Subject NOT available

The'^f iro it is apparent that it was only an ad hoc or inter'rr arrangement that has been entered Into under Ex. W - 5\ That it was essentially an interim Eirrangemfnt dictated by fie exigencien of work can fllso be gathered from c'ause (101 or V.x W-53 which says that 'this settlement will be imp^mented us eirly as possible but not later than 21st Feb irry, .1981". As pointed by the Management at page (6) 'if their counter statement that this settlement wa" in- tenrf-cl °nly to maintain industrial r>eane and avoid disloca- tion o' work in the plant at Navalakurichi. Nowhere in the courtr - stntfment of the Management has it been suggested that the Settlement under Ex, W-53 is a permanent one. In the rln'm ctafmenf fled on behalf of Uniort Nos. 1 und 3 at purr tnph C14) this is how those two Unions have understood the 'cms' of settlement entered into under Ex. W-53 : "Under the terms of the said settlement as a tentative measure the

Looked ;it fronl any point of view; the settlement under Ex, W-53 cannot be held to be valid. My conclusions with legurd to Ex. W-53 aie as follows ; (1) Settlement under Ex, Wr53 is true and bona fide; (ii) the settlement under Ex. W-53 is not mala fide; und (iii) the settlement under Ex, W-53 is invalid and would not bind even the woikmcn re- presented by Union No. 1.

(17) As I have already pointed out that on the abolition of the contra t labour sysLem Ihe Management-Company ie- quircd only 60 workmen for diiect employment for Ihe min- ing work. 'Ihe three rival sets of workeis who stake their claim for direct employment are : (i) the workman letrench- ed in 1969 repiesented by Union No. 4; (ii) 40 workmen belonging to Union No. 2 that they arc contract labour work- men who claimed to haw put in longer >eais of scivicc and as such claim to bo entitled to be absorbed in the 60 posts now held out by the Management for being depart- mentalized and (iii) the 110 cont.net labour woikmcn who wcie the workmen under the contract labour system on Lhc date of abolition, name¹yi 31st October, 1980 represented by Union No, 1. Thus it can be seen that the workmen spon- sored by Union No. 4 wcie never workmen under any con- tractor, whereas the woikmen icprtsented by Union NOT, 1 and 2 are woikuen under erstwhile contractors, The gioup of 77 workmen represented by Union No, 4 was retrenched in 1969. They stand on a separate footing, 1 he details of designation, ticket number, rate of compensation, peiiod of service, date of first employment and total period ot employ- ment upto 31sl May, 1969 arc furnished in Ex. W-2. Out of this, five workmen, namely, W.W. 8 find Kochumani, Madu- soodan Pillai, Chinna Nadar and Muthiah subsequently be- came workmen under contractors and as such those five workmen who are included out of the 77 mentioned in Ex. W-2, form part and parcel of the 110 contract workmen whose cause is championed by Union No. 1. Therefore al- though three sets of claims are seen staking to lie departmen- talised against the 60 vacancies In the Management-Com- pany, by and large they form two groups; One who were retrenched in 1969 and who are yet to oe absorbed in 1he Management as per list Ex. W-2 represented by Union No. 4 and the other group claiming to be contract labour work- men represented by Union Nos. 1 and 2, In aa much as the claim df Union No. 4 is that the retrenched workmen of 1969 have superior and legal claim under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, lj?47 over the other work- men, I shall first examine the merit of group No. 1, namely, the 77 workmen as listed in Ex. W-2 and represented bv Union No. 4.

(18) In order to appreciate the claim put forward by Union No. 4 with regard to the 77 workmen listed in Ex. W-2 it will be useful to recall the circumstances under whith the retrenchment of these workmen took Dlac* in 1969. As mentioned earlier when the Management-Company took over the Manavalakurichi establishment in 1965 only one plant was functioning but even then it was old sick plant and the process was out moded. Therefore it was that the new plant (the existing plant) was set up at Manavalakurichi. The erection of this plant was commenced in 1965 and it was completed in 1969 when the old plant was closed down. As a result of mechanisation and commissioning of the new plant in 1969 about 400 plant workmen who were encaged as casuals were rendered surplus and they were retrenched from service except the mining workers. The present plant being a modern and mechanised one, the labour requirement of the same was considerably less than lhat of the old and dismantled plnnt. Therefore it was that the Management has published a notice on 18th July, 1968 pointing out the work- men employed in the dismantled plant but will be employed in plant No. 1 in preference to any one else. Ex. W-l"? Is the statement given by the Management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam on 24th Auaust. 1968. At page (2) of Ex. W-17. the Management baa pointed out that in the new plant, namely, existing plant, a consider- able number of casual and temporary workers were enaaoed as the work was mainly connected with the erection of the plant and some production was also going according to the exigencies of the situation and the requirements of the pro- duct and the erection work is now completed and the new plant, namely existing plant will be going Into normal nio- duclion Immediately. The requirements of the personnel in the new plant will be met from among the workers employed in the dismantled plant to the extent possible. If in any cate- gory thcie are vacancies after the available men in the ear- lier plant are exhausted the same will naturally be fiiven to the temporary and ct\sual workmen at present working in plant No. 1 (existing plant) based on their service, scnio- iity and other relevant considerations. Moreover, the Man- agement has also indicated (hat mining work io a consider- able extent had been given on contract and the Company does not propose to do this part of the work departmentully at present. However, the matter is being looked into. There- fore from these facts which can be culled out from Ex, W-17, it is perfectly clear that the workmen retrenched in 1969 were only working in the work connected with the erection of ihe present plant from 1965 to 1969. That fact is also confirmed from the data which can be gathered from Ex. W-2. Thus it is obvious that none of the workmen who were ictrenched in 1969 were employed in mining work carried on by the Management-Company. On the other hand Union No. 4 and the Management-Company entered into a settle- ment on 26th May, 1969—vide Ex. M-l, whereby on the expiess demand of Union No. 4 the Management had agreed io treat lhc mining arcn workeis of plant No. 1 as a separate category and to retain all such workers oP a casual baau and they will be engaged according to requirements. Moreover the Management agreed to retain four casual employees of plant No. 1 according to the seniority list published on 23 rd May, 1969. Union No. 4 does not profosa to resile from the terms of the settlement entered into by them with the Management under Ex. M-l. The net result was that Ihe mining area casual workers were treated as a separate category and Management had agreed to retain all euth workers on casual basis. At that time 97 casual workmen were working in the mining area and these were retained by the Management as casuals. It is significant to bear in mind that this group of 97 casual workmen In the mining area was apart from the 400 workmen retrenched in the plant by the Management in 1969. Out of these 400 workmen, 237 workmen ieceived letrcnchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while the remaining Were re- trenched even without retrenchment compensation because they had not put in the necessary service to be entitled to retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Out of these 97 casual workmen working In the mining area and who are retained in 1969 some of them subsequently superannuated and some disabled or died and in 1971, 66 of these casual workmen were regularised by the Management-Company. Apparently, neither Union No. 4 nor any of the 237 workmen who are retrenched in 1969 had raised any protest or demur against the regulariaatlon or departmentalisation of those 66 casual workmen in min- ing area in 1971. That would also reinforce the stand of Management-Company as well as Union No. 1 nnd Union No. 2 that the 237 workmen who are retrenched in 1969 weie only casual workmen working in plant and not In min- ing area.

(19) Quite conscious of the fact that none of the 237 workmen retrenched in 1969 can validly advance any just claim to be absorved in the mining area of the Manage- ment. Union No. 4 has now come to put forward with the theory of interchangcability of personnel from one place to another. In other words the present case of Union No. 4 is that there is no clear demarcation between the plant and minine workers especially on the question of unskilled labourer. Whether any weight can be attached to such a plea rrs to be scanned. It must be remembered that the 237 workmen retrenched in 1969 were only casual workmen "orkint; in the plant. Prom Fx. W-2 it cmi be held that these workmen had worked in the construction of the prrscnt plant for several years as seen from Ex. W-2, the maximum service put hi bv such worker wa" 5 years and 7 months. Three workmen in IJE. W-2 have put in such service. Thus it is manifest that all these workmen were engaged by the Management ai casual workmen in the cons- truction and erection of the present plant, which work joughly lasted from 1965 upto 1969. At the instance of Union No. 4 this Tribunal made also a local inspection to appreciate pri- marily the nature of the work done by a departmental worker in the mining area. The work done by the woikmen in the piininff area is certainly manual in nature and is strenuous. The woikmen has to do Ihe work on thc shore from 7 A.M. to 3 00 P.M. or 3.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M. exnosed to sun, monsoon, rain, etc. The worker hai to do selective Tninlnc of the washing of raw sand after removing the quartz and other wnstes from the areas. The sand collected from the mining areas should atltwst ""ntuin 80 per cent of heavy

                                                                         No   4  in  this  direction.  As  I  have  mentioned  earlier  side
minerals,  such  as  Ilmenltc,  Rutile,  Zircon,  Sillimanite,  Garnet
                                                                         by  side  from  1971  to  1981,  160  workmen  retrenched  in
and  Monazitc,  and  the  moisture  content  of  the  wet  sand
                                                                         1969  had  been  erven  jobs  by  Management.  Therefore  tne
supplied  should  not  exceed  10  per  cent.  Therefore  the  wotK
                                                                         plea  now  put  forward  bv  Union  No.  4  that  casual  workmen
 done  in  the  mining  area  is  manual  but  is  strenuous  and  thus
                                                                         in  different  areas  of  factories  und  mimna  area  aie  inter-
involve  peculiar  skill,  far  he  cannot  collect  ony  sand  fiom
                                                                         changeable  does.not  lend  itself  for  cos.y  acceptance.
(he  shore.  Furthermore,  if  this  theory  now  being  propounded
by  Union  No.  4  about  the  interchangeubility  of  the  casual
workmen  in  different  areas  hdS  any  meaning  or  force,  cer-          (22)  At  no  point  of  time  Union  No.  4  had  claimed  or
 tainly  in  1969  when  these  237  workmen  weie  retrenched           pointed  to  the  Management  that  the  woikmen  retrenched  in
with  retrenchment  compensation,  three  of  them  having  put          1969  had  a  superior  right  even  over  workmen  under  eontrac-
in  5  years  and  7  months  service  the  Union  would  not  have      Lois.  In  the  present  dwpuie  wo  are  only  concerned  with  the
bargained  for  and  made  the  Management  to  agree  to  treat         limited  issue  whether  consequent  on  the  abo'ition  of  contract
the  mining  area  wotkmen  in  a  different  categoiy.  As  carter      system     from   the  Management-Company        effective   from
pointed  out  at  the  instance  of  Union  No.  4  as  evident  from    31-10-1980  whether  [he  woikmen  who  were  employed  under
 Hx,  M-l,  these  mining  area  workmen  were  letained  as  casuals    the  conti actor?  are  entitled  to  be  absorbed  by  the  Manage-
 and  kept  in  a  separate  category.  That  will  give  a  lie  circums- ment,  From  Ex.  W-25  dated  1-6-1979  it  can  be  noted  that
 tantial  to  the  case  of  inferchanKenbility  of  work  now  put      the  lepresentation  has  btcn  mada  tn  ths  Prime  Minister  of
 forward  by  Union  No.  4.  66  of  the  casual  workmen  working       India  on  20th  November,  1J78  probubly  about  irregularity  in
 in  the  mining  area  were  departmentalism  in  1971. Thefc  was       regard  to  re-employmcnt  of  the  retrenched  persons  in  the
 no  demur  or  protest  from  Union  No.  4  or  even  from  any         Injian  Rarc  Earths  Plant  al  ManavaLikurkhi,  Ex.  W-26  is
 one  of  the  237  workmen  retrenched  in  1969.  If  really  eny       the  action  taken  by  thc  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (Cen-
 of  the  237  workmen  retrenched  in  1969  had  any  semblance         tral),  Ernakulam.  Under  Ex    W-26,  the  Assistant  Commis-
 of  claim  under  Section  25-H  of  the  industrial  Disputes  Act,     sioner  of  Labour  (Central),  Ernakulam  after  verification  hai
 1947  to  be  absorbed  as  mining  workmen  certainly  an  cvci         pointed  out  that  the  rc-emplavment  had  been  made  hv  the
 anile  Union  like  Union  No.  4  would  not  have  kept  idle  and     Management  strictly  in  accordance  with  thi    seniority,  the
 laken  things  lying  down.  On  the  other  hand,  admittedly  160
                                                                          list  maintained  by  them.  Apparently  the  oblique  attempt  of
 workmen  out  of  237  workmen  retrenched  in  1969  were  pro-
                                                                          the  workman  under  Ex.  W.-25  and  Ex.  W-26  was  to  put
 vided  with  jobs  bv  the  Management  in  1971,    1973.  1977,
                                                                          forward  a  superior  claim  ays  the       the  present  plea  now  put  forward  bv  Union  No.  4  to  be
 contract  system  of  work  should  be  abolished  and  workmen          entitled  to  a  superior  claim  even  over  the  casual  workmen  of
 be  employed  directly  by  the  Company  among  those  who              mining  area  who  were  departmentalism.!  in  1971  and  the  bag
 were  retrenched  in  1969.  Ex.  W-57  is  a  Ions  teim  tettlement    section  casual  workmen  who  were  departmentalistd  in  1975.
 entered  Into  by  the  ManaRement-Coinpany  with  the  work-
 men  of  the  Company  represented  by  four  Unions.  The  three
  Unions  who  participated  were  Union  Nos.  1,  3  and  4.  Union        (23)  Ex.  W-29  is  a  letter  said  to  be  written  by  Thiru  Md.
 No.  2  although  raised  certain  demands  did  not  lespond  to        Ismail,  M.P.  to  the  Minister  of  Labour,  Government  of  India
 the  invitation  for  discussion.  Union  No.  4  did  participate       on  3-1-1974.  It  must  be  read  as  3-1-1975.  Ex.  W-30  is  a
  in  the  discussion,  but  did  not  finally  subscribe  to  the  settle- reply  letter  received  from  the  Labour  Minister  dated  13-1-1973.
  ment  etnered  into  under  Ex.  W-57,  a  memorandum  of  settle-       All  that  can  bo  stated  from  Ex.  W-29  is  that  the  demand
  ment  under  Section  12(3)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,         was  made  for  the  abolition  of  contract  system  obtained  in
  1947  dated  27-1-1975.  Clause  (161  of  Ex.  W-57  clcailv  men-      the  Management-Company  at  that  time.  Under  Ex.  W-30,
  tions  that  "it  is  agreed  between  the  parties  that  the  settle-  the  Ministry  has  assured  tint  the  matter  will  be  looked  into.
  ment  is  in  full  and  final  settlement  of  all  the  demands  uised But  the  demand  under  Ex.  W-29  cannot  be  held  to  be
  in  the  charter  of  demandu  submitted  bv  th"  Unions  men-          advancing  the  so-called  superior  rights  of  the  workmen  retren-
  tioned  above,  and  thf>  Unions  shall  not  raise  anv  demands       ched  in  1969  whose  claim  Is  sponsoicd  by  Union  No.  4.
  involving  financial  commitments  on  the  nart  of  the  Company       Ex,  W-31  is  the  charter  of  demands  of  Union  No.  4  to  the
  during  the  period  of  operation  of  the  settlement."  Admittedly    Management     dated  27-7-1977.  Miscellaneous  demands      are
  Union  No.  4  did  not  di&DUts  the  validity  and  bindinu  nature    listed  under  Demand  No.  7  at  page  (3)  of  Ex.  W-31.  Demand
  of  thin  settlement  Ex.  W-57  dated  27-1-1975.  It  must  there-     No.  7(£)  says  that  "all  substitute  workers  to  be  made  peima-
  fore  follow  that  Union  No.  4  did  not  seiiously  believe  in      nent  with  retrospective  effect  and  practice  of  employing  con-
  the  claim  put  forward  by  'Hem  forming  item  No.  19  of  the      tract  workers  to  be  stopped  and  workers  to  be  employed
  charter  of  demands  Ex,  W-22.  Subsequently  also  there  vsas        directly  by  the  Company  and  not  through  contractors."  There-
  another  long  term  settlement  entered  into  between  the  Man-       fore  it  is  apparent  that  the  demand  of  Union  No.  4  even  in
  agement-Company  and  the  workmen  on  6-5  1978—vide  Ex.              1977  was  that  the  employment  through  contract  should  be
  W-56  to  which  significantly  Union  Nos,  4  and  2  were  also       stopped  and  the  workers  should  be  directly  employed  by  the
  parties.  As  a  result  of  this  Settlement.  Union  No,  4  must      Company.  Even  then  there  is  no  scope  for  countenancing
  br  deemed  to  have  given  up  the  demand  found  at  rage  (4)       the  superior  claim  of  the  retrenched  workmen  in  1969.  It
  of  Ex.  W-31.                                                           should  also  be  remembered  that  even  as  the  demand  in  Exs.
                                                                           W-29.  and  31  arc  made  side  by  side  the  Management  were
                                                                           giving  Jobs  to  the  workmen  retrenched  in  1969  in  the  plant
     (21)  Moreover,  the  Company  departmentalized  46  causal           aiea.  Not  one  of  the  160  workmen  out  of  the  237  who
  workmen  who  were  working  in  bag  section.  Ex.  W-58  is            hid  been  given  employment  by  th

3788  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART H—SEC 3(ii)]
-which  will  bo  extended  if  considered  necessary  by  the  Man- agement.  It  is  also  significant  that  Ex.  M-7  dearly  says  that during  the  probationary  period  the  services  are  liable  to  be terminated  without  notice  and  without  assigning  lessons therefor  and  even  after  confirmation  the  services  will  be terminated  at  any  time  by  giving  one  month's  nciice  on either  side  or  one  month's  salary  in  lieu  of  notice.  Fuither more,  the  appointee  has  been  directed  to  appear  before  the Medical  Board  to  ascertain  his  age1.  In  the  circumstances. the  terms  mentioned  in  Ex.  M-7  would  only  indicate  a  fresh employment  as put  forward  by  M.W,  1,  albeit  that  the  worker is  drawn  from  the  l'si  Ex.  M-4,  Thus  Ex.  M-7  would  not support  the  theory  of  interchangeabihty  of  the  woik  of  any casual  workmen  employed  by  the  Management  iu  the  min- ing  area.
(24)  As  already  referred  to  nil  along  Union  No,  4  has been  agitating  for  the  abolition  of  contract  labour  system arid  for  departmentalisation  of  those  contract  labour  work- men.  From  1969  till  about  th."  present  controversy  Union No.  4  has  not  specifically  raised  any  demand  ss  such  that the  workmen  retrenched  in  li>69  have  a  superior  tight  to  be employed  under  Section  25-H  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947  even  over  the  claims  of  casual  workmen  in  the  mining •r*a  who  were  departmentalized  in  1971  or  casual  workmen *ho  were  departmentalised  in  bag  section  of  the  Manage- ment  in  1975,  It  is  common  ground  that  on  the  advice  of the  Central  Advisory  Contract  Labour  Boaid  the  conliact •y"tem  of  mining  and  supply  of  bench  sands  was  abolished by  the  Management  effective  from  31-10-1980  but  so  far the  Management  did  not  choose  to  departmental  any  of those  contract  workmen.  Whereupon,  protesting  against  the refusal  of  the  Management  to  departmentalise  any  of  the ^contract  labour  workman,  Union  No.  2  commenced  a  lelay llunger  strike  from  13-11-1980  which  was  however  called off  on  6-12-1980  at  the  mediation  of  the  Assistant  Labour Commissioner  (Central),  Ernakulam.  Union  No.  1  also  held demonstration  with  ellcct  fiom  1-11-19S0  and  had  unilaterally withdrew  it  subsequently.  Union  No.  2  had  moved  Ihc  Con- ciliation  Officer,  namely,  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner 
(25)  Learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  4  seekj  to  derive strength  in  Section  25-H  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947 with  regard  to  vacancies  arising  in  casual  workmen  in  nny part  of  the  plant  of  the  Management  concern  and  not  restric- ted  to  the  mining  area  only.  Section  25-H  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  runs  as  follows  :
"Re-employment  of  retrenched  workmen,—Where  any workmen  are  retrenched,  and  the  employer  proposes to  take  into  his  employ  any  persons,  he  shall,  in such  manner  as  mav  be  prescribed,  fiive  an  oppor- tunity  to  the  retrenched  workmen  who  are  citizens of  India  to  offer  themselves  for  re-employment, and  such  retrenched  workmen  who  offer  themselves for  re-employmcnt  shall  have  preference  over  other persons."
Accoiding  to  learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  1  Thiru  G. Vcnkatraman  in  order  to  cim'rn  preference  in  re-employment under  Section  25-H  the  following  four  conditions  should  be satisfied  :
"(1)  The  workmen  should  have  been  'retrenched'  prior to  re-employment,  (This  right  Is  not  availoble  to a  dismissed,  discharged  or  superannuated  workman).
(2)  he  should  be  a  citizen  of  India,
(3)  he  should  offer  himself  for—-re-employment  in  re"- ponse  to  the  notice  by  ths  employer  under  Rule 76  of  the  Industrial  Disputes-  (Central)  Rule-!,  1957, or  under  any  rules  framed  by  a  State,  (Failuic  so  to offer  himself  for  re-employment  as  aforesaid,  will disentitle  a  workman  to  the  benefit  of  this  Section).
(4)  he  should  have  been  retrenched  from  the  same  cate- gory  of  service  in  the  industrial  establishment  m which  the  re-employm"it  is  proposed,"
 
Theie  cannot  be  any  controversy  that  the  workmen  retren- ched  in  1969  would  certainly  satisfy  conditions  (1)  to  (3). But  according  to  learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  1  Thiru  G. Venkatraman  that  he  should  have  been  retrenched  from  the same  category  of  service  in  tho  industrial  establishment  in wh'ch  the  re-employment  is  proposed  and  lhat  Section  25-H must  be  read  in  the  light  of  Section  25-G  of  the  Industrial Dispute,  Act,  1947  and  Rule  77  and  78  of  the  Tndmtrial Disputes  (Central)  Rules,  1957.  Rule  77  and  7fl  of  the Industrial  Disputes  (Central)  Rules,  1957  provided  for  main- tenance  of  seniority  list  of  workmen  on  categorywise  ban's nnd  re-employment  of  retrenched  workmen  under  Rule  78 is  also  contemplated  on  category  basis  and  the  contrntion is  in  ai  much  as  the  retrenched  workers  of  1969  v/cm  only plant  area  casual  workmen  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the casual  workmen  in  mining  area.  This  is  countered  by  learned counsel  for  Union  No.  4  Thiru  Chandru  that  Section  25F  and 25G  are  totally  indepnedent  provisions  though  both  of  them

3789
followed  by  conciliation  proceedings.  The  List  conciliation piocecdings  took  place  on  14-1-1981  when  there  was  no agreement  between  the  parties.  Even  then,  on  19^1-1981 under  Fx.  M-7  the  Management  issues  the  order  of  appoint- ment  to  12  woikmen  out  of  the  237  workmen  who  are  re- tienched  in  1969,  The  settlement  between  the  Management- Company  and  Union  Nos.  1  and  3  took  place  on  4-2-1981 under  Ex,  W-53.  The  conciliation  failure  report  Ex.  W 3 was on  29-1-1981  Despite  all  these  controversies  the  Manage- ment-Company  did  not  fail  in  its  duty  to  offer  employment to  12  of  the  workmen  out  of  the  237  who  arc  retrenched  in 1969.  That  clinches  the  issue,  namely,  that  those  reticnchcd workmen  were  only  from  plant  area  and  had  nothing  to  do with  the  mining  aica  over  which  the  present  bitter  contro- versy  between  the  parties  still  persists  and  remain  unresolved. Under  these  circumstances,  I  am  unable  to  find  out  the  60 workmen  but  of  the  77  workmen  belonging  to  Union  No.  4 should  first  be  given  preference  in  the  matter  of  departmen- talisation  of  mining  area  workmen  proposed  by  Manage- ment-Company.
(26)  That  leads  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  2nd  group, namely,  craswhile  contract  labour  workmen  to  be  entitled  to be  absorbed  against  the  60  posts  proposed  to  be  departmen- Ulised  by  the  Management-Company.  In  the  first  place,  I shall  deal  with  the  claim  of  these  workmen  as  a  group  be entitled  to  be  absorbed  by  the  Management  and  if  this  is answered  in  (he  affirmative  then  which  of  the  60 workmen  out of  the  workmen  sponsored  by  Union  Nos.  land  2  have  even- tually  to  be  directed  to  be  departmentalised  by  the  Manage- ment-Company.  The  first  question  arises  for  consideration in  view  of  the  claim  of  Union  No.  4  that  the  contract  labour workmen  do  not  have  any  legal  right  to  claim  absorption  ov preference  over  employment  because  i;  i?  pointed  out  that  the contract  woikers  do  not  have  any  employer  employee  rela- tionship  with  the  Management  and  therefore  at  the  best  as such  the  60  vacancies  that  had  arisen  must  be  held  to  be available  for  being  claimed  only  by  the  workmen  who  arc tetienched  in  1969  under  Section  25H  of  the  ndusfrial  Dis- putes  Act,  1947.  T am  unable  to  accept  this  position.  Here are  my  icasons  :  f  have  in  earlier  paragraphs  supra  had pointed  out  how  the  workmen  represented  by  Union  No.  4 cannot  claim  to  be  absorbed  in  any  vacancy  arising  out  of mining  area  but  only  in  plant  area.  Apart  from  th.it  stand, learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  4  Thiru  Chandru  points  cut that  in  the  absence  of  an  employee  employer  relationship between  the  contract  labour  workmen  and  the  Management, the  workmen  retrenched  in  1969  have  to  be  preferred. 1 e.irned  counsel  also  points  out  that  the  present  decision  of the  Management  to  abolish  the  contract  system  was  not  by operation  of  law  (i.e.)  not  by  a  notification  under  Section  10 of  Contract  Labour  ("Regulation  and  abolition)  Act,  1970 (Act  37  of  1970)  and  hence  the  workmen  of  contract  labour do  not  have  any  legal  right  as  such  lo  claim  to  be  absorbed oi  prefcrcne  over  employment  compared  with  woikmen  who would  be  entitled  to  be  re-employed  under  Section  25H  of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.
deal  with  the  topic  of  retrenchment  of  woikmen  ami  whik Section  25b  confers  certain  special  rights,  such  as  entitlement to  notice  and  payment  of  retrenchment  compensation  on workmen  who  had  been  in  continuous  service  foi  not  less than  one  year.  Section  25G  is  a  general  provision  io\eung all  cases  of  retrenchment  providing  to  tile  woikmen  the minimal  saieguard  of  the  observance  of  the  principle  of  last como  first  go  in  the  matter  of  effecting  such  retrenchment. This  view  fount!  favour  al  the  hands  of  Division  Bench  of the  Kerala  High  Court  in  a  decision  lepoited  in  F.L.R,  1981 (42)  Page  222  (Prabhak.iran  nnj  others  vs.  Geneial  Manager, K.  S.  R.  T.  C.  and  another).  But  learned  counsel  for  Union No.  1  points  out  that  Section  25H  must  be  read  in  the  light of  Section  25G  and  Rule  77  and  7K of  the  Jndustiial  Disputes (Central)  Rules,  1957.  Rule  77  provides  for  maintenance  of seniority  list  on  categorywisc  basis  and  re-employment  nndci Rule  78  is  also  contemplated  on  calegorywise  basis.  Bui  lor the  maintenance  of  seniority  list  based  on  categorization  the question  of  rc-cmploymcnt  cannot  aiise.  Such  seniority  list is  maintained  only  because  of  the  provision  of  Section 25G.  The  senioiity  list  in  the  present  case  has  be^n  prepared only  in  accordance  with  Section  25G  of  the  Industrial  Dis- putes  Act,  1947,  Therefoie,  the  senioiity  list  prepaid  under Section  25G  cannot  be  isolated  for  considering  the  claim put  foiwatd  undei  Section  25H.  Harmonious  construction hns  to  be  attempted  between  Section  25G  and  25H,  so  that there  is  no  violence  to  the  natural  justice  of  the  rub  last come  first  go  either  in  retrenchment  or  in  rc-employrrjent. Therefoie  I  am  unable  to  accept  the  contention  of  Union No.  4  that  ignoring  Section  25O  read  with  Rule  77  the  ret- renched  workers  are  entitled  to  re-employment  under  Section 2511  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  Rule  77  and 78  of  the  nduslrial  Disputes  (Central)  Rules,  1957  do  come into  play  on  the  facts  of  the  present  case.  I earned  counsel for  Union  No.  1  also  refers  me  to  a  Division  flench  Ruling of  Patna  High  Court  reported  in  1969—L.I.C,  Page  1430 (Bihar  Sugar  Works  vs.  S.  G.  Prasad  and  ohters),  whore  it is  pointed  out  that  the  re-employment  within  the  meaning  of Section  25H  imports  the  significance  of  taking  hrck  a  ret- renched  workman  in  the  same  category  to  which  he  belonged Ex.  M-7  on  which  considerable  stress  was  1x1  by  learned counsel  for  Union  No,  4  Thiru  Chandru  would  not  indicate that  woikman  had  been  re-employed  only  under  Section  25H of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  because  if  the  conten- tion  of  Union  No.  4  were  to  be  accepted  then  Management cannot  impose  any  conditions  whatsoever  on  giving  re-em- ployment  to  the  workmen.  But  in  Fx,  U-7  it  is  seen  (hat he  is  put  on  probation  for  six  months  and  this  period  will be  extended  if  considered  necessary  by  the  Company  and during  the  piohationary  period,  his  services  are  lidb'e  to  he terminated  without  notice  and  without  assigning  reasons Ihercfor.  On  satisfactory  completion  of  the  probationary period,  ho  will  be  confirmed  in  the  post  and  after  confirma- tion,  his  services  may  be  terminated  al  any  time  by  giving one  month's  notice  on  eithei  side  oi  one  month\  salary  in lieu  of  notice.  The  age  of  superannuation  is  60.  If  (he contention  of  Mr.  Chandru  were  to  be  accepted  that  even  if the  woikman  is  past  60,  he  must  be  re-cmployicl  under  Sec- tion  25H  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  It  cannot  bo  so absolute  some  of  the  group  of  77  arc  said  to  be  dead  also. Union  No.  4  h^d  agreed  lo  give  sirh  a  list  but  did  not  sub- mit  any  These  stipulated  terms  do  not  indicate  that  Ihe employment  was  under  Section  25H  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947.  Learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  1  Thiru  G. Vcnkatraman  also  submits  that  the  words  ''other  persons" occun ing  at  the  end  of  Section  25H  would  include  only  the erstwhile  contract  labour.  The  tenor  of  the  reference  made hy  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Labour  only  dcnls with  the  consequences  of  the  abolition  of  contract  labour employed  bv  the  Manpgemenl-Company.  Therefore  there i?  considerable  force  in  the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel that  "other  persons"  in  Section  25H  would  n°t  fn'iudc  Ihe persons  who  wcie  already  engaged  in  the  establishment  ;n connection  -with  other  woik  of  the  establishment,  This  is yet  another  circumstance  to  negative  the  case  of  Union  No. 4  because  admittedly,  237  workmen  retrenched  in  1969  wee from  plant  area  and  not  mining  area  and  therefoie  it  was that  right  from  1970  the  Management-Company  has  been honouring  the  undertaking  and  from  1970  to  1980  had  Riven jobs  to  148  persons  out  of  237  who  aic  retrenched  in  1969. The  controversies  between  the  parties  sharply  arose  conse- quent  on  the  abolition  of  contract  system  with  effect  from 1-11-1980.  There  were  hunger  strikes,  demonstrations  etc
"24  GI/82—5
 
(27)  In  this  context,  the  Schedule  to  the  reference  made by  (he  Government  of  ndia  to  me  for  adjudication  would throw  considerable  light  as  to  how  the  rights  between  the rival  claimants  have  to  be  approached,  It  is  common  ground that  with  effect  from  1-11-1980,  the  Management-Company has  abolished  the  contract  system  of  mining  and  supply  of bench  sands.  A  reading  of  the  Schedule  to  the  reference; made  by  the  Government  of  India  would  clearly  indicate that  the  primary  question  for  adjudication  is  whether  on abolition  or  contiact  system  by  Management-Company,  the employer,  namely  the  Management-Company,  should  be directed  to  absorb  the  contract  labour  employed  through  con- tractors  under  them  as  direct  employees  and  only  if  this part  of  reference  is  answered  in  the  affirmative  the  remain- ing  part  of  the  Schedule  would  have  any  relevance.  Now that  the  Mianngement-Company  has  made  it  perfectly  clear that  on  abolition  of  contract  system  of  mining  and  supply- ing  of  beach  sands  effective  from  31-J0-1980  the  Manage- ment  is  prepared  to  absorb  60  woikmen  on  regular  basis  find elsewhere  I  had  held  that  the  Management's  requirement  of 60  iust  ;md  proper  this  part  of  (he  issue  has  to  be  answered to  (he  effect  that  the  Management  on  abolition  of  contract system  of  mining  and  supply  of  beach  sands  should  absorb 60  woikmen  for  direct  employment  for  *Jie  mining  work. Then  the  next  part  of  the  reference  follows  as  to  what  should be  the  criteria  for  such  absorption.  On  this  part  of  the

3790  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
reference  there  is  not  much  controversy  between  Unions  end the  Management.  It  stands  to  common  sense  and  is  also lawful  and  proper  thuL  in  considering  the  conditions  for absorption  the  main  consideration  should  be  the  length  uf service  the  workmen  had  put  in  under  the  contract ors.  Moie- ovcr,  regard  being  had  to  be  strenuous  and  manual  nature  of work  involved  in  mining  area  in  departmentalising  such  work- men  the  age  limit  of  45  should  be  imposed  as  desired  by Management.  In  this  context,  the  stand  of  Union  Nob.  1 and  3  can  be  gathered  from  paragraph  (18)  of  the  claim statement  filed  that  the  Settlement  Ex.  W-53  dated  4-2-1981 could  be  very  well  adopted  by  his  Tribunal  In  the  matter  of absorption  of  contract  labour  workmen  HS permanent,  woik- men  under  the  Management-Company.  Although  the  ape  of superannuation  as  per  the  amended  Standing  Otdcis  cf  the Management-Company  is  60  the  Management  is  reasonably entitled  to  maintain  that  a  new  entrant  under  the  Company should  not  excetd  45  years.  There  is  not  serious  demur either  from  Union  No.  2  or  Union  No.  4.  Thereloic  the next  condition  to  be  satisfied  for  being  absorbed  in  (he department  of  the  Management  should  be  that  the  ispiruni should  be  below  the  age  of  45  years.  Its  is  only  leasonablc that  documentary  proof  of  age  should  be  produced  aie  the workmen  are  departmentalised,  failing  which  age  will  he determined  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  w Standing  Order  Ex.  M-Il,  No.  9  that  the  age  shall  be  deter- mined  by  the  Company's  authorised  Medical  Oflrer.  An- other  condition  which  must  be  satisfied  before  the  worker can  be  departmentalised  by  the  Management  would  be  the medical  fitness  and  therefotc  the  workman  would  be  medically examined  by  the  Company's  Medical  Officers  and  only  tuch person  as  certified  to  be  fit  would  be  taken.  On  summing up  my  findings  are,  that  on  abolition  Of  contrnct  labour system  of  mining  and  supplying  of  beach  sands  with  effect from  31-10-1980  the  Management  is  directed  to  absorb  <">U workmen  for  direct  employment  for  the  mining  work  and the  workmen  so  departmentalised  should  be  below  the  ;.cc of  45  years,  for  which  documentary  proof  will  have  to  be placed  before  the  Management  by  the  concerned  workmen, failing  which  the  age  shall  be  determined  in  accordince  with procedure  laid  down  in  No.  9  of  the  certified  Standing  Ordeis Fx.  M-ll  and  that  the  workmen  will  be  taken  only  on  medi- cal  fitness  certificate  to  be  issue  by  the  Company's  Medical Officers  after  medical  examination.
(28)  The  next  part  of  the  reference  says  whit  should  be the  number  so  to  be  recruited  from  those  previously  employed through  Manavalakurichi  Mineral  Co-operative  Labour  Con- tract  Society  and  other  contractors.  In  dealing  wilh  this portion  of  the  reference,  the  Government  of  Tndia  has  also directed  me  to  examine  the  claim  of  retrenched  workmen  of 1969  to  be  absorbed  on  the  abolition  of  contract  system demanding  preference  in  employment  as  per  Section  25H of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.  There  aie  only  1wo sets  of  contract  labour  workmen.  One  set  of  workmen  who claimed  to  have  worked  under  Manavalakurichi  Mineral  Co- operative  Labour  Contract  Society  are  110  workmen  rep- resented  by  Union  No.  1  and  the  other  40  workmen  rep- resented  by  Union  No,  2  which  claims  thai  ThuiaM  and  39 other  mining  workers  had  worked  under  earlier  contractor under  the  Management  and  put  In  longer  years  of  serwec. The  3rd  category  of  workmen  claiming  to  be  absorbed  conse- quent  on  the  abolition  of  contract  system  of  mining  and supplying  beach  sands  is  the  group  of  77  workman  who  aie retrenched  by  the  Company  in  1969.  In  view  of  the  un- equivocal  terms  of  the  Schedule  in  as  much  as  the  77  work- men  who  are  retrenched  in  1969  were  not  erstwhile  cont-act labour  workmen,  the  workmen  represented  by  Union  No,  4 ennnot  claim  any  right  as  such  consequent  o.i  the  aboliiiot. of  contract  labour  system  of  mining  and  supply  of  beach sands  by  the  Management-Company  effective  f--om 31-10-1980,
social  legislature  the  workmen  for  whose  benefit  the  contrail was  abolished  would  not  have  any  right  whatsoever.  If such  construction  wcie  placed,  I  am  afraid  it  will  lead  to reductio  ad  absurdum  (absurd  conclusions).  In  this  context, J  may  briefly  examine  the  piovisions  of  Contract  Laboui (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  \Act  37  of  1970). Fven  assuming  that  there  was  no  notification  under  Section 10  of  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act, 1970  (Act  37  of  1970)  yet  in  the  face  of  the  iin-impeachable materials  placed  including  Fx.  W-51  series—minutes  of  the meeting  of  the  Centra]  Advisory  Contract  Labour  Boaul held  on  19-8-19K0  it  is  not  difficult  for  me  15  fird  that  the Management  has  abolished  the  conliact  system  of  mining and  supplying  ot  beach  sands  only  at  the  insistence  of  Central Advisory  Contract  Labour  Board's  decision  made  under Contract  Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  (Act 37  of  1970).  Fx.  W-51  scries  is  dated  19-8-1980,  the minutes  of  the  meeting  of  Central  Advisor>  Contract  Labour Board.  I  may  refer  to  the  inaugural  addiess  of  Union  Labour Minister  which  is  also  reported  in  the  Annevc  foiming  pait of  Ex.  W-51  series.  At  page  (2)  paragiaph  (4)  the  Honou- rable  Labour  Minister  has  pointed  out  that  "The  basic  inten- tion  of  the  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  apd  Abolition)  Act and  the  abolition  of  the  Contract  Labour  is  to  eliminate  the system  of  middle  men  so  that  labourers  *;et  their  just  ^ages for  their  work.  It  is,  therefore,  necessaiy  th.it  contract labourers  to  the  extent  possible  be  absorbed  as  permanent reg-iiav  workers,  allowed  all  the_  facilities  given  to  other workers  doing  the  same  type  of  iob  and  co/eied  hv  the existing  social  security  schemes."  Realising  (he  absence of  a  specific  provision  for  providing  for  absorption of  some  labour  force  consequent  on  the  abolition  of contract  labour  the  Honourable  Minister  in  paragiaph  (5) also  points  out  that  "It  is  proposed  to  amend  the  Act  to certain  a  positive  provision  to  absorb  the  contract  labour where  it  has  been  abolished  by  law,"  The  extracts  fiom  (he speech  of  the  Central  Minister  for  I about-  would  amply  indi- cate  the  purport  of  (ho  social  legislation,  namely  Contract Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  (Act  37  of 1970),  Morever,  even  apart  fiom  the  speech  of  the  Honou- rable  Ministci  for  Labour  if  the  ceveral  provisions  of  Con- tract  Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  (Act  37 of  1970)  are  examined  closely,  it  cun  be  easily  concluded that  the  purport  and  intent  of  (he  legislature  is  to  secure regular  employment,  wages  and  other  benefits  to  contract labour  on  par  with  the  regular  workmen  of  the  employer. The  statements  and  objects  and  reasons  of  the  enactments clearly  envisage  that  the  aim  of  the  Parliament  is  to  abolish contract  system  and  wherever  it  is  not  possible,  to  regulate the  service  conditions  of  contract  labour.  The  definition  of contract  labour,  contractor,  establishment,  woikmen  and other  terms  in  Section  (2)  gives  an  inkling  1o  the  class  of persons  for  whom  the  benefits  (he  Contract  Labour  (Regu- lation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  (Act  37  of  1970)  is  intended to  be  applied.  Therefore  there  is  considciable  force  in  the submission  that  on  (he  abolition  of  contract  system  the  con- trad  labour  are  entitled  to  be  absorbed  on  regular  basis  and sandwilchcd  with  all  social  security  benefits. " Jr  cannot  be imagined  that  while  the  workmen  under  contractors  are  en- titled  to  reasonable  safeguards,  r;chts  and  privilege  on abolition  of  that  contiact  as  such  those  workmen  would  not be  entitled  to  any  right  whatsoever,  This  is  what  has happened  in  the  present  case  also,  because  admittedly  as  on 31-10-1980  certain  workmen  were  working  under  conduct fiom  the  Management  in  mining  and  supplying  of  bemh sands  and  therefore  to  hold  that  on  the  abolition  of  the contract  system  from  1-11-1980  all  those  workmen  shou'd became  not  only  un-employed  but  would  not  be  entitled  to any  tights  whatsoever  does  not  commend  itself  for  easy acceptance.  When  the  woikmen  were  employed  under  the contractors,  fho  contractors  were  regulated  under  Section  12 and  13  of  the  Contract  Labour  (Relation  and  Abolition) Act,  1970  (Act  37  of  1970)  as  also  Rules  21, 25,  27  and  29 Rule  25  provides  for  qrant  of  holidays,  hours  of  work  and other  conditions  of  service.  Section  16  provides  for  canteen facilities.  Se-lion  17  provides  for  rest  room  for  contiact labour  und  Section  18  piovidcs  for  supply  of  drink in q  water for  the  contract  labour  at  convenient  places  and  M.fficicnt number  of  latrines  of  pi escribed  tvne.  The  above  Act  also rompcls  the  contractor  to  provide  f'V  wnges  and  other  faci- lities  and  :\ duty  is  imposed  on  the  principal  employer  to  sec (hit  the:  contract  labour  are  naid  p.oner  wages  and  adnvltcd to  (he  benefits  envisaged  under  the  Contract  labour  (Reeu- (29)  The  crucial  point  (hat  has  to  be  s;sret(aincd  is  whe- ther  on  the  abolition  of  contract  labour  under  Contract Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970  (Act  37  of 1970),  the  Management  is  bound  in  law  to  absorb  the  same labour  force  employed  by  contractors.  As  al:eadv  pointed out  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  and  Abolition)  Act,  1970 (Act  37  of  1970)  deals  only  with  regulation  and  abolition  of contract  labour.  There  is  no  specific  Drovision  under  the ••"id  A^t  that  the  Management  it  bound  to  absoib  the  same labour  force  employed  by  erstwhile  contiac'ois.  But  then the  moot  noint  that  remains  to  he  examined  is  whether  on the  abolition  of  contract  labour  wiiic*i  is  admittedly  a  peace  of

3791
at  239  (Standard  Vacuum  Refining  Company  of  India  Ltd., vs.  their  woikmen  and  another),  where  the  Supreme  CouU upheld  the  award  of  the  Tiibunal  which  directed  thit  p>e- ference  should  be  gi\":n  to  workmen  employed  hy  the  con- tractor  and  held  the  contract  labour  are  entitled  to  be  depart- mentalized  on  the  abolition  of  contiact  labour  system.  Again rclidiuc  is  also  placed  on  a  later  decision  of  the  Supreme Court  reported  in  1978  L.I.C.  Page  1264  (Himainbhai  vs. rIhe  ALiLh  Factory  Tezhilali  Union  and  others).  It  vus  a case  wheie  the  contractor's  employees  were  terminated  fiom service,  the  Supiemc  Court  held  that  (he  real  employer  was the  principal  emplo>er  and  upheld  Ihe  avvaij  of  the  Industrial Tribunal,  reinstating  the  workmen  the  so  culled  contiact labour.  The  Supreme  Court  also  points  oiit  that  >lif  the livelihood  of  the  workmen  substantially  depends  on  the labour  icndcied  to  produe  goods  and  services  for  the  benefits and  satisfaction  of  an  enterprise,  the  absence  of  di.ect  iela- tionship  or  the  presence  of  dubious  intenncdiaii^s  or  tlie make  believe  trappings  of  detachment  from  Ihe  Management cannot  snap  the  real-life  bond.  The  stoiy  may  vary  but the  infeience  defies  ingenuity.  The  liability  cannot  be  shaken off."  learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  1  Thiru  G,  Venkatia- man  rightly  points  out  if  this  be  ihe  considered  view  of  ihe Supreme  Court  in  case  of  non-employment  of  contract  labour, afortiori  consequent  upon  the  aboliiion  of  contiact  system the  eistwhile  contract  labour  cannot  be  thrown  out,  but  must be  absoibed  as  regular  woikmen.  Otherwi3e  the  purpoit and  the  intent  of  Contract  T abnur  (Regulation  and  Abolition) Act,  1970  <\ct  37  of  1970)  would  be  fiusftated  and  the beneficial  social  enactment  rendered  nugaioiy.  fn  1957 H-L.LJ.  Page  490  [Prakush  Cotlon  Mills  (Private)  Limited vs.  Slatc  of  Bombay]  the  Bombav  High  Courl  has  pcintcd out  as  tollows  :
"No  Labour  legislation,  no  social  lecislation  can  be considered  by  a  court  without  applying  the  princi- ples  of  social  justice  in  interpreting  Ihe  provisions of  these  law.  Social  justice  is  an  objective  which is  embodied  and  enshrined  in  oui  constituton
It  would  indeed  bc  stalling  for  unyoni  to  suggest  that the  Court  should  shut  its  eyes  to  so.ial  justice  and consider  and  interpret  a  law  as  if  our  country  had not  pledged  itself  to  bringing  about  social  justice."
In  an  eailier  decision  tepoited  in  1963—II-L.L.T.  Pane  436 at  444  U.  K.  Cotton  Spinning  and  Weaving  Mills  Co*mpany Ltd.  vs.  1 abour  Appellate  Tribunal  of  India  and  others),  the Supreme  Coutt  has  also  repelled  the  conlenlion  that  consi- derations  of  social  justice  arc  inelevant  and  untenable  m dealing  with  Industrial  Disputes.  Again  the.  decision  in (1979)  4  SCC  Page  93  at  99  (Manohar  Nalhmao  Samailh  vs Marotrao)  (Krishna  Iyer,  I.)  the  Supicme  Coiui  has  pointed out  that  "the  policy  oriented  understanding  of  a  legal  provi- sion  which  does  not  do  violence  to  the  text  or  the  concxt (Mini,  preference  as  against  as  narrow  reading  of  the  words used.  Indeed  this  approach  is  a  veision  of  pi un  me  nine rule  and  has  judicial  sanction,"  On  an  anxious  and  careful consideration  of  the  several  submissions  and  position  of  law J  am  inclined  to  hold  that  consequent  on  the  abolition  of contract  system  of  mining  and  supplying  of  bench  sands  only workmen  who  were  working  under  erstwhile  coutr'actois should  be  given  preference  in  the  matter  of  absorption  or departmentalisation  by  the  Management-Company.  In  the  view I  take.  Union  No.  4  cannot  claim  that  the  workmen  who  -ue letrenched  in  1969  should  be  absorbed  by  the  Management consequent  on  the  abolition  of  the  contuict  labour  system
fromn31-?oTy80ng  ^  i L'r P'> i ns  °f  b e a dl  s!il1(ls  w i th  e f f wt
(30)  That  leaves  us  in  the  field  or  beach  the  two  tcmain'nc Unions,  namely,  Union  Nos.  1  and  2.  Union  No  7  spon- sors  the  cause  of  110  contract  labour  workmen  while  Union No.  2  professes  to  espouse  the  claim  of  Thulasi  M W  5  anil 39  others.  By  and  large,  there  is  no  controversy  thai  ihe 110  workmen  of  Union  No.  1 and  the  40  workmen  ol  Union No  2  have  at  one  time  or  other  woiked  In  (he  minim?  aiea pfetntIv  011 ' T™  ,f l 0m  t he  Management-Company. Presently  |  shall  deal  with  their  respective  claims  to  the otui  se.vice  put  in  by  the  workmen  under  contra"tors  of (he  Management-Company  for  mining  and  siiDplying  of  beach s.ms  ujcspective  of  the  Unions  to  which  they8belonged r.is,  I  shall  deal  with  ihe  workmen  whose  c,,u,c  is  sponsoied
 
by  Union  No,  2,  Union  No,  2  filed  claim  statement  before this  Tribunal  on  14-5-1982  after  Union  Nos.  I,  3  and  4 had  filed  their  statements  before  this  Tribunal.  In  the  open- ing  paragraph  of  this  claim  statement  of  Union  No.  2  it  is stated  that  "the  Union  rcpiescnted  the  cause  of  Thulasi  and 39  other  mining  workers  who  have  been  employed  by  the Indian  Raie  Earths  Limited,  Manavalakurichi  (Management- Company)  through  various  contractors."  The  next  paragraph also  reads  that  "the  workers  represented  by  the  above  Union have  been  doing  mining  under  successive  contractor.  They have  been  put  in  large  service  than  others  who  are  seeking preferential  empoyment  now."  (Possibly  it  refers  to  the claim  of  Union  No.  11,  Thulasi  has  also  been  examined  as W.W.  5,  Unfortunately,  even  though  Thulasi  has  been examined  as  W.W.  5  on  behalf  of  Union  No.  2,  he  does  not refer  to  the  39  otheis  referred  to  in  the  claim  statement  of Union  No.  2  as  having  woiked  along  with  Thulasi.  There- fore  from  the  evidence  of  W.W.  5  who  are  th&  other  39 workmen  icprcsentcd  by  Union  No.  2  cannot  bc  spelt  out. On  the  other  hand,  it  should  also  be  remembered  thai  W.W. 5  has  been  examined  after  W.W.  4  has  been  examined  who would  however  say  that  he  had  employed  Thulasi  and  39 wprkmen  under  him  in  his  contract.  He  would  also  say lhal  while  lie  woiked  the  contract  he  rhid  maintained  atten- dance  register  for  the  workers  employed  by  him.  One  such register  is  Ex.  W-32  for  the  period  from  January,  1975  to March,  1976.  No  doubt  W.W.  5  Thulasi  appears  as  one  of the  woikmen  employed  by  W.W.  4.  But  even  in  the  presence of  Ex.  W-32  Thulasi  who  was  examined  subsequently  did  not choose  to  identify  the  39  other  co-workers  who  had  worked with  him,  W.W.  4  in  chief  examination  would  say  that  he had  employed  Thulasi  and  39  others  in  the  contract  which  he claimed  to  have  taken  from  the  Company  from  1974  to  1976. But  in  Ex.  W-32,  in  January,  1975  he  seems  to  have  em- ployed  48  workmen  including  Thulasi  W.W.  5,  In  February, 1975,  48  woikmen  arc  employed;  in  March  57  workmen; in  April  57;  in  May  57; in  .Tune  56;  in  July  57;  in  August  57; in  September  50;  in  October  52;  in  November  46;  in  Decem- ber  45;  and  in  January  197fi,  45; in  February  1976,  45;  and  in March  1976,  57.  Therefore  even  from  this  register  Ex. W-32  it  is  nol  possible  to  name  or  identify  or  even  localise the  39  other  woikmen  apart  from  Thulasi  W.W.  5.  As  a matter  of  fact  at  the  time  of  arguments  by  Union  No,  2  I had  put  a  pointed  question  to  learned  counsel  for  Uniin No.  2  Thiru  Selvaraj  to  tell  the  Court  as  to  who  the  39 other  woikmen  arc  apart  fiom  W.W,  5  whose  cause  is championed  by  Union  No.  2.  He  was  unable  to  help  me nor  could  he  even  collect  them  from  Ex.  W-32.  On  the o(hcr  hand,  learned  counsel  for  Union  No.  2  Thiru  Selva- raj  contended  that  even  the  Management  in  their  counter statement  page  (8)  have  understood  Thulasi  and  39  others who  are  members  of  Union  No.  2.  If  that  stand  has  lo be  accepted  or  adopted  then  the  40  contract  workers  were engaged  by  contractor  Thiru  C.  Rathinaswamy  fot  tho scveral  days  as  mentioned  in  that  paragraph.  In  any  view even  from  the  stand  of  the  Management  that  Thulasi  and 39  others  were  working  it  is  impossible  to  conclude  with any  certainty  who  the  other  39  workmen  are  apart  from Thulasi  who  has  been  examined  as  W.WL  3  The  case  of Union  No.  2  should  also  be  remembered,  in  that  Iheso workmen  were  employed  from  1970  to  1977.  Even  for argument  if  it  is  presumed  that  it  was  so  oven  then  it  la not  possible  to  hold  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  1hat the  same  40  workmen  had  worked  W er  different  contrac- tors  of  the  Management  from  1970  to  1977.  The  reference made  by  the  Government  of  Tndia  specifically  enjoins  this Tiibunal  to  adjudicate  on  the  number  of  workmen  to  be required  from  Manavalaknrichi  Mineral  Co-operative Labour  Contractor  Society  represented  by  Union  No  1  and other  contractors  under  which  category  the  workmen  of Union  No,  2  would  come.  If  the  Tribunal  were  to  simply Or  merely  mention  the  number  of  workmen  from  each  of these  contractors  to  be  absorbed  by  the  Management  this Inbunal  would  not  only  abdicate  its  func'ions  but  would certainly  add  confusion  or  at  any  rule  (here  will  be  endless quarrel  as  to  who  those  39  mythical  beings  are.  It  is  only just,  fair  and  equitable  that  this  Tribunal  has  to  name  or identify  the  workmen  if  any  who  should  be  eventually  directed to  bc  absorbed  by  the  Management.  The  number  of  work- men  referred  to  in  the  issue  only  denotes  the  named  number Horn  particular  group  in  ca

3792  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii]
numbers  of  the  workmen  employed  by  Management-Com- pany  had  been  mentioned.  Union  No.  1  on  the  other  hand has  named  and  identified  all  the  110  workmen  from  Exs, M-3,  W-69,  W-77  and  W-79.  Of  the  110  workmen  details relating  to  the  60  workmen  who  had  been  offeied  to  the Management  by  Union  No,  1  consequent  upon  the  Settle- ment  enleied  into  under  Ex.  W-53  are  culled  out  from  Exs. M-3,  W-42,  W-55.  W-69,  W-71,  W-72,  W-73,  W-74  and W-80.  Thus  out  of  the  total  40  workmen  whose  cause  is championed  by  Union  No,  2,  only  one  has  named  and  identi- fied,  namely  Thulasj  who  has  also  been  examined  as  W.W.  5 and  the  remaining  39  workmen  still  remain  uncleared  or unidentified  even  till  date.
 
that  paragraph  W.  W.  4  claims  to  have  tuken  a  coutiact fiom  the  Management-Company  fiom  1974  till  1976  and he  would  also  say  that  he  had  employed  Thulasi  W,  W  5 and  39  others  under  him  during  this  contract.  J  had  already an  occasion  to  refei  to  the  Attendance  Negater  fcx.  W-32 maintained  by  him.  Apait  from  W.  W.  5  tlie  other  39 workmen  had  not  been  identified  by  him  or  W.  W.  5.  In cross-examination,  ho  would  have  us  believe  lhat  he  was never  given  a  copy  of  the  agreement  executed  by  him with  the  Management.  However,  he  has  admitted  that puisuant  to  the  concluded  contract,  woik  oidet  ffad  been issued  to  him  by  the  Management.  He  admit-,  that  he has  not  produced  the  work  ordei.  It'  the  work  ordei  had been  produced  it  would  decisively  disclose  the  nature  oi the  contract  taken  by  him  He  also  says  that  he  had  obtain- ed  a  licence  fiom  the  Assistant  Commissions!  of  Labour (Central)  to  employ  workmen  to  execute  (he  contract  taken by  him  from  the  Management-Company,  Fiankly  admits tint  licence  is  with  him  in  his  house.  He  h is  not  produced it  befoie  this  Tiibunal,  But  the  licence  would  disclose  the number  of  woikmcn  employed  by  him  and  the  nature  of the  work  to  be  done  by  him  Of  couise  he  has  denied  the suggestion  that  the  contract  taken  by  him  was  only  for  a naiticular  limited  work.  Therefore  in  the  absence  of  avai- lable  documentaiy  materials  to  show  the  nature  of  the  con- tract  taken  by  him  and  the  period  of  oontui;!  and  th: number  of  workmen  employed,  the  oral  evidence  of  W.  W 4  is  not  entitled  to  much  weight  more  so  a?  he  has  not even  been  summoned  to  appeal  and  give  evidence  belure this  Tribunal  W.  W.  5  would  say  lint  tiom  1972  to 1974  he  was  employed  by  Chelliab.  contractor  under  the Management.  W.  W.  5  has  fiankly  idmitled  that  he  docs not  know  if  the  contract  given  to  eontiacioi  Appadurai W.  W.  4  was  not  on  legular  basis  relating  to  the  collection of  sand  on  the  beach.  From  Ex.  Wl 32,  it  L  possible  to say  that  the  contract  taken  by  Appaduiai  W.  W  4  for  collec- tion  of  sand  and  supply  of  raw  sand  only  on  ad  hoc  basis because  the  number  of  woiking  days  in  Januiry,  1975  foi 48  workmen  was  only  2,  3  oi  5  days  in  a  month.  The position  improved  in  Februaiy,  1973  and  Marco,  1975  and maintained  in  April,  1975.  There  was  a  decrease  in  May, 1975;  increase  in  June,  1975,  inctcase  in  July,  1975;  dec- rease  in  August,  1975;  decrease  in  September,  1975;  increase in  October,  1975;  dceicase  in  November,  1975;  increase  in December.  1975  Contractor  Rathinaswamy  is  suid  to  be alive  as  also  Chelliah  conttacfoi,  but  these  persons  have  not been  summoned  or  examined.  W  W  3  claims  (o  be  a Mistry  under  Prabhakaran  Nair  in  1970.  Ho  would  say that  he  would  have  been  supet vising  40  workers  undei  him Accoiding  to  him  he  not  only  worked  as  Mislry  undei Prnphakaran  Nail  from  1970  to  1972,  bj(  also  worked  as Mistry  under  contractor  Chelliah  from  1972  to  1974  and the  same  40  workmen  were  employed  by  him.  Even contractor  Prnbhakaian  Nair  is  alive  but  he  has  not  been examined  W  W.  3  has  admitted  that  there  is  nothing  in writing  to  show  that  he  had  acted  as  Mistry  under  Prabha- karan  Nair  nnd  under  Chelliah  conti actor.  He  admits  that contractoi  Chellmh  had  taken  two  thcr  contiactoi  from  the Management,  one  such  was  to  construct  some  building.  Of course  he  denies  the  suggestion  that  he  and  others  were  work- ing  in  that  connection  under  contractor  Chcllhh.  Exs. W-34  and  W-35  are  letters  produced  by  Union  No.  2.  Fx W-35  is  dated  4-7-1977  Although  Ex.  W-34  is  undated  it is  certain  that  it  must  have  come  into  existence  aftci 16-4-1977  when  Union  No,  2  deposited  a  sum  of  Rs  3,000 with  the  Mananemcnt-Company  as  earnest  money  deposit. [Jndei  Fx  W-35;  the  grievance  to  the  Management  was  that although  the  tender  had  been  submitted  on  15-4-1977  and I he  earnest  money  deposited  on  16-4-1977,  the  Management Ins  not  so  far  issued  any  work  order  to  the  Society.  In paragraph  (3)  of  Fx.  W-34  it  is  stated  that  during  the  last three  years  about  42  workers  were  working  under  contractor in  the  mining  area.  Therefore  according  to  this  stand, 42  woikeis  must  havc  worked  under  the  contractor  f-om 1974  onwords.  That  would  not  supper!1  the  case  of  Union No  2  that  Thulasi  and  39  others  were  working  undei  various contractor  of  the  Management  fiom  1970  till  1977  On  an analysis  of  the  evidence  of  W.  W.  3  to  W.  W  6  in  the light  of  (he  othei  documentary  materials  T  am  unable to  find  that  Thulasi  W.  W  5  and  39  others  were  in continuous  employment  as  contract  workers  of  the  Manage- ment  from  1970  upto  1977.  In  the  circumstances,  I  am  un- able  to  find  out  with  aiiy  element  of  certainty  the  actual  ser- vice  of  W.W.  5  under  any  of  the  contractors  from  the  Mana- (31)  However,  1  shall  examine  the  total  number  of  service put  in  by  Thulasi  \V).  W.  5.  Before  1  proposed  fuither,  I may  advert  to  the  plea  taken  up  in  a  gencial  mannci  in  the claim  statement  filed  by  Union  No.  2.  In  tho  chum  state- ment  filed  before  this  Tribunal  on  14-3-1982  it  is  just  stated that  the  Union  represented  the  cause  of  Thulasi  ard  39  other mining  woikeis  who  had  been  employed  by  M|s.  Indian  Raic Earths  Limited,  Manavalakunchi  through  various  contractors. It  is  also  said  that  the  woikcrs  represented  by  the  above Union  have  been  doing  mining  under  successive  contractors and  that  they  have  put  in  large  seivice  thin  otheis  who  are seeking  preferential  employment  now.  Significantly,  in  the original  claim  statement  there  is  no  whisper  from  which  yeai Thulasi  and  39  other  mining  workers  were  employed  and who  those  various  successive  conti actors  till  1976  had  not been  disclosed.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  cleaiiy  stated  in  the claim  statement  that  in  1977  they  were  working  under  I him Rathinaswamy  Contractor.  Therefore  in  the  absence  of other  materials,  it  can  bo  taken  that  the  case  of  Union  No.  2 is  that  Thulasi  and  39  other  mining  woikers  wcie  employed, only  fiom  1977  onwards.  The  Management  in  their  counlet statement  filed  on  20th  May,  1982  at  nage  <8)  h.id  cieaily admitted  the  claim  of  Union  No.  2  that  Thulasi  and  39 others  were  engaged  by  Contractor  Thiru  C,  Rathinaswamy only.  But  they  would  point  out  that  the  contiact  entrusted to  Rathinaswamy  was  only  on  ad  hoc  basis of  additional  work and  was  not  available  throughout  the  year  and  it  was  not a  perennial  work  like  the  icgular  mining  work.  Moieovei, the  Management  has  clearly  mentioned  (hat  these  40  workers, namely  Thulasi  and  39  others  had  worked  fiom  Apnl,  1976 till  March,  1977  for  seveial  days  as  detailed  at  bottom  of page  (8)  and  top  of  page  (9)  of  the  counrer  statement  filed by  the  Management.  Even  Thulasi  W,  W.  5  admits  (hat he  was  employed  under  Conti actor  Rathinaswamv  from 1976  to  1977  which  only  goes  to  confirm  Management's stand  that  Thulasi  worked  only  fiom  April,  1976  to  March, 1977  on  an  additional  conti act  taken  by  contractor  Rathina- swamy.  After  the  Management  filed  the  counter  statement on  20-5-1982,  the  Union  No.  2  filed  a  reply  statement ostensibly  meant  to  meet  the  points  laiscd  by  Management and  other  Unions.  It  was  only  at  this  stage  in  challenging the  contention  of  the  Management  that  these  40  workmen were  working  under  contractor  Rathinaswamy  only  for  a short  while  Union  No  2  in  paiagraph  15)  of  the  reply  state- ment  would  say  that  the  workmen  of  this  Union  wcie  em- ployed  under  diffeient  contractors  from  1970  Therefore there  is  a  considerable  fotce  in  the  submission  of  the  Manage- ment  that  the  case  now  put  forward  by  Union  No.  2  is clearly  an  after  thought.  Howevrr,  I  shall  also  examine  the present  case  of  Union  No.  2  that  Thulasi  W.  W.  5  and  39 un-named  others  were  employed  under  vaiious  conliactois from  1970  till  1977.  While  in  the  original  claim  statement, neither  the  name  of  various  contractors  nor  their  period  of contract  had  been  mentioned,  in  paragraph  (5)  of  the  reply statement  filed  by  Union  No.  2,  three  othtr  conti actors  and their  period  of  contract  from  1970  had  been  mentioned.  On the  strength  of  this  reply  statement,  the  parties  went  into enquiry.  The  Piesident  of  Union  No.  2  has  been  examined as  W.  W.  6  on  10-8-1981.  Tt  was  only  in  cross-examination this  witness  would  say  that  Thiru  Srikantan  Nair  mentioned at  paragraph  (5)  of  the  reply  statement  of  Union  No,  2  is incorrect  and  it  should  read  as  Prabhakaran  Nail.  It  is irarprisinit  to  note  that  even  in  the  chief  examination,  no explanation  has  been  offered  by  W.  WJ.  6  as  to  how  this mistake  has  occurcd.  more  so  when  this  fact  hus  not  been averred  even  in  the  oiiginal  claim  statement  filed  by  Union No,  T had  already  referred  to  the  fart  that  the  Management has  admitted  that  at  page  (8)  of  the  counter  statement  that these  40  contract  workeis  represented  by  Union  No,  2  were engaged  by  contractor  Rathinaswamy  for  the  pei iod  from April,  1976  till  March,  1977  for  those  days  mentioned  in

3793
gememt-Company.  So  I  am  U>  accept  the  case  of  Manage- ment  that  Ihmlusi  and  39  others  were  engaged  under  con- tructoi  Rathinaswamy  from  Apiil,  1976  to  March,  1977  for [ho  days  mentioned  at  page  (8)  ol  the  counter  statement  hl- cd  by  the  Management-Company,  Therefore,  I  am  unable to  accept  the  case  of  Union  No.  I  that  40  woikmen  repre- sented  by  the  aforesaid  Union  niusL  be  directed  to  be- depart- mentalised  by  the  Management-Company  consequent  on  1hc abolition  of  contract  labour  system  of  mining  and  supply of  beach  sands.
132)  Finally  I  shall  advert  to  the  claim  of  Union  No.  1 that  out  of  110  contract  labour  workmen  represented  by  this Union  the  60  of  them  should  be  depaitmenlalised  by  the ManagemeEt-Coinpany.  But  in  older  to  be  dcpartmenUdised by  the  Management-Company  as  I  have  earlier  held  the workmen  have  to  fulfil  the  following  conditions  :  (i)  below the  age  of  45  years  foi  which  documentary  proof  should  he placed  betoie  the  Management  by  the  concerned  workmen, tailing  which  the  age  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with the  procedure  laid  down  in  No.  9  of  the  certified  Standing Orders  px.  M-ll  and  (ii)  that  the  workmen  who  arc  certifi- ed  medically  fit  by  the  Medical  Qllicers  of  the  Company  on medical  examination  shall  be  taken.  Granting  that  these  J10 workmen  would  satisfy  the  criteria  set  by  me  above  tor  be- ing  departmentalized  m  the  Management-Company  the  fore- most  consideration  that  has  to  be  examined  is  about  the length  of  service  put  in  by  these  110  workmen.  As  far  as the  identification  of  these  110  workmen  is  concerned,  learn- ed  counsel  for  Union  Nos.  1  and  3  Thiru  C  Venkatraman has  also  submitted  aj>  part  of  his  arguments  identifying  Ihc 110  workmen  whose  cause  is  championed  by  these  two Unions,  Therefore,  there  is  no  difficulty  to  find  who  these 1 10 workmen  are  who  stake  their  claim  ti>  lie  departmentalis- ed  xinder  the  Management-Company  consequent  on  the  aboli- tion  of  contract  labour  system  of.  mining  and  supply  ol  beach sands  in  the  Management-Company  with  died  fiom 1-11-1980.

3794  THE  GAZETTE  OF  TNDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
contract  fiom  th0  Management  and  thereto)e  it  was  that WW.8  iu  his  own  name  took  the  contact  of  the  work  of the  other  59  woikers  also  with  thc  only  object  of  tor minx  a co-opeiative  society  which  was  subsequently  ioimed  and  the comract  was  transfcireci  to  the  Society.
W.W.8.  Admittedly  he  is  (he  one  of  the  237  letienchcd  work- men  from  the  Company,  lie  is  Serial  No,  349  in  Ex.  M-4. It  should,  also  be  lemcmbcied  that  he  and  four  others,  viz, Kochumani,  Maduaoodan  1'illai,  Chmna  Nadaj  ynd  Mu.hiah who  were  retrenched  along  with  him  in  I960  subsequently became  the  workmen  in  the  mining  area  and  are  now  in- cluded  in  the  group  of  111)  workmen  represented  by  Union No.  1.  W.W.8  would  say  lhat  he  became  a  casii.il  workman under  the  Manugemcn.'-Comp.my  in  IV67  and  he  was  le- Lrcnched  in  1969.  His  taken  numbei  in  the  Management- Company  is  349.  This  is  also  found  support  in  Ex.  W-2  ot Union  No.  4  where  he  has  been  shown  as  Serial  "No.  7J. Under  column  (8)  of  Ex.  W-2  it  can  be  noted  that  the  first appointment  of  David  wan  10-11-1965  and  ihe  total  years  of .sci vice  that  ho  had  put  in  three  years  and  six  months  npto 31-5-1969.  According  lo  him  he  mid  other  four  workmen who  weic  retrencbd  in  VJb9  became  workmen  under  ron- tractoi  Prabhakaran  Nair  from  1969  to  1973.  His  ilaim  if that  contractor  Piabhakaian  Nair  utilised  his  services  as Maistry.  He-  would  proiess  to  have  been  employed  as  a Maistry  under  contractoi  Prabhakaian  Nan.  W.W.8  fuiltri says  that  he  and  59  others  v\cr*  employed  by  contiactor Chelliah frc"m 1971  to  1976.  Ho  claims  )o  have  worked  under Chelliah  contractor  also  as  \listjy  and  he  denies  lhat  W W.3 Mohan  has  worked  as  a  Maistry  under  Chelliah  conn actor or  that  W.W.5  Ihulasi  and  oiheis  had  worked  at  tiiiv  time either  under  contractor  Krabhakaraja  Nair  or  *inaw  Lhclltaii conti aetor,_ W.W.3  in  cum  admits  that  he  dues  nor  know the  various" regislcs  maintained  by  the  contractor!..  It  trans- pires  in  evidence  that  the  con!iact  ol  Challiuh  came  lo  an end  in  1976,  probably  on  31-3-1976.  WAV b  says  that  there was  some  dispute  with  contractor  Challiah  relating  lo  the wages  due  to  him  and  others  and  after  ihe  intervention  of Union  No.  1,  contractor  Chelliah  was  eventually  obliged to  pay  the  amounts  lawfully  dui  to  them.  Ho  says  that he  and  59  others  had  sen;  a  memorandum  to  the  Company on  29-7-1976  under  Ex.  W-60.  Jt  is  also  certain  thai  evtn in  1976, W.W.8  and  59  others  had  been  identified  in  Ex. W.6D. But  Ex.  W-60  docs  not  contain  Ihe  4th  sheet  page  No.  4.  At the  time  of  arguments,  ihe  Management-Company  has  pio- dui.cd  I he  full  Memorandum  received  at  Bombay  Office  ot Ihe  Management-Company  and  that  has  been  received  in  the Bombay  Office  bv  the  Manag-ment-Company  on  3-8-1976, which  contain  all  60  signauuies.  bx.  W-61  is the  tender  quoted by  W.W.8.  Hi- had  also  departed  R-:.  10,000  with  Ihe  Manage- ment.  h\.  W-62  is  the  jominiinkatun  of  Ihe  Management- Company.  He  had  worked  the.  contract  from  15-9-1976  upto 7-3-1977  in  his  name.  Even  in  Ex.  W-63  W.W.S  ha:;  re- quested  the  Deputy  Registrar  of  Co-operative  Societies, Thuckalay  to  form  a  labour  co-operative  society  of  ihe workmen.  Ex.  W-64  is  ilso  another  letter  from  W.W  8  to Ihe  Assistaut  Labour  Commissioner,  Cochin  infouning  him about  the  contract  taken  on  behalf  of  all  workmen  and  ihe intention  to  form  a  co-opej alive  society  and  lequcstiriK  that exemption  fiom  obtaining  licence  may  bL-  granted  fot  f-hort- while  making  it  clear  that  immediately  on  formation  of  th: society,  formal  application  wouM  be  mad;  for  gianf  of licence  in  the  name  of  Cooperative  Society  in  the  pi escribed form.  Ex.  W-65  is  the  Registration  Ceitilicut;  of  ihe  Manav;,]a- kurichi  Minerals  Cooperative  Labom  Conlracl  Socielj  I imlted. Ex.  W-66  is  the  tiansfci  of  .ontr.ict  from  W.W.8  to  the  SroJe y consequent  on  the  formalism  ol  ManavaUkunchi  Mincials  Co- operative  Labour  Contract  Society  Limited  No.  KV.  S,  vfana- valakuiichi.  E\.  W-67  is  the  licence  planted  to  the  Maruivala- kunchi  Minerals  Cooperative  I abour  Contiacl  Sociay  Limited on  18-7-1977  which  was  valid  upto  17 7-197H  whith  was  Lii>a'n renewed  in  197K,  1979  and  1980  as  can  be  seen  from Ex.  W-67.  Ex.  W-68  is  also  another  explanation  submitted by  Ihe  Society  to  the  Assistant  labour  Commissioner,  Hra- rfakulam explaining  the  circumstance,  under  which licence  could not  be  taken,  Therefore  there  is  convincing  materials  to support  the  case  put  forwa.d  by  WAV.M  that  he  and  59  others were  earlier  working  undr-i  contiactoi  Chelliah  fiom  197.1 to  1976  and  under  Continent1  Pjabhakaran  Naii  lrom  1969 to  1973.  It  appears  in  evidence  lhat  towards  Ihe  end  of contract  with  Chelliah  there  was  some  dispute  hehven  con- tractor  and  his  woikmcn  with  n-flanl  to  payment  ot  wa^es due  to  the  workmen.  Whereupon  Union  No  1 a'  (he  lcquest of  W.W.K  and  others  had  intervened  and  prevailed  upon the  Labour  Department  officials  to  dni-cf  contractor  Chelliah to  pay  the  amount!  lawfully  di'e  i(,  the  workmen.  Fn  (IT; circumstances  it  is  not  unreasonable  oi  inipiobnble  lha( W.W.S  ami  59  others  th.maht  it  bcttei  lo  Like  the  contrad dnect  from  the  Management  and  woik  is  mil,  No  doubt  ;f will  take  some  lime  to  woik  out  the  modalities  of  obtaining
 
(,35)  At  this  stage  1  .nay  also  examine-  the  claim  of  Thulasi W.W,5  who  have  joined  Thuckalay  Labour  ConliaU  Co- operative  Society  m  19/7  which  {society  took  om  a  lender which  was  die  lowest  :nid  yet  the  wink  was  not  entrusted  to ii.  He  would  say  lhat  the  {society  had  deposited  Rs.  3()(H) with  the  Management  us  earnest  money  towaids  the  tender, The  I'icsidctit  of  Union  No.  2  W.W.6  would  say  that  all  the woikmen  employed  under  contiaclor  Rathinaswamy  joined Ihuckalaj  Labour  Connact  Co  operative  Society  in  1977.  Ap- paienily,  conlracloi  Ralhruaswamy  vvis  blu.'k  listtd.  1 hcre- loie  the  I'uckalay  Labour  Lontnrcl  Co-operative  bociciy  made bid  lo  obtain  the  work  or  contiact  Hum  thc  Managtimnt- i  ompany  and  appeals  to  have  deposited  RJ, 3000  on  1(5-4-77. Lx  vV-J3  is  ihe  ieplv  received  by  W.W.6  ,to  las  lepresenta lion  lo  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (Central),  Lmakulam over  the  phone  on  18-7-1977.  In  lJx.  W-33,  [he  Assistant Labour  Commissioner  (Central)  has  pointed  out  Unit  thc Management,  does  not  r ^ u ae  this  woik  under  the  present cncumsiances.  1 his  also  -onriims  tn3  stand  oi  the  Manage- ment  that  what  was  enu Listed,  to  contiactoi  Kaihinasvw.ni} and  which  contiact  va9  sought  to  be  taken  by  'Ihuckalay Lar.oui  Contract  Co-opetaiiv^  Suudy  aubsequently  on  the ueposit  ol  Rs.  3,0W)  on  16-4-1977  related  only  to  additional wort  that  ihc  Management  sometimes  icquired  to  bo  en- t,usied  to  the  conliactois.  Thai  also  explains  ;he  fact  lhat for  additional  contract  the  earnest  money  deposit  was Ks.  3,000  as  in  the  case  of  Rathinaswamy,  whciecs  in  thc main  contract  taken  by  W.W,8  thc  earnest  money  deposit was  Ws,  10,000.  Significantly  after  Ex.  W-33  was  received  by W.W.6,  Union  No.  2  has  not  at  aJl  taken  any  sieps  tJ  chal- lenge  in  any  forum  the  conrract  entrusted  by  the  Management vviih  W.W.S  and  59  otheis,  Ihcnlorc  it  is  reasonable  to  hold lhat  thc  woikmen  represented  by  Union  No.  2  hud  absolutely no  niLcrcsl  in  thc  main  contract  which  >\as  enfusted  to  David and  59  oihcts  and  earlier  to  contiaaois  Chelliah  and  Prabha- kaiu.il  Nair.  Ex.  W-37  i;, vopy  of  lcttel  addressed  lo the  Honour- able  Pnme  Minister  of  India  by  W.W,6  on  25-K-I977,  The subject  of  the  communication  is  abolition  of  contract  system  in Jndian  Raie  Earths  1 iimlrd.  Mmitwalaburichy  and  allotment  of the  mining  work  to  Iho  mining  workers  through  the  Co-ope- rative  Society.  Under  Ex.  W-3 7,  W.W.6  would  say  "A  sec- tion  of  minimum  woik  had  been  done  by  the  Indian  Raie 1 arth  Ltd.,  Manavalakurichy  thiough  conti actors."  Probably, the  phiaseology  adopted  or  employed  by  W-W.b  refers  only to  the  additional  contract  taken  by  thc  successive  contractors, ilowevci  hx.  W-^7  does  not  iffci  to  Thulassi  W.W.5  and 39  others.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  simply  stated  lhat  4 mining  vvoikeis  had  been  doing  this  mining  woik  undei successive  contractors  for  tlv:  last  six  years.  The  last  con- tractor  is  also  mentioned  as  Rathnaswamy  and  therefore  it is  obvious  that  thc  woikraen  whose  cause  is  championed  by this  Union  were  woiking  only  under  successive  contractors who  aie  taken  additional  conduct  work  of  mining  area  for a  paiticulai  period  or  seasons.  In  E\  W-37,  it  is  further pointed  out  that  "il  the  work  is  not  given  to  Thuikolay  So- ciety,  42  woikejs  who  had  been  doing  the  same  work  lor th;  last  si\  years  will  be  uirowa  out  of  employment."  From ljv  W-37  il  can  be  conrJucLiil  thut  thc  42  workmen  had v orked  only  fiom  1971  ajwards  and  not  fmm  1970  as  has been  put  foiwird  b\  Union  I Jo. 2  only  in  thcii  leply  statement before  this  Tribunal.  No  doubt,  il  is  also  mentioned  in 1 x.  W-37  that  it  the  work  h  noi  given  to  this  Si/cicty,  these 42  woikers  who  were  woiking  in  (he  mining  uiea  in  Indian l

3795
wilh  the  prockdui-'  laid  down  in  istancHng  Older No.  4  o!  the  Man.iKtmenl-'  onipany's  Ccitlhcd Standing  Oi'Jois  C*  M-ll,  and
(c)  the  workmen  so  to  be  absorbed  must  be  ceilified  lo be  medically  111  <.m bein^  medically  examined  \:y the  Company's  Medica'  Olliccrs.
(in)  The  Management  should  recinit  60  woikmen  out  of the  110  woikmen  lastly  cmploied  thiough  Manavalakunchi JNlincial  Co-oncialive  Laboui  Coni.ncl  Society  and  not  work- men  under  any  other  conlractoi  oi  contras-tois.
liv)  The  woikmen  of  \hc  Company  iclirnchcd  in  1%9  aic not  justified  in  demanding  preicience  in  emplo\ment  as  per Section  25H  ol  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  while  the Management  proposes  to  tul.e  in  th-iir  employment  bO  VVOIK- racn  on  abolition  of  the  contiiict  labour  wystem.
(v)  The  Manascmcnt-C; )mpany  can  piocecd  to  take  woiK- men  retmnched  in  196y  against  plant  aica  workeis  a£jinst th;  vacancies  that  would  have  arisen  after  l-cbruar>,  1981 without  wailing  for  the  absoipiion  of  ihe  fiO  erstwhile  con- tract  labour  workmen  under  ihe  present  Awaid.
(vi)  The  ftO  woikmen  so  ordeicd  to  be  absorbed  by  tho Management-Company  .& n  lcsull  oi  thi,  Awaid  would  not be  entitled  to  any  monctaiy  benefit  fiom  1-11-1980  tjll  the date  of  their  actual  absorption.  However,  the  period  from 1-11-1980  till  the  date  of  actual  absoiption  by  the  Manafie- nient-Company  will  in  futur^  count  for  their  services  under the  Management-Company.
(viii)  in  the  peculiai  circumstances,  I  direct  all  the  parties
to  beai  their  respective  costs.
Dated,  this  22nd  day  of  September,  1082.
T.  SUDMtS^NAM  DAN1LL,  Piesidinc  Officer
INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL
WITNLSSES  aXAMIHb'D
For  woikmen :
For  Union  4.
W W.I—Thiiu  K,  f.  F.ajan. W.WI2—Ihiru  S.  Narayana  Nadar.
For1  Union  2. W.W.3—Thiru  R.  Mohan. W.W.4—  „  S  \ppadurai W.W.5—  „  M,  ThuUsi. W.W.6—  „  J.  Jime*
For  Union  1. W.W.7—Thiru  G.  Philip. W.W.8—  „  D.  David. W . W 9-  „  N.  Sahadevan.
For  Unio'i  ?.
W.W. 10—Thiru  T.  Thankaiaj.
I or  Management  :
M.W.I  -Thiru  N,  S.  Nair,  Personnel  Manager.
DOCUMENTS  MARKFD
For  workmen :
Lx.  W-1 Z27-5-69—No-ice  of  thc  Managcmcn'  stating that il  is  not  possihle  to  pioviJc  employment  to  casual employees,
filzo/nl.

3796  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  I,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
Ex.  W-K/24-1 1-81 — Common  affidavit  of  Thiru  YCMJ
Sclvaraj  in  W.I.  Nos.  1162/81,  1257/81  and  6128/ HI.
Ex.  W-9/18-11-81—Lonimcn  counter  affidavit  of  Manage- ment  in  W.P.  Nos.  8T/SI,  1162/K1,  1257/81  anil 6128|8l.
Ex.  W-IO/  -11-81-  Counter  affidavit  of  the  Management in  L..M.P.  (No.  iJZOVtSl  in  W.A.  No.  513, Kl
r x.  W-l 1/24-2-81—His>h  Court's  Ordci  in  W.M.P.  Nos.
100  and  1388/81  m  W.P.No.  81/81.
Fx.  W-12/25-3-81—Hiqh  Court's  order  in  W.M.P.  Nos 1785  and  2109/81  in  W.P.  Nos.  1257/81  and W.M.P.  No.  1644/81  in  W.P.  No.  1162/81,
Ex.  W.-13/4-11-81—High  Court, a  order  in  W.A.  Nos.
128  and  192/81.
Ex.  W-14/26-11-81—High  Court's  order  in  C.M.P,  Nos. 13205  and  13207/81  in  W.A.  Nos.  513  and  514/81.
hx.  W-l5/26-4-82—High  Court's  Judgment  in  W.A.
513  and  514/81.
Ex,  W-16/3-6-68—Stiike  notice  issued  by  the  IndLn Rare  Farths  Employees'  Union,  Mannvalakuiichy.
F\.  W-17/24-8-68—Lettei  from  the  Management  to the Assistant  Labour  Ommissioner  (Ccntial),  Ernaku- lam  regarding  employment  of  employees  engaged  by Hopkins  and  williames  (Tiav.)  Ltd,  or  Tiavancoie Minerals  Ltd.
Ex.  W-18/30-8-68—Conciliation  failure  report.
Kx,  Wi-19/10-9-68—Letter  fiom  the  Government  of India  acknowledging  receipt  of  conciliation  lcpoit.
Ex.  W-20/24-3-69—Government's  Order  declining  to  refer the  demands  regarding  permanency  of  workmen  and abolition  of  contract  system  for  adjudication.
K\.  W-21/23-9-70—High  Court's  order  in  W.P.  No.
1640/69.
Ex.  W-22/19-1-74—Charter  of  demands  of  Union  4.
Ex.  W-23/  -12-81—Common  counlcr  nflldavit  of Thiru  O.  Philip  in  CM  P.  in  W.A.  No.  513/81.
Ex.  W-24/24-1181—High  Couit's  Order  in  W.P.  Nos.
81,  1162,  1257  ?nd  6128/R1.
Fx.  W-25/1-6-79—Letter  from  the  Cential  Government to  Thiru  S.  Righavan  Pillai  and  othcis  regarding re-instatement  of  workers  in  service.
E\.  W-26/23-5-79—Letter  from  the  Assistant  Labour Commissioner  (Ct-nhal).  Frnafculdm  to  Tliiru  S. Raghavan  Pillai  regaiding  re-insiatcment  of  re- trenched  workers.
Fx,  W-27/3-2-80—Recoul  not  of  discussion  held  before the  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (C),  Ernakulam in  the  matter  of  hunger  strike  by  Union-2.
EK.  W-28/27-11-80—Letter  from  Union-4  to  the  Labour Minister  and  the  Labour  Department  requesting  for employment  to  the  workmen.
Ex.  W-29/3-1-75— letter  frorr  Thiin  Md.  fsmail,  M.P, to  the  Minister  Tor  Labour,  Government  of  India,
Ex.  W-30/13-1-75—Reply  letter  from  the  Minister  for
Labour,  Government  of  Indh,  to  Ex.  W-29.
Ex,  W-3 1121-1-11—Charter  of  demands  of  Union-4  to
the  Management.
Fx.  W-32—Muster  ioil  of  workers  working  under W W4  for  the  period  from  Tiuuniv,  1975  to  March, 1976.
Ex.  W-33—Letter  from  thi  Assistant  I ahour  Commis- sioner  (Central),  Cochin  to  W.W.fi  regarding  award- ing  of  contract  to  the  Thuckahy  Labour  Contiact Co-operative  Societv.
Ex.  W-34—Tetter  from  the  Thuckalay  Labour  Contiact Co-operative  Society  Ltd.,  to  the  Management  at Bombay  requesting  to  direct  the  Works  Manager  to allow  the  members  of  the  above  Society  to  execute the  work.
Ex.  W-35/4-7-77—Letter  fiom  the  Thuckalay  labour Contiacl  Co-operative  Society  Ltd.,  to  the  Manage- ment  at  Manavalnkuridii  requesting  that  the  abo\e Society  may  be  allotted  the  contiact  work.
hx.  W-36/17-11-80—Representation  of  W.W.6  to  the Prime  Minister  and  o,her  authorities  requesting  to direct  the  Management  to  give  employment  to  Thulasi and  39  contract  workers.
E\.  W-37/25-8-77—ReptesenUtion  ol  W.W.fi  to  the Prime Minister  requesting  to  direct  the  Management  to entrust  the  contract  work  to  his  society  or  employ 42  woikers  for  the  mining  work.
FA.  W-38/27-11-80—Letter  fiom  Thiru  Lra  Sezhion, M.P.  to  the  Chaiiman,  Contract  Labour  Abolition Consultative  Committee.  New  Ddm.
Rx.  W-39/18-2-81—Letter  -from  Thiru  Era  Sebhian, M.P.  to  the  Minister  for  Labour  and  Planning, New  Delhi.
Ex.  W-40/28-7-64 — Letter  from  the  Labour  Inspector (Central),  Trivnndrum  to  the  Labour  Contract  So- ciety,  Thuckalay  and  2  other,,  requesting  to  produce wage  registers,  muster  rolls,  etc.,  of  workers.
Lx.  W-41/6-8-82—letter  from  the  Deputy  Con'missionci of  Labour,  rirunelyeli  to  Thiru  Yoga  Pushpadars returning  Wage  Register.
Ex,  W-42  series  21-4-76—Annual  return  for  the  yeai
1975  of  Union  No,  1.
Ex.  W-43/30-6-79—-Letter  from  the-  Prime  Minister  of
India  to  Dr.  M.  J.  Moses,  M.P.
Ex.  W-44/6-3-79—Letter  from  Di.  M.  Moses,  M.P.  to
the  Prime  Minister  of  India.
Ex.  W-45/24-7-79—Letter  from  the  Government  to  Union No.  1  regarding  introduction  of  mechanical  mining
at  Manavalakurichi.
E\.  W-46/8-8-79—Letter  from  Union  No.  1  to  the  Gov- ernment  regaidin"  introduction  of  mechanical  mining
at  Manavalakurichi.
Ex.  W-47/2-10-79—Letter  from  Union  No.  1  to  the  Re- gional  Labour  Commissioner  (C),  Madras  to Ex.  W-47.
Ex.  W-48/4-2-80—Reply  letter  from  the  Regional  La- bour  Commissioner  (C),  Medras  to  Fx.  W-47.
Ex.  W-49/21-7-80—Petition  by  Union  No.  1  before  the Chairman,  Ccntial  Advisory  Board  for  abolition  of contract  labour  and  absorption  of  the  wrrkers  us regular  and  permanent  workmen  by  the  Management.
Ex.  W-50/11-8-80—Letter  from  the  Central  Advisory Contract  Labour  Boatd  to  Union  No.  1  requesting to  participate  in  the  13th  meeting.
Ex.  W-51-series—Minutes  of  the  Meeting  of  the  Central
Advisory  Contiact  Labour  Board  held  on  19-8-80.
Ex  W-52/9-12-80— Letter  from  Union  No.  1  to  the Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (C),  Ernakulam  re- garding  employment  of  contract  workers.
Ex.  W-53/4-2-81—Memorandum  of  settlement  u/s  IPU) of  the  LD.  Act,  1947  between  the  Manacement  and their  workmen  tepresented  by  Unions  1  ond  3,
Ex,  W-54—Bye-laws  of  Union  Ni,  1.
Ex.  W-55—Minutes  Book  of  Union  No.  1.
Ex.  W-56/6-5-78—Memorandum  of  settlement  u/s  12(3)
of  the  f.D.  Act,  1947  between  parties.
Ex.  W-57/27-1-75—Memonindum  of  settlement  u/s, 12(5> of  the  I.D,  Act,  1947  between  the  Manaaement  and their  workmen  represented  by  Unions  1,  3  and  4.
Ex.  W-5K/9-12-75—Memorandum  of  settlement  between
the  ManaRemcnt  and  Unions  1 and  3.
Ex,  W-59/6-10-81—Letter  from  the  Deputy  Commis- sioner  of  Labour.  Tirimelveli  to  Union  No.  1  statine (hat  Union  No.  2  has  been  cancelled  by  the  Deputy Labour  Commissioner,  Madurai.

3797
F\.  W-60,'29-7-76—Memorandum  submitted  by  W.W.8 and  others  to  the  Managing  Director  of  the  Com- pany  for  awarding  contract.
Kx.  W-61/30-7-76—Tender  applications  subtnitied  by
W.W.8  to  the  Management.
Ex.  W-62/16-H-76—Letter  from  the  Management  award-
ing  contract  to  W.W.8.
Fx.  W-63/22-9-76—Letter  fiom  W.W.8  to  ihc  Deputy Registrar  of  Co-opcrntivi!  Societies,  Thuekalay  re- garding  formation  of  Laboui  Co-operative  Society.
Ex,  W-64/12-10-76—-Letter  from  W \V S  to  the  Assistant Labour  Commissioner,  Cochin  lequesting  for  exemp- tion  from  obtainitiK  the  licence.
Ex.  W-65/31-3-77—Regulation  certificate  of  the  Manava- Iakurichj  Minerals  Co-operative  Labour  Contract Society  Limited.
Ex.  W-66/27-4-77—Agiiemcnt  transferring  the  contract work  to  the  Manavalakuiichi  Mineral,  Co-opei ativc Labour  Contract  Society  Limited,
Ex.  W-68/18-7-77—Licence  granted  to  Manavalakurichi Minerals  Co-operative  Labour  Contract  Society Limited.
Fx,  W-68/2-5-77—Lettei  from  the  Manavalakurichi  Mi- nerals  Co-operative  Labour  Contract  Society  Ltd., to  the  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner,  Cochin  fur- nishing  some  information  for  grant  of  licence,
Fx.  W-69—Register  of  wagcs-cum-muslt:r  roll  for  ifle period  from  15-9-76  to  2-4-77  maintained  by  W.W.8.
Fx.  W-70/17-6-78—Letter  from  the  Manavalakuiichi  Mi- nerals  Co-operative  Labour  Contract  Society  Lid., to  the  Licensing  Officer  for  renewal  of  licence.
Ex.  W-71—Register  of  wages  cum-mustci  roll  of  the Manavalakurichi  Minerals  Co-operative  Labour  Con- tract  Society  Ltd.,  for  the  period  from  4-4-77  to 22-9-78,
Ex.  W-72—  — Jo  -  for  the  period  from 23-0-78  to  30-6-79.
Ex.  W-73—  —do—  for  the  period  from 2-7-79  to  2-8-80.
Fx.  W-74—  - d o—  for  (he  period  from 27-10-80  to  31-10-80  and 4-8-80  to  25-10-RO
Ex.  W-75—  —do—  for  the  period  from 2-1-78  to  10-6-78.
Ex.  W-7fi—  —do—•  for  the  period  fiom 12-fi-78  to  22-9-78.
Fx,  W-77—  —do—  for  the  period  from 23-9-78  tc  26-5-79.
hx.  W-78—  —do—  for  the  period  frrm 28-5-79  to  10-5-80.
Ex..  W-79—  — do—  for  the  period  from 12-5-80  to  31-10-80. (Pages  1 to  85  in
Tx.  W-74)
Ev  W-80—Employees  Provident  Fund  Register  of  the
Manavalakurichi  Minerals  Co-operative  T aboui  Con- tract  Society  Limited.
Ex.  W-81—Tender  Form  for  the  wort  of  mininp  and
collection  of  raw  sane1.
Fx.  W-82/13-9-78—Manimcmenfs  letter  awarding  Ihc contract  work  to  the  Manavalakuriihi  Co-opei alive labour  Contract  Sodi-ly  Limited.
Fx.  W-8V21-9-78—Tendci  agreement  between  fhc Management  and  the  Manavalakurichi  Minerals  Co- operative  Labour  Contract  Society  Limited.
824  G1782—6
Fx.  W-84/10-9-8O—Letter  from  the  Management  to  the Manavalakurichi  Minerals  Co-operative  Labour  Con- tract  Society  Ltd.,  extending  the  contract  work  upon 31-10-80.
Ex.  W-85  scries  (60  Nos.)—Provident  Fund  Annual  state- ment  of  accounts  of  the  workers  of  the  Manavala- kurichi  Minerals  Labour  Contract  Society  for  the year  ending  31-3-1980.
For  Management
Ex.  M-l/26-5-69—Memorandum  of  settlement  between the  Management  and  (he  workmen  represented  by Union-4,
Ex.  M-2/18-7-68—Memorandum  of  settlement  u /s  12(3) of  the  I.D.  Act,  1947  between  the  Management  nr.d the  workmen  repiesentcd  by  Unions  1,  2  and  3.
Ex.  M-3  series  (59  Nos.)—Medical  reports  of  the  work- men,  (Produced  at  the  instance  of  Union-2).
Hx.  M-4/27-5-69—Notice  of  letrcnchment  of  employees.
Ex.  M-5—Muster  roll  from  26-1-b'J  to  1-2-69  of  the daily  rated  casual  workers  (Register)  (Produced  flt the  instance  of  Union-4).
Ex.  M-6//3-12-80—Record  note  of  discussions  held before  the  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (C),  Ern- kulam  in  the  matter  of  hunger  strike  by  Union  No,  2
Ex.  M-7/19-1-81—Appointment  order  of  Fhiru  M. Ayyappan  Filial  (produced  at  the  instance  of Union-4).
Ex.  M<-8/28-8-74—Letter  fiom  the  Government  to  the Management  for  conferlng  recognition  on  Union No.  1.
Ex,  M-9/2-2-81—Letter  from  the  Deputy  Chief  Labour Commissioner  (C),  New  Delhi  to  the  Management regarding  absorption  of  contract  labour.
fx.  M-10/17-1-81—Letter  from  the  Management  to  the Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  (C),  M.  Ernakulam regarding  abolition  of  contiact  labour  system  and absolution  of  workers.
Fx.  M-ll—Standing  Orders  for  workmen  of  the  Manage-
ment.
Note  :  Documents  marked  for  each  Union?  ;—
For  Union  No.  4  : Exs.  W-l  to  W-22,  W-25  toW-31
For  Union  No.  2  :  Exs.  W-23,  W-32  to  W-41.
For  Unions  1  and  3  •  F.xs.  W-24,  W-42  series  1"
W-85  scries.
KANWAR  RA1INDER  SINGH,  Under  Sscy.
[L-43OI 2(11/81-D.IIKB)! T.  SUDARSANAM  DANIEI  ,  Presiding  Officer
New  Delhi,  the  11 ;h  October.  1982
S.O.  3640.—In  puisuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947).  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Central  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal,  Jabalpur,  in  the  industrial  dispute between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of Messrs  Western  Coalfields  Limited,  Knmhun  Area  and  theii woikmen.  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government on  the  6th  October,  1982.
BFFORE  JUSTICE  SHRI  S.  R.  W AS  IRFTD  )  PRESIDING OFFICER.  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUAL-CUM-LABOUR  COURT.  JABALPUR  (M.P.)
CASE  NO  CGIT  'LC(RK27)/19R2
Parties :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  M/s.  West- ern  Coalfields  T  imited,  K;inhan  Area  in  relation  to their  Sukii  Colliery  nnd  their  workman,  Shri  Asgar Khan  represented  through  the  Koyala  Mazdoor Pancnayat  (HMS)  Post  Oflkc,  Tunnardco,  District Cbhindwara  (M.V.1.

3798  THb  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  1982/KART1KA  1,  1904  PART  TI—SbC.  3(ii.)]
APPEARANCES:
l-'or  workman—Shi\  Cr,  N,  S>hah,  Union  Rcpiesenliitive.
For  management—Shri  P.  S.  Nail,  Advocate.
INDUSTRY:  Cool.  DISTRICT:  C hhmdwara  (M.P.)
AWARD
Dated,  September  J9H2
The  Uosernmenl  ot  India  in  the  Ministry  of  Labour  vide its  Notification  No.  L-22O12C1 )/82-D.IV(.B)  dated  31-3-1982 has  leferred  the  following  dispute  to  this  11 lbunaL  for adjudication  ;—
"Whethci  the  action  or  the  manaj;ement  
2.  Biicfly  stated  the  fads  jiivini:  use  to  this  jefeience aic  these  ;  Shu  Asgar  khnn.  heiein.irisi  tefcrred  to  at  the workman,  was  employed  as  a  Mechanical  l-ittei  in  the  Sukn Colliery  ot  the  Western  Coalfields  1 imited.  As  pei  lettei Ex,  W/l  dated  23-4-1480  issued  by  the  Collieiy  Manngci the  workman  was  informed  that  ns  liom  the  colliery  iccords he  had  completed  the  age  jf  60  years  he  will  he  liable  foi retnement.  The  workman  was  nccoidingly  noticed  thai  his sctvices  will  stand  terminated  from  Ma.,  23,  1980  , nd  in
t he  m e a n w h i le  he  w as  a d v i s ed  10  n et  h is  • j e t v i ce  I C C O KI
finalised  loi  the  determination  ot  his  dues.  The  workman vide  his  application  E\.  M, S  dated  ]7-?-J'JSO  icprescnled that  he  had  not  completed  the  age  ol  60  years;  that  he nas  puxluclriB  docnmentaiv  evidence  to  show  that  Ihc  date of  his  biith  as  tecorded  in  the  management's  ic-coids  was npt  coriect  and  that  hr  was  mt  liable  for  telircment.  The colliery  Manage*  thereafter  vide  Ex.  M/4  dated  17-9-1980 infoimed  him  that  accoi cling  lo  the  eolliciy  iccoids  he  had completed  the  age  °f  60  ycuis  .did  he  -v,is  liable  lor  ictire- mcnl.  He  was  again  given  om  month's  notict  and  intimated (hat  his  set vices  shall  stand  teiminated  Irom  Oclobei  10.  1980. The  colheiy  management  thcieaf'er  lerminate.1  Ihc  services of  the  workman  on  the  ground  that  according  lo  the  colliery recoids  he  had  comnlclcd  th=  ai:c  of'  60  scar;,  and  was theiefore  liable  for  retiiemeiit.
3.  In  his  statement  i(  claim  the  woikman  has  contended that  two  leliiemcnl  ordcis  have  bren  passed  against  him, neither  of  which  is  a  valid  mdci;  th.it  the  workman  had produced  documentary  evidence  (which  shall  be  consideied later)  lo  prove  thai  he  had  not  completed  the  (SO  vears  of age;  that  the  management  has  failed  to  give  duJ  weight  to he  documentary  evidence  piodu:ed  by  the  woikman,  that there  is  no  provision  cither  in  law  Oi  in  anv  rule  having the  fotce  of  law,  whereby  the  woikman  can  he  letired  on completing  the  60  years  of  ai/C,  thai  the  action  of  Ihe management  in  terminating  his  sem'cc  without  p.opei  com- pliance  of  the  provisions  of  the  Indtisiiial  Disptites  Act, hcrcinaftci  referred  to  as  Ihe  Act,  was  illegal;  and  that  the workman  is  entitled  lo  \\-  reinstated  with  all  benefits  of back  wages  etc.
4.  As  reg.uds  the  liabilily  of  the  woikmun  fm  reiiiemenl aflei  completing  the  asjc  of  60  years  it  is  alleged  by  Ihe management  that  the  employees  of  the  ccal  mines  by  mutual consent,  practice  and  convention  letire  aftei  completing  the age  of  60  years;  that  the  woiking  in  the  coal  mining  is  a hazarduous  work  and  lor  that  relsons  provision  has  been made  for  retirement  afUr  completing  the  particular  age  and that  the  workman  was  letirfd  according  to  the  rules  in force.
5  The  statement  of  ;he  management  in  (heir  lejoindei is  thai  though  the  woikman  initially  was  icfiied  ;j>,  ptr  letter dutcd  3-4-1980  (Fx.  W/I)  but  because  of  an  application  f.om the  workman  compliance  of  tint  le'tei  was  held  in  abey- ance,  that  when  the  management  came  lo  the  conclusion that  the  workman's  date  ol  birth  uas  1-7-1920  ihcn  he  was liable  for  letircmcnt;  thai  for  these  reasons  another  notice was  seived  and  the  workman  was  retired  from "20-10-1QKD; that  the  documents  produced  by  the  uoikman  in  support of  his  claim  foi  the  date  c(  birtli  were  nol  reliable  and that  the  workman  was  liable  for  re'irement  No  -eioindei was  filed  on  behalf  of  the  woikman.
6.  On  the  aforesaid  pleadings  of  the  parties  the  following
issues  were  framed  :—
ISSUES
(1)  Whethei  the  management  of  the  Sukii  Collieiy,  W.C. Ltd,  was justified  in  letning  the  workman,  Shii  Asgai Khan  on  20-10-80  on  the  ground  that  he  had  already completed  60  yeais  ol  age  on  that  date?
(21  To  what  lelief  aie  the  parties  entitled  to 7 findings  on  the  aforesaid  issues  are :—
7.  My  findings  on  the  aforesaid  issues  aie:—
(1)  The  management  has  proved  lhat  on  20-10-1980  the workman,  Shri  Asgar  Khan,  had  completed  the  age ol  60  vears.
(2)  Inspitc  of  the  fact  that  the  workman  had  completed the  age  of  60  years  he  was  not  liable  for  retire- ment.
(3)  The  workman  is  entitled  to  be  reinstated  with  all
benefits  of  back  wages  etc.
8.  'Ihe  first  question  that  aiis.es  for  consideration  is  as  to what  is  the  date  of  birth  of  the  workman.  So  fai  as  the colliery  lecords  aie  concerned  it  is  not  disputed  by  the  work- man  that  in  the  Foim  B  Register  maintained  under  the Mines  Act  his  date  of  birth  has  been  tecorded  as  I-7-1920. The  woikman  was  an  employee  of  the  Amalgamated  Pench Valley,  t-klehrn  Collieiy,  pnoi  to  the  nationalisation.  Subse- quent  to  the  nationalisation  of  the  coal  mines  he  became an  employee  of  the  Western  Coalfields  Limited.  Et.  M72  is a  scivice  tecord  in  which  the  date  of  birth  has  been  shown as.  1-7-1980.  E.\.  1VF/1  is  a  letter  from  the  Provident  Fund Commissioner,  Jabalpur,  in  which  Provident  Fund  Commis- sioner  from  his  recoid  has  certified  the  date  of  birth  of  the workman  as  1-7-1920.  'I his  is  all  the  evidence  on  which the  management  relies  for  its  contention  that  as  the  date  of biith  of  the  workman  is  I-7-1920  he  had  on  the  date  of  his- retirement  (20-10-1980)  completed  the  age  of  60  years.  As against  this  evidence,  the  workman  relics  on  E\.  \V/2.  This is  a  certified  copy  of  Ihe  Kolwaii  Book  of  Village  Paltan, Tahsil  Mnltai,  District  Bctul,  according  to  which  one  son was  hoin  to  Hasan  PinjjM  on  6-9-1925.  Ex.  VV/3  is  an Affidavit  attested  by  the  Fxectitive  Magistrate  in  which  the workman  has  stated  on  oath  that  according  to  the  Kotwari Hook  his  date  of  birth  is  6-9-1925.  The  la.st  document  le- lied  upon  by  the  workman  is  Ex.  W/4—a  Ceitificate  from Ihe  Civil  Surgeon,  Chhindwara  in  which  the  Civil  Surgeon ceitificd  orp  Novcmhei  12,  1980  lhat  in  his  opinion  the  age of  (he  workman,  Shi i  \sghar  Khan  is  about  55  years.
9.  1  have  considered  the  evidence  given  by  both  the parties  In  my  opinion,  the  evidence  given  bv  the  manage- ment  is  more  leliablc  and  conclusive  as  compared  to  the evidence  given  b\  the  workman
10.  It  is  not  denied  that  the  workman  is  a  prc-nationali- sation  employee  of  ihe  Amalgamated  Penc1i  Valley,  1-klehnra Collieiy  fn  the  seivice  lecoid  the  dute  ol  birth  has  been shown  as  1-7-1920,  According  to  the  lecords  of  the  Provi- dent  Fund  Commissioner,  Jabalpui.  the  dale  of  birth  of the  workman.  Shi i  Asiihar  Khan,  is  also  1-7-1920.  There is  no  leason  to  believe  that  in  the  collieiy  in  which  the workman  was  initially  employed  i.e.  the  Amalgamated  Pench Valley  Eklchia  Colliery  a  false  entry  legarding  the  date  of biith  of  the  workman  would  be  made  by  Ihe  management of  the  Colliery.  In  the  Piovident  fund  Commissioner's records  also  1-7-1920  is  recoided  as  the  date  ol"  biith  of the  workman.  Ordinarily  unless  the  workman  is  able  to prove  that  his  pievious  employer  and  the  Provident  Hind Commissioner  also  mnde  false  entries  in  theii  official  re- cords  till  then  it  will  have  to  he  saij  tlvrt  these  records  do contain  genuine  entiles
11.  The  workman  has  contended  that  no  sooner  he  re- ceived  the  first  nolice  of  letirement  he  made  an  application F.v  M/5  and  produced  a  Certificate  Fx.  VV/2,  an  Affidavit Ex.  VV/3  and  the  Civil  Surgeon's  Certificate  Ex.  W/4  which conclusively  establish  that  the  date  of  birth  recorded  in the  \fines  record  is  not  correct  and  consequently  his  re- tirement  on  the  basis  of  these  records  is  also  invalid.

3799
12.  No  lelianee  can  be  placed  on  l.\.  W/2  .is  it  is  not shown  undci  what  piovisions  of  lav,  ihis  Kotwari  Hook  was maintained.  Moreovei  nil  that  can  he  icad  from  the  ceiti- ficate  is  that  one  H.is.in  Pinjarn  ol  Village  Pallan  is  s;ud to  have  gi\L-n  ;i  hirth  to  a  son  on  6-9-192.*;.  Some  evidence should  have  been  given  that  Hanan  Pinj.ir;i  is  the  same person  as  the  falher  of  the  woikman  and  that  the  entiy E\.  W/2  idale!,  lo  the  With  of  the  woikman  only  and  not lo  the  hirth  ol  any  othei  child  of  Hasan  Pmj.ira.  It  some pci-son  residing  in'  the  village  had  heen  examined  who  could thiow  light  on  the  question  of  the  number  of  issues  horn to  Shn  Pinjjin  as  also  the  identity  of  the  woikman  that he  is  the  same  child  whose  hirth  has  heen  recorded  in  Ex. W/2.  In  my  opinion,  theiefoie,  no  reliance  can  he  pKiced on  such  a  certificate.
13.  Ex.  W/3  is  an  Allidavit  swoin  by  the  woikman  him- self.  The  statement  made  by  the  applicant  is  in  his  own favour.  It  is  dated  12-.VI9K0  and  was  made  after  the  first notice  Ex.  W/l  dated  23-4-19N0  was  served  on  him.  Any statement  made  by  a  peison  in  hjs  own  favour  after  the dispute  has  arisen  has  no  evidentially  value  and  therefoic  is of  no  assistance  to  the  woikman.
14.  The  last  document  lelied  upon  bv  the  woikman  is Ex.  W/4,  a  certificate  of  the  Civil  Surgeon,  Chhindwaia. This  certificate  also  in  mv  opinion,  docs  no'  help  the  woik- man.  The  certificate  remains  unproved  as  the  Civil  Surgeon has  not  been  examined  in  this  case.  The  certificate  is  not a  speaking  certificate  in  us  much  as  it  does  not  give  the leasons  for  the  conclusion  iecoided  theiein.  lastly,  all  that is  stated  in  that  certificate  is  that  the  person  by  name, Ashgar  K.han,  examined  by  him  DB  12-11-1980  i.e.  aftei the  workman's  letiremeril,  appeared  to  be  about  the  age of  *>5  veais.  Such  Li  certificate  which  '.jives  an  appioximate age  of  a  person  examined  hy  the  Doctor  cannot  he  tieatcd as  conclusive  of  the  precise  age  of  the  workman
US.  Having  thus  considered  the  evidence  given  hy  both the  parties  1  find  that  the  evidence  given  h\  the  management which  comes  [mm  a  icliable  sotnee,  has  to  be  accepted  in prcfciencc  to  the  evidence  given  hy  the  workman  I  yc cordingly  hold  that  as  ihe  woikman  w;is  hoin  on  1-7-1420 he  had  crossed  the  age  of  fid  \eais  on  20-10-1980  when he  wiis  retired  fioni  the  collieiv  seivices.
16  Having  come  the  conclusion  Ihat  the  woikman  hud completed  60  years  of  age  on  the  date  of  letirement,  the next  important  question  is  as  to  whether  the  workman  was liable  to  be  letired  and  his  seivices  weie  liable  to  be  ter- minated  on  this  ground  only.
17.  The  management  has  not  tendered  in  evidence  as  to what  were  the  tcims  ot  employment  of  the  workman  either when  he  was  an  employee  of  the  prc-nationalisej  coal  mines or  as  an  employee  of  the  piesent  colliery.  Shri  R.  K.  Singh (M.W.I)  in  his  statement  stated  that  theic  arc  departmen till  ciiculars  according  to  which  a  woikman  in  the  mines letires  on  completing  the  ,i;te  of  6(1  years.  No  departmental circular  has  either  been  pioduced  or  proved  In  his  cross- examination  he  admits  that  the  colliery's  Standing  OrdeM do  not  piovide  for  the  letiremenl  of  the  workman  on  his attaining  the  age  of  fiO  years.  No  othei  witness  has  been examined  hy  the  management.  1|  thus  becomes  clear  that so  far  as  the  management's  evidence  is  concerned  theie  is no  light  thrown  on  the  terms  of  the  employment  of  the workman.  Evidently  theiefyre  it  has  to  he  inferred  thai according  to  the  terms  of  the  employment  of  the  woikman there  was  no  stipulation  foi  his  retirement  on  completing the  age  of  60  years.
18.  It  is  admitted  by  Shii  R.  K.  Singh  (M.W.l)  that  so far  as  the  Standing  Orders  of  the  Colliery  arc  concerned no  piovision  has  heen  made  for  the  workman's  rethement on  his  completing  the  age  of  60  years  Thus  in  the  absence of  nny  evidence  legarding  the  terms  of  employment  .md  in other  provisions  having  the  torce  of  law  permitting  lctire- ment  of  a  workman  on  his  completing  the  age  of  60  ye.its ihe  consequential  question  that  arise  foi  adjudication  is  as lo  what  is  Ihe  effect  of  such  an  absence  on  the  termination of  the  seivices^  of  the  work/ian  in  this  case.
19.  The  question  i aised  in  this  case  is  no  doubt  an  im- portant  question  In  the  ordinary  sense  when  a  peison  enters in  service  it  is  piesumed  that  he  will  cease  to  he  in  service on  attaining  a  paiticulai  age.  Thus,  letirement  is  a  conse- quence  of  entering  into  the  seivice  in  the  oidinaiy  circum- stances.  But  the  question  ol  ictuemcnt  is  governed  either by  the  terms  of  some  agiecment  between  the  parties  oi  by any  provision  of  law  o,  uile  having  ihe  toicc  of  law.  Since in  the  instant  case,  theie  is  no  evidence  that  in  terms  of employment  and  piovision  of  law  oi  uile  having  the  force of  kiw  ihc  woikman's  lclirenient  on  attaining  the  age  oL 60  ycais  must  be  held  as  unjustified.
20.  "Ihc  woid  "lctienchment"  has  been  defined  in  Sec.2(oo)
of  the  I.D.  Act  as  undei  : —
"'retrenchment"  means  the  leimimition  bv  the  employei
of  the  sci vice  of  a  workman  foi  any  reason  whal- soevci,  othciwise  than  as  a  punishment  inflicted  by way  of  disciplinary  action,  but  does  not  include—
(a)  voluntary  retirement  of  the  woikman,  oi
(h)  letiienient  of  the  workman  on  icaching  the  age of  supeiannuation  iL  the  cnntiact  of  employment between  the  employei  and  the  workman  concerned contains  a  stipulation  in  that  behalf  ;  oi
(c)  tcimination  ol  the  seivice  of  a  woikman  on  the
ground  of  continued  ill-health  "
It  is  not  the  case  of  the  management  that  the  workman had  sought  voluniaiy  retiiement.  It  is  also  not  the  case of  (he  management  thai  the  workman's  services  were  ter- minated  on  the  giound  ol  continued  ill-health.  The  retire- ment  contemplated  hy  Clause  (h)  of  (he  afoiesaid  Section provides  thai  woikman  can  be  leliied  on  reaching  the  age of  supeumnuation  if  the  contiact  of  employment  between the  emplovei  and  the  woikman  concerned  contains  u  sti- pulation  in  that  bchall.  If  the  teiminalion  of  the  seivices does  not  I all  either  ir,>  Ckuhc  (a)  oi  Clause  (b)  or  Clause (c)  of  Sec.  2(oo)  of  the  AU  then  it  has  to  he  concluded that  the  woikman  has  been  retrenched.  The  woids  "'ter- mination  hy  the  employer  of  the  services  of  a  workman  for anv  leason  whatsoever  (emphasis  siippliedl  aie  of  such wide  implication  as  to  cover  every  case  of  tcimination  of service  unless  the  termination  falls  within  any  of  the  three clauses  viz.  (a),  fh)  &  ic)  of  Sec.  2(oo)  of  the  Act.  As alieady  staled  above,  foi  a  case  to  come  under  Sub-clause (bl  of  Sec.  2,  two  things  are  necessary"—
(a)  Theie  must  be  stipulation  on  the  point  of  letire- ment  in  the  contract  of  employment  between  the emplovei  and  the  employee;  and
(b)  stipulation  must  be  with  legaul  to  the  age  ol  super-
annuation.
In  the  instant  case,  as  alieady  stated  ahove.  theie  not  an iota  of  evidence  regaiding  the  contract  of  employment.  The Standing  Orders  of  the  Company  do  not  piovide  for  the letirement  of  a  woikman  on  attaining  the  age  of  60  years. If  there  had  been  some  provision  made  in  the  Standing Orders  it  could  be  aigued  that  it  is  a  contract  of  employ- ment  between  the  management  and  the  workman.  M.W.  1, Shii  Singh,  has  stated  that  there  are  departmental  circulars according  to  which  a  woikman  ictires  on  attaining  the  age of  (SO  years  Under  what  provisions  of  law  these  ciiculars were  issued  and  whai  is  theii  legal  effect  could  have  been considerej  only  if  the  departmental  ciiculars  had  been  made available  before  ihe  Tribunal.  Since  the  Circtilnis have  not  been  pioduced  the  onJv  ipfeicnce  is  that  cither there  aie  no  ciiculais  oi  that  if  thev  had  been  produced they  would  not  have  supported  the  claim  of  the  manage- ment,
 
21.  In  the  instant  case,  it  must  tberefoie,  for  the  afore- said  reasons,  be  held  that  (he  termination  of  the  services  of ih<-  workman,  ShiI  Asizai  Khan  was  not  justified.  If  we again  look  to  the  provisions  of  Sec.2foo)  of  the  <\ct  then it  will  have  to  be  concluded  that  the  woikman  had  been ictienched  without  proper  compliance  of  the  other  provisions of  the  Act  He  has  not  been  paid  any  leticnchment  com- pensation  theie  was  no  notice  sei-vcd  under  Sec  9\  of  the

3800  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23.  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SHC  3(U)]
Act  and  the  other  requirements  of  the  Act  have  not  been followed.  Consequently,  the  management  must  be  hel<]  to have  terminated  the  services  of  the  workman  without  any valid  and  legal  ground.
22,  Issue  No.  2.—In  the  light  of  the  findings  given  above on  Issue  No.  1,  it  has  (o  be  held  that  the  workman  is  en- titled  to  be  reinstated  and  is  also  entitled  lo  all  his  back wages  and  other  service  benefits  from  the  date  of  his  services Were  terminated  by  the  management.
ORDER
Accoidingly  for  the  reasons  given  above,  the  following
award  is  passed  :—
'"The  termination  of  the  services  of  the  workman, Shri  Asgar  Khan,  by  the  management  of  the  Sukri  Colliery of  the  Western  Coalfields  Limited  was  not  justified  in>  law. The  workman  should  be  reinstated  and  shall  be  paid  all  his back  wages  with  all  consequential  benefits  from  the  date  of the  termination  of  his  services."
In  the  circujnstances  of  the  case  both  parties  are  directed
to  bcur  their  own  costs  as  incurred.
S.  R.  W A S,  Presiding  Officer.
INo.  L-22012(l)/82-D.IV(B)i
New  Delhi,  the  11th  October,  1982
S.O.  3641.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Central  Gov- ernment  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  2,  Bombay,  in  the  indus- trial  dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  manage- ment  of  Messrs  Western  Coalfields  Limited,  Wardha  Valley Area,  and  their  workman,  which  was  received  by  the  Central Government  on  the  5th  October,  1982.  .
BcFOKH  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  NO.  2,  BOMBAY.
PRESENT:
ihri  M.  A,  Deshpande,—Presiding  Officer.
Reference  No.  CGIT-2/32  of  1980
PARTIES  :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Management  of  Weslcrn
Coalfields  Ltd.,  Wardha  Valley  Area.
AND
Their  Workman  Shri  K.  Parvcj,  Ex-Stcnograpbci.
APPEARANCES:
For  the  Employers.—-Shri  L.  S,  Singh,  Advocate.
For  the  Workman.—Shri  K.  Parvez,  (workman  in  person)
Industry  :  Coal  Fields  State  :  Maharashtra
Bombay,  the  14th  September,  1982
AWARD
By  their  order  No.  H  8012(2)/76-D-lII(B)/D-IV(B) dated  11-10-1977  the  following  dispute  has  been  referred  to for  adjudication  under  Section  10(1 )(d)  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947 :—
"Whether  tic  action  of  the  management  of  Western Coalfields  Ltd.  in  terminating  the  services  of Shri  K.  Parvej,  Stenographer,  Western  Coalfields Ltd.,  Wardha  Valley  Area  with  effect  from  21st December,  1975  is  justified  ?  If  not,  to  what  relief is  the  concerned  workman  entitled  ?"
By  letter  of  appointment  dutej  11-5-1976  Shri  l'arvez  wiii appointed  as  Stenographer  on  probation  for  a  period  of  sh months.  The  letter  of  appointment  spoke  that  should  his servire  be  found  satisfactory  during  the  probationary  period he  would  be  confirmed  on  the  said  post,  otherwise  his  pro- bation  period  may  be  extended  or  his  services  may  be terminated.
U  was  made  specific  under  all  circumstances  he  would be  confirmed  in  the  post  in  writing  and  that  during  the probationary  period  his  services  are  liable  to  be  terminated from  either  side  without  notice  or  compensation  in  lieu thereof  and  without  assigning  any  reason.  It  was  also  pro- vided  that  if  all  those  terms  and  conditions  are  accepted  to the  Stenographer  he  may  sign  the  duplicate  copy  of  the order  and  accordingly  Shri  Parvez  endorsed  "1,  hereby, accept  the  above  terms  and  conditions."  Since  the  period of  probation  according  to  the  workman  expired  on  14-11-1975 by  his  letter  dated  29-11-1975  he  requested  the  Area  General Manager  of  Western  Coalfields  Ltd.,  (A  Government  of India  Undertaking)  to  issue  a  formal  letter  of  confirmation in  this  regard.  However  by  letter  dated  16/21-12-1975  the services  of  the  StcnouraDher  were  terminated  with  effect from  22-12-1975.
3.  The  contention  of  the  Stenographer  is  that  aftei 14-11-1975  that  is  on  completion  of  probationary  period  he automatically  stood  confirm  and  that  the  order  of  termination dated  21-12-1975  to  be  effective  from  22-12-1975  was  ille- gal,  against  law  and  violated  the  principles  of  natural justice.  It  is  contended  that  though  one  month's  notice  oi month's  salary  was  essential  which  has  not  been  complied with  and  as  such  the  termination  is  bad,  illegal,  biased  and an  act  of  motivated  victimisation  out  of  personal  grudge.
4.  The  management  filed  written  statement  Ex,  3/M  iefcrring to  the  clpuse  of  letter  of  appointment  and  contended  that since  there  was  not  to  be  any  automatic  confirmation  the probationary  period  stood  extended  alid  as  such  under  the terms  of  appointment  the  services  could  be  terminated  with- out  assigning  any  reason.
5.  At  Ex.  4/M  there  is  a  rejoinder  against  the  claim  state- ment  filed  by  the  Stenographer  in  which  the  management contended  that  the  Stenographer  was  repeatedly  given  warn- ing  for  his  inefficient  and  unsatisfactory  service  and  since he  refused  to  type  as  per  instructions  given  by  the  superior officer.  There  is  a  reference  to  the  various  complaints  re- ferred  by  different  authorities  and  it  is  reiterated  that  since (he  action  of  the  management  was  under  the  terms  of service  and  within  their  competency  and  also  the  action taken  by  them  is  bonafkie  the  employee  is.  not  entitled  to any  relief.
6.  On  the  strength  of  these  pleadings  the  following  issues
arise  for  decision  and  my  findings  thereon  are:—
ISSUES:
FINDINGS :
(1)  What  was  the  nature  of Shri  K.  Parvez's  service whether  temporary  em- ployee  or  whose  proba- tionary  period  shall  be deemed  to  be  extended?
Continued  to  be probationaiy.
(2)  Whether  the  services of  Parvez  was  validly terminated?  Yes
(3)  Tf  the  termination  was not  justified  to  what relief  the  employee  is entitled  '  Docs  not  arise.
REASONS
 
7.  It  is  already  seen  that  the  very  letter  of  appointment the  terms  and  conditions  which  were  acceptable  to Shri  Parve7,  had  made  i(  specifically  clear  that  initially  the period  of  probation  shall  be  for  six  months  and  in  case  the

3801
services  wcic  founj  satisfactory  he  would  be  conlirmed, otherwise  the  probationaty  period  may  he  extended  or  the services  may  be  terminated.  He  was  also  given  to  under- stand  that  in  no  case  the  confirmation  would  be  without  an ordci  in  writing  und  further  during  the  probationary  period the  services  aic  liable  to  be  teiminatcd  by  cither  side  without notice  or  compensation  and  without  assigning  any  leason. jimte  these  lenns  were  acceptable  to  llie  isienogiapher  ,ind since  he  joined  the  service  on  accepting  the  same,  this  letter of  appointment  shall  govern  the  tcims  and  conditions  of .seivice  and  only  question  dcterminable  would  be  on 21-12-197?  when  the  services  were  terminated  from  22-12-1975 whether  the  status  of  the  .stenographer  was  that  of  a  pio- bationet  or  something  else.  That  there  wis  no  otdei  of  con- firmation  is  an  admitted  fact,  Now  the  necessity  of  such formal  Jettei  of  confirmation  wsu>  also  felt  by  the  Steno- grapher  as  is  evident  from  his  letter  of  29-11-1975  when  he had  requested  the  management  to  issue  such  a  letter  since the  period  of  probation  expired  on  1-4—11-11)75.  However the  record  speaks  that  no  such  letter  was  issued  till  21-12-1975 and  the  services  themselves  stood  terminated.
8.  In  hsticla  Battciies  Ltd.,  Rombuy  Vs  State  of  Uttai Pradesh  1979,  LAB.l.C.  669  relying  on  a  Supreme  Court decision  reported  in  AIR  1964  SC  806  then  Lordship  of Allahabad  High  Court  held  that  the  status  of  a  probationci continues  to  be  the  some  and  the  mere  fact  that  the  services of  a  probationer  are  not  terminated  or  there  is  no  ordci extending  his  probation  does  not  amount  to  an  automatic confirmation.  The  ratio  in  the  said  case  is  applicable  to  the facts  of  the  present  one  and  since  the  order  of  appointment itself  made  it  clear  that  unless  confirmed  in  writing  there would  be  no  confirmation  and  that  the  period  of  probation was  liable  to  be  extended,  the  contention  of  Shri  Parvcz that  on  expiry  of  the  period  of  six  months  his  services stood  automatically  confirmed  can  never  be  accepted
9.  Paitics  have  adduced  ojal  evider  -e,  on  behalf  of  the woikman  there  being  the  evidence  ot  Shri  Parvez  at  F\. WW-1  while  the  management  examining  Shii  M.  V.  Bijapui- kar,  who  was  .it  the  relevant  time  serving  us  Area  General Manager  at  Chandrapur  where  Shu  Parvez  was  posted (MVV-1),  Shri  S.  M.  S  Bhatnagar,  then  serving  as  Staff Officer  Administiation  (MW-20)  and  Shri  C.  H  Chavan, Staff  Officer  (Civil)  C.handiapur  (MW-3),  The  evidence  of these  witnesses,  especially  by  the  management  hiu,  been adduced  leading  support  to  the  oiders  at  Ex.  9M  to  14M, with  an  intention  to  establish  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of the  work  of  the  Stenographer  who  it  is  contended  that  even he  refused  to  obey  the  orders  of  superiors  and  who  it  seems being  under  the  impression  that  he  was  the  Personal  Assis- tant  to  the  Area  General  Manager  refused  to  lake  dictation from  other  officers  when  in  fact  as  stated  by  Shri  Bijapurkar the  Stenographer  was  placed  in  a  pool.  All  theise.  records go  to  indicate  that  being  undei  wiong  notion  Shri  Parvez flouted  ,the  orders  of  superior  officers  ami  was  always1 behind  the  work  schedule.  Although  this  was  the  case  and when  the  Area  General  Manager  was  dissatisfied  with  the work  of  the  Stenographer,  ultimate  order  of  termination would  not  amount  to  an  order  of  punishment  Dissatisfc- lion  might  be  the  motive  but  the  order  itself  was  passed  in exercise  of  the  terms  of  employment  In  Dr.  T.  C.  Pillai Vs.  The  Indian  Institute  of  Technology,  1971(1)  LLJ,  page 530  the  I ordships  of  the  Supreme  Court  hel(]  that  it  is> well settled  that  a  probationer  or  a  temporary  servant  can  lie dischaigcd  if  it  is  found  that  he  is  not  suitable  for  the  nost which  he  is  holding.  It  was  further  held  that  suitability does  not  depend  meielv  on  the  excellence  or  proficiency  ir? wnrk  foi  ''onfiiming  a  person  who  is  on  probation.  A  p,n li- cular  attitude  or  tendency  displayed  by  an  employee  cm well  influence  Ihr  decision  of  the  confirming;  authority  while induing  his  suitability  or  fitness  for  confirmation.  Tt  was further  held  that  dissatisfaction  with  the  conduct  of  anpoimce micht  have  been  the  motive  but  that  could  not  make  (he order  punitive  in  character.
10.  If  the  ratio  of  above  mentioned  case  is  applied  to  the facts  of  /he  pre*en(  uw  it  is  evident  that  Shri'  Pmvez  cannot have  anv  (noun  I  tu  challenge  'he  older  of  termination  The i"L-cord  show-,  thnl  while  leaving  the  service  ns  seen  from Irv.  fi/iU  and  7/rVf  what  Shri  Parvez  was  insistinc  upon  was trie  payment  nf  full  and  final  dues  as  expeditiotisly  as  possi- ble  and  he  even  thanked  the  Area  General  Manager  for extending  co-operation.  At  the  relevant  time  theiefore  he nevei  thought  the  order  to  he  punitive.
11.  The  result  is  that  all  the  contentions  laised  against  the
older  oi  termination  must  fail,  so  also  the  iefcrcnce.
No  order  fts  to  costs,
M.  A.  DESHPANDF,  Presiding  Officer
LMo.  L-18012(2)/76.D.III.B/lV.B,]
New  Delhi,  the  12th  October,  1982
S.O.  3642.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central  Government heicby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Central  Gov- ernment  Industrial  Tribunal,  Calcutta,  in  the  industrial  dis- pute  between  the  emplovers  in  relation  to  the  management of  Girmint  Colliery  of  M/s.  Eastern  CoaluVlds  Ltd.  and their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Govern- ment  on  the  5-10-82.
CENTRAL  GOVFRNMKNT  INDUSTRIA1  TRIBUNAL
AT  CALCUTTA
Reference  No.  56  of  1979
PARTIES  :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  Messrs Girlmint  Colliery  of  Messis  Eastern  Coalfield* Limited.
AND
'I heir  workmen  represented  hv  the  Koyl.i  Mazduoi
Congress  (HMS).
PRESENT  :
Mr.  Justice  M*.  P  Singh  ...  Presiding  Officer,
APPEARANCES  :
On  behalf  of  Employci—Mr.  Arijit  Choudhmy,  Counsel,
with  Mr.  M.  N.  Kar,  Counsel.
On  behalf  of  Workmen—Misent,
STATE  :  West  BCIHIKI  INDUSTRY  :  Coal
AWARD
The  following  dispute  was  referred  to  this  Tribunal  for adjudication  by  the  Government  of  India.  Ministry  of labour,  vide  Order  No.  L-19025(4)/79-D.IV  (B)  dated 25th  August,  1979  :
"•Whether  demands  of  the  woikman  for  payment  of "Difficulty  Allowance"  in  Trans  Adjoy  Drift  work- ings  of  No.  3  Pit  of  Girmint  Colliery  alleging  that there  are  steep  gradients  and  long  walking  distances underground,  is  justified  7  If  so,  to  what  relief the  workmen  are  entitled  to  and  from  what  date  ?"
2.  From  the  written  statement  of  the  workmen  it  seems that  the  reasons  for  demand  for  payment  of  "Difficulty Allowance"  In  Trans  Adjoy  Drift  workings  of  No.  3  Pit of  Girmint  Colliery  aie,  (0  that  the  gradients  of  the  seam  arc steep  and  no.  (ii)  that  the  working  distance  for  woik  i"  long and  hence  the  workers  face  great  hardship  in  working  in the  said  pit.
 
3,  In  the  present  case  there  is  no  agreement,  no  rule  and no  practice  for  allowing  such  allowance.  No  orie  ever  claim- ed  it  before.  In  the  written  statement  of  the  workmen  nothing has  been  stated  as  to  how  much  allowance  is  claimed  and that  is  the  actual  difficulty,  No  basis  for  the  claim  is  dis- closed  therein.  The  management  who  is  present  submits  that Tjo  evidence,  oral  or  documentary,  will  be  adduced  by  it, Tt  is  submitted  that  onus  is  on  workmen  to  establish  their cnie  and  they  have  not  discharged  it.  In  my  opinion,  the

3802  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  |PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
stand  of  the  management  is  correct.  As  already  stated,  there is  no  evidence  ot  any  agreement  or  any  custom  forming such  allowance.  Therefoie,  the  claim  of  the  woikmen  must be  negatived.
their  duties  as  Instructor  ih.y  have  to  train  vvoikmon  sent lo  Ihc  Tiaining  Centre  The  tiainees  are  given  lectures  by these  instructor  and  l!icy  die  also  taken  underground  for demonstration  and  practical  training.  When  the  instructors accompany  Ihe  trainees  underground  they  art;  paid  under- ground  allowance  also.
3.  On  a  consideration  ot  the  materials  on  le.ord  and  after hearing  the  management  my  award  is  that  the  demand  of the  workmen  for  payment  of  "Difficulty  allowance"  in  Trans Adjoy  Dift  workings  ot  Mo.  3  Pit  of  Gittnint  CoJliciy  alleg- ing  that  there  are  Ueep  gradients  ar>d  lon&  walking  distances undcrtground  us  wholely  unjustified  and  they  aie  not  entitled to  any  relief.
M.  P.  SINGH  Picsiding  Officer.
Dated,  Calcutta,
The  17th  Scptembei,  1982.
LNo.  L-19025  (A)\7i-D.  IV  (B)]

3803
"2.  A  pcisun  woiking  oi  employed  m  01  in  connection
with  .1  mine  is  said  to  be  working  or  employed —
(a)  "below  ground"  if  he  is  woiking  o:  employed--
(i)  in  a  shaft  which  has  been  or  is  in  the  coutse  oJ
being  sunk;
(n)  in  uny  excavation  which  extends  below  supcr-
jaccnl  giound;
and
(b)  "above  giound"  if  he  is  woiking  in  an  open  cast working  oi  m  any  other  manner  not  specified  in clause  (a)  '
No  do  iirnenl.il\  evidence  has  been  led  by  the  management and  by  the  woikmen  also  to  show  exactly  what  were  the duties  of  the  rnsiiuctois  at  the  V.T.  Ccntic  The  entile evidence  on  this  question  consists  of  the  oral  statements made  by  the  witnesses.
9.  Cine  fact  which  is  not  disputed  between  the  parties  is that  though  the  V "I.  Ccnlic  is  located  on  the  suifacc  vet these  workmen  in  their  capacity  as  Instmcmis  have  to  go underRioiind  .md  accompany  the  trainees  for  practical  hain- ing.  When  they  go  undei giound  their  names  ate  entered in  the  concerned  tegiMci  both  at  the  lime  of  the  enlciing as  also  at  the  time  ol  theii  exist.  Wh.u  piaciic-.il  iiaining these  workmen  give  to  the  tiainees  is  a  in  itier  on  whi.h evidence  of  both  the  palries  is  silent,  But  one  inlerence that  can  he  drawn  is  m  the  underground  the  duininj  should be  foi  excavation  of  the  coal,  its  tran-,poit  finm  ttndci- giound  to  the  sin luce  and  for  othei  incident  il  and  conse- quential  work  to  be  peifoimed  by  j n d c i g i o u nj  woikeis, They  may  also  be  u dined  to  woik,  look  aftc.  and  handle the  mechanical  conti  ivunccs  employed  foi  the  excavation  ot coal  from  undcrgiound  It  is  in  the  light  ol  this  inleiencc that  the  evidence  of  the  paitics  has  to  be  examined
It)  In  his  statement  the  woikman,  Shii  \.  k  Mand  il
(W.W.  1)  has  slated  th'it  as  ,i  pait  -if  his  duty  he  has  to work  undeiground  also  and  that  while  •voikini;  nndcigiound he  gets  underground  allowance  In  his  cioss-examination  he wits  questioned  about  the  natuic  of  clinics  peiloimed  by him.  He  stated  that  the  total  training  peiiod  foi  the  tiaincis is  21  days  and  foi  9  days  thev  aie  taken  underground  foi practical  demonsliaiion.  He  fuithcr  says  that  -while  goiniz undergiound  his  name  has  to  be  entered  in  the  foi in  C Resistei  both  at  the  time  of  the  entrance  .is  well  as  -,t  1hc time  of  the  exist  The  othei  woikman  ( WW  2)  Bindes- wari  Piusad  says  that  he  fakes  the  tiainees  undcrjjioiind for  2  houis  e\ery  day  and  foi  goinii  undcigtoulid"  he  is paid  undeifiiound  allowance.  On  being  questioned  in  cross- examination  he  denied  ihe  suggestion  th.it  hi-  noes  under- ground  only  when  asked  by  the  Manager  and  affi'med  (hat he  is  lcquired  to  go  underground  every  day.  \V  \V.  i  Shri D.  L.  Agaiwal.  onlv  says  that  these  woikinen  me  Insliiic- tors  in  Ihc  VT  Centre  and  he  thiows  no  light  ori  the  main issue.
11  M.W.  1  Shri  V  K.  fi  ip.ithi.  the  N'T  ("enli,-  Dirkci says  that  only  o-casionally  Ihe  woikmen  .tie  required  to  RO underground.  He.  hnwcvci,  admits  in  his  cross-examination th-it  out  of  the  total  peiiod  of  21  days  the  iniial  periotl of  training  which  is  foi  7  days  the  Iraine-s  have  to  co underground  for  niacrical  training  and  he  furthci  .idm'fs thai  the  Instmetois  ar  omp.iny  the  liainees  when  ihcv  co underground,  According  tt,  him.  the  underground  lr.iini\iL' is  redacted  foi  one  hour  onlv.  This  is  lonlrmv  to  uhat  is stated  by  him  c irlier  in  his  cross-examin  itio.i  l a s t 's ha  admits  that  Instructor  are  paid  underaioun  1  allowance- when  incy  are  required  to  ao  underground.
12.  Fiom  the  alorcsaid  evidenc  it  is  'herefc-ie  dent  both n v o r d mg  to  Hie  workmen  as  also  according  to  the  m a i w e- t he  insliuctiMN  and  the  tiaiuc-es  go  undeijitHind  onlv  as  a silent  spectatois  They  must  be  engaged  in  actual  wofk- wu,  ot  the  mine  undet-giOund.  So  long  a:>  the  trainees  re- main  engaged,  both  in  woiking  as  well  as  the  demonstra- tion  the  Insluictnis  have  to  leinain  undeigroimd  "nd besides  this  ie. son  that  they  ate  paid  undeijuoiind  allow- ance  also
] 1.  Il  is  tine  that  in  the  instant  case  those  woikmen  arc- not  eithei  wholly  sutface  wotkeis  oi  wholly  undeiground wotkers  The  Mine  Acl  docs  not  piovide  as  to  how  a woikman  is  io  he  licated  when  he  is  iequiu\|  to  wurk both  iindcieiound  as  well  ,is  on  the  sutface.  \ccotdinc  to the  definition  of  the  petsons  employed  below  giound  and aho\e  ground,  as  reproduced  above,  a  penon  is  said  to  be below  ground  il  he  is  woiking  oi  employed  in  a  shaft  which has  been  m  is  in  the  coiuse  of  sunk;  or  if  any  excavation winch  extends  below  the  giound.
14  The  liainees  admitted  to  the  It.lining  C a i t ie  aie placed  under  the  Insli uclois  for  being  trained  As  already stated  above  th  it  they  do  not  lemain  theie  a>  observers and  speclalots  nnl)  hut  are  given  piactical  training  in  the woiking  ot  the  mine.  Piactical  tunning  given  by the  Instructors  must  involve  one  of  the  duties  specified in  the  definition  of  the  peison  'employed  below  ground" in  Sc.  2(2)  of  the  Mines  -\ct  II  was  I'm  the  management to  establish  by  evidence  that  while  awing  training  and p t a c t r al  demonstrations  the  instiuctors  ue  not  icquned  to woik  al  all.  In  these  cucumsl.ivu.es  the  only  inference  that can  be  diawn  is  that  though  the  V.T.  t'eniie  is  located  on the  siiiface  and  these  workmen  have  io  wotk  on  the  sin- face  also  foi  tiaining  the  Inn'nees  vet  theii  duties  involve wot king  below  the  ground  also  and  when  that  is  so  they cannot  be  taken  out  ol  the  category  of  pet sous  "employed below  the  ciound".  I his  is  admittedly  not  a  ease  wheie these  woikmen  ate  not  at  all  lequited  to  go  undeigiound. On  the  contrary  ihe  evidence  in  this  case  establishes  that they  are  tequiied  to  go  undeigiound  and  are  ;>,iid  imdei- uronnd  allowances  like  olhei  persons  employed  under  the ground.  When  that  is  so,  they  must  be  and  are  hereby treated  peisons  of  the  underground  foi  tnc  nurposes  of Sec.  2(2)  of  Ihe  Mines  \cl
15  Before  ptocecding  fuilhei  I  may  refer  to  the  self lontrudictoiv  pleas  taken  by  the  management.  In  para  2 of  t/ie  statement  it  is  stated  that  these  workmen  work  on the  surface  and  onlv  as  and  when  lequired  they  have  to go  underground  foi  demonstration.  Tt  is  further  stated  (fiat these  instructors  have  vcty  larcly  to  go  undergiound  with tiainees.  As  against  this,  in  para  i  of  the  tejoinder  a completely  dilfeient  plea  is  taken  by  staling  that  it  is-  not ncccssaiv  foi  the  instiuctors  to  go  underground  with  the trainees  and  that  they  aie  haidly  lequired  Io  uo  for  a  day in  one  or  two  months,  fn  pai.i  4  the  fact  of  payment  of undcigioLind  allowance  is  also  denied.  All  the^e  pleas-  are contiadicled  by  ihe  evidence  given  by  the  management's witness.  Shri  V  K.  Tripalhi,  who  admits  th  u  during  the initial  peiiod  of  tiaining,  which  is  for  seven  houis  per  dav, the  tiainees  go  undergiound  accompanied  with  the  instruc- tots  He  also  admits  lhat  the  instructois  foi  accompanying the  trainees  undeigiound  'Arc  paid  undei ciound  allowance. From  these  admission  made  b\  the  lesnonsiblc  oflicet  of  the management  n  becomes  evident  that  the  ple
lfi.  Having  thus  considered  the  evidence  given  by  the natties  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence  in  this  case justifies  the  conclusion  for  that  these  workmen  are  workfi- men  employe,|  below  ground.  Issue  No.  2  is  accordingly answered  against  ihe  management
17  Issue  No.  1-  Sec.  52ll)fa)  and  
is  as  undei  :—
"^2.  \nnual  lea\c  with  wanes  —(1]  Fvery  person  em- ployed  in  a  mine  who  has  completed  a  calendar y e n 's  service  therein  shall  be  allowed,  during  the subsequent  calendar  year,  leave  with  wages  cal- culated—
£ '*  '  j  K
n°  nl:1f'C,  I l.w"s  t he  '"''*  <*  'he  management  to

3804  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  I982/KART1KA  1,  1904  [PART  II—Stc.  3(ii)]
1st  Julv,  I9R0'.1  It  not.  to  what  relief  Ihc  workmen concerned  is  entitled  r'
According  to  the  nforcs.ikl  piovision  rf  Sec.  ^2  Ities'j  woik- men  so  long  as  they  were  and  .ne  employed  as  Instiuctois and  are  requited  to  liuin  the  tiainecs  underground  thev will  be  entitled  to  Earned  Leave  at  the  rate  of  one  il:iy for  evciy  sixteen  days  ol  work  pet formed  hy  them  duiing the  calendar  year.  The  management  therefoie  was  not justified  in  granting  them  leave  at  the  Kite  of  one  day  foi twenty  days  of  work  in  one  calendar  yeai,

3805
SCHEDULE
"Whether  the  management  of  Seetalpur  Colliery  of M/s.  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.,  P.O.  Dishcrgaih (BurdwHn)  was  justified  in  refusing  payment  of wages  to  S/Shri  Mahcswar  Koiri  leader  from 4th  February,  1981  to  26th  April,  1981  and  to  Sri Gaya  Singh  Havildar  Irom  5lh  Januaiy,  1981  to 26th  April,  1981?  If  not.  to  what  relief  the  work- men  are  entitled 7"
2.  On  17th  September,  1982  both  the  parties  filed  a  joint petilion  of  compromise  duly  signed  on  their  behalf  and they  pray  that  an  award  be  passed  in  terms  of  the  settlement.
3.  I  have  gone  through  the  settlement  which  is  benefi-
cial  for  the  workmen.
4.  In  the  circumstances  tho  award  is  passed  in  teimi  of
the  settlement  which  shall  form  part  of  tho  award.
J.  N.  SINGH,  Presiding  Officer.
BEFORE  THE  HON'BLE  PRESIDING  OFFICER, CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL NO.  3,  DHANBAD
Reference  No.  72  of  1982
PARTIES  :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  Seetalnui
Colliery  in  Messrs  E,C.  Ltd.
AND
Their  Workmen,
Joint  petition  of  compromise :
Both  the  parties  above  named  most  respeccfully  bes  to
state  and  submit  as  under  :
1,  That  the  Central  Government  by  its  order  No. L-19OI2(57)/82-DIV(B')  dated  28th  July,  1982  has  referred the  instant  matter  for  adjudication  and  the  schedule  to  the order  reads  fs  follows  :—
"Whether  the  management  of  Seetalpuj-  Colliery  of  M/s, Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.,  Post-office  Dishergarh (Bnrdwan)  was  justified  in  refusing  payment  of wages  to  S/Shri  Maheswar  Koari,  Loader,  from 4th  February,  1981  to  26th  April,  1981  nnd  to  Sri Ganga  Singh,  Havildar  from  5th  January,  1981  to 26th  April,  1981 ?  If  not,  to  what  relief  the  work- men  are  entitled  :"
2,  That  the  instant  matter  is  pending  before  the  Hon'ble
Tribunal  and  the  matter  has  not  yet  been  heard.
3,  That  the  two  workmen  herein  concerned  were  super- annuate—Sri  Gaya  Singh  with  effc.t  from  5th  January, j 981  and  Shri  M'ahcswar  Koari  with  effect  from  4th  February, 1981  and  both  of  them  having  prayed  for  determination  of their  ages  through  the  Area  Age  Determination  Committee of  the  company.
4,  That  the  said  committee  determined  their  ages  of  tho concerned  workmen—Gaya  Singh  as  of  59  years  on  19th January,  1981  and  Mahcswar  Koari  as  of  58  years  on 4th  February,  1981  and  both  the  concerned  workmen  having accepted  the  findings  of  the  said  committee  were  allowed  to resume  duty  wilh  effect  from  27th  April,  19S1  and  they were  out  erf  employment  for  the  periods  stated  in  the  ordet of  reference.
5,  That  in  the  meantime  both  the  parties  discussed  the instant  matter  mutually  and  the  instant  dispute  stands  fully resolved  on  the  following  terms ;—
(
824  01/82—7
Cb) That  the  payment  of  the  same  stated  in  Para  (a) above  shall  be  made  within  39  days  from  the  date this  settlement  is  accepted  by  the  llon'ble  Tribunal, (c)  That  by  this  settlement,  the  instant  matter  is fully  &  totally  resolved.
6.  Both  the  parties  pray  that  (he  Hon'ble  Tribunal  would be  pleased  to  accept  the  aforesaid  settlement  and  pfiss  an Award  in  terms  thereof.
And  further  act  of  kindness,  both  the  parties  as  is  duty
bound,  shall  ever  pray.
Dated,  the  16th  day  of  September,  1982.
For  &  on  behalf  of  the  workmen.
(P.  N.  Ojha)
For  & on  behalf  of  the  Employer
Sd/-
Sd/-  Senior  Personnel  Officer
J.  N.  SINGH,  Presiding  Officer.
[No.  L-19012(57)/82-D.IV(B)J
S.O,  3646  In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Cential  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  3,  Dhanbad,  in  (he  industrial dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  management of  Dhemomain  Colliery  of  Messrs  Eastern  Coalfields  Limited, and  their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  thE  Central  Gov- ernment  on  the  5th  October.  1982,
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR  COURT  NO  3,  DHANBAD
Reference  No.  78/82
PRESENT:
Shri  J.  N.  Singh,  Presiding  Officer.
PARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  Dhemomain Colliery  of  M/s.  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.,  P.O.  Sita- rampur,  Dist.  Burdwan
AND
Their  workman.
APPEARANCES:
For  the  Employers—Shri  B.  N.  Lala,  Advocate.
For  the  Workman—None.
INDUSTRY:  Coal.  STATE:  West  Bengal.
Dated,  the  1st  October,  1982
AWARD
The  Government  of  India  in  the  Ministry  of  Labour  in exercise  of  tho  powers  conferred  on  them  U/&  10(l)(d)  of  the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  14  of  1947  has  referred  the  dispute to  this  Tribunal  for  adjudication  under  Order  No,  L-19012 (65)/82-D,IVtB),  dated  29th  July,  1982.
SCHEDULE
"Whether  the  action  of  the  Auent,  Dhemomain  Colliery of  M/s,  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd..  P.O.  Silarampur (Burdwan)  in  dismissing  Sri  Ashoke  Pandey,  Security Guard  vide  letter  No.  BNJ/C-6/P-7/134  dated 7-3-77  is  justified?  If  not,  to  what  relief  the  work- man  is  entitled  ?"
2.  On  22-9-82  both  the  parties  filed  a  joint  petition  of compromise  duly  signed  by  both  the  parties  praying  that an  award  be  passed  as  per  terms  of  the  nbove  settlement.
3.  The  above  settlement  is  quite  fair  and  beneficial  to
the  concerned  workman.

3806  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/K.ARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
4,  In  the  circumstances  nil  award  is  passed  in  terms  of the  aforesaid  settlement  which  shall  form  part  of  the  awa'd.
1  N,  SINGH,  Presidium  Officer.
BEFORE  THE  HON'BLE  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  LHN- TRAL  GOVERNMENT  TNDUSIR1AL  TRIBUNAL NO.  3,  DHANBAD
New  Delhi,  (ho  12th  October,  1982
In  the  matter  of  reference  No.  78  of  1982
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Management  of  Dh^momain
Colliery  of  M/s.  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.
AND
S.O.  3647.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  19471,  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  thc  following  award  of  the  Central  Gov- ernment  Industrial  Tribunal,  Jabalpur,  in  thc  industrial  dis- pute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  management of  Surakachhar  Colliery  of  M/s.  Western  Coalfields  Ltd.  and their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Cential  Govern- ment  on  thc  6th  October,  1982.
BEFORE  JUSTICE  SHRI  S,  R.  W AS  (RRTD)  PRESID- ING  OFFICER,  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR  COURT,  JABALPUR  M.P.)
Case  No.  CGIT/LC(R)(35)/1981
Their  Workmen.
Joint  Petition  of  Compromises i
Both  the  parties  herein  concerned  most  respectfully
shewclh  :—
(1)  That  the  case  under  reference  has  been  referred  by
the  Ministry  for  adjudication  by  the  HorVble  Tribunal,
(2)  Th"t  the  matter  has  not  yet  been  heard  by  the  Hon'blo
Tribumil  and  it  is  pending.
(3)  That  both  the  parties  in  the  meantime  mutually  dis- cussed  the  instant  matter  and  have  amicably  settled  the same  on  the  following  terms  :•—
(a)  Sri  Ashok  Pandey  shall  be  re-instated  without  back wages  and  without  precedence.  He  shall  have  no claim  of  any  back  wages.
(b)  The  period  of  absence  will  be  treated  as  leave  with-
out  pay.
(c)  Th;  continuity  of  service  will  be  treated  only  for
the  purpose  of  gratuity  and  nothing  else.
(d)  The  posting  of  Sri  Pandey  will  be  decided  by  the Management  according  to  their  need  anywhere  under ECL  but  at  present  he  -will  he  posted  at  Kapasaia Area  for  further  posting  by  the  General  Manager, Kapasara  Area.
(el  The  pay  of  Sri  Pandcy  shall  be  fi\ed  which  he  was drawing  at  the  n'mo  of  dismissal  and  there  after fitment  as  per  NCWA-If  shall  be  made  at  the  initial state  which  will  be  effective  fiom  the  date  of  ioining at  Kapasara  Area  and  hk  next  increment  shall  be due  after  completion  of  on;  year  from  the  date  of joining.
(fl  That  by  this  settlement,  the  instant  disptues  is  fully
and  finally  resolved.
(g)  That  neither  party  shall  be  entiibd  to  any  cost  and the  paities  will  bear  their  respective  cost  of  this proceeding.
(41  That  both  the  parties  submit  that  thc  Honourable  Tri- bunal  may  he  pleased  to  accept  thhe  aforesaid  terms  nnd rorditions  ai  agreed  by  both  the  parties,  for  mpj'nt'iininq  har- rnonions  re'aiiun  between  the  parlies  and  Industrial  peace  at the  Establishment.
ff)  That  both  the  parlies  jointly  pray  that  Ihe  Hon'ble Tribunal  may  be  pleased  (o  accord  approval  to  the  proposed settlement,  which  is  considered  bv  both  thp  parlies  as  finite fair  and  trasonablc  and  pass  the  award  accordingly  treating this  settlement  as  pai t  thereof.
And  for  this  your  Petitioners  shall  ever  pray,
Dated.  I ho  20th  September.  1982.
Sd/-
For  "nd  on  b^hnlf  of  the
Workman :
For  and  on  behalf  of the  Fmplc/yers
Sd'-
[No.  L-190i:W0/82-D  mB)]! Dy.  CM.E./Project  Officer PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  Western Coalfields  Limited,  Surakachhar  Colliery  of  W-C. Ltd.,  Korba  Area,  District  Bilaspur,
AND
Their  workmen  Shr;  R.  C.  Prasad  Sinha  end  others  in Cash  Section  of  Surakachhar  Colliery  represented through  ihe  Chatishgarh  Khadan  Karkhana  Mar- door  Union,  P.O.  Bankimongra,  District  Bilaspur (M.P.).
APPEARANCES :
For  Workmen—Shri  Rambilash  Shobhnalh,  General
Secretary  of  the  Union.
For  Management—Shri  P,  S,  Nair,  Advocate.
INDUSTRY:  Coal.  DISTRICT:  Bila'pur  (M.P.)
Dated  :  September  30,  1982
AWARD
In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  Clause  fd)  of Sub-section  (I)  of  Se  lion  10  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947  (14  of  1947),  hereinafter  referred  lo  as  thc  Act,  ihe Centra]  Government  in  thc  M'inistrv  of  Labour  lias  referred thc  following  d'spu'e  to  this  Tribunal  for  adjudication,  vide Notification  No,  L-22011(ll)/79-D.IV(B)  dated  21st  August, 1981 :—
"Whether  thc  action  of  the  management  of  Surakachhnr Colliciy  of  Western  Coalfiolds  Limited,  Korta Area,  District  Bilaspur  in  changing  with  effect  from 1st  January,  1979  the  weekly  off  from  Wedne'day to  Mon lay  in  respect  of  Shri  R.  C.  Prasad  Sinha and  others  in  cash  section  of  Surakachhir  Colliery without  giving  any  notice  as  per  Section  9A  of  the 1 D.  Act  ih  justified  7  If  not,  to  what  relief  the workmen  arc  entitled  and  from  which  dite 7"
2.  Briefly  stated  the  facls  giving  rise  to  this  dispute  are
as  under •—
S/Shri  R.  C.  Prasad  Sinha,  Chief  Cashier,  K  Gangadharan, PPV  Cleik,  Sonau  Ram,  Peon  and  Kanch.in  Prasad  Typist Clerk  Grade  III  are  the  employees  of  the  Western  Coalfields 1 iniitcd  in  the  Surakachhar  Colliery,  By  an  order  daled 12/lmh  December,  1978  the  Sub-Area  Manager  of  the Surakachhar  Sub-Arcn  issued  an  office  order  whereby  he notifies  for  general  information  ihnt  ;he  Cash  Section  of thc  Colliery  will  remain  closed  on  Monday  instead  of  Wed- nesday.  II  was  further  notified  that  the  rest  day  of  the  afo-e- tTi.I  workmen  will  remam  changed  from  Wednesday  to Monday.  Consequent  upon  the  issue  of  Ihis  office  order 1he  workmen's  Union  raised  the  dispute  bcfiie  (he  Assis'ant Labour  Commissioner  {Ccnt'al)  Shahdol  before  whom  in  the conciliation  pro;ecdings  no  final  settlement  could  be  arrived ;it.  The  Assisfnnt  Labour  Commission  (Ccnlrnl)  thereafter submitled  a  failure  Kport  to  the  Central  Government  and the  Central  Government  referred  thc  aforesaid  dispute  to this  Tribunal,  for  adjudication,
 
3.  The  contention  of  the  workmen  is  that  the  weekly  rest day  for  the  aforesaid  workmen  was  Wednesday  for  the  last

3807
five  to  six  ycais;  that  by  the  afoiesaid  order,  hereinafter referred  to  as  the  impugned  order,  the  management  hits changed  the  weekly  rest  day  from  Wednesday  to  Monday with  effca  from  1st  January,  1976;  that  Wednesday  which was  the  rest  day  for  the  workmen  for  u  number  of  years has  been  changed  to  Monday  in  contraveiHiun  of  and  with- out  proper  compliance  of  Section  9A  read  with  Ttems  4,  5 and  8  of  the  Fourth  Schedule  of  the  Act;  that  the  rcqniied notice  of  21  days  was  not  served  on  the  woikjnen  or  their union  and  that  in  this  manner  the  action  taken  by  the management  is  wholly  contrary  to  the  piovsions  of  the  l.D. Ait,  A  prayer  is  accordingly  made  th"<  The  said  order  iiwy be  declared  illegal,  unjustified  and  o[  no  tffut  and  u  diicc- tion  may  be  given  that  for  siivh  Wednesdays  on  which  ihe workmen  arc  lequired  to  work  the  workmen  should  be  (rcaled as  having  worked  on  holidays  and  such  Mondays  on  which they  were  not  given  any  work  Ihe  management  should  be treated  as  having  extended  Ihe  lock-out,
4.  As  against  this  claim  of  the  woikmen,  the  contention of  the  management  is  that  when  the  present  reference  was made  the  dispute  referred  to  for  adjudication  was  not  in existence;  that  previously  by  an  order  passed  on  21st  August, 1981  (he  Central  Government  hod  lejected  for  the  reference- being  made;  that  before  making  the  reference  the  Centml Government  did  not  afford  any  opportunity  to  the  manage- ment  to  submit  what  they  had  Ift  submit  ;'  that  under  Rule 47(2)  of  (he  Rules  made  under  the  M'incs  Act  a  weekly day  of  rest  has  to  be  notified  that  for  this  Colliery  Monday was  the  weekly  day  of  rest;  that  (his  weekly  day  of  rest was  applicable  to  these  workmen  also  inj  that  these  wok- men  could  not  claim  a  separate  weekly  day  of  rest,  It  is further  contended  by  the  management  that  for  sometime these  four  workmen  were  working  on  Monday  whi  h  is  the general  day  of  rest  for  collieiy  workers  and  for  that  lhev were  given  Wednesday  as  a  compensatory  day  of  lest  ;  tint by  the  impugned  oidei  the  management  only  nought  to  ics- tore  the  original  position  and  that  there  wis  no  change  in the  conditions  of  service  as  contemplated  by  Section  9A  of the  Act.
5.  In  theii  respective  rejoinders  both  the  parties  have  vir- tually  repeated  theii  statements  made  earlier  in  their  Matc- ments  of  demand.
6.  As  per  order  passed  on  6(h  January,  1982  the  dispute referred  to  in  the  order  of  reference  was  founj  to  be  the only  issue  arising  in  this  case.
7.  The  main,  points  that  arises  for  consideiation  arc:—
1.  Whclher  the  management  of  (he  Surakachhar  Coi- lierv  of  the  Western  Coalfields  Ltd,  was  justified cither  in  law  or  on  facts  from  changing  weekly  rest day  of  the  aforesaid  four  workmen  from  Wednes- day  to  Monday ?
2.  Whether  such  a  change  without  giving  any  notfice
under  Section  9A  of  (he  I,D.  Act  was  justified  :
3.  To  what  relief  are  the  pailies  entitled  to?
8.  My  findings  on  the  aforesaid  points  are  as  under:—
1  The  action  of  the  management  of  the  Suraka  hbar Colliery  of  the  Western  Coalfields  Limited  for  chang- ing  with  effect  from  1st  January,  1979  weekly  off day  from  Wednesday  to  Monday  in  respect  of S/Shri  R.  C.  Prasad  Sinha  and  ihrcc  others  named above  wag  not  justified  either  in  law  or  on  facts.
2.  That  for  effecting  the  said  change  the  piovisions  of Section  9\  of  the  l.D.  Act  shculd  have  been complied  with.
3.  As  per  order  passed  below,
Findings  with  reasons  on  Issue  Nos.  1 &  2 :
9.  In  this  rase  oral  and  documentary  evidence  has  been Riven  by  both  the  parties.  The  documentary  evidence  is Fx.  W/l,  the  office  order  dated  12/19th  December,  1978 and  the  oral  evidence  is  of  M.W.  1,  Shri  O.  P.  MegWani  and W.W.  1  Shri  K.  Ganga  Dharan.
10.  The  contention  of  the  management  is  Ihnt  pievious'y Monday  was  the  weekly  rest  day  noticed  under  Rule  47(2) of  (he  Rules  framed  under  the  Mines  Act,  hereinafter  jefcrred to  as  the  Rules.  In  their  statement  ol  oKum  the  woikmen however  contend  that  since  few  years  back  Wednesday  was weekly  rest  day  availed  of  by  them.  Whether  any  notifica'ion speciiymg  Monday  as  a  weekly  lest  day  fjr  the  who'e colliery  was  issued  or  not  is  a  matter  un  which  no  doru- rnenlary  evidence  h's  been  pmduccd  by  the  man lycmcnt. Only  Shi i  o.  P.  Meghlani,  M.WL 1,  has  made  a  statement that  Monday  was  the  weekly  lest  day  fv>i  Shii  R.  C.  P. Sinha  as  well  as  for  the  other  workers.  He  has  further slalej  Ih  t  Shri  R,  C.  Prasad  whenever  called  on  duty  on Monday  was  gi"en  Wednesday  as  Rest  ihiy  and  that  by  the impugned  olli  e  order  (t'x.  W/l)  Cashiers  weie  not  cal'cd on  duly  on  Monday  wilh  effect  from  1st  January,  1979. He  admits  that  there  is  a  nolificat'on  issued  bv  the  manage- ment  specifying  Monday  as  the  Re-,t  day.  If  what  has  been staled  by  this  witness  is  to  be  believed  (hen  it  should  not have  been  difficult  for  the  management  to  produce  the  nulli- fication  issued  undsr  Rule  47(2)  specifying  Monday  as  Ihe icsl  day  for  Ihe  Colliery  workmen,  W.fien  theii  is  documen- tary  evidence  on  this  point  and  it  i_onsisls  a  statu'o'y  noli- fi  alion  then  c'ther  the  original  could  have  been  pioduccd  or a  copy  thereof  could  have  been  filed  so  tfat  this  Tribunal could  have  taken  notice  of  it.  Evidently  this  has  not  been done.
1).  Reliance  was,  however,  sought  to  be  placed  on  the statement  of  W.W,  1,  Shri  K.  Ganga  Dharan,  in  which  he rcfcriej  to  the  aforesaid  change  of  rest  day  from  Wednesday to  Monday  with  effect  from  1st  January,  1979  ami  about Wednesday  being  rest  day  for  all  (he  woikers  since  he irined  in  1976  In  his  ' ross-ex'minulinn  he  slated  lhat  from 197R  Monday  was  nolified  as  HoiL'ay  for  the  woikcs  o'  ihe Suiakachha  Colliery  and  that  he  has  -ro  knowledge  about nnv  01 her  notification  rsgTrdintt  the  change  of  the  rrst  day in  the  Cash  Section  of  the  Colliery.
12.  So  far  as  the  management's  evidence  is  concerned  1
find  that  the  material  documentary  evidence  has  not  been pioduccd  in  this  case.  So  far  as  the  workmen's  ev'derce is  concerned  the  only  evidence  which  is  civen  bv  Shii  K, Ganna  Dharan  fW.W.  1)  is  both  contradic'ory  PS  well  as confusing.  At  one  place  he  has  slated  that  fiom  1978 M'onday  was  the  rest  day  but  the  snme  was  changed  to  Wed- nesday  later  on.  He  also  stated  that  he  was  paid  extn  wages for  working  on  both  the  days.  Thereafter  he  rlnuficd  by  stnt* ing  lhat  he  was  paid  only  for  uv.h  Wcdnesdiy  when  he  was required  to  woik—Wednesday  being  the  rest  diy.
 
13.  Even  assuming  that  the  statement  made  in  the  claim statement  by  the  management  is  correct  even  ihcn  it  be- comes  cic ir  ;hnt  sin<-c  a  c  upV  of  years  before  the  issue of  Ih;  office  order  Ex.  W/l  Wednesday  was  the  rest  day for  (he  woikers  working  in  the  Cash  Section  The  office  order specifically  says  that  Cash  Section  will  remain  clo  cd  on Mura'nv  instead  nf  Widnesil'v  and  (hat  the  rest  day  of S'SIri  R,  C,  P.  Sinha,  Ch:ef  C  shirr  K.  Gangidharan,  Pay Oeik,  Sonaw  Ram.  Peon  and  Kanchan  Prasnd  (Typist) Clerk  Grade  III  will  change  from  Wednesday  to  Monday femrh-'sis  supnlirdi.  ThL--  s'alement  in  the  o(7W  o'der  e'en  ly proves  th it  lill  bcfoic  the  issue  of  this  order  the  four  work- rrrn  in  'his  case  w n kW  in  the  Cr sh  Section  were  having Wrd"esi->y  as  the  Rest  diy  and  the  lest  day  was  changed from  Wcdnecdav  to  Mond-iy.  There  is  not  an  iota  of  evi- dence  exceot  the  oral  evidence  g'ven  by  Shri  O.  P.  Meghbni that  Mond 'v  was  the  statutorily  specified  rect  day  for  ihe workmen.  The  office  order  also  does  not  say  anything  about the  so  called  noiifi-ation  issue 1  under  Rule  47C21)  of  the Rules.  It  is  therefore,  ev'dcii  t*i 't  bv  th^  office  order  Fx. W/1  the  manapf-nr-nl  ~h"nged  the  rest  day  nf  these  four wo  kmen  frorn  W^dnes-'ay  to  Mirirfav.  Admittedly  no  notice wis  given  to  (he"e  workmen  for  bri^gi^g  nbont  the  afore  aid change  of  rest  day  from  Wednesdays  io  Mondays  in  a rrtoti'h,  According  tn  Sec.  9A  ro  empiover  can  effect  any ch 'nge  in  fhe  conditions  of  service  anpli  able  

3808  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC  3(ii)]
admittedly  not  a  compliance  of  Section  9A  of  the  Act.  Thus on  facts  it  must  be  held  that  the  action  of  the  management in  changing  the  rest  days  from  Wednesday s  to  Mondays  was not  justified.
14.  What  is  the  effect  of  such  a  change  in  law  Is  the  next question  lo  be  considered.  It  was  contended  on  behalf  of the  mwanagemcnl  [hut  the  change  contemplated  by  Section 9A  of  the  Act  should  be  such  a  ch  nge  which  should  pre- judicially  or  adversely  effoit  the  workmen  ;  that  the  workmen arc  having  a  weekly  rest  tiny  us  required  by  law  and  that by  the  change  effected  by  the  management  there  has  been no  prejudicial  or  adverse  effect  on  the  seivice  conditions of  the  workmen.  The  workmen  on  the  contrary  have  contend- ed  that  they  are  being  called  for  duty  on  Wednesday  whkh was  a  rest  day  and  arc  not  allowed  any  woi k  on  Monday as  the  same  has  been  declared  as  the  rest  day  by  the  man- aBemcnt.  What  is  the  legal  effect  of  such  a  change  brought about  by  the  management  has  been  considered  in  Mtdholra's- Commentary  on  the  I.D.  Act  (3rd  E.lition)  at  pages  558  to 565.  He  has  referrej  to  certain  decisions  of  their  lordships of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Workmen  of  Sur  Iron  &  Steel Co.  (P3  Ltd.  Vs.  Sur  Iron  &  Steel  Co.  (?)  Ltd  (1971-I-LU D.  570  (573);  Tata  Iron  &  Steel  Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  The  work- men  (1972-1MLJ  259;  Assam  Match  Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Bijoy  Lnl Sen  (1973-lI-LLJ  149)  and  Oil  and  Natural  Gas  Commission Vs.  The  workmen  (1973-I-LLJ  18).  In  all  theic  cases  the question  of  change  of  rest  day  was  considered  in  different context  and  on  different  facts.  However,  in  my  opinion,  the decision  in  Tata  Iron  &  Steel  Company's  case  (supra)  is  a decision  which  concludes  the  issue  in  this  ens,;.  In  that  w-e weekly  off  days  were  temporarily  changed  from  Sunday  to Wednesday  in  one  colliery  and  to  Thursday  in  the  other colliery,  on  account  of  shortage  of  power  supply.  It  was held  that  Items  4.  5  &  8  of  the  Fourth  Schedule  to  Ihe I.D.  AU  were  attracted  and  a  notice  under  Section  9A  of the  Act  was  necessary.  Relying  upon  this  decision  which in  my  opinion  was  given  on  facts  similar  to  the  facts  of  the present  case,  I  hold  that  since  the  management  of  Ihe  Col- liery  changed  the  weekly  rest  days  from  Wednesdays  to Mondays  without  complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  Sec- tion  9A  of  the  Act  the  same  was  not  1ej{jlly  justified.
15.  The  third  point  which  remain  for  decision  is  that since,  in  the  light  of  the  view  t  have  ti-ken  above,  the changed  weekly  rest  day  fiom  Wednesday  to  Monday  was neither  justified  on  facts  nor  in  law,  the  woikmen  S/Shri R.  C.  P.  Sinha,  K.  Ganga  Dharan,  Sonaw  Ram  and  Kanch^n Prasad,  so  long  the  said  office  order  (Ex.  W/l)  remains  or remained  in  force  shall  be  deemed  to  have  worked  on  Wed- nesdays  whi:h  were  their  rest  days  and  were  not  allotted any  work  on  Mondays  which  were  their  working  days.
16.  According  to  the  reasons  given  above,  the  award  in
this  case  is  that:—-
"The  action  of  the  management  of  the  Surakachhar Colliery  of  Western  Coalfields  Ltd.,  Korba  Area, District  Bilaspur  in  changing  with  effect  from 1st  lanuary,  1979  the  weekly  off  from  Wednesday  to Monday  in  respect  of  Shri  R.  C.  Prasad  Sinha  and throe  others  in  the  Cash  Section  of  the  Surakachhar Colliery  without  giving  any  notice  as  per  Sec- tion  9A  of  the  I.D.  Act  was  not  justified.  That so  long  as  the  order  Ex.  W/l  dated  12/19th  De- cember,  1978  remains  or  remained  in  force  these workmen  shall  be  deomed  to  have  worked  on  rest "days  i.e.  Wednesdays  and  shall  also  be  deemed  to have  been  not  allotted  any  work  on  Mondays which  were  their  working  days.  The  management shall  take  accessary  action  and  pay  the  workmen accordingly.  In  the  circumstances  of  the  case  there will  be  no  order  as  lo  costs."
S.  R.  W A S,  Presiding  Officer [No,  L-22011fll)/79-D.IV(B)} S.  S.  MEHTA/Deak  Officer
New  Delhi,  the.  Uth  October,  1982
S.O.  3648.—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  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal  No,  2.  Dhanbad  in  the  industrial dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  manage- ment  of  Lodna  Colliery  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal Limited,  Post  Office  Jecnagora,  District  Dhanbad  and  their workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government on  the  5th  October,  1982.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  (NO.  2).DHANBAD.
PRESENT  :
Shri  J,  P.  Singh,—Presiding  Officer.
Reference  No.  19  of  1*81
In  the  matter  of  an  industrial  dispute  under  S,  10(l)(d)
of  the  T.D.  Act,  1947.
PARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to>  the  management  of  Lodna Colliery  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Limited,  Post office  Jeenagora,  District  Dhanbad  and  their  work- men.
APPEARANCES  :
On  b-half  of  the  employers.—Shri  B.  Jo&hi,  Advocate.
On  behalf  of  the  workman.—Shri  B  B.  Pandey,  Advocate,
STATE  :  Bihar  INDUSTRY  :  Coal.
Dhanbad,  30th  September,  1982
AWARD
This  is  a  reference  under  S.  10  of  the  I.D.  Act,  1947.  The Central  Government  by  its  order  No.  L-2OO12/(240)l/81- D.III(A)  dated  9th  December,  1981  has  referred  this  dispute to  this  Tribunal  for  adjudication  on  the  following  terms:
SCHEDULE
"Whether  the  action  of  the  management  of  Lodna Colliery  of  Area  No.  X  of  Messrs  Bhaxat  Coking Coal  Limited,  at  and  Post  office  Lodna,  District Dhanbad  in  dismissing  Shir  Basdco  Pathak,  Munshi from  service  w.e.f,  30th  September,  1980  is  justi- fied ?  If  not,  to  what  relief  is  the  workman  con- cerned  entitled."
2.  The  concerned  workman  Shri  Basdeo  Pathak  was  a munshi  of  Lodna  colliery  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal Limited,  As  a  munshi  his  duties  were  to  distribute  empty tubs  to  the  miners/loaders  and  to  maintain  a  faithful  record of  the  tubs  allotted  by  him  to  the  miners/loaders  nnd  to submit  a  raising  report  for  everyday  for  hit  shift.  He  was on  duty  in  the  second  shift  on  26-3-79  and  27-3-79  in No.  14  incline.  He  showed  the  raising  of  44  tubs  on  26-3-79 and  44  tubs  on  27-3-79  in  the  Form  IV  A.  The  actual raising  for  both  two  days  In  the  second  shift  were  calculated to  be  40  tubs  on  26-3-79  and  36  tubs  on  27-3-79.  The concerned  workman  therefore  over-reported  4  tubs  on 26-3-79  and  8  tubs  on  27-3-79.  This  act  on  the  part  of  the concerned  workman  amounted  fraud  and  dishonesty  and therefore  a  charge-sheet  dated  29/20-4-79  was  issued  against him  for  commission  of  a  misconduct  and /or  fraud.  The concerned  workman  replied  to  the  charge-sheet  on  24-4-79 and  denied  the  charge.  The  reply  was  found  to  be  unsatis- factory  by  the  management.
3.  A  departmental  enquiry" was  entrusted  to  Shri  B,  N. Jha,  Personnel  Officer  of  Lodna  colliery.  The  concerned workman  fully  participated  in  the  enquiry.  The  enquiry officer  submitted  his  report  on  18-8-79  holding  the  concern- ed  workman  guilty  of  the  misconduct  alleged  by  him.
4.  In  the  written  statement  the  workman  alleged  that  he did  not  get  full  opportunity  to  crcs-examine  the  manage- ment's  witnesses  and  did  not  get  opportunity  to  produce  his own  witnesses.  According  to  him  the  domestic  enquiry conducted  by  the  management  was  in  utter  disregard  to  the principle  of  natural  justice  and  was  quite  unfair.  The  Tcport of  the  enquiry  officer  was  said  to  be  perverse  as  it  was against  the  material  on  record.

3809
5.  The  management  on  consideration  of  the  report  had dismissed  the  concerned  workman  by  order  dated  30-9-80 with  effect  from  30-9-80.  With  regard  to  the  order  of  dis- missal  it  was  alleged  that  the  management  did  not  consider the  report  of  the  enquiry  officer  in  proper  perspective  and wrongfully  dismissed  the  concerned  workman.  The  concern- ed  workman  made  representation  and  served  demand  notice through  his  union  to  the  management  for  reconsideration  of the  dismissal  order  and  for  his  reinstatement.  But  it  was turned  down.  The  union  of  the  concerned  workman  raised an  industrial  dispute  before  the  Assistant  Labour  Commis- sioner(C)  Dhanbad  which  ended  in  failure  and  hence  this reference.
6.  Shri  B.  N.  Jha,  MW-1  was  examined  in  this  case  as  a witness  for  the  management.  He  happened  to  be  the  enquiry officer  in  this  case.  He  was  Personnel  Officer  of  Lodna colliery  from  5-5-77  to  7-2-80.  The  charge  was  based  on  a complaint  letter  from  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad  against  the  con- cerned  workman.  The  complaint  letter  is  Ext.  M l.  A chargesheet  signed  by  Shri  A.  Dutta  is  marked  Rxt,  M2.  The workman  reply  to  the  charge-sheet  Is  Ext,  M3.  Shri  B.  N. Jhawas  appointed  as  enquiry  officer  by  Shri  A.  Dutta  in  his letter,  Ext,  M4.  The  enquiry  proceeding  is  Ext.  M5  and the  enquiry  report  is  Ext.  M6,  The  note  sheet  containing the  approval  of  the  dismissal  of  the  concerned  workman  by the  General  Manager  is  Ext.  M7.  The  dismissal  letter  signed Shri  A  Dutta  is  Ext.  M8.  The  certified  standing  order  is Ext,  M.9
7.  A  prayer  was  made  by  the  management  to  consider the  question  of  propriety  and  fairness  of  the  domestiJ  enquiry as  a  preliminary  issue.  On  7-8-82  the  enquiry  officer,  MW-1 was  examined  and  cross-examined.  13-8-82  was  fixed  for argument  on  the  preliminary  question  of  fairness  and  pro- priety  of  the  domestic  enquiry.  On  that  date  Shri  B.  B. Pandey,  Advocate  appearing  for  the  Workman  submitted  that he  had  nothing  to  urge  against  the  domestic  enquiry  and wanted  to  argue  the  case  on  merits,  It  was  therefore  held that  the  domestic  enquiry  was  fair  and  proper.  Thereafter both  the  parties  have  been  heard  on  merits.
8.  Shri  B,  B,  Pandey,  Advocate  for  the  workman  has  not been  able  to  find  fault  with  the  evidence  recorded  by  the enquiry  officer.  He  has  laid  stress  on  the  point  that  the management  has  not  considered  the  report  of  the  enquiry officer,  and  passed  the  order  of  dismissal.  He  has  also pointed  out  that  the  General  Manager  approved  the  dis- missal  much  after  the  dismissal  order  was  served  on  the concerned  workman  and  therefore  the  dismissal  order  cannot be  sustained,
9.  Before  going  into  the  question  as  to  whether  the  order of  dismissal  can  b©  said  to  be  justifiable,  T  would  like  to consider  the  facts  which  have  been  brought  in  the  course of  domestic  proceeding.  The  matvasement  examined  Shri  A. Kalam  who  is  Assistant  colliery  Manager  of  I.odna  colliery his  evidence  is  that  on  30-3-79  at  about  4  P.M.  Shri  Rajendra Prasad,  Tagger  khalasi  of  No.  14  incline  came  to  his  office and  reported  that  the  report  of  the  munshi  dated  26-3-89 and  27-3-79  was  for  44  tubs  on  each  day  and  it  was  wrong. The  khalasi  had  kept  the  account  and  according  to  him 40  tubs  had  been  raised  on  26-3-79  and  36  tubs  on  27-3-79 Shri  Kalam  had  obtained  his  complaint  in  writing.  There- after  he  seized  the  time  book  and  put  his  signature  on  the raising  figure  of  these  days  written  by  the  concerned  work- man.  He  sent  the  same  to  the  Superintendent  of  collieries. The  Superintendent  then  issued  a  charge-sheet  to  the  con- cerned  workman.  He  was  cross-examined  on  behalf  of the  concerned  workman,  but  nothing  has  been  elicited  to have  any  repercussion  of  this  case.
10.  The  other  witness  is  Shri  Rajendra  Prosnd.  His  evidence Is  that  he  was  on  duty  as  tagger  khalasi  in  incline  No.  14 and  he  had  been  instructed  by  Shri  B.  B.  Verma,  Sr,  overman to  check  the  raisina  report  prepared  by  the  concerned workman.  He  used  to  orally  report  about  the  raising.  At the  instance  of  Shri  Verma  he  pave  a  "written  report  and handed  over  the  same  to  Shri  Kalam.  He  has  been  cross- exnmined.  He  hat  said  that  he  used  to  note  the  number of  tubs  at  the  time  when  the  tubs  used  to  stop  near  the tagger.  The  witness  in  cross-examination  has  said  that  he had  no  quarrel  with  the  concerned  workman.  The  concern- ed  workman  also  in  his  evidence  has  said  that  there  was no  enimity  between  him  and  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad.
11.  The  concerned  workman  in  bis  statement  had  alleged that  Shri  B.  B.  Verma  had  asked  him  to  procure  for  him finish  which  he  was  unable  to  do,  and  therefore  Shri  Venna had  entangled  him  in  this  case.  The  enquiry  officer  thought it  fit  to  examine  him  as  a  witness  and  he  was  examined.  He denied  the  case  of  the  workman  that  he  had  ever  demanded lish.  On  the  other  hand,  he  supported  the  case  of  the management  that  due  to  certain  cmoplaints  against  the  con- cerned  workman  he  had  asked  the  tagger  khalasi  Shri  Rajendra Prasad  to  keep  an  account  of  the  tubs  in  the  shift  of Shri  Pafhak.  He  has  said  that  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad  re- ported  to  him  over-reporting  of  raising  aud  he  asked  him to  give  in  writing  to  Shri  A.  Kalam,  the  Assistant  Colliery Manager.
12.  enquiry  officer  took  into  evidence  the  complaint  made by  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad,  which  is  Ext.  M8.  In  his  report the  enquiry  officer  has  dealt  with  the  case  throughly  and has  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  concerned  workman  has over-reported  the  loading  of  tubs  in  his  shift  on  26-3-79 and  27-3-79.
13.  Shri  B,  Joshi,  Advocate  appearing  for  the  management has  pointed  out  that  the  register  which  hag  been  produced by  the  management  in  this  case  will  go  to  show  that  on 26-3-79  and  27-3-79  the  raising  had  been  44  tubs  on  each day.  But  according  to  the  calculation  made  by  Shri  Rajendra Prasad  there  was  44  tubs  raising  on  26-3-79  and  36  tubs on  27-3-79.  An  account  was  taken  for  raising  on  28-3-79 also.  But  there  was  no  discrcpcncy  between  the  raising report  and  the  report  made  by  Shri  Rajendra  Prasad. Shri  Joshi  has  pointed  out  that  the  report  of  the  munshi with  regard  to  the  raising  there  was  no  further  check  at  any stage  and  therefore  if  the  munshi  over  reports  there  is  no possibility  to  detect  the  some,  In  this  particular  case  the overman  and  the  Assistant  Colliery  manager  had  complaint about  the  reporting  made  by  Shri  Pathak,  the  concerned workman  and  therefore  they  had  secretly  asked  Shri  Rajendra Prasad,  tagger  khalasi  to  note  the  raising  of  tubs.  The same  was  found  to  be  discrepent,  and  on  26-3-79  there  was over  reporting  of  4  tubs  on  27-3-79  there  was  over  reporting of  8  tubs.  Shri  Joshi  has  argued  that  the  evidence  pro- duced  by  the  management  could  be  the  best  evidence  in the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Two  witnesses  for  the  defence had  been  examined  to  say  that  the  reporting  was  correct. These  witnesses  are  trammers  and  loaders  who  are-  directly benefited  from  the  reporting  of  the  munshi  and  for  this reason  the.  enquiry  officer  did  not  rely  on  their  evidence, Shri  Joshi  has  pointed  out  that  there  is  no  earthly  reason why  the  concerned  workman  should  be  falsely  implicated by  Shri  Rajendra  PTasad  who  is  also  a  workman  working as  tagger  khalasi  in  the  same  mine,  I  have  gone  through the  report  of  the  enquiry  officer  and  I  found  that  he  has dealt  with  all  aspects  of  the  case  in  coming  to  a  conclu- sion  that  the  charce  ajrainst  the  concerned  workman  has been  proved  satisfactorily.  T  have  no  reason  to  differ  with the  findings  recorded  by  him.
 
14.  Shri  B.  B.  Pandey,  Advocate  for  the  workman  has argued  about  the  validity  of  the  dismissal  order.  The  Gene- ral  Manager  considered  the  note  dated  19-9-79  for  the  pur- pose  of  his  approval  of  the  dismissal  of  the  concerned  work- man.  The  General  Manager  ordered  the  Personnel  Manager to  examine  it  and  below  his  signature  there  appears  to  be a  date  which  could  be  read  as  12/10.  Thereafter  the  dis- missal  is  approved  by  the  General  Manager  but  below  his signature  there  is  no  date.  Shri  B.  B.  Pandey  has  said that  the  approval  of  the  General  Manager  could  not  be before  12-10-79,  but  the  dismissal  order,  Ext,  M8  signed by  Shri  A.  Dutta,  Agent,  T-odna  colliery  addressed  to Shri  Basdco  Pathak,  munshi  is  dated  30-9-80.  Shri  Pandey has  therefore  argued  that  Shri  A.  Dutta  issued  this  order of  dismissal  without  the  approval  of  the  General  Manager Shri  B,  Joshi,  Advocate  for  the  employers  has  urged  before me  that  the  approval  of  the  General  Manager  in  the  matter of  dismissal  of  the  concerned  workman  was  of  no  legal consequence.  He  has  pointed  out  that  under  the  Mines

3810  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)l
Act  the  power  of  appointment  vested  ifl  the  colliery  manager, owner  and  the  agent.  Any  of  these  authorities  has  also  the power  of  dismissal.  Tn  this  particular  case  the.  dismissal letter  of  the  concerned  workman  was  signed  by  the  Agent, and  this  was  sufficient  requirement  of  law.  It  is  no  doubt true  that  the  dismissal  letter  should  not  have  pre'eded  the order  of  approval  by  the  General  Manager  who  is  also  the Chief  Engineer  being  the  competent  authority  to  order dismissal  of  a  workman.  But  it  can  be  at  best  regarded as  post-facto  approval  of  an  order  passed  by  the  Agent  who was  competent  to  pass  a  dismissal  order.  So,  virtually  the order  of  dismissal  cannot  be  set  aside  for  the  plea  advanced by  Shri  B.  B.  Pnadcy.
15.  Thus  having  considered  all  aspects  of  the  case  I  hold that  the  action  of  the  management  of  Lodna  colliery  of Area  No.  X  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Limited  at  and Post  office  Lodna,  District  Dhanbad  in  dismissing  Shri  Basdco Pathak.  rhunshi  from  service  w.e.f.  30th  September,  1980 is  justified,  Consequently,  the  concerned  workman  is  not enticed  to  any  relief. This  is  my  award.
J.  P.  SINGH,  Presiding  Officer,
[No.  L-200I2(240)/8l-D.III(A)li
S.O.  M49.—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  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  3.  Dhanbad  in  the  industrial dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  tho  management of  Bhurungia  Project  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Limited, Post  Office  Mohuda,  District  Dhanbad  and  their  workmen, which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  6th October,  1982.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR  COURT  NO.  3,  DHANBAD
Reference  No,  31 /"0
PRESENT  :
Shri  J.  N.  Singh,—Presiding  Officer.
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  management  of  Bhurungia Project  of  M/a.  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Ltd.,  P.  O. Mahuda,  Dist.  Dhanbad.
AND
Their  workman.
APPEARANCES  :
For  the  Employers..—Shri  B.  Joshi,  Advocate.
For  the  Workman.—-Shri  S.  Bose.  General  Secy.  R.C.M.S.
INDUSTRY  :  Cool.  STATE  :  Bihar
Dated  the  1st  October^  19S2
to  Timber  Mazdoor  Category-II,  is  justified  ?  If not,  to  what  relief  is  the  said  workman  entitled and  from _what  date 7"
2.  During  hearing  stage  none  of  the  parties  adduced  any evidence  and  they  only  argued  the  case.  The  management however  has _filed  Ext.  M-l  dated  3-4-76  signed  by  the concerned  workman  who  filed  the  same  before  the  Project Superintendent  (Parijojana  Pravandakli).  Tt  appears  that  the reference  was  that  the  wages  of  the  concerned  workman should  be  protected  when  his  designation  was  changed  from piece-rated  miner  to  timber  mazdoor  Category  II.  The  con- cerned  workman  was  thills  working  as  piece-rated  miner  but subsequently  he  started  working  as  a  timber  mazdoor Category  II.  It  appears  from  Ejit.  M-l  that  the  concerned workman  himself  filed  a  petition  before  tho  authority  praying that  he  docs  not  want  to  work  Us. a  miner  and  that  he should  be  given  the  work  of  timber  mazdoor.  According to  the  management  as  the  concerned  workman  wanted  for light  work  hence  light  work  of  timber  mazdoor  was  given to  him.  In  his  petition  Ejtt.  M-I  the  concerned  workman stated  that  he  was  agreenble  to  accept  the  wages  of  timber mazdoor  and  was  not  claiming  any  protection  of  his  wages as  a  miner.  The  said  petition  of  the  concerned  workman has  been  exhibited  on  admission  and  it  is  also  signed  by as  many  as  three  witnesses.
3.  Thus  from  the  petition  of  the  concerned  workman  him- self  it  will  appear  that  he  voluntarily  accepted  the  post  of timber  mazdoor  and  without  claiming  any  protection  of  wages and  the  said  post  was  given  to  him  on  his  prayer.  In  such circumstances  the  claim  of  the  concerned  workman  that  his wages  should  be  protected  is  not  tenable  at  all.
4.  Considering  the  above  document,  I  hold  that  the  demand of  the  concerned  workman  that  his  wages  should  be  pro- tected  when  his  designation  was  changed  from  piece-rated miner  to  timber  mazdoor  Category  II  is  not  justified.  The concerned  workman  got  his  designation  changed  at  his  own sweet  will.
5.  According  the  concerned  workman  is  not  entitled  to
any  relief.  The  award  is  given  accordingly.
J.  N.  SINGH,  Presiding  Offic"r
fNo.  L-20012(204)i/79-D,III(A)]
S.O.  3650.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  ths  Central  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  2,  Dhanbad  in  the industrial  dispute  between  the  employees  in  relation  to  the management  of  Tetturiya  Colliery  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking Coal  Ltd.,  Post  Office  Sonardih,  District  Dhanbad  and  their workmen,  which  was  received  by  the  Central  Government  on the  5th  October,  1982.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  (NO.  2)  DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri  J.  P.  Singh,  Presiding  Officer.
Reference  No.  6  of  1980
AWARD
The  Government  of  India  in  the  Ministry  of  Labour  in exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  on  them  U/S  10(1) I'd) of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  14  of  1947  has  referred  (he dispute  to  this  Tribunal  for  adjudication  under  Order No.  L-2O012/204/79-D.IIKA)  dated  the  28th  April,  1980.
SCHEDULE
"Whether  the  demand  of  the  workmen  of  the  manage- ment  of  Bhurungia  Project  of  M/N. Bharat  Coking Coal  Ltd.,  P.  O.  Mohuda,  Dist.  Dhanbad  that  the wages  of  Sbri  Salil  Mia  should  be  protected  when his  designation  was  changed  from  piece-rated  Miner In  the  matter  of  an  industrial  dispute  under  S.  10(l)(d)  of
the  I.D.  Act,  1947
PARTIES :
Employers  in  relation  to  the  manpRement  of  Tetluriya colliery  of  Messrs  Bharit  Coking  Coal  Limited.  Post Office  Snnardih  district  Dhiinbad  and  their  workmen.
APPEARANCES:
On  behalf  of  the  employers—Shri  B.  Joshi,  Advocate
On  behalf  of  the  workmen—Shri  Pritam  Singh,  the  con-
cerned  workman.

3811
STATE  :  Bihar
INDUSTRY  :  Coal
Dhanbrd,  30th  September,  1982
AWARD
This  is  an  industrial  dispute  under  S.  1<> of  the  I.D.  Act,
1947.  The  Central  Government  by  its  Order  No.  L-20012/ (165)/79-D.III(A)  dated  9th  May,  1980  has  referred  this dispute  to  this  Tribunal  far  adjudication  on  the  following terms ••
SCHEDULE
"Whether  the  demand  of  the  workmen  of  Tetturiya  Coi- lieiy  of  Messrs  Bharat  Coking  Coal  Limited,  Post Office  Sonardih,  District  Dhanbad  that  Shri  Pntjm Singh  should  be  regulaiiscd  as  a  canteen  salesman with  proper  pay  scale  as  per  Nation.il  Coal  Waae Agreement,  is  justified  ?  If  so,  to  v.hat  relief  is  the, said  workman  entitled  7"
2.  On  receipt  of  the  reference,  notices  were  served  upon the  parties  to  file  their  written  statement.  Parties  accordingly filed  their  written  statements  and  rejoinders.  Several  adjourn- ments  were  granted  to  the  parties  to  file  their  documents. Pdrtiei  also  prayed  time  for  filing  settlement.  Ultimately on  29-9-82  the  parties  filed  a  memorandum  of  settlement interms  of  which  Shri  Pntam  Singh,  the  concerned  work- man  will  he  regularised  as  a  salesman  of  the  canteen,  Since the  terms  of  the  sett'ement  are  beneficial  to  the  parties,  I accept  the  same  anj  pass  the  award  accordingly.  The  settle- ment  will  form  part  of  the  award.
J.  P.  SINGH,  Presiding  Officer
BEFORE  THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  CENTRAL  GOVT. INDUSTRIAL  TRIBUNAL  NO.  II  AT  DHANBAD
Reference  Case  No.  <> of  19H0
PARTIES  :
Employers'  in  relation  to  the  Management  of  Telttniya Colliery  of  M/s,  Bliarat  Coking  Coal  Limited;
AND
Thcii  Workmen.
The  humble  petition  on  behalf  of  the  parties'  above  named
most  respectfully  shewth :—
1.  That  without  prejudice  to  the  contentions  of  1he  parlie3 contained  in  their  respective  written  statements  the  parties above  named  have  amicably  settled  the  dispute  on  the  follow- ing  terms  ;—
Terms  of  Setfement
00  That  the  concerned  person  Sri  Pritam  Singh,  who was  being  treated  as  contractor  of  the  Canteen  so Jong,  will  be  regularised  as  H  salesman  of  the Canteen  with  effect  from  1-10-82  and  he  will  be paid  categoiy-U  wages  of  the  National  Coal  WEJJU Agreement-JI,  which,  is  the  proper  pay  scale  fixed under  the  NCWA-II,  read  with  Conl  Wage  Board Recommendations  for  the  salesman  of  a  Canteen.
(b)  That  for  the-  purpose  of  payment  of  gratuity  and counting  his  seniority  in  service,  his  date  c\( appoint- ment  will  be  taken  as  1-5-1972,
(c)  That  Sti  Pritam  Sirgh  will  not  press  for  any  other claim  for  the  periol  prior  to  1-10-82  by  way  of wages,  bonus  etc.,
2.  That  in  view  of  this  settlement  nothing  remains  lo  be
adjudicated.
Under  the  facts  and  circumstances  stated  above,  (he  Hon'ble Tribunal  will  be  graciously  plensed  to  bold  that  the  settle- ment  is  fair  and  proper  and  will  be  pleased  to  pass  the Award  in  terms  of  the  jettlemenl.
For  the  workman  For  the  employer
(Sd./-  Illegible),
(Pritam  Sirurb)
VERIFICATION
I,  Sri  Pritam  Singh,  the  concerned  workman  in  the  dispute have  fully  understood  the  terms  of  the  settlement  and  I Hccept  all  the  terms  and  will  abide  by  the  same.
(PRITAM  SINGH), WORKMAN.
[No,  L-20O12(165)/79-D.III(A)l A.  V.  S.  SARMA,  Desk  Officer
New  Delhi,  the  14th  October,  1982
S.O  3651,—In  puisuancc  of  section  17  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  the  Central  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Central  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal,  No.  3,  Dhinbad,  in  the  industrial dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  Management of  Messrs  Dehri  Rohtag  Light  Railway  Company  Ltd.,  Dal- mianagar,  and  their  workmen,  which  was  received  by  the Central  Government  on  the  6-10-82.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR  COURT  NO.  Ill,  DHANBAD
Reference  No.  6/75
PRESENT:
Shri  J.  N.  Singh,  Presiding  Officer.
PARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to  the  Management  uf  M/s,  Dehri Rohtas  Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  Dalmianagar  (Dist. Rohtas).
AND Their  workmen.
APPEARANCES :
For  Employers—Shri  B.  B. Sanyul,  Advocate,  Shri  J.N.P. "Sinha,  Advocate  and  Shri  N.  C.  Ganguly,  Advocate.
For  Workmen—Shri  Ranel  Roy  and  Shri  J.  Krishna,
Advocates,  or  Rohtas  Karamchari  Sangh.
Shri  Rama  Raman,  Advocate  for  Dehri  Rohtas  Light
Railway  Mazdoor  Seva  Snngh.
Shri  Gurubachan  Sinsh,  Advocate  for  Dehri  ftohtas  Light
Railway  Shramik  Sangh.
Shri  D,  N,  Pandey,  Advocate  for  Dehri  Rohtas  Light
Railway  Employees  Union.
INDUSTRY  :  Railway  STATE  :  Bihar
Dntcd,  the  29(h  September,  1982
AWARD
This  is  a  rcferen.e  U/S  10(1 )(d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes Act,  14  of  1947  by  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of Labour  under  Order  No.  L-41011(l)/75-D  1KB)  dated  the 22nd  February,  1975.
SCHEDULE
"(1)  Whether  the  demand  of  the  woikmen  of  M/s,  Dehri Rohtas  Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  for  further  increase in  Dearness  Allowance  is  justified  and,  if  so,  to what  extent  and  from  what  date ?
(2)  Whether  having  regard  to  the  recommendations  of Third  Pay  Commission  for  Railway  employers  the demand  of  the  woikmen  of  M/s,  Dehri  Rohtas Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  for  revision  pf  scales  of pay  is  justified  and.  if  so,  what  shou'd  be  (he  revised scales  of  pay  and  the  date  from  which  it  should take  effect  :"
2.  This  Reference  has  been  received  on  remand  from  the Patna  High  Court  with  a  direction  for  fresh  decision  on  the second  point  of  the  Reference  On  the  materials  available  in the  record  in  accoi dance  with  law  after  g'ving  opportunities to  the  parties  to  be  heaid  afresh.
General  Manigci
Area  No.  Ill
 
3.  The  previous  award  was  given  by  my  prcdecessor-fn-offlce, Sri  S.  R.  Sinha  and  is  dated  19-4-78.  Tt  appears  that  prior to  this  Reference,  Reference  No.  6/73  was  refeired  to  the

3812  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)J
Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  1,  Dbanbad. The  tevm  in  the  said  Reference  was  as  follows  :
"Whether  the-  demand  of  Dehri-Rohtas  light  Railway Union  for  revision  of  the  wage  structure  of  the employees  of  Dehri-Rohtas  Light  Railwuy  Company Limited  is  justified  ?  If  so.  what  should  be the  wag; structure  and  from  what  date  should  it  be  made
effective  ?"
During  the  pendency  of  that  reference  a  settlement  was arrived  at  between  the  parties  on  15-4-1973  and  a  joint petition  of  compromise  was  likd  which  WHS  accepted  by  tha said  Tribunal  as  fair  and  reasonable  and  an  Hivard was  passed accordingly.  The  said  award  is  part  of  the  notification  pub- lishing  (he award which has been  marked  Ext,  M-2, Ext.  W-l/4 is  the  copy  of  the  said  settlement  arrived  at  between  the parties  and  is  dated  15-4-73,  From  a  perusal  of  the  said settlement  it  will  appear  that  dcarness  allowance  was  agreed upon  to  be  paid  to  the  wormen  against  each  slab  of  salary and  the  amount  is  mentioned  in  the  settlement  deed  itself. Regarding  grade  it  was  settled  that  the  matter  concerning grade  is  postponed  till  the  decision  of  the  Government  of India  on  Third  Pay  Commission.  Report  concerning  grade  is known.  It  was  also  settled  that  the  matter  will  be  discussed in  detail  between  the  parties  considering  the  special  problems of  the  Dchri  Rohlas  Light  Railway  Co.  Limited  woiing  etc. and  they  will  arrive  at  an  understanding  and  agreement  after making  such  adjustments  as  m.iy  be  found  necessary  in  the light  of  the  above.  The  said  rate  of  dearness  allowance  was effective  from  1-4-1973.
4.  On  the  basis  of  above  compromise  and  award  of  Tribu- nal  No.  1  it  was  held  by  my  predecessor-in-office  that  ns the  award  of  Tribunal  No.  1  had  not  been  terminated  and was  binding  on  the  parties  the  Reference  on  point  No,  1  of the  Schedule  of  the  present  reference  was  incompetent  and no  award  can  be  given  rcgardinji  the  demand  of  the  work- men  for  further  increase  in  dearncss  allowance.  My  predeces- sor-in-offlco  thereafter  considered  point  No  2  only  of  the Schedule  and  passed  an  award  on  the  said  point.  It  held that  in  view  of  the  previous  award  on  the  basis  of  settlement the  Tribunal  was  concerned  onlv  with  ths  revision  of  basic wage  of  the  workmen  and  not  with  the  dearne^s  allowance E.pplicablo  to  each  slab  of  wages.  As  against  the  said  nward both  the  partie*  filed  Writ  applications  4  in  number  before the  Patna  High  Court.  It  appears  that  before  the  Hon'hlc High  Court  finding  of  ihe  Tribunal  on  the  first  point  of Reference  i.e.  dearness  allowance  was  confirmed  as  the  award on  the  said  point  was  also  not  assailed  before  Ihe  Hon'ble High  Court  by  any  of  the  parties.  The  Hon'ble  High  Court discussed  the  issue  On  the  second  point  of  reference  only. It  found  that  Ihe  Schedule  attached  with  the  award  of  the Tribunal  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  findings  given  bv him  and  therefore  the  award  to  the  extent  it  related  to  the second  point  of  reference  was  quashed  and  the  nmtter  was remanded  to  this  Tribunal  for  frssh  consideration
5.  This  Court  in  the  circumstances  has  to  give  its  flndinc only  on  the  second  point  of  Reference  regarding  the  revision of  scales  of  pav  of  the  workmen  of  M/s.  Dehii  Rohtas  Light Railway  Co.  Ltd.
6.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  there  were  three  unions representing  the  workmen  before  this  Tribunal  originally and  they  filed  their  respective  written  statements  separately though  the  grounds  taken  by  them  are  almost  the  same. One  more  union  viz,  Rohtas  Karamhncri  Sangh  btcame  u party  before  the  Hon'blo  Hi^h  Court  and  thn  Advocates  of all  the  4  unions  have  advanced  their  arcuments  befora  this Court,
7.  The  Reference  in  this  case  was  originally  made  on  the dispute,  raised  by  the  Dehii  Rohtaa  Liaht  Railway  Employees Union.
8.  The  case  of  the  union  is  that  the  present  manaitement is  a  concern  of  Sahujain  Groun  which  has  other  undertakings at  Dalmianagar  viz.,  Cement,  Paper  and  others.  Formerly  the wages  of  workmen  were  at  per  with  that  of  the  workers  ot cement,  paper  and  sugar  industries  of  Sahulaln  Group.  Dal- mianagar,  It  is  stated  that  an  agreement  dated  6-9-1960  was arrived  at  between  the  Management  nnd  the  Dehri  Rohtns Light  Railway  Employees  Union  and  it  was  agreed  that  emo- luments  to  all  categories  of  employees  of  the  Light  Railway would  be  the  same  as  would  be  available  to  corresponding employees  of  Indian  State  Railwavs  and  since  then  th:  wage structure  of  the  workmen  had  been  quite  at  par  with  that of  the  employees  working  in  the  Indian  State  Railways.  It is  submitted  that  there  has  bsen  tremendous  increase  in wages  of  th"  workmen  engaged  in  cement  industry  as  per Cement  Wage  Board  and  their  wages  is  about  RB. 450  p.m. but  the  minimum  wages  payable  to  the  workmen  of  the Railway  is  about  Rs.  156  per  month  only.
9.  Tt  h  further  stated  that  in  the  years  1962,  1965,  1970 and  1973  subsequent  agreements  were  entered  into  between the  parties  for  fixing  of  various  iems  of  wages  keeping  in view  the  wage  structure  in  the  Indian  State  Railways  and finally  there  was  an  agreement  dated  15-4-1973  which  foimed part  of  the  award  dated  10-5-73  in  Reference  Case  No.  6/73 by  the  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  1,  Dhanbad.
10.  It  is  submitted  that  Ihe  matter  concerning  the  grade was  postponed  till  the  decision  of  the  Government  of  India on  Third  Pay  Commission  Report  and  it  was  funher  agreed that  the  matter  would  be  discussed  in  detail  between  the parties  considering  the  special  problems  of  M/s.  Dehri  Rohtas Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  regarding  working  etc.  and  they  would arrive  at  an  understanding  and  agreement  after  making  such adjustments  as  may  be  found  necessary.
11.  It  is  then  stated  that  the  Report  of  the  Third  Pay Commission  of  the  Government  of  India  was  published  and accepted  by  the  Govt.  and  the  employee  of  the  Indian  State Railways  are  receiving  the  new  wages with  effect  from  1-1-73. The  present  management  did  not  act  on  the  said  report  and so  the  union  took  up  the  matter  of  grad©  and  requested  the management  to  fix  it  accordingly.  Tho  management,  however, did  not  show  any  sign  of  introducing  the  new  grades  in accordance  with  the  new  scale  of  Third  Pay  Commission and  so  the  union  gave  a  airike  notics  to  the  management  ami the  strike  continued  for  about  5  months.  The  industrial dispute  was  thereafter  raised  in  which  the  conciliation  ended in  failure  and  thereafter  the  instant  Reference  was  made.
12.  It  is  stated  that  the  employees  in  the  Indian  Railways are  not  entitled  to  bonus  whereas  the  workmen  of  the  pre- sent  management  has  been  receiving  the  same  and  to  keip the  parity  the  union  and  ihe  management  agreed  to  adjust the  payment  of  bonus  out  of  increased  dearness  allowance  i.e. the  bonus  plus  dearness  allowance  was  made  equal  to  the dearncss  allowance  payable  to  the  employees  of  the  Indian Railway.  It  Is  submitted  that  the  management  has  also  been granted  increase  in  fares  and  freight  by  (he  Government  of India  but  inspite  of  it  the  grade  of  the  concerned  workmen has  not  been  revised.  It  is  submitted  that  the  workmen  are entitled  to  the  new  revised  pay  scales  in  accordance  with the  recommendations  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  appli- cable  to  the  employees  of  Indian  Stats  Railways  with  effect from  1-1-1973.  Accordinu  to  them  the  Dehri  Rohtaa  Light Railway  is  mainly  used  for  helping  their  own  cement  and other  industries  of  Sahujain  Group  and  iU  finances  are mainly  manipulated  to  helo  the  said  Sahujain  Group.  The union  has  thus  prayed  that  the  anide  of  the  workmen  con- cerned  should  be  revised  as  per  recommendations  of  the Third  Pay  Commission.
13.  The  management  has  contested  th.e  claim  of  the  union. Besides  raising  the  preliminary  issue  which  has  already  been decided  earlier  and  on  which  finding  of  the  Tribunal  ns  nhc of  the  High  Court  has  been  given  and  so  no  finding  on  any preliminary  issue  is  called  for.
 
14.  The  case  of  the  management  on  the  merits  iegarding the  revision  of  scale  of  pav  is  that  the  said  denund  In  the lieht  of  the  recommendations  of  ih;  Third  Pav  Commission for  State  Railway  is  wholly  uniusliflcd.  It  it  stated  that  the Dcbn  Rohlas  Light  Railway  run  over  a  distance  of  65  ktns. only  and  that  mostly  in  one  direction  viz.  carrying  lime  stone from  the  quarries  to  Dalmianatrar  and  further  is  operating under  a  severe  competition  with  the  road  traffic  runninn parallel  to  the  railway  track  for  major  portion  of  the  railway it  cannot  be  treated  at  par  with  (he  Indian  State  Railways  and in  the  circumstance  (he  revised  scale  of  pay  as  per  recom- mendations  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  cannot  afford  anv guidance  for  revision  of  the  scales  of  pay  of  the  workmen concerned.  It  is  stated  tliat  the  company  in  view  of  it'

3813
near  critical  financial  position  is  unubl;  to  beat  the  burden involved  in  any  upward  revision  of  the pay  scale.  According  to the  management  the  financial  position  as  obtaining  rules  out completely  any  upward  revision  in  thj  picsent  scale  of  wages as  the  company  suffered  loss  in  1973-74  and  1974-75  to  the tune  of  Rs.  23,50,000  and  even  during  I he  financial  year 1975-76  the  working  loss  amounted  to  Us.  K,46,000.  It  is  sub- mitted  that  the  company  has  been  financially  crippled  due  to unjustified  and  illegal  strike  by  its  woikmcn  foi  4  mon  hs and  20  days  and  the  stiff  lisc  iji  the  prices  of  coal  and  lubn- cants  coupled  with  declining  traffic  eainine's  has1  completely upset  its  economy  and  if  any  further  financial  burden  is imposed  it  will  not  be  in  the  inieiest  of  the  continued  em- ployment  of  the  workmen  and  undci  such,  circumstances  the demand  for  upward  revision  in  the  scale  of  wages  is  wholly unrealistic  and  unjustified.  According  to  them  if  the  piesent wage  scales  etc.  arc  compared  to  those  obtaining  in  similar or  comparable  concern  in  the  regions  such  as  Arrah  Sasaiam Light  Railway  and  Fatuah  Islampur  Light  Railway  il  will appear  that  those  obtaining  in  the  company  railway  are better  and  more  than  those  paid  in  above  two  railways. It  is  stated  that  there  has  been  as  many  as  5  upward  revi- sions  in  the  scale  of  dearnoss  allowance  payable  to  the  emp- loyees  since  September,  I960.
15.  On  the  above  grounds  it  is  prayed  th it  the  point  in reference  should  be  decided  in  favour  of  the  management and  no  upward  incicase  in  the  scale  of  pay  should  be  given.
16  The  .point  for  consideration  is  as  to  whether  having regarding  to  the  recommendations  of  the  ThirJ  Pay  Com- mission  for  Railway  employees  Ihc  demand  of  the  workmen of  M/s.  Dehri  Rohlas  Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  for  revision of  scales  of  pay  is  justified  and,  if  so,  what  should  be  (he revised  scales  of  pay  and  the  date  from  which  il  should  takt effect.
17.  As  per  terms  of  the  reference  this  Court  has  to  consider as  to  whether  (he  demand  of  the  workmen  for  revision  of scale  of  pay  is  justified  having  regard  to  the  recommenda- tions  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  for  Railway  employees. Thus  the  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  is to  be  kept  in  view  while  considering  the  demand  of  the  con- cerned  workmen  for  revision  of  their  scale  of  pay.
18.  On  behalf  of  the  union  it  is  urged  that  the  revision of  pay  should  be  on  the  late  as  per  recommendation  of  the Third  Pay  Commission  and  as  accepted  by  the  Government. The  management  however  has  challenged  this  demand  nr unjustified  mainly  on  two  giounds  (1)  the  financial  condition of  the  company,  and  (2)  the  Dehri  Rohlas  Light  Railway Company  cannot  be  compared  with  the  Indian  State  Railway in  any  way  for  revision  of  their  pay  and  fi\ing  them  at  par with  the  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission.
19.  It  will  appear  that  the  last  agreement  legaiding  pay structure  or  dearness  allowance  was  arrived  at  between  1hc parties  in  the  year  1973  when  the  Reference  No.  fi/73  wns pending  before  Tribunal  No.  1,  Dhanbad,  DuiinK  the  pen- dency  of  that  Reference  ;"n  agreement  was  .inived  fit  between the  panics  on  15th  April,  1973  and  on  [he  basis  of  that agreement  the  said  award  was  passed.  This  fuct  ha)  alicady been  referred  to  by  me  earlier  and  the  terms  of  the  awaul will  be  discussed  at  appropriate  time.  But  prior  to  it  othei agreements  had  been  entered  into  between  the  parties  in different  years  and  on  the  basis  of  those  ^greements  there was  increase  of  pay  as  well  as  dearness  nllovvnnce.  The earlier  settlement  is  Ext  Wi-I  dated  6th  September,  1960. From  a  perusal  of  this  agreement  it  will  appear  that  it  was jointly  agreed  between  the  parties  that  emoluments  [o  nil catcgoiies  of  employees  of  Dehri  Rohtas  Liijht  Railway  Co. Ltd.,  will  be  the  same  as  arc  available  lo  corresponding  em- ployees  of  the  Indian  State  Railway.  It  was  further  agreed that  the  matter  would  be  dis.ussed  in  detail  between  Sii B.  R.  Gulati  and  Shii  Ramdeo  Sinha  Secretary  of  (he  Union and  considering  the  special  problems  of  the  Dehri  Roht.is Light  Railway  Company  regarding  working  etc.,  they  will arrive  at  an  understanding  and  nureement  in  detail  and  if there  will  be  any  difference  of  opinion  the  matter  will  auain be  discussed  between  the  President  and  the  munagemenf  It will  appear  that  on  the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  agreement another  agreement  was  arrived  at  between  the  paities  on 14th  June,  1962  (Ext  W-1/1)  in  which  the  scale  of  pay  as well  as  dearness  allownnce  payable  were  fixed.  Some  criteiia for  senioiily  was  also  framed,  Thus  in  (he  yenr  1962  the 824  GI/82—8
scales  pf  pay  were  fixed  and  admittedly  thereafter  there  has been  no  increase  in  the  basic  scale  of  pay,
20,  There  was  subsequent  agreement  between  the  paities which  is  dated  20th  April,  1965  and  this  document  is  Ext, W-l/2.  By  this  document  there  was  further  inciease  in  the dearness  allowance,  There  was  again  another  agreement (E\t.  W-J/3)  on  27th  May,  1970  by  which  there  WJS fur- ther  increase  in  the  dearness  allowance.  Thus  theie  was  in- crease  in  dearness  allowance  in  different  years  though  the basic  scale  of  pay  remained  the  same  as  was  fixed  by  the agreement  of  1962.
21.  The  last  agicement  was  arrived  at  between  the  pnjties us  referred  to  earlier  in  the  year  1973  and  on  the  basis  ol that  agreement  award  was.  passed  in  Reference  No,  6/73. The  terms  of  this  last  award  regarding  grade  which  waa agreed  to  between  the  parties  are  as  follows :
"The  matter  concerning  grade  is  postponed  till  the decision  of  the  Government  of  India  on  Third  Pay Commission  Report  concerning  gradc  is  known,  'I he matter  will  be  discussed  in  detail  behveen  the  parties considering  the  special  problems  of  the  Dehri Rohtas  Light  Railway  Co.  Ltd.,  icgardhg  working etc,  and  they  will  arrive  at  an  understanding  and agreement  after  making  such  adjustments  as  may be  found  necessary  in  light  of  the  above."
22,  From  a  perusal  of  this  agreement  it  will  appear  that the  management  did  not  agree  that  the  pay  scale  will  be same  as  recommended  by  the  Third  Pay  Commission  and accepted  by  the  Government.  It  was  however  decided  that the  matter  regarding  grade  will  be  considered  in  detail  bet- ween  the  parties  considering  the  special  problems  of  this railway.
23,  It  is,  however,  not  seriously  challenged  that  prior  to it  the  management  was  paying  the  scale  of  pay  (o  their  em- ployees  as  per  recommendation  of  the  Second  Pay  Revision Commission,  It  is  said  on  behalf  of  the  management  that since  prior  to  1973-74  the  company  was  i unning  in  profit hence  there  was  no  difficulty  in  paying  wages  to  the  con- cerned  workmen  whkh  was  at  pai  with  the  Second  Pay Revision  Commission.  But  after  1973-74  the  company  is in  uning  heavy  loss  every  year  and  so  it  is  not  possible for  them  to  implement  the  recommendation  of  the  Third Pny  Commission.  Further  it  is  urged  that  the  agreement between  the  parties  nowhere  says  that  the  Third  Pay  Com- mission  Report  is  to  be  implemented.  It  is  only  stated  that the  matter  will  be  discussed  in  detail  between  the  parlies after  the  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission concerning  the  grades  is  known,
24.  It  may  however  be  stated  that  by  this  very  agreement there  wns  an  increase  in  the  dearness  allow nice  of  all  the employees  and  it  was  settled  that  they  will  not  press  for increase  in  dearncss  allowance  for  a  period  of  thice  years.  As this  agreement  or  award  has  not  been  terminated  and  is  still in  force  hen^c  it  was  decided  by  my  predecessor-in-offlce  as also  by  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  (hat  the  Reference  on  point No.  I  was  incompetent,
 
25.  It  will  howevci  appeal  thai  after  the  recommenda- tion  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  the  union  took  up  the matter  and  they  wrote  a  letter  dated  15th  February,  1974 (1-xi.  W-3)  to  the  management  that  as  per  agreement  dated 15th  April,  1973  the  recommendation  of  ihe  Third  Pay  Com- mission  should  be  implemented  as  the  same  had  been  made, applicable  in  State  Railway.  As  per  agreement  between  the parties  union  should  have  pressed  for  discussion  and  not for  pressing  the  management  to  implement  the  Third  P<4V Commission.  No  reply  appeals  (o  have  been  icceivcd  by (he  management  and  hence  another  letter  Kx.  W-3 /I  dated 22nd  Februaiy,  1974  was  again  written  by  the  union  lo  Ihe management  pressing  the  same  claim.  Fxt,  W-3/2  ^  another letter  requesting  ihc  management  to  implement  the  Third  Pay Commission  report  immediately.  As  no  acdon  was  taken a  strike  notice  dated  I lth  December,  1974  (Ext.  W-3/3) was  served  on  the  management.  The  date  of  strike,  how- ever,  was  deferred  by  another  letter-  (Ext,  W-3/4)  dated 26th  December,  1974.  Thereafter  the  union  wrote  another

3814  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
letter  dated  Ext.  W-4  dated  31st  August,  1977  tequesting the  management  to  discuss  the  maUer  regarding  pay  scale and  another  letter  Ext.  W-4/1  was  again  written  requesting to  fix  a  date  for  .settlement  and  for  discussion  on  this  issue.
26.  From  the  pbove  lctteis  it  will  thus  appear  that  the union  iiist  pressed  the  management  to  implement  the  Third Pay  Commission  report  anj  subsequently  they  requested  for discussion  on  the  point  but  no  tangible  result  was  arrived at  and  in  the  end  the  present  reference  was  made,
27.  The  management  has  filed  several  documents  as  also examined  witnesses  to  show  that  their  financial  condition in  very  bad  and  they  are  running  in  heavy  loss  continuously after  1973-74  and  hence  it  is  not  possible  tor  them  to  increase the  grade  or  basic  pay  of  the  workmen,  fcxt.  W-5  is  a  letter dated  4th  September,  1974  written  by  the  management  to the  Chairman,  Railway  Board,  New  Delhi  requesting  foi  ad- justments  in  freight  rate  for  goods  traffic  as  there  was  an increase  in  railway  freight  in  State  Railway,  This  was  made owing  to  financial  condition  of  the  Railway  and  it  was  men- tioned  that  this  was  required  to  paitly  meet  additional financial  burden  owing  to  increase  in  labour  wages,  cost of  general  and  engineering  stores  and  coal,  It  was  mentioned that  the  management  had  a  very  poor  financial  perfmmance during  the  year  1973-74  both  in  the  railway  and  in  the  ce- ment  factory.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  ever  rising  costs of  iron  and  steel  materials,  loco  and  caniaqe  spaie  parts hive  added  to  their  problems.  The  higher  pri.e  and  fi eight of  coal  and  the  uncertainly  about  its  limely  availability  has further  nggiavated  their  hardship  and  with  this  adverse  con- ditions  they  are  faced  with  an  unprecedented  loss  of  approxi- mately  Rs.  11.65  lacs  in  1973-74.  The  Railway  Boaid  made a  query  by  their  letter  Ext.  W-6  dated  19th  September,  1974 as  to  whether  they  are  having  any  increase  in  salaries  of their  employees  during  the  current  year  on  account  c£  deai- ness.  If  so  the  date  of  effect  and  the  increase  of  the  wage bill  per  month  may  please  be  furnished.  The  management gave  a  reply  dated  tst  October,  1974  (Ext.  W-7)  to  the Railway  Board  stating  that  recommendations  of  the  Third Pay  Commission  are  generally  applicable  to  them  and  nego- tiations  for  the  implementation  wilh  the  union  are  in  pro- gress  and  for  that  total  liability  estimated  is  Rs.  11  lacs  per annum.  II  was  further  mentioned  that  efforts  were  being made  to  come  to  a  settlement  with  the  labour  unions  for part  implementation  and  if  they  agreed  to  their  proposal minimum  liability  would  be  to  Rs,  6  to  7  lacs.  Thereafter the  railway  permitted  the  enhancement  of  goods  traffic  freight by  their  letter  dated  14th  October,  1974,  This  increase  in freight  is  claimed  to  be  an  additional  ground  by  the  union for  implementation  of  (h:  Third  Pay  Commission  report.
28.  The  management  has  filed  Exl.  M-l/1  which  is  a  report by  the  Additional  Commissioner  of  Railway  Safety  regarding the  railway  in  question.  The  report  is  for  the  year  ending 31st  March,  1977  and  it  has  mentioned  about  the  conditions of  the  Dehri  Rohtas  Light  Railway  Company.  It  was  men- tioned  that  the  central  portion  of  brfdge  No.  224  h"n  subsid- ed  but  the  joints  have  been  made  with  cement  mortar.  It  also mentioned  that  there  was  no  track  renewal  and  the  position of  slippei  was  also  very  unsatisfactory.  Similarly  other  de- fects  weie  noted  in  this  report  and  from  a  perusal  of  th:s report  it  will  appear  that  the  condition  of  the  railway  was not  good.  There  was  also  inciden' e  of  loco  failure  due  to these  difficulties.  This  letter  is  after  inspection  by  an  im- partial  authority  of  the  Railway  Board  and  from  this  letter it  will  appear  that  the  condition  of  this  railway  was  not incouraging  rather  it  was  in  some  what  bid  condition Ext.  M-4  is  a  letter  written  by  the  management  to  the  A.L.C, which  is  comments  on  the  demands  made  by  the  union  in strike  notice  dated  11th  December,  1974.  By  (his  letter  the management  averred  that  there  was  no  s~ope  for  this  com- pany  to  bear  the  additional  heavy  commitmenTs.  It  was  men- tioned  that  this  railway  covers  67  Kms.  only  wheicas  the Indian  State-  Railways  are  spread  over  the  lengih  and  bredfh (if  the  country  ro\erin"  a  distaacf  of  ^0000  kms,  and  for State  Railways  if  (here  is  a  loss  of  traffic  or  freight  in  ony nart  of  the  country  it  does  not  affect  Iheir  overall  positioi hut  the  position  of  this  railw  y  is  entirely  different  HS if the'-e  is  nnv  loss  of  freight  or  in  traffic  for  anv  reason  what- soever  there  is  an  immediate  and  direct  impact  on  the revenue  It  WHS further  mentioned  that  the  traffic  of  the Dehri  Rohtns  I ight  Railway  is  mostl>  in  one  direction  cnlv bi-rause  thev  carry  lime  stone  from  one  cliieciion  and  f  om the  other  direction  the  wago™  are  returned  bpek  empty  and thus  practically  there  was  no  freight  earning  in  the  up  direc- tion  which  means  for  every  2  km.  run  the  railway  wai  earn- ing  freight  for  1  km,  only.  II  was  further  pointed  out  that the  railway  had  to  face  severe  competition  with  road  traffic running  parallel  to  the  railway  track  upto  Rohtas  and  there was  decrease  in  passenger  traffic  on  account  of  buses  and taxis  and  othei  modes  of  transport.  The  management  has given  the  volume  ot  traffic  carried  by  them  from  the  year m o,  1961,  1973,  1974  as  also  the  passenger  traffic.  It  was further  pointed  out  that  the  operating  cost  of  narrow  gauge line  was  extremely  high  as  compared  to  that  of  broad  gauge and  metre  gauge.  The  management  also  took  the  plea  that despite  the  heavy  fall  in  traffic  working  expenses  were  con- tinuously  increasing  year  to  year  pjrticulaily  on  account  of jncrense  in  the  emoluments  and  benefits  of  the  employees  and it  was  also  necessary  for  track  and  rolling  stock  cte.  In  this leller  thus  the  management  put  Iheir  difficulties  before  tho A.L.C.  on  the  point  of  increase  of  salary  of  the  railway staff.  In  view  of  the  financial  difficulties  the  management also  wrote  a  letter  Exl.  M-5  to  the  Government  ot  India which  is  dated  1st  November,  1977  requesting  to  exempt them  from  the  pnyment  of  bonus.
29.  The  management  has  also  filed  their  balance  sheets which  have  been  marked  Exts.  M-3  to  M-3/10  from  the year  1966-67  to  1976-77  showing  that  they  are  continuously ninning  in  heavy  loss.  The  correctness  of  these  balance  sheets however  has  been  challenged  on  behalf  of  the  union  and  I shall  discuss  these  documents  subsequently.  It  may  be  stated that  though  the  union  has  examined  as  many  as  4  witnesses in  support  of  their  contention  but  none  of  them  has  seriously challenged  the  contention  of  the  management  lhat  this railway  is  running  in  serious  loss.  WW-1,  WW-2  &  WW-3 have  also  stated  that  they  cannot  say  as  to  what  would bo  the  financial  burden  of  the  company  if  the  recommenda- tion  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  is  implemented,  Tho  sub- mission  of  the  union  is  that  whatever  may  be  the  financial complication  of  the  company  the  company  is  bound  to  pay the  pay  scales  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  and  implement the  same  in  toto.  It  has  been  urged  on  their  behalf  that  they are  not  concerned  with  the  financial  position  of  the  company. This  aspect  as  to  whether  the  financial  position  is  to  bo  con- sidered  or  not  will  be  discussed  later  on  but  at  this  stage we  have  to  consider  the  position  regarding  financial  position,
30.  MW-1  is  a  Civil  Engineer  engaged  W  t ne  management in  this  railway.  He  has  stated  thit  his  opinion  regarding  the operational  condition  of  Ihe  railwjy  track,  bridges  is  final. He  has  referred  to  the  report  of  the  Additional  Railway Commissioner  Safety  and  has  stated  that  the  said  report would  itself  indicate  the  condition  of  the  railway  tracks and  bridges.  In  paragraph  8(bl  of  the  said  report  the  arrears in  repairs  of  slippers  and  balList  has  been  mentioned  and for  replacement  or  repairs  etc.  the  approximate  cost  would be  7  lacs,  According  to  him  the  management  has  not  been able  to  make  any  lcplacement  so  far  on  account  of  paucity of  funds  and  recording  to  this  witness  if  (he  present  financial condition  continue  to  company  has  to  face  closure.  Speed  res- trictions  have  also  been  made  on  this  railway  due  to  defect in  the  track,  bridges  etc.  MW-2  is  a  Mechanical  Engineer. He  is  responsible  for  loco  maintenance,  wngon  maintenance and  planning  side  of  mechanical  section.  It  is  stated  by  him that  the  company  has  not  purchased  any  new  engine  from the  year  1966.  According  to  him  only  old  engines  have  been purchased  by  the  company  due  to  financial  stringency.  The condition  of  the  engine  is  also  not  satisfactory  resulting  in tinffk  failures.  There  is  no  spare  parts  to  replace  the  old  and wornrd  out  purls  of  the  enftine  and  due  to  financial  diffi- culties  the  company  is  not  able  to  manage  the  spare  parts. He  has  also  given  Ihe  details  of  the  amount  requited  for repiirs  and  over  haulinp  These  facts  have  not  been  seriously chalVnq"d  on  behalf  of  'he  union  and  there  is  no  evidence on  their  behalf  to  show  fhaf  the  conditions  of  the  engines  and nlhei  materials  of  the  railway  are  in  perfect  order.  M'W-3  who is  the  Traffic  Manager  has  stated  that  the  traffic  has  deterio- rated  sii-rc  he  joined  heie.  Accordinc  fo  him  the  number  of w;-Cnns  in  track"  has  declined  vnce  1973  and  it  is  not  possib'e foi  the  romnany  to  sUDnly  adequate  number  of  wagons  or  to reran  them  due  to  financial  difficulties  MW-6  is  the  Ac- fountant  who  has  proved  the  balance  sheets.
31  These  witnesses  have  thus  given  the  detailed  account
[ibout  the  position  of  the  railway.

3815
32,  Then  next  comes  the  balance,  sheet  of  the  railway which  has  been  marked  Exts.  M-3  to  M-3/10.  From these  balance  sheets  it  will  appear  thut  the  laifway  is  run- ning  in  loss  since  the  year  1973-74.  MW-4  is  Sri  K.  P,  Jain, Accounts  Officer  who  has  proved  these  balance  sheets.  He has  stated  that  the  company  is  not  in  a  position  to  pay  the officers  and  staff  in  time  and  the  progressive  decrease  in  the revenue  of  the  company  is  because  of  the  f.ict  tint  the  traffic of  goods  have  gone  down  and  the  price  of  the  materials required  for  repairs  and  for  coal  etc.  have  gone  up.  Accoi- ding  to  him  in  the  profit  and  loss  account  of  each  year  the depreciation  amount  is  shown  when  provided  and  when  it is  not  provided  a  note  is  given  that  so  much  amount  of depreciation  has  not  been  provided  in  that  year.  This  witness has  explained  the  balance  sheets  referred  to  above  and  has stated  that  the  company  is  running  in  loss  since  the  year 1973-74.
33,  On  behalf  ol  the  union  however  it  is  uiged  that  if the  company  was  running  in  loss  how  it  could  purchase  a Holiday  Home  in  Mussorie,  Pipradih  Siding  and  's  a's0 carrying  an  Earth  Udyog  which  is  a  subsidiary  of  this company.  It  will  however  appeal  that  the  Holiday  Home was  pin chased  in  the  year  1971-72  for  a  sum  of  Rs.  62000/- and  odd  and  it  has  been  purchased  for  (he  benefit  of  the workmen,  his  purchase  was  when  the  company  was  not running  in  loss  but  was  I tinning  in  profit.
34,  So  fai  as  Rohtas  Pipiadih  siding  is  conceined  it  has been  purchased  in  the  year  1972-73  for  Rs.  410000/-  and odd  and  it  was  purchased  evidently  for  incrensong  revenue for  this  railway.  MW-4  in  his  chief  has  stated  as  to  fiom which  capital  this  purchase  was  made.  It  will  appear  that this  siding  gave  a  profit  of  Rs.  30  lacs  to  this  railway  in  5 years  i.e.  the  annual  profit  from  this  purchase  is  about  6 lacs  per  year.  MW-4  has  been  examined  on  this  point  and it  was  tried  to  be  thown  on  behalf  of  the  union  that  this profit  of  6  lacs  per  year  has  not  been  added  in  the  balance sheet  for  the  year  1973-74  oi  subsequent  years.  According to  the  Accounts  Officer  however  the  amount  of  profit  has been  included  in  the  column  'goods  traffic'  because  by  pm- chasc  of  this  siding  there  has  been  increase  in  goods  traffic and  it  was  not  all  necessary  for  showing  this  profit  sepa- rately.  Sri  Ranen  Roy  appearing  on  beh.ilf  of  the  Rohtas Karamchari  Sangh  union  has  drawn  my  attention  to  the balance  sheet  for  the  year  1973-74  and  has  stated  lhat though  the  net  loss  has  been  shown  to  be  9  lacs  tand  odd and  if  6  lacs  profit  from  Pipradih  siding  is  added  then  the loss  will  he  about  3  lacs  only.  According  to  the  management however  this  amount  of  6  lacs  has  been  shown  in  goods earning  on  page  15  of  the  balance  sheet.  The  management has  referred  to  page  5  of  the  balance  sheet  of  1973-74 (Ex.  lvp-3/7)  and  has  urged  that  the  total  of  SI.  No.  3 would  show  that  though  there  was  a  sharp  fall  in  goods (raffle  but  there  was  increase  in  (he  goods  earning  and  this was  because  of  Pipra  siding  piofit  and  the  profit  of  Pipra siding  was  added  in  the  goods  earning.  Similarly  he  has explained  the  balance  sheet  for  subsequent  years  and  has tried  to  show  that  the  profit  of  Pipnt  siding  has  been  added in  the  balance  sheet  in  diffeient  years  and  thoueh  the  profit from  the  Piprn  siding  has  been  added  the  management  is still  running  in  great  loss.
35,  On  behalf  of  the  union  however  it  was  urged  that every  company  has  a  secret  reserve  which  is  shown  in  the balance  sheet  itself  and  this  company  has  also  got  some  sec- ret  reserve  which  should  be  paid  to  the  workmen  in  their salary-  The  existence  of  any  seciet  fund  has  however  been totally  denied  and  there,  is  no  evidence  on  any  secret  re- serve,  There  is  no  authentic  giound  to  disbelieve  the  balance sheets  of  the  management  which  has  been  prepared  bv renound  Charter  Accountant,  From  the  balance  sheet  it is  clear  that  the  financial  condition  of  the  company  is  not good  and  the  company  is  running  at  heavy  loss  since  year 1973-74.
37.  Another  argument  of  the  union  is  that  from  the capital  of  this  company  the  management  has  established an  industry  known  as  'Earth  Udyog'  and  the  industry  is also  running  in  profit.  It  will  however  appear  that  this  was purchased  in  the  year  1971  when  the  company  was  run- ning  in  profit.  Further  that  industry  is  a  separate  unit and  the  profit  or  loss  of  thut  Udyog  are  not  very  much lelevant  for  the  purpose  of  this  case.  It  will  appear  that the  union  is  pressing  for  revision  of  their  scale  for  that the  financial  position  of  the  company  for  the  period  from 1973-74  is  only  lo  be  considered.  The  question  is  whe- ther  the  Dehri  Rohtas  Ught  Railway  can  bo  compared  with the  State  Railways  on  the  bails  of  industry-eum-iejjion basis,  It  is  admitted  hat  thK  railway  covers  a  distance of  67  kms.  only  and  the  freight  traffic  is  from  one  side only  as  the  function  of  this  railway  ii  to  carry  lime  stone from  different  querrics  to  the  cement  factory.  From  the other  side  the  wagons  return  empty  and  they  again  we lcloaded  and  sent  back  to  the  cement  factory.  Thu&  for running  2  km.  the  railway  is  getting  the  freight  for  1  km. only  and  it  is  not  denied  that  the  major  portion  of  the income  of  this  railway  is  from  freight.  It  it  also  in  evi- dence  that  it  is  a  narrow  gauge  and  the  cost  of  running narrow  gauge  is  admittedly  much  more  than  broad  gauge. The  management  has  filed  a  chart  showing  the  handling of  goods  traffic  since  the  year  1960,  They  have  also  ad- duced  evidence  to  show  that  there  is  parallel  road  on which  buses  and  taxis  ply  which  has  also  contiibuted  lo the  loss  in  passenger  traffic,  This  fact  has  also  not  been denied  on  behalf  of  the  union,  rather  is  admitted.  The Slate  Railways  on  the  other  hand  covers  the  entire  coun- try  and  the  income  of  tho  State  Railway  is  both  from  the freight  as  well  as  passenger.  Even  if  there  is  some  loss at  one  place  it  is  compensated  by  profit  at  other  places. The  State  Railway  is  a  vast  organisation  whereas  Dehri Rohtas  Light  Railway  is  a  small  entity  covering  a  distance of  67  kms  only,  The  goods  as  well  as  passenger  traffic earned  by  it  are  limited,  It  is  well  settled  by  the  ruling reported  in  1978  T.ab.  l.C.  page  828  that  comparison  should be  made  in  the  same  line  of  business  and  a  small  concern cannot  be  compared  even  in  the  same  line  of  business  with a  large  concern  even  considering  the  question  of  fixing  the wages  on  the  basis  of  industry-cum-region  basis.  It  can- not  be  denied  that  Dehri  Rohtas  Light  Railway  is  a  very (.mall  concern  as  compared  to  the  State  Railways  and  so for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  pay  structure  the  amount  paid to  the  employees  of  State  Railways  can  not  be  looked  into. It  may,  however,  be  urged  that  prior  to  1973-74  the  Dehri Rohtas  Light  Railway  was  paying  emoluments  to  their employees  at  par  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Second Pay  Revision  Commission  at  was  applicable  to  the  State Railways  but  that  was  the  position  when  the  management was  running  in  profit.  The  position  has  changed  consider- ably  and  since  the  year  1973-74  the  management  is  running at  a  very  heavy  loss  so  much  so  that  they  cannot  repair their  tracks  or  bridges  or  even  cannot  purchase  new  engines but  ate  managing  by  purchasing  old  enKines.  They  can- not  replace  the  old  and  worn  out  wagons  and  further  the cost  of  coal,  fuel,  lubricants  etc.  have  increased  consider- ably.  Under  these  circumstances  this  railway  cannot  be considered  at  par  with  the  State  Railways.  It  hias  been urged  on  behalf  of  the  management  that  there  are  similar industries  in  the  region  viz.  Arrah  Sasaram  Light  Railway and  Fatuah  Tslampur  Light  Railway  which  is  owned  by Martin  Groups  of  railways  and  all  these  railways  have  got narrow  gauge.  It  has  been  urged  that  in  Arrah  Sasaram I ight  Railway  as  also  in  Fatuah  Islmpnr  Light  Railway  the recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  has  not been  implemented.  The  Arrah  Sasflram  Light  Railway  which the  running  in>  loss  and  thus  the  Government  undertook to  bear  the  loss  for  about  three  years  after  this  the  railway was  closed.  The  management  has  examined  MW-8  who is  Sri  N.  N.  Chaturbcdi,  A.T.S.  of  that  Railway.  He  has stated  lhat  the  Arrah  Sasaram  1 ight  Railwav  was  running in  loss  and  the  Government  undertook  to  bear  the  same loss  for  three  years.  That  period  having  exnired  the  rail- wav  was  closed.  Tt  is  further  stated  by  him  that  the Government  has  some  agreement  with  Fatuah  Isiampur Light  Railwav  and  that  agreement  is  to  bear  the  loss.  Ac- cording  to  him  there  has  been  no  rise  in  wane  structure  of Arrah  Sasaram  Light  Railway  or  Fatuah  Tslampitr  Light 36,  The  ne.xt  question  is  as  to  whether  this  railway  can be  compare^  with  the  State  Railway  or  not.  It  k  ••cttled principles  of  law  that  wages  are  to  be  fixed  on  industry- cum-region  basis  and  there  arc  several  rulings  of  the Supreme  Court  op  this  point.  It  is  not  ncccssaiy  to  refer to  all  of  them  and  in  this  regard  reference  to  ruling  re- ported  in  1978  Lab.  T.C  page  828  is  sufficient.

3&16  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23, 1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
Railway.  The  Management  has  also  filed  Ext. M-8  which is  a  chart  showing  the  wage  stiucture  of  the  two  railways and  from  a  comparison  it  will  appear  that  the  emoluments paid  to  the  two  railways  is  lower  to  that  which  is  being paid  to  the  employees  of  the  Dehri  Rohtasy  Light  Railway. This  chart  has  not  been  challenged.  This  witness  in  cross- exaraination  has  stated  that  the  recommendation  of  the Third  Pay  Commission  applicable  to  State  Railways  has not been  made  applicable  to  these  two  railways.
38.  It  has  however  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the  union that  the  two  railways  have  1heir  eirnings  mainly  from  pas- senger  traffic  but  the  income  of  the  Dehii  Rohtas  Light Railway  is  mainly  from  the  freight  trafiic  and  hence  it can- not  be  compared.  But  even  if  the  source  of  income  be  diffe- rent  it  cannot  b0  denied  that  all  these  railways  have  narrow gauge  and  even  the  Dehii  Light  Railway  has  got  income from  passenger  Traffic  though  the  income  has  decreased owing  to  road  competition.
39.  It  was  also  urged  on  behalf  of  the  union  that  Sahu- jain  Group  has  got  several  other  industries  at  Dalmianagar viz.  cement,  paper  and sugar  and in all those  industries  wages are  very  high  and  as the Dehri  Rohtas  Light  Railway  is  also an  unit  of  Sahujain  Group  hence  TiT should  be  compared with  the other  units  of  Sahujain  at Dalmianag'ir,  But it  should be  born  in  mind  that  the  wages  of  cement  and  sugar  indus- tries  are  governed  by  the  Cement  and  Sugar  Wage  Boards. Further  ail  these  industries  are  separate  units  by  themselves and  they  cannot  be  compared  with,  one  another.  The  Dfhri Rohtas  Light  Railway  is  a  separate  unit  nnd  for  fixing  the wage  structure  the  financial  condition  and  other  conditions of  this  company  alone  is to be  looked  into.
40.  Another  argument  on  behalf  of  the  union  is  that theic  has  been  considerable  increase  in  the pay  scale  of  offi- cers  of  this  railway  but  no  such  increase  has  been  made  in case  of  workmen.  From  the  chart  filed  On  behalf  of  the management  it  will  however  appear  that  the  number  of  offi- cers  arc very  few and it  Las nothing  to  do with  the wages of the  workmen.  The  management  has  filed  Ext.  M-6  state- ment  of  gross  wages  of  staff  and officers,  Ext. M-7 statement of  total  pay  packet  for  each  category  of  workmen.  Ext. M-10  is  a  statement  of  wags  structure  of  Dehri  Rohtas  Light Railway  and  Ext.  M-I2  is  the  statement  showing  monthly increased  liability  on  implementation  of  the Third  Pay Com- mission.  If  wo  compare  the  charts  it  will  appear  thnt  if the Third  Pay  Commission  report  is  implemented  in  toto  the company  would  be  crippled  and  it  may  even  go  to  the ex- lent  of  closure  if  such  payment  is  ordered  to  be  made  hs it  is  running  in  loss  continuously.  Further  as  stated  earlier this  company  can on  no  account  be  compared  wiih  the  State Railways.
41.  Thus  on  a  consideration  of  the  abovo  facts  it  is  clear that  it  will  not _be  justifiable  to  implement  the  Third  Pay Commission  report  m  this  particular  case.
42.  The  question  however  is  us  to  what  should  be  the revised  scale  of  pay  of  this  railway.  There  are  number  of rulings  which  bavc  given  direction  for  fixing  the  wages  in an  industry.  The  earliest  ruling  on  the  point  is  the  ruling reported  in  1961 Vol.  I  LLJ.  page  339. The  next  ruling  is the  riilinjt  already  referred  to  viz.  1978 Lab. T,C. page R28, But  before  discussing  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  ruling reported  in  1978 Lab. I.C.  it  will  be  proper  to  refer  
43.  The Third  Pay  Commission  report  at  page  60  of Vol. I  in  paragraph  38  fixed  the  minimum  wage  scale  of  an em- ployee  at  Rs.  185  p.m.  and  accordingly  the  Central  Govt. fixed  the  minimum  scale  at'  RE. 196 p.m. It  hus  been  urged on  behalf  of  the  management  though  the. management  is nor in  a  position  to  implement  with  the  Pay scale  a  still  as per award  of  this  court  which  has  been  set the Tribunal  gave an increase  of  Rs. 34 p.m. to  all  category  of  employees  in  their basic  salarv  nnd  if  Rs. 34  is  added  with  the  minimum  scale of  Rs. 70  the  amount  comes  ti  R^.  104 and if  Rs. 96 which is  the  dearnfss  allowance  navnble  to  the  emnloyees  of  lower crade,  as ncr  agreement  of  1973 is  added  this  amount  comes to  Rs.  200.  It  is  submitted  that  the  Pay  commi^Ion  nfter mereinc  the  clearness  allowance,  dearncss  pay  and  oihers r  •£  t hp  'i a wc  minimum  pay  a+ Rs,  196. Hence  the  amount of  Rs. 200  payable  to  the  employees  of  lowest  grade  a,  per award  of  this  ourt  dated  19-4-1978  h  quite  reasonable  and that  the  management  is  also  paying  this  amount  to  its  work- men  from  the  date  of  award.  It  ir,  submitted  that  the  ma- nagement  is not in  a  position  to pay any amount  higher  than that.
44.  The  question  however  iv,  as  to  what  should  be  the basic  pay  of  the  concerned  workmen.  It  cannot  be  denied that  the  Third  Pay  Commission  fixed  the  minimum  wage  of workman  under  the  Cential  Govt.  employees.  In  the  ruling icported  in  1978 Lab.  I.C,  page  828  the  pijnciplcs  which should  be  taken  into  consideration  for  fixing  wages  in  indus- trial  establishments  have  been  given,  Several  uilings  of  the Supreme  Court  have  been  discussed  in  this  ruling  and  it has been  held  that  the  fixation  of  the  rate  of  wages  which  in- cludes  within  its  campus  the  fixation  of  scales  of  wages  and fitments  of  the  workmen  in  the  wage  scale  will  also  depend upon  the  paying  capacity  of  the  industry.  According  to  this ruling  there  are  three  kinds  of  wages  viz.  living  wage,  fair wage  and minimum  wage.  This  ruling  also  held  that  wheiens the  bare  minimum  wage  or  subsistence  wage  would  have  to be  fixed  irrespective  of  the  capacity  of  the  industry  to pay, a  minimum  wage  thus  contemplated  postulates  the  capacity of  the  industry  to  pay  and  no  fixation  of  wagcb  which  ig- norts  this  essential  factor  of  the  capacity  of  ihe  industry  to pay  could  ever  the suported.  Thus  in  view  of  the  above rul- ing  of  the  Supreme  ourt  for  fixing  a  minimum  wage  the capacity  of  the  industry  has  got  to  be  considered  and  it cannot  be  said  that  the  workmen  are  entitled  to  receive  the wages  as  per  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pa>  Commission irrespective  of  the  capacity  of  the  present  management  to pay  the  same.  As  stated  earlier  if  the  recommendation  of the  Third  Pay  Commission  is  implemented  in  that  case  the management  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  pay  the  sr.me amount  and  the  industry  will  be  crippled  and  it  may  also go  for closure.
45.  It  will  appear  from  the  previous  kward  that  my pre- dece,ssor-in-omce  held  that  a  sum of  Rs. 34  should  be  added to  the  basic  pay  of  all  the  employees  keeping  in  view  the financial  and  other  conditions  of  tht  industry  and he  allowed the  said  amount  to  all  the  employees,  but  there  was  some mistake  while  preparing  the  schedule  as  this  amount  was added  to  the  gross  pay  of  an  employee  including  the  dear- ncss  allowance  and  over  and  above  that  amount  the  dear- ness  allowance  as  agreed  upon  between  the  parties  in 1973 was  again  added  and  thus  the amount  pnyablc  became  much more  higher  than  the  amount  recommended  even  by  the Third  Pay  Commission  and  hence  a  writ  petition  was  filed before  the  Hon'ble  High  Court.  J  think  this  amount  of Rs.  34  should  have  been  added  to  th"  basic  pay  of  aach category  of  employee  and on that  amount  the dcarnesi  allow- ance  as  agreed  upon  between  the  parties  in  the  year  1973 should  have  been  added,
46.  Keeping  all  the  aspects  into  consideration  and  consi- dering  the  evidence  on  the  record,  f  hold  that  the employees  should  get  an  increase  of  Rs. 34. per  month  on  their  basic  pay  which  they  are  getting  at present  and on  that  amount  the  dcainess  allowance  as  agreed upon  between  the  parties  should  be  added.  This  amount  is being  paid  to  the  employees  by  the  management  from  the date  of  the  award  passed  by  my  predecessor-in-ofllce  The management  gave  before  me  n  chart  which  is  not  disputed showing  the  amount  which  an  employee  would  get  as  per tho  previous  award  passed  in  this  Reference  as  compared to  the  wages  paid  by  Government  Railways  as  per  Third ray  Commission  on  minimum  grades.  This  would  show  that if  an  increase  of  Rs.  34  i8  made  they  will  get  almost  equal basic  pay as  payable  to  the  State  Railways  as  per Third  Pav Commission  report.
47  It  may  however  be  mentioned  that  while  fixing  the basic  basic  pay the commission  awarded  some  deamess  allow- ance  on  certain  points  on  nse  in  price  index,  H,,t  in  view of  the  agreement  of  1973  this  Tribunal  cannot  increase  the D r eW  ™-?JineW  a"o w a n cc  Pavable  to  the  employees  of  the present  railway.  The  union  may  agitate  for  increase  of  their Pav• r ™ m-  ™ "Ce ,as  P*l  rcc°mm"^ti°n.  of  the  Thi.il c^ionTrn'gotiatL861  **  """"  mleahl*  smM  by  ^

3817
as  per  slab  given  in  the  settlement  of  1973  As  foi  instance if  a  woikman  is  getting  Rs  70  .a* his  minimum  wa^c  a  sum of  Rs  34  would  be  added  to  it  and  o'i  that  amount  a  sum Re  34  would  be  added  to  it  md  on  that  amount  a  sum  ol Rs  96  payable  as  deainess  allowance  should  be  added  thus making  a  toail  ol  Rs  21)0  To  cl.uity  the  mutter  Rs  34  is to  be  added  to  the  basic  pay  winch  the  woikmen  aie  netting at  present  and  on  that  fimount  the  deanies^  allowance  as agreed  upon  between  the  pities  as  per  agreement  of  1973 would  be  added  The  same  amount  will  be  payable  to them.
New  Delhi,  the  8th  Octobei,  1982
S.O  3652.—In.  pursuance  of  secl.nu  17  of  the  Jndustnul
Disputes  Act,  1947  (14  of  ly47),  the  fentnl  Government heieby  publishes  the  following  awaid  of  the  Central  Gov- trnment  Industrial  Tribunal,  No  2,  Bombay  in  the  industrial dispute  between  (he  employeis  in  relation  to  the  management of  Food  Cotpotation  of  India,  Bombay  and  then  workmen, which  was  re  eived  b\  the  f ential  Government  on  the  27th September  I9R2
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL 1RIBUNAI  NO  2.  BOMBAY
Reference  No  CGIT-2/5  of  1982
PRESPN  r
Shn  M  \  Deshpande,  Ptesiding  Officer
P \ R H FS
Fmployeis  in  relation  to  the  Manngcmem  of  Food  Coi-
poration  of  India  Bombay,
AND
Their  Workmen
\PPFARANCFS •
49  The  next  question  is  is  tn  fiom  whn.li  da^e  it  should take  effect  According  to  the  union  it  should  take  effect from  1-1-1973  It  has  been  uiged  that  if  it  is  not  ID  take effect  ftom  that  date  than  it  should  take  effect  fiom  the date  when  the  Government  raised  the  freight rate  of  this  railway  by  their  letter  Ext  W-S  H  Ins  been urged  that  the  late  of  freight  was  incieased  hy  the  Govt only  after  the  present  management  work  to  the  Go\ernment (Ext.  W-7  dated  1 10 74)  that  recommendation  of  Third Pay  Commission  are  generally  appheitble  to  them  and  ncgotia lion  for  their  implementation  with  the  railway  union,  ire  in the  freight  was  only  for  implementation  of  the  Thud  Pay Commission  It  may  however  be  mentioned  th^t  the  manage- ment  also  wrote  that  they  verc  running  into  heavy  loss  und if  the  entire  lecommenddtion  ib  implemented  then  the  esti mated  liability  will  be  Rs  11  lacs  per  annum  but  if  settle- ment  is  arrived  at  then  ilso  1t  would  be  Rs  6  to  7  lacs It  may  however  be  mentioned  that  the  fieiftht  was  not  in- creased  by  the  Government  rimply  for  implementation  ,if  the recommendation  of  the  Thud  Pay  Commission  repoit  No doubt  the  payment  to  the  staff  was  one  of  the  point  in consideration  as  the  Government  by  Lxt.  W-6  had  enquired from  the  management  as  to  whether  any  increase  in  the lalanes  of  the  employees  have  been  made  on  account  of dearness  allowance  It  did  rot  mention  about  the  basic  pay. Prior  to  this  letter  the  management  by  Lxt  W 5 had  informed the  Railway  Board  about  their  financial  bin den  on  ac  ount of  cost  of  general  and  engineering  stoics,  loco  and  carnage spaic  parts  and  highei  puce  and  treitfht  of  coal  They  had also  placed  their  financial  dilriuilu-s  and  also  these  factors were  apparently  token  into  consideiahon  by  the  Railway Boaid  while  increasing  the  freight  in  this  milway.  Thus  it cannot  be  said  that  rise  in  the  lailway  freight  was  only  for making  payment  to  the  employees
50  According  to  the  management,  however,  the  award should  be  made  effective  from  the  date  the  award  is  given by  (his  Tribunal  after  remind  o-  at  best  from  the  date  of award  as  given  by  my  picdeiessoi  in-oflice  ie  19 4-1978  It is  submitted  that  if  the  iwaid  is  made  effective  fiom  the date  of  Reference  then  additional  burden  of  several  lacs  of rupees  will  fall  on  the  management  which  the  management is  in  no  way  capable  of  paying  In  my  opinion,  cm  the  one hand  the  woikmen  are  entitled  foi  revision  of  their  pay  in view  of  use  of  price  but  on  the-  othei  hand  the  interest  of the  industry  is  also  to  be  looked  into  If  the  award  is  made effective-  from  the  date  of  Reference  or  from  any  date  earliei the-  financial  position  of  the  mdushy  will  be  crippled  further and  they  may  not  be  able  to  make  ths  payment
51  In  such  circumstances  T think  the  propel  couise  will be  to  make  the  award  effective  from  the  date  of  (he  award given  by  my  predeccssor-in  office  (19-4-78)  The  management is  also  making  payment  to  .he  employees  from  that  date and  so  no  question  of  any  additional  financial  liability  would arise
52  I  give  my  awaid  ace  l'dmgly
I  N  SINGH,  Prcsidm * Olhcci
[No  L-4101lll)/7^-Dli(B)J
S  S  PRASHFR  Dtsk  OJTicct Foi  the  employers—Shu  B  M  Masuikar,  Advocate
1 or  the  workmen—Shn  R  G  Isavc  General  Secietaiy, N-lional  Association  of  Food  Coiporation  Em- ployees'  Western  Zone
INDUSTRY  Food  Coiporation  ST\TE  Maharashtia
Bombay  the  7th  September,  19H?
AWARD
(Dictated  in  the  open  Court)
By  then  older  No  L 42011(19)/fil-FCI/D  1V(A)  dated l^th  January,  1982  under  Section  10(l)(d)  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947  the  following  dispute  has  been  lefe  led for  adjudication  by  the  tentta]  Government  —
'Whether  the  Senior  Regional  Manager  (Mah  )  I-OOd Corporation  of  India,  Bombay  is  justified  in  stop- ping  payment  of  hardship  allow mce  to  the  em- ployees  of  storage  depot  in  Dehu  Road  with  effect from  the  1st  January,  1s<8.1 > Tf  not  to  what  relief aic  the  concerned  woikmen  entitled  ?"
2  The  question  relates  to  haidship  allowance  which  was made  payable  under  various  circulars  to  the  employees posted  at  Dchu  Road  complex,  Dehu  Road,  Pune  The  con- tentions  as  raised  in  the  statement  of  ihim  by  the  Union as  well  as  rejoinder  aie  that  because  of  la'k  of  facilities like  shelter,  water,  c inteen,  mads,  elcclncity  transportation, furniture,  office  etc  looking  to  the  hardships  which  the  em- ployees  posted  at  this  complex  weie  experiencing,  the  man- agement  of  the  Food  Corporation  decided  to  grant  the  hard- ship  allowance  as  staled  in  the  vanous  orders  The  grievance is  that  though  the  stocks  were  not  liquidated  and  although the  employees  continued  to  be  posted  at  t'ie  said  complex and  pot  transferred  from  thce  to  some  othei  place  where such  facilmes  wer^  available  by  their  circular  dated  7th July,  1980  from  the  end  of  December,  1080  the  payment of  hardship  allowance  at  Dehu  Road  complex  Ma->  disconti- nued  The  Union  is  making  two  grounds  in  the  first  place  it amounts  to  violation  of  Section  9A  of  ihc  Indust  la)  Dis- putes  Act  since  it  was  i  condition  of  seivice  which  has  been aitcied  without  issuing  any  notice,  secondly  it  is  also  con- tended  'hat  looking  to  the  lmdship  these  employees  posted at  the  said  complex  continued  to  expel icnce,  this  Tribunal should  ordci  its  continuance
 
3  By  then  wiitten  statement  E\  1/M  it  is  stated  that afiei  1st  January  1981  there  was  no  jjstifkntioi  far  ex- tending  the  haidship  allowance  as  the  stock  of  foodgiains was  liquidated  and  open  stoiagc  was  wound  up  Tt  is  fuither contended  that  the  stoppage  was  ordered  n  view  of  depletion of  stock  and  whnt  remained  at  the  complex  was  Ihe  stock of  foodprains  unfii  foi  human  consumption  It  is  therefore meed  that  there  was  no  justification  c-ven  foi  any  demand for  the  continuance  >'  incd  to  be  made  by  the  Union

3818  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
4.  On  the  strength  of  these  pleadings  the  following  issues
arise  for  consideration  and  my  findings  thereon  are ;— ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.  Whether  the  staff  members  of
Cap  Storage  at  Dehu  Road  arc entitled  to  hardship  allowance even  after  all  stocks  of  food- grains  have  been  exhausted  and what  has  remained  there  is  the demaged  stock  awaiting final disposal  ?  Yes
2.  Whether  they  can  claim  il  till
the  time  the  cap  storage  is finally  liquidated  ?  Yes  or  they  are
transferred.
3.  Whether  the  stoppage  of  hardship allowance  without  giving  notice contravened  Sec.  9A  of  the I.D.  Act?  No
4.  If  yes,  is  the  management  entitled
to  do  so  ?  If  not,  to  what  relief  ?  Yes  per  order
5.  Despite  what  has  been  contended  on  behalf  of  the Food  Corporation  of  India  one  fact  is  evident  that  the hardship  allowance  was  not  linked  with  the  nature  of  the duties  as  such  and  that  there  was  no  change  in  the  nature of  the  duties  of  these  employees  but  the  management  decided to  grant  the  said  allowance  looking  to  the  conditions  in  which these  employees  were  expected  to  work.  The  fact  that  there were  not  even  the  rudimentary  facilities  like  shelter,  water, canteen,  roads,  electricity,  transportation,  furniture,  office etc.,  as  contended  by  the  Union  in  their  supplementary  state- ment  of  claim  has  not  been  denied  by  the  Food  Corpo-a- tion.  Therefore,  it  is  evident  that  these  employees  were  work- ing  in  extremely  difficult  conditions.  Now  whether  they  were looking  after  the  foodgrain  fit  for  human  consumption  or otherwise,  looking  after  foodgrains  unfit  for  human  con- sumption  would  not  be  a  issue  but  the  fact  remains  that being  posted  there  they  were  expected  to  perfoim  their  duties and  till  the  time  they  continued  to  perform  their  duties  and if  the  lack  of  facilities  continued  the  stoppage  of  hardship allowance  can  never  be  justified.  It  would  be  justified  only when  the  complex  is  liquidated  and  these  employees  aic posted  at  other  places  which  have  the  normal  facilities. Merely  because  by  circular  dated  7th  July,  1980  of  the  man- agement  thought  that  what  remained  at  the  complex  was unfit  for  human  consumption,  the  stoppage  of  the  hardship allowance  cannot  be  said  to  be  justified.  If  it  was  found that  the  stock  was  unfit  for  human  consumption,  they  could have  given  it  up  and  posted  the  staff  to  some  other  place or  kept  only  a  skelton  staff  after  transferring  the  lemaining Even  now  I  am  given  to  understand  there  are  195  employees serving  in  the  complex.  This  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  in- significant  number.
6.  There  is  no  substance  in  the  contention  of  violaiion  of Section  9A  of  the  Act  is  apparent  from  the  facts  of  the  case and  therefore  though  it  was  unilateral  stoppage  of  hardship allowanc*  without  giving  any  notice  etc.,  since  the  record speaks  that  it  has  not  become  the  conditions  of  service  as such,  this  limb  of  the  contention  must  fail.
7.  However  it  does  not  mean  thu  the  Food  Corporation should  not  have  continued  the  grant  of  the  same  pailicularly when  the  employees  continued  to  work  in  the  same  condi- tions  which  conditions  even  in  the  opinion  of  the  Corporation were  extremely  difficult  making  these  employees  entitled  to get  the  hardship  allowance.
8.  There  micht  be  various  categories  of  employees  work- ing  in  Dehu  Road  complex.  Looking  to  the  tenor  of  the Industrial  Dispute  Act  I  am  taking  im  the  only  controversy between  the  Food  Cornoration  of  India  and  those  employees who  fall  within  the  definition  of  workman  rind  none  else.
Those  do  not  fall  in  the  definition  have  their  own  remedies open  which  they  may  or  may  not  pursue.
9.  It  is  therefore  held  that  till  the  time  the  employees were/are  serving  in  the  Dehu  Road  complex,  they  shall  be entitled  to  hardship  allowance  as  declared  at  the  time  of declaring  the  allowance  by  the  Food  Corporation  of  Ind.a by  their  various  circulars.  From  the  date  the  whole  complex is  liquidated  or  from  the  date  the  employees  were /arc  trans- ferred  to  some  other  complex  and  posted  somewhere  else they  shall  cease  to  be  entitled  to  hardship  allowance.
Awaid  accordingly.
No  order  as  to  costs.
M.  A.  DESHPANDE,  Presiding  Officer
[No.  L-42011/19/81/FCI-D.IV(A)J
S.O.  3653.—In  pursuance  of  section  17  of  (he  Industnal Disputes  Act,  1947  (.14  of  1947),  the  Centtal  Government hereby  publishes  the  following  award  of  the  Central  Govern- ment  Industrial  Tribunal  No.  2,  Bombay  in  the  industrial dispute  between  the  employers  in  relation  to  the  manage- ment  of  Messrs  Chowgule  and  Company  Private  Limited, Mormugao  Harbour,  Goa  und  their  workmen,  which  was received  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  29th  Septembci, 1982.
BEFORE  THE  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL  NO.  2,  BOMBAY
Reference  No.  CGIT-2/2  of  1981
PRESENT :
Shri  M,  A.  Deshpande,  Presiding  Officer.
['ARTIES:
Employers  in  relation  to  Mcssis  Chowgule  and  Company Private  Limited,  Mormugao  Harbour  (Goa).
AND
Their  Workmen.
APPEARANCES:
For  the  Employers—No  appearance.
For  the  Workmen—No  appearance.
INDUSTRY  : Ports  and  Docks.  STATE  :  Goa,  Daman  A. Din,
Bombay,  Lhe  13th  September,  1982
AWARD
By  their  order  No.  L-36011/3/81-D.TV(A),  dated  21-4-1981 under  Section  10("l)(d)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947 the  following  dispute  has  been  referred  for  adjudication  :—
"Whether  the  management  of  Messrs  Chowgule  and Company  Private  Limited  are  justified  in  tcfusing employment,  to  the  undermentioned  t8  lime  Handl- ing  Workers  woiking  on  board  m.v,  "Maratha  Trans- shipper",  with  effect  from  12th  October.  1980''  If not,  to  what  iclief  are  the  concerned  workmen entitled  ?"
S.No Name  of  th£  workmen
1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
 
Shri  Kirhsa  Bansikar Shri  Uttom  Pandhare Shri  Raghoba  R.  Matkar Shri  Ramdas  Naik Shri  Damodar  R.  Narvenkar Shri  Yelgursih  Kalaii Shri  Panduiang  Upaskiir

3819
Name of  the  Workmen
S.No
 8. Shri  Tukaram  Batkar
 9. Shri  0,  K.  Fernanda
10. Shri  Ladhoba  Parsekar
11. Shri  Pravin  Adarkar
12. Shri  Baban  Churi
J3. Shri  Ramesh  Tari
14. Shri  Dilip  Babrakar
15. Shri  Chandrakant  Pndnckar
16, Shri  Anthony  Barreto
17. Shri  Shankar  SawanL
18. Shri  Hussain  Bagha

2.  In  all  18  workmen  are  involved  and  the  contention  of these  workmen  appears  to  be  (hat  the  management,  of  M/s. rhowRulc  and  Company  Private  Limited  was  Refusing  emp- loyment  to  these  Lime  HandlirjR  workers  working  on  board m.v.  "Maratha  Tianshippex".  This  is  alleged  to  have  taken place  with  effect  from  12-10-1980.
MINISTRY  OF  COMMERCE
3.  Despite  several  adjournments  and  due  service  of  notice nn  the  Union  on  behalf  of  the  workmen  no  statement  of claim  has  been  filed  in  support  of  the  contention.  Agnir.it this,  the  contention  of  Lhe  management  is  that  the  jobs  of the.se  employees  were  of  cusual  nature  and  not  regular  in nature  and  that  they  were  working  with  the  Transhipper  as and  when  the  work  was  available  during  the  fair  season,  It is  further  alleged  that  in  the  month  of  October,  1980  though the  workmen  were  asked  to  tcport  for  work  they  declined to  do  so  with  the  result  they  could  not  be  employed  and that  there  was  no  termination  of  service  nor  that  of  any refusal  to  employ  the  workmen.
4.  In  view  of  the  contention  of  the  management  which goes  unrefuted,  since  as  the  facts  stand  the  default  is  on the  side  of  the  workmen,  they  cannot  make  any  capital  out of  non-employment  so  as  to  seek  relief  from  the  Tribunal.
5.  The  result  is  that  the  reference  fails.  No  order  as  to cost.
M.  A.  DESHPANDE,  Presiding  Officei
rNo.  L-36011/3/81-D.lVfA)] T.  B.  SITARAMAN,  Desk  Officer New  Delhi,  the  23rd  October,  1982
S.O.  3654.— m  pursuance  of  rule  11 of  the Export  of  Jute Yarn  and  Jute  Twinc  (Inspection)  Rules,  1982,  the  Central Government  hereby  appoints  the  persons  menticned  in  colum (2) of  the Table below as the panel of experts for the purpose of nearrng  appeals  under  the  said  rules,  against  the  decision  of Ejmort  Inspection  Agency  mentioned  in  the  corresponding entry  in  column  (1)  thereof.
Provided  that  where  a  member of  any  of  the  said  panel  is personally  interested  in  the  subject-matter  of  any  appeal he hall  not  take  part  in  the  proceeding  relating  to  that  appeal.
TABLE
Person^  constituting  the  panel  of experts  to  which  Appeal  lies Authority  Against whose decision Appeal  lies
Export Inspection Agency,  Calcutta,
1.  Jute  Commissioner,  2o  Britis  ' Indian Street,  Calcutta-7CO  C01  or his mminee—Ex-ojflcio  Chairman,
2.  Director.  Jute  Technological
Research  Laboratories,  12  Regent Park,  CaIcutta-20—Ex-cfflclo. 3.  Director,  Indian  Jute  Industries Research  Association,  17, Taratola Road,  Calcutta-53—Ex-rfficio,
4.  Representative,  Indian  Jute  Mills Association,  Royal  Exchange  g_ Netaji  Subhash  Road,  Calcutta-1 —Ex-offlcio.
5.  Representative,  Calcutta  Jute  Fab- rics Shippers  Association,  6 Netal Subhash  Rnad,  Calcutta-1— Ex-officio.
6.  Joint  Director,  hjiport  Inspection Agency,  World  Trade  Centre 14/1B,  Ezra  Street,  Calcutta-]. —Ex-officio.
 
[No,  6  (13)/74-EI&EP) C.  B. KUKRETI,  Joint  Director

3820  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART Tl—Sec. 3(ii)]

3821
 
824  GI/82—9

3822  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23, 1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART II—SEC.  3(ii)]

 
-3823

3824  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,1982/K.ARTIKA  1,1901  [PART II—SEC. 300]

3825

3826  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  ; OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA  1,1904  [PART  II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3827

3828  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

 
1  .w 824  0I/S2—10

3830  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA  OCTOBER  23, 1982/KARTIK A  1, 1904  [PART  II—SKC.  3(ii)]

3831

3832  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/K.ARTIKA 1, 1904  [PART II - S EC  3(H)]

3833

3834  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA 1, 1904  [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3835

m6  THE GAZETTte'OF  ffibXA  : OCTOBER 23,1582/EAftiFMAirm  *  * [PA&', HS-^AJ',  ^

3837
 
824  GT/82—11

3838  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KART1KA  1, 1904  [PART M - S E C.  3(ii)l

3839

3840  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/K ARTIK A  1, 1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]

3841

3842  THE  GAZETTE  OF  IMDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  I,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]

3843

3844  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.  : OCTOBER  23, 1982/KA.R TIKA  1, 1904  [PART II—Sec.  3(ii)]
N'  w  Delhi,  the  7Ui  January,  19K2
S.O.  3655'--In  parsuin;c  of  section  3fi  of  (he  Employees'  State  Insurance  Act,  1948 | (H  of  1948),  they
are  heiby  puhlLhed  for  generr.l  information.
EMPLOYEES1  STATE
INCOME  A ND  EXPENDITURE  ACCOUNT E X P E N D I T U RE
Previous  Year
Hcsd  of  Account
Amount  Total 1979-KO
Rs.
Rs.  Rs.
1.  Bjncfus  to figured  Person,  & th:ir  families
A  Medical  Benefit":.
51, 23,42,106
(i)  Payments  to  State  Govts.  as  Corpoiation's  Share  of th'j expenses  or  providing  niodical  treatment  and ma- ternity  facilities  etc.  . ..  . ..
67,98,46,759(A)
3,35,85,407
(ii)  Midical  care  &  matcrrity  fjcililios  (expenses  incur- red  direct  hy t h; Corpn.)  . . ..
3,80,04,3'1
63,59,27,513 Total  A—Medical Benefit
71,78,51,070
B,  Cash  Benefits.
49,22,14,448(B) (1)  Sickn-ss  Benefits (2)  Extended  Sickness Benefit (3)  Enhanced  Sick.n-.-ss Benefit  for Family  Planning (4)  Maternity  Benefit
42,96,75,462 3,25,97,884 6,51,570 1,94,90,537
3,81,03,310 8,60,370 2,11,06,412
8,66,57,170  I 6,93,67,776 6,5'),83,OOO
(5)  Disablement  Benefit (a)  Temporary (b)  Permanent  (Capitalised  Value)  . . ..
11,70,86,560
MO
4,70 94,440
1,76,48 000 10,08,398
(6)  Depeni  ants'  Benefit  (Capitalised  Value) (7)  Funeral  Benefit
10,22,266  J
Total  B - C a sh  Benefits  . . ..
63,55,22,627
80.41,44,976
C.  Otter  Benefits.
fa)  Expenditure  oi  t h;  Rehabilitation  "of  Disabled  Insured
7,523 4,48,754
11,221 4,87,564
Person,  . . . . . , . ,. (b)  M;dical  B >ards  & Appeal Tribunals  . . .. (c)  Payments  to  Insured  Persons  . . ..
3,57,660
4,53,136
(i)  Conveyance charges  and/or  loss of wages. (ii)  Incidental charges  under Family  Planning
9,18,182
12,16,483(J)
fd)  Miscellaneous
17,32,119 Total  C-  Othsr  Benefits
21,68,406  21,68,406
1,27,11,82,259 T.ital  B j n j i ts  to  Pisured  Poison  & thoir  families
1,52,41,64,452
2.  Administration  Expenses. A.  Superintendence.
1.  Corporation  Standing  Committee, Regional  Boards
E tc
2.  P r i n c i p al  Officers 3.  O t h er  Officers 4.  M i n i s t e r i al  E s t a b l i s h m e nt  . . . .. 5.  G r o up  D Staff 6.  C o n t i n g e n c i es  .  . . ..
69,013 1,98,232 61,73,200 3,36,26,149 54,26,092 1,21,06,975
99,181 3,03,153 75,19,346 4,20,53,648 65,58,594 1,58,93,144
T o t al  A - S u p c r i n t e n d e n ce
5,75,99,661
7,24,27,066
B.  F i e ld  W o rk
1.  Officers  ,  . 2.  M i n i s t e r i al  E s t a b l i s h m e nt  . . . .. 3,  G r o up  D S t a ff
23,76,276 4,03,31,355 61,62,100 48,00,078
19.00.79K 3,33,56,058 50,71,313 39,49,877
4.  C o n t i n g e n c i es
T o t al  B - F i e ld  W o rk
4,42,78,046
5,36,69,809
T o t al  C a r r i ed  O v er
1,37,50,19,966
1,65,02,61,327
(A)  See paragraph  1.1  of explanatory  notes in Annexure 1. (B)  Sec paragraph  1.2  of explanatory  notes  in Annexure I. (C)  Seo paragraph  1.3 of explanatory  mtes  in  Ao/icxure 1.

3845
audited  accounts  of the Employees'  State  Insurance  Corroiation,  together  with  audit  rcrort  thejeon,  for (he year  1980-8],
INSURANCE  CORPORATION FOR  THE YEAR  ENDED  31st  MARCH, 1981
INCOME
Total
Amount
Heads of Account
Previous Yoar 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
1,78,79,01,620(D) [.  CoUiibuliois. E m p l o y e r s'  a nd  E m p l o y e e s'  S h a r es  .  .  .  .  • E m p l o y e r s'  S h i re  o n l y.
. . . . ..
E m p l o y e i i ' S h i ro  o i ly
. . . . ..
Interest  oi  C o n t r i b u t i o ns
. . . . ..
1,53,63,28,298 15,72,055 77,4S,520 14,57,288
21,78,710(E) 58,41,539(E) 17,34,671
1,79,76,56, M0 T o t al  C o n t r i b u t i o ns
1,59,76,04,161
S t a te  G o v e r n m ; n t / U n u >i  T e r r i t o r i es  s h a re  t o w a r ds  m e d i c al  bene-
29,53,125
29,53,125 fits  initially  incurred  by th7  C o r p o r a t i on  . . ..
28,21,875
O t r nr  H j a ds  of  R e v e n ue
Interest  & D i v i d e n ds
C o m p e n s a t i o n,  . . . . . . . ..
4,62,47,832(F) 2,97,67,004(G) 4,83,70,143 43,42,590
R e n t s,  R a t es  & T a x e s,
(i)  Offije3  of  t hj  C o r p o r a t i on  ( I n c l u d i ng  Staff  Q u a r t e r s)
(il)  Hospital",,  D i s p e n s a r i es  & Staff  Q u a r t e rs
8,30,839 4.77,84,380 45,01,668(H) 24,11,553(1) 7,92,757 3,85,18,881) 32,52,930 37.00,879
F e e s,  F i n is  & F o r f e i t u r es Miscellaneous  . . . . . . . ..
13,15.43,276 9,74,78,229 Total of othflr  Heads of Revenue  ,
1,69,73,04,265 Total Carried  Over
1,93,21,52,941
(D)  Sea paragraph 1.4  of explanatory  notes in Atwsxure I. (E)  Soo paragraph  1.5  of explanatory  mtes in A-ncxure I. (F)  See paragraph  1.6  of explanatory  notc3 in A in;xuro I. (G) S;a pira^raph 1.7  of explnatory  mt;r, in AnTsxure I. (H)  S -: pi'a{L'a:n  1,8  of jxihnito-y  nily, ii  Ainjxure I.
(1) Seo paragraph 1.9  of explanatory  notes in Annexure I. (J)  S"e paragraph  1.10 of cxplanitory  notes in Annexure I.
 
824  GI/82—12

3846  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(i)]
H e a ds  of  A c c o u nt
Previous  Year
Total
Amount
1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
1,37,50,19,966
1,65,02,61.327 T o t al  B r o u g ht  F o r w a rd
. . . . ..
C.  O t h ;r  C h a r g es
. ..
.  .
1.  L e g al  C h a r g es 2.  I n s u r a n ce  C o u r ts . . . . .. 3.  P u b l i c i ty  a nd  A d v e r t i s e m e nt  C h a r g es  . . .. 4.  C l a i g es  f or m a i n t a i n i ng  B a n k l n;  A c c o u n ts 5.  A u d it  F e es  . . . . . .. 6.  Leave Salary  & Pension  Contribution
7.  D e p r e c i a t i on  of  Office  Building/Staff  C a rs
4,85,068 53,445 1,37,783 99,226 2,16,298 1,07,964 3,70,872 9,93,727
K.  R e p a i rs  a nd  M a i n t e n a n ce  of  OfQce  B u i l d i n gs
4,75,220 77,728 1,19,514 32,212(K) 2,42,0C0 74,064 4,07,942 16,31,768
9.  R e t i r e m e nt  Benefits
(a)  P e n s i on  R e s e r ve  F u nd  for  t he  e m p l o y e es  of  the  C o r-
53,42,509
p o r a t i cn  . . . . . . ..
66,58,690(L)
(b)  C o r p o r a t i o n 's  C o n t r i b u t i on  t o w a r ds  E m p l o y e e s'
39,401
C o r p o r a t i on  P r o v i d e nt  F u nd  . . ..
(c)  Interest  p a id  to  E S IC  P r o v i d e nt  F u nd
(d)  Incentive  B o n u?
. . . . ..
10.  C o m p a s s i o n a te  R e s e r ve  F u nd  . . . ..
11.  P r o v i d e nt  F u nd  D e p o s i t - L i n k ed  I n s u r a n ce  F u nd
12,  Losses  . . . . ..
.  .
34,460 46,11,760 1,97,993 35,000 90,000 1,000
13.  Miscellaneous  . . . . . . ..
37,01,309 1,57,579 35,000 90,000 9,000 39,332
10,539(M)
14.  E x - G r a t ia
2,45,448
T o t al  C — O t h er  C h a r g es
1,18,78,713
1,49,45,338
11,37.56,420
14,10,42,213 T o t al  H e ad  2 — A d m i n i s t r a t i on  Expenses  . . .. 3.  H o s p i t a ls  a nd  D i s p e n s a r i es
47,88,913
1.  P r o v i s i on  for  d e p r e c i a t i on  of  H o s p i t al  B u i l d i n gs  t r a n s f e r r ed
to  fund  . . ..
. . ..
46,41,490
2.  P r o v i s i on  for  R e p a ir  &  M a i n t e n a n ce  of  H o s p i t a l s / D i s p e n-
1,38,87,848
saries  transferred  to  fund
1,85,65,960
1,86,76,761 T o t al  H e ad  3 - H o s p i t a ls  A nd D i s p e n s a r i es  . . ..
2,32,07,450
15,97.60,41b 2,65,03,682
4.  C a p i t a l C o n s t r u c t i o n / E m e r g e n cy  R e s e r ve  F u nd 1,  C a p i t al  C o n s t r u c t i on  ,  . . . . .. . . .. 2.  E m e r g e n cy  Reserve  F u nd  .
17,92,83,129(N) 1,28,91,140(0)
T o t al  H i ad  4 - C i p i t al  C o n s t r u c t i o n / E m e r g e n cy  R e s e r ve  F u nd  .
18,62,64,098
19,21,74,269
T o t al  E x p e n d i t u re  on  R e v e n ue  A c c o u nt
1,88,05,88,384 1,59,18.79,538 1 0 , 6 0 , 2 ^ , 7 27 To  excess  of  I n c o me  over  E x p e n d i t u re  c a r r i ed  over  to  BE1  lance
S h i et  . . ..
5,15,64,557
1 , 6 9 , 7 9 , 0 4 , 2 65 GRAND TOTAL
1,93,21,52,941
(K)  See paragraph  1.11  of explanatory notes in  Annexure I. (L)  See paragraph  1.12  of explanatory  notes in Annexurc  I, (M)  See paragraph  1.13  of explanatory  notes in Annexure I, (N)  See paragraph  1,14 of explanatory  notes in Annexure  I. (O)  See paragraph  1.15  of explanatory  notes in Annexure I,
 
New Delhi, Dated  30th  Miy  1981.j

3847
Amount
Total Heads  of Account
Previous  year 1979-80
Rs.
RS.
Rs.
Total Brought  Forward
1,93,21,52,941 1.69,97,04,265
1,93,21,52,941 1,69,79,04,265 GRAND  TOTAL
I. C. SARIN,
Financial  Advisor  & Chief  Accounts  Officer
 
Employees'  State  insurance  Corporation

3848  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
EMPLOYEES'  STATE Balance Shoct as at
Liabilities
Amount
Total Previous year 1979-80
Rs.
Hs.
Rs.
Balance of excess of Income over  Expenditure As  per last  Balance  Sheet Addition  D u r i ng  t he year  . . . . . ..
1,67,56,73,914 5,15,64,557
1,56,96,49,187 10,60,24,727 1,67,56,73,914
1,72,72,38,471
R E S E R VE  F U N DS
1.  Capital  Construction  Reserve  F u nd
As  per last  Balance  Sheet A DD  provision  made  during  the year Interest  received  from  Investments
92,25,45,790 17,92,83,129 1,21,93,541
74,89,66,131 15,97,60,416 1,38,19,243 92,25,45,790
l,ll,40,22,460(A)
2.  Perrmnent  (Partial  & Total)  Disablement  Benefit  Reserve  F u nd
18,62,85,906 6,50,83,000
20,05,65,536 11,70,86,560 51,74,501
As  per last  Balance  Sheet Provision  m a de  during  tlio  year Interest  received  from  Investments L^ss  p i y m ; n ts  m i de during  t he year  . . . ..
( -)  7,28,95,970
70,66,776 (-)S.7J,7J,146 20,05,65,536
24,99,30,627
3.  D e p e n d a n t s'  B;nc(it  Reserve  F u n d.
As  per last  Balance  Sheet Provision  t m de  during  theiyear  . . . . .. Interest  received  from  Investments LESS  payments  m a de  during  t he year  . . ..
11,48,82,890 4,70,94,440 29,63,944 (—)l,40,82,431
10,51,06,740 1,76,48,000 39,87,292 ( - ) l, 18,59,142 11,48,82,890
15,08,58,843
4.  Employees'  State  Insurance  Corporation  (BB) provident  Fund.
4,88,54,926
5,21,25,066
As  per last  Balance  Sheet A dd  amount  credited  during  the year
1,38,09,901
(i)  Employees'  Subscription
39,401 37,01,309
(ii)  Corporation's  Contribution (iii)  Interest  on Employees'  
1,57,579 —
(v)  D.A. Deposit Total  carried  over  of  this  Head
6,65,63,116
1,74,19,041 (—)l,40,R37 46,11,760 1,97,993 42,688 7,42,47,611
Total  Carried  Over
2.91,36,68,130
3,24,20,50,401
(A)  See Receipt  and  Payment Account in Statement  'A'. (BB)  See Statement  E.

3849
I N S U R A N CE  C O R P O R A T I ON
3 l s t M i r t f i, 1981.
Am  ount
TotHl Assets
Previous  year
1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
L-uidi  a nl  B n l j i n ^s  (Wholly  owned  by  the  C o r p o r a t i o n ).
(a)  BuiU'ings  for  Offices  of  the  C o r p o i a l i o n.
3,74,60,522
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet  . . . . . ..
3,09.71,171
A d d i t i o ns  during  the  year
58,00,343 4,32,60,865
64,89,351 3,74,60,522
T o t al  (a)
(b)  Hospitals  &  Dispensaries.
As  per last  Balance  Sheet  . ..
. ..
A d d i t i o ns  during  the year
51,04.34,244 11,62,71,495 62,67,05,739
T o t al  (b)
43,05,6S.012 7,98,66,232 51,04,34,24-1 54,73,94,766
66,99,66,604(B)
Unnds  a nd  Buildings  (Jointly  o w i vd  by  the  Corpoi  alien  and  Slate
G o v e r n m e n t s)  C o r p o r a t i on  Shaie.
Hospitals  a nd  Dispensaries.
11,85,085
As  per last  BI lance  Sheet  . , , , .. A d d i t i o ns  during  the  year,  . . . . ..
9,26,807 2,58,278
11,85,085
) 1,85,085
A m o u nt  advanced  foi  Capital  expenditure.
(a)  A m o u nt  advanced  from  General  Cash  Balance.
3,62,43,678
4,03,95,046 —
As  per last  Balance  Sheet  . . . . . .. A DD  payments  made  during  the year  . . . .. LESS  adjustments  a nd  recoveries Total  (a)
( — H I,  51,368 3,62,43,678
(—11,72,85,841 1,89,57,837
(b)  A m o u nt  advanced  from  Capital  Construction  Reserve  Fund.
14,14,36,660
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet A DD  payments  made  during  the year  . . . ..
"LESS  adjustment"!  and  recoveries.  . . . .. Total  (b)
10,40,62,365 (—)10,79,93,086 13,75,05,939
15,87,69,716 6,63,80,460 (  -)8,37,13,516 14,14,36,660 17,76,80,338
15,64,63,776
5,65,196
5,65,196 —
—,
Staff  Cars. As  per  last  Balance  Sheet Additions  during  t he year  . . . . . ..
5,65,196
72,73,25,385
Total  Carried  over
82,81,80,661
(B)  Sec p a r a g r a ph  2.1  o j ' exp l a n a t o ry  notes  in  Anncxure  I I.

3850  THE  GAZETTE  OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA  1, 1904  [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l
Previous year
Liabilities.
Total
Amount
1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Total  Brought  F o r w a rd
Rs. 3,24,20,50,401 2,91,36,68,130 6,65,63,116 (_)l,O6,61,268
Total  Brought  F o r w a rd  of the Sub-Head  . . .. LESS  payments  m a de  during  the year
7,42,47,611 (—)1,21,46,947
LESS  a m o u nt  transferred  to :
(i)  Pension  Reserve  F u nd  . . . . ..
(ii)  Unclaimed  Deposit  . . . . ..
(—)1,47,471 (—)33,762
6,18,92,431 ()—37,41,674 (—)35,1O8 5,21,25,066
5.  Provident  F u nd  Deposit—-Linked  Insurance  F u nd
1,65,923 90,000 4.270
(—)66,716 As  p er last  Balance  Sheet  . . . . . .. Provision  m a de  during  t he year Interest  a nd Gain  received  from  Investments, LESS  payments  m a de  during  t he year  . . . ..
1,93,477 1,08,482 90,000 4,055 (—)36,614 1,65,923
6,  EmployjC)  "^tatc  I n s u r a n t :;  C o r p o r a t i o n - G r o up  I n s u r a n ce  F u n d.
4,38,687 5,65,902 11,329
As  per last  Balance  Sheet Contribution  received  during  the year  . . . .. Interest  a nd Gain  received  from  Investments. A m o u nt  received  from  Life  Insurance  Corpn. LESS  Premium  paid  to Life  Insurance  Corpn. Assured  sums  paid  to beneficiaries  . . .. E n d o w m e nt  benefit  paid  to Retirement  .  .  .  .
65,000 (—)1.47,356 (—)1,64,614 (-)2,556
75,880 4,93,928 2,857 65,000 (—)1,88,858 (—)10,000 (-)120 4,38,687
7,66,392
7.  Depreciation  Reserve  F u nd  of  buildings  for the Offices  of t he
C o r p o r a t i on  (Including  Staff  Quarters).
As  per last  Balance  Sheet Provision  made  during  the  vear Interest  a nd G a in  received  from  Investments  . . ..
40,42.890 4,07,942 l,04,'332
35,64,911 3,42,670 1,35,309 40,42,890
45,55,164
8.  Depreciation  Reserve  P u nd  of  Hospital  Buildings. As  per last  Balance  Sheet Provision  m a de  during  t he year  . . . . .. Interest  received  from  Investments
4,61,79,807 46,41,490 11,91,428
3,98,78,158 47,88,913 15,12,736 4,61,79,807
3,20,12,725
6,21,714 — 16,013
9.  Depreciation  Reserve  F u nd  of Staff  Cars. As  per last  Balance  Sheet Provision  m a de  during  t he year Interest  received  from  Investments  *  •  •  .  • X.XX l ^ J.  Vd  V  3. w%rwx  T %rf t_L  XX Vj^xx  1  i ll  • WkJ V l i i vi  i . i . L 'f  •  •  v  w L E SS  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . ..
6,37,727 6,12,202 28,202 yi  lift (—)41,826 6,21,714
3,36,21,08,317 Total  Carried  Over
 
3,01,72,42,217

3851
Previous  year
Assets
Amount
Total
1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
82,81,80,661 T o t al  B r o u g ht  F o r w a rd
Rs. 72,73,25,385
P e r m a n e nt  A d v a n ce  to  t he  H e a ds  of  Offices  of  t he  C o r p o r a t i o n.
As  p er  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet
A DD  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar
91,031 10,305
Less  recoveries  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . . ..
(-)2
86,911 5,120 (—)1,000 19,031
1,01,334
A d v a n ce  of  p ay  on  transfer  to  t he  E m p l o y ed  of  the  C o r p o r a t i on
As  p er  last  B a l a n ce  S h e et
A DD  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . . ..
L E SS  recoveries  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . . ..
74,013 1,31,250 (—) 1,44,440
28,547 1,51,396 (—)1,05,930 74,013
60,823
A d v a n ce  of  T . A.  on  transfer  to  t he  E m p l o y e es  of  t he  C o r p o r a t i o n. As per  last  Balance  Sheet, A DD  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year.  . . . ..
L E SS  recoveries  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year
1,11,854 1,82,556 (—) 1,64,788
95,064 1,54,562 (—n.37,772 1,11,854
1,29,622
A d v a n ce  for  the  p u r c h a se  of  C o n v e y a n ce  to  t he  E m p l o y e es  of  t he
C o r p o r a t i o n.
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet A DD  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . . .. LESS  recoveries  made  during  the  year
15,66,591 11.00,981 (—)8.54,256
13,54,727 9,78,021 (—)7,66,157 15,66,591
18,13,316
Miscellaneous  Advances  to  the  Employees  of  the  Corporation
( F e s t i v al  A d v a n c e / A nd  F an  A d v a n c e / F l o od  A d v a n c e s)
As  per  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet
A DD  p a y m e n ti  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year
21,98,872 19.46.619
L E SS  recoveries  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year  . . . ..
(—)23,62,668
17,82,823 28,98,872 18,73,966 (—)25,73,823 21,98,872
H o u se  B u i l d i ng  A d v a n ce
As  p er  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet
91,57,060 26,39,100 A DD  p a y m e nt  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year  . . . ..
L E SS  r e c o v e r i es  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . . ..
1 09 50 908 33,41,634 f—)16,26,460
(—) 16,45,252 1,09,50,908
1,26,66,082
A d v a n ce  p a y m e n ts  on  b e h a lf  of  S t a te  G o v e r n m e n t s. As  p er l a st  B a l a n ce  S h e et  . . . . . .. ADD  payments  made  during  the  year L E SS  r e c o v e r i es  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  y e ar  . . ..
2,239 1,457 (—)1,833
1,327 1,860 (-)948 2,239
1,863
74,23,20,893 Total  Carried  Over
,
 
84,47,36,524

3852  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23, 1982/KARTIKA  1 1904  [PART II—SEC.  3(ii)]
Liabilities
A m o u nt
Total Previous  year 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
T o t al  B r o u g ht  F o r w a rd
3,36,21,08,317 3,01,72,42,217
10.  R e p a i rs  a nd  M a i n t e n a n ce  R e s e r ve  F u nd  of  Buildings  for  the
Offices  of  t he  C o r p o r a t i on  (including  Staff  Q u a r t e r s)
As  per  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet  . . . . . ..
59,79.681
16,31,768
Provision  mac^e  d u r i ng  the  year Interest  received  from  I n v c s t mrnh  . . . . ..
36.12.696 9,93,727 1,06,735
67,183
L E SS  a m o u nt  adjusted  on  receipt  of  certified  s t a t e m e n ts  of  expen-
d i t u re
(—)  10,97,198
(-)7,33,477 59,79,681
65,81,434(0
11.  R e p a i rs  a nd  M a i n t e n a n ce  Reserve  F u nd  of  H o s p i t al  Buildings.
As  p er  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet  . . . . . ..
9,18,63,917
Provision  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year
1,85,65,960
Interest  received  from  I n v e s t m e n ts  . . . ..
14,52,615
8,19,81,321 1,38,87,848 20,47.060
L E SS  a m o u nt  adjusted  on  receipt  of  certified  s t a t e m e n ts  of  expen-
d i t u re
(—11,01,24,590
(—)60,52,312 9,18,63,917
10,13,57,9O2(D)
12.  P e n s i on  R e s e r ve  F u nd  for  t he  E m p l o y e es  of  the  C o r p o r a t i o n.
As  p er  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet
9,39,19,784
Provision  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year.  . ..
79,65,223
I n t e r e st  received  f r om  I n v e s t m e n t s.  . . ..
24,23,136
L E SS  p a y m e n ts  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year  . . ..
(—)32,96,010 —
A DD  a m o u nt  transferred  from  E . S . I . C.  P r o v i d e nt  F u nd
10,10,12,133 8,29,87.739 60,22,295 31,48,153 (—)19,80,077 37,41,674 9,39,19,784
13.  E m e r g e n cy  R e s e r ve  F u n d.
As  per  last  B a l a n ce  Sheet
34,94,27,240
P r o v i s i on  m a de  d u r i ng  t he  year  . . . ..
2,65,03,682
38,91,86,254 1,28,91,140
I n t e r e st  rca l i s cd  on  I n v e s t m e n t s.  . ..
1,32,55,332
G A IN  in  realisation  of
(—)7,480
40,20,69,914 38,91,86,254
3,97,31,29,700
T o t al  C a r r i ed  O v er
3,59,81,91,853
(O  See Receipt  and  Payment  Account  in  Statement 'B1. (D)
-do-
 
'C

Total
Assets
Amount
Previous  year 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
74,23,20,893
84,47,36,524
Total  Brought  Forward  .  .  .  . . .. Amount  advanced  to  State  Govt./State  P.W.D.  etc. towards  Re- pairs  and  Maintenance  of  Hospitals/Dispensaries/Office  of the Corporation  and  Staff  Quarters.
(a)  Offices  of  the  Corporation.
33,76,345 28,00,546 11,17,049
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet ADD  payments  made  during  the  year LESS  cash  refunds
10,53,797 (—)13,49,467 (-)5,41.250 33,76,345
30,80,675
(b)  Hospitals/Dispensanes/Annexes.
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet
A DD  payments  made  during  the  year  . . .. LESS  cash  refunds
3,55,60,187 83,79,234 (_)81,57,585 2,80,17,996 1,11,27,409 (—)35,85,218 3,55,60,187
3,57,81,83$ Miscellaneous  Advances.
(E)
15,49,008 30,43.537
22,05,390 33,89,984 (-)31,82,720
(-)23,87.155
As  per last  Balance  Sheet A DD  payments  made  duiing  the  year  . . . .. LESS  receipts  during  the  year
22,05,390
24,12,634
Loans  to  State  Governments.  (F)
2,48,05,967
—
2,22,88,834 —
(—)28,22,167
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet A DD  Payments  made  during  the year  . . .. LESS  amount  refunded  by  State  Governments
(—)25,17,133 2,22,88,834
1.94,66,66?
Remittances.  (G)
                        Cash  Remittances,
     (—)22,45,890       As  per  last  Balance  Sheet        .                   .    ..            (—)5,08,87,464
    3,40,35,52,264     A DD  debits  during  the  year       .                   .   ..              3,88,72,99,847
(—)3,45,21.93,838      LESS  credits  during  the  year                                          (—)3,83,87,62,327

(—)23,49,944
(—)5,08,87.464
Other  Remittances.  Exchange  Account.  (H)
(—)60,401
1,22,18,655
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet A DD  debits  during  the year
10,25,24,460
14,96,99,900
(—)11,31,37,336
(—)13,74,20,844 LESS  credits  during  the  year
1,22,18,655
i6.ov:
1  1  -f
76,70,82,840 Total  Carried  Over
90,47,34,I#i
(E)  See paragraph 2.2  of explanatory  notes in Annexure II. (F)  See paragraph  2.3  of explanatory  notes in Annexure II. (G)  See paragraph 2.4 of explanatory notes in Annexure II. (H)  See paragraph 2  5 of explanatory notes In Atinexure II.
 
824  GI/82—13

3854  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA  : OCTOBER 23, 1982/KARTIKA 1.1904  [PART II—Sue. 3(ii)l
Liabilities
Amount
Total
Previous  year 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs. 3,97,31,29,300 3,59,81,91,853
t Total  Brought  Forward 14.  Compassionate  Reserve  Fund  for the Employee* of the Cor-
poration. As per last  Balance  Sheet  . . ..  .  . Provision  made  during the year  . ..  .  , Interest  received  from  Investments  .  .  . LESS  payments  made during  the year
26,302 35,000 640 (-)36,969
24,973 27,768 35,000 1,013 (—)37,479 26,302
Deposits. Deposit  of Securities. As per last  Balance Sheet  .  .  . A DD  deposits  during  the year  ,  .  , LESS  deposits  repaid  during  the year  . . ..
8,97,797 6,47,581 (-)5,82,019
5,94,014 6,90,720 (—)3,86,937 8,97,797
9,63,359
Deduction from  bills payable to other  parties. As per last Balance  Sheet  . . .. A DD  amount  credited  during  the  ear LESS  payments  made  during  the year  .
80,774 14,27,950 (—)14,52,766
55,958 57,378 15,98,313 15,74.917 80,774
Unclaimed  Deposits m the ESIC  Provident  Fund As  per last  Balance  Sheet  .  . .. A DD  amount  credited  during  the year LESS  payments  made  during the year
51,115 33,762 (—)10,279
25,253 35,108 (-)9.246 51,115
74,598
—
(—)4,25,000
17,97,342
(~)4,25,000 5,85,608 30,92,265
As per last  Balance  Sheet. A DD  deposits  during the year. LESS  payment* to the Family  Planning  Project,  Miscellaneous Deposits. As per last  Balance  Sheet A DD  deposits  received  during the year LESS  deposits  repaid/Adjusted  during  the year
(~)18,8O,531
21,79,184 (—)18,59,759
17,97,342
21,16,767
3,60,10,45,183 Total  Carried  Over.
 
3,97,63,65,355

3855
Previous  year
Assets
Amount
Total 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
76,70,82,840
Rs. 90,47,34,191 Total  Brought  Forward. INVESTMENTS  AT  COST.
1.  Capital Construction  Reserve  Fund.
.
36,42,88,655 10,83,35,805
47,26,24,460 9,15,54,808
As per last Balance sheet. ADD Investments made during the year Deduct—realisation  on  maturity or sale of Investments.
47,26,24,40)
56,41,79,268 2.  Permanent (Partial  and Total) Disablement Reserve  Fund.
20,05,65,536 4,93,65,091
18,62,85,906 1,42,79,630 __
As per last Balance Sheet. ADD Investments made during the year  . . .. LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of Investments.
—
, —
3.  Dependant's Benefit  Reserve Fund.
24,99,30,627 20,05,65,536 10,51,06,740 97,76,150
11,48,82,890 3,59,75,953
, As per last Balance Sheet ADD Investments made during the year LESS realisation on maturity or sale of Investments,  ,  ,
11,48,82,890
—
—
4.  Employees Stite Insurance  Corporation. Provident  Fund
15,08,58,843 4.88,54,926 32,70,140
5,21,25,066 97,67,365 _
As  per  last  Balance  Sheet. ADD Investments made during the year LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments,  ,
5.  Provident  Fund Deposit-Linked  Insurance Reserve  Fund.
6,18,92,431 5,21,25,066 1,08,482 57,441
As per last Balance Sheet ADD investments made during the year  . . .. Deduct  raallstion on maturity  or sale of  inveitments.  ,
1,65,923 27,554 —
1,65,923
1,93,477 6,  Group Insurance  Fond.
As per last Balance Sheet
75,880 3 62 807
4,38,687 3,27,705
LESS realistion  on maturity  or sale of  investments
7,66,392 4,38,687
7.  Depreciation Reserve Fund  of buildings for  the officer* of the
Corporation  (including Staff  Quarters). As per last Balance Sheet
40,42,890 5,12,274
35,64,911 4,77,979
LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments.
45,55,16 40,42,890
8.  Depreciation  Reserve Fund  of Hospital  Building.
1  OS 7ft  1 58 J , 7 O,  /  O,  I  *JO
4,61,79.807 58,32,918
Ai ner la^t Balance Sheet  . . . " .> AOT^ Investments  mndis durino £ho veflr  •  .
63,01,649
f\±JXJ  AllV&LjilJ  iwLALo  llltlU-w  M-ULll-J^  fc-U^  J I F UJ  *  F  I  *
LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments.
5,20,12,725 4,61,79,807
9.  Depreciation Reserve Fund  of Staff  Cars.
As tvr  last Tlnlflnce  Sheet  .  *
6,12,202
6,21,714 16,013
LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments.  ,
6,37,727 6,21,714
1,98,97,60,8 Total Carried Over
 
1,65.87,29,813

3856  THE GAZETTE  OF INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Liabilities
Amount
Total
Previous year
1979-80
Rs.
R3.
Rs.
3,60,10,45,183 Total Brought Forward.  .
3,97,63,65,355
3,97,63,65,355 3,60,10,45,183 GRAND  TOTAL
New  Delhi. Dt.  30th  May,  1981.
COMMON  SEAL
EMPLOYEES'  STATE  INSURANCB  CORPORATION
NEW  DELHI,  DATED  TUB  DECEMBER,  1981
Sealed  in  My  Presence
Sd/-
(HAR  MANDER  SINGH)
Director General.
 
15-12-1981

3857
Amount
Assets
Total Previous  year 1979-80
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
1,65,87,29,813 Total  Brought  Forward
1,98,97,60,845
10.  Repairs and  Maintenance Reserve Fund  of Buildings for  the
26,03,336 8,97,422
—
offices  of the Corporation,  (including Staff  Qrs.). As per last Balance Sheet ADD investments made druring the year LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments.
28,12,150 — (-)2,08,814 26,03,336
35,00,758
5,63,03,730 92,72,336 —
11.  Repairs and  Maintenance Reserve Fund  of Hospital Buildings As per last Balance Sheet.  . . . * , .. ADD investments made during the year LESS realisation  on maturity  or sale of investments
5,39,63,325 23,40,405 — 5,63,03,730
6,55,76,066
12,  Pension Reserve Fund for  the Employees of the  Corporation.
9,39,19,784 70,92,349
_
As per last Balance Sheet ADD Investments made during the year LESS realisation  on maturity  or  sale of  investments.
8,29,87,739 1,09,32,045 — 9,39,19,784
10,10,12,133 13.  Emergency Reserve Fund  .
38,91,86,254 1,28,83,660
As per last Balance Sheet ADD  Investments made during the year Deduct-Realisation  on  maturity  or sale of Investments.  .
34,94,27,240 3,97,59,014 — 38,91,86,254
40,20,69,914
27,768 (-01,464 —
2,6302 (-)1,329 —
14.  Compassb iate Reserve  Fund. As per last BalaiKo Sheet. ADD investments  made during  the year  . . .. LESS  realisation  on maturity  or sale of InvostmorUs.
26,302
24.973
1,32,48,09,752 23,92,91,938 (-)24,34,38,473
Gaucral  Cash Balance. Invcstmantaspor  last Balance Sheet  . . .. ADD investments ma  io during the year LESS  realisation  on maturity  or sale of  Investments
1.32,C6,63,:17
Cash  in hand. Cash with Bankers-
53,68,804 8,83,88,645(1)
1,19,17,73,449 76,95,16,003 (-)63,64,79,  700 1,32,48,09,752 48,82,242 7.05,83,970 7,54,66,212 l,4'),02,75,964 Totul  Cash Balance
9,37,57,449 1,41,44,20,666
3,60,10,45,183
GRAND  TOTAL
3,97,63,65,355
Sd/-
(LC.SARIN), Financial Adviser & Chief  Accounts  Officer,
Employees'State  Insurance  Corporation.
(I)  Set-  paugraph  2.6  of  explanatory  notes  in  Antiexurc  II.

3858  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
STATEMENT-'A'
Capital  Construction  Reserve  Fund  Account
Receipts
Payments
92,25,45,790
nAanze  as  oa  31-3-80
Assets created  out  of Capital  Construction
Reserve Fund  as at 31-3-1981
41,23,37,233
Add :  Contribution  during tha  year Contributio.K
10% of iiicwno  from  " 17,95,92,187
L J SS  •' 1 0%  E t c s ss  c o u r i b u t i o . is
C-)2.09,058
13,75,(5,^9 made  in  tfn on contrlbu-
Advances  paid  to construction  Agencies. Amount available in tho  Fund  as ai  the
31-3-198 .
56,41,79,268.
previous years oa  interest tio.i;  17.92,83,129 . Interest  0,1  investment l,?.l,93,541
17,92,83,129 1.21,93,541
TOTAL .
1,11.40,22,460
1,11,40,22.460 •
as  on 31-3-1981.
56,41,79,268 47,26,24,460
to  be  made  during the
Investstablo  Balance Investments as on 31-3-1980 , Further  investments year 1980-81 ,
9,15,54,808
STATEMENT-B
Roceipt  and  Payment  Account  of  tho  Repair  and  Maintenance  Reserve  Fund  of
Office  Buildings/Annexes etc.
Rs.
Rs.
59,79,681  Amount  advanced  to  State  Go
Oopnilnj  BaUiw^
vernment/
State  Public  Works
16,31,768  Departments  towoards  repairs ami  main-
55,27,34( (A)
67,183  tonance  of  Offlcc/Bldgs.
Provision made duiing  th= year Interest  oa  Investments Cash  refunis  of  u t i l i s ed  advan :.\s made  by  Amount  available  in  the  Fund
35,C0,758
the  State  Governments/State  Public  Worki Departments
13,49,466
90,28,098
TOTAL  :  ..  .
90,28,098
13,49,466
55,27,340
(a)  Amount  advaiKcd  to  State  Govts, Less  :  Cash  refunds  of  unutilised  advances . Less  :  Amount  Adjusted  on receipt  Of  certified  state-
ments  of expenditure  . . ..
10,97,198
Balan.v  a\  p_-r balance  sli.-ct  . . ..
24,46,664 30,80,676
(page  xlx)
STATEMENT-C
Receipt and  Payment Account  of the Rep.iir  and  Maintenance Reserve Fund  of
Hospital  Buildlng/Disrx-nsaries/Antiexes  etc.
Rs.
Rs.
5,44,64,011 (A)
9,18,63,917  Amount advance  to State  Govt./State  Pub- 1,85,65,960  lie  Works  Department  towards  repairs 14,52,615  and  maintenance  of  Hospitals/ Disponsaries/Aunexes  etc.
Op;ning  Balanoa Proviaion  made  during  the year. . Interest  on  investments  . . .. Cash  rcfrnJs  of  unutilised  advan-jes  made  by t h;  State  Governments/State  Public  Works Departments
.81,57,585  Amount available  in the Fund
6,55,76,(66
12,00,40,077
TOTAL
12,00,40,077
3,44,64,011 (A) Less  : Less  :
Amount  advance to State  Govts Cash  refunds  of unutilised advances  .  81,57,585 Amount  adjusted  on receipt  of  certified
Statements  of expenditure  ,  .  1,05,24,590
1,86,82,175
Balance  as per Balance Sheet
1,86,82,175 3,57,81,836
 
(pago xlx)

3859
STATEMENT-D
Statamont  showing  details  at  3lst  March,  1981  of  Employees  : State  Insurance.  Corpoartlon
General  Provident  Fund  and  Contributory  Provident  Fund.
Contributory Provident
Total
Fund
General Provident Fund
Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
4,49,08,960.70 1,71,39,990.06
. ..
(1)  OpanMg Balance (2)  Empljyj^s'Subscrlpti'in  .  •  •  • (3)  Corp iratto i'  COiitrlbuii'U  . (4)  Interest  on (Employee'  & Corporations  Share) (5)  Iacentivo Bonus  .  .  .  • (6)  Total
45,04,440.51 1,94,411.00 6,67,47,802.27 1,20,35,258.00
72,18,635. :9 1.40,749.00 34,460,00 1,07,319.00 3,582.0(10 75,04,745.29 1,14,982.00
?,21,27,595,99 1,72,80,739.0 6 34,460.CO 46,11,759.51 1,97,993.00 7,42,52.547, 56 1,21,50,240X0 (a)  Loss  payment made during thj  year (b)  Less  amount transferred  to  : —
1,69.807,00 5,490,00
4,664.00 28,154.15 1,562.00
1,74,471.00 33,614.15 1,562.CO (i)  Pension  Reserve Fund  .  ,  . (10  Uiilaimjd  Deposits (lii)  VII. Misc  . Receipts
72,14,466.29
5,46,78,164,12
6,18,92,630.41 Closing  Balance
STATEMENT-E
Receipt  and  Payment  Account  of  Provident  Fund  for  thjj  year  1980-81
Receipts
Amount R?.
Payments  Amounts Rs.
Payment  made  to  subscriber  during  the
O,ml"i3 B_ila't;o  Employees'Subscription
(O
year  1980-81
( i ) G F P Rs  .  1,20,35,258.00 (ii)  CPF  Rs.  .  1,14,982.00
( i ) O P F R i.  .  .  4,49,0S,9(S0,70 ( i i ) C P F R i.  .  72,18,635.29
5,21,27,595,99
1,21,50,24.  ,C0
(2) Receipts during  thj  year Employees'Sub- scriptio.i
Closing Balance  : (i)  OPFRs.  .  6,04,10,561.91
(ii)  CPF  Rs.
1,72,80,739.06
14,82,068.50  6,18,92,030. A\ (i)  GPFRs.  ,  1,71,39,990.06 ( +)  Rs.  .  57,32,397.79 (ii)  CPF  Rs.  .  1,40,749,00 ( +)  Rs,  .  57,32,397,79
(3) Interest  :  : (a)  On  own share  :
45,65,-396  51
(!)  GPFRs.  45,04,440.51 (ii)  CP^  Rs. .  60,956,00
(b)  On Corporation'.liartf  :
CPP  Rs. 45,363.00  46,363.00
Corporation's  share  of  contribution  for 1980-81  . . . . ..
Rs.  .  34.460,00
34.460.00
Incentive Bonus  :
(5)
1,97.993.00
(6)
( i ) G P F R j.  .  1,94,411.000 (ii)  CPF  R*.  .  3,582.00 Amount Transferred  to  : (a)  Unclaimed  Deposits  :
33,644.15
(l)GPFRs.  '  28,154.15 (ii)CPFRs.  5,490.00
(b)  Pension  R'scrvo  Fund  .
1,74,471.00
(i)  GPF  Rs.  4,664,00 (ii)  CPF  Rs.  1,69,807,00
(c)  Vli Misc, Receipts
R9,  .  1,562.00
1,562,00
7,40,42,870.41
GRAND  TOTAL  . . ..
7,40,42,870,41
6,18,92.431.00 6,18,92,631.00*
200.00  (ExctSfc  in  Broad  Sheet) Closing Balance of  Ace"-irnts  Rs- Sheet  Rs. Closing Balance Of Bi ood Rs. OifT;rcnce
•ThD Closing Bila-  L-.  IS P-T Broad  Sh  <_ I i,  Rs. 6,18,92,631.00.  The difference  of Rs. 200.00 has been Identified  nr-d will be corrected in ths accounts for  ll)81-32.

3860  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—SEC.  3(ii)]
ANNEXURE-I
Explanatory  notes  on  Income  and  Expenditure  Accounts.
1.1  'A* on page 11.
The amount  Include! Corporation's  share of  expenditure  on
the  initial  equipment  purchased  for  the  hospitals.
The  total  expenditure  on  the  purchase  of  equipment  from
1967-68  to  1971-72  and  from  1973-74  to  1979-80  (Information for  the  year  1972-73  is  being  collected)  is  Rs.  1,50,67,801.80. During the year  1980-81, a further  sum of  Rs.  70,86,370.5Qp. was sanctioned  for  purchase  of  hospital  equipment.  The  same had  not  been  exhibited  in  the  Balance  Sheet  as  assets.  Capi- talisation  of  this  expenditure  Is still  under  consideration  of  the Corporation.
1.2  'B1  on  page  11.
The increase hi  the expenditure  is mainly  on  account  of  the
following  reasons:
(a)  Additional  coverage.
(b)  Increase  in  the  amount  of  average dally  rate  of  benefit
consequent  on  upward  revision  of  wages,
(c)  A  trend  towards  an  increase  in  the  average  number  of
benefit  days  per  annum  per  employee.
1.3  'C  on  pago  ii.
The  amount  includes  the  additional  amount  of  Rs.  430.00 lakhs  as  one  time  adjustment  on  account  of  enhancement  of rates of benefits w.e.f. 1-4-80 in cases where disablement or death occured  before  1-4-78.
1.4  'D'  onpageiii.
Prior  to  1-7-73,  the  Employers'  Special  Contribution  and Employees'  Contribution  were booked  separately  under  the sub- head  "Employers'  Share  and  Employers'  Share  only".  Conse- quent  on  the  repeal  of  Chapter  V-A  of  the  Employees'  State Insurance  Act,  1948, the combined  contributions  are now  being shown  under  the  sub-head  "Employers'  and  Employees' Share".  The  increase  in  contribution  Income  Is  mainly  on account  of  additional  coverage  and  Increase in  the  amount  of average  rate  of  contribution  consequent  on  revision  of  wages.
1,3  'E'  OD page ill.
Represents recoveries of arrears for the period prior to  1-7-73.
1.6  *F'on  page Hi.
The  decrease  in  receipts  under  'Interest  and  Dividends is due to investments being made since 1st October,  1976 in term deposits  under  'Re-investment  Plan'  of  the  State  Bank  of  India under  which interest falling  due  is credited  to tlio  Corporation's account  on  maturity  of  an  mvc^tinc'nt
This  excludes  the  amount  of  Rs.  1,307.70 lakhs  as  interest accrued during the year  1980-81 on investments in re-investment plans  as  the  amount  will  be  payabb  to  Corporation  on  matu- rity  of  the  Investments.
1.7  'O'  onpagciii.
The  receipts  under  'Compensations'  represent  the  amount recovered  from  the  State  Governments  under  the  provision of  Section  58(2) of  the Employees,  State  Insurance  Act,  in  case where the incidence  of  sickness payments  to  insured  persons  in any  State is found  to  exceed the  All India  average.
1.8  'H'on  page  HI.
This  Includes  receipts  on  account  of  licence  feo  from  the employers  for  use  of  franking  machines  by  them  and  also damages  levied  on  the employers for  failure  to  pay  dues of  the Corporation and non-submission  of Contribution  Cards In time,
1.9  'I'  onpageiii.
This includes receipts on account of cost of duplicate identity cards,  recoveries  of  over  payments  and  disallowances  in  audit, recoveries of  leave salary and  pension contributions, employees' contribution  towards  Central  Governmonts  Health  Scheme and other  receipts.
1.10  'J'  on  page Iv.
This  includes  miscellaneous  expenses  including  fee  paid  for postmortem examination of insured persons and charges payable to police authorities for obtaining police reports and  other state- ments  for  deciding  cases  of  employment  injuries  etc.
1.11  'K* on page vl.
This includes telegraphic charges  on bank transfers and com- mission  charges by  the  Associate  Banks  of the State  Bank  of India  for  the  sale  of  contribution  stamps.  The  decrease  In  ex- penditure  is  partly  due  to  reduction  In  the  rate  of  telegraphic transfer  of  fund  from  Rs.  7  to  Rs.  3  per  telegraphic  transfer w.e.f.  1-9-79 and  waiver  of  commission  on  realisation  of  con- tributions  In  cash.
1.12  'L' on page vi.
This  excludes  the  pensionary  liability  of  the  employees  of D(M)  Delhi  which  Is  included  under  l-A(ii)  Medical  Benefit being  shamble  expenditure  with  Delhi  Administration.
The  accumulated  pensionary  liability  in  respect  of  Contri- butory  Provident  Fund  beneficiaries  who  opted  for  coming  over to  the  pension  schmee  have  been  provided  for  in  the  Pension Reserve Fund  during the year  1980-81.
1.13  'M'  on page vi.
This  expenditure  represents  payments  on  account  of  re- funds  of  lapsed  deposits  and  payments  of  E.S.I.C.  Provident Fund  transferred  to  Miscellaneous  receipts. 1.14  'N' on page viii.
As  per  decision  dated  1-2-1974 of  the  Standing  Committee of  the  Corporation,  10%  of  the  total  revenue  derived  from Employers'  and  Employees'  contribution  is  credited  to  the Capital  Construction  Reserve  Fund  for  construction  of  Hospi- tals/Dispensaries/other  medical  institution  and  office  buildings/ staff  quarters.  However,  an  amount  of  Rs.  3,09,058/-  being the excess amount provided in the earlier  years has  been written back.
1.15  'O'  on  page viii.
This represents  transfers  to  Emergency  Reserve  Fund  as per decision  of the  Corporation  in Its meeting hold  oa  17th  March, 73.  The  Corporation  has  laid  down  that  20%  of  the  excess of  income over expenditure (whole of  the amount when  excess is less  than  rupees  one  croro)  should  be  credited  to  the Emergency Reserve Fund.
ANNEXURE-II
Explanatory  notes  on  Balance  Sheet
2  1  'B' on page xl.
Includes assets worth Rs. 23,94,10,096 created out of General
Cas'i  Balance.

3861
2.2  'E'on  page  xlx.
Include
(i)  Advances  to  Controller  of  Stationery,  Calcutta,
(ii)  Advances  to  Public  Works  Departments,
(iii)  Advances  to  Printing  and  Stationery  Departments  of
the  State  Governments,
(iv)  Advances  to  Regional  Offices  and  other  offices  of  the
Corporation,
(v)  Advances  to  Municipal  Committees,  Local  Bodies
etc.
(vi)  Advances  for  legal  charges.
(vii)  Advances  to  Corporation's  Departmental  Canteens,
(viil)  Other  Advances  which  are  not  classified  elsewhere,
fix)  Special  Advances.
2.3  €F* on  page  xxi.
Represents loans granted to the Government of  Maharashtra prior  to  1977-78 for  construction  and  expansion  of  Employees' State Insurance  Projects  in  the State. 2.4  'G'  on  page xxi.
The term 'Cash Remittances' denotes transfer  of funds  (cash) from  One account circle to another  and vice versa.  The revenue of the Corporation  is collected by sale of stamps/cash  realisation through  the State Bank  of  India  and  its Associate  Banks.  The contributions  received arc transferred  to the accounts of the res- pective  Regional  Office  Account  No.  T (Collection  Account) and finally transferred  to  Account No.  1 (Central)  of  the  Head- quarters' Office.  Funds for administrative expenditure and  bene- fit payments to Insured  persons are provided  to Regional  Office/ Local  Office  from  Central  Account  No.  I  (Headquarters  Office) by making transfers.  All such transactions in transferring  funds from  one  office  to  another  are  known  as  'Cash  Remittances'.
The  minus  balance  of  Rs.  23,49,944  under  the  head  'Cash Remittances'  represents  adjustments  of  certain  credits  in  the accounts  of  the  Corporation  for  which  per  contra  debits  could not be afforded  before  31-3-81 for  want of debit advices from  the banks.
2.5  *Hf on page xxi.
The  term  'Other  Remittances—Exchange  Account'  denotes
book  adjustments  between  one  pfflce  of  the  Corporation  and  the other  and  vice  versa.  Transactions  originating  in  one  office of  the  Corporation  adjustable  in  the  books  of  another  office of  the  Corporation  are  transferred  through  Exchange  Account,
The  balance  of  Rs.  16,05,779  under  the  head  'Other  Remit- tances-Exchange  Account'  represents  adjustment  of  certain  de- bits  in  the  account  of  the  Corporation  for  which  per  contra credits (Responding  items) could  not be effected  before the close of  the  accounts  for  1980-81. 2.6  'I'  on  page xxxiii.
Cash  with  bankers  comprises  the  following:
(i)  Balances  in  Regional  Office  Account  No.  I  (Collection Accounts  which  represents  the  collections  made  by the Banks on 30th & 31st March, 81).
'
(ii)  Balance  in  Regional  Offlce/D(M)D  Account  No.ll for  meeting Administrative expenses and expenditure  on medical  care  in  Delhi.
(iii)  Balance  in Account No. II  of  Local Offices  for  making
cash  Bsnofit  piymonts  to  Insured  Parsons.
824  GI/82—14
AUDIT  CERTIFICATE
I  have  examined  the foregoing  accounts for  the  year  1980-81 and the Balance Sheet as on 31st  March  1981 of the Employees' State  Insurance  Corporation  and  obtained  all  the  information and explanations  that  I have required  and  subject  to  the  obser- vations  in the Audit Report  appended, 1 certify  as a result of my audit,  that  in my opinion  these accounts  and  the Balance  Sheet are  properly  drawn  up  so  as  to  exhibit  a  true  and  fair  view of the state of affairs  of the  Corporation  according to the best of my information  and explanations given to me and as shown by the  books  of  the  Corporation.
Sd/-
New  Delhi.  ,  Director  of  Audit Dated:  5-12-1981.  Central  Revenues
Audit  Report  on the accounts  of  the Employees'  State Insu-
rance  Corporation  for  the year  1980-81.
1.  General
During  the year  1980-81 , the  provisions  of  the Employee}' State  Insurance  Act,  1948,  were  extended  to  7014  factories/ establishments  covering  349  lakh  employees.  The  number  of factories/establishments  covered  by  the  Act  was  71614  having 63.32  lakhs  employees  as  on  31st  March,  1981.  However,  the break  up  between  (i) factory  and  (ii) establishment  and  number of  employees  therein  was  not  available  with  the  Corporation.
An  analysis  of  the  income  and  expenditure  of  the  Corpora-
tion for the year  1979-80 and  1980-81 is given bclows—
Expenditure 1979-80,  1980-81 (Rs. in lakhs) Income 1979-80,1980-81 (Rs. in lakhs)
1.  Benefits to
1,
insured persons and their  families Employers' and Employees' contribution  15,961  17,959
2.
A-Medical  benefits
Interest on contribution  15  17
(i)  Payment  to
3. State Govern- ments' share towards  medical benefits initially incurred  by the Corpo- ration  28  30
State Govern- ments etc. as Corporation's share of  their expenses on providing medical treatment  6,023  6,799
(ii)  Medical
 
4. Interest and dividends  484  463 treatment  and care and

3862  THE  GAZETTE  OF  INDIA  : OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1904  [PART  II—Sue.  3(ii)]
5.  Miscellaneous  491  853
advances as per detailed records was, however,  Rs.  1566.88 lakhs as detailed  below:—
al •nber
Sen Nui
Year in  which advance payments
made
Amount outstanding as  on  31st March  1981
336 380  '
maternity benefits oxpenscs incurred directly  by the Corpo- ration
B—Cash  and
(in
Upto
other  benefits to  insured persons  and their  families paid  directly by the  Corpo-
ration
6,372  t 1,063
1.138 1,410
(2)  Administra- tive expenses
(3)  Hospitals  and
Dispensaries 187 232
1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. It.
lakhs  of  Rs.) 153.04 32.88 29.94 20.35 49.61 32.99 84.31 78.48 167.99 162.81 754.48
(4)  Capital
construction 1,598 1,793
Total
1566.88
(5)  Emergency
a
~~  •  " reserve  fund 265 129
Following further  comments are offered  in  this  respect.
(6)  Excess of
1,060 516
income over expenditure
19,322
16,979
Total  '
Total  16,979  19,322
2.  ANNUAL  ACCOUNTS
(i)  The  outstanding  amount  of  Rs.  1,53,04,304  shown against  1970-71  also  included  the  payments  awaiting final  adjustment  relating  to  the  period #s  far  back  as 1960-61.  The  break-up  of  the  outstanding  amount prior  to  1970-71  was  not  made  available  to  Audit. The  clearance  of  the  payments  prior  to  1970-71  was apparently  not  being  pursued.
2.t  Miscellaneous  deposits,  unclassified  receipts  (Suspense
account)-
(ii)  Though  a  considerable  part  of  expenditure  awaiting final adjustment  (Rs. 15,67. crores) related to the purchaso of  land  but  ther,e  was  nothing  on  record  to  indicate that  efforts  were  being  made  to  clear  these  outstanding items  oxpeditiously.
As  on  31st  March,  1981  a  credit  balance  of  Rs.  21.16  lakhs was  lying  unadjusted  under  the  head  "Miscellaneous  Deposits, Unclassified  Receipts  (Suspense  Account)"  of  which  Rs.  11.26 lakhs  related  to  1979-80  and  Rs.  9.90  lakhs  to  1980-81.  The balance represents the net  effect  of  the figures booked  under  the following  heads:—
(i)  Unclassified  receipts,
3.2  Out  of the amounts advanced  to  the State  Governments/ State  public  Works  Departments  for  repairs  and  maintenance of  the  hospitals  and  other  buildings  of  the  Corporation,  Rs. 388.63  lakhs  remained  unadjusted  as  on  31st  March,  1981,  as detailed  below:—
(ii)  Unclassified  paymenis.
(ill)  Repayment  of Additional  D.A.  deposits;  and
(iv)  Miscellaneous  Deposits,
Year of  advances —*
ing
Sr, No.
Cleared during 1980-81
Unadjusted amount  as on  31st  - March  1981
Amount outstand as  on 1st April 1980
The  Corporation  reported  (November  1981)  that  the  out- siandings  were  duo  to  non-availability  of  Challans  in  support of credits and  that  remedial steps had  been taken  to avoid  rccur- rance  of  such  Unclassified  items in future  accounts.
3
5
2
1
4  - s
2.2  Depreciation  Reserve  Fund  for  Staff  Cars
lakhs)
).  n
(R" 66, ,53
64.80
1974-75
,1.73
1.
36, 58
1975-76
3.17
33.41
2.
70
34.62
41.
7.08
1976-77
3.
59.
48.94
,79
10.85
1977-78
4.
70, .35
28.66
41.69
1978-79
5.
79.48
126.20
46.72
1979-80
6.
The  annual  provision  towards  depreciation  of  staff  cars (Rs. 6.38 lakhs) had exceeded the value of staff cars as per  books (Rs. 5.65Jakhs)  and  the excessive provision  is being  commented in  audit • reports.  Despite  this,  the  Corporation  continued to  provide  additional  depreciation  ot)  the  ground  that  accumu- lation  in  depreciation  was not  adequate  in view  of  the  increase in cost of staff cars.  It would, however, not be proper to  classify provision to achieve  future  replacement costs as  "depreciation".
(1)
3.  Advances
(—)1.85
Less  discrepancy in broad-sheet  and balance  sheet
••
(-W .85
(ii)
" "
.94
Less lump sum adjustment  in res- pect of  Gujarat Region
(—)l-94 3.1  The  accounts  of  Corporation  showed  that  advance payments  amounting  to  Rs.  1564.64  lakhs  made  for  purchase of land,  construction  of  buildings  etc. were outstanding  on  31st March,  1981  under  the  head  'Amount  advanced  for  capital) expenditure  for  final  adjustment".  The  amount  of  outstanding
 
-  *

38(534
1
5
Tlic  following  position  in  respect  of  ° n rc  of  the  outstanding
advances  is  noticed:
7
1980-81
m.%
Til.96
 u)
(-):f..n
(-  ) 2 6 . ll
1 ess lump  sum .uliusiment  in res- pect  uf  Gujarat Region
(ii)
(—)00  16
I  - l O O . l fi
1 uss  discrepancies between  accounts .mil  bioad-sheet
388.63
94.4:
483.05
The pi ogress of clearance of the unadjusted  amounts  pertainini
tammy to old pencil  was1 appaiontly  veiy slow.
3  1.  Out ill  advance  payments  In  vanuus  panics  made  in the
previous  vcais  for  supplies  nijdc  and  services  icndeicd  to  Ihc
Corporation.  Rs.  24.11  1,-ikhs:  icmaincd  unadjusted  as  on  list
March  1981, as  detailed  belo^  -
Amount
Amoihrt Year  of  advance
remaining
outstanding
payment
Sr No.
Cleared dm ing 1980-81 unadjusted
us on
as  on
1st  April
31st  Marck
1980
1981
—
(Rv  in  lakhsi
5.24 1974-75
1.
0.48
1.30 0.59
1975-7fi
0.24
0.28
1976-77
1  83
2.05
1977-78
0  84
0  63 1978-79
3. 4. j
1979-80
(a)  Regional  Offices  and  other  offices  of  the  Corporation
Rs.  7,12,920
The  amount  represented  the  advance  payments  for  meeting
petty  expenses  made  by the Corporation  fiom  tiro; to time  to  its
regional  and  other  offices.  The  non-adjustment  of  an  amount
of  this  magnitude  advanced  for  petty  expcnclituic  for  vears
togethei  was  not  justifiable.
(h)  Others  :  Rs.  6,37,787
The  details  and  the  paitlculars  relating  to  this  category
of advances were  not  made available  to  Audit.  'Ihc  Coi potation
stated  (November,  1981)  that  the  amounl  represented  miscel-
laneous  types  of  expenditure  which  could  not  be  explained  fac-
tually
(c)  Special  advances  : Rs. 1,36,830
This  amount  related  to  losses  due  to  theft,  fraud,  cmbazzle-
menl  etc.  during  the  previous  years,  as  detailed  below:  -
ion
Rec
Amount outstanding
(Rupees)
1. Delhi  .
11,117
t
7,071 Gujarat
Madhya  Pradesh
22,431
Karnalaka
5,000 4. 5. Utlar  Pradesh
.  .  .  9,500
(i)  6  06
(ii)  0  78
(i)  8.96 (ii)  0.7S
3.0(i 0.11 0.04 0 22 0.21 (0  2.90 (n)  Nil
(Special advances)
Discrepancy
between  broad- sheet  disbalance
0.25
sheet
(i)  8,28
0.25 (il  8.28
1980-81
7.
(ii)  0  59
(ii)  0.59
(Special
advances)
30.9:
24.13
6.79
Total
The  outstanding  amount  of  Rs.  ?l  II  kikhi  was  psndinu:
aj;ainsi  the  following  parties:
I'arty
Amount
Outstanding
(Rupees)
/  .  .  .  3.26,229 1. 2
iiio.iuy  ibpaiimenn  .  70,801 d-,iLiitnunts  .  64,695
cs  Mi the  Corpoiation  .  7,12,920 3. 4. 5.
6.
6 West Bengal  .
81,711
136.830 Total  .
The  year-wise  break-up  of  the  outstanding  balance  under
special  advances  was not  available  and  during  1980-81 there  was
a clearance of Rs.  1000 only in  respect  of  tho West  Beng il region
during  1980-81.  The  matter  oi'  eloainnce  of  ihe  oulsLmding
amount  was  not  being  pursued  cffcwiively.
4.  Non-valuation  of  assets  and  liabilities
According  to  Section  37  of  the  ESI  Acl,  1948,  the  Corpo-
ration  should,  at  an  inletval  of five years,  have  a  valuation  of
its  assets  and  liabilities  made  by  a  valuer  appointed  with  th"
approval  of  Hie  Ccnlial  Government.  Allhough  this  asptsct
was  pointed  out  in  the  last  year's  Audit  Report,  the  sixth  quin-
quennial  valuation  of  the  assets  and  liabilities  as  on  31st  March
1979  which  was  commenced  in  November,  1979,  had  not  been
completed  so  far  (No\ember  1981).  The  Corporation  slated
(November  1981)  that  the  Controller  of  Insurance,  Government
ol  fndia,  had  taken  up  the  valuation  work  and  (hat  it  wis  in
active  piogtess,
?.  Arrcais  of  connihution.
10,102 7.
K.
6,37,787 l,3f),"3O Ollu-i  . Spe.ial advances
9.
24.12.S07 TOIAI
K24  CiI/82—15
The  anears  of  contribution!,  fmm  the  employers/employees of  20,6^f>  factories  establishments  had  incieased  from  Rs.  28.10 eroict  • ,n  on  list  March,  1980 to  Rs. 41.24 ciores  for  the  period upio  3Ulh  lslovenib?r,  I9N0 as  on  list  March,  1981. Yeaivme details  of  tuu-ars  of  contributions  were,  however,  not  available with  the  Corporation  as  the  infoimation  in  this  behalf  w.is  yet to  be  received  from  some  regions.

3864  THE  GAZETTX  OF  INDIA  :  OCTOBER  23,  1982/KARTIKA  1,  1004  [ P A RT  I I —S FC  3"(ii)]
Pa i titulars  in le-ipect  of so n: of t h; fi;trni;s  .• ,Lablnhm;nls
involving  heavy  airear1-  are  i/ivcn  below-
Factory /establishment
Amount
Region
Sr. No
1.
i
M's  Calico  Mills,  Ahmcdabad IXE.S.U
(Rs,  in lakhs) K66.97 149 45
3. 4.
NN.6" 77.99 51.19 5. 6.
Gujarat Delhi U.P. Boniba) M.P. Bombay M.P. U  P.
41.91 41  66 25  78 25  11
Bihai
7. 8. 9. 10.
11.
21  87 21  42
n.
13.
M  s Bhatal  Heavy  F.lectricals M  •> Broadway  Mills Ltd. M/s  Hope  Textile  Mills,  Indore M/s  Sltaram  Limited M/s  Malwa  United  Mills,  Indore M/s  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills,  Kjnpur M/s  RBHM  Jule  Mills,  Kalihar M/s Alhorton  West  &  Company, Kanpur  . . . .. M/s  Onssa  Textile  Mills,  ChowdwJr M/s  Phoenix  Mills Lid. M/s  A.P. Text  Rook,  Press
17.16 16  57
U.P. Onssa Bombay Andhra Pi adesh
14, M/s  Andhra  Scientific  Co , Machinpatnam  . . ..
9.97
Andhra Pradesh
15. M/s  Algappa  Textile  dovt.  (P) Ltd., Trichur
7.71
Kerala
Though  the  Corporation  slated  (November  1981) that  legal
action  to  recovei  the  entire  outstanding  arreais  of  Rs.  41 24 crorcs  had  already  been  taken,  ft  was noticed  in  veriucation of  rccoids  that  legal  action  for  recovery  had  been  taken  in respect  of  only  a  part  of  these  outstanding  due?  and  that  the legal  action  for  the  recovery  of  the  lemainmg  part  of  (he  out- standing  dues  had  not  been  initiated  by >the -concei ned  regional offices.
6.  Imposition  of  penal  damages  for  belated  payment  of  contri -
hutions.
According  to  Regulation  31-A  of  the  ESI  (General)  Regu- lations,  1950, an  employer  shall  be deemed  to have  not  paid the" contribution  in time,  if ho fails  to submit  the contribution  cardi within  the  time  pi escribed  under  Regulation  26  ibid.  Section 85fl(i)  of  tho  ESI Act,  1948,  empowers  the  Coiporati  m  to  re- cover  the damages  not exceeding  the amount  of arrears  lrom  the cmplo>ers  where  they  fail  to  pay any contributions  in  time and in  terms  of  Section  R5B(2)  ibid  these  damages  may be  recovorcd as  arreats  ol'  land  revenue.  The  position  of  damages  levied, recovered  and progressive  balances as on 31st  March  1981 weie as  under:—
Amount  of damages outstanding Number of cases in  which show causes notices were issued
Amount of damages recovered
Progressive amount of damages imposed
24,754
26,74,9(11 5.S0.74 070
607  fV'7u
The  ycarwise  break  up  of  the  outstanding  damayes \MS, however,  not  made  available  by  (he  Corporation.  The  Cor- poration  stated  (November  1981) (hat  a  substantial  amount  of outstanding  damages  could  HL.1 h"- lcmveicd  due io- —
(])  Ca,i i  | eiidint'  'ii  'he  tou:  •,; ,1'iJ
(ii)  Financial  difficulties  of  the  defaulting  employers  who had  hardly  any  assels  which  could  be  attached  by  the certified  authorities.
7.  Unrealised  decretal  amount
As  on  31st  March  19S1  decrees  for  Rs.  32,26,470  uiwaids contribution  to  the  Corporation  from  employers  remained  un- lealiscd,  a-,  detailed  below;
Amount Year
Sr. No.
1. 2
23,95,531 4,63,560
. . ..
The  period  fiom  prior  lo  1965 to  1975-76  . 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79
3. 4.
5.
1,54,936 (i3,892 1,26,049 1979-80 1980-81
b.
22,508
Total  .
12,26,476
The  state-wise  figures  where  the  decretal  amount  exceeded
Rs.  one lakh  as on 31st  March  1981 were as  under:
Amount SI.  State No.
1.  Madh>a  Pradesh 2.  Utlar  Pradesh 3.  Rajasthan 4.  Bombay
N.69,529 •i,63.25" l,23,64h 2,80,350
5.  Tamil  Nadu 6.  West  Bengal  . 7.  Gujarat 8.  Punjab
2,65,744 2,52,213 2,50,384 1,21,454
The  Corporation  stated  (Novemb:i  1981) that  (ho  Corpo- ration  could  not  interfere  in  the  functioning  of  the  c\;:uting
courts  and  h ad  lo  wait  for  exc.Lilion  of  t h.  d ; * r ; ;.  r h'  Cn  -
noration  further  stated  t h ai  in  spite  of  l h ? i;  limitati  >i>  t lu
concerned  r e g i o ml  directors  kept  p u r i u i n^  t hi  Cl^^•>  l,i  g^t  t h;
decrees  e x c d l sJ  as  e u ly  as  p j i s i b l e.
8.  Registers  of  i m m o v a b le  p r o p i r t i ci  ( l a n di  ^r\\.]  building-.)
The  balance  sheet  as  at  31st  M a r ch  I9SI  d s p i c t :d  u s , _u
(land  a nd  buildings)  worth  R s.  67,11,51,ti3)  MI t hi  n j i n;  of  thv
Corporation,  as  detailed  below:
( R u p ; ; - ,)
0 and  a nd  buildings  wholly  o w n ;J  by  I h: I ' T.
ivnation
<^,9J,6-i,(iO4
L a nd  a nd  buildings jointly  o,vncd  by I h; C o' p i-
sraiion  a nd  State  G o v e r n - n r i ts  .  .  I1,S5,IH5
T o nl
.  " 7 , l l , 5 l , ' iO
Although  the  Corporation  had  started  maintaining  land  and buildings  registers,  these  were  not  complete.  The  registers  did not  contain  a  summary  of  assets  either,  Hence  the  amount  of Rs.  67 11,51,689  shown  on  this  account  in  the  hahnee  shoot was  not  susceptible  of  check.
Mou-over,  the assets  (land  and  building;)  for  fthe  omcos  of the  Corporation  and  the  hospitals  and  the  dispensaues,  as per payments  registei,  was Rs. 66,96,70,694 as in  respect of land  and building,  wholly  owned  by  the  Corporation  and  R.S.  U,Ki,085 jTi i esp-L-t of those owned jointly by the Corporation  and ths State Governments  as against  R,s. 66,99,604  and Rs.  11,85,085  shown respectively  in  the balance  sheet.  Thus  '.here was a  discrepancy of  Rs.  2,95,910  between  the  two  sets  of  figures'  which  required reconciliation.

3865
The figuie  ofRs. fifi Qfi,70,h94 shown  in the exti act of payments registci  also  could  not  'ic  tallied  with  the  entnes  nude  in  the land  and  building  icgisters  due  to  incompleteness  of  the latter. 9.  Factories/establishments  pending  inspection  suivey
According  to  the  Hand  Book  of  Instructions  for  i n a c t i on of  factories,  nil  definitely  covered  fjctoiies  aic  to  be  inspected once  a year  and  uncoveied  factories  arc  to  be surveyed  o nee  in two  consecutive  >ears.  U was,  however,  observed  that
(i)  Out of d5,%4 factories  to  be inspired  during t he period uplo  list  December  1980,  7,151  fjctoiies  remained  to be  inspected  as  an  J1 si  March  19KI.  Similaily,  out  of anothci  16,820 factories  to  lie  inspected  during  January to  Maich  1981, 5,594 fai-loties  were still  pending  for  ins- pection  (October  1981).
(ii)  As  m the  UISL' of  inspection-,,  a  latge  numb.ii  of  suive>s were also in  ai reals.  The  total  numhei  of such  pending .surveys as on  list  October  1981 wa-. 1,59ft  pertaining  to the  pei md  upto  ;I,  lL)-!3  L ii  956  relating to  (h1-Pciiod  .lanuary  lo  Maich  I OS 1.
(iii)  The  yearwise  legion-wise  break  up  of  the  factories  in
lespect of which  determination  of  final  date  of  covciagc was pending as on 31st  March  1981 is given  hcrcunder:—
State/region
No,  of pending inspections
2,481 1,584 1,107 X85 55o .  '  .  434 414
35(i 305 260 100 94 69
38 West  Bengal Punjab  ,  .  .  ., Delhi Gujarat Uttar  Pradesh Karnataka Tamil  Nadu Rajasthan Bihar MadtiMi  Pradesh Andhra  Pradesh Nagpur Assam Kerala
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14.
8/>K3 Total
(iv)  The  Stales  in  which  the  pcifoimance  =;• respect  of  Ins- pections/Surveys  was  even  less  than  50  per  cent  were Assam  (44  per  cent),  Madhya  Pradesh  (2S  per  cent), Keiala  (24 per cent),  Delhi  (18  per  cent,)  Orissa  (16  per cent),  Bihar  (12 per  cent)  and  West  Bengal  (5 per  cent).
The  Coiporation  stated  (November  1981)  that  the  reasons for  no  deciding  the  date  of  final  coverage  and  non-inspection/ non-survey  of  factories/establishments  were  as  under:—
(i)  Records  not  produced  by  the  employers;
t,ii)  Factories  closed  and  whereabouts  of  the  employers  not
known;
(iii)  Representations  from  he employers  for  exemption  from
the  provisions  of  the  Act;  and
(iv)  Employers  disputing  coverage  in  courts.
10.  Construction  of  100  bedded  ESI  General  Hospital  at
Durgapur  (West  Bengal)
Land  measuring  30 acres  was  purchased  for  construction  of ESI  hospital  at Durgapur  at  a total  cost  of  Rs. 4,54,500  and  the amount  was  paid  (o  the  State  Government  in  January  1976.
The  progiamme  of  construction  had  been  finalised  in
October,197N,  iiftei  considering  several  proposals  from  time  to time.  According  to  the  approved  proposal  of  1978,  10.5  acre? of  land  were  rendered  surplus  to  requirements  out  of  30  acres acquired  in  19(56 and  Ihc  State  Government  had  been  asked  to take  back  the  surplus  land  and  failure  lo  assess  initially  the actual  land  requirement  resulted  in  blocking  of  funds  for  more than  15 years.  Moreover,  reasons  for  non-construction  of  the hospital complex,  even after  15 years  were not  clear.
Sd/-
Director  of  Audit
Central  Revenue,
,Nn.  G-2OO17  V8I-HI]
U.K.  DAS,  Under  Secy.
l-HINTED  PY  THE  MANftOER,  COVT.  OF  INDU  PRESS,  KING  ROAD,  NEW  UET.HI-110064
 
AND  PimUSIIED  HY  THE  CONTROLLER  OF  PUBLICATIONS,  DELHI-110054,  1 9 82





; of Jule Yam ind Jute Twine to piospeelive buyers provided thi h Oh value of one or rn^re than of Mich sample ; does nol otcoed Rs liK) (Rs One Huudied onlyl ↩
means the Export Inspection Council estab- lished under section 3 of the Act, (d) "Jute Yarn" means all varietieg of jute yarn spun out of juto fibre, (©) "Jute Twine" means plied jute >arn made by twist- mj; together two or more strands of jute >arn , 3 Inprocest Quality Coatiol—Tlie quality of jute yarn and jute twine intended or export shall b« ensured by the manufacturing: mill affectine ths Controlu, at different staaes of manufacture, together with the levels of controls specified In Schedule I and Schedule n app«nd*d to these rulw subject to the following rtqnlremwiu nam«ly -^~ (.1) A laboratory and uisjtection department shall be mam- *4ined at the mill premises which shall be suitably equipped ↩
line passes along the part common boundary of villages Toera and Topa and meets at point 'h'. lines pass through village Toera and meets at point 'G'. line passes along the part common boundaiy of village^ Tocia and Topa and meets at point 'H  line passes along tho common boundary of villages Keribanda and Topa and meets at point T. line passes along the patt common boundaiy of villages Kasikhap and Topa and mecls at point U" line passes through Bhura Nadi (River) in villago Kasikshap then passes through \illago Kasikhap an Karibanda (which forms common boundary of sub- block-I of Mandu Block notified u/s 4(1) of the Coal Boat ing Aicas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957) and meets at point 'K'. line passes along the part common boundaiy of villages Konbanda and Semi a and meets at point ↩
aie rn follows The Management is M/s Indian Raie Farths I imited, Mtinavii- lakunchi kanyakuma'i Disriict, Tamil Nidu State, Pin Code; 629252. lndwn Raie Farth', Limited is a Company letiistered uml«r the Tndian Companies Act, 1956 and is rot a creatuie of any statute Tt is an undertakinc; fully owned by the Government of indii under the administtative con- trol of the Department of Atomic T-ncij:v wilh the Registered ofTuc ft Bombay It is a Government of TnJh industrial undcrtak-ine Among olhcr r>lae"s in Fndia the Comtianv hns pot a plant nt Manavalakiu i;hi in Kaiivakum.in" District for mining and processing beach sands nn r^nicsentel bv the Comninv are tcrvrfsen't-d bv four trodf Unions ' (1) Mineial Woikers TInion MuniviKilii'-irhi 6792 ;? p) Knn\a- knman Diitrict M'neial W-i^eri TTnloti NnEcirnil Tamil Nadu ni Afninvnlakmichi T\Tin» nk ^t iff \sso^iitlon Mon- \a1nkunehi-629''52 and (i\ 1n,1M'i R..u Eailhs Trnplovces Union, Ma.nnvalakuiichi-fi2Q212 ↩
•,««*' w lH i n'V '" h nl of l h" wo-kmen ic •rpnchpd in 1969, namely 2lrt workmen ihe fir-,t 160 of them had been given Job In the Manaccment-Company ↩
- " ↩
in the terms of settlement entered ifito by the Management and Union Nos, 1 and 3 undei Ex. W-53 on 4th February, 1981. It transpires in evidence that Union No. 1 is a majority Union recognised by Man- agement-Company and therefore when the Management inters into a settlement albeit on ad hoc basis with the re- «5ognised Union, the settlement cannot be said to be mala fide. I had earlier referred W the fact that for (ill practical pufpo^s the dtfttlcment under Ex. W-53 remains still bom excepting to the extent that pursuant to Settlement Ex. W-53 in the light of the earlier stay obtained in W.P. No. 81/(981 Of the Madras High Court, wherein the High Court had directed the Management not to fill up one vacancy out of the 60 posts offered by the Management under Ex. W-53. The 59 workmen offered by Union No. 1 had been duly medically examined by the Medical Officer of the Manage- ment and the Certificate* issued by him form Ex. M-3 series. Of the 59 wofkmen medically examined, 57 of ihem have beert declared medical ty fit, while in two canes D, Kumara Dfias and N. Ponnuswamy they have dot been clc, red of their medical fitness because in the c&se of D. Kumara Dhas, expert oplrilon is required regarding his medical fitness for Hard work from the Department of Neurology, Medical Col- lege Trivafidrum and in the case of N, Ponnuswnmy the Medical Officer of the Management declares that he is having some kind of heart disease and hence he is not fit for hard work. Howevef an e^dpert opinion may be obtained from the Department Of Cardiology, Medical College Hospital, Trivahdrum for declaring him to be fit, Moreover, the built fn safety elaUse provided in clause (4) of Ex. W-53 leaving at large the taue to be! tested In any forum by any aggrieved One would also go to demonstrate that the settlement under Ex. W^53 wad Only bona fide. On fl consideration of tli™ several factors, T find that the Settlement under Ex. W-53 dated 4th February, 1981 entered into between Management- Company and Union Nos. 1 and 3 is true and bona fide. (15) Learned counsel for Ufiion Nos, 1 and 3 Thiru G. Venkatraman states that it is not his claim that the Settle- ment Ex. W-53 is binding on Union Nos. 2 and 4 and therefore the question of legality of the Settlement need not be gone into. His further submission 19 that although the terms of settlement would not bind Union No. 2 o< Union No, 4, the fairness and reasonableness thereof can be ascer- tained or even adopted by this Tribunal. In pamgrjph (18) 6f the claim statement filed by Union Nos. 1 and 3 at page 13 this is the stand of these two Unions: "It is submitted that the Said settlement could be very well adopted by th'"s TribVnal to hold that the 110 workmen whose cause these two to under Ex. W-53. There is also no specific bye-law in nent workmen of the Management to the exclusion of the 6ther Categories of workmen represented by the other (wo Unions". But the Division Bench of the High Court by its Order dated 26th April, 1982 fix, W^15 has pointed out 1hat "the parties (all the four Unions and Management-Company) ftgreed that the legality of the interim settlement dated 4th February, 1981 will be" gone into by this Tribunal and apart from going irtto the question of the legality of the settlement, the Tribunal will decide all other questions re- ferred to it af one point of time". In view of this specific direction of the Division Bench of High Court it is im- perative and I am duty bound to go into the leuality of the settlement dated 4th February, 1981—fix. W-53. (16) Ko doubt, Ex. W-53 h purported to be a memoran- dum of settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Management of Indian Rare Earths Limited and their workmen represented by Minerals Workers' Union, Mnnavaiakurichi and Manavala- kurichi Mineral Staff Association. It is pointed out that this Settlement Ex w -# is not In the prescribed form "H' in violation of Rule $S of the tndustrlal Disputes (Central) Rules, 19H. W.W. 1 and M.W, 1 who are signatories to Ex. W-53 had also admitted that the settlement had not been sem to the authorities prescribed under the Rules. In 1972—I—L.L.J. Page 99 (Workmen of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs. Delhi Cloth und General Mills Ltd.) the Supreme Court has pointed out that the provision of Rule 58(4) admittedly not being complied with the settlement was invalid and not binding on the concerned workmen. In the present case also it is conceded that Union Nos. 1 and 1 and the Management did not jointly send a copy of the settlement in question to the Central Government, Ch.'ef Labour Commissioner, the Regional Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer immediately or any time after their entering into the settlement. If lhat be so in the light of the citation referred to above, the settlement entered into under Ex. W-53 would not even bind the 110 workmen le- prcscnted by Union No. 1. Learned counsel for Union No. 4 Thiiu t handru further points out that the President of Union No. 1 who has been examined as W.W. 7 did not have any authority to enter into a Settlement under EX. W-53. In support of this position, reliance is sought to bo placed in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1981— II—L.I.J. Page 184 (Brooke Bond India Limited vs. workmen), where the Supreme Court held that "unless the office-bearers who signed the agreement were authorised by the Fxecutive Committee of the union to enter into a settle- ment or the constitution of the union contained a provision lhat out or more of its members would be competent to settle dispute with the management, no agreement bet* ween any office-bearer of the union and the management can be called a settlement as defined in Section 2(p) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947". The Supreme Court also poirits out thjt ''where a settlement is alleged to have been arrived at between an employer and one or more office-bearers of the Union, and the authority of the office-bearers who signed the memorandum of settlement is challenged or disputed, the authority or authorisation has to be established as a fact and it is not enough if the employer merely points out and relids upon (he fact that the settlement was signed by one or more of the office-bearers". Not un-oblivious of the purport Of the decision as relied on by Union No. 4, learned counsel for Union No. 1 points out that because Un on No. 1 is a recognised Union and the constitution of the Union piovides that any of its office- bearers can enter into a settlement with the Management, the Settlement under Ex. W-53 must be held tr> be Valid, Ex. W-54 is the typed copy of the bye-laws of Unioli No, l. W.W. 7, the President of Union No. 1 has admitted in cross-examination that there is no specific authorisation by the general body of his Union to accept the terms agreed to under Ex. W-53. There is also no specific bye-law in Ex. W-54 authorising the President or Secretary or both to truer into any settlement. However, learned counsel for Union No. 1 Thiru Venkatraman refers me to bye-law (10) of Ex W-54 (bye-law of Union No. 1) to the effect that the President authorises to sign all instruments to which the Union is a party and under bye-law (12) the Secretary and the President can execute all instruments of the Uni6n. Support for this position is also sought to be phced on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1966—1—L.L.J. Page 412 (Purshottnm H, Judge vs. Potdar (V.B.) (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) and another). No doubt there may be ion\e force in the submission of the learned counsel, but I am not fully persuaded whether even (his oblique interpretation would admit a valid settlement bet- ween the Union and the Management. In this context I would also refer to the Tact that under clause (8) of Ex. W-53, tho PresideHt and Secretary of Union No. 1 agree not to raise any demand for departmentalisation of the remaining Con- tract workmen who are left out HS a result ftf trie settlement. This would tantamount to say that the President and the Secretafy have agreed to give up the claim of remaining 50 workmen whose cause is also professed to have been espoused by Union No. 1. One can understand if any reservation had been made in their behalf in case of future vacaijey but it is not so and so this clause is plainly against the interest of those 50 workmen. Thus presence of clause (8) reinforces my conclusion that the Settlement under Ex, W-53 purported to be sinned by the President and the Secretly in the absence of any specific authorisation to enter into a settle- ment would not amount to a valid settlement on behalf of (he 110 workmen represented by Union No, 1. Further- more, clnuse (fi) of Fx. W-53 is impinging on the right of other plant workers represented by Uniori No. 4. Manage- ment and Union No. 1 arid Union No. 3 cannot by any stretch of imagination barter away or even suspend the right of workmen of Union No. 4 more so in their absence. ↩
>- On behalf of Union No. 1 reliance is also placed on the decision ot the Supreme Court reported in I960—II-l J . J. pr,ge 233 ↩
 ↩
° f A cf ↩
 ↩
oi t ↩
engaged besides the numbei ot 60 contiact labour. Hx. W-KO is ihc Employees provident ljund Rcgistei of Manavalakuiiclri MmemK Co-opctativ; La- bour Contract ,Socicty Limited. From this lcgister, it can bo easiJy found that 60 of these woikmen are admitted to provi- dent fund bcnelits fiom 1978 onwards. Fh.lt Register f;ots upto the date of abolition of contiact system, namely, 31-10-80. Ex. W-S * scries, 60 in iiumhci, show the Provident Fund Annual Statement ol accounts of the woikeis of lhc Mana- valakmichi Minerals Co-opentive I aboui Contract Society tor the year ending 31-3-19^0, Thcrcfoic in the rate of Ex. W-80 and tx, W-85 these 60 workmen weic woikinj; under the Manavalakurichi Mmeiais Co-opci alive Labour Contiact Society Limited with effect from 15-9*1976. Therefore I have no hesitation to find that the i 10 workmen whose cause is espoused by Union Nos. 1 mj 3 have been woiking under contract taltcn from the Management-Company without dis- pute at any tate fiom 15-9-1976 upti> the date °t abolition of connect system on 31-10-1980. Naturally, nil 1he 60 workmen would not have put in the same lenglh ot service, but this can bc casil\ .'hecked up fiom the Wag:-cum-Master Roll Registers t \ s. W-69, W-71 to W-7J us also W-77 and W-79 On the totality of the matenul^ placed, 1 am convinced that as contract labour workmen the 110 woikmen repre- sented hy Union No. 1 have put in service over and above Ihe professed claim of W.W 5 and unnamed and un-idenli- fied 39 others. (33) But it still remains to be considered as how long these IK) workmen wcie employed undci diffeient conl'actoii who had taken contract from the Management-Company for mining and supply of beach sands. WAV. 7 to W. W. 10 ini varying degices speak to the service ol these workmen under different contractors during chffcicnt periods. No doubt their oral testimony would naturally b« interested in the same manner as. the testimony of W.W. 3 to W.W. 6 exa- mined by Union No. 2. However, at the present junctuie even eschewing out of consideration the oral testimony ol W.W. 7 to W.W. 10 I shall examine il from other circum- stances or materials it can be held that theke 110 workmen or any of them were employed as woikmen in the contract work of the Company lclating to mining and supply of beach sands. Ex. W-69 is Wage Rcgisfei-cum-Mustcr Roll in Form XVIII under the Contiaet labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) maintained bv ton- tractor David W.W. K for the period from 15-9-] 976 to 2-4-1977 and Exs. W-71, W-72, W-73 nnd W-74 me similai Wage-cum-Muster Roll Registers respectively for the periods from 4-4-1977 to 22-9-1373; 23-9-197S to 30-6-1979 2-7-1979 to 2-84980 and (27-10-1980 t0 31-1O-19KO and 4-8-/9S0 k> 25-10-1980). .Horn these five exhibits it can be found that 60 workmen whose names, had been furnished by Union No. 1 to Management and who had been medically examined—vide Fx. M-3 series all lb.es--- workmen had actuals ly worked under this contractor from 1^-9-1476 upto 31-10-1980 when the contract system was abolished. There- fore it can be held that these 60 workmen had without con- troversy worked under (he contractors durum the period from 1.5-9-1976 upto 31-10-1980 some of them iiaving been emp- loyed without a break whatsoever, ihiw putting in about 4 years and few months. Ft should also be remembered that when (he«c workmen were employed to do the contract woik' (he 40 workmen represented by Union No. 2 did not do the main contract work. Tt is possible that ThuUsi W W.  the claim put forward by Union N o. \ , . ,f j- The President of Union No. 1 WHS evamined as W.W 7 When he WHS confronted with these variations and was asked to stale how th:^ (hrce flguie? can hc reconciled he has answered that because some of the workmen were there even 1965 onwards r.mi same of them ha\e loincd later accounts for the variation between 12, 15 an 1 20 ye irs The c.n anation of this witness i, pe,f,cHy nndeistanclabt. Moic- ovei, he has also frankly admiKeJ that out of the 110 wo.k- men, it is possible that somc „[ thiui mtpht hav. ,,ut in His one year o[ senice because ihev miPh[ have joined n last. In this repaid I may jlso lefsr (a the evidence of ↩
wiukmcn. No doubt, eventually when contract labour system was abolished by the Management effective from 1-11-1080 then Union No. 2 was spin red to action bv lesorting lo iclay hunger strike from 13-11-1981) npto 6-12-1980 and then it WHS called off at the advice of the Assistant Laboui Commissions (Cential), Einakulam. FLom the Conciliation I ailuic RepoiL Ex. W-3, it can be gathcicd that Union No. 2 mised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centi.il) Ernakulam by means n[ a letter dated 14-11-1980, 'I he copy of the said letter has not viecn phced hefoio this Tribunal to ascertain the nature of claim put forward a* the earliest point of time. However, this much is ccitfn'i that from August, 1977 for about three yeais, neither Union No, 2 nor YV.W.5 Thulasi oi those 39 worker said to hav- worked under him had taken any steps whatsoever lo asseit then semblance of light to be employed by the Management-Company until LOII- tract system was eventually abolished by the Management effective from 1-11-1980. The Ions ina'.-lion on the part of Union No. 2 would go to a considerable extent to discoun- tenance the claim now put foiwaid by Union No. 2 pro- fessedly on behalf of Thulasi W.W.5 and 39 iin-nume woikmen are absorbed bv the Management. I am consti lined to make this specific direc- tion, in view of plausible stand trut may be ntloplcd bv  Management-ComDany .in Hie basis of clause ffi) of Fx. W-5' that vacancies arising in the normal course will not be filled up until those workmen (60 in number) nbsoihcd in Ihe jcguLi/- strength of the Management Company hx. W-2—^Statement showing the details of compensation (36) In the result, an Awaid is p.'sseel on ihc following line'. paid to the retrenched emplo>ee* during 1969-70 Not yet depaitmentalhrd. F.\. W-3/29-1-81—C-inflation failure repoit. (i) The employers of M/s. Tndian Rare Ruths Umiicd Manavabkuiichi, namdv, thr Mnnfloemenr-Comrnnv should absorb the 60 woikmen emrloved throu^i contra'M" s »s direct employees on the abolition of Ihe contract svs'em with ertect from 1-11-1980. Ex. W-4/2R-l-81-Leltcr from Thiru G. Ramanujam of INTUC to the Union Minister for Labour regarding absorption of conlr.ict workmen. ↩
^2(1) (a) of the Mines Act, 1452 (No. 35 ot 19521. But when the qutstion of gran) of earned leave arose lor Xl)i yeai 1,977 they were said to be entitled to one ('ay's have for cveiy 20 days of work. In other words, till the \eir 1976, the workmen con- tend that they were tteafed us unclerground workers and from 1977 onwards they wer. treated as sutfacc workers, As this dispute v.as not lesolvecl in conciliation proceedings the Central Government has iefsired th's disputs for adjudica- tion. In their statement of claims th; vybrkhicn have raised the same contentions whi:h have been nrted above. New Delhi, the 11th OctoSci, 19S2 S.O. 3643.—In pursuance of section 17 or ihc Indus!ii.il Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the ioJlowing award of tlic Central Oovein- ment Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in the industrial dispute between the employe] s in ielation to the management of Burhar Sub-Aiea of Meiers Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Uovrn- menl on the fith Octobej, 1982. 4. So far as the management is concerned iheii case is that these workmen aii siufiice woriieis and not undergorund workers ; that under Sec. 52 of •lie Mines Act only work- men employed below giound we entitled to one day's leave for cveiy 16 days of work, ihnt us and when these work- men arc lequircd to £*"> underground they are paid under- ground allowance; that :he main job performed by rhese workmen is on iho suiuice ^nd not below Ihe ground and that neither of facts nor In law these vvoikmen can claim to be persons employed below the ground, 5. On these respectiv: pleadings of the parties the follow- ing issues were raised :— BLhORE JUST1CL SHRI S.R. W AS (REID), PRES1D- ING OFHCER, ChNTRAL GOVhRMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (,M. P.) ISSUES Case No. CGI1, IX (R) (22)/1981 PARTIES : 1. Whether the workmen (1) R.M , Das (2) A. K, Mandal (3) Y. B. Patro and (4) Bindeswaii Prusad are the workmen for llw purpose! of the I, D. Act ? 2. Whether the '•aid workmen are underground work- men oi work.ncn woiking t n the surface : 3. Whether the said woiknun an- entitled to the earn- ed leave at .h: rate cl.iimr,! by them 7 4. To what relief 'tie ihc parties entiiled to 7 Employers in relation to the maujgenieiH of flurhar Sub-Area of Western Coalfields Ltd., P. O. Amlai, District Shahdol (Ml , und then- workmen S|Shri R. M. Das, A. K. Mandal, Y, B. Patro, Overmen and Shu Binder an Prasiil, Mining Sirdar le- presenled tkrough the Indian National Mines Over- man Sircjar and ShJtfircrs Association, V. T. Centre P. O. Dhanpun, District Shalidol (M.P.J. APPEARANCES: Foi Workmen—Shri U. L. Ag.uwal. 6. Both parties have !cj nral evidence and some docu- mentary evidence has ulso been filed. 1 have considered the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. My findings on the afoi es.iid issues arc ns under :— 'Foi Management—Shri U, K. P. 'jingh. INDUSTRY : Coal DISTRICT ; Shahdol <\U>.) Dated : Septembor 25, 19B2. Issue No. 1 :—The woikmei S|Shrj R, M. Das, A. K. Mandal, Y, B. Palro (all Overmen) and Shri Hindeswari Prasad. Mining Siidar, are the workmen for the purpoi-s of the Industrial Disputes Act. AWARD Issue No. 2 :—-The aiortv.iij \vo;kmen shall be treated as underground workmen and not as workmen work- ing on the suifdce. Issue No. 3 :—These workmen aie entitled to earned leave & one dav foi every 16 days of woik, Issue No. 4 :—As per oider passed below. In exercise of the powois confer, cj by Clause 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of. 1947), the Cen- tral Government in the Ministry of Labour has lefened the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide Notification No, 1.-2201 J (12)|S0-D. IV (B) Dated tbe 16th May, 1981 :— Reasons lor Ihe above findings :— "Whether the action ot the management of Buthar Sub-Area of Western Coalfields Limited in Sohufi- pur Area, P O. Amlai Di-itt., Shahdol is justified in granting c.uned loiivc .it the tare of une day lor 20 days' uttend-inic lo S|Slui R. M. Das, A. K. Mandal, Y. B. Patro, Overmen mid Shii Bindeswari Prasad, Minin.n Siid.ir .' If not. to w hut relief .ire the workmen concerned entitled V 7. Issue No 1 —This issue was raised on the pleading of the management iha| theii total emoluments are more thiin Rs 500/- and they arc performing supervisoiy duties and managerial functions. Nol an iota of evidence has been led bi the management lo show 1h;ii the duties pei- tormed bv these workmen are either supervisory oi mana- genal The plea appears to have been l.iken in a casual rnannci vvithoul any intenlinn to substaniiaic it by evidence Fven ihe woikmen. who were examined in this case were not questioned with repaid to Lhese pleas Accoidingly Issue No. 1 is answered .i^arnst the management 2. The iucts which have given rise to this dispute on which Uiere seems to he no contest a/e these : The workmen S] Shri R. M. Das, A, K Mandal, Y. B. P.itro (all OVBHUMI) and Shti Bindeswaii Piasal Mininy Si.dai, ai<_ employees of the Eastern Coalfield T inji'id." They weic deputed to work as Instructors in the Vocational Tnininji Cenlie, Bur- har Colliery ,n Dhanpun, disHct Shalulo!. In the course of K Issue No 2—Atcoidinc to Section 2(2) of the Mnv.s \ct is amended by Mines (Amendment) AU 1^59 (62 ol ll)^9) ihe following is the definition ol pcisons employed h(_'lov\ iiruleigninnil and above giound — ↩
' ,cco,ds II is admitted hv both the parties tint the piomcnl ihe Irsfmclois u m| T r a m e- co undcrcound -boir names are e r t , , e ,! in ,hl (a) in (he c-'se of a peison employed below ground, at the iate of one day foi ?verv sixteen days of work pet formed by him; and (b) in any other case, at the late of one day for the tsunees are taken underground T( =s ,ylt sucgesred '?,,( every twenty days of woik performed by him." ↩
, given and findings recorded above, it is held that the workmen S/Shri R M. Das, A. K. Mandal, Y. H. Patro and Bindesuari Prasad shall be entitled to one day earned 1e,i\e for e\ei> sixteen days of work in a calendar yeai so Ions as Ihev were and are employed as Instructors, i'l the Vocational Training Centre and not at the rate of one day for tvmnU days of work as claimed hv the management. In the circumstances of the case both paities are directed to bear their own costs as incurred. 2 The case on behalf of the workman was conducted by Shii S. Hose, \dvouale. On 15th September, 1982 the wotk- mun Ibivhim Mia filed a petition stating that h: was letiu-d fiom servi-e on superannuation on Kr fulv, 1980 and he has now got no dispute in the multct with the manaccmciit Along with the petition he has silso submitted his identity card and has prayed that a no dispute awiid may be passed in the Refeiencc. He has been identified by Smt. Rita Sinha. S>. Personnel Officer of Ihc manaKement The workman aKo examined himself us WW-I and h 's stated that he wants to retire from 1st Inly, 1980 and does not want to contest this case. He has fmthci stated that he has also filed a petition to this effect. Sri Bose however, though he w is representing the wo'-kman cioss-examined him and w»nU-d tu take that the petition filed hy 'he concerned workm.m was not volun- tarily but the workman has stated that he had filed the peti- tion voluntarily and it was typed under his instruction. lie has further stated that he has given his thumb impression on the petition voluntarily. S. R. VYAS, Presiding Officer [No. L-220U(12)/80 D.IV(B)1 3. If the workman himself does not want tn contest the case nnd pi ays that a no dispute award he parsed his Advo- cate Sri Bose should not stand in the way. f find that the workman has given his evidence voluntarily and has also filed the petition without any pressure from the management or anybody. 4, In such circumstances the submission made by the concerned workman is accepted and a 'no dispute award i - parsed as prayed foi by him. J, N. STNGH, Presiding Officer S.O. 3644. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 <14 of 1947), the Centnl Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central tJovern- menl Industrial Tribunal No. 3 Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Rana Colliery of Nressrs Eastern Coalfields Limited. Post Office Kalinahuri District Burdwan and their workmen whi h was received by the Central Govei nmcnl on the 5th October, 1982. [No. L-l9012(22)/81-D.IVfB)] BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANBAD Ro'ereiue No. 48/81 PRFSRNT: S.O. 3645.—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 Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal No. 3. Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Seelalpur Colliery of Mcssis Fastern Coalfields l t d. and their workmen, which was leceived by the Central Government on the 5th October, 1982. Shri J, N. Singh. Presiding Officer P \ R T I E S: BEFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTHUNAT-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANBAD Reference No. 72/82 Employers in relation to the management of Rana Col- liery of Eastern Coalfields I td,. P.O Kallpahan. Distiict Burdw:m, PRESENT: AND Shri I. N Sinnh, Presiding Officer Their workman. PARTIFS: APPFARANCFS- For the Fmployers—Shri B. N. 1 ala, Advocate. For the Workman—Shri S. Bosr Fmployeis in relation to the management of Sectnlpui Collicrv of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Disher- uarh. District Burdwan, AND INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West Bengal. Their Workman. Dated, the 1st October, 198? APPFARANCES: AWARD 'For the Fmployers—Shri B, L. Lain, Advocate For the Workman—None. INDUSTRY : Coal. STATF : West Bengal. Dated the 1st Octobei, 1982 The Government of India in the Ministiy of Labour in exercise of ihc powers cinfened on them U/s, lOdXd) of the Industrial Disputes Att. 14 of 1947 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under Ordei No 1 -19012(221/81-D.IV(B) dated the 24th September, 1981. AWARD SCHEDU1 H "Whether the management of Rann Collie, y of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd, P.O. Kalipaha.i, Distiict Burdwan was- justified in stopping Shii Ibrahim Mia. Timber Misti y fiom work with effect fmm The Government of India in (he Ministry of Labour in exeicise of the powers conferred on them U/s. HXlXd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 has refened the dis- pute to this Tribunal for adjudication under Order No. I.-19O12(57)/S2-D.1V(B) dated 28th July, 1982, ↩
" u p- T h o ld l h at "ie Railway employees of 1hr Dehri Rohtas Light Railway should g- an inSeaw of R 34 P m. on their basic pay which they arc £ettinfi at present and on that amount they sLould Bet the d'ea/Z a l l S Sl ↩
li I V ↩
C'.r.W.P. and State P \\ Regional and olhci olik. l'osl.il depaitincnl, niunicip.il committee-., other local liodies-elc . . . . 8,175 2,44,969 Legal charges Dcpailmental Canteen ↩