Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D- 28

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1949

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 9th December 1949

No. LR-2(251)/I.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) the Central Government is pleased to publish the following award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), in the matter of alleged victimization, retrenchment, dismissals, etc in respect of banking companies in the Province of Madras:—

BEFORE THE ALL INDIA INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (BANK DISPUTES), BOMBAY.

ADJUDICATION

Between

(1) The Imperial Bank of India,

(2) The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd ,

(3) Eastern Bank Ltd ,

(4) National Bank of India, Ltd

AND

Their workmen.

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VICTIMIZATION, RETRENCHMENT, DISMISSALS, ETC. AT MADRAS AND OTHER PLACES IN THIS MADRAS PROVINCE,

Present .—

Mr. K. C. Sri. Chairman, Mr. J. N. Majumdar, Member, Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aivar, Member

Appearances: —

Mr. H. M. Small and Mr. L. D. Miller, instructed by Messrs, King & Partridge, Solicitors, for the Imperial Bank of India, Eastern Bank and the National Bank of India Ltd,

Mi, Y. C, Gapalratnam, Advocate, for the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Mr. T. S. Ramanujam and Mr. B. Chengalvaroyan for the Imperial Bank Indian Staff Union.

( 2647 )

Mr. R. Venkatram and Mr. R. Dandupani for the Indian Stuff Union at

the National Bunk of India.

Mr. B. C. C. Antony Pillai for the employees of the Indian Overseas

Bank.

Mr. K. S. Shetty for P. Kuppuswami.

AWAED

In the course of the Tribunal's inquiry at Madras lour cases of alleged victimization were brought to its notice. Three of them relate to the Imperial Bank and the fourth to the Indian Overseas Bank. We shall now deal with, them, beriatiia.

2 R. Subbarayulu.—He was a messenger in the Mount Road branch of the Imperial Bank of India, Madras, with a service of about 9 years to his credit. Ilib services were dispensed with on 24th November 1948 as "no longei requir- ed" and he was given salary for the rent of the month as well as one month's salary in lieu of notice. The complaint is that no reasons were given for this- lermmation. This, however, is not correct. There is a memorandum, dated 21st July 1947 which was communicated to him in which he was described aa a "lazy, untidy and poor worker". On 113th August 1947 he got a second warning m these terms: "Messenger A, Subbarayulu is informed that he has been re- ported to be often very disobedient and inattentive to his work. He also absent- ed on 9th August 1947 without obtaining previous sanction. HR attention in drawn to previous letter of warning, dated 21st July 1947. Unloss satisfactory; improvement is shown, further &teps will be taken". On 11th November 1H4B, hj applied for leave tor the* next day stating that ho had to bring his> mother from a mofussil station The Agent refused the leave and asked him to avail himself of the next two days 18th and 14th November, which were Bunk Holi- days. Subbarayulu look up the leave application with the Agent's remark 'no' written on it and tore it to bits in a constituent's presence. As punishment for tearing up an official record the Agent gave him turn duty on the 12th Novem- ber find morning duty on the IRth, but ho refused to sign the duty book. There- upon the Agent reported tho matter to the higher authorities. The case was placed before the Local Board of the Bank and Subbarayulu's services were dispensed with,

3. In the circumstances, the non-mention of the reasons in the order of dis- charge does not appear to us to be very material and the fact that a. formal charge WRB not framed against him and his explanation not taken cannot be said to be sufficient grounds calling for our interference We would, however, remark that it is an elementary principle that before an employee's services are dispensed with, a formal written charge should be given to him and that he should be given a reasonable opportunity to explain his alleged misconduct. We give no direction in this ca=e.

4. SI. Xasaw.—His grievance is that he was transferred without proper ground from the Cochin Branch of the Imperial Bank to the Pollachi Branch on the 4th May, 1049. He asked for leave and when this was refused owing to shortage of olerks he absented himself without permission. The Cochin branch agent suspended him and recommended his dismiss*^; the Head Office, however, sot aside the suspension order but transferred him. He has no case for com- plaint when he was thus leniently treated. Anyhow^ as it appeared to us that ho had been taught a sufficient lesson by this transfer'and that he might now be allowed to go back to the Cochin branch, we suggested this to Mr, Small who appeared for the Imperial Bank and he stated, after consulting his clients, thai? Easaw would be transferred back to Cochin at the earliest available opportunity. In view of this statement, no directions from us are necessary in this case.

0. Satalli Pathl Rao ((Juntur Branch of the Imperial Bank -of India).— 5. He was absent at the hearing. H" had service for '21 months to his credit and was drawing n salary of 11s. 74 per mensem, when his services were dis- pensed with on 19th April, 1948, on payments of a month's salary in, l;eu of: notice. lie had been granted nmo days of ordinary leave and %va& to have vu~ joined duty on the expirv oi thi& peiiod. But he did not do so and applied by letter for a month's leave "on lose of pay" (i.e., without ptty) for private domes- tic reuwoiiH. The leave was not sanctioned and the agent of the Bank at Ellore "whercfrom the leave application WHS sent was asked by telephone bj the Gimuur agent to inform the cleik that ho must rejoin duty on the due dale. We are told by (he Ellore agent that he did send word to the clerk and advised him not to'take leave but that the cleik did not heed the advice and stayed away, Tho report of Mr. Savoor, Agent of the Uuntur Branch, to the Secretary and Treasurer¹ of the Imperial Bank, Madras, is to be found, in hiH dated the 15th April 1948 whore reference is made to a previous occasion when after taking one da\ 's leave this particular clerk had absented himself for over a month on the ground oi his mother'H illness and his own illness nnd when he had been re- prjiiiHiuled for absence from duty.

6 Thu conduct of the cleik was ceitnmly objoctionablo but in view of tho fact that m this cuMe also no formal charge was drawn up nor wan an opportunity given t i him (o give an explanation and the further fait that tho Ellore agent uppeaiH to have reported that the ground of illness of his mother for which the leave wan wanted was true, we felt, and we gave expression to our feeling, that this was a case which deserved a more sympathetic consideration than has been given by the management. The Imperial Bank ban assnrqd us through Mr. Small that his case will be reconsidered in the light of the opinion thai we have formed in this cane In view of this assuiance we think it unnecessary to give any directions regarding Mr G. Hatahi Pnthi Rao.

7. -P. Kuppuswami.—-He waa an attender with three year's service in the Indian Overseas Bank and he was suspended for one week for refusal to obey a call from the agent while working in the office. He wanta his salary for this period to be paid to him. It is obvious that the order of suspension was neces- sitated in the interest of discipline and cannot be said to bo an uujust or im- proper order. If so, the question of salary can hardly be said to arise, and Mr. V. G Gopnlratnnm, ^ho appeared for the Bank stated that if the attonder with- drew the charge of victimisation, the "Dank would consider the payment of the salary for the period in question. Mf. K. S. Shettv who appeared on behalf of KuppuBwami withdrew the charge; and there is nothing more to be said about this case.

8 Two more cases weic brought to our notice—those of Tholasingham Mudaliui of the Eastern Bank of India Ltd., and T Venkatachalam Pillai of tho National Bfcnk of India, We could not, however, deal with these oases as the dismissal of the former (Tholasingham) took place on 26th August 1949, after the date of tho notification constituting this Tribunal, and in the case of the latter the termination of service or dismissal was as long ago as 1939, In fact it may be mentioned that no notices were issued in these two cases to the Banks concerned calling upon them to answer tiny chargos,

ft Two other cases were brought to our notice towards tho end of the pro- ceedings held at Madras. Tho first is that of Mr. R. Bhoovarahamurthy who wns a cashier in charge of (ho branch of the Indian Overseas Bank, Ltd., at Mutupet and whose services were terminated on the 30th May 1949 The'ap- plication was sent by post, no notice having been given to the Eant. He was also absent at the hearing and DO .one present at the hearing represented him Ho wanta his salary for tire period rftrrfng which he was absent, prior to his dis' charge ajad one-month's wages iri'lieu of'notlce. -In view of the casual manner

m which ho boeins to have sought his remedy from us, we are not mcliued to giant any reliei in this case and give no

10 The other rase i^> (hat ot C. P. KuruvilJa, a clork of the National Bank of India, Ltd., whose services' were dispensed with in December 1944 on the ground of continued ill-henltb We have decided not to allow individual disputes of such :i long btandmg to be reopened before us and we, accordingly, do not inteifore in this case also

K. C. SEN,

Chairman

J. N. MAJUMDAE,

Member.

N CHANDRASEKHAEA A1YAE,

Member.

Canjp Madras,

Tin- 4th November, 1940

ORDEE

New Delhi, the 9th December 1949

No LR-2(251)/II.—Whereas by an Ordcs of tho Central Government in the Ministry of Labour No LE-2(212), dated the 13th June 1049, the industrial •dispute between banking companies and their employees was referred to the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) for adjudication,

And whereas the awyid of the said Tribunal in the mutter of alleged victimi- sutio-n, retrenchment, dismissals, etc I?i rebpect of banking companies in the Province of Madras has been published by the Central Government! in a noti- fication of the Ministry of Labour No. LR-2{251)/I, dated the 9th December 1049;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 16 and 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), the Central Government is pleased to direct that the Raid award shall be binding for a period of one year from the 4th November 1949.

H, O. KUPPUBWAMI, Under Secy.

PUOTJ8HBI) *i THB MANKQ*I ot PtTMJOmoKre, DUMB, INDIA. PBINTOP BIT TOT MANAGBS, GOVHRNIOBJT OT INDIA POTSB, Nwflr Bator, INPI*.