Subject NOT available

44. The Company at page 33 of its written statement has on the question of prevailing rates of wages submitted that the criterion or comparison of prevailing rates in other units of the industry should be applied with all the caution in view of the peculiarities of the nature of the business curried on by the Co-operative Insurance Society. It has submitted that it cannot be compared in any way with other General Insurers in the field because the private sector insurers have generally tied business, less policies, higher premiums and Jow expense ratio, while the public sector insurers like the Life Insurance Corporation has the support and solid monopoly business from all the public sector projects and Corpora- tions, Government sponsored organizations and of other industrial and business institutions "f the country in whom the Government is financially interested in any way. It has sub- mitted that the nature of the business transacted by the Society is also peculiar in itself and wholly distinguishable from the business of olher General [nsurers. It has submitted that the distinctive characteristics and features of a Co-operative General Insurer like the Society are so significant and dominant that they do not attempt of any comparison with its counter-parts in the private and public concens and any comparison done would be void of all validity.

45. I cannot accept this contention. Though this is a unit in the Co-operative Sector •of the General Insurance business, this Society also transacts all the general Insurance business which other General Insurance Companies transact. Though, belonging to the Co-operative Sector, this is basically a unit of the General Insurance Industry and in the absence of other Co-operative Insurance Society of the size and magnitute of this Com- pany, comparison with other units in the General Insurance business of a comparable Size and annual business transacted on the basis of the premia income, in my opinion, •be a fair basis of comparison, and I propose to do so, allowing, however, a certain margin for the Company, considering that the Society also functions in the agricultural field where, undoubtedly, at present atleast, the cost of collecting business is higher than it is in the Cities.

46. The Company has next contended that another peculiar feature regarding the pre- vailing rates of wages in the General Insurance business is that the prevailing rates of wages are union administered wage determinations and not the result of a genuine collec- tive bargaining. The contention of the Company be best stated In its own words.

"The modus operandi of this bargaining has been that the Union selects and sub- mits its charter of demand not on all the industries at the same time or one after the other or wields the organized strength of Unionism throughout Ihe industry to dominate and obtain the terms and conditions of employment from units individually which at times the economy of the respective units does not warrant. This type of settlement which is divorced from economic realities is put as a precedent before the other employers whose turn then it is to bargain the same under pressurism tactics. It is by this way of raising certain settlements from some insurers who happen to agree on terms and conditions of the Union because of the various extraneous reasons unrelated to the economics or (he wage determination that a trend is artiflcally created in the labour market. The Hon. Arbitrator will be pleased to appreciate that this is the nature of the prevailing pattern of wage structure in the Insurance Industry. On consideration of the danger beset in accepting such a pattern as a criteria for wage determination would be obvious. The logical consequences are that the expenses go on amounting beyond the capacity of the industry and ultimately the units are closed down. It is, therefore, sub- mitted that looking at the nature of the Unionist w≥ determination provided in the Insurance Industry, the Hon. Arbitrator would not give any serious consideration to the prevalent rales of wages as may be called in tiid by the Union in its support. The Committee on the fair wages was also of the view, that while prevailing rates of wages fixed as a result of proper collec- tive bargaining will bear a close approximation for the present, to fair wages and should therefore, be taken into account in fixing the fair wages, the same cannot be said of prevailing wages resulting from unequal bargaining."

. . ,⁴Zi Xh e r e, is no d o u bt t h at t h e rc a re comparatively small number of Awards of Indus- trial Tribunals in the industrial disputes in the General Insurance Industry. It is also true that there are a large number of settlements reached by the Association with other General Insurance Units. There is, in my opinion, some justification that wages fixed under Union. settlements arc sometimes misleading In that sense the award on merits of an Industrial Tribunal or some other responsible' wane fixing authorities would form a better guidance. But as the basis of comparison is the prevaihng rates of wages in other units of industry, it will, in the ultimate analysis make not much difference whether the prevailing rates of wages have beerTflxed by agreements ar.d settlements or by awards of an Industrial Tribunals or Courts. As far as I am aware most of the awards in industrial disputes in the General Insurance Industry have adopted thfl pay scales fixed as a result of Union-Management settlements. Though the opinion

expressed by the Society is not without some justification, there can be little doubt that workmen in a Co-operative Insurance Society can well seek comparison with wages fixed, under agreements which have been in force and have been subsisting for sometime. Some of these agreements are on an All India basis. In my opinion, a more proper thing would, be look at the prevailing wage agreements in units of the General Insurance Industry com- parable with this Company. In revising the wage-structure in this Company, I propose to apply the region-cMwindustry principle for determining what should be the awarded wage structure for the Society, bearing in mind the following additional factors (1) that this is a unit in the Co-operative field of the General Insurance Industry and on that account to make an allowance in its favour (2) that this is an all India Undertaking and (3) that it operates also in the Agricultural area where the cost of products is naturally a little higher and (4) that the wage-structure of various units in the General Insurance Industry is pend- ing adjudication before a Central Government Indusirial Tribunal (5) the largo number of workmen employed and consequently higher financial burden.

Classification :

48. The entire claim for re-classification of the employees into six categories (A to F> has been dealt with in two short paragraphs—paragraphs 18 and 19—of the written state- ment of claim of the Association dated 4th July, 1967.

49. I have earlier reproduced the demand for classification of employees, and scales of pay demanded by the Union.

50. The Association in para 18 of its written statement of claim has generally sought to support its demand for re-classification on the ground that the present classification of employees in the Society is not scientific, the employees are not placed in the grades appro- priate to the nature of duties performed by them; that employees who are required to per- form the duties which call for higher skill, educational qualification and experience are not given any higher status of scalos of pay; that proper recognition is not given to the skilL and efficiency shown by the employees in relation to the job performed by them, and therefore re-classification of the employees into different categories and pay scales as de- manded was necessary. In para 19 of its written statement of claim, the Association has stated that in seeking the re-classification which it has claimed it has taken into account the existing classification of employees in the Insurance Industry as a whole and has also taken into account the nature of work performed by each category of employees. The Association has claimed that its, "demand is based on a very scientific and proper job evaluation of each category of workmen. The re-classification of the employees on the above basis will introduce uniformity and standardisation in the entire Insurance Industry in this behalf."

51. The Society in its written statement in reply, dealing with the demand for classifica- tion of employees, has submitted that the category F which is for "Sectional Heads" and "Assistant Superintendents" and for whom the Association had claimed the basic pay scale of Rs. 325-25-400-30-55O-40-750 in 13 years, does not lie within the purview of the indus- trial arbitration in as much as they arc not workmen. It has, more over, submitted that classification is a managerial function and cannot be allowed to be tampered with by any extraneous considerations or Union interference, and there cannot be any arbitration re- garding a managerial function. Without prejudice the Society has submitted thai trfc existing classification is the result of settlements and award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, and since it has no additional classes of employees other than those mentioned in the said settlement and award, there ia absolutely no justification whatsoever on any principle of industrial arbitration to disturb tho existing classification, and that classification once done by settlement is a long term agreement and it cannot be upset with every charter of demand. It has submitted that the Association is estopped from seeking revision of the existing classification. Moreover, according to the Society, there bad been no change of circumstances after 1961 to justify any change in classification. It has further submitted that the classification claimed by the Associa- tion is in no way justified on any principles of job evaluation or job classification. On the merits, it has submitted that there is no justification for putting liftmen, and drivers in a category different frofn peons and watchmen etc. The whole written statement of the Society on this demand is a dental of this claim. The Society has lastly submitted that the classification claimed would impose so heavy a burden on the Society that it would bp beyond its capacity to bear it. It has, therefore, submitted that the demand for revision of classification, of employees being unjust, improper and without any valid grounds, tho same should be rejected.

52. At the hearing both parties have led oral evidence and have also filed a number of documents in support of their respective contentions-

53. The existing categories are those under the 1961 settlement Award (Ex. W-3—

Ex. E-4), and I give below the existing categories with their scales of pay as applicable to. the employees at the Head Office.

Subordinate Staff Rs. 35-2-55-3-70-5-90

(including Peons, Sweepers Havaldars, Havaldar gets a special allowance of Rs.. Liftmen and Motor Driver) 15/- per month, and the only one motor driver at Bombay who was started at a higher basic pay than the start of the scale of pay for subordinate staff gets a Driving Allowance of Rs. 20/- per month.

Clerical Staff Rs. 75-7-50-105-10-225-EB-15-330 under Assistants, Junior and Senior Typists, Tele- the 1961 Award those typists who were phone Operators and Comptists. getting a typists allowance of Rs. 25/- per:

month arc to continue to get it.

Stenographers: Rs. 125-10-225-15-330 Junior Officers Rs. 180-10-200- 1S-360-20-400 54. I shall first deal with the demanded categories A and B all of whom at present are ill the category of sub-staff and whose Basic Pay at present is Rs. 35—2—55—3—70—5—90 in the Head Office and the Delhi, Calcutta and Madras Offices, and Rs. 35—2—55—3— 70—5—80 in the Branches. Under the demand for re-classification of the existing cate- gories of the subordinate staff the Association wants Drivers and Liftmen to be placed in Category "B" in the domanded grade of Rs. 180—6—192—8—240—10—300 and wants the remaining existing categories of the subordinate staff viz.. Sweepers, Peons and Watchmen and Head Peons to be retained in the lowest category A but wants their basic pay scale to be revised to Re- 120—5—150—6—192—8—240.

55. I may state that it was made clear by the Association at the hearing that by the de- mand for classification it has made it does not desire that the Arbitrator should classify the existing employees into the six categories A to F which it has claimed but that the classifica- tion should be made on the basis of the nature of the duties of the categories into the six corresponding grades of pay A to F which it has demanded.

56. In my opinion, the demand for separate grades of pay for Liftmen and Drivers is justified, as far as it concerns the employees in the Society's Offices at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Delhi. The Head Office of the Society is at Bombay. The subordinate staff consisting of Sweepers, Peons, including Head Peons and Watchmen, do manual work and are, therefore, the lowest paid among the staff in most offices. Drivers of cars and vehi- cles arc normally paid higher scales of pay becauso their work involves some technical skill and is more responsible than those who do purely manual work. In fact this Society itself recogiii-^s this in actual practice, because it started its only car driver in Bombay at a higher Parting pay in tho existing subordinate staff's scale and also pays at least to its driver in the Bombay office a special driving allowance of Rs. 20/- per month. In the scale of pay at present in force in most General Insurance Companies in Bombay motor car drivers are paid higher scales of basic pay than the office peons, sweepers who are included in tho subordinate st.'.-f (sec Exs, W-9 and 9B). However, in the moffusil area it is not uncom- mon to have drivers in the peoas grade in which the Company's drivers are at present placed. Wi1>) :he improved scale of pay and rates of dearness allowance which I am grant- ing to tiw. subordinate staff, I think there is no justification for a separate scale of pay for drivers in the moffusils. As regards liftmen also, I am of the opinion that their duties cannot be classified as being only manual. The operating of a list requires certain amount of skill and is a responsible job and the liftman in my opinion is entitled to and is generally paid a higher scale of pay than a peon. I, therefore, hold that the demand of tho Associa- tion for a separate higher scale of pay for both categories of Liftmen and Drivers, is justi- fied, to be awarded a higher scale than that awarded to Peons and a lower scale than that to be awarded to the drivers. When dealing with demand No. 1 under reference I am only dealing with the demand for classification and not with the demand for the proper scale for them with which I shall deal later.

57. The next demand is that Record Clerks should bo placed in Category "C". In support of this demand tho Association has in para 18. of its written statement of claim stated as follows :—

"This category of employees shall include those employees who are performing the duties of maintaining files of correspondence, policies, endorsements and others records- This category is a promotional category from amongst the employees in "A" and "B" above only."

It is admitted that at present there is no category of Record Clerk either in the Head Office or in the Branches. The Association at the. hearing has confined this claim for fivo posta of Record Clerks in the Head Office for the Five Peons who it claims are doing the work of Record Clerks and who it claims are entitled to the Record Clerk's scale of basjc pay of Rs. 190—8—214—10—264—12—300. The Society has opposed the demand for creation of a new category of the Record Cleric and it has stated that the filing work on which emphasis was mainly laid for promoting the five peons of trie Head Office to this .grade is attended to by one of the Junior Clerks known as Assistants in each of the Depart- ments. The Company has stated that the real motive in making this demand is to lift these 5 peons of the Head Office into a higher scale of pay. Shri Desai, the General Manager of the Society and Shri Modak, the Area General Manager have staled that there is not enough work to create a separate cadre of Record Clerks and 1 am Inclined to accept this plea. On this particular statement they were not put any questions in cross- • examination.

58. The Association has mainly sought to justify the claim on the ground that there are five Peons in the Head Office who are required to do filing and pasting work, and who have been provided with table and chairs. The Association has argued that these 5 peons are not doing manual work of Peons but are doing work slightly of a clerical nature of maintaining records—-and should be designated as Record Clerks and paid in the grade of As. 180—300.

59. Considerable oral evidence was led on this demand at the hearing. The Union has examined the 5 peons of the Head Office at Bombay for whom it has made this claim (WW-15 to 19) as to the nature of the work done by them and has also filed several docu- ments in support. Whilst the Union has laid stress on the sorting and filing work done by these peons—three of them viz., Rsthod (WW-17), Darekar (WW-18) and l.otankar (WW-19) had virtually to admit in cross-examination that their main work is not of filing but of pasting of slips etc. which according to the Company is mainly manual work. It was also admitted that some of these peons arc doing the working of dusting tables and furniture, There are circulars issued by the Company (Ex. W-44, E-47 and E-48) to which reference was made at the hearing. Ex. W-44 circular dated 6th July 1966 issued by the Company refers to filing and pasting work being required to be done by one peon in each Department. This circular is later in date than the circulars E-47 and E-48 relied upon by the Company. There is aslo a Havaidar in the office by name Shri S. K. Bana, but the Union does not claim the Record Clerk's grade for him. The Union has Telicd on certain answers given in cross-examination by the Company's witness which prove that one of these 5 peons, Lotankar (WW-18) files cheques.

60. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and the submissions made by the parties representatives in their addresses, I am satisfied that these 5 peons in the Head Office are mainly doing work of sorting, filing and pasting and that the work they do requires greater intelligence and responsibility than the work the other peons arc required to do. I am satisfied that tables and chairs have been supplied to them more to facilitate their work than because they are accepted as doing the work of Record Clerks or recognised as doing work of a clerical nature. I am, however, not satisfied that a case has been made out by the Association for a separate category of Record Clerks or for a separate grade of pay for that category much less in the scale of pay demanded by the Union- In my opinion, the ends of justice would be more than met if these 5 peons are granted a special allowance of Rs. 25 per month with effect from 1st January 1966.

61. I shall now deal with the classification in categories D, E and F claimed by the Union- It is admitted that the categories in gradd 'D', Assistants, including Telephone "Operators, Typists, Comptists and Adrema Machine Operators are workmen and arc covered by the reference. Before dealing with the categories claimed in Grade E and F, it is necessary to give the present classification of the various grades as on 1st January 1966 as which shown in the Society's statement (Ex. E-9) is as follows:—

•Cadre

Scales of Basic Pay

TI(a). Heads of Dipartm:nts at Head, Office and Senior Area

Managers

Ri- 350-25-500-EB-30-800.

IVi). T ir i- \ - -i VIiii?;rj a il Divisional Managers . . Rs. 250-15-440-^8-20-600,. I I I. Siiior OS^jra, Amstant Superintendents, Divisional

Managers and Senior Branch Managers . . . Rs. 225-15-300-EB-20-540.

TV. Jiiior Officers, Senior Branch Managers and Sectional

Heads

Rs 180-10-200-15-360-20-400.

Head Office Staff

S t e n o g r a p h e rs    .     .      .     ..                              •   R s.  1 2 5 - 1 0 - 2 2 5 - 1 5 - 3 3 0.
A s s i s t a n ts          .     .      .     ..                              .   Rs.  75-7  i/2-io5-io-225-EB-I5-
                                                                                         330.
S u b - s t a ff                                                               •  Ra.  35-2-55-3-7C-5-9O.

Branch Skiff.

J u n i or O f f i c e rs .

S e n i or A s s i s t a n ts . . .. J u n i or A s s i s t a n ts •

S u b o r d i n a te S t a ll . . ..

. Rs. 150-10-20C-EB-15-330.

• Rs. I25-IO-225-EB-I5-33O. . Rs. 65-5-75-71/2-10J-EB-10- 205.

• Rs. 35-2-55-3-70-5-80.

62. There arc special grades for Field and Development Officers (Senior and Junior), linked with the premium income they secure, but it is not necessary to deal in detail with, them as they are admittedly not covered by the reference and the Association has not claimed the benefit of the Award herein for them. In fact the Association's position is that even in computing the financial burden of the Award these employees of the Society should be excluded. The Management has, however, contended and I think wilh justifica- tion that when under this award those who are admittedly workmen and those who are held to be workmen, and get the benefit of increased scales of.pay and higher rates of clearness allowance, the Society cannot possibly not grant these Field and Development and other non-workmen employees e.g. its Officers, some corresponding or proportionate in- crease in their total emoluments. The Society submits that not to do so would result in these classes of employees on whom the Society so largely depends for the securing of new business and the continuance of existing business feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied. I think there is considerable substance in this stand of the management. Therefore, even though I do not include these Field and Development Officers and certain other categories of" employees to be workman, I cannot possibly overlook the fact that as prudent employers the management would not be able to deny to its officers some increase in their total' emoluments when the majority of its employees, who are workmen as defined by section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and who are covered by this reference net s u b- stantial benefits and that too with retrospective effect from 1st January 1966. The discre- tion as to whether to grant any improvement or not and if so how much and to which of these non-workmen section of its employees would be a matter entirely within the discre- tion of the management. The only contention I am answering by these remarks is that when computing the burden of the financial implication of the award the fact that the Society as a prudent employer would be required to grant some improvement in the salary and or dearness allowance and or other service conditions of its non-workmen section of employees cannot be over-looked, and must be borne in mind.

63. To proceed the Association's stand is that the categories mentioned in cadre II(a) and II(b) in the Society's aforestated statement Ex. E-9 are not covered by this reference, as they are not workmen but officers and the Association has not raised ™iy industrial dispute on their behalf. Thus the existing categories of (a) Heads of Departments and Senior Area Managers and (b) Junior Area Managers and Divisional Managers are admittedly not covered by the demand for classification or any of the other demands made by the Association in this reference—they being admittedly not workmen, The Associa- tion, however, claims that the categories in Grade ITT of the Society's statement (Ex. E-9) viz. Senior Officer. Assistant Superintendent, Divisional Managers snd Senior Branch Managers are workmen covered by this reference as they are doing partly supervisory and' partly clerical duties. The Association claims for them Grade F of Rs. 325—25—400— 30—550—40—750 which it has claimed for Sectional Heads and Assistant Superintendents who it claims under the demand for classification, should be placed in the F category. The Association has further claimed that there are some in the grade of Junior Officers and Assistants who perform similar duties as Grade III Officers and for them also it claims.. Grade P.

64. The Society contends that the workmen covered by Grade NT of its statement (Ex. E-9) i.e., Senior Officers, Assistant Superintendents, Divisional Managers and Senior Branch Managers are not workmen. The Union claims that they are workmen for 2 reasons:—

(a) Their duties are not supervisory much less managerial. (b) The evidence on record shows that *heir duties arc partly clerical and partly- supervisory and therefore even if their total emoluments exceed Rs. 500/- that.: would not matter and they must be held to be workmen.

The Union has contended that Junior Officers in this Society are mainly performing the duties of Senior Clerks, except one or two of them who are performing duties of employees in Cadre III and for them the Association claims the pay scale of Grade F. The Associa- tion has claimed that in Grade E it would include such of the Assistants as are designated by the Company as Senior Assistants or other Assistants performing similar duties.

65. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to state that till 1961, even at the Head Office there were two categories of Assistants. It appears that till 1959 they were called Senior Assistants and Assistants, when their designation was changed to Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants and this continued till in 1961 under the consent terms of the Award in the Industrial Dispute CGIT-38 of 1960 (Ex. W-3), on the demand of the then Union by consent there was at the Head Office at Bombay an amalgamation of the Senior and Junior Assistants grade into the common grade of Assistants of Rs. 75—7J—105—10— 225—EB—15—330, The amalgamated common scale of pay for Assistants was later extended to the Calcutta, Madras, and Delhi area offices. It is urged on behalf of the Association that the nature of the duties of Assistants continued to be tho same after mer- ger as they were prior to the merger. However, at the Branches the two grades of Junior nnd Senior Assistants were continued and they arc at present, as stated above, divided into the following two grades:

Junior Assistants : Rs. 65—5—75—72—105—EB—10—205.

Senior Assistants; Rs. 125—10—225—EB—15—330,

66. It is worthy of note that the scale for stenographer at the Head Office is Rs. J25—10—225—15—=330, the same as for the Senior Assistants in the Branches. It may also be noted that the scale of pay for Junior Officers at the Head Office is Rs. 180—10—200—15—360—20—400 (Ex, W— 3—Ex. E -^ and Ex. E—9) and at the Branches Rs. 150—10—200—EB—15—330.

67. The Association, however, now wants two separate grades of pay for Senior Assis- tants and Assistants in all Branches, Area and Head Offices of the Society. The Union has submitted tho designations continued to be Senior Assistants and Assistants—Junior Assistants being called Assistants—In other words, its contention is that in spite of the consent Award in 1961 in Reference No. CGIT-38 of 1960 (Ex. W-3) the same old pattern -of classification into two grades of Assistants was in practice continued and therefore the consent Award in Reference No. 38 of 1960 cannot operate as a bar to the Award of two grades of pay of Assistants- The Association has stated that even after the consent Award of I960, appointments have been made in the designation of Assistants and Senior Assistants.

68. On behalf of the Society it is, however, contended that the existing wage structure having been agreed to for Bombay by the consent Award of 1961 (Ex. W-3) and in Calcutta in 1963 (Ex. W-7), the Association was not justified in asking for a change; that having agreed to a common scale for Assistants it could not now ask for two grades of pay of Senior and Junior Assistants. It has also contended that on the merits there is no justifi- cation for changing the existing system at tho Head Office and at the Area Offices at Delhi, Calcutta and Madras, where the system of a single grade for Assistants had worked quite satisfactorily.

69. The Association's case is that even today in the Head Office at Bombay there are workmen who are designated as Assistants and Senior Assistants. Its further contention is that in the Head Office at Bombay there has come into existence a system of sections in several Departments and that there are certain number of employees who have come to be designated as Sectional Heads. Considerable evidence both oral and documentary has •corns to be led.

70. T shall first consider the question of whether in fact a category of Senior Assistants was created in the Head Office and exists there, The second question will be whether if it Is held that there is no category of Senior Assistants in existance, the Union's demand for two categories of Assistants—Junior and Senior Assistants is justified on the merits.

71. I shall now deal with the first of these two questions viz., whether there is at present a category of Senior Assistants existing in the Company.

72. With regard to the oral evidence on record the Union has examined in all 19 wit- nesses—all employees in its Head Office. In fact a noticeable feature of the manner in which this case was conducted by the Association was the special emphasis laid on the claims of the Head Office staff, whose claims it was quite clear it was its special concern 'to promote. Of the 19 witnesses examined five. G. V. Lotankar, T. N. Chawan, S. B. "Darekar, M. M. Poojari and M. S. Rathod are all Peons for whom a claim was made for

them to be appointed as Record Clerks. There were Four Assistants viz. V. N. Balvalii S. M. Shah, M. J. Bangera, and R. J. Manjrekar (formerly a Typist) Of the remaining 10 Tvcrc:—

1. R. V. Joshi, Junior Officer. 2. B. A. Shriyan, Assistant Fire Superintendent. 3. D. T. Salian, Assistant Fire Superintendent. 4. V. K. Jani. Assistant Fire Superintendent.

5. W. B. Parulekar, Assistant Area Manager. 6. R. M. Chatrapati, Assistant Area Manager. 7. V. C. Shah, Area Accountant.

6. L. D, Patel, Accountant for Branches. 9, P.. K. Vakharia, Assistant Superintendent (Claims Department)

10. P, J. Buch—Union claims his designation is Senior Assistant in Accounts

Department.

73. For these employees Ihe Union has claimed higher grades and scales of pay in the demanded categories and grades of pay.

74. Now, the existing set up in the Head Office is as shown in trie chart Ex.E-50, which is annexed to the affidavit of Shri J. V. Desai, Manager of the Society. This chart according to the Society shows the classification Dcpartmcntwise. Shri Desai solely does the distribution of the work in the Head Office as well as the Bombay Area Offices and he has distributed the work in the Head Office and the Area Distribution Offices as shown in the chart Ex.E-50 and there arc no other posts created and assigned to others except as shown in the chart Ex. E-50. According to Shri Desai, as slated in his affidavit, the st.iff working at Bombay has been divided into various department viz., Fire, Accident, Accident Claims, Marine, Accounts and Administration and each department is looked after and controlled by a Head of the Department, in addition to his own Secretarial and Treaty work. In none of the Departments according to Shri Dcsai's affidavit (Ex. l£-50) is the work so much as to necessitate the creation of Section Heads, because the Depart- mental Heads are themselves formulating policy matters, co-ordinating and distributing the work and assessing the daily workload of each employee and controlling all persons working tinder them,

75. The Union has filed a chart Ex.W-26 showing what according to it is the existing set up in the Head Office. That chart is materially different from the chart Ex.E-50 filed by the Society. Considerable oral evidence was led by both sides in support of their respective charts. I am satisfied that the chart of the Company Ex. E-50 shows correctly the set up at the Bombay office. I have in dealing later with the claim for Sectional Heads indicated in some detail the nature of the evidence on which the Union has relied. The Union has relied very heavily on the suggestions made by Shri Bapat (E-52). It's case is that these suggestions were accepted and brought into force after they were made. The Society's case is that those suggestions were never accepted by the management and never came into force and 1 accept this contention, for the reasons slated later in this Award when discussing the claim for Sectional Heads. In my openion the Union has failed to prove the existence of the category of Senior Assistant in the Head Offic* or at the Delhi, Calcutta and Madras offices. The category of Senior Assistant admittedly exists in the Branches as it was awarded under the consent terms of the Award in Reference No. CGIT-38 of 1960. With regard to the Head office and the offices at Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras, the demand, in the earlier adjudication Ref. CGIT-38 of 1960, was for a conso- lidated scale of pay for Assistants and under the consent award a consolidated wage scale of Rs. 75—330 was awarded for Assistants. If the post of Senior Assistant was in existence or was continued in the Head Office and at Calcutta, Madras and Delhi offices, surely n pay scale would have been prescribed for that category other than the pay scale for the Assistant, as was done in the Branches. In this connection the answers in cross-exami- nation by Shri P. J. Buch who claimed to be Senior Assistant in the Accounts Department are not natural and do not support the Union's case that a category of Senior Assistants existed in the Head Office or area offices at Bombay and Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. ff there were a category of Senior Assistant surely all appointments to it would be by written orders specifying the scales of pay of the new scale. Mere mention of Senior Assistant in certain memos or stray circulars or even in statements filed at the hearing would not create the category of Senior Assistant after one specific grade with a long scale of pay of Rs. 75—7^—105—10—225—EB—15—330 was by agreement and consent awarded in the earlier dispute for Assistants, and the then existing two scales of pay for Assistants of two grades were done away with. The case of the Union that there arc existing categories of Senior Assistants and Sectional Heads, is in my opinion clearly not

established. Clearly, several of the vouchers on which the Union sought .to rely contain, endorsements which it is difficult to accept were made when the vouchers were originally submitted. On this point, I accept the evidence of the officers of the Company who have, stated that these endorsements were not there when they put their signatures or initial* OQ them.

76. My finding, therefore, is that there is no category of Senior Assistant In force fa the Company's Head Office. On the evidence on record 1 am inclined to think that the Union's chart Ex.W-26 cannot be relied upon. As admitted by witness (WW-1) (or the Union, Shri P. G. Buch, he had prepared Ex. W-26 on the basis of information collected: by him from different employees. It may be that certain designations and sections have been mentioned in the Company's chart, annexed to the affidavit of the General Manager, and in certain statements filed by the Society and certain memos and circulars but those are general designations and have not been used in the sense in which the Union seeks to interpret them. In my opinion, the evidence of the officers of the Company on th" existing set up in the Company is more disinterested and can be treated as more reliable than what the Union's witnesses have stated, in their natural anxiety to support the claims made. I do not want to say anything more but on consideration of the evidence' both oraJ and documentary on record, I am more than satisfied that the Union's case that there is an existing category of Senior Assistants at the Head Office at Bombay and at the Delhi, Calcutta and Madras offices is not established.

77. However, I am satisfied that a category of Senior Assistants should be created in the Head Office and at Calcutta, Delhi and Madras. There is already a category of Senior Assistant in the Branches, and there might as well be one in the Head Office and at Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. In several General Insurance Companies in Bombay (Seo Ex. W-9 series) there are two categories of Assistants and Senior Assistants. I would^ therefore, award a category for Senior Assistants.

78. I shall now deal with the question whether there are sections and the category of sectional heads. It is admitted that cadre 1 and 2 employees of the Society are not workmen and the Union does not claim them to be workmen. There is, however, a dis- pute with regard to grade III employees some of whom the Union claims are workmen. In the existing set up, above the Assistants the next grade is that of Junior Officers and above them u the grade of Assistant Superintendents and Senior Officers. The manage- ment's contention is that in law and fact, the Senior Officers in grade III aro not covered by this reference, as they are not workmen. The Union has in support of its contention that some of the senior officers are workmen led the evidence of Shri Parulekar (WW-2) Shri R. M. Chhatrapati, Assistant Area Manager (WW-3) Shri B. K. Jani, Assistant Fire Superintendent (VVW-6) Shri B. A. LShriyan, Assistant Fire Superintendent (WW-4), Shri L. D. Patcl, Accountant for Branches (WW-9), Shri V. C. Shah (WW-11) and Shri R. K. Vakharia, Assistant Fire Superintendent, Claims Department (WW-10) who arc at present all in cadre IIT and who the Union say are workmen and aro covered by this- reference. It is admitted that the existing grade III is from Rs. 225 to Rs. 540. These witnesses have been examined in great detail with regard to their duties. The Union's case is that these persons are doing supervisory-cwnrclcncal work and are, therefore, work- men, while the Company says that they are officers who are discharging managerial functions. Both parlies have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Reserve Bank of Tndia (1965 11 LU 175). On a careful consideration of the evi- dence on record I am more than satisfied that these cadre III officers are not work- men.

79. I am impressed by the Company's contention that these officers were never treated; as workmen by the Union when this dispute was raised. In support the Company has pointed out that to all these cadre Til employees no interim relief under the settlement of 24-3-1967 (Ex. E-6) was paid and this has been admitted by them in their evidence. Ad- mittedly they were also, barring one of two. not members of the Union. It is well settled law that whether a particular class of employees are workmen as defined by section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would depend upon the nature of the duties they perform and not on (heir designation. The management is right when it argues that the duties are those of the cadre and not of the individual. In fact no individual classification is sought by the Union. There is substance in the management's contention that the Union has failed to discharge the onus which it was on it to establish from the nature of the duties performed by these cadre Til employees that they were workmen. The Company's conten- tion that they arc performing administrative duties is home out by the statement in the affidavit of Shri Parulekar WW-2 when in paragraph 4 he states:

"I have to perform duties of an administrative nature."

ft is also not without significance that the majority of these employees are drawing more than Rs. 500|- per month and that probably is the reason why they did not call themselves workmen or claim the interim relief which was paid only to those who were included as.

being covered by the settlement of 24-2-1967. It is also necessary to see what posts these cadre III employees held before they were transferred to the Head Office. For instance Shri Parulekar (WW-2) has admitted that before being appointed to the present post he was Assistant Area Manager, Poona, and thereafter Officer-in-charge of the Nagpur Branch. It is admitted that this post of Area Manager is the highest in a Branch, and )t would be difficult to hold that the Area Manager can be deemed to be a workman. Shri R. N. Chhatrapati has admitted that he was Branch Manager at Lucknow and thereafter Branch Manager Rajkot and thereafter Divisional Manager, Bangalore. Shri Jam", a witness in this case, was formerly a Divisional Manager and thereafter Branch Manager at Surat, Nag- pux and at Jaicknow. L. D. Patel was formerly Area Accountant at Calcutta and V. C. Shah was Area Accountant at Calcutta and then at Nagpur. Though it is true that designation docs not decide whether an employee is an officer or a workman, there is Httte doubt that these employees of the Society who are in cadre III who are admittedly in a higher grade than junior officers ar; senior officers shouldering managerial and development duties. As is clear from the evidence of Shri I. V. Desai, General Manager of the Society cadre III officers have power to sign policies and cheques on behalf of the company. Two of the Union's witnesses Jani and Chhatrapati have admitted this in their evidence. I am satisfied that even the employees in cadre III whom the Union claims are workman are really discharging and sharing managerial responsibilities. Surely the work of underwriting is work of a managerial nature. In fact it is clear that the majority of them do not in effect claim to be workman in asmuch as (a) they have not claimed to be governed by the 15>6Jaward of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. CGIT-38 of J960, (b) they have not claimed the benefits of the settlements of 1963-64 and (c) they have not claimed any overtime payment for working extra hours. This would show that they themselves do not consider that they arc workmen. I am, therefore, not satis^ fied that the union has made out a case that even some cadre III employees are workmen. In my opinion, they have all along enjoyed separate statuts. Their duties and responsibly ties are of officers and they have in the past never regarded themselves as workmen. In the result the Union's claim for Assistant Superintendents being workmen and being placed in grade F scale of pay fails and is rejected.

80. I shall next come to the question whether there are any Sectional Heads in the Company and whether the demand of the Union that they should be placed in Grade F in the pay scale of Rs. 325—25-^00—30—550-^0—750 is justified. This demand is con- fined to the head office. The Union's case is that at present there are both sections and section heads in existence in the Company. The Company has denied the existence of both. Now, the admitted position of the Union is that there is no evidence since when the sections and the sectional heads were established and this was conceded by Shri Madan Mohan in his address to me on the 24th March 19(58. The whole case of the Union rests, on certain memos and endorsements on certain circulars. The Union has heavily relied upon the memos which are on record as exhibits W-64 nnd W-65 which were addressed to two employees-—Shri D. P. Vyas and K. J. Mehta granting them one incre- ment but the point on which they rely is that copies of both these memos signed by th? General Manager were endorsed to the salary section. Similarly, the Union relies upon exhibits W-39, W-41 and W-53 the first two Of which are memos dated 3rd March 1966 signed by the General Manager and they deal with the subject of procedure for acceptance of risks and to a certain circular No. ADM 0852 dated 19m January 1966. The circulars filed bear a typed endorsement "copy to (i) Fire/Accident/Marine Superintendents and (2) sectional heads in Bombay area office" and exhibit W-39 has the name of "Shri Balvalljr written in ink in handwriting below the above endorsement. Similarly exhibit W-41 which is a copy of the same memo dated 3rd March 1966 bears a similar endorsement and the writing below the endorsement "copy to sectional heads in Bombay area office" mentions the nanie of Shri R. V. Joshi written in ink in handwriting. Now, exhibit W-53 is an incre- ment memo dated 3rd January 1967 addressed to Shri P. J. Buch, Senior Assistant, Bombay in which he was informed that he had been granted one increment with effect from 1st January 1?67 for the year 1967. This has also been signed dft Ijerialf of the General Manager by Shri Ramakrishnan, Chief Administrative, Officer and it bears an endorsement in type "CC to salaries section". Another piece of evidence on which the Unions claim for for the existence of sections and sectional heads is based is a note prepared by Shri D. V. Bapat the Chief Accountant, exhibit E-52. Now this note is dated 5th March 1966 and is signed by Shri D. V. Bupat who was at that time the head of the accounts department in which he has recorded that with a view to have better co-ordination and co-operation between the staff members and the accounts department and plan the work of accounts, two meetjng of the staff members were called by him. He has mentioned the names of the five members of the staff from the Accounts Department who had attended tbeie meet- ings. They were B. K. Joshi, L. D. Patcl, V. C. Shah, P. L. Buch and V. S. Raju, Shri Bapat has stated in that note that it was suggested that the following distribution of work of the Accounts Department would be more conducive if the employees named above arc

allowed to look after the work (1) Head Office Accounts—B.K. Jpshi (2) Cash section— V. C. Joshi, (3) Miscellaneous Section—Agents Section—-P. i. Buch and Bombay Area Accounts—V. S. Raju. Shri Bapat in his note has specifically stated as follows:—

It was made clear that the above suggestion would be referred to the higher autho- rity and on their approval further steps would be taken.'

He has then referred to the secoud meeting when the following suggestions emerged. That the General Manager be requested to give all the orders of the Accounts Department direct to the Chief Accountant and all the departmental heads may also be requirtd to deal directly with the Chief Accountant. The Chief Accountant should give all instructions directly to the staff member concerned. The five staff members will see that all orders of the General Manager and enquiries and suggestions of departmental heads are followed in word and spirit. Ho also suggested that the whole of the staff should sit together so that their work can be co-ordinated properly. In the concluding paragraph Shri Bapat in submitting this Note to the General Manager, has stated as follows:—

"I, therefore, request your good self to consider the above suggestions and extend me your hearty co-operation by sending me your directions to the above proposal. The staff has assured that because of the above distribution of work nobody will claim any rise in emoluments or so. I now await vour orders.".

Exhibit E-52 which has been produced by the management bears an endorsement under the initials of the Manager stating "Please discuss" and on the body of this note the remark "File" has been made by him. Now, both Shri J. V. Desai the General Manager and Shri D. V. Bapat the head ol the accounts department have given evidence on this document and their evidence is that this was a mere proposal made by Shri Bapat to the General Manager who did not agree with it and therefore made the remark "File". The Union's case on the other hand is that after the two meetings with the members of the staff the proposals made by Shri Bapat were put into effect and from that time onwards separate sections and sectional heads came to be created in the accounts department. This has been deposed to by the Union's witnesses \y\V-l Shri Buch, WW-9 Shri L. D. Patel who is the Accountant for Branches and WW-11 Shri V. C. Shah, Area Accountant. The Union has relied upon the statement made by Shri Bapat in his evidence. "I made a sort of division of labour in my department". The division of work in the head office as it exists at present is as stated in the chart prepared by the Company which is annexure to the affidavit of the General Manager and it is on record as exhibit E-50. The Union on the other hand has filed u chart which is on record as exhibit W-26. In support of the claim that there were certain sectional heads the Union has very heavily relied upon certain endorsements made on leavi? applications by these persons whom it says arc sectional heads. The leave applications are on record as exhibits E-33 to E-46 exhibits E-54 to E-57 and exhibits E-58 to E-67. Now, the only thing on which the Union has relied in support of the endorsement on the relevant applications is that they bear the initials of those whom it claims are sectional heads, its case being that before the leave applications were signed by the heads of the departments they were processed by these so-called sectional heads. The Company's case on the other hand is that these initials have been subsequently put on these leave applications of the staff and sub-staff In order to create evidence of the sectional heads exercising duties which they feel would justify their claim to the post of sectional heads having been created in the office. The manage- ment's officers in their evidence have stated that the initials on the leave applications were not there when they were sanctioned by them. The Union has also relied upon certain statements made by Shri Bapat fa his second affidavit in which he stated that the disputed initials were there when he signed the leave applications. Again they have relied on certain answers given in cross-examination by Shn Bapat in which he stated that during his meetings with the workmen there was a suggestion that leave applications may be routed through them. Advantage is also taken of a statement made by Shri Bapat in cross-examination that he had made the second affidavit on his own the accuracy of which has been seriously doubted by the Union. Certain inferences are also sought to be drawn from certain general answers given by Shri Bapat in cross-examination. On behalf of the management on the other hand it h urged that the question whether the posts of sectional heads were created and whether they are entitled to grade F should be examined from three points of view (a) whether there is in actual existence work of sectional heads fl>) Is the story of their creation in 1965 as submitted by the Union correct and (c) the justifiability or otherwise of the demand on its merits. The management's case briefly summarised is as follows:—That the normal channel of promotion to Assistants is to become Junior Officers and then go to grade F while the Union's attempt was to put an Assistant into the rank of a senior officer by the evidence of fellow assistants. It has submitted that there is^ no rational basis for the story put forward by the Union which any prudent man would accept. The management has stated that the evidence of EW-1 Shri Bapat along with exhibit E-52 clearly establishes beyond doubt that posts of sectional heads were never created and that departmental heads deal with all responsible work. Analysmn the

evidence on record Shri Kothari for the management has urged that the case that there are different sections in different departments had not been alleged in the pleadings of the union and that it was sought to be made out only in the evidence. The Union has relied upon the pleading at paragraph IS page 9 of the written statement which I have extracted •earlier where it is stated—"Sectional heads shall be placed in Grade F. These employees will be performing supervisory duties.". Shri Kothari has argued that nowhere is there uny mention in the pleadings of the Union of grade III officers i.e. senior officers but the uuion claimed that they were workmen and the whole story of sectional heads is an after thought and a manoevure after the reference was made; that sectional heads can only be justified on the strength of the work and no di^ta and figures have been produced tn support of the claim. He has aijuted that it is not shown for how many employees i\ supervisor would be needed and the Union has only concentrated on promoting the interests of a few chosen employees at the head office and that the majority of the workmen in the area offices and branch offices have been neglected and not a word has been said for them. In support he has pointed out that Shri J, V. Dcsai the General Manager in his evidence has slated (hat the structure of the Society does not require so-called sections -and that in none of the departments the work is so much as to necessitate the creation of sections. He has stated that there has been no cross-examination of Shri J. V, Desai on this point and that the management's positive evidence about the quantum of work etc., Ms gone unchallenged. The Union also has not shown the basis of work on which tho ^creation of sections would be justified.

81. It does appear to me that (he number of employees in each department at the head office and in the area offices in Bombay is so small that it would be very surprising and unnatural if in addition to the junior and senior officers a further category of sectional heads would be considered necessary, For instance the re-insurance department has only one Assistant in the section and if the Union's claim is to be justified there would have to be a separate section with sectional head in that department. For instance in the Urc •department there is only one comptisl in addition to the typist and it would be impracti- cable and unreasonable to accept a claim for that department to be created into a separate section. I think the improbability of the story of the Union can be judged on this basis. In the reinsurance section in the accounts department there is only one Assistant writing the entire re-insurance business. The chart of the company shows that there are many •departments which comprise of only three employees e.g. Bombay ledger in accounts and -,treaty in accounts. Several of these sections are shown to have only one or two typists. A detailed examination as made at the hearing by the management of the various depart- ments in my opinion shows the unjustifiability of tho demand for sectional heads. Though the Union has sought to claim (hat the correct distribution of work is as is contained ,in its chart exhibit W-26 many of its witnesses have admitted that the statement in the •company's chart Exhibit E.52 with regard to the departments was accurate and correct. For instance Shriyan WW-6 in his examination in chief deposed to the Union's chart bul in cross-examination he admitted that the position in the Company's chart with regard to ,his department i e Fire Department was also correct. Shri A. J. Bangera WW-8 in—cross- examination (page 2, 11th line) has stated that V. K. Jani and Shri D. T. Salian are the heads of underwriting section but Kx. W-26 which is the Union's chart however shows only .one employee in the underwriting section. On the evidence I am satisfied that there is no category of Sectional Heads and the Union's demand for them is not made out nor justified.

82 Before dealing with the demands for pay scales and rates of dearncss allowance, it is necessary to state that the Association by its letter dated 2nd July 1968 has drawn my attention to the fact that after the hearing on 18th May, 1968 the Society had granted increases in their gross salaries to the General Manager of Rs. 575 per month, to the Superintendent in the Accident Department of Rs. 180 per month to the Chief Administra- tive Officer of Rs, 240, per month, to the Superintendent Accident Claim of Ks. Z4U per month and to the Marine Superintendent and the Chief Accountant of Rs. 160 per month each The company in reply to this has stated that these increases were justified because the total salary paid to these officers in these Society were, compared to the salaries paid to like officers in other companies, much lower. I do not think that the increases granted to these six officers amounting in all to Rs. 1555 per month, can be considered as excessive or unjustified, or be considered as suggesting that the company has got tue financial capacity to pay its workmen higher salaries and wages than they would other- wise get on the merits or in the financial capacity of the Society.

83 My attention has also been drawn by the Association to the speech of the Chairman of the Society Shri Jyotindra I.. Mehta at the 19th annual general meeting of the Society held on 24th June 1968 where the Chairman had stated:

"I am glad to inform you that it has been mutually agreed to amalgamate both the Union Co-operative Insurance Society and the Maharashtra State Co- operative Insurance Society into one unit. Consequential changes Will have

to be made in the bye-laws of both the Societies. In view of this amalgama- tion scheme the amendment to our bye-laws which have been, submitted to the Registrar for his approval will have to be kept in abeyance Cor some time. Here I would like lo express my thanks to the Board of the Maha- rashtra State Co-operative Insurance Society for agreeing to the scheme of amalgamation in a true Co-operative spirit. I am glad to state that the progress made by the Union Co-operative Insurance Society should be a matter of pride for the Co-operative sector and I am certain that with the amalgamation of both Union Co-operative and Maharashtra Society the pro- gress will be still better,"

• ?•?." T he S ^y has in its letter in reply dated 20th July 1968 stated that the merger is still in the discussion stage and nothing is yel final. It has mentioned several details Which according to its show that the amalgamation cannot be taken as having been con- cluded Tt has pointed out that what the Chairman of (he Society meant was that the principle of amalgamation of co-operative insurers has been agreed upon but the actual amalgamation is quite different from the enunciation of principles and that there arc many hurdles factors and possibilities for and against amalgamation as a fact. Even for argu- ments sake if it comes as a fact it will take long time to have the agreed picture A casual statement by the Chairman cannot in any way be considered in these arbitration proceedings as the amalgamation itself is not certain.

85. I may say that it would be safe to assume that the amalgamation of the Society and the Maharashtra State Co-operative Insurance Society into one unit is an expected event in the near future and that many of the difficulties which the Society pointed out at the hearing as stemming from the competition which it facie from the Maharashtra Co-operative Society will have disappeared. To that extent the financial position of the company will be strengthened and I have proceeded in framing my award on that basis.

86. Having dealt with categorisation. I shall next deal with (he demands for wage scales and dearness allowance and adjustment of the existing wages into the awarded wage scales.

87. I shall first deal with the wage scales for (he categories in Grade A viz. Sweepers^ Peons, Watchmen, and Head Peons. TTiey are in the existing categories of sub-staff whose Basic Pay scale is Rs. 35—2—55—3—70—5—90 at the Head Office at Bombay and at the offices at Delhi, Calcutta and Madras, and Rs. 35—2—55—3—70 5 80, in the Branches. The lowest paid member of the sub-staff category in Bombay, Delhi. Calcutta and Madras is at present entitled to the total emoluments of Rs. 137 50 made up as. follows:--

Rs. 35-60 Basic Pay Rs. 57'50 Dearness Allowance Rs. 1500 Temporary Special Allowance Rs. 1000 City Compensatory Allowance Rs. 2000 Interim Relief with effect from 1st January, 1966 under the aereement of 24th February, 1967.

Rs. 137-50

88. The sub-staff in the mofussil are not entitled to any city compensatory allowance, and therefore, the total emoluments of the lowest paid sub-staff in the mofussil area is Rs, 127'50 per month,

89. The demand of the Association for Sweepers, Peons, Watchmen and Head Peons is for a basic pay scale of Rs, 125—5—150—6—192—8—240. It has claimed that this scale of pay is the proper one for the 1949 Base Year i.e. at the All India Average Con- sumer Price Index for Working Class (1949—100). T may state that the scales of pay that the Union has claimed for the remaining categories B to F, are also on the same- Consumer Index No. For easy reference 1 reproduce them below category-wise:

Scales of Basic Pay

Category

Grad': 120—5 — 150—6—192—8—240.

A. Sweepers, Peons, Watchmen, and Head Pocns

(19 years)

Grade 180—6—192—8—240—10—300:

B, Liftmen & Drivers etc,

(14 years)

Category

C. Record Clerks . . . ..

Seal; of Basic Pay

G.-a.l; 193—8—214—10 —i54—[2—200 —15—3^3- (15 years)

D. Asstts. including Telephone Operators, Typists,

Comptists& Adrima Machine Operators .

E. Senior Asstts., Senior Typists &-Stenographers

F. Sectional Heads anJ Assifts. Superintendents Grade 2^—10—260—15—350—20—

493. (19 yiiis)

Grade 275—15—350—20—450—25—

rioD. (16 years)

Gra.le 325—25—400—30—550—40—, 750 (13 years)

The demands for ileurness allowance and adjustment are as stated earlier.

90, The total emoluments of the lowest paid Assistant at the Head Office m Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras is at present Rs. 195-00 made up as follows: —

Rs. 75'OD Basic Pay in Lhe Seal; of Ri. 75 —/} — 13; —10 — 225 — KiJ —15 -330.

Rs. 70-00 Dcarness Allowance Us. 15-00 Temporary Special Allowance Rs. lo-oo City Compensatory Allowance Rs. 25'00 Interim Relief.

Rs. I9S-00

91. Under the demands of the Association at All India Average Consumer Price Index Mo. 210 (1949=100) the sub-staff i.e. Peons & others, would be entitled til the minimum to: —

Minimum : Rs. 120-00 liasic Pay Rs, T37-OO Dcarness Allowance

Rs. 257'00

and the lowest paid Clerk—(Assistant) would be entitled to:—

Minimum :

Rs. 2oo-00 Basic Pay E.s. 228-00 Deumess Allowance

Rs. 428-00

•I may state that the demanded Basic Pay Scales, linked as they are to 1949=100, And the rates of dearness allowance arc so excessive, that they cannot possibly be considered as practical. These scales of pay and rates of dcarness allowance, in their totality, are-higher than what some of the biggest General Insurance Cos., like New India, Jaya Bharat, Jupiter Insurance Co., and others are paying in Bombay, as shown in the statements filed by the Association, and which in my opinion, would place a financial burden on the company which it would not possibly be able to hear (see Statements Ex. W-9 Series).

92. In my opinion, it is also not possible to accept any scales of pay, on the I949.---100 cost of living Index No., claimed by the Union. The wages having been revised more than once since the Society was inaugurated in 1951. The existing wages having been fixed by a consent award in 1961. For these reasons it is not possible to consider 1949— 100 as the Base Year for the revised wage structure.

93. I have earlier in this award stated the respective submissions made by the parties and the principles which should be applied in fixing the rates of basic wage and the rates

ot clearness allowance. I think in this case whilst applying the principle of industry-™™- region, I must bear in mind the five factors which 1 have stated earlier in para 47 of this awarJ, considering that this is a Co-operative Insurance Society. The calculation which thei Union made at the hearing on the basis of the need based formula of the 15th Indian Labour Conference is again so high and unrealistic that it cannot possibly be accepted In my opinion, there are two main factors which do not make it possible to apply the basic scales of pay and the rates of clearness allowance which the other larger general insurance companies arc paying. Firstly, it must be borne in mind that there arc in all more than one hundred general insurance companies—-throughout the country and the comparative statement filed by the Union (Ex, W-9 Scries) only relates to some 25 to 26 General Insurance Companies, very few of which are AH India Insurance Companies and none of which is a Co-operative Insurance Company, much less of an All India character like this company. Secondly, most of those scale of pay and rates of dcarness aJlownnce have been fixed at different times under agreements with their Union. Another factor which is of prime importance is that this company has a large number of area ajid branch offices throughout the country and it employs a much larger number of employees than several, if not most, of the General Insurance Companies with which the Union has sought comparison. It would be easy for a company which has a comparatively small or limited number of employees of a particular category to gcant, out of consideration for an overall settlement, a higher scale if pay and or more liberal other service benefits than would be held to be justified on merits in an adjudication of the same industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. For these reasons, I am of the opinion, that Union's demand for the same scale of pay and dcarness allowance for the subordinate and clerical staff of this company as are paid by the larger units in the General Insurance industry referred to in Hx. W-9, is not justified. But all the same, those agreements are useful guide-lines, and I have borne them in mind. I have also in this reference to bear inj mint! that under the terms of the reference whatever revision is granted in the pay scales and the rates of dearness allowance will have to be awarded with retrospective effect from 1st January 1966. This immediately places in the forefront the consideration of the financial burden that would be placed upon the Company, The Supreme Court in a number of decisions starting with the leading case of The Express News Papers (Private) Lid., (1961 1 LLJ P. 339) has laid down the salutary principle that it is incumbent upon a wage fixing authority to ascertain what would bo the financial burden on the employ- er of HID revision in the wage structure and (he scheme of dcarness allowance and the other benefits which its award would place upon the employer and formulate the terms of its award, only after it has ascertained what would be the financial burden on the employer, I must also bear in mind that under the terms of settlement on the other demands covered by the charter of demands, settled by the settlement of 24th February 1967, the Company has already been burdened with a fairly heavy financial burden. With elfoet from 1st January. 1966, the employees have got Interim Relief of Rs. 20 per month for the sub-staff and Rs. 25 per month for the rest of (he employees and this must also ba kept in mind. I, therefore, asked the parties what would be the financial burden on the* Company for each of the years 1966. 1967 and 1968 on certain scales of pay and scheme of dearness allowance, giving them \?> understand clearly that those were purely tentative proposals. T have been considerably influenced in formulating my final award by (he agreed joint calculations submitted by the parties of the financial burden that would be imposed on the Company for each of the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 on the wage scales and rates of dearness allowance on which they were required to make their calculations. Though I might have liked to have given something more to some categories. I have been forced to withhold my hand in doing so, an I feel that the financial burden of my award will, as it is, be a heavy one on the Comrmny. particularly as T have linked the dearness allowance to the All India Consumer Price Index Number 1949=100 and there has been a substantial increase, by now almost of 30 points, over the Index Number since Index Number 185 which is the average for 1966, to which I have pegged the revised pay scales. On an anxious consideration of the submissions made by the parties f have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to grant the scales of basic pay and rates of dearness allowance demanded by the Union, much less is it possible to frame a wage structure on the basis of the Cost of Living Index Number 1949=100 as demanded by the Union, fn my opinion, the fair thing to do, on the facts and circumstances, of the case and the principles of wage fixation referred to above, is to formulate the .scales oE basic pay and scheme of dearness allowance on the average of the All India Average Consumer Price Tndex Number for 1966 which was 185 and to provide a scheme of neutralisation which would provide a fair rate of neutralisation of the rise in the cost ot living beyond that number. The average of the All India Consumer Price Index Number for 1966 was 185 (1949 — 100) and I am pegging the wage structure I am evolving tiv thai Index Number. At present, the total emoluments of the workmen are made up ot Basic Pay Dearness Allowance. City Compensatory Allowance (at Bombay, Delhi. Calcutta and Madras) Temporary Special Allowance and Interim Relief granted under the earlier settlement particulars of which I havei given above. The Temporary Special Allowance and the Interim Relief were virtually granted as compensation for the rise that has taken-

place in the increase in the cost of living as the existing scheme of dearness allowance is not linked to any cost of living index number.

In the facts and circumstances of the ease in my opinion the fair thine to do would be to direct—

(a) that the amounts at present paid to each workman by way of temporary special allowance and interim relief shall be added on to his basic pay as on 1st January, 1966, In the case of the subordinate staff, including drivers and liftmen, the amounts to be added would be Rs. 15/- temporary special allow- ance and Rs. 20/- interim relief i.e. Rs. 35/- in all.

(b) Iu the case of other categories of workmen covered by this award who are paid temporary special allowance and Interim Relief, the amounts to be added would be Rs. 15/- temporary special allowance and Rs. 25/- interim relief i.e. Rs. 40/- in all. I prescribed the following scales of basic pay for the various categories of workmen covered by this award to take effect from 1st January, 1966.

For the Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras Offices:

Category :

Basic Scales of Pay :

Peons including Head Peons, Sweepers, , . Rs. 70—2—90—3—105—5—125.

Watchmen, etc.

Liftmen. D r i v e r s.

.. . . .. .. . . ..

RS. 100—4—120—5—150. Rs, HO A 130—5—185—7,50—200.

NOTE,—The driving allowance of Rs. 20/- per month at present being paid to the only one car driver at Bombay will be treated as withdrawn with effect from the dato this award comes into force i.e. when the revised scale of pay and dearness allowance is applied to him. It appears that the duty hours of this driver at present arc such as do not make it possible for his services to be utilised in the evening after office hours. I think this is a fit case whore staggering of his working hours within the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act would be justified. The driver could be given some hours off during the day to enable his services being available after regular office hours. The present practice under which he observes tho same hours as the peons and other stafl is resulting in an anomalous situation which needs to be altered to conform to more useful and purposeful utiliza- tion of his services,

For Assistants, (Typists, Senior Typists, Telephone Operators and Comptists), Senior- Assistants, Stenographers and Junior Officers, in the Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Delhi offices, I prescribe (he following scales of basic pay to take effect from 1st January, 1966: —

Basic Scales of Pay :

Categories :

.. RS. 120—7 1/2—150—10—280—

Assistants, Typists, Senior Typists, Tele-

EB—15—385.

phone Operators and Comptists.

, , Rs. 180—10—230—15—380—EB—

Senior Assistants.

20^*20.

.. Rs. 165—10—265—15—410. ., Rs. 225—10—245—15—335—EB—

Stenographers. Junior Officers.

20-475.

I am satisfied that there is no justification for a separate grade for Senior Typists. The scale for Assistants which I have framed now is long enough to include Senior Typists and they can well aspire to travel on to the Senior Assistant's scale of pay,

95. Thfc categories of subordinate staff and the clerical staff stated above in the Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras offices will in addition be entitled to continue to receive city compensatory allowance of Rs. 10/- per month.

Other Offices:

Bqsic Scales of Pay :

Categories :

.. RS. 65—2—85—3—100—5—115.

Peons including Head Peons, Watchmen,

Liftmen, Drivers, etc.

Assistants :

.. Rs nO—5—120—7'50—130—10—

210—EB—15—255.

Junior Assistants, Typists, Senior Typists, Telephone Operators and Comptists,

.. Rs. 165—10—265—15—340—EB—

Senior Assistants.

20—380.

, . RS. 200—10—250—15—385—EB—

Junior Officers.

20—445.

96. 1. Scheme of Dearness Allowance :

For the Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras offices:

(A) Subordinate staff, Liftmen and Drivers :

70% of basic pay upto Rs. 100/- with a minimum of Rs. 70/-. For basic pay above Rs. 101/- the dearness allowance shall be Rs. 75/-.

97. The above shall be the fixed rates of dearness allowance on the All India Average Consumer Price Index for the Working Class (1949=ilOO) at 185 points. In the case of any increase in the index number from 185 the dearness allowance shall be varied as follows:—-

For every point's rise in the index number above 185 the dearness allowance shall be increased by 1% of the basic pay. This shall be known as the variable amount of dearness allowance. The maximum amount of dearness allow- ance payable made up of the fixed and variable amounts of dearness allow- ance shall in no case exceed Rs. 200/- per month.

The payment of dearness allowance! as shown above shall be on the basis of six monthly average adjusted in the months of January and July of each year representing the half yearly figures from July to December and from January to June respectively.

(B) For the Clerical and other staff covered by the Award the Scheme of dearness

allowance shall be as follows:—

'Tr;" On basic salary between Rs. 100/- Rs. 70 plus 25% of the basic pay above and Rs. 200/-. Rs. 100/-. < On basic salary between Rs. 201/- Rs. 95 plus 10% of the basic salary and Rs. 300/-. above Rs. 200/-. On basic salary between Rs. 301/- Rs. 105 plus 5% of the basic salary and Rs. 500/-. above Rs. 300/-.

This shall be the fixed element of dearness allowance. For every one point's ris" in the All India Average Consumer Price Index Number for the Working Class (19*9=^00) above 185, the dearness allowance shall be increased by 3/4% of the basic faV upto Rs. 250/- and by 1/2% for basic pay between Rs. 251/- and Rs. 500/-. This shall be the variable rfmount of dearness allowance. The maximum amount of total dearness allowance made up of the fixed and the variable dearness allowance shall in no case exceed Rs. 200/- per month.

98. The payment of variable dearness allowance as shown above shall be on the basis of six monthly adjustments in the months of January and July of each year representing the half yearly figures from July to December and Jarfuary to June respectively.

II. Scheme of Dearness Allowance for other offices:

99. For the subordinate staff including Drivers and Liftmen in the other offices (offices other than the Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras offices) the Scheme pf fixed and variable dearness allowance shall be the same as for the subordinate staff includifig Drivers and Liftmen in the Society's offices at Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras.

100. For the clerical und other staff in the other offices, in my opinion the rate ot dearnes* allowance should be slightly lower than for like categories in the Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras offices. At present also the dearness allowance paid to the employees in the other offices is less than what it is paid in Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras offices and I, therefore, award the following scheme of dearness allowance for trie clerical staff viz., Assistants etc. in the other offices:—

For basic pay between Rs, 100/- Rs. 65/- plus 20% of basic pay above and Rs. 200/-. Rs. 100/-. For basic pay between Rs. 201/- Rs. 85/- plus 10% of basic pay above and Rs. 300/-. Rs. 200/-. For basic pay between Rs 301/- Rs. 96/- plus 5% of the basic pay above and Rs. 5Q0|-. Rs. 300/-.

101. With, regard to the variable rate of dearness allowance for the clerical and other •staff in the other offices, the scheme shall be the same as for the Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi .and Madras offices, viz for every one point's rise in the cost of living index above 185 the dearae"a allowance will be raised by 3/4% of basic pay upto Rs. 250/- and 1/2 per cent of basic pay between Rs. 251/- and Rs. 500/-. The maximum amount of dearness made up pf fixed and variable dearness allowance shall not exceed Rs. 200/* per month for all those covered by this Award. The payment of dearness allowance as shown above shajl be oa the basic of six monthly averages adjusted in the months pf January arid July 61 each year representing the half year figures from July to December and from January to June respectively,

102. With regard to the demand for adding 10 points to the All India Average Con- sumber Price Index Number for the Working Class (1949=100) because of faulty com- putation of that Index Number since I am linking the wage structure to the Central Gov- ernment's Cost of Living Index Number which has not been proved to be faulty and as J am also providing a percentage rate of increase in dearness allowance for every point's rise I do not think I shall be justified in imposing a further burden on the company with the grant of extra compensation on the ground of faulty computation of the index number.

DEMAND N O. 4—Adjustment:—

103. The claim for adjustment under demand No. 4 under reference is in these terms:—-

"An employee shall be fitted into the new scale on stage to stage basis".

In support of this demand the Association in its written statement of claim has claimed adjustment of the existing basic pay of the employees after adding dcarness allowance on a stage to stage basis. In other words, what the Union wants is that on the existing pay and dearness allowance of an employee as on 31st December, 1965 after being fitted into the new scale he shall receive as many number of increments as the numbers of years of service he has put in the Society. It has further claimed that if an employee is found to have received more basic pay than the number of years service he has put in warrants, he shall continue to receive the additional basic pay as his personal pay and will continue to get the same,'annual increment in terms of the revised pay scale. It has submitted that this is the only method by which the employees can get the real advantage of the new scales. The Society in its written statement characterised the demand as highly unjust arid unreasonable and untenable under industrial law. It has submitted that since 1954 th& employees have been getting graded pay with annual increments, which was revised in 1957 and again in 1959 and under the settlement of 196J consent Award. It has pleaded that siricb the award of 1961 was under consent terms there is not justification for stage to stage adjustment which would impose a heavy financial burden on the Company, It has computed that if stage to stage adjustment would be granted it would impose an enormous burden in the very first year. It has submitted that even otherwise or. the merits there is no justification for a stage to stage adjustment. I have been the calculations made by the parties on the tentative scales of pay on which I had asked them to make their calculations. In my awarded scales I have retained for most of the existing categories the same annual increments as in the existing pay scales for these categories, and the same are quite liberal.

104,..Therefore, the only practical thing to do would be to direct that wherever the amount of existing basic pay of an employee together with the addition of the amounts of temporary special allowance and interim relief as on 1st January, 1966, is less than the rnininium of the awarded scale of basic pay applicable to him, he shall be pulled Up to the .ti^Ftfrnum of the awarded scale of basic pay applicable to him. In other cases where

the amount of the existing basic pay with the addition of the amounts of temporary special allowance and interim relief is as on 1st January, 1966, not a step in the awarded *cale of basic pay applicable to him, he shall be stepped up to be placed in the noxt higher stage of the awarded scale of basic pay applicable to him. This method of adjustment was explained lo the parties when they had come to me with their calcula- tions and I do not think there would be any difficulty in the implementation of this award on (hot score.

105. Before I close the discussion on demands Nos. 2, 3 and 4 I must point out un advantage of the new wage structure which 1 have formulated which would not be apparent on a cursory understanding of the wage structure. By merging the amount of the temporary special allowance and the interim relief amounts into the basic pay the advantage to the workmen in the increased payments by way of provident fund, bonus and gratuity must not be overlooked. The calculations which have been submitted by the parties to me include the burden that will have to be borne by the company in respect of the benefits which the workmen will get by way of enhanced provident fund, gratuity and bonus and other payments which are calculated in terms of basic pay. Some 6f these benefits may not be available to the workmen in cash in terms of my award ipimdiately. But all the same those are important gains and have imposed a (airly heavy financial burden on the Company. The increase granted to the workmen in basic pay and denrness allowance for the year 1966 may appear a little small. But it must be borne in mind that from 1966 the workmen did get a monthly interim relief of Rs. 20/- for the subordinate and Rs. 25/- for the clerical staff and that must not be lost sight of in computing the total benefits which they have got since they first raised this industrial dispute. For 1967 and 1968 the benefits of increased dearness allowance under the awarded scheme are more clearly visible.

106. The joint calculations submitted by the parties on 16th August 1968 of the financial burden on the company on the scales of basic pay for the subordinate staff mid clerical and other staff covered by this award and for a scheme of dearncss allowance less favourable than what I have awarded shows that the financial burden on the company for the three years 1966, 1967 and 1968 would be of the order of:—

1966 on Index No. 185 1967 on Index No. 210 1968 on Index 115 Rv 1,19,515 Rs. 2,39,418 Rs. 2.92,890

107. With the rise in the cost of living index number beyond 215, on which the calculations have been based for the year 1968, the annual recurring burden will- be Still higher. A note below this joint statement of calculations states that these calcula- tions do not cover the following categories of staff viz., (i) employees drawing consolidated" salaries and temporary Assistants whose number in 1966 was 25, in 1967, 54 and in 1968 65 (ii) Cadre II and III Departmental Heads, Senior Officers, Accountants, Assistants, Area Managers, Divisional Managers, Branch Managers, Sub-Branch Managers, etc., numbering about 104 in 1966, 189 in 1967 and 99 in 1968, whoso extra load on dearness allowance has not been taken into account. As I have staled earlier the recurring burden of about Rs. 3 lakhs calculated for 1968 calculated on Index Number 215 cannot be considered small, and the terms of this Award will bo placing a still heavier annual recurring financial burden on tho company. No doubt, this is partly due to the fact that (he existing scales of pay and dearness allowance paid by the Society have not been adequate. But all the same this financial burden and the additional burden which the company will have to incur by payment of additional amounts to its other employees not covered by this reference, have been taken Into consideration,

108. With regard to those employees drawing consolidated salaries and tho Temporary Assistants referred to in the above joint note of the parties dated 16th August, 1968, their case as such was not argued before me by the union and It is doubtful if they are covered by the terms of reference. If their number is included then the number of workmen covered by this reference would be higher than what is stated ia sub^ara- graph (v) of the joint application to arbitration dated 24th February, 1967, which states tho total number of workmen affected or likely to be affected by tho dispute a$ being 387. I would, however, recommend that these employees viz., those drawing consolidated salutes and temporary Assistants should be granted the benefits under this award from the date of their respective confirmation in service.

DEMAND NO. 5—Special Allowance

109. The demand for Special allowance is in the following terms :—

"Employees engaged for work mentioned below and or specifically designated M below shall be entitled to special allowance per mensem in addition to their salaries and emoluments in the manner stated below :

A. The Bank Peons, Despatch Peons, Head Peons, Franking Machine and Duplicating Machine Operators, and such other employees: Rs. 20/- per month.

B. Typists, Telephone Operators, Cashiers, Adrima Operators, Comptists, Bordereaux Writing Clerks and such other employees: Rs. 30/- per month".

110. At the hearing the Union gave up the claim for special allowance for Despatch Peons, Franking Machine Operators, Adrima Operators and Bordereaux Writing Clerks..

111. The Union has made this claim on the ground of special qualifications, skill;

and responsibilities, which it says arc required to do these jobs. With regard to the Bank Peon it has stated that he runs the risk of being robbed and of otherwise losing the money while taking it to or bringing it from the Bank. With regard to the Franking Machine and Duplicating Machine Operators, the Union has argued that Peons doing this work have to undertake a slightly skilled work, for which they are entitled to be compensated by grant of a special allowance. In its written statement the Union has also made a claim for a special allowance for the Watchman.

112. With regard to the special allowance for the Typist, Telephone Operator, the Comptist and the Cashier, the Union has pressed the demand on the ground that their duties arc moie strenuous and skilled and involve greater strain. It has submitted that such allowances are paid by several Insurance Companies and the L.I.C. It has stated that the National Bank Award has made a provision for payment of these allowances to Bank employees. It has pointed out that the Society is already paying Rs. 25/- per month as a special allowance to the Comptist. With regard to the Typist it has pointed out that under the consent award of 1961 those Typists who were then entitled to typing allowance of Rs. 23/- per month, were to continue to get them. B has pleaded that a typist's work is strenuous and difficult and a special allowance should be granted to the Typist in addition to the enhanced scale of basic pay which may be awarded.

113. The Society in its written statement in reply, in opposing these demands, has stated that the demand for special allowances is unjustified and excessive. Dealing first with the claim of allowance for the Typists, it has pointed out that tho special allowance "C Rs. 25/- paid to the Typists is what they were getting prior to the 1961 consent award, and that the demand for a special allowance for the Typist in the 1960 dispute was not awarded by the consent terms. It has, in opposing the demands, pointed out that these workmen arc not entitled to any extra compensation because (1) they are not performing these jobs for a substantial ptirt of their time and these are not their main functions (2) that the existing wages and salaries fixed for these categories of employees have been fixed taking into "account the fact that occasionally they are called upon to perform these additional duties, and (3) all the scales of pay of these categories arc already high and do not admit of any additional payment to them. With regard to the special allowance chimed for (he Bank Peons and the Despatch Peons the Society has stated that they do not do any special duties which call for any extra compensation. 'ft has submitted that these Peons are supposed to discharge the responsibilities of the nature for which the special allowance is claimed. It has further submitted that ill any special allowance is granted to these employees, it would create unnecessary anomalies. It has stated that the Franking and the Duplicate Machine Operators have only occasionally to operate those machines. It has, therefore, submitted, that except for the special allowance which the Society is already paying to its Head Peons, the demand for special allowance for Bank Peons, Head Peons and Franking Machine and Duplicating Machine Operators should be rejected. With regard to the Typist. Telephone Operators. Cashiers, Adrima Operators, Compists and Bordereaux Writing Clerks the Society has stated that the duties performed by these employees in doing their jobs have been taken into account when fixing their salaries. It has submitted that it is the fixed rule of industrial, adjudication that Typists are not allowed any special allowance for typing work.

1)4. I shall first deal with the claim made on behalf of the Peons.

115. The Head Peons in the Head Office is already getting a special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month. If the same is paid to the Head Peon, if any, at the Delhi, Calcutta and. Madras Offices, the same should also to bo paid to them. The Head Peon is expected to supervise the work of the other Peons. In the Branches and other Area Offices tnc-

number of Peons is so small that no claim can be laid for any special allowance tor the Head Peons, if any.

116. With rcjjard to the Bank Peon 1 think a claim for special allowance for him is justified. This is granted by several Insurance Companies under agreement and lias also been granted by awards of Industrial Tribunals. This special allowance is paid to the Bank. Peon partially in view of the risk involved and also for responsibility of taking to the Bank and bringing from the Bank large amounts in cash. I think a special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month would be adequate and should be paid only to the Peon who is asked to do this work in addition to his other normal duties as Peon. This should be paid to tho Peon in the Society's Offices at Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras.

1)7. I am not satisfied that a claim has been made for the grant of a special allowance to Despatch Peons. It is normal duty of Peons to Deliver letters. The claim for a special allowance to Delivery Peons is rejected. In fact, it was not pressed av the hearing.

118. There is also no justification for a special allowance for the Watchman whose normal duty is to keep watch.

119. In the Head Office peons are required to work the Duplicating Machine which is electrically operated. A slight skill, or more appropriately a little deftness is involved In operating this machine and an allowance of Rs. 15/- per month to the Peon who is asked to do this work appears to be justified and I grant the same.

120- With regard to the Typist 1 am of the opinion that the time is now past when a special allowance could be claimed for typing work as every clerk nowadays is expected to know typing. Even in the Society the special allowance for Typists was continued under the 1961 consent award, only for those who were then already getting it. I have, in several awards of mine, discussed this demand and rejected it. T, therefore, reject this demand.

121. The comptist is paid an allowance of Rs. 25/- per month and I direct that he

.shall continue to get it.

122. The demand for a special allowance for a Boardcreaux Writer was withdrawn

at the hearing and the same is rejected.

123. The only othsr special allowance that remains for consideration is the demand for an allowance for the Cashier, who has to undertake the responsibility of handling cash. Special reference was made at the hearing by the Union to the Cashier at the Head Office. But the management has argued that in actual fact the Cashier at the Head Office docs not handle much cash and that it is part of the duty of a Cashier to handle cash and there would be no justification for a special allowance for him. In fact, the demand is normally made for those who are not Cashiers, but who are clerks and whose duty calls for their handling some cash. In this Company, the Cashier is in the Assistants" grade of pay. There is no special scale of pay for the Cashier. In view of this, it appears to me that a claim for an allowance to the Cashier at the Head Office at Bombay, appears to be called for. I, therefore, award him a Cashier's Allowance of Rs. 25/- per month.

124. In the result on the demand lor special allowances, I award special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month to the Bank Peons and the Peon who attends on the Duplicating Machine. I further direct that the Head Peon shall continue to get the special allowance Of Rs. 15/- per month which he is getting at present.

125. With regard to the clerical staff, the Comptist will continue to get the special allowance of Rs. 25/- per month. The old Typists who are at present getting the special allowance of Rs. 25/- per month shall continue to get tho same and no Typist who i$ at present not paid any special allowance shall be entitled to the same The Cashier at the Head Office at Bombay shall get a Cashier's allowance of Rs. 25/- pet rnonth: All these allowances shall be paid with effect from 1st of January 1966 Those in receiDt of other special allowances shall continue to get the same.

DEMAND NO. 6—Other Allowances:—

House Rent Allowance:—

126. The Union has claimed House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory allowance ins two special allowances. T shall first deal with the claim for House Rent Allowance.

127 The demand for House Kent Allowance is in the following terms:

"Al! employees shall be paid as "House Rent" a sum at the rate of 10 per cant ot their gross salary, subject to a minimum of Rs. 20A".

In support ot this demand in para £6 of its written statement, the Association has Mated that the Society is not paying any House Rent Allowance to its employees; that the housing problem in all the cities where this Society has its offices is very acute and renis are exorbitant; that it is difficult to secure even one room tenement for a rent of less than Rs. 60/- pev month and that only on payment of a large amount as premium, can accommodaiion be secured; that this amount forms percentage of the total amoluments of the workmen; that it is thus beyond the capacity of the employees to meet this necessary item of expenditure fiovn their meagre emoluments; that the employers owe a duty to their employees to bear a portion of this burden which they should discharge by paying House Rent Allowance at the demanded rate; that the Society has the financial capacity tc mi-ei ifii" demand.

12s. The Society in its written statement in reply has denied its liability to meet the demand J'or House Rent Allowance and city compensatory allowance, which it has described as unjust, unreasonable and one beyond the capacity of the Society. It has submitted that for determination of minimum wage and the dearness allowance, the cost of living has lo be considered as one of the factors and in determining the cost of living, house rent is one of the items of expenditure taken into the account; that since the demand of the Association for determination of the scale of pay is based on minimum wage and Ihe demand for dearness allowance is limited to the All India Working Class Index Number, the demand for additional amount by way of house rent allowance and city .compensatory allowance would amount to asking for double emoluments on the same count- Without prejudice, the Society has submitted that as most of the employees had been in the service of the Society for several years before the demands under reference were made, it would ' be safe to assume that they have got accommodation with them. The Society has submitted that under the Rent Control and Anti-eviction Laws in force, enhancement of existing rent is prohibited and security of occupation is guaranteed to the occupants. It has submitted that the standard and fair rents are those obtaining in 1941-42. It has submitted that since there has been no significant rise in rents in recent vears there cannot be any case for demanding, house rent allowance. It has submitted that it is not the employer's responsibility to supply housing accommodation to his employees. It has. further submitted that there is no practice in the insurance industry for grant of house rent allowance. It has finally submitted that the nature of work of assistance to various employers arc such that thev are totally unrelated to the situation of the accommodation which the employees may have and as such not connected with the conditions of their employment. Lastly the company has submitted that the demand is beyond the financial capacity of the Society.

J29. At the hearing, Sbri Madan Mohan, the Learned Advocate for the Union has relied upon what according to him was the practice in the industry. He has stated that a. number of insurance companies are granting house rent allowance to their employees and he has referred to the Union's chart Ex. W-14. He has referred to my awards in the dispute of the Hurcules and Volcan Insurance Companies by which I had awarded house rent allowance to the subordinate staff of these companies. He has further pointed' out thai house rent allowance is also granted in the Banking Industry,

130, On the other hand Shri Kolhari has relied uoon the decision of the Hon'ble- Supreme Court in the case of the Patna Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (1958 I LLJ r>. 257} and the Award in the industrial dispute of the General Insurance Co. (Gazette of India, dated 28th November, 1959. at nage 334") and a number of awards of Industrial Tribunals in Bombay in industries other than the General Insurance Industry where such a demand¹ for house rent allowance was rejected.

131. I am of the opinion that no case has been made out for giant of house rent allowance In my earlier awards in the case of the Hurcules Insurance Co. [Government of India Gazette Part IT Sec. 3(ii), dated 17th July, 1965, page 24421 and Messrs. Volcan Insurance Co. Ltd. [Gazette of India Part II Sec- 3(ii), dated 11th December, 1965 at page 39741, I had allowed house rent allowance only to the subordinate staff. The facts and circumstances in those cases were different. Here the subordinate staff and the clerical staff are both getting city compensatory allowance of Rs. 10 per month in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Delhi. In my opinion, there is no established practice of the grant of house rent allowance to the employees in the general insurance industry as noticed in my earlier awards. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case info consideration... I do not think a demand For the grant of house rent allowance, is justified.

City Compensatory Allowance :

132. The demand under reference is as follows:—

"City Allowance at the rate of Rs, 30 per month shall be paid to each employee covered by this Charter at Head Office and all Area Offices". The Union in its written statement has in support of this demand urged that at present workmen of the Society at Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras are paid city allowance of Rs. 10 per month. This was initially introduced at Bombay through the consent award of Ihe Central Government Industrial Tribunal in 1961 and at Calcutta through the settlement dated 6th April, 1963 and the Society extended the same at Delhi and Madras. It hf:s submitted that this is a compensatory allowance given to those workmen in areas where the cost of living is comparatively higher. The Union has urged there arc many other centres such as Nagpur, Poona and Ahmcdabad, which are treated at par with Bombay and Calcutta in the matter of such demands. The Society has stated that it has AreB Offices in many of such centres and offices under them. It has submitted that having accepted the principle of paying certain amounts as city compensation for higher cost of living, the same should also applied to all areas where the cost of living is similar to Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, The Association has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 10 granted to the employees in the year 1961 cannot be considered adequate or reasonable, in 1966 and thereafter. It has pointed out that cost has gone up considerably and that the value of the rupee has depreciated very much particularly since devaluation in 1966. It has submitted that its demand of Rs. 30 per month to each workman a.s city compensatory allowance is just and reasonable. It has, therefore, prayed that this demand should be granted in full to those employees employed at all area offices of the Society where the cost of living is higher or equal to that in Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. At the hearing the Union reiterated the submission made in its written statement and further stated that in many Insurance Companies, city compensatory allowance was granted. It has pressed the claim for payment of city compensatory allowance in other area offices particularly at Nagpur, Poona, Ahmadabad, Baroda and Surat. It has further submitted that the existing city compensatory allowance of Rs. 10 per month for all categories of staff is inadequate and needs to be revised,

133. Shri Kothary for the company has submitted that on proper wage fixation on geographical consideration Rs. 10 was adequate for Bombay, Calcutta, Madras pnd Delhi, He has urged secondly that there is no established industrial practice to grant any city compensatory allowance. He has thirdly urged that this would impose a very high financial burden on the company.

134. In my opinion, the existing rate of City Compensatory Allowance of Rs, 10 per month, cannot be increased, bearing in mind the financial burden I have already imposed upon the Society by the wage structure and particularly the scheme of dearness allowance, which I have awarded. It is mainly this consideration which deters me from granting an increase in the existing rale of city compensatory allowance or extending its grant to other cities like Ahmedabad, Baroda, Surat, Nagpur and Poona for which a claim has been made. The demand for Rs, 30 as city compensatory allowance is in any case excessive, and must be rejected.

Promotion :

135. The Association in its written statement has staled that at present there are no rules and regulations governing promotion, and the Society reserves to itself the right to make direct recruitment with regard to promotion. It has complained that the claims •of senior employees are disregarded without cause and reason and junior employees arc promoted for extraneous considerations; that direct recruitment to senior posts is made even when equally efficient employees are available, thereby reducing the opportunities for promotion to existing employees and frustrating their future career. The Association has submitted that directions on this demand should be givon in the following terms: — 'No direct recruitment shall be made in Grade 'D', 'E' and 'V. A higher post and all vacancies of such posts shall be filled in by way of promotion from among the existing staff. The promotion shall be on the basis of seniority and merits of the employees. Employees in grades 'A' and 'B' and 'C shall be absorbed in Grade 'D' on passing the S.S.C, S.S.I..C. or equivalent examinations of Licentiate examination of Federation of Insurance Institutes. At least 40 per cent of all employees in Grade 'D' and 'E' shall be in Grade 'B\ At the time of promotion, over and above usual annual increment, an employee shall be given one extra increment after adjustment."

136. The Society in its written statement has stated that promotion is normally a function of the management and it must be left to tho discretion of the management, -which canr>pt be interfered with on grounds of extra-managerial considerations. Jt has

further submitted that the nature of the insurance business admits of exercise of initiative and skill of a different type and it is only the managerial personnel that can adequately determine the suitability of persons for promotion. It has urged that promotion has always been the internal administration and function of the management which has always given promotion to deserving persons. It has stated that the demand for automatic promotion •of employees of the subordinate staff to the Assistant's Grade on passing the S.S.C. and the S.S.L.C. or equivalent examinations will cut at the root of promotion being a managerial function and to the Society having to tolerate inefficient stall and employing persons not fit for their jobs. It has pleaded that direct recruitment leads to infusion of new blood in the staff and rtiakcs the existing stall conscious of competitive ability. It has enumerated the difficulties of having to employ peons, sweepers and watchmen on their passing the S.S.C. examination as typists, eomptisls or telephone operators, without the management being able to test their abilities or aptitude for those jobs. It has on similar grounds opposed the claim of automatic promotion of Grades D and E to Grade F. It has submitted that the work of an Assistant is different from that of a Sectional Head or Assistant Superintendent which involves exercise of supervisory functions and managerial discretion. It has stated that it is the management's right, which should be left to it, to determine each and every case on merits for promotion to the supervisory grades. The Society has also on similar grounds opposed the demand of the Association for promotion 40 per cent of the existing staff, which it has stated will lead to injustice and serious interference with day 10 day work. It has submitted that the Union's demands amount to complete unionisation of Grade F. It has submitttXl that the demand thBt the management should be compelled to absorb all persons from Grades C, D and E to Grade P is demand for right of recruitment rather than promotion. It has submitted that it, would paralyse the whole administration if direct recruitment was shut out. It has submitted that in the interest of smooth administration and proper management, the function of promotion should be left to the sole discretion of the management. It has finally submitted that the demand for regulation of promotion, does not admit of any award as such and it has prayed that this Award should reaffirm once again the well settled principle that promotion is a matter of discretion of the employer and it should not be interfcrred with by an external agency. It has also opposed the demand for one increment on promotion as being unjustified, as oromotion itself means more emoluments and better status and dignity for the employee promoted. Tt has summed up jts opposition to the demand as stated in the Society's written statement as (a) amount- ing to serious interference with smooth and efficient management and the principle that promotion is managerial function, (b) pushing incompetent and otherwise not acceptable persons to higher ranks, and (c) a subtle-design to unionise not only the subordinate and clerical cadre but also all the supervisory cadre and thus indirectly control management without corresponding responsibility.

137. At the hearing Shri Madan Mohan, learned Advocate for the Association argued Ihat an industrial dispute can be raised regarding framing proper promotional Rules and that in that context the first criterian of promotion should be seniority and the next efficiency and that all things being equal seniority should prevail. Shri Madan Mohan has referred to the directions in the Bank's Award, where when a senior employee is passed over in promotion by a junior employee the Bank is required to give reasons for passing over the senior employee, who is also given the right to make a representation. He has pointed that this direction was followed by Shri F. leejeebhoy as National Tribunal In Brooke Bonds' case.

138. Shri Kolhari, Learned Advocate for the Company has on the.other hand contended, and, I think with justification, that the demand as framed in the Union's written statement, amounts to a direct interference with the management's right to decide who should be promoted and sought to divest it of the discretion which is vested in it. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond's (India) Ltd., and their workmen 1966 I LL.I.P. 402, where their Lordships held :

"Generally speaking, promotion is p. managerial function, but it may be recognized that there may be occasions when a Tribunal may have to interfere with the promotions made by the management where it is felt that persons superseded have been so superseded on account of mala fide or victimisation, it is not the function of a Tribunal to consider the merits of various employees itself and then decide whom to promote or whom not to promote. If any industrial tribunal finds that promotions have been made which arc unjustified on the ground of mala fides or of victimization, the proper course for it to take is to set aside the promotions and ask the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself whom to promote, excent of course the person whose promotion has been set aside by the Tribunal,"

139. Whilst this decision has no direct bearing on the facts, it re-emphasises the management's rights in the matter of selection of the persons to be promoted. Tn my

opinion, the caption of the demand does not indicate over what questions relating to- promotion this dispute was raised. The written statement of the Union formulates certain propositions. In my opinion they are in far too general terms, and seek completely to deprive the management of any discretion in the matter of promotion. As rightly pointed out by Shri Kothari, the learned Advocate for the Society, the demands as formulated in the written statement is a mixed demand of both a claim for recruitment and for promotion. It is, in my opinion, impossible to grant this demand as framed. The demand is, therefore, rejected.

140, I direct that the payments due to the wrokmen under this award shall be mado within one month of the publication of this award in the official Gazette.

141. Before 1 finally part with this reference, I should like to express my appreciation of the able manner in which Shri Madan Mohan. Advocate, Supreme Court for the Union and Prof. M. G. Kothari, M.A., I.L.B., Advocate for the Society, argued their respective cases. I am also grateful to the representatives of the management for the facilities provided to me for the hearing in the Board Room of the Company. T am also grateful¹ to the Union for the assistance which I have received from its office bearers. I am particularly grateful to the representatives of both the Society and the Union for th& assistance they have given me in making the calculations of the costs, which tljpy so willingly undertook and which has been of real assistance to me in finalising my award. In conclusion, 1 should like to thank the staff of tho Society for their willing co-operatiort at the heaiing, particularly in the recording of (he oral depositions of the witnesses.

No order as to costs against parties.

(Sd.) SALIM M, MERCHANT,

Arbitrator- [No. 74/3/67/LRHI.J

New Delhi, the 9th September 1968

S.O. 3359.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in the industrial dispute between the employers in re- lation to the Narang Bank of India Limited, New Delhi and their workmen, which was. received by the Central Government on the 31st August, 1968.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DELHI.

PRESENT :

Shri R, K. Baweja, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.

list August, 1968.

RfcFKRENCE I,D. NO, 3 OF 1967

BETWEEN

Tho employers in relation to the Narang Bank of India Limited, New Delhi.

AND

Their workmen.

Shri P. L. Juneja—for the management. Shri H, I.. Parvana—for the workmen,

AWARD

Tho Central Government being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Narang Bank of India Limited, New Delhi (hereinafter to b& referred as management) and their workmen as represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as Associa- tion), by its order No. 51/59/67/LRIII dated 25th September, 1967. referred to the Tri- bunal presided over by my learned predecessor, Shri Anand Narain Kaul. under section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute in respect of tho matters specified in the schedule annexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below:—

'Whether the demand of the workmen of Narang Bank of India Limited, New Delhi that the terms and conditions of their service should be in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement Hrrived at on the 19th October, 1966

between the managements of the banks as represented by the Indian Banks Association, Bombay and the Bombay Exchange Banks Association, Bombay and the workmen of the said banks as represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association and the All India Bank Employees Federation, is justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled?"

2. The case proceeded before me as successor to Shri Anand Narain Kaul. During the pendency of the proceedings, the management alleged that a settlement had been arrived at between the management and its workmen. A written statement was also filed by the said employees in which it was stated that they were satisfied with the wages paid to them, that they had carefully considered the financial position of the bank and had como to the conclusion that it would be in their interest not to impose further burden on it. They further added that the reference made by the All India Bank Employees' Association pending in the industrial court was not in accordance with their instructions. The management was directed to jjet the affidavits of the said workmen and they have been filed duly attested by the Notary Public. In these affidavits the same statement had been made as was made by the workmen in the written statement. At the instance of the Secretary of All India Bank Employees' Association, three of the signatories to these affidavits were called today in order to ascertain, if this settlement had not been obtained under any pressure on the part of the management. Shri Kishan Chand Chug, chief clerk, Shri Pushap Kumar, clerk and Shri Raj Kumar Khosla,, peon have appeared before me today and have stated that they have entered into the settlement with the bank not on account of any pressure exercised on them but of their own accord. In view of these docu- ments and the statements, Shri H. L. Parvana, secretary of the Association who had filed the statement of claim on behalf of the employees stated that he did not desire to pursue their claim any further. This being so and as the settlement had been arrived at between the parties, a no dispute award is made.

(Two pages)

(Sd.) R. K. BAWEJA,

21st August, 1968. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.

[No. 51/59y67/LRm.]

New Delhi, the 12th September 1968

S.O. 3360.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), tho Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Messrs Rajaramka Brothers (P) Limited, Tumsar and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 3rd September. 1968.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CT/M-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

Dated August 26, 1968

PRESENT:

Shri G. C. Agarwala, Presiding Officer.

CASE R E F. N O. CGIT/LC(R)(23) OF 1968

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Rajaramka, Bros, (P) Ltd,, Tumsar,

Vx.

Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, Balaghat Zila Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Waraseom.

APPEARANCES :

For employers—None.

For workmen—(1) Shri Chatru. workman.

(2) Shri Kuwar Ghoreswar, Secretary of the Union.

INDUSTRY:—Manganese Mine DISTRICT:—Balaghat (M.P.).

AWARD

By Notification No. 35/1/68-LRI, dated 14th March, 1968, the Ministry of Labour, Employment & Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment), referred the following matter of dispute to this Tribunal, for adjudication:—

Matter of Dispute

Whether the termination of services of Shri Chatru S/o Machhu Gond (employed at Miragpur Mines of Seth Gopikisan Agarwal) with effect from the 15th May, 1967 by the management of M/s. Rajaramka Bros. (P) Limited, Tumsar was justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled?

Miragpur manganese mine is run by M/s, Rajaramka Brothers Private Ltd., although the mine belongs to Shri Gopikisan Agarwal. There is one Shri Motilal Deshmukh, a contractor in the mine. The complaint of the Union, Balaghat Zila Khadan Mazdoor Sansh, in that Shri Chatru workman concerned was member of the Union and protested (o the Contractor and other staff for under measurements rendered by them. Because of this protest, Shri Chatru who was a piece rated worker was stopped from working from 15th May, 1967.

The employers absented and once an ex-parte award was recorded on 26th June, 1968. It was, however, set aside because the award had not been signed, on an application of the employers. A date for hearing was fixed on 6th August, 1968 in presence of both parties. When case was taken up on this date, 26th August, 1968, employers are again found absent. The workman concerned Shri Chatru as also the Union Secretary Shri Kuwar Ghoreswar were present. The management in the written statement had claimed that Shri Chatru was dismissed on charge of indiscipline after a proper enquiry. Shri Chatru has denied this in his evidence. He has stated that he received no chargesheet, nor was any enquiry held, nor was he communicated with any dismissal order. The case of the management remained unproved.

Decision

Shri Chatru is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and attendant benefits with effect from 15th May, 1967. The Union will be entitled to Rs. 50/- as costs.

(Sd.) G. C. AGARWALA,

Presiding Officer.

26-8-68.

N O T E :—

Before the award was signed an application for adjournment was received by post, which was considered and rejected.

(Sd.) G. C. AOARWALA,

Presiding Officer. 26-8-68.

[No. 35/1/68-LRI.]

S.0.3361.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Central G3V:rn"n"it hereby p lblishss the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the managements of the Manganese Mines specified in the Schedule hereto ann:xed and thsir workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 2nd September, 1968'

SCHEDULE

Name of the employer together with address

Name of the Manganese Mine SI. No.

1

2

3

1 M/s. B.PatnaikMines (P) Limited, Scrmada, Post Office 1. B. Patnaik Manganese M in Barbil, District Keonjhar.

1 M/s. M.L. Rungta, Post Office Chaibasa, Distric :t 1. Siljora Kalimatti Manga n Keonjhar (Bihar),

Mines.

1 c

2

3

1. Inganijharan Manganese Min- M/s. Bhanja M o r a ls (P) Limited, Post Olrr.J Ciamak-

3

es.

pur, District Keonjhar.

Smt. SabUa Roy, I.T.C., Post Office Johang, Via-Joda, I. Jalahuri Manganese Mines.

4

District Keonjhar,

1. Roida Manganese Mines.

M/s, K.N. Ram& Co., Post Office Barbil, District

5

Keonjhar.

<5

1. Inganinjharan Manganese Shri M.S. Deb, Post Office, Barbil, District Keonjhar .

Mine

7

1. Bhadrashai Manganese Mines. 2. ChuramaldaK-13 Manganis e M's. Mining and Transporting Co., Contractors of M/s. Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Post Office, Barbil District Keonjhar.

Minis.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JABALPUR.

Dated August 5, 1968

PRESENT :

Shri G. C. Agarwala, Presiding Officer.

CASE REF. N O. CGIT/LC(R)(6) OF 1968.

PARTIES

Employers in relation to

1. M/s. B. Patnaik Mines (P) Ltd., Sermada, P.O. Barbil, District Keonjhar. 2. M/s. M.L. Rungta, P.O. Chaibaaa, District Singhbhum (Bihar). 3. M/a. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., P.O. Chamakpur, District Keonjhar. 4. Smt. Sabita Roy, I.T.C., P.O. Johang, Via-Joda, District Keonjhar.

5. M/s. K.N. Ram, & Co., P.O. Barbil, District Keonjhar. ", Shri M.S. Deli, P.O. Barbil District K-:onjhar.

7. M/s. Mining and Transporting Co. Contractors of M/s. O.M.D. Co. Ltd. P . p. Batbil, District Keonjhar.

Versus

Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines & Forest Work era Union, p.O. Barbil, District Keonjhar.

APEMIANCES

For Employers . . .. 1. S/Srl S.S. Mikerji, Advocate, & R C.

B. Srivaatava, C.M.E. M/s. M.L. Rungttt (for Employee No. I, 2 , 3, 5 & 6).

2. S/Sri S. MU(kerii and N.K. Paul, (For

employer No. 7).

For workmen . . . S/Sri R.C. Rim, A.C. Mohanti and H. Behra—.

for the Union.

INDUSTRY : Manganesi Mins District—Keonjhar (Orissa)

AWARD

By Notification No. 37/22/67/67-LR-I dated i nk January, 196S, the Ministry of Labour Employment a^d Rehabilitation (Department of Labour o.d HinjjlcymrxTt'), Government of Indift

Matter of Dispute

SCHEDULE I

Name of the employer together with address

Name of the Manganese Mlne- SI. No.

i

2

3

I M/s B Patnaik Mines (P) Ltd., Seramda, P.O. Barbil, I. B. Patnaik Manganese Mines.

District Kconjhar,

2 M/s. M.L. Rujngta, P.O. Chaibasa, District SJnghbhnm i. Siljora Kallmatti Manganese-

Mines.

3 M/s. Bhania Minerals (P) Ltd., P.O. Chamakpur, i. Inganijharan Manganese Mln- District Kconjhar.

4 Smt. Sabita Roy, I.T.C.,P.O. Johang, Via-Joda, District i. Jalahuri Mangar.ese Mine.

Keonjhar.

M/8. K.N. Ram & Co., P.O. Barbil, District Keonjhar.

5

r. Roida Manganese Mines.

6 Shri M.S.Deb,P.O.Barbil,DlstrictKeonjhar . . : i. Inganijharan Manganese Mine-

7

I. Bhadrasahi Manganese Mines. 2. Churamalda K-I13, Manganese M/s. Mining & Transporting Co., Contractors of M/s. Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., P.O. Barbil:, District Keonjhar.

Mines.

SCHEDULE II

Whether the demand of the workmen employed in the manganese mines of the employers, mentioned in Schedule I for increase in their existing rates of wages Is justified? If so, to wbat relief are the workmen entitled and from what date ?

2. There are seven names of employers in the schedule to the order of reference. One of them SI. No. 7, M/s. Mining and Transporting Company, are the Contractors of Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd, and not the mine owners themselves. They all have managaneso mines in Barbil area in the district of Keonjhar. Some of them have, iron ore mines also, and as stated by tho Union Secretary, Sri H. Behra (W.W. 1), in his deposition, they arc M/s. B. Patnaik Mines (P) Ltd. (SI. No. 1), M/s. M. L. Rungto (SI. No. 2), M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., (SI. No. 3) and Smt. Sabita Roy (SI. No. 4), as also M/s. K. N. Ram & Co. (SI. No. 5). The remaining SI. No. 6, Shii M. S. Deb, has only manganese mines. In this area known as Barbil area, both manganese and iron- ore mines are found, if not side by side, than in near vicinity or neighbourhood in con- tiguous belts, the distance varying from 3 to 20 miles as stated by Sri R.C.B. Srivastava, Chief Mining Engineer of M/s. Rungta & Company (E,W. 1). There has been no revi- sion of wages since 1960. The Union, Keonjhar Mines and Forest Workers Union, gave a strike notice with seven charter of demands against 15 employers to be resorted to from 21st December, 1967. One of the demands against these employers was that an immediate wage of Rs. 4/- per day should be paid to all hazrl and piece rated miners aa also to dressing workmen and a flat increase of 50% wages should be given to other category of workmen, all with effect from 1st January, 1967. The date was chosen as- this was the date for implementation of Central Wage Board for Iron Ore Mining Indus- try Tho Union wanted parity with the Iron Ore Wage Board Recommendations and. that the wages of manganese mine workers should also be enhanced from the same date^

bited the continuance of strike in the muw*-* 'nInC!" u n d" Sec. 10(3) of the I.D. Act.

i n"t of w"u employers one Smt. Sabita Roy remained absent throughout. The remaining filed their written statement and rejoinders were also filed by the employer*

SI. Nos. 2, 3 & 6. The written statement of the Union was filed. It also filed rejoinders io (he written statements of the employers SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7.

4, The case of the Union is that with the growth of steel and iron industries and the •export market, manganese mining industry has been prosperous with a great future. The employers have been making huge profits, iron ore mines and these mines are run in the same locality, by the employers. They have implemented the Iron Oro Wage Board Recommendations as a result of which the minimum daily wage of iron ore workers is Rs. 3/- per day but the wage of manganese mine workers has not been, raised. The wages should therefore be revised.

5. All the employers have more or less taken the same and identical pleas. Broadly stated, their stand is that manganese mines have been running through a slump period for a number of years because the off take of manganese ore for export has considerably fallen down on account of incompetitive cost of production of Indian manganese ore as compared to other countries, Manganese is produced in four grades, the Dioxide, High grade, Medium grade and Low grade. Only Low grade is consumed internally by the Steel Plant, whereas the other three superior grades arc all exported, the monopoly of •which is with Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (M.M.T.C.). This Corporation has been finding it difficult to sell Indian manganese in foreign market and have already accumulated a huge stock of high grade managanese with no sale prospects in near future, A number of manganese mines have been closed down in recent years and they are such which have no iron ore mines because they could not cope with the slump. The present mine owners covered by the reference have survived because they have iron ore mines also for selling 1 ton of manganese to M.M.T.C. Ltd., they get 5 tons of iron ore to be supplied to Steel Plant. According to them, iron ore industry is not comparable to manganese industry both having their different problems. The higher wages to workers in the iron ore industry are reflected on the production of steel; the price of which is either protected or subsidised by the Government. Further the bigger units of steel plants are all owned by the Government in Public Sector and the export is also controlled by a Government Organisation Committed to bear the extra cost through escalation clause in contracts, The output per manshift (O.M.S.) in manganese is very .low ranging from 0.10 to 0.18 whereas in iron ore output per manshift varies from j-5 to 2 2. With the ancillary benefits of subsidised rise, provident fund, leave with •wages, bonus and maternity benefits, the average wage of a worker is Rs. 2/- and odd •which compares favourably with other mining industry in the area, namely China Clay, Chromite, Kyanite, Asbestos etc.

6. A preliminary objection was raised by the contesting employers that the Central "Government have now included employment in manganese mines as a scheduled employ- ment under the Minimum Wages Act and a notification dated 30th October, 1967 has teen published to that effect. It was contended that since the demand of the Union was also for a minimum wage of Rs. 4/- per day no reference could be made as the minimum wage will necessarily he fixed by the appropriate Goverrimenl after taking into consideration all the relevant matters. This objection was overruled in the hearing rendered at Puri on 13th May, 1968. It was held that though a notification hus beca issued covering the industry for the scheduled employment yet no minimum wage has so far been fixed. Further as a proposition of law, the workmen are not debarred from claiming a reason- able and just wage notwithstanding a minimum wage which may be fixed under tb.9 Minimum Wages Act. The Union did not necessarily claim a minimum wage but claimed what should be a fair wage with a minimum of Rs. 4/- per day for a worker. The word "minimum" used in the written statement cannot be interpreted literally so as to indicate the concept of minimum wage but in the context in which it was used it meant the minimum demand. After the objection was overruled hearing in the case proceeded. The Union examined one witness, Sri H. Behra, Secretary of the Union, who also proved certain documents Ex. W /l to W/6, On behalf of the employers, two witnesses were examined, Shri R. C. B. Srivastava (E.W. 1). Chief Mining Engineer of M/s. M. L, Rungta • Group of mines and Sri Mangalji Nabhcram Atha (E.W.2) one o£ the partners in K. N. - Ram and Company, who filed and proved a statement showing the cost and wages for the year 1966. The other employers also filed similar statements, particulars of which are given in the annexure to this award.

7. The principles on which, wages are fixed are now well settled. While trying to recognise and give effect to the demand for a fair wage, industrial adjudication has also to take into account the problem of the additional burden which increase would impose upon the employers and has to ask itself whether the employer can reasonably be called upon to bear such a burden. The problem of constructing a wage structure has further to be tackled on the basis that such wage structure should not be changed from timeto time as it is a long range plan, and so m dealing with this problem the financial position of the employer must be carefully examined. What has been the progress of industry in vquestion, what are the prospects of the industry in future, has the industry been making

profits and if yes what is the extent of profits, what is the nature of demand which ihtr industry expects to secure, what would be the extent of the burden and it's gradual increase which the employers may have to face. These and similar other considerations- have to be carefully weighed before a proper wage structure can reasonably be construct- ed by industrial adjudication [vide Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd., and another Vsr Union of Tndia and others, reported in 1961-T-LLJ p. 339]. Further as held in D.C.M. Chemical Works Vs. Its workmen, reported in 1962-I-LLJ p. 388, where the question is not of paying the bare minimum wage for which there is no question of capacity of industry to pay but where the demand is for fixation of increased fair wage, the present financial position of the concern and it's stability are both necessary to be considered before an increased fair wage can be given. In the present case, the bare minimum wage is not claimed by the Union. What is claimed is a fair wage on tho lines of wagff recommended by the Wage Board for Iron Ore Industry and which has been adopted by the Government and employers of the Iron Ore mining industry. It is urged that manganese is a sister industry going side by side with iron ore and the workers in this manganese: mining industry should be equated and kept at par with iron ore industry. The argument, however, is fallacious. Manganese mining industry has all along been kept distinct & separate. It has not been treated as a stable industry for constitution of a Wage Board so as to have a uniform wage structure though spread over in different parts of the coun- try. The reason is obvious. It's prosperity depends principally on the export trade. There is no consumption of high grades maganese, namely Dioxide, High and Medium grade manganese internally. There arc very few Dioxide manganese ores, viz.- ores having more than 50% manganese content. As stated by Sri R.C.B. Srivastava- (E.W.I) except for the mines of Orissa Minerals Development Coy. of which Orissa Mining and Transporting Co. are the contractors, no other is producing Manganese- dioxide. The mines produce 15 to 20% of the total as high grade and 30 to 40% as medium grade. Rest is low grade. Thus more than half of the production has to depend on export and which can only be rendered through the M.M.T.C. Ltd. There has been a continued slump in the international market for the last few years. That the slump has been persisting is evident by two news items published in the Hindustan Standard, Calcutta, dated 23rd March, 1968 (Ex, E/9) and another in Financial Express Bombay dated 5th March, 1968. As a matter of fact, the slump in the Industry is such a notorious fact of which even judicial notice can be taken. A large number of mines have been closed down. M/s. M.L. Rungta & Company gave a Hat of 43 mines in Ex. E / l i, M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., also gave a list of 26 closed mines (Ex. E/17), M/s. M.S. Deb also gave a list (Ev. E/24) of the same mines as were given by M/s. Bhanja Minerals in Ex. E/17. These figures have not been controverted. Almost every employer has furnished statement showing the rates of wages paid to different categories, the pit mouth valueper ton, the expenses from pit mouth upto the destination and tne average selling price. The following is the summary from the various-, documents filed by the different employers :—

Loss O.M.S. Name of the employers

Average cost per ton

Average sale price perton

Rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P. Rs. P.

O-IO o- r8 o-13 0 09 M/s. B. Patnaik (P) Ltd. . . .. M/s. M.L. Rungta M/s. Bhanja Minerals Ltd M/s. K.N, Ram & Company . . ..

41'95 26'57 25^71 30 -79

35'6o 24-68 24-79 31-45

6-35 I-S9 1-92 Q'25 (Profit)

M/s. M J S. Deb

26'71 36-56

9'85 0-12 (Profit) (Only pro- duces di~ oxide & high grade).

From the above it would appear that except for M/s. K. N. Ram & Company which showed a Jitt'c profit and M/s. M. S, Deb which undoubtedly had earned some profits because they produce only dioxide and high grade, all others had been running at a loss. The industry taken as a whole, therefore, cannot be said to be in flourishing condition so as to bear the burden of increased wage. From the industry point of view, there can be no com- parison with iron ore industry. The output per man shift is comparatively very poor im the manganese mining which is evidently due to the fact that manganese ore is found in

pockets and have to be searched out after removal of earth for which the employers have to pay without any return. As a matter of fact, iron ore industry is a protected industry, controlled and subsidesed by the Government. This is not so in the case of manganese where entrepreneurs have been left to their own fate. At the same time, it must be recognised that the mining condition for manganese workers are comparatively more difficult. As admitted by Sri Srivastava (E.W.I) special knowledge is required for manganese miners as manganese deposits are found in pockets and no such knowledge is required for iron ore miners. He admitted that the job of manganese miners is more skilled than of iron ore miners. There are no dressers and pickers in iron ore mines. The work, evidently is more arduous in manganese than in iron ore mines. The position is indeed anomalous and incongruous, in so far that iron ore miners should be getting more whereas manganese miners should be paid less. This is a factor which has also to be borne in mind in the matter of fixation of wages of manganese workers.

8. Apart from this, there are other points which goes in favour of the workers for an increase in wages. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (II), Calcutta in a dispute raised by this very Union against Orissa Minerals Development Company, owner of four manganese mines and three iron ore mines in this Barbil area, in a recent award dated 29th April, 1967 increased the wages of piece rated workers, miners and dressers. For want of necessary materials the question was left open for monthly worker* and weekly paid hazri workers. When workers of another concern have been allowvd increased wages, it Would be difficult to resist the claim of workers in neighbouring mines of, the employers covered by the present reference. It may, however, be noted that the award of the Calcutta Tribunal has been challenged before the Calcutta High Court an^ is not yet final.

9. Another factor is the absence of the Profit and Loss Account and the Balance sheet of the employers. None of them filed themselves and the Union also did not apply requiring the employers to produce their Balance-sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts. There does not appear to be any sinister motive on the part of the employers not to have produced the same. Most of them do not keep separate accounts for manganese mines and that might have been one of the reasons. The financial capacity of each of the employers and the state of industry to bear the increased burden are factors for which there are no material before me and without it there can be no proper adjudication. Before comparing an establishment in the same trade and in the same region it would be necessary to ascertain the standing, strength of the labour force and what is more impor- tant is to know profit made and loss incurred for some years as also the financial position of the concern (vide Novex Dry Cleaners Vs. Its Workmen, 1962-I-L1J p, 271). None of these facts regarding Orissa Minerals Development Company are before me. It is therefore not a comparable concern.

10. Over and above this, the fact that the Central Government have considered it expedient to include the manganese mining industry as a scheduled establishment under Sec. 26 of Minimum Wages Act is a further factor which dissuades me in fixing a wage struc- ture for the manganese mining industry workers of this Barbil area. It is true that the fixation of minimum wage will not deter industrial adjudication in evolving a fair wage if the demand is justified. At the same time, while fixing a minimum wage for this industry the appropriate Government through an expert advisory body will have an occasion to consider the question from all possible aspects. A fair wage can then alone be considered after the minimum wage has once been determined. When once it has been included aa a scheduled employment, it is but natural to expect that minimum wage will also be fixed soon. The unions of the workers may take up the question with the appropriate Gcv- vernment for early fixation of minimum wage. When once this is done, the task of evolving a fair wage if condition of industry improves will be easier and more practi- cable.

DECISION : —

Considering, therefore, the prevailing condition of the industry, (he fact that the award of the Calcutta Tribunal No. TT in the dispute with M/s. Orissa Minerals Develop- ment Company has not yet become final, the fact that no minimum wage has yet beeo fixed by the appropriate Government even though employment in manganese mining in- dustry has been scheduled under the Minimum Wages Act and that necessary material has not been product before me in this adjudication, about the financial position or the employers and also the condition of the business, it is not possible to greAit any inrease in the existing rates of wages of workmen employed in the manganese mines of tho employers and also the condition of the business, it is not possible to grant any increase in against M/s. Orissa Minerals Development Company has become final and minimum wage has been fixed by the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act.

The whole question will then \m at large if and when such a dispute is raised. No order for costs.

(Sd.) G. C. AGARWALA,

Presiding Officer

5-8-1968.

ANNBXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUHAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABAiLPUR.

CASE R E F. N O, CGIT/LC(R)(6) OF 1968.

List of Documents filed by the Employers in the Case.

Distinguishing

Description of documents

Proved on affidavit by number/ Exhibit No.

i

2

3

Documents filed by Mjs. B. Patnaik Mines (P) Ltd. {Employer's Serial Mo. i)

EX.E/I .

Statement of rate of wages paid to differ- ent categories and staff, during 1967.

Proved by Shri Santosh K'wnar Mjhanty on affidavit dated 12-4-1968. Do.

Ex.E/2 •

Statement of Pit mouth value per ton (Cash earning of Miner, Prov. Fund, Leave etc.).

lablc showing expenses from Pit mouth to

Do.

EX.E/3 .

Silling of Manganese Ore.

Notification dated 30-10-67, extending mini I- Do.

Ex.E/4 •

nv-Un Wages Act.

Table showing the cost and Selling price pei r Do.

Ex.E/5 •

tonne and the result thereto.

Documents filed by M/s.- M.L. Ritngta & Co. (Employers Serial No. a).

Rates of Wages and Salaries patd to wjrkm"-n

Ex.E/6 .

and staff, for the year 1967.

Filed and proved by Sri R.C.B. Sr ivauava, C.M.E., Oa affidavit dated 16-4-1968.

D o.

Abstract showing Pit Head value of Minerals

Ex.E/7 •

for the years 1964—66.

Do.

Table showing wagesj salary & O.M.S. of

EX.E/7A

staff, for 1964—66-

Table showing cost of explosives^ fuel and

Do.

Ex.E/7B

Lubricants, per tonne for 1964—66.

Do.

Abstract showing stores, spares, depreciation

Ex.E/7G

etc., per tonne for 1964—66.

D o.

Abstract showing total Pit Head cost per

Ex.E/yE

tonne.

Abstract showing average earning per day Do.

Ex.E/7F

of a worker during the year 1966.

Revised wage struct ire for China Clay Mines Do.

Ex.E/8 .

at Karanjia, Bhunda and Andheri.

News Report published in Hindustan Stand- Do.

Ex.E/9 .

ard Calcutta dated 23rd March, 1968.

News Report published in Financial Exprc ss Do.

Ex.E/io .

Bombay dated 6th March, 1968.

2

I

3

Ex.E/11 .

List of manganese mines closed . . Filed and proved by Sri R.C.B Srivastava, G.M.E., on affidavit dated 16-4-68.

Copy of Notification dated 30-10-67 extend-

Do.

ExJB/12

ing the minimum wages. Revised iron ore royalty rates

Do..

Ex.E/13 .

Documents Hied hy Mjs, Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. {Employers Serial No. 3).

Average sale value and cost statement of

Ex.E/14

manganese ore sold at pit head.

Filed and Proved by Sri Raghunath Misra on affidavit dated 11-4-68.

Average production and average earning from Do.

Ex.E/15

1964 to 1967.

Rate of wages paid to the different workers

Ex.E/16

Do.

working in Bhanja Minerals.

List of closed manganese mines . . Notification dated 30-12-67 extending the

Do. D o.

Ex.E/17 Ex.E/18 .

minimum wages.

Documents filed by M/s.KtN. Ram & Co. (Employers Serial No. 5).

Ex.E/19

Statement of wages and salary and cost per '.

tonne.

Filed & proved by Sri Natbarial Khatau Atha on affidavit dated 15-4-1968.

Satatenjentof railway head and other ex-

Do

Ex.E/20

penses.

Ex.E/21

Do.

Do.

Statement of Average earning per day per head of piece rated miners and dresscrsj FtO.iR. sale price and average pit head sel- ling price per tonne for the years 1964, 65 & 66.

Ex.E/22 .

Do.

Consolidated statement of Ex. E/i9> E/20 and E/21 and percent of Ore produced.

Ex.E/23 . . Categorywise rate of wages paid to the work- Do.

men during the year 1967,

Statement of account shoeing the additional Filed by Sri Mangalji Narbhe- burden, if the demand of the Union ig ram Atha(E,W. 2) during the course of examination in chief. met.

Document s filed by M/s. M.S. Deb (Employers at Serial ]\[o. 6).

Ex.E/24 . List of closed mines . . . ".

Filed and proved by Sri Gopal Ballav Das on affidavit dated 11-4-1968.

. Statement showing explosive;, oils fuels and

Ex.E/25 •

D o.

other lubricants.

Do.

Ex.E/26 Ex.E/27

. Statement of wages and salaries . Statement showing the different grades of

D o.

ore of Ignanijharan Mines.

Ex.E/28

. Statement showing the categories of wages3

Do.

workmen of Inganijharan Mines.

.Ex.E/30

. Statement of categories wages paid during '

the calendar year 1967.

Filed and proved by Sri Bhag Singh for Employer No. 7.

(Sd.) G. C. AGOARWALA

Presiding Officer

[No. 37/22/67-LRI.]

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 3rd September 1968

S,O. 3362.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an Industry dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Sonshi Mine of Messrs- Sesa Goa Private, Limited and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay,, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

Whether the termination of services of Shri Jairam Gaunco Watchman of Sonshi.

Mine by the management of Messrs. Sesa Goa Private Limited with effect from the 23rd Murch, 1965 is justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled ?

[No. 24/36/67-LRI.l:

on 11fi3 —Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute ™^ between the employers in relation to the Quarries of the employers mentioned in Ichedule I hereto annexed and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in: Schedule II hereto annexed;

And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

P

XT twr-TYir,. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Now, therefore • ™ ^ f ^™ s A ct 1 9 47( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmw* h eX refers mesSdI dispute fo? adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, con- stituted under section 7A of the 8aid Act.

SCHEDULE I

1. Maihar Stone Lime Company, Maihar.

2. .United Trading Company Limited, Maihar.

3. Tiwari Stone Lime Company, Maihar.

4 Rai Lime Company, Maihar. 5. Shrikrishna Stone Lime Company, Maihar. 6. S. K. Kahansons and Company, Maihar. 7. National Stone Lime Company, Maihar. B. Ghai Stone Lime Company, Maihar. 9. R. S. Chouhan and Company, Maihar.

SCHEDULE II

-Whether the action o f J ^ °^ t . ' S J S S J ^ t t ^ ^^ " £ ] &£ sTo^ndustrTes is justified 7 If not, to what relief are these Workmen entitled and from what date P ^ 36/17/67-LRI(l).J

S.O. 3364,-Whereas ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^^ the *S £ £ £ f £ f f l S" A * T ? £ ^S andteirworkmenYn respect of the matters speeded m the Srhfdule II hereto annexed;

2 ,H— - Can,,.. Oo,.,™, — d- . d -* " — - - *—

S f i S s v S S f e^ - *• — w I I b"p u r-"

SCHEDULE I

(1) Jiwanmal and Sons (P) Limited, Maihar. (2) Maihar Stone Lime Company Limited, Maihar. (3) United Trading Company Limited, Maihar. (4) Tiwari Stone Lime Company, Maihar. (5) Rai Lime Company, Maihar. (6) Shrikrishna Stone Lime Company, Maihar, (7) S. K. Kahansons and Company, Maihar. (8) National Stone lime Company, Maihar. (9) Diwan Lime Company, Maihar.

(10) S. N. Sunderson and Company, Maihar. (11) Ghai Stone Lime Company, Maihar. (12) R. S. Chouhan and Company, Maihar.

SCHEDULE II

Whether the demand of the workmen, that they should be paid the second Interim' relief in accordance with the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for Lime Stone Industries, is justified? If so, to what relief are they entitled?

[No. 36/17/67-LRI(ii).]

S.O. 3365 Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Central Bank of India Ltd., Sri Ganganagar and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute• for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal at Chandigarh of which Shri Jshwar Das Pawar shall be the Presiding Officer and refers the said dispute to it for adjudication.

SCHEDUtE

Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India Limited, Sri Ganganagar in terminating the services of Shri Madan Lai Ratra, Assistant Cashier-cwm-Godown Keeper was legal and justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled 7

[No. 23/46/6.8-LR.IU.];

New Delhi, the 4th September 1968

S.O. 3366.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute- exists between the employers in relation to the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Com- pany Limited, Kanpur and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal, of which Sri Mithan Lai shall be the Presiding Officer, with headquarters at Allahabad, and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

Whether the management of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Kanpur was justified in discontinuing the services of Shri Changa Lai from September, 1967. If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?

|.No. 25/29/68-T.RITT.]

New Delhi, the 1th September 1968

S.O. 3367,—Whereas an industrial 'dispute specified in the Scheduie hereto annexed is pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted by the notification .of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and -Rehabilitation No. S.O. 4028 dated the 3rd November, 1967;

And whereas the Services of the Presiding Offeer of the said Tribunal have ceased ;to be available;

And whereas for the ends of justice the dispute should be disposed of without delay;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 33B, .and soction IB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Central Government hereby withdraws the proceedings in relation to the said dispute from the National Indus- trial Tribunal, Calcutta with Shri S. K. Sen as the Presiding Officer, constitutes a National Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta of which Shri B. N. Banerjec, shall be the Presiding Officer, and transfers the said dispute to it and directs that the Tribunal shall proceed with the said proceedings from the stage at which they are transferred and dispose of the same according to law.

Parties to the dispute

Date of reference "Si. No.

No. of reference

i.

17-10-1967

S.O. 3853

Hindustan Machine Tools I, Banagalore, Hindustan Machine Tools II, Bangalore & Hindustan Machine Tools IV) Kalamass-ry, Kerala and their workmen.

[No. 4/138/67/LRIIL]

New Delhi, the 13th September 1968

3368.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute 'exists between the employers in relation to the Central Bank of India Limited, Calcutta, ,and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And, whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constiluted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India Limited, Calcutta Main Office, in withholding the due increment of Shri Haridas Saha, Business Canvasser (lunior Officer) for the years 1959 to 1963 was justified. If not, to what relief is the .employee entitled ?

[No. 23/41/68-LRIIT.]

O. P. TALWAR, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour nnd Employment)

New Delhi, the 10th September 1968

S.O. 3369.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between tho employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post Office Bhowra, District Dhanbad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on tho 7th September, 1968.

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

PRESENT:

Shri Nandagiri Vcnkata Rao, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE N O. 106 OF 1967 In the matter of an industrial dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes'- Act, 1947.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post Office Bhowra, District Dhanbad

AND

Their workmen

APPRARANCES:

For the employers—Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, For the workmen—Shri B. Lai), Vice President, Khan Mazdoor Congress.

STATE : Bihar.

INDUSTRY : Coal-

Dhanbad, 4th September, 1968/13/fc Bhadra, 1890 (Saka)

AWARD

The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between) the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post Office Bhowra, District Dhanbad und their workmen, by its order No. 2/15/66-LRII dated 11th February, 1966 referred, (o the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad under Section 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute in respect of the matters, (ipecifled in the schedule annexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Bhowra Colliery was justified in terminating tha- serviccs of Sbri Khublal Saw, M. C. Loader, with effect from the 6th December, 1965 ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled 7"

2. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad registered the reference as Reference No, 21 of 1966 on its file. Workmen filed their statement of demands. While iit was pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, the proceeding was transferred to this Tribunal, by the Central Government by its order No. 8/25/67-LRII dated 8lh May, 1967. Consequently, the reference is lenumbered on the file of this Tribunal as reference No. 106 of 1967 Employers filed their statement of demands.

3. It is not in dispute that Shri Khublal Saw, (hereinafter referred to as the affected workman) was a M. C. Loader in the colliery of the employers, that l;e went on leave without wages with effect from 21-6-1965 to 27-6-1965, that instead of reporting for duty on 28-6-1965 he sent a letter for extension of his leave upto 27-7-1965, that again instead' of joining duty he sont another letter dated 28-7-1965 for extension of his leave 'upto 13-8-1965', that again, instead of reporting for duty he sent an application on 14-8-1965 for extension of his leave upto 14-9-1965, that ultimately he appeared in the colliery ask- ing for work on 2-12-1965 and that the employers terminated his lien on his employment with effect from 6-12-1965. The case of the workmen is that the affected workman was given no opportunity to explain his delay in reporting for duty, that the affected workman presumed that the extensions sought for by him were crantcd because the employers did not send any reply to his extension applications and that the affected workman had been victimised for his trade union activities. The employers at the outset pleaded that, even if the extensions sought for by the affected workman were presumed to have been granted the extension was only upto 14-9-1965, that there was no application for extension beyond 14-9-1965, that there was absolutely no explanation why he reported beyond 2 months after 14-9-1965 and that in terms of order 11 of the Certified Standing Orders the affected workman had lost the lien on his aDpointment automatically when he did not report to duty within 8 days of the expiry of the leave. The workmen were represented by Shrf B. Lall, Vice President, Khan Mazdoor Congress and the employers by Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer. By consent of parties, F.xts, Ml to M4 were marked. The employers examined a witness and marked Exts, M5 to M12. No witness was examined and no document was marked for the workmen.

4. I find considerable force in the argument of Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, the learned representative of the employors that when tho affected workman had not returned within -8 days of the sanctioned leave he automatically lost lien on his appointment. The pro- position is amply supported by the decision of tho Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries. Limited, Jaipur Vs. Hanuman (1967-H-L.L.J.883) and the judgments of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. 779/67 dated 2nd February 1968 in Pure Kustore Colliery Vs. General Secretary, Khan Mazdoor Congress and others and C.W.J.C. 10668 dated 9th August 1968 in Malkera Colliery Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No, 2) and others. Even if the explanation of the affected workman could be taken into consideration, there is no explanation as to why he did not join duty on 15th September 1965, when all the extensions of leave sought for had expired and why he had reported to duty only on 2nd December 1965, beyond 2 months. He had asked for extension of his leave on the ground that his wife was ill, but there is no material to contend that she was ill beyond 14th September 1965. Ext. M8 clearly shows that the affected workman was given an opportunity to explain the delay in his reporting for duty. The workman did not lead any evidence to show that the affected workman was victimised for his trade union activities. Thus, I find no case for the workman.

5. I, therefore, hold that the management of the Bhowra Colliery was justified in terminating the services of the affected workman, Shri Khubial Saw, M. C. Loader with effect from the 6th December, 1965 and, consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. T he award is made accordingly and submitted under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) N. VENKATA RAO. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) at Dhanbad.

[No. 2/15/66-LRIL]

S,O. 3370.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of tho Industrial "Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between tho employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post Office Bhowra, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 7th September, 1968.

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

PRESENT :

Shri Nandagiri Venkata Rao, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE N O. I ll OF 1967 In the matter of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post office Bhowra, District Dhanbad

AND

Their Workmen

.APPEARANCES :

For the employers;—Shri K. C. Nandkeoliyar, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer. For the workmen:—Shri B. Lall, Advocate.

15TATT : Bihar.

INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dhanbad, 3rd September, 1968

\2th Bhadra, 1890 (Saka).

AWARD

The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery, Post office Bhowra, District Dhanbad *nd their workmen, by its order No. 2/114/65-LR-II dated 24th February, 1966 referred ;to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad under Section 10(1) (d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute in respect of the matters specified in the schedule annexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below ;

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Bhowra Colliery were justified in terminating the lien on the appointment of Shri Dewan Pashi, Miner, vide their letter No. WON/OS/64/1202 dated the 3rd December, 1964? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad registered the reference as Reference No. 33 of 1966 on its file. Workmen filed their statement of demands. While it was pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, the procee- ding was transferred to this Tribunal, by the Central Government by its order No. 8/25/- 67-LR1I dated Rth May, 1967 under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the reference is renumbered on the file of this Tribunal as reference No. I ll of 1967. Employers filed their statement of demands.

3. Shri Dewan Pashi (hereinafter referred to as the affected workman) was a pick miner in the colliery of the employers. He went on leave with pay from 5th October, 1964 to 26th October, 1964. He was to return and join duty on and from 27th October, 1964, But he did not do so. He sent a letter on 26th October, 1964, posted on 27th October, 1964 asking for indefinite extension of leave. The employers did not reply to that letter. He appeared for duty on 28th November, 1964. The employers did not permit him to join duty but issued a charge-sheet asking him for explanation for his over- stay upto 27th November, 1964 without permission. The affected workman submitted his explanation on 30th November, 1964 along with a certificate from the Gram Pan- chayat Secretary. The employers did not find the explanation satisfactory and caused a domestic enquiry to be held into the charge-sheet. The affected workman participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the affected workman guilty of the charge and as a result, the employers terminated his lien on his post of permanent pick miner and placed him on the badli list. These facts are not in dispute. The case of the workmen is that the affected workman's lien has been terminated wrongly and in order to victimise him for his trade union activities and that no intimation was sent to the affected work- man regarding the factum of refusal of extension of leave prayed for by him and as such he presumed the leave to have been extended. The employers filed their statement plead- ing at the outset that in terms of order 11 of the Certified Standing Orders the affected workman lost his lien on his appointment automatically when he did not return within 8 days of the expiry of the leave. They further stated that even then they called for his explanation, held domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and terminated his lien on his appointment when he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The workman were represented by Shri B. Lall, Advocate and the employers by Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer. By consent of parties Exts. Ml to M10 were marked. On behalf of the employers a witness was examined and Exts, M il to M13 were marked. No witness was examined and no document was marked for the

"workman.

4. Order 11 of the Certified Standing Orders lays down—

"If an employee remains absent beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended he shall lose his lien on his appointment under:—

(1) he returns within 8 days of the expiry of the leave, and (2) gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the Manager of his inability to return before the expiry of leave. Tn case the employee lose his lien on the appointment he shall be entitled to be kept on the "Badli" list."

.Admittedly, the affected workman over-stayed his leave by a month and a day. The -contention of the employers is that when the affected workman did not return within 8 days of the expiry of the leave be lost lien on his appointment automatically and as such there could be no occasion to call for any explanation from him or hold any domestic enquiry against him. The employers are supported abundantly in their contention by the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries, Limited, laipur Vs. Hanuman (1967-II-L.L.J. 883) and judgments of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. 779/67 dated 2nd August, 1968 in Pure Kastore Colliery Vs. General Secretary, Khan Mazdoor Congress and others and C.J.W.J. 106/68 dated 9th August, 1968 in Malkera Colliery Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industry Tribunal (No. 2) and others. On this point alone the reference requires to be answered in favour of the employers.

5. The employers gave a charge-sheet, Ext. Ml affording an opportunity to the affect- ed workman to explain his overstay of his leave. The explanation submitted by him is Ext, M2. Ext. M4 is the notice of enquiry. The enquiry proceedings are Ext. M il and ilhe' report of the Enquiry Officer is Ext. M12. Ext. M5 is the dismissal order. The

enquiry proceedings, Ext M il show and it is admitted by the workmen that the affected- workman had received notico of the enquiry, participated in the enquiry and gave his- statement also to the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report, Ext, M12 shows that thc- report of the Enquiry Officer was approved by the Manager, Ext. M12(a) and also by tho Agent, Ext. M12(b), The contention of the workmen is that the affected workmaa had sent an application for extension of his leave on 24th October, 1964 by a registered- post. But the contention is incorrect because the postal receipt for tho letter, Ext. M7 and the cover containing the letter, Ext. M13 clearly show on them the postal stamp- under date 27th October, 1964. The leave of the affected workman had expired on 26th October, 1964 and as such it is abundantly clear that he chose to send the letter for extension of leave after expiry of his leave. In the'letter he did not mention upto what, date he sought the extension, under no law or Standing Order the employers were bound to grant the indefinite extension sought for by the affected Workman and as such he had- no reason to presume that the indefinite extension sought for by him was granted.. Neither it is alleged nor proved in what way the domestic enquiry was against the princi- ples of natural justice. MW1 was the Enquiry Officer. Nothing is elicited in his cross- examination to support the case set up by the workmen. There is absolutely no evidence that the action taken by the employers against the affected workman was actuated by the motive to victimise him for his trade union activities. As I have stated already, na document is filed and no witness is examined on behalf of the workmen,

6. I, therefore, hold that the management of Bhowra Colliery was justified ini terminating the lien on the appointment of Shri Dewan Pashi, Miner, vide their letter No. WON/OS/64/1202, dated 3rd December, 1964, and, as such, he is not entitled to* any "relief. The Award is made accordingly and submitted under Section 15 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) N. VENKATA RAO, Presiding Officer,

Central Govt, Industrial Tribunal (No. l)r.

Dhanbad, [No. 2/114/65-LRII.L

New Delhi, the 11th September 1968

S.O. 3371.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),.

the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Katras' Choitudih Colliery of Messrs Burakar Coal Company Limited, Post Office Katrasgarh, Dis- trict Dhanbad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on thec 7th September, 1968.

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Nandagiri Venkata Rao, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE N O. 101 OF 1967

In the matter of industrial dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of tho Industrial Disputes- Act, 1947.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Katras Choitudih Colliery of Messrs Burakar Coal Com- pany Limited, Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES:—

For the employers: Shri D, Narsingh, Advocate. For the workmen: Shri Shankar Bose, Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh.

STATE: Bihar.

INDUSTRY: Coai:.

Dhanbad, 2nd September, 1968

AWARD

The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between trie- employers in relation to the Katras Choitudih Colliery of Messrs Burakar Coal Company

V u t i S i Sn Killt' Dl?£? "hanbad Ulld lhdl workmen, by its order No. 2/148/65-LRU dated 25th January 1966 referred to the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal, Dhanbad under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for adjudica-

l ™ ^ "ei e Wni d W .Of thC matk*S SPeCifel m the Sdledl"C "nne"d lh""°

SCHEDULE

' 1. Whether the management of. Katras Choitudih Colliery of Messrs Burakar Coal Company Limited was justified in 'dismissing Shri Keshar Pandcy Timber Mazdoor, with effect from the 1st July- 1965'' If not 10 what relief is the workman entitled?

U. Whether the managemom of Kutrns f.hoitudih Colliery of Messrs Burukar Coal Company Limited was justified ;" dismissing Shri Shyam Naraynn Singh Pump Khalasi,-with effect from the 7th August 1965? If not, to what relief is thi¹ workman entitled?"

2. The Central Government Industrial Tribun.-jt. Ohanbml re'.'isiered the. reference as reference No. 14 of 1966 on its file. While i> was pend:n.c, before'the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, (he proceeding was transferred to this Tribunal, by the Central Government by its order No, 8/25/67-LR1I dated 8th May, 1967 under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the reference is renumbered on the file of this Tribunal as reference No. Itii of 1967. HmpIoyeiM as the workmen filed their statements of demands

3. Admittedly, Sarvashri Keshar Pandey and Shyam Nurayan Singh thereinafter re^ ferred to as the affected workmen) were respectively Timber Mazdoor and Pump Khalasi in Katras Choitudih Colliery of the employers and they were dismissed from service with effect from 1st July, 1965 arid 7lh August 1965, respectively as a result of domestic enquiries conducted against them. The ease of Ilie workmen is that the domestic enquiries conducted against the effected workmen were or.i.'iin;si?d shows in violation of principles of u.'itural justice and that the dismissal orders issued against the affected workmen were with- out jurisdiction. They further pleaded that the action of the employers against the affected workmen was actuated with the motive to penalise them for their trade union activities. The workmen were represented by Shri Shankar Hose, Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and the employers by Shri D. Narsinnb., Advocate, Bv consent of parties Exts, W.I 1o W,3 and Ml to "M6 were marked. On behalf of the employers a witness was examined and Exts. M7 to Ml 1 were were marked- No witnest was (.-^lmined for (he workmen.

•4. The only short question falling for determinat'on at thi? outset is whether the domes- iic enquiries hold against the two affected workmen were prone. Kxt- Ml is a charge - shcet issued to the first affected workman. Sliri Keshar Pandey Tlv: eharRC was of mis- conduct under clauses (;O and (h> of the fVder 14(31 nf the S';m>.lim; Orders, Ext. M7. stating that on the first shift on 1st .Tune. 1965 the affeoled uorkmu), Shri Keshar Pandey was asked by the Assistant Manaper to work in the ivist section, but instead of goinff to the east section he was found in the w?st section and he -'busBd Shri Hiralal Singh, Over- man and that on 2nd June, 1965 he abused again Shri Iliralnl Siiifih mid threatened him with dire consequences and persisted in not soinc in work in th>-, east section. The reply of the affected workman was that he did not go to the section because there was no mistry. He denied that he misbehaved with anv one. The cb Mir- and exptannt'on are admitted by the workmen. The charse-shcet against the ?.nd affected wnrkinnn is Ext. M4. The chnrBe was of misconduct under clause (h) of order M(31 of the Stindinn Orders, Ext. M7, j,i th it the affected workman, Shri Shvnm Ni:"-iv"i ^intrh tihused Shri G. M. Gurp. 1st Class Assistant, in most filthy lanauaRe at East Pit Cabin on the 3rd shift on 20th July. 1965. The affected workman Shri Shyam Naravan Singh denied the chorjw in its entirelv. This charge and explanation are also admitted bv the workmen. The notices of the enqui- ries, Exts. M2 and M5 to the affected workmen are also admitted. MWI was the Welfare Officer of the cmplovers colliery during the material period and he conducted the two do- mestic enciuiries aoaimt the tw(1 ;.ffi-'lf"1 workman. 'Hi" en(.''"rv nrocscdinos na^inst the first affected workman, Shri Keshar Pandey are Ext. MK, encmirv icnorl is Ext, M10 and the dismissal order is Ext. M3. Th^ enquirv proceedings ;ur; 4402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPT. 21, 1968/BHADRA 30, 1890 IPAKT I I-

management's evidence and before starting to record "defence evidence he had recorded .statements of the two affected workmen. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing is elicited to support the case of the workmen that the enquiries were organised shows or that they were perverse or vitiated by the principles of natural justice. Ext. M7 is a copy of the Model Standing Orders. M W .l has deposed that during the material period the Standing Orders of the, colliery were not yet certified and as such, Model Standing Orders were applicable to the colliery. T he first affected workman, Shri Keshar Pandey was charged under clauses ( a) and ( h) end the 2nd affected workman, Shri Shyam Narayan Singh under clause ( h) alone of order of 14(3) of the Model Stand- ing Orders. The clauses respectively deal with wilful Insubordination or disobedience to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior and riotous or disordcrely behaviour dur- ing workine hours at the establishment. I do not see any legal flaw or violation of any principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiries conducted against the two affected workmen. Order 14(4) of the Model Standing Orders, Ext. M7 lays down that the anproval of the Manager of the establishment is reqiiired in every case of dis- missal,. Tn the instant case the orders of dismissal of the two affected workmen are respectively. F.xts. M3 and M6. They are issued under the signature of the Manager. It is however further mentioned that the dismissal had been approved by the Agent. Shri Shankar Boae. the learned representative of the workmen has argued that the Mana- ger did not record fhnt he had KCtnn through the enaniry proceedings and was satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But no such provision is laid down in the Model Standing Orders. There is absolutely no counter evidence led on behalf of the workmen. N or is ihere any evidence brought on record to substantiate the alienation that the action of the cmnlovers against the affected workmen was actuated with the motive to nennlise them fnr their trnde union activities. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the dismissal of the two affected workmen was justified,

5. T. Iherefrire, hold that the m-innfoment of Krttras-Choitudih Colliery of Messrs Burakar Coal Comnany Limited, Post Office, Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad was justified in dismissing fJhrj Keshnr Pandcv. Timber M a / d o nr with effect from 1st Julv. 1965 and Shri Shvam Nariw-in Slneh, P u mp Khahisi with effeat from 7th August, 1965, and, as svich. the two affected workmen are not entitled to any relief. The Award is mad* accordingly and submitted under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) N. VENKATA R A O,

Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal ( N o. 2) Dhanbad.

[No. 2/148/65-LRTL1

S.O. 3372.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947"). the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Trfhnnal Cnlc.iiitn. in the industrial disnute between the employers in relation to the Dutta's Central Kaiora Colliery. Post Office Kaioragram, District Burdwan and their work- men, which was received by the Central Government on the 30th August, 1968.

C E N T R AL G O V E R N M E NT I N D U S T R I AL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA

R E F E R E N CE N O. 90 OF 1967

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Dutta's Central Kajora Colliery,

AMD

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

Sbri B. N. Banerjee, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of Employers—Shri K. P. Mukherjee, Counsel. On behalf of Workmen—Shri Kalyan Sankar Roy, General Secretary, Indian Mine Workers Federation.

STATE: West Bengal.

INDUSTRY: Ca"l Mines.

AWARD

By an Order No. 6/92/66-LRH, dated November 18, 1967, the Government of IndiA, in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment), referred the following dispute to this tribunal lor adjudication:—

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Madho Singh, Nifiht Guard, with ettect from the 31st May, 1966 by the management of Duita'a Central Kajora Colliery was justified 7 If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. Since 1958, Madho Singh, the workman concerned, used to work under tha Dutta's Central Kajora Colliery (hereinafter described as the employer company). It appuirs from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. bUt) of iyc>2, in which the said Madho Singh was one of the Appellants (item 1 of the document collectively marked Ext. 1), that along with Madho Singh several others, including ono Hari Ram Rajpuriya, were prosecuted and the prosecution case was that in January or February, 1961 the workers of the employer company's colliery joined the Colliery Mazdoor Union, 11 trade union affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. One Keshab Banerjee was the General Secretary of this union. The start of trade union activities had un- favourable repurcussion on the workmen and some of them were dismissed and against other criminal prosecutions were started. On September 10, 1961, Kcshafo Banerjee called a meeting of the workers of the union, at about 12 noon, at Lachipur Gate by the side of the Grand Trunk Road, a Httle away from the colliery. This meeting was attended by the dismissed workmen of the colliery concerned as also men from other collieries. The meeting continued from 12 to 2 P.M. and thereafter the men started in a procession towards the Kajora colliery office and dhowrahs. This procession was joined by about one thousand men with the object of ventilating grievances before the management. They pro- ceeded along the Grand Trunk Road and then diverted on the colliery approach road towards the north. When the procession was near the second culvert between the diversion from the Grand Trunk Road and the colliery office, a truck loaded wiih men come from the colliery side. In the lorry, there were 30 to 40 persons, armed with farsas, lathis and other weapons. The truck stopped near the culvert and obstructed the procession. Hari- ram Rajpuriya, who was the agent and Secretary of the Kajora colliery, came from a jeep from behind the truck and gave orders to the men in the truck, in the name oE the manage- ment, to assault the processionists. The men who had come in the truck, fell upon tho processionists and started assaulting them, as a result of which one Ch

3. Tho police took up tha case and arrested several persons. On the prosecution case as related above about 22 persons were committed to Sessions under various charges of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge altered the charges framed by the Magistrate ,and the trial proceeded for offences under Section 302/149 and also under Sec. 147 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons, namely, Nathu Singh, Madho Singh and Ram- brich Singh and under 324 I.P.C. against Rambrich Singh and Madho Singh.

4. rrhe learned Sessions Judge found 11 persons, who later on appealed to the High Court, guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code for rioting and sentenced eacb of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He found appellant Nathu Singh and Madho Singh guilty under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code of noting armed with deadly weapons, convicted them under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two years. He further convicted Nathu Singh and Madho Singh under Section 304, Part n read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for causing death to Chandra Bhan Singh and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment lor 10 years. The other accused persons were not found guilty.

5. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeals of Nathu Singh and Madho Singh in part. Tneir sentence under Section 148 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code, was set aside and instead they were convicted under Section 147 of the Tndian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal by the other accused persons, includ- ing that of Hari Ram Rajpuriya was dismissed. Since Madho Singh had not been given bail, pending hearing, and had served out his jail sentence by the time the judgment by the High Court was pronounced, he was ordered to be released at once.

6. There is no dispute that after his release, Madho Singh presented himself for re- employment at the office of the employer company. He was forthwith omployed as 0 Nightguard. The reason given by the employer, why Madho Singh, ah cxeonvict, was readily given employment, I shall have occasion to deal with hereinafter. I need notice,

at this stage, that Hari Ham Rajpuriyu was also given employment on his release from jail and that he is still in the employment of the employer company. The case pleaded by the management in the written statement is:

(a) that Madho Singh approached the management, after January 7, 1965, and falsely represented that he was acquitted by the High Court. Relying on his representation, the management re-employed him in his job as ;i Nightguard with effect from February 1, J 965, as a new entrant:

(b) that eleven other convicted persons, alter undergoing their respective jail sentence, approached the management with claim for ro-ernployment but tin.' management could not agree to the same. A dispute was raised in (his regard by Kesh.ib Hani-rice, I ho General Secretary of the Colliery Mazdoor Union;

(c) that a conciliation proceeding was started over Iho said matter and in course of this conciliation proceedings the management perused n certified copy of the judgment of the High Court nnd came to know, for the first time, that Madho Singh had not been acquired;

(d) that, on October 21, 1965, there was a settlement arrived at between the union and the management beiore the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Rani- ganj. and it was agreed that the management will not make any discrimina- tion in ths matter of re-cm.ploynicnt of persons convicted in the aforesaid criminal i_ase. Madho Singh, who was re-employed under the mistaken belief that he had been acquitted by the High Court, would bo treated In the same manner '".iih thi_- other convicted persons meaning thereby that his ro- cmployment Mill be tulten away from him.

Tho settlement referred to in the written statement is item No. 2 of the three docu- ments collectively marked Ext. A and roads:-

"Tho General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union, Asansol represented to this office vide his letter No. C 52K/.1169/65, dated 8th July. 1965 statins that S/Shri Ramanand Ram (2) Tulcswar Dusad (3) Kailash Singh (4) Munilal Dusad (5) Rambharsu Mahato (6) Jetu Singh (7) Hajari Singh of Dutta's Central jtajora Colliery hud been wrongfully dismissed and requested this Office to intervene in the maflci ni'.tl do the needful."

The parties were called for discussions on several occasions and ultimately the matter Was taken into conciliation on 21st October, i ^G5. The parties agreed to settfo the matter on the following terms:—

Terms of Settlement

(1) The management agreed not to discriminate amongst the workers who were involved and sentenced in tile criminal cases viz. S/Shri Hari Ram Rajpuria (2) Nukul Ch, Gosw:uoi (?) Madho Singh (4) Natho Singh and the 7 workers mentioned in t"is Union's letter stated above.

(2) The Union will not press fo> i-e-instsitoment of the 7 workers mentioned in the

Union's letter.

(3) The management agreed not to keep in their employment any of the 4 workers

mentioned in Para CD above after 31st October. 1965.

(4) The management agreed to pay Rs. 200/- each to 7 workers mentioned below as ex-gratta payment over and above their legal dues including proportionate Jeavo dues for 1965 up 10 the dare of termination of their services.

SI, No.

Name

Designation

I,       Shri  Ramanand  Ran-.                   Haulage  Khalasi
2.       Shri  Tuleswar  Dusad                   Surface  Trammer
3.       Shri  Kailash  Singh                    Body  Searcher
4.       Shri  Munilal  Dusad                    Vg.  Trammer
5.       Shri  Rambharat  Mahat                  .Surface  Trammer
6.       Shri  Jetu  Singh                       Night  Guard
7.       Shri  Hftzari  Singh                    Peon

(5) The management agreed to pay profit sharing Bonus to the seven workers mentioned in item 4 above along with other workers when payable. (6) The payments mentioned nbove the management agree, will be paid by 1st

November, 1965.

(7) The Union agreed that the 7 workers mentioned in the Union's letter will vacate

tho ouarter within 7 days of receiving their payment."

The settlement bears the date, October 21, 196?, anil is signed by Shri H. P Bhalotia, on behalf of the employer company, Ktshnb Banerjec, on behalf of workmen and S>hn N, M, Shaw, Assistant Labour Commissioner.

7 I'eisaant to this settlement, it is alleged by the management, following letter was written to the workman concerned on Mity 31, 1966 (item 1 of the bundle of docume.nl collectively marked F.xt. 1):—

'•Now you are fully recovered from your illness, the mercy period expires, in accordance with the terms of vttlement arrived ;it tho office of the Assistant labour Commissioner, Kaniganj. between tho Union und the employer vide Memorandum of settlement No. 16(260)/65 dtuci 21st October, 1965, your service is hereby dispensed wilh and vvith immediate effect."

To thb letter the workman sent ihe following reply on the same day (item 2 of the bundle of documents collectively marked I'M. 1) expressing hii surprise at the language used in the first paragraph of the letter and further stilting:

"What arc the terms oi the settlement arrived at the office of tho Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C). Raniganj on 21/10/65 with which Union? Am I a party to that?

Please note that 1 was workinu upto 1st June, 1966. I was not ill at all. So the

question of recovery from illness and mercy period does not arise at all.

I am not aware of any settlement with any Union at the A.L.C. (C)r Raniganj. I am not a party to the same and 1 am not binding vvith any agreement.

Your above said letter is quite illegal, vague and mala fide, and is concocted with an intention of harassing and victimising me for my active participation with the Red Flag Union you do not like at all.

Please withdraw your letter and allow me to resume my duly und stop harassing inc."

After the lapse of about 7 weeks, the management replied to this letter, on July 21, 1966, in the following line (item 3 of. the bundle of documents collectively marked Ext. 1):— "In reference to your letter dated 6lh June, 1966 received on 8th June, 1968 it is well known to you that you have been convicted with six months R.I. by Honourable Hi#h Court, Calcutta.

The Union (Colliery Mazdoor Union) insisted that all those persons who were convicted in the criminal case along with you should be dealt with tho same manner and there should not be any discrimination and the said Union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raniganj. The said Conciliation proceeding concluded in a settlement on 21st October, 1965 where in it was agreed that you should be dismissed in viow of vour afore- said conviction in the criminal cost-.

It is not for us to decide whether tho Union had any competence to represent you in the said proceeding or not and you aro requested to tako up the matter with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, llaniganj, if. you so like but BO far we are concerned your service has been lawfully terminated and we cannot do any further in i t"

8. The Colliery Mazdoor Sabha look; up the case nl the workman aijd the industrial dispute wax ultimately referred to tho tribunal.

9. Before I take up tho written statement, riled in ibis reference by the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of the workman, I cannot lesist the temptation of dealing with a part of the written statement filed by the employer company. In paragraph 14 of tho written state- ment (t IN stated that before dismissing Madho Singh, in terms of the settlement, the employer issued a notice, dated November 16, 1965, to the workman calling upon him in show cause to the following charge of misconduct (Ext. J):—"

'You misrepresented to us that you have been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court in the Criminal Case. Hut it is found that you have been convicted u/s 147 lor 6 months by the said court. Under the circumstances you are hereby directed to show cause within 48 hours why disciplinary action will not be taken ajainst you for the above misconduct"

The workman replied to this chargeshcet, totally denying the allegations It is further stated in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the said written statement that:

fa) The explanation offered by the workman was not found acceptable and a domestic enquiry wus fixed on December 13, 1965.

(b) The said enquiry was adjourned to January 10, 1966,

fe) The enquiry as notified was duly held in the presence of [he workman but he refused to sign his name although he gave his statement.

(d) There was no necessity for holding a domestic enquiry but i'or abundant caution this was done and the workman's services were dispensed with from May 31, 1966.

1(1. It is somewhat curious that this purl of the written statement was not stressed upon M the time of hearing. Shit Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the employer company, frankly confessed that the enquiry had not been held in compliance with the principles of rmtural justice and he would not rely upon the enquiry or the result thereof. He mado it clear that I should proceed on the theory that the service of the workman was terminated on the basis of the settlement and not as a result of the domestic enquiry for misconduct. I have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that the employer company knew well lh;\t the workman had served out his sentence of imprisonment at the time of re-employinf; him.

11. Tn the written statement filed by the Colliery Mazdoor Nabha on behalf of the workman concerned, the management was painted in a very dismal colour. It was alleged that the management was guilty of unfair labour practice. Because of such conduct, the workmen had to form a branch of the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha in the local areu, early in 1966 so as to safeguard their interests against unfair practice of the employer, It wits further stated that with the formation of the hade union, the management got furious, took up vindictive attitude, resorted to wrongful dismissal of union leaders and ultimately wrongful locked out the colliery. In paragraph 4 of the said written statement it is stated:—

"4. Shti Madho Singh was the first to be victimised by a letter dated 31st May, 1966 and then all the other leaders namely: Kameswar Pasaman, Laksmi Naraln Mukherji, Deoraj Dusadh, Zamadar Singh, Dhiren Roy, Rameswar Dusadh and many others were victimised. The dismissal cases were referred to arbitration of Shri D. C. Chukraborly, Labour Enforcement Officer (Cen- tral) under the joint signature of Shri Han Prusad Rhalotia, ono of the Director's of the colliery and Sri Sunil Sen, Organising Secretary of the Sabha and both agreed in writing that tho decision of the Arbitrator will be binding. After a protracted hearing, the Arbitrator directed reinstatement or the workman; but the management did not care to implement the Award,"

It is further stated in paragraph 8 of the statement:—•

"8. That the said dismissal is absolutely illegal, malafide and unjustified. Such type of dismissal is unheard of and in utter violation of (he Standing Order and basic principles of natural justice. The workman is dismissed on the basis of a so-called settlement between the employer and another i.inion is sljocJrini; and unlawful."

It appears from the evidence of workman concerned:

(a) thut he was never a member of Keshab Banerjee's union, meaning the trade union known as Colliery Mazdoor Union of which Keshab Baneijee was tho General Secretary.

(b) that at the time of his dismissal he was a member and also the Vice-President of a trade union known as Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, which began its opera- tion in the local area in ]966.

(c) that he was not aware of any settlement, particularly, as alleged by the manage-

ment, at tho instance or intervention by Colliory Mazdoor Union.

(di that the Colliery Mazdoor Union was not a major union in the colliery and about "10 persons were members of the said union.

The workman further slated in his evidence: —

"f am not aware of any settlement of dispute of the colliery concerned brought about in the office of the Labour Commissioner prior to 1966- Kailash Singh and Bishu still work in the employer company. I was victimised because 1 insisted upon payment of my old dues. Rajpuriya has been working in the concerned colliery since the beginning."

By Kailash Singh and Bishu he meant Kailash Kafmr and Biwanath Singh who were accused in the Criminal case mentioned in the beginning of tho judgment and who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment along with him.

12, Hari Prasad Bhalotia gave evidence on behalf of the management. He said in his evidence:

(i) that Madho Singh was a member of the Colliery Mazdoor Union i"n 1965, bul in answer to a question by the tribunal he admitted that the same was his inference only.

(ii) in 196? ihcre was no other union, meaning thereby no olhcr union exec puny Hie Colliery Mazdoor Union.

(in) (be story told by M?.dho Singh that he was dismissed because he insisted upon his old dues was not. true.

(v) the money due to Madho Singh was not paid even after his dismissal.

Shri K. P. Mukhcrjee, learned Counsel for the employer company, 'very strormly retied. on the language of Rub-Section 3 of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which \ set out below: —

18 ( 1 ) * ** *+*

(2.) * *' * llf '**

(3) A settlement arrived at. in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Acr or an arbitrat.i"n award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section {'.'A) of section 10A or ;\n award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which hns become enforceable sh:>ll be binding on—

(a) all pr.rlies to the industrial dispute: (b) .ill other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings us parties to the dispute. unless the Board, arbitrator, "Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal LLS the CMSC may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned w ithout proper cause:

(c) where a party referred to in clause (f") or clause fb) is LUI emtrloyer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates:

(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, al! person-^ who wen¹ employed in the establishment or part of the establish- ment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and nil persons who subsequently become employed in that establish- ment or part."

and argued that assuming for the sake of argument that workman concerned was not a member of Keshab Bancrjee's union, that is to say the Collicrv Mazdoor Union, at the material time, even then the settlement brought about before the Conciliation officer would be binding UDon the concerned workman. In this context, he invited mv attention to n Judgment of the Supreme Court in Hamnaj.'nr Cane and Suear Company Limit"d Vs Jatin Chakrtivoriv (" 19G f") 1 LT..T 744 in which Gajemlragadkar. J. ("as he then wasl observed On page 247): —

"Section 18(3)(d) makes it clear thai, where a party referred to in C(. (a) or (h) is composed of workmen, nil persons who wcie employed ii the establish- ment or part of the establishment, as the case may be. to which the dispute relates 011 the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishmcnl or nart. would be bound bv th? settlement. In other words, there can be no doubt that the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the Employees' Union during the course of conciliation nroceedings on 25 Februarv 1954, would bind not only the members of the said union but all workmen employed in the establishment of the anneliant at that date.. That inevitably meant that the respondent's would he bound hv the ,\airl settlement even though they may belong to the rival union. In order to bind the workmen it is not necessary to show that the said workmen belong to the union which was a purfy to the dispute before the conciliator, The whole policy of S, 18 appears to be to give an extended oncrafion to the settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, and that is the object, with which the four categories of persons bound bv such settlement arc. specified in S. 18 Sub-Sec. (3). in this connection -we mav refer to two recent decisions of this Court where similar questions under Ss. 19(6) uncl 33(1 ) ( B) of the Act have been considered vide the Associated Cvment Companies, Ltd.. Tarbandar v their workmen and others (1960—I L.LJ. 4911 and New India Motors {Private) Ltd. v. K. T. Morris (1960—1 1 ,LJ. 551)".

He also invited my attention to a decision of the Madras High Court in Workers or Buckingham & Carnatic Co. and Commissioner of Labour and Chief Conciliation Officei 1964—T L.LJ 253 and to another decision of the Hirti Court of Kerala in Monthly Tinted Workmen of Peirce Leslie & Co, v. Labour Commissioner and Chief Conciliation Officer 1966—T L.LJ. 503, also in support of the same proposition.

on behalf of the workman (hat in much ;is he was not ;i member Colliery Muzdoor Union but a member of a rival union, the settlement could not bind him and thp.t he should not be regarded as a party thereto. But I have doubts as to how far there is scope for applica- tion of the said proposition of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, In paragraph 1 of the terms of settlement it was stated that the management would not dis- criminate amongst the workers who were involved and sentenced in the criminal cast¹, rmmely. (1) Hari Ram Raipuriya, (2) Nakul Chandrn Goswami, (3) Matllio Sineh, (A) Nathu SinKh and 7 other workers mentioned in the union's letter. In paragraph 2 of the terms of settlement it was stated that the union would not press for reinstatement of the 7 workers mentioned in the union's letter. Despite the agreement Hari Ratn Rajpuriya, Mftdho Singh. Nakul Chandra Goswnini and Nathu .Singh were differently treated. It appears that Hari Ram Rajpuriya is still in service of the emoloyer company. It further appears from paragraph 4 of the terms of settlement that Knilash Singh who was one of the persons amongst the 7 whosi: cause was championed by the union and in respect of whom it was agreed that he. would not be employed. If I believe in the evidence of Madho Singh, and I find no reason to disbelieve him, Kftilush Singh )s still in the employment of The employer company. Thus it appears that the terms of settlement with the trade union having influence over a few of the workmen of the company (as deposed by MadfK< Singh) was not honoured. It vn :

14, This is all the more so becanse during the several months that he worked, there was nothing wrong found with M:idho Sr:igh ("vide the evidence of Shri Bhalotinl. The workman was not also dismissed on rh.jnt'e of misconduct after an enquiry. In these cir- cumstances, T am of the opinion that he was not dismissed on the terms of a binding agree- ment because the agreement WP.S discarded by the management. There is no reason why it ahould be kept binding on the workmnn.

15. For the reason aforesaid.. I find that, the dismissal of "Madho Singh with effect from May 31, 1966 by the management of Dutta's'Central Kajpra Colliery was not justified. He is therefore entitled to reinstatement in his employment with all wages due to him from the date of his wrongful dismissal.

This is my award-

Dated August — — —, 196R.

t > :U R. N. BANj.Rjfci:.

Presidina Officer. [No. 6/92/66-1 RIM

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 9th September 1968

S.O. 3373.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Khas Chinchuria Colliery (Private) Limited. 12 Old Court House Street, Calcutta-5, and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed:

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication .to the Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, con- stituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDUI.U

Whether the termination of the services of Stiri Mohan Slnuh. Durwan bv th" pre- sent management of Khas Chinchura Colliery, Post Office, Asansol. District Burdwan with effect from the 31st October, 1967 was justified? If not, to what relief is the workmnn entitled?

[No. 6/59/68-LRIT]

S.O, 3374.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the South Govindpur Colliery, Post Office Katrasgarh, District Daanbad and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (No. 3). Dhanbad, constituted under section 7A of tho said Act.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of South Govindpur Colliery, Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad in stopping Shxi Guru Dayal Manjhi, Register Keeper, from work with effect from the 9th April, 1968 and subsequently dismissing him from service from the 23rd April, 1968 was justified? If not, to what relief is tho workman entitled?

[No. 2/124/68-1,RII.]

New Delhi, the \2th September 1968

S.O, 3375.-—Whereas an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to tho Searsole Colliery and their woikmen represented by the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Post Office Asansol, District Burdwan.

And whereas the said employers and their workmen have by a written agreement, in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), referred the said dispute to arbitration by the person specified therein, and a copy of the said arbitration agreement has been forwarded to the Central Government.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the said arbitration agreement, which was received by it on the 28th August, 1968.

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

(Under Section 10A of the I, D. Act. 1947)

(FORM C)

Name of the parlies :—

Representing Employer.—Shri P, N. Verma, Manager, Searsole Colliery of M/s. Searsole Coal Co. Ltd., P.O. Raniganj, Dist: Burdwan.

Representing Workmen—-Shri Kalyan Roy, Vice-President, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, P.O. Asansol, Dist: Burdwan.

It is hereby agreed between the parties to refer the following industrial dispute to "he arbitration of Shri K, Sharan, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol.

(i) Specific matter in dispute.

(1) Whether the management of Searsole Colliery, P.O. Raniganj, Distt: Burdwan of M/s. Searsole Coal Company Limited are responsible for the temporary closure with effect from 10th June, 1968 to 20th June, 1968 of the colliery under section 22 of the Mines Act, 1952 having regard to the fact that they did not comply earlier with the order of the Mines Inspector und-rr sec ion 22(1) of the said Act to rectify the defects of the Winding Engine.

2. If so, whether the woikmen employed in the said colliery who have been forced to go idle with effect from 10th June, 1968 and are still to continue to be so, are entitled to full wages for the above period taking into consideration the fact that the management have not notified any lay off as vequired Under Rule 75A of the I.D. (Central), Rules, 1957 and have refused to pay lay-off. wages.

3 Whether the management of Searsole Colliery is responsible for stoppage of work In the Colliery Pit Nos. 1 & 2 and quarry No. 3 with effect from 21st June,

1968 to 28th luly, 196S and for not starting the work in quarry No. 2 till date.

4. If so, whether the workmen rendered idle in the above pits during the above period and are still continuing to be so are entitled to full wages. If not, to what relief they arc entitled.

(ii) Details of ihe parlies to the dispute indicating the name and addresses of the establishment or undertaking involved.

Employers in relation to Searsole Colliery, P.O. Raniganj, Dist: Burdwan of M/s, Searsole Coal Company Limited.

AND

The workmen represented through the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha (AITUC), P.O. Asansol, Dist: Burdwan.

(iii) Name of the union, if any, representing the workmen in question. Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, P.O. Asansol, Dist: Burdwan. (iv) Total number of workmen engaged in the undertaking effected—Approximate 900. (v) Estimated number of workmen effected or likely to be affected by tho dispute—900.

The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on us.

Tho arbitrator shall make his award within the period of 30 days or within such further time as is extended by mutual agreement between us in writing. In case the award is not made within the period above mentioned, the reference to arbitration shall automatically be cancelled and we sbtrtl be free 1O negotiate for fresh arbitration.

Signature of the parties

(Sd.) KJJ.YAN ROY,

(Sd.) P. N. VERMA,

Vice-President, Manager, Searsole Colliery of Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, M/s. Searsole Coal Co. Ltd, Representing the workmen. Representing Employer.

Witness:—

1. Sd/- Illegible 2. Sd/- Illegible.

(Sd.) R. B. MAZUMDAK, Assistant Labour Commissioner (O, Asansol.

[No. 6/91/68-LRII.] BALWANT SINGH, Under Secy.

(Department of Lttbour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 12th September 1968

S.0. 3376.—In pursuance of sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of the Personal Injuries (Compensation Insurance) Scheme, 1965, the Central Government hereby determines the equivalent of all advance payments of premium already paid by an employer as the total premium due on a policy of insurance.

[No. 3/29/68-Spl.Fac.IL] N. N. CHATTERJEE, Jt. Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment) [Office of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)]

ORDERS

New t)elhi, the 3rd September 1968

S.O. 3377.—Whereas an application has been made under Section 19(b) of the Pay- meat of Bonus Act, 1965 by Messrs. Sutna Stone & Lime Co., Ltd., (employer) in relation to their establishments mentioned in the Schedule below for extension of the period for the payment of bonus to their employees for the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1967.

And whereas being satisfied thai there are sufficient reasons to extend the time I have, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the proviso to clause (b) of Section 19 of the said Act read with the UQiiflcation of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment No. WB-20(42)/65 dated the 28th August, 1965, passed orders on 2nd September, 1968 extending the period for payment of the said bonus by the said employer by £ months from the due date under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act,

Now this is published for information of the employer and all the employees of the said establishment.

THE SCHEDULE

Name and address of the employer(s)

Establish mcnt(s)

The Sutna Stone & Lime Co. Ltd, 6, Middle

Raghuraj Nagar Lime Stone Mines, Road, Hastings, Calcutta-22.

Satna.

[No. B.A.8(13)/68-LS.I.]

S.O. 3378,—Whereas an application has been made under Section 19(b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by Messrs. Jhagrakhand Collieries Ltd., (employer) in relation to their establishments mentioned in the Schedule below for extension of the period for the pay- ment of bonus to their employees for the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1967.

And whereas being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to extend the time I have, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the proviso to clause (b) of Section 19 of the said Act read with the notification of the Goverment of India in the Ministry of Labour j nd Employment No. WB-20(42)/65 dated the 28th August, 1965, passed orders on emending the period for payment of the said bonus by the said employer by 15 days from the due date under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act..

Now this is published for information of the employer and all the employees of the said establishment.

THE SCHEDULE

Name and address of the employer(s)

Establishment(s)

Noith, South and Wf"t The Jhagrakhand Collieries (P) Ltd., P. 0.

Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt, Surguja (M,P.)

Jhagrakhand Collieries, Distt. Surguja.

[No. BA-5(12)/68-LSI.]

New Delhi, the nth September 1968

S.O. 3379.—Whereas an application has been made under Section 19(b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 by Messrs Sone Valley Portland Cement Co. Ltd., New Delhi (employer) in relation to their establishments incntlond in the Schdule below for extension of the period for the payment of bonus to their employees for the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1967.

And whereas being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to etxend the time T. have, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the proviso to clause (b) of Section 19 of the said Act. read with the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment No WB-20(42)!65. dated the 28th August. 1965. passed orders on extending the period for payment of the said bonus by the said employer by 2 (two) months from the due date under clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act,

Now this is published for information of the employer and all the employees of Ihe said establishment.

THE SCHEDULE

Name and address of the employer(s)

Establishment(s)

1. Lime Stone Quarries at BauHa (Distt.

Shabad) Bihar.

M/s. Sone Valley Portland Cement Co. Ltd., Punjab National Bank House, 5-Paxliflment Street; New Delhi.

2. Hutar Colliery Hutar, Distt. Palarnun

(Bihar).

[No. BA-6(4)/68-L.S.I.]

O. VENKATACHALAttf,

'.'. !ii-.'f Labour Commissioner (Central).

(Department of Rehabilitation)

(Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner)

New Delhi, the 4th September 1968

S.O. 3380.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 19J4 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby appoints for the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Mysoro and Kerala, Shri S. K. Soni, Assistant Settlement Officer in the office of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner Inchargc, Bombay as Managing Officer for the custody, management and disposal of compensation pool.

[No. 8/3/AGZ/67.J

S.O. 3381.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (i) Section 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXII of 1950), the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints, Shri S. K. Soni, Assistant Settlement Officer in the office of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner Incharee, Bombay as Assistant Custodian for the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Mysore and Kerala as Assibtant Custodian for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed on such officers by or under the said Act,

[No. 8/3/AOZ/67J

A. G. VASWANI,

Settlement Commissioner (A) & Ex-Oflicio Under Secy.

(Deportment of Rehabilitation)

(Oflke of the Regional Settlement Commissioner)

New Delhi, the II th September 1968

S.O. 3382.—In exercise of the powers vested in mo under sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, I, R. B. Mathur, Regional Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, hereby delegate the powers under Sub- Section (2) of Section 21 of the above said Act, to Shri Goswami H. J. Lai, Settlement Officer with effect from 9th August, 1968.

[No. F. 28(217)/Admn/RSCD.]

R. B. MATHUR,

RegionnI Settlement Commissioner.

VldNTID BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OP INDIA PRESS,

NtfW DELHI AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI, 1 9 68