6235 GI/2022

(1799)

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. 39]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 25— अक्टूबर 1, 2022, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 3— आज‍ वन 9, 1944

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 25—OCTOBER 1, 2022, SATURDAY/ASVINA 3– ASVINA 9, 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 मत्रांल

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

(केन्री अप्रत् क्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड)

नई दिल्ली, 23 जसतम् बर, 2022

का.आ. 879.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, जनम्नजलज त का ाडल जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमडचारर ों

ने जिन्िी का का ड सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:

क्रम सं.

का ाडल का नाम

का ाडल का ृता

आ ुक्त का का ाडल , केंरी

वस्ट्तु एवं सेवाकर

िीएसटी भवन, जसजि सिन जबलल्डंग, नारा ण उृाध् ा मागड, भावनगर-

364001

का ाडल आ ुक्त, केंिी वस्ट्तु

एवं सेवाकर अृील- ि ृुर

मु्‍ ाल - नव केन्री रािस्ट्व भवन, स्ट्टजच् ू सर्कडल, सी-स्ट्कीम, ि ृुर

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]

नीिाररका लसंि, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21102022-239795

CG-DL-W-21102022-239795

1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2022

S.O. 879.—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 notifies, the following offices under Department of revenue

where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

S.No.

office name

office address

Office

the

Commissioner

Central Goods and Services Tax

GST Bhavan, Siddhi Sadan Building, Narayan Upadhyay Marg,

Bhavnagar-364001

Office

the

Commissioner

Central Goods and Services Tax

Appeals- Jaipur

Hqrs : New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-scheme, Jaipur

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]

NIHARIKA SINGH, Director (OL)

आ ुष मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 880.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 ( ा

संिोजित 1987) के जन म (10) के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुकरण में, आ ुष मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन

जनम्नजलज त का ाडल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/कमडचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का डसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर

जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:

1. औषजि मानकीकरण अनुसंिान एकक, िनकृुरी, नई दिल्ली

2. जचदकत्सा अनुसंिान एकक ( ूनानी), मेर , उत्तर प्रिेि

3. क्षेत्री ूनानी जचदकत्सा अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, अलीगढ़, उत्तर प्रिेि

4. क्षेत्री ूनानी जचदकत्सा अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, ृटना, जबिार

[फा. सं. ई. 11011/3/2019-आ ुष (रा.भा.)]

रोितास भन ड़, जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF AYUSH

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2022

S.O. 880.— In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Ayush, wherein more than 80% officers/employees have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi:

1. Drug Standardization Research Unit, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

2. Clinical Research Unit (Unani), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

4. Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Patna, Bihar.

[F. No. E.11011/3/2019-AYUSH (O.L.)]

ROHTAS BHANKHAR, Director

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1801

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 29 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 881.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

महाप्रबंधक, (ओ एंड एम), एनटीपीसी, सीपत, बबलासपुर (छ.ग.); अबतररक्त प्रबंधक और मानव संसाधन (प्रमुख), मैससस

एरा इंफ्रा इंजीबनयररंग बलबमटेड, नोएडा (यूपी); पररयोजना प्रबंधक, एरा इंफ्रा इंजीबनयररंग बलबमटेड बबलासपुर (छ.ग.)के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और अध्यक्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ कमसचारी मजदूर एकता यूबनयन, बबलासपुर (छ.ग.), के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िडष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर ृंचाट (संिभड सं्‍ ा

CGIT/LC/R/119/2017) को जैसा कक अनुलग्नक में कदखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 27/07/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल- 42011/64/2017-आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. बहमांशु, अवर सबचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2022

S.O. 881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/119/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager(O&M), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh);The Additional Manager &HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P.); The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

and the President, Chhattisgarh karamachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/07/2022.

[No. L- 42011/64/2017- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/119/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Omprakash GangotriPresident, Chhattisgarh Karmachari

Mazdoor Ekta Union,Bilaspur

Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager(O&M)

NTPC, Seepat

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh)-495001.

2.Additional Manager & HR(Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.C-56/41

Sector-62,Noida(U.P.)-201301

3.The Project Manager

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

NTPC, Seepat Site,

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh)-495001

…. Management

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022.)

As per letter dated 9/8/2017 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-

42011/64/2017-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action on the part or M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. A contractor working under the

principal employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely Bisun Lal S/o

Shri Ganpati and not paying the terminal benefits as espoused by the President of Chhattisgarh

Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur is legal and justified. If not, what relief the above names

workman is entitled to? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The workman side appeared through its learned counsel on 10-7-2019. The management learned counsel

also appeared on the same date. The learned counsel for Management Party No.2 i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

Filed its compliance on 25-10-2019. The workman side did not file any statement of claim. They were given last

chance for filing statement of claim vide order dated 25-10-2019 even then the workman side did not care to file

statement of claim till date. Today none was present from the side of the workman.

Since no statement of claim was preferred from the side of the workman, the Management No.1 and No.2

also preferred not to file any written statement of defence.

4. The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman in which the workman has miserably failed. Hence

holding the claim of the workman not proved the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is

answered accordingly.

5. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

6. 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

DATE: 20-7-2022

नई दिल्ली, 22 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 882.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky;] कािपुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y- 22011/3/2020.vkbZ- vkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि] अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 882.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2022

[No. L-22011/3/2020 – IR (CM-II) ]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICERN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: Soma Shekhar Jena Hjs (Retd.)

I.D. No. 28 of 2020

L-22011/3/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Kunwar Chand S/o Late Maikulal,

Shri Manish Pal, Advocate, 82/23-C,

Gurugovind Singh Marg, Lucknow-226004

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1803

AND

The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District office, 7-R, Dalibagh,

Lucknow-226010

The General Manager (U.P),

Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010

The Executive Director,

Food Corporation of India,

Zonal Office (North) , A-2A, 2B, Sector-24,

Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA (U.P)-221301

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India in letter no. L-22011/3/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2020

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim arises due to denial of weekly off payment to the casual labour Shri Kunwar

Chand by the management of FCI, Lucknow in mid of the employment i.e w.e.f January, 2014 is

justified in the eye of law or not?”

If yes, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 21st June 2021 fixing 27.08.2021 for

filing of claim statement. But none appeared on behalf of interested parties. After that several dates were fixed for

filing the claim statement but none appeared before the Tribunal. On 09.03.2022 Authorized representative of the

management side appeared and filed the authority letter but none appeared on behalf of claimant workman side. The

case was fixed on 22.04.2022, 10.5.2022 and 8.07.2022. Despite giving ample opportunities to the claimant workman

for submitting his averments; claimant workman failed to present his case before the Tribunal . On 08.07.2022 case

was reserved for award. From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the workman is not interested in

prosecuting the case further before the Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 08.07.2022 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2022

का. आ. 883.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; जबलपुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 80/2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y -22012/121/2016-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]

रािेन्र लसंि , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/092022.

[No. L-22012/121/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/80/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui,

Zonal Mahamantri,

Koyla Mines Engineering Works Association

Ward No.10, Gudhi Palachourai,

District Chhindwarha(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Western Coal Fields Limited

Kanhan Area,Post Dungaria

Tehsil Junnardev,

District Chhindwarha (M.P.)

… Management

AWARD

(Passed on 23-8-2022)

As per letter dated 5/6/2017 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-

22012/121/2016-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Kya Mukhya Mashaprabhandak Western Coal Fields Limited, Kanhan Shetra, Post Dungaria, Tehsil

Junnardev, District Chhindwarha(M.P.) NCWA-11 ke pravdhan 10.4.4 vs NCWA-111 ke Pravdhan

9.4.4. ke anusar denank 30-6-2013 ko sewanevrat hue purv kamgar Shri Mahesh ke ashrit putra Shri

Arun Kumar ko rozgar na dena nyaysangat hai?Yadi Nahi to purv Kamgar kya anutosh paane ka

adhikari hai? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The workman did not

appear inspite of service of notice and no statement of claim has been filed from his side to represent his case.

The case of the Management in their statement of defence is that the service condition of Coal Mines are

governed by NCWA-2 being executed from time to time . NCWA-2 came inforce from 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1982 and

NCWA-3 was inforce from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1986. According to the Management when the workman retired in the

year 2011 NCWA-IX was inforce from 1-7-2006 to 3-7-2011. It is not disputed by Management that the workman

retired after completing 35 years of satisfactory service. According to the Management the provision of appointment

of compassionate appointment to dependent son of a retired employee was done away in NCWA-4 and since then it is

not inforce. The case of Management is further that since on the date of retirement of the workman NCWA-IX was

inforce which do not provide for such an appointment, hence the claim of the workman in this respect is rightfully

rejected. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

The Management filed photocopy of NCWA-1 to NCWA-IX, letter issued by Management regarding

superannuation of workman.

The Management examined its witness.

At the stage of argument no one appeared from the side of the workman, hence arguments of learned counsel

for Management Shri A.K.Shashi were heard. I have also perused the record.

On perusal of record, in the light of submissions made out , following issues arise for determination:-

1. The claim of workman for appointment of his dependent son on his superannuation would be

governed by which of NCWA?

It is not disputed that the workman superannuated on 30-6-2013. It is also not disputed that NCWA-1 was

inforce when the appointment of the workman was done and at the time of his retirement NCWA-IX was inforce

which came inforce since 1-7-2006 to 30-7-2011. This NCWA-IX does not provide for such an appointment. It only

provides for compassionate appointment on death or permanent dis-ability, hence the said relief of appointment to the

dependent son of the workman in the case in hand cannot be held unjustified in law and fact and accordingly the

workman is held entitled to no relief/claim.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management in refusing the claim of workman for appointment of his dependent

son on his superannuation is held unjustified in law and fact.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1805

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

DATE: 23-8-2022 P.K. SRIVASTAVA Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 884—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bykgkckn cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 53/2020) izdkf'kr djrh gS

[सं. ,y-12011/45/2020-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 884.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank (Now Canara

Bank ) and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/45/2020 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present :Soma Shekhar Jena Hjs (retd.)

I.D. No. 53 of 2020

L-12011/45/2020-IR(B-II) dated 16.12.2020

BETWEEN

The Prabal Pratap Singh,

EXecutive Committee member,

U.P. Bank Workers Organization,

2-Naveen Market,

Kanpur (U.P )-208001

AND

The General Manager (P),

Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank)

(Corporate Office, Gandhi Nagar,

Bangalore-560009

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India in letter no. L-12011/45/2020-IR(B-II) dated 16.12.2020. Later a corrigendum was received in

this Tribunal with notification no. L-12011/45/2020-IR(B-II) dated 12.12.2020 where schedule is read as follows:-

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) in not regularizing

the services of Shri Ravindra & 7 others as per details mentioned in the Annexure-A who were

engaged as Class IV staff on temporary basis since years together is just, fair & legal? If not, to what

relief these workmen are entitled to?”

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 28th June 2021 fixing 02.09.2021 for

filing of claim statement. But none appeared on behalf of claimant workmen on the date fixed. Authorized

Representative appeared on behalf of the management and filed an authority letter on 14.12.2021 but none appeared

1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on behalf of the claimants workmen.

On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the claim statement none

appeared on behalf of the claimant workmen before the Tribunal. Despite giving ample opportunities to the claimant

union for submitting statement of claim; the union failed to present the case before the Tribunal. On 14.09.2022 the

case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of the workers’ union. From the aforesaid circumstances it is

presumable that the claimants’ workmen and the union are not interested in prosecuting the case further before the

Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 16.09.2022 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 885.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQW bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 88/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

[सं. एल -12011/42/2018-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

workmen.

[No. L-12011/42/2018 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT

KANPUR

Present Soma Shekhar Jena Hjs (Retd.)

I.D. No. 88 of 2018

L-12011/42/2018-IR(B-II) dated 28/08/2018

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Bank of India Staff Union U.P,

86/415, Deo Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P)-208003

AND

1. The Zonal Manager ,

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Canal Road,

Kanpur (U.P.) -208001

2. The Senior Manager,

Bank of India,

Branch Office, Kaushalpuri

Kanpur (U.P.)-208012

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India in letter no. L-12011/42/2018-IR(B-II) dated 28.08.2018

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1807

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the duties of Head Cashier allotted by the management of Bank of India to Shri Ashish

Mishra designated Head Cashier at Kaushalpuri Branch, Kanpur vide email dated 10.10.2017are

in accordance with the duties mentioned in Bipartite Settlement ? And whether the action of

management was just, fair and legal in allotting the said duties to Shi Ashish Mishra designated

Head Cashier vide email dated 10.10.2017, if not what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?’

The averments of the claimant workman can be concisely stated as follows:-

Shri Ashish Mishra is an activist of the Trade Union Movement espousing the causes of fellow employees

and paying a Vangardist role for the furtherance of Trade Union Movement in Banking Industry in general and in

Bank of India in particular. It is because of his popularity amongst Bank Employees that he is an elected General

Secretary of Bank of India Staff Union, Uttar Pradesh which is a majority Union. He is also General Secretary of We

Bankers Association Uttar Pradesh.

Sri Ashish Mishra has raised his strong voice against misdeeds of some of the Executives of the Bank and as

a result he has to bear the brunt of the ire of such executives.

Service conditions of bank employees are governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award as modified by

subsequent Bipartite Settlements entered into between Indian Banks Association representing its member banks and

all the major Unions of Bank Employees representing workmen of banks Association, the mandatory provisions of

Bipartite Settlement have legal force and binding on management of Bank of India.

In utter violation of the above mandatory provisions of Bipartite Settlement, the Senior Manager BO:

Kaushalpuri , opposite party no. 2, issued an Office Order on 03.03.2017 wherein duties over and above the duties

listed under the Bipartite Settlement were entrusted upon workman Sri Ashish Mishra.

Since office order dated 03.03.2017 and duties entrusted vide said office order were in utter violation of the

mandatory provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 27.04.2010 which were entrusted upon workman Sri Ashish

Mishra on extraneous considerations and malafide and with bad motive of harassing him through exercise of unfair

labour practice as defined under Section 2ra of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Fifth Schedule, the Union

served a notice for agitation on the management and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur interfered

to seize the matter into immediate conciliation proceedings.

Vide email dated 10.10.2017, the management has entrusted following duties upon workman Sri Ashish

Mishra, the designated Head Cashier at Kaushalpuri Branch, Kanpur:

Opinion Compilation

II.

Verification of Vernacular Signatures/endorsements

III.

Countersigning Cheques and /or Drafts (on selves or correspondents),

Payment Orders, Deposit Receipt etc.

IV.

Attending to Government Treasury Work

Discharging/Endorsing Bills, Cheques etc. being Incharge of Clearing

VI.

Passing independently Clearing and Transfer Cheques, vouchers etc

(whether credits or debits) upto and including Rs 50,000/ and CAsh Vouchers upto Rs

50,000/jointly with an authorized person.

VII.

All other duties specified for Singly Window Operator “A” in 9th Bipartite Settlement, Cash

Payments and Receipts, Cash Sorting, Teller Payments upto Rs 20,000/ ensuring highest level of

Customer satisfaction & Complaint Free Services, Management of Cash/Sorting for ATM, Cash

Remittance/Indent. Issue of System Generated Receipt, etc.

VIII.

Make Efforts to add new customers and sale of third party products during leisure time. Efforts

should be made for achieving business generation. Publicity of APY, PMSJY, PMSBY

IX.

Preparation/sorting of Cash for lodgment and making efforts for timely lodgment of Cash to

Currency Chest.

Any other work Allotted from time to time.

The averments of the O.P management side may be summarized as follows:-

Shri Ashish Mishra was allotted duties in terms of the Bipartite Settlement as also the Bank level settlement

signed between the Management of the answering Bank and the federation of Bank of India staff Unions on

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24.03.2011. There was no violation of any kind.

Moreover, the Bank level settlement dated 24.03.2011 was applicable in all the branches of Bank of India

throughout the country and are binding upon the parties.

The terms of the said settlement are applicable to Mr. Ashish Mishra hence the contention of the Union is

devoid of merits and is misconceived.

It is further submitted that no violation was caused in the allotment of the duties of Head Cashier to Mr.

Ashish Mishra, therefore, the question of unfair labour practice as defined under section 2(ra) of I.D. Act 1947 read

with Vth schedule does not not arise. it is also submitted that workman Shri Ashish Mishra has accepted in his

appointment letter to abide by above provisions. Thus the union has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.

It is submitted that allotment of duties to Shri Ashish Mishra by the Bank on 10.10.2017 was just, proper, and

fair and was in accordance with the Bipartite Settlement and Bank level settlement dated 24.03.2011. Thus the

contention of the union is baseless and misconceived.

The basic purpose of work allocation among Bank’s staff including Mr. Ashish Mishra, workman are routine

in nature and to make the staff concerned accountable for the allotted work. It is also a fact that each of the duty, listed

in para 10 (vii and (x) of union’s claim as and when asked to be performed by the staff concerned and the work man is

bound by the service conditions to follow. It is submitted that Bank always keeps in mind while asking clerical staff to

perform the duties of his post/cadre only and not for any other post post/cadre.

It is further stated that union has attempted to misinterpret the duties of Head Cashier category-II. Therefore,

it is irrelevant and wrong to compare the duties of Head Cashier-II with a special Assistant. Thus the contention of the

union is baseless, illogical and misconceived.

It is very much disputed that the union/workman knowing fully well that the duties allocated to him are as

per the terms of Bipartite settlements as also the Bank level settlement dated 24.03.2011 and are applicable to the

workman employees of all India Branches of Bank of India, has raised the issue before the Tribunal in utter violation

of the provisions contained therein. It is also important to note that all the allotted duties do not come on all the

working days for performance by the workman concerned barring exceptions. However, in practice if there is some

extra work load on the counter on any day necessary help if required is also given to Head Cashier, It is also

noteworthy that for any grievance relating to Bipartite settlement issues can be raised through the unions signing the

settlement and to take up the issues with IBA.Similarly for Bank level settlements the issues could be represented

through the federation of Bank of India Unions to be taken up with the Management of the Bank. The workman Shri

Ashish Mishra instead of approaching the parties in the settlements has straight away approached this forum which is

totally barred by the enabling provisions contained in those settlements.

Workman/Union in statement of claim have accepted all the duties allotted to workman by the Bank except

those listed at serial no. VII and X. As regards duties listed at sl.no. VII, a reference is craved to Annexure-2 of the

reply of the Bank which clearly confirms Bank’s stand and dispels all the apprehensions of the workman/union. As

regard Para X- No duties were listed except putting an enabling clause in the duty allocation sheet which itself speaks

of the hollowness of workman’s claim. For the sake of clarity it is further clarified that point no.x means that,

depending upon situation/ exigencies any other work of his cadre could be assigned to him as per provisions of the

Bipartite settlement dated 18.09.1984 or those as laid down in other Bipartite settlements, Bank level settlements

considering the factual matrix cited above.As such it does not attract any extra/officiating allowance. Thus the

workman’s claim is not based on facts and valid grounds, hence he is not entitled to any extra allowance other than

what has been paid to him by the Bank. The management vehemently submits that claims of the Union are baseless,

fabricated and without merits and unsustainable.

The points to be answered in this proceeding are as follows:-

1. Whether allotment of duties of Head Cashier on Ashish Mishra by the management of bank of India was

legally valid?

2. To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?

Point No.1

From reading of statement of claim, written statement filed by O.P management it is clear that the industrial

dispute stated in schedule can be disposed by referring to the averments filed by the parties and by referring to

documents already filed by the parties. It stands undisputed that Ashish Mishra after selection joined the bank of India

as clerical staff on 18.07.2013. For sake of clarity and for proper adjudication of this Industrial dispute it appears

indispensable to refer to the offer-cum appointment letter dated 04.07.2013 issued by Bank of India :-

“You will be required to perform all the duties of a Clerk that may be assigned to you from time to time.Such

duties would be inclusive of payment/receipt of cash marketing/canvassing of bank’s products within and outside the

bank’s premises working on computers learning of Hindi, in consonance with Government directive issued from time

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1809

to time. The aforesaid duties are illustrative but not exhaustive and the Bank reserves its right to entrust any other

duties as deemed fit from time to time.

Of Bipartite settlement dated 18.09.1984 Annexure-I para 1 is stated in the following works:-

“In terms of 9th Bipartite Selttlement dated 28.04.2010, IBA has advised the duties of clerical staff and

also those who are performing the duites of spceial pay carrying posts, which includes cash payment/receipt

and passing of clearing/transfer cheques, couchers etc. independently upto a specified amount as mentioned

therein. Please also refer to our Bank level Memorandum of Settlement dated 24.03.2011 between the

Management and the representatives of the Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions inter alia, specifying

duties of Head Cashier Category-II.”

Annexure (iv) is notification issued by Bank of India, Kaushalpuri branch that clearly spells out that Ashish

Mishra, Head Cashier was enjoined to discharge duty of head cashier. It stands undisputed that Ashish Mishra was

selected as Head Cashier Category-II of Kaushalpuri Branch of the Bank of India. On comparative reading of the job

assignments of Head Cashier II and special Assistant not much difference in work assignments and responsibility is

noticed. The direction to Ashish Mishra to work as Head Cashier II does not fall in any category mentioned in unfair

labour practice. From the papers stated to be inter office memorandum dated 14.07.2015 issued by zonal manager,

Kanpur zone to the branch manager Bharawan branch it is crystal clear that Ashish Mishra was selected for posting as

head cashier category-2 at Kaushal puri branch subject to his accepting his assignment duties of Head cashier-2 have

been mentioned in paper furnished by the bank. This paper furnished by the bank containing duty chart of Head

Cashier-2 has remains unchallenged and unshattered. On 10.07.2020 by way of written communication Ashish Mishra

submitted his disinclination to work as Head Cashier II of Kaushalpuri Branch. No amount of argumentative logic

will sustain the challenge of the workman to shirk the responsibility of work of Head cashier allotted by the

management as communicated in notification issued by the Bank of India, Kaushalpuri Branch.One Bank clerical staff

cannot be exonerated from the duty of Head Cashier by his own choice. If such choice is allowed to the employees of

the bank it will result in devastating collapse of the banking system and public at large are likely to be affected by

such illogical choice. It is axiomatic that one bank clerical staff is bound discharge work as head cashier as and when

directed by management and no choice of the employee can be permitted for shirking such responsibility . Answer to

the above both the points go against the workman and in favour of the management

The reference stands disposed of and parties are left to bear respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 12.09.2022

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 886.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

- सह - Je U;k;ky; िंo 2] धिबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/30/2018-vkbZ-vkj(सी एम-I)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/09/2022

[No. L-20012/30/2018 – IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present : Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 05 OF 2018.

PARTIES:

Sri D. Mukherjee ,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur,

Dhanbad. (Jharkhand)

Vs.

The General Manager,

Barora Area of M/s B.C.C.L.,

P.O. Nawagarh,

Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

Order No. L-20012/30/2018-IR(CM-I) dt. 31.05.2018

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr.D.Mukherjee Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate.

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd June , 2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/30/2018-IR (CM-I) dt. 31.05.2018.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Muraidih Colliery under Barora Area No. 1 of M/s

BCCL in denying unfit on medical ground to Sri Ramji Saw, Ex. Driver having Pers. No. 01169911 is

proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date? And also what other directions are necessary in this regard.”

2. On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/30/2018-IR (CM-I) dt. 31.05.2018 of the reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute of the issues as

framed under Order of the Reference, it was registered as Industrial Dispute bearing Case No. No. 05 of 2018 on

11.06.2018 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to the

parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the

parties concerned.

The facts in brief, are set out in the Written Statement of Claim by the Union as under:

That Sri Ramji Saw had been working as Driver-cum-Mechanic under Barora Area No. 1 of M/s

BCCL since long with unblemished record of service.

ii) That the Management was biased and prejudicial against the workman on previous occasion also the

workman was dismissed from service on false charges as he refused to oblige the officer in driving

their private vehicle.

iii) That the Tribunal held that the dismissal was illegal so as per Award of the Tribunal the workman

was reinstated with back wages

iv) That the workman concerned was heart patient have also others diseases which incapacitated him

for doing his original duty of Driver cum Mechanic.

v) The concerned workman was initially under treatment of the Central Hopital, Dhanbad in the year

2008 where he was diagnosed to have suffering from acute heart ailment.

vi) The Doctor of the hospital referred the workman to Biral Heart Centre, Kolkata for treatment where

his angiography/angiogram of the heart was conducted in April, 2008 where the workman was

advised for Angioplasty of I.AD. because of blockage of major Artery which is 100%

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1811

vii) That due 100 percent blockage Stent was inserted into workman’s heart .After that the workman

was discharged from Birla Heart Centre on 17.06.2008 with advice to continue he Medicine and

take proper rest.

viii) That upon reporting for duty for having discharged from Birla Heart Centre, Kolkata the

Management allowed him to join duty.

ix) That after joining the service the after some days the workman again started getting ill and was

unable to perform his duty so against he started taking treatment from the Company’s Hospital.

x) That due to the aforesaid fact the workman submitted to the Management that due to illness and

heart surgery he is unable to perform his duty so he be referred to the Company’s Medical Board for

determination of his fitness.

xi) That the NCWA is a settlement and as per settlement the dependent of unfit workman shall be given

employment so the Management intentionally did not refer him to Medical Board to victimize him

and advised to him to mark his attendance and if possible perform some light duty. The aforesaid

advice and attitude of the management ipso-facto shows that the management was very much aware

and conscious of the fact that the workman is unfit for the original jobs.

xii) That due to illness the workman was not in a position to remain in colliery for eight hours to attend

even light duty so he again prayed before the Management to refer him to Medical Board.

xiii) That he appeared in the Medical Board and submitted all document of Birla heart Centre and he

also stated his physical condition but surprisingly enough the Medical Board without conducting

ECG,ECO Cardiogram or Trade Mill test mechanically declared him fit as per direction of the

management.

xiv) That the workman concerned vehement protested against the illegal finding of the Medical Board

and requested the Management to get his Medical test being done by the Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad

but to no effect.

xv) That in view of the adamant and anti-labour attitude of the Management the Union raised an

Industrial Dispute which ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management with birth of

the instant Industrial dispute.

xvi) That the action of the management in denying unfit on medical ground to Sri Ramji Saw was

illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, inhuman, discriminary and against the principal of natural justice

,thereby seeking to be declared unit at least from the date of discharge from the Birla Heart centre

and to provide dependent employment his dependant with retrospective effect with all arrears of

wages.

3. Contrary to the claim of the Union ,the counter claim of O.P./Management came out that the present case is

not maintainable either in facts or in law as per settled principle of law that the appointment on compassionate

ground/dependent employment cannot be granted in de-hors rules framed in respect of thereof, and submitted

following counter reply :

That the present reference is not maintainable either in law or in fact. It is well settled principle of

law that the appointment of compassionate ground/dependant employment cannot be granted in

dehors rules framed in respect of thereof. The compassionate appointment/dependant employment

is a concession based under the social security scheme and not vested right which can be claimed

.agitated at any point of time.

ii)

That Sri Ramjee Saw was an ex-employee of Muraidih Colliery having Pers. No. 01169911 and was

designated as Driver, retired from the services of Company w.e.f. 31.10.2015 on attaining the age of

superannuation.

iii)

That the subject matter of the aforesaid reference does not constitute an industrial dispute within the

meaning of Sec. 2(K) of the I.D.Act1947.a superannuated employee is not workman within the

meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the I.D.Act, 1947, hence reference is not fit for adjudication.

iv)

That the workman was diagnosed with case of CAD and was getting treatment for the same after

being referred to concerned hospital by appropriate authority for further treatment, but he has not

been declared incapacitated by the experts.

That Sri Ramji Saw was initially referred to Central Hospital Dhanbad for treatment from where he

was referred to Specialized Hospital –B.M.Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata for further

treatment as and when required .

vi)

That as per Medical fitness given by the Company ‘s Doctor Medical Practitioner he was allowed to

1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

resume duty when Sri Ramjee Saw present himself for duty .He has also performed his duty till his

retirement.

vii)

That the fitness of the employee is checked by company Medical Practicner and based on the

report an employee is allowed to resume duty and Sri Saw’s was taken care of through Area

Medical and forwarded to Competent Authority. .

viii)

That after his discharged from Birla Research Centre, Kolkata he was allowed to resume duty when

he reported for work with Medical Fitness from the Company Hospital. It is pertinent to mention

that medical facility w and treatment is provided to an employee as per norms of the company and

his health.

ix)

So the demand of the Union for employment of son of the workman is illegal as there is no harness

as it seemingly appears.

Post superannuation there is no claim to be made out about appointment in lieu of medical unfit, if

any. Nor is there any obligation on the Part of the OP/Management to provide the succor as duty

bound.

xi)

In their supplementary statement in rejoinder the OP/management point-wise denied all the claim

as raised in the written statement ,with reiteration that the demand for dependant employment is

illegal and unjustified as he is not entitled to get any relief.

In their supplementary statement in rejoinder the OP/management point-wise denied all the claim as

raised in the written statement ,with reiteration that the demand for dependant employment is illegal and

unjustified as he is not entitled to get any relief. Thus the documents relied on by the Union /workmen are clearly

distinguishable relating to treatment of the workman and related correspondents which have no application to the

facts of the case.

4. In support of his contention the workman filed a list with the following documents therewith to prove his

case.

A) Copy of application to GM, (HRD),Kalyan Bhawan,Dhanbad dt.25.11.2014

b) Copy of application to Director (Karmik),Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad dt.05.02.2015

c) Copy of application to the Hon’ble President of India dt.25.05.2015

d) Postal Receipt for application to the President of India and to the others

e) Copy of application to Director (Karmik)-cum-Chairman, Apex Medical Board M/s BCCL, Koyla

Bhawan,Dhanbad dt.19.09.2015

Copy of application to Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan,Dhanbad dt.

19.09.2015

g) Copy of application to Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad dt.

27.10.2015.

h) Copy of Note Sheet for subject matter of Appellate Medical Board for 9.4.0. held on 24.10.2015.

Copy of Discharge Certificate from Central hospital M/s BCCL, Dhanbad dt. 02.11.2015

O.P.D. Card prescribed by B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata vide dt. 10.11.2008

k) Discharge Summary report prescribed by B.M.Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata dated 02.06.2008 to

17.06.2008

Cardiologist report by B.M.Birla, Heart Research Centre, Kolkata

m) Copy of Scan

n) Discharge Summary report by B.M.Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata dated 07.04.2008 to 09.04.2008

o) Copy of discharge certificate by Central Hospital, Dhanbad dated 12.01.2008 on the time of first attack.

p) Wireless message dated 15.01.2015

q) Letter of Board secretariat dated 15.07.2014 issued by Hospital

Wireless message, related to subject: result of the Apex Medical Board (9.4.0) held from 13.08.2015 to

14.08.2015 numbering twenty four employees

Wireless message, related to subject: result of the Apex Medical Board (9.4.0) held from 13.08.2015 to

14.08.2015 numbering eighteen employees

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1813

Prescription of workman treated by M.O., R.H. Baghmara BCCL dt. 01.12.2018

u) Prescription of workman Ramjee Saw treated by M.O., R.H. Baghmara BCCL dt. 09.04.2018.

v) Prescription of workman treated by M.O., R.H. Baghmara BCCL dt. 01.12.2018

w) Prescription of workman treated by M.O., R.H. Baghmara BCCL dt. 02.08.2019

Attendance sheet of workman for years 2012 to 2015.

5 In course of argument the OP/Management filed the following set of documents with copies thereof in

support of their contention at the relevant point time of hearing

Annexure- I Retirement Notice to the workman (Ramjee Saw)

ii)

Annexure -II particulars of Leave for the last four years preceding the workman’s retirement

iii)

Annexure- III Result of the Appellate Medical Board for 9.4.0 held on 24.10.2015

iv)

Annexure –IV Pay-slip of the workman for the year 2013 and Month December

Annexure- IV (I) Pay-slip of the workman for the year 2014 and Month December

vi)

Annexure -IV (II) Pay-slip of the workman for the year 2015 and Month December

6. In their supplementary statement in rejoinder the OP/management point-wise denied all the claim as raised in the

written statement ,with reiteration that the demand for dependant employment is illegal and unjustified as he is not

entitled to get any relief. Thus the documents relied by the Union /workmen are clearly distinguishable relating to

treatment of the workman and related correspondences which have no application to the facts of the case.

7. During the course of arguments the Management contended that the notable point for consideration in the fact of

the case is that the date of operation of the workman is year 2008 and the date of his retirement in the year

31.10.2015.This was a major operation but the Company kept his name on Company’s roll for seven years only to

deny him dependent employment is not imaginable from any thinking. The workman had been suffering from a long

history of chronic heart ailments during the his employment leading to workman’s hospitalization time and again for

health issues but his being unfit was not declared at any point of time during the employment of workman and he

superannuated as usual on attaining the age of superannuation. The workman laid much emphasis on dependant

employment on the condition of being declared medically unfit could not yield desired result. The Medical Board

finally ruled out his being declared medically unfit for job based on his health issue after examination. So far as the

Medical examination is concerned by the Board constituted comprising of Doctors after examination it was

informed by the team and also communicated by competent authority to the employee that his case for benefit under

provision related to being declared medically unfit was disallowed as he was declared fit.

8. From the perusal of the statements of claim of the workman, the statement of the OP/Management ,documents filed

by both sides and the arguments, it is observed that the OP/Management has extended required assistance to the

workman for his medical treatment and even treated at the Specialized Centre-namely Birla Heart Research Centre,

Kolkata and also subsequent to his operation at specialized Centre at Kolkata treatment was facilitated in BCCL

own Hospital.

But the workman has shown his interest less on his treatment of his medical problems rather has insisted on

declaring him unfit. The hidden agenda of the workman in insistance for declaring him medically unfit was with the

sole intention of obtaining employment to his dependant in his place after his removal from the service on the ground

of declaring him medically unfit.

9. Whereas, on examination of submissions it has been further observed that the OP/Management has been

considerate enough in keeping him in service with lighter work instead of his strenuous work assignment before his

facing medical problems. No fault could be found on the part of the Management either assisting the concerned

workman for his required medical facilities or his continuance in service with lighter work till his superannuation.

10. It is also found that the concerned workman has represented to the OP/Management straightway for referring

him to the concerned Medical Board for declaring him unfit rather presenting him before the concerned Hospital for

treatment and or reference to the referral Hospital or the concerned Medical Board through proper channel of

medical treatment. The Management cannot be forced to fulfill the desire of the workman as per his wish and with a

particular agenda for declaring him unfit for consequential gain in the form of employment to his dependant on

declaring him medically unfit from the service.

11. From the documents filed by the workman on 02.01.2019 the document at Sl. No. 18 is the wireless message

from CMO I/C (MB), Koyla Nagar Hospital to the G.M.-Barora, Block II, Govindpur, Katras ,Sijua,-Kusunda,P.B.

Area Lodan, EJ Area, CV Area. This wireless message relates to the “Result of the Apex Medical Board (9.4.0) held

from 13.08.2015 to 14.08.2015.In the same report name of 24 employees have been mentioned, who have not been

given the benefit of 9.4.0. including concerned workman mentioned at Sl. No. 14. Through another report listed at Sl.

1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 19 of above filed documents 18 employees has been declared medically unfit. As thus no prejudice and biasness

of the Management against this workman can be derived and so claim of the workman of discrimination is found not

correct.

12. Therefore, no prejudice is observed on behalf of the OP/Management against the concerned workman rather

the Management is seen showing benevolence towards the workman for his required medical treatment and

continuance in the service even with the lighter work than the post he was appointed for. As such the claim of the

concerned workman is dismissed. He does not deserve any relief and so no relief is awarded.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 887.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

सी.सी.एल. 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/198/2003-vkbZ-vkj(कोल-I)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2022

S.O. 887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of C.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/09/2022.

[No. L-20012/198/2003 – IR (C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 16 OF 2004.

PARTIES:

The Organization Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Camp: Piper war,

PO: Bachra, Distt; Chatra

Vs.

The Chief General Manager,

Piperwar Area of M/s CCL,

PO: Bachra,

Distt: Chatra

Order No. L-20012/198/2003-IR(C-I) dated 24.12.2003.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. D. Mukherjee Ld. Advocate & others .

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma Ld. Advocate & others

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd June , 2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/198/2003-IR(C-I) dated 24.12.2003.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1815

SCHEDULE

Whether the demand of the RCMS from the Management of M/s Central Coal field Limited for

promoting Sri R.P. Sinha, Welfare Worker (FW) to the post of Social Worker (FW) as per old career

scheme from due date is justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from

what date?”

2. Upon registration of the Reference Industrial Dispute on 12.01.2004, cognizance was taken by this Tribunal and

the proceeding was initiated by issuing summons to both parties. The Sponsoring Union/workman appeared through Ld.

Advocate and filed W.S. on 01.09.2004 and copy issued upon Opposite Party through Ld. Advocate. Thereafter

O.P./Company filed their written statement. The subject matter was set in motion for proceeding .Both parties then

entered into appearance engaging Ld. Lawyer by each of them and filed their respective claims. The matter proceeded

crossing over evidences and finally arrived on arguments before it stands reserved for answering the Reference.

3. The fact of the case as made out by the workman in the instant reference is summarized under the Written

Statement of Claim as following :

That Workman concerned R.P.Sinha was appointed as Welfare Worker (Family Welfare) in the

erstwhile Coal Mines Welfare Organization that was merged with Coal India Ltd.

ii)

That The Coal Mines Welfare Organization was merged with Coal India Ltd.,

iii)

That the concerned workman’s service was merged and taken over by the Central Coal Field Ltd.,a

Subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.

iv)

That there is no cadre scheme for promotion of welfare worker (F.W.) to the higher post in Central

Coalfields Ltd.

That, there was a Cadre Scheme/Settled Principle/Policy decision for promotion avenue of welfare

worker (F.W.) to the post of Social Worker (F.W.) Asstt. Welfare Administrator and Welfare

Administrator etc.

vi)

That, there is no Cadre Scheme/Settle Principle/Policy decision for promotion and upliftment of

Welfare workman (F.W.) so the Management adopted the cadre Scheme/policy decision/settle Principle

of Ex. C.M.W.O.

vii) The workman concerned who was also entitled for his promotion to the post of Social Worker F.W. as

per Cadre Scheme/policy decision/Settlement Principle of EX-C.M.L.W.O,

viii) That the Management considered the promotion of the concerned workman along with other workman to

the higher post and accordingly DPC was held and the DPC considered the case of the concerned

workman along with Smt. Nirmala Sharma and others.

ix)

That the management considered the promotion of the workman concerned along with other workmen to

the higher post and accordingly DPC was held and the DPC considered the case of the concerned

workman along with Smt. Nirmala Sharma and others. That the DPC considered the workman concerned

competent/efficient suitable for promotion to the Higher Grade and accordingly.

That the Management illegally and arbitrarily and in utter violation of settled Principle and Policy

decision promoted to the post of Field Worker rather from the post of Social Worker (F.W.) with

promotion of Smt. Nirmala Sharma to the post of Asstt. Welfare Administrator based on Cadre Scheme

of C.M.L.W.O.

xi)

That it may not be out of place to mention that Smt. Nirmala Sarma was promoted to the post of Asst.

Welfare Administrator as per Cadre Scheme of C.M.L.W.O.

xii) The workman represented against this illegal and discriminatory promotion. Despite Management’s

positive assurance and after waiting for a reasonable time and exhausting all avenues for amicable

settlement the Union raised the Industrial Dispute before A.L.C. (C),Ranchi and subsequent failure in

conciliation led to the Reference , calling the action of the Management as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified

and against the principle of Natural justice, thereby seeking direction for promotion to the post of

Social worker (F.W.) from January,1991 and to the post of Asstt. Welfare Administrator at least w.e.f.

1993-94 with consequential benefits with arrears and attendant benefit etc.

4. On the other hand, contrary to the Workman’s statement of the Sponsoring Union, the O.P./Management of

Central Coal Fields Ltd.(CCL) contested and defended the action of the Management by filing the counter

Written Statement categorically denying all material allegations with following statement in the matter:

That the present Reference is not maintainable either in Law and fact as raised belatedly after a lapse

of one decade.

1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ii) That the workman concerned was an employee of Coal Mines Welfare Organization and at the time of

merger of Coal Mines Welfare Organization all the employees of C.M.W.O. were given opportunity to

submit their option forms.

iii) That workman opted for Option II.

iv) That as per Option No. II the employees who opted Option II are entitled for pay scale and terms and

conditions of the subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and that being the position the workman concerned

became the employees of Central Coalfields Ltd from the date of absorption with pay scale and terms

and conditions of CCL.

v) At the time of merger the workman concerned was designated as a Welfare Worker and therefore he

was placed in Grade “D”.

vi) That the workman concerned opted for pay scale and terms and conditions of CCL and so he is not

entitled for promotion as per the Cadre Scheme of erstwhile C.M.W.O.

vii) That in the year 1990 the Management of CCL conducted the Departmental Promotion Committee

(DPC) proceeding in which the workman concerned was also a candidate to find his suitability for

candidature.

viii) That the DPC held on 05.12.1990 was constituted to consider the case of eligible CMWO employees

which was taken over on 01.10.1986 against the sanctioned vacancy.

ix) That the said DPC recommended the name of workman concerned for promotion as Field Worker

(Tech) Grade- C subject to vacancy.

x) That, on the basis of the said recommendation post of Field Worker was offered to the workman with

direction that promotion will be effective from the date the employee assumes charge on promotion to

the higher post and with one year probation. The workman concerned assumed the charge on

promotion as above. The Management justified the said promotion vide Office Order dt. 24.01.1991

as legal and justified.

xi) That the Deptt. Promotional Committee (DPC) considered all aspects while recommending the name of

workman concerned for promotion as Field Worker in Technical Grade “C”.

xii) That the demand of the Sponsoring Union is neither legal nor justified.

5. In the supplementary Rejoinder the O.P./Management came out categorically denying all the points raised

by the Sponsoring Union/workman and reiterated the stand by the action as legal and justified with prayer that

workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

6. Similarly the Sponsoring Union/workman denied all the points raised by the O.P./Management with

reiteration that there is no merit in the written statement of the Management upholding that the concerned

workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. The workman in course of adducing evidence deposed himself and was cross- examined with filing of list

with Xerox copy of the documents therewith. Copy of the following documents were produced and proved from

the side of the union :

WWI- represents Representation of the Sponsoring Union /workman on the anomalies to the

O.P/Management marked as W-I series

ii)

Representation to the Director (Pers.), CCL, Ranchi marked as Ext. W.-I/I.

iii)

Copy of the Joining Report of the workman marked as Ext.W-I-2

iv)

Copy of the office orders of CCL marked as W1/3

Copy of the representation of the workman concerned to GM, CCL, Ranchi marked as Ext W-1/4

vi)

Copy of the Joining Report marked as W-2

8. On examination of submissions and evidences it is found that the main cause and ground of grievance

of the workman is that other employee of same CMWO merged with CCL has got promotion to higher grade and post

compared to him whom the workman considers as equal and on same footing .The specific instance cited was of one

namely Smt. Nirmala Sharma by the workman in the said Industrial Dispute who was promoted to the post of Asstt.

Welfare Administrator from the post of Social worker as per documents filed/exhibited by the workman ,that is, DPC

proceeding dt. 05.12.90. Many other employees including the workman concerned and the cited employee

Mrs. Nirmala Sharma have also been recommended in the same DPC proceeding. Notably Sri R.P.Sinha workman

concerned was promoted to Field Worker (Tech.) Gr. C from Welfare Worker (F/W)Grade -D subject to vacancy.

The said DPC comprising of officials of the Central Coalfields Ltd recommended for consideration of Smt. Nirmala

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1817

Sharma from the post of Social Worker (Tech.) Gr. B to Asstt. Welfare Administration Gr. A (Tech.) (Ext. W-4)

whereas this workman has been promoted from existing Gr. D to Gr. C. Comparing with the said example assuming

to be on same footing on similar set of circumstances does not appear to be well merited or having any relevancy to

the present set of fact as the cited case of Smt.Nirmala Sharma is that she was in Gr. B at the time of merger whereas

the concerned worker was in Gr.D. Like him others have also been recommended for promotion from Welfare Worker

to Field Worker through the same DPC proceeding. The scheme of career promotion through DPC is a well settled

policy. There is no prejudice or discriminatory attitude has been observed to be caused to the workman by the

Management in the promotion of the workman.

9. Therefore, based on the submissions by both sides along with the documents and evidences the claim of

the workman is not established nor justified. And so the workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed and for

which the Reference has been made for adjudication .No relief is awarded accordingly as the claim stands dismissed.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 888.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/61/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2022

S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/092022.

[No. L-22012/61/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/65/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary

Johilla Area

SECL

PO-Naurazabad, District Umaria(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief Manager,

Johilla Area

SECL

PO-Naurazabad, District Umaria(M.P.)

2.The Sub Area manager

Johilla Area

SECL

PO-Naurazabad, District Umaria(M.P.)

3.The Khan Prabhandak

Johilla Area

SECL

PO-Naurazabad, District Umaria(M.P.)

…Management

1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on 8-8-2022.)

As per letter dated 13/11/2018 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-

22012/61/2018-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“SECL Pipariya Colliery Pravbhandak dwara Shri Charku Baigh ko galat tarah se Janch Karyawahi

karte houe Prakrutek nyay ke sidhanton ke verudh Seva se Barkhast Karna kya uchhit hai?Yadi Nahi to

karmkar Shri Charku Baigh kya anutosh paane ke haqdar hain?” .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Inspite of service of

notice on the workman, he never appeared. He did not file any statement of claim.

The Management filed its statement of defense according to which the workman was appointed as General

Mazdoor Token No.910P at Piparia Colliery of SECL Johilla Area on 19-10-1996. He was not regular in his duties

and was a habitual absentee from duty from 24-3-2008 without getting any leave sanctioned or intimation to

Management which is a misconduct under para 26.24 and 26.30 of Certified Standing Orders. He was issued a charge

sheet on 7-7-2008. A Departmental Inquiry was conducted. The notice of departmental inquiry was served on him.

He appeared in the Inquiry and took part in the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved and

submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority who passed the order of punishment on 23-11-2009

terminating him from his services, after giving him opportunity of hearing on the inquiry report. It is further the case

of the Management that the dispute was raised after 8 years from the date of termination, hence is barred by delays

and latches. Accordingly, the management has submitted that the reference be answered against the workman.

At the stage of evidence also, the workman never appeared and did not produce any evidence. The reference

proceeded ex-parte against the workman.

The management filed affidavit of Shri Tantee Bhonde, Management Personnel and has filed the inquiry

papers with the affidavit.

I have heard ex-parte arguments of Mr. A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone

through the record.

Three points arises in the case in hand for consideration:-

1.Whether the inquiry held was legal and proper?”

2.Whether the charges are proved from the inquiry?”

3.Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charge?”

7. For the sake of convenience all these points are being taken together.

The burden to prove that the inquiry conducted was not legal and proper was on workman. There is no

pleadings or proof from the side of the workman on this point. I have gone through the photocopy inquiry papers

which goes to show that the workman did participate in the Inquiry. He was given the opportunity of hearing by

Disciplinary Authority before passing the sentence, hence there is nothing on record to hold against the inquiry.

Consequently the departmental inquiry is held legal and proper.

9. From the perusal of evidence on record conducted during the inquiry, it comes out that the charges against the

workman regarding willful absenteeism is held proved.

10.According to the Certified Standing Orders, the willful absenteeism for a long period is major misconduct

inviting major punishment. There is no evidence to indicate that the punishment was disproportionate to the charge,

hence the punishment is held proportionate to the charge.

11. In the light of the above findings, the reference deserves to be decided against the workman and is decided

accordingly.

12. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A.The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

B.The workman is held entitled to no relief.

13. 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

DATE: 8-8-2022

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1819

ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 889—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एस.ई.सी.एल.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–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/83/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2022

S.O. 889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2022.

[No. L-22012/83/2019–IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary,

Bihar Coliery kamgar Union(CITU)

Central Office-Temple road

Purana Bazar, Dhanbad(Jharkhand)-826001

…Workman

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

SECL,

Dhelwadih Singhali Bhagdewa Sub Area

Korba Area

District Korba(Chhattisgarh)-495677

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 8-8-2022.)

As per letter dated 24-10-2019 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-

22012/83/2019-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the SECL management in not posting Shri Het Ram Chelak , S/o shri

Late Maya Ram as a Conveyor belot operator (surface) on his Trnsfer from BCL where he

worked as a conveyor belt operator(surface) for 17 years is fair and justified? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled to? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Inspite of service of

notice the workman never appeared. The parties have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.

According to the workman Union the workman Het Ram Chelak working as a Conveyor Belt

Operator(Surface) was transferred from BCCL to SECL Bilaspur vide letter of management dated 6-6-2018 issued by

the General Manager CIL Kolkata. He joined at Bilaspur on 9-7-2018 and was posted under ground conveyor belt

operator instead of conveyor belt operator(surface) inspite of the fact that before his transfer, he was working as

conveyor belt operator(surface). According to the workman Union, this action of Management is in violation of

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the word’Act’) was change in service

conditions by Management without notice. Accordingly, it has been prayed that holding the action of Management

unjustified and unfair, he be directed to be relocated as Conveyor Belt Operator(Surface).

1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the management is mainly that the workman is was appointed as General Mazdoor Category-1

under Dependent Employment Provisions of NCWA-VI on the death of his father who was in service of BCCL. It

was nowhere in his service conditions and appointment letter that he would be given job of Surface only. His services

were transferable to any part of India accepting the terms and conditions. He worked as General mazdoor in BCCL in

the year 2003 on Surface duty. Thereafter he was promoted as Conveyor Belt Operator. A conveyor belt operator

could be posted on surface and underground both. He was transferred to SECL, accepting his request to transfer on

the ground of sickness of his mother and was given work as Conveyor Belt Operator underground based on the

administrative requirement of the Management. According to the Management, posting in underground Mine on the

same post does not in any way take away any benefit of the workman , rather he is given additional allowance for

working underground. The case of the management is that such an action of Management is not change in service

conditions, hence Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted. Accordingly the management has

requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

The workman never appeared thereafter and did not file any evidence, hence the case proceeded ex-parte

against the workman.

The management filed affidavit of its witness Shri Dinesh Singh, Manager Personnel which is uncross-

examined as the workman did not appear to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. I have heard ex-parte

argument of Mr. A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.

The Reference, itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is being reproduced as under:-

9A. Notice of change.—No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such

change,—

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner

of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice: Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting

any such change—

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any 2[settlement or award]; or

(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any

other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the

Official Gazette, apply.

The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman. He has not produced any evidence in support of his

claim. The affidavit of the Management witness corroborates the case of the Management. Hence holding the claim

of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of the SECL in not posting Shri Het Ram Chelak , S/o shri Late Maya

Ram as a Conveyor belt operator (surface) on his Transfer from BCCL where he worked as a

conveyor belt operator(surface) for 17 years is held to be justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

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

DATE: 8-8-022

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 890.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40/2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल -22012/13/2016-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1821

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022

S.O. 890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/092022.

[No. L-22012/13/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dubey,

General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers’s Federation

Federation Office,Chirmiri,

District Korea(C.G.)

…Workman

Versus

The General manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL

PO:West Chirimiri

District Korea(CG)-497773

Korea (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 30-8-22.)

As per letter dated 26/4/2016 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-

22012/13/2016-IR(CM-II) The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Kurasia Colliery under the control of General Manager

Chirmiri Area, SECL PO: West Chirmiri, district Korea(CG) in not initiating any actin towards the

amendment in date of birth in form B register while in service as per Age Determination

Committee in respect of the Ex-Employee.RPGH,Gr-E. Chirmiri OCM namely Shri Kameshwari

S/o Kheduran espoused by the General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation is

appropriate and justified? If not, what relief the ex-employee Shri Kameshwar is entitled to?” .”

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 defense/claim.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that workman Kameshwar Son of

Kheduram was appointed on 1-4-1985 in Kurasia Colliery of SECL Chirmiri Area as Category-1 Mazdoor. No initial

medical examination was held as required under Rule 29B. After his appointment, his age was arbitrarily recorded as

29 years in Form-B based on medical examination, alleged to have taken place on 24-9-1983 i.e. two years before his

appointment. According to the workman Union his medical examination was not as per standard laid down in form-P

of Mines Amendment Rules 1978, it is in violation of Rule 29H because there is no photograph of the workman

Kameshwar and endorsement by the Examining Authority. His height was recorded as 180 cm in the medical

examination report whereas the actually he is 170cm and in the opinion column the words” provisionally medically

fit subject to final medical examination” is written. According to the workman Union, on the basis of this

provisional medical examination, the date of birth of workman Kameshwar was recorded in Form-B, form PS-3 and

Form PS-4 as 24-9-1954. The workman came to know about this wrong entry regarding his date of birth in the year

1990 when Management started distributing computerized salary slips. The workman filed various representations

requesting the management to correct his date of birth. His first representation was filed on 14-10-1991. All his

representations were unattended by Management and he was superannuated in September-2014 on the basis of his

date of birth 24-9-1954, wrongly recorded in his service records as mentioned above. According to the workman

Union, the Management has no right under Law to determine the age of the workman prior to appointment through

medical examination because the initial process of medical examination is to assert whether the workman is physically

1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fit or not to take the job. Accordingly the workman Union has prayed that holding the action of Management against

law, the Management be ordered to conduct medical examination as per medical jurisprudence of determining the

actual age of workman Kameshwar in I.I.No.76 and till then the workman Kameshwar be allowed to assume duty as

usual.

3. According to the management, Kameshwar was issued a letter dated 14-9-1983 to appear before Interview

Committee with documents mentioned therein. He appeared before the Committee on 24-9-1983 for assessing his

fitness in deployment in mines. He was appointed w.e.f. 1-4-1985 and was regularized as General mazdoor Category-

1 w.e.f. 1-9-1987. He had submitted his domicile certificate dated 22-7-1981 issued by S.D.O. Mahendgarh. He had

represented before management for rectification of date of birth including transfer certificate issued by Head Master,

Government School, Badwa, District Aurangabad,Bihar and admit card for appearing in medical school examination

issued by Secretary, Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti School that he was studying in Aurangabad, Bihar and left

school on 5-3-1980 as per his transfer certificate. According to the management, in his service records his permanent

address was of M.P.State which was duly certified by him, whereas he studied in Bihar. This itself shows that he

concealed material facts. It is further the case of the Management that his date of birth was recorded on the basis of

information given by him. Also that at the time of initial appointment as a Mazdoor, he has represented himself as an

illiterate person because the required qualification for mazdoor was illiterate person. He never raised any dispute

regarding his age or date of birth at any point of time. The dispute was first raised for the first time after the order of

Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court passed on 2-12-2013 in W.P.No.3904/2013. According to the management, there

was no justification in changing his date of birth as there was no dispute on this point in the documents maintained by

the Management. Accordingly the management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4. The workman has filed photocopy of I.I.76, medical examination Report, form-B admitted by

Management and marked as Exw-1 to W-3. The Management has filed regularization order, domicile certificate,

admit card, and transfer certificate form-O under Rule 29F. Order of Hon. High Court which are Exhibit m1 to m8

respectively. The Management has further filed photocopy of Form-B Service register. Another form-B PS-3, PS-4

and Report of Committee Constituted under orders of Hon. High Court of Chhattisgarh and letter of Management to

the workman on the basis of the report of the Committee regarding age determination of workman having been

marked as Exhibit M-9 to Exhibit M-15.

5. The workman has examined himself on oath. He has been cross-examined by management.

6. The management has examined its witness Sebernus Bristete Dy. Manager who has been cross-examined

by the workman.

7. I have heard arguments of Union Representative and learned Counsel for the Management and have gone

through the record.

8. The Reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

9. The Respective pleadings of the parties have been detailed earlier in this judgment. As it is apparent from

the order of Hon. High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilsapur in W.P.No.3904/2013 passed on 2-12-2013 it was directed

that if the workman made a detailed representation to the Competent Authority within one month from the date of

order, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same within further period of six months from the date

of receipt of the representation, in accordance with law. Exhibit M-14 is the report of the Committee framed by the

Competent Authority on the basis of the representation of the workman filed by him before the Competent Authority,

in the light of the aforesaid order of the Hon. High Court. Perusal of this report reveals that the Committee has

referred to the date of the birth of the workman as mentioned in form-B, service register extracts, CMPF form, PS-3

and PS-4, LTC register, date of birth as per I.M.E.. Date of Birth as per order No.502 dated 22-5-2013. The date of

birth as per LPC dated 6-6-2013, wherein date of birth of the workman has been consistently recorded as 24-9-1954

except one documents CMPF form A in which it is recorded as 1-2-1964. The Committee according to the report also

mentioned the date of birth of the workman written in Admit card and Transfer Certificate date 5-2-1990 wherein his

date of birth is recorded as 4-6-1965. The Committee further observed that the workman himself signed documents

containing his date of birth as 24-7-1954 and suppressed the information regarding his educational qualification at the

time of his initial appointment to fetch employment as casual mazdoor, hence his date of birth 24-9-1954 as recorded

in his service records as mentioned should be considered as correct. Exhibit M-15 is the letter of Management sent to

the workman informing this decision of the Management.

10. The question arises as to whether the Committee adopted the correct procedure incorporated in I.I.No.76

in this respect or not?

11. Para A-II provides that record of age of non-matriculate but educated workman which is as follows:-

Determination of Age at the time of appointment:-

i. Matriculates:……………………..

ii Non-Matriculate but educated:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1823

In case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date

of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and

the same will not be altered under any circumstances.

B Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees:

(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate of Higher Secondary Certificate

issued by the recognized Universities or board Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of

Education and/ or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid

Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said

Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

(b) Similarly Mining Sirdar ship, winding Engine or similar other statutory certificate where the

manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic provided that where both

documents mentioned in (I )(a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i)

(a) will be treated as authentic.

(ii)Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a

very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The

management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for

correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board.

(c ) Age Determination Committee /Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the

management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in

accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B) (i) (a) of (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth

recorded in the records of the company, namely form B Register. CMPF Records and Identity

Cards (untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the

age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age

Determination Committee/Medical board constituted by the management for determination

age.

(D)For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical Board referred to above may

consider the evidences available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced before the

employee concerned.

(E )Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in

accordance with the requirement of “Medical Jurisprudence “and the Medical Board will as

far as possible indicate the accurate age, assessed and not approximately.

(F ) Where the management(i.e) Area Age Assessment Committee consisting of General

Manager, Personnel manager and Medical Officer-in-Charge of the Area is satisfied that there

is a glaring disparity between the date of birth recorded in the identity cards and the apparent

age of the employee, the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical Board located at

Headquarters of the company for determination of Age.

(H)After the assessment of the age by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board the

same will be computerized and print out of the same will be given to the employee concerned

and the unit from the reference was received within a month. If age is not however,

computerized, still the same will be intimated to the employee concerned and the Unit within a

month.

(I) It was agreed that in cases where instead of date of birth, year has been recorded, 1st July

of the year will be deemed to be the date of birth.

13. It becomes now clear that in case of employees who have cleared matriculation or higher secondary

examination from recognized boards, their date of birth mentioned in the certificate shall be final and conclusive.

Similarly if the workman has cleared Mining Sidarship, winding engine or other similar statutory services where the

Manager had to certify the date of birth, it will be treated as final and authentic. It is further provided that , if the date

of birth of the workman cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure as mentioned in para A and Para-B,

the matter will be referred to the Age Determination committee. The Age Determination committee was framed by

Management in compliance of order of Hon. High court as mentioned above. Hence the Age Determination

Committee was required to follow the procedure laid down above as proved in I.I.No.76. The Age Determination

Committee do not conduct any medical examination of the workman, which is clear from perusal of the record and

report of the Committee. Now there was two sets or rather three sets of theory regarding date of birth of the workman.

One set was 24-9-1954 as mentioned in various records maintained by the Management. Second was his date of birth

1-2-1964 mentioned in CMPF form maintained in the CMPF Office. All these forms contain these two date of birth

and are signed by workman and have been prepared on the basis of declaration made by the workman regarding his

1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date of birth. The third date of birth is 4-6-1965 mentioned in the Admit card and transfer certificate of the workman

which he filed before the Committee. Thus it is clear that his date of birth was not uniform rather it was different in

different documents. Transfer certificate of the workman is Exhibit M-4. It has been issued on 5-9-1990. According

to this certificate the workman was admitted o 11-1-1977 and left the school on 5-3-1980. His date of birth is

mentioned as 4-6-1965 in admission register of the school. There is a domicile certificate filed by the workman which

goes to show that he is domicile of Madhya Pradesh. This certificate has been issued on 22-1-1981, this is exhibit

M-2. The Admit card exhibit M-3 on which the workman also relies shows that his registration for higher secondary

examination was done in 1990 which is after the date of his first appointment. Form-B prepared at the time of initial

appointment is exhibit M-3 which shows that his age and date of birth were recorded on the basis of medical

certificate dated 24-9-1984. This medical certificate is Exhibit W-2. In this certificate, the age of the workman is

mentioned as 29 years on the date of medical examination on 24-9-1983. The basis of the age of the workman as

mentioned in this medical certificate Exhibit W-2 is not in this document, hence it can be assumed that either it was

mentioned on the basis of information given by Doctor examining him or on the guess work regarding age done by the

Doctor at that time. The workman denies that he told the Doctor regarding his age. The management witness has

stated on oath that the workman had declared his age at the time of medical examination. This witness is not an eye

witness for medical examination.

14. When there are conflicting documents regarding date of birth and age of the workman, it was incumbent

on the Age Determination Committee constituted incompliance of order of Hon’ble High Court as mentioned above,

to get the workman medically examined by a medical board on the point of his age, as it was submitted by the Union

Representative. It is established that at the time of different examination the workman had crossed the age of 50 years

at least. Medical science determines the age of a person on the basis of Ossification Test that is at the state of fusion

of bones. Since by 50 all bones are already fused, it is not possible to give any opinion about the age of the workman,

hence this exercise would be futile in the case of the workman as he had already crossed 50 years at least by that time.

The workman is a literate person. He has signed on the various documents maintained by the Management with

respect of his date of birth and age and he raised a dispute at the fag end of his career. The documents filed by him

are prepared after the date of his appointment, hence the Age Determination Committee cannot be held to have erred

in law in its report with respect to Age of the workman.

1. Consequently the action of the Management in rejecting the claim of the workman regarding his date of

birth as 1-2-1964 is held justified and the reference is answered accordingly.

15. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Kurasia Colliery under the control of General Manager

Chirmiri Area, SECL PO: West Chirmiri, district Korea(CG) in not initiating any actin

towards the amendment in date of birth in form B register while in service as per Age

Determination Committee in respect of the Ex-Employee.RPGH,Gr-E. Chirmiri OCM

namely Shri Kameshwari S/o Kheduran espoused by the General Secretary, Rashtriya

Colliery Workers Federation is held to be justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

16. 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

DATE: 30-8-2022

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 891.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 38/2015) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/41/2015-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.38/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/41/2015 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1825

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

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

(Monday the 28th day of March 2022,7 Caitra 1944)

ID No.38/2015

Workman/Union : The General Secretary

Union Bank of India Employees Federation

Nareshpal Centre

East of Lissie Hospital

Ernakulam - 682018

By Adv.Ashok B. Shenoy

Managements

: 1. The Chairman and Managing Director

Union Bank of India

239 Bank Bay Relamation

Narimanpoint

Mumbai – 21

2. The Dy. General Manager

Union Bank of India

Nodal Regional Office

M. G. Road

Ernakulam – 682035

By Adv. M. S. Sajeev Kumar

This case coming up for final hearing on 06.11.2020 and 05.07.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court on 28.03.2022 passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry ofLabourby its order No. L-

12011/41/2015-IR(B-II) dated 03.08.2015 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

The dispute referred is;

“ Whether the action of the Management of Union Bank in denying the demand of the Union for reinstatement with

regularization of Sri.A. Manoharan when he requested for regularization of services is justified? If not, what

relief they are entitled ? “

According to the Union, the workman was working as a temporary Sweeper in the Management Bank from

01/1990 to 12/2006 at their Kozhikode main Branch and Kozhikode Palayam Branch continuously and as a Peon-

cum-Sweeper at their Tirur Branch continuously from 02.03.2007, since the opening of the Branch. The workman

sent a representation dt.26.11.2011 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Management Bank pointing out that

he was working as a temporary Sweeper/peon continuously for 23 years and seeking absorption as a permanent

employee. The Management in retaliation terminated the workman on 13.03.2012 without assigning any reason and

without affording any notice or wages in lieu of notice. No compensation was also paid. The Union raised an

industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam. During the course of conciliation,

the Conciliation Officer adviced the Management to absorb the workman as a permanent employee considering his

long service. The Management Bank refused to accede to the direction in the conciliation proceedings. Termination

of the workman amounts to retrenchment. Though the workman was employed for 23 years continuously and

uninterruptedly from January 1990 to 13.03.2012, the Management Bank failed to issue any notice of retrenchment to

the workman nor paid the workman wages in lieu of such notice, as mandated by Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The Management also failed to pay the workman the retrenchment compensation as mandated by Sec

25F of the ID Act, 1947. The retrenchment is also illegal, unjust and void for violation of the provisions of

Paragraphs 522, 523 and 524 of the Sastri Award governing the Management and the workman. Employees much

junior in service to the workman are retained in service by the Management. This is violation of the mandatory

provisions in Sec 25G of ID Act, 1947 and Para 507 of Sastri Award. Fresh and new hands have been employed by

the Management in their services that too against the very same work and jobs for which the workman was employed.

This is in violation of Sec 25H of ID Act and Clause 20.12 of 1st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1996 and Para 493 of

1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sastri Award. The termination of the workman is illegal, unjust as also void, apart from being tainted by malafides

and victimization. The Management had entered into a Tripartite Settlement on 25.11.2013 for absorbing temporary

employees working in the Management Bank, relaxing norms for recruitment and considering the increased number of

temporary employees engaged by the Management against permanent vacancies and for filling up the permanent

vacancies of Housekeeper-cum-Peon available in the Management Bank. The eligibility fixed was that the casual and

temporary employee who had worked intermittently or continuously for atleast 360 days, during the last 5 years from

01.12.2008 to 30.12.2013 including 30 days during the immediately preceding one year from 01.12.2012 to

30.12.2013. The workman was an applicant. The workman was not called for interview on the plea that the

workman did not satisfy the stipulation that he should have 30 days service during the period from 01.12.2012 to

30.12.2013. The workman could not satisfy the said requirement because he was illegally retrenched w.e.f.

13.03.2012. The workman was treated as a temporary workman against permanent vacancy just to deprive him of the

status and privileges of a permanent workman. The Management was violating the statutory provisions in Awards

and Bipartite Settlements. It amounts to unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of ID Act and is in violation of

Paras 20.7 and 20.8 of 1st Bipartite Settlement and also Para 495 and 522 of Sastri Award. In terms of Clause 20.12

of 1st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1996 the Management is bound to retain and absorb the workman in regular

services especially when the vacancy against which he was employed is permanent and continued to exist. Ever since

retrenchment from service of the Management, the workman is without any job and income.

The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The dispute raised by the Claimant

cannot be termed as an industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Claimant was not employed at any point of time, in the Bank and therefore there is no question of termination of the

workman. Unless the person is employed there can be no question of his being a ‘workman’. The relationship of

employer and employee cannot be inferred in this case. There was no contract of service between the Claimant and

the Management Bank. He was never under the control or supervision of the Bank. He was not appointed or

recruited by the Bank through the sponsorship of Employment Exchange. His name never appeared on the Muster

Roll of the Management Bank. He was never paid any salary out of the Salary Account of the Bank. He was free to

work for any other employer. It is a settled law that a person appointed temporarily on ad-hoc basis has no right to the

post. The law regarding casual/temporary/ad-hoc appointees has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806. In this case it was clearly held that appointments

of casual labourers on ad-hoc basis amounted to “irregular appointment” and such irregular or backdoor entrants

have no legal right of any kind whatsoever. The Tripartite Settlement dt.25.11.2013 was not for absorbing temporary

employees working under the Management. The settlement was only to the effect of relaxing eligibility criteria for

casual or temporary employees, thereby bringing them under “Relaxed Segment Category” who had worked

intermittently or continuously for atleast 360 days, during the last 5 years from 01.12.2008 to 30.12.2013, including

30 days during the immediately preceding one year from 01.12.2012 to 30.12.2013. The application of the claimant

was rejected, since he had not worked intermittently, any time during last 5 years ie., from 01.12.2008 to 31.12.2013,

including 30 days during the last one year ie., 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013. The Management cannot unilaterally relax

the condition for appointment under the Relaxed Segment Category.The Claimant approached the Hon'ble High

Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) no.15739/2014 and vide judgment dt.23.06.2014 the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the

writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the contention of the Management that the claimant is not an eligible

candidate for recruitment as he has not completed 30 days of continuous service for the period from 01.12.2012 to

30.11.2013. The question regarding the termination/retrenchment, if any, was left open to be agitated before the

appropriate forum under ID Act.The allegation that the workman was a temporary employee of the Management Bank

and was employed as Sweeper from January 1990 to December 2006 at Kozhikode Main Branch and Kozhikode

Palayam Branch and as a Peon-cum-Sweeper at Tirur Branch continuously from 02.03.2007 is not correct. Even if it

is assumed that he was a temporary employee, the same does not give him the right to get absorbed in the services of

the Bank. The Management never engaged the claimant for doing any work. Rather he was preparing/selling tea to

the Branch staff and in very rare occasions the claimant was asked to clean the premises, for which he was paid

immediately after the work. The Management being a Govt of India undertaking is bound to follow the policies and

procedures laid down in law as well as the directions given by the Govt of India. The Conciliation Officer does not

have jurisdiction to pass an order directing the Bank to regularize services of the claimant or to give him

appointment into the service of the Bank.The term “retrenchment” means termination by the employer of the service

of the workman for any reason whatsoever. Since there is no retrenchment of service, the Management is neither

required to issue any notice nor pay wages in lieu of such notice, as mandated U/s 25F of the ID Act. The claim of the

workman that the Bank retained juniors when the services of the workman was terminated is not correct. The

workman did not satisfied the requirement to be regularized as per the Tripartite Settlement. The workman cannot

challenge the policy of Bank in terms of Sec 25G of ID Act as well as Para 507 of Sastri Award. The appointments to

the Management Bank is done by observing the prescribed rules and regulations. The appointment of fresh and new

people are being done strictly following the established procedures. There is no violation of Sec 25H of ID Act,

Clause 20.12 of the 1st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1996 and Para 493 of Sastri Award. It is absolutely false and

illegal to allege that the Management has committed unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of the ID Act. The

workman has no right to claim any regularization as per the above provisions.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1827

The Union filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the written statement filed by the Management. The

workman was employed in the Management Bank for about 23 years. The employer-employee relationship between

the Management and the workman is evident from the admission of the Management before the Hon'ble High Court

of Kerala in W.P.(C) no.15739/2014. The workman was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Peon by the Management

Bank against regular permanent and sanctioned vacancy. No permanent staff was posted to the post during the period

when the workman was employed. This can be ascertained from the attendance register maintained at the Branch

during the relevant period which is under the exclusive custody of the Management Bank. Having extracted work

from the workman for over two decades, it is unfair and unsustainable that the Management is trying to justify the

retrenchment on technicalities. Had the workman not abruptly been retrenched on 13.03.2012, the workman would

have come under the “Relaxed Segment Category” while absorbing similar temporary employees working under the

Management as per the Tripartite Settlement. The workman could not participate in the selection process only

because he had not worked for 30 days during the last one year period from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013 since the

workman was retrenched on 13.03.2012. The Management employed the workman for 23 years and paid wages and

hence he comes under the definition of Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman was orally terminated

on 13.03.2012 without complying with the mandatory obligations under the Act. He performed the job of perennial

nature continuously and uninterruptedly. During the conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer was

convinced of the genuineness of the claim of the workman and therefore there was a suggestion either to reinstate the

workman or to allow him to participate in the selection process of Housekeeper-cum-Peons. The said suggestion was

rejected by the Bank. The documents, registers and vouchers in the custody of the Management were produced

before the Conciliation Officer categorically establishing the employer-employee relationship between the

Management and the workman. The wages paid to him was absorbed into the Profit & Loss account of the Bank.

After completion of the pleadings, the Union examined the workman as WW1 and marked Exbts.W1 to W5

through him. The Management examined MW1 and marked Exbt.M1 through him and also examined MW2 and

marked Exbt.M2 series through the witness.

After completion of the pleadings the following issues are framed for adjudication

1. Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?

2. Whether the denial of the demand of the Union for reinstatement with regularization of the

workman when he requested for regularization of service is correct and justified ?

3. Relief and cost ?

Issue no.1

The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that the dispute raised by the workman cannot be

termed as an industrial dispute within the meaning of Sec 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act ,1947 as the

workman was never appointed by the Bank and never terminated him from the service of the Bank. As per

the definition of Sec 2(s) of ID Act, the workman shall be employed to do the work in the industry which

means that there should be an employer-employee relationship. The learned Counsel for the workman

argued that the workman continuously worked for the Management Bank for more than 22 years and they

paid him salary. Therefore the Management cannot plead that the present dispute raised by the workman

cannot be termed as an industrial dispute. As per Sec 2(s);

“Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or

whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

person –

(i) ….

(ii) …

(iii) …

(iv) …”

The definition of workman as above falls in 3 parts. The 1st part of the definition gives the statutory

meaning of workman. The 2nd part is designed to include persons who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to

an industrial dispute. The 3rd part connotes that even if a person satisfied the requirements of any of first

two parts, if he falls in any of the 4 categories in the 3rd part, he shall be excluded from the definition of

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman. In this particular case the claim of the Union is that the workman was engaged on a

temporary basis against a permanent post for over 22 years. There is evidence that he was being paid

wages throughout his service by the Management Bank. According to the learned Counsel for the

Management, the workman was only a casual employee on daily wages and therefore he is not entitled to

claim the benefits U/s 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that

the nature of employment will not in any way affect his claim for reinstatement. The Hon'ble High Court

of Kerala in Sreekumar K. Vs Managing Director, KTDC Ltd, 2019 1 KHC 225 held that the

definition in Sec 2(s) of the ID Act includes casual employees also. The Hon'ble High Court held that

“ Para 18. From this it is quite evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra) (in

the context govern by the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act ) is not at all attracted to the

case in hand ”.

As per Sec 2(k);

“ Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour,

of any person”.

From the above definition, it is clear that a dispute between the employer and workman regarding non

employment is an industrial dispute. The workman challenged the rejection of his application for

absorption by the Management under the “Relaxed Segment Category” on the basis of the Tripartite

Settlement in W.P.(C) no.15739/2014. While dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dt.23.06.2014 the

Hon'ble High Court held that “ The question whether his termination was valid or not or whether he is

entitled to reliefs including the relief of reinstatement in service, are matters which should, in my opinion, be

left to be decided by the competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”. Hence the claim of

the learned Counsel for the Management that there is no industrial dispute in the present case is not

supported by the legal provisions.

The learned Counsel for the Management also argued that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, in the absence of any statutory provision it

is not possible to regularize the service of the workman. The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) is not applicable to cases coming under

the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarified the above position in

Maharashtra State Road Transport and another Vs Casteribe Rajaya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana,

2009 8 SCC 556. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application of Industrial Disputes Act is not at all

considered by the Constitution Bench and therefore it was held that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is

not applicable to cases coming under Industrial Disputes Act. In Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing

Corporation, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 321 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Uma

Devi’s case (Supra) and held that ;

“ 17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a

Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in

ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article

16 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and powers of the

Industrial and Labour Court provided therein were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case

(3). The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was

decided in Uma Devi’s case.

18. We have noticed that Industrial Dispute Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and

certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving

them the status and privilege of permanent employees.

19. Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent for retrenchment of

workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer retrenches

the workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month 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 of the notice apart from compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof

in excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on

the appropriate Govt or such Authority as may be specified by appropriate Govt by notification in the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1829

official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Sec 25F is violated and the employer there by, resorts

to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with privilege as provided under the

Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the

employee was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(20) - - - - - - - - - - - -

(21) - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that the

initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of

India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair labour practice

cannot be resorted to and thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice,

pay and other benefits in terms of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more

than 240 days in a calendar year”.

The above decision was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur Casual

Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786. The Hon’ble

Court held that an undertaking of the government which comes within the meaning of ‘industry’ or its

establishment cannot justify its illegal action including unfair labour practice nor can ask for different treatment

on the ground that public undertaking is guided by Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and the private

industries are not guided by 14 & 16 of the Constitution. In Umrala Grama Panchayat Vs Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union, 2015(12) SCC 775 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the services of

the workmen in that case be regularized and made permanent since they worked for more than 240 days in a

calendar year.

Taking into account all the facts and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered view

that the present industrial dispute is maintainable. Hence the issue is decided in favour of the workman and

against the Management.

10.

Issue no.2

According to the learned Counsel for the workman, the workman worked as a Sweeper in the Management

Bank at Kozhikode Main Branch and Kozhikode Palayam Branch from 01/1990 to 12/2006. Subsequently he

worked as a Peon-cum-Sweeper in Tirur Branch of the Management Bank continuously from 2007, since the

opening of the Branch. The workman requested the Management vide his representation dt.26.11.2011 for

absorption as a permanent employee. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, as a retaliation the

Management Bank terminated the service of the workman orally w.e.f. 13.03.2012. According to the Counsel, his

services were continuous and his service was terminated without following the requirements mandated U/s 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the Management never

engaged the workman for doing any regular work and his services were utilized occasionally to clean the premises

for which he was paid on daily wage basis. According to him, the workman never had the continuous service, as

claimed by him. The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the Management produced relevant

records before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Conciliation Officer and from the records produced, it can

be seen that the workman had continuous service from 2007 to 13.03.2012 when his services were orally

terminated.

11.

As per Sec 25B

“1.

a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is for that period, in

uninterrupted service including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or

authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lockout or cessation of

work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause 1 for a period of

one year or 6 months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer for

a period of one year, if the workman during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than

I. ……

II. 240 days in any other case”

Hence to get the benefit of continuous service U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman ought to

have worked with the Management for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding

13.03.2012. The workman produced Exbt.W2, copies of vouchers having received payment from 2007 to

2012. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, these are copies of vouchers produced before

the Conciliation Officer at the time of conciliation process. The Management also produced Exbt.M2 series

1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of vouchers in original. Exbt.W2 contains copies of 213 vouchers whereas Exbt.M2 Series contains 191

vouchers having paid wages to the workman during the relevant period. Management witness, MW2 was

specifically questioned on the issue during cross examination. He agreed that the Management could not

produce all the cash vouchers since many of these vouchers are not traceable due to delay. The workman

also produced a true copy of the Statement of Account ledger report of miscellaneous expenses of Union

Bank of India, Tirur Branch for the period from 11.01.2007 to 27.02.2012 produced by the Management

Bank before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, as Exbt.W1 in this proceedings. On a perusal of the above

documents, it is clear that the workman worked with the Management Bank for more than 240 days during

the period of 12 calendar months preceding his oral termination. The learned Counsel for the workman

relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division Vs

Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, 2010 KHC 6126 to argue that once the workman discharged his

responsibility by producing the documents at his command, the burden shifts to the Management to prove

that he has not worked for more than 240 days as required U/s 25B of the Act. In the above case the

workman was a watchman who was paid daily wages and whose presence were marked in the Muster Roll.

According to the Management, the workman worked from 1986 till 1988 and during this period the

workman had worked for 93 days, 145 days and 31 days respectively. According to them the workman had

not worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the

decision in R. M. Yellatty Vs Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 (1) SCC 106 held that

“ The respondent was a workman hired on daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court

pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the above

documents, Muster Roll etc., in connection with his service. He came forward and deposed, so

in our opinion the burden of proof shift to the employer/appellant to prove that he did not

complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service “.

12.

In the present case also it is seen that the workman was examined as WW1 and he stated in his evidence

that he worked with the Management from 1990 to 2012. However he could produce supporting documents for

the year 2007-2012. The learned Counsel for the workman relied on the decision of Gauri Shankar Vs State of

Rajasthan, 2015 (12) SCC 754. In the above case, the workman was working with the respondent and his case

was that he was appointed against a permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f. 01/1990 till his services came to be

retrenched and he had rendered service of more than 240 days in every calendar year and has received salary from

the respondent department each month. The workman challenged the retrenchment as bad in law as the same is in

violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of the ID Act. The workman applied for production of the Muster

Roll and the management failed to produce the relevant Muster Rolls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its

earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs Muhammed Haji Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and

Murukesam Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 (5) LW 759 held that even if the burden of proof does lie

on a party, the Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which

can throw light on the facts of issue. The learned Counsel for the workman also relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs Mahak Singh and others, 2007 (4) SCC 94,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their initial onus by producing the

documents in their possession, it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the claim of the workman that

he did not work for more than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior to his/her termination. In

this case there is no dispute regarding the fact that the workman was engaged as a daily wager w.e.f. 01/1990.

There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 13.03.2012. The

documents discussed above will substantiate the above points. The workman also produced evidence to show

that he was paid wages against voucher from 03.02.2007 to 24.03.2012. He also entered the box and deposed that

he worked with the Management continuously from 1990 to 2012. Hence it can safely be considered that the

workman had discharged his responsibility of proving that he worked for more than 240 days in one year prior to

his date of termination. In such circumstances as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the

issue, it is possible to draw an inference that he worked for more than 240 days in view of the fact that the

Management failed to produce any documents to disprove his claim that he worked continuously for more than

240 days in one year prior to the date of his termination.

Hence from the facts, evidence and law discussed above, it is concluded that the workman had

rendered continuous service of 240 days making him eligible for the benefits U/s 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

13.

The Management has no case that they followed the procedure prescribed U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act while terminating the workman. Hence it is clear that the Management terminated the service of the workman

in clear violation of the provisions of Sec 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

14.

The learned Counsel for the workman also argued that employees much junior in service to the workman

are retained in service by the Management in violation of provisions of Sec 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

According to the learned Counsel for the Management, there was a Memorandum of Settlement entered with the

AIUBEA and the Management before Regional Labour Commissioner vide settlement dt.25.11.2013. The settlement

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1831

was only for relaxing the eligibility criteria for casual or temporary employees thereby bringing them under “Relaxed

Segment Category” who had worked intermittently or continuously for atleast 360 days during the last 5 years from

01.12.2008 to 30.12.2013, including 30 days during the immediately preceding one year from 01.12.2012 to

30.12.2013. The application filed by the workman was rejected since he did not satisfy the relaxed eligibility

criteria. The workman challenged the rejection before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) no.15739/2014

and vide judgment dt.23.06.2014 the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court

held that the petitioner satisfies the requirement of 360 days service but he does not satisfy the stipulation that the

workman should have 30 days service during the period from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013. According to the learned

Counsel for the workman, he did not complete 30 days service during the period from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013 as

his services were terminated on 13.03.2012. According to MW2, as per the Tripartite Settlement in Exbt.W5, 1165

daily wage employees were regularized and absorbed in the service of the Management Bank. Since the workman

was not eligible to be considered under the relaxed scheme, it is not correct to say that the employees junior to him

were retained by the Management in violation of Sec 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the above reasons, it

is also not possible to conclude that the Management employed fresh hands in their service for the very same work

and job for which the workman was employed. There is no other evidence to support the claim of the workman. The

workman also failed to establish that the Management adopted unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15.

Considering all the facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the retrenchment of

the workman from the service of the Management is abinitio void and is in violation of Sec 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

16.

Issue no.3

According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the workman was only a casual employee and was

paid only for the days when he worked for the Management. It was also pointed out that he was not working against

any permanent or perennial post in the Management. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, once

this Tribunal found that the termination of the workman was illegal, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

full back wages. The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that being a casual employee, the workman

is not entitled for regularization considering the spirit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttarakhand and others Vs

Rajkumar, 2019 (1) LLJ 513 SC relying on its earlier decisions of BSNL Vs Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177

and District Development Officer and another Vs Satish Kantilal Amerelia, 2018 (12) SCC 298 held that in

the circumstances of that case it would be just and proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation

to the workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim for reinstatement and other consequential benefits. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject in BSNL case (Supra) as follows

“ Para 33. It is clear from the readings of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of

reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied

mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workmen

are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, of unfair labour practice, etc.

However when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is

found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and instead the workman should given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of

justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

Para 34. The reasons for denying the relief for reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law

that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation

and notice pay as mandatorily required U/s 25F of the ID Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated

he has no right to seek regularization [see State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi(3)]. Thus when he cannot

claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is

going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the

Court itself in as much as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary

compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation giving

the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

Para 35. We would however, like to add a cavate here. There may be cases where termination of daily

wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in

violation of the principles of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors

to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under

some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker

should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course

1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases reinstatement should be the rule and

only in exceptional cases, for the reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied ”

The learned Counsel for the workman on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Jasmar Singh Vs State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the workman is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages since the order of termination was void abinitio. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above case relied on the following observation of the Court in Deepali Gundu

Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya, 2013 10 SCC 324 to hold that when the termination is

found to be illegal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

“ Para 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or

removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in

which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a

person who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be

measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the

employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee

concerned but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of

sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and

advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from relatives and other aquittance to avoid

starvation. These sufferings continued till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality

of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a

finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer

is ultravires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the

employee to claim full back wages. If the employer was to deny back wages to the employee, or

contesting his entitlement to get consequential benefits then it is for him/her to specifically plead

and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting

the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee who has suffered due to an illegal

act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding

the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments”.

In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a workman working as a daily

paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Karnal) for more than 240 days.

17.

In the present case it is seen that the workman was engaged as a daily wage employee and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days one year before his termination. Though the workman claimed unfair labour

practice, the same is not proved. The Management has no case that the workman was gainfully engaged during the

period of termination. Hence this is a fit case where the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Uttarakhad Vs Raj Kumar (Supra) is squarely applicable. It is seen that the workman was engaged on daily wage

basis but paid on weekly basis. At present the workman is around 52 years of age. Hence it would be just and

proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the workman in full and final satisfaction of his

claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. It is seen that the workman was working on a daily wage

for Rs.275/- when his services were terminated. Hence if the workman is reinstated in service with full back wages,

he will be entitled for an approximate back wages of Rs.6,50,000/-. Considering the above facts, it is felt that interest

of justice will be met if the Management is directed to pay a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the

workman in full and final settlement within one month from the date of notification of this award.

18.

Hence an award is passed holding that the action of the Management in denying the demand of Union for

the reinstatement with regularization of the workman is not correct and justified. The workman is entitled for a

lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 28th day of March, 2022.

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Sri.A. Manoharan., dt.13.07.2017

Witness for the Management:-

MW1

Sri.RajagopalPai V. V., dt.04.10.2019

MW2

Sri.N. Ajaya Kumar, dt.12.02.2020

Exhibits for the Workman:-

True copy of the statement of account Ledger report of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1833

miscellaneous expenses of Union Bank of India, Tirur Branch

for the period from 11.01.2007 to 27.02.2012 produced by

the Management

`True copy of the debit vouchers for payment of cleaning/

sweeping daily wages paid to workman, daily wager from

20.01.2007 to 11.02.2012 by the Tirur Branch of the

Management Bank

True copy of the proceedings before Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam from 08.12.2014 to

20.02.2015

True copy of the Failure of Conciliation report dt.29.06.2015

byAssistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam

`True copy of the Memorandum of Tripartite Settlement

dt.25.11.2013 between the Management and the Union

Exhibits for the Management:-

True copy of the Judgement dt.23.06.2014 of the Hon'ble

High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) no.15739/2014

True copy of the debit vouchers for payment of cleaning/

series

sweeping daily wages paid to workman, daily wager

from03.02.2007 to 24.03.2012 by the Tirur Branch

of the Management Bank

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 892.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dkiksZjs'ku cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 24/2017) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.24/2017of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2022 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Friday the 22nd day of April 2022, 2 Vaisakha 1944)

ID No.24/2017

Workman

: Sobhanakumari N.C.

Nadayil Padinjarethil

1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vanmuzhi

Pandanad

Chengannur – 689506

By Adv.Ashok B. Shenoy

Management

The Deputy General Manager

Corporation Bank

Zonal Office, Apoorva Chambers

TC 14/2143(2)

Sunny Meads Lane, Palayam

Trivandrum – 695304

By Adv.Bobby John Pulickaparambil

This case coming up for final hearing on 06.10.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

22.04.2022 passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed U/s 2A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The worker joined the service of the Management Bank as a temporary Peon at their Chengannur Branch in

November 1999. Thereafter she was elevated as permanent Peon on 09.04.2014 and retained at Chengannur Branch

and confirmed in service on 10.10.2014. Ever since she joined the service of the Management Bank, the worker was

discharging her duty diligently and with devotion. While so the worker was placed under suspension on 22.01.2016,

pending further investigation alleging misappropriation of funds deposited by a corporate customer. Four months

after placing the worker under suspension, she was issued with a charge sheet dt.03.06.2016 alleging that the worker

had failed to entrust the cash collected from a corporate customer of the Management Bank on 02.01.2016. The

worker was charged to have committed grave misconduct under Clauses 5(d), 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement

on Disciplinary Action Procedure dt.10.04.2002 and also minor misconduct under Clause 7(d) of the Memorandum of

Settlement. A disciplinary enquiry into the charges levelled against the worker was ordered to be conducted by

appointing a Senior Manager of Zonal Office of the Management Bank as the Enquiry Officer. Without conducting

a due enquiry and without taking any evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dt.01.10.2016 finding that the

charges against the worker have been proved on the premise that the worker gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer

admitting the alleged charges. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer without

affording the worker an opportunity to make her submissions on the enquiry report. By the same proceedings

dt.21.11.2016 punishment of removal from service as per terms of Clause 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement

was also proposed to be imposed on the worker. The worker was afforded a personal hearing on the proposed

punishment. The worker appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and explained her position regarding the

alleged misconduct on her part. Without considering her representation, the Disciplinary Authority vide proceedings

dt.28.12.2016 confirmed the punishment of removal from service of the worker. The industrial dispute raised by the

worker before the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) ended in failure on 23.06.2017. The worker is innocent

of the alleged charges against her. She is framed and victimized at the hands of the Manager and other employees of

Chengannur branch of the Management Bank. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer took advantage of

the illiterate background of the worker. The disciplinary action was initiated with a pre-conceived assumption that

the worker had committed the alleged misconducts, thereby rendering the impugned punishment vitiated by bias. The

impugned punishment is illegal and bad for it is imposed in violation of the Bipartite Settlement. The charges and

process of misconduct are patently vague and lacking in material particulars. The enquiry was conducted in

complete violation of principles of natural justice depriving the worker due opportunity of defence and causing

grave prejudice to her. No enquiry worth the name was conducted and the purported enquiry proceedings were

conducted in total violation of the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement.

The enquiry proceedings were totally biased and partisan and were recorded behind the workers back. The enquiry

was held in English, a language not known or understood by the worker. The worker was made to write and sign a

letter as dictated by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer without knowing the consequence of such letter.

Evidence was also taken in English. The enquiry proceedings were held on the basis of documents, letters and

materials issued in English without affording the worker a translation in Malayalam or letting her to know its

contents. Even the charges were not read out to her or made known to her in Malayalam. She was also not informed

her right to be represented by a defence representative in the enquiry. The original document was not made available

to the worker for inspection. The worker was not allowed to examine her witness or produce any documents in proof

of her innocence. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer dictated a letter of admission and got it signed by her

and abruptly closed the enquiry. The worker was not allowed the cross examination of witness against her or meet

the evidence against her. The entire proceedings were conducted in English and the worker was totally crippled and

handicapped from defending the charges. Though the worker was pleading innocence, she was pacified stating that

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1835

her interest will be protected. She came to know about the intention of the Management only when she received the

proposed punishment to remove her from service. Hence the entire enquiry conducted against her is illegal and

vitiated. The finding of guilt on the alleged charges entered against the worker are erroneous, perverse, biased and

against facts, circumstances and evidence on record. There is no evidence on record to prove the alleged charges

against her. The purported admission of charges by the worker is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation as also

undue influence purported on her by the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The worker is totally innocent

of the alleged charges. The punishment imposed on the worker is ultra-vires and illegal for no act of “gross

misconduct” has been proved against the worker.

The Management filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition. The punishment of

removal from service awarded to the worker by the Management is on a finding by a properly conducted enquiry

and the findings thereof on the basis of the confession of the worker that she misappropriated an amount of

Rs.2,30,931/- from the Bank. The enquiry was conducted in a proper and legal manner. The worker was working as

a Peon at the Chengannur branch of the Management Bank from 09.04.2014 to 22.01.2016. On 02.01.2016, the

worker committed a serious offence of theft of public money from the Bank and thereby caused serious threat on the

trust and goodwill of the Bank which is the custodian of public money. On 02.01.2016 the Assistant Manager of the

Management Bank escorted by the worker collected Rs.2,30,931/- from LIC of India, Mannar branch and was

brought to Chengannur branch of the management Bank and was handed over to the cashier. The cashier kept the

cash box outside the cabin as he was otherwise busy. Hence the credit slip was not accounted on 02.01.2016. On

04.01.2016 the worker noticed the cash box outside the cash cabin and took the entire cash from the suitcase and

destroyed the LIC credit challan. Inspite of search by the employees, the cash and credit challan could not be

located. On 06.01.2016 the worker confessed and admitted in writing that the cash was taken away by her. She

also admitted that an amount of Rs.36,700/- was utilized by her and returned the balance amount of Rs.1,94,231/-.

The Management through Assistant General Manager conducted the preliminary investigation, and during the

investigation the worker submitted a statement admitting the theft and misappropriation. On 12.01.2016 the Assistant

General Manager submitted his preliminary investigation report which pointed out that the matter is of serious

nature involving moral turpitude, wilful damage and attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank. The

worker was suspended vide order dt.21.01.2016 on the basis of the investigation report. On 03.06.2018 charge sheet

was issued to the worker by the disciplinary authority to submit her explanation to the charges levelled against her

within 10 days of its receipt. No explanation was offered by the worker. Hence a domestic enquiry was ordered

on 04.08.2016. The Enquiry Officer conducted a preliminary enquiry on 19.09.2016. The worker appeared and

admitted all the charges levelled against her unequivocally and submitted a letter to that effect. Since the worker

pleaded guilty of all the charges, the Enquiry Officer did not find it necessary to hold further enquiry in the matter

and submitted her report dt.01.10.2016, holding that the charges levelled against the worker is proved. The charge

of theft and misappropriation proved against the worker are of serious nature as the Bank is holding public money

in its fiduciary capacity. Thus the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dt.29.12.2016 is

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and proportionate to the gravity of offence proved against

her. The Management Bank denied the allegation of the worker that she was victimized at the hands of Manager

and other employees of the Branch and also the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer.

The worker filed a replication reiterating the averments in the claim petition.

On conclusion of the pleadings, the Management examined the Enquiry Officer as MW1 and Presenting

Officer as MW2 and marked Exbts.M1 to M4. Exbt.M4 is the disciplinary enquiry file. The worker did not adduce

any evidence.

The issues to be decided in this industrial dispute are;

1. Whether the disciplinary enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles

of natural justice?

2. Whether the finding by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority is based on legal evidence ?

3. Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges proved against the worker?

4. Relief and cost?

Issue no.1

On the request of the Counsels, the issue whether the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper

manner following the principles of natural justice was taken up as a preliminary issue. After hearing the learned

Counsels on either side elaborately, this Tribunal vide its order dt.22.02.2021 found that the disciplinary enquiry

was conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice.

Issue no.2

The worker was working as a Peon at Chengannur Branch of the Management Bank. On 02.01.2016 the

Assistant Manager of the Bank escorted by the worker collected Rs.2,30,931/- from LIC of India, Munnar Branch

1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and was brought to the Chengannur Branch and was handed over to the Cashier. The Cashier kept the cash box

outside the cabin. On 04.01.2016, the worker noticed the cash box outside the cabin and took the entire cash from the

suitcase. On 06.01.2016 the worker confessed and admitted in writing that the cash was taken away by her. She

returned an amount of Rs.1,94,231/- admitting that she had spend an amount of Rs.36,700/- for some purpose.

During the investigation by the Assistant Manager, the worker admitted in writing that she had taken the money. On

03.06.2018 a charge sheet was issued to the worker alleging the following commission and omission on the part of

the worker.

Causing willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank

ii.

Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank amounting to gross misconduct under clause 5(d)

and 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure dt.10.4.2002 and

iii.

Breaching of any rule or instructions for the running any department being a minor misconduct U/s

7(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure dt.10.04.2002, besides

involving moral turpitude.

The worker did not offer any explanation. Hence a disciplinary enquiry was ordered on 04.08.2016. The

Enquiry Officer conducted a preliminary enquiry on 19.09.2016. The worker appeared and admitted all

the charges levelled against her and submitted a letter to that effect. Since the worker pleaded guilty of all

the charges, the Enquiry Officer did not find it necessary to hold further enquiry and submitted the report

on 01.10.2016, holding that the charges levelled against the worker is proved.

The Enquiry Officer vide her proceedings dt.19.09.2016 initiated the disciplinary enquiry and during the

proceedings the worker was directed to clarify whether she has received the charge sheet and whether she is pleading

guilty of charges or propose to file any defence. The worker replied that she received the charge sheet and she is

pleading guilty of the charges levelled against her and do not claim to make any defence. She also gave a letter to

the Enquiry Officer dt.19.09.2016 admitting the charges unconditionally and unequivocally. In view of the above,

the Enquiry Officer felt that there is no point in proceeding with the enquiry and submitted her report to the

Disciplinary Authority vide her report dt.01.10.2016 holding that the charges against the worker is proved.

According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the confession/admission by the worker is on the basis of threat and

coercion by the Management. However it is seen that the worker admitted the crime to the Bank Manager vide her

letter dt.06.01.2016 and before the Investigation Officer vide her letter dt.11.01.2016. She also returned an

amount of Rs.1,94,231/- to the Manager on 06.01.2016 and the balance amount was paid closing her RD account

and by borrowing from one of the Bank employee. Hence it is difficult to accept the pleading of the learned

Counsel for the worker that the Exbt.M3 confession letter given by the worker to the Enquiry Officer dt.19.09.2016

is by threat and coercion of the officers of the Management. In Union Bank of India Vs Babu Mahadevappa

Andani, 2007 (4) Kar L J 717 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in an identical factual situation held that in

view of the unequivocal admission of charges by the worker and confession letters and also the fact that the charged

official had repaid a portion of the misappropriated amount, there was no need for the Enquiring Officer to proceed

with further enquiry. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India Ltd Vs Karunamoy

Banerjee, 1967 2 LLJ 739 SC held that “ If the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the Management to let

in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality”. In view of the fact that the

worker had unambiguously and unconditionally admitted the misappropriation and returned a part of the money

would clearly establish the fact that there is a clear admission of guilt.

Hence the finding in the disciplinary enquiry is based on the unambiguous admission by the worker in writing

before the Enquiry Officer. Hence the issue is decided in favour of the Management and against the worker.

10.

Issue no.3 & 4

According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the worker is too harsh

and disproportionate to the charges alleged against her. The learned Counsel for the Management on the other side

pointed out that an official of the Bank who is dealing with public money is supposed to act with honesty and

integrity. Any misconduct alleged and proved against a Bank employee with regard to dishonesty is to be viewed

very seriously. According to him, the Management lost confidence in the worker and therefore the punishment

imposed on the worker by the Management is proportionate to the charges proved against her. In Standard

Chartered Bank Vs R. C. Srivastava, Civil Appeal no.6092/2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the limit

of the Industrial Tribunals to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the above

case, the Disciplinary Authority after analyzing the evidence on record imposed a penalty of dismissal from the

service of the workman. The Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the Management to

reinstate the respondent workman in service with back wages. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing the facts of the case held that

“ The decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1837

Management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction U/s 11A of the Act, 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously

exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or

analyze the evidence but what is important is how it does so”. In the present case the worker is a Bank employee.

As already pointed out, there is clear admission by the worker that she misappropriated the money and also

returned a part of the same. The law in this regard is settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs P. C. Kakkar, 2003 4 SCC 364 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

“Para 14. A Bank Officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He

deals with money of the depositors and customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required

to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost

integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank

officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every

officer/employee of the Bank ”

In Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C.Vs Hoti Lal and another, 2003 3 SCC 605 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that “ If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt

requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has

to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions

or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is a must and unexceptionable

“. In a recent decision Union of India and others Vs M. Duraisamy, AIR 2022 SC 2002 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court examined whether the removal from service of employee on a proved misconduct of serious

nature of defrauding public money is required to be interfered by the higher Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court after examining all the previous authorities held that “ Once a conscious decision was taken by the

Disciplinary Authority to remove an employee on the proved misconduct of a very serious nature of

defrauding public money, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court should have interfered with the order of

punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was after considering the gravity and seriousness

of the misconduct ”. In another recent decision, State Bank of India Vs K. S. Vishwanath, AIR 2022 SC

2531 the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined its earlier decisions on the issue and held that “It is further

observed that if there is some evidence, that the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has

accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the

charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

review/re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence “.

11.

In this case it is already found that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner

following the principles of natural justice. It is also found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the

Disciplinary Authority are based on unconditional and unequivocal admission by the worker. There is no

perversity in the findings by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case

the worker is found to be guilty of stealing and misappropriating an amount of Rs.2,30,931/-. She confessed

to the crime and returned a part of the amount to the Bank. Loss of confidence of the Management against

an employee is a primary fact in such cases. There is nothing wrong in the Bank losing confidence or faith in

such employees. The proved charges of theft and misappropriation on the part of the worker are of serious

nature as the Bank is holding public money in fiduciary capacity.

The order of removal from the service of the Management Bank issued by the Disciplinary Authority on

29.12.2016 is proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the worker. Hence the issue is decided in

favour of the Management and against the worker.

12.

It is found that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, there is no perversity in

the finding of the Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority and that the punishment of dismissal

imposed on the worker is proportionate to the charges proved against her.

Hence the claim of the worker to reinstate her in the service of the Bank with full back wages, continuity of

service and other consequential benefits cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.

13.

Hence an award is passed holding that the disciplinary enquiry against the worker was conducted in a fair

and proper manner and also there is no perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer and also the

Disciplinary Authority. The punishment of removal from service imposed on the worker is proportionate to

the charges proved against her. Hence the claim of the worker for reinstatement in service of the

Management Bank with consequential benefits is not sustainable and therefore rejected.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 22nd day of April,

2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:- Nil

Witness for the Management:-

MW1

Smt.Rachel Sunny, dt.04.11.2019

MW2

Smt.Priyaranjini A., dt.13.02.2020

Exhibits for the Workman:- Nil

Exhibits for the Management:-

True copy of list of documents through which the

Management proposed to substantiate the charges levelled

against the worker

True copy of the list of witnesses through which the

Management proposed to substantiate the charges levelled

against the worker

True copy of letter dt.19.09.2016 from the worker to the

Enquiry Officer

Disciplinary Enquiry File

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 893.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eslZl

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43/2020) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/38/2020-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022

S.O. 893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.43/2020of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/.s. Syndicate Bank and their

workmen.

[F. No. L-12011/38/2020 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 27th day of July 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)

ID No. 43/2020

Workman/Union : The Vice President

Syndicate Bank Staff Association(Regd)

49/746 ‘Krishna’, Karama Road

Elamakkara Kochi - 682026

Managements

: 1. The Deputy General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Regional Office

1st Floor, Pioneer Tower

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1839

Shanmugham Road

Ernakulam – 682031

2. The General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Personal Department

Head Office, Manipal

Karnataka – 576104

By Adv.R. S. Kalkura

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order

No. L-12011/38/2020-IR(B-II) dated 25.11.2020 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

The dispute referred is;

“ Whether the demand of Syndicate Bank Staff Association to regularize the service of Smt.Girija Suresh, temporary

Part Time Sweeper of Syndicate Bank is justified or not? If justified, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?”

After receipt of the order of reference from Govt of India, summons dt.28.12.2020 was issued to the parties

concerned. The matter was posted for appearance of the parties on 17.02.2021. The summons was acknowledged by

the parties concerned. Thereafter the matter was posted on 23.08.2021, 11.10.2021, 06.01.2022, 30.03.2022 and

27.07.2022. Though the summons was acknowledged by the parties, there was no representation from the side of

the Union and no claim statement is filed even after more than one year. The Management entered appearance on

27.07.2022.

It is felt that the Union is not interested in pursuing the industrial dispute.

Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the Union.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 894.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37/2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/207/2004-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/09/2022.

[No. L-22012/207/2004 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/2005

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary

Snayukt Koyla Mazdor Sangh(AITUC)

C/o Sanjay Mishra, Telephone Exchange

PO:Kotma Colliery,

Shahdol(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief General manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL

PO-Jamuna

Shahdol(M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 6-9-2022.)

As per letter dated 13/5/2005 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-

22012/207/2004IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General manager, Kotma Area of SECl in superannuating Sh.

Laxman Prasad and Sh. Mahipal Kishore W.e.f. 10-2-2004 and 20-1-2005 respectively is legal

and justified? if not, to what relief the workmen and entitled ? .”

1. In this reference, dispute regarding two workman Laxman Prasad Shukla and Mahipal Kishore is

involved. Both these workman filed their separate statement of claims.

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have

filed their statement of claims/defence.

3. According to the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla he was serving with the South Eastern Coal Limited as

clerk . His date of birth is 30-8-1947. He was due for superannuation after attaining 60 years of age on 31-8-2007 but

has been wrongly superannuated by Management w.e.f. 29-2-2004 treating his date of birth as 10-2-1944. The

management had entered his date of birth in form-B as 10-2-1944 without any basis inspite of the fact that the

workman had produced his educational certificate before Management showing his date of birth as 30-8-1947. The

Management corrected his date of birth in its record in the year 1987, when he disputed the date of birth maintained

by management in its record and his correct date of birth 30-8-1947 was mentioned in its record by management.

Even then Management issued him notice of superannuation w.e.f. 29-2-2004 treating his date of birth as 10-2-1944

which is illegal and discriminatory on the part of the Management. Accordingly the workman has prayed that

declaring the action of Management superannuating the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla w.e.f 29-2-2004 be held

against law and the workman be held entitled to be reinstatement with all back wages and benefits pre and post retiral

treating his date of birth as 30-8-1947.

4. Mahipal Kishore, the other workman has stated that his actual date of birth is 16-1-1951. He had produced

certificates regarding this at the time of the first appointment before the Management but the Management had

wrongly entered his date of birth as 20-1-1945 without any basis and superannuated him on the basis of his date of

birth 20-1-1945 after attaining 60 years on this wrong entry regarding his date of birth whereas he had right to

continue in service till 31-1-2011 on attaining 60 years on the basis of his correct date of birth which is 16-1-1951. He

made several representation before the Management to correct his date of birth which was not heard. Then he raised

dispute and accordingly he has prayed that holding the action of Management in superannuating the workman

Mahipal Kishore on 31-1-2005 based on his wrong date of birth 20-1-1945 is against law. The workman be held

entitled to be reinstated with back wages and pre as well as post retirement benefits and also be held to continue in

service up to 60 years on the basis of his correct date of birth 16-1-1951.

5. The Management has filed a joint written statement of defense wherein it has taken a case that the

workman Laxman Prasad Shukla was initially appointed on 10-2-1971. As per various statutory records maintained

by management, his age was recorded as 28 years on the date of his first appointment i.e. on 10-2-1972. Accordingly,

his date of birth 10-2-1944 was recorded in Form-B register prepared under Mines Act. This register is the personal

bio date of the workman prepared on the basis of the information furnished by the workman and signed by the

workman as a proof of Authentication. Subsequently when Union raised certain issues regarding correction of date of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1841

birth of certain employees in JBCCI, the Management circulated a general notice with extract of service record and

invited objection from workman, if there was any inaccuracy in any entry in the service records. The notice and

service record of the workman, including the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla were displayed on the notice board

showing his date of birth as 10-2-1945. He did not submit any objection at that time. He was initially appointed as a

Clerk. He signed form-B prepared by the Management at the time of his first appointment in English as a token of

acceptance of entries made there in. The workman never submitted any document regarding his date of birth as

required in I.I.No.37/76 in this respect, hence he cannot be permitted to raise dispute at the fag end of service.

6. As regards the workman Mahipal Kishore, the case of management is that he was first appointed as

electrician on 1-6-1970. His age maintained in form-B register at the time of his first date of joining was 32 years as

on 26-1-1977. He signed the Form-B register without disputing the entry regarding his age and date of birth. As a

proof of its authentication service register was prepared on the basis of Form-B register containing the same date of

birth i.e. 20-1-1945 mentioned in form-B register. The workman never disputed his date of birth at any point of time.

The service excerpts of every workman was circulated in 1987 and the workman were directed to raise objection if

they feel that any entry in their service record is inaccurate. The workman never raised any dispute in the year 1987

also. The case of the workman along with other employees were referred to Age Determination Committee. The

workman did not submit any document as provided in I.I.No.76 relating to his date of birth before the Age

Determination Committee, hence the Age Determination Committee also concluded the same date of birth 20-1-1945,

hence he cannot be permitted to raise dispute at the fag end of his service. Accordingly the Management has prayed

that the reference be answered against these two workman.

7. Both the workman have filed separate rejoinder, wherein they have mainly reiterated their case.

8. The workman Mahipal Kishore filed his affidavit as his Examination in Chief. As a witness he was cross-

examined by management. The workman Laxman Prasad Shukla also filed his affidavit as his Examination in Chief.

He was also cross-examined by the management. Witness Jaibeer Sahu and Ramsharan Sharma has been examined as

witness by these two workman. The management has examined S.K.Pandey , Deputy Manger Personnel who has

been cross-examined by the workman.

9. The Management has proved Exhibit M1 service excerpts of workman Mahipal Kishore and Exhibit M-2

retirement notice of workman Mahipal Kishore. The Management has further proved Exhibit M-3 and M-4

photocopies of two Form-B of workman Laxman Prasad Shukla and Exhibit M-6 and M-7 photocopies of two Form-B

of workman Mahipal Kishore.

10. The workman Laxman Prasad Shukla has also filed his duplicate mark sheet in Higher Secondary

Examination 1967. His Transfer Certificate dated 31-3-2003 both in original and copy of school register of High

School attested by the Principal.

11. I have heard arguments of Mr. R.K.Soni , learned counsel appearing for workman and Shri A.K.Shashi,

learned counsel for the management. I have also perused the record.

(1) Whether the two workman Laxman Prasad Shukla and Mahipal Kishore have successfully proved

their date of birth as 30-8-1947 and 16-1-1951?

(2) Whether the action of the Management in superannuating these two workman treating their date of

birth as 10-2-1944 and 20-1-1945 respectively, is against law?

(3) Relief if any to which these two workmen are entitled?

The case of the two workman and the Management on this issue has been detailed earlier. As regards the

workman Mahipal Kishore, he has corroborated his case with an affidavit as Examination in Chief. He has stated that

he has filed copy of his Transfer Certificate from the school where he completed his primary education as document

’A’. According to this document, it was prepared on 22-12-1985 i.e. much after the date of his joining with the

Management. According to this document, he cleared his primary education in the year 1963. His date of birth is

mentioned as 16-1-1951 in this document. Document ‘B’ is an application to the District Education Officer for copy

of his Class-Vth mark sheet. Document ’C’ and ‘D’ filed and referred to by this workman in his affidavit disclosed

that records regarding the relevant year information of which has been served is not available with the department.

He states in his cross-examination that at the time of his joining on 1-6-1970 he has deposited copy of his transfer

certificate with the Management. Document ’A’ is the duplicate copy of his transfer certificate. He admits that in his

representations regarding correction of his date of birth filed to management, he never mentioned this fact that he had

submitted his original mark sheet and transfer certificate at the time of his first joining.

14. His this statement, coupled with the fact that the Document ’A’ is photocopy of duplicate Transfer

Certificate, makes his statement on this point, suspicious. The management has stated that no such document was

produced by this workman before the Age Determination Committee. The Report of the Age Determination

Committee has been filed by the Management. This conduct of the workman Mahipal Kishore further militates

against his statement that he did file his Transfer Certificate and mark sheet in original before the Management at the

1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

time of his first joining and that the duplicate transfer certificate Document ’A’ which he has referred, which was

prepared in the year 1985 was in fact available with him. Hence now remains only statement of the workman

Mahipal Kishore on oath in support of his claim that his actual date of birth is 16-1-1951 which is supported by his

witness Jaibeer Sahu who is a Co-Villager and Co-workman. This witness also states that he has studied in the same

year with workman Mahipal Kishore but there seems no occasion for him to know about the date of birth of Mahipal

Kishore, hence evidence of the workman Jaibeer Sahu also cannot be relied. Accordingly, it is held that the workman

Mahipal Kishore could not prove his date of birth 16-1-1951 as claimed by him. He further could not prove that his

date of birth recorded in his service record as well as determined by the Age Determination Committee according to

I.I.No.76 is incorrect from the evidence produced by him on this point.

15. As regards the claim of the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla, apart from his statement on oath and cross-

examination as well as statement of co-worker Ram Sharan Sharma who also happens to be the Co-Villager of

workman Laxman Prasad Shukla, there is on record original mark sheet of the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla son of

Uma Duth Shukla for the year 1967 i.e. 1966-67 bearing Roll No.084094 issued from the Board of Secondary

Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal showing his date of birth as 13-8-1947. According to this mark sheet , he failed

in every subject in his High Secondary School certificate examination.

16. There is on record another document attested copy of the Scholar of the High School attended by this

workman Laxman Prasad Shukla, wherein his date of birth 13-8-1947 has been recorded. According to this Scholar

is transfer certificate issued by the Principal of this School stating that the workman failed in Class-XIth in the year

1968. According to this certificate, he attended the Government School Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya , Kotma

District Shahdol from 6-7-1959 to 17-9-1968. Whereas according to the Scholar register, he remained in the school

mentioned above from 6-7-1959 to 1967, these two documents militates against each other. Hence they are held not

completely reliable. Consequently the marksheet filed also cannot be held completely reliable.

17. In this light of the above discussion, it is held that the workman Laxman Prasad Shukla and Mahipal

Kishore could not successfully prove that there correct date of birth was 30-8-1947 and 16-1-1951 respectively.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

18. ISSUE NO.2:-

In the light of the findings recorded in Issue No.1, the Issue No.2 is decided against the workman.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

19. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the light of the finds recorded in Issue No.1, the workman is held entitled to no relief and accordingly

Issue No.3 is answered against the workman.

20. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the Chief General Manager, Kotma Area of SECl in superannuating Sh. Laxman

Prasad and Sh. Mahipal Kishore W.e.f. 10-2-2004 and 20-1-2005 respectively is hel to be legal and

justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

No order as to costs.

21. 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

DATE: 6-9-2022

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 895.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

eslZl flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 42/2020) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल -12011/39/2020-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1843

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.42/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/.s. Syndicate Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/39/2020 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 27th day of July 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)

ID No. 42/2020

Workman/Union : The Vice President

Syndicate Bank Staff Association(Regd)

49/746 ‘Krishna’, Karama Road

Elamakkara

Kochi - 682026

Managements

: 1. The Deputy General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Regional Office

1st Floor, Pioneer Tower

Shanmugham Road

Ernakulam - 682031

2. The General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Personal Department

Head Office, Manipal

Karnataka – 576104

By Adv.R. S. Kalkura

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court passed the following:

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.

L-12011/39/2020-IR(B-II) dated 25.11.2020 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

“ Whether the demand of Syndicate Bank Staff Association to regularize the service of Smt.Shiny Peter,

temporary Part Time Sweeper of Syndicate Bank is justified or not? If justified, to what relief the worker is entitled

to?”

3. After receipt of the order of reference from Govt of India, summons dt.28.12.2020 was issued to the parties

concerned. The matter was posted for appearance of the parties on 17.02.2021. The summons was acknowledged by

the parties concerned. Thereafter the matter was posted on 23.08.2021, 11.10.2021, 06.01.2022, 30.03.2022 and

27.07.2022. Though the summons was acknowledged by the parties, there was no representation from the side of

the Union and no claim statement is filed even after more than one year. The Management entered appearance on

27.07.2022.

4. It is felt that the Union is not interested in pursuing the industrial dispute.

5. Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the Union.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 896.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 59/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/65/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022

S.O. 896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/09/2022

[No. L-22012/65/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

The President

Coal India Pensioner Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No.1B-32,

Bishrampur District Surajpur(CG)-497226

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager

SECL Bishrampur Area

PO-Bisharampur Colliery District

Surajpur(CG)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 9-9-2022.)

As per letter dated 13/11/2018 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-

22012/65/2018-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part of General Manager, SECL Bishrampur area in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. leave encashment, settling allowance, annual bonus for the year 2009-10

and other dues if any as per the eligibility after retirement on unauthroised quarter retention

ground by deviating the company rule by Shri Surendra Tiwari, Ex-SR, PCSA of Bishrampur is

just and fair?If not, what relief the above names ex-employee Shri Surendra Tiwari is entitled

to? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The workman never appeared before the Tribunal inspite of service, hence the case was ordered to proceed

ex-parte against the workman vide order dated 5-10-2021. The Management has filed its written statement and

affidavit of its witnesses which is uncross-examined. The Management has also proved two documents Exhibit M-1

and Exhibit M-2.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1845

According to the management, the workman has retired now. His retiral benefits have not been paid due to

non-submission of no dues certificate. He was allotted residential quarter No.!B/47 while in service. He is not

entitled to occupy the alleged accommodation after his superannuation. He retired from service on 30-6-2010,

whereas the present dispute was raised in the year 2016 but eviction order has already been passed against the

workman regarding eviction of the said accommodation and the said accommodation has been allotted to another

workman. Accordingly, the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

The Reference is the point in issue in the case in hand.

Inspite of giving several opportunities, the workman has not filed the statement of claim in support of his

claim and nor was he present at the time of argument.

On perusal of record, in the light of the arguments of Mrs. A.K.Shashi, Learned counsel for the Management,

it comes out that due to non-submission of no dues certificate, the dues of the workman are still not paid .

The workman Surendra Tiwari had superannuated on 30-6-2010 and till date he has not vacated the

accommodation which is in violation of rules and thus his retiral benefits have been withheld due to non-submission

of his no dues certificate. Accordingly, for illegally occupying the accommodation, the reference is required to be

answered against the workman.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action on the part of General Manager, SECL Bishrampur area in withholding the terminal

benefits viz. leave encashment, settling allowance, annual bonus for the year 2009-10 and other

dues if any as per the eligibility after retirement on unauthroised quarter retention ground by

deviating the company rule by Shri Surendra Tiwari, Ex-SR, PCSA of Bishrampur is held to be

just and fair.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

C. No order as to costs.

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

DATE: 9-9-2022

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 897.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj नॉिडनड कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18/2016)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/120/2015-vkbZ- vkj-(सी एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Northern

Coalfield Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/09/2022.

[F. No. L-22012/120/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri M.P.Agnihotri,Central Secretary,

Koyla shramik Sabha (HMS) Singrauli,

1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Amlohri Project,Sigrauli(MP)

…Workman

Versus

The General manager,

Jayant Project,

Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli(MP)486890

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 31-8-22.)

As per letter dated 2/2/2016 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-

22012/120/2015-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Shri Amarnath Dubey employed in Jayant Project of Northen Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli(MP is entitled for placement as Electrician Category-6 with effect from 30-4-2002 and SLP

with effect from 1.1.201 irrespective of the vacancy or not?The demand made by Koyala Shramik

Sabha(HMS), Singrauli(MP_ that Shri Amarnath Dubey Electrician should be placed as Electrician

Category-6 w.e.f. 30-4-2002 and to get SLP as Assistant Foreman w.e.f. 2011 respectively is justified

or not?if not, what relief Shri Amarnath Dubey is entitled to? .”

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Inspite of service of

notice, the workman never appeared and did not file the statement of claim

2. The Management has filed the written statement of defence denying the claim of the workman.

3. The workman did not file any evidence oral or documentary. The Management also did not file any

evidence.

4. The workman did not appear at the time of arguments, hence the arguments of learned counsel for the

Management, Shri A.K.Shashi was heard. The workman did not file any written argument. I have gone through the

record as well.

5. The Reference is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.

6. The initial burden to prove his claim lies on the workman by not filing any statement of claim and any

oral/documentary evidence in support of his claim. The workman is held to have failed in proving his claim and the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

7. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A.The claim of the workman as mentioned in the reference is held not just and proper.

B.The workman is held entitled to no relief.

8. 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

DATE: 31-8-2022

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 898.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं- 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-23012/164/2018-vkbZ-vkj (lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.89/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-23012/164/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1847

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, presiding officer.

ID No.89/2018

Registered on:-11.12.2018

Sh. Sunder Singh S/o Santoo Singh , R/o Village Panolu,

P.O Bushan Tehsil Balh Distt. Mandi (HP)-175001

…Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

…Respondents/Managements

Award

Passed On:- 25.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/164/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 27.11.2018, under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Sunder

Singh S/o Sh. Santoo for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of

superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?

1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute

for adjudication also directed the following:-

“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and also

forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the

Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the directions of

the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman and, therefore, on

receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondents/managements for

appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been served

on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as undelivered.

3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of

several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of

the matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No Claim

Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.89/2018.

5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bafM;u vksojlht cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26/2015) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-01]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.26/2015of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2022 -IR(B-II)-01]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Friday the 13th day of May 2022, 23 Vaisakha 1944)

ID No.26/2015

Workman/Union : Smt.S. Radhamony

Elankattu House

Ayoor South

Cherukolpuzha

Pathanamthitta – 689611

By Adv.Ashok B. Shenoy

Management : The General Manager

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

P.B.No.3765, 763 Anna Salai

Chennai – 600002

By Adv.V. Philip Mathew

This case coming up for final hearing on 28.04.2022 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

13.05.2022 passed the following:

AWARD

Present claim is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The worker was initially employed as a temporary worker in the subordinate cadre of the Management Bank

at their Ayroor Cherukolpuzha Branch employed as Sweeper and Messenger. While so the Management

issued a Circular no.EST/71/2010-11 dt.23.03.2011 for absorption of temporary workman in their regular

service, pursuant to a settlement between the Management and the Union. The officials at Cherukolpuzha

Branch of the Management obtained the application and declaration forms signed from the worker and

forwarded the proposal of the worker for absorption in the regular service of the Management along with

workers original SSLC Book and other documents available with her. The worker was called for interview

vide letter dt.16.08.2011. She was selected and appointed as a messenger in the Pathanamthitta Branch of the

Management Bank. She was placed on probation for a period of 6 months. Later the worker’s services were

confirmed w.e.f. 20.02.2012 vide letter dt.30.03.2012. On 24.12.2014 the services of the worker was

abruptly terminated by the Management Bank by serving on her a termination order dt.19.12.2014. The

worker’s service was terminated without notice enclosing there with a draft for Rs.14,954.72 being one

month’s pay and allowance in lieu of notice pay. The allegation against the worker was that she had

willfully and with ulterior motive submitted a false certificate in support of her educational qualification to

obtain appointment in the Management Bank. It was also alleged that the teacher in charge of Marthoma

High School, Ayroor confirmed that the Transfer Certificate submitted by the worker is tampered and not

genuine. It was also claimed that the worker had submitted only a copy of the Secondary School Leaving

Certificate with the application. The worker approached the Regional Labour Commissioner seeking

intervention. The conciliation efforts failed as per proceedings dt.27.04.2015. The termination of the

worker is in violation of principles of natural justice, without issuing her a charge sheet and without

conducting an enquiry into the allegations thereof. The allegation of the Management in the termination

order is not correct and the worker has not tampered with the TC nor submitted any false certificate as

alleged. Infact her original certificate was produced before the Management along with the proposal for

absorption. The termination of the worker is in violation of Sec 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 in as much as she is not paid the mandatory compensation as stipulated U/s 25F and in as much as

the principles of last come first go is not complied with. The termination of her service was also in

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1849

violation of the provisions contained in the all India awards and Bipartite settlements governing the Banking

industry. According to the settlement a regular employee like worker could have been terminated only by

affording 3 months notice or pay in lieu of such notice. The termination of the worker resorted to by the

Management on account of the alleged misconduct in the termination order is also disproportionate

excessive and bad, causing grave prejudice to the worker and her family. Ever since her termination she is

without any job and facing financial difficulties.

The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The worker was absorbed as a

messenger under the Management by appointment order dt.16.08.2011 subject to the terms and conditions

mentioned in circular no.Per.Est/71/2010-11 dt.23.03.2011. The circular was issued based on a settlement

dt.17.02.2011 between the Management and the recognized trade union. The worker reported for duty on

20.08.2011 at Pathanamthitta Branch. The worker was absorbed considering her claim that she had worked

as temporary Messenger in one of the branches of the Management Bank from 01.05.1991 for more than 240

days in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 and continue to work as such. The worker submitted an

application dt.04.04.2011 and 20.08.2011. The worker claimed that the date of birth was 25.05.1966 and

produced a copy of SSLC book as proof of date of birth. Accepting the application and documents, the

Bank entered her date of birth as 25.05.1966 in the Bank records. Subsequent verification and investigation

found that her date of birth is 25.05.1964 as per the School records. In the copy of the SSLC certificate

produced by the worker, the date of birth is shown as 25.05.1966. On verification with Marthoma School,

Ayroor where the worker studied, it was found that her date of birth was 25.05.1964. Thus it was evident

that the worker produced a false certificate for getting appointment. As per Circular dt.23.03.2011, the

Management has a right to terminate the services of persons absorbed in the service, if it is found that the

documents produced by them for joining the Bank is false. The worker herself had given an undertaking

dt.04.04.2011 agreeing to terminate her service if it is found that the documents produced by her in support

of her age is false. In the application form dt.20.08.2011 the worker had given a declaration that she is

liable to be terminated from service without notice or compensation if it is found that the documents

produced by her are incorrect or false. It was mentioned in her appointment order dt.16.08.2011 that the

appointment would be terminated if certificate produced are found to be not genuine, false, forged or

tampered with by giving one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s pay and allowance in lieu of notice.

There is no necessity of giving any notice or conducting any enquiry since the worker produced bogus

education certificate to obtain appointment. An applicant who entered service through back door or by

producing false certificate is not entitled to continue in service. The Management cannot show any sympathy

towards the worker as it would lead to unhealthy precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Solvent

Extractions Ltd Vs Unnikrishnan, 1994 (1) KLT 651 (SC) dismissed the industrial dispute raised by

the workman challenging his termination on the above ground. A person getting employment by producing

false documents is not entitled to protection of Sec 25F and 25G of ID Act. The appointment itself was

void due to fraud and falsification of records. Sub Sec (bb) of Sec 2(oo) excludes termination as per a

stipulation in terms of contract from the purview of retrenchment. In this case the appointment order

contains a definite stipulation regarding termination of appointment. The claim of the worker that she had

produced the original SSLC book before the Management while considering her application is not correct.

The claim of the worker that application forms and declarations were got singed from the worker by the

officials of Pathanamthitta Branch and sent to Central office of the Bank along with available documents is

also not correct. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the Management is prepared to prove the

allegations justifying termination of the services of the worker before this Tribunal.

The worker filed a replication denying the statements in the written statement filed by the Management.

The proposal for absorption of the worker was duly obtained and forwarded by the officials of Ayroor

Cherukolpuzha Branch of the Management Bank where she was employed as temporary Sweeper/Messenger

from 01.05.1991 onwards. The said proposal after getting signed by the worker was submitted to the

Branch where she was working for onward submission to the Central Office of the Management Bank along

with the worker’s original SSLC Book. The application of the worker was accompanied by the original

SSLC Book which was forwarded under the hand and seal of Ayroor Cherukolpuzha Branch of the

Management Bank. The original SSLC Book is still under the custody of the Management.

After completion of the pleadings, the worker is examined as WW1 and Exbt.W1 to W11 were marked

through the witness. The Management confronted photocopies of two documents with the witness. The

marking of the documents were strongly objected to by the Counsel of the worker. Subject to objection and

proof, the documents were taken on record. The Management examined MW1 and marked Exbt.M1

through him. MW2 was examined as a summoned witness and Exbt.M1(a) is marked through him. When

the matter was finally taken up for hearing on the side of the Management on 16.02.2022, the Management

filed an IA no.38/2022 seeking to introduce copies of two documents in the proceedings. Marking of the

said documents was strongly objected to by the learned Counsel for the worker. It is felt that the marking

of documents and admitting additional documents at the time of hearing is not correct and therefore the IA

for introducing and admitting the additional documents was rejected.

1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The issues to be decided in this dispute are ;

1. Whether the termination of the worker without following the procedure contemplated U/s 25F of

the Act is correct ?

2. Relief and cost ?

Issue no.1

The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the termination of the worker without conducting a

disciplinary enquiry and without following the requirement of Sec 25 of ID Act is not legally valid. The

learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that the regularization of the worker in the service of the

Management Bank was subject to the condition that she should satisfy the eligibility conditions as per

Exbt.W1 Circular dt.23.03.2011 and for that, if any of the information furnished in the application is found

to be wrong, the worker is liable to be terminated from the service of the Bank without any notice. The

learned Counsel for the Management relied on Exbt.W2 application given by the worker wherein at clause

(d) of the undertaking it is stated that “ Subsequent to my absorption in Bank service, if found that the

declaration made by me regarding the period of engagement is found to be false or any of the documents

submitted by me in support of the age, qualification, cast etc., is found to be bogus, I will be liable to be

terminated from Bank’s service”. Further in Exbt.W4 while communicating her selection to the post of

Messenger in Para 2 of the communication, it is specifically stated that “ Your services are liable to be

terminated if your work and conduct are found unsatisfactory, any material information is suppressed by

you, the certificates submitted by you are found to be not genuine, false, forged or tampered with, by giving

one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice”. Further in Exbt.W3 application

submitted by the worker and the instructions contained in the application form, it is stated that

“ Applications which do not contain the full particulars called for are liable to be rejected. If any declaration,

statement or information given by the candidate is any time found to be false or untrue or if any material is

suppressed or omitted, he is liable to be disqualified and if appointed, his services are liable to be terminated

without any notice or compensation in lieu therof”. According to the learned Counsel for the Management

in view of the above factual position, there is absolutely no illegality in terminating the service of the worker

finding that she submitted a copy of the forged SSLC certificate to prove her date of birth. The learned

Counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand Vs

Sureshwati, AIR 2021 SC 923 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

“Para 14. This Court in a catena of decisions held that where an employer has failed to make an

enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify the action before the

Labour Court by leading evidence before it ”.

According to the Counsel, the Management is entitled to lead evidence before this Court to prove that the

worker had produced a forged document to substantiate the date of birth of the worker.

According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the undertaking in EXbt.W2 and also the application in

Exbt.W3 is not filled up by her and the same is done by the officials of the Management Bank and she was

only directed to sign the declaration and application. He pointed out that Exbt.W2 undertaking stand

testimony to the fact that while counter signing the declaration by the Branch Manager, it is stated that “

The contents of this undertaking letter has been translated to vernacular and read over and explained to

Mrs.Radhamani and he/she understood the same and accepted the contents as correct and affixed his/her

signature in my presence”. According to the learned Counsel for the Management, even assuming that the

application and undertaking are filled by the officials of the Bank, the date of birth is filled on the basis of

the copy of the SSLC certificate produced by the worker. According to him, it can be seen that in Exbt.W3

the date of birth is shown as 25.05.1966 on the basis of the copy of the SSLC Book. The learned Counsel

for the Management also pointed out that Exbt.M1 reference made by the Management Bank to the

Marthoma High School and Exbt.M1(a) reply given by the School and the oral evidence of MW2 would

clearly indicate that the date of birth furnished in the copy of the SSLC certificate is forged. The date of

birth as per the School records is 25.05.1964 whereas the date of birth furnished by the worker in Exbt.W3

application is 25.05.1966. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the worker cannot be held

responsible if there is any mistake in the Exbt.W3 application as the same was filled up by the officials of

the Bank and she has only put her signature in the form. The learned Counsel for the worker also pointed

out that the original SSLC Book was handed over to the officials of the Bank which is clear from Exbt.W2

undertaking given by the worker to the Management. It is stated that “ I am enclosing herewith the

following documents in original along with two attested copies of the same in support of my age,

educational qualification, cast etc.” and the enclosure at serial no.1 is shown as the SSLC Book. Taking into

account all the above facts, it is relevant to examine whether the change in date of birth of the worker has

any relevance to the eligibility for the appointment of the worker as a regular messenger. Exbt.W1

dt.23.03.2011 is the Circular issued by the Management for regularizing the service of temporary

Messengers/Sweepers subject to certain conditions. As per the above Circular, the educational qualification

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1851

is pass in 8th Std or equivalent but the candidate should not have passed 10, +2 examination or its

equivalent. Further the age limit is minimum 18 years and maximum of 26 years. As per the above

Circular and also the salient features of the terms of settlement at Clause III, the casual/temporary

Messenger/Sweeper fulfill the eligibility criteria viz., age fixed by the Bank for recruitment of Messenger/

Sweeper as on 1st day of engagement in the Bank and the qualification as per norms. Hence as per

Exbt.W1 notification, the worker shall be between the age limit of 18 and 26 as on the 1st date of

engagement in the Bank. As per Exbt.W2 undertaking given by the worker, her date of joining as part time

Sweeper in the Management Bank is 01.05.1991. The worker in her evidence as WW1 also stated that she

was working against the post of Sweeper and Messenger w.e.f. 01.05.1991. Hence the question is whether

the worker was eligible to be considered for the post of Messenger as per the Exbt.W1 Circular. The worker

as WW1 was very categorical during her cross examination that her date of birth is 25.05.1964. She further

stated that the date of birth shown in the SSLC Book as 25.05.1966 is not correct. Further MW1 also

through school records established the fact that the date of birth of the worker is 25.05.1964. If the date of

birth of the worker is 25.05.1964, she crossed the age of 26 years as on 01.05.1991 when she joined the

service of the Bank as a temporary Sweeper/Messenger on 01.05.1991. Hence the crucial question in this

case is that the worker was not eligible as per Exbt.W1 notification to be appointed as a permanent

Messenger in the Management Bank. This sufficiently explains the forging of date of birth in the application

as well as in the copy of SSLC certificate produced by the worker along with the application. Even if we

accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the worker that the date of birth is not corrected by the

worker if she is not eligible to be considered for the appointment, any further exercise by conducting a

disciplinary enquiry will not improve the case of the worker.

The learned Counsel for the worker argued that the Management ought to have followed the procedure

prescribed U/s 25 of the ID Act while terminating the service of the worker. The learned Counsel for the

Management relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Vs DDA,

W.P.(C) no. 2066/2011 to argue that in such cases the procedure contemplated U/s 25 of the ID Act is not

attracted. The Hon'ble High Court held that

“Para 22. In the instant case, also the allegations against the workman were of securing

employment on the basis of forged document which could not be disproved by the workman

rather, as stated above, in the entire statement of claim there was not even a whisper that the

allegations of the management regarding securing employment on the basis of forged document

was wrong. It is evident that the workman cheated the management and obtained the job

fraudulently thereby failing to maintain integrity. Since the workman secured employment on the

basis of forged document, the appointment was void abinitio. That being so, there was no

requirement of compliance of provisions of Sec 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. A person who

seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner”.

In this case as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Management, from the notification to the

undertaking and the appointment made to the worker, it was made clear that if at a later stage it was found

that the information furnished regarding the eligibility such as age, educational qualification and the

experience with the Management Bank is found to be wrong, her services would be terminated without any

further notice. As already pointed out, the worker was not eligible to be considered for the post of

Messenger if her correct date of birth is taken into account and therefore the worker cannot claim that there is

any violation of the provisions of natural justice or that of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

10.

Issue no.2

In view of the findings regarding the ineligibility of the worker to be appointed as Messenger and in view

of the fact that she claimed the eligibility only on the basis of the wrong date of birth furnished in the

application and forged SSLC certificate, she is not entitled for any relief claimed in this industrial dispute.

11.

Hence an award is passed holding that the worker is not entitled to be reinstated in the service of the

Management with full back wages continuity of service and attended benefits.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 13th day of May, 2022.

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Smt.S. Radhamani, dt.06.12.2019

Witness for the Management:-

MW1

Sri.Dileesh Kumar E. K., dt.05.10.2021

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MW2

Sri.Ninan Koshy, dt.05.10.2021

Exhibits for the Workman:-

W1 -

True copy of Circular no.EST/71/2010-11 dt.23.03.2011

W2 -

True copy of letter of undertaking submitted by the worker

in Annexure A in terms of clause 3(b) of the settlement

dt.17.02.2011 for abstorption as temporary messenger/

fulltime /part time sweepers, on 04.04.2011

W3 -

True copy Application form dt.20.05.2011 submitted by the

worker in prescribed format along with instructions,

attestation form and service sheet

W4 -

True copy of appointment order dt.16.08.2021 issued by

Regional Manager to the worker

W5 -

True copy of inter office communication dt.16.08.2011

addressed by Personal Administration Department of

Management bank, Ernakulam to Pathanamthitta branch

W6 -

True copy of letter dt.30.03.2012 issued to worker by the

Management bank confirming her services as Messenger

W7 -

True copy of termination order dt.19.12.2014 issued by

the Management to the worker on 24.12.2014.

W8 -

True copy of industrial dispute filed by the worker before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum

on 09.01.2015

True copy of reply statement filed by the Management bank

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Trivandrum on 27.01.2015

W10

True copy of rejoinder filed by worker before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum on 23.03.2015

W11

True copy of the conciliation report dt.27.04.2015 issued by

the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum

Exhibits for the Management:-

True copy of letter dt.27.09.2012 from Chief Manager,

Management Bank to their Central office, Chennai

M1 (a)

True copy of letter dt.22.09.2012 issued from the Teacher In

Charge/Headmaster, Marthoma High School, Kottathoor

P.O., Ayroor

V. VIJAYA KUMAR Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 900.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eslZl

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 44/2020) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la

,y-12011/41/2020-vkbZ vkj(ch-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1853

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ernakulam shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/.s. Syndicate Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/41/2020 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 27th day of July 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)

ID No. 44/2020

Workman/Union : The Vice President

Syndicate Bank Staff Association(Regd)

49/746 ‘Krishna’, Karama Road

Elamakkara

Kochi - 682026

Managements

: 1. The Deputy General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Regional Office

1st Floor, Pioneer Tower

Shanmugham Road

Ernakulam - 682031

2. The General Manager

M/s.Syndicate Bank

Personal Department

Head Office, Manipal

Karnataka – 576104

By Adv.R. S. Kalkura

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court passed the following:

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-

12011/41/2020-IR(B-II) dated 25.11.2020 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

“ Whether the demand of Syndicate Bank Staff Association to regularize the service of Smt.Amminikutty,

temporary employee of Syndicate Bank is justified or not? If justified, to what relief the worker is entitled to ?”

3. After receipt of the order of reference from Govt of India, summons dt.28.12.2020 was issued to the parties

concerned. The matter was posted for appearance of the parties on 17.02.2021. The summons was acknowledged by

the parties concerned. Thereafter the matter was posted on 23.08.2021, 11.10.2021, 06.01.2022, 30.03.2022 and

27.07.2022. Though the summons was acknowledged by the parties, there was no representation from the side of

the Union and no claim statement is filed even after more than one year. The Management entered appearance on

27.07.2022.

4. It is felt that the Union is not interested in pursuing the industrial dispute.

5. Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the Union.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 901.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 46/2015) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2022-vkbZ vkj(ch-II)-02]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2022 -IR(B-II)-02]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 20th day of April 2022, 30 Caitra 1944)

ID No. 46/2015

Workman

: Sri.P. Chandra Babu

TC No.37/3411, VPXI/251

Valiyaduppa Veettil

Kudamon Bhagam

Vattiyoorkavu P.O.

Trivandrum –

By Adv.M. R. Sarin Panick

Managements

: 1. The Deputy General Manager

Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Statue

Trivandrum – 695001

2. The Assistant General Manager

Union Bank of India

Disciplinary Authority Nodel –

Regional Office

M. G. Road

Ernakulam – 682035

3. The Enquiry Officer

Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Statue

Trivandrum – 695001

4. The Manager

Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Statue

Trivandrum – 695001

By Adv.M. S. Sajeev Kumar

This case coming up for final hearing on 16.11.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

20.04.2022 passed the following:

AWARD

Present claim is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

According to the claim application, the workman joined the service of the Management as a Sweeper w.e.f.

05.11.1989 at Kazhakuttam Branch. Later he was transferred to Thankamani Branch in Idukki District in 1990. In

1995, he was promoted as Peon and posted to Kuttichal Branch. Later he was transferred to Kulathoor Branch and

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1855

thereafter to the main Branch at Trivandrum. Again he was transferred to Attingal Branch as Peon. Since he was

sick, he requested for leave from 12.11.2011 to 31.3.2012. On 31.05.2013 he went to Regional Office, Trivandrum

along with a medical certificate to resume duties. But the workman was informed that a departmental enquiry was

conducted against him and as per the report of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was dismissed from service on

charges of gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The workman filed an application

before the Enquiry Officer to re-open the enquiry. The enquiry if any, was conducted in violation of principles of

natural justice. Since the Management failed to act, he filed a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) on 25.02.2015.

The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The workman joined the

Management Bank on 30.11.1989 as part time Sweeper on stipend basis. He was promoted as Peon w.e.f. 15.01.2007

and was transferred to Attingal Branch on 29.10.2007. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the workman had

requested for leave from 12.11.2011 to 03.11.2012. The workman remained unauthorizedly absent since 05.10.2010.

As per Memorandum dt.24.11.2011, the workman was transferred to Regional Office, Trivandrum to report on or

before 28.11.2011 but the workman remained absent without reporting for duty. It is true that the workman produced

a medical certificate on 31.05.2013. By that time, due to continuous unauthorized absence the Management was

compelled to initiate disciplinary action. A departmental enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the

Enquiry Officer, the service of the workman was terminated on charges of gross misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in Viveka Nand Sethi Vs Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd and others, 2005 5 SCC 337 held that

merely sending leave application on medical grounds will not entitle a person that he has valid ground to stay away

from duty and that in such a case Bank is fully entitled to take a decision in this regard. The Hon’ble Court went to

the extent of observing that in such cases there is no further requirement of conducting a detailed enquiry and giving

notice to join is sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is absolutely incorrect to say that there

was violation in principles of natural justice. The Management issued communications with regard to the enquiry and

consequential disciplinary proceedings to his last known address. The workman did not respond to any of the

communications.

The workman filed a rejoinder denying the claim of the Management in the written statement.

On 31.12.2020 the Counsel for the workman submitted that the workman is no more and legal heirs are

required to be impleaded. The matter was adjourned to 27.01.2021 for taking steps. On 27.01. 2021 no steps were

taken for impleading the legal heirs of the workman. On 30.06.2021 the Counsel for the workman filed an

impleading petition to implead the legal heirs of the deceased workman. However the learned Counsel for the

workman was directed to file the impleading petition along with the documents such as Death Certificate of the

workman and Relationship Certificate of the proposed additional workmen with the deceased workman. The learned

Counsel for the Management submitted that all the terminal benefits due to the deceased workman were released to

the legal heirs, except Pension for which he is not entitled to. The Management also produced documentary evidence

to that effect. Thereafter there was no representation from the side of the workman nor they pursued the impleading

petition.

6. It is seen that the workman was dismissed from service after conducting a departmental enquiry. He did not

participate in the enquiry and remained absent. The basic charge against the workman was that he was continuously

absent from his duties without even applying for any leave. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence produced by

the workman as well as the Management, I don’t find any infirmity in the action taken by the Management. Further

it is also confirmed by the Management that all the terminal benefits other than Pension had already been released to

the legal heirs of the workman.

7. Considering the facts, circumstances and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that there is no merit

in the claim of the workman.

8. Hence an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled for reinstatement as claimed in this

industrial dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 902.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13/2021) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12011/46/2020-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2021) of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

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

workmen.

[No. L-12011/46/2020 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: Soma Shekhar Jena HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 13 of 2021

L-12011/46/2020-IR(B-II) dated 04.01.2021

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Union Bank staff Association, U.P. C/o

Union Bank of India, Main Branch,

87, Civil Lines,

Bareilly (U.P)-243001

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office, 117/H-1/240,

Pandu Nagar,

Kanpur( U.P)-208005

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the Government

of India in letter no. L-12011/46/2020-IR(B-II) dated 04.01.2021

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Kanpur in conducting ERM

meeting with Union Bank Employees Union on 14.06.2019 i.e., minority union and whether the

demand of Union Bank Staff Association, U.P. to treat the minutes of meeting dated 14.06.2019

held with the Union Bank Employees Union as routine meeting, is just, fair and legal? If not, to

what relief Union Bank Staff Association, U.P. is entitled and from which date”?

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 28th June 2021 fixing 02.09.2021 for

filing of claim statement. But none appeared on behalf of interested parties on the fixed date. On 14.12.2021

Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the management and filed an authority letter. After that several dates

were fixed for filing the claim statement but none appeared on behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal. Despite

giving ample opportunities to the claimant union for submitting statement of claim ; claimant union failed to present

the case before the Tribunal. On 14.07.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of the worker’s

union.

From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union is not interested in prosecuting the

case further before the Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 21.07.2022 SOMA SHEKHARJENA Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1857

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 903.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;qukbVsM cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 99/2018) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/24/2018-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.99/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

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

workmen.

[No. L-12012/24/2018 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: Soma Shekhar Jena HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 99 of 2018

L-12012/24/2018-IR(B-II) dated 02.11.2018

BETWEEN

Member, Working Committee,

UP Bank Workers Organisation,

3/13 Mathura Nagar, ALIGARH(U.P)-

AND

The General Manager,

United Bank of India, Head Office,

Personal Adm(Award Staff.11,

Hemanta Basu Sarani,

Kolkata-700001

The Chief Regional Manager,

United Bank of India,

80/1, Commercial Complex,

Mangal Pandey Nagar,

Meerut(U.P)-

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India in letter no. L-12012/24/2018-IR(B-II) dated 02.11.2018

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the action of the Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Meerut not considering

the transfer request of Smt. Ankita Arora From Meerut Region to Ahmedabad Region on

spouse ground is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief of the workman concerned is entitled

to” ?

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 18th December 2018 fixing 25.01.2019

for filing of claim statement. But none appeared on behalf of interested parties on the fixed date. On 12.04.2019

Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the management and filed an authority letter. After that several dates

were fixed for filing the claim statement but none appeared on behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal. Despite

giving ample opportunities to the claimant workman for submitting his averments; claimant failed to present his case

before the Tribunal . On 30.06.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of the worker’s union.

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant is not interested in prosecuting the case

further before the Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 12.07.2022 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 904.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;qukbVsM cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 111/2018) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/26/2018-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.111/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

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

workmen.

[No. L-12012/26/2018 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: Soma Shekhar Jena HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 111/2018

Ref. No. L-12012/26/2018-IR(B-II) Dated: 27.11.2018

BETWEEN

Member, Working Committee,

UP Bank Workers Organisation, 3/13,

Mathura Nagar, Aligarh (U.P.)

AND

1. The Executive Director,

United Bank of India,

Head Office, II, Hemanta Basu Sarni,

Kolkata- 700001.

2. The Chief Manager,

United Bank of India,

II, Hemanta Basu Sarani,

Kolkata- 700001.

3. The Regional Manager,

United Bank of India,

80/1, Commercial Complex,

Mangal Pandey Nagar,

Meerut (U.P.) -250004.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1859

AWARD

1. By order No. L -12012/26/2018-IR(B-11) dated: 27/11/2018 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section ( 2A ) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this Industrial dispute to this CGIT - cum- Labour Court,

Lucknow for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the transfer of Shri Manoj Kumar Jain (SWO B) United Bank of India , Kolkata from

Aligarh to Katihar ( Bihar ) and whether penalty imposed upon the workman during pendency of

conciliation proceedings is just legal and fair ? If not, what relief is to provided to the concerned

workman?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Member , Working Committee UP Bank Workers Organisation, 3/13,

Mathura Nagar, ALIGARH ( UP ) with the direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim

along with relevant Documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the

order of reference and also to forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this

dispute under rule 10 ( B ) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ), Rules, 1957 .

4. The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 21/12/2018 and the office was directed to issue registered

notice to the workman's union for filing the statement of claim with the list of reliance & list of witnesses on

08/02/2019. On the date fixed i.e. 08/02/2019 none turned up on behalf Union. The management filed its authority;

accordingly, next date 21/5/2019 was fixed for filling of statement of claim. The Union remained absent on 21/5/2019

as well as on subsequent date i.e. 16/07/2019. The Union neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor

moved any application on 20/8/2019, 21/11/2019, 24/01/2020. More than three years’ time has passed and the

workman’s Union has not filed its statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the

reluctance of the workman’s Union to prosecute the case.

5. It is presumable that the Claimant side is not interested to pursue the Industrial Dispute referred to this Tribunal and

the remedy. Hence, resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned.

The reference stands disposed of with nil Award.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

Left a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 905.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj बी

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.53/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 53/2020

Registered on:-24.08.2020

Smt. Mukto Devi Wd/o Late Prabhu Ram &

Others legal Heirs Village-Bala P.O Dahed,

Pargana Gherwin, Tehsil-Jhandutta Distt. Bilaspur –H.P.

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038

…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:- 25.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.8(5)2020/B-IV/CHD, dated 14/08/2020, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Mukto

Wd/o Late Prabhu Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of

superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?

The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute

for adjudication also directed the following:-

“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list

of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and

also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule

10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the directions

of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman and,

therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the

respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred

above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as

undelivered.

3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of

several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No Claim

Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.53/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer,

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 906.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1861

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.48 /2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 48/2020

Registered on:-24.08.2020

Smt. Geeta Devi Wd/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal &

Others legal heirs village Sajoori,

Post Ofice-Sajaopiplu, tehsil-Dharampur,

Distt. Mandi H.P

…. Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038

….Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:- 25.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID8(3)/2020-B-IV,CHD dated 14/08/2020, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Smt. Geeta Devi

Wd/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of

superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to

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

The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute

for adjudication also directed the following:-

“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and also forward a copy

of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial

dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the directions of the

Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman and, therefore, on

receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondents/managements for

appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been served

on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as undelivered.

3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of several

opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No Claim

Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.48/2020.

5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 28 flrEcj] 2022

का.आ. 907.— 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/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua -2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 110/2011) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/33/2011-vkbZ-vkj(ch-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.110/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-II,

Delhi shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the managementof Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/33/2011–IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

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. 110/2011

Date of Passing Award- 1.09.2022

Between:

Shri Milind Goel,

S/o Shri Mam Chand Goel,

House No. 105, Mohalla- Chaklan,

Kankhal, Haridwar.

…. Workman

Versus

General Manager (HRD),

Punjab National Bank,

7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

Chief Manager/ Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Circle Office,

BHEL, Ranipur, Sector-4

Haridwar.

Sr. Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Peeth Bazar, Jwalapur,

Haridwar.

…. Managements

Appearances:-

None for the claimant (A/R) : For the claimant

Shri Rajat Arora (A/R) : For the Management

AWARD

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

between employer i.e. the management of Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, Syndicate Bank, 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-12012/33/2011 (IR(B-II) dated 11/11/2011 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect.

“Whether Shri Milind Goel S/o Late Shri Mam Chand Goel, Ex-CTO is workman under ID Act, 1947. If so,

whether his termination of service by the Punjab National Bank vide order dated 31.12.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief he is entitled to?”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1863

This order deals with the grievance of the claimant with regard to the punishment imposed on him in the

domestic inquiry which he describes as unreasonably disproportionate to the charge leveled against him.

In order to deal with the dispute and the grievance of the claimant it is necessary to set out the relevant facts

as per the claim statement in detail.

The claimant was working as CTO in PNB Branch at Peeth Bazar Jawalpur Haridwar. By an order dated

23.02.2008 he was placed under suspension by the Senior Manager on account of an alleged act of misconduct. He

was found involved in serious misconduct by issuing an ATM Card in respect of an inoperative saving bank account

of one Suraj Prakash Seth. For that purpose he used the user Id and password of the clerk cum cashier of the Bank

having name Rakesh Kumar. He also managed to verify the same using the userID and password of the then manager

of the Branch of Peeth Bazar Jawalpur having name Shri Pal Bhardwaj. But the ATM card so issued was never

handed over to the account holder but retained by the claimant. He then started debiting money from the ODFD

account of the bank and crediting the same to the account of Suraj Prakash Seth on different dates. Thereafter he

started withdrawing the said amount from the account of Suraj Prakash Seth using the ATM Card issued by him.

When this act of misconduct was detected he was placed under suspension and as per the terms of bipartite settlement

and the conditions laid down in Shashtri Award charge was framed, served on him calling him to showcause. Instead

of giving reply the claimant disputed the authority of the person framing the charge. After that the inquiry officer was

appointed and again the claimant was informed to participate in the inquiry. As in the earlier occasion the claimant did

not participate in the inquiry and challenged the legality of the appointment of the inquiry officer and presenting

officer. For the non cooperation and non participation of the claimant during the inquiry, the same was held exparte

and the inquiry officer submitted his report notwithstanding the non participation of the claimant as the chargesheeted

employee. The disciplinary authority, on receipt of the inquiry report served showcause notice alongwith the inquiry

report on the claimant. In reply the claimant submitted his representation requesting to setaside the disciplinary

proceeding. But the explanations submitted was not found satisfactory and the disciplinary authority imposed the

punishment on the claimant for discharge from service with superannuation benefit. The claimant instead of making

any departmental appeal made correspondence with the disciplinary authority to know as to who is the appellate

authority. No appeal being filed the order of the disciplinary authority attained finality. The claimant thereafter raised

an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer taking a stand that the domestic inquiry against him was never

conducted following the Principles of Natural Justice. The attempt for conciliation since failed the appropriate

government referred the matter for adjudication on the legality and justification of the punishment imposed on the

claimant.

After completion of pleading and considering the stand taken by the management issues were framed and the

issue relating to the fairness of the inquiry was directed to be decided as a preliminary issue as the Tribunal, before

deciding the justification and correctness of the punishment awarded is required to decide if the inquiry, a quasi

judicial proceeding was conducted fairly observing the Principles of Natural Justice.

This tribunal by order dated 21.02.2022 have already decided the said issue against the claimant holding that

the procedure adopted during the inquiry was correct and the claimant was allowed due opportunity to defend himself.

But he did not avail the same. It has also been held that the procedure prescribed pursuant to the bipartite settlement

where properly followed during the inquiry. Thus the parties were called upon to advance argument on the

proportionality of the punishment imposed. After 21.02.2022 the claimant stopped participating in the proceeding and

the Ld. A/R for the management advanced his argument on the date fixed with regard to the proportionality of the

punishment.

The Ld. A/R for the management supported the order imposing the punishment as proper and submitted that

the kind of misconduct committed by the claimant false within the category of severe misconduct. The same had

tarnished the image of the Bank which thrives on the interpersonal relationship with the customers and in the long run

influenced the business of the Bank. But the disciplinary authority being sympathetic towards the claimant had passed

the order of dismissal alongwith the pensionary benefits. He thereby argued the punishment imposed was never harsh.

This tribunal in view of the arguments advanced has to give a finding on the proportionality of the

punishment imposed on the claimant. In the case of Muriadih Colliery VS Bihar Coalliery Kamgar Union (2005) 3

SCC331,The Hon’ble SC have held:-

“it is well-established principle in law that in a given circumstance, it is open for the Industrial Tribunal

acting u/s 11-A of the I D Act 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and

valid reasons. If the tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment awarded in domestic inquiry, it should bear in

mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the punishment.”

It is a decided principle of law that the power of the tribunal u/s 11A is not arbitrary or unguided. This power

is not without limitation as well. The Tribunal can interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority

when for reasons to be recorded it gives a finding that the punishment is disproportionate to the proved guilt or charge.

In the case of LIC of India vs. R. Dhandapani, (2006)13SCC 613, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly held that

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the power u/s 11A is to be exercise only when the punishment is found to be suckingly disproportionate to the degree

of guilt of the workman. To support its conclusion the industrial tribunal has to give reasons in support of its decision.

Whether a misconduct is severe or otherwise, depends on the facts of each particular case. In a case where

the charge is about misappropriation of a customer’s money or breach of Trust, no doubt the same is serious in nature

and distinguishable from the charge of demeanor or in – subordination. Moreover the finding in this inquiry is based

upon the oral and documentary evidence collected during the inquiry. It is a matter of record that the claimant, on

detection of the wrong done by him, was placed under suspension as his further continuance in the post held by him

was found detrimental to public interest. He was called upon to submit an explanation to the charge. The claimant

opted not to give any explanation but challenged the authority who framed the charge and the authority for

appointment of enquiry officer and presenting officer. It is a fact noticeable that the claimant never participated in the

inquiry and when the disciplinary authority served a showcause notice on him he again challenged the authority of the

disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority when accepted the inquiry report and passed the order imposing

punishment, the claimant, as seen from the record never seriously challenged the said order. Instead he made

correspondence to know as to who is the appellate authority. For no appeal being filed the order of the disciplinary

authority attained finality.

In the case of Regional Manager U.P.SRTC, Etawah & Others VS Hotilal and another, 2003(3) SCC

605, referred in the later case of U.P.SRTC VS Nanhelal Kushwaha (2009) 8 SCC, 772, the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that “The court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reason as to why it

is felt that the punishment inflicted was not commensurate with the proved charge. A mere statement that the

punishment is not proportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved ,but the mental set up, the type

of the duty performed and similar relevant circumstances, which go into the decision making process are to be

considered while deciding the proportionality of the punishment awarded. If the charged employee holds a position of

trust where Honesty and Integrity are in built requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the

matter leniently.”

As stated in the preceeding paragraph the allegation against the claimant was of misconduct leading to loss of

faith and Trust of the customer which in turn, led to loss of confidence of the employer on the employee.

The learned AR for the management while placing reliance in the case of M/S Firestone Tyre and Rubber

Co of India vs. The Management And Others argued that the discretion vested in the Tribunal u/s 11-A should be

judiciously exercised. The crux of his argument is that the punishment imposed on the claimant is appropriate to the

charge and the Tribunal should not interfere.

On hearing the argument advanced by the Ld. A/R for the management it is felt proper to observe here that in

the case of Firestone referred supra, the Hon’ble SC have held that after incorporation of the provision of sec 11A in

the ID Act, the Tribunal in order to record a finding on the fairness of the domestic inquiry or the proportionality of

the punishment, cannot be confined to the materials which were available at the domestic inquiry. On the other hand

‘material on record’ in the proviso to sec 11A of the ID Act must be held to refer the materials before the Tribunal.

Which are (1) the evidence taken in by the parties during the domestic inquiry (2) the evidence taken before the

Tribunal. But in this case no evidence has been adduced by the claimant before this Tribunal to presume that the

punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge. The evidence was adduced to prove the irregularities in conduct

of the domestic inquiry, which was not found worthy of acceptance. Thus on considering the evidence recorded during

the domestic inquiry and adduced before this Tribunal, the one and only conclusion is that the punishment imposed on

the claimant for misappropriation of customer’s money amounting to misconduct is proportionate to the charge and

same has been imposed for loss of confidence on the employee by the employer. Hence it is not felt proper to interfere

and modify the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, in exercise of the power conferred u/s 11A of the

ID Act. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered against the claimant. The finding of the disciplinary Authority in

imposing the punishment is held proportionate to the finding of misconduct. The claimant is held not entitled to any

relief. 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.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1865

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 908.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63/2020) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.63/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No.63/2020

Registered on:-27.10.2020

Sh. Rattan Singh S/o Sh. Baru Ram,

R/o Village- Bard, P.O-Suhana Tehsil-Ghumariwin Distt.

Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,

BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. …Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:- 25.05.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.8(11) 2019/B-IV/CHD, dated 26/10/2020, under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Rattan singh

S/o Sh. Baru Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation and

resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to and from which date?

1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute for

adjudication also directed the following:-

“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and also forward a copy

of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial

dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.

2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the directions of

the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman and, therefore, on

receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondents/managements for

appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is deemed to have been served

on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as undelivered.

Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of

several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of

the matter on merit.

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No Claim

Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.64/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 909.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.32/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No.32/2020

Registered on:-02.07.2020

Sh. Mohammad Kalam S/o Sh. Mohammad Kayamudin,

76-Dwarkagarh, Ram Bazar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

….Workman

Versus

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, A-2A, A-2B, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The General Manager(Region), Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Lane No.1, Sector-2, New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. …Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-15.07.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID-8(20)2020/B-IV/CHD dated 01.07.2020, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Mohammad Kalam S/o Sh. Mohammad Kayamudin w.e.f. 10.10.2018 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondent/management.

The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman. Workman is given sufficient

opportunities to file claim statement but did not turn up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement,

which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

Learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman has not even filed written statement of

claim till now and neither appearing in the hearing since the beginning of the proceeding. Therefore the proceeding

may be closed as there is no claim on the part of the workman.

On perusal of the record it is found that the submissions and statement of the learned Advocate of the

management side are true.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1867

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondent/management, this Tribunal is left with no option, except to pass ‘No Claim Award’.

Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.32/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 910.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No.29/2020

Registered on:-02.07.2020

Sh. Ram Nath Saha S/o Sh. Ganesh Raha,

76-Dwarkagarh, Ram Bazar,

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, A-2A, A-2B, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The General Manager(Region), Food Corporation of India,

Regional Office, Lane No.1, Sector-2, New Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh …Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-15.07.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID8(22)2020/B-IV-CHD dated 01.07.2020, under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services Sh.

Ram Nath Saha S/o Sh. Ganeshi Saha w.e.f. 10.10.2018 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondent/management.

The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman. Workman is given sufficient

opportunities to file claim statement but did not turn up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement,

which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman has not even filed written statement of

claim till now and neither appearing in the hearing since the beginning of the proceeding. Therefore the proceeding

may be closed as there is no claim on the part of the workman.

On perusal of the record it is found that the submissions and statement of the learned Advocate of the

management side are true.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondent/management, this Tribunal is left with no option, except to pass ‘No Claim Award’.

Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.29/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 911.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2022-vkbZ-vkj(lh.एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.28/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

ID No.28/2020

Registered on:-02.07.2020

Sh. Mohammad Yusuf Bath S/o Sh. Gulam Hassan Bath, 7

6-Dwarkagarh, Ram Bazar, Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh

…. Workman

Versus

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, A-2A, A-2B, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

The General Manager(Region), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lane No.1, Sector-2, New

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. …Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-15.07.2022

Central Government vide Notification No.ID-8(13)2020/B-IV/CHD dated 01.07.2020, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of

Sh. Mohammad Yusuf Bath S/o Sh. Gulam Hassan Bath w.e.f. 10.10.2018 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? ’’

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1869

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the respondent/management.

The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman. Workman is given sufficient

opportunities to file claim statement but did not turn up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement,

which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

Learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman has not even filed claim statement and not

appearing for hearings since long despite several opportunities provided by the Tribunal whereas the management

side is representing continuously. Therefore, the proceeding may be closed as there is no claim on the part of the

workman.

On perusal of the record it is found that the submissions and statement of the learned Advocate of the

management side are true.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his cause

against the respondent/management, this Tribunal is left with no option, except to pass ‘No Claim Award’.

Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.28/2020.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 912.—vkS|ksfxdn fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

डब्लल् ु.सी.एल.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–सि–Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 15/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/184/2013-vkbZ-vkj(सी एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/09/2022.

[No. L-22012/184/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)

The Joint Secretary,

National Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)

Deegawani, Tehsil Parasia,

Chhindwarha

…Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

Western Coal Fields Limited,

Pench Area, P.O.Parasia,

District Chhindwara

…Management

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed 2-9-2022)

As per letter dated 10/2/2014 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-

22012/184/2013-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

‘‘Kya shri Bhugal singh Yadav, S/o shri Mewalal, purv telephone fitter helper, Thesgaora Khan ko

mukhya Mahaprabhandak , W.C.L.Pench area Parasia, Chhindwara dwara janch karyavahi kar

naukari se barkhast kiya jana nyayuchhit hai?Yadi nahi to kamgar kya anurosh paane ka adhikari

hai? .”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have filed

their statement of claim/defence.

According to the workman he was first appointed as Telephone helper in Category II by the management in 1994.

He was issued a charge sheet on 2-2-2002 with the following charges No:-

1-Habitual negligence in discharging duties.

2-Habitual absence without reason during different periods mentioned in the Charge sheet.

3. He filed written reply regarding his absence wherein he stated that in July and August he was in jail in connection

with a criminal case against him as he was arrested by police on 30-6-2001. He was released on bail on 3-8-2001.

Thereafter he approached the Management and requested the Management to permit him to join his job which was

refused by Management. On 14-9-2001 he again requested the management to let him join his job. His request was

granted and he joined his job on 19-9-2001. In October-2001 his wife Smt. Kusum was admitted in camp hospital

from 29-9-2001 to 22-1-2002. He applied for leave which was not sanctioned. In November-2001 he fell sick and

was admitted in camp Hospital in Ravpada Khas and thereafter in camp hospital in Badkuhi and informed the

Management but Management did not consider it and took it as absence without information. In December-2001 he

joined his duties but due to illness he could not attend his job from 1-12-2001 to 22-1-2002 for which leave was

sanctioned by Management. From January-2002 to April-2002 he was admitted in District Hospital Chhindwarha for

which he filed the supporting documents. The Management conducted an inquiry against the settled principles of law

and wrongly held that his absence was habitual and unauthorized. And passed the impugned sentence of termination

of his services which is bad in law and excessive. Accordingly the workman prayed for setting aside of his

termination order and holding him entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

The management contested the claim with a case that the workman was charged with habitual and

unauthorized absence for different period mentioned in the charge sheet and habitual negligence in discharging duties

for which a departmental inquiry was conducted as per rules and procedures. He was held guilty for the misconduct.

The charges provided maximum punishment of dismissal from service and he was terminated from service as the

charges were held proved. According to the Management, the punishment is proportionate to the charges and the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

On the basis of the pleadings, following preliminary issues was framed :-

“Whether the Inquiry conducted against the workman is just, proper and legal?”

Parties were required to lead evidence on this preliminary issue. The workman filed two documents, copy of

charge sheet and copy of show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority both admitted by Management and

marked as Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit W-2 respectively. Copy of inquiry proceedings was filed by management,

admitted by workman and marked as Exhibit M1 and M2 and M3 respectively. None of the parties lead any oral

evidence.

The Preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 13-6-2022, holding the departmental inquiry legal and

proper. Following additional issues were framed by the same order:-

2.”Whether the charges are proved from the inquiry papers?”

3.Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge?

4.Relief to which the workman is entitled to?”

The order dated 13-6-2022 holding the departmental inquiry legal and proper while deciding the preliminary

issue No.1 is part of this Award.

None of the parties have lead any evidence on additional issues, hence the arguments from both the sides

were heard and record has been perused by me.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1871

10.

ISSUE NO.2:-

Learned counsel for workman has submitted that to constitute a mis-conduct, the absence must be

unauthorized and willful. He submits that every unauthorised absence is not always willful. The learned counsel has

relied on case of Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. Union of India & Another, Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012,where in it

has been observed that when a government employee who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty, cannot be

proceed against until the charges proved his absence willful and not result of compelling circumstances. According to

the Apex Court, unauthorized absence from duty and willful absence from duty are two separate things. Learned

counsel submits that the absence of workman in the case in hand might be unauthorized but it was not willful because

the documents show that he was suffering and was under treatment, hence, as submitted by learned counsel for

workman the finding of the Inquiry Officer that charge of mis-conduct is proved, cannot be sustained in fact and law.

11.

Learned Counsel for management has referred to Rules 7.5, 12.4, 12.5 and 13 of Standing orders and has

submitted that in case a worker is sick, there is prescribed procedure to be adopted in such a situation. The workman

failed to observe that procedure. Learned Counsel, further referred to Rule 26.24 and 26.30 which defines

misconduct which is reproduced as below:-

Rule 7.5:- Absence from Place of work:-

Any workman who after going underground or after coming to his work in the department/section

in which he is employed, is found absent from his proper place of work during working hours

without permission from the Appropriate Authority or without any sufficient reasons shall be liable

to be treated as absent from the period of his absence.

Rule 12.5:- Application for leave or extension of leave on medical grounds shall be supported by a

certificate from the Medical Office of the company or where there is no such officer a government

medical officer of the company or where there is no such officer, a government medical officer or

failing him, from a Registered Medical practitioner, stating the period for which leave is

recommended. On receipt of such application , the sanctioning authority shall immediately inform

the workman in writing whether the leave or extension of leave has been granted and is so for what

period. An employee who has been sanctioned leave or an extension of leave on medical ground for

an period exceeding 14 days at a time shall not be allowed to resume duty unless he produced a

certificate of fitness. If no information is received by the workman, from the Management,

regarding leave in question as applied, for, it may be presumed to be granted.”

Rule -13:-

Application for leave:- A workman who desires to obtain leave of absence shall apply in writing

to the Competent authority, not less than 15 days before the commencement of the leave, except

where leave is required in unforeseen circumstances and the competent authority shall issue

orders on the application within a week of its submission of two days prior to the leave applied

for is to commence on the date of the application or within three days thereof orders shall be

given on the same day. If the leave is refused or postponed, the fact of such refusal or

postponement and the reasons therefore shall be recorded in writing in a register to be

maintained for the purpose and if the workman so desires a copy of the entry in the register shall

be supplied to him. If the workman after proceeding on leave, desires an extension thereof, he

shall apply to the competent authority who shall send a written reply either granting or refusing

extension of leave to the workman. Section/refusal of leave shall be communicated to the

workman in writing.

Rule 26.24 :-

Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

Rule 26.30:-

Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.

12.

He submits that since it proved that the workman is a habitual absentee as stated in defence statement and the

workman could not show any medical papers regarding his treatment for the period of absence in the charge sheet, his

absence must be held willful. Learned Counsel further submits that when unauthorized absence is not disputed by

workman the burden to prove that it was not willful rather was due to some compelling circumstances, lies on the

workman who alleges it.

13.

In the case in hand, as it appears from the perusal of the Inquiry papers, it is proved that the absence of the

workman was many fold for different period. According to him in the month of July and August 2001, he was absent

because he was in jail in connection with some criminal charge. In the month of October-November, he was absent

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

because his wife was in the process of having a family(delivery) and he had to look after her. IN the month of

December he was on leave from 29-12-2001 to 22-1-2022 and when he came back he fell ill on 23-1-202 and was

under treatment in Chhindwarha Hospital. He was declared fit on 29-4-2002. Regarding proof of his treatment, he

stated during the inquiry proceedings that certificate of treatment was sent by the Hospital to the Management.

According to the Management this certificate was never produced in his cross-examination during the inquiry to

which the workman has stated that he has already filed the proof regarding his detention in July and August-2001 .

Regarding absence from 29-9-2001 to 22-10-2001, he states that he had been working from the Hospital and has no

proof regarding absence of this period. He admits that he did not send any information regarding the admission and

treatment of his wife in Private Hospital. He further states that during the period 23-1-2002 to 29-4-2002 he could

not get treatment in Company Hospital because he fell seriously ill and his acquaintances got him admitted in

Chhindwarha Hospital. He did not explain his absence from 29-4-2002 to 10-5-2002. His this statement, since it is

not supported by any documentary proof filed during inquiry as it appears from the inquiry papers proved, it is not

satisfactorily explained, his absence of different period as mentioned.

14.

Reference of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act requires to be referred here which is as under:-

“Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the

knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

Thus it makes it clear that the burden of proving the fact especially in the knowledge of a person lies on him.

Hence in this case also, the burden of proving the facts and justifying his absence was on the workman during the

inquiry. This burden could be discharged by filing documents and statement of witnesses in any form as well

documents of diagnosis/admission and treatment.

Accordingly, it clear that when a fact is in special knowledge of any person, burden of proving that fact is on

that person hence the burden of proving the fact that he was ill and was under medical treatment during the period of

his absence from duty lies on the workman. This burden can be discharged by filing documentary evidence for

example Medical Certificate, certificate of fitness, documents regarding diagnosis and treatment or by examining the

Doctor under whose treatment the workman was during the period in question. Workman did not file any fitness

certificate or medical certificate or any paper regarding diagnosis or treatment nor did he examined any Doctor under

whose treatment he was during the period in question. The workman has examined himself on oath. He has stated in

his affidavit filed as his examination-in-chief that he never absented himself during his service period whenever he

remained on leave, he had filed his application for leave and during the period of his sickness also, he had filed his

application for leave except this self serving statement, there is no document in support. He admits that the dispensary

and hospital facilities are available to the workman and their families near the mines. He pleads ignorance about the

free treatment given to workman in the management’s hospital. When the management witness has stated that the

workman did not file any certificate or papers regarding his illness and treatment, the burden of proving the fact that

he had filed application with the management, is on the workman and he has failed to discharge this burden. Thus

from the comparative analysis of evidence as respect to above produced by the parties, it comes out that firstly, the

workman absented himself during the period as mentioned above and secondly, the reason for absence alleged by the

workman is not established. Hence it is held that the absence of workman for the period as mentioned above is without

sufficient cause, meaning thereby it is held proved that the workman absented himself during the period in

question as referred above unauthorizedly, without informing the management and without any leave

sanctioned. It will not be out of scope to refer the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd versus Vipin

Beharilal Srivastava reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 446. The Apex Court has laid down that mere

sending an application for grant of leave is not sufficient. In para-11 of the judgment, the court has observed as

follows-

Para-11 The rules governing “leave” read as follows:

(1) General principles governing grant of leave. The following general principles shall govern

the grant of leave to the employees;

(a) Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(b)

Leave shall be availed of only after sanction by the competent authority, but one days

casual leave may be availed of without prior sanction in case of unforeseen emergency,

provided the head of the office is promptly advised of the circumstances under which

prior sanction could not be obtained.(4) Sick leave-

(c) Sick leave can be granted to an employee only on production of a medical certificate

from a registered medical practitioner, which term would include homeopathic,

ayurvedic and Unani Doctor also provided they are registered medical practitioners.

(d)

The certificate should state as clearly as possible the diagnosis and probable duration

of treatment.”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1873

A reference of Rule 12.5 & Rule 13 of Certified Standing Orders applicable in the case of

parties , referred to by learned counsel for management is also necessary which is as under:-

Rule 12.5: Application for leave or extension of leave on medical grounds shall be supported

by a certificate from a Medical Officer of the company or where there is no such officer, a

government Medical Officer or failing him, from a Registered Medical practitioner, stating

the period for which leave is recommended. On receipt of such application, the sanctioning

authority shall immediately inform the workman in writing whether the leave or extension of

leave has been granted and if so for what period. An employee who has been sanctioned leave

or an extension of leave on medical ground for a period exceeding 14 days at a time shall not

be allowed to resume duty unless he produced a certificate o fitness. If no information is

received by the workman, from the management, regarding leave in question as applied for, it

may be presumed to be granted.”

Rule-13: Application for leave:- A workman who desires to obtain leave of absence shall apply

in writing to the Competent Authority, not less than 15 days before the commencement of the

leave, except where leave is required in unforeseen circumstances and the competent authority

shall issue orders on the application within a week of its submission of two days prior to the

commencement of the leave applied for whichever is earlier, provided that if the leave applied

for is to commence on the date of the application or within three days thereof orders shall be

given on the same day. If the leave is refused or postponed, the fact of such refusal or

postponement and the reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing in a register to be

maintained for the purpose and if the workman so desires a copy of the entry in the register

shall be supplied to him. If the workman after proceeding on leave, desires an extension

thereof, he shall apply to the competent authority who shall send a written reply either

granting or refusing extension of leave to the workman. Sanction/ refusal of leave shall be

communicated to the workman in writing.

Similarly Rule 26.24 & 26.25 which deal with misconduct are also being reproduced as

follows:-

Rule 26.24- Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.-

15.

Hence keeping in view the rules and procedures mentioned as above in the charge sheet, the finding of the

Inquiry Officer, holding him liable for willful absence and negligence in discharging of duties, proved, cannot be held

to be perverse and does not require any interference. Accordingly Issue No.2 is decided.

16.

ISSUE NO.3:-

Learned counsel for Management refers to Rule 27.1 which provides punishment of dismissal from service

for this type of misconduct. The following case laws support the claim of the Management:-

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the

scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally

substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High

Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate

authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in

exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support

thereof.”

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.”

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:

1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.”

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.”

17.

In the light of the above discussion, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly dis-

proportionate to the charges. Accordingly, holding that the punishment does not warrant any judicial intervention by

this Tribunal, this Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

18.

ISSUE NO.4;-

On the basis of the above findings, the workman is held entitled to no relief. Accordingly Issue No.4 has

been answered.

19.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

The action of the Management of Thesgaora Mines,Pench Area, Parasia, District

Chhindwarha in terminating the services of Sh. Bhugul Singh Yadav, S/o Shri

Mewalal,Purv Telephone Fitter Helper is held to be legal and justified.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1875

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

20. 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

DATE: 2-9-2022

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 913.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky; आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-09-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22011/1/2014-vkbZ- vkj

(सी एम-II)]

रािेन्र लसंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of F.C.I. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/09/2022

[No. L-22011/1/2014–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL

Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 05 OF 2014

PARTIES:

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bankura (W.B.).

Vs.

The Secretary, Paschim Banga Mutia Mazdoor Union, Adra, Purulia (W.B.).

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

Mr. Pradip. Kr. Goswami, Learned Advocate.

For the Union (Workmen):

Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Learned Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

15.09.2022

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO.

L-22011/1/2014 – IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2014 and Corrigendum dated 13.11.2014 has been pleased to refer the

following dispute between the employers, that is the Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Food Storage Depot, FCI, Adra, West Bengal by

not enhancing wages, not providing overtime and medical facility and categorizing the Mutia

Mazdoor and ancillary workers engaged under NWNP system as ‘unskilled’ are

justified/legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to? ”

1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the Order No. NO. L-22011/1/2014 – IR(CM-II) dated 24.02.2014 followed by Corrigendum

dated 13.11.2014 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference

case No. 05 of 2014 was registered on 28.02.2014 and an order to that effect was passed issuing notice to the parties

through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with the relevant

documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their

authorized representatives.

Written statements were filed by Secretary, Food Corporation of India Mazdoor Union, representing the

labourers and by the Management of Food Corporation of India. Paschim Banga Mutia Mazdoor Union, Adra also

filed Rejoinder.

For deciding the issues referred above, Shri Probodh Kr. Kumbhokar, Secretary, Paschim Banga Mutia

Mazdoor Union, Adra union of Food Corporation of India filed his affidavit-in-chief. The witness was cross-examined

exhaustively on 17.04.2017, 21.06.2017, 07.02.2018 and 25.06.2018. Documents have also been produced by the

concerned Mazdoor union

Tribunal adverted to consider the legality and justifiability of the following claims laid by the workmen : (i)

Enhancement of their wages by fixing rates as per minimum wages for the year from 2004 to 2011, (ii) Designating

the unskilled workers as skilled labours, (iii) demand for providing Medical facilities to the casual labourers, and (iv)

paying arrears of overtime allowances for the period from July, 2011 to December, 2013.

Mr. Anjan Kumar Samal, Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bankura (W.B.) in their written

statement submitted on behalf of the Management has categorically refuted all the claims of the workmen, challenging

their legal sanctity. It is asserted that the job related to Food Storage Depot only requires physical fitness of the

labours engaged. The nature of work involved does not require any special skill and the labourers cannot claim any

promotion or upgradation as skilled labour in view of its definition. It is contended that revision of wages is not

applicable for NWNP workers from 2004 to 2011. Prior to the introduction of NWNP system on 30.06.2011 the

labourers worked on contract basis, engaged by contractors as per Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. Therefore, Food

Corporation of India had no direct control over the casual workers and there was no employer-employee relationship

between them at the material point of time. Management claimed that the casual workers also received Minimum

wages at the prevailing rate of the locality as prescribed by the appropriate authority.

In so far as the claim of Arrears of overtime for the period from July,2011 to December, 2013 it is asserted

by the Management that the said benefit was extended to NWNP workers of Food Storage Depot, Adra w.e.f.

December, 2013 on the basis of Circular No. IR(L)/31(38)/2012 dated 22/23.11.2013, as such the Management is not

in a position to provide arrears of overtime for a period from July,2011 to December,2013.

With reference to the claim for Medical facilities, the Management disclosed that medical facility is extended

to NWNP workers under the ESI scheme but the workers at Food Storage Depot, Adra could not avail such facility as

the Purulia revenue district has not been covered by ESI Act- 1948 and no code number has been allotted for the area.

Therefore, Management is not in a position to provide medical facilities beyond its limitation.

The workmen witnesses failed to establish their claim contrary to the assertion of the Management case.

On 13.09.2022, when the Reference case was fixed up for adducing evidence by the Management Witness

(MW) none was found available on behalf of the Management of Food Corporation of India. Mr. Milan Kumar

Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for Paschim Banga Mutia Mazdoor Union, Adra submitted that the union is not

inclined to proceed further with the case and the same may be disposed of.

10.

Having considered the dispute under reference for adjudication by this Tribunal as well as materials on the

record, it appears to me that the workmen represented by their union is not in a position to substantiate their claims on

the basis of the ground reality. The submissions made by the learned advocate for the workmen further persuades me

to hold that the union is not inclined to contest the case any further. In view of such facts, I hold that there is No

Dispute between the parties on the schedule Reference. Accordingly, the case is closed and a No Dispute Award be

passed.

Hence,

ORDER

Let an Award be passed in the light of the findings that No Dispute exists between the parties. Let copies of

this Order be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

the needful. The Reference case is accordingly disposed of.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1877

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 914.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 276/2019) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-39025/01/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-03]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 276/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-II,

Delhi shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2022 -IR(B-II)-03]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty

ID.NO. 276/2019

Shri Anil Kumar,

Through, Dena Bank Employees Association ,

Dena Bank, Service Branch, 9-E, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

…Workman

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Dena Bank,

Dena Bank Zonal Office, 6^th Floor, Tower -1,

Konnectus Tower Bhavbhuti Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

…Management.

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference

no. ND-96(17)2019-ID-FOC-Dy. CLC dated 10.12.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Anil Kumar, Cashier, have been terminated by the

management of Dena Bank, illegally and /or unjustifiably and if so to what relief is he entitled and

what directions are necessary in this respect?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this

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

publication.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 915.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua -2 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37/2014) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/85/2008-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022

S.O. 915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -II,

Delhi shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/85/2008 -IR(B-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present:

Smt. Pranita Mohanty,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 19/2009

Date of Passing Award- 16.08.2022

Between:

Shri Rajpal Singh,

R/o 140/22, Street No. 38, Sadh Nagar-II,

Palam Colony,

New Delhi- 110045.

…. Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Sarojini House 6,

Bhagwan Dass Road,

New Delhi.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Kumar Gaurav

…For the claimant

(A/R)

Shri Rajesh Mahindru

…For the Management

(A/R)

AWARD

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

between employer i.e. the management of Syndicate Bank, 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-12012/85/2008

(IR(B-II) dated 05/02/2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in Awarding the punishment of

termination from services of Shri Rajpal Singh w.e.f 31/12/2002, after acquittal of the

workman by the court is just, fair and legal? What relief the concerned workman is entitled

to and from which date?’

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक्टूबर 1, 2022/ आज‍ वन 9, 1944

1879

This order deals with the grievance of the claimant with regard to the punishment imposed on him in the

domestic inquiry which he describes as unreasonably disproportionate to the charge leveled against him.

In order to deal with the dispute and the grievance of the claimant it is necessary to set out the relevant facts

as per the claim statement in detail.

The claimant, an ex army person, at the relevant time was working as the attender in the management Bank at

it’s Head District Office, Gurgaon. He was initially appointed as probationary attender on 04/10/1983 and confirmed

in the service of the Bank on 04/04/1984. On a complaint that while working in the central Accounts Office during the

period 09/10/1986 to 24/10/1986, the claimant removed / destroyed some cheques having value of Rs 74, 000/- when

presented for clearance and managed to cause wrong full gain to himself by crediting the account to his own account.

The mischief was detected and when confronted the claimant admitted his guilt. He was placed under suspension with

effect from 22/11/1986 and FIR was lodged against him on 25/11/1986. Since the criminal Trial was pending against

him the departmental domestic inquiry was kept on hold as agreed in the Bipartite Settlement applicable to the

claimant and the Bank. Since the criminal Trial prolonged for an unreasonably long period the Bank on a sympathetic

consideration, revoked the order of suspension and the claimant was re instated in to duty from 27/02/1998. During

the period of suspension he was paid subsistence allowance as admissible. On 06/07/2000 the trial of the criminal case

ended with a finding of acquittal as benefit of doubt was extended to him. There after the Bank started the

departmental proceeding, which started with the framing of charge. All the procedures required for the said inquiry

was followed and the claimant as the charged employee had participated in each and every stage of the inquiry which

culminated with a finding of guilt by the inquiring officer. The order of inquiry was served on the claimant calling

him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment shall not be imposed on him. The explanation offered not being

found satisfactory, the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination from service. The departmental appeal

preferred by him was rejected and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed.

Being aggrieved the claimant raised an industrial dispute in which amongst others he pleaded about

unfairness in conduct of the inquiry. On completion of the pleadings, issues were framed and the issue relating to the

fairness of the inquiry was considered as the preliminary issue, since the Tribunal, before deciding the justification

and correctness of the punishment awarded is required to decide, if the inquiry, a quasi judicial proceeding was

conducted fairly and by observing the Principles of Natural Justice.

This Tribunal by order dated 25/03/2022 have already decided the said issue against the claimant holding that

the procedure adopted during the inquiry was correct and the claimant was allowed due opportunity to defend himself.

Not only that it has also been held that the delay in framing the charge and commencement of the inquiry after closure

of the criminal Trial has not caused prejudice to the claimant as the same is in accordance to the terms of Bipartite

settlement and order of acquittal recorded in a criminal Trial shall not necessarily terminate the departmental

proceeding in favour of the charge sheeted employee as the standard of proof required in those proceedings re distinct

and separate. Thus the claimant was called upon to advance argument on the proportionality of the punishment

imposed. Both parties advanced detailed argument in support of their respective stand.

Whereas the learned AR for the Management supported the order imposing punishment as proper, the

claimant has described the same as extremely harsh. During course of argument it was pointed out by the AR for the

claimant that for the long drawn litigation the claimant was deprived of contesting the matter properly and now

suffering for the illegal order of dismissal. Hence a lenient view may be taken in the matter and the fact of acquittal in

the criminal trial be considered for deciding the proportionality of the punishment. The counter argument by the

learned AR for the Bank is that it is a case of loss of confidence. The business of the Bank thrives on the faith and

confidence of the customers. The action of the claimant had visibly impacted the business of the Bank and as such he

does not deserve any sympathy.

This tribunal in view of the arguments advanced has to give a finding on the proportionality of the

punishment imposed on the claimant. In the case of Muriadih Colliery VS Bihar Coalliery Kamgar Union (2005) 3

SCC331,The Hon’ble SC have held:-

“it is well-established principle in law that in a given circumstance, it is open for the Industrial Tribunal

acting u/s 11-A of the I D Act 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry for good and

valid reasons. If the tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment awarded in domestic inquiry, it should bear in

mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and stringency of the punishment.”

Whether a misconduct is severe or otherwise, depends on the facts of each particular case. In a case where

the charge is about misappropriation of a customer’s money or breach of Trust, no doubt the same is serious in nature

and distinguishable from the charge of demeanor or in – subordination, as in this case. More over the finding in the

relevant inquiry is based upon the oral and documentary evidence. It is a matter of record that the claimant, on

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2022/ASVINA 9, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

detection of the wrong done by him, had admitted about the misappropriated amount. The explanation offered by the

claimant was found not acceptable by the disciplinary authority and the departmental appellate authority.