GI/2018

(243)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 2]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 6—tuojh 12] 2019] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 16—ikS"k 22] 1940

No. 2]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 6—JANUARY 12, 2019, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 16— PAUSA 22, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 53

53.— ब ककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) क$ धारा 3 क$

उप-धारा (2क) के दूसरे परंतुक +ारा ,द- शि/य का ,योग करते 2ए, के45ीय सरकार, एत6ारा, भारतीय 8रजव ब क के

परामश से युनाइटेड ब क आफ इंिडया क$ ,ािधकृत पूंजी को पांच हजार करोड़ Cपए से बढ़ाकर आठ हजार पांच सौ करोड़

Cपए करती है।

[फा. सं.11/4/2009–बीओए]

ए. के. घोष, अवर सिचव

244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 53.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Central Government, after

consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby increases the authorised capital of the United Bank of India from

five thousand crore Rupees to eight thousand five hundred crore Rupees.

[F.No.11/4/2009-BOA]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

इपात मंालय

नई दली, 3 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 54

54.—कD 5 सरकार, सावजिनक प8रसर (अनािधकृत Eप से रहने वाल क$ बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971

(1971 का 40) क$ धारा 3 +ारा ,द- शि/य का ,योग करते 2ए और भारत सरकार के इHपात मंIालय क$ अिधसूचना

संJयांक का.आ. 1104 दनांक 20 अ,ैल 2010 जो भारत के राजपI मD, भाग-II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii), दनांक 01 मई,

2010 को ,कािशत है, अिधिमत करते 2ए, उन बात के िसवाय िज4हD ऐसे अिधमण से पहले कया गया है, या करने का

लोप कया गया है, नीचे दी गई सारणी के HतOभ (1) मD वPणत अिधकारी, जो भारत सरकार के राजपिIत अिधकारी के

समतुय Qेणी के अिधकारी ह , को उ/ अिधिनयम के ,योजन के िलए सOपदा अिधकारी िनयु/ करती है, जो सारणी के

HतOभ (2) मD िविनRदS सरकारी Hथान के सOबंध मD अपने अिधकार UेI क$ Hथानीय सीमाV के भीतर उ/ अिधिनयम +ारा

या उसके +ारा ,द- शि/य का ,योग करते 2ए कतW का पालन करD।

सारणी

मांक

अिधकारी का पदनाम और पता

सरकारी थान क

सरकारी थान क ेिणयां

ेिणयां

ेिणयां और अिधकार

और अिधकार

और अिधकार े

े

े क

क

सीमाएं

(1)

(2)

उपमहाबंधक (का मक), मॉयल िलिमटेड, मॉयल

भवन, 1-ए काटोल रोड, नागपुर - 440013

नागपुर, महारा , म मॉयल िलिमटेड के या उनके

ारा पे पर िलये गये सभी परसर।

बंधक (का मक), ितरोडी खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड,

िजला-बालाघाट, म य देश

मXय ,देश के िजला बालाघाट मD ितरोडी और सीतापटोर

खान िHथत मॉयल िलिमटेड के या उनके +ारा पYे पर

िलये गये सभी प8रसर ।

बंधक

(का मक),

बालाघाट

खान,

मॉयल

िलिमटेड, िजला-बालाघाट, म य देश

मXय ,देश के िजला बालाघाट मD बालाघाट खान िHथत

मॉयल िलिमटेड, के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये सभी

प8रसर।

बंधक (का मक), उकवा खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड,

िजला-बालाघाट, म य देश

मXय ,देश के िजला बालाघाट मD उकवा खान िHथत

मॉयल िलिमटेड, के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये सभी

प8रसर।

बंधक (का मक), गुमगांव खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड

िजला नागपुर, महारा

गुमगांव खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला नागपुर महारा\ ]

के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

बंधक (का मक) म#सर खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड

िजला नागपुर, महारा

म4सर खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला नागपुर, महारा\ ]

के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

245

बंधक (का मक) का#&ी खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड

िजला नागपुर, महारा

का45ी खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला नागपूर, महारा\ ]

के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

बंधक

(का मक)

बेलड(गरी

खान,

मॉयल

िलिमटेड िजला नागपुर, महारा

बेलडगरी खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला नागपुर,

महारा\ ] के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

बंधक (का मक) ड(गरी बुजुग खान, मॉयल

िलिमटेड िजला भ-डारा, महारा

डगरी बुजुग खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला भ^डारा,

महारा\ ] के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

10.

बंधक (का मक) िचखला खान मॉयल िलिमटेड

िजला भ-डारा, महारा

िचखला खान, मॉयल िलिमटेड, िजला भ^डारा,

महारा\ ] के या उनके +ारा पYे पर िलये गये प8रसर।

[फा. सं. 1(7)/2009-आरएम-II]

के. मुरली, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF STEEL

New Delhi, the 3^rd January, 2019

S.O. 54.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel

number S.O 1104, dated the 20^th April 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the

1^st May, 2010, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government

hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted

officer of Government of India, to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers

conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his

jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table -

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Address and designation of the Officer

Categories of the public premises and local limits of

jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Deputy General Manager (Personnel), MOIL

Limited, MOIL Bhawan, 1A, Katol Road, Nagpur –

440013

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Nagpur, Maharashtra.

Manager (Personnel), Tirodi Mines, MOIL Limited,

District-Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Tirodi and Sitapatore mines in Balaghat district

of Madhya Pradesh.

Manager (Personnel), Balaghat Mines, MOIL

Limited, District – Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Balaghat mines in Balaghat district of Madhya

Pradesh.

Manager (Personnel), Ukwa Mines, MOIL Limited,

District – Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Ukwa mines in Balaghat district of Madhya

Pradesh.

Manager (Personnel), Gumgaon Mines, MOIL

Limited, District – Nagpur, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Gumgaon mines in Nagpur district of

Maharashtra.

Manager

(Personnel),

Munsar

Mines,

MOIL

Limited, District – Nagpur, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Munsar mines in Nagpur district of

Maharashtra.

Manager

(Personnel),

Kandri

Mines,

MOIL

Limited, District – Nagpur, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Kandri mines in Nagpur district of Maharashtra.

Manager (Personnel), Beldongri Mines, MOIL

Limited, District – Nagpur, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Beldongri mines in Nagpur district of

Maharashtra.

246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manager (Personnel), Dongri-Buzurg Mines, MOIL

Limited, District – Bhandara, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Dongri Buzurg mines in Bhandara district of

Maharashtra.

10.

Manager

(Personnel),

Chikla

Mines,

MOIL

Limited, District – Bhandara, Maharashtra

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by MOIL

Limited at Chikla mines in Bhandara district of

Maharashtra.

[F. No. 1(7)/2009-RM-II]

K. MURALI, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 2 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 55

55.—के4 5ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक$य ,योजन के िलए ,योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण मD पे]ोिलयम और ,ाकृितक गैस मंIालय के ,शासिनक िनयंIणाधीन सावजिनक UेI के उपम के

िनO निलिखत कायालय को, िजनके 80 या अिधक ,ितशत कमचारी वृ4 द ने िह4 दी का कायसाधक `ान ,ाa त कर िलया है,

अिधसूिचत करती है :-

1. भारत पे]ोिलयम कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड,

भोपाल एएफ़एस, राजा भोज हवाई अdा,

भोपाल,

मXय ,देश – 462030

[सं. 11011/1/2017 (िह4 दी)]

ऊषा िब4जोला, संयुf त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 2^nd January, 2019

S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the

Unoin) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector Undertakings

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more per cent of the staff

have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :-

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Bhopal AFS, Raja Bhoj Airport,

Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh – 462030

[No. 11011/1/2017 (Hindi)]

USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 56-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkfuns’kd] lhihMCY;wMh dk;kZy; ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 112@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

247

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18^th December, 2018

S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director General,

CPWD Office New Delhi, and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.12.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

DID No.112/2017

Shri Mehtab Ali S/o Shri Mohd. Sahid,

C/o All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

House No.4823, Gali No.13,

Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

…Workman

Versus

(i)

The Director General,

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi

(ii)

The Executive Engineer,

ACD – 4, CPWD,

Vidyut Bhawan,

New Delhi

(iii)

M/s. Virender Kumar,

C/o Executive Engineer Ghaziabad Central Division,

C.P.W.D.,

Hindon Airfield, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh

…Management

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by Shri Mehtab Ali (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section

(2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the

date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him

to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands

substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act

to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a

dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was

within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-

A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

Shri Mehtab Ali, Carpenter, had filed an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 29.08.2016 for

regularization of his services. During the course of conciliation proceedings, the management retrenched the services of

Shri Mehtab Ali on 17.12.2017 without obtaining prior permission of the Conciliation Officer. The work /duty being

performed by the workman is of perennial nature and management has retained junior to the workmen through

contractor against this work. The said case is in respect of prohibited categories on which contract system is prohibited

by the management of CPWD itself but on the other hand the field unit are regularly violating the orders of Ministry of

Labour and the management is awarding work on these prohibited categories. The workman was retrenched without

serving any notice, notice pay or payment of retrenchment compensation, which is in violation of the provisions of the

Act. The contractors in the case was and agent and was used just for disbursement of salary to the workmen. The case

has also been sent for making reference by the appropriate authority.

Written statement was filed on behalf of the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia, no

relationship of employer & employee, there being no cause of action, absence of legal & valid espousal etc. On merits,

the management has denied the various material averments contained in the statement of claim.

248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the termination of service of the claimant is illegal and against the provisions of the ID Act?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages?

(iii) Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?

Thereafter the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. Various opportunities were granted to the claimant

for filing his affidavit in evidence. However, it was stated at the bar by Shri Satish Kumar Sharma that the claimant has

since expired and his legal heirs are not interested in pursuing the case on merits. Under such circumstances, this court

has no other option but to pass a ‘no claim’ award. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on

merits, as such, the legal heirs of the claimant are still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. An award is,

accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : 12.12.2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2019

dk-vk- 57-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ;wdks cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; bZjukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 221@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

2--1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@34@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd January, 2019

S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 221/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 2.1.2019.

[No. L-12012/34/2006– IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 10^th day of December, 2018 / 19^th Agrahayana, 1940)

ID 221/2006

Workman

Shri.M.M.Mathew,

Mamoottil, 29/179,

Janatha Raod, Vyttila P.O.,

Ernakulam

By Adv. Paulson C. Varghese.

Management

Assistant General Manager,

UCO Bank, Regional Office,

Thiruvananthapuram.

By Adv. Deepak Joy. K.

This case coming up for final hearing on 15.11.2018 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 10.12.2018 passed

the following:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

249

AWARD

1. In excise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of subsection (I) of S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act

14 of 1947) the Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/34/2006-IR(B-II) dated 20.07.2006 referred this Industrial

dispute for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the action of UCO Bank, Trivandrum in removing Shri. M.M. Mathew, Daftry from the

Service of the Bank is fair and just? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The Workman involved in the Industrial dispute in the above reference was employed with the Management.

The Management initiated disciplinary action against the Workman for unauthorized absence and his services were

terminated. The Workman challenged the termination in this Industrial dispute and this Tribunal passed an Award dated

04.05.2009 upholding the legality of the termination order issued by the Management

4. The Workman challenged this Award before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No.WP(C)

22321/2010(M). The Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 26.09.2016 set aside the Award and remanded the matter

back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in the light of the observation made in the said judgment.

While the matter was being adjudicated, the Workman filed a memo dated 22.09.2017 stated there in that he is

withdrawing all the contentions made against the Management/Bank. He further stated that he is admitting the dismissal

from the post of “Daftari” and he will not make any claim against the Management/Bank. He further stated that he will

not raise any objection against the Order of dismissal in future against the Management and Disciplinary Authority.

Further he prayed that reference may be closed in accordance with this withdrawal statement.

On 15.11.2018 when the matter was taken up the Workman was present in person. He pleaded that he may be

permitted withdraw his claim against the Management as indicated in his Memo dated 22.09.2017.

The possibility of arriving at a mutually agreeable settlement with the Management in the Lok- Adalat was

explained to the Workman. The Workman expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter any further.

In the result an Award is passed allowing the request of the Workman to withdraw his contentions against the

Management and close the reference.

The withdrawal memo filed by the Workman will form part of the Award. The Award will come into force one

month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and passed by me on this the 10^th day

of December, 2018.

V.VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

1. Memo dated 22.09.2017 filed by the workman.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 58-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfj;.Vy

cSad vkWaQ dkelZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 35@2007½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@113@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd January, 2019

S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/113/2006 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of October, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 35/2007

Between:

Sri A. Rathnakar Reddy,

H.No.3-53, Pandu Basthi,

Sai Baba nagar,

IDA, Jeedimetla,

Ranga Reddy District – 500 855.

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager (HRD),

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

S.B.U., Ashoka My Home Chambers,

1-8-303, Sardar Patel Road,

Secunderabad – 500 003.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri William Burra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/113/2006-IR(B.II) dated 6.7.2007

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 Oriental Bank of Commerce by regularising the services of some of

the workmen of erstwhile Global Trust Bank and not regularising the services of Shri A. Ratnakar Reddy, Ex-

Electrician cum runner is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 35/2007 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 was working as an Electrician cum Runner from 1.3.1997 to 28.9.2005 in erstwhile Global Trust Bank and

later in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Secunderabad (the Respondent). It is stated that initially the workman worked

as an Electrician Cum Runner through M/s. ESSR Engineering in Maintenance Works from 1.3.1997 to 28.2.2001,

thereafter through Global Corporate Services from 1.3.2001 to 14.8.2004 and thereafter worked through the same

agency from 14.8.2004 onwards for Oriental Bank of Commerce, Secunderabad till 28.9.2005. It is further submitted

that other workmen who worked with the Petitioner in similar capacity in the erstwhile Global Trust Bank are absorbed

in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, but the workman’s case was not considered for absorption for the reasons best

known to the Respondent. It is also submitted that the Petitioner’s service total period was more than 8 years and his

services were utilized for jobs/duties such as Electrician, runner, attender etc.. The Petitioner further submits that he

studied upto B.A., and also having sound knowledge and experience of electrical works. His work was appreciated by

the Respondents and he continued in the said bank as well as erstwhile Global Trust Bank for 8 years continuously

without blemish and in each year he worked for more than 300 days. It is further submitted that the Respondent

management has entered into an agreement with the representatives of Federation, New Delhi on 30.9.2005, according

to which the erstwhile runners working through agencies shall be absorbed as Peons/Clerks in subordinate cadre,

depending on the educational qualifications. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an application on 10.11.2005 for the

post of clerk to the Respondent bank. But the Petitioner’s case was not considered for absorption even though he

fulfilled all the conditions laid down for absorption in the clerical cadre. The Petitioner also submitted that if there is

any difficulty to absorb him as clerk, he is prepared to accept the post of electrician/peon. The Petitioner also submitted

that he worked for more than one year continuously i.e., more than 240 days, but the Respondent without considering

his case, terminated him from service. Thus, the termination of the Petitioner from service without complying with the

provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and against the provisions of Law

and also against the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner further submitted that his employment through the

agency is ruse and camouflage as the Petitioner’s services were utilized by the Respondent bank but only to deprive him

the benefits of regular workman it is done. Hence, the service rendered by the Petitioner with the agencies is deemed to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

251

have been rendered to the Respondent bank which attracts Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the contract

is the sham contract. It is submitted that without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, he has been terminated and the Respondent should have complied with the same before his

termination. It is also submitted that no notice was given and notice pay in lieu of one month notice, was also not given

to him. he was also not paid retrenchment compensation as laid down under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 which will make the retrenchment ab-initio void. Therefore, the Petitioner workman submitted to absorb him in

service with all consequential benefits. The Petitioner further submitted that the matter was referred to the labour

authorities for conciliation, but lastly conciliation was failed, for which it was referred to the Ministry of Labour and

Employment and thereafter it has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Respondents filed their counter with the averments in brief as follows:

In the written statement the Respondent while denying some of the averments made in the claim statement, has stated

that the Respondent bank i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce in short O.B.C. is a Government of India undertaking. The

Reserve Bank of India has kept the erstwhile Global Trust Bank (G.T.B.) a private bank under an order of Moratorium

on 24^th July 2004, which was effective upto 23^rd Oct 2004 or an earlier date if alternative arrangements are in place.

During the period of Moratorium the RBI had to decide the future set up of Global Trust Bank which had been given

time to arrange for infusion of capital as also to explore the options of raising required capital or voluntary merger with

any domestic work. Global Trust Bank had to declare its inability to raise the required capital from domestic investors

as also voluntary merger with any domestic work. Since no other options were available, the RBI had taken a recourse

under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for its compulsory merger. The Respondent bank had shown

interest in such a merger. Keeping in view the financial parameters, the retail network and the synergies as well as

strategic advantages of the Petitioner’s bank, RBI had prepared a draft scheme of amalgamation of GTB with the

Petitioner’s bank i.e., OBC A draft notification was published and it was finalized and ultimately the Global Trust Bank

was merged with the Petitioner’s bank w.e.f. 14.8.2004, under the scheme called as Global Trust Bank Limited

(Amalgamation with Oriental Bank of Commerce) Scheme, 2004, for short called as scheme. Chapter V of the scheme

deals with Rights and obligations of the Employees of Transferor Bank. As per the scheme all the erstwhile employees

of GTB, who were willing to opt for the scheme had been absorbed. The above said scheme does not cover with any

other personnel except the employees of GTB. All other outsourcing agencies of the erstwhile GTB and their respective

employees were not covered by the above said scheme. The OBC is not obligated to take any of these employees of the

outsourcing agencies of Global Trust Bank. In fact the agreement entered by these outsourcing agencies with GTB had

come to an end by 21.8.2002 itself. Neither the GTB nor OBC renewed any of these agreements beyond this date. One

such outsourcing agency is by name M/s Global Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., situated at 23 Paigah Colony, S.P. Road,

Secunderabad-500 003. It appears that this private Company employed a number of persons who are outsourced to GTB

upto 21.8.2002. They were never the employees of GTB and hence OBC has got no obligation to take them into their

services. The OBC has terminated engaging the un-renowned services of the outsourcing Agency i.e., M/s Global

Corporate Services vide its letter dated 30.11.2005. These categories are Runner-Staff/Office Boys with requisite

qualification, and Data Entry Operator/ Telephone Operator with the requisite qualifications. A circular was displayed

accordingly inviting applications. In terms of this circular, persons who were discharging the above duties, with the

outsourcing agencies have applied giving educational and other particulars. The OBC has absorbed some of these

employees who have met the requisite work experience of Runner Staff/Office Boys and Data entry Operators/Telephone

Operators and having qualifications as per the circular dated 28.10.2005. The claimants have also applied in terms of

the above circular. Both these Respondents in their application have stated that they are working as drivers in

M/s Global Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd.. In view of the fact that the Oriental Bank of Commerce does not contemplate

regularization of drivers their candidature were rejected. Aggrieved by such order the workmen raised an industrial

dispute with Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad who vide his letter dated 11.10.2006 reported the

failure of conciliation to the Government of India. The Government of India by impugned order has referred the matter

to this Tribunal. It is stated that the above reference of the Government of India has been challenged before the Apex

Court and in a catena of Supreme Court decisions which has been decided amongst other grounds. The ID Act does

not contemplate any reference with regard to regularization. The question of regularization/absorption has been

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions which has held that, regularization/absorption

is not a method or mode of appointment and no State of instrumentalities of State can regularise persons as that would

be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Court has decided that any mode of regularization

is illegal then the Labour Court cannot give a contrary order and therefore, the entire exercise is a futility. It is further

stated that the workman is from an outsourcing organization. There is no employer and employee relationship between

the workman and the Respondent bank. Further it is not a case of termination or discharge. Therefore, claim of the

workman is not tenable in the eye of Law. The OBC circular is an exception and an one time measure only. That by

itself it will not give any right whatsoever to claimants to claim a regularization as a matter of right. It is further

submitted that since the case is of not termination or discharge and in the absence of the same the order of the no case is

maintainable and hence the case deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the entire reference made by the

Government of India is illegal and this court can not entertain any such references.

As per the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties the following points are to be determined:

Whether there is employer and employee relationship between the Respondent Oriental Bank of

Commerce and the Petitioner workman namely Sri A. Ratnakar Reddy?

252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

II.

Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce by regularising the services of

some of the workmen of erstwhile Global Trust Bank and not regularising the services of

Shri A. Ratnakar Reddy, Ex-Electrician cum runner is legal and justified?

III.

If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

During the course of hearing the workman has examined himself as WW1 and marked 7 documents, like

Exs.W1 to W7 whereas the Respondent bank has examined one of his Senior Manager, namely Smt. C. Sowjanya, as

MW1, and also marked five documents Exs.M1 to M5. Besides, both the parties have also relied on some judgements

which have been considered during the course of arguments.

I have already heard the Learned Counsels of both the sides in the matter. Perused the evidence adduced so far

by the parties.

Point No. I: The Learned Counsel for the workman contended that the workman was working as an Electrician

cum Runner from 1.3.1997 to 28.9.2005 in erstwhile Global Trust Bank and later in the Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Secunderabad (the Respondent). It is stated that initially the workman worked as an Electrician Cum Runner through

M/s. ESSR Engineering in Maintenance Works from 1.3.1997 to 28.2.2001 and through Global Corporate Services from

1.3.2001 to 14.8.2004 and thereafter worked through the same agency from 14.8.2004 onwards for Oriental Bank of

Commerce, Secunderabad till 28.9.2005. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that

the workman was not employed by the erstwhile M/s. Global Trust Bank and according to him the work was done by a

private agency namely, M/s. Global Corporate Services and he has not been employed directly under the Global Trust

Bank. He submitted that the workman was a contract labour engaged through M/s. Global Corporate services. There is

no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the erstwhile Global Trust Bank as well as the present

Respondent.

The case of the workman is that he was appointed as an Electrician in the Global Trust Bank and was paid

monthly salary from 1.3.1997 to 14.8.2004. Thereafter, he worked directly with the Respondent bank from 14.8.2004 to

28.9.2005. The Learned Counsel for the workman contended that the workman has not only served for the Global Trust

Bank but also after amalgamation with the Respondent, Oriental Bank of Commerce. The workman was an Electrician

but he has never worked for the entire day. But his service was taken as and when required for the Global Trust Bank.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the agreement of labour contract with the workmen and

Global Corporate Services is false, bogus and mere camouflage, as the Petitioner’s services were utilized by the

Respondent bank through out the year against the regular vacancy, even after merger of the Global Trust Bank with the

Respondent bank. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the workman contended that the workman has served

more than a year continuously he is eligible to be absorbed as a Peon/Office Boy. But his case was not considered.

The Learned Counsel for the workman further contended that only to deprive the Petitioner workman from his legitimate

right, the Respondent has taken a stand that they have not utilized the services of the workman and the workman was

working under a contractor with whom Global Trust Bank had made the agreement. He also contended that such type

of labour exploitation should be prohibited. In support of this contention he relied on a decision of the Apex Court

reported in (2011)15 decided in the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpdak Sahakari Samiti Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma,

dead by LRs and others in Civil Appeal No.2585 of 2006 209 (S.C.) wherein their Lordships held that “Labour statutes

were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on

an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However,

this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the

workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the workmen concerned are not their employees but are the

employees/workmen of a contractor, or that they are merely daily-wage or short-term or casual employees when in fact

they are doing the work of regular employees. This court cannot countenance such practices any more.

Globalization/liberalization in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers.” In view of

the decision cited above, in the case at hand it is observed that, the workman had been engaged by the erstwhile Global

Trust Bank as an Electrician in the office maintenance work and also as an office boy, but the Respondent has shown the

workman as an employee of a contractor. In fact, the workman was working for the Global Trust Bank not for the

Global Corporate Services and with the knowledge of this Global Trust Bank, the workman has worked for a long period

from 1.3.1997 to 14.8.2004 and even after merger of Global Trust Bank with the Respondent bank the workman has

continued his work for the Respondent bank. The workman has worked for more than 240 days in a year and his work is

of perennial in nature. He was working continuously for the Global Trust Bank and has also worked for one year

continuously for the Global Trust Bank and has also worked for one year continuously for the Respondent the Oriental

Bank of Commerce who have played tricky in order to deprive the workman to get the benefit of permanent job and

have shown him as a contract worker under a contractor. The so called contract between the Global Corporate Services

and the Global Trust Bank is in fact a paper transaction. In the circumstances in the light of the judgement quoted above,

it is seen that the workman was serving his duties as an Electrician of the Global Trust Bank for a long period and there

after for the Respondent for a period of one year with their knowledge. Thus, it is the workman who was the employee

of the Global Trust Bank and after its amalgamation with the Respondent the Oriental Bank of Commerce and he was not

the employee of any contractor. Thus, it can safely be stated that there is employer and employee relationship between

the Respondent and the workman and as such Point No.I is answered in favour of the workman.

Point No. II: In Point No.I it has already been held that the workman was the employee of the erstwhile Global

Trust Bank from 1.3.1997 to 14.8.2004 and thereafter the employee of the present Respondent till 28.9.2005. The

Learned Counsel for the workman contended that as per the amalgamation scheme of the workers working with the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

253

Global Trust Bank were taken over by Oriental Bank of Commerce. MW1 in his cross examination admitted that the

workman in his application has claimed to have worked as an office boy. He has also applied for the post of a Peon in

the Respondent bank. Since the workman could not fulfil the requisites for the post of a Peon as per the Head Office

circular dated 28.10.2005 and he has not worked from 14.8.2004 his application was rejected by the Respondent bank.

MW1 further admitted that on 14.8.2004, his application was rejected by the Respondent bank. MW1 also admitted that

on 14.8.2004, the Petitioner was working under the Global Trust Bank. The admission of MW1 clearly shows that the

Petitioner has applied for the post of Peon but his case was not considered. It is admitted that some similarly placed

workman working through some other agencies were taken over by the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Even though the

workman has worked as on 14.8.2004 and has applied for the post of Peon having a qualification of B.A., his case was

not considered. The Respondent has no where specifically denied about the service of the workman from 1.3.1997 to

14.8.2004 under the Global Trust Bank and also not under the Respondent till 28.9.2005. Only they have challenged

that the workman was working through Global Corporate Services not directly under Global Trust Bank or the Oriental

Bank of Commerce. When the Respondent has not denied the service of the workman either under the Global Trust

Bank or under the Oriental Bank of Commerce, it is a clear admission that they are fully aware of the service of the

workman and knowing fully well that they have utilized the service of the workman for a long period. They have not

considered the application of the workman to absorb him as a Peon. Admittedly without taking into consideration the

application of the workman the Respondent has regularised the service of other workers. Even though the workman has

got all the eligible criteria, his case has not been considered and also without following the provisions of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman has been terminated, even though the workman has worked for more

than 240 days in a year and his services were perennial in nature, thus the workman is entitled to get the protection

under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly the Management has not followed the procedure at

the time of termination of the workman and as such the Respondent Management has violated the provisions of Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the Management has taken over some other similarly placed workman

from Global Trust Bank and the workman has been deprived for either getting the retrenchment benefit, as provided

under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or has not been given any job after amalgamation of the Global

Trust Bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce, the termination of the workman is illegal and not justified.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

10.

Point No. III: The Learned Counsel for the workman contended that the Management has illegally terminated

the workman from the services of the Respondent, even though the workman has applied for a job soon after

amalgamation of Global Trust Bank with the Oriental Bank of Commerce but his case was not considered. Now he is

jobless. His case should be considered. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, the

workman has not been appointed against any clear vacancy. He was served under the Global Corporate Services, a

service provider/contractor. Neither Global Trust Bank nor the Respondent had given any appointment order to the

workman. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to be regularised in service. In support of his contention he relief on

the decision of Bombay High Court decided in the case of Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Vs. Shahezad Bee

Sheikh Jamal 2001 EQ (Bom) 812 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, “unless employee proves that he worked against

the permanent post, he cannot be allowed back door entry in the service. In this respect, from the facts and

circumstances on record it is revealed that the Bank had utilized the service of the workman as an Electrician as well

as a Peon rendered and the workman has worked against the regular vacancy. No where the Respondent has denied the

service rendered by the workman. The only stand taken by the Respondent is that the workman was not working either

under Global Trust Bank or under the Respondent and he was working through Global Corporate Services. It is seen

that when the workman has rendered his service for Global Trust Bank and the Respondent from 1.3.1997 till 28.9.2005

it can not be stated that there was no vacancy either in the Global Trust Bank or under the Respondent bank. Therefore,

the judgement cited by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances

of the case. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that as the workman was not recruited by following

the recruitment process he is not entitled to be regularised in service. In support of his contention, the decision of the

Apex Court reported in 2006 II CLR (261) (S.C.) decided in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors, Vs.

Umadevi and others wherein their Lordships held that, “It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary

employee or casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he 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.” In Point No.II it

has already been held that the Respondent Management has violated the provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 while terminating the services of the Petitioner. Therefore, the workman is entitled to be regularised in

service. Furthermore, admittedly the Management has regularised the services of some other similarly placed employees

like the workman and has violated the provisions of Sec.25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the

workman is entitled to be regularised in the service of the Respondent bank. The facts of the present case is quite

different with that of the facts of the judgement cited above. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the judgement cited

above is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is noticed that when the Respondent bank has not considered

the grievance of the workman while considering the service of the similarly placed workman and absorbed them into

service the Respondent has violated the provisions under Sec.25 G of the Act. Admittedly the workman has filed an

application to get a job in the Respondent’s office and even if he is a skilled labour and has got requisite qualification to

be an Electrician and is also a graduate, his case was not considered to be a Peon even in the office. Rather he was

informed that his case is not considered as per the circular dated 28.10.2005. In fact, the workman had served under the

Global Trust Bank from 1.3.1997 to 14.8.2004 and after amalgamation he has also served under the Respondent till

28.9.2005. He is an electrician and a graduate. It can not be stated that the workman was not having such qualification

to be a Peon and as such he is not fit to be a Peon when similarly placed workers have been considered as Peon in the

254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

office of the Respondent. In this context, the Hon’ble Court while distinguished in the judgement of Secretary, State of

Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Others, by holding that, “even though the same had no relevance to the prayer made by the

Petitioner. The simple question raised by the Petitioner was with reference to the decision of the Bank in absorbing

Shri Devaraju as a permanent employee. The claim of the Petitioner was founded under Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. Unfortunately the aforesaid issue was not considered even in the second round of litigation”.

Thus, the issue laid down in the (Umadevi) (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case,

as in the case on hand, some other similarly placed workman were regularised in the service of the Respondent bank

and the same opportunity was denied to the workman under reference, so the workman should be given the same

opportunity. Therefore, the action of the Respondent not absorbing the workman in service is arbitrary and

discriminative, and also the Respondent has violated all the principles of SEc.25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Therefore, it is held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service. The Learned Counsel for the workman

submitted that the workman being an Electrician and a graduate has been illegally terminated from service, and after

termination he has suffered a great financial loss and he is now unemployed. Therefore, he is entitled to get full back

wages. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the workman has not lead any

evidence to show that he has not been employed anywhere and he is jobless. He also contended that the workman has

not rendered any service to the Respondent bank and is not entitled for any wages for the period he has not done any

work. Furthermore, admittedly, the workman is an electrician whose service is very essential, admittedly an electrician

cannot sit idly without any job. As he has not rendered any service to the Global Trust Bank or the Respondent bank

after his termination he is not entitled to any back wages. Thus, the workman is only entitled to be reinstated in service

either as an Electrician or as a Peon in the Respondent’s bank.

Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.

Result:

The reference is allowed partly. The action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce by regularising the

services of some of the workmen of erstwhile Global Trust Bank and not regularising the services of Shri A. Ratnakar

Reddy, Ex-Electrician cum runner is declared illegal and not justified and the Respondent is directed to reinstate and

regularise the service of the workman as an Electrician or a Peon. Under the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of October, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1:

Sri A. Ratnakar Reddy

MW1: Smt. C. Sowjanya

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of appointment letter dt.25.2.2001 from Global Corporate Services (P.) Ltd to the

Petitioner.

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of Secondary School Certificate of WW1.

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of Application for absorption dt.16.12.2005 of A.Rathnakar Reddy.

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of application from WW1 to RLC(C), dt.23.5.2006.

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of notification dt. 13.8.2004 of amalgamation of Global Trust Bank with Oriental Bank of

Commerce.

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of absorption circular dt.28.10.2005 of outsourcing agencies in the Respondent bank.

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of application for regular employment as clerks/peon in Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Secunderabad.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photostat copy of draft scheme of Global Trust Bank – Oriental Bank of Commerce amalgamation

dt,26.7.2004 issued by Reserve Bank of India.

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of circular to all branch offices, dt.28.10.2005, by Respondent bank.

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of check list for absorption of office boys/runners as peons-enrolment.

Ex.M4:

Photostat copy of the application form of the Petitioner.

Ex.M5:

Photostat copy of lr. dt.30.11.2005.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 12] 2019@ikS"k 22] 1940

255

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 59-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfj;.Vy

cSad vkWaQ dkelZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 36@2007½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

02-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@114@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd January, 2019

S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/114/2006 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of October, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2007

Between:

Sri J. Jayathirtha,

1-20-16, Venkatapuram,

Thrumalagherry Post,

Secunderabad – 500 015.

Sri M. Karunanidhi,

H.No.19-25/B, Kotha Basthi Venkataraopet,

Venkatapuram,

Secunderabad – 500015.

… Petitioners

AND

The General Manager (HRD),

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

S.B.U., Ashoka My Home Chambers,

1-8-303, Sardar Patel Road,

Secunderabad – 500 003.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri William Burra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/114/2006-IR(B.II) dated 6.7.2007

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 Oriental Bank of Commerce by regularising the services of some of

the workmen of erstwhile Global Trust Bank and not regularising the services of Shri J. Jayathirtha, Ex-Jr.

Assistant-Support Services and Shri M. Karunanidhi, Ex-Jr. Assistant-Support Services is legal and justified?

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

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 36/2007 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.

256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 12, 2019/PAUSA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Petitioners were working as Drivers since they were holding driving licenses. Though they were designated as

Jr. Assistants-support services, but working as personal drivers to the officers, when the officers reach the bank, the

Petitioners’ services were utilized as office boys. The Petitioners later worked through Global Corporate Services from

1.6.2004 to 6.5.2005 for Global Trust Bank as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce, Secunderabad. It is further submitted

that other workmen who worked with the Petitioners in similar capacity in the erstwhile Global Trust Bank are absorbed

in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, but the workmens’ case was not considered for absorption for the reasons best

known to the Respondent. It is also submitted that the Petitioners’ service total period was more than 11 years and

their services were utilized for jobs/duties such as Drivers, Office Boys, attendars etc.. The Petitioners further submit

that they studied upto 10^th class and also can read, write, English, Telugu and Hindi languages by virtue of their

experience and qualifications. The Petitioners’ work was appreciated by the Respondents and they continued in the said

bank as well as the erstwhile Global Trust Bank for 11 years continuously without blemish and in each year they

worked for more than 300 days. It is further submitted that the Respondent management has entered into an agreement

with the representatives of Federation, New Delhi on 30.9.2005, according to which the erstwhile workmen working

through agencies shall be absorbed as Peons/Clerks in subordinate cadre, depending on the educational qualifications.

Accordingly, the Petitioners submitted an application on 11/2005 for the post of Peon/clerk to the Respondent bank. But

the Petitioners’ cases were not considered for absorption even though they have fulfilled all the conditions laid down for

absorption in the clerical cadre. The Petitioners also submitted that if there is any difficulty to absorb them as clerk,

they are prepared to accept the post of electrician/peon. The Petitioners also submitted that they worked for more than

one year continuously i.e., more than 240 days, but the Respondent without considering their case, terminated them

from service. Thus, the termination of the Petitioners from service without complying with the provisions of Sec.25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and against the provisions of Law and also against the

principles of natural justice. The Petitioners further submitted that their employment through the agency is ruse and

camouflage as the Petitioners’ services were utilized by the Respondent bank, but only to deprive them the benefits of

regular workman it is done. Hence, the service rendered by the Petitioners with the agencies is deemed to have been

rendered to the Respondent bank which attracts Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the contract is the sham

contract. It is submitted that without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, they have been terminated, and the Respondent should have complied with the same before their termination. It

is also submitted that no notice was given and notice pay in lieu of one month notice, was also not given to them. The

Petitioners were also not paid retrenchment compensation as laid down under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 which will make the retrenchment ab-initio void. Therefore, the Petitioner workmen submitted to absorb them in

service with all consequential benefits. The Petitioners further submitted that the matter was referred to the labour

authorities for conciliation, but lastly conciliation was failed, for which it was referred to the Ministry of Labour and

Employment and thereafter it has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows: