4143 GI/2022
(1233)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 26]
नई दिल् ली, िून 26— िुलाई 2, 2022, िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 5— आषाढ़ 11, 1944
No. 26]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 26—JULY 2, 2022, SATURDAY/ASADHA 5–ASADHA 11, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(व्य जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 22 िून, 2022
का.आ. 615.—रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10 के
उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, भारती ले ाृरीक्षा और ले ा जवभाग में भारत सरकार के जनम् नजलज त का ााल , जिसमें
अस्ट् सी प्रजतित कमाचारर ों ने हिंिी का का ासािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज, अ ाात :—
1.
मिाले ाकार का ााल (ले ा एवं िकिारी), जत्रृुरा, अगरतला ।
[फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2021-ईिी]
ऐनी िॉिा मजथ् ू, जविेष सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-04072022-237035
CG-DL-W-04072022-237035
1234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2022
S.O. 615.— In pursuance of sub–rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Government of India in
the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi, namely :—
1.
Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, Agartala.
[F. No. A-12034/02/2021-EG]
ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Spl. Secy.
जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग
नई दिल्ली, 25 िून, 2022
का.आ. 616.—रा् री आवास बैंक अजिजन म, 1987 (1987 का 53) की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा (1) के ंड (क)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन् री सरकार, राष्ट्री आवास बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक (एमडी) श्री िारिा कुमार
िोता के का ाकाल को दिनांक 26.6.2022 से िो वषा की अवजि (अ ाात 26.6.2024 तक) के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों
तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढ़ाने का अनुमोिन करती िज।
[फा. सं. 24/3/2022-आईएफ-II]
लजलत कुमार, आर् ाक सलािकार
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2022
S.O. 616.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the National
Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government has approved the extension of the term of Sh. Sarada
Kumar Hota as Managing Director (MD), National Housing Bank for a further period of two years beyond
26.06.2022 (i.e. till 26.06.2024), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 24/3/2022-IF-II]
LALIT KUMAR, Economic Adviser
जविेि मंत्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 िून, 2022
का.आ. 617.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िुबई में उमेि ािव, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी, को
दिनांक 22 िून, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(25)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1235
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2022
S.O. 617.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Umesh Yadav,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the consular
services with effect from 22 June 2022.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2022(25)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 24 िून, 2022
का.आ. 618.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, षीकागो में श्री मनेंर कुमार और श्री जितेंर हसंि त्री, सिा क
अनुभाग अजिकारर ों, को दिनांक 24 िून,
2022
से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारर ों के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन
के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(26)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 24th June, 2022
S.O. 618.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Manendra Kumar and
Shri Jitender Singh Khatri, both Assistant Section Officers as Assistant Consular Officers in Consulate General of
India, Chicago to perform the consular services with effect from 24 June 2022.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2022(26)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 24 िून, 2022
का.आ. 619.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, बाकू में श्री राि कुमार गुप्ता, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी, को दिनांक
24 िून, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(27)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 24th June, 2022
S.O. 619.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Raj Kumar Gupta,
Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Baku as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular services
with effect from June 24, 2022.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2022(27)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
1236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कार्माक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्माक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रजल, 2022
का.आ. 620.— केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का अजिजन म
सं् ा 25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् सरकार
की अजिसूचना सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-413/2021-4805/रांची, दिनांक 13.12.2021, गषि, कारागार एवं आृिा प्रबंिन
जवभाग, रांची के माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, श्री अरहवंि कुमार ृांडे, ग्रामीण डाक सेवक (िीडीएस), जगरीडीि प्रिान
डाक घर, जगरीडीि द्वारा कज त प ृ से आ के ज्ञात स्रोतों के अनुृात में आर् ाक संसािनों ा आ से अजिक संृजत्त के
कब्िे में िोने के संबंि में िारा 13(2) सृर त िारा 13(1)(ई) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 के संिोिन ृूवा) एवं
वतामान अनुप ृ भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा संिोजित) की
िारा 13(2) सृर त िारा 13(1)(बी) के तित अृराि (अृरािों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(अृरािों) से िुड़े ा
उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड ंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से
उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का
जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/06/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 7th April, 2022
S.O. 620.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/C.B.I.-413/2021-4805/Ranchi dated 13.12.2021, Home,
Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under
section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(e) (before amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and presently
corresponding section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended
by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS),
Giridih Head Post Office, Giridih pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to
his known sources of income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/06/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
जवद्युत मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022
का.आ. 621.—केंरी सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन ृावर जग्रड काृोरेिन ऑफ
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1237
इंजड ा जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलज त का ााल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमाचारीवषंि ने हिंिी का का ासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा
िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1.
ृावर जग्रड काृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड
400/220 केवी न् ू जसजलगुड़ी उृकेंर,
ृोस्ट्ट-बलराम, वा ा कामार जभटा,
ृोस्ट्ट अंबारी, फालाकाटा, जिला-िलृाईगुड़ी
ृजिम बंगाल-735135
2.
ृावर जग्रड काृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड
220 केवी िी आई एस न् ू मेल्ली उृकेंर,
टोकाल, ब्लॉक-ृकलक, िेंचुंग िोरे ंग,
ृोस्ट्ट-न ाबािार, जिला-साउ जसदिम,
जसदिम-737121
[फा. सं. 11011/03/9/2022-हिंिी]
जविाल कृूर, सं ुक् त सजचव (रा.भा.)
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022
S.O. 621.—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 the following offices of Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
400/220 KV New Siliguri Substation,
Post-Balaram, Via Kamar Bhita,
Post-Ambari, Falakata, Distt.- Jalpaiguri
West Bengal-735135
2
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
220 KV GIS New Melli Substation,
Tokal, Block-Paklak, Denchung Jorethang,
Post-Naya Bazar, Distt.-South Sikkim,
Sikkim-737121
[F. No. 11011/03/9/2022-Hindi]
VISHAL KAPOOR, Jt. Secy. (O.L.)
जिक्षा मंत्राल
(उच् चतर जिक्षा जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022
का.आ. 622.—केंर सरकार, सरकारी स्ट् ान (अप्राजिकषत अजिभोजग ों की बेि ली) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971
का 40) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, एतिद्वारा नीचे िी गई सारणी के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त
अजिकारी को, भारत सरकार के एक रािृजत्रत अजिकारी के रैंक के समकक्ष अजिकारी िोने के नाते, उक् त अजिजन म के
1238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
प्र ोिना ा, अजिकाररक रािृत्र में इस अजिसूचना के प्रकािन की तारी से िो वषों की अवजि के जलए संृिा अजिकारी
जन ुक् त करती िज, िो उक् त सारणी के कॉलम (2) में जवजनर्िा् ट सरकारी ृररसरों के संबंि में अृने अजिकार क्षेत्र की
स्ट् ानी सीमाओं के भीतर सरकारी स्ट् ान के संबंि में उक् त अजिजन म द्वारा अ वा उसके तित संृिा अजिकारी को प्रित् त
िजि ों का प्र ोग करेंगे और दिए गए का ों का जन् ृािन करेंगे।
सारणी
अजिकारी का नाम और ृिनाम
सावािजनक ृररसरों की श्रेजण ां और अजिकार क्षेत्र की
सीमाएं
(1)
(2)
प्रो. िमाल ए. ान, चे रृसान, वन् िीव जवज्ञान जवभाग,
अलीगढ़ मुजस्ट्लम जवश्वजवद्याल
अलीगढ़ मुजस्ट्लम जवश्वजवद्याल , अलीगढ़ जिले से संबंि
र ने वाले ा ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ा अलीगढ़ मुजस्ट्लम
जवश् वजवद्याल द्वारा ा इसकी रर से अजिग्रजित ृररसर।
[फा. सं. 3-17/2021-सी ू-V]
मषत् ुंि बेिेरा, आर् ाक सलािकार (उच् चतर जिक्षा)
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(Department of Higher Education)
New Delhi, the 27th June , 2022
S.O. 622.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in
column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government of India
to be estate officer for a period of two years, from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette,
for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed, on estate
officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises is specified
in column (2) of the said table, namely:—
TABLE
Name and Designation of Officer
Categories of public premises and local limits of
Jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Prof. Jamal A. Khan, Chairperson, Department of
Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University.
Premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned
by or on behalf of the Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh District.
[F. No. F.3-17/2021-CU-V]
MRUTYUNJAY BEHERA, Economic Advisor (HE)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1239
रेल मंत्राल
(रेलवे बोडा)
नई दिल् ली, 10 िून, 2022
का.आ. 623.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जन म, 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में मंडल रेल प्रबंिक का ााल , मजसूरु मंडल, िजक्षण ृजिम रेलवे, ििां
80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/कमाचारर ों ने हिंिी का का ासाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत
करता िज।
[फा. सं. हिंिी 2018/रा.भा.1/12/1(1194981)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(Railway Board)
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2022
S.O. 623.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify DRM Office, Mysuru
Division, South Western Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of
Hindi.
[F. No. Hindi 2018/O.L-1/12/1(1194981)]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director (OL)
नई दिल् ली, 10 िून, 2022
का.आ. 624.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जन म 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में रेलटेल कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड, िजक्षणी क्षेत्र, जसकंिराबाि,
ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/कमाचारर ों ने हिंिी का का ासाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतद्द्वारा
अजिसूजचत करता िज।
[फा. सं. हिंिी 2018/रा.भा.1/12/1(1194984)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2022
S.O. 624.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify RailTel Corporation of
India Limited, South Region/Secunderabad, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. Hindi 2018/O.L-1/12/1 (1194984)]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director (OL)
1240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल् ली, 10 िून, 2022
का.आ. 625.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जन म 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में इंजड न रेलवे कजटररंग एवं टूररज्म कॉृोरेिन, क्षेत्री का ााल ,
चंडीगढ़, ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/कमाचारर ों ने हिंिी का का ासाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतद्द्वारा
अजिसूजचत करता िज।
[फा. सं. हिंिी 2018/रा.भा.1/12/1(1194986)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, (रािभाषा)
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2022
S.O. 625.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify Indian Railway Catering
and Tourism Corporation, Zonal Office/Chandigarh, where 80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. Hindi 2018/O.L-1/12/1 (1194986)]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director (OL)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/k ra= 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 99@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@72@2002-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022
S.O. 626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/72/2002–IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/99/2002
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ram Kedar,
S/o Shri Ram Dular,
Qtr.No.F-4, SBI Colony,
Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar,
District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
…Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1241
Versus
The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Shanker Nagar,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2.
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region No.3, Bhilai,
District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 8-6-2022)
As per letter dated 28/6/2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L 12012/72/2002-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in removing Shri Ram Kedar,
Ex-Messenger cum farsh at Sector No.1, Bhilai Branch from Bank’s service vide order dated 26/12/2000
of Disciplinary Authority (Deputy General Manager, SBI, Zonasl Office, Raipur)vide order dated
28/2/2001 is justified? if not, what relief the workman is entitled?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim and defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as temporary staff with
the Management of the Bank in the year 1984. He was given regular appointment w.e.f. 13-11-1987 as a messenger
cum farash and was posted in the main Branch of the management Bank in Sector-1, Bhilai. He was thereafter
confirmed as a permanent staff w.e.f. 14-5-1988 and continued in service with all sincerity and efficiently till
December-1994. He was issued a show cause notice on 10-5-1994 requiring him to explain his conduct which was
misconduct under service rules as alleged by the management. The charge was of false introduction of an account
holder and getting the cheque book issued in the name of the account holder to a fake person. He filed his reply and
denied the charges on 22-6-1994. The Management decided to institute a departmental inquiry and issued a formal
charge sheet on 6-4-1994. The workman again denied the charges before the Inquiry Officer and also claimed that no
financial loss was caused to the Bank. It is the case of the workman that the inquiry was not conducted properly. The
charges were held wrongly proved by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report. Also that the Disciplinary Authority
wrongly passed the punishment of removal from service relying on an inquiry report which was against law and
ignoring the fact that no charge was proved against the workman. According to the workman, the charges were not
proved. The punishment was excessive and disproportionate to the charge, hence is arbitrary and is a result of unfair
labour practice and victimization. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that setting aside the punishment order, he
be reinstated with all service and prost retiral benefits.
3.
The case of the Management in brief is that while working in Bhilai Branch in the year 1994, the workman
introduced one person Horilal to the then Chief Manager, P.B.Division and identified him as Horilal, holder of the
saving bank account 24063 bearing cheque No.462981 to 463000 was issued to the identified person. Lateron the real
account holder Horilal denied having received any cheque book . That cheque book was used in fraudulent
withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- from the account by the fake person identified by the workman Horilal account holder
which is gross misconduct in terms of Shastri Award duly modified by Desai Award and Bi-Partite Settlements
governing the service conditions. The charge sheet dated 6-12-1994 was issued to the workman. He filed the reply to
the charge sheet denying the charges. The Disciplinary Authority decided to conduct an departmental inquiry and
Shri R.K.Mishrra was appointed as the Inquiry office and Shri N.K.Sharma was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
The workman was allowed to be defended by the representative of Registered Union. A criminal case was also filed
against the workman. The inquiry was kept suspended due to pendency of the criminal case. It started later on since
20-6-2000 then Shri R.K.Gupta was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Sohan kumar was appointed as the
Presenting Officer. The inquiry was conducted and the workman also participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 31-10-2000. A copy of which was sent to the workman on 22-11-2000. He did make his
representation on the Inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and
penalty of removal from service was awarded to the workman. The workman was also heard on the point of proposed
penalty. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the Inquiry Report and severity of the charge as well as the
evidence collected during the inquiry concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and awarded the punishment
of removal from service in accordance with the provisions of para 521(5)(b) of Shastri Award vide order dated
26-12-2000. The workman filed appeal against the punishment order on 29-6-2001 which was dismissed by the
Appellate Authority. According, to the management, the Inquiry was conducted as per rules and procedure. The
workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. There was no violation of natural justice. The charges were
1242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proved during the inquiry. The punishment is also not disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly, the Management
has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
On the basis of pleadings, the following preliminary issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his
order dated 26-8-2009.
“Whether the Departmental inquiry conducted is legal and proper?”
5.
Parties were directed to lead evidence on preliminary issue. The workman examined himself as a witness
and filed and proved original documents regarding inquiry which are Exhibits W-1 to W-9. The workman admitted
Management documents mainly inquiry papers which are exhibits M-1 to M-5A. The Management examined its
witness on oath and was cross-examined by the workman.
6.
Vide his order dated 20-6-2017 my learned Predecessor held the departmental inquiry legal and proper. His
this order is part of this Award.
7.
Following three other issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 20-6-2017:—
“(1) Whether the alleged misconduct is proved from evidence, during the inquiry?
(2) Whether the punishment of removal imposed against the workman is legal and proper?
(3) If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
8.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on these additional issues. The workman again examined
himself and was cross-examined by learned counsel for the management. The Management examined its witness who
was cross-examined by the workman. The Management proved documents Exhibit M-6.
9.
Meanwhile the workman died and his legal representative were brought on record.
10.
I have heard arguments of Shri Rajendra Puranik , learned counsel for the workman and Shri Vijay Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.
11.
ISSUE NO.1:—
It has been submitted from the side of workman that charge of misconduct is not proved against the workman
from the evidence collected during the inquiry. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that the
charges were well proved from evidence. The learned counsel for workman has also submitted that the workman
was acquitted for the same charges by the Criminal Court in the criminal case proceeded against him. According to
the learned counsel for the workman , this fact also goes in favour of the workman and supports his case that the
charges were in fact not proved in the evidence during the inquiry. Reliance has been placed on following cases in this
respect:—
A. State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Vidyasagar Pandey and Another (2011(129)FLR-45),
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, wherein it has been held that since both the criminal and departmental
proceedings initiated for the same charges arising out same set of facts, the finding of the criminal
Court must prevail upon the Disciplinary Authority.
B.
The learned counsel has further referred to decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Union of India and
Others Vs. Naman Singh Sekhawat (2008) 118 FLR-1121, wherein the departmental proceedings
were initiated against the employee who was found in possession of smuggled goods, he was acquitted
in criminal proceedings but was held guilty of misconduct in departmental inquiry. His dismissal by
the Disciplinary Authority was misconduct and was set aside.
C.
Another judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Duraikannu Vs. Managing
Director and Another (2007) 112 FLR-800 has also been referred to by learned counsel. This is also
the argument of learned counsel for the workman that the charges are vague, hence departmental
inquiry could not be proceeded on the basis of vague charges. The learned counsel has referred to
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in the case of Gangaram Choube Vs. State of M.P.&
Others (2005) MPLSR-131.
12.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Management has submitted that from the evidence collected
during the inquiry, the charges are proved. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the management that the
workman was acquitted by the criminal court giving him benefit of doubt, hence the judgment of criminal court will
not effect the finding of the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report. According to the learned counsel for the
management standard regarding proof of charge in departmental inquiry and criminal trial are different. Learned
Counsel has referred to following decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court in this respect where in it has been laid down
that in the departmental inquiry the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the standard of
proof for charges is different in departmental inquiry and criminal trials:—
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1243
A.
State Bank of India Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740.
B.
General Manager Operation, SBI & another Vs. R.Periyasamy (2015) 3 SCC 101.
C.
Pravin Kuamar Vs. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471.
D.
Deputy General Manager and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.
E.
State of A.P. Vs. Sree Rama Rao (1963) SC 1723 wherein it has been held that :—
“…a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and that the standard of proof required in a
disciplinary inquiry is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt,
which is the proof required in a criminal trial.”
F. In another case B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India(1995) 6 SCC 749, it has been held that :—
“the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court.
The disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts. The Court/Tribunal in its power of review does
not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence.”
13.
Now coming to the evidence in proof of charge conducted during the inquiry, the charge against the
workman was as follows:—
(1)
That while posted in Bhilai Branch he introduced one fake person as Account Holder of saving
account No.24063 Horilal on 4-5-1994 and got issued a cheque book on his recommendation.
(2)
The real account holder Horilal denied receiving the cheque book.
14.
Though the charges are two fold but they are virtually one which is wrong introduction and identification of
Account holder for issuing a cheque book against the Account. The inquiry papers have been proved by the
Management largely admitted by the workman also. The perusal of the inquiry proceedings and inquiry report goes
to show that the Management examined its witness C.L.Dase who stated before the inquiry officer that the workman
entered in his cabin with a person and introduced the person as Account Holder Horilal having Saving Bank Account
No.24063 and recommended issuing cheque book against that account to the person. He also stated that when the
witness asked the person to produce his passbook, the workman told the witness that the person is personally known
to him and the pass book is given for updation and there is a huge rush at the updation counter. It was on the
recommendation and identification of the workman the cheque book was issued by the witness to the person
accompanying the workman. The other witness Madnaiya examined during the inquiry proceedings stated before the
Inquiry Officer that the real account holder Horilal came to the Branch on 7-5-1994 and submitted a withdrawal form
of Rs.1,00,000/- for preparing a draft. There was no sufficient amount in his account. He was told that his account did
not have one lakh as there is a withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.fifty thousand only)from the account by cheque just a
day before . Then the Account holder told that he had never withdrawan Rs.50,000/- from his account. He also told
that he never applied for cheque book and no cheque book was ever issued to him. When he was confronted by the
workman, the workman also refused to identify him. I have gone through the statement of these two witnesses as
well as other witnesses examined during the inquiry proceedings, recorded as their cross-examination and also of
considered view that the witnesses are reliable on the point of charge. I find no occasion to defer from the finding of
the Inquiry Officer that the charges against the workman are proved. Hence the charge of misconduct against the
workman is held proved from the inquiry report and finding of Inquiry Officer with respect to the proof of charge is
affirmed. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO.2:—
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the workman that the punishment is excessive. The workman
had unblemished service record. This fact was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The workman had no
role in withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- by cheque as it was a matter between the cashier and the Accountant who passed the
cheque. The charge against him is only that he introduced a wrong person for issuing of cheque book which he
denied all through out during the inquiry. Hence according to the learned counsel for the workman, the punishment of
removal from service in the case in hand is excessive and shockingly disproportionate.
16.
Learned Counsel for the management has submitted on the other hand that the charge is grave misconduct
for which there is provision of removal from service along with other punishments. No employer can afford to have an
employee whose integrity is doubtful. In the case in hand also the workman was instrumental in getting the cheque
book issued to a fake person on his identification and recommendation which resulted into fraudulent withdrawal of
Rs.50,000/-. Also it has been submitted that scope of interference by this Tribunal on punishment is limited and this
case is not a fit case for interference because the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate warranting
interference by this Tribunal.
1244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
Learned Counsel for the management has referred to following decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court in these
case:-
A.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs Nemi chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584.
B. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Unionof India(1995) 6 SCC 749.
C. Pravin Kuamr Vs. Unionof India (2020) 9 SCC 471.
D.
State Bank of India Vs. R. Periyasamy (2015) 3 SCC 1010.
E.
U.P.S RTC Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555
F.
State Bank of India Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.
18.
Before proceeding, the settled preposition of law on the issue requires to be mentioned, which is as
follows:—
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence
relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of invoking
the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that the Court
should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the misconduct committed or
it is harsh.
1.
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High
Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant
factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,
the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an
discipline required to be maintained, and the department /establishment which the delinquent
person concerned works.”
2.
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of
a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law
summarized the legal position in the following words:
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere
with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or
was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the
correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is
limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further,
to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by
recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
3.
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it
finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
4.
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court
stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking
to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
5.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M.
Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High
Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,
and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such
discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1245
conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the
disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of
misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal
would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
6.
Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material
on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence,
the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds
for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere
with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on
no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a
tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on
record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,
capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.
19.
Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, in the light of settled preposition of law as mentioned above the
charge of misconduct proved against the workman is of wrong identification for issuing of cheque book. The
subsequent fraudulent withdrawal has nothing to do with the present workman. Keeping in view the misconduct
proved , the maximum punishment of removal from service without considering other major punishments cannot be
said to be proportionate to the charge. No doubt it is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of misconduct proved
and his held accordingly. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
20.
ISSUE NO. 3:—
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as referred to above . in my considered
view the interest of justice will be fully served on the parties, if the workman is awarded punishment of compulsory
retirement from service. Hence, the sentence of removal from service is converted into that of compulsory
retirement. Since the punishment has been changed in the case in hand, the workman is held not entitled to back
wages in the light of principle of law laid down in the case of Deepali Gundu Suwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapad
Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324(2013(6) SLR 642(SC) which are as follows:—
“38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the
adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the
employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/
workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it
has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/ workman was gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination
of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a
particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always
easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows
that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11- A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the
employee/ workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing
orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found
proved then it will have the discretion not to award fullback wages. However, if the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
1246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charges then there will be ample justification
for award of full back wages.
38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross
violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of
victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully
justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Court should not
exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed
by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on
the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to
pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal
termination of service, the wrong doer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman
and there is justification to give premium to, the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him
of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary
adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring
that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure
and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants
cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if
he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his
service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in
most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or
workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer,
i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with
certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases, it would be prudent to adopt the course
suggested in Hindustan Tin works Private Limited V. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private
Limited (supra).
38.7 The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the
employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the
judgments of three Judge Benches referred to here-in-above and cannot be treated as good law.
This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an
employee/workman.
Furthermore, in Tapash Kumar Paul V. BSNL (2014) 4 SCR 875 :[2014(6) SLR 538 (SC)], it is
held :—
“Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu’s case (supra) which has
correctly relied upon higher bench decisions of this Court in Surendra Kumar Verma’s case
(supra) and Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the opinion that the appellant herein
is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since in the absence of full back wages, the
employee will be distressed and will suffer punishment for no fault of his own.”
But he is held entitled to receive all the benefits admissible to an employee on compulsory retirement . Issue
No. 3 is answered accordingly.
21.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:—
A. The action of the management of State Bank of India in removing Shri Ram Kedar, Ex-Messenger
cum farsh at Sector No.1, Bhilai Branch from Bank’s service vide order dated 26/12/2000 of
Disciplinary Authority(Deputy General Manager, SBI, Zonal Office, Raipur) vide order dated
28/2/2001 is held not justified.
B. The sentence of removal from service awarded to workman is converted into that of compulsory
retirement. The workman is held not entitled to back wages but he is held entitled to receive all
the benefits admissible to an employee on compulsory retirement.
C.
Parties to bear their own cost.
22.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1247
ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 146@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@87@2001-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022
S.O. 627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/87/2001– IR(B-1)]
D.GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/146/2001
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Lala Ram Tiwari
(Died during proceedings,represented by L.R’s)
S/o Jagdish Prasad Tiwari,
VGE & PO Jaali
Terhsil Kota,
District Bilaspur(C.G.)
…Workman
Versus
The Branch manager
State Bank of India,
Agricultural Development Bank,
Dayalband, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 13-6-22)
As per letter dated 7/9/2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-12012/87/2001/IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Agricultural Development Bank,
Bilaspur, in terminating the services of Shri Lala Ram Tiwari with effect from 3-5-1996 is justified?if
not, what relief the workman is entitled?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed on 11-4-1986 against
the sanctioned vacancy of messenger under the Branch manager of SBI(Agricultural Development Department) at
Dayalband Bilaspur. That unfortunately he fell ill seriously on 13-1-1996. He submitted an application on the very
same date for grant of leave to the Branch manager A.D.B.Bilaspur. After he recovered, he submitted his joining
report on 25-4-1996. He was shocked to know that he has been terminated by management vide its letter dated 17-5-
1996. He raised a dispute before Assistant labour Commissioner Central Bilaspur. After failure of conciliation, the
reference was made by Central Government to this Tribunal for adjudication. According to the workman, the action
of management is unjustified in law and fact and is arbitrary as well as malafide. The workman has sought his
reinstatement with all back wages, benefits, setting aside his termination.
1248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The case of the management is mainly that while the workman was posted at ADB Bilaspur he was in the
habit of absenting himself unauthorisedly from duty. He unauthroisedly, willfully absented himself from November-
1994 to January-1995. He was served with a notice on 8-12-1994 and then he rejoined for duty. He again
unauthroisedly absented himself and was served with a notice on 8-4-1995. He was intimated by this third notice that
if he failed to submit his joining and report back on duty he shall be treated to have voluntarily abandoned his
services. The workman did not submit any reply nor did he report on duty. Then again a notice dated 17-5-1996 was
sent to him which was served on him on 23-5-1996 intimating that he had voluntarily abandoned his services w.e.f. 3-
5-1996. According to the management his termination was according to the relevant provisions of Shastri Award and
Bi-Partite Settlement and also following the procedure of natural justice, as laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in
the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary,Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another (2000) 5 SCC
565. Thus accordingly to the Management the termination of his services was not against law nor is it arbitrary or
malafide. The Management has accordingly requested that the reference be answered against the workman. The
workman filed some photocopy documents in the form of medical certificates. He never cared to prove these
documents. The Management filed and proved documents Exhibit M-1 to M-4. Notices sent to the workman on
different dates as mentioned Exhibit M-5 and M-6 letters sent by the Management to the Post Master of the Post
offices Ratanpur and Pali on 12-7-1996 and August-1998 Exhibit M-7 is a reply to the post master Pali dated
4-9-1996 and Exhibit M-8 is acknowledgement dated 23-5-1992. Exhibit M-9 is the copy of attendance register with
respect to the workman for the period April-1995 to May-1996 different months.
4.
During the proceedings the workman died and his legal representative were brought on record. His legal
representative Lalal Ram Tiwari filed his affidavit as examination in chief but he never appeared for his cross-
examination by the management. The Management filed affidavit of Smt. Sunita Branch manager, who supported the
case of the management. None appeared from the side of the workman for cross-examination. Hence opportunity of
the workman side for cross-examination ws closed.
5.
None appeared from the side of the workman at the time of argument. No written argument was filed. I have
heard argument of Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the management. He has filed his written
argument also. I have gone through the written argument and have perused the record.
6.
The Reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
7.
The affidavit filed on behalf of the workman by his legal representative cannot be read in evidence because
management could not cross-examine this witness as this witness never appeared for his cross-examination. The
settled preposition is that the burden to prove his claim is on the workman, hence the burden to prove that his absence
from duty was not willful is on the workman. He failed to discharge this burden. The Management has referred to
decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank and Others Vs. Skattar Singh (2001) 1
SCC 214. This is a three Bench decision and another decision Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita
Nandrajog(2009) 9 SCC 462 and Regional Manager Central Bank of India Vs. Vijay Krishna Nema & Others
(2009) 5 SCC 567 have also been referred to by learned counsel for the Management.
8.
Clause 16 of the Shastri Award reads as under:-
“16: Where an employee has not submitted any application for leave and absents himself from work
for a period of 90 or more consecutive dated without or beyond any leave to his credit or absents
himself for 90 or more consecutive days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or
subsequently extended or where there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in
India or the Management is satisfied that he has no present intention of joining duties, the
management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee’s last known address calling
upon the employee to report duty within thirty days of the notice, stating inter alia the grounds for the
management coming to th4 conclusion that the employee has not intention of joining duties and
furnishing necessary evidence, where available . Unless the employee report for duty within thirty
days or unless he gives an explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not
taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties, the
employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank’s service on the expiry of the said
notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for
duty thereafter within thirty days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice
to the bank’s right to take any action under the law or rules of services.”
9.
Clause 17(b) of the Vth Bi Partite Settlement is also being reproduced as under:-
“17.Voluntary cessation of employment by the employee:- The earlier provision relating to the voluntary cessation of
employment by the employee in the earlier settlement shall stand substituted by the following:
(a)
********
(b)
When an employee goes abroad and absents himself for a period of 150 or more consecutive days
without submitting any application for leave, or for its extension or without any leave to his
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 2, 2022/आषाढ़ 11, 1944
1249
credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/subsequently or when there is a
satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment outside India or when the management is
reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties, the management may at any time
thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for
duty within 30 days of the date of the notice, stating, inter alia the grounds for coming to the
conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing necessary
evidence, where available. Unless the employee reports for duty witin 30 days of the notice or
gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management
that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not
joining duties, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank’s service
on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he
shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the
aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank’s right to take any action under the law or rules of
service.
10.
It is the case of the management that the workman had unauthorisedly and willfully absented himself for
more than ninety days continuously. He was in the habit of unauthorisedly absenting himself, details as mentioned by
the management witness in her affidavit. The documents and the evidence of the Management witness clearly
establish that the rules and procedure os natural justice were followed by the Management. Hence from this
description of Award, the termination of the workman is held justified in la and fact and the workman is held entitled
to no relief.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of State Bank of India , Agricultural Development Bank, Bilaspur,
in terminating the services of Shri Lala Ram Tiwari with effect from 3-5-1996 is held to be
justified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to now relief.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 twu] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dsanzh; tkap vkSj lqj{kk lsok fyfeVsM izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@21@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th June, 2022
S.O. 628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.55/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Investigation and Security
Service Ltd. and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/21/2020– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2020
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary
CG ATM Karmachari Shramik Shangh Bilaspur,
Vishwakarma Chowk, Chingrajpara War No.40,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495006
…Workman
1250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2022/ASADHA 11, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Central Investigation and Security Services,
A-101, Sappire Twins, Opp. Malhar Mega Mall,
A.B.Road, Indore(M.P.)-452010.
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10-6-2022)
As per letter dated 21-8-2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-12011/21/2020-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Central Investigation and Security Service
Ltd.(Service provider to SBI) to terminate (i) Shri Manoj Mirri (ii) Shri Vikash Dubey (iii) Shri Shiv Das
Mahant, (iv) Shri Sanjay Divakar and (v) Shri Ashish Korri is justified?If not , to what relief the workers
are entitled?” .”
1.
During the pendency of the reference, the workman filed an application on 27-8-2021 stating that the same
dispute has been raised before the Labour Court Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and was pending at that time. He further
requested that this reference be dropped in the light of these facts. The application of the workman was disposed with
the observation that the proceedings cannot be dropped, rather reference as to be answered today as stated by the
Management Representative and is apparent from the Judgment of the Labour Court in Case No.07/2020 and 08/2020
between the parties.
2.The dispute has been settled on the basis of compromise between the parties before the Labour Court,
hence this reference has become infructuous with influx of time and in the light of compromise mentioned above and
is answered accordingly.
3.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Digitally signed by SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Date: 2022.07.04 16:25:58 +05'30'