6095 GI/2019

(7863)

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- 49]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 1—fnlEcj 7] 2019] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 10—vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

No. 49] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 1— DECEMBER 7, 2019, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 10— AGRAHAYANA—16, 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 मंालय

मंालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई दली, 25 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2070

2070

2070.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् !ारा, क# सरकार भारत के दूतावास, कुवैत म $ी तुषार टाँक, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

25 नव बर 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा+ के िनव,हन के िलए -ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2019]

टी. अजुंगला जािमर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

7864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2070.—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 1048), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Tushar Tank, Assistant

Section Officer in Embassy of India, Kuwait to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect

from 25 November, 2019.

[No. T-4330/01/2019]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

िवुत मं ालय

नई द ली, 27 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2071

2071

2071.—क#ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय -योजन के िलए -योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म िव8ुत मं9ालय के -शासिनक िनयं9णाधीन पावरि:ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड के

अंतग,त उ? तरी @े9 पारेषण -णाली-3 के अधीन 765/400 के.वी. उरई जी.आई.एस. उपक#, :ाम-सोमई के समीप (कानपुर-

झCसी एन.एच.-27 पर उरई से 30 क.मी.), पो.-एट, तहसील-उरई, िजला जालौन, उ? तर -देश-285001, िजसके 80

-ितशत कम,चारीवृंद ने Iहदी का काय,साधक Jान -ाK कर िलया है, को एतद!ारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-हंद]

अिनMN कुमार, संयुO सिचव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 27^th November, 2019

S.O. 2071.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify 765/400 KV Orai GIS substation, Near village-Somai (30k.m.

from Orai on Kanpur-Jhansi N.H.-27), P.O. Ait, Tehsil-Orai, Distt. Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh-285001 of Northern Region

Transmission System-3 of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under the administrative control of Ministry of

Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

ANIRUDDHA KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

iSVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyyh] 27 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2072.—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 772 rkjh[k 08@05@2019 tks Hkkjr

ds jkti= la- 20 rkjh[k 12@05@2019 ls 18@05@2019] dkŒ vkŒ 776 rkjh[k 08@05@2019 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= la-

20 rkjh[k 12@05@2019 ls 18@05@2019 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph es

fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl ds

ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk

,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkha;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 15@06@2019 ls 10@07@2019 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh;

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7865

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu

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

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph eas fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k

tkrk gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd

mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqä] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy ¼vuqekfur½

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

ekjefifYy ¼[k.M la- 24½

127@6

127@7

127@8

fdt+kDdEcye ¼[k.M la- 25½

39@4

118@9

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy ¼vuqekfur½

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

dht+ekM+ ¼[k.M la- 32½

301@5

rsDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 30½

226@6

djqdqfV ¼[k.M la- 2½

366@11

ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la- 15½

252@8

295@2

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ikykdkM

rkyqd: ikykdkM

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy ¼vuqekfur½

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

dUukMh&2 ¼[kaM la 50 ½

487@18

vkykiYyh&1 ¼[kaM la 40½

169@7

173@2

7866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ikykdkM

rkyqd: vkykFkwj

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy ¼vuqekfur½

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

vkykFkwj ¼[kaM la 28 ½

65@2

65@5

vkykFkwj ¼[kaM la 28 ½

65@6

65@11

65@15

65@16

80@9

192@5

193@6

okMDdupsjh&1 ¼[kaM la 44 ½

108@2

[Qk- la- vkj-12031@196@2017-vksvkj-I@bZ-19746]

ih- lksekdqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2019

S.O. 2072.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O. No. 772dated 08.05.2019 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 20 dated 12.05.2019 to 18.05.2019 and

S.O. No. 776 dated 08.05.2019 published in the Govt. of India Gazette No. 20 dated 12.05.2019 to 18.05.2019 issued

under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land)

Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette Notifications have been made available to the public between

15.06.2019 to 10.07.2019 respectively.

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in

the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

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

Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this

notification are hereby acquired.

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

hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest free from

all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7867

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROX.)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

MARAMPILLY

BLOCK. NO. 24

127/6

127/7

127/8

KIZHAKKAMBALAM

BLOCK. NO. 25

39/4

118/9

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROX.)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

KEEZHMADU

BLOCK. .NO.32

301/5

THEKKUMBHAGAM

BLOCK. NO. 30

226/6

KARUKUTTY

BLOCK. NO. 2

366/11

MOOKKANNOOR

BLOCK. NO.15

252/8

295/2

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : PALAKKAD

TALUK : PALAKKAD

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROX.)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

KANNADI – II

BLOCK. NO. 50

487/18

ELAPPULLY - II

BLOCK. NO. 40

169/7

173/2

7868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : PALAKKAD

TALUK : ALATHUR

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROX.)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

ALATHUR

BLOCK. NO. 28

65/2

65/5

65/6

65/11

65/15

65/16

80/9

192/5

193/6

VADAKKANCHERY - I

BLOCK. NO. 44

108/2

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2073-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us”kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 38@2017½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 25-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

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

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, New Delhi 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 25.11.2019.

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

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

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. 39/2017

Date of Passing Award- 11^thOctober, 2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7869

Between:

Shri Daya Nand,

S/o Shri Narayan Singh,

R/o House No. 638,

Bajitpur Thakran,

Nangal Thakran, Delhi

…Workman

Versus

1. Chief Manager/Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Near TPDDL Office, Bawana,

Delhi.

2. M/s. Cleared Secured Services Pvt. Ltd.

240, First Floor, Saharanpur Jat,

Near Panchsheel Community Centre,

New Delhi- 110049.

…Managements

Appearances:-

None for the workman (A/R)

For the Workman

None for the management No. 1

For the Management No.1

None for the management No. 2 (A/R)

For the management No. 2

AWARD

This is an application filed by the claimant under the provision of 2A of the ID Act seeking redressal of the

grievance.

As per the claim statement filed by the workman He was working for the management no.2 i.e. M/s. Cleared

Secured Service Pvt. Ltd. since 09.07.2015 as a security guard at the post office on a monthly salary and his last drawn

salary was Rs. 8500/-. Thereafter the management No.2 deployed the workman as a security guard in the office of the

management no.1 i.e. Chief Manager PNB, Branch near TPDDL, Bawan Delhi. Thus, the management No.1 was the

principal employer of the workman and he was working under the supervision and control of the said principal employer.

Though the workman was working for 16Hours a day no over time wage was being paid to him. However the workman

continued to work for the management No.2 till 12.10.2016 and during this period he had discharged his duty with

outmost satisfaction of the principal employer and the contractor. Suddenly on 12.10.2016 the management no.1 illegally

terminated his service and at a time of such termination no notice of termination, notice pay, or termination compensation

was paid. Finding no other way on 18.10.2016 the workman served a demand notice on the management demanding a

reinstatement with full back wages, earned wages, and continuity of service, including all other consequential benefits.

Since, the workman was not obliged in any manner by the management he approach the conciliation office were the

conciliation proceeding was initiated. Though the Chief Manager PNB and the representative of the management no.2

participated in the said proceeding, no conciliation could be arrived at. A failure report being served to the claimant he

file the present proceeding with a prayer to direct the management No.1 to reinstate him in service with all back wages,

earned wages continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

Being noticed both parties appeared. No written statement was filed by management no.1 and by order dated

17.01.2019 management No.1 i.e. PNB was proceeded ex-parte. Management No.2 i.e. M/s Cleared secured services

filed written statement stating that the workman was employed by management No.2 on daily wage basis in the month of

June 2016. But he left the job voluntarily after two months i.e. in august 2016 without any information and prior

permission of management No.2. It has also been stated that management no.2 though issue several notices recalling the

workman to join his duty, he neither resumed work nor returned the I-card issue to him. While describing the claim of the

workman as baseless and vague, management No.2 pleaded for dismissal of the same. At this stage the workman was

called to file rejoinder to the WS, the workman abandoned the proceeding.

For non appearance of the claimant to adduce any oral or documentary evidence rebuting the stand taken by the

respondent management this no dispute award is hereby passed. Hence, ordered.

7870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The claim petition be and the same is dismissed as the workman has not substantiated the dispute raised by him.

Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act

1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

11^th October, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2074-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ;wukbVsM cSad

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

vf/kdj.k] iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16 ¼lh½@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-11-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@39@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16(C)/2019) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR) as shown

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

received by the Central Government on 25.11.2019.

[No. L-12011/39/2019-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No. 16 (C) of 2019

Between the management of (1) General Manager (HR), United Bank of India, Head Office, 11, Hemant

BasuSarani, Kolkata-700001 (2) The Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Abhay Bhawan,

2^nd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 And Their workman Sri Bhagirath Singh, Sub Staff, Patna Branch,

represented through Regional Secretary, United Bank of India Employees Union C/O Rajendrapath Branch, P. K.

Bhattacharya Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001.

For the management

Sri Ved Prakash, SPE No.- 34316, Manager (Law).

For the Workman

Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, Regional Secretary,

United Bank of India Employees Union, Bihar &

Jharkhand State Committee.

Present:-

VishweshwarNath Mishra Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated- 23rd October, 2019

By the adjudication order no.-L-12011/39/2019-IR(B-II) dated- 20.09.2019 the Govt. of India, Ministry of

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

Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”), the following dispute between the management of (1)

General Manager (HR), United Bank of India, Head Office, 11, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001 (2) The Chief

Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Abhay Bhawan, 2^nd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001

and their workman Sri Bhagirath Singh, Sub Staff, Patna Branch, represented through Regional

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7871

Secretary, United Bank of India Employees Union C/O Rajendrapath Branch, P. K. Bhattacharya Road, Patna

(Bihar)-800001. for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of United Bank of India Employees’ Union, Patna regarding discrimination in transferring

Sh. Bhagirath Singh, Sub Staff, Patna Branch who happens to be treasurer of the Union and a protected

workman from Patna Branch to Mafurganj Branch is legal & justified? If yes, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receiving the aforesaid reference the present reference case was registered and by order dt- 27.09.2019

notices were issued to both the parties, pursuant to which both the parties appeared and the workman Sri Bhagirath Singh

appeared through his Regional Secretary Sri Devendra Kumar Singh. The management also authorized one Sri Ved

Prakash, Manager (Law) to representthe case before this tribunal.

In this reference on 09.10.2019 a petition was filed on behalf of the workman praying therein to close the

dispute as the claim of the workman stands resolved and the matter settled out side the court.

The workman Sri Bhagirath Singh appeared before this tribunal on 16.10.2019 and deposed before this tribunal.

In his deposition he stated that he is a sub staff in United Bank of India at Patna Branch. The management transferred

him to Marufganj Branch. Later on a compromise was arrived between the parties and on the request of the workman the

management considered his request and stayed his transferred order. The workman has further stated that now he has no

grievance against the management and he does not want to contest the case, in view of the compromise arrived at

between the parties. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is satisfied with the settlement arrived with the

management and has no grievance at all against the management.

The representative of both the parties stated that as the matter has been settled between the parties, therefore, no

dispute award be passed in this case.

After hearing the learned representative of the parties as well as the material available on the record and the

petition filed by the workman, I am of the view that now there is no dispute at all exists between the parties and

accordingly, “No Dispute Award ” is hereby passed.This award is effected after date of publication and gazette.

And accordingly this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

23.10.2019

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2075-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uok

f”kok baVjus”kuy dUVsuj VfeZuy izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 2@2018½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-31025@02@2017-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Nhava Sheva International

Container Terminal Private Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.11.2019.

[No. L-31025/02/2017-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

7872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT: M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/2 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF NHAVA SHEVA INTERNATIONAL

CONTAINER TERMINAL P. LTD.

The Chief Executive Officer,

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P. Ltd.

Operation Centre,

Sheva, Navi Mumbai – 400 707.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal Ltd.,

Bunder Kamgar Union, 201, ‘C’ Wing, Ekdat Aptt.,

Co-op. Housing Society, Uran-Mora Road,

Swami Vivekanand Chowk,

Raigad (Maharashtra) – 400 702.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. L. L. D’Souza, Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN

Ms. Bhavana Mhatre, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 24^th October, 2019

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-31025/02/2017 – IR (B-II) dated 28.12.2017. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the employer of M/s. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal Private Limited :-

(i)

in not entertaining the 33 point charter of demands dated 23.02.2016 served by the Nhava Sheva

International Container Terminal Ltd. Bunder Kamgar Union [NSICT-BKU] is justified ?

(ii)

in not implementing Clause 6.9.1 of the Agreement reached between M/s. Nhava Sheva International

Container Terminal Private Limited and Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust on 31.07.1997 is justified ?”

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

Read application Ex.22. Parties to the dispute have signed the wage settlement in respect of charter of demands

and in view of settlement clause – 38, parties have agreed to file the copy thereof before this court in the present

reference for passing the award in terms of said memorandum of settlement.

Learned counsel for both the parties have signed this application and stated before me that the parties agreed to

file the settlement before this court for passing the award in terms of settlement.

In view of this settlement the reference is disposed of. Award be prepared in terms of memorandum of

settlement dt. 8.8.19. Hence Order.

ORDER

Reference is disposed of in terms of memorandum of settlement dt. 8.8.19 with no order as to costs.

Date: 24.10.2019

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7873

August 8^th2019

WAGE REVISION SETTLEMENT

FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1^st, 2016 TO JULY 2^nd, 2027

Memorandum of Settlement Dated 06^th August 2019 signed between the Management of Nhava Sheva International

Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. and the Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Bunder Kamgar Union,

Uran under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Representatives of The Management

Representatives of the Workmen

Mrs. Shradha Goley

Head, HR, IR & Admin

Mr. Sanjay Patil

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Patil

Mr. Ajay Moghe

Head, Operations

Mr. Sunil Bhosle

Mr. Jitendra Patil

Mr. Sagar Mhatre

Head, HSE

Mr. Mahesh Durne

Mr. Jeevan Patil

Mr. Rajesh Samdani

Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Dhanraj Patil

Mr. Sagar Kadu

Mr. Sachin Shetty

AM, HR & Admin

Recitals

The workmen employed at the Terminal represented by the NhavaSheva International Container Terminal Ltd Bunder

Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred to as the BKU) had earlier entered into a conciliation Settlement dated 1^st April 2012

(hereinafter referred to as the 2012 Settlement) with the company, which was in force up to 31^st March, 2016.

The said Union thereafter informed the company that in the General Body Meeting of the workmen, the Union has been

authorized to submit a fresh charter of demands and to negotiate on it and settle and sign a Settlement in that regard.

Thereafter, the authorized representatives of the BKU submitted a Charter of Demands vide letter dated 23^rd February

2016. The authorized representatives of the Union thereafter hada series of meetings to resolve the demands amicably

with a view to ensure future viable working of the Terminal activities.

WHEREAS during the discussions it was specifically pointed out on behalf of the Management that, even after the 2012

Settlement the business of the Company continued to decline due to adverse market conditions and cut throat

competition and economic scenario also continued to be unfavourable to the industry in general, and to ports and

shipping in particular. The BKU was also informed that the volume of business has dropped by 50% from the date of the

2012 Settlement and there is consequent fall in the revenue and the Company has started incurring losses.

AND WHEREAS the BKU continued to be adamant on their exorbitant demands and declined to accept the offers made

by the Management. The demands raised by the BKU were then seized in Conciliation and the proceedings ended in

failure. The Conciliation Officer thus submitted a failure of conciliation report and the matter was referred for

adjudication to the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal No 2 Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT)

being Reference CGIT No 2/2 of 2018. The BKU filed their Statement of Claim along with an application for Interim

Relief. The Management filed its written statement and affidavit opposing the said application for interim relief. After

hearing the parties, the Hon’ble CGIT passed an order dated March 14^th, 2019rejecting the application for interim relief

made by the BKU.

AND WHEREAS during the pendency of the dispute before the CGIT, an Agreement on productivity incentive was

signed on September 4^th, 2018 between the Company and representatives of the permanent workmen, granting a

reasonable increase to the workmen. All the workmen accepted the increase granted with effect from April 1^st, 2018.

Thus, even during the pendency of the dispute and even before the application for interim relief was decided the

workmen got an average increase of around Rs. 3,000/- from Rs.1,674 to Rs. 3,816 per month in their incentive earnings.

AND WHEREAS after the disposal of the application for interim relief filed by the BKU, several workmen approached

the Management to consider granting a reasonable increase in their emoluments, also keeping in mind its financial

position, so that the dispute pending before the Hon’ble CGIT can be amicably resolved rather than awaiting the outcome

of litigation.

7874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND WHEREAS the Management considered the views put forth by the workmen and considering the prevailing

business scenario and the financial position of the Company impressed upon the workmen that unless there are /is

specific commitment/s of achieving the targeted productivity and outputs, no additional financial burden on account of

labour cost is justified. The full utilization of available manpower and resources to the best of its capacity to ensure

speedy container movement as per the international norms can only ensure the viable day to day working of the

Terminal. The flexibility, redeployment and full cooperation in restructuring, reorganizing and technical development /

improvement in the terminal activities shall be fully supported by the workmen to ensure the survival and speedy growth

of the Terminal activities.

AND WHEREAS the said workmen also assured the Management to work towards achieving the targeted productivity

and fully cooperate with the Management in making the Company viable.

AND WHEREAS in view of the requests made by the workmen and their willingness to cooperate with the Management

in making the Company viable, the Management had decided to offer an increase in the wages and emoluments of its

workmen in terms of the Wage Revision Policy Dated 04^th June 2019.

However a section of workmen, who are members of the BKU and had not accepted the Wage Revision Policy had

started Go-Slow with effect from 09.06.2019. The matter was later referred to the office of The Regional Labour

Commissioner – Central. After prolonged and deliberations and discussions and with the intervention of the Conciliation

Officer and RLC(C), Mumbai, both the management and Union agreed to sign the Memorandum of Settlement under

Section12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 06.08.2019.

In furtherance to the Wage Revision Policy dated 04^th June 2019 and “Form – H”, Memorandum of Settlement dated 06^th

August 2019 signed before The Regional Labour Commissioner, and considering the fact that normalcy has been

restored from 07.08.2019 it is agreed as follows:

OBJECTIVES OF THE WAGE REVISIONSETTLEMENT

The purpose of this SETTLEMENT is to ensure harmonious industrial/ human relations between the management and

the workmen, to sustain and constant improvement in work efficiency and uninterrupted operations at the terminal.

The basic principles of the Settlementhave focussed on:

Quality in work to maintain international standards

Cost and Productivity Optimization

Safety and discipline

Reduction in absenteeism and to encourage planned leave culture

Elimination of restrictive or wasteful work practices.

Reduction of idle time of equipments below 25% of operating time.

Making workmen multi skilled, training and development initiatives for their career growth.

Create, maintain and promote harmonious industrial relations culture and to develop whole-hearted co-operation

between the Management and the workmen on all aspects of Terminal working.

Strive for maximum utilization of available human resources, adapting & implementing multiple skills working in

the terminal, creating a culture of free mobility as regards to work patterns / practices and thus creating sound

economic base by maximizing efficiency.

10.

Craft, cultivate and promote disciplined work culture and to improve workman morale.

11.

Create and implement safe work practices together with workman’s health, hygiene and housekeeping in the

premises of the terminal.

12.

Always strive for implementing good operational / productivity oriented practices.

13.

Eliminate workman absenteeism, restrictive and wasteful practices by workmen.

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT

1. COMPENSATION STRUCTURING

The total CTC (Cost to Company) per workman will be spread over as follows:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7875

Cost to Company

(CTC)*

% of CTC

Basic Pay

45.00%

Conveyance Allowance

6.00%,

Education Allowance

7.00%

House Rent Allowance

22.35%

Leave Travel Allowance

2.50%

Medical Reimbursement

5.00%

Company’s contribution to. PF on Basic Pay

5.40%

Washing Allowance

3.00%

Bonus

3.75%

Total CTC

100.00%

Provident Fund – In case of any change of Provident Fund Contribution, the differential in employer’s contribution to that

extent shall be borne by the employer and vice-versa.

In addition to the above CTC Structure, it has been agreed to pay an Festival Allowance per year per month as per the

below mentioned table:

As the ConcessionPeriod with JNPT is valid upto July 2^nd, 2027, it has been decided to sign this Settlementupto July 2^nd,

2027. Thus the total increase in CTC will be spread over for a 11 year period, in three phases, commencing from 1^st April

2016 to 2^nd July 2027, to each category of workmen as per below table:

Spread over (CTC) from 1^st April 2016 to 31^stMarch 2019

Category

Fixed Increase in monthly CTC to be spread over as per compensation structure at clause 1

hereinabove(Rs.)

On 1.04.2016

On 1.04.2017

On 1.04.2018

QC Operator

3500

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

3260

Fantuzzi Operator

3120

Checker / Deck

Checker

2870

Spread over CTC from 1^st April 2019 to 31^st March 2023 as Fixed & Variable (methodology for calculating Variable increase is

attached as Annexure “C”)

Fixed Increase:

Category

Fixed Increase in monthly CTC to be spread over as per compensation structure at clause 1

hereinabove (Rs.)

On 1.04.2019

On 1.04.2020

On 1.04.2021

On 1.04.2022

QC Operator

3500

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

3260

Fantuzzi Operator

3120

Checker / Deck

Checker

2870

Period

01.04.2016

01.04.2017

01.04.2018

Till

01.04.2022

01.04.2023

01.04.2024

Till

02.07.2027

Festival Allowance

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019

500

1000

7876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Variable Increase:

For calculation of variable increase for year 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020, the average of three month’s (January 2019 to March

2019) performance will be considered. Thereafter average of previous financial year will considered for the calculation of

variable increase. Methodology for calculating Variable increase is attached as Annexure “C”.

Category

Variable Increase in monthly CTC (amounts mentioned herein are maximum (100%) payout per

month subject to laid down parameters) (Rs.)

1.04.2019

1.04.2020

1.04.2021

1.04.2022

QC Operator

1,000

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

930

Fantuzzi

Operator

890

Checker / Deck

Checker

820

Spread over CTC from 1^st April 2023 to 2^ndJuly 2027 as Fixed & Variable (methodology for calculating Variable increase is

attached as Annexure “C”)

Fixed Increase:

Category

Fixed Increase in monthly CTC to be spread over as per compensation structure at clause 1

hereinabove (Rs.)

1.04.2023

1.04.2024

1.04.2025

On1.04.2026

till 02.07.2027

QC Operator

4,000

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

3,720

Fantuzzi Operator

3,560

Checker / Deck

Checker

3,280

Variable Increase:

For calculation of variable increase, average of previous financial year will be considered. Methodology for calculating Variable

increase is attached as Annexure “C”.

Category

Variable Increase in monthly CTC (amounts mentioned herein are 100% payout per month)

(Rs.)

1.04.2023

1.04.2024

1.04.2025

On 1.04.2026

till 02.07.2027

QC Operator

1,000

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

930

Fantuzzi Operator

890

Checker / Deck

Checker

820

For sake of clarity, the calculation is shown as an illustration below:

( the CTC figures mentioned in calculation are for the purpose of example only)

Example for the period from 1.04.2016 to 31.03.2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7877

(Example)

CTC as on as per

Clause 1

CTC annual spread over

Increase

CTC, as per clause 1, after Increase

as on

Category

31.03.2016

1.04.2016

1.04.2017

1.04.2018

(Rs)

C= A+B

(Rs)

D= C+B

(Rs)

E=D+B

(Rs)

QC Operator

45,000

3,500

48,500

52,000

55,500

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

40,000

3,260

43,260

46,520

49,780

Fantuzzi Operator

35,000

3,120

38,120

41,240

44,360

Checker / Deck

Checker

30,000

2,870

32,870

35,740

38,610

Example for the period from 1.04.2019 to 31.03.2023(methodology for calculating Variable increase is attached as

Annexure “C”)

Example

Category

Monthly CTC

as on

31.3.19

Monthly Increase in CTC from 1.04.2019 to 31.03.2023

Monthly CTC after Increase as on

Fixed

Variable

100%

Annual

Parameters

Achieved %*

Achieved

Variable

Total

1.4.2019

1.4.20

1.4.202

(Rs)

E= C*D

(Rs)

F =B+E

(Rs)

G= A+F

(Rs)

H=G+

(Rs)

H+F

(Rs)

J=I+F

(Rs)

QC Operator

55,500

3,500

1,000

80%

800

4,300

59,800

64,100

68,400

72,700

RTG/RMG/RS

Operator

49,780

3,260

930

80%

744

4,004

53,784

57,788

61,792

65,796

Fantuzzi Operator

44,360

3,120

890

80%

712

3,832

48,192

52,024

55,856

59,688

Checker / Deck

Checker

38,610

2,870

820

80%

656

3,526

42,136

45,662

49,188

52,714

*Annual parameters achieved are considered in above table as 80% out of maximum 100% for illustration purpose only.

Example for the period from 1.04.2023 to02.07.2027

(methodology for calculating Variable increase is attached as Annexure “C”)

Operator

CTC as

CTC Increase from 01.04.2023 to 02.07.2027

(Rs)

CTC after Increase as on

(Rs)

31.3.23

Fixed

Variable

100%

Achieve

d %

Variable

Total

1.4.202

1.4.2025

1.4.2026

till

2.7.2027

E= C*D

F =B+E

G= A+F

H=G+F

I= H+F

J=I+F

Operator

72,700

4,000

1,000

80%

800

4,800

77,500

82,300

87,100

91,900

RTG/RMG/

Operator

65,796

3,720

930

80%

744

4,464

70,260

74,724

79,188

83,652

Fantuzzi

Operator

59,688

3,560

890

80%

712

4,272

63,960

68,232

72,504

76,776

Checker /

Deck

Checker

52,714

3,280

820

80%

656

3,936

56,650

60,586

64,522

68,458

The CTC increase granted from 1st April 2016 to 2nd July 2027 as shown above and the breakup of above CTC will be as per

Point 1 :-Compensation Structuring of this Settlement.

The above annual increase will not be granted to the workmen whose Leave without Pay or unauthorised absence is more

than 12 days in the last financial year and penalty points will be applicable as per the Point 30 of this Settlement. In addition,

the provision of CertifiedStanding Orders will be applicable to the workmen for any misconduct. Non applicability of the

annual increase for more than 12 days of LWOP (leave without Pay)/unauthorised absence shall be effective from the date of

signing of this Settlement. Company may consider cases of genuine nature at its sole discretion and the same will not be a

matter of right of the workmen or the Union.

7878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. EX-GRATIA

The Ex-Gratia amount will be payable annually to only those workmen /employees of the Company who have actually

worked for 223days in the preceding year.

The workmen will not be entitled to claim any ex-gratia as a matter of right. However, the same is being paid only on the

assurance of maintaining better productivity as per the norms and maintaining Industrial Peace, normalcy in the day to day

movement of containers as per International Standard, adherence to all company instructions and certified standing orders and

maintaining safety and discipline. The management of the company has also agreed to accept the financial burden of ex-gratia

payment only on the assurances given above.

The Management of the Company intends to run and control the terminal activities as per the international levels and compete

in the market with a view to provide speedy and best quality services to the customer.

The ex-gratia amount, subject to the conditions mentioned herein, is as follows:

Sr. No.

Accounting Year

Amount (Rs)

2019-20

18200

2020-21

18700

2021-22

19200

2022-23

19700

2023-24

20200

2024-25

20700

2025-26

21200

2026-27

21700

This payment is being made as a special case and cannot be claimed as a matter of right in future as well as it cannot be

termed as custom, usages or practices or used /claimed as a precedent in future.

The provision of actual working of 223days will be applied from the date of this Settlement.

CEO has discretion to waive off the mandatory working of 223 days on case to case basis.

3. PROMOTION

The existing practices of granting preference to internal candidates for promotional vacancies arising, subject to suitability

such as fulfilment of qualification, age, experience, attendance records, disciplinary records and expertise stipulated for the

promotional position, other things being equal, will continue. However, decision of the .management regarding consideration

of candidature is final and binding, as same is the prerogative of the management. It will be mandatory .upon workmen to take

promotion for next higher position as and when offered by the Management. In case if a workman does not accept the

promotion, he will be debarred from applying for any promotional post for five years from the date of refusal. This debarment

will not apply in cases of persons being found medically unfit for that (new) position.

•

Promotion from RS/RTGC/RMGC to RMQC – INR 3500.00

•

Promotion from Checker/Deck Checker to RTGC/RMGC/RS – INR 2500.00

4. MEDICAL BENEFIT / MEDICLAIM POLICY

For the period January 9th 2020 to March 31st 2020, the company will provide medical insurance coverage of proportionate

amount of annual premium limit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) excluding taxes per workman.

For the period April 1st 2020 to March 31st 2023, the company will provide medical insurance coverage within the premium

limit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) excluding taxes per annum per workman.

For the period April 1st 2023 to March 31st 2027, the company will provide medical insurance coverage within the premium

limit of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) excluding taxes per annum per workman.

For the period April 1st 2027 to July 2nd, 2027, the company will provide medical insurance coverage of proportionate

amount of annual premium limit of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only) excluding taxesper workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7879

If the workmen intend to avail a higher coverage where the premium amount exceeds the agreed premium amount, the costs

towards additional premium will be borne by the workmen. All workmen, whether those who opt for a higher coverage or

otherwise will be covered under the same Service Provider.

Five representatives from workmen in assistance of the Management will be nominated by the company to administer and

monitor the policy and its working, with no additional liability to the company. However the final decision would rest with

the Management.

ACCIDENT INSURANCE IN CASE OF DEATH/ DISABILITY –

The coverage of the workman's insurance for death/ disability arising out of and during the course of employment will be as

per the provisions of Employees Compensation Act.

5. OVERTIME

The Overtime payment shall be made as only on Basic and HRA.

6. LEAVES

Workmen will be entitled for following leaves every year i.e. during the period from April to March:

Leave

Quantum

Casual Leave

8 days

Privilege Leave

21 Working days

Sick leave

6 days

Maternity Leave

As per provisions under the Maternity Benefits

Act

Port Closed Holidays

1. Republic Day - 26th January

2. Maharashtra Day - 1st May

3. Independence Day - 15th August

4. Gandhi Jayanti - 2nd October

4 days

(if weekly off falls on Port Holiday, the

workman will be entitled for one additional off.

There will not be any encashment of leave except in cases where leaves have been applied by the workmen and denied by the

Manager in charge on account of operational and business exigencies or for any sufficient reason or without giving alternate

days to avail. The detailed leave rules are annexed in Annexure “A”.

7. COMPENSATORY OFF

It has been agreed between the parties that if the workman has to work on the days of his Weekly Off then in turn the

said workman shall be entitled for Compensatory Off or can claim the equivalent wages for working on that day.

Compensatory Off to be availed within 15 days. The detailed leave rules are annexed at Annexure “A”.

8. TRANSPORT FACILITY

The existing practice of providing Bus facility shall be continued as it is, and no new bus routes shall be introduced

during the operation of the Settlement. However, the bus routes shall be discontinued after the availability/ introduction

of public transport in the area.

The current existing Bus transport facility from Panvel, Belapur, Uran and Chirner for shift workmen will continue to

operate till availability/introduction of public transport in the area.

The transport arrangements/facility will not be considered by the workmen as customary privilege and usage of practice

and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In case the situation is beyond the control of the Management on any account i.e. due to transporter's strike, riot, civil

disturbance, shortage of fuel, road blockades, natural calamities if the bus services are not available, the workmen

concerned will make their own arrangements to report on duty in time and at no cost to the company.

9. REST ROOM AND CANTEEN FACILITIES

The existing Rest room and canteen facilities will continue as it is. The workmen must maintain the discipline and

cleanliness in rest room and canteen. They must swipe the card every time for taking the food or extra food.

The sharing of cost of eatables served in the canteen will continue to be 20% and 80% workman’s and company's share,

respectively. There will not be any change in the sharing ratios during the operation of the Settlement.

7880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. SHIFT WORKING HOURS

The Shift timings will be as under: -

1st Shift - 07:00 to 15:30 hours (inclusive of 1/2 hour break, on rotation)

2nd Shift - 15:00 to 23:30 hours (inclusive of 1/2 hour break, on rotation)

3rd Shift - 23:00 to 07:30 hours (inclusive of 1/2 hour break, on rotation)

General Shift - 08:45 to 17:45 hours (inclusive of 1/2 hour break, on rotation)

There needs to be strict implementation of "Hot Seat Change over".

The terminal works round the clock and vessels are operationally required to be completed for sailing as per scheduled

window timing, therefore, workmen will ensure that rostered workmen attend duties or whenever called after a shift to

complete the ship for sailing in time. However, in any circumstances they will not work more than 12 hours save and

except in cases of absence of the reliever. The workmen should co-operate in this account in totality and with true spirit.

11. HOT SEAT CHANGEOVER AND RELIEVING RATIO

Hot Seat: It is resumption of work after the shift change/relieving with a stoppage of maximum 5 minutes for mandatory

checks as per SOP wherever applicable.

Objective is to ensure the constant operations of equipments to achieve the targeted Productivity.

During the shift hours the workman will have to continue to work till his reliever takes the charge of the equipment/

location as a replacement. In case there is no reliever for any reason what so ever, the workmen will arrange among

themselves for relieving(with intimation to tower control about the arrangement done) and till that time workmen/

operator will hold the position and not leave the workplace and equipment in idle condition.

In case the reliever does not come then it will be the duty of the Operator to inform the Tower control of the same, within

15 minutes after scheduled relieving, and wait for the instructions before leaving the equipment. In case the Operator gets

down from the equipment without informing the Tower control and/or before he receives instructions from the Tower

Control, then he will be liable for strict action as per penalty point no. 30 besides being charged for misconduct.

Relieving Ratio for various equipment will continue as under :

Quay Crane Operators

2:1

RTG/ RMG/ RSH/ Fantuzzi/Checkers

3:1

II.

If the workman is a regular defaulter then he will be liable for strict disciplinary action.

III.

Management will ensure safe practice of taking food during the relief time and it is mandatory for all

workmen to have meals within the Canteen area only.

12. MEDICAL CHECKUP

The periodical medical check-up ( including HIV /AIDS Test) of workmen, those who are 40 and above years of age

once in a year and to those below the age of 40 years , once in two years, is already being done as per the provisions of

Dock Workers ( Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, 1990 and same will continue. If any workman found unfit to

discharge his duties in the yearly Medical Checkup the concerned workman shall be required to obtain Fitness Medical

Certificate from company's Panel Medial Doctor / Civil Surgeon. The decision of Panel Doctor/ Civil Surgeon in these

regards will be consider as final and cannot be challenged. A workman will continue in service only if he is medically fit.

13. PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

The PPE are issued as a safety measure to the workmen and therefore it is their responsibility to ensure the safe custody

of the same. In the event of losses of PPE, the company will issue new PPE only after deducting the following amount/s

indicated against respective items. However, above items can be re-issued to workmen only on return of old ones subject

to inspection of the same by the HR representative.

Cost (Rs)

Boiler Suit

683

Safety Shoes

751

Helmet

260

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7881

Rainy Wear

866

Winter Wear

578

Hand Gloves

The workmen will not be allowed to report at work place without wearing PPE and if he fails to observe this, then he

shall be marked as absent and liable for strict disciplinary action and penalty as per point no 30 of this Settlement.

14. TRANSFER / CHANGE IN JOB/FLEXIBILITY/DEPUTATION

It is agreed by both the parties that transfer of an workman is prerogative of management and therefore seeking consent

of union does not arise. However, union may be kept posted time to time in the matter of transfer/ change of job.

In exigencies like change in planning, re-organising, modernization, automation, shutdown, absenteeism, the workmen

shall be deployed from one job/ line/ section/ in to any location or Group Company of DP World. Same will be done on

mutual understanding basis. If any workman is sent for deputation it would be on mutual understanding and one year for

International assignment and one month within India.

15. INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS, CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT &

CHANGE IN WORK PRACTICES

The Company is at liberty to take such steps as may be necessary in sections / departments of the terminal, which may

yield higher efficiency, Service and productivity and the workmen will support and cooperate on these initiatives such as;

Rationalization, standardization, simplifications, automation, modernization of plants and equipments,

mechanization of work techniques.

Change of layout of production equipments, assembly lines, work lines, and other work places.

Installation of modern machines, use of tools, jigs and fixtures and change in process and methods.

Improve and optimize utilization of man-power, materials, machines, tools, space, power and other resources.

Introduction of new advance technology for reduction of cost and improvement of quality of the services.

To maintain flexibility in deployment of workforce from one department Category to another, depending on the

operational needs of the company.

It is management endeavour to provide best operating conditions for efficiency, It is states that in case workmen

wilfully work at a slower pace, or gives at lower output than the qualified output, it shall be treated as breach of

this Settlement, and therefore, a misconduct, and they shall be liable for strict disciplinary action, provided it is not

due to the fault on the part of the Management.

It is needless to say that the company's survival and prosperity depends on the growth in market share and

widening of our customer base. To meet the above goal, Company may undertake developing new work practices.

The workmen must undertake these developments and accomplish the 'productivity targets set by the

Management.

Outputs in all the departments will be reported to the Shift Supervisor concerned at the end of shift.

To plan, direct, control operations of the terminal to introduce new or improved work practices is solely and

exclusively the prerogative of the Management.

Any changes from one to another during shift timing to suit daily planning needs shall be implemented as decided

by Shift Supervisor / Manager.

Workmen shall contribute for continuous improvement to achieve 'zero loss / defect' in their respective work

areas.

Total Productive Maintenance to be implemented in all areas of the Terminal. As part of maintaining the machines

and equipments in good order, the workmen are required to undertake and support normal / routine maintenance

including the cleaning of machines, oiling, greasing etc., and also assist the maintenance department whenever

there is breakdown of machines / equipments for speedy rectification of the same.

The workmen shall at all-time keep their work area in clean and hygienic condition, be responsible for cleaning

their work places / machines and equipment, assist in movement of materials within and between departments and

perform tasks incidental to or connected with their main jobs.

7882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Introduction of new technology is essential for the Company and in order to survive in the market and to meet the

Customer's changing requirements as well as to overcome competition. Therefore, it is must that the workmen

carry out work related to upgraded versions.

To maintain work discipline and to inculcate good behaviour and positive attitude so as to achieve optimum level

of productivity and quality.

In order to provide maximum opportunities for continued employment, goodworking conditions, wages and other

benefits to the workmen, the Company must be in strong competitive position, which means that workmen must

make all efforts to minimise the operating cost through saving of consumables, power and fuel, water, equipments,

space etc.

Operators will immediately inform Tower Control regarding any unsafe acts observed in their area. Failure to do

so will invite disciplinary action.

No operator will leave his machine with its engine running. This shall be considered a serious breach of

regulations and will invite disciplinary action.

When no apparent job order is observed over a span of 3 min, operator will ensure RTG switched to Aux mode,

and if same not possible inform Tower Control. When the gap exceeds 5 min, he shall switch off the machine and

request Tower Control to have him picked up.

RTG operator will move between jobs to ensure efficient use of equipment. If alternate job • visible, but same not

on VMT, he will contact Tower Control for advice.

16. MANPOWER PLANNING & DEPLOYMENT

Manpower planning including deployment / re-deployment of the workmen and engaging contract labour will be at the sole

discretion and prerogative of the Management. The management would assess the manpower requirement from time to time

and may engage operators as need arise on short term basis via third party service provider.

Deployment and roster of the workmen as per the operations requirement shall be followed strictly. In case of non-compliance

of deployment and roster, there will be an impact on the increment and incentive.

17. ACCIDENT AND REFRESHER TRAINING

If an operator is assigned re-training due to accident, he will not be entitled to productivity incentive during

training period.

II.

If an Operator commits accident due to negligence, carelessness, or incompetency then such operator will be

demoted to the lower grade with applicable wages.

III.

Any loss or damage to any equipment or company's property due to negligence or default of any workmen, the

management will have the right to recover such loss from the payments (CTC) and other payments to workman

and the workman will also be liable for strict disciplinary action as per certified standing orders and on

recommendation by the Grievance Committee and penalty point no.30 will be applied.

18. IDENTITY CARD

In the event of loss or breakage of Identity card, the company shall deduct Rs. 100/- for re-issuing the new card. Concern

employee will file the FIR to nearest Police Station and will submit the copy of report to HR Dept.

19. STANDING ORDERS

Other than the disciplinary points mentioned in this Settlement the Service Conditions of the workmen/workmen shall be

governed by The Certified Standing Orders and terms of employment. The obligations on workmen under this Settlement

for maintaining productivity, operations, maintenance, Safety Standards, rules made in will be part of discipline and

violation of any such obligation will attract disciplinary action and penalty point no. 30 will also be applied.

20. SERVICES AND QUALITY

In order to meet the demanding customer needs, workmen must follow quality systems and procedures as set from time

to time to achieve continuous improvement in our services as enlisted below: -

Achieving Zero Defect levels in all work areas.

II.

Adopting changes in work practices / operations to meet customer requirements.

III.

Addition / deletion of operations as required due to changing needs of the market.

IV.

Implementation of required changes in quality systems and text cycles based on customer's feedback.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7883

21. SALARY / WAGES PAYMENT

The salary/ wages of workmen are paid on monthly basis and the actual number of days worked will be the basis for

calculation. All statutory/ Deduction of employee PF contribution as per PF Act / non statutory deductions will be based

on actual number of days in a month. All Non Statutory deductions which are not payable to the Company, will be made

immediately on the basis of current month data available and there shall not be any adjustments in the following month.

In the event of a workman leaving the company during the year, annual allowances such as education allowance, festival

allowance, leave travel allowance and bonus paid in advance will be recovered proportionately.

22. SAFETY & HEALTH

It is the policy of the Company to prevent the occurrence of the accidents so as to ensure a safe and healthy working

environment. To achieve this, workmen agree to adhere to the following: -

Increase safety consciousness amongst workmen.

ii.

To maintain safe working conditions, work practices and job methods in all spheres of activities to achieve ZERO

accident rate.

iii.

Adherence of all instructions issued by Safety Committee / Management.

iv.

To use all personal protective equipments provided by Management compulsorily for safe working.

To co-operate and comply with safety standards for better working environment.

vi.

The workmen shall adhere to Drug & Alcohol Policy scrupulously.

23. GENERAL

It is stated that the irrespective of their grade or seniority the workmen working in operations, Engineering and

Support departments would work as a team.

It is stated that any technical, legal, arithmetical and typographical error that may have inadvertently crept in the

Settlement, will be resolved and rectified mutually and neither party will take undue advantage of the said errors,

if any.

24. EFFECT OF LEGISLATION ETC:

If during the currency of this Settlement, due to any legislation, award, order, direction or recommendation issued or

made by any legally constituted authority, the central or the state government or any other legally constituted authority

issue order or directions for the payment of any benefit identical or similar to those the workmen are allowed under this

Settlement, then the workmen shall be entitled to claim the benefits which are more favourable to them, but not both.

Provided such option is permitted under the said legislation, award, order, directions issued by Central or State

Government or any other legally constituted authority, the workmen will cease to receive benefits under the Settlement.

25. HUMAN RESOURCE UTILISATION

The Management reiterates its policy of treating its human resources as it's most precious and important asset and hence

stresses the importance of continuous up-gradation of this valuable resource. The Management also expects and requires

the workmen to discharge their duties faithfully and refrain from indulging in acts of indiscipline including, but not

limited to, insubordination.

Workmen working in the terminal have been properly trained in all their respective areas and the necessary multi skill

training will be arranged for all workmen from time to time to prepare themselves for operating all machines /

mechanisms, with a view to enhance their skills for better utilisation of available human resources. The workmen

working at the terminal shall be mobile (movements) on any area / shifts (including change in the shift irrespective of the

shift rota) during the normal duty hours or extended duty hours as the case may be, as per the requirement of the work

and instructions of superiors.

The workmen will give away restrictive work practices and will work at any point of time during the normal duty hours

or extended duty hours as the case maybe on any machine / mechanism/department / section / any operation as instructed

by the Management.

However, the operators in Operation department will be mobile in all the sections of the Operations and if need arises

vice-versa in any other support department.

7884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

26. MULTI-SKILLING

While working, workmen will have to perform the job of different naturenormally performed in terminal including non-

equipment areas and/or operate different types of equipments which the workman is/was trained to operate.

The advantage of multistage & multi-skilling working area,

•

Productivity improvement.

•

Elimination of disparity between workmen.

•

Job enrichment for individuals.

•

Equal participation by all workmen.

Refusal to carry out multi skilling tasks will be considered as an act of indiscipline.

27. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN HOUSEKEEPING

A clean workplace is the key position for quality improvement, and therefore every workman shall endeavour to maintain

cleanliness around his workplace in order to create a congenial atmosphere for better working.

28. STOPPAGE OF WORK

During the tenure of this Settlement and thereafter as well, the workmen shall not resort to any disruption or stoppage of

work, agitation, go-slow and such other tactics which would adversely affect the operations and business of the Company

at the terminal and any dispute arising out of working conditions, terms of employment shall always be referred to

Management for discussion and workmen shall refrain themselves from indulging in any such unlawful action on the

premises of the terminal and shall always endeavour to have amicable Settlement / resolution of issues by bilateral

discussions between the Management and workmen.

The Management shall be entitled to deduct upto 8 days wages for each day of the period any workman refuse to do work

assigned to them or resort to strike / go slow/agitational activities for the period for which the aforesaid action was

resorted to from erring workmen. They will also be liable for strict Disciplinary action.

29. OPERATIONAL VIABILITY

Keeping in view the stiff competition, business requirements of operational viability if any change is required to be

effected in the conditions of the service of the workmen including that of shift working, rationalization, improvement of

layout and machinery, alteration as in technique the workmen agree to co-operate with the Management in

implementation of such change as may be required from time to time for the benefit: of both Workmen and Management.

The Management will inform such changes to the workmen as and when needed.

30. DISCIPLINE AND PENALTY

The workmen shall always follow the rules of discipline prevailing at any point of time and framed by the

Management from time to time in total consistence with statutory provisions.

The workmen will strictly adhere with the following general rules of Shift timing, safety, Security and

environment, and they shall use all personal protective appliances at all times while in premises of the factory.

As a matter of discipline all workmen will display their name and company identity card.

Wearing uniform, safety shoes and all other personal protective equipments whenever applicable will be

compulsory for all workmen. Workmen not wearing uniform I shoes / personal protective equipments will not be

allowed for work.

The workmen shall not leave their respective places of work during working hours except during authorized

intervals such as lunch / dinner break, tea break and also no duty time shall be used for any personal work. It is

also agreed that, the workman shall not waste any time in canteen/ locker room/ Rest Room during the working

hours.

No workman shall go out of the Terminal area during lunch/ dinner / tea break and working hours without written

permission of the management.

The workmen shall agree to work on weekly off day if the exigency of work demand of which the company shall

be sole judge. Any workman found missing from his work place without reasonable cause shall be marked

absent for the period he us away from his work and shall be dealt with accordingly.

The workmen shall keep the work surrounding neat and tidy.

The workmen will undergo medical examination as required by the Management as and when necessary. In case

of personal sickness diagnosed during the Medical examination the workmen concerned will be free to take

medical treatment from the medical practitioner of his choice and at his cost. In case of injury sustained while on

duty, the workmen will take medical advice from the Doctor designated by the Company only and not otherwise.

The workmen expressly and explicitly agree to extend their whole hearted co-operation to the management in its

efforts to eliminate unauthorized absenteeism with the sole objective of achieving uninterrupted norms of

activities in the service department.

The workmen has agreed to abide by the established guidelines/safety & Security rules made applicable by the

NSICT management authorities time to time.

In the unforeseen event of, an illegal strike, agitation or go slow or abandoning the equipment/work site, the

company reserves the right to initiate disciplinary action in addition to deduction of wages of workmen so

constituting the aforementioned event/activity.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7885

The workmen agree that no workman will leave the terminal premises until expiry of full shift hours in any shift.

In case he leaves the terminal premises before completion of shift hours be marked absent on that whole day.

The workmen will work on any equipment whenever instructed to do so by the Management

In case of any grievance, whether individual or collective, the workmen will approach the HR and higher

authorities for resolving the matter. The workmen will refrain themselves from any Gherao, stoppage of work, Go

Slow or any other unlawful and antiestablishment activities.

Without prejudice deductions / actions will be initiated by the management for non adherence of following:-SOP for Hot Seat relieving,

sleeping on duty, walking inside the yard, wrong updating of container (not checking number on the container, giving wrong

delivery etc). Damages to the any equipment or part of equipments, Not filling checklists by performing pre operations checks,

Non Reporting of incident, LOP (Unauthorized absents) etc.

Reasons for

Deduction/Penalties

Amount Penalty

Follow up Action

Final Acton

Sleeping on duty per

incident (Not applicable if found

sleeping in restroom during rest

hours)

Fine Rs 500/- for

first incident and

Rs.1000/- for

Second and third

incidents will be

imposed.

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times it

will be treated as habitual and

liable for stoppage of one

increment and if continue than

punishment as per certified

standing orders.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Hot Seat relieving not done or

getting down from standby

RTGs / QC/ RMGs/ Reach

stacker without information to

shift supervisor or tower control

First incident

warning letter after

that fine Rs 500/-

for each incident

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

then stoppage of one year

increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Wrong updating of container per

incident

First incident

Rs. 500 and

warning letter after

that fine Rs 1000/-

for each incident

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

then stoppage of one year

increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Working without proper PPE

per person per incident

Fine Rs 1000/- per

incident

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

then stoppage of one year

increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Not Reporting

Accident/ Incident

per incident

Penalty as per

Applicable schemes

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

Stoppage of one increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Not following rules of

consequences management of

employer

Fine Rs1000/- per

incident

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

then stoppage of one year

increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Raising voice thereby demeaning

the position of superior, using

abusive language against

Colleague, TT drivers or

Customer workmen. Unethical

rumors or filthy language

towards any colleague.

Fine of Rs 5000/-

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

then stoppage of one year

increment.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Not following Safety

Policy per incident.

Fine Rs 6000/-

If repeated by concern

workman more than 3 times

liable to be terminated as per

process.

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Over and above that if we

receive any penalties for

unsatisfactory performance; the

same should be

borne by the workmen

respectively, but it would be

reasonable and within the

financial capability

Total Penalty/No. of

workmen

If repeated by concern

workman/en more than three

times liable to be grounded as

per process on the

recommendation of Grievance

Committee

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

Leave without

Intimation for one

First incident

Warning letter

If repeated by concern

workman more than 12 times in

Liable for disciplinary

as per process

7886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

day (Unauthorized

absent)

Thereafter

disciplinary action

as per standing

orders.

a year will be considered as

habitual absentee and liable

for strict disciplinary action as

per certified standing orders

Involved in incident and found

negligent and contributing to

incident during investigation

Decision will be

taken by the

Management

depending upon the

severity of the

incident / damage.

Initiate Penalty

mechanism/Consequence

management process

and initiate DPW HSE

Accountability matrix as

applicable.

Liable for disciplinary

action as per process

For the Incidents / Accidents, HSE Department will carry out the investigations and as per the recommendations from

Head HSE, appropriate action will be taken by the management. Aforesaid deductions will be made from the wages /

incentives of the concerned Workman who is actually responsible for the above said misconduct. HOD-Operations and

HOD-HR will discuss and recommend the course of action / penalty to be imposed.

31. GRIEVEANCES PROCEDURES:

The resolution of the dispute / grievance of the workmen, a six member committee ( Equal numbers from management

and from workmen) will be formed as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act u/s 9 C. Representation of at least

one female member will be mandatory. The committee will address the individual grievance issues related to discipline,

penalty provisions as per point 30 of this Settlement etc. However without prejudice, the management is free to initiate

disciplinary actions as per the provision of certified standing orders.

32. PERSONAL CONTACT DETAILS FOR OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION

All workmen will give the contact details in format prescribed at Annexure “E”. In case of change in residential

address/phone number / email address either local or native place will be notified to HOD-Operations / HOD-HR by the

workmen concerned in writing and within 48 hours of such change. However, in case of failure to do so the latest

contactdetails in the personnel records of the Company shall be considered as current details for communication.

33. IMPLEMENTATION

All workmen will declare their wholehearted commitment to fulfil the terms of the Settlement and assure fully to abide

by the terms and conditions, agreed productivity, discipline and other obligations to be carried out individually and

jointly with other workmen. In case of non-implementation of terms agreed by this Settlement, by any workman

individually or jointly, the Management withheld the right of withdrawing benefits offered through this Settlement.

34. DATE OF BIRTH

The date of birth as declared by the workmen in the personnel records of the company at the time of initial employment

shall not be changed in future. Documentary evidence such as school leaving certificate, Birth certificate, Domicile

certificate, SSC / HSC certificate should be furnished immediately on appointment of workman. If any workman gives

any wrong or false information about his birth, address, or any other personal information to get employment, he will be

liable to be terminated from employment.

35. PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS (PAP) CERTIFICATES

The workmen who are JNPT/CIDCO Project affected shall submit the original certificate to the company.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7887

36. APPLICABILITY AND OTHER TERMS

The provision of this Settlement shall be applicable only to permanent workmen (excluding Management

Staff) and who are on the payroll of company on signing date of this Settlement including those who have

accepted the Wage Revision Policy dated 4^thJune, 2019, and those workmen who confirmed thereafter from

the date of their confirmation.

II.

Demands as per demand letter dated 23rd February 2016 or any other demands raised directly or indirectly

anywhere stand not pressed / dropped shall be deemed to be settled accordingly and the same shall not be

raised or agitated during the tenure of this Settlement either with the company or any Government Official or

any outside Body or even the management.

III.

It is agreed that the workmen will not raise individually and/ or collectively any demand(s) whatsoever

whether involving additional financial burden or not of whatsoever nature on the employer during the tenure

of this Settlement either with the company or any Government Official or any outside Body or even the

management.

IV.

It is agreed that the workmen will maintain good conduct, behavior and discipline within the terminal

premises at all times as per the company Rules and Certified Standing Orders.

It is agreed through the Undertaking “Annexure D”that the workmen will also maintain minimum

productivity as per the terminal standards for Quay Crane Operator: 21 moves/ hr (27 for twin lift QCs) and

RTGC / RMGC Operator: 11 moves / hour and ensure smooth functioning of terminal operations. The

workmen will not indulge in Work to Rule, Go Slow, Work Stoppage, Indiscipline or any such disruptive

activity that causes an operational, safety & financial loss to the company.

VI.

In case there is any positive change to the Royalty payable to Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, then a bilateral

review of settlement may be considered.

38. PERIOD OF THE SETTLEMENT

The Settlementshall come into force with effect from 1st April, 2016 and shall be for a period of Eleven yearsi.e. from

1st April, 2016 to 2^nd July, 2027. It is explicitly understood and agreed that under no circumstances, whatsoever may be

the reasons; this Settlementshall be modified, substituted or terminated before expiry of the Settlement. More

specifically, the workmen hereby agree and undertake that in case of change in their constitution, Union Committee or in

their affiliation; shall not demand the termination of the Settlementnor they shall demand any alteration in the terms of

Settlementand the same shall due to be binding on either parties till terminated in accordance with law. It is stated that

the benefit of the Settlement will be extended to those permanent workmen of the company who give the undertaking in

the enclosed format confirming the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Settlement which is at Annexure “B”.

It is agreed that any dues taken in past by the workmen from the company will be deducted proportionately under this

Settlement.

The Wage Revision Policy dated 4^th June, 2019 stands replaced by this settlement being a conciliation settlement binding

all workmen.

WITHDRAWAL OF ALL PENDING LITIGATION

Both the parties agree to file this settlement before the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal No 2, Mumbai in

Ref CGIT No 2/2 of 2018 for passing an Award in terms of the Settlement.

The Union agrees to withdraw the Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No 1732 of 2019 filed by them in the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court against the orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting their application for interim relief. The Union

7888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

also agrees to withdraw all disputes/claims filed against the Company/Management before any Court/Tribunal/Authority

under any provisions of any Labour Statutes on any issue concerning their employment or conditions of service.

It is agreed by and between the parties that the Charter of Demands contained in the letter dated 23.02.2016 referred

hereinabove shall be deemed to have been settled in to-to. Demands which have been raised in the Charter of Demands

but not referred to and/or dealt within this Settlement stand withdrawn. The Union and workmen have agreed not to raise

any demands, whether involving any financial burden or not, during the tenure of this settlement.

Sr. No.

Employee Name

Date

Signature

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7889

ANNEXURE “A”

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR LEAVE

(FOR CONFIRMED WORKMEN ONLY)

PREAMBLE:

Leave is not a matter of right, it is a facility extended by the company to meet exigencies.

These rules supersede all existing rules, minutes, understanding or any other communication from the Company to the workmen

and vice-versa. These rules are already affected and shall be renewed/updated as and when necessary by the Company.

CASUAL LEAVE (CL)

CL is leave of short duration need, to meet a special unforeseen circumstances or emergency requiring the workman's

presence. CL cannot be taken on sickness ground.

The quantum of CL shall be 8 days per .annum. The same will be credited in advance at the beginning of the financial year

i.e. 1st of April.

A workman who joins in between financial year shall be entitled to CL on pro-rata basis, his CL quantum shall be

proportionate to the number of days of service he will put in upto 31st March of the current year.

No of Days of

service

8 days

365 days

A workman shall obtain a prior sanction of CLfrom his supervisor for availing of CL

CL cannot be taken for more than 3 consecutive days. CL is not cumulative

CL cannot be prefixed or suffixed with any other leave.

In normal circumstances an workman should apply for CL at least one week in advance.

No CL encashment will be allowed.

SICK LEAVE (SL)

The quantum of SL will be 6 days. The same will be credited in advance at the beginning of the financial year i.e. 1st

of April every year.

An workman who joins in between financial year shall be entitled to SL on pro-rata basis, his SL quantum shall be

proportionate to the number of days of service he will put in upto 31st March of the current year.

No of Days of

service

6 days

365 days

An workman must submit his sick leave application immediately on resuming duty.

As a special case, SL can be combined with PL, provided the workman is hospitalized during the sick period, this

will be at the discretion of the Management.

An workman who remains absent on account of sickness will have to submit a medical fitness certificate from a

registered medical practitioner (minimum MBBS) immediately on rejoining duty. Company shall have discretion to

verify the authenticity of the medical and illness certificate submitted by the workman. Non submission of certificate

from competent doctor or false certificate will attract disciplinary action as per certified standing orders and penalty

point no. 30 of this Settlement, and leaves will be treated unauthorized.

7890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Accumulation of SL will be allowed upto the 10 days. No encashment will be allowed.

PRIVILEGE LEAVE (PL)

The quantum of PL shall be 21 Working days PL will be credited on 1st April, of the following year to the PL

account of all those permanent (confirmed) workman who remain on the rolls of the Company for the full calendar

year.

The entitlement of PL for the newly appointed workman will be calculated as under. He will be entitled to PL only

on completion of one year of his service with the Company, therefore PL will be calculated as follows:

No of Days of service

21 days

365 days

Normally an workman is allowed to take PL on four occasions in a year.

An workman shall be allowed either prefix or suffix his PL with a fix day of rest, but not both.

If an workman extends his PL for any reason whatsoever, the suffix fixed day of rest will be deducted from his

leave entitlement.

PL cannot be taken for less than 4 days.

A workman shall be intimated within 5 working days of application about the sanction or refusal of his leave.

If a workman proceeds on leave on or before the last day of the financial year i.e. 31st March he will be treated as

PL availed off in the same year.

Advance PL on pro-rata basis will be granted at the discretion of the management depending on the merit of the

case.

Workmen / employees will plan their PL well in advance every year in the month of April and get it approved by

Operations Head. Workman / employee will submit leave application at least 30 days in advance for

sanctioning.PL will be sanctioned at the discretion of the departmental head.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

The quantum of Public Holidays shall be 4 days i.e. 26th January, 1st May, 15th August and 2nd October.

Workman working in shift rota and those assigned urgent duty maybe required to work on such declared Public

Holidays, workman working in shift rota may avail off Public Holidays with prior permission of his supervisor.

If a workman is called on duty on Public Holidays, he will be paid overtime and one day compensatory off which

has to be availed within two months of such public holiday, with the prior permission/sanction of Superior.

General

It is very clear that Management has right to reject the leave seeing business exigencies. Management has also right to

reject the leave extension application. Further, If a workmen is already on leave and wants to extend, he has to send

extension of leave application before expiry of leaves taken earlier. Application of leave will not constitute the sanction

of leave, till it is sanctioned in writing.

Definitions:

Unauthorized Absenteeism: To be absent from the rostered duty without prior intimation / approval from the

Management even when the leaves of the employee are available.

Authorised Leave Without Pay: In case all the leaves are exhausted, employee takes prior approval from the

Management for availing leave from duty due to genuine reasons such as illness, family member illness etc.

7892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE “B”

UNDERTAKING

I have read and understood the Wage Revision Settlement dated August 8^th, 2019 signed by our representatives and the

Representatives of the Management revising the wages and service conditions of employees basis the Memorandum of

Settlement signed before the RLC on 06^th August 2019.

The terms and conditions of the Wage Revision Settlement dated August 8^th, 2019, are acceptable to me and I request the

Company to extend the same to me.

I agree and accept that if the revised terms and conditions are offered to me, all my claims/demands for increase in

wages, allowances and other services conditions pending before the Hon'ble CGIT No 2 Mumbai, Ref. CGIT No 2/2 of

2018and as well as any proceedings pending before any Authority concerning my service conditions shall stand

withdrawn as fully resolved. Accordingly, I shall withdraw all the cases filed before different authorities individually /

through representatives/Union against the management.I further agree and accept that I will not raise any demands on the

Company whether having any financial implications or not during the period specified in the Wage Revision Settlement

dated August 8^th, 2019.

I also agree tomaintain proper discipline in the manner of discharge of my duties.

I am giving this undertaking of my own free will and volition and without any force/coercion/undue influence from any

person. The contents of this undertaking and the Settlement have been read and explained to me and I have fully

understood the same.

Dated:

Signature of the Employee

Witness No. 1 (Name and Signature):________________________________

Witness No. 2 (Name and Signature): _________________________________

7896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2076-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas 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 ¼35@2009½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@10@2009-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/10/2009-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

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. 35/2009

Date of Passing Award- 26^th September, 2019

Between:

Shri Ram Lal,

S/o Late Shri Abhay Ram,

R/o Village Ugrahu, Po

Kailashpur,

Saharanpur (U.P).

…Workman

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

B-32, Sector-62,

Noida (U.P)- 201307.

2. The Branch Manager,

Bank of India,

LalaTrilok Chand Jain Market,

Saharanpur (U.P)

…Managements

Appearances:-

Shri N. S. Berchiwal (A/R)

For the Workman.

Shri Rajat Arora (A/R)

For the Managements

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of Bank of India, Zonal Office, 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-12012/10/2009 IR (B-II) dated 29.04.2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7897

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in disengaging/terminating the services of Shri Ram

Lal w.e.f 23/04/2008 engaged on the work of sub staff in Bank of India, Saharanpur Branch without any notice

and compensation under the provision of section 25-F,G, and H of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is legal and

justified? What relief the concern workman is entitled to?’’

Being noticed both parties entered appearance.

The claimant workman filed a claim statement pleading there in that 11.01.1993 he was appointed as a

permanent substaff of the Bank and an appointment letter was also issued to him. On a later date the management took

that appointment letter on the pretext of putting a dispatch number the same andreturn. But the same was never returned

despite repeated demand by the claimant. He was discharging the duties of a peon/daftary as per the direction of the

management. Due to shortage of staff he was also working for making entry in different registers along with his own

work as a peon. The work discharged by him was to the utmost satisfaction of the management. For the permanent nature

of work discharged by him, had an employer employee relationship with the bank which would be evident from various

records of the Bank including the peon delivery book minutes proceedings of the staff meeting etc.

During the period/tenure of his work, no charge sheet or showcause notice was ever served on him for any

dereliction in duty. But the management, on 23.04.2008 illegally terminated his service in gross violation of the

provisions of section 25(F)(G)(H) of the ID Act. Having been completed 240 days of work in the preceeding calendar

year, the workman is entitled to the protection guaranteed u/s 25F,G,and H of ID Act. The illegal work of the

management left the workman unemployed since, by working for the bank for 15 years he had crossed the upper age

limit of employment on the date of his termination. Finding no other efficacious remedy, he had approached the Labour

commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated.Conciliation since failed, the appropriate government

referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication.

The management bank on the other hand resisted the claim of the workman with a plea that the claimant was

never appointed by the Bank but was engaged intermittently on daily wage basis. His engagement was need based. There

was no relationship like employer or employee between the bank and workman. While challenging the maintainability of

the dispute as the same does not fall within the meaning of section 2(K) of the ID Act, the further stand of the

management is that the workman had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year, so as to get the protection u/s 25f,G,

and H of the ID Act. Since the workman was never appointed by the Bank, the allegation of termination is not tenable.

The workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad alleging discrimination and the same

was dismissed. While denying all other stand taken by the workman, management further pleaded that there was a

vacancy in the post of safaikaramchari at Saharanpur Office of the Bank. As per Rules, the management Bank asked the

Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates. The employment Exchange had sponsored the names of 5 candidates

which did not include the name of the claimant. Out of those 5 persons one was appointed. The decision of the Bank was

challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. But the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2008

on merit.

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed.

ISSUE

(1) As per the terms of the reference.

The claimant/workman examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents marked as WW1/1 , WW1/2

WW1/3. These documents are the vouchers record book, and vouchers etc called from the Bank’s record. Apart from

these, the workman has also proved the photocopy of the Inter Officer Memorandum of the Bank as MW1/W1 in which

workman has been described as a daily wager casual worker of the Bank since 11.01.93. Besides these the workman has

also placed on record the copy of the memorandum signed between Bank and Union and a letter dated 28.01.2008

regarding assignment of work to the claimant.

The management Bank examined its senior manager (HR) as MW1, who proved the letter of the Dist. Employment

Officer and the list of the persons sponsored by Employment Exchange for appointment of SafaiKaramchari. These two

documents have been marked as MW1/1 and MW1/2.

The Learned A/R for the workman argued that claimant was appointed as a peon on 11.01.93 and was made to

work for 15 years during which he was discharging the duties of the peon, Daftery and sepoy of the Bank. He was

subjected to unfair labour practice since no appointment letter was issued to him and in the year 2008, his service was

illegally terminated without following the procedure laid down under law. Not only that in gross violation of the

settlement between the Bank management and Bank’s Employees Union, the claimant was not considered when

appointment was made against permanent post of Safaiwala.

In his reply argument, Ld. A/Rfor the management argued that the said appointment was made in the year 2013,

taking into consideration the names sponsored by the Employment Exchange only as per the terms and conditions of

7898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlement. The name of the workman since was not sponsored, obviously, he was not considered. He also raised

objection on the ground that the terms of reference made by the Appropriate Government is only with regard to illegal

termination and the adjudication can’t be made beyond the terms of reference.

Thus the points on which adjudication is required to be made are

(a)

If the workman was illegally terminated from service.

(b)

If so, to what relief he is entitled to.

Point No. (a)

The workman examined as WW1 has deposed along the line of claim statement and added that the management

in order to deprive him of his legal rights did not give any appointment letter nor pay slip. He was being paid through

vouchers only. The file containing the vouchers of the relevant period of engagement of the workman has been placed on

record as Exhibit WW1/1 being called from the banks custody. Exhibit WW1/2 are certain other documents called from

the custody of the bank by the claimant to prove that the said documents containhad writing of the claimant and proves

his engagement as a sub staff of the Bank during the relevant period between 1993 to 2008. The claimant has also stated

in his oral evidence that pursuant to an advertisement published in local news paper Amar Ujala prior to 11.01.1993 he

was appointed and as such his employment can’t be said to have been done illegally. These two documents marked as

WW1/1 and WW1/2 being the documents of the bank are not disputed by the management. The only objection raised in

respect of documents is that the vouchers are in respect of misc expenses and nowhere contains the name of the claimant.

Similarly, the documents marked as exhibit WW1/2 are the copies of the register claimed to contain hand writing of the

claimant. The handwriting having not been proved, claimant can’t claim benefit of those documents.

True, the vouchers and copies of the registers don’t contain the name of the workman to aid his statement that he

had worked for more than 240 days for the management in a calendar year. The law is well settled that the onus lies with

the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more for the management in a calendar year to become entitled

to the benefits of section 25-F,Gand H of ID Act. In the case of Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills limited vs. Sowaran

Singh reported in (2005) 8SCC 481 and also in the case of Director Fisheries terminated Division vs.

BhikubhaiMeghajibhai Garda reported in (2012)1SCC47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that evidence to

prove 240 days work can be laid on record by producingengagement/ appointment letter or by producing receipt or

payment of wage for 240 days.

Admitted the documents marked as exhibit WW1/1 and Exhibit WW1/2 don’t disclose about payment of wage

or salary to the claimant for the relevant period. It is the case of the claimant that he was not given any appointment

letter. On the contrary management has not denied the engagement of the claimant in the Bank but with a plea that his

engagement was on need basis, and made intermittently on daily wage basis. MW1, the General Manager (HR) of the

Bank during his examination was confronted with a document of the Bank by the claimant, which has been marked as

MW1/W1. This is an inter office memorandum of the Bank dated 31.03.1999. This document created during an

undisputed point of time contains admission of the bank with regard to engagement of the claimant as a daily wage

casual worker since 11.01.1993 and due to shortage of staff, he, vide, this order dated 31.03.1999 was assigned the

additional duty of DafteryRoom. This document, thus clearly proves that the claimants started working for the

management since 11.01.93 as a casual worker. His oral evidence with regard to his cessation of work in 2008 has not

been controverted by the management. Hence it is held that the claimant has successfully proved that he completed 240

days of work in a calendar year and thus entitled to the benefits of section 25-F,G,H of ID Act.

It may be mentioned that the provisions of section 25-F of the Act which provides the conditions precedent to

retrenchment of a workman are absolute and inexorable and reads as under

“25-F: conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer

shall be retrenched by that employer until_

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period.

(b)

The workman has been paid, at that time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate government by notification in the official gazette.”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7899

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate government

apart-from giving one months notice in writing or one month wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the

management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the

management has violated the provisions of section 25-F of the Act.

There is a long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of section 25-F of the Act will render action of the management illegal and void under the law.

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the workman at that

time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, such action of the management in

terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 23.04.2008 is held to be illegal and void.

Point No. (b)

Once it is held that the claimant/workman was terminated illegally, the next important issue to be decided is to

what relief he is entitled to.

“Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudan Singh, reported as

2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under:-

“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy

or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short

term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like

should be weighted and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important

factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with

the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully

terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the

qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total

length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e.

from the date of termination till the date of the award, which out experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily

wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

In this case the claimant has all along pleaded that the Bank having vacancy in the permanent post of Safaiwala

never considered his candidature and Unfair Labour Practice was meted to him on account of his illegal termination.

Extensive argument was advanced on his behalf to the effect that a person much junior to him was appointed but he was

not even called for the interview. This aspect of the argument cannot be considered within the scope of the reference

received from the Appropriate Government which is specific about the legality of the termination and the relief

admissible to the claimant. It is of course the claim of the claimant that he should be reinstated to service with all back

wages. But as discussed in the preceding paragraph the claimant has not laid any evidence to convince this tribunal that

there still exist any vacancy with the bank for his reinstatement and continuance as a permanent Safaikaramchari. As per

the bipartite settlement placed on record a person is eligible for that post provided he has the qualification of 8^th standard

pass for general and OBC category and fix standard pass for SC,ST category candidates. Not only that as per the terms of

the said settlement the casual workers must be within the upper age limit of 26 years relaxable by the Number of years

work, subject to maximum of 45 years as on 07^th May 2012. The claimant has not adduced any evidence at all about his

qualification, age and the existence of the vacancy for consideration of his prayer for reinstatement and absorption.

In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 SCC190. It was observed by the

Apex Court as under:-

“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation

instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of section

25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however automatically be passed. The award

of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding

the date of termination, particularly daily wager has not been found to be proper by the supreme Court an instead

compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post

of a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that

when the termination is found to be illegal, because of nonpayment of under section 25-F of the Industrial dispute Act,

7900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

even after reinstatement it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him

the retrenchment compensation.

Thus, on careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and the principles decided

in the above discussed judicial pronouncement and considering the length of service rendered by the claimant, this

tribunal considers that for the illegal termination of the workman a compensation of Rs. 300,000/- shall be paid to the

workman by the management Bank which will be just and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the sameis answered in the favour of the claimant. The termination of the engagement of

the workman by the management Bank is held to be illegal. The Bank is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-

to the workman which will meet the ends of justice. The management is further directed to pay the amount within

3 months from the date of publication of the award failing which the workman shall be entitled to interest on the said

amount @ 9% per annum from the date when the amount is payable i.e. on completion of 3 months from the date of the

publication of the award till final payment is made.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.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2077-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 66@2003½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@113@2003-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2019

S.O. 2077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/113/2003-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 15^THNOVEMBER 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT.RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 66/2003

I Party

II Party

Sh. Chandrasekhar K Benakatti,

R/o Chikka Assangi,

Basvanna Bagewadi Taluk,

Bijapur District - 586 203.

The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

41/2, MG Road, Trinity Circle,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7901

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. N. S. Narasimha Swamy

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Udayashankar Rai

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/113/2003-IR(B-II) dated 20.11.2003 in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

(for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank in removal of Shri C.K. Benakatti from service

vide order dated 29.05.2001 is legal and justified?If not, what relief is the workman entitled?”

The 1^st Party workman is the former employee of the erstwhile Vijaya Bank which is now amalgamated with

Bank of Baroda.

The fact is,

the 1^st Party workman joined the 2^nd Party as a Peon on 01.05.1982 and was promoted to the post of Clerk w.e.f

15.07.1995; he was issued charge sheet dated 17.07.2000 on the allegations of unauthorised absence; after holding

Departmental enquiry he was removed from service.

1^st Party contends that due to the death of his Wife and also his medical condition he did not reply the charge

sheet; enquiry notice was not issued to him, later he learnt that he was placed ex-parte in the enquiry; without providing

him sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the charges the Enquiry Officer placed him ex-parte. The 2^nd Party

has not followed the due procedure prescribed under law before passing the order of removal. The report of the Enquiry

Officer is not based on the evidence on record; the punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the gravity of

charges levelled against him.

2^nd Party in their statement counter claimed their action as proper, legal and justified, it wascontended that he is

an habitual absentee; on earlier two occasions charge sheet was issued and he was imposed punishment of Censure by

Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.09.1994 and stoppage of one increment temporarily for a period of one year

vide order dated 24.06.1999; the number of days of leave on loss of pay / unauthorised absence till 31.12.1999 was 881

days; enquiry notice was served on him but he did not choose to attend the enquiry; the Enquiry Officer after proper

analysis of evidence held all the three charges levelled against him as proved. Considering the enquiry finding and his

past record, the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the punishment of Removal from Service of the Bank with

superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at the stage and without disqualification for future employment. 1^st

Party though acknowledged the letter of the Disciplinary Authority failed to submit his reply; the Disciplinary Authority

vide order dated 29.05.2001 confirmed the proposed punishment.

On therival pleadings touching the fairness of

Domestic Enquiry an issue was raised and answered holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the 1^st Party is

fair and proper.

The 1^st Party workman thereafter adduced evidence that he is unemployed and has the burden of raising two

sons.

The allegation in the charge sheet of 17.07.2000 is to the effect that he is an habitual absentee and remains

unauthorisedly absent for prolonged periods; he has already availed 354 days leave on loss of pay till March 1999; he

was issued two charge sheets on earlier occasions for remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly and on both occasions

he was imposed punishments and also advised not to repeat such or similar misconduct. Still he has repeated the same.

He remained absent from 02.08.1999 to 22.11.1999 for 113 days and submitted leave application dated 22.11.1999 with

the medical certificate of 20.11.1999; he remained absent from 21.02.2000 to 08.04.2000 for 48 days and submitted

leave application on 10.04.2000 with the medical certificate dated 07.04.2000, thus he remained unauthorisedly absent

for 161 days. The charge sheet further details the action taken by the 2^nd Party against him and the undertaking given by

him etc.

During the Domestic Enquiry the management examined one witness and produced the original Attendance

Reports of the concerned Branch on his unauthorised absence and the Call Notices were marked as Ex M-1 to Ex M-13.

In the absence of anything contrary, the finding of the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of all the three charges.

It is also from record that 1^st Party though acknowledged receipt of the enquiry finding did not submit his

remarks, he also did not respond to the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority vide proceedings dated

29.05.2001 accepted the enquiry notice considered the past records of the workman highlighting his habitual absenteeism

7902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

imposed the punishment. The Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2014) 4 SSC 108 in the matter of Chennai

Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs T T Murali Babu, condemned the act of unauthorised

absence for a long period with inadequate reason, showing indiscipline and also making an attempt to get away with it.

10.

The punishment order against which the dispute cannot be branded is not too harsh or severe since it does not

seize his future employment or his entitlement for superannuation benefits. There is nothing to find flaw on the legality

or justifiability of the punishment order.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 15^thNovember, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2078-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2019 izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@113@2002-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2019

S.O. 2078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangaloreas 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 26.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/113/2002-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 22^ND OCTOBER 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R 41/2002

I Party

II Party

Sh. Abdul Hameed,

Since deceased by his LRs

1a)

Smt. Mumtaz Begum,

W/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H. No.1-960/2

TAR File, Opp. Railway Station.

Kalaburagi – 585101.

1b) Sh. Abdul Saleem,

S/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H. No.1-960/2

TAR File, Opp. Railway Station.

Kalaburagi – 585101.

1c)

Ms. Ghousia,

D/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o New Bank Colony,

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Region-1,

Zonal Office, PB No. 48 Super Market,

Gulbarga (Karnataka) – 585101.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7903

Bilalabad, Kalaburagi - 585 104.

1d) Ms. Najma Begum,

D/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H.M. Tailors, Mahagaon,

Humnabad Road,

Tq & Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 316.

1e)

Ms. Shaja Begum,

D/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H.M. Automobiles,

Charminar, Hyderabad - 500 002.

1f)

Ms. Rafiya Begum,

D/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o Santraswadi,

Kalaburagi - 585 104.

1g) Ms. Asara Begum,

D/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H. No.1-960/2

TAR File, Opp. Railway Station.

Kalaburagi – 585101.

1h) Sh. Mohd. Rafiq,

S/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed,

R/o H. No.1-960/2

TAR File, Opp. Railway Station.

Kalaburagi – 585101.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara

Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Venkatesh

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/113/2002-IR(B-I) dated 12/08/2002 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for

brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of management of State Bank of Hyderabad is justified in imposing the punishment

of “Discharge from Service” though the applicant workman Shri Abdul Hameed has made good the

amount in all the cases? If not what relief the workman is entitled?”

The claim is raised by the dismissed employee of the 2^nd Party (erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad presently

State Bank of India). The 1^st Party workman claimed that he joined the service of the 2^nd Party erstwhile State Bank of

Hyderabad as a Peon in the year 1972, he was issued charge sheet dated 20.09.1991 on certain allegations. He suitably

replied to the said charge sheet denying the charges. The Management initiated disciplinary proceedings and held

Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that out of 11 charges Charge No. 1 and 2 partly proved and Charge No. 3

and 4 are not proved and remaining charges are partially proved. On receipt of the enquiry report the 2^nd Party dismissed

him vide order dated 26.08.1993. His appeal to the Appellate Authority against the punishment order did not survive.

The Enquiry conducted against him was without providing sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the charges.

The enquiry report is without clear analysis of the evidence, the conclusion is erroneous etc.

The claim was contested by his employer (erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad) justifying their action of

dismissal. They denied the allegations levelled in the claim statement against the procedure of enquiry and also the

enquiry report. Based on the rival pleadings touching the procedure of enquiry this Tribunal framed Preliminary Issue.

After a full pledged trail the issue is answered against the management, holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted

against the workman is not fair and proper.

7904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since, the 2^nd Party had not reserved liberty to prove the charges afresh before this Tribunal, Award came to be

passed directing the 2^nd Party Management to reinstate the workman with full back wages etc. The 2^nd Party filed an

application in Miscellaneous No. 06/2007 seeking to recall the Award and restore the case. The application was rejected

by my learned predecessor.

Aggrieved 2^nd Party Management challenged the Award so also the order passed in Miscellaneous No. 06/2007 before

the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 3352/2008 (L-TER). By that time the workman since was deceased his

class-I legal heirs were arrayed as respondents in the Writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition on

following terms:

10)

Petition stands allowed. Award passed in C.R.No.41/2002 dated 17.0902007/26.09.2007 Annexure-L and

Order dated 06.02.2008 passed in Misc No.6/2007 Annexure-N are hereby set aside.

11)

The CGIT is hereby directed to make necessary endeavour to decide C.R.No.41/2002 within a period of

four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Parties are hereby directed to co-operate in deciding the matter.

After remand the Sh. MD filed power for legal heirs of the deceased workman, argument was advanced by sh.

MD and also by Sh. NV for the respondent management. In the interregnum period the erstwhile State of Hyderabad

under whom the deceased workman had served amalgamated with the State Bank of India and now is State Bank of

India. Vide order dated 15.09.2019 Preliminary Issue is answered in the negative against the 2^nd Party Management.

It is to be noted that the 2^nd Party no-where had sought permission to adduce evidence on merit, to prove their

charge against the deceased workman, in the event the Domestic Enquiry is held not fair. It was not pleaded so in the

statement filed by them at the inception. They had another opportunity before the Hon'ble High Court to make a prayer

for permission to adduce evidence in support of the charges. No application is field by them before this Court after the

order on Preliminary Issue was pronounced by me on 15.10.2019. Instead Sh. NV for the 2^nd Party has submitted his

argument in writing along with authorities on the merits of the case. But his written argument cannot be counted upon

for the simple reason that the Domestic Enquiry which preceded the punishment order is held not fair and proper and the

finding of the Enquiry Officer consequently is a nullity. The eventuality is, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the

workman on the basis of the enquiry report is now a non est order. Had if the workman was alive he would have been

entitled for reinstatement with a justifiable amount of monetary compensation towards his back wages. Since the

workman is no more, a monetary compensation proportionate to his back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of

his superannuation is the appropriate relief for his legal heirs.

It is noticed from the copy of the orders in W.P No. 3352/2008 (L-TER) that his widow and 7 children were

arrayed as respondents out of them his widow Smt. Mumtaz Begum and his first son Sh. Abdul Saleem were represented

through their counsel, for others notice was served / held sufficient. After remand no application is filed to bring the

legal heirs on record in the place of the deceased workman. However, to accomplish the ends of justice being met, office

is directed to carry out amendment to the cause title by bringing the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Hameed in the

cause title. Since all the children are majors, I am of the considered opinion that the monetary relief for which the legal

heirs are entitled in lieu of settling aside of the punishment order shall be paid to Smt. Mumtaz Begum Wife of late

Abdul Hameed.

AWARD

The reference is accepted

The action of the Management of State Bank of Hyderabad in imposing the punishment of discharge

from service is not justified hence the said punishment order is set aside, directing the 2^ndParty to pay back wages

from the date of his dismissal to the date of his superannuation at the rate of his last drawn pay to Smt. Mumtaz

Begum wife of late Sh. Abdul Hameed on proper identification, within 2 months from the date of publication of

the Award in the Official Gazette.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 22^nd October 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7905

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2079-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2019

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@103@2005-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2019

S.O. 2079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore 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 26.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/103/2005-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

: 30^TH OCTOBER 2019

PRESENT: JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R 51/2005

I Party

II Party

R. Venkatesh Murthy,

S/o J. Ramaiah,

Since deceased by his LRs

1a)

Smt. Sonnamma,

W/o Late R. Venkatesh Murthy,

1b)

Sh. Manjesh Kumar,

S/o Late R. Venkatesh Murthy,

1c)

Ms. Shashikumari

D/o Late R. Venkatesh Murthy,

All residing at Kaladevanahalli

Thoobugere Hobli & Post,

Doddaballapura Taluk,

Bangalore Rural District.

The General Manager (IR),

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

St. Marks Road,

Church Street,

Bangalore - 560 001.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. B.D. Kuttappa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

7906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/103/2005-IR(B-I) dated 21.11.2005 in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

(for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the management of State Bank of India is justified in discharging Shri R. Venkatesh Murthy,

messenger, from the services of the Bank with effect from 12.12.2003. If not, what relief he is entitled to

and from which date?”

The dispute was raised by R. Venkatesh Murthy Ex-employee of the 2^nd Party Bank. During the pendency of

the proceedings before this Tribunal the workman expired and his legal heirs are on record.

It is the admitted fact that the deceased was working as a Messenger in the 2^nd Party, he was issued 2 charge

sheets dated 09.04.2003 and 25.04.2003, both on the allegations of unauthorised absence. Domestic Enquiry was held on

the charges and the Enquiry Officer on conclusion of enquiry held him guilty of the charges. Acting on the enquiry

report the 2^nd Party dismissed him from service.

In his claim statement the 1^st Party workman questioned the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry and also

reasonableness of the enquiry report. He also contended that without issuing second show cause notice and without

calling upon for his explanation to the proposed punishment, the order imposing punishment of dismissal is liable to be

set aside. The 2^nd Party without considering his past records and without application of mind has imposed punishment on

him which is disproportionate to the alleged charges. He is unemployed and has the responsibility to maintain his

dependent family.

The 2^nd Party in their counter statement contended that he remained unauthorisedly absent from 13.02.2003 to

07.04.2003 (54 days) and was issued charge sheet dated 09.04.2003 another charge sheet dated 25.04.2003 was issued in

respect of his unauthorised absence for 16 days. In respect of a charge sheet dated 26.02.1998 for unauthorised absence

from 05.02.1996 to 05.03.1997 (one year one month) he was imposed punishment of stoppage of seven increments with

cumulative effect vide order dated 13.09.2000. The punishment was reduced to stoppage of three increments with

cumulative effect, by the Appellate Authority. Again, in the year 2002 for his unauthorised absence, after holding

enquiry, he was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. But he continued to remain

unauthorisedly absence; the charge sheet was issued and the Domestic Enquiry was conducted in accordance with the

procedure and law, by providing him reasonable opportunity. After the enquiry report was submitted same was

forwarded to him, neither he was attending the office nor he was available at the resident, when the Branch Manager

Bashettahalli Branch had tried to serve him personally. Hence, enquiry report was sent to him through RPAD, all the

communication sent to him returned undelivered. The order of punishment was also published in two News Papers on

26.12.2003. The punishment order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. He is not entitled for any relief.

Heard both learned counsels.

On the rival pleadings taken by both parties regarding the fairness of Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary Issue was

framed tired and adjudicated after a full pledged trail by upholding the fairness and procedure of the Domestic Enquiry.

Perused the enquiry records. The CSE actively

participated in the enquiry along with his Defence Representative. Two witnesses were examined for the management.

PW-1 was the Branch Manager of Bidadi Branch who substantiated the allegations that the CSE remained absent from

13.02.2003 to 07.04.2003. Through her leave register and attendance register maintained in the Branch for the period

13.02.2002 to 24.04.2003 pertaining to the 1^st Party were marked. The second witness was the then Deputy Manager

who stated that 1^st Party was marked absent from 13.02.2002 to 03.06.2003 since he remained absent without permission

or information. He further stated that no entry is made in the leave register pertaining to the 1^st Party for the period

13.02.2002 to 23.04.2003. He further deposed that on 31.03.2003 an entry is made stating that CSE has not reported to

duty from 13.05.2003 without submitting leave letter or oral instruction and suffered loss of pay from 13.02.2003 to

03.06.2003. He also deposed that the CSE was absent from duty for about 6 months prior to the period mentioned in the

charge sheet. It was brought out during the cross examination of PW-2 that no call notice was sent to him. When

confronted with a copy of the leave letter submitted by CSE for the period 13.02.2003 to 15.02.2003 he admitted the

same.

The defence was, he had submitted leave application and the Competent Authority had sanctioned leave for

some period. As per his leave application DEX-3 he had requested leave for a period from 13.02.2003 to 15.02.2003.

His name has not appeared in DEX-1, the absentee register maintained in the Branch; there is no practice of informing

the sanction of leave or otherwise, whenever the employee applies for leave. It was not an unauthorised absence since he

had informed the Branch Manager about his absence; his absence has to be treated as leave on loss of pay but not as

unauthorised.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7907

The Enquiry Officer though finds that he had applied for leave for the period 13.02.2003 to 15.02.2003 which

was partly covered in the charge sheet, still held that his unauthorised absence from 08.02.2003 to 24.03.2003 as per the

charge sheet dated 24.05.2003 stood proved. With regard to the contention of not making entry in the absentee register

and not sending notices were observed as procedural lapses on the part of the Branch Manager not diluting the

seriousness of the charge.

10.

Since, there was no documentary proof about the sanction of leave for the period 13.02.2003 to 15.02.2003 the

Enquiry Officer concluded that his unauthorised absence of 54 days from 13.02.2003 to 07.04.2003 as per charge sheet

dated 09.04.2003 and unauthorised absence for 16 days from 08.04.2003 to 23.04.2003 vide charge sheet dated

25.04.2003 is proved.

11.

The 2^nd Party has produced the copy of the punishment order imposing the punishment of “Be discharged from

service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and /or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under

the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment” vide para

(6)(d) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 read in conjunction with para 521 of Sastry Award and 18.28 of Desai

Award. “The entire period of unauthorised absence is treated as not accounted for service’”.

12.

It is obvious that no effort was made by the 1^st Party during the enquiry; he had valid reasons to remain absent

and get leave sanctioned from the Disciplinary Authority about bona fides of his absence. He is a habitual absentee and

was previously punished twice. The very fact that he was not available for service of the punishment order and same had

to be published in a News Paper and further failed to prefer an appeal within stipulated time probabalises that he was not

punctual. Hence, the punishment order discharging him with service benefits is proportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct not warranting exercise of the jurisdiction of sec 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act in his favour. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 30^th October 2019)

JUSTICE Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2080-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izxrh

xzkeh.kk cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2019

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@32@2010-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2019

S.O. 2080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Pragathi Grameena Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/32/2010-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 18^TH SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 12/2011

7908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

II Party

Sh. T.M. Pranesh (1034),

S/o Late Madhava Rao,

Anganadri Nilaya,

S.B.H. Colony, Lingasugur,

Raichur - 584122,

Karnataka.

The Chairman,

Pragathi Grameena Bank,

Head Office, Gandhi Nagar,

Bellary - 583103,

Karnataka.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. C.R. Patil

Advocate for II Party : Mr. N. Srinivas Rao

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/32/2010-IR(B-I) dated 07.04.2011 in exercise of the powers

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

‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Pragathi Grameena Bank in imposing the penalty of removal

from services on Shri T.M. Pranesh (1034) S/o Late Shri Madhav Rao, Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier, Pragathi

Bank, Gurgunta Branch, vide their order dated 24.08.2009, is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?”

This is a claim by a workman/EX- Employee of the Bank who is removed from service w.e.f 24.08.2009.

During the pendency of the reference before this Tribunal, he expired and his wife and children are brought on record.

The undisputed facts are, the 1^st Party workman joined the Bank on 01.12.1984 as a Clerk cum Cashier and

served at various branches for 25 years. In respect of the incident of 04.11.2008 he was issued Charge Sheet dated

05.01.2009. During the enquiry, the workman unequivocally accepted the allegations and explained the circumstances

that prevailed on him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary

Authority proposed the punishment of removal from service, which shall not affect his further employment. After a

personal hearing the punishment order dated 24.08.2009 ‘removal of service which shall not be a disqualification for

further employment’ under Regulation 38(b)(v) of Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers and Employee) service regulation

2005 was passed. His appeal on the Punishment Order did not survive.

In the Claim statement the 1^st Party workman had contended that, he was unable to refute the charges due the

indisposition of himself, serious illness of his aged Father and also his death. He was coerced to accept the charges.

With a hope that the Bank would excuse his mistakes and would not harm his service he made honest representation to

the Enquiry Officer.

The 2^nd Party contested the claim on the ground,

that on receipt of the Charge Sheet he submitted his reply dated 30.07.2009 and admitted the allegation unequivocally

pertaining to the Charge Sheet allegations; he confirmed his allegation of guilt before the Investigating Officer on

13.11.2008. In his reply to the Show Cause notice dated 23.08.2008, he prayed to condone his actions; not withstanding

his admission Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officers were appointed. At the beginning of the enquiry itself he accepted

the charges categorically, the Management examined two witnesses and produced 23 documents, in the presence of the

1^st Party workman the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the admission of the 1^st Party and also evidence brought on record

submitted his finding on 24.04.2009 holding him guilty of the charges. In his reply to the Enquiry report he has stated

that, he had nothing to say for the matter and requested for condoning his actions. The misconduct of misappropriation

of Customer’s money, making fraudulent entries in the pass book of the Customer is proved. He has betrayed the trust

reposed by the 2^nd Party on him, his caution amounts to moral turpitude and lack of integrity.

The allegation against the workman was,

‘On 04.09.2008, while working at Gurugunta Branch M/s. Raghavendra Brandy Shop, Gurugunta a Customer of the

Branch remitted Rs. 94,390/- (Ninety Four Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Rupees) to the credit of their

Account No. 20, the 1^st Party workman accepted the cash, issued Counter Foil, duly affixing the cash received seal and

made entry in the Pass Book. He did not account the money in the books of accounts of the Bank and misappropriated

the same. Subsequently, he confessed the misappropriation and made good the amount on 28.10.2008. The above

conduct is in contravention of Regulation 7 &19 of Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service

Regulation 2005, punishable under Regulation 38 (ii) (b) of the said Service Regulation’.

Not only that the 1^st Party admitted the allegations in his reply to the Charge Sheet but also before the Enquiry

Officer at the stage of preliminary hearing. Still, the Management placed its evidence by examining two witnesses. The

first witness was the Customer / Compliant whose money was misappropriated. The second witness was the Manager of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7909

the Bank, through him 12 documents like Statement of the Customer, his Pass Book, Counter Foil, Office Challan dated

04.09.2008, the Report of the Manager, the reply letter of the 1^st Party to the Show Cause notice, the Statement pertaining

to Current Account of the Customer for relevant period, Attendance sheet for relevant period and Cash Receipt scroll

were marked. Naturally that led the Enquiry Officer to return his finding that the 1^st Party is guilty of charges levelled

against him.

Subsequent to recording of the finding on the Preliminary Issue the 1^st Party workman adduced evidence before

this Court stating that, he was compelled by the Management to admit the charges with a promise that his future will not

be affected. Believing the said words, he admitted the charges of misappropriation but the Management did not keep up

its promise that amounts to victimisation. The Management failed to consider the circumstances which forced him to

commit the act.

In the written argument submitted on the behalf of the 1^st Party, monetary compensation is sought in accordance

with the Judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court in a Writ Petition filed against the Award passed by this Tribunal. In

the said case, the allegation was of fraudulent withdrawal by the employee of the Bank. Another reported Judgement of

our Hon'ble High Court in W.P 1167/79 is also relied. In the said case the allegation was of unauthorised absence, the

Hon'ble High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant evidence and the circumstances were not

considered. The Writ petition was against the order passed by this State Industrial Tribunal in a Complaint filed by the

workman against the Management. The facts and circumstances in the case on hand stand distinguished from that of the

above cases. The allegation of misconduct of the Bank’s money amounting to Rs. 94,390/- (Ninety Four Thousand

Three hundred and Ninety Rupees) is proved, not only during the Domestic Enquiry but also on the admission of the

misconduct by the employee himself. The Bank handling the Public money is a trustee of the Public property and even a

small breach of rules and procedure by its employees will deter the confidence of the Public with the Banking Institution.

Deviation in the conduct of the employee, will demoralise his colleagues also. In the given circumstances it is not in the

fitness of things to have continued him in service. However, having regard to his earlier service of 25 years, removal

from service was on higher side. Compulsory retirement from service with all service benefits would have been the

appropriate punishment to balance the gravity of misconduct proved against the 1^st Party workman. It is on record that

all his children are majors. Hence, monetary benefits if any that may arise from the modified order of compulsory

retirement shall be paid to his wife Smt. Kalavathi.

AWARD

The reference accepted

The action of the 2^nd Party/Management of Pragathi Grameena Bank in imposing the penalty of removal

from service on the 1^st Party workman Late. Sh. T.M. Pranesh is not justified. The Punishment Order is modified

to the effect that the 1^st Party shall be treated as compulsorily retired from service w.e.f 24.08.2009. Any monetary

benefit arising out of the modified Punishment Order shall be paid by the 2^nd Party to the Wife of 1^st Party

workman Smt. Kalavathi forthwith.

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 18^th September, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2081-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dukZVdk xzkeh.kk cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

26-11-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@31@2013-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2019

S.O. 2081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Karnataka Gramina Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.11.2019.

7910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[No. L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 13^TH SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 25/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. Niranjanappa,

S/o Sh. Hanumanthappa,

Hochihalli, Hochihalli Post,

Kadur Taluk,

Chikmagalur District - 573 132.

The Chairman,

Karnataka Gramina Bank,

Head Office, CA No. 20,

Vijayanagar 2^nd Stage,

Mysore - 570 017.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. H. K. Nagabhushana

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-I) dated 07.06.2013 in exercise of the powers

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

‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management in denying regularization to Sri Mallikarjunaiah K.R for the

post of sweeper-cum-messenger is legal and justified? If not, to what he is entitled?”

The case of the 1^st Party is, that his candidature was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange in the year

1992 for the post of Messenger cum Sweeper in the Kunkanadu Branch of the 2^nd Party; he approached the 2^nd Party

Management and was issued letter of temporary appointment dated 24.08.1992 as Messenger cum Sweeper, thereafter he

has been transferred from one place to another and he is working without any break. He sought for regularisation of his

service during the year 2008; the 2^nd Party issued an endorsement to the effect that his application will be considered as

and when vacancy arises; between the year 2000-2006 on the Award passed by this Tribunal some of the employees were

reinstated and their service is regularised. On the basis of the Award he approached the 2^nd Party for regularisation of his

service but same is not considered so far. They have violated Schedule V of the Industrial Dispute Act and adopted unfair

labour practice. His wages are enhanced from Rs. 30/- per day to Rs. 280/- per day and is paid on monthly basis.

Presently the Administration of the Bank is taken over Chikkamagalur Kodagu Gramina Bank and called as Kaveri

Grameena Bank.

The 2^nd Party Kaveri Grameena Bank during the pendency of proceedings amalgamated with Pragathi Krishna

Gramina Bank and now called Karnataka Gramina Bank vide extraordinary Gazette notification dated 22.02.2019 w.e.f

01.04.2019. The cause title of the claim petition is amended accordingly.

The 2^nd Party / Kaveri Grameena Bank in its counter statement contended that 1^st Party was selected as

temporary part time Messenger cum Sweeper at Kunkanadu Branch of a Chikamagalur Kodagu Gramina Bank on

24.08.1992 after an interview on 13.08.1992. His engagement was against the leave vacancy as and when it arose and it

was purely on contractual basis for a fixed period. His employment not being of permanent nature, the action in not

considering his request for permanent employment is legal and justified. At no point of time it is agreed to absorb him

for a permanent post.

It is further stated that the erstwhile 2^nd Party Kaveri Grameena Bank is a Regional Rural Bank established

under Regional Rural Bank 1976; the erstwhile Chikmagalur Kodagu Garmina Bank, Vishvesharaiah Grameena Bank

and Cauvery Kalpathru Grameena Bank amalgamated in terms of Government of India notification dated 01.11.2012

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7911

and a new entity was formed. There is no policy of recruiting the Messenger cum Sweeper in the Bank as and when

required, the services of a casual labour is engaged on the temporary basis for the purpose. There is no post of

Messenger cum Sweeper in the Bank. 1^st Party was irregular in performing his duties as a part time temporary

Messenger cum Sweeper; he has not completed 240 days of continuous service within the meaning of section 25(B) of

the Industrial Dispute Act. On the representation submitted by him during 2008 he was informed that his request could

not be considered and whenever any such vacancy arise subject to fulfilment of all eligibility norms of the 1^st Party his

confirmation would be considered. The recruitment for the post sought by the 1^st Party has not taken place in the Bank

and his request could not be considered. If the Bank assumes such a vacancy 1^st Party will not be automatically eligible

for recruitment on permanent basis. In view of the Ban by Government of India they could not initiate the process of

recruitment in any cadre / category expect on compassionate ground during the period.

Both parties have adduced their evidence reiterating their stand. Written arguments are submitted by both.

On behalf of the 2^nd Party Chief Manager (P) Officiating Kaveri Grameena Bank was the witness; during his

cross examination he admits in the year 2006 some Messenger who were ordered to be regularised by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court were regularised in service; contribution from the wages of the 1^st Party workman towards Provident

Fund is deducted and is paid benefit bonus also.

During his rebuttal evidence 1^st Party reiterated his claim statement averments by way of two affidavit evidence.

Among other things he has produced his the documents pertaining to Appointment, P.F Subscription, Bonus, Attendance

and Salary Slip which are all undisputed documents.

It is not the case of termination. Vide memo dated 03.07.2019 1^st Party brought it on record that his service is

continued without break and salary is paid by the present Management through Wage Bill Receipt. The point referred for

adjudication presupposes that the 2^nd Party has denied to regularise him for the post of Sweeper cum Messenger. But

there is no evidence to the effect that at any time they have considered and denied for regularisation of the services of

temporary workmen.

It is not in dispute that the 2^nd Party which is formed under Regional Rural Bank Act of 1976; because of the

ban imposed on recruitment by the Government of India, so far could not recruit any cadre / category except on

compassionate ground. When there is no such vacancy of permanent Messenger cum Sweeper and no applications were

called for by the 2^nd Party to any permanent post, and the 1^st Party is provided work with all statutory benefits, the

reference was premature. A Photostat copy of the Common Award passed by this Tribunal in CR 13/2004 and14/2004

dated 09.01.2006 is relied. The 1^st Party is looking for Award for regularising his service as Awarded in that case. In the

said case the point refereed for adjudication was “Whether the action of the management of chikamagalur Kodagu

Gramina Bank in not regularising the services of Sh…. Temporary Messenger cum Sweeper is legal and justified? If not

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

In the said case the Bank had contended that Government of India NABARD had imposed ban on recruitment of

any employee on permanent basis but the 1^st Party had counteracted that said ban is lifted by way of circular in the year

2004. The Award was passed on following terms “the management is directed to regularise the services of the first party

workmen on permanent basis to the post of Messenger cum Sweeper, if ban imposed by Government of India (NABARD)

under the letter bearing reference No. NB: IDD: RRCBD: 1736: C-316 (Gen): 98-99 dated 19.09.1988 has already

been lifted. In case the ban continues, their case for permanent post shall be considered on priority basis….”

The question of the ban imposed by the NABARD which was subsequently withdrawn was not the issue in the

present case. While directing the 2^nd Party to regularise the service of the 1^st Party, this Tribunal also awarded the

alternative relief in the event ban is not lifted, thus directing the 2^nd Party to treat the case of the 1^st Party for permanent

post on priority basis. Assuming for a while that the ban is lifted and the vacancies for permanent post are open; the

appointment would be on the basis of eligibility criteria as undertaken by the 2^nd Party as their response letter Ex W-3

given to the 1^st Party workman. In the event of any violation by the 2^nd Party of their undertaking given to the workman

under Ex W-3 that shall entitle for the workman to seek redressal under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.

The 1^st Party as placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court, the

judgment of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India vs General Secretary, FCI India Employees Union and others,

Civil Appeal No. 10499/2011, and Food Corporation of India vs The workmen through the Convener and another, the

subject matter involved in this case pertains to regularisation of service of 955 employees employed by the contract

labourers Society to work in FCI to carry out their Business. The Industrial Tribunal had passed Award by answering the

reference in favour of the workers union and against the Corporation, it was held that 955 employees are entitled for

regularisation of service. The said Award was upheld up to the Apex Court. The second case pertains to the

7912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

regularisation of service of 2007 contract employees working on short term contracts over 10-20 years, the Award passed

by the Industrial Tribunal of Mumbai was confirmed by the Apex Court. Judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

reported in 2017 LLR 716 in the matter of SAIL vs workmen, SAIL and Others, is also about contract employment

wherein it was asserted while sustaining the Award of the Industrial Tribunal that ‘if the contract is declared to be sham,

the employees of contractors would be treated as employees of the principle employer’. Next judgment relied is from

that of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10956/2018 in the matter of Sabha Shanker Dube vs Divisional Forest Officer

and Others and connected cases, it was a Writ Appeal arising from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court denying

regularisation of services of the daily rated workers employed in group D posts of the Forest Department. The Division

Bench of the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the

Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to the regular employees working on the

same post. During the course of discussion at Para 11 it was clarified “…. we are not called upon to adjudicate on the

rights of the Appellants relating to the regularisation of their services”. The next judgment of the Apex Court relied

pertains to the employees in Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand dated 01.08.2018, the Writ Petitioners were daily wagers /

contract workers appointed to different posts sought regularisation on the basis of provisions of Jharkhand Sarkar Ewam

Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamithikaran Niyamawali (Regularisation Rules).

10.

None of the above judgments have semblance to the case on hand. It is an individual dispute seeking

regularisation on the basis of the earlier award passed by this Tribunal which is already discussed in the preceding para.

11.

In view of the observation supra I hold that the referred issue is premature. 1^st Party workman since is working

without break along with statutory benefits like, the Provident Fund facility and bonus, is not entitled for any relief in this

reference.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 13^th September, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2082-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dukZVdk xzkeh.kk cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|klsfxd vf/kdj.k caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

26-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@32@2013-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2019

S.O. 2082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Karnataka Gramina Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/32/2013-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 13^TH SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 26/2013

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2019@vxzgk;.k 16] 1941

7913

I Party

II Party

Sh. Mallikarjunaiah K.R,

C/o K. R. Jayanna,

Kalledevarahalli,

Kunkanadu Post,

Kadur Taluk,

Chikmagalur District - 577 182.

The Chairman,

Karnataka Gramina Bank,

Head Office, CA No. 20,

Vijayanagar 2^nd Stage,

Mysore - 570 017.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. H. K. Nagabhushana

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/32/2013-IR(B-I) dated 07.06.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’

hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.