Subject NOT available

or get him prosecuted; and in such a (,a.^e he may also bo suspended. The expres- sion "oirence" has been denned in pdia. 521(1) as meaning any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence undei any provision oi law. One of the charges against the workmen was that on 1st of. September, lUfJS, they barred the way ot Sarvashri Krishnamurthi and Rai, agents of the bank and thereby caused wrongful confinement of the two agents, which by itself was an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Cade. Shri Raj Kumar was also chaiged for tempering with the bank's record amounting to a criminal oftencc. It was urged on behalf of the workmen that these offences involve moral turpitude and so, fall within the ambit of the offence as denned in the Award Under these circumstances, it was argued that the management ot the bank should have taken steps to prosecute the delinquent employees as provided 111 para. 521(2) (a) of the Award- The answer on behalf o£ the bank was that the use of the word •'may'' in this para- of the Award -should be carefully noted and it was stated that all that it means is that if the bank wishes and considers it necessary to commence a criminal prosecution against an employee it can do so. It is not Incumbent on ths bank to take steps to start criminal proceedings, if an offence is committed by its employees but in lieu thereof, nothing debars it from taking departmental pro- ceedings. On behalf of the workmen on the other hand it was contended that the word '"may" has to be read as "must" having regard to the context in which it is used. Reliance was placed on A.LR- 1930-Rangoon-297 (Government of Burma v. Municipal Corporation of Rangoon). It was a case under the Rangoon City Muni- cipal Act. It was held that, in enactments which confer powers, and particularly in enactments which confer powers on public authorities, language of rnere permis- sion may not preclude the existence of a duty. It was also observed that, where a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word "may" is the same as the word "shall". The facts in that case were quite different and in that context the word "may", it was held", could be read as "shall". But in the Award, the word "shall" has T5een used in many other places and it indicates that wherever it was intended that the provisions should be mandatory, it was so said by the use of the word "shall". I, therefore, agree with Shri Pai that Para. 521 (2)(a) of the Award did not compel the bank to prosecute the delin- quent employees but it was an option with the bank and if it was not exercised by it, it did not debar It from taking disciplinary proceedings against ths workmen

T7. The third contention raised on behalf of the workmen was that the enquiry officer was not competent to pass the dismissal order dated the 22nd of November, 1966 having revoked his earlier dismissal order dated 17th of August. 1966. I may point out here that on the 17th of August, 1966, the disciplinary authority Shri R. Tlarnaehandran passed the order of dismissal of the four workmen by holding that the charge, against them had been established. It teems that conciliation pro- ceedings were pending before the conciliation officer in respect of an industrial dispute between the parties. Under section 33(1) of the Act, they could not be dismissed, ^ave with the express permission in writing of the conciliation officer before whom the conciliation proceedings werp pending. The disciplinary authority realised this and for that reason revoked iis previous order oC the 17th August, 1966 and passed n fre-h order dated 22nd of November. 1966. A copy of that order (Annexure 0-4) was filed by the workmen along with their statement of claim. Tn this order, the disciplinary nuthority with a view to correct the procedural defects, rescinded the dismissal made against them by this order dated 17th August. 1966, allowed them to "join duty on the 22nd of November, 1966 with back washes and a'No allowed them to draw full wnyes from the 12t1". of August, 1965 to the 17th of August J96R during 1he period of their suspension, But at the same time it directed that they would stand dismissed from service on Hie 22nd of November, 1966- It was contended on behalf of the workmen that when the encralry officer p-nssod the order of dismissal of the workmen elated 17th of August 1966. his authority ceosed and he had no power 1o cancel it and make a fresh order of dismissal. The- reply on behalf n£ 1he bank wns that Shri R. Ramnchandran was fully competent to revoke his previous order of dismissal If hP considered that it was not proper and in that connection reliance was placed on a dispute between Mysore Machinery IVTanufiWurPrs. T,td. nnd Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer (1965— T— LL,T—353). In that case, pending adjudication pro- ceedings before a labour coujrt four workmen were dismissed for misconduct bv orders made on 17tb July. 1963 Pealisinp thai the orders made without applying for approval under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b1 of the Act would not be valid in law. . The employer cancelled the said orders and uas.sed orders of dismissal once again on 1he 28th July. 1963 The Tabour court held Hint the employer having cancelled the orders of ciKTiissa] made on I71h July, 19G3 could not dismiss them again on the 28th July. 1963 on the very grounds on which the previous orders •of dismissal were based. The matter- went in writ filed on behalf of the employer

=and it wats held that there was no condonation of the misdeeds of the workmen when tho employer cancelled the orders of dismissal made on the 17th July, 1963. As the prior orders of dismissal were nut valid as they were made without applying for approval o£ the labour court under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act., they were revoked. In the eye of law, the orders of dismissal, made on the 17th July, 1963 had no existence. The orders of dismissal were revoked and not the findings reached at the enquiry and hence there was no question of holding any fresh enquiry before passing the orders of dismissal on the 23th of July, 19tW. The facts of the present case are analoguous to the facts of thc case cited above and I am inclined to take the view that the enquiry officer could revoke his previous order dated 17th Of August, 19(56 and lor thit reason, there was no necessity of holding any fresh enquiry, Ihih. objection of the workmen is, therefore, untenable and is over-ruled.

18. The next point brought to my notice by the counsel for the workmen was that there is a mandatory obligation on the part of the disciplinary authority under para. 521(10) (c) of the Award to take into consideration the past record and ex- tenuating circumstances while imposing punishment. It was stressed that the order of the enquiry officer dismissing the workmen does not indicate that he ever paid heed to these provisions. It is provided in the said. para, of the Award that in awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action the authority concerned shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, If any, of the employee and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances that may exist. Where sufficiently extenuating circumstances exist the misconduct may be condoned and in case such misconduct is of the "gross" type he may be merely discharged, with or without notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowances, in lieu of notice. It was, therefore, argued that as these mandatory obligations had not been carried out, their dismissal was illegal. There is nothing in the enquiry proceedings or in the documents on the file of this Tribunal to suggest that the previous record was sent for or seen by the disciplinary authority. Shri Pal, however, relied on appendices A-T to A-12 attached to the written statement of the management which are copies or extracts from the service records of the delinquent employees. During the course of evidence these documents were not proved and so, they cannot be considered by me In order to ascertain if the pre- vious record of the four dismissed employees was good or bad. Anyway, Shri Pai contended that where the charges levelled were serious as in the present case, the past record of the employees was of little significance. In support of this he cited the case between Solar Works, Madras and their workmen and another (1968-1- LLJ-765), In that case, the management did not take into consideration the pre- vious record of the employee.-, and alto did not take into account the standing order analogous to tbe provisions of th" Award cited above. It was observed that where the misconduct o"C the workman is* a very serious one, then there is no oucstion of a milder mmishment being Inflicted. The misconduct per SP was suffi- cient to justify the dismissal because o£ its serious nature It was further observ- ed 1hat there was no scope at all for entertaining any apprehension that the management failed to givp due weight to the provision of standing order 16(a1 regarding past good conduct of thc workers in fixing the quantum of punishment or that if it had done so, a different result would have followed. Shri Ramamurthi in support of his contention relied on 196.1-II-LLJ-58 (Mahalakshmi Textile Mills v. Labour Court, Madural, and others). There thp standing orders of the establish- ment, inter alia, consiituted absence without leave for eight consecutive days a misconduct. It further provided that. In awarding nunishment to a workman found guilty of misconduct at ttie domestic enquiry the management shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the work- man and any other extenuating circumstances that may exist. The workman in that case was *ound guilty of remaining absent without leave for more than eight consecutive days at the domestic enouiry. He- was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The concerned workman did not participate in the domes- tic enquiry. The labour court adjudicating the disr/ute sei aside the order of dismissal, and directed his reinstatement. The employer filed a writ petition and iti wus held that, as the management had failed to take into account the various factors before awarding punishment as required bv the relevant provisions of the standing order, the order setting aside the dismissal must be sustained. This verv authorltv was considered bv the same High Court in 10R8-1-I L.T-765 quoted above, and it was observed thai the factt; In the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills' case showed 1hat the misconduct of the worker w;is comparatively trivial, viz.. over-stayal of leave. Prima farlp the minlshment of dismissal for such a venial fault was dis- pronortlonate, and this si=ems to have been <>if> justification for the Court to hold tha1| that war, a pronc-r case where thp provision of the standing order relating to •past conduct should have been taken into account because if it had been taken Into account, there was every likelihood of the punishment having been less severe.

The next ruling to which my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the workmen was 1954-I-LLJ-281 (Mr. Ziakh v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company^ Ltd., and another). The learned counsel for the bank also placed reliance on this very authority. In that case also, the standing order required that in awarding punishment the manager shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workmen and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist. There was nothing on the retard to suggest that the manager considered the past record of the delinquent employee while inflicting the punishment of dismissal on the worker, but the Tribunal considered that the slow-down in production was a very serious act and was calculated to bring about inri^cipline and also to undermine industry. It took the view that it could not witn-hold the permission sought by the management and so, the decision of the Tr.i unaJ was upheld by the High Court in spite of the fact that the manager did not record that the previous record of the delinquent employe*, had been seen. I may also add here that in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority the workmen never pleaded that their previous record was good and that, it was a mitigating circumstance to be seen by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. So, the crux of the matter as is apparent from the above cited authorities is that if the offence with which a delinquent employee is charged is very serious then the mere omission on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider the previous record of the workmen, even if it is gaod, is not a sufficient reason to .strike down the order of dismissal. In the present case. as the charges show the workmen had been found guilty of gross Indiscipline in hampering the work of the bank and for not allowing the agents to move. So, 1 feel that this omission on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider the previous record of the workmen, is not a sufficient reason to strike down the order of dismissal on that ground because the charges levelled against them were of serious nature so as to justify the punishment imposed upon them.

19. Thp next submission made on behalf of the workmen was that it was against the principles oi natural justice for the enquiry officer himself to consider the reply to the show cause notice and then pass an order of dismissal as disciplinary authority. One of the earlier criticism of Shri iRamamurthi was that the bank should not have anything to do with the enquiry at any stage even of Issuing a charge-sheet, Now it was argued that the enquiry officer should have only held the enquiry, should not have considered the explanation at the employees to the show- cause notice and should not have inflicted the punishment. According to him, the disciplinary authority for inflicting punishment should have been a different person from the enquiry officer. There is no such provision in the Sastry Award on which reliance wa1 as was done in the pre- sent case. It is to be noted that under the Government Servants Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, the disciplinary authority himself can conduct the enquiry or appoint an enquiry officer and in case the disciplinary authority himself conducts the enquiry, he would be at liberty to consider the representations against his own findings. The provisions of Para. 521(10)(a) and 521(12) of the Award do not lay down that the enquiry officer must necessarily be a person other than the disciplinary authority appointed by the bank. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that there is no force in this contention canvassed on behalf of the workmen that the enquiry was vitiated inasmuch as no separate enquiry officer was appointed by the bank.

20. The next submission on behalf of the workmen was that in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the enquiry officer after his report holding them guilty oi tV charges levelled against th^m, he did not consider the objections raised by them in their reply as to the correctness of the findings recorded by him. From the appendices. (F-l to F-4), attached to the statement oi claim filed on behalf of the workmen, it appears that the enquiry officer observed that in their replies dated 13th May, 1060 to the show-cause notices, the workmen had nothing to say regard- ing the proposed punishment except to reiterate thai the conclusions of the enquiry officer were inconsistent, which could only be questioned before the appellate authority appointed by the bank under Para. 523(12) of the Award read with Para, 18.28 of the Desai Award. He further observed that after once-agaln considering carefully all the records and material before him, he found them guilty of the charges and dismissed them without notice. It was submitted on behalf of the workmen that the right to show-cause against the action proposed carries with 11 the right to question the findings on tlv basis of which the punishment Is proposed and is not confined to making submissions in mitigation of the punishment propos- ed. In this connection, I have to see to Para. 521(10)(a) of the Award. Therein, It is provided that an employee shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him.

It is, therefore, obvious that once it is held by the disciplinary authority that a charge has been established against the delinquent employee then he Is to be given a hearing a.-, regards the nature of the proposed punishment. It, therefore, follows that under the provisions of this Paragraph of the Award the findings of the enquiry officer are not to be re-astessed by imposing the punishment and on]y the reply of the delinquent employee with regard to the proposed punishment Is to Le seen. The reason is not far to .seek. The Award provides for an appeal to the appellate authority against the decision of the disciplinary authority where the findings can be assailed by the appellant. Apart from that, the disciplinary authority has state- ed in the order dated 17th of August, i960 that he had considered fareiully all the records and material before him and that as a result thereof the workmen were found to be guilty of the charge, levelled against them. Under these circumstances, there seems to be no adequate reason to hold that the enquiry is bad in law on this ground.

21. After the above submissions, Shri Ramamurthi took considerable pains in taking me through the record of the enquiry proceedings and tried to build up the case that the report of the enquiry officer was perverse, that the conclusions which he drew on the basis of the evidence placed before him could not possibly be drawn and that the enquiry officer adopted double standard in appreciating the evidence of the parties. In order t0 appreciate these points it shall be necessary to consider the evidence on each charge adduced before the enquiry officer. The findings of the enquiry officer are contained in Appendix 'G'. The enquiry officer first considered the charge DO.SEC.42 dated 1st September, 1965 against Shri J. K- Sehgal. The details of this charge have already been narrated earlier and need not be re-stated here- The charge was that on the 30th of July, 1995 he left the premises of the bank without the permission of the agent, Shri Ral, or the accountant Shri Ramamurthi. To prove this charge, the bank produced Sarvashrl Rai and Ramamurthi, agent and accountant respectively. They both supported the charge and their evidence was discussed in detail by the enquiry officer in his report, Shri Sehgal produced before the enquiry officer four witnesses namely, Sarvashrl Aminchand Dogra, K. L. Bansal, Om Prakash and T. C. Malhotra. The enquiry officer summarised their statements in his leport but considered only In detail the statement of Shri Dogra on whom much reliance was placed by Shri F?al, representative of this employee- The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that this witness was tutored and was not a truthful man. He did not specifically analyse the statements of other witnesses produced by the employee but after con- sidering the bank's evidence, accepted the version of the management. Accordlne to Shri Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the workmen, this lapse on the part of the enquiry officer vitiated the enquiry. I shall consider this aspect of the case later on while considering the evidence in respect of other charges.

22 In the enquiry report the second charge which was considered by the enquiry officer was against Shri Rajkumar (Do.Sec.41 dated 1st September, 1965). This related to the absence of Shri Rajkumar on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of August, 19(55 from the Chandni Chowk branch of the bank and to his refusal to accept a letter dated 4th August, 1965 from the agent, Shri G. V. Krislmamurthy and again on the 5th of August, 1965 tempering with the record, submission of leave F.ppli- cation and then accepting the said letter. The enquiry proceedings show that the bank produced before him Shri G. V, Krlshnamurthi agent, Shri P. A. Sambu accountant and Shri K. R. Menon an officer of the Chandni Chowk branch of the bank They supported the allegations of the bank which the enquiry officer exhaustively considered- This employee produced bef|ore him, Sarvashrl Hira SInsh Narayan Singh, R. C. Bajai and R. D. Aggarwal and the employee himself also entered the witness box. The enquiry officer brushed aside the testimony in a single sentence by observing that the evidenc adduced by the employee was most irrelevant to the charges framed by the bank against Shrl Rajkumar. A leave application for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of August, 1965 was admittedly given to the agent by the employee on the 5th of August, 1965. Shri Ramamurthi, the learn- ed counsel for the workmen pointed out that under para. 484 of the Award, an application for casual leave can be submitted later on. It is provided in this para, that ordinarily the previous permission of the sanctioning authority shall be ob- tained before taking such leave. It is further provided that when this is not possible the said authority shall as soon as practicable be Informed in writing or if writing Is not possible orally or through any person of the employee's absence from work, reason thereof and of the probable duration of such absence. So according to this para the previous permission for casual leave Is to be taken unless the condi- tions stated therein are satisfied. The enquiry officer considered this aspect and held that Shri Rajkumar had absented himself without applying for leave on the 2nd 3rd and 4th of August without any sufficient reason. I. therefore, cannot sit In judgment over that finding but the only fact which I note at this stage is that

the enquire officer did not consider the statements of witnesses produced by the employee as he did in the case of the witnesses produced by the bank.

23. The other charge (Do.Sec40 dated 1st Sepember, 1905), against the two workmen, fcarvashri J, P. Rohtagi and Rajkumar, Godownkeeper and clerk res- pectively of the Chandni Chowjt branch was that on the 2nd of August, 1965 at about 10-15 am, without the permission of the agent, Shrl G. V. Krlshnamurthi, they entered his room along with others and shouted at him that Shrl Menon posted to Chandni Cliowk branch in place of Shri Ramaswamy, who had gone on leave, should go back and that Shri Rohtagi commanded the agent to follow the instruc- tions of Shri Bajkumar and book a call t0 Shrl Rao, the assistant general manager at Madras. When the agent declined, both the aforesaid employees instructed the staff to squit in the agent's room. To substantiate this charge, the bank produced six witnesses before the enquiry officer namely, Sarvashrl G- V. Krlshnamurthi, agent, P. A. Sambu accountant. K. R. Menon Officer, B. Somasekhar Rao Officer, Mahabir Prasad of Sultan Chand Vijay Prakash, Delhi and lnder Prakash of Masterphone Radio and Television Industries, Delhi. The last two witnesses, namely Sarvashri Mahabir Prasad and Inder Prakash, were customers of the Lank and had gone there in connection with their business. They all supported the version of the bank. The employees examined before the enquiry officer thirteen witnesses who were workmen In the bank and eight other witnesses who were customer witnesses and had come to the bank In connection with certain transac- tions. As usual, after analysing the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties the enquiry officer proceeded to discuss the case of the management and the employees. He then gave his reasons as to why the allegations with regard to these charges stood established. The case of the employees was that the agent in a fit of anger thumbed his table with the result that the table glass broke According to the employees, this necessitated the police eomlnij to the premises. After considering the evidence of the bank witnesses, the eiiquhy officer came to the conclusion that the accusation affairs! the agent that ne 1 ^t his temper and broke th? glass was not true, The bank let in evidence that the table had no glass as was evident from the inventory of the furniture (Ext. MD. 19). He accept- of this evidence of the bank and rejected the version of the employees. The scope of the Tribunal to interfere with the findings of fact a-rived at by an enquiry officer in a domestic enquiry Is limited and it has been held in a number of rulings of the Supreme Court. Unless it Is held that these conclusions could nnt be arrived at on the basis of the evidence produced before the enquiry officer, his findings cannot be interfered simply because, that another inference could be drawn by another person on the basis of the same evidence- Regarding th'"; allegation that due attention was not paid to the evidence of the employees, T shall take that aspect of the case later on into consideration as in the case of othgr charges-

24. The other charge as contained In Do. Sec, 38 dated 1st September, 1965 against the three employees, namely, Sarvashri J. K. Sehgal, head rashier New Delhi branch, M. B. Jain, clerk. New Delhi branch and Raj Kumar, cleik Chandni Chowk branch was that on the 31st of July, 1965 they entered the rccm of the agent of the New Delhi brancr- of the bank. (Shri B. S- S. Rai) at about 10.10 am. and forced him to disconnect the phone and while he was engaged in a telephonic conversation, Shri Raikumar took the agent's diary and 'he telephone directory and threw them most insultingly on his table with the result that the agent had to leave his room immediately in self-protection. When he returned to his room at about 12-20 p.m. the above-said three employees raised objectionable slogans against him as detailed In the charge-sheet and thus brought to a stand-still the work of the bank. In support of this allegation the bank relied on the statements of Sarvashri B. S. S. Rai. agent, N Ra~vunnrth] accountant, A. S. Sabharwal Officer. G. V. Krishnamurthi agent, P. A Sambu accountant and four other customer witnesses namelv, Sarvashri O. P. Batra, K. T, Shetty, H, A. Mokhtar and Prem Nath. All of them testified to the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer summarised their statements and then proceeded to analyse the statements of the witnesses produced bv the workmen. The workmen concerned produced eleven witnesses who are employee^ of the bank and five customer wit- nesses. The version of the workmen in regard to this charge was that, Shri J. K, Sehgal and Shri M. B. Jain saw the agent in his room at 10.10 a.m. but Shri Bajkumar was not present there. It was added that Shrl K. L. Bansal accompanied them but the other allegations were denied. When a^ain they met Shrl Rai after his return, he apologised for having insulted them and they left the room. So, the delinquent employees stated that it was the agent who insulted them when they met him. In support of this plea the produced a number of witnesses, Shri Rajkumar, the third charge-sheeted employee in the charge stated above took the plea of alibi and stated that he had gone to the clearing house at the time when the occurrence Is alleged to have taken place in the room of Shrl Rai. It Is in evidence that Shrl

3EC. 3

Bajkumar being a clerk attending the clearing house for the clearance ol the cheques, used to visit that place every day at 10-15 a.m. alter reporting for duty at the Chandni Chowk branch of the bank. On that day. he did not report for duty and the bank produced evidence to prove that Shri Sood was asked to go to the clearing house. The fact that he attended the clearing house is borne out from the entries made by him in his own handwriting in the clearing schedule of 31st July, 1965 relating to Chandni Chowk branch. The distance between the New Delhi branch of the bank and the clearing house can be covered in twenty minutes by car. The enquiry officer, therefore, accepted this allegation of the bank, that Shri Rajkumar, after participating in the disturbances at 10-15 a.m. in New Delhi branch went to the clearing house to attend the work there and later again in New Delhi branch at 12-30 p.m. when Shri iRai returned. So, the enquiry officer drew the conclusion that Shri Raikumar's attending the clearing house did not categorically prove that he could not take part in the disturbances one at 10-15 a.m. and the other at "" 30 p.m On the basis of that evidence, the enquiry officer drew the conclusion hat the charge was proved and It would, therefore, not be correct to say that there JS no evidence at all for coming t0 that conclusion. After summarising the testimony oi the witnesses produced by the workmen, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that they were biased witnesses for the following reasons: —

1. Some of the staff witnesses were under obligation or indebted to the Union, who have espoused their case, like promotion to bill collector-eum- godown-keeper from subordinate staff.

2. Some of them had been served with memos. by the branch agent for some acts of omission and therefore, had grievance against the management, and

3. Shri T. C. Malhotra, one of the staff witnesses, was brother-in-law of Shri

J. K. Sehgal, one of the charge-sheeted employee.

The learned counsel for the workmen contended that the reasons given by the enquiry officer for rejecting the testimony ol lhe stall witnesses produced by the concerned workmen in support of their plea vere. untenable and thus the enquiry was bad. The Constitution of India provides in Article 19 that all citizens shall have the right to form associations or unions. So, if the workmen of the bank had formed a union which sometimes espoused their cause in the matter of promotion then it can- not be a sufficient ground to reject the testimony of the staff witnesses whose cases were sponsored by it. The union exists to espouse the causes of the workmen and if this is held to be a ground for the rejection of the evidence of the workmen then no employee can be believed in a domestic enquiry and the provision of the Constitution referred to above became nugatory. I, therefore, teei that ground No. 1 as specified above was not a sufficient ground for rejecting the testimony of the staff witnesses. But the enquiry officer was within his rights to hold that their evidence could be ignored on other grounds. It w_as next contended on behalf of the workmen that the evidence of several witnesses produced by the workmen namely, Sarvashrl D, S. Gupta WE3(ND), Meva Ram EW4(ND), S. S. Tiwari EW5(ND), and K. L. Bansal EW7(ND), was not considered by the enquiry officer. From the enquiry report, however, I find that at page 13, the enquiry officer stated that the employees examined several witnesses including the witnesses named above- Thereafter, he summarised their statements as he did in the cases of other defence witnesses. So, It cannot be said that the enquiry officer did not make any reference to their statements in his report. On the other hand, the enquiry officer mentioned therein that the em- ployees had produced eleven staff witnesses and after summarising as to what they had stated in detail, he then proceeded to discuss thP evidence of the parties. He discussed the evidence produced by the bank in support of this charge which consisted of the statements of Sarvashri B. S. S. Rai, N. Ramamurthy, A. S. Sabharwal, G. V. Krishnamurty and P. A. Sambu and four customer witnesses. The defence of the employees to the charges as put before the enquiry officer by Shri P. L, Syal, the representative of the workmen was, then taken Into consi- deration at page 25 of his report. The defence of the workmen was that one of the charge-sheeted employee Shri Rajkumar was not present at the New Delhi branch of the bank on the 31st of July, 1965 as he had gone to attend the clear- ance work at the. clearance house and so. the allegation that he a,bused and obstructed the work of the agent, Shri Rni was false. The other plea put-forth by the representative of the workmen was that Sarvashri K. T. Shetty and Premnath, customer witnesses, examined by the bank were friends of Shri B- S. S. Rai and therefore had obliged him by giving evidence in his favour. Simi- larly, it was argued that Shri O. P. Batra, the other, customer witness was under obligation of the bank ior credit facilities. It was also contended on behalf of the workmen that there was no dislocation of the work in the branch as alleged by the bank and as had been proved from the customer witnesses examined

3634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 [PAJJT il—

by the employees in their defence. ThG .enquiry officer gave reasons lor reject- ing the pleas of the workmen and came to the conclusion that, in the ultimate analysis, atter careful consideration oi the entire evidence, oral and documentary, of both sides, he had no doubt that the employees Sarvashri J. K. Sehgal, M. B, Jain and Rajkumar were guilty oj acts ot misconduct specified therein. I, there- fore, could not; persuade myself in accepting the contention of Shri Ramamurthi, the learned counsel lor the workmen that the evidence adduced by the workmen in their defence was not considered by the enquiry officer and that on that ground the enquiry was vitiated,

25. The next contention raised on behalf of the workmen was that the enquiry officer mis-understood the bank's case. It was stated by the bank that on account of the disturbances in Its branch, the work started at 12-45 p.m. on the 31st of July. 1965. This is what was stated by Shri N. lEamamurthi, accountant ot the bank as MW 2 before the enquiry officer. The workmen, however, produced Shri Partap Singh Rastogi EW 12(ND), Shri Nirenderpaul EW 13 (ND), Shri V. P. Singh EW 14(ND), Shri Surinder Bhatia EW 15 (ND) and Shri Jagannath EW 16(ND), and they stated that when they visited the bank on the 31st of July, 1965t normal work was being carried on and that there was no dislocation. I have already stated above that the statements of these witnesses were considered by the en- quiry officer' and this version that there was no dislocation in t he bank was rejected by the enquiry officer. The next point brought to my notice was that the state- ment of Shri Narayan Singh EW 10(CC), whose evidence had been recorded at page 84 in the enquiry register marked as DC-42, was not considered at all by the enquiry officer and the evidence of the charge-sheeted employees was not taken into consideration. While considering all the charges, the explanations fur- nished by the employees to the charges were taken into consideration ay the enquiry officer but there is no specific mention in his report that he took into consideration the statements of the charge-sheeted em- ployees when they appeared as witnesses for themselves. The enquiry officer probably thought that in the statements of the charge-sheeted employees as wit- nesses before him they had repeated what they had stated in their replies to the charge-sheets and so, he did not make any reference to these statements in his report. From the record of the enquiry officer, I find that Shri Narayan Singh EW 10 (CC) did state that he accompanied Shri Rajkumar to the clearance house on the 31st of July, 1965 but his statement finds no place in his report. But that in itself will not be a sufficient ground to hold that there was no material before the enquiry officer to pursuade him to come to the conclusion that the charges against the workmen had been established-

26. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the workmeja to the statements of Shri O. P. Batra MW G and Shri Premnath MW 9, customer wit- nesses produced by the bank before the enquiry officer. The former deposed that on the 31st of July, 1965 when he visited the bank he received cash before 12 O'clock whereas Shri Premnath MW 9 stated that he received the cash after 12-30 p.m. on the 31st of July, 1965. It was contended that Shri N. Ramamurthi, the accountant stood contradicted by the statements of these two witnesses pro- duced by the bank apart from the evidence produced in defence that the work in the bank had been brought to a stand-still upto 12-45 p-m. and that the cash department did not work between 10-10 a.m. and 12-45 p.m. The enquiry officer took into consideration this aspect of the matter and held that the case of the management wa3 not so much that no work was done at all in the branch on the 31st of July, 1965 and even if he believed that a few customers had been able to transact their business in the branch within the banking hours, il did not in his view disprove the case of the management. This finding of the enquiry officer was described by the learned counsel for the workmen as perverse, against ibe weight of evidence and based on misreading of the evidence, adduced before him. The two versions were given b.y the two sides and the enquiry officer came to his own conclusion. I am not sitting as a court of appeal and if a reasonable infer- ence could be drawn from the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer by the parties, then] it cannot be said that the findings are perverse or suffer from any Infirmity.

27. The next charge Do. Sec. 39 dated the 1st of September, 1965 was against Ssrvashrl J, K. Sehgal and M. B. Jain, head cashier and clerk of the New Delhi branch of the bank. The management alleged that on the morning of 31st July, 1969 at about 9-45 a.m., they Instigated all the employees of the New Delhi branch of the bank not to co-operate with the management in any manner and not to discharge their respective duties. It was further alleged that on the same day, they induced Shri Somasundaram, clearing clerk not to attend to his clearing work with the result, that one Shri Ganesan was requested by the agent, Shri Rai to do

SEC. 3(i'i)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 3685

that work. It was further alleged that at about 10-30 a.m. on the same day they telephoned to Chandnl Chowk and Karolbagh branches and asked the employees there not to do any work with the result that the work in these two branches was paralysed.

28. The management examined four witnesses, namely, Sarvashri B S. S Rai, Acent N Ramamurthi, Accountant, N. Somasundaram, Shroff-cum-bill collector and S. Ganesan, assistant before the enquiry officer to prove this charge The employees examined eleven witnesses in support of their case. These witnessss stated that there was no disturbances on the 31st of July, 1965 in the'branch It was contended on behalf of the workmen that the statement of Shri Om Prakash produced by them had not been considered. The said witness deposed that he opened the cash on the 31st of July, 1965 and that Shri J. K Sehgal came late on that day iby two or three minutes. As in the charge-sheet it was stated that the instigation by the workmen took pla;ce at 9-45 a.m. and as this witness who was a cashier had deposed that he came a little bit later, it was argued that the enquiry officer was not justified in holding that the concerned workman, Shri Sehgal was present in the bank premises at 9-45 a.m. The enquiry officer, no doubt, did not specifically refer to this discrepancy, but he considered the defence of the employees as submitted to him by their representative, Shri Syal and came to the conclusion after carefully considering the evidence led by the parties that the employees were guilty of acts prejudicial t0 the interest of the bank and abetting and Instigating members of the staff not to discharge their respective duties. It was not necessary for the enquiry officer to specifically mention aibout this minor discrepancy as was contended on behalf of the workmen. It is true that there was no evidence on the record to prove this part of the charge that the work in the Karolbagh and Chandni Chowk branches was paralysed as a result of the telephonic instructions alleged to have been given by the workmen to their colleagues there Nobody from these two branches was produced before the enquiry officer. So, it can be said that the finding of the enquiry officer to that extent was not based on legal evidence. Similarly, this part of the charge that Shri M. B. Jain pursuaded Shri N. Somasundaram not to proceed to the clearing house was not borne Out from the statement of Shri Somasundaram. What he stated before the enquiry officer was that it was Shri Sehgal who told him that being a secured staff he should not do any clerical work and prevented him from going to the clearing house. So, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that Shri M. B. Jain also prevented Shri Somasundaram from proceeding to the clearing house is not correct.

29. One of the defences taken by the workmen before the enquiry officer was that in the telex message dated 2nd of August, 1965 which was sent by the management to the head office, there was no mention about Shri J. K Sehgal and Shri M. B, Jain preventing Shri Somasundaram from going to the clearing house. It was, therefore, contended that the charges were false and an after- thought. The enquiry officer dealt with this point and held that it was not incum- ment to send every detail in such messages. He relied on the statements of Sarvashri N. Ramamurthi, accountant and Somasundaram. It, therefore, cannot "be said that there was no legal evidence for the enquiry officer to come to that conclusion and if he drew an inference from the omission of these facts in the telex message, it cannot be said that the finding was perverse. It is not one of those cases in which it may be said that there was no legal evidence before the enquiry officer to come to that Conclusion. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that excepting parts of tha charge of which I have made a reference above, the rest of the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to 'be perverse so as to vitiate the enquiry.

30. Charge No. DO. SEC. 37, dated the 1st of September. 1965, relates to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 1st September, 1985. The details of this charge have been given in para 7 of the award and need not be repeated In support of this charge, the management produced Sarvashri G. V. Krishnamurthi agent, Chandni Chowk Branch, B. S. S. Ral, Agent, New Delhi branch of the tank. P. A. SambhiL accountant, K. R. Menon and B. Somasekhar Rao, officers of the Chandni Chowk branch of the bank besides the customer witnesses Sarva- shri Inder Prakash, Jugal Kishore and O. P. Sabharwal. The explanations given by the four workmen against whom this charge was levelled were also considered "by the enquiry officer. Sarvashri J. K. Sehgal and M. B. Jain employees of the New Delhi branch of the bank deposed that it was Shri B. S. S. Rai who took them to the Chandni Chowk branch for discussion on certain matters while the case of the management waa that Shri Rajkumar aitd Shri Rohtarf employees of the Chandni Chowk branch phoned them to come there from the New Delhi branch and the latter two without the permission of the agent left the branch and arrived at the Chandni Chowk branch. At the Chandni Chowk branch it

3686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 [PART II—

was alleged, that they misbehaved towards the two agents, prevented them frorr*. going out and compelled them to transmit a message to Shri Rao at the head office. I may add here that the allegation of the management is that Sarvasbri Rohtagi and Rajkumar compelled the agent of the Chandni Chowk ibranch to give a ring to Shri Ral, agent of the New Delhi branch to come there and Shri Rai reached the Chandni Chowk branch. All the witnesses produced by the management supported the allegation as contained in the charge-sheet. On behalf of the workmen, nine witnesses, who were employees of the bank, were produced and four customer witnesses also came-forth to depose in their favour. The enquiry officer examined at length the statements made by the two set of witnesses pro- duced by the management and the workmen and came to the conclusion that the charges stood established. The pith and substance of the statements made by the witnesses produced by the workmen was that there was no disturbance in the bank and that the work continued in the normal manner. This version did not find favour with the enquiry officer and he relied on the testimony of the witnesses produced by the management. He also dealt at length with the conten- tions advanced on behalf of the workmen by their representative, Shri Syal and repelled them. Before me, it was contended that the enquiry officer did not consider at all the evidence of Sarvashri Amin Chand Dogra, K. L. Bansal, Oro Prakash and T. C. Malhotra. It seems that the statements of these four wit- nesses, who were employees of the New Delhi branch, were recorded while consi- dering the charge DO. SEC. 39. So, while dealing with charge No. DO. SEC. 37, the enquiry officer probably forgot that these witnesses had also deposed about Shri Sehgal proceeding to Chandni Chowk branch on the 31st of July, 1965. The first two witnesses stated therein that Shri Sehgal was accompanied by the agent, Shri Rai while the other two stated that in his absence some other employee was deputed to work in his place. I shall consider later on as to what is the effect of the eiiquiry officer not considering the statements of several witnesses produc- ed by the workmen. Even if they had been believed then only this part of the charge could be said not to have been established that Shri Sehgal left the branch without permission. But what happened at the Chandni Chowk branch, these witnesses obviously were not in a position to say. The next contention was that no reasons were given by the enquiry officer for rejecting the testimony of the other witnesses produced toy the workmen. I have stated afeove that the enquiry officer summarised the statements of these witnesses in detail and then after considering the versions of both the parties held that he gave more weight to the testimony of the witnesses produced by the management while rejecting the con- tentions put before him by Shri Syal, It was next argued that the statements of the four charge-sheeted employees recorded by the enquiry officer were not taken \nto account. In the report, the explanations given by the employees were consi- dered by the enquiry officer and as those statements were also on the same lines probably no reference was made to them in that report.

31. The other argument was that certain documents filed by the workmen had nnt been considered by the enquiry officer and for that reason the report could be struck down. The first document is a letter dated the 14th of August, 1965 addressed by Shri R. A. Rao, assistant general manager to Shri P. S. Lamba. a customer of the bank. It seems that the customer had made a complaint to Shri Rao about misbehaviour of the staff of the bank towards him. Shri Rao informed him that it was the intention of the bank to enforce discipline among the staff and to render efficient service to the customers. Naturally. Shri Rao continued that when firm action was taken against the delinquent employees, certain amount of dislocation of work was inevitable and he requested Shri Lamba to bear with them for some more time. Then there are letters by the staff to the agents. Chandni Chowk and New Delhi branches of the bank dated the 6th and 7th of August, 1965 alleging that there was victimisation of the union leaders and a protest was lodged against the attitude of the management. Letter dated the 6th of August, 1965 was from the union to the concilation officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment against the victimisation of trade union leaders by the management of the bank and rude behaviour of the agent of the Chandni Chowk branch. It also requested the concilation officer to hold an enquiry. Another letter dated the 3rd of September, 1965 wag from the union to the same concilatiqn officer in which it was alleged that the enquiry being conducted by the assistant general manager against the agent of the Chandni Chowk branch was a farce. Another letter dated 8th of September, 1965 addressed to the same conciliation officer by the union was also on the same topic. On the 8th of September, 1965 the union again wrote to the assistant general manager of the bank that the enauiry against the agent, Shri G. V. Krishnamurthy was not only farce but Shri Rao, assistant general manager had further indulged in unfair labour practice by serving charge-sheets on the four union leaders while he had not given his findings in the enquiry against Shri G. V. Krishnamurthy.

JEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 3687

The State Bank Employees' Federation in its letter dated the 2nd of June, 1965 to the agent of the Karolbagh branch ol the uank protested against the posting of one, Shri A. T. Paneerselvam as an officer and depriving the promotion chances to the existing staff of the Delhi branches of the bank. The same Federation in its another letter dated the 10th of August, 1065 to the conciliation officer stated that the employees were being victimised for their trade union activities. Then there were representations darted the 6th and 7th of August, 1965 by the staff of the bank to the agent of the New Delhi branch of the bank against the victimisation of Sarvashri J. K. Sehgal and M, B. Jain, All these documents were on the file of the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer did not take them into consideration. The contention of the union was that had he taken these documents into account, he would have held that the concerned workmen had been victimised, In a dispute between Bareilly Electricity Supply Company, Ltd. and Sirajuddin and others (1960-I-LLJ-556), It was held that the finding of r.iala jides could be made by industrial tribunals only after sufficient reliable evidence was led In support of It. Such a finding should not be made light-heartedly or in a casual manner.

32. In the light of these observations of their lordships or it is to be seen whe- ther there are mala fides on the part of the management In the present case- It is true that in the letter dated the 6th of August, 1965 the allegation of victimisation was made against the agent of the Chandnl Chowk branch of the bank and In the letter dated the 10th of August, 1965 to the conciliation officer, some high handed- ness on the part of the management was brought to his notice. In another letter dated the 3^d o* September, 1505 referred to above addressed to the conci'iation officer by the union, it was stated that the enquiry being conducted by the assis- tant general manager against the agent of the Cbandni Chowk branch was a farce. I may add here that at the instance of the workmen the allegation of losing temper and maltreating them was levelled by the union against the agent and the assistant general manager started the enquiry. It was during the course of that enquiry that charge-sheets were served on the workmen. The grievance of the union was that before the enquiry against the agent was completed, the serving of the charge-sheets on the workmen indicated that the management was bent upon to harm the interest of the employees which amounted to victimisation. It is also true that the concerned workmen were office bearers of the executive committee of the union, but the question for determination is if these facts are sufficient to show that in fact the several occurrences as alleged by the management did not happen at all or highly distorted versions of the same were given by the manage- ment. In view of the evidence p⁷aced before the enquiry officer, one of the above conclusions could not be arrived at. But on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, he held that the charges levelled against the workmen had been . established. I am, therefore, not inclined to hold that a case was cooked up against the workmen as was stated on their behalf and that to achieve that end the workmen were victimised or falsely implicated,

33. The oral evidence adduced before me by the workmen consisted of the statements of Sarvashri Brijlal Gupta, Sri Bhagwan, J. K, Sehgal and Rajkumar The first stated that he once went to the agent of the bank in order to enquire whether the approval of the head office for his facilities had been received. The agent replied that he was upset on account of the staff trouble and that he had called the police to the bank premises on account of that trouble. He added that he might dismiss several employees. Sri Bhagwan, WW2 is a partner of M/s. Bishan Swaroop and Sons, Three/four months ago from the 10th of September, 1968, the date of his statement, an official of the union came to him and asked him to give evidence. In August, 1966 he went to see the agent of the bank in connection with his account. Outside the 'bank he stated, the employees were raising slogans and were creating noise. The bank manager told him that on the previous day he had removed the union officers. The witness asked the manager to settle the dis- pute, but he replied that unless those employees were removed it could not be s-ettled. Shri J. K. Sehgal, one of the concerned workmen deposed with reference to an agreement dated the 31st of March, 1964 between the union and the bar* regarding promotion policy. He stated that the bank, in violation of that agree- ment wanted to appoint a South Indian pmnloyec from South instead of Dromot- lng the senior most bank employees at Delhi. Then the witness states that there was a settlement before the conciliation officer and it was agreed that the bank would send back that South Indian t0 South. Another man, Shri Menon was then appointed officer and Shri Sehgal alongwith others met the agent and brought this to bis notice. Shri Rajkuniar is the other concerned workman and he states that on the 31st of July, 1965 he went to the bank and thereafter proceeded to the clearing house and returned at about 11.30 A.M. From that he tried to make out a case that he was not present at the time of the alleged disturbances in the bank premises- From the above statements, I do not think that an Inference of

3688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 [PART II—

Ot in a ny w ay Pr o ve t h at t he charges were false and +

t r a r i f ^ ri tn M , !" a* ™e Karolbagh branch of the bank and thereafter was Mn to M/fi A S ?* " 1 was actuated by a mala fide; Intention in order to victimise and workme™

r e C O rd my flndin"s on I s s ue No- 1 against the

34. As a result of the above discussion, two points remain to be considered. The first is as to what Is the eflect of the disciplinary authority notified by the bank under Paragraph 521(12) of the Sastry Award In not issuing the charge-sheets. I have already stated above that this omission did not cause any prejudice to the workmen, ft is true, as observed earlier, that these charge-sheets should have been Issued by the disciplinary authority but the question is if this omission or lapse on the part of the management is an adequate reason to hold that the enquiry is bad if otherwise it has been fairly conducted after affording full opportunity to the workmen to defend themselves- After giving my anxious consideration to this aspect of the case, I feel that as the workmen were not prejudiced in any manner, the violation of the provisions of the Sastry Award to this small extent cannot be taken to be a ground for striking down the enquiry. The other point which emerges from the above discussion Is that while discussing certain charges the enquiry officer summarised the evidence and in one or two cases he did not consider the statements of some witnesses produced by the workmen. I may add here that after summarising the evidence of the parties the enquiry officer then considered the version of the management and the version of the workmen and after considering the entire evidence he came to a certain conclusion. In one or two cases, no doubt, he did not refer to the statements of several witnesses but it had no adverse affect on the conduct of the enquiry and the conclusions which were drawn by tha en- quiry officer. I, therefore, do not feel that the enquiry proceedings suffer from an infirmity which vitiates them. In an unreported case between Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and S- C, Prasad and another (Civil Appca) No. 868 of 1966), a copy of which has been placed on the file, their lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations: —

''Industrial tribunals, while considering the findings of domestic enquiries, must bear In mind that persons appointed to hold such enquiries are not lawyers and that such enquiries are of a simple nature where technical rules as to evidence and procedure do not prevail. Such findings are not to be lightly brushed aside merely because the enquiry officers, while writing their reports, have mentioned facts which are rot strlctlv borne out by the evidence before them. Of course, if the enquiry officers were to transgress the rules of natural justice by rely- % on matters which the workman had no opportunity to meet the validity of his findings would be affected. Since the extraneous matters relied on by the Tribunal were merely incidental matters and rlid not affect the findings they cannot be held to have vitiated them."

So, if the enquiry officer did not discuss the statements of a few witnesses, I do not think that the enquiry can be struck down on that ground- In another ruling reported as 3 958-T-LLJ-260 (Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., and another and their workmen), it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that, in cases of dismissal on misconduct, the tribunal does not, however, act as a court of appeal and substitute its own ludument for that of the management. It was further ob- served that it will Interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (11) when there Is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (Jii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (lv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse. Keeping in view these principles, I do not think that the dismissal order suffers from any such infirmity.

35. The other reference I D. No- 10 of 1960 relates to the suspension of the four workmen. It was stated that the order of suspension against them was passed by the management In order to victimise them for their trade union activities. This aspect of the case has already been considered above and need not be repeated here. The order of suspension led to the holding of enquiry and resulted In passing tha order of dismissal.

SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 30, 1969/BHADRA 8, 1891 3689

36. For the aforesaid reasons, my answer to the first reference (Ref. I.D. No. 10 of 1966) Is against the union and Ref. I-D. No. 1 of 1967 is In favour of the manage- ment. This being so, the workmen are not entitled to any other relief and the •award is made accordingly.

(Sd.) B. K. BAWEJA, (Fifty pages)

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. 31st July, 1969

[No. 51/46/66/LRIIL]

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 18th August 1969

S.O. 3446.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Volcan Insurance CompanT Limited and their workmen in respect of the matter 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 Thiru B. S. Somasundaram shall be the Presiding Officer with headquarters at Madras and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Vulcan Insurance Company Limited was justified in terminating the services of Shri R. Thiruvenkataswamy, a workman of the Coiiwbatore Branch with effect from the 18th Decem- ber, 1968. If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

[No. F.25/16/69-LRIII(LRI).]

New Delhi, the 22nd August 1969

S.O. 3447.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and their workmen in respect of the matters specified In the Schedule hereto annexed;

And, whereas the said dispute involves a question of national Importance and the dispute is also of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one state are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute;

And, whereas the Central Government is of opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal;

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

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demands made on behalf of the Class III and Class IV employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the following heads are justified? If so, to what extent, and to what relief are the workmen entitled and from what date?

1. Leave fare facilities; 2. Outfit for Class IV employees; 3. Special increments; 4. Subsistence allowance; 5. Travelling allowance and daily allowance; 6. Leave rules including holidays; 7. Rules regarding promotions,"

[No. 25/24/68-LRIII(LRI).]

S. S. SAHASRANAMAN, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment) New Delhi, the 19th August "969

S.O. 3448.—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 Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad, in the industrial dis- pute between the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery of Messrs Bhowrah Kankanee Collieries Limited, Post Oflflce Bhowrah (Dhanbad) and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August 1969. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Nandagiri Venkata Rao, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 1968 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 Collierv of Messrs Bhowrah Kankanee Collieries Limited, Post Office Bhowrah (Dhanbad)

AND

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the employers—Shri K. C. Nandkeolyar, Dy. Chief Personnel Officer.

On behalf of the workmen—Shri Prasanta Burman, Secretary, Khan Mazdoor Congress.

Dhanbad 6th August 1969

STATE: Bihar

INDUSTRY: Coal

AWARD

The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Bhowra Colliery of Messrs Bhowrah Kankanee Collieries Limited, Post Office Bhowrah (Dhanbad) and their workmen, by its order No. 2/161 /67-LRII dated 29th January 1968 referred to this Tribunal under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for adjudication the dispute in respect of the matters specified in the schedule annexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bhowra Colliery of Messrs Bhowrah Kankanee Collieries Limited, Post Office Bhowrah (Dhanbad) were justified in stopping from work the following workmen with effect from the 6th September, 1966?"

Name of workmen

Designation

 1. Smt.  Pabi  Kamin                              Truck  loading
 2. Sri  Dinoo G                                         -do-
 3. Smt.  Chatia  Kamin                                  -do-
 4.       Bijala  Kamin                                  -do-
 5.   „   Lata  Kamin                                    -do-
 6.       Kusim  Kamin                                   -do-
 7.   „   Kusmi  Kamin                                   -do-
 8.   „   Romi  Main                                     -do-
 9.   ,.  Jnulu  Kamin                                  -do-
10.       Adori  Kamin                                   -do-
11.   „   Sanoo  Kamin                                   -do-
12.   „   Jamuna  Kamin                                  -do-
13.   „   Tilaka  Kamin                                  -do-
14.   „   Rohani  Kamin                                  -do-
15.       Sukhi  Kamin                                  -do-
16.   „   Sabi  Kamin                                    -do-
17.   „   Sarathi  Kamin                                -do-
18.   „   Khandi  Kamin                                 -do-
 19.      Mulchi  Kamin                                   -do-
20. Sri  Magna  Cooli                                   -do-
21. Smt.  Nepura  Kamin                                 -do-
22. Sri  Pashupati  Cooli                                -do-

Name of Workmen

Designation

23. Smt. Achala Kamin 24. „ Lakhi Kamin 25. Sri Shankar Cooli 26. Smt. Butni Kamjn 27. „ Bhabi Kamin 28i Sri Napoo Cooli 29. Sri Sukhu Dey 30. Smt. Adari Kamin •"1 ,, Kolo Kamin 32. „ Kaisallya

Truck Loading -do- -do- -do-

-do-

-do- Munshi Truck loading & unloading

-do-

-do-

2. Workmen filed their statement of demands. The employers filed their state- ment of demands as well as rejoinder.

3. On 16th June 1969 Shri Prasanta Burman, Secretary, Khan Mazdoor Congress the union sponsoring the dispute has filed an application stating that the union Is no longer interested In persuing the dispute and that it may be disposed of ac- cordingly. As no more dispute subsists for adjudication no further enquiry la necessary. The 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) Dhanbad.

[No. 2/161/67-LR.II.J

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 14th August 1969

8,0. 3449.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Domarpara Dolomite and Limestone Mine of Messrs Chhotanagpur Forest Syndicate Limited, Post Office Baraduar, District Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh) 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 9! 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, constituted under section "7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

Whether the claim of the workers employed in Domarpara Dolomite and Lime- stone Mines of Messrs Chhotanagpur Forest Syndicate Limited, Post Office Baraduar, District Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh) to get wages in terms of Wage Board recom- mendations for Dolomite and Limestone Mining Industry with effect from the 1st January, 1967 is justified? If so, to what relief these workers are entitled?

[No. 36/24/69-LBIV.]

New Delhi, the 16th August 1969

8,0. 3450.—Whereas the Central Government Is of opinion that an Industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Bhanora South Colliery of Messrs Equitable Coal Company Limited, Post Office Jamuna Haut, District Burdwan 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 Gov- ernment hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Biswanath Chattaraj, Assistant Time Keeper from the 19th December, 1968 by the management of Bhanora South Colliery of Messrs Equitable Coal Company. Limited is justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?

[No. 6/34/69-LRII.]

S.O. 3451.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Rise Area Bhaggatdih Colliery, Post Office £>hansar, District Dhanbad 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 Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, (No. 3) Dhanbad constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claims of Sarvashri R. P. Singh and K. P. Mukherjee, Mining Sirdars of Rise Area Bhaggatdih Colliery, Post Office Dhansar, District Dhanbad for the 'D' Grade scale of pay of Rs. 205—7—247—10—337 as prescribed in the Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry are justified? If so, to what relief are these workmen entitled?"

TNo. 2/67/69-LRII.]

New Delhi, the 19th August 1969

S.O. 3452.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial ' dispute exists between the employers In relation to the management of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited, Post Office Dishergarh, District Burdwan 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 ad}udication;

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 Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Keeping In view the agreement dated 11th April 1969 regarding transfer of management of Adjai Second Colliery between the outgoing employer Messrs Harkrishnan Singh Chopra and Bros, (collieries) Private Limit- ed and incoming employer Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited, whether the terms of appointment offered by the management of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited in the appointment letters Issued to the workmen taken over by them from 1st April 1969 from the outgoing employer are in any way less favourable than those appli- cable to them before this date? If not to what extent the manage- ment of Messrs Bengal Coal Company Limited is justified in imposine these terms of appointment on the workmen concerned and with what results?"

[No. 6/26/69-LR.IL]

S.O. 3453.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Bankola Colliery Post Office Ukhra, District Burdwan 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 Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bankola Colliery, Post Office Ukhra, District Burdwan was justified stopping Shri Basir Khan, Guard from work with effect from 21st October 1968 and if not, to what relief he is en- titled?"

[No. 6/41/69/LR.IL]

New Delhi, the 20th August 1969

S.O, 3454.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Messrs Sallitho Ores Private Limited, Vasco-da-gama 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 cause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central vernment hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Govern- . it Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Bombay, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Messrs Sallitho Ores Private Limited, Vasco- da-gama are justified in paying minimum bonus to the workmen em- ployed in their pale mine for the accounting year ending with 31st December. 1967?

If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

[No. 24/41/69-LR.IV.]

New Delhi, the 21st August 1969

S.O. 3465.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of North Jhagrakhand Colliery, Post Office Jhagrakhand Colliery, District Surguja (Madhya Pradesh) 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 Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether keeping in view of the recommendationa of the Wage Board In Appendix VI at page 54, Volume II of the Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry the demand of the Azad Koyala Shramik Sabha, Post Office Jhagrakhand Colliery for placing Shri K. N. Pandey, Clerk-Grade III as Grade II In North Jhagrakhand Colliery, is justified ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?".

[No. 5/14/69/LRIL]

S.O. 3486.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Karanpura Dewarkhand Colliery Company (Private) Limited, Post Office Khelarl, District Ranchi and their workmen In respect of the matters specified In the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas tke 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 (No. 3) Dhanbad, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether having regard to tne financial capacity of Messrs Maranpuru Dewarkhand Colliery Company (Private) Limited, Post Office Khe- larl, District Rancht, the management is justified in not implementing the wages and other benefits to the workmen as recommended by the Central Wage Board for Coal. Mining Industry and as acqepted by the Government with effect from 15th August, 1967. If not, to what relief, if any, are the workers entitled in respect of wags, dearness allowance and other benefits and from what date ?"

[No. 2/28/69-LRII.J

New Delhi, the 22nd August 1969

S.O. 3451.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation of the Khas Dharmaband Col- liery of Messrs Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Private Limited, Post Office Ma'kera, District Dhanbad and their workmen in respe'et of the matters specified In the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas the Central Government, considers >t 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 Centrel Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Nn. 3) Dhanbad constituted under section 7A •of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of tne management of Khas Dharmaband Colliery ol Messrs Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Private Limited, Post Office Malkera, District Dhanbad in refusing work with effect from the 22nd February, 1968 to Shri Bara Mohinder Singh, Coal Cutting Machine-in-Charge and subsequently dismissing him from Company's services with effect from the 21st November, 1968 is justified? IE not to what relief is the workman entitled?"

[No, 2(76)/69-LR. II.]

S.O. 3458.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial •dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Chora Colliery No 7 and 9 Pit-Post Office Chora, District Burdwan 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;

4. N? ^' t h e r e f°r e> i" exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec- tion (l) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Cen- tral Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under section 7A of the

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Chora Colliery, No. 7 and 9 Pit, Post Office Chora, District Burdwan was justified in awarding punishment of suspemuon without wages from 30th December, 1968 to 7th Januafy, 19H9, to the following workmen:—

1. Shri Bhagwati Passi—Loader. 2. Shri Banshi Passi—Loaaer 3. Shri Chottelal Passi—Loader 4. Shri Blswanath Rajbhar—Loader.

5. Shri Raj Narain Raibhar—Loader. 6. Shri Gaidlal Pasl—Loader. 7. Shri Bisram Passy—Loader. 8. Shri Motllal Passy—Loader. 9. Shri Ganesh Harijan—Loader.

10. Shri Banshi Bhar—Miner.

If not, to what relief are those workmen entitled"?

[No. 6(18)/69-LR. II.]

S.O. 3459.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers In relation to the management ot West Gopalichuck Colliery of Messrs Central Klrkand Coal Company Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad 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-sec- tion d) 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 Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, (No. 3) Dhanbad constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHDULE- I

"Whether the management of West Gocalichuck Colliery of Messrs Central Klrkend Coal Company Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhan bad) was justified in dismissing 66 miners (names mentioned ir> Schedule II) with effect from the 16th October, 1968 and 52 miners (Names mentioned in Schedule III) with effect from the 14th October. 1968. If not, what relief are these workmen entitled ?

SCHEDULE II

-31. No

Npme

D c s i g n a l i cn D a le fr<"m w h i ch d i s m i s s ed

M i n er 16-10-1968 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

TO,

I I.

1 2. 13. 14. 15- 16. 17- 18. 19. 2 0. "2,1. 2 2.

^3- 24. 25. 26. 27- 28.

S u k ar H a z a rn FCeman H a z a rn Bimal H a z am . A k b a ii M ia . . , ; ; ; ; ;; K a s m a li M ia Khalil Mia . '. '. \ \ '. ' ' ' D h a n c s w ar P a s hi . ' , . '. ' '. '. A s r af M ia A n w ar H u s s en T u r ab K h an N o. 2 C h a n du P a s hi . . . ' .' C h a nu C h a m ar N a s ir M ia . \ [ ' . ' . ' . ' "' B a n w a ri P a s hi S an K h an . . , ! ! . ' " '' S l b on C h a m ar M a k b ul K h an . ' . ' . ' . ' , ' . ' . '. D i n a r am K a h ar J o c c s h w ar P a a hi S u k h ai P a s hi S a h a d co S h aw . . ! ! , '' B h a y a r a rn P a s hi B h a i r oo P a s hi . . ! ! ! ' "' J o k h an P a s hi D c o k i R a j w ar . . ' . ' , ' . ' "' S u l e m an M ia . . . ' . ' . ' " "' S a l a r n a t M ia . . ! ! ! ' '" S U l e r am M ia N o. 1,

D e s i g n a t i on

N a me

No

Date frcm which

dismissed

16- 0-1968

M;n er

13

3J

j3

13

1J

ty

3

3?

5 T-

}>

5>

1 J-

1 "!•

J>

3 y

1?

??

1 3

3>

•">

jj

3 r

>y

J3

1?

3J

33

J j¹

5j

53

r

J3

3 3

13

3 J

>} 291. 3 0. 3*- 3 2. 33. 34- 35- 36. 37. 38. 39. 4 0. 4 1. 4 2. 43. 44- 45. 46. 47- 48. 49- 5 0. 5 i- 5 2. 53- 54- 55. 56. 57- 58. 59. 6 0. 6 1. 6 2. 63. 64. 65. 66.

T a z i r M ia . . .. . .. UddinMift SarifMia RahimMia NuroMia No. 2 Sahadeo Bhuia H o r i l M a h a to Chotu D h o bi Hori Dusad . . . . . . . .. Karoo D h o bi Sudan M ia S a m a r a l i M ia A l i M la . . ' . '. B a s a r a t a li M ia C h . B a b - u n M ia . . . . ' . . ,. D a r b a r i D u s ad I du M ia H a s m a l i M ia H a m id M ia K a r oo M ia N o. 2 T a n ki B h u ia J o g e s w ar M a h a to I s s a q uc M ia . , . . , . , .. A s k a li M ia . . . . . . . .. H a r oo D u s ad . . . . . . .. A r j o on P a s w an . . . . . . .. K a i la M ia . . . . . . . .. K a r oo M ia L a t o o B a r h li R a m a b a t ar P a s hi P a n o n am P a s hi S i r a r am P a s hi B a d ri K u m h ar . . . . . . .. B a l d co B h u ia J h a ri M a h a to L a la P a s hi A h m ad M ia N o. 2 . .. . T u k an B h u ia .

33

SCHEDUIE I II

Designation" SI. No.

Name

Date frcm which dismissed

1.

Miner 14-10-1968

33 2. 3. 4. 5- 6. 7. 8. 9.

1 0.

1 1. 1 2.

1 3. 14.

15. 16.

Johur Mia Ahamad Mia Muslim Mia No. 2 Subhani Mia Sahaban Mia SamtaliMia Joban Mia Tilok Hazam Biseswar Chamar Balchan Choudhrry Ramabatar Dusad Pitambcr Dusad Tagadish Dusad Janki Dusad Subhani Mia BhatuMia

D e s i g n a t i on

N a me

SLNo.

Date from which dismissed

14-101968

Miner

)j

33

33

33

17- 18. 19.

3> 20.

35

is

21.

22.

is

JJ

35

33

33

33

ss

33

33

33

33

SS

33

is

3 3

ts

33

35

33

33

33

is

33

5i

33

Si

33

33

Si

33

33

33

Ji

33

33

33

33

tff

33

SS

33

33

it

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

33

D c w al M ia . . . . . . . .. S a t t a n M ia . . . . . . . .. M a s u r a li M ia . . . . . . .. J u m a r t i M ia . . , . . . . ., J a n k i R a rn . . . . . . . .. W a h id M ia . S a h a d at M ia . . . . . . . .. M d . R a f i k M ia P i r oo M ia . . . . . . . .. I m a m an M ia . . . . . . . .. B a k a s h M ia . . . . . . . .. S o m ar M ia . . . . . . . .. H u l a s h M ia B u d h r am P a s hi . . . . . . .. H i r oo P a si . . . . . . . .. S a t y a n a r a in P a si . . , . , . ., N o. 1 H u b l a l P a si N o. 2 R a n a m a l a l i M ia . . . . . .. L u k an H a z a rA . . . . . . .. S a r i i u d d in M ia . . . . . . .. L a t oo M ia . . . . . . . .. M o h d. A li M ia B . B a b u n M ia . I n us M ia . . . , . . , .. S a m a r i B h u ia N o, 1 R a j a b l i M ia I m a m u d d in M ia . . . . . , ., H a n i f M ia . . . . . . . .. J e h a li M ia . . . . . . . .. C h u r a m an M ia . . . . . . .. B u t a r a n D u s ad . . . . . . .. C h a n d u D u s ad J h a ri C h a m ar G u l ab B h u ia S i ba C h a m ar R o h s an B h u ia

33

23. 24. 25- 26. 27- 28. 29. 30. 31- 32. 33- 34. 35- 36. 37. 38- 39- 40. 41. 42. 43- 44. 45- 46. 47- 48. 49. 50. 51- 52.

[No. 2(280)68-LRn.J

P. C. MISBA, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 20th August 1969

S.O. 3460.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948). the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Labour and Employment No. 13(21)/69-HI dated 24th December, 1959, namely:—

be substituted, namely:.—

In paragraph 2 of the said notification for items (b) and (c) the following ahull * "

"(b) 1. Palluruthy

2. Kumbhalangi 3. Elankunnapuzha 4. Narakkal 5. Nayarambalcm 6. Portion of Rameswaram Village known as 'Mundamveli' and

7. Chellanam in Cochin Taluk In Ernakulam District.

(c) 1. Mulavukad

2. Maradu 3. Portion of the revenue village of Elamkulam known as 'Thevara' and

4. Portion of the revenue village of Nadamel known as Tripunithura' in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District.

[No. F. 13(20)/68-HL]

S.O. S4fll.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government, having regard to the location of the Sharavathy Hydro Electric Generating Station, Jog in a non- implemented area in the State of Mysore hereby exempts the .said factory from the payment 01 the employer's special contribution leviable under Chapter V A of the said Act for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette or until the enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area, whichever is earlier.

[No. F.6(61)/69-HL]

S.O. 3462.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government, having regard to the location of the Pirana, 16 M.G.D. Sewage Treatment Plant, Pirana Sewage Farm, Pirana Road, Ahmedabad in an implemented area, hereby exempts the said plant from the payment of the employer's special contribution leviable under Chapter VA of the said Act for a period of one year with eifect from 15th July, 1969.

[No. F. 6(50)/69-HI.]

S.O. 340S.—Whereas the Central Government was satisfied that The Stone Trading Company was situated in Wadi area which was a sparse area (that is, an area whose insurable population was less than 500) in the district of Gulbarga in the State of Mysore;

And, whereas by virtue of its location in. a sparse area, the aforesaid factory was granted exemption from the payment of the employer's special contribution under section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area by the Central Government in the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Social Security No. S.O. 3290, dated the 2nd September, 1964;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the insurable papulation of the Wadi area in the district of Gulbarga in the State of Mysore has now exceeded 500, and it is no longer a sparse area;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the said notification, namely: —

In the Schedule to the said notification, Serial No. 5, and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted.

[No. F.6/64/69/HL]

S.O. 3464.—Whereas the Central Government was satisfied that Orissa Indus- tries was situated in Latkata area which was a sparse area (that is, an area whose insurable population was less than 500) in the district of Sundergarh in the State of Orissa;

And, whereas by virtue of its location in a sparse area, the aforesaid factory was granted exemption from the payment of the employer's special contribution under section 73-F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area by the Central Government in the notification of the Government of India in the late Department of Social Security No. S.O. 947, dated the 19th March, 1965;

And. whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Insurable population of the Latkata area in the district of Sundergarh in the State of Orissa has now exceeded 500, and it is no longer ap sparse area;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73-F of thti Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the said notification, namely: —

In the Schedule to the said notification, serial No. 7 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted.

[No. 6/35/69-HL]

S.O. 3465.—Whereas the Central Government was satisfied that (1) Wadl Stone Marketing Company (Private) Limited, (2) The Stone Polishing Company were situated in Wadl area which was a sparse area, (that Is, an area whose lnsurable population was less than 500) in the district of Gulbarga in the State of Mysore;

And, whereas by virtue of the location in a sparse area, the aforesaid factories were granted exemption from the payment of the employer's special contribution under section 73F of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) until enforcement of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in that area by the Central Government in the notification of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Labour and Employment No. S.O. 2665, dated the 2nd November, 1961;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the insurable population of the Wadi area in the district of Gulbarga in the State of Mysore has now exceed- ed 500, and it is no longer a sparse area.;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the said notification, namely: —

In Schedule I to the said notification against Serial No. 10, the entry "Wadi" in column 4 and the corresponding entries in column 5 shall be omitted. [No. F.e/64/69/HL]

S.O. 3466.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints Sarvashri Santosh Kumar Mukherjee, Saktipada Kar and Shrimati Anjall Ganguly to be Inspectors for the whole of the State of West Bengal and the Union Territories of Tripura and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, for the purposes of the said Act and of any Scheme framed thereunder, in relation to any establishment belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or In relation to any establishment connected with a railway company, a major port, a mine or an oil-field or a controlled industry.

[No. 21/6/68-PF-I.]

DALJIT SINGH, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 21st August 1969

S.O. 3468.—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, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Messrs Kooverjee V. Currumsey and Company, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August,

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1 OF 1968

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to Messrs Kooverjee V. Currumsey and Company

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT;

Shri A. T. Zambre, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the employers—Shri N, K. Currumsey. For the workmen—Shri H. K. Sowani, Advocate with Shri I. S. Sawant Assistant Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, Bombay. '

Bombay, the 29th July 1969

STATB: Maharashtra

INDUSTRY: Ports and Docks

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation Department of Labour and Employment have by their Order No. 28/121/67-LRIII dated 21fit December 1&67 referred to this Tribunal for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to Messrs. Kooverji v Cur- rumsey and Company, Bombay and their workmen In respect of the matters specifi- ed in the following schedule: —

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Messrs. Kooverjee V. Currumsey & Company Bombay, was justified in dismissing Shri B. Almeida, Customs Clerk,' from service with effect from the 31st August, 1967, and withholdinc his salary from the month of May 1967 to the date of dismissal If' not, to what relief is he entitled ?"

s 2, The Transport and Dock Workers' Union representing the workmen employed H? t hS e f ' P ^s Messrs. Kooverjee V. Currumsey has by its statement of claim alleged that Shri R. Almeida the workman involved in this reference was workine with the employers as a custom clerk for about 12 years but the management suddenly decided to transfer him from custom office to the Fertiliser Corporation factory at Wadi Bunder. After his transfer he was required to run about here and there and his health was affected and he was advised to take rest. He reauested the management to retransfer him to his original work of customs clerk but the management did not accede to his request and also did not pay him his salarv fnr the months of May, June and July 1967. But on the 2flth August 1967 the work man received a letter from the company asking him t0 attend an enquiry Into certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him in not attending to his work properly and misbehaving with his co-workers and after holdine a nominal enquiry he was dismissed from service with effect from 31st Autrmt infl7 and hence the dispute.

3. The union has contended that the charges levelled against the workman were not. specific and clear. He was also not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer did not give him an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the dismissal was perverse and the same being illegal it should be set aside and the company should be directed to reinstate the workman

4. The employers have by their written statement denied the allegations made by the union and have contended that the employee was transferred according to normal routine for work at the Fertiliser Corporation factory which is also at Wadi Bunder. The workman insisted that he would not

5. The employers are a proprietory firm and before the date of the hearing the Tribunal received an application from the Constituted Attorney of the com- pany that the proprietory firm had been adjudged an Insolvent in insolvency petition No. 90 of 1968 and the two References CGIT-1 of 1968 (the instant refer- ence) and another referenco CGIT-5 of 1968 Jn respect of this employer should be closed. It was further mentioned that the Official Assignee of the Bombay High Court had been appointed as an assignee in the insolvency proceedings. On the day of the hearing the Proprietor of the firm Shri N. K. Currumsey himself appeared and submitted that because of losses he had to ciose his business. He had been adjudged an insolvent in Insolvency petition No. 90 of 1908 and whatever be the merits of the dispute he will be unable to reinstate the employee and will be unable to pay any compensation and the reference should be closed.

6. The learned Counsel, Shri H. K. Sowani, appearing for the union has con- ceded that the employers arc a proprietory flj-m and Shri N. K. Currumsey has been adjudged an insolvent by the Bombay High Court in Insolvency Petition No. 90 of 1968. He further submitted that as the employer has closed his business no useful purpose will be served and the union did not want to press the employees claim in this reference.

7. As the Proprietor has been adjudged an insolvent and as he has closed his business I do not think any useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the reference and the union has rightly decided not to press the claim. As the union does not wish to press the claim it shall have to be held that the employer was justified in dismissing Shri B. Almeida and the employee is not entitled to any relief. Hence my award accordingly.

No order as to costs.

(Sd.) A. T. ZAMBRE, Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial. Tribunal, Bombay. [No. 28/121/67-LR-IIL]

S.O. 3469.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1&47), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Messrs Kooverjee V. Currumsey, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th August, 1969.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY

Reference No. CGIT-2/14 of 1968

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to Messrs Kooverjee V. Currumsey, Bombay

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri A. T. Zambre, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the employers—Shri N. K. Currumsey. For the workvien—Shri H. K. Sowani, Advocate with Shri I, S. Sawant, Assistant Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, Bombay.

STATE: Maharashtra

INDUSTRY: Porta and Drcks

Bombay, the 28th July 1969

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Lalbour Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) by their order No. 28(6)/68-LRIII dated 17th March, 1968, have referred to this Tribunal for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to Messrs. Kooverjee v Curum- aey, Bombay and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the follow- ing schedule:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the retrenchment of the undermentioned workmen by Messrs Kooverjee v. Curumsey, Bombay, with ellect from the 1st December, 1966, was Justified? If not, to what relief are they entitled?"

1. Shri S. S. Shlnde ") 2. Shri A. V. Lohana > Dock Clerks 3. Shri K. S. Rane J 4. Shri H. G. Hinge Mucadam B. Shri A. Coutinho Custom Clerk.

2. The Transport and Dock Workers' Union which represents the employees in the employ of Messrs. Kooverjee v. Curumsey and Co. has by its statement of claim alleged that the employers had by their notice, dated 31st October, 1966, terminated the services of the employees with effect from 30th November, 1966, by way of retrenchment. The union had challenged the legality of the notices on the ground that they were not retrenched according to the principle of last come first go*. No retrenchment compensation also was paid and hence they had taken up the matter for conciliation which failed and as a result of the failure Govern- ment had referred the dispute for adjudication.

3. They have contended that the employees who have been retrenched were working with the establishment for a number of years. They were senior in service and they should not have been retrenched. It has been further alleged that the employers have not paid retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days wages per year and as the retrenchment is illegal and improper the order should be set aside and the workmen should be reinstated with full back wages.

4. The employers have by their written statement opposed the claim and have denied the allegations made by the union and have contended that though they have used the word "retrenchment" in fact there waa no retrenchment but their services were terminated as there was no work. The notice given to the employees was proper. The employer had no alternative but to dispense with the services of these persons as the whole work has practically stopped and only such persons whose services were needed for its small work were retained. There was no question of seniority and the employees are not entitld to be reinstated or to any compensation.

5. When the reference was taken up for hearing Shri N. K. Curumsey who is the Proprietor of the concern has stated that because of losses in the business the services of these employees had to be terminated. He has also been adjudicated as an insolvent in proceedings No. 90 of 1968. His business is closed and what- ever may be the merits of the dispute he is unable to take the employees on work and unable to pay any compensation and the reference should be closed.

6. The learned Counsel for the union Shri H. K. Sowani has conceded that the employer Shri N. K. Curumsey has Ibeen adjudged to be an insolvent by the Bombay High Court in insolvency proceedings No. 90 of 1968 but he has contended that many insolvency applications filed by the businessmen are bogus and nominal and have been made with a view to defeat the claims of creditors and workers and the mere filing of an insolvency petition would not be sufficient to reject the claims of the employees. Shri K. A. Khan, the Secretary of the Transport and Dock Workers' Union has made a grievance that many or the workers have lost their dues owing to Buch insolvency petitions and there should be some provision protecting the workers. I do not think that I shall be justified In entering into this question.

7. The learned Counsel Shri Sowani for the union does not want to press the employees' claim in this reference. It may be that some of the insolvency applica- tions of businessmen debtors might have been made with some ulterior motive.

However in the present case the insolvency application hag not been made by the debtor himself but it is filed by the creditors. It is not in dispute that the employers a proprietary concern and there is nothing to show that the insolvency proceedings are not genuine.

8. Secondly the reference of a dispute to an Industrial Tribunal cannot be compared to a suit in a Civil Court in which the plaintiff comes with a right to some money or property. The employees cannot be said to have in every case any legal claim against the employers and ag the business of the firm has been closed and the employer has been adjudged as insolvent, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the reference. As the union also does not press the issue it shall have to be held that the employers were justified In terminating the services of the employees and the employees are not entitled to any relief. Hence my award accordingly.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- A. T. ZAMBHE,

Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. [No. 28/6/68-LR-III.]

S.O. 3470.—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, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Bombay Port Trust, Bombay and their workmen, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on the 13th August, 1989.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2,

BOMBAY.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/14 OF 1968

Employers in relation to the Bombay Port Trust

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

Shri N¹. K. Vani, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shri R. K. Shetty, Dy. Legal Adviser, Bombay Port Trust, Bombay.

For the Workmen.—Dr. S. Maitra, General Secretary, Bombay Port Trust General Workers' Union, Bombay.

STATE: Maharashtra.

INDUSTRY : Port and Docks.

Bombay, dated the 1st August 1969

AWARD

By Order No. 28(65)/86-LRIV dated 8th July, 1966, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal, Bombay, for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the em- ployers in relation to the Bombay Port Trust Bombay and their workmen repre- sented by the Bombay Port Trust General Workers' Union, Bombay In respect of the matter, specified in the schedule mentioned below:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether action of the B. P. T. authorities in Introducing rotation In res- pect of Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power House and the Salt Water Pump House at Butcher Island, with effect from 23th September, 1965, is justified? If lot, to what relief are the Diesel En- gine Attendants concerned entitled?"

2. Later on, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication by Order No. 22/8/68-LRIII dated 25th November, 1968.

3. Dr. S- Maitra, General Secretary, Bombay Port Trust General Workers' Union, Bombay on behalf of the employees has filed written statement on 12th April 1968. His main grievance is that the action of the Bombay Port Trust authorities in introducing rotation in respect of Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power House and the Salt Water Power House, at Butcher Island with effect from 25th September, 1965 was not justifiable, that the Diesel Engine Attendants of the Power House, Butcher Island, should not be rotated with the Diesel Engine Attendants of the Salt Water Pump, that this Tribunal be pleased to award re- imbursement of the wages of the Diesel Engine Attendants for the number of days during which they had not been able to work at the Salt Water Pump and also any monetary loss sustained by the Diesel Engine Attendants appointed for the Power House at the Butcher Island on account of the said wrongful decision of the employers.

4. Shri S. D. Chittar, Secretary, Bombay Port Tjust has filed written state- ment on behalf of the Trustees of Bombay Port (hereinafter referred to as 'The Employers' on 11th July, 1068. Bombay Port Trust has raised a number of objections. As the matter has been compromised, it is not necessary to refer to all the objections. Their case In brief is that the demand of the Union should be rejected with costs and that they are justified in introducing rotation in respect of Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power House and the Salt Water Power House at Butcher Island with effect from 25th September, 1965.

5. Dy. Legal Adviser Shri R. K. Shetty and Dr. S. Maitra, General Secretary Bombay Port Trust General Workers' Union, Bombay effected a compromise as mentioned below:—

"1. The Union agrees that the present system of posting of five Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power House and the Salt Water Pump House at M.O.T., Butcher Island, will continue and any one of the Attendants at the Salt Water Pump House will relieve the attendants at the Power House on their weekly-off days and will work there on days when they are not required at the Pump House for relieving duties.

2. The men posted at the Power House will not be required to work in the

Salt Water Pump House except in times of emergency.

3. The Employers agree to put each of the existing five Diesel Engine Attendants on a 12 hours shift out of which 8 hours should be treated as normal working hours and 4 hours would be treated as overtime in the day shift, In the night shift 7 hours would be treated normal working hours and 5 hours would be treated as overtime.

4 The Employers agree not to resort to deductions contemplated in para 4(c) of their letter No. L/GEE-E(U)/2403 dated the 27th Jury, 1966, to the General Secretary, B.P.T. General Workers' Union, Bombay, and para 3 of the settlement dated 19th April, 1966, before the Re- gional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay.

5. The Union agrees not to raise any further dispute with regard to the working hours or on the question of overtime of the Diesel Engine Attendants at the Power House and the Salt Water Pump House at the M.O.T., Butcher Island, in the future.

6. The Union agrees to the complement of five Diesel Engine Attendants working at the Power House snd at the Salt Water Pump House at M.O.T., Butcher Island, as at present."

8. On 30th July, 1969. Shri R. K. Shetty, Dy. Legal Adviser of the Bombay Port Trust and Dr. S. Maitra, General Secretary, Bombay Port Trust General Workers' Union, Bombay, have given application at Ex. 8/EW stating that the dispute under reference was amicably settled by the parties and that this Court be pleased to pass Award in terms of the same settlement.

7. As both of them have verified the settlement and the terms of settlement referred to above are just and fair, I accept the same and pass the Award in terms of the Settlement.

8. In the end I pass the following oraei.

ORDER

1. Award is made In terms of Settlement Ex, 7/EW. 2. Settlement at Ex. 7/EW ii to form part of the Award. 3. No order as to costs.

(Sd.) N. K. VANI.

Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No 2, Bombay.

BOMBAY PORT TRUST

No. 88-11(2/14)/4941.

14th July, 1969

' The Legal Adviser, Bombay Port Trust, "Vijay-Deep", Ballard Hoad,

Fort, Bombay.

Shri N. K. Vani, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, 298, Bazargate Street, 4th Floor, Bombay-1.

Dear Sir,

RE: iREFERENCE No. CGIT-2/14 or 1968

Rotation of Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power House and Salt

Water Pump House at Butcher Inland.

We are pleased to inform you that the above mentioned dispute has now been amicably settled and we have to request you to please make an award in the following terms :

1. The Union agrees that the present system of posting of five Diesel Engine Attendants between the Power Mouse and the Salt Water Pump House at M O.T., Butcher Island, will continue and any one of the Atten- dants at the Salt Water Pump House will relieve the attendants at the Power House on their weekly-oft days and will work there on days when they are not required at the Pump House for relieving duties.

2. The men posted at the Power House will not be required to work m the

Salt Water Pump House except In time of emergency.

3. The Employers agree to put each of the existing five Diesel Engine attendants on a 12 hours shiit out of which 8 hours would be treated as no'mal working houis and 4 hours would be treated as overtime in the day shift. In thf nl^ht shift 7 hours would be treated as normal working hours and 5 hours would be treated as overtime.

4. The Employers agree not to resort to deductions contemplated in para 4(c) of their letter No. L/GEE-E(U)/2403 dated the 27th July, 1966, to the General Secretary, B.P.T. General Workers' Union, Bombay, and para 3 of the settlement dated 19th April, 1966, before the Re- gional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay.

5. The Union agrees not to raise any further dispute with regard to the working hours or on the question of overtime of the Diesel Engine Attendants at the Power House and the Salt Water Pump House at the M.O.T., Butcher Island, in the future.

6 The Union agrees to the "omTJlement of five Diesel Engine Attendants working at the Power House *md at the Salt Water Pump House at M O T.. Butcher Tsland, as at present.

Vours faithfully,

Sd t- R. K. SHETTY,

Deputy Legal Adviser. Sd/- DR. MAITHA, General Secretary,

B. K. T. General Workert'

Union.

LNo. 28/65/66-LR-IV.]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 16th August 1969

S.O. 3471.—Whereas the Central Govemmnt is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to Messrs M. Samiuddin and Brothers, Labour Contractors to Karat Chatterjee and Company Private Limited, Stevedores, 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 Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Seventeen cleaning gang employees named below holding Dock Permits through Messrs J. N. Mukherjee and Company Private Limited are entitled to claim employment from their employers Messrs M. Samiuddin and Brothers on the vessels of Polish and Danish Lines, Stevedores by Messrs Sarat Chaterjee and Company Private Limited?""

"Names of the employees"

1. Md. Tasruddln 2. Md- Nasruddin 3. Md. Karnruddin 4. Md. Tasllm 5. Md. Israil 6. Sri Swapan Das 7. Md. Abdul Majid 8. Md. Sabir ", Md. Saheed. 10. Md. Saheb All 11. Md. Ibrahim 12. Md- Mustafa 13. Md. Zakeer 14. Md. Md. Kalim 15. Md. Nazim 16. SK. Waheb, and 17. Md. Mainuddm.

[No. 28/35/69-LWI.m.)

C. RAMDAS, Under Secy.

PRINTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF rNDIft PRESS, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER OP PUBLICATIONS, DELHI, 1 9 69