931 GI/2019

(837)

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- 8]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 17—iQjojh 23] 2019] 'kfuokj@ek?k 28—iQkYxqu 4] 1940

No. 8]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 17—FEBRUARY 23, 2019, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 28— PHALGUNA 4, 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 मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई द ली 18 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 246

246

246.—ब ककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क धारा 53 क उपधारा (ii) के ारा

!द" त शि%य& का !योग करते )ए, के+ ,ीय सरकार, भारतीय .रजव0 ब क क अनुशंसा पर एत4ारा यह घोषणा करती है क

भारत म: ब ;कंक कारोबार करने के िलए उ< त अिधिनयम क धारा 7 क उपधारा (1) के उपबंध यूनाईटेड ;कंगडम आधा.रत

ब क “नेट वेB ट माकC Dस पीएलसी” (पूव0वतE द रॉयल ब क ऑफ B कॉटल ड पीएलसी) पर लागू नहI ह&गे।

[फा. सं. 7/173/2018-बीओए-I]

ए.के. घोष, अवर सिचव

838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18^th February, 2019

S.O. 246.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (ii) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,

1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that

the provision of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act shall not apply to “NetWest Markets PLC’’ (erstwhile The

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC), a United Kingdom based bank, for carrying on banking business in India.

[F. No.7/173/2018-BOA-I]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

िवदेश

िवदेश मंा

मंा

मंालय

लय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई दली, 13 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 247

247

247.—राजनियक और क&सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म: वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क: , सरकार भारत के उLायोग, माले म: Mी अजय कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

06 फ़रवरी 2019 से सहायक क&सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क&सुलर सेवाO के िनव0हन के िलए !ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

!काश च+द, िनदेशक (क&सुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 13^th February, 2019

S.O. 247.—Statutory Order : In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar, Assistant

Section Officer in the High Commission of India, Male to perform Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with

effect from 06 February 2019.

[No.T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत और पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत और पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई दली, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 248

248

248.—क: ,ीय सरकार, दंड !Rया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उप-धारा (8) ारा

!द" त शि< तय& का !योग करते )ए, द ली िवशेष पुिलस B थापन (के.अ.U यू.) और उससे संबंिधत अ+ य मामल& क ओर से

माननीय उX च + यायालय, पटना के समY Mी िशवाकुमार, सीईओ, भारतीय रेल िबजली कंपनी िलिमटेड (बीआरबीसीएल),

कंवल तनुज, त" कालीन िजला मिजB Zेट, औरंगाबाद (िबहार) और अ+ य के िव[\ क: ,ीय अ+ वेषण U यूरो मामला आरसी

एसी.1.2018 ए0002 तथा इससे संब\ अ+ य मामल& एवं उससे आनुषंिगक मामल& का संचालन करने के िलए

Mी के.राघवाचायु0लु, अिधव< ता को िनयुि< त क तारीख से तीन वष_ क अविध के िलए या मामले का िनपटान होने तक या

अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक के `प म: िनयु< त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/30/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. िaपाठी, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

839

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 8^th February, 2019

S.O. 248.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri K. Raghavacharyulu, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting Central Bureau of Investigation case RC AC.1.2018 A0002 against Shri Sivakumar, Chief

Executive Officer, Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited (BRBCL), Kanwal Tanuj, the then District Magistrate,

Aurangabad, (Bihar) & others before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna on behalf of Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI) and other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the

date of appointment or disposal of the case or till further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/30/2018-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ

का.आ. . . . 249

249

249.—क: ,ीय सरकार, दंड !Rया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) ारा !द" त

शि< तय& का !योग करते )ए, दली िवशेष पुिलस Bथापन ारा संिBथत आरसी 3/ई/2014 ब क सुरYा और कपट सेल मुंबई

(िवशेष मामला संeया 12/2015) और उससे संबंिधत अ+य मामल& और उसके आनुषंिगक मामल& का लातूर िवचारण

+यायालय महाराf के समY अिभयोजन का संचालन करने के िलए अिधव%ा सुMी Bवाित गणपित तोडकरी को िनयुि% क

तारीख से 3 वष0 क अविध या मामले का िनBतारण होने तक या अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक

के `प म: िनयु% करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/25/2016-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. िaपाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8^th February, 2019

S.O. 249.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Swati Ganpati Todkari, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of RC 3/E/2014 Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Mumbai (Special case number

12/2015) instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment and other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto

before the Trial Court at Latur, Maharashtra for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the

case or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/25/2016-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कोयला मंालय

नई द ली, 18 फरवरी, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 250

250

250.—के+ ,ीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक Yेa (अज0न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20)

(िजसे इसम: इसके पg चात् उ< त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 7 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के

कोयला मंaालय क अिधसूचना संe या का. आ. 2724(अ), तारीख 21 अगB त, 2017 ारा जो भारत के राजपa,

असाधारण,

भाग II, खh ड 3, उप-खh ड (ii), तारीख 22 अगBत, 2017 म: !कािशत क गई थी, उ< त अिधसूचना से उपाब\ अनुसूची म:

िविनiद0j ट प.रYेa म: 17.05 हे< टर (लगभग) या 42.13 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म: या उस पर के सभी अिधकार&

के अज0न करने के अपने आशय क सूचना दी थी;

840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और सYम !ािधकारी ने उ< त अिधिनयम क धारा 8 के अनुसरण म: के+ ,ीय सरकार को अपनी .रपोट0 दे दी है ;

और के+ ,ीय सरकार का, पूवk< त .रपोट0 पर िवचार करने के पg चात् और महाराj Z सरकार से परामश0 करने के

पg चात् यह समाधान हो गया है, क इसे संलl न अनुसूची म: यथा वmणnत 17.05 हे< टर (लगभग) या 42.13 एकड़ (लगभग)

माप वाली भूिम और ऐसी भूिम म: या उस पर के सभी अिधकार अpज0त कए जाने चािहए ;

अत:, अब, के+ ,ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक Yेa (अज0न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) क धारा

9 क उपधारा (1) ारा !द" त शि< तय& का !योग करते )ए यह घोषणा करती है क, अनुसूची म: यथा वmणnत 17.05 हे< टर

(लगभग) या 42.13 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म: या उस पर के सभी अिधकार अpज0त कए जाते ह ;

इस अिधसूचना के अंतग0त आने वाले Yेa के रेखांक संe या सी-I(ई)/III/एफआर/942-0718, तारीख 31 जुलाई,

2018 का िनरीYण कले< टर, िजला नागपुर, महाराj Z के काया0लय म: या कोयला िनयंaक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस B Zीट,

कोलकाता - 700 001 के काया0लय म: या महा!बंधक, वेB टन0 कोलफ qस िलिमटेड, राजB व िवभाग, कोल एB टेट, िसिवल

लाई+स, नागपुर - 440 001, महाराj Z के काया0लय म: कया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

अम गा

अम गामेटेड

मेटेड

मेटेड गडेगांव

गडेगांव

गडेगांव-घाटरोहना िववृत खान (शेष े)

घाटरोहना िववृत खान (शेष े)

नागपुर े

िजला नागपुर (महारा) *

िजला नागपुर (महारा) *) ) ) )

[रेखांक

रेखांक

रेखांक सं, या

सं, या

सं, या सी

सी

सी-I(ई)/)/)/)/III/एफआर/942

एफआर/942

एफआर/942-0718

0718

0718, तारीख

तारीख

तारीख 31 जुलाई

31 जुलाई

31 जुलाई, 2018

2018

2018]

सभी अिधकार:

सं.

rाम का नाम पटवारी सiक0 ल

संe या

तहसील

िजला

भूिम का वण0न (हे<टेयर म: )

कुल

.टs पणी

अिभधृित

सरकारी

वन

ग&डेगांव

पारिसवनी

नागपुर

17.05

0.00

17.05

भाग

कुल Yेa : 17.05 हे< टर (लगभग)

या 42.13 एकड़ (लगभग)

rाम ग&डेगांव म: अpज0त कए जाने वाले s लाट संe यांक :

अिभधृित

अिभधृित भूिम :

भूिम :

60/1- 60/2- 60/3, 61/1ए-1 - 61/1ए-2- 61/1बी-1- 61/1बी-2- 61/2ए- 61/2बी- 61/2सी, 62, 63/1- 63/2-

63/3.

सीमा वणन :

क-ख-ग : रेखा rाम ग&डेगांव म: आरंिभक िब+ दु ‘क’ से !ारंभ होती है और िबन् दु ‘ख’ से होकर ग&डेगांव िववृत खान के िलए

अिधrिहत भूिम क सीमा से होती )ई िब+ दु ‘ग’ से िमलती है ।

ग – घ : रेखा दिYण पिg चम दशा से होती )ई ग&डेगांव िववृत खान के िलए अिधrिहत भूिम क सीमा से होती )ई िब+ दु

‘घ’ पर िमलती है ।

घ-ड.-च : रेखा उ" तर पिg चम दशा से होती )ई ग&डेगांव िववृत खान के िलए अिधrिहत भूिम क सीमा पर िब+ दु ‘ड.’ से

होकर गुजरती है और िब+ दु ‘च’ पर िमलती है ।

च - क : रेखा सड़क से लगकर उ" तर पूव0 दशा से होती )ई rाम ग&डेगांव म: आरंिभक िब+ दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है।

[ फा. सं. 43015/26/2016–एलए एhड आईआर ]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

841

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18^th February, 2019

S.O. 250.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

2724(E), dated the 21^st August, 2017 issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition

and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 22nd August, 2017, the Central Government gave notice of

its intention to acquire all rights in or over the lands measuring 17.05 hectares (approximately) or 42.13 acres

(approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the

Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting to the

Government of Maharashtra, is satisfied that the lands measuring 17.05 hectares (approximately) or 42.13 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby declares that all rights in or

over the land measuring 17.05 hectares (approximately) or 42.13 acres (approximately) as described in the Schedule are

hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number C-I(E)III/FR/942-0718, dated the 31^st July, 2018 of the area covered by this

notification, may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Nagpur, Maharashtra or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -700 001 or in the office of the General Manager, Western Coalfields

Limited, Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001, Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Amalgamated Gondegaon Ghatrohana Opencast Mine (Balance Area)

Nagpur Area

District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

[ Plan bearing number C-I(E)III/FR/942-0718, dated the 31^st July, 2018 ]

All Rights:

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

( in hectares)

Total

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Gondegaon

Parseoni

Nagpur

17.05

0.00

17.05

Part

Total area : 17.05 hectares (approximately)

or 42.13 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers acquired in village Gondegaon :

Tenancy Land :

60/1- 60/2- 60/3, 61/1A- 1 - 61/1A-2- 61/1B-1- 61/1B-2- 61/2A- 61/2B- 61/2C, 62, 63/1- 63/2- 63/3.

Boundary description:

A-B-C : Line starts from Point ‘A’ in village Gondegaon passes through Point ‘B’ and meets at Point ‘C’ on boundary of

the land already acquired for Gondegaon Opencast Mine.

C – D : Line passes in South West direction along the boundary of land already acquired for Gondegaon Opencast Mine

and meets at Point ‘D’.

D-E-F : Line passes in North West direction along the boundary of land already acquired for Gondegaon Opencast

Mine, passes through Point ‘E’ and meets at Point ‘F’.

F – A : Line passes along the road in North East direction and meets at starting Point ‘A’ in village Gondegaon.

[ F. No. 43015/26/2016- LA&IR ]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उपभो0ा मामले, खा2 और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो)

नई दली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 251

251

251.—भारतीय मानक Uयूरो (!माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म:

भारतीय मानक Uयूरो एतद ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइस:स& के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म: दए गए ह , वे Bवीकृत

कर दए गए ह :-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइसस सं

6वीकृत करने क7

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

6500036908

20190101

मेसस0

िमिनट

इंजीिनयस0

इंिडया !ायवेट िलिमटड

अमृता यूिनट--II,

137/1, क+डामपालयम रोड,

पुदुपालयम गाँव,

ईरोड - 638107

,िवत पेZोिलयम गैस& के

साथ !यु% घरेलू गैस चूहे ^{IS 4246:2002}

6500037009

20190104

मेसस0 एिज अZा इंडिBZस

िलिमटड

1443/1, इंिडया हाउस, िaची

रोड,

कोयwबxूर - 641018

घरेलू

इलेि<Zक

खाy-

िम<सर

(प.रसमापक और rाइंडर)

IS 4250:1980

6500037110

20190107

मेसस0 मेकवेइन इंिडया !ायवेट

िलिमटड

483,

कामराजर

रोड,

उिsपलीपालयम

पोBट,

zसंगनलूर,

कोयwबxूर

641015

पानी के मीटर

(घरेलू

कBम)

IS 779:1994

6590008917

20190112

मेसस0 डी ए स"यानारायणा

{वेलरी

408, िबग बज़ार BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590009818

20190112

मेसस0 धना {वेलरी माट0

942,

मेटूर

मुeय

सड़क,

भवानी,

ईरोड -638301

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590007721

20190102

मेसस0 एमराड {वेल इंडBZी

इंिडया िलिमटड

300,301/1A, 1B, यूिनट -

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

843

सं.

लाइसस सं

6वीकृत करने क7

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

1, मेटूपालयम रोड,

एन एस एन पालयम,

कोयwबxूर -641031

6590010415

20190112

मेसस0 जी. वी. {वेल Rा}Dस

441-1/442/1, िबग बज़ार

BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590009018

20190112

M/s. हेमा {वेस

310/1, राजा BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590008816

20190112

मेसस0 कतE {वेलस0

993, Rॉस कट रोड,

कोयwबxूर - 641012

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

10.

6590008319

20190112

मेसस0 कोवै कतE {वेलरी

302, राजा BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

चाँदी

एवं

चाँदी

िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु\ता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 2112 : 2014

11.

6590007822

20190112

मेसस0 मु[गन {वेलरी

पुराना: 371, नया: 351, िबग

बज़ार BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

12.

6590010213

20190112

मेसस0 नवर~ा {वेलस0

ऐय0म कॉ+sले<स, 213/A,

अ€ूर रोड, मेटूपालयम,

कोयwबxूर -641301

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

13.

6590008715

20190112

मेसस0 नवर~ा मािलगै

362, राजा BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

14.

6590008420

20190112

मेसस0 पी. ए. राजू चे.यार

सन {वेलस0

1348/3, िaची रोड, Bटे+स

मोटस0 के सामने,

कोयwबxूर -641018

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सं.

लाइसस सं

6वीकृत करने क7

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

15.

6590009220

20190112

मेसस0 रामू एhड को {वेलस0

436, िबग बज़ार BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

16.

6590009422

20190112

M/s. आर के {वेस

51-55,

Rॉस

कट

रोड,

गाँधीपुरम,

कोयwबxूर - 641012

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

17.

6590010011

20190112

मेसस0 िसि\ गोड इंिडया

!ायवेट िलिमटड

िनचली मंिजल, 617, जननी

कॉwsले<स,

राजा BZीट, कोयwबxूर -

641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

18.

6590008521

20190112

मेसस0 संगा {वेस

पहली मंिजल, 165, अजंता

टॉवस0,

क[sपा

गौ+डर

BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

19.

6590009515

20190112

मेसस0 सुबाMी {वेलस0

130-B,

Rॉस

कट

रोड,

गाँधीपुरम,

कोयwबxूर - 641012

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

20.

6590009119

20190112

मेसस0 सबरीश {वेलरी

337-A, िबग बज़ार BZीट,

बालाजी माकC ट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

21.

6590008117

20190112

मेसस0 Mी क+दन तंगामािलगै

2/3,

ित[वलुवर

सडक,

म[दामलै मुeय रोड,

वडवली,

कोयwबxूर-

641041

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

22.

6590008218

20190112

मेसस0 Mी क+दन तंगामािलगै

2/3,

ित[वलुवर

सड़क,

म[दामलै मुeय रोड़,

चाँदी

एवं

चाँदी

िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु\ता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 2112 : 2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

845

सं.

लाइसस सं

6वीकृत करने क7

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

वडवली, कोयwबxूर-

641041

23.

6590010112

20190112

मेसस0 Mी का‚ा {वेलरी

दरवाजा सं.655, वी के रोड़,

पीलमेडू,

कोयwबxूर -641004

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

24.

6590010314

20190112

मेसस0

Mी

कािलयेरी

ऑन0मे+Dस हाउस

194, Mी कािलयेरी भवन,

सुिलवन सड़क,

राजा BZीट, कोयwबxूर -

641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

25.

6590008016

20190112

M/s. Mी मंगलम {वेलरी

सं. 30, Rॉस कट रोड़,

गाँधीपुरम,

कोयwबxूर - 641012

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

26.

6590009919

20190112

मेसस0 Mी पƒा ि!या {वेलस0

15/A, शारदा िमल रोड़,

पोद€ूर,

कोयwबxूर-641023

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

27.

6590010516

20190112

मेसस0 Mी वासवी एhड कंपनी

334-पहली

मंिजल,

राजा

BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

28.

6590009616

20190112

मेसस0 तंगा ल„मी {वेलरी

59,

एन जी आर रोड़,

पलडम,

ित[sपुर

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

29.

6590008622

20190112

मेसस0 तंगामियल Mीपलनी

मु[गन {वेलरी

सं.180,

बज़ार

BZीट,

पोलाची टाउन,

कोयwबxूर -642001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

30.

6590007915

20190112 मेसस0 ित[मु[गन तंगामािलगै

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं, ^{IS 1417 : 2016}

846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सं.

लाइसस सं

6वीकृत करने क7

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

112,113, िaची मुeय रोड़,

वेलाकोिवल,

ित[sपुर-638111

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

31.

6590009321

20190112

मेसस0 िवrहा {वेलरी

दुकान सं F एवं G, Mी वे+को

{वेलरी कॉwsले<स,

297, राजा BZीट, कोयwबxूर

-641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

32.

6590009717

20190112

मेसस0 िवजय {वेलरी

एस डी-247, सौ-एम ए-

कॉwsले<स,

सती रोड, गाँधीपुरम िस†ल के

पास,

कोयwबxूर-641012

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

33.

6590010617

20190112

मेसस0 वस+ता {वेलस0

409, िबग बज़ार BZीट,

कोयwबxूर -641001

Bवण0 एवं Bवण0 िमMधातुएं,

आभूषण/

िश पकारी –

शु\ता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

34.

6500037211

20190114

मेसस0 बालाजी इ<Zोिन<स

एस एफ सं 287/1, भारती

पुरम,

कhणमपालयम,

कोयwबxूर - 641402

ए. सी मोटर कैपेिसटस0

IS 2993:1998

35.

6500037312

20190128

मेसस0 िवनायक इंजीिनयस0

360/2,

शाि+त

प€ै,

िवला+कु.रची रोड़,

िवला+कु.रची, कोयwबxूर -

641035

साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए

अपक: ,ीय पुन["पादक पwप

IS 8472:1998

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

मीनाYी गणेशन, वै‡ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं !मुख

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

847

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 251.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification)

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

6500036908

20190101

M/s. Minit Engineers India Pvt Ltd

Amirthaa Unit-II,

137/1, Kandaampalayam Road,

Pudhupalayam Village,

Erode - 638107

Domestic Gas Stoves for use

with Liquefied Petroleum

Gases

IS 4246:2002

6500037009

20190104

M/s. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd

1443/1, India House, Trichy Road,

Coimbatore - 641018

Domestic Electric Food-

Mixers (Liquidizers and

Grinders)

IS 4250:1980

6500037110

20190107

M/s. McWane India Private Limited

483, Kamarajar Road, Upplipayam Post,

Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641015

Water Meters (Domestic

Type)

IS 779:1994

6590008917

20190112

M/s. D A Sathyanarayana Jewellery

408, Big Bazaar Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590009818

20190112

M/s. Dhana Jewellery Mart

942,Mettur Main Road, Bhavani,

Erode -638301

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590007721

20190102

M/s. Emerald Jewel Industry India

Limited

300,301/1A, 1B, Unit -1, Mettupalayam

Road,

NSN Palayam, Coimbatore -641031

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590010415

20190112

M/s. G.V. Jewel Crafts

441-1/442/1,Big Bazzar Street,

Coimbatore-641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590009018

20190112

M/s. Hema Jewells

310/1, Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590008816

20190112

M/s. Keerthi Jewellers

993, Cross Cut Road,

Coimbatore -641012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

10.

6590008319

20190112

M/s. Kovai Keerthi Jewellery

302, Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 2112 : 2014

848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

11.

6590007822

20190112

M/s. Murugan Jewellery

Old: 371, New: 351, Big Bazaar Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

12.

6590010213

20190112

M/s. Navaratna Jewellers

Aiswarayam Complex,213/A,

Annoor Road, Mettupalayam,

Coimbatore -641301

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

13.

6590008715

20190112

M/s. Navaratna Maaligai

362, Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

14.

6590008420

20190112

M/s. P. A. Raju Chettiar Son Jewellers

1348/3, Trichy Road, Opp. To Stanes

Motors,

Coimbatore -641018

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

15.

6590009220

20190112

M/s. Ramu And Co Jewellers

436, Big Bazaar Strret,,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

16.

6590009422

20190112

M/s. R K Jewellss

51-55, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore -641012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

17.

6590010011

20190112

M/s. Siddhi Gold India Private Limited

Ground Floor, 617, Janani Complex,

Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

18.

6590008521

20190112

M/s. Sanga Jeweels

First Floor, 165, Ajantha Towers,

Karuppa Gounder Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

19.

6590009515

20190112

M/s. Subasree Jewellers

130-B, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore -641012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

20.

6590009119

20190112

M/s. Sabarish Jewellery

337-A, Big Bazaar Street, Balaji

Market,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

21.

6590008117

20190112

M/s. Sri Kandan Thangamalihai

2/3, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Marutha Malai Main Road, Vadavalli,

Coimbatore -641041

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

22.

6590008218

20190112

M/s. Sri Kandan Thangamalihai

2/3, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Marutha Malai Main Road, Vadavalli,

Coimbatore -641041

Silver and Silver Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 2112 : 2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

849

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

23.

6590010112

20190112

M/s. Shri Kavya Jewellery

Door No.655,V K Road, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore -641004

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

24.

6590010314

20190112

M/s. Sri Kalieswari Ornaments House

194, Sri Kalieswari Bhavan,

Sullivan Street, Raja Street,,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

25.

6590008016

20190112

M/s. Sri Mangalam Jewellery

No.30, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,,

Coimbatore -641012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

26.

6590009919

20190112

M/s. Shri Padma Priya Jewellers

15/A,Saradha Mill Road, Podanur,

Coimbatore -641023

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

27.

6590010516

20190112

M/s. Sri Vasavi And Company

334-1 St Floor,Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

28.

6590009616

20190112

M/s. Thanga Lakshmi Jewellery

59, N G R Road, Palladam,,

Tirupur -

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

29.

6590008622

20190112

M/s. Thangamayl Sreepalani Murugan

Jewellery

No.180, Bazaar Street, Pollachi Town,

Coimbatore -642001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

30.

6590007915

20190112

M/s. Thirumurugan Thangamaligai

112,113,Trichy Main Road,

Vellakovil, Tirupur-638111

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

31.

6590009321

20190112

M/s. Vigrahaa Jewellery

Shop No. F & G, Shree Venco Jewellery

Complex, 297, Raja Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

32.

6590009717

20190112

M/s. Vijay Jewellery

Sd-247,Sow-MA-Complex,

Sathy Road, Near Gandhipuram Signal,,

Coimbatore -641012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

33.

6590010617

20190112

M/s. Vashantha Jewellers

409, Big Bazaar Street,

Coimbatore -641001

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

34.

6500037211

20190114

M/s. Balaji Electronics

SF.No.287/1, Bharathi Puram,

Kannampalayam,

Coimbatore - 641402

A.C. motor capacitors

IS 2993:1998

35.

6500037312

20190128

M/s. Vinayak Engineers

360/2, Shanthi Pannai,

Vilankurichi Road, Vilankurichi,

Coimbatore - 641035

Centrifugal Regenerative

Pumps for Clear, cold water

IS 8472:1998

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

नई द ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 252

252

252.—भारतीय मानक Uयूरो (!माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण

म: भारतीय मानक Uयूरो एतद ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन‰ िववरण वाले लाइस:स& को उनके आगे दशा0ई गई तारीख से

रŠ/ Bथिगत कर दया गया है:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइसस सं

लाइसस सं.

सी एम

सी एम/ एल

एल

एल-

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

6थिगत :कए गए

6थिगत :कए गए/ र< :कए गए लाइसस

र< :कए गए लाइसस

के अंतगत व6तु

के अंतगत व6तु/ / / / 3म स=ब? भारतीय

3म स=ब? भारतीय

मानक का शीषक

र< होने क7

ितिथ

जनवरी 2019 - शू+य

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13 ]

मीनाYी गणेशन, वै‡ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं !मुख

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 252.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which

are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant

Indian Standard covered by

the

licence

cancelled/

suspension

Date of

Cancellation

JANUARY 2019 - NIL

[No. CMD/13: 13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

851

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 253-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk

cSad 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;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 72@2008½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-

02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@51@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/51/2008 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 11^thDEC, 2018

PRESENT : MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, I/C PRESIDING OFFICER

C R No. 72/2008

I Party

II Party

Shri. Shreemant D Pujari,

Since deceased by his Legal Representatives

The Deputy General Manager,

Canara Bank, Disciplinary

Smt. M. Shantha Kumari, Aged 54 yrs, W/o Late Shreemant

D Pujari

Ms. Ujwala, Aged 25 yrs, D/o Late Shreemant DPujari

Mr. Simson Sachin, Aged 23 yrs, S/o Late Shreemant D Pujari

Mr. Aakash, Aged 21 yrs, S/o Late Shreemant D Pujari

All R/at No. 11-524, Shanti Nivasa, Brahmapur, Borabai

Nagar,

Kalaburgi – 585 103.

Action Cell, Circle Office,

IMA Building,

Bailapanavanagar

Hubli – 580 029.

Ms. Gnanasheela, Aged 28 yrs, W/o Srinivas P.B & D/o Late

Shreemant

D Pujari, No. 1/74, ‘Kulan Nivas’ Near Polytechnic College,

Manipal Post, Pragathinagar – 576 104.

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/51/2008-IR(B-II) dated 16.09.2008 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

‘Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on Sri Shreemant D Pujari is legal and

justified and whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charge? What relief the workman

is entitled to?’

Pursuant to the above reference this Tribunal registered the case as CR No. 72/2008 and issued notices to the

parties. In obedience to the notice the parties appeared through Advocates Mr.Muralidharafor I Party and Mr. T R K

Prasad for the II Party. During the pendency of the dispute the I Party Sri.Shreemant D Pujari died leaving behind the

above named Legal representatives, who were impleaded as I Party petitioners vide order dated 04.12.2018 and on the

very day i.e. on 04.12.2018 the advocate for the I Party filed a memo stating therein to dispose of the dispute referred

above, as the I Party Legal representativesare not interested to pursue the dispute. As the I PartyLegal representatives

does not want to press the above schedule of reference. Hence, this Tribunal closed the reference in dispute.

Perused the documents along with the amended claim statement. Heard both the sides. The Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the I Party petitioners submitted that, the petitioners do not want to prosecute the proceedings and

they do not want to press the claim petition and order may be passed basing upon the memo filed by the LRs petitioners.

The Learned counsel of the II Party has not filed any objection for closure of the case and submitted that, the II Party has

no objection if the case will be closed as not pressed. In view of the memo filed by the advocate of the I Party and the

submissions made by the counsel of both the sides the memo is accepted and the case is closed as not pressed.

As per the memo filed by the I Party LRs they are no more intended to continue the case. Since, the I Party L

Rsare not willing to pursue the dispute and not pressing the dispute to continue further, the dispute is likely to be closed.

In view of the memo filed by the I Party LRs there is no need to linger the dispute further. Hence, the case is closed, and

as such this NIL Award is passed. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

Reference is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 11^thDecember, 2018)

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, I/C Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 254-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk

cSad 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;] dksydRrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 19@2000½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@286@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/286/99 -IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 19 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank

AND

Their workmen

Present : Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. Ranjay Dey, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, learned counsel

Dated: 24^th January, 2019 Industry: Banking

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

853

AWARD

By Order No.L-12012/286/99/IR(B-II) dated 28.02.2000 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement

to Shri Shahban Ali on the charges of mis-appropriation of total amount of Rs.97,200/- from various

savings/current account by not accounting for the amounts deposited by the customers in time while working as

a cashier at New Alipore, Calcutta Branch is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

Brief facts in the background of which above reference has been made to this Tribunal are that Mr. Shahban Ali

was working as Cashier in the New Alipore Branch of Andhra Bank. He was served with a charge sheet on 19^th

December, 1995 on the ground of misconduct for misappropriation of an amount of Rs.97,200/-. A show cause notice

was issued to him to submit reply. The management after considering his reply instituted an enquiry against him and on

completion of enquiry proceedings the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding Mr. Shahban Ali guilty of the

charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority considering the charges leveled and proved against him during

the enquiry, found them grave and serious. Therefore, an order of compulsory retirement was passed on 31^st March,

1999. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman, Mr.Shahban Ali whereupon the present reference has been made

by the appropriate government.

The workman, Mr. Shahan Ali filed his statement of claim alleging therein that the Enquiry Officer was not

appointed by a competent authority and he was a yes-man of the management. No reasonable opportunity was given to

him to defend his case and principles of natural justice were violated. There was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer

to hold him guilty and the action taken against him was mala fide and an instance of unfair labour practice and

victimization. His findings were also based on surmises and conjectures and perverse.

The Bank filed its written statement denying all the allegations contained in statement of claim and pleaded

inter alia that the workman concerned fully participated in the enquiry which was conducted with scrupulous regard for

the requirement of rules of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer finding evidence against the workman concerned for

misappropriation of fund, submitted his report. On consideration of enquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the

order on 31^st March, 1999 for compulsory retirement of the workman concerned as the charges leveled against the

workman concerned were grave and serious.

As the validity of enquiry has been challenged by the workman concerned, Tribunal tried it as a preliminary

issue and vide order dated 12^th March, 2002 held the enquiry to be valid and legal and also found that the report of the

Enquiry Officer cannot be termed as perverse.

After the domestic enquiry is held to be valid, legal and proper by this Tribunal, the next question arises as to

the scope of interference by the Tribunal. Initially the Industrial Tribunal had very little scope to interfere with the

findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, after insertion of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter to be referred as the ACT OF 1947 for convenience) the Industrial Tribunal acquired the power to exercise

its power of judicial review of order of discharge or dismissal as passed by the employer. According to Section 11-A of

the Act of 1947 the Industrial Tribunal can set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of

workman, if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified. Analyzing the Tribunal’s power of

judicial review the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India, 2008-III-LLJ-1 held as follows:

“……….Even if the enquiry is found to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that all possible

opportunities were given to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observe. That

does not mean that the findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal

comes to the conclusion that the findings could not be supported on the basis of evidence given or further

comes to the conclusion that the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal

would still be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There

can be no dispute that power under Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the interference is

possible only when the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment

imposed by the Management is highly disproportionate with the degree of guilt of the workman concerned.

Besides, the Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or with the

quantum of punishment………..”

Further highlighting the parameter of the power of Court for judicial review the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Another, CDJ 2013 SC 216 has observed in following terms -

“It is settled legal proposition that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the

evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is to

consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the findings or whether the

conclusion is based on no evidence. The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be

permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings.”

854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that

“The decision referred to hereinabove highlights clearly, the parameter of the Court’s power of judicial review

of administrative action or decision. An order can be set-aside if it is based on extraneous grounds, or when

there is no grounds at all for passing it or when the grounds are such that, no one can reasonably arrive at the

opinion. The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but, it merely reviews the manner in which the decision

was made. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review unless it is found that formation

of belief by the statutory authority suffers from malafides, dishonest/corrupt practice. In other words, the

authority must act in good faith. Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the

authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness

of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of them is

found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to

interfere.”

Thus from the above case law it is clear that the Tribunal does not enjoy the power of appellate court over the

findings of Enquiry Officer. The power of reappraisal as used in Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 cannot be extended to

enter into factual aspect and re-appreciate the evidence adduced during enquiry. In Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co.

Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2002 (4) CHN 708 the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta had the occasion to

examine the scope of reappraisal of evidence by the Industrial Tribunal. The relevant portion of the judgment may be

reproduced as below:

“6. But the re-appraisal cannot be that of either the original or of an appellate court but of a revisional court.

Or in other words it is clothed with the additional power of re-appraisal of evidence with a revisional courts’

outlook. The satisfaction is that of a court scrutinizing that of an employer to justify the action. On such re-

appraisal it has to satisfy itself that on such evidence the action could be justified. There remains a thin

distinction in the exercise of such jurisdiction. In the name of re-appraisal it cannot weigh the evidence in the

same manner as an original appellate court when the enquiry is found to have been held validly. ………”

10.

Learned counsel for the workman concerned during his argument has submitted that in order to appreciate

misappropriation by the workman concerned, it was essential on the part of the Enquiry Officer to summon the ledger

kept in the Bank and maintained by the workman concerned, the cashier. It is submitted that in the absence of ledger it

was not possible for the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion whether the money received from the customers were

credited in the ledger or not. It is established principle of law as has been seen above, the Industrial Tribunal exercises

only revisional power and not appellate which means that the Tribunal can exercise its power of juridical review only

when the finding of Enquiry Officer is found to be perverse. A perverse finding can be said to be one which is based on

no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. The Hon’ble Apex Court in General Manager, Punjab &

Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, (2011) 2 SCC 233 has held that where some relevant evidence has not been considered or

that certain inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration, the finding can be said to be perverse. Coming to

the facts of the present case, the allegations against the workman concerned are that he received money from the

customers but did not credit the same on the same date. There is no allegation that he never credited the amount. The

money was deposited but it was deposited later on. The Enquiry Officer has given finding that the workman concerned

received money from different account holders but credited the same after lapse of sometime. He has given particulars of

the accounts as well as account holders and on the basis of written note of the account holders came to the conclusion

that the amount received from the account holders were not deposited on the same day. The amount received on 17^th

February, 1995 and 24^th February, 1995 was deposited on 27^th April, 1995 and 6^th May, 1995. Though the workman

concerned has denied his signature on the counterfoils, but his witness has admitted that his hand writing was one and

the same and the date of letters mentioned close to each other. The Enquiry Officer has further given account numbers in

which also the amount was not credited on the same day. Thus it was a case of temporary misappropriate or

embezzlement of the money and the total amount which had been misappropriate by the concerned workman comes to

Rs.97,200/-. Thus it cannot be said that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is also material to note that in

finding given by this Tribunal on validity of enquiry, it has been concluded that the findings of Enquiry Officer were not

perverse. Hence on this ground this Tribunal cannot interfere in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

11.

Even if the finding of Enquiry Officer does not suffer with any illegality or perversity, the Tribunal has

jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 to interfere if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

was not justified. In a catena of cases considering the justification as used in Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 it has been

held that the action of the management must conform with proportionality of gravity of the offence.

12.

In Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, 2005 (3) SCC 331 the law has been laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows –

“It is well established principle in law that in a given circumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting

under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment

awarded in the domestic enquiry for good and valid reasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such

punishment, it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the

stringency of the punishment.”

13.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dandapani, 2006(108) FLR 953 it has been observed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that the Tribunal has power to reduce the quantum of punishment, but power under Section 11-A

has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court Is expected to interfere with the decision of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

855

the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly

disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned.

14.

In Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. M. Mani & Others, 2018 LLR 2(SC) Hon’ble the Apex

Court has held that where a departmental enquiry is held to be legal and proper then the only question remains for

consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal requires any interference. Relevant portion of the judgment may be

quoted as below:

“18. In other words, the Labour Court should have then confined its enquiry to examine only one limited

question as to whether the punishment given to the respondents was, in any way, disproportionate to the

gravity of the charge leveled against them and this, the Labour Court should have examined by taking

recourse to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ………”

15.

Thus the jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment can be exercised only when it is found to be

grossly disproportionate. In the present case the workman concerned has been found to be guilty of corruption as he

misappropriated a sum of Rs.97,200/-. Explaining the position of trust which a bank employee enjoys and consequent

requirement to maintain integrity by him and his responsibility towards customers, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State

Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, 2006(8) SCALE 11 has held that where a bank employee acts against the

interest of bank or the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands. The relevant portion of the judgment may be

reproduced as below:

“21. ………..As already said the respondent, being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and

integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.

The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasized that in the banking business absolute

devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank emplo7yee and in particular

the bank officer so that the confidence of the public depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a

bank o0fficer commits misconduct, as in the instant case, for the personal ends and against the interest of the

bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.”

16.

Relying on its previous judgment in Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Bajrang Lal in which an

employee of Rajasthan SRTC was removed from service on account of misappropriation of money, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Dewan Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others., 2015 (1) SCALE 16 has observed

as follows:

“11.

In Rajasthan State Transport Corporation & Anr. V. Bajrang Lal this Court following the case of

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishna Behari & Ors. has opined that in cases involving corruption

there cannot be any punishment than dismissal. It has been held that any sympathy shown in such cases is

totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the

act of misappropriation that is relevant. In the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent/employee was

awarded punishment of removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement. Learned counsel

for the respondents submitted that on earlier occasion, appellant was awarded minor punishment, for his

misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty of for the second time.

12.

Therefore, in the above circumstances in view of the law laid down by this Court, as above, we are

not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed withno order as to costs.”

17.

Similarly, in Municipal Committee of Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1249 the

Hon’ble Apex Court has condemning act of corruption has recommended punishment of dismissal for such an act as

follows:

“………. In a case of such nature – indeed in cases involving corruption – there cannot be any other

punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public

interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is

relevant…………”

18.

In Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, 2006 (2) SCALE 101 it has been held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that in cases of corruption there is no scope of sentiment and compassion as under:

“5……..We are also of the view that sentiments and compassion have no role to play in such situation when the

gravity of misconduct such as this has been found well proved against the respondent.”

19.

Thus, in view of above proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is established that the workman

deserves no lesser punishment than compulsory retirement and therefore, there is no scope of interference by this

Tribunal.

29.

In view of the above, the action of the management of Andhra Bank in awarding the punishment of compulsory

retirement to the concerned workman, Shri Shahban Ali is held to be justified. The workman concerned is not entitled to

any relief.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 24^th January, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 255-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad

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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 11@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@77@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2013 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 Vijaya Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/77/2012-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 11 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF VIJAYA BANK

The General Manager [Personnel],

Vijaya Bank,

Head Office, 41/2, M.G. Road,

Trinity Circle,

Bangalore – 560 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri. Sudhakar Balkrishna Borkar,

Sadaguru CHS, Room No.4,

Near Ganesh Dutta Mandir,

Prem Auto, Bhavani Nagar,

Murbad Road, Kalyan [West],

Pin – 421 301.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. R. S. Pai Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 2^nd January, 2019

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-12012/77/2012 – IR (B-II) dated 27.02.2013. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank, Bangalore in dismissing the services of Shri Sudhakar

Balkrishna Borkar, Clerk, Vijaya Bank, Service Branch, Mumbai vide punishment Order dated 30.11.2010,

confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 31.03.2012 is legal, proper, justified and in

proportionate to the alleged misconduct, What relief the workman Shri Sudharkar Balkrishnan Borkar is entitled

to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ?’’

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

857

The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.7. Admittedly the concerned workman was employed

as Clerk in the bank in Ulhasnagar branch. It is alleged by one of the customer of the bank that though he deposited a

sum of Rs.25,000/- in his bank a/c., was not shown in the credit of the a/c. Upon the said complaint of the customer

Mr. Sushil Pamnani, employer bank initiated disciplinary action against the workman by issuing the charge sheet dt.

10.3.10 alleging the misappropriation of the funds. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority upon the

charge sheet. In the said enquiry the workman was exonerated from the charges leveled against him by the E.O.

It is the case of the concerned workman that inspite of fact that the charges were not proved in the enquiry, the

disciplinary authority deferred with the findings of the E.O. and by order dt. 30.11.10, the employer dismissed the

workman with immediate effect. He approached the appellate authority in appeal as per the procedure but his efforts

were in vein and the appellate authority concurred with the view of disciplinary authority.

It is thus case of the concerned workman that the action of the management to dismiss the workman is unjust

and unfair. He was to retire on the date of termination and he would have entitled for retirement benefits. Disciplinary

& appellate authorities have not appreciated the facts that the EO discharged him from the charges leveled against him.

It is then case of the concerned workman that the action of the employer to dismiss him is absolutely bad in law.

Employer has not examined the complainant before taking decision of dismissing him from the services. There is non-

application of mind by the employer. The employer has taken decision without any material on record. The employer

even did not consider the past record of the workman which was absolutely clean. The employer ought to have

considered that there was no such complaint against the workman alleging misappropriation of money. He is therefore

asking that the order of the employer be quashed and set aside and he be granted benefits due, payable on retirement by

national reinstatement of the workman in the employment with all consequential benefits.

The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.8 contending therein that the

concerned workman was placed under suspension vide order dt. 15.11.07, pending investigation into the alleged

misappropriation of Rs.25,000/- while working as a cashier at Ulhasnagar branch. Investigation was conducted into the

matter. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide charge sheet dt. 10.3.10 issued to him

under clause 5 of memorandum of settlement on disciplinary procedure for workmen dt. 10.4.02. The charge leveled

against him was that he misappropriated Rs.25000/- being cash received from one Shri Sushil Pamnani the customer of

the branch on 8.10.07 to be deposited to his saving bank a/c. No. 6527 maintained with the branch. The concerned

workman submitted his written statement of defence dt. 19.3.10. Disciplinary authority decided to conduct the

departmental enquiry in the matter. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Shetty, the then Chief Manager, Regional Office, Mumbai was

appointed as E.O. Shri A.M. Mandal, the then Asst. Recovery Management Branch Mumbai was appointed as

Presenting officer. E.O. conducted the enquiry and concluded the same on 3.8.10. The enquiry was conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice. All fair & reasonable opportunities were given to the workman on

every stage of the enquiry to defend his case. The workman has availed all these opportunities. The EO submitted his

report of findings dt. 6.10.10 wherein he held the charges not proved. However, the disciplinary authority tentatively

disagreed with the findings arrived at by the EO. The disciplinary authority passed a detailed disagreement proceedings

dt. 11.11.10 wherein he has recorded reasons of his disagreement to the findings of the EO and held the charge as proved

against the workman.

The copy of the enquiry findings along with disagreement proceedings were furnished to the workman vide

letter dt. 11.11.10 asking him to submit his representation. The workman submitted his representation dt. 15.11.10. The

disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the record and representation of the workman found the workman

guilty of act of the charge and proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from the services of the bank with

immediate effect. The proposed punishment was conveyed to the workman vide letter dt. 20.11.10 asking him to submit

his representation. Workman submitted his representation on 25.11.10 on the proposed punishment. Disciplinary

authority confirmed the proposed punishment of dismissal from service of the bank with immediate effect vide order dt.

30.11.10. The appellate authority also after careful consideration dismissed the appeal vide order dt. 31.3.12.

It is thus case of the first party that the misconduct proved to have been committed by the concerned workman

is grave in nature. Bank is the custodian of money and the cashier is the person who deals with money. Cashier must be

more diligent and honest and justify the trust placed on him by the bank and the customers. If customers loose

confidence in the dealings the entire organization suffers. To reinforce the confidence in the mind of customers,

stringent punishment is warranted. As such the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman is legal and

proportionate to the alleged misconduct. It has thus sought dismissal of reference.

10.

Following issues are framed at Ex.9. I reproduce the same along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the action of the first party in dismissing the second party from

its services w.e.f. 30.11.2012 by the punishment order dated 30.11.10

which has been confirmed by the order dated 31.03.2012 is legal, proper,

justified and in proportionate to the alleged misconduct ?

If not, to what relief the second party is entitled to ?

As per final order

What order ?

As per final order

858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reasons

Issue No.1.

11.

In view of admitted position that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second party workman

vide charge sheet dt. 10.3.10 and after the enquiry the EO by his findings / report held that the charges leveled against

the second party have not been proved, the question that comes for consideration is whether the disciplinary authority on

the same evidence can disagree with the findings of the EO or whether it was imperative for the disciplinary authority to

discuss the material in detail and contest the conclusion of the EO before disagreeing with him.

12.

In the context reliance is placed on the decision in case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its

Registrar V/S. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 416 wherein it is held that the findings of the EO are not

binding on the disciplinary authority and final decision rest with the disciplinary / punishing authority which can come to

its own conclusion bearing in mind the views expressed by the E.O.

13.

Here in the instant case the EO by his findings / report held that the charges are not proved for the following

reasons.

The counter foil produced by the complainant neither bears the signature of the Cashier nor that of the

officer and hence authenticity is doubtful.

The branch has not maintained the second cash scroll by the clerk. Had this was maintained, the entry

could have been found in this cash scroll to believe that the complainant has remitted the case to the

CSE.

The ‘Cash received’ and ‘Cash paid’ rubber stamps were not kept under duel control after the close of the

business hours. It was left in the cash cabin and every one at the branch had free access for the same.

14.

First party disciplinary authority by letter dt. 11.11.10 informed the second party that the disciplinary authority

proposed to hold the charges leveled against him as proved in disagreement with the findings of the E.O.

15.

In view of that it is submission of the Learned Counsel for the second party that while disagreeing with the

findings of E.O., the disciplinary authority has not given an opportunity to the second party and even second party was

not heard by the disciplinary authority while proposing to hold the charges leveled against him as proved. Submission is

to the effect that the first patty i.e. disciplinary authority has only stated that needle of suspicion points out only to the

charge sheeted employee. submission is to the effect that the material placed on record before the EO in the enquiry

proceedings and the non-examination of the complainant would show that disciplinary authority without application of

mind has considered that the report of the EO is not proper and disagreed with the findings of EO.

16.

In the context it can be said that the disciplinary authority has every authority to disagree with the findings of

EO if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based then adequacy and even reliability of that

evidence is not a matter to be canvassed. Here in the instant case therefore the fact is admitted that the disciplinary

authority has disagreed with the findings of EO and gave the reasoned order for his disagreement with the findings of

EO. Therefore the scope of reference is only as regards the action of the management in dismissing the services of the

concerned workman vide punishment order dt. 30.11.10. It is to be seen therefore whether the punishment of removal of

concerned workman from the services is legal, proper & justified or not or that whether it is proportionate to the alleged

misconduct.

17.

As seen earlier the second party was issued the charge sheet alleging misappropriation of funds. It was alleged

that one of the customer of the bank Shri Sushil Pamnani filed complaint alleging therein that though he had deposited a

sum of Rs.25,000/- in his bank a/c., it was not shown in the credit of his a/c. and the disciplinary authority has considered

that the concerned workman being the incharge of cash cabin on 8.10.07 and the customer had produced counter foil for

having remitted the cash of Rs.25,000/- on 8.10.07 duly acknowledged with cash received seal but then the cash was not

credited in his a/c. & that the act of misconduct has been proved since upon the complaint of customer the concerned

employee had remitted the same.

18.

The question is whether imposition of punishment of dismissal on these facts is proportionate or not since it is

the contention of the concerned workman that the complaint has not been examined. In his complaint he has not stated

his name as the person who received the cash, there is no initial on pay-in slip marked for clerk and only cash received

seal is affixed and similarly the initial of CSE i.e. concerned workman is not available on pay-in slip.

19.

Apart from the contentions raised by the concerned workman and the report of the EO to the effect that charges

are not proved the fact has come on record that the disciplinary authority has disagreed with these findings of the EO. In

such circumstances it is necessary to see the service record & other circumstances with regard to his superannuation to

see whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate or not ?

20.

As a matter of fact it is now crystal clear that the concerned workman worked with the bank for 36 years and

retired from the services by way of superannuation on and from 30.11.12. He received his wages and allowances till the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

859

last of his retirement. He has been paid the amount of gratuity for the services upto the date of his retirement. The

punishment of dismissal was imposed upon him by the first party vide its letter dt. 30.11.10 on the date of his

superannuation.

21.

Even on going through the order of disciplinary authority vide para – 12, it is clear that his past service record is

unblemished but then considering the gravity of misconduct the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of

dismissal. In view of this I find that in particular facts and circumstances since no loss was caused to the bank and the

concerned workman has already remitted the amount allegedly misappropriated the punishment of dismissal from service

is disproportionate.

22.

In the context, hand can be led on the decision in case of Ganesh Shantaram Sirur V/S. S.B.I. – (2005) 1 – SCC

– 13 – wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court found the appellant to be entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his

total period of service.

23.

As a matter of record now the concerned workman worked for 36 years with the first party. He has now retired

on superannuation from 30.11.12. It has been pointed out that opinion to join pension scheme in terms of settlement

/joint note dt. 27.4.10 and H.O. circular No. 10191 dt. 7.9.10 is duly filled by the second party and certified by the Chief

Manager of the Service Branch Mumbai of the first party and has forwarded to GM [Personnel] of the first party. The

Chief Manager of first party has issued certificate to the effect that Rs.8551.50 has been debited to the a/c. of second

party’s a/c. on 29.7.10 towards Pension fund a/c. and credited with pension fund a/c. on 14.10.10 in order to make

payment of monthly pension to the second party from the date of his retirement. However, the pension has not been paid

to the applicant.

24.

As seen earlier it also appears from the record that the concerned workman has remitted the amount of alleged

misappropriation and no loss is caused to the bank. When all these things are there and when he served for 36 years, in

my considered view the first party has imposed punishment of dismissal from service which is certainly disproportionate

to the facts alleged and proved, especially when the E.O. has also gave the finding that the charges leveled against the

concerned workman are not proved. As thus I find that the action of the first party in dismissing him from services w.e.f.

30.11.12 by punishment order dt. 30.11.10 is not legal, proper and justified and in proportionate to the alleged

misconduct. Issue No. 1 is therefore answered accordingly as indicated against it.

Issue No. 2 & 3.

25.

In view of my findings to the issue No.1, the order of dismissing the workman dt. 30.11.10 is liable to the

quashed & set aside by treating him retired on superannuation as on 30.11.12 and to give benefit of it. Hence I answer

the above issues accordingly to that effect.

26.

In view of above, the reference is liable to be allowed. Hence I pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is allowed.

Order of dismissal of the applicant from the services dt. 30.11.10 is quashed & set aside with the

direction to the first party to treat him retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.12 and direct to give all the

benefits of it to him.

No order as to costs.

Date: 02.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 256-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eksjeqxkao iksVZ

VªLV 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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 30@2018½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&36011@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11^th Ferbruary, 2019

S.O. 256.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2018 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 Mormugao Port Trust, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-36011/01/2018 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/30 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MORMUGAO PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mormugao Port Trust,

Headland Sada,

Goa – 403 804.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Goa Port and Dock Employee’s Union,

Mormugao Port Trust,

Headland Sada Vasco,

Goa –

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. M. B. Anchan Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : Shri Laxmikant Gaude Representative

Mumbai, dated the 4^th December, 2018

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-36011/01/2018 – IR (B-II) dated 31.05.2018. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“1. Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust in effecting the promotion of Shri Raghuvir

Kaskar as Quarter Master in DPC held on 06.05.2016 against the vacancies of 2016 ignoring the candidature

of other potential eligible candidates and without exhausting the process of fresh notification, fresh aptitude test

– etc. is legal, justified and proper ?

2. Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust is justified in administering a fresh aptitude

test in 2014 to the candidate (Sh. Raghuvir Kaskar) who was found to be unsuccessful/ unsatisfactory in the

previous aptitude test held in 2014 itself.

3. Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust has violated the Recruitment Rules meant for

the post of Quarter Master while considering the candidature of Shri Raghuvir Kaskar in 2016 by the DPC

against the vacancies of 2016 ?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

Second party union representing the second party workman is not interested and filed withdrawal purshis. In

view of withdrawal purshis Reference is withdrawn. Hence dispose of.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

Date: 04.12.2018

Camp : Goa

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

861

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 257-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eksjeqxkao iksVZ

VªLV 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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 45@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&45011@03@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2017) 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 Mormugao Port Trust, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-45011/03/2017-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/45 of 2017

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MORMUGAO PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mormugao Port Trust,

Headland Sada,

Goa – 403 804.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Mormugao Waterfront Worker’s Union,

PO : Box. No. 90,

VASCO, GOA

Goa –

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. M. B. Anchan Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : Absent

Mumbai, dated the 5^th December, 2018

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-45011/03/2017 – IR (B-II) dated 11.10.2017. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“1. Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust, Vasco, Gao in non-removal the pay

anomaly of Shri Prasad Phadte in accordance with rules as compared to his juniors Shri E.K. Soman,

Supervisor (Grade – I), EDP Section and Shri Umesh Nagvekar Supervisor (Grade – I) is legal, justified and

proper ? If not what relief the applicant workman is entitled to ?

862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Whether the Ministry of Shipping is having any jurisdiction to examine and suggest the remedial measures /

to improve upon the existing rule / method to the respondent management when the respondent management is

having its own rules and regulations governing pay and service conditions duly approved by its Board ?

3. Whether the Office order No. CA/P-1/2011/1586 dated 28.10.2011 issued by the respondent management

contrary to the established rules / regulations is legally tenable / valid ?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

Ongoing through Roznama it appears that Union is absent since beginning. Earlier the notices were issued to

both parties at that time union was absent. And again notice was issued to union in-spite of notice served to the union.

Union remained absent and has not filed Statement of Claim as such there is no Statement of Claim to substantiate the

Case and therefore for want of evidence Reference is liable to be rejected. Hence Order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected for want of evidence.

Date: 05.12.2018

Camp:Goa

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 258-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ

cMkSnk 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; ua- 1] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15@2016½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@50@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/50/2016-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT PRESS

EXTENSION BUILDING, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018.

ID NO. 15/2016

Smt. Sunita W/o Sh. Manoj, R/o Balmik Mohalla,

Opp. Shiv Mandir, Uncha Gaon, Tehsil-Ballabhgarh,

District-Faridabad, Haryana.

…Workman

Versus

The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Plot No.19 & 31, Community Centre, Near CBSE Building, Preet Vihar,

New Delhi-110092.

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Near Yadav Dairy, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh, Distt-Faridabad, Haryana.

The Managing Director, Sapphire Housekeeping Services(P) Ltd.

Corporate Office-206, C.S.C. Vardhaman, Janak Market, S.S. Mota Singh Marg,

A-2/B, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

… Respondents

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.

L-12012/50/2016-IR(B-II) dated 27.07.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

863

“Whether the demand of the workman Smt. Sunita W.o Sh. Manoj, Sweeper, in respect of reinstatement

in the service of the management of Bank of Baroda, Ballabhgarh, Haryana is legal and justified”. If so,

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim Award’. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated:19.11.2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 259-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Vªsfuaxf’ki

pk.kD; ds izca/kr= 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 40@2010½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-

02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31012@13@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2010) 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 Training Ship Chanakya, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-31012/13/2010-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/40 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TRAINING SHIP CHANAKYA

Capt. Superintendent,

T. S. Chanakya,

At. Village Karve,

Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 69

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Shankar Gangaram Panchal,

R. No. 206, Vakratund Building,

C Wing, 2^nd floor, Sambhaji Nagar,

Sahar Road, Andheri [E],

Mumbai – 400 069.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Shri M. B. Anchan, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 15^th January, 2019

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-31013/24/2010 – IR (B-II) dated 01.04.2010. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of Captain Superintendent, Training Ship, Chanakya, Mumbai in terminating the services

of Shri S.G. Panchal, ex-Carpenter with effect from 1.05.2008 is legal, just and proper ? What relief the

workman concerned is entitled to ?’’

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

In view of pursis Ex.18 the reference is withdrawn and hence disposed of. Hence the order.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed of.

Date: 15.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 260-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad

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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 58@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@73@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

865

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2019

S.O. 260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/73/2013 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 58@2015

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Jherh dkS’kY;k nsoh iRuh eqds’k]

fuoklh&676] jkeiqjk cLrh xyh ua- 15] gfjtu cLrh] okMZ ua- 28] chdkusj

---izkFkhZ

cuke

1- izca/kd] fot;k cSad] vejflagiqjk] 'kk[kk&chdkusj

---vizkFkhZ

iapkV

fnukad 03-01-2019

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky; }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds /kkjk 10 ¼1½ o ¼2,½ ds vUrxZr iznRr

'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fnukad 09-06-2015 dks fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k%

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in terminating the services of Smt. Kaushalya Devi

w.e.f. 30.06.2011 is legal and justified? If not so, what relief she is entitled to?”

bl fookn ds laUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ Jherh dkS’kY;k nsoh us fnukad 21-12-2015 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k

izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj 01-09-2008 dks foi{kh cSad esa mldh izFke fu;qfDr Lohij ¼lQkbZokyk½ ds in ij gqbZ

FkhA og 30-06-2011 rd foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa jghA foi{kh us vdkj.k izkFkhZ dks 30-06-2011 dks lsok ls fjVsªUpesaV ds

rkSj ij i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd foi{kh cSad esa dk;Z fd;k rFkk og vkS|ksfxd

deZpkjh gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th o 25,u o fu;e 77 ds vkKkid

izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dhA 30-06-2011 ds ckn foi{kh us Lohij ds in ij vU; O;fDr;kas dks fu;ksftr fd;kA izkFkhZ

dh lsok lekfIr voS/k o vuqfpr gksus ls og iqu% lsok esa cgky gksus dh vf/kdkjh gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks losru lsok esa

cgky djus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkosA

foi{kh cSad us oknksRrj esa izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa dks vLohdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd cSad esa fu;qfDr dk

vf/kdkj eq[; dk;kZy; cSaxyksj dks gh gS tks fofgr izfØ;k ds vuq:Ik fu;qfDr djrs gSA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk dHkh

fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuq:Ik fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA foi{kh cSad vejflagiqjk ’kk[kk ds rRdkfyd izca/kd }kjk

vko’;drkuq:Ik vLFkkbZ :Ik ls lkQ lQkbZ gsrq va’kdkyhu deZpkjh ds :Ik esa izkFkhZ dks dk;Z fn;k Fkk o le;≤

ij jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;kA izkFkhZ us ,d o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z dHkh ugha fd;k&mlus dqy 100 fnu gh dk;Z

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd&deZdkj dk laca/k ugha gSA ;g fookn vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;s tkus

;ksX; ugha gS&izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA foi{kh }kjk dksbZ vuqfpr Je O;ogkj ugha fd;k x;k

gS&vr% nkok lO;; fujLr fd;k tkosA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vkt fnukad 03-01-2019 dks O;Dr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dks vc vU;= fu;kstu izkIr gks pqdk gS&rFkk

bl orZeku fookn ds laca/k esa og u rks dksbZ izys[k izLrqr djuk pkgrh gS u gh dksbZ lk{; Loa; ds leFkZu esa nsuk

pkgrh gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

lanfHkZr vkS|ksfxd fookn oLrqr% vfLrRo&ghu gks x;k gSA izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us vc dksbZ fookn 'ks"k u jgus dh

vH;qfDr Hkh vf/kdj.k ds le{k dh gSA

bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k oLrqr% dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha gS&ftls lanfHkZr vkS|ksfxd fookn ds :Ik

esa vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkosA

866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vr% mHk;i{k ds e/; dksbZ fookn u gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nkos dk vfHkdFku (Statement of Claim)

vLohdkj dj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

iapkV vkt fnukad 3 tuojh 2019 dks fy[kk o gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;kA iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;A

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 261-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 01¼lh½@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2019

S.O. 261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01 (C) of 2014) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR) as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-39025/01/2019 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 01 (C) of 2014

Between (1) The General Manager, Personnel Administration Deptt. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7,

Bhikajee Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New Delhi- 110066 (2) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle

Office, Aghoria Bazar, Muzaffarpur, Pin -842001 and Their workman Sri Amrendra Kumar, S/O- Late Radha

Krishna Prasad, Moh.- Pokhar Colony, Brahampura, P.O-MIT P.S- Brahampura, Dist.- Muzaffarpur (Bihar)

represented through The General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar, 2^nd Floor, Saboo Complex,

Exhibition Road, Patna – 800001.

For the management: Smt Preeti, Officer, HRD, PNB, C.O, Muzaffarpur

For the workman : Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar

Present

: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna

AWARD

Patna, dt. the 24^th December, 2018

The present case has been filed u/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 by the

aforesaid workman who seeks relief of reinstatement in the services of the bank w.e.f 20.03.2012 with all consequential

benefits.

Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna (for short A.L.C

( C ) Patna), who issued notice dt- 05.04..2013 to the parties vide file No.- 5/13/2013/ALC II ;.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) Patna tried his level best to settle the dispute but due to the adamant

attitude of the management the dispute could not be resolved.

As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman preferred an application

before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendement) Act, 2010.

Both parties appeared before this tribunal and filed their Statement of claim & Rejoinder on behalf of the

workman to the written statement of management.

The workman has stated that the management terminated the services of the workman from 20.03.2012 by way

of imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from the service of the bank.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

867

In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 14.06.2018 stating therein that in

view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on 22.11.2017 and

confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable and hence the same

should be rejected.

A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman on 19.07.2018 praying theirin to withdraw the instant

I.D.Case.

Heard both the parties.

10.

As the petitioner/workman himself wants to withdraw the I.D.Case, his prayer is hereby allowed and the I.D.

Case is accordingly dispossed off as not maintainable in the light of the aforesaid recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna

High Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 262-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ;wdks cSad ds izca/kra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 06¼lh½@2016½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2019

S.O. 262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06 (C) of 2016) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR) as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 06 (C) of 2016

Between the management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, 4^th Floor, Block ‘A’ Maurya Lok

Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001 And Their workman Sri Pawan Kumar S/O-Umesh Kumar,

Khalasi Mohalla, Near Lal Kothi, At & P.O- Jhajha, Dist.- Jamui, Pin- 811308.

For the management : Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the workman : Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank

Employees Association..

Present

: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt. the 24^th December, 2018

1. The present case has been filed an application u/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute ( Amendment ) Act, 2010 by

the aforesaid workman who seeks relief of reinstatement, back wages or regularisation of services as a peon.

2. Matter was raised on 29.03.2016 by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna [for

short A.L.C ( C )], who issued notice 30^th March, 2016 to the concerned parties vide file no. 2/19/16-RLC.

868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Patna held discussions / Conciliation Proceedings. The attitude of the

management, during conciliation proceeding was far from conciliatory and there was no scope of redressal of grievances

either before the management or before the conciliation officer.

4. As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any of any settlement, the workman preferred an application

before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendement) Act, 2010.

5. Both parties appeared before this tribunal and case was fixed for filing written statement by the management and also

direction was given to the management for filing rejoinder to the workman petition dated- 09.06.2016. Several

opportunity was given to the management for filing written statement and rejoinder to petition dt- 09.06.2016 but the

management did not file any written statement or rejoinder to the workman petition dt- 09.06.2016.

6. In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 20.09.2018 stating therein that in view of

the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on 22.11.2017 and

confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable and hence the same

should be rejected.

7. A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman on 20.09.2018 praying theirin to withdraw the instant

I.D.Case.

8. Heard both the parties.

9. As the petitioner / workman himself wants to withdraw the I.D.Case, his prayer is hereby allowed and the I.D. Case is

accordingly dispossed off as not maintainable in the light of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court.

This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 263-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u

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

vf/kdj.k] iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 02¼lh½/2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-02-2019 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@20@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2019

S.O. 263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02 ( C) of 2014) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR) as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-12011/20/2014 - IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No. 02 (C) of 2014

Between the management of CMD, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan

Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Mumbai and their workman Sri Pinku Kumar, Part Time Sweeper,

represented through the Central Secretary Union Bank Employees Union, Bihar State, C/O-Union Bank of

India, Frazer Road, Patna-1, Bihar.

For the management : Sri Abhijeet Prakash, Manager (Law).

Sri Ashish Ankur, Manager, (HR).

For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.

Present

: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

Patna, dated the 11^th December, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

869

AWARD

By the adjudication order no.-L-12011/20/2014-IR(B-II) dated 23.06.2014 the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”), the following dispute between the management of the

CMD, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21

and their workman Sri Pinku Kumar for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Mumbai in imposing the punishment of

compulsory retirement from service on Shri Pinku Kumar, Part time Sweeper of Kewagachi Branch, Dist.

Darbhanga, Bihar is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. The case of the workman Sri Pinku Kumar, is that he joined the services of the bank on 28.03.2004 at Pirnagara

branch, under Khagaria Dist. as part time sweeper on consolidated wages @ Rs.750 per month. Later on he was

upgraded to ½ scale wage of full time subordinate staff in the year 2008 and was posted at Kewagachhi Branch, in

Darbhanga Dist. The further case of the workman is that while working at Kewagachhi branch of the Union Bank of

India, the services of the workman was utilized in cash department also where he used to perform clerical duties also as

per instruction of the Branch Manager. On 27.12.2008 the workman was handed over the cheque dt. 26.12.2008 of Rs. 4

Lakhs duly signed by the branch manager and the head cashier and was sent to Darbhanga for withdrawing the same

from Punjab National Bank. The signature of workman was duly attested on the overleaf of the said cheque. The

workman after withdrawing the cash came from Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga retured bank to his own branch and

handed over the cash to the Branch Manager and he worked for the rest of the day in cash department. The further case

of the workman is that after two months on 27.02.2009 at about 11.00 A.M the then branch manager Sri Makhan Lal

Ghosh obtained the signature of the workman on a blank deposit slip. On the same day at about 6.00 P.M the two

business facilitators namely Sri Navneet Kumar Choudhary and Sri Raja Ram Sharma approached the workman and

they brought him at the residence of the branch manager on their Motor cycle one advocate was present at the residence

of the branch manager from before. The branch manager directed the workman to write in his own handwriting as per the

dictates of the advocate. He was threatened by the branch manager that if he would refuse to write as per his order and

dictates of the advocate, he would lose his job as he belonged to upper caste and as per Govt. of India guidelines only

persons belonging to scheduled caste category could work as sweepers. Both the business facilitators also threatened the

workman and directed him to obey the order of the branch manager. The workman lost his balance of mind and he wrote

as it was dictated by the advocate. The branch manager kept the workman confined for three days in the branch. The

further case of the workman is that all of a sudden the workman was served the suspension order dated-23.03.2009. The

workman on the same day approached the branch manager for handing over a letter address to the chief manager

through him. After going through letter the branch manager threatened him. The workman approached the branch

manager several times to receive the aforesaid letter but when he refused to accept the same then he handed over the

letter to Sri N.K.Singh, Chief Manager on 30.03.2009 along with the copy of letter dt- 24.03.2009. The management got

the matter investigated through N.K.Singh, Chief Manager who submitted his report to DGM. The workman was put

under suspension on 23.03.2009. The case of the workman is that the disciplinary authority did not issue any show

cause/explanation letter before placing him under suspension. Mr. N.K.Singh was appointed as disciplinary authority

who later on appointed Sri Vijay Vyas, NRO Calcutta as enquiry officer and Sri U.N. Yadav, NRO Patna as management

representative. The case of the workman is that enquiry officer did not inquire the matter fairly and properly and

submitted one sided report under the influence of higher authorities of the bank. The disciplinary authority without

application of proper and independent mind, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement to the workman. The

workman preferred an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority but the appellate authority also failed to

apply his mind properly and did not interfere in the order of the learned disciplinary authority. The case of the workman

is that the branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh whom the workman had handed over the money after withdrawing from the

Punjab National Bank, has kept the money himself for about two months and when the matter came to light he got the

money deposited and made the workman a scapegoat. The management instead of punishing the branch manager

terminated the service of the poor workman by way of imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from the

service of the bank. The sponsoring union raised an Industrial Dispute before the appropriate authority as per the

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 but the dispute ended in failure due to the uncompromising attitude of the

management. Accordingly, failure of conciliation report was sent to the Appropriate Govt, who referred the dispute for

adjudication to this tribunal. The workman is an innocent person who did not commit any misconduct and was make

scapegoat in this case. The punishment imposed upon the workman is neither legal not justified. The workman has

prayed for setting-aside the order of his compulsory retirement and also for reinstatement with back wages with all

consequential benefits as well as cost.

The management has accepted that Sri Pinku Kumar was a part time sweeper in Kewagachhi Branch, Union

Bank of India under Darbhanga Dist. The further case of the management is that the kewagachhi branch is maintaining a

current account with Punjab National Bank, Tower Chowk Branch, Darbhanga. It is alleged that the workman Sri Pinku

Kumar has withdrawn of Rs. 4 Lakh ( Rs. Four Lakhs ) on 27.12.2008 from Punjab National Bank by stealing cheque

no.- 191266 which was signed by the Branch Manager. Later on after two months the workman himself voluntarily

confessed his guilt by writing a letter on 27.02.2009 and on 27.02.2009 the workman deposited the amount of Rs. 4

Lakhs ( Rs. Four Lakhs ) in the bank which he had withdrawn. A free and impartial departmental enquiry was conducted

against the workman for his misconduct in which it was proved that he unauthorisedly received payment of the aforesaid

cheque on 27.12.2008 and he fraudulently signed the name of the payee on the reverse of the cheque. After conclusion of

870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the enquiry he was found guilty of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank, breach of rules of business and

negligence in performing duties. The disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement of the workman.

Thereafter he filed an appeal but the Appellalte Authority also rejected the same vide order dt- 24.10.2011. It is the case

of the management that charges against the workman Sri Pinku Kumar have been proved in a fair and impartial

departmental enquiry wherein he was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself but he failed to produce any cogent

evidence in support of his contentions. The workman received the money against the cheque by signing on the reverse of

the chque as “ Mr. Jha”. The contention of the workman that he had done those things as per the instruction of the branch

manager is not only unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, it is also an after thought. Considering the gravity of the

misconducts committed by the workman, the bank has lost confidence in him and hence the punishment of compulsory

retirement was imposed upon him. In the present case during the enquiry the principles of natural justice were fully

followed and the workman was given sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the order against him. The further

case of the management is that Kewagachhi branch Darbhanga do not have adequate arrangement to store large quantity

of money deposited in its branch hene the branch is maintaining its current account in Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga

for keeping money in safe custody. As an when money is required by the Kewagachhi branch the same is being

withdrawn from the Punjab National Bank through cheque. There was need of Rs. 4 Lakhs ( Rs. Four Lakhs ) and there

upon the manager had signed one cheque amounting to Rs. 4 Lakhs on 26.12.2008 but that could not be sent for

withdrawal as such the said cheque was kept intact with cheque book and was lying in the drawer of the manager. Since

the immediate requirement of money was deferred, the said cheque remained in the cheque book itself. Subsequently on

27.02.2009 it came to the knowledge of the branch manager when the bank account book was updated which reflect

withdrawal of Rs. 4 Lakhs by Sri Pinku Kumar. On verification of cheque book, the said cheque dt- 26.12.2008 was

found missing. Thereafter Pinku Kumar was interrogated who confessed his guilt and gave his confessional statement

and deposited the withdrawal amount. On 12.01.2009 memo of charges were served upon the workman Sri Pinku

Kumar. Departmental enquiry was instituted in which one Sri Vijay Vyas, Senior Manager, ( personnel ) was

appointed as enquiry officer and Sri U.N. Yadav, Senior Manager, ( Personnel ) was appointed as management

representative vide Ext.- M/17 and Ext.- M/17-1 repectively. One Jagannath Chakaraborthy represented the workman on

his behalf in the departmental proceeding. On 02.08.2010 enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer who found

the charges against the workman correct and true and came to the conclusion that gross misconduct has been committed

by Pinku Kumar. The disciplinary authority served enquiry report to the workman Sri Pinku Kumar with proposed

punishment of compulsory retirement.

That on 25.04.2011 disciplinary authority awarded punishment on charges which has been found proved as

follows:-

Charge proved

Punishment imposed

Gross misconduct

Doing act prejudical; tp the interest of the bank involving

or likely to involve the bank in monetary loss.

Compulsory retirement from the services of the bank.

Minor Misconduct:

Breach of rule of business of the bank and instructions for

running of any department

Stoppage of increment for a period of six months.

Neglect of work and negligence in performing duties.

Stoppage of one increment for a period of six months.

The aforesaid punishments will run concurrently.

Sri Pinku Kumar will not be entitled to any pay and allowances save and except the subsistence allowance already drawn

by him during the period of suspension.

The workman challenged the order of disciplinary authority by preferring an appeal before the appellate

authority who by his order dated- 24.10.2011 rejected the appeal of the workman.

The workman also filed rejoined to the written statement filed by the management denying the allegations made

against the workman. The workman in his rejoinder further stated that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly

and enquiry report in one sided, The learned enquiry officer, learned disciplinary authority and the appellate authority

did not follow the principle of natural justice from the stage of placing the workman under suspension, conducting the

enquiry, imposing the punishment and disposing off the appeal. They also failed to discharge the duties as a quasi-

judicial authority and the innocent, poor and helpless workman was made a scapegoat.

In this case the workman Sri Pinku Kumar only got himself examined as W.W.-1.

No other witnesses has been examined on behalf of the workman.

W.W-1 Pinku Kumar the workman in his deposition has stated that he used to work as a Part Time Sweeper in

the Kewagachi branch of Union Bank of India in the District of Darbangha. He worked in the bank from 2005 to 2009.

Earlier he worked in the Pirnagara branch in the Dist. Of Khagaria. He has further stated that apart from working as PTS

he used to work as a clerk also in kewagachi branch as per instruction of the branch manager. The work of cash

remittance was also taken from him by the branch manager. This witness in his deposition has further stated that the

concerned cheque which has been marked as Ext.- M/2 in this case was value of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs ( Rs. Four Lakhs )

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

871

dated- 26.12.2008. This witness has further stated that this cheque bears the signature of branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh

and chief cashier Maya Shankar Jha but he cannot say as to in whose handwritting this cheque. His signature was

attested by the branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh on the reverse of the cheque. This cheque was handover to him on

27.12.2008 at 10.00 A.M by the branch manager and the branch manager ordered him to withdraw the amount from

Punjab National Bank as there was no other person in the branch to do this work. The Motorcycle of the bank was also

provided to him for this purpose. He reached at Punjab National Bank at about 10.45 A.M and received the money after

putting his signature on the reverse of the cheque. This witness further stated that chief cashier Sri Maya Shankar Jha

was not present in the branch either on 26.12.2008 or on 27.12.2008. On both the aforesaid dates he was on duty in the

extention counter of the bank situtated at Lehariasarai. After reaching in kewagachi branch he handover the amount

which was withdrawn by him from the Punjab National Bank to the branch manager who kept the same in the drawaer of

his table and locked the same. The manager further sent him in cash duty. This witness has further stated in his

deposition that on 27.02.2009 the branch manager and two business faciliatators namely Raja Ram Sharma and Navneet

Kumar Choudhary forced him to write the confession letter which has been marked as Ext.-W/1 in this case. This

witness has further proved the pay in slip which has been marked as Ext.-W/2. This pay – in - slip has been filled by the

branch manager and it also bears his signature. This witness has further proved Ext.-W which is the letter dated-

30.03.2009 given by this witness to chief manager Sri N.K. Singh.

This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he did not get any written order from the bank to work as a

clerk in the branch. He also did not get any officiating pay for doing the work of the clerk. He also used to go for cash

remittance and after bringing the money he used to handover the same to the concerned staff. This witness has further

admitted his signature on the reverse of the cheque which has been marked as Ext.-M/2 as well as his signature Ext.M/1

in the attendence register. This witness has further stated that the concerned cheque was infavour of one Sri M. Jha and

the manager had said to him that the amount of this cheque has to pay to one Sri M. Jha who is the customer of the bank.

This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that the cheque was infavour of another person but he withdraw the

amount as per the instruction of the branch manager. He handover the money to the branch manager who kept the same

in the drawer and he engaged in some other work. This witness has admitted that he committed wrong in withdrawing

the money in the name of some other person by putting his signature “M” as per the dictated of the branch manager.

This witness has further state in his cross-examination that the confession letter which has been marked as Ext.- W/1 in

this case was got written by him not in the bank branch but at the residence of the branch manager forcibly after assulting

him. Two persons Raja Ram Sharma and Navneet Kumar Choudhary who are witnesses in this letter have forcibly

brought him at the residence of the branch manager. This witness in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he

did not deposit Rs. 4.00 Lakhs in the account but it was the branch manager who deposited the aforesaid amount by

filling the vouchers Ext.-M/3. The branch manager got his signature on the aforesaid blank voucher.

In this case the management has got examine two witness namely Kumar Rajeev (M.W-1) and Vijay Vyas

(M.W-2).

M.W-1 Kumar Rajeev is the branch manager of kewagachi branch. This witness in his deposition has stated that

after joining in the bank heI got knowledge that the workman Sri Pinku Kumar used to work as a Part Time Sweeper in

the branch. In his period the workman Sri Pinku Kumar was not working there. Further he got knowledge that Pinku

Kumar committed an embezzlement of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs in the branch for which he was suspended and after enquiry he

was compulsory retired. This witness has further stated that Pinku Kumar committed theft of cheque and withdraw the

amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs and he also admitted his guilt. He has further stated that Pinku Kumar later on deposited the

aforesaid amount.

This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of this case. He has

further stated that the cheque comes under the printing security and it is kept in single lock. He has further stated that the

stolen cheque of Punjab National Bank was not kept in joint custody but only joint signature was required while

withdrawing the amount. The cheque was kept in the custody of the branch manager and in his absence the key of the

custody was with the second man head cashier. This witness has further stated that he did not see the cheque in question.

This witness in his deposition has further stated that the account of the Kewagachi branch of Union Bank of India was in

the Punjab National Bank, tower chowk, Darbhanga and the account was being operated by the branch manager and the

head cashier Maya Shankar Jha and both have to put their signature on the cheque. This witness has further stated that in

case of absence of the branch manager he used to put his signature on the cheque in advance so that he work may not

hamper. This witness has stated that he got knowledge of the occurence from the document available in the branch as

well as from the employees of the branch. This witness has further stated that at present there are altogather five staff in

the branch out of whom one Pashupati Mishra was also posted in the branch in the year 2008 but so far other four

persons are concerned he cann’t say whether they were posted at that time in the branch or not. One Sri M.L.Ghosh was

the branch manager in the bank when the occurence took place. He has further stated that cheque no.-191266 bears the

signatures of two persons the branch manager and the head cashier and the signature of the person who withdrew the

amount has been attested on the reverse of the cheque but he cann’t say who attested the signature. He has further stated

that he cann’t say as to whether F.I.R was lodged or not regarding the occurence.

Another witness Sri Vijay Vyas has been examined as M.W-2 in this case. This witnes was the enquiry officer

in this case. This witness in his deposition has stated that the charge against the workman Pinku Kumar was that he

withdrew the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs from the Punjab National Bank, tower chowk, Darbhanga but did not deposit the

same in the account of the Union Bank. The another charge against the workman was that on 26.12.1998 he left his duty

without any information to his superior. This witness has further stated that one Sri U.N.Yadav was presenting officer in

the case and one Sri Chakarbarti was the defence representative. This witness has further stated that the charge sheeted

872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employee Sri Pinku Kumar admitted his guilt even before the enquiry and deposited Rs. 4.00 Lakhs in the bank but

during the enquiry Sri Pinku Kumar denied the charges levelled against him. This witness has further stated that during

enquiry the charge that he was absent on 26.12.2008 without any information was not found true. But the other charges

were found true during the enquiry. He has further stated that he mentioned all the documents in his enquiry report which

were brought by the management during enquiry as well as he also mentioned about those documents which were

brought on record by the defence and ample opportunity was given to the defence during enquiry.

This witness in his cross-examination has stated that one Sri N.K.Singh was the preliminary investing officer in

this case but he did not suspend the workman but it was the central office who suspended the employee. This witness

has proved the letter which was given to Sri N.K.Singh by the workman Sri Pinku Kumar in which he has stated that he

was forcibly brought at the residence of the the then branch manager. This letter is marked as Ext.-W in this case. This

witness has further stated that during enquiry the then branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh was not examined. The reverse

side of the cheque also bears the signature of Sri M.L.Ghosh.

The following documents were brought on record by the defence in support of his case.

Ext.-W-

is the letter dt- 30.03.2009 written by Sri Pinku Kumar to

Sri N.K.Singh,Chief Manager, Union

Bank of India.

Ext.-W/1-

is the alleged confession letter written by Sri Pinku Kumar on 27.02.2009 admitting his guilt.

Ext.-W/2-

is the pen-in-slip dt- 27.02.2009 (voucher) by which the amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs was deposited in

the account of bank.

On behalf of the management altogather 26 documents were marked got Extd out of which some

important Exts are….

Ext.-M/1-

Xerox copy of Muster roll maintained at Kewagachi Banch for the month of December 2008.

Ext.-M/2-

Xerox copy of cheque no.- 196166 dated- 26.12.2008 of PNB, Darbhanga.

Ext.-M/5 & M/5-1 Xerox copy of cash balance book dated-26.12.2008 and 27.02.2009.

Ext.-M/6-

Xerox copy of cheque no.- 191265 dt- 20.10.2008.

Ext.-M/6-1

Xerox copy of cheque no.- 191267 dt- 21.10.2008.

Ext.-M/7-

Letter no. nil dated- 11.03.2010 of Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga address to Manager, UBI,

Kewagachi Branch.

Ext.-M/8-

Letter dated- 27.02.2009 of Kewagachi Branch address to Sr. Manager, NRO, Patna.

Ext.-M/9-

Abstract of our kewagachi branch account maintained with PNB,

Darbhanga

for

period

01.12.2008 to 31.12.2008.

Ext.-M/10-

PNB branch, Darbhanga letter no. nil dated- 06.02.2010 address to Branch Manager, UBI,

Kewagachi.

Ext.-M/11-

Xerox copy of letter dated- 06.02.2010 of our Kewagachi Branch address to Sr Branch Manager,

PNB, Darbhanga.

Ext.-M/13-

Report dated nil of the then Chief Manager Shri N.K.Singh on the fraud perpetrated in clearing

house of our Kewagachi Branch maintained with PNB, Darbhanga.

Ext.-M/14-

Computer generated FTIR dated- 27.12.2008 to Kewagachi Branch.

Ext.-M/17

Letter dt-12.11.2009 appointing Sri Vijay Vyas, Sr. Manager (personnel), enquiry officer.

Ext.-M/17-1-

Letter dt- 12.11.2009 appointing Sri U.N.Yadav, Sr. Manager (personnel) as management

representative.

Ext.-M/18-

Charge sheet dt- 12.11.2009

Ext.-M/19-

Proceeding of departmental enquiry.

Ext.-M/20-

Inquiry report submitted by enquiry officer.

Ext.-M/21-

Punishment proposed & notice for personal hearing.

Ext.-M/22-

Personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority.

Ext.-M/23-

Punishment order dated- 25.04.2010.

Ext.-M.24-

Appeal preferred by Shri Pinku Kumar.

Ext.-M/25-

Proceeding of personal hearing carried out before Appellate Authority.

Ext.-M/26-

Order of the Appellate Authority.

10.

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the entire episode from placing the workman under

suspension, issuance of charge sheet, holding of domestic enquiry, imposition of punishment and disposal of appeal is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

873

merely a cover – up exercise to save the real culprit and punish an innocent poor workman. The workman was made a

scapegoat for saving Sri M.L.Ghosh, the then branch manager. The domectic enquiry was not conducted fairly and

properly rather the same was one sided and suffers from perversity of findings. The learned enquiry officer, the learned

Disciplinary Authority and the learned Appellate Authority did not follow the principle of natural justice from the stage

of placing the workman under suspension, conducting the enquiry, imposing the punishment and disposing off the

appeal. He further submitted that it was the then branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh who kept money of the bank with

malafide intention and when the matter came to light, he got the same deposited with the bank after adopting unethical

means. In this case the most important witness for management was the then branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh but he was

allowed to skip from his examination as a management witness for supporting the charges against the workman.

Mr. Ghosh was neither examined incourse of enquiry nor he was examined in this tribunal. The entire set of management

worked with as intention to save Sri M.L.Ghosh by hook or by crook and accordingly he was not produced as a witness

for examination and cross-examination. The learned representative of the workman further submitted that the learned

enquiry officer without examining the complainant and without application of reasonable mind held the charges proved

against the poor innocent workman. The learned Disciplinary Authority also acted with closed mind without application

of proper, reasonable and independent mind and imposed the punishment. Similarly the learned Appellate Authority also

acted with closed mind and without application of reasonable and independent mind, confirmed the punishment order

passed by the learned Disciplinary Authority. The learned representative of the workman further submitted that under

coercion, threat and intimidation, the workman had written confession letter which was reported to Sri N.K. Singh, Chief

Manager Nodal Regional Office, Patna. The Business Facilitators namely Navneet Kumar Chodhary and Sri Raja Ram

Sharma were also not examined either during the enquiry proceeding or before this tribunal. The learned representative

of the workman submitted that there is no dispute that this workman withdrew the amount in question from the bank but

he acted on the order and instruction of his superior i.e the then Branch Manager Sri M.L.Ghosh. His signature on the

reverse on the cheque in question was duly atested by the then Branch Manager Mr. M.L.Ghosh. As there are shortage of

staff in the bank the Branch Manager used to take several other works from the CSE ( Pinku Kumar ) apart from his

usual duties. The Branch Manage used to take the work of preparing the cash balance book without signing as head

cashier, working on the computer to run the CBS using other’s ID and pass word, receiving and paying cash from and to

customers, signing in other’s “name” while withdrawing cash from PNB. Getting signature of the workman on a blank

credit voucher is another example of immoral act of the Branch Manager. The CSE (charge sheeted employee) Sri Pinku

Kumar had no courage to deny the illegal and immoral order of his superior.

The learned representative of the workman further submitted that it is very strange that cheque no.- 191265 was

issued on 20.10.2008 and cheque no.- 191267 was issued on 21.10.2008 by the Branch Manager and the cheque in

question 191266 remained unused till 27.12.2008. It is allegation against the CSE is that he committed theft of aforesaid

cheque in question and withdrew the amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs from P.N.B Darbhanga. The story of theft of cheque has

been created by the management appears to be frivolous and false. During enquiry M.W-1 the present Branch Manager

has stated that cheque was stolen between 20.10.2008 to 21.10.2008 but in para- 15 of written statement of the

management it has been stated that the cheque in question was signed by the Branch Manager on 26.12.2008 but that

could not be sent for withdrawal as such the said cheque kept intact with cheque book and was lying in the drawer of the

Branch Manager. During enquiry it has also come that on 26.12.2008 the Branch Manager after signing the cheque in

question himself went to Darbhanga extention counter of the bank and got the signature of the Sri M.S.Jha the Head

Cachier who was one of the joint signatories of the said account.

The learned representative of the workman further submitted that it was the Branch Manager who ordered and

forced the CSE to sign as M. Jha on the reverse of the cheque which was duly attested by then Branch Manager. The

CSE being merely Part Time Sweeper had no courage to refuse even such illegal instruction of the Branch Manager. The

Branch Manager made the CSE accustom to work in the guise of other person and as such as per instruction of the

Branch Manager the CSE used to perorm the duties of CTO using other ID and password and also used to work as

cashier beyond the rules of the bank. He further submitted that this facts has also come in the audit report dt-31.07.2008

in which inspecting officers recorded that “ it is observed during the course of Audit that cash is handled by PTS and

computer is also operated by him regularly.” It is the case of the CSE that after withdrawing the amount in question

through cheque in question he handed over the same to the Branch manager and after that as per the instruction of the

Branch Manage worked in the cash department till closing. The learned representative of the workman submitted that it

is unbelievable that the a person who had withdrew amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs fradululently will remain in Branch for the

whole day and perform his duties in the cash department. It is also not believable that the Branch Manager who attested

his signature ( fictitious ) and sent him to Punjab National Bank for obtaining payment will keep silent even without

getting Rs. 4.00 Llakhs from him. The learned representative of the workman further submitted that it also create doubt

the working of the then Branch Manager who signed cheque no.- 191265 on 20.10.2008 and cheque no.- 191267 on

21.10.2008 and did not used the cheque in question till 26.12.2008. The Branch Manager left the cheque in question

unused and in the month of December 2008 for all the transaction he used another cheque book bearing serial number

starting with 208 except for the transaction of withdrawing said Rs. 4.00 Lakhs on 27.12.2008. It appears very suprising

as to why the then Branch Manager Sri M.L.Ghosh kept the unused cheque for four months.

The learned repesentative of the workman further submitted that alleged confession letter was not a volountary

one rather the same was obtained from the CSE putting him under pressure and threat of life. He was hijacked from his

house by the two business facilitators who stood as witnesses to the aforesaid alleged confession letter. They took him to

the residence of the then Branch Manager and pressurised him to write the confession letter. It is wrong to say that

confession was recorded in the branch in the bank because the paper which has been used recording confession letter do

not belong to “Bank’s Branch”. The paper used was a page of student note book. The learned representative of the

874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management further submitted that from the perusal of the Ext.-W/2 ( Ext.-M/3) which is credit voucher dt- 27.02.2009

it appears and has also come during enquiry that the same was prepared by the then Branch Manager Sri M.L.Ghosh

himself and it has wrongly been alleged by the management that the CSE deposited the aforesaid amount. It was further

submitted that during the enquiry it has also come that the amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakh was deposited earlier on 27.02.2009

and thereafter confession letter was prepared.The learned represenative of the workman submitted that in fact the

workman Sri Pinku Kumar is innocent and did not commit any misconduct but he was made a scapegost for saving the

real guilty person of this entire episode, the then branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh.

11.

The learned representative of the management submitted that the charges against the workman have been

proved in a fair and impartial departmental enquiry wherein he was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself but he

could not produce any cogent evidence in support of his case. It was further submitted that the principles of natural

justice has been followed in this case and the workman was given sufficient oportunity of hearing. It has been further

submitted that the charges of fraudulent withdrawal and subsequent deposition of the money by the workman Sri Pinku

Kumar have been proved in a fair and impartial departmental enquiry. He received the money against the cheque after

signing on the reverse of the cheque. The enquiry officer found the charges against the Sri Pinku Kumar true and correct

and he came to the conclusion regarding the gross misconduct committed by the workman. The enquiry report was

served upon the workman. The Appellate Authority also gave personnel hearing to Sri Pinku Kumar and he finally

rejected the appeal on merit by speaking order. The learned representative of the management submitted that the entire

proceeding was conducted fairly after giving sufficient opportunity to the workman to defend himself and only after that

the order of punishment has been imposed against the workman Sri Pinku Kumar.

12.

After hearing the learned representative of the both the parties, I am of the view that the management has not

proceeded in the matter fairly and impartially and it appears that the poor innocent CSE Sri Pinku Kumar was made a

scapegoat to save the then branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh. Story of theft of cheque which has been proponded by the

management appears to be totally false and fabricated and from the materials available on the record it appears that the

then Branch Manager signed the cheque himself on 26.12.2008 and also got the signature of other joint signatories Sri

M.S.Jha on the same and after attesting the signature of the CSE on the reverse of the cheque handed over the same to

the CSE on 27.12.2008 for withdrawing the amount. The CSE after withdrawing the amount gave to the Branch Manager

on the same day. In this case the working behaviour of the hen Branch Manager appears to be very doubtfull. There is no

explanation as to why although cheque No.-191265 was used on 20.10.2008 and 191267 was used on 21.10.2008 and

why cheque no.- 191266 remained unused for more than two months i.e till 26.12.2008. It is a serious question as to

what necessitated Sri Ghosh to keep the said in between cheque unused without having any ill motive in his mind. There

is also contradictory stand taken by the management in enquiry. At one place it comes that cheque was stolen between

20.10.2008 and 21.10.2008 but in the same enquiry and which is also the case of the management that it was the then

branch manager Sri M.L.Ghosh who put his signature on the cheque in question on 26.12.2008 and also got the signature

of another joint signatories Sri M.S.Jha by himself carrying the said chque to extention counter at Darbhanga. The

alleged confession letter also does not appear to be voluntary one and it was also not prepared in the branch in the bank.

The credit voucher ( Ext.-W/2 and Ext.- M/3 ) dt- 27.02.2009 by which the allegled defaultcated amount of Rs. 4.00

Lakh was deposted was written by the Branch Manager Sri M.L.Ghosh himself. It is also creates doubt that the amount

was deposited by the CSE Sri Pinku Kumar. No sensible person more particular a branch manager of a bank, would

prepare the voucher by himself when he had come to know that the defrauded money was being deposited through that

voucher. So far doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss is

concerned, since the bank got back Rs. 4.00 Lakhs hence there is no question of involving or likely to involve the bank

in serious loss. So far breach of rules of business of the bank is concnerned it appears that whatever breach of rules of the

bank with regard to the action of the CSE was marked, all were made to be done at the instruction of the then Branch

Manager where the poor helpless CSE had particullarly no choice. His only fault was that he was obeying the instruction

of the branch manager without considering its justification. The only fault of the CSE Sri Pinku Kumar that he was

obeying even the illegal instructions and orders of the branch manager which were also against bank rules.

Accordingly it is hereby held that out of three charges the charge no.-1 doing acts prejudicial to the interest of

the Bank and charge No. 3 namely neglect of work and negligence in performing duties have not been proved

satisfactorily. However the charge no.-2 the breach of rules of business of the bank has some what been partially proved

against the CSE Pinku Kumar. Although he acted on the order and instruction of the branch manager, but when he was

knowing fully well that they were against the rules of banking business and procedure established, he muster courage to

deny the same. Accordingly the CSE Pinku kumar is found guilty of the aforesaid minor misconduct for which the

punishment as awarded by the management is sufficient. The punishment of compulsory retirement as has been imposed

by the management is too harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is also not legal and justified as

has been discussed above and accodingly the same is hereby set aside and the CSE Pinku Kumar is entitled to the relief

of reinstatement with 30%of the back wages.

The management is accordingly directed to reinstate the workman Pinku Kumar with 30% of the back wages

immediately after publication of award.

This is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

875

ubZ fnYyh] 12 Qjojh] 2019

dk vk- 264-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe

jsyos izca/krarz 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] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 208@2004½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-02-2019 izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@23@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2019

S.O. 264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 208/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.02.2019.

[No. L-41012/23/99–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 30^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 208/2004

The General Manager,

Western Railway, Headquarter Building, Churchgate,

Mumbai - 400001

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Near Railway Station,

Ratlam (M.P.) – 457001

The Assistant Engineer (I),

Western Railway, Near Railway Station,

Ratlam (M.P.) – 457001

The Sr. Divisional Engineer (II),

Western Railway, Near Railway Station,

Ratlam (M.P.) – 457001

…First Parties

V/s

Smt. Mangliben Mehrubhai Patel W/o Late Shri Mehru Moti,

Orvada, Ta. Godhra, Panchmahal (Gujarat) C/o Shri J.K. Ved,

Sinduri Mata Devasthan, S.T. Nagar Road, Godhra,

Panchmahal (Gujarat) -389001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/23/99–IR(B-I)

dated 16.06.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration in removing from service to Shri Mehru Moti, Care Taker

under IOW, Dahod with effect from 08.05.1991 on the charges of misconduct vide charge sheet no. 308/1/1

dated 23.11.1989 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which

date?”

876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference dates back to 16.06.1999 and received on 03.07.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party Mehru Moti, C/o Shri J.K. Ved, Sinduri Mata Devasthan,

S.T. Nagar Road, Godhra, Panchmahal, hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’ submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 and

the first party The General Manager, Western Railway, Headquarter Building, Churchgate, Mumbai and others,

hereinafter referred to as ‘first party’ submitted the written statement Ex. 18.

The second party workman in his statement of claim alleged that he (workman) is a schedule tribe staying in the

tribal area. He does not have the knowledge of any other language except Gujarati Language. He continuously worked

for 20 years in the first party organisation as permanent employee. He was served with a charge-sheet on 23.11.1989 for

long absence from duty. The copy of charge-sheet is enclosed with the statement of claim. The first party had neither

mentioned the duration of absence in the charge-sheet nor had produced any documentary evidence thereof. Therefore,

he lost his right of defence since the beginning to revert the charge-sheet properly as he was illegally charge-sheeted. He

has further alleged that he had been sick during the period of alleged absence from duty and submitted to the first party,

the medical certificate of a private medical practitioner regarding his sickness but the first party did not take cognizance

of his leave application as well as the medical certificate and marked him absent in the muster roll. The first party

imposed the penalty of removal from service without considering his 20 years long service instead of ordering

compulsory retirement or voluntary retirement from service (VRS) for which he has prayed in his statement of claim.

The departmental enquiry was also conducted in a manner violating the principle of natural justice as without giving the

proper opportunity of hearing and defence enshrined under the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

The workman has also objected to the engagement of legal practitioner/advocate by the first party under Section 33 (c)

and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also moved an appeal before the appropriate authority; same was also rejected

without considering the provisions of law. Thus he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order of removal from

service with reinstatement of service along with back wages. The second party has submitted the copies of notice of

imposition of penalty under Rule 6 of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, charge-sheet, order of

appeal, information to Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam regarding conciliation proceedings and

review of order passed in appeal.

The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway, Ratlam on behalf of all the first parties vide written

statement Ex. 18 submitted that it is wrong to say that the workman was removed from service without giving

opportunity of hearing. He never submitted any application for leave along with medical certificate, therefore, he was

ordered to remove from service after finding him guilty in the departmental proceedings duly held by the Enquiry

Officer. It is further submitted that the workman has desired to be voluntary retired instead of removal from service but

there is no such option under law, therefore, same could not be done. It is further submitted that during the course of

departmental enquiry, the workman himself admitted the charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry;

therefore, it would be wrong to say that the principle of natural justice has not been followed during the departmental

proceedings. The workman also preferred an appeal against the order dated 08.05.1991 regarding removal from service

before Senior Divisional Engineer, Ratlam which was duly considered and was rejected finding no force in the appeal.

The written statement is enclosed with the copies of notice of imposition of penalty under Rule 6 of Railway Servant

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 vide Ex. 27, charge-sheet vide Ex. 31, order of appeal vide Ex. 28 along with the

zerox copies of departmental proceedings and statement of witnesses recorded in the enquiry.

The workman expired on 17.12.2006; therefore, the widow named Mangliben Mehrubhai Patel moved an

application Ex. 64 along with the death certificate of the deceased workman for making her as party in place of the

second party deceased workman Mehru Moti along with the affidavit. Same was not opposed by the first party, therefore,

the application was allowed and the widow named Mangliben Mehrubhai Patel was accordingly substituted as second

party in place of her deceased husband.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

Whether the action of the Railway Administration in removing from service to Shri Mehru Moti, Care

Taker under IOW, Dahod with effect from 08.05.1991 on the charges of misconduct vide charge sheet

no. 308/1/1 dated 23.11.1989 is legal and justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman or widow of the concerned workman is entitled?

Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party deceased workman who was examined on oath wherein he has stated that he was

removed from service and did not find any employment despite making effort to search the job. He was Gangman as a

permanent employee. He is illiterate and did not understand the intricacies of the departmental enquiry. In his cross-

examination, he has stated that he was posted at Godhra since 1963. It is true that memorandum bears him thumb

impression. He was doing all the workman of Gangman with honesty and sincerity. He met with an accident; therefore,

he was given light duty.

The first party did not prefer to lead any oral evidence except the documentary evidence as detailed in Para No.

3 and 4.

I heard and considered the argument of both the parties. Though the deceased second party workman has not

stated anything regarding the illegality of departmental enquiry but learned counsel for the second party workman Shri

Prabhatsinh Parmar argued that this workman as appears from the oral and documentary evidence joined as Gangman in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

877

the year 1963 and was ordered to be removed from service on 08.05.1991 by Assistant Engineer, Dahod and appeal

preferred by the deceased workman was also rejected on 16.04.1992. He moved a review against the order of appeal

praying for voluntarily retirement which was summarily rejected on the ground that there are no such provisions in the

service rules without giving the provisions of service rules. I also perused the documents regarding the departmental

enquiry which reveals that the enquiry was conducted in a very casual manner without considering the fact that the

workman was illiterate and also a tribal and served for more than 28 years. It was the duty of Enquiry Officer as well as

the appointing and appellate authority to consider the aforesaid facts while awarding the punishment. It was also

imperative on the Enquiry Officer to provide an illiterate and tribal workman legal aid by providing some intelligent

trade union leader or some other sincere man to defend him in the enquiry. Thus all the enquiry proceedings, appellate

process and removal process had been done in a haste and casual manner violating all norms of a civilized society.

10.

As the workman has died, therefore, it would not be possible to reinstate him with back wages but it would be

proper to treat the punishment of removal from service as voluntary retirement with all retirement benefits and to give

family pension to Smt. Mangliben Mehrubhai Patel, widow of the deceased second party workman. The family pension

to Smt. Mangliben Mehrubhai Patel, widow of the deceased workman shall be given from the date of death of the

deceased workman. Both the issues are decided accordingly.

11.

The award shall be given in effect within 30 days from the publication of this award.

12.

The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 265-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj

fcgkj xzkeh.k cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k iVuk ds iapkV ¼vkbZ-Mh- ekeyk la[;k 08¼lh½ vkWQ 2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-02-2019

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2019

S.O. 265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. Case No. 08 ( C ) of 2017) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.02.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 08 (C) of 2017

Between The management of Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk,

Muzaffarpur – 842001 and their

workman Sri Rajendra Singh, S/O- Late Ram Bali Singh, At & P.O-

Jurabanpur Karari, Dist.- Vaishali, Pin- 844508.

For the management : None

For the workman : Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association

Present

: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt- 24^th December, 2018

The present case has been filed U/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute ( Amendment ) Act, 2010 by the

aforesaid workman who seeks relief of reinstatement with back wages, regularisation in the services of the Bank as a

messenger.

Matter was raised by the workman on 06.06.2017 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna

(for short A.L.C ( C ) Patna ), who issued notice dt. 15.06..2017 to the parties vide file No. 2(14)/2017/RLC.

878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman preferred an application

before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendement ) Act, 2010.

An application was filed before this tribunal on 19.12.2017 and case was registered and notice was issued to the

workman for hearing on the point of admission.

The workman has stated that the he was orally appointed to discharge his duties of a messenger at Jurabanpur

branch of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank w.e.f May, 2009. He has further stated that the workman was performing his duties

from 10 A.M to 5 P.M regularly and has been also working for opening Bank’s account and recovery of Bank’s loans

from borrowers. He has further stated that there was no permanent messenger at Jurabanpur branch since 2011 and the

workman performed all the duties of a permanent messenger and his duties were perennial in nature. He has further

stated that the workman discharged the duties of messenger from May 2009 to 17.02.2017 uninterruptedly and in the

evening of 17^th February 2017, the manager informed the workman of termination of his service from 18.02.2017 and

after termination, the workman approached the management at different echelons but of no avail. The workman has

become overaged while working with the management and has no any alternative means of livelihood.

In view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on

22.11.2017 and confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable.

In the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, workman filed a withdrawal petition on

30.07.2018 to withdraw the I.D.case.

Heard the representative of the workman.

As the petitioner / workman himself wants to withdraw the I.D.Case, his prayer is hereby allowed and the I.D.

Case is accordingly dispossed off as not maintainable in the light of the aforesaid recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna

High Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 266-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad izca/krarz 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 vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 892@2004½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-02-2019

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@351@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2019

S.O. 266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 892/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/351/2002–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 22^nd January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 892/2004

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra (Now State Bank of India),

Zonal Office, Post Box No. 178,

Darbargarh,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) - 364001

…First Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

879

V/s

Shri Soni Vijaykumar Amrutlal Salla,

Opp. Radha Krishna Temples,

Sanghvi Chowk, Rajula City,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi

For the Second Party : Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/351/2002–IR

(B-I) dated 27.05.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of

the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar in terminating the services of

Shri Soni Vijaykumar Amrutlal Salla w.e.f. 13.12.1993 and not producing records during conciliation

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

The reference dates back to 27.05.2003 and received on 13.06.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing of notice to the parties, the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement

followed by oral and documentary evidence.

On 05.02.2019, the second party workman Soni Vijay Kumar Amrutlal Salla and the first party State Bank of

India submitted the settlement Ex. 33 vide application Ex. 32 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime

payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) vide Demand Draft No. 074425 dated 20.12.2018 along with Rs.15000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of the advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 074426 dated

20.12.2018 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 33 was read over and explained to

the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 33 is accepted by the

Tribunal.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 33. The settlement Ex. 33 shall remain the

part of the award.

The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 267-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/;

fcgkj xzkeh.k cSad izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k iVuk ds iapkV ¼vkbZ-Mh- ekeyk la[;k 07¼lh½ vkWQ 2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-02-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2019

S.O. 267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. Case No. 07 ( C ) of 2017) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.02.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 07 (C) of 2017

Between The Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, Asochak

Chowk, New Byepass Road, (NH-30), Patna-800016 and Their workman Sri Jitendra Kumar Dubey,

S/O- Pramod Kumar Dubey, Vill.- Agini, P.O Sikaria, P.S- Darigaon, Dist.- Rohtas, Pin-821113.

For the management :

None

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association.

Present

Vishweshwar Nath Mishra , Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt. 24^th December, 2018

The present case has been filed U/s 2A (1 & 2) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 by the

aforesaid workman who seeks relief of reinstatement with back wages in the services of the Bank as a part time sweeper

under 1/3^rd pay scale of a full time subordinate staff and regularisation of services as part time sweeper.

Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna ( for short A.L.C

As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman preferred an application

before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendement ) Act, 2010.

The application was filed before this tribunal on 19.12.2017 and case was registered and notice issued to the

workman for hearing on the point of admission.

The workman has stated that following the instruction of the Chairman, the Manager of Torani Branch

terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 31.12.2011 and stopped him from working. The management again

formulated scheme with 20% wage hike and the workman was reinstated as a Part Time Sweeper from 01.01.2013. After

the dispute was raised in December, 2016 the management, after receiving a copy of the notice dated- 29.12.2016 issued

instructions for terminating the services of the workman. Accordingly the workman was terminated from the services of

the bank w.e.f 31.01.2017. He has also stated that the workman continuously worked in the respective branch from the

date of joining till date of termination barring breaks for nearly one year.

In view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No. 2053 of 2016 on

22.11.2017 and confirmed in L.P.A No. 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable.

In the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, workman filed a withdrawal petition on

30.07.2018 to withdraw the I.D.Case.

Heard the representative of the workman.

As the petitioner / workman himself wants to withdraw the I.D.Case, his prayer is hereby allowed and the I.D.

Case is accordingly dispossed off as not maintainable in the light of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High

Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 268-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lh,e,l flD;ksfjVht fyfeVsM izca/krarz 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 vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14-02-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@69@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

881

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/69/2016–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 08^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 58/2017

The Director,

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.,

201, Arcadia Building, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400021

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Mahendrakumar Ramnayak Dubey,

Room No. 3, Tulsibhai-ni-chawli,

Opposite Hanumanjeena Temple, Salatwada,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390002

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/69/2016–IR(B-I)

dated 29.06.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of

Shri Mahendra Kumar Ramnayak Dubey, Ex. Armed Guard w.e.f. 30.05.2015 is legal, just and proper? If not,

to what relief the concerned applicant workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 29.06.2017 and received on 10.07.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After receiving the reference from Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notices

were issued to both the parties. The second party workman Mahendra Kumar Ramnayak Dubey submitted the statement

of claim Ex. 6 on 07.03.2018 along with the power of attorney of Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar vide Ex. 5 while the first party

management M/s CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai despite service as the acknowledgement of service Ex. 3 was received in

the Tribunal, did not prefer to submit the written statement. The Tribunal also waited for the response of the first party

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd. on 03.05.2018, 07.06.2018, 03.07.2018 and 14.08.2018 but to no result. Therefore, on

14.08.2018, the Tribunal ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party M/s CMS Securitas Ltd.

The second party workman Mahendra Kumar Ramnayak Dubey in his statement of claim Ex. 6 has alleged that

he was appointed as armed guard w.e.f. 17.01.2004 by the first party M/s CMS Securitas Ltd. He used to perform the

duty of armed guard in escorting cash van engaged in collection and delivery of cash on various branches and ATMs of

nationalised banks, State Bank of India and other private banks. He used to perform his duties continuously without any

interruption contemplated under Section 1 and 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. During his service, he was never served

with any memo, show cause notice or charge-sheet for any misconduct; therefore, his services were blotless and

unblemished. Despite the said facts, his services were terminated on 30.05.2015 without serving any notice of

retrenchment and notice pay. He was also not paid the last month salary and other terminal benefits. The first party did

not prepare to make seniority list of the workmen and taking advantage of it, the first party retained the junior employee

while terminating his services violating the principle of ‘last cum and first go’. Thus his termination was illegal,

improper, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of law. He has further alleged that during conciliation before the Re-

conciliation Officer, he was offered the job through another sub-contractor to rid off the liabilities by way of cessation of

882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

master servant relationship which proved that the first party was having contract in operation. Thus he has prayed that

the reference be allowed with an order of reinstatement in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

The second party workman has also submitted the copy of the appointment letter giving the details of working

hours, duties and other facilities, copies of pay slips and termination letter.

The second party workman Mahendra Kumar Ramnayak Dubey submitted his affidavit Ex. 8 reiterating the

averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 6.

I perused the statement of claim Ex. 6 and affidavit Ex. 8 and also appointment letter and heard the arguments

of learned counsel of the workman. These documents establish that the workman was engaged on 17.01.2004 and was

terminated on 30.05.2015 without giving any notice. The letter of appointment reveals that services were liable to be

terminated on one month’s notice but the termination letter Ex. 7/4 reveals that an note has been writing in the

termination letter that full and final settlement was not accepted by the workman but the letter does not appears to have

been enclosed with one month’s salary as provided in the terms and condition of service. Secondly, the workman worked

for more than 11 years from 17.01.2004 to 30.05.2015 and the first party management did not prefer to appear before the

Tribunal by way of submitting written statement denying the averments of the workman in his affidavit Ex. 8 including

the facts regarding retaining the junior workman while terminating this workman. Thus the reference is fit to be allowed

with an order of reinstatement with lump-sum back wages of Rs. 400000/- (Rupees Four Lac).

The first party is directed to reinstate the second party workman Mahendra Kumar Ramnayak Dubey with

lump-sum back wages of Rs. 400000/- (Rupees Four Lac). The compliance of the award shall be made within 30 days

from the publication of the award.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 269-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lh,e,l flD;ksfjVht fyfeVsM izca/krarz 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 vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14-02-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@68@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/68/2016-IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 08^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 69/2017

The Director,

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.,

201, Arcadia Building, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400021

…First Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

883

V/s

Shri Pruthvi Singh M. Rauji,

B-51, Samrudhi Park Society, Kamlanagar,

Section 6, Ajwa Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390019

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/68/2016–IR(B-I)

dated 21.07.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of

Shri Pruthvi Singh M. Raulji, Ex. Armed Guard w.e.f. 30.05.2015 is legal, just and proper? If not, to what relief

the concerned applicant workman is entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 21.07.2017 and received on 31.07.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After receiving the reference from Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notices were

issued to both the parties. The second party workman Pruthvi Singh M. Raulji submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on

07.03.2018 along with the power of attorney of Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar vide Ex. 5 while the first party management

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai despite service as the acknowledgement of service Ex. 3 was received in the Tribunal,

did not prefer to submit the written statement. The Tribunal also waited for the response of the first party M/s CMS

Securitas Ltd. on 03.05.2018, 07.06.2018, 03.07.2018 and 14.08.2018 but to no result. Therefore, on 14.08.2018, the

Tribunal ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party M/s CMS Securitas Ltd.

3. The second party workman Pruthvi Singh M. Raulji in his statement of claim Ex. 6 has alleged that he was appointed

as armed guard w.e.f. 06.10.2004 by the first party M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd. He used to perform the duty of armed guard

in escorting cash van engaged in collection and delivery of cash on various branches and ATMs of nationalised banks,

State Bank of India and other private banks. He used to perform his duties continuously without any interruption

contemplated under Section 1 and 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. During his service, he was never served with any

memo, show cause notice or charge-sheet for any misconduct; therefore, his services were blotless and unblemished.

Despite the said facts, his services were terminated on 30.05.2015 without serving any notice of retrenchment and notice

pay. He was also not paid the last month salary and other terminal benefits. The first party did not prepare to make

seniority list of the workmen and taking advantage of it, the first party retained the junior employee while terminating his

services violating the principle of ‘last cum and first go’. Thus his termination was illegal, improper, arbitrary and

violative of the provisions of law. He has further alleged that during conciliation before the Re-conciliation Officer, he

was offered the job through another sub-contractor to rid off the liabilities by way of cessation of master servant

relationship which proved that the first party was having contract in operation. Thus he has prayed that the reference be

allowed with an order of reinstatement in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

4. The second party workman has also submitted the copy of the appointment letter giving the details of working hours,

duties and other facilities, copies of pay slips and termination letter.

5. The second party workman Pruthvi Singh M. Raulji submitted his affidavit Ex. 8 reiterating the averments made in the

statement of claim Ex. 6.

6. perused the statement of claim Ex. 6 and affidavit Ex. 8 and also appointment letter and heard the arguments of

learned counsel of the workman. These documents establish that the workman was engaged on 06.10.2004 and was

terminated on 30.05.2015 without giving any notice. The letter of appointment reveals that services were liable to be

terminated on one month’s notice but the termination letter Ex. 7/4 reveals that an note has been writing in the

termination letter that full and final settlement was not accepted by the workman but the letter does not appears to have

been enclosed with one month’s salary as provided in the terms and condition of service. Secondly, the workman worked

for more than 10 years from 06.10.2004 to 30.05.2015 and the first party management did not prefer to appear before the

Tribunal by way of submitting written statement denying the averments of the workman in his affidavit Ex. 8 including

the facts regarding retaining the junior workman while terminating this workman. Thus the reference is fit to be allowed

with an order of reinstatement with lump-sum back wages of Rs. 400000/- (Rupees Four Lac).

7.The first party is directed to reinstate the second party workman Pruthvi Singh M. Raulji with lump-sum back wages of

Rs. 400000/- (Rupees Four Lac). The compliance of the award shall be made within 30 days from the publication of the

award.

8.The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 270-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lh,e,l flD;ksfjVht fyfeVsM izca/krarz 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 vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 172@2004½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14-02-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@62@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.02.2019.

[No. L-41012/62/98–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 18^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 172/2004

1. The Chief Project Manager-I,

Western Railway, Station Building,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Dy. Chief Engineer (C),

Western Railway,

Opp. Platform No. 4, Kalupur Railway Station,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Parties

V/s

The President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar, Near New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/62/98–IR(B-I)

dated 10.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad that the employee Shri Inderjeet

Singh, IOW under CPM, Ahmedabad is entitled for promotion as IOW Gr.II in the scale of 1600-2600 at par

with his junior Shri O.P. Agarwal, IOW Gr. III is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned

employee is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 10.03.1999 and received on 17.03.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

Shri R.S. Sisodiya on behalf of The President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Near New Railway Colony, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad stated that he does not want to prosecute the case.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 23] 2019@iQkYxqu 4] 1940

885

From the schedule of the reference, the workman is Inspector of Works in the pay scale of 1600-2600 on the

date of reference that is 10.05.1999 and also on a supervisory post. In the year 1999, a workman who was drawing wages

for than Rs.1600/- and also serving on a supervisory post does not come within the definition of the workman.

Thus the reference was not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act on

the date when the reference was made.

Thus the reference is disposed of as not maintainable.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 271-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lh,e,l flD;ksfjVht fyfeVsM izca/k rarz 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 vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14-02-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@70@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.02.2019.

[No. L-12012/70/2016– IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 08^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 75/2017

The Director,

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd.,

201, Arcadia Building, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400021

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Deepakbhai Jagannath Tiwari,

Room No. 2, Baba Nagar Society,

Parivar Char Rasta, Opp. Sreenathdham Society,

Vaghodia Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/70/2016–IR(B-I)

dated 09.08.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 23, 2019/PHALGUNA 4, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of

Shri Deepakbhai Jagannath Tiwari, Ex. Armed Guard w.e.f. 30.05.2015 is legal, just and proper? If not, to what

relief the concerned applicant workman is entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 09.08.2017 and received on 21.08.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After receiving the reference from Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notices were

issued to both the parties. The second party workman Deepakbhai Jagannath Tiwari submitted the statement of claim Ex.

6 on 07.03.2018 along with the power of attorney of Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar vide Ex. 5 while the first party

management M/s CMS Securitas Ltd., Mumbai despite service as the acknowledgement of service Ex. 3 was received in

the Tribunal, did not prefer to submit the written statement. The Tribunal also waited for the response of the first party

M/s. CMS Securitas Ltd. on 03.05.2018, 07.06.2018, 03.07.2018 and 14.08.2018 but to no result. Therefore, on

14.08.2018, the Tribunal ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party M/s CMS Securitas Ltd.

3. The second party workman Deepakbhai Jagannath Tiwari in his statement of claim Ex. 6 has alleged that he was

appointed as armed guard w.e.f. 05.06.2003 by the first party M/s CMS Securitas Ltd. He used to perform the duty of

armed guard in escorting cash van engaged in collection and delivery of cash on various branches and ATMs of