3736 GI/2019
(5743)
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- 31]
ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 28—vxLr 3] 2019] '[email protected] 6—Jko.k 12] 1941
No. 31]
NEW DELHI, JULY 28—AUGUST 3, 2019, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 6— SRAVANA—12, 1941
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)
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश
िवदेश मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(सी.पी.वी.
सी.पी.वी.
सी.पी.वी.
सी.पी.वी. भाग
भाग
भाग
भाग)
नई दली, 17 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1357
1357
1357
1357.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एत%ारा, क & सरकार भारत के (धान कसलावास, जलालाबाद म )ी िव*म +संह रावत, सहायक अनुभाग
अिधकारी को दनांक 17 जुलाई 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा1 के िनव2हन के िलए
(ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2017]
टी. अजु67ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)
5744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2019
S.O. 1357.—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 VIKRAM SINGH
RAWAT, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Jalalabad to perform the
Consular services with effect from 17 July 2019.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
नई द ली, 17 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1358.
1358.
1358.
1358.-—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एत%ारा, क & सरकार भारत के उ9ायोग, वे+लं7टन म )ी अनुभव वा;ण<य, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक
17 जुलाई 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा1 के िनव2हन के िलए (ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]
टी. अजु67ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2019
S.O. 1358.—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 Anubhav Varshney,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Wellington to perform the
Consular services with effect from 17 July 2019.
[No.T-4330/01/2015]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
नई द ली, 17 जुलाई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1359
1359
1359
1359.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एत%ारा, क & सरकार भारत के (धान कसलावास, दुबई म )ी िहतेश, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को
दनांक 17 जुलाई 2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधका=रय के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा1 के िनव2हन के िलए (ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/03/2018]
टी. अजु67ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2019
S.O. 1359.—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 HITESH, Assistant
Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the Consular services
with effect from 17th July 2019 .
[No.T-4330/03/2018]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5745
नई द ली, 19 जुलाई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1360
1360
1360
1360.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क
धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।
एत%ारा, क & सरकार भारत के दूतावास, वासा2 म )ी पंकज गग2, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक 19 जुलाई
2019 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा1 के िनव2हन के िलए (ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]
टी. अजु67ला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019
S.O. 1360.—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 PANKAJ GARG,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Warsaw to perform the Consular services
with effect from 19 July, 2019.
[No. T-4330/01/2016]
T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग
मुंबई, 12 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1361
1361
1361
1361.—के>&ीय सरकार, परमाणु ऊजा2 िवभाग के (शासिनक िनयं@ण के अधीन टाटा Aमारक क &, मुंबई,
िजसके 80% से अिधक कम2चा=रय ने +हंदी का काय2साधक Cान (ाD कर िलया है, को राजभाषा िनयम (संघ के शासक य
(योजन के िलए (योग) 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म अिधसूिचत करती है ।
[सं. 6/7/2019-+हंदी]
संजय कुमार, संयुH सिचव ((शासन एवं लेखा)
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
Mumbai, the 12th July, 2019
S.O. 1361.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, under the administrative
control of the Department of Atomic Energy, where more than 80% staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 6/7/2019-Hindi]
SANJAY KUMAR, Jt. Secy. (A&A)
5746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
वािणय और उोग मंालय
वािणय और उोग मंालय
वािणय और उोग मंालय
वािणय और उोग मंालय
(वािणय
वािणय
वािणय
वािणय िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई द ली, 19 जुलाई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1362
1362
1362
1362.—साव2जिनक प=रसर (अनिधकृत कJजाधारक क बेदखली) अिधिनयम 1971 (1971 के 40) क
धारा 3 के Nारा (दO शिHय का (योग करते Pए क & सरकार एतदNारा िनQिलिखत तािलका के कॉलम (1) म उिलिखत
अिधकारी को सरकार के राजपि@त अिधकारी Aतर के समतुय अिधकारी होते Pए उH अिधिनयम के आशय से द Aटेट Rे+डंग
कापTरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड म संपदा अिधकारी िनयुH करती है जो (दO शिHय का (योग कर गे और उH तािलका के
कॉलम (2) म संगत (िविW म उिलिखत साव2जिनक प=रसर के संबंध म उH अिधिनयम के Nारा अथवा के तहत संपदा
अिधकारी पर लागू कत2X का िनवा2ह कर गे।
तािलका
(1)
(2)
)ी पंकज +संह, संयुH महा(बंधक
)
कानून
(
, द Aटेट Rे+डंग
कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड, जवाहर Xापार भवन, टॉलAटॉय माग2,
नई दली।
कोई भी प=रसर जो एसटीसी से संबंिधत हो अथवा
एसटीसी Nारा या क और से पZे अथवा लाइस स पर िलया
गया हो िजसम इसके आवासीय प=रसर के साथ-साथ
काया2लय प=रसर, भूिम, कोई अ>य प=रसर या कोई भवन या
कसी भवन का िहAसा, उसम बगीचा, मैदान तथा ऐसे भवन
अथवा भवन के िहAसे आद से संबंिधत आउटहाउस, यद
कोई हो, को शािमल करते Pए।
[फा. सं. 6/6/2006-एफ़टी(एसटी)]
राम िनवास, सहायक िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019
S.O. 1362.— In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the
Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officer in State
Trading Corporation of India Limited, for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and
perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act, in respect of the Public Premises specified in the
corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.
TABLE
(1)
(2)
Shri Pankaj Singh, Joint General Manager (Law), State
Trading Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar
Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.
Any. Premises belonging to, or taken on Lease or
License by, or on behalf of the STC which includes its
Residential premises as well as Office Premises, Land,
any other Premises or any building or part of a building
including garden, grounds and outhouses, if any,
pertaining to such building or part of a building etc.
[F. No. 6/6/2006-FT(ST)]
RAM NIWAS, Assistant Director
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5747
नागर िवमानन मंालय
नागर िवमानन मंालय
नागर िवमानन मंालय
नागर िवमानन मंालय
नई द ली, 24 जुलाई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1363
1363
1363
1363.—इस मं@ालय के दनांक 16.12.2014 क अिधसूचना सं. एवी.24011/2/2013-एएआई के *म म ,
क & सरकार एतदNारा )ी अनुज अगरवाल को सदA य (मानव संसाधन), भारतीय िवमानप_ तन (ािधकरण के पद पर उनके
काय2काल को वेतनमान `पये 1,80,000-3,40,000/- (संशोिधत) म , 30.11.2019 से आगे 28.02.2023 तक, अथा2त
उनक सेवािनवृिO क तारीख, अथवा आगामी आदेश तक, जो पहले हो, तक बढ़ाया जाता है।
[फा. सं. एवी.-24011/6/2018-एएआई-मोका]
पी. जे. थॉमस, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1363.—In continuation of this Ministry’s Notification No.AV.24011/2/2013-AAI dated 16.12.2014, the
Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri Anuj Aggarwal as Member (Human Resource), Airports Authority
of India in the scale of pay of Rs.1,80,000-3,40,000/- (revised) beyond 30.11.2019 till 28.02.2023, i.e. the date of his
superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. AV-24011/6/2018-AAI-MOCA]
P. J. THOMAS, Under Secy.
पैोिलयम
पैोिलयम
पैोिलयम
पैोिलयम और
और
और
और ाकृितक
ाकृितक
ाकृितक
ाकृितक गैस मंालय
गैस मंालय
गैस मंालय
गैस मंालय
नई दली, 30 जुलाई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1364
1364
1364
1364.—क &ीय सरकार, पैRोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन क धारा 2 खंड (ए) के अनुसरण म (भूिम म
उपयोग के अिधकार का अज2न) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50), उH अिधिनयम के अधीन पिbम बंगाल राcय के अंतग2त
नुमालीगढ़ =रफाइनरी िलिमटेड क भारत बां7लादेश मै@ी पाइपलाइन (IBFPL) का भारतीय िहAसे का 5.16 कमी.
िसलीगुड़ी माक< fटंग टgम2नल से अंतरा2hीय बोड2र तक िबछाने हेतु नीचे दी गयी सारणी म वgण2त (ािधकारी के उH अिधिनयम
के अंतग2त सjम (ािधकारी के कायT का िनव2हन करने के िलए एतदNारा (ािधकृत करती है, अथा2त् :
(ािधकारी का पदनाम
अिधकार का jे@
अित=रH िजला मिजARेट (LA) दाgज2+लंग
पिbम बंगाल राcय के अंतग2त
[फा. सं. आर-11020 (23)/1/2019-ओआर-I)/ई-28563]
शा>तनु धर, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2019
S.O. 1364.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the Authority mentioned in the
table below to perform the functions of Competent Authority in the state of West Bengal under the said Act for laying
5.16 Km. of India Bangladesh Friendship Pipeline (IBFPL) of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. from Siliguri Marketing
Terminal to International Border, namely :
5748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Designation of Authority
Area of Jurisdiction
Additional District Magistrate
Within State of West Bengal
(LA) Darjeeling, West Bengal
[F. No. R-11020(23)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28563]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1365-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy
cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] vgenuxj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15@2015½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@04@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/04/2015-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDNAGAR BEFORE SHRI B.R. GUPTA, PRESIDING OFFICER
Reference (IT) No.15 of 2015
(CNR No. MHIC160008152015)
Between :
1.
Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandramukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
2.
The Regional Manager,
Regional Office, 5/5/72,
Usmanpura, Aurangabad.
3.
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
M.I.D.C. Nagapur, Ahmednagar
4.
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Branch at Shrigonda,
Tal.: Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar.
…First Party
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5749
And
Abasaheb Annasaheb Kale
At: Baburdi, Post : Madhewadgaon,
Tal.: Shrigonda, Dist.: Ahmednagar
…Second Party
Reference U/s-10(1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
Appearance :
Smt. T.T.Kakad, Advocate for First Party
Shri A.V.Patil, Advocate Second Party
AWARD
(Delivered on 04-07-2019)
1.
The present Reference is referred by Central Government by letter dated 24-7-2015 to adjudicate the dispute
between Central Bank of India & others (the first party, for short) and Abasaheb Annasaheb Kale (the second party, for
short) for adjudication on the issue,
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
Ahmednagar by not regularizing the services of Shri Abasaheb Annasaheb Kale is justified ? If not, to what relief
the workman Shri Abasaheb Annasaheb Kale is entitled to ?”.
2.
Second party filed Statement of Claim vide Exh.U-2. As per his contention he was appointed by first party no.4
as safai kamgar on 3-5-2004. He was posted to work as Safai Kamgar at Shrigonda. There he worked from 3-5-2004 to
31-8-2010 and thereafter from 6-9-2010 to 31-5-2010 he worked at Pimpalgaon Pisa Branch, Tal. Shrigonda. During said
period first party no.4 bank was making payment at the rate of Rs. Rs .50/- per day to him. He also contended that inspite
of posting as safai kamagar he was doing clerical work also in the bank in addition to sweeping work of premises of the
bank. He was also performing work on holidays. He also contended that his appointment was made on vacant post of
sweeper. Previously on said post one Chandrakant Pokale was working however he was promoted and therefore on his
place second party worker was appointed. As per his contention first party was not making payment of salary to him as
per Minimum Wages Act as well as per circulars issued by first party regarding payment of permanent employee.
Moreover, he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in each year but inspite of that he was not regularized in
service. Moreover from 1-6-2011 first party not provided any work to second party inspite of his several request and
representation from time to time. He also contended that the work which he was doing is of permanent nature. Moreover
said post is vacant. He is also having required qualification for said post. Even first party had also made advertisement
for fulfillment of said post in the year 2013 but subsequently without any reason cancelled said recruitment process. He
also contended that subsequently first party appointed some other persons as temporary safai kamagar and they were
given promotion in sub staff category though they were juniors from him. Accordingly as per him said act of first party is
not legal. Accordingly, he requested that directions may be given to first party to regularize second party from date of his
first appointment i.e. 3-9-2004 and also pay him difference of wages and other consequential relief attached with
regularization at par with permanent employees.
3.
First party appeared and resisted the claim by filing their reply and W.S. at Exh.C-3. They denied all the
contention of second party regarding his appointment in the post of sweeper and subsequently discontinuation from
service. They also denied his contention that they used to take work of clerical nature from first party in addition to
sweeping. They denied contention that second party was appointed on 3-5-2004 and worked till 31-8-2010 and thereafter
from 6-9-2010 to 31-5-2011 they also denied that in every year second party had worked for more than 240 days and
entitled for regularization. As per their contention they given work to second party as per availability of work on daily
wages and made payment of the same as per rates of daily wager prevailing at that time. They also contended that due to
in-availability of work first party discontinued second party from service from June 2011. Subsequently, first party no.4
had given advertisement for recruitment on 11-2-2013. However subsequently Ahmednagar regional office shifted to
Aurangabad regional office. Due to shifting and some managerial decisions said advertisement of recruitment was
cancelled. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of second party that deliberately first party cancelled
recruitment process of 2013. Accordingly, they contented that second party has not acquired the legal right for
continuation in service or to regularize him in the post of sweeper. Accordingly, they requested to reject the claim of
second party.
5750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
On the basis of pleading my predecessor framed issues below Exh.O-7 after hearing argument of Shri Patil
Advocate for second party and Smt. Kakad Advocate for first party I have recorded my findings against those issues for
reason given below.
Sr. No.
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.
Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to permanency,
with benefits as claimed ?
No.
2.
Whether relief /Award ?
As per final Award.
REASONS
ISSUE No. 1. :
5.
In this respect second party examined himself on oath vide Exh.U-16 and deposed as per contentions made in
his statement of claim. He also produced some documentary evidence with list Exh.U-4, U-5, U-15 & U-18. Documents
are application of second party for appointment in recruitment process in the year 2013 and different circulars of first
party and copy of recovery register in the handwriting of second party and some vouchers.
6.
In cross examination he given admission that first party bank is nationalized bank. He also admit that in the
year 2004 said bank had not given any advertisement to fill up post of sweeper. He also admit that he had neither given
application for appointment in the bank, nor there is any written order to appoint him in the post of sweeper. Even there
is no agreement with bank for his appointment. Bank also not given any appointment letter to him. He admit that his
name was not appearing in attendance register. Even he was not authorized to sign on any record of bank. He admit that
bank used to give him work whenever work available with bank. He given admission that on 25-1-2013 first party bank
had given advertisement for appointment of part time sweeper. However, subsequently Ahmednagar regional office
shifted to Aurangabad and therefore said advertisement cancelled.
7.
On the other hand in defence first party examined Bajrang Shinde, branch manager at Shrigonda vide Exh. C-19
and Santosh Kumar branch manager, Pimpalgaon Pisa Tal. Shrigonda vide Exh. C-25. They also deposed as per
contentions made in their W.S.
8.
As per deposition of first witness i.e. Bajrang Shinde he is working at Shrigonda branch from June 2018 and
therefore he has know personal knowledge regarding incident prior to 2018. As per him on the basis of record he is
having said knowledge. He also deposed that he has not perused record regarding work of second party for the period
3-5-2004 to 31-8-2010. Previous record is not available in the bank. He also given admission that during period 2004 to
2010 second party to work at Shrigonda branch and from 6-9-2010 to 31-5-2011 he had worked at Pimpagoan Pisa
Branch in their bank.
9.
Second witness i.e. Santosh Kumar also deposed in same manner. As per his deposition he is working at
Pimpalgaon Pisa from 5-5.2017. He also deposed that in the bank there is no record regarding work of second party. He
also deposed that he do not know whether second party worked in their bank from 6-9-2010 to 31-5-2018.
10.
From evidence led by both the parties and admissions given by them in their cross-examination it appears that
second party had worked in first party bank at Shrigonda and Pimpalgaon Pisa as sweeper during disputed period i.e.
3-5-2004 to 31-8-2010 and then 6-9-2010 to 31-5-2011. From admission of second party it also appears that bank was
provided him work as per availability of work with bank and subsequently from June 2011 he discontinued from service.
It appears that after four years of discontinuance second party raised Industrial Dispute regarding his regularization and
therefore present reference sent by government for adjudication.
11.
From evidence of second party it appears that his appointment as sweeper was not made on vacant post by due
advertisement and by following due process of law. Even there is no appointment order in writing. Admittedly, first party
is nationalized bank and therefore, he has no legal right to fill up the post arbitrary. Moreover, being bank institution first
party has to follow prescribed procedure of recruitment process and also adhere to provisions of constitution under article
14 & 16. Moreover in government service back door entry is not allowed.
12.
In this respect at the time of argument counsel of first party also cited one Constitution bench judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612/1999
decided on 10-4-2006) wherein in para no. 34 it is held that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a
basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article-14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need of comply
with the requirements of Article-14 read with Article-16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for
public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the
appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5751
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to and end when it is discontinued.
Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has
also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as
envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their
appointment, do not acquire any right.
13.
On the other hand Shri Patil Advocate for second party argued that cations given by counsel of first party is not
helpful in present case. As per him in subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the ratio laid down in Uma Devi's
case by Constitution bench is diluted. As per his submission constitution bench judgment is mainly on the law regarding
articles 14 & 16 of Constitution. However, provisions of labour law were directly not involved in said case. Moreover, as
per said judgment also only illegal appointment were prohibited. However, irregular appointment were not held illegal.
As per his submission in present case second party had worked continuously for long period but inspite of them he is not
confirmed in service. As per his submission as per provisions of Labour Laws and Model Standing Orders second party
should have been confirmed in service. He also pointed out cross-examination of bank witness and submitted that bank
tried to suppress some material facts regarding work of second party. As per him work of sweeper is of permanent nature
but bank without making regular appointment getting done said work through daily wager and therefore, said act of bank
amounts to unfair labour practice. As per him on the basis of admitted facts brought in evidence second party should be
confirmed in service. He also drawn my attention towards circular of bank filed on record.
14.
On law point he also cited some judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e.
1.
O.N.G.C. Ltd., Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others ( 2015 (2) Bom.LC, 239 (SC))
2.
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others ( 2008 (116) FLR,1172 (SC)).
15.
In first citation workers were firstly working in corporation through contractors, subsequently through the Co-
operative Society, and then memorandum of appointment issued to each one of the concerned workmen in the year 1988
and thereafter, continuing them in their services in the posts by the Corporation without following proper procedure. On
that ground it is held that on the basis of those irregularity appointment of those workers cannot be termed up as illegal.
Moreover, it is also held that those appointment were not objected to by any other authority of the corporation at any
point of time and they continued for years together as per appointment order. Considering said aspect appeal of O.N.G.
Corporation was dismissed.
16.
In second citation it is held that decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi's case cannot be applied to a case where
regularization has been sought for in pursuance of article 14 of Constitution. Article 14 would be violated on the ground
of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
17.
In present case in my hand appointment of second party is not made by following due process of law. Even
there is no appointment of second party in writing. From evidence it appears that without any appointment letter second
party worked in the bank as sweeper. From evidence it also appears that there was no recruitment process for
appointment of sweeper in the bank. Even there was no such advertisement to recruit sweepers. From evidence it appears
that second party appointed by oral order to perform work of sweeper. From evidence it also appears that he was doing
some other workers in the bank as per say of bank manager. Therefore, his appointment cannot be termed as legal
appointment as per rules and regulations of bank.
18.
Admittedly first party bank is nationalized bank and he has to follow legal procedure and rules and regulation
regarding recruitment of employee. He has no right to make appointment of employee arbitrarily. Moreover, only on the
basis that second party worked in the bank for some period as sweeper on daily wages he cannot get legal right to
regularize in service. First party is bound to follow the guideline judgment of Hon'ble Constitution bench of Apex Court
in Uma Devi's case cited (Supra) any appointment contrary to procedure laid down in said judgment is illegal. Moreover,
no worker could be regularized whose entry in service is back door entry.
19.
In present case appointment of second party appears back door entry without following any procedure of
recruitment. Moreover, there is no evidence that sanctioned post of Sweeper is vacant in the bank. Therefore, second
party cannot get any legal right to regularize in service. The circular filed on record are also not helpful to second party.
In those circular also there is no guideline to regularize the part time daily wager in service on completion of certain
period. As per those circular, part time daily wage worker are given some relaxation mainly on age limit for making
application in regular recruitment process.
20.
The citations given by counsel of second party are also not helpful to him in present case. In those cases the
worker had worked in the corporation for long period firstly through contractor then through society and subsequently
there was agreement with Labour Union. In view of said fact and agreement with union management had absorbed them
5752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by making specific appointment orders and continuing them for long time. In that context it is held that minor irregularity
in appointment is not fettle and on that ground appeal was dismissed. In second citation also it is held that Uma Devi's
case is not applicable in the case when provisions of article 14 are not violated. However, in present case if directions to
regularize second party is given it will amount to violations of provisions of article 14 of Constitution.
21.
As per articles 14 and 16 of Constitution their shall be equality before law in respect of public appointment and
State has to give equal opportunity to all in respect of public appointment. In view of that directions given in Uma Devi's
case that public appointment should be made by giving public advertisement and following recruitment process as per
rules and regulation framed by government. In present case no such procedure is followed and therefore, I hold that no
relief of regularization of second party can be given to him. Hence, I answer issue no.1 in negative and proceed to pass
the following Award:-
AWARD
1.
The action of management of Central Bank, not regularizing the services of second party Abasaheb
Annasaheb Kale is legal and valid.
2.
The request of second party to regularize him in service with consequential benefits and difference of wages
cannot be accepted.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly.
4.
Award be drawn accordingly and sent to Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/ Shram
Mantralaya, New Delhi for publication.
B. R. GUPTA, Presiding Officer
Date: 04.07.2019
Sd/-
Secretary,
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar
Argued on
: 26-06-2019
Judgment dictated on
: 04-07-2019
Judgment transcribed on
: 05-07-2019
Judgment checked & signed on
: 05-07-2019
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1366-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy
cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] vgenuxj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 14@2015½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@05@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/05/2015-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5753
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDNAGAR BEFORE SHRI B.R. GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER
Reference (IT) No.14 of 2015
(CNR No.MHIC160008072015)
Between:
1.
Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandramukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
2.
The Regional Manager,
Regional Office, 5/5/72,
Usmanpura, Aurangabad.
3.
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
M.I.D.C. Nagapur, Ahmednagar
4.
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Branch at Madhewadgaon
Tal.: Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar.
.. First Party
And
Bhishekkumar Ambar Patil,
At Po.: Madhewadgaon,
Tal.: Shrigonda, Dist.: Ahmednagar
.. Second Party
Reference U/s-10(1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
Appearance : Smt. T.T.Kakad, Advocate for First Party
Shri A.V.Patil, Advocate Second Party
AWARD
(Delivered on 04-07-2019)
1.
The present Reference is referred by Central Government by letter dated 9-3-2015 to adjudicate the dispute
between Central Bank of India & others (the first party, for short) and Bhishekkumar Ambar Patil (the second party, for
short) for adjudication on the issue,
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
Ahmednagar by not regularizing the services of Shri Bhishekkumar Ambar Patil is justified ? If not, to what
relief the workman Shri Bhishekkumar Ambar Patil is entitled to ?”.
2.
Second party filed Statement of Claim vide Exh.U-2. As per his contention he was appointed by first party no.4
as part time safai kamgar on 8-1-2007. He was posted to work as Safai Kamgar at Madhevadgaon branch, Tal.
Shrigonda. There he worked from 8-1-2007 to 30-9-2008 and thereafter from 7-7-2010 to 19-7-2011 during said period
first party no.4 bank was making payment at the rate of Rs. Rs .40/- per day to him. He also contended that inspite of
posting as part time safai kamagar he was doing clerical work also in the bank in addition to sweeping work of premises
of the bank. He was also performing work on holidays. He also contended that his appointment was made on vacant post
of sweeper. Previously on said post one Kothambire was working however he was promoted and therefore on his place
second party worker was appointed. As per his contention first party was not making payment of salary to him as per
Minimum Wages Act as well as per circulars issued by first party regarding payment of permanent employee. Moreover,
he had continuously worked for more than 190 days in each year but inspite of that he was not regularized in service.
Moreover from 20-7-2011 first party not provided any work to second party inspite of his several request and
representation from time to time. He also contended that the work which was doing is of permanent nature. Moreover
5754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
said post is vacant. He is also having required qualification for said post. Even first party had also made advertisement
for fulfillment of said post in the year 2013 but subsequently without any reason cancelled said recruitment process. He
also contended that subsequently first party appointed some other persons as temporary safai kamagar and they were
given promotion in sub staff category though they were juniors from him. Accordingly as per him said act of first party is
not legal. Accordingly, he requested that directions may be given to first party to regularize second party from date of his
first appointment i.e. 8-1-2007 and also pay him difference of wages and other consequential relief attached with
regularization at par with permanent employees.
3. First party appeared and resisted the claim by filing their reply and W.S. at Exh.C-3. They denied all the contention of
second party regarding his appointment in the post of part time sweeper and subsequently discontinuation from service.
They also denied his contention that they used to take work of clerical nature from first party in addition to sweeping.
They denied contention that second party was appointed on 8-1-2007 and worked till 30-9-2008 and thereafter from
7-7-2010 to 19-7-2011 they also denied that in every year second party had worked for more than 190 days and entitled
for regularization. As per their contention they given work to second party as per availability of work on daily wages and
made payment of the same as per rates of daily wager prevailing at that time. They also contended that due to in-
availability of work first party discontinued second party from service from 20-7-2011. Subsequently, first party no.4 had
given advertisement for recruitment on 11-2-2013. However subsequently Ahmednagar regional office shifted to
Aurangabad regional office. Due to shifting and some managerial decisions said advertisement of recruitment was
cancelled. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of second party that deliberately first party cancelled
recruitment process of 2013. Accordingly, they contented that second party has not acquired the legal right for
continuation in service or to regularize him in the post of sweeper. Accordingly, they requested to reject the claim of
second party.
4. On the basis of pleading my predecessor framed issues below Exh.O-7 after hearing argument of Shri Patil Advocate
for second party and Smt. Kakad Advocate for first party I have recorded my findings against those issues for reason
given below.
Sr. No.
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.
Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to permanency/regularization
in service with benefits as claimed ?
No.
2.
Whether relief /Award ?
As per final Award.
REASONS
ISSUE No. 1. :
5.
In this respect second party examined himself on oath vide Exh.U-16 and deposed as per contentions made in
his statement of claim. He also produced some documentary evidence with list Exh.U-5, U-6 and U-15. Documents are
application of second party for appointment in recruitment process in the year 2013 and different circulars of first party
and some vouchers.
6.
In cross examination he given admission that first party bank is nationalized bank. He also admit that in the year
2007 said bank had not given any advertisement to fill up post of part time sweeper. He also admit that he had neither
given application for appointment in the bank, nor there is any written order to appoint him in the post of sweeper. Even
there is no agreement with bank for his appointment. Bank also not given any appointment letter to him. He admit that
his name was not appearing in attendance register. Even he was not authorized to sign on any record of bank. He admit
that bank used to give him work whenever work available with bank. He given admission that on 25-1-2013 first party
bank had given advertisement for appointment of part time sweeper. However, subsequently Ahmednagar regional office
shifted to Aurangabad and therefore said advertisement cancelled.
7.
On the other hand in defence first party examined Amit Ghodeswar, branch manager at Madhevadgaon vide
Exh. C-21. He also deposed as per contentions made in their W.S. As per his deposition he is working at Madhevadgaon
branch from 24-8-2016 and therefore he has know personal knowledge regarding incident prior to 2016. As per him on
the basis of record he is having said knowledge. He also deposed that in their bank record available from 2011 only.
Previous record is not available in the bank. He also deposed that in absence of record he cannot tell whether second
party was working in the bank prior to 2011. However at the same time he stated that he learnt from their Daftary that in
the year 2007-2008 second party was working in the bank on daily wages. He also admit that during said period second
party was also performing work of providing tea, doing xerox work and also accompanying in the recovery proceeding.
He also given admission that during period 8-1-2007 to 30-9-2008 and 7-7-2010 to 19-7-2011 second party had worked
in their bank. As per his deposition except criteria of continuous work of 45 days second party fulfilled other criteria of
work as per bank circular.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5755
8.
From evidence led by both the parties and admissions given by them in their cross-examination it appears that
second party had worked in first party bank at Madhevadgaon branch as part time sweeper during disputed period i.e.
8-1-2007 to 30-9-2008 and then 7-7-2010 to 19-7-2011. From admission of second party it also appears that bank had
provided him work as per availability of work with bank and subsequently from 20-7-2011 he discontinued from service.
It appears that after four years of discontinuance second party raised Industrial Dispute regarding his regularization and
therefore present reference sent by government for adjudication.
9.
From evidence of second party it appears that his appointment as part time sweeper was not made on vacant
post by due advertisement and by following due process of law. Even there is no appointment order in writing.
Admittedly, first party is nationalized bank and therefore, he has no legal right to fill up the post arbitrary. Moreover,
being bank institution first party has to follow prescribed procedure of recruitment process and also adhere to provisions
of constitution under article 14 & 16. Moreover in government service back door entry is not allowed.
10.
In this respect at the time of argument counsel of first party also cited one Constitution bench judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612/1999
decided on 10-4-2006) wherein in para no. 34 it is held that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a
basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article-14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need of comply
with the requirements of Article-14 read with Article-16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for
public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the
appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to and end when it is discontinued.
Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has
also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as
envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their
appointment, do not acquire any right.
11.
On the other hand Shri Patil Advocate for second party argued that cations given by counsel of first party is not
helpful in present case. As per him in subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the ratio laid down in Uma Devi's
case by Constitution bench is diluted. As per his submission constitution bench judgment is mainly on the law regarding
articles 14 & 16 of Constitution. However, provisions of labour law were directly not involved in said case. Moreover, as
per said judgment also only illegal appointment were prohibited. However, irregular appointment were not held illegal.
As per his submission in present case second party had worked continuously for long period but inspite of them he is not
confirmed in service. As per his submission as per provisions of Labour Laws and Model Standing Orders second party
should have been confirmed in service. He also pointed out cross-examination of bank witness and submitted that bank
tried to suppress some material facts regarding work of second party. He also argued that as per bank circular if
temporary worker worked for more than 60 days he may be absorbed in service. As per him work of sweeper is of
permanent nature but bank without making regular appointment getting done said work through daily wager and
therefore, said act of bank amounts to unfair labour practice. As per him on the basis of admitted facts brought in
evidence second party should be confirmed in service. He also drawn my attention towards circular of bank filed on
record.
12.
On law point he also cited some judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e.
1.
O.N.G.C. Ltd., Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others ( 2015 (2) Bom.LC, 239 (SC))
2.
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others ( 2008 (116) FLR,1172 (SC)).
13.
In first citation workers were firstly working in corporation through contractors, subsequently through the Co-
operative Society, and then memorandum of appointment issued to each one of the concerned workmen in the year 1988
and thereafter, continuing them in their services in the posts by the Corporation without following proper procedure. On
that ground it is held that on the basis of those irregularity appointment of those workers cannot be termed up as illegal.
Moreover, it is also held that those appointment were not objected to by any other authority of the corporation at any
point of time and they continued for years together as per appointment order. Considering said aspect appeal of O.N.G.
Corporation was dismissed.
14.
In second citation it is held that decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi's case cannot be applied to a case where
regularization has been sought for in pursuance of article 14 of Constitution. Article 14 would be violated on the ground
of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
5756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
In present case in my hand appointment of second party is not made by following due process of law. Even
there is no appointment of second party in writing. From evidence it appears that without any appointment letter second
party worked in the bank as part time sweeper. From evidence it also appears that there was no recruitment process for
appointment of part time sweeper in the bank. Even there was no such advertisement to recruit sweepers. From evidence
it appears that second party appointed by oral order to perform work of part time sweeper. From evidence it also appears
that he was doing some other workers in the bank as per say of bank manager. Therefore, his appointment cannot be
termed as legal appointment as per rules and regulations of bank.
16.
Admittedly first party bank is nationalized bank and he has to follow legal procedure and rules and regulation
regarding recruitment of employee. He has no right to make appointment of employee arbitrarily. Moreover, only on the
basis that second party worked in the bank for some period as part time sweeper on daily wages he cannot get legal right
to regularize in service. First party is bound to follow the guideline judgment of Hon'ble Constitution bench of Apex
Court in Uma Devi's case cited (Supra) any appointment contrary to procedure laid down in said judgment is illegal.
Moreover, no worker could be regularized whose entry in service is back door entry.
17.
In present case appointment of second party appears back door entry without following any procedure of
recruitment. Moreover, there is no evidence that sanctioned post of Sweeper is vacant in the bank. Therefore, second
party cannot get any legal right to regularize in service. The circular filed on record are also not helpful to second party.
In those circular also there is no guideline to regularize the part time daily wager in service on completion of certain
period. As per those circular, part time worker are given some relaxation mainly on age limit for making application in
regular recruitment process.
18.
The citations given by counsel of second party are also not helpful to him in present case. In those cases the
worker had worked in the corporation for long period firstly through contractor then through society and subsequently
there was agreement with Labour Union. In view of said fact and agreement with union management had absorbed them
by making specific appointment orders and continuing them for long time. In that context it is held that minor irregularity
in appointment is not fettle and on that ground appeal was dismissed. In second citation also it is held that Uma Devi's
case is not applicable in the case when provisions of article 14 are not violated. However, in present case if directions to
regularize second party is given it will amount to violations of provisions of article 14 of Constitution.
19.
As per articles 14 and 16 of Constitution their shall be equality before law in respect of public appointment and
State has to give equal opportunity to all in respect of public appointment. In view of that directions given in Uma Devi's
case that public appointment should be made by giving public advertisement and following recruitment process as per
rules and regulation framed by government. In present case no such procedure is followed and therefore, I hold that no
relief of regularization of second party can be given to him. Hence, I answer issue no.1 in negative and proceed to pass
the following Award:-
AWARD
1.
The action of management of Central Bank, not regularizing the services of second party Bhishekkumar
Ambar Patil is legal and valid.
2.
The request of second party to regularize him in service with consequential benefits and difference of
wages cannot be accepted.
3.
Reference is answered accordingly.
4.
Award be drawn accordingly and sent to Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/ Shram
Mantralaya, New Delhi for publication.
B. R. GUPTA, Presiding Officer
Date: 04.07.2019
Sd/-
Secretary,
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar.
Argued on
: 26-06-2019
Judgment dictated on
: 04-07-2019
Judgment transcribed on
: 05-07-2019
Judgment checked & signed on
: 05-07-2019
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5757
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1367-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy
cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 774@2005½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@92@2003-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 774/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/92/2003-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.774/2005
Registered on:-05.09.2005
Sh. Sukh Kanwal Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, C/o Sh. Tek Chand Sharma,
25-Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
…Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 427-A, Regional Office,
Ghuman Mandi, Ludhiana141001.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on:-10.06.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/92/2003-IR(B-II) Dated 31.07.2003, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services of Sh. Sukh
Kanwal Singh, S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, Ex-Clerk/Cashier w.e.f. 17.05.1993 is legal and just? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the averment
that he was an employee of the respondent-bank at Branch Office Salem Tabri, Ludhiana and he was suspended vide
order dated 02.08.1989 by the Regional Manager. It is also stated that at the time of illegal suspension without specifying
any alleged misconduct for illegal suspension against the provisions contained in Para 18(20) of Desai Award. The
charge-sheet was served after 2 years from the date of suspension vide order dated 24.07.1991 under the signature of
Regional Manager, disciplinary-authority. Charge-sheet did not contain the statement of imputation of conduct, list of
witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon. Charge-sheet was issued at belated time while alleged transaction was
concerned with November 1988 to July 1989 in a discriminatory matter. The Branch Manager get an F.I.R. lodged with
Sadar Police Station, Ludhiana under relevant section falsely implicate the petition. The respondent-bank illegally
appointed I.S. Sodhi, Manager, as enquiry officer without waiting of the workman for the charge-sheet and order was not
supplied to the workman according to the rules and regulations. Petitioner/workman filed Civil Suit for mandatory
injunction against the departmental enquiry and got order of status quo in the matter of enquiry on 15.06.1992 in the
presence of the counsel of the parties. Consequently, respondent-management in order to manipulate disobedience
changed the enquiry officer vide order dated 02.11.1991 and appointed Sh. T.S. Ahluwalia as enquiry officer. ultimately
5758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was forced to participate in the enquiry under protest without any defence representative or lawyer as the same
was not allowed by the enquiry officer despite the request of the workman. During the course of enquiry, bank did not
produce the material witnesses and the relevant documents in the enquiry and proceedings were not held in the
prescribed procedure of law and continued the enquiry proceedings in ignoring the mandatory procedure of the Desai
Award read with Bipartite Settlement. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority acted vindicatively and with undue haste and
extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the workman vide order dated 17.05.1993. The disciplinary authority did
not apply its mind to the facts of the case particularly when the defence opportunity was not provided and enquiry
conducted in an illegal manner. The criminal case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, vide
judgment dated 20.09.1999, the petitioner was acquitted. The order of termination dated 11.05.1993 is illegal, wrong,
against the rules, non-speaking and the same was issued with a short notice of about 3 days without copies of enquiry and
findings and opportunity of personal hearing was denied by the management. The workman has not been able to get
alternative employment efforts and entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits of
seniority, promotion etc.
2.
Respondent-management filed its written statement, alleging therein that petitioner/workman has not made any
specific averments, if any, on the part of the enquiry officer or prejudice, if any, suffered by him which could be
examined by the Hon’ble Tribunal. Neither there is any averment that any of the witnesses produced by the management
was not permitted to be cross-examined nor there is any averment that any witness taken during enquiry refused to be
recorded by the inquiry officer. The order of suspension was legal which is followed by the dismissal after the due
enquiry reports submitted by the enquiry officer. in fact, management was watching the outcome of the police case but
no charge-sheet was submitted by the police resulting bank to submit charge-sheet dated 24.07.1991 appointing I.S.
Sodhi, Branch Manager as enquiry officer. Ultimately, enquiry officer after giving full opportunity of being heard to the
workman and furnish his enquiry report dated 03.08.1992. Regional Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority invited the
workman for personal hearing on 14.05.1993. Charge-sheeted employee was duly submitted charge-sheet along with 11
documents and list of witnesses. After that enquiry officer provided full opportunity to the workman to produce
documents in his defence. The fraud was related to the transaction of November 1988 to July 1989 as charge-sheeted
employee withdrew money from the inoperative accounts while officiating as teller in the branch. The charge-sheeted
employee defrauding the bank by forging the signatures of various accounts-holders either dead or alive made payment
to himself by fabricating vouchers and by manipulating entries in the records of the bank. The petitioner/workman
actually participated in the enquiry whereby he has not only examined by the bank witness he has also allowed to
represented by the defence representative. Enquiry proceedings were held in accordance with the Bipartite Settlement for
workman and evidence was recorded as per procedure and every opportunity was provided for cross-examination of the
witnesses which was availed by him as per procedure. After the conclusion of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry
report, claimant was served upon memo for personal appearance on 14.05.1993 but he did not appear on the said date due
to illness. Disciplinary authority provided another chance on 17.05.1993 but he was not appeared before the authority.
Ultimately, disciplinary authority passed final order which was sent to the delinquent employee through registered post
and by hand on 17.05.1993 at his last address. Acquittal of the petitioner/workman by the criminal Court bears no effect
on merit as he has acquitted by providing a benefit of doubt. It is therefore prayed that workman does not deserves to be
granted any relief and reference may kindly be answered in negative in the interest of justice.
3.
Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the parties for leading evidence. Workman has submitted his affidavit
Ex.WW1 along with 4 documents while management has submitted affidavit of sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Manager, Central
Bank of India.
4.
It is a matter of record that claimant/workman was dismissed from service on 17.05.1993 in pursuance to the
enquiry conducted by the respondent-bank. Perusal of the file shows that this Tribunal vide order dated 11.02.2016 has
held that the departmental enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner after giving proper opportunity to the
workman to defend himself as such, the enquiry was not conducted against the principle of natural justice.
5.
During the course of pendency of claim petition, workman along with learned counsel restrained from appearing
before the Tribunal, the management forcing the Tribunal to proceed with the case in the absence of the workman as well
as his counsel.
6.
Ultimately giving reasonable opportunity for the workman and his counsel to argue his case on merit about the
quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the management is heard by the Tribunal in the absence of the workman and
his counsel.
7.
Learned counsel for the management argued that action of the disciplinary authority in passing the dismissal
order is in commensurate to the gravity of misconduct proved against the workman. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the management-bank that role of the Court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the
Court cannot substitute its own views or finding arrived on the basis of the evidence available on record. In the matter of
imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited to exceptional cases. The punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be subjected to judicial review. In this connection, learned counsel of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5759
bank has drawn my attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of S.R. Tiwari Versus Union of
India (2013(7) Scale Page 417) and in the case of Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Raghudha Shiv Shankar Prasad
2007(1) RSJ Page 331 and submitted that the workman is not entitled to any leniency.
8.
There is no dispute that Section 11-A of the Act empowers this Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of
punishment in appropriate cases(see decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank
Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another 2012(2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others
2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996 SCT 436. It
is fairly settled that discretion is to be exercised judiciously in such cases where order of punishment is quite harsh &
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the official concerned on the basis of evidence on record.
9.
Perusal of enquiry report, it is crystal clear that claimant/workman was served with the charge-sheet dated
24.07.1991 imputing 7 charges regarding the withdrawal of the amount which runs as follow:-
“While working at Salem Tabri, Ludhiana branch from 2.5.1986 to 3.8.1989, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh has
committed following lapses:-
1.
While officiating as Teller on 3.7.89, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh, Clerk(U/S) made the payment to
himself of a withdrawal for Rs.300/- from an inoperative account No.166 in the name of Mr.
Jawand Singh by forging the signature of the account holder. The withdrawal slip was also filled in
by Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh. Thus he defrauded the Bank with Rs.300/-.
2.
While officiating as Teller, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh, Clerk(U/S) fraudulently made the payment of
following withdrawals to himself from inoperative HSS account No.92 of Sh. Avtar Singh Dutta by
forging the signatures of account holder. He himself has filled in these withdrawal forms. Thus he
defrauded the bank with Rs.4,500/-.
Date
Amount of withdrawal
20.04.89
Rs.2,000.00
27.04.89
Rs.1,000.00
28.04.89
Rs.1,000.00
10.05.89
Rs. 500.00
3.
While officiating as teller on 13.5.89, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh, Clerk(U/S) fraudulently made a
payment of a withdrawal of Rs.1000/- from an inoperative HSS account No.3729 in the names of
S/Shrin Subhash Chander and Sunil Kumar. Again on 12.6.89, another withdrawal for Rs.400/-
was paid to himself by forging the signature of account holder. Thus he defrauded the Bank with
Rs.1400/-.
4.
While officiating as Teller, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh with ulterior motives made following
fictitious debit entries in HSS account No.4084 of Santosh Kumari without any vouchers and
authority:
Date
Amount(Rs)
24.04.89
2,000.00
17.05.89
1,000,00
02.06.89
4,500.00
12.07.89
3,500.00
11,000.00
5.
He received the payment of following withdrawals from HSS account No.4157 of Smt. Amarjeet
Kaur and Smt. Sumitra Kaur by forging the signatures of the account holders.
Date
Amount(Rs)
04.11.88
2,000.00
08.11.88
1,000.00
16.11.88
1,000,00
27/28.12.88
2,000.00
05.01.89
1,000.00
25.01.89
150.00
11.04.89
1,000.00
01.06.89
400.00
05.06.89
1,000.00
08.06.89
300.00
10.06.89
200.00
14.06.89
2,000.00
5760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.07.89
1,200.00
20.07.89
500.00
31.07.89
1,500.00
15,250.00
Further to cover up his misdeeds he has manipulated the ledger and made following fictitious
Credit/Debit entries in the account:
Date
Amount(Rs)
Credit/Debit
13.03.89
4,400.00
Cr.
27.04.89
4,000.00
Cr.
27.04.89
2,400.00
Cr.
17.05.89
1,000.00
Cr.
02.06.89
4,500.00
Cr.
01.07.89
2,000.00
Cr.
24.07.89
1,500.00
Cr.
6.
Likewise, Mr. Sukh Kanwal Singh has also misappropriated the following amount from other
Saving Accounts:-
A/C No.
Name of A/C
Amount of
Date of
Holder
withdrawal
withdrawal
105
Balak Singh
200.00
07.07.89
158
Bakshi Ram
800.00
30.05.89
158
Bakshi Ram
1000.00
02.06.89
3829
Ajay Pal Singh & 1
000.00
13.03.89
Surinder Singh
3829
-do-
3000.00
15.04.89
3829
-do-
2000.00
26.04.89
3829
-do-
3000.00
27.04.89
3829
-do-
500.00
09.05.89
231
Bachan Singh
900.00
06.06.89
623
Satnam Kaur
400.00
17.06.89
810
Sohan Singh
1300.00
28.06.89
4175
Jujar Singh
500.00
09.05.89
1940
Gurdita Mal
2000.00
05.07.89
4179
Balwinder Singh
3000.00
16.12.88
5509
Mohinder Singh
3000.00
06.02.89
20,600.00
10.
Enquiry officer I.S. Sodhi has submitted his inquiry report running more than 14 pages holding that all the
charges were proved against the workman and the concluding para of the enquiry report read as follows:-
“The CSO has not contested any of the issues raised in this charge and did not produce any oral or
documentary evidence to rebut this charge. Except that he had been asking the witness, whether the entries in
the ledger/books have been done in their(witnesses) presence and that whether any document is bearing the
initials or signatures of the witnesses during cross examination. The CSO has no where tried to prove that he
has not made the entries in different books/ledgers. And that he has not filled the different withdrawals in
question. And that he has not made/taken the payments as deposed by different witnesses during the course of
the enquiry.
Therefore, I can decidedly conclude that the CSE has misappropriated the amounts from Saving Accounts, as
mentioned in this charge.”
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5761
11.
Question which arises for consideration is whether punishment of termination is in proportionate to the
charges proved against the charge-sheeted employee/workman. Considering the scope of judicial review on the quantum
of punishment and referring to various cases in Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2013(4) S.C.T. 607:
(2013) 11 SCC 187, the Apex Court held as under:-
“What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily
rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order on
punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it
is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is
challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority
in determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so
outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that
it is wholly unreasonable. The superior courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which
has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that it so excessive or
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when
courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject
is well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court…..”
12.
Similarly, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Oths. Vs. Vidyabhushan
Mahapatra (1963) Supply 1 S.C.R. 648 opined that even if the charges which have been proved justified imposition of
punishment of dismissal from service this Court may not exercised its power of judicial review. Thus, it is made clear by
the Division Bench that power of judicial review is rare jurisdiction confirmed to the Tribunal as well as High Court
which could be exercised in rare manner going thorough the facts and the gravity of the charges proved during the course
of enquiry by the management. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management
of Usha Breco and Oths., Civil Appeal No.3551/2008 decided on 29.04.2008, has held that:-
“It may not be a correct approach for a superior court to proceed on the premise that an Act is a beneficent
legislation in favour of the management or the workmen. The provisions of the statute must be construed having
regard to the tenor of the terms used by the Parliament. The court must construe that statutory provision with a
view to uphold the object and purport of the Parliament. It is only in a case where there exists a grey area and
the court feels difficulty in interpreting or in construing and applying the statute, the doctrine of beneficent
construction can be taken recourse to. Even in cases where such a principle is resorted to, the same would not
mean that the statute should be interpreted in a manner which would take it beyond the object and purport
thereof.”
13.
It is settled law that punishment of the penalty to be imposed by the disciplinary authority against the charge-
sheeted official is to be commensurate with the gravity of alleged misconduct. Undoubtedly, an Industrial Tribunal in
terms of Section 11-A of the Act exercises discretionary jurisdiction. Indisputably, discretion must be exercised
judiciously and it cannot be based on whims and caprices and should be based to all relevant factors in mind in
exercising such jurisdiction. The nature of the misconduct alleged the conduct of the parties the manner in which the
enquiry proceedings had been conducted may be held to be relevant factor. A misconduct committed with an intention
deserves the maximum punishment. Each case must be decided on its own merits and in given case when the doctrine of
proportionality may be invoked.
14.
Perusal of charges framed against the accused are relevant for the purpose of deciding proportionality of the
punishment. Charges framed and proved against the delinquent employee relates to the withdrawal of the amount by
forging withdrawal slip/vouchers of such an accounts-holders who were either dead or whose account was not
operational at relevant time. It is also pertinent to mention that sequences of alleged defraud of workman runs from
02.05.1986 to 03.08.1989 in between he withdrew a huge amount of the accounts holders by forging the signature of
accounts-holders and defrauding the bank and demising the credibility of the bank towards their respected accounts-
holders. It is also clear that workman in order to cover his misdeeds has also mislead the ledger and also made fictitious
entries in the respective accounts.
15.
It would be not out of place to mention that workman is acquitted in criminal case by the Learned Magistrate,
giving the benefit of doubt under relevant section he was charged. It is pertinent to mention that in a criminal case could
be not bar for drawing the disciplinary authority against the delinquent official. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of
case consequently has held that acquittal in a criminal case could be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding
against the delinquent official. It is well settled principle of law that the yardstick and standard of rule in a criminal case
is put from a criminal case while the standard of proof in a criminal case is proved beyond the reasonable doubt is in a
departmental proceedings is reasons in a probabilities. Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Suresh Pathraila Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce 2007(3) R.S.J. Vol.69, decided on 19.10.2005.
The order of my learned predecessor regarding the fairness of enquiry has become final in which it is held that enquiry
has been conducted in reasonable manner after giving reasonable opportunity to the workman. There is no doubt that
5762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was employed as a Clerk at the relevant time and he has misappropriated the amount of several accounts-
holders during the period November 1988 to July 1989 and was found guilty during the course of enquiry resulting the
dismissal by the competent authority of the management. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager,
U.P.SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, 2003(3) SCC, 605, has held in paragraph 10 as under:-
‘‘If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt
with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a
fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust worthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in
that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside
the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal.”
This view is further fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United
Commecrial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar, 2003(4) SCC 364, has held in paragraph 14 as under:-
“A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of
the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to
protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are
inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996(9) SCC 69. It is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without
authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers
and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach
of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious.
These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”
16.
Having gone through the above factual and legal position, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that
punishment of dismissal is in commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman who defrauded
not only the accounts-holders as well as trust of the accounts-holders towards the management-bank. In such scenario,
dismissal of the workman Sukh Kanwal Singh is inconsonance with the misconduct/offences committed by him as such,
he is not entitled for any relief and petition is liable to be dismissed.
17.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for
publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1368-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bafM;u ,;jykbal fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 19@2013½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@19@2012-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23nd July, 2019
S.O. 1368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New
Delhi (Ref. No. 19/2013) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Airlines Limited, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
22.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/19/2012-IR(CM-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5763
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 19/2013
Date of Passing Award- 29th May, 2019
Between:
Shri Sripal,
Staff No. 702480,
H.No. J-22, Near Salim Garh Colony,
Angoori Bagh, Near Lal Quila,
Delhi-110006.
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Indian Airlines Limited,
Northern Region, IGI Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
… Managements
Appearances:-
None for the workman (A/R) : For the Workman
Shri Kamal Kant Tyagi (A/R) : For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of Indian Airlines Limited, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub
section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 11012/19/2012
(IR(CM-I) dated 01.03.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines Limited in terminating the services of Shri Sripal
S/o Shri Babu Lal, Staff No. 702480, Ex-helper (Commercial) w.e.f. 11.01.2007 is legal and justified? To what
relief is the concerned workman entitled to?’’
The claimant in the claim statement has stated that he was working as a staff of Indian Airlines in the post of commercial
helper and a regular employee w.e.f. 16.06.1992. The management illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 11.01.2007. At
the time of termination neither the notice of termination, termination compensation, or notice pay was paid by the
management. All the representation made by the workman to the management was dismissed. He then approached the
Labour Commissioner where the conciliation proceeding was initiated but failed. The other stand of the workman is that
since the date of retrenchment he has not been gainfully employed. Thereby the workman made prayer that an award be
passed directing the management to reinstate him in his previous post with back wages and all other consequential
service benefits.
The management on receipt of the notice appeared and filed written statement admitting that the claimant/workman was
serving as a permanent employee of erstwhile AIR India. It has also admitted that the service of the workman was
terminated w.e.f. 11.01.2007. The explanation offered by the management is that since the date of employment the
workman was a habitual absentee from duty. On several occasions he was warned and removed from service. While
submitting detail documents to that effect the management has stated that during course of employment of the workman
with the management for the unauthorized absence he was cautioned, basic pay reduced and finally removed from
service on 12.02.1999. The appeal preferred by the workman was allowed on a sympathetic ground and he was
reappointed on 27.04.2001. His probation period was for 6 months. During this period he again remained absent
unauthorizedly, and his probation period was extended and again he was removed from service w.e.f. 23.12.2002. The
mercy appeal filed by him was considered, allowed and as a final opportunity he was appointed again on 11.01.2005.
This time also his probation period was for 6 months. During this period he again remained absent and probation was
further extended. During this period his performance was not satisfactory and warning letters were issued to him. At last
his service was terminated w.e.f 11.01.2007. The management has further pleaded that Indian Airlines is a Government
of India undertaking having its own rules and procedure. So this order of termination was passed strictly following the
5764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rules. Notice was properly served on the workman before the termination. The management has thus, prayed for
dismissal of the reference and has alleged that the workman is guilty of suppression of facts.
On these rival pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.
1.
Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Sripal
S/o Babu lal, Staff No. 702480, Ex-helper (commercial) w.e.f 11.01.2007 is legal and justified ? if so, its
effect?
2.
To what relief is the concerned workman entitled to and from which date?
When the matter was adjourned for the workman evidence the wife of the workman filed an application supported by the
death certificate of the workman praying therein to be substituted as the LRs of the workman. The management raised no
objection to the same. Thus, the matter was adjourned for filing of affidavit alongwith a substitution petition. Despite
several notices issued in the available address of the workman none appeared to participate in the proceeding.
No oral or documentary evidence was thus, adduced on behalf of the workman. Being called upon the
management examined one of its officers as MW1 who proved the documents marked in a series of MW1/1 to MW1/5.
These documents include letter of termination the notice of termination and documents relating to the disciplinary action
taken against the workman by the management for the unauthorized absence. This evidence of the management has not
been controverted in any manner by the workman. On the contrary to substantiate the claim of the workman there is
absolutely no evidence on record. Hence, this tribunal has no other option then to dismiss the claim by passing a no claim
award. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is dismissed, since no claim has been advanced by the workman reference is
accordingly answered. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section
17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
29th May, 2019
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1369-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 28@2000½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@163@1997-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 28/2000) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/163/1997-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5765
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 28/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri S.N. Ghosh. Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/163/97 -IR (C-I) dated 03/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Area No. VI of BCCL of not promoting
Sri Indradeo Prasad Singh, Fitter w.e.f 11.11.86 in Gr. ‘D’ and thereafter in Gr. ‘C’ from 1990 is
justified and legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but
subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Subsequently regd. Noticed was issued to the workman but
even then none appeared on behalf of the workman. Moreover notice of union is returned unserved. Case is pending
since long. So, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate .
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1370-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 34@2009½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@33@2009-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 2009) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/33/2009-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
5766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 34/2009
Employer in relation to the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri Ganesh Prasad. Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/33/2009 -IR (C-I) dated 26/05/2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of South Tisra Colliery under Lodna Area of M/s BCCL in
dismissing Shri Raj Mani Ram, Shovel Operator from the services of the company w.e.f. 10.02.2004 is
justified and legal? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, notice was issued to both the parties and thereafter both parties appeared for certain
dates but subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Subsequently regd. Notices were issued but even
then none appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long, so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest
to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate .
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1371-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 60@2000½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@290@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 60 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/290/1999-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5767
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 60/2000
Employer in relation to the management of C.V. Area of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 26/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/290/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 21/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of CV area of BCCL in not providing employment to the
dependant wife of Late Thakur Majhi Under NCWA 9.4.2 is justified? If not, to what relief the said
dependent is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but
subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. noticed was issued to the workman but even
then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long. So, it is felt that workman has lost his
interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate .
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1372-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 76@2000½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@341@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23nd July, 2019
S.O. 1372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 76 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/341/1999-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
5768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 76/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 26/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/341/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 28/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of west Mudidih Colliery, under Katras Area of M/S. BCCL in
not referring Sri Dukha Sethi, Ranko Sai, Satrughan Nayak and Bharat Nayak to the Medical board for
determination of this date of birth on the basis of I.I.No. 76 of JBCCI is proper and justified? If not, to
what relief these workman are entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but
subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. noticed was issued to the workman but even
then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long. So, it is felt that workman has lost his
interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate .
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1373-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 83@2000½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@405@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23nd July, 2019
S.O. 1373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 83 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/405/1999-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5769
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 83/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area- III of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/405/99 -IR (C-I) dated 28/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management not to regularize Sri Shibu Hazari w.e.f.18.4.91 as a Dumper
Operator Gr.’B’ and not to allow subsequent promotion on the basis of cadre scheme is justified? If not to
what relief the workman is entitled and from what date?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. After that Ld. Secretary of Sponsoring Union has appeared for
certain dates but subsequently left appearing before this Tribunal. Subsequently regd. Notice was issued to the Union but
even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long, so, it is felt that workman has lost his
interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate .
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1374-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 153@1999½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 22@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@150@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh -I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 153of 1999) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/150/1999-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
5770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 153/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh
Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28/06/2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/150/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 16/07/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has,
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management is not correcting the date of birth of Smt. Johara Mia, Shale
Picker on the basis of basic from B register refusing to send her to Medical Board for assessment of her
age was legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned lady is entitled?”
2.After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and thereafter workman appeared for certain dates but
subsequently failed to take steps before this Tribunal.. Thereafter one regd. Notices was issued but again no one
appeared on behalf of the workman. The Regd. Notice has returned with endorsement that addressee has not been found.
The management has appeared through lawyer. The case is pending since 1999 but workman is not appearing before this
Tribunal. , so it seems that workman has not been interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost
his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1375-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 198@99½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@301@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I)]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 198 of 99) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/301/1999-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5771
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 198/99
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/S. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri Ganesh Prasad. Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27/06 /2019
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/301/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 26/11/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in denying employment to
Smt. Mira Devi the dependent of Late Rajdeo Mallah ex-shale picker of Bassuria Colly., under para
9.4.2 of NCWA is justified. If not, what relief the dependent wife is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates but
subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. notices were issued to the workman
which was returned with endorsement that addressee had left. Case is pending for twenty years, so, it is felt that
workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate..
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1376-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 204@2001½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 22@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@245@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 204 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s.BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-20012/245/2000-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
5772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
n the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 204/2001
Employer in relation to the management of P.B Area of M/S. BCCL
AND.
Their workmen.
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri N.M Kumar Adv.
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal
Dated 27/06/2019
AWARD.
By Order No.L-20012/245/2000 -IR (C-I) dated 18/09/2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the refusal of the management to pay tub rate and looseman allowance from the effective date
of operation of NCWA-V to Sri Ram Prit Dusad and 39 others (as per list) is proper, legal & justified? If
not to what relief are the workmen entitled?”
Note:- List of workmen is not enclosed alongwith order of reference.
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates but
subsequently workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Subsequently regd. noticed was issued But even then no one
appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long. So, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve
the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1377-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
tsV ,;jost bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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; dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 51@2013½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@22@2013-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]
,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
(Ref. No. 51 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Private Limited , and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 17.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/22/2013-IR(CM-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5773
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 51 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: Mr. R.K. Dubey, learned counsel with
: Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel.
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Civil Aviation
Dated: 6th June , 2019
AWARD
Brief facts in the background of which this reference has been made by the Government of India to this Tribunal
are that the workman concerned, Shri Arghya Bose joined Air Sahara as an Officer Technician. However, after
acquisition of all the shares of Air Sahara by Jet Airways all workforce Cockpit Crew, Cabin Crew, AME’s and other
technicians working with Air Sahara continued as employees of Jet Airways working in the same capacity as before. All
of a sudden in the year 2010 wife of workman concerned sustained burn injuries and she breathed her last in the hospital
where she has also given a dying declaration to the effect that she herself put on fire, but an FIR was lodged by the
father-in-law of the workman concerned. The workman along with his father, mother and brother was arrested on
5th March, 2012. The workman could not send any written intimation to the employer, but he claims to have duly
communicated the said incident and fact of his arrest to one Shri Nitish Pradhan the Coordinator for the day on his
mobile at around 4.30 A.M. Until his release from custody on 24th July, 2012, he did not send any intimation letter to Jet
Airways. After his arrest on 5th March, 2012 a show cause notice dated 5th April, 2012 was sent through registered post to
the workman concerned to explain the reasons for his absence which was not replied by him. Thereafter on 12.06.2012 a
chargesheet was issued and Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold domestic enquiry against the workman concerned who
remained absent from duty for 99 days during the period from 6th March, 2012 to 12th June, 2012. During enquiry the
workman concerned participated in the enquiry but did not cross-examined the witnesses of the management and
admitted the dates of his absence from duty. He also admitted that he could not inform the company the cause of his
absence from duty. No witness was examined by him in his defence. After conclusion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer
submitted the enquiry report on 7th August, 2012. A show cause notice was again issued to the workman concerned to
represent against the findings of the Enquiry Officer which he replied vide his letter dated 13tjh December, 2012.
Thereafter the disciplinary authority finally concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer passed an order dated 7th
January, 2013 dismissing the services of the workman concerned. In industrial dispute arose which has been referred by
the Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
vide Order No. L-11012/22/2013-IR(CM-I) dated 29.08.2013 in following words:
“Whether the action of Jet Air Lines (I) Ltd. in dismissing Shri Arghya Bose, Sr. Air Craft
Maintenance Technician (Airframe and Engine) from service w.e.f. 01/7/2013 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of above order of reference, notices were issued to the parties concerned. The workman concerned
appeared and files his statement of claim pleading therein that during enquiry he was placed under suspension from the
date of issue of letter dated 01.08.2012 mentioning therein that he will be paid subsistence allowance during the period of
his suspension, but the said letter was received by him only on 16.11.2012 as it was posted only on 14.11.2012. The
suspension order was not served on him during continuance of enquiry proceeding. Thus during enquiry no subsistence
allowance was paid. However, after a long gap of 8 months an amount of Rs.64,655/= was credited to his salary account
5774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on 27.12.2013 for the period August, 2012 to November, 2012. Thus the management tried to legalized the same by
making subsequent payment. It has been further pleaded that no document was provided to the workman concerned.
Principles of natural justice were violated. The domestic enquiry was practically was a sham one. He was not provided
with proper opportunity to defend his case. He was not provided with any opportunity to adduce his evidence. The
workman concerned has further pleaded that after his release from custody on 24th July, 2012, he was asked by the
management to attend the enquiry proceedings without providing him minimum time to prepare for the enquiry and the
whole enquiry was concluded in a hasty manner within a span of four days. None of the charges leveled against the
workman was proved. The absence of the workman from duty was neither willful nor deliberate, but under the
circumstances beyond his control. The management has dismissed him in a most illegal, perverse and mala fide manner.
3.
Despite service of notice on management, nobody appeared for them. NO written statement was filed. Hence the
case proceeded exparte against the management and exparte evidence of workman was recorded.
4.
As the validity of enquiry has been challenged by the workman concerned in his statement of claim, the same is
being taken up first for consideration.
5.
The ingredients of a valid enquiry have been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Sur Enamel &
Stamping Works v. their workmen, reported in 1963-II-LLJ 367. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held than an enquiry
cannot be said to be properly held unless -
(1) The employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him;
(2) The witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges;
(3) The employee is given fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses;
(4)
The employee is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence, if he so
wishes and
(5)
The Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.
6.
Four charges have been leveled against the workman concerned which included his absence without leave for
more than 10 days, carelessness/casual behavior in his work, willful insubordination or disobedience and subversive act
or neglect of work. All these four charges have been mentioned in chargesheet dated 12.06.2012 in abbreviated form viz.,
the details of absence, insubordination, carelessness or negligence are not mentioned in the chargesheet. Mere
mentioning the fact that the workman concerned was careless, he remained absent for 10 days without leave, he was
negligent in his work or there was disobedience on his part does not give clear picture of the charges leveled against him.
Unless and until the workman is informed as to how he was careless, what insubordination or disobedience has been
committed by him and how his act was subversive or he was negligent in his work, effective and complete reply cannot
be submitted. He is not in a position to deny the allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme In Surath Chandra Chakraborty v.
State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752 has held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on a vague charge as the
same does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as to what
is the allegation against him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal. The relevant portion of the judgment may be
quoted below:
“5.
The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of
a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a
statement of allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is
proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a
principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending
oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges
preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover
all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established
against him.”
7.
Similarly in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held
that even in a domestic enquiry the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent
to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence
or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reasons
that there must be a fair play in action.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5775
8.
Following the above proposition of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No. 7211 of 2016, Ravindra Bhimrao Patil v. Executive Director, Jawhar Sahakari Sootgirni Limited,
Dhule decided on 22nd November, 2016 has emphasized that unless charges are clear and specific, the domestic enquiry
cannot be held to be valid. The relevant portion of the judgment is as below:
“16.
Where the chargesheet is accompanied by the statement of fact and the allegations are not
specific in the chargesheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of fact, in such a situation, as both
constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the
enquiry stood vitiated. Thus nowhere should a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without providing him, a
clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations is not served
with the chargesheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of
natural justice.”
9.
Now adverting to the facts of the present case, I have no hesitation to say that the charges framed against the
workman concerned are not clear and specific so as to give a clear picture of allegations. Copy of chargesheet, Ext. W-04
does not show that it was accompanied by any statement of facts. From the above cited case law it is evident that where
the charge are not clear and specific but crystal clear from the facts, then charges cannot be said to be not specific,
definite and clear. But, in the present case, in absence of any statement of facts giving details of carelessness,
insubordination, disobedience and subversiveness or negligence of work, the charges cannot be said to be clear, definite
and specific.
10.
Though in the instant case the workman concerned did not admittedly replied to the charge and remained absent
throughout the enquiry, but as it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in above case laws that it is not necessary for
the workman to make protest against the manner in which the charges are framed in the chargesheet. If the charges are
not clear, definite and specific the enquiry stands vitiated, even if no protest made by the workman concerned. Hence, in
view of above, the enquiry against the workman concerned stands vitiated.
11.
Next limb of argument of the workman concerned is that during his suspension period he was not paid
subsistence allowance. After conclusion of enquiry and a gap of eight months an amount of Rs.64,655/= was credited to
his salary account on 27th December, 2012 for the period of August, 2012 to November, 2012. Non-payment of
subsistence allowance during enquiry has always been held to be a factor which vitiates the enquiry. In Bombay Forging
Limited vs. Prem Kumar K. Sonar & Others, 1999 (4) LLJ 178 where it was not disputed that subsistence allowance
was not paid to the workman during suspension period, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the enquiry was
vitiated on this very ground. In Captain M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, 1999 (2) LLN 640 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of payment of subsistence allowance made in the service rules only
ensures non-violation of the right to life of the employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is
demolished and the salary is also paid at a reduced rate under nickname “subsistence allowance”, so that the employee
may sustain himself. The very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the period of suspension would
be frustrated if even subsistence allowance is not paid because “subsistence” means of supporting life, specially a
minimum livelihood. The act of non-payment of subsistence allowance can be likened to slow poisoning as the
employee, is not permitted to sustain himself on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance would gradually
starve himself to death. Similarly in Kue VIna Shyamrao Kakde vs. Presiding Officer, 2004 (4) LLJ 249 the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court was of the view that non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and
enquiry goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the enquiry vitiates.
12.
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the workman concerned was suspended vide letter dated
01.08.2012 with immediate effect. According to the workman concerned this letter reached him on 16.11.2012 as the
management deliberately did not dispatch this letter of suspension which is clear from receipt of the post office on the
envelope. The letter of suspension appears to have been dispatched only on 14.11.2012. The workman concerned has
contended that the letter of suspension was deliberately dispatched late as a device not to pay subsistence allowance
during continuation of enquiry. From the record it appears that the chargesheet was submitted in June, 2012 and the
enquiry concluded on 7th August, 2012 when the enquiry report was submitted to the concerned authority. Though in
suspension letter it is mentioned that subsistence allowance as per law during the period of suspension will be paid to the
workman concerned, but there is nothing on record to show that during continuance of enquiry the subsistence allowance
was ever paid to him. He was also not paid salary for the period of August, 2012 to November, 2012. Though an amount
of Rs.64655/= was paid to the workman concerned by way of transfer to his account on 27.12.2012, but only after
conclusion of enquiry and also after reply of the workman concerned to the show cause notice. The reply of show cause
notice of the workman concerned was submitted on 13th December, 2012 in which he has raised the issue of non-payment
5776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of wages from June, 2012. Thereafter the above amount of Rs.64655/= appears to have been transferred to the account of
the workman concerned. There is no rebuttal of the averments made by the workman by the management. Hence there is
no reason to disbelieve him. Where the subsistence allowance is not paid to the workman concerned during continuance
of enquiry, it certainly affects the workman concerned adversely. Hence, on this count also the enquiry is vitiated.
13.
Though the workman concerned has claimed that the copies of documents were not supplied to him, but from
the perusal of the chargesheet it does not appear that any document had been relied on in the chargesheet to prove the
allegations against the workman concerned. Hence there is no question of supply of those documents.
14.
In view of above, I come to the conclusion that framing of clear, specific and definite charges and payment of
subsistence allowance to the workman concerned are the procedural requirements of a valid domestic enquiry, but these
are fundamental in nature which go to the root of the enquiry. Non-compliance of the above requirements certainly
prejudices the case of the workman. Therefore, the enquiry against the workman concerned is invalid and not proper.
15.
Where the enquiry is held to be invalid, the management must be given the liberty to file a proper chargesheet
and to lead evidence justifying its action against the workman concerned. But, at the same time it is incumbent upon the
management to ask for opportunity to lead evidence to prove the allegations against the workman concerned. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankar Chakraborty v. Britannia Biscuits Company, (1979) 3 SCC 371 has observed in
following words:
“It is for the employer to ask for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of
misconduct and once such prayer is made in any form, i.e., orally or by application or in the pleading,
the same cannot be denied.”
Thus it is clear that the Tribunal is not duty bound to afford opportunity to the employer/management to prove charges on
merit. The employer must pray for opportunity to lead evidence, either orally or by an application or by way of making
prayer in its pleading. As the instant case is proceeding exparte and despite knowledge of the proceeding the
management never appeared in the case, the Tribunal cannot suomoto grant opportunity to the management to conduct
enquiry against the workman before the Tribunal by filing a fresh chargesheet and by leading fresh evidence.
16.
In view of above, the action of Jet Airlines (I) Ltd. in dismissing the workman, Shri Arghya Bose, Senior Air
Craft Technician from service cannot be held to be legal and justified as the very basis of action, i.e., the enquiry has
been held to be illegal and not proper and as his dismissal is illegal, the workman concerned is entitled for his
reinstatement along with 50% back wages.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata
The 6th June, 2017
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1378-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gyfn;k
Mksd dEiySDl] eS- Qkbo LVkj f”kfiax ,tsUlh ¼izk-½ fy- ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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; dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 21@2016½ dks
izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-32011@04@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Haldia Dock Complex,
M/s. Five Star Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.07.2019.
[No. L-32011/04/2015-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5777
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 21 of 2016
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Haldia Dock Complex
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: None
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated: 17th July, 2019.
Industry: Port & Dock.
AWARD
By Order No.L-32011/04/2015-IR(B-II) dated 12/16.02.2016 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 M/s. Five Star Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. handling operator of
Haldia Dock Complex in denying the 26 points of charter of demand raised by the union is legal and/or
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?
3.
When the case was taken up for hearing today, none appeared for the parties concerned. It transpires from
record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 26.02.2016 and inspite of all the opportunities, neither
the union has filed its statement of claim, nor the managements have filed its written statement to proceed further with
the case.
3.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of its 26 points charter of demands as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute
for adjudication.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1379-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
us”kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04¼lh½@2018½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
24@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12011@15@2018-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna (Bihar)
(Ref. No. 04(C) of 2018) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Punjab National Bank, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
24.07.2019.
[No. L-12011/15/2018-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
5778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:- 04 (C) of 2018
Between the management of (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh
Darbhanga-846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, At PO- Simari, Distt.- Darbhanga-847106 and their
workman Md. Gulab, Part Time Sweeper represented through the President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo
Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001.
For the management :
Mrs. Preeti, Dy Manager, HRD.
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.
Present:
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated : 8th July, 2019
By the adjudication order no.-L-12011/15/2018-IR(B-II) dated- 16.05.2018 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 (1) The Circle Head,
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh Darbhanga-846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National
Bank, At PO- Simari, Distt.- Darbhanga-847106 and their workman Md. Gulab, Part Time Sweeper represented through
the President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road,
Patna (Bihar)-800001. for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the workman in seeking regularization in service is covered under I.D.Act, 1947? If
yes, whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, in not regularizing services of Md. Gulb,
Part Time Sweeper working from 22.10.2011 at Simari Branch, Darbhanga is justified? I what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to.?”
2.
After receipt of the reference / notification, notices were issued to the parties concerned through registered post.
Both parties appeared before this tribunal and filed their statement of claim, written statement, list of witnesses &
documents.
3.
Brief case of the workman is that the Md. Gulb, S/O- Late Abdul Sakur, resident of vill. & P.O- Beta,
Lahariasarai, Dist.- darbhanga, was orally appointed at Simari Branch, Punjab National Bank, Dist.- Darbhanga w.e.f
22.10.2011 to discharge the duties of a Part Time Sweeper. After appointment the workman has been discharging all the
duties of a Part Time Sweeper i.e Sweeping, cleaning of Branch premises, bath room table, chairs, counters etc. and other
sundry jobs of a peon also. Workman has been discharging his duties from 9A.M to 5.30P.M regularly and on some
occasions even beyond that.
Further case of the workman is that the initially, the workman was being paid wages @ Rs 46/- per day which was raised
to @ Rs. 109/- per day. Presently the workman is being paid monthly wages @ Rs. 4428/-. There is no permanent part
time sweeper at Simari branch from the opening date of the branch. Duties of the workman are perennial in nature.
Workman prays for regularization in the services of the bank as a part time sweeper.
4. Case of the management is that the workman ( claimant ) cannot be treated as workmen as per Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Distpute Act, 1947. He was merely engaged on leave gap arrangement and his services were utilized as and
when required for which he was duly paid. The bank has not entered into any agreement with the workman (claimant).
Thus, the employer-employee relationship does not exist between the bank and the workman (claimant). Md. Gulab,
(Bihar) was engaged for doing work on leave gap arrangement by the branch office Simri, Darbhanga. As such the
workman ( claimant ) cannot claim for regularization of service and consequential benefits as a matter of right.
Further case of the management is that the workman (claimant ) failed to produce any documentary proof to strengthen
his claim. Neither any appointment letter was issued nor was any salary paid to him. He was merely engaged to do work
on leave gap arrangement for which he was duly paid. His services were not perennial in nature as his services were
utilized as and when required within the premises of the branch of when some work need to accomplished. Workman
(claimant) has worked on leave gap arrangement and he was adequately compensated for the same. Therefore, he does
not have any legal right for confirmation / regularization of service for the permanent post.
5.
On 27.06.2019 both parties appeared and submitted that the matter has been settled out of the court. The
workman Md. Gulb is physically present in the court. He accepted the factum of compromise arrived at between the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5779
parties. In his deposition he was stated that while the matter was pending before this tribunal, the Bank advertised
vacancies and decided to employ him in the services of the bank on regular basis. The witness has further stated that as
the management has decided to regularize his services, he does not want to proceed with this case any further and the
same should be dispossed of.
6.
Heard the representative of both the parties and perused the record, pleading and evidence available on the
record. As the management is ready to engage the workman in the service, therefore, his grievances has been redressed
and as such now no longer any dispute exists between the parties and this reference is dispossed of as “ no dispute “.and
accordingly “ No Dispute Award ” is being passed.
This is my award accordingly.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1380-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u
cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04¼lh½@2015½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
24@07@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04(C) of 2015) 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, which was
received by the Central Government on 24.07.2019.
[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
I.D. Case No.:- 04 (C) of 2015
Between the management of Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office,
Nasheman Building, Fraser Road, Patna-800001 and Their workman Sri Dilip Kumar Gupta, S/O- Late Ramdeo Prasad,
Vill. & P.O- Sukatia Bazar, P.S- Gopalpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur, Bihar-853205.
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.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 9th July,2019.
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 Setting aside the order dated-02.05.2014 passed by the Ld Disciplinary
Authority & confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated-21.11.2014, reinstatement in the services of the
Bank with all consequential benefits and payment of cost of Rs. 20000/- for contesting the dispute.
2. Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Pakur ( for short A.L.C (C),
who issued notice on15th January, 2015 to the concerned parties vide file no. 5/03/15-ALC-PKR.
5780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[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 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 statement of claim and written statement were filed by the concerned
parties.
6. In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 05.07.2018 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 07.02.2019 praying theirin to withdraw the instant
I.D.Case in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the workman himself want to withdraw the
I.D.Case.
8. Heard both the parties.
9. Accordingly, In view of the petition dt-07.02.2019 filed by the workman, the instant I.D.Case is hereby dispossed of
as withdrawan and also being not maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court.
This award is affected after gazette notification / publication of award.
Accordingly, this is my award.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1381-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
us”kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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- 11¼lh½@2015½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@07@2019 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-39025@01@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11(C) of 2015) 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, which
was received by the Central Government on 24.07.2019.
[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
I.D. Case No. 11 (C) of 2015
Between the management of (1) The General Manager (H.R.D ) Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikaji
Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New Delhi-110067 (2) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, G.M.Road, Akash Vani,
Darbhanga-846004 and their workman Sri Gunjan Kumar, S/O- Sri Madhurendra Kumar, Vill.- Ekamma, P.O-
Ghonghour, P.S- Raj Nagar, Dist- Madhubani, Bihar- 8447235.
For the management :
Sri Arvind Indwar, Senior Manager, HRD.
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5781
Present :-
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 25th June, 2019
1.
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 for quashed order dated- 22.05.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority and to reinstatement
with back wages with all consequential benefits.
2.
Matter was raised on 27.05.2015 by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Pakur ( for
short A.L.C ( C ), who issued notice to the concern parties and held conciliation proceedings.
3.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) Pakur 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. Before the reference this I.D.Case No.- 11(C) of 2015 was filed by the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar u/s-2A (1 & ) of
the I.D.Act (Amendment) 1947.
6.
As per the case of the workman he raised Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Pakur
vide application dt- 27.05.2015. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Pakur held conciliation proceeding. As a
period of three months elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman filed this Industrial Dispute Case in this
tribunal. In the mean time the matter was also referred by the Central Government (Ministry of Labour / Shram
Mantralaya) vide order dt- 18.02.2016 as aforesaid. Further by order dt- 06.04.2016 as in both the I.D Case and
Reference Case the parties were same and the matter for adjudication was also the same therefore, both the cases were
made analogous. Later on a petition was filed by the workman on 09.07.2018 for segregating Reference Case No.- 09(C)
of 2016 from the I.D.Case NO.- 11(C) of 2015 and for adopting the written statement, evidences as well as other
materials available in the I.D.Case in the Reference Case. The petition was allowed by this tribunal on 04.12.2018 and
the prayer of the workman was accepted by this tribunal.
7.
In the instant case withdrawal petition has been filed on behalf of the workman on 06.02.2019 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 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 withdrawn and 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.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
5782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1382-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
us”kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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[;k 14 ¼lh½@2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2019 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-39025@01@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14(C) of 2015) 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 24.07.2019.
[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
I.D. Case No. 14 (C) of 2015
Between the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, chankya Place, ‘R’ Blcok, Patna-800001
and Their workman Sri Kishore Kumar, S/O- Sri Ashok Das, Chhoti Ambedkar Nagar, Bakhtiharpur, Patna-803212.
For the management :
Sri Niraj Kumar, Senior Manager, HRD
Sri Ranjit Kumar Karan, Officer
Sri R.R. Jha, Senior Manager, HRD
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar
Present :
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna
AWARD
Patna, dt. 17th July, 2019
1.
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 1/3rd pay scale of a full time subordinate staff and regularisation of services as part time sweeper.
2.
Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Patna ( for short
A.L.C ( C ) Patna ) on 10.06.2015, who issued notice dt- 19.06..2015 to the parties vide file no.- 1/69/2015/ALC -I ;.
4.
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.
5.
Before the reference this I.D.Case No.- 14(C) of 2015 was filed by the workman Sri Kishore Kumar u/s-2A (1
& ) of the I.D.Act (Amendment) 1947.
6. As per the case of the workman he raised Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Patna
vide application dt- 26.03.2015. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Patna held conciliation proceeding. As a
period of three months elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman filed this Industrial Dispute Case in this
tribunal. In the mean time the matter was also referred by the Central Government (Ministry of Labour / Shram
Mantralaya ) vide Notification No.- 12012/76/2015-IR(B-II ) dt- 12.02.2016. Further by order dt- 05.05.2016, as in both
the I.D Case and Reference Case the parties were same and the matter for adjudication was also the same, therefore, both
the cases were made analogous. Later on a petition was filed by the workman on 11.06.2018 for segregating Reference
Case No.- 04(C) of 2016 from the I.D.Case NO.- 14(C) of 2015 and for adopting the written statement, evidences as well
as other materials available in the I.D.Case in the Reference Case. The petition was allowed by this tribunal on
11.06.2018 and the prayer of the workman was accepted by this tribunal.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5783
7. In the instant case withdrawal petition has been filed on behalf of the workman on 04.07.2019 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 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 withdrawn 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] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1383-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
us”kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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[;k 05 ¼lh½@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2019 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12011@14@2018-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05(C) of 2018) 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 24.07.2019.
[No. L-12011/14/2018-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 05 (C) of 2018
Between the management of (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh
Darbhanga-846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Laheriasarai Branch, Darbhanga-846001 and their workman
Sri Sonu Kumar Ray, represented through the President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo Complex, Exhibition
Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001.
For the management :
Mrs. Preeti, Dy Manager, HRD.
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar
Present:
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 8th July, 2019
By the adjudication order no.-L-12011/14/2018-IR(B-II) dated- 02.08.2018 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 (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National
Bank, Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh Darbhanga-846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Laheriasarai
Branch, Darbhanga-846001 and their workman Sri Sonu Kumar Ray, represented through the President, Bank
Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo Complex, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 for adjudication to this tribunal:-
5784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the regularization is an industrial dispute under ID Act, if yes, whether the claim of Sri Sonu Kumar
Ray, Part Time Sweeper at Punjab National Bank, Laheriasarai Branch, Darbhanga from June, 2015 for
regularizing of services of is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and
to what extent?”
2.
After receipt of the reference / notification, notices were issued to the parties concerned through registered post.
Both parties appeared before this tribunal and representative of the workman filed statement of claim. Several
opportunities were given to the management for filing written statement but the management failed to file any written
statement in this case.
3.
Brief case of the workman is that the Punjab National Bank opened a Branch at Laheriasarai in June,2015 and
Sri Sonu Kumar Rai, the concerned workman, was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a Part- Time Sweeper
thereat. There was a permanent vacant post of Part-Time Sweeper under ½ scale wages of a Subordinate staff. After
appointment the workman used to discharge all the duties of a sweeper Viz- (a) Opening of Banks Gate; (b) Sweeping,
cleaning the branch premises, bath room, counters, tables, furniture etc. (c) Other sundry jobs of a Sweeper / peon also.
Workman has been discharging the duties from 9.00A.M to 5.00 P.M regularly. Workman has been working in
permanent vacant post of a Part Time Sweeper.
Seeing no scope of redressal of his grievances for regularizing his services as a Part-Time Sweeper, the workman caused
an Industrial Dispute raised as per the provisions of I.D.Act which culminated in reference of the dispute before the this
tribunal for adjudication.
Although the workman has been discharging the duties for over 3 years, he has been denied the benefits of permanent
workman viz-Provident Fund, Leave, Medical benefits, LFC, etc.
Workman prays for relief for regularization of his service as a Part Time Sweeper under ½ scale wages of a full time
subordinate staff, payment of due wages for the period of his working.
4.
Ultimately on 27.06.2019 both parties appeared and submitted that the matter has been settled
out of the
court. The workman Sonu Kumar Ray is physically present in the court. He accepted the factum of compromise arrived
at between the parties. In his disposition he was stated that while the matter was pending before this tribunal, the Bank
advertised vacancies and decided to employ him in the services of the bank on regular basis. The witness was further
stated that as the management has decided to regularize his services, he does not want to proceed with this case any
further and the same should be dispossed of.
5.
Heard the representative of both the parties and perused the record, pleading and evidence available on the
record. As the management is ready to engage the workman in the service, therefore, his grievances has been redressed
and as such now no longer and dispute exists between the parties and this reference is dispossed of as “ no dispute “.and
accordingly “No Dispute Award ” is being passed.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1384-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; iatkc us”kuy
cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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[;k 06 ¼lh½@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12011@16@2018-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1384.—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 2018) 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 24.07.2019.
[No. L-12011/16/2018-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5785
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 06 (C) of 2018
Between the management of The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh Darbhanga-
846004 and their workman Shri Dinesh Kumar Mehtar, Part Time Sweeper represented through the President, Bank
Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001.
For the management :
Mrs. Preeti, Dy Manager, HRD
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar
Present:
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated- 08th July, 2019
By the adjudication order no.-L-12011/16/2018-IR(B-II) dated- 03.08.2018 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 Circle Head, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, G.M.Road, P.O Lalbagh Darbhanga-846004 and their workman Shri Dinesh Kumar Mahtar, Part Time
Sweeper represented through the President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar Saboo Complex, 2nd Floor, Behind
Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001. for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether regulariziation is an industrial dispute under the
ID Act, 1947, if yes, whether the claim of Shri
Dinesh Kumar Mehtar, Part Time Sweeper working at Benipatti Branch, Punjab National Bank, from
11/05/2016 for regularizing of services is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled and to what extent?”
2.
After receipt of the reference / notification, notices were issued to the parties concerned through registered post.
Both parties appeared before this tribunal and representative of the workman filed statement of claim. Several
opportunities were given to the management for filing written statement but the management failed to file any written
statement in this case.
3.
Brief case of the workman is that the Punjab National Bank opened a Branch at Benipatti in 11.05.2016 and
Sri Dinesh Kumar Mehtar, the concerned workman was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a Part Time Sweeper
thereat. There was a permanent vacant post of a Part Time Sweeper under ½ scale wages of a subordinate staff.
(b) After appointment the workman used to discharge all the duties of a sweeper viz:- (i) Opening of Banks
Gate; (ii) Sweeping, cleaning the Branch Premises, Bath Room, Counters, Tables, furniture etc. (iii) Other sundry jobs of
a sweeper / peon also.
Further case of the workman is that the workman has been discharging the duties from 9A.M to 5.30P.M
regularly. Initially, the workman was paid wages @ Rs 50/- per day which was raised to @ Rs. 154/- per day. Presently,
the workman is being paid per day wages @ Rs. 154/-.
Seeing no scope of redressal of his grievances for regularizing his services as a Part-Time Sweeper, the workman caused
an Industrial Dispute raised as per the provisions of I.D.Act which culminated in reference of the dispute before the this
tribunal for adjudication.
Although the workman has been discharging the duties for over 3 years, he has been denied the benefits of permanent
workman viz-Provident Fund, Leave, Medical benefits, LFC, etc.
Workman prays for relief for regularization of his service as a Part Time Sweeper under ½ scale wages of a full time
subordinate staff, payment of due wages for the period of his working.
4.
On 27.06.2019 both parties appeared and submitted that the matter has been settled
out side the court.
The workman Shri Dinesh Kumar Mahtar is physically present in the court. He accepted the factum of compromise
arrived at between the parties. In his disposition he was stated that while the matter was pending before this tribunal, the
Bank advertised vacancies and decided to employ him in the services of the bank on regular basis. The witness has
further stated that as the management has decided to regularize his services, he does not want to proceed with this case
any further and the same should be dispossed of.
5786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Heard the representative of both the parties and perused the record, pleading and evidence available on the
record. As the management is ready to engage the workman in the service, therefore, his grievances has been redressed
and as such now no longer and dispute exists between the parties and this reference is dispossed of as “no dispute’’.and
accordingly “No Dispute Award” is being passed.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1385-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; iatkc us”kuy
cSad ds izca/kra= ds laca) 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[;k 09 ¼lh½@2016½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@79@2015-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]
Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2019
S.O. 1385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09(C) of 2016) 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 24.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/79/2015-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Reference Case No. 09 (C) of 2016
Between the management of The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, G.M.Road, Akashvani, Darbhanga-846004 and
their workman Sri Gunjan Kumar, represented through the General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Staff Union, 2nd
floor Saboo Complex, Behind Prema Honda Show-Room, Patna (Bihar)-800001.
For the management :
Sri Arvind Indwar, Senior Manager, HRD
For the Workman :
Sri B. Prasad, President of Bank Employees Federation, Bihar
Present:
Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 25th June, 2019
By the adjudication order no.-L-12012/79/2015-IR(B-II) dated- 18.02.2016 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 Circle Head, Punjab National
Bank, G.M.Road, Akashvani, Darbhanga-846004 and their workman Sri Gunjan Kumar for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab
National Bank, Darbhanga in terminating the Service of
the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar is justified on the basis of denying Natural Justice? If not, what relief he is
entitled to?”
2.
Before this reference one I.D.Case No.- 11© of 2015 was filed by the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar u/s-2A (1 &)
of the I.D.Act (Amendment) 1947.
As per the case of the workman he raised Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Pakur vide application dt- 27.05.2015. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Pakur held conciliation proceeding. As a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5787
period of three months elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman filed this Industrial Dispute Case in this
tribunal. In the mean time the matter was also referred by the Central Government (Ministry of Labour/Shram
Mantralaya) vide order dt- 18.02.2016 as aforesaid. Further by order dt- 06.04.2016 as in both the I.D Case and
Reference Case the parties were same and the matter for adjudication was also the same therefore, both the cases were
made analogous. Later on a petition was filed by the workman on 09.07.2018 for segregating Reference Case No.- 09(C)
of 2016 from the I.D.Case NO.- 11(C) of 2015 and for adopting the written statement, evidences as well as other
materials available in the I.D.Case in the Reference Case. The petition was allowed by this tribunal on 04.12.2018 and
the prayer of the workman was accepted by this tribunal.
3.
The case of the workman is that he applied for the post of clerk on 28.09.2011 as per the notification of institute
for Banking Personnel services (IBPS) for recruitment of clerks in public sector bank. The IBPS conducted written test
for recruitment of clerk on 11.12.2011. The case of the workman is that prior to the aforesaid examination he suffered
mild paralytic attack in the in the month of October,2011 and he under went medical treatment for his recovery. The
workman appeared in the written test on 11.12.2011 at his Patna Centre and signed the attendance sheet. Due to paralytic
attack some trembling problem developed in his finger causing lack of resemblance in his handwriting / signatures. The
result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 29.02.2012 and the workman was declared successful and was called
for interview at Zonal Training Centre, Rejendra Nagar, P.N.B at Patna where he appeared before the interview board on
07.01.2013. On the basis of the written and oral examinations, the workman was declared successful and was selected for
appointment in P.N.B. The final result was published in February-2013. Further the Punjab National Bank issued
appointment letter in favour of the workman with instruction to report for joining at Zonal Training Centre, Jaipur,
Rajasthan on 11.03.2013. The workman accordingly joined the services of the bank on 11.03.2013. The workman was
informed that one Chandan Kumar had lodged complaint against him regarding his recruitment. Chandan Kumar is non
else than own cousin of the workman with whom there was old animosity. Chandan Kumar was also preparing for bank
examination and he also appeared in the same examination conducted by IBPS but he could succeed. Chandan Kumar
was fully aware about the illness of the workman and also aware about lack of resemblance in the handwriting /
signatures of the workman. Chandan Kumar out of jealousy, animosity and frustration, lodged complaint against the
workman. At the time of reporting to Zonal Training Centre, Jaipur for joining he furnished an affidavit before the
authority of the bank and thereafter he was allowed to join the services of the bank on 13.03.2013. After completion of
Training programme he reported for duty at Circle Office, Darbhanga on 25.03.2013 from where he was posted at
Basbitti Branch in the Supaul District, were he joined on 26.03.2013 and thereafter he was transferred to R.K.College,
Madhubani Branch and joined duty on 13.04.2013. Later on vide order dt- 21.05.2013 he was directed to appear before
the committee of the bank on 04.06.2013 at New Delhi and accordingly he appeared before the committee and submitted
the correct position. Later on charge sheet dt0 18.02.2014 was served upon the workman for alleged selection in bank
through impersonation in the common written examination. The workman duly replied aforesaid charge but the
management not being satisfied with the reply of the workman decided to hold domestic enquiry for which enquiry
officer and presenting officer were appointed.
It is the case of the workman that the domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. The learned
enquiry officer failed to examine the complainant in course of enquiry. The handwriting expert on whose report the
learned enquiry officer relied upon were not examined incourse of enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted one sided
report and he failed to discharge his duty as a quasi judicial authority and principles of natural justice were also not
followed. The learned disciplinary authority also acted with closed mind and biased attitude while issuing the charge
sheet, accepting the enquiry report and passing the final order without taking into consideration the material facts
submitted by the workman. The disciplinary authority also failed to supply copy of recommendation of the CVO and
violated the CVC guidelines. The workman is innocent and did not commit any misconduct and he fell victim to the
circumstances. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits.
4.
In this case management appeared and filed his written statement in the form of preliminary objection
controverting the claim of the workman. According to the case of the management the workman Gunjan Kumar got
himself selected in the bank service through impersonation in the common written examination for recruitment of clerical
cadre in Public Sector Banks conducted by Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) Mumbai on 11.12.2011, for
which charge sheet was served upon him on 18.02.2014 under clause 5(m) and 5(o) of the Bipartite Settlement dt-
10.04.2002. Gunjan Kumar submitted his reply on 25.02.2014 but the same was not found satisfactory and disciplinary
authority instituted departmental enquiry vide order dt- 10.03.2014 to look into the truth of the charges. The enquiry
officer and presenting officer were appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry. After conducting enquiry, enquiry
officer submitted his report on 02.06.2014 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority sent a copy of the
enquiry report to the workman to submit his comments to the report of the enquiry officer. The workman Gunjan Kumar
submitted his reply on 16.07.2014. The learned disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of dismissal without
notice vide show cause notice dt-09.09.2014 after considering the enquiry report. Further the workman appeared on
20.09.2014 before the disciplinary authority with his defence representative for personal hearing. After personall hearing
and due consideration of the whole facts of the case, the disciplinary authority passed final order on 22.08.2015
5788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
confirming the punishment of “dismissal without notice”. The workman filed an appeal against the order passed by the
disciplinary authority and appellate authority also after personal hearing of the workman passed the final order on
22.08.2015 confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and thus rejected the appeal of the
workman.
5.
In this case the workman Gunjan Kumar got himself examined as W.W-1 and he also got examined one
Dr. Siya Ram Mishra W.W-2.
W.W-1 Gunjan Kumar in his deposition has stated that he had applied for the post of clerk in the year 2011 and
accordingly he appeared on 11.12.2011 in the examination conducted by IBPS for recruitment of clerks in Public Sector
Banks. He has denied the allegation of the bank that some other person appeared in the examination in his place. This
witness has proved admit card which has been marked as Ext.-W/1. The admit card bears the signature and LTI of the
workman as well as the signature of two invigilators. This witness has stated that he put his LTI and signature in the
examination hall on 11.12.2011 in the presence of invigilators. He has further stated that after comparing his photo on the
admit card, he allowed to appear in the examination. The admit card was not sent to the handwriting expert for
examination by the management. This witness has further proved the application dt- 11.03.2013 which has been marked
as Ext.-W/2 which also hears his signature and LTI. This witness has further proved his interview letter which has been
marked as Ext.- W/3 which also appears his signature and thumb impression and the said interview letter was also not
sent to the expert by the management. This witness has further proved the attendance sheet dt- 11.12.2011 which has
been marked as Ext.- W/4. This attendance sheet also bears his signature as well as LTI which were taken in examination
hall incourse of the examination. This witness has admitted in his deposition that there is some difference his signature as
well LTI because at that time there was some tremble in his hand and while he was busy writing his answers the
invigilators took his signature and LTI in haste. This witness has further proved charge sheet which has been marked as
Ext.- W/5. He has stated that before issuing the charge sheet he was called to the head quarter and while he was
interrogated his answer sheet was not produced before him. The answer sheet was also not produced before him incourse
of the domestic enquiry. No handwriting was expert was examined during the domestic enquiry. The prescription of the
doctor as well as the report of the hand writing expert Miss. S. Fatma were not accepted during the domestic enquiry. The
disciplinary authority passed the order on 22.05.2015 without examining his documents. The Appellate Authority also
passed order on 22.08.2015. This witness has proved both the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as
Appellate Authority Ext.-W/6 & W/7 respectively. He has further proved Ext.-W/8 which is the letter given by the
defence representative of the workman before Appellate Authority by which the prescription of the Dr. Siya Ram Mishra
and the report of the handwriting expert Miss S. Fatama was produced. This witness has proved the report of Miss. S
Fatma which has been marked as Ext. W/9 and the medical prescription of Dr. Siya Ram Mishra which has been marked
as Ext.- W/10. This witness has denied the charges which were levelled on the basis of a complaint.
This witness in cross-examination has stated that he was in possession of the admit card before appearing in the
examination. He got the admit card by down loading the same, where as attendance sheet was supplied to him in the
examination hall itself. This witness in cross-examination has stated that some documents were produced during the
enquiry by his defence representative but the same was not accepted by the enquiry officer. Show cause notice was also
given to him by the disciplinary authority before passing the order. He has also stated that during the enquiry he gave the
name of his witness but Dr. Siya Ram Mishra and expert Miss. S. Fatma were not examination during the domestic
enquiry.
W.W-2 ( Dr. Siya Ram Mishra ) is the witness who had treated the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar. This witness in
his deposition has stated that Gunjan Kumar was suffering from meningitis. In this decease the patient suffers from
vomaiting, high fever, sever headache, tramble in different organs of the body. The workman Gunjan Kumar was under
his treatment and though he recovered from the illness but there was weakness in body and trembling in his hands and
feet, which continued for about three months. This witness has further stated that as the hand trembles in this decease,
there was every possibility that some difference occur in the signature and thumb impression of the patient. This witness
has proved his prescription which was in his handwriting and beared his signature (Ext.- W/10).
This witness in his cross-examination has stated that the workman Gunjan Kumare was under his treatment from
last week of Oct-2011 till 1st week of December,2011. The patient suffering from the meningitis take at least about three
months in fully recovering the same. This witness has stated that he was not called by the bank in the domestic enquiry.
6.
In the case on 06.08.2018 a petition was filed on behalf of the workman praying therein to adopt the deposition
of the expert Miss. S. Fatma in the present proceeding which has been recorded in this case earlier incourse of hearing on
fairness of domestic enquiry. There was no objection on behalf of the management and accordingly prayer was allowed.
Miss. S. Fatma in her deposition has stated that she had examined the handwriting and LTI of Gunjan Kumar.
The disputed LTI was marked as D-1 and same was compared with A-1 to A-4. D-1 was attendance register. A-1 was the
attendance relating to the examination. A-2 and A-3 were LTI of Gunjan Kumar on the petition filed by the Gunjan
Kumar. A-4 was the thumb impression and call letter. A-1 to A-4 were admitted thumb impression and the same were
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5789
compared with the disputed thumb impression. The technical character of both the impression were similar to each other
and the expert came to the conclusion that both the impressions were of the some person. The expert has further stated
that she also examined signature of Gunjan Kumar. The disputed signature on the photo stat copy of the attendance sheet
was marked as Q-1. The aforesaid signature of Gunjan Kumar was compared with the signature marked as B-1 to B-5
appearing on call letter, application form, affidavit and interview letter. The expert has opined that the disputed as well as
admitted signature were similar to each other. This witness has proved her letter as well as the different photograph as
Ext.-W/1.
This witness in her cross-examination has admitted that all the papers / documents which have been mentioned
in her report were provided by the Gunjan Kumar. She did not any take help of the management in preparing her report.
7.
On the other hand three witnesses were examined on behalf of the management on merit and all the three
witnesses are the expert who examined the signature and thumb impression of the workman Gunjan Kumar.
M.W-1 ( Ashok Kashyap ) in his deposition has stated that the bank has sent four papers / documents relating to
Gunjan Kumar. The papers sent to the this witness contain attendance list of the candidates dt-11.12.2011, the
handwritten petition dt- 11.03.2013 of Gunjan Kumar which was given to chief manager, P.N.B, the affidavit which was
given by Gunjan Kumar and the interview letter dt- 07.01.2013 which was issued by P.N.B. This witness was asked to
examine the signature and thumb impression of Gunjan Kumar appearing on the aforesaid four documents. This witness
after examining the four documents submitted his report on 10.05.2013 and he proved his report which was marked as
Ext.-A. This witness in his deposition has further stated that he marked the finger print appearing on attendance list as Q-
1. The super imposing finger print appearing on Q-1 has marked as Q-2 and they were compared with authentic finger
print S1 & S2 appearing on handwritten letter dt- 11.03.2013 and also with S3 interview call letter dt- 07.03.2013. The
expert in his deposition has stated in his opinion that the disputed print Q-1 do not tailly with admitted print S1, S2 & S3,
it means both the admitted and disputed prints are two of difference persons.
This witness in his deposition has further stated that he also compared the disputed signature (D-1) appearing on
attendance list dt- 11.12.2011 with admitted signature A-1 appearing on handwritten letter dt- 11.03.2013, A-2 & A-3
appearing on affidavit dt- 12.03.2013 and A4 & A5 appearing on interview call letter dt- 07.01.2013. After comparing
the aforesaid dispute and admitted signatures this witness came to the conclusion that the disputed signature appearing on
the attendance list has not written by the person whose signature are A1 to A5.
This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he was not called by the bank incourse of the internal
enquiry. The original application which was sent by Gunjan Kumar to IBPS was not provided to him for comparison.
The copy of the answer sheet of the examination dt- 11.12.2011 was also not provided to him. He has further stated that
he examined the super imposing LTI but he cannot give any opinion on the same.
M.W-2 ( J.S.Shiv Kumar ) is the director of Truth Labs who is in deposition has stated that the bank provided
him.
(i) photo copy of attendance list of IBPS dt- 11.12.2011.
(ii) photo copy of interview call letter dt- 07.11.2013 containing standered signature marked “S1” (along with
original document ).
(iii) photo copy of letter dt- 04.06.2013 containing standered signature marked S2 & S3 (along with original
documents ).
(iv) photo copy of letter dt- 11.03.2013 containing standered signature S4 & S5 (along with original
document) for examination.
After examination of the aforesaid documents and after comparing the standered signature which has been
marked as S1 to S5 with signature marked as ‘Q’, he gave the opinion that the person who wrote the signature marked as
‘ S1 to S5 ‘ did not write the signature marked as ‘Q’.
This witness in his cross-examination ha stated that the answer sheets of examination were not supplied to him
for examination. He also did not asked the bank for the answer sheets. On the basis of the comparision of the admitted
signature with the disputed signature he came to the conclusion that the person whose signature has been marked as ‘ S1
to S5 ‘ did not write the signature which has been marked as ‘Q’. He has further stated that it is not a fact that the
concerned party approached him and he gave his report as per his choice and requirement. He has also stated that he did
not appear during the domestic proceeding conducted by the bank. It is not a fact that he deposed here as per the
instruction of the bank.
M.W-3 ( M. Josaf ) is the Director Finger Print Unit Truth Labs, Hydrabad. This witness in his deposition has
stated that on examination he found that the question thumb impression against the name of Gunjan Kumar marked as
5790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Q’ at serial no.- 349 of the attendance list dt- 11.12.2011 is smudged. He was of the opinion that thumb impression
marked as ‘Q’ is unfit for compression. He has proved his report which has been marked as Ext.-A/2.
In his cross-examination he has stated that he was only required to examine thumb impression but after
comparing the same he came to the conclusion that the same was unfit for comparision.
8.
The learned representative of the workman submitted that the enquiry against the workman started by the
management after getting complaint petition by Chandan Kumar, Praveen Kumar and Goutam Kumar against the
workman, who in their applications alleged that Gunjan Kumar never appeared in the examination and in his place some
other person appeared in the examination hall but those persons were not examined as witness incourse of the enquiry .
The name of Chandan Kumar and Praveen Kumar was also given as witnesses on behalf of the management in this
tribunal for their examination but management failed to produce any of them in this tribunal. The learned representative
of the workman further submitted that original application of Gunjan Kumar which has been sent to IBPS as well as
answer sheet of Gunjan Kumar relating to the examination were not supplied to the expert for their examination. There
was also no definite opinion with regard to the thumb impression of the workman appearing on the attendance sheet by
any of the expert. He further submitted that expert Miss. S Fatma examined on behalf of the workman has clearily stated
that the disputed thumb impression and signature as well as authentic thumb impression and signature were one and the
same person. The learned representative of the workman further submitted that the workman had suffered an attack of
meningitis in Oct.-2011 for which he was treated by the W.W-2 Dr. Siya Ram Mishra and although recovered from the
illness but his hands & legs used to tremble and at the time of examination the same continued which resulted in the
difference of signature appearing on the attendance sheet ( Ext.-W/4 ). The workman in para-5 of his deposition and the
W.W-2 the Dr. Siya Ram Mishra also admitted this facts in their deposition. The workman himself appeared in the
examination on 11.12.2011 conducted by IBPS and it is wrongly alleged by the management that some other person
appeared in his place and became successful. It was further submitted that the workman Gunjan Kumar put his signature
and thumb impression on the admit card in the examination hall inpresence of the invigilators. No any other person
appeared in the examination on his behalf. But workman was allowed to appear in the examination after comparing his
photograph on the call letter / admit card (Ext-W/1) but the admit card was not sent by the management to the
handwriting expert similarly the interview call letter (Ext.-W/3 ) which bears signature and thumb impression was also
not sent to the expert. It was further submitted that disciplinary authority passed order on 22.05.2015 without examining
the papers of the workman. He appeared before the Appellate Authority on 20.08.2015 along with his defence
representative and submitted the report of handwriting expert ( Ext.-W/9) and medical prescription report (Ext.- W/10 )
but the aforesaid documents were not considered by the Appellate Authority. It was further submitted on behalf of the
workman that the management failed to produce any witness in this tribunal regarding non appearance of the workman
Gunjan Kumar in the examination hall. The invigilator and the centre superintendent would have been the best and
competent witness to support the allegation of the management against this workman. The allegation levelled again
workman is not based on substantial evidence rather the same is based on very weak foundation. It was further submitted
that the enquiry officer did not accept the expert report and doctor prescription produced by him. It was further
submitted that CVC guide lines were also overlooked by the management in the case. The learned representative of the
workman further submitted that in the present case the management passed final order against workman only on the basis
of the opinion of the handwriting and thumb impression expert which is not fair and just. In this regard he relied upon
AIR 1963 SC 1728 Iswari Prasad Vs. Mohammad ISA. 1996 SCC (4) 596 S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and one another judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 13.09.1963 in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee &
Ors Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee in all this decision it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that evidence given by the
handwriting expert can never been conclusive because after all, it is only an opinion evidence. The experts evidence as to
handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it
is usually to see if it is corroborated either by clear, and direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Another decision
relied upon by the workman is the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court given in the case of Neel Bhushan Kumar
Vs The State Bank of India & Ors on 04.04.2018 in which the author of the expert report was not examined.
But in my view this decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as all the three experts
were examine in this tribunal who are M.W-1 ( Ashok Kashyap ), M.W-2 ( J.S.Shiv Kumar ) and M.W-3 all those
witnesses were fully cross-examined by the representative of the workman.
9.
On the other hand the learned representative of the management fully supported his case and submitted that
management has been able to prove his case fully on the basis of the materials available on the record. It was submitted
that the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar was allotted Roll No.- 3060531891 by institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(IBPS) Mumbai for appearing in the common written examination conducted at Patna Centre on 11.12.2011 for
recruitment of clerical cadre in Public Sector Banks but he did not appear in the written examination held at Patna centre
on 11.12.2011 and in his place some other person appeared in the written examination by putting forged signature and
thumb impression, which differed from the original thumb impression and signature of Gunjan Kumar available on
record. Gunjan Kumar has adopted unfair means for his selection in the bank. Sri Gunjan Kumar was served with charge
sheet dated- 18.02.2014 for his gross misconduct in terms of clause 5(m) and 5(o) in accordance with the provisions
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5791
contained in the Bipartite Settlement dated- 10.04.2002. Shri Gunjan Kumar submitted his reply dated- 25.02.2014 which
was not found satisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold departmental enquiry to ascertain the truth.
Copy of the documents upon which the management was relying against the workman were supplied to him. The
workman was also given opportunity to take assistance of one Rahul Mishra as his defence representative. During the
enquiry the workman gave the name of his two witnessess namely Sri Brahmadev Kumar and Deepak Kumar. He did not
submit any documents during enquiry in support of his case. Those two witnesses were examine during the enquiry on
behalf of the workman. The submission of the workman that his some documents namely the doctor prescription and
expert report given by Miss. S. Fatma were not accepted by the enquiry officer is not correct. In fact no such document
was produced during enquiry and those documents were tried to produce first of all only before the Appellate Authority.
It was further submitted that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case and principle of natural justice
were fully followed. He further submitted that the workman Sri Gunjan Kumar in para-5 of his deposition had admitted
that there is some difference in his signature and thumb impression and the same was due to the reason that his hands
were trembling due to illness he suffered earlier. But this facts has not come during the domestic enquiry and as such it
appears that this plea and the aforesaid two documents were creation of after thought and the same cannot be relied upon.
The learned representative of the management submitted all that the witnesses examined by the management are the
expert who examined the thumb impression and signature of the workman and have fully supported the case of the
management and have stated that the suspected signature were not written by the author of the authentic signature. The
expert witnesses in their report as well as in their evidence have specifically stated that the disputed signature are forged
one and not written by the person who wrote the authentic signature. The learned representative of the management
further submitted that the thumb impression marked as Q-1 on the attendance sheet dated-11.12.2011 was superimposed
with view to conceal the identity by the subsequent thumb impression marked as Q-2. This shows the malafide and
ulterior motive on the part of the workman. The learned representative of the management further submitted that the plea
taken by the workman that his interview call letter was not sent for expert examination is falsified by the evidence of
M.W-1 Ashok Kashyap who in para-2 of his deposition has stated that the interview call letter dated-07.01.2013 was also
sent to him for examination and the signature appearing on the same were marked as A4 & A5. The interview call letter
was marked as Ext-W/3 in this tribunal. It was submitted by the management that the case of Gunjan Kumar is that of an
impersonation and it is settled proposition that good conduct, discipline and integrity are the back bone of any employee
of the bank dealing with public money and no bank can keep in its employment a person whose conduct is not up to mark
and whose integrity is doubtful and as such the workman Gunjan Kumar does not deserves any relief.
10.
After hearing both the parties and going through the pleading and evidence both oral and documentary available
on the record I am of the view that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman Sri Gunjan
Kumar is justified. In my view in the present case principle of natural justice were fully followed and ample opportunity
was given to the workman to defend his case through his defence representative. Although this tribunal vide its order dt-
25.04.2016 held that enquiry was not done properly and fairly because the enquiry officer based his report only on the
basis of the report of the expert. In that very order also there was no mention of non application of principles of natural
justice. The workman in his deposition has himself admitted that there was difference in his signature appearing on the
attendance list ( Ext.-W/4) and he tried to explain the reason for difference in his deposition and has stated that there was
trembling in his hands due to the attack of the meningitis which he had suffered a few months back of his written
examination and in support of his this plea he came with the prescription of the doctor( Ext.- W/10 ) who treated him. It
is very strange that this plea was not taken by the workman during the entire domestic enquiry. Although a false plea has
been taken by the workman that enquiry officer did not accept his documents, but in fact no such documents were
brought by the workman during the enquiry and first of all he appeared with those fabricated documents only before the
Appellate Authority which creates serious doubt about the genuiness of those documents. There is consistant evidence of
the experts examined on behalf of the management that questioned signatures are forged signatures and not written by the
person who has written the standered / authentic signature. Thus it is apparent that some other person appeared in the
examination on 11.12.2011 conducted by the IBPS in place of workman Sri Gunjan Kumar and hence the management
rightly terminated his service and the same is justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief in this case. This award
is effected after date of publication and gazette.
And accordingly this is my award.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
5792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1386-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds laca) 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 1263@2004½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@385@98-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1263/2004) 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 26.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/385/98–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 01st July, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1263/2004
1.
The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region III, Zonal Office, 7th Office, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj,
Baroda (Gujarat)
3.
The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chouk Bazar, P.B. No. 1,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395003
…First Parties
V/s
Mr. Khushalbhai Barbhai Patel,
1, Mavapura, Nihora Nagar, Taluka Olpad,
Surat (Gujarat) - 395003
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri A.B. Gogia
For the Second Party
: Shri P.F. Baxi
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5793
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/385/98–IR(B-I)
dated 09.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the concerned workman Shri Khushalbhai Barbhai Patel has put in continuous service in the Bank as
per provisions of Section 25-B?”
And
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing
the services of the workman Shri Khushalbhai Barbhai Patel w.e.f. 03.03.1998 on/with the plea of
abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 09.03.1999 and received on 17.03.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New
Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on 25.08.2000 and the
first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 08.04.2002. The case was listed for cross-examination of parties.
3. On 01.07.2019, the second party workman Khushalbhai Barbhai Patel and the first party State Bank of India, Surat
and others submitted the settlement Ex. 32 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of
Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman K.B. Patel vide Banker Cheque No. 666082 dated
01.06.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party
workman vide Banker Cheque No. 666084 dated 01.06.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said
settlement Ex. 32 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Therefore, the settlement Ex. 32 is accepted by the Tribunal.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 32. The settlement Ex. 32 shall remain the part of
the award.
5. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1387-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe
jsyos ds izca/kra=z ds laca) 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 653@2004½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019] izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-41012@142@97-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 653/2004) 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 26.07.2019.
[No. L-41012/142/97– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
5794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 27th June, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 653/2004
1.
The General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Mumbai
2.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Pratapnagar,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390004
…First Parties
V/s
The Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole Kothi,
Baroda (Gujarat) - 390001
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur
For the Second Party
: Shri J. K. Ved
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/142/97–IR(B-I)
dated 09.03.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.), Divisional Office, Western Railway, Baroda in
discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Manubhai Bhailal, Sealman w.e.f. 04.02.1998 is legal and
justified? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 09.03.1998 and received on 28.03.1998 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 21.01.1999 and the first party submitted the written
statement Ex. 8 on 17.07.2000.
3.
The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 5 has alleged that he was appointed by the
establishment of the first party Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.), Western Railway, Baroda on 08.04.1982 on a Class 4
post required to do manual work in the pay scale of 785-940. At the time of his appointment, he was also subjected to
medical examination which he falls in A (2) Category. The copy of the said selection letter is enclosed with the statement
of claim. He worked from 08.04.1982 to 04.02.1992 and also worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year
during the last 15 years. At the time of his appointment, he was also subjected to eye test in the medical examination and
the medical officer declared him unfit but no certificate of declaring unfit was given to him and despite the said medical
examination, he was permitted to continue for 15 years. He has further alleged that he was protected under Section 25 B
of the Industrial Disputes Act as fall in A (2) category. He cannot be ordered to undergo further medical test as falling in
C (2) category. Thus after 15 years, his services were terminated without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act and he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages. The statement of claim is enclosed with copy of showing the
names of causal labours/substitute screened and placed on penal on TI-BH Beat wherein the name of the workman is
placed at Serial No. 19.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5795
4.
The first party Western Railway in his written statement Ex. 9 has admitted the facts narrated in the statement of
claim but objected the statement of claim on the ground that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference
and the relief sought is time barred and further submitted that this workman was initially engaged as Hot Weather
Waterman on 01.04.1983. At the time of screening, his total working days were 374 and his name was empanelled at
serial no. 19 in the list of substitutes under TI BH Beat notified vide ET/891/3/89 TI BH dated 15.09.1989. Before
absorbing this workman as a regular employee, he was required to pass medical test in C (1) category as he has lump
back. The screening committed recommend him for commercial category in which he was declared medically unfit.
During the course of absorption as salesman, he was directed for requisite medical examination under Senior DMO who
declared him medically unfit vide Certificate No. 340295 dated 18.07.1990/24.07.1990. Thereafter, he was sent to Chief
Medical Superintendent for re-examination on relaxed standard but again he was found unfit due to physically disability.
Though he was continued to serve by SM KBCS despite medical fitness but one of the trade union objected his
continuity in service in the PNM meeting, therefore, after reconciliation, he was terminated vide letter no. ET/ZM/1351
dated 28.08.1992 in terms of CMS BRC’s Certificate No. 216/2/1 dated 30.06.1992. Therefore, the reference has no
force and liable to be dismissed.
5.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.), Divisional Office, Western Railway,
Baroda in discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Manubhai Bhailal, Sealman w.e.f. 04.02.1998 is
legal and justified?
ii.
To what relief, if any, the second party workman is entitled?
6.
Issue No. i and ii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these
issues lies on the second party workman who was examined by the Tribunal on 04.01.2001 wherein he has reiterated the
averments made in the statement of claim and has not said anything contrary to his statement of claim in his cross-
examination.
7.
The first party examined Khumansinh Raulji, Chief/Superintendent who stated on oath that this workman was
engaged as Hot Weather Waterman on 01.04.1983. At the time of regularisation of his service, his total working days
were 374 and the screening committee recommended his regularisation for commercial category. He was also sent for
medical examination where he was declared medically unfit; therefore, his services were terminated. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that this workman declared medically unfit on 24.07.1990. He does not know as to whether
the copy of certificate of medical unfit was served to this workman or not. He does not know as to whether his name in
muster roll was struck of after declaring him unfit on 24.07.1990. He admitted that order of termination was not served
on the workman. He was not paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment. He was never promoted
and served as seal man. He was never given a pay scale of 750-940 but he cannot produce any documents regarding
service of the workman which he served for 10 years. He does not know that earlier he was declared medically fit. It is
also true that after declaring him medically unfit, no alternative appointment was given to him. He also stated that the
document Ex. 5/1 is true.
8.
I heard the arguments of learned advocates of both the parties. From the perusal of evidence, it is admitted fact
that as per the document Ex. 5/1 accepted as genuine and true by the first party witness, this workman/casual labour was
found fit for commercial category in the medical category of A (2). This document Ex. 5/1 was dated 19.09.1989 but the
first party has admitted that he worked till the year 1992. It is admitted fact that this workman was retrenched without
serving any notice and paying retrenchment compensation. Gujarat High Court in Kutarbhai Keshalabhai Rathva V/s
Assistant Geologist ‘2014 (1) Guj. Law Reporter Vol. 55 (1) Page 70’ has held that under the provisions of Section 47 of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) 1995, a workman who is
found medically unfit may be given the opportunity of alternative job available in the establishment. Thus after serving
more than 9 years, a workman who was appointed in the medical category of A (2), later on found medically unfit for the
post which he is holding, ought to have been shifted to the alternative suitable post. Said opportunity was denied to this
workman and without serving notice and compensation to a workman who served for more than 240 days in every
calendar year for 10 years, he was terminated from service. It is noteworthy that as per the admission of the workman, he
has passed the age of superannuation. Thus in the light of aforesaid observation, the termination of the workman was
against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, he ought to have been reinstated with
back wages but as he has passed the age of superannuation, therefore, the workman be awarded a lump-sum
compensation of Rs.175000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand). Both the issues are decided accordingly.
9.
The first party is directed to pay Rs.175000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand) to the workman named
Manubhai Bhailal within 60 days from the publication of this award.
10.
The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
5796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1388-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds laca) 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 1264@2004½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@379@98-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1264/2004) 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 26.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/379/98– 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 01st July, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1264/2004
1.
The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region III, Zonal Office, 7th Office, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj,
Baroda (Gujarat)
3.
The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chouk Bazar, P.B. No. 1,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395003
...First Parties
V/s
Mr. Prakash Chandrakant Chauhan,
Gokulnagar Chonpad Patti, R. No. 29,
Near Damber Factory, Bhatar – 1,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri A.B. Gogia
For the Second Party
: Shri P.F. Baxi
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5797
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/379/98–IR(B-I)
dated 09.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the concerned workman Shri Prakash Chandrakant Chauhan has put in continuous service in the Bank
as per provisions of Section 25-B?”
And
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing
the services of the workman Shri Prakash Chandrakant Chauhan w.e.f. 03.03.1998 on/with the plea of
abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 09.03.1999 and received on 18.03.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New
Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on 25.08.2000 and the
first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 07.01.2003. The case was listed for cross-examination of parties.
3. On 01.07.2019, the second party workman Prakash Chandrakant Chauhan and the first party State Bank of India,
Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 34 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of
Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Prakash Chandrakant Chauhan vide Banker
Cheque No. 666083 dated 01.06.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi,
advocate of second party workman vide Banker Cheque No. 666085 dated 01.06.2019 and nothing has been left for
further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 34 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and
conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 34 is accepted by the Tribunal.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 34. The settlement Ex. 34 shall remain the part of
the award.
5. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1389-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds laca) 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 1266@2004½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@380@98-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1266/2004) 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 26.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/380/98– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
5798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 01st July, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1266/2004
1.
The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2.
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region III, Zonal Office, 7th Office, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj,
Baroda (Gujarat)
3.
The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chouk Bazar, P.B. No. 1,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395003
…First Parties
V/s
Mr. Dineshbhai Punjabhai Patel,
At Post More-Vagar Street,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395003
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri A.B. Gogia
For the Second Party
: Shri P.F. Baxi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/380/98–IR(B-I)
dated 09.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the concerned workman Shri Dineshbhai Punjabhai Patel has put in continuous service in the Bank as
per provisions of Section 25-B?”
And
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing
the services of the workman Shri Dineshbhai Punjabhai Patel w.e.f. 03.03.1998 on/with the plea of
abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 09.03.1999 and received on 19.03.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New
Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on 25.08.2000 and the
first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 08.04.2002. The case was listed for evidence of second party.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5799
3. On 01.07.2019, the second party workman Dineshbhai Punjabhai Patel and the first party State Bank of India, Surat
and others submitted the settlement Ex. 32 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of
Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Dineshbhai Punjabhai Patel vide Banker Cheque
No. 428135 dated 06.06.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate
of second party workman vide Banker Cheque No. 428136 dated 06.06.2019 and nothing has been left for further
resolution. The said settlement Ex. 32 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions
of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 32 is accepted by the Tribunal.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 32. The settlement Ex. 32 shall remain the part of
the award.
5. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1390-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lgkjk bafM;k ifjokj ds izca/krarz ds laca) 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 76@2013½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12011@70@2012-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2013) 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. Sahara India Pariwar
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.07.2019.
[No. L-12011/70/2012-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 26th June, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 76/2013
1.
The Director,
M/s. Sahara India Pariwar,
Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurthala Complex,
Lucknow (Utter Pradesh)
2.
The Regional Manager,
M/s. Sahara India Pariwar,
4th Floor, Vraj Siddhi Tower, Khanderao Market Char Rasta,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…First Parties
5800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
The President,
Factory Kamdar Mandal, 15, Om Complex, Opp. District Court,
Bharuch (Gujarat) – 392001
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Azad Parihar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/70/2012–IR(B-I)
dated 04.04.2013 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 Sahara India Pariwar through its officer in terminating the services
of Shri Dhananjay Kumar Hariprasad Sainee w.e.f. 13.06.2007 is legal, just and proper? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman Shri Dhananjay Kumar Hariprasad Sainee is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 04.04.2013 and received on 22.04.2013 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New
Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice Ex. 2 issued to all the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
17.10.2016 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 17.10.2016.
3. The second party workman vide his statement of claim Ex. 4 has stated that he joined the first party M/s Sahara India
Pariwar on the post of Assistant Junior Worker on 01.08.1995 at Kim. Later on 01.08.1996, his services were
regularised/confirmed and he was transferred to its Branch Office at GIDC, Ankleshwar in the year 1999 on promotion.
He served the first party with diligence, sincerity and honestly. While serving at Ankleshwar, Cashier of M/s Sahara
India Pariwar named Mr. Gupta committed financial irregularities which he informed to the first party and said Mr.
Gupta was put under suspension by the first party. Besides Mr. Gupta, the first party M/s Sahara India Pariwar wrong
fully also put him under suspension on 11.08.2004. He was served with a charge-sheet on 24.01.2005 which he replied
on 23.02.2005 denying all the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. A departmental enquiry was also initiated against him
but he was not given due and fair opportunity of hearing by the first party and he was ordered to be dismissed in the
enquiry, therefore, the finding of the enquiry was perverse and liable to be set aside. Therefore, he has prayed for
quashing the order of dismissal of service besides declaring the finding of enquiry report as perverse, illegal and
violating the principles of natural justice. He has also prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
4. The first party M/s Sahara India Pariwar submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 17.10.2016 raising preliminary
objections that the reference is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. The reference is barred with delay and
latches as being moved after 5 years. It is wrong to say that the enquiry was violative of principles of natural justice as
being given the proper opportunity of hearing and defending his case. After submitting written statement, none appeared
from the first party till 06.03.2018 when Shri A.S. Parikh submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 6. Shri A.S. Parikh later also
informed the Tribunal that he is withdrawing his vakalatpatra from this case. Thus the reference was ordered to proceed
ex-parte on 13.02.2019. The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 8 along with number of documents
including enquiry report which apparently appears to be sketchy. After withdrawing the vakalatpatra from Shir A.S.
Parikh, none came from the first party to cross-examine the workman on Ex. 8; therefore, believing the affidavit Ex. 8, I
come to the conclusion that the averments and statement made on the affidavit are believable.
5. Thus the prayers sought in the statement of claim are allowed. The first party is directed to reinstate the second party
workman Dhananjay Kumar Hariprasad Sainee with back wages w.e.f. the date from which he was dismissed from
service or deprived of full wages within 60 days from the publication of this award.
6. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 3] [email protected] 12] 1941
5801
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2019
dk-vk- 1391-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksVd
efganzk cSad fyfeVsM ds 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 ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 329@2019½ dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@16@2018-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2019
S.O. 1391.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 329/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.07.2019.
[No. L-12012/16/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1, DELHI
ID No.329/2019
Shri Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Satya Narayan,
Marfat Audhogik Krantikari Karamchari Union,
F-308, Karampura,
New Delhi 110 015
…Workman
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,
Marfat Shri Shish Ram Hathwala,
Pravandhak,
F-19/12, Sector 8, Rohini,
Delhi – 110 085
…Management
AWARD
Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-12012/16/2018-IR(B-I) dated 13.11.2018 for
adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which is as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to impose a punishment of ‘termination
from service’ on Shri Rohit Kumar without hearing him is a violation of natural justice was proportionate? If not,
what relief the workman (Shri Rohit Kumar Keshari ) was entitled to?”
2.
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, Shri Rohit Kumar opted not to file his statement of claim with the Tribunal.
5802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2019/SRAVANA 12, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, 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 workman. Despite service of the notice, workman opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it is
made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, the workman is still at liberty to agitate his cause
in accordance with law. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : 18.07.2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2019.08.13
11:02:30 +05'30'