3869

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Depaitmcnt of Rc\enue)

New Delhi, the- 16th October, 1981

INCOME-TAX

S.O. 3659.-—H is heicby notified foi geneial informa-

tion that the institution mentioned below has been approv-

ed by the Secretary, DepaitmeiH of Science & Technology,

New Delhi, the prescribed aulhojity for the purposes of

clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 read with rule 6(iv) of the Income-tax Rule¹!,

1962 irndcr the Cdtegoiy o1 " Vssoeiation" in the aioa of

othei natural and applied sciences, subject to the following

conditions ; —

d) That the Bhandan

Balweerchand

Pratapchand

Memorial Research

l'oundation,

Bombay will

maintain a separate account of sums teccivcd by

it for scientific repaid) in the field of uatuial and

applied sciences other than agricultuie[nnimal hus-

bandrylfisliciies and medicines ;

(ii) That the said

Association will furnish

Annual

Return of iti scientific lescaich activities to the

Pi escribed Authority for every financial year in

such forms as may lie laid down and intimated to

them for this purpose by 30th Aptil each year:

fiii) That the said Association will submit the Annual

Return and statement of accounts to the concerned

Commissioner of Income-tax, every year.

INSTITUTION

Mis. Bhandati Balweerchand Piatap Chand Memorial

Research Foundation, Uombay.

This notification is valid from 28-8-1981 to 31-3-1983.

[No. 4265/F. No. 203/26G/80-ITA TtJ

M. K. PANDEY, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th October, 1982

HEADQUARTERS hSFABLISHMEN V

S.O. 3660.—In exercise of the

poweis

coniened by

*ulc 3 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs (Regula-

tion of Transaction of Business) Rules, 1964, the Central

Government heieby appoint* Shri G. S. Sawhney an officer

of the Indian Customs & Central Excise Service and posted

as Member, Central Board of Excise & Customs as Chair-

man, Central Board of Excise & Customs with effect from

the 12th October, 1982 for ouc yeai. The period beyond

supei annuation i.e. the 31st May, 1983 beina treated

extension of-service.

[F. No. A. 19011/23/79-Ad. 1}

G. S. MEHRA, Undei Secy.

New Delhi, the 11th Oaobei, 1982

INCOME-1 AX

S O. 3661.—In puis.iian.Lc of sulvcluuse

If) of clause

(in) of sub-section (3) of section 194A of the

Income-

tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19ol), the Central Government heie-

by notifies the Textile Coipoiation of Marathwada Limited,

Amangabad, for the purposes ot the said sub-clause

[K No 275/26 82-lTlB)]

R C. IIANDA, D\. Secy,

(Department of Economic Affiiiis)

(Bunking Division)

New Delhi, the 12th Octobci, 1982

S.O. 3662.—In pursuance of clause (d) of •sub-section

(1) of section 8 ot the Reseive Hank of India. Act, 1934

(2 of 1934), and in supersession of. the notification of the

Government

Iildia in the

Department of Economic

Affairs (Banking Division) No. F, 7|2|80-BO.I, dated 19th

April, 1980, the Cential

Government

hejeby nominates

Shri M.

Narasimham, to be a

Diiector on the Central

Board of the Reserve Bank of India.

[No F. 7|10/82-BO.I(l /]

S.O. 3663.—In pursuance of

sub-clause

(i) of clause

lopment Bank of India Act, 1964 (18 of 1964), the Central

Government hereby nominates £>hri M. Na' asimham, Sec-

retary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Fin-

ance as the Diiector of the Tndus.tii.il Development Bank

of India vice Shri R. N. Malhotia.

[No t- 7|10/8?-l)OI<2)]

R. K KAUL Addl Secy.

3870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(n)J

Central Excise Collectorate : Madya : Pradesh

NOTIFICATION NO. 12/82

S, O. 3664

: — Consequent upon their p omotion as

Superintendent, Cunt-al Excise, Gioup 'B' <hc following Ins-

pectors of Central Exci^c« (S.C.) , have assumod then' chargos as

Superintendent, Cental Excise, Gioup 'B' with effect fiom the

data as shown against thorn.

SI.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

Narne of the

Officer

S/Shii

S.A. Jalali

P.T. Thomas

J D Motwani

Aziz Abdul

R.K. Desmukh

D.J. Khatwanl

A. It. Pal

O.D. Joshi

U.S. Boikar

CM. Dharnorikar

M.S. Dapurkai

R.S. Gupta

O.P. Sharma

, Shri S.R. Kanungo

Place of Posting

Superintendent (P, ov.)

Cont^ral Excise, Divi-

sional Office, Gwplior.

Superintendent, C. Ex.

Range-I, Sagai.

Supo'intendent,

C. Ex.

R B C. II, Range, Bhilai

Supe'iutondent (Tech )

C. Ex. Hqi-s, Office,

Indo'e

Supoiintendcnt, C. Ex.

Raiige-II, Jatnul.

Supo intondent (Audit),

C. Ex- Hqrs. Office,

Indore.

Supe-mtondont (Tech.)

DM. Office, Raipur".

Superintendent, C. Ex.

Rajnandgaon

Suporintondont)(Autit)

C. Ex. Hqrs. Office,

Indore.

Supo intendent (Vig.)

C. Ex. Hqig. Office,

Indoro.

Superintendent, C. Ex.

Range-Ill, Indore,

Superintendent (Audit),

C.Ex. Hqrs. Offico,

Indore.

Superintendent, C. Ex.

Rango-T, Dowas.

Suporintenclont, C. Ex.

Range-I, Jamul

Date of

assumption

of charge

24-7-R2

(F.N.)

26-7-b2

(F.N.)

30-7-82

(F.N.)

31-7-82

(F.N)

31-7-82

(F.N.)

31-7-82

(F.N.)

31-7-82

(F.N.) '

31-7-82

(A.N.)

11-8-82

(F.N.)

11-8-82

(F.N.)

11-8-82

(F.N.)

16-8-82

(F.N.)

16-8-82

(F.N.)

31-8-82

(F.N.)

[C. NO. II(J)9-Con/82/K71]

S. K. DHAR, Collector.

3873

New Delhi, ihc 11 111 Oclohci, 1982

S.O. 3669.—Whcieas hy nolificajjon of the CmvL-inriieu* of

India in the Ministty of Petroleum, Chemicals & Feertili2(.'r,

-(Department of Petroleum) S. O. No. 2761 dated 10-10-1981

Lindei sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Hcti oleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Righl of User in Land)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government dcclaied

its intention to acquire the right of. user in lands specified in

the schedule appended to that notification foi Ilic purpose

of laying pipeline ;

And wheieas the Competent Authority has under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 6 of (he said Act, submitted ieport

to the Government.

And further wheteas the Cenetral Government has, after

considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of

user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to ibis

notification ;

Now, therefore, in exerei-e of the power conferred by sub-

section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Cenbal

Government hereby declares that the light of user in the

said lands specified in the schedule appended to lhis noti-

fication heieby acquired for laying the pipelines;

- And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-section

(4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the

light of user in the snid lands shall instead of vesting in

the Central Government vest on this date of the publication

of this declaration in Deepak

Fertilizers and Petrochemicals

Corporation Ltd., free from -nctimbranccs.

SCHEDULE

Pipelino from Uran To minal to Doepek Fe tilize s ?r.d

Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, Tnloja.

State—Maharashtra

Village

Fundc

District

S. No.

101

100

R;iiged Taluka-Uran

H. No.

n14

Aiea

Sq.

Mct<rs

1.00

18.00

15.00

07.00

75,00

25.00

01 00

06.00

20 00

05.00

02.00

10 00

10.00

02.00

02 00

12.00

12,00

20.00

16.00

20,00

20.00

,16.00

24.00

OS. 00

08.00

24 00

52.00

22 00

22.00

32.00

2.00

3874

THE G AZCT IT; OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART I I - SEC. 3(ii)]

Fun 'c—.oucld

Nallti

04.00

02.00

18.00

28.00

26.00

32.00

16.00

04 00

02 00

12.00

24.00

04 00

12.00

18.00

20.00

36.00

02.00

18.00"

20 00

18.00

17.00

22.00

24,00

12.00

38. Of

06.00

20 00

18.00

24..00

13.00

[No. 12016/41/81-Prod.]

S.O. 3670.—Wheieas by notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & Ftrtilizei,

(Department of Petroleum) S. O. 1920 dated 10-5-82 under

sub-section (1) of Slction 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines Requisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(SO of 1962), the Central Government declared its intention

to acquire the ritfht of ir.er in lands specified in the schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipe-

line;

And whereas the

Competent Authority has under Suh-

Section (I I "f Section 6 of the said Act, submitted icpoU

to trie Government.

And further whereas the Cenetral Government has, aftei

considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of

in the lands specified in the schedule' appended to

this

notification ;

Now, thciefore, in exerci-e of the power conferred by sub-

scciion (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, llie Central

Government hereby declares that the- right of user in the

saij l-inds specified in the schedule appended to this noti-

ficulion hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;

And finther in cxeicisc of power conferred bv subjection

(4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the

right of user inr the said lands shall instead of vesting in

the Central Government vests on this date of the publication

of this declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission

free from encumbrances.

3875

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from south Santhal GGS to N.K. GGS I

Stato dujarat

District & Taluka : Moshana

Village

Jotana

Block No.

1126

1125

1124

Cart track

1123

1088

1089

1085

1083

1082

10S1

i080

1071

1072

1073

1057

1056

1054

1059

Cart track

1023

1021

1018

980

Hectare

Are

Centiare

[No. 12016/1/82-Prod-II]

L.M. GOYAL.Diiector

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

(Department of Coal)

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 8th October, 1982

S.O. 3671.—In the notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Energy (Department of Coal) No.

S.O. 760, dated the 11th February, 1982, published in the

Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, tub-section (ii), dated

the 27th February, 1982.

at page 874 in the first column

(i) in line 47

for "1661 to 1619"

read "1616 to 1619";

(ii) in line 53

for "2677 to 2709"

read "2677 to 2706".

[No. 19/68/81-CL)

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 8th October, 1952

S.O. 3672.—In the notification

of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Energy (Department of Coal) No.

S.O. 1540, dated the 31st Match, 1982, published at pages

1695 to 1696 of the Gazette of India. Part II, Section 3,

Sub-Section (ii), dated the 17th April, 1982 at page 1696, in

the schedule, against serial No. 13 relating to Waghoda vil-

lage in column 6, for "28.675" read "38.675".

[No. 19/16/82-CL]

SWARAN SINGH, Under Secy.

850GI/81-2

3876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982| KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II~SEC. 3(ii)i

New Delhi, the 11th October, 1982

S.O. 3673.—Whereas by notification of the Government

of India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & Fej tilizcr,

(Department ot Petioleum) S.O. 131 dated 23-12-81 under

sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user iti Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government declared its intention

to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of

laying pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority nas under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report

to the Government;

And further wheioas the Central Government has, after

considering the said report, decided to acqinie the right

of nier in the lands specified in the scheule appended

this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred

sub-section (t) of the

Section 6 of the said Act, ihe>

Central Government hereby declares that the right

user in the said lands specified in the schedule appended

to this notification hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of powers confered by sub-

section (4) of that section, the Cental Government directs

that the right of user in the said lands shall instead

vesting in the Central Government vests on this dnfe of the

publication of this declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas

Commission free, from encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

PIPELINE FROM WELL NO. 81 TO BOOTH NO. 2

STATE : GUJARAT DISTRICT : BHARUC

TALUK A : ANKLESHWAR

Village

Sarthan

Block No.

Hec-

tare

Are

Conti-

aro

561

562

563

564

[No. 12016/60/81-Frod. I]

3877

S.O. 3674.—Whereas by notification of the Government

of India in the Ministry of Petioleum, Chemicals & Ferti-

lizer, (Department of Petroleum) S.O. 1919 daLcd 10-5-82

under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government declared

its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for

the purpose of laying, pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-

Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report

to the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has, after

considering the said report, decided to acquire the right

of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to

this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the

said lands specified in the schedule appended to

this noti-

fication hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of powers conferred by sub-

section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs

that the right of user in the said lands shall instead

vesting in the Central Government vests on this date of

the publication of this declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas

Commission free from encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

PIPELINE FROM JOTANA—1 TO S. SANTHAL GGS

STATE : GUJARAT DISTRICT & TALUKA : MEHSANA

Village

Kasalpura

Block No.

902

847/P

848

850

851

Hect-

are

, o

Are

Conti-

are

[No. 12016/1/82-Prod.]

S.O. 3675.—Whereas by notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & Fertilizer,

(Department of Petroleum) S.O. 2160 dated 25-5-82 under

sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government declared it? intention

to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpose

laying pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Stib-

Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act. submitted report

to the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has, after

considering the said report decided to acquire the light of user

in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this noti-

fication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confcried by

sub-sectioin (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Cential Goveinment hereby declares the right of user in the

said lands specified in the schedule appended to this notifica-

tion hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exeicise of power conferred by sub-

section (4) of that section, the Cental Government directs

that the right of user in the said lands shall insead of

vesting in the Central Government vests on this date of

the publication of this declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas

Commission free from encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

PIPELINE FROM VRG TO GGS VIRAJ

STATE : GUJARAT DISTRICT : MEHSANA TALUKA :

KADI

Village

Nani Kadi

Survoy No.

152/1

152/2

153/1

Hect- Arc Can ti-

ara

ars

[No. 12016/17/82 Prod. I]

3883

M.O, 3677.—Whereas by a notification of Government of

India in the Ministry of Pclroleum, Chemicals and Ferti-

liser iDtpmtPient or Petiolcum) S.O. 155 dated 27-2-1982

under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Act 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared

its intention to acquire the Right of User in the lands soecl-

fied in the schedule appended to thnt notification for the

purpose of laying pipeline.

And whereas- ths Competent Authority hrn under Sub-

section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted lenort

to the Government.

And further the Central Government hriK after consirlerins

the said renort, decided to ncquiie ihe richt of UST In Ihe

lards specified in the schedule appended to this notification.

Now therefore

in exeicjsc of the poweis conferred by

Suii-wtion (1)

Section

the said

Act,

the

Central Government hereby declares that the rifiht of user

in the rnM lands specified in the schedule appended to

thfci notification hereby acquired for laying the pipelines.

And further in exercise of the power, conferred by Sub-

section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs

thnt the rigM of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting

in the Central Government vest on this date of the publi-

cation of thii declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation

Limited free from alt encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tohsil : Philliur Di^tt, : Jullundur State : Punjab

Name of village

Moroan H. No.

179

Maisani H. No.

190

Khasia No.

11 10 Min

12 Min

13/1 Min

17 Min

18/1 Min

18/2 Min

24/2 Min.

4301 Min

4303 Min

4304 Mm

4305 Mm

4306 Min

4307 Min

4310 Min

4313 Min

4318 Min

4319 Min

4322 Min

4323 Min

4324 Mm

4325 Min

4395 Min

H. •

, 00

Area

Sq.

850GI/82—3

Massani H.

No. 190

4401 Min

4402 Min

4404 Mia

4405 Min

4406 Mm

4407 Min

4410 Min

4411 Mm

4412 Mm

4413 Mm

44t4Min

•Ml 5 Mm

4416 Min

4417 Min

4418 Min

4419 Min

4420 Mm

4421 Mm

4423 Min

4414 Min

4425 Min

4426 Min

4427 Min

4418 Min

4443 Min

44^4 Min

44*5 Mm

4446 Min

4447 Min

4448 Min

4449 Min

4492 Min

4499 Min

4500 Min

4501 Min

4502 Min

4505 Min

4506 Min

4516 Min

4517 Min

4518 Mm

4524 Min

4596 Mul

4599 Mm

4613 Mm

4618 Min

4619 Min

4735 Min

4736 Min

4737 Min

4738 Min

4739 Min

4740 Mi I

4742 Min

4743 Min

4744 Min

4745/1 Min

4804 Min

4805 Min

4806 Min

4809 Min

4810 Min

4811 Min

4812 Min

00 r

. oi

• 13

'80

BO*

884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II- SEC. 3(il)]

Massa.nl

H. No. 190

Dadhwarh

H. No. 194

4812/1 Mia

4513 Min

4821 Min.

4893 Min

4918 Min

4948 Mia

4949 Mia

4960 Min

4997 Min

5040 Min

5041 Min

5042 Min

5055 Min

5069 Mia

5069 Min

5105 Mia

5}14Mia

5115 Min

5116Min

5117 Mm

5127 Min

5127/1 Min

5129/1 Min

5130 Mia

5137 Min

5138 Min

5154 Min

5155 Min

5157 Min

5164 Min

5165 Min

5166 Min

5170 Mia

5171 Mia

5172 Min

5173 Min

5175 Mia

5188 Min

5189 Min

51^0 Min

5193 Min

5194 Min

5195 Min

5199 Min

5201 Mia

5205 Min

70 Min

71 Min

86 Min

87 Min

89 Min

90 Min

91 Mn

92 Min

103 Min

104 Min

105 Min

109 Min

110 Min

112 Min

114 Min

129 Min

142 Min

143 Min

144 Min

14< Min

146 Min

162 Min

163 Mm

164 Min

165 Min

191 Min

192 Min

193 Min

403 Min

447 Min

448 Min

452 Min

454 Mh

455 Min

0»

Dadhwarh

HNJ. 194.

456 Min

458 Mia

483 Min

485 Min

489 Min

490 Min

492 Min

493 Min

494 Min

495 Mm

496 Mm

1516/498 Min

1600/500/1 Min

16O0/590/3 Min

1607/503/2 Min

615 Min

616 Mm

642 Min

646 Min

648 Min

649 Min

650 Min

651 Min

654 Min

674 Min

675 Mfln

676 Min

6»0 Min

719 Min

720Mln

721 Min

722 Min

724 Min

725 Min

728 Min

729 Min

795 Min

815 Min

816 Min

817 Min

»19 Min

820 Min

821 Min

825 Min

826 Min

827 Min

829 Min

S30 Min

831 Min

833 Min

843 Min

8 44 Min

845 Min

846 Min

847 Min

859 Min

860 Min

861 Min

869 Min

876 Min

877 Min

878 Min

879 Min

891 Min

893 Min

894 Min

895 Min

896 Nin

898 Min

3885

1

Mutfallu H.No. 211

Annir H.No. 210

Lodian H.No. 209

2

3/Mln.

4/MID

12/Min

13/Min

14/Min

15Min

16 Mia

17 Min

20Min

21 Min

22Min

Khal between Kh.

Nos. 22 & 60 Min

60 Min

304 Min

305 Min

306 Min

319 Min

320 Min

321 Min

323/1 Min

323/2 Min

324 Min

345 Min

357 Min

358 Min

359 Min

361 Min

361/1 Min

362 Min

364 Min

410 Min

412 Min

413 Min

417 Min

423 Min

424 Min

425 Min

426 Min

427 Min

428 Min

540 Min

574 Min

596 Min

597 Min.

598 Min.

599 Min.

600 Min.

603 Min.

606 Min.

607 Min.

622 Min.

623 Min.

624 Min.

625 Min.

626 Min.

630 Min.

631 Min.

632 Min.

634 Min.

110 Min.

113 Min.

114 Min.

115 Min.

116 Min.

118 Min.

123 Min.

124 Min,

123 Min.

134 Min,

135 Min.

136 Min.

176 Min.

177 Min.

191 Min.

192 Min.

193 Min.

3

00

—

00

90

00

4

09

01

07

05

00

11

01

14

01

00

01

04

11

00

03

01

04

07

00

03

07

06

10

04

06

00

04

09

07

09

06

04

02

06

01

03

01

02

07

00

04

03

01

09

08

12

02

^

11

07

05

00

05

"09

01

12

03

00

01

05

03

00

—

15

01

11

01

04

05

5

61

26

59

31

76

25

38

01

77

42

26

25

01

30

89

51

79

77

05

81

84

51

54

34

07

88

05

58

25

81

11

59

36

07

30

78

32

01

54

26

28

59

51

55

29

77

11

10

65

28

13

08

57

51

82

36

01

90

04

76

01

57

29

51

—

18

01

89

01

30

06

1

Lodian H.No. 209 Contd.

Dosanjh Kalan H.No. 198

2

194 Min.

196 Min.

215 Min.

216 Min.

224 Min.

225 Min.

228 M m .

229 Min.

232 M m .

233 Min.

240 Min.

245 Miff.

246 M m .

247 Min.

266 Min.

272/1 Min.

272/2 Min.

273 Min.

274 Min.

275/2 Min.

276 Min.

277 Min.

282 Min.

290 Min.

304 Min.

309 Min.

310 Min.

311 Min.

312 Min.

572 Min.

168 Min.

170 Min.

180 Min.

182 Min.

183 Min.

184 Min.

185 Min.

188 Min.

189 Min.

197 Min.

200 Min.

201 Min.

202 Min.

204 Min.

205 Min.

211 Min.

211,1 Min.

212 Min.

213 Min.

217 Min.

218 Min.

219 Min.

560 Min.

561 Min.

562 Min.

582 Min.

595 Min.

597 Min.

717 Min.

732 Min.

733 Min.

735 Min.

1182 Min.

1402 Min.

1403 Min.

1405 Min.

1406 Min.

1407 Min.

1408 Min.

1409 Min.

1413 Min.

1435 Min.

1436 Min.

1437 Min.

1441/lMin.

3

00

_

00

_

00

—

00

—

00

4

11

01

00

10

03

09

07

04

00

09

02

12

05

01

11

10

07

17

02

06

10

01

06

00

,

08

01

09

04

00

02

*^-

00

12

02

00

—

05

11

10-

00

04

03

11

00

05

03

—

02

00

09

05

00

02

04

—

01

05

00

5

64

52

51

63

04

11

08

30

76

36

78

14

26

01

89

38

33

71

28

78

„ .

83

88

01

07

25

«_

10

52

01

36

05

25

51

53

**—

25

90

53

51

25

—

82

57

89

82

76

05

81

04

89

51

82

29

—

78

76

61

57

25

51

53

55

—

26

06

25

3886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)

1

Dosa:ijh Kalan

P . N J . 198

—contd.—

JOtH Khakhian

H.Ni, 199

2

1442 Min.

1452 Min.

1485 Min.

1486 Min.

1487 Min.

1488 Min.

1495 Min.

1496 Min.

1497 Min.

1552 Min.

1553 Min.

1564 Min.

1566 Min.

1567 Min.

1568 Min.

1569 Min.

1571 Min.

1572 Min.

1810 Min.

1826 Min.

1827 Min.

IS JO Min.

1811 Min.

1832 Min.

1833 Mm.

1 8 6 2 i\.in,

1865 M m .

1872 Min.

1873 Min.

1874/1 M b .

1874/2 Min.

1875 Min.

1876 Min.

2058 Min.

2063 Min.

2064 Min.

2065 Min.

2067 M m .

2068 Min.

2075 M b .

2076 Min.

2077 Min.

2080 Min.

2081 Min.

542 Min.

543 Min.

544 Min.

545 Min.

546 Min.

549 Min.

550 Min.

551 Min.

554 Min,

555 Min.

611 M m .

612 M m .

614 Min.

'615 Min.

616 Min.

633 Min.

642 Min.

643 Min.

644 Min.

646 Min.

3

00

—

00

__

00

4

10

00

05

10

00

05

02

07

10

03

05

00

—

12

02

01

04

OS

01

06

01

10

—

00

12

04

10

08

02

00

03

01

03

11

04

00

04

06

09

02

01

07

06

01

08

06

00

.

01

11

01

04

01

13

00

5

12

37

25

06

12

37

25

06

02

08

63

79

31

51

—

40

78

26

01

05

60

52

58

- 52

52

12

—

76

14

81

63

35

02

76

29

01

04

3 8

55

76

81

58

36

78

01

08

07

01

10

35

32

25

51

76

_ _

52

89

26

52

05

52

41

51

25

1

Ki. tli Khaidaian

H.N-i, 199

—contd,—

2

648 Min.

649 Min.

650'Min.

656 Min.

658 Min.

659 Min.

700 Mii\

710 M b .

711 Min.

819 Min.

3

00

4

13

—

00

04

11

10

03

uo

(10

5

16

—

7fi

55

13

88

79

25

76

[No.l20*-0/l/:.2-Prrd.]

3887

New Delhi, the 12th October, 1982

S.U. 3678.—Whereas by a notllication of Government of

India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals arid Ferti-

lizer (Department of Petroleum) S.O. 952 dated

6-3-1982

urder Sub-se.t.on (1) of section 3 of the Pcttoleum and

Mineirls Pipelines (Acquisition of Right nf U-,er in Land)

Act, 19fi2 (50 of J962) the Central Government dc:Lued its

intenon to acquire the Right of Usci in th^ Lmcli specified

in ihs schedule- appended to that notifiatiori for thc puipcsc of

laying pipeline.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-

section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted report

to the Government.

And lurther the Central Government has after cnnsideiinc

the said report, decided to acquire th" right of user in the

lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification.

Nuw, the cfore, in exercise ofc the powers confeired by

Subⁱ,^jction (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Centinl Government hereby declares that the right of user

in the said hnds specified in (he ichedtV.e appended to this

notification hereby acquired for laying the pipelines.

And further in exercise

of the

power

conferred

Sub-section, (4) of that section, the Central Government

rVecis that the right of user in the said lands shall instead

of vesting in (he Central Government vest on this date of

the publication of this declaration in the [ndian Oil Corpora-

tion Limited free from all encumbrances.

Detain nf the Area owned by Coitral/Statc Government

through which pipe lino has to pass —

Tonsil Luihfaia, Distt. Ludhlana,

SI.

NaTic nf

N-i. Villas* with

H.B.Ni.

1. Salcnour

H N \ 3 3

2. Garcha

E N ' . 35

3. Haidar Nagar

H . N L 34

Khasra N->.

8/10 Min

11/I Mb.

12/1 Min

12/2 Min.

13/2 Min.

11/7 Min.

18/1 Min.

:s/2 Min.

19 Min.

23/3 Min.

24 Min.

3/11 Min.

12 Min.

18 Min.

19 Min.

20 Min.

23 Min.

24 Min.

6/4 Min.

5 Min.

G Min.

2/19 Min.

22 Min.

23 Min.

13/2 Min.

3 Min.

8 Min.

13 Min.

18 Min.

23/2 Min.

24 Min.

16/3 M b .

4 Min.

(10

04-

OR •

101

35!

" /

oovt.y

Deptt.

Local

B -dies

(Shama-

lat Doh)

Central

Govern-

ment/

Patati s

Seed

Farm

Pur-jab

Govt./

F<~rost

Dept.

Centtal

Govern-

ment.

3888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Haidar Nagar

H. No. 34

—Contd.—

7Min.

14 Min.

15 Min.

16 Min.

17/19 Mln.

20 Min.

21 Min.

22 Min.

23 Min.

24/11 Min.

19 Mia."

20 Min.

22 Min.

23 Min.

25/2 Min.

3 Min.

4 M b .

6M!n.

7 Min.

15 Min.

30/3 Min.

4 Min.

5 Min.

6 Min.

7 Min.

15 Min.

31/10 Min.

11 Min.

48 Min.

46 Mln.

47 Min.

85 Central

31 Govcm-

13 ment

, *-

30 Pb, Govt

51 P.W.

Dept*

[No. 12020/1/82-Prod.]

S.Q- 3679.—Whereas by notification of the

Government

of India in tho Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & Ferti-

lizer, (Departmentfpf Petroleum) S.O. 1781 dated 22-4-82

under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government declared

its intention to acquire the right of user in the

landi

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for

the purpose of laying pipeline ;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to

the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has, after

considering the said report decided to acquire the right of

user in the landa specified in the schedule appended to this

notification;

3889

Now, therefore, In exerclao of the power conferred by

tub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the snid Act, the Central

Government hereby declare! that the right of user in the

said lands specified in the schedule appended to this noti-

fication hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-section

(4) of that section the Central Government direct? that Ihe

right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the

Central Government vests en this date of the publication of

tho declaration in the Oil & Natural GHS Commission free

from encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from South Santhal GGS to NK GOS I

State : Gujarat District & Taluka : Mehsana

Village

ljpura

Block No.

Cart Tract

617

618

624

Cart Track

621

622

623

577

578

571

570

Cart Track

645

Cart Track

647

652

651

655

656

Hec-

tare

ARE

Cen-

tiare

[NJ. 12016/2/82-Prod.]

New Delhi, the 13th October, 1982

S.O. 3680,—Whereas by notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals & Fertilizer,

(Department of Peti oleum) S.O. 1782 dated 22-4-82 under

sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipeline* (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government declared its intention

to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in

the

schedule appended to that notification for the purpo»o

laying pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to

the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has,

after

considering the said report decided to acquire the rifht of

user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this

notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-

section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in

tho

said lands specified in the schedule appended to

this noti-

fication hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of power conforred by sub-section

(4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the

right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the

Central Goernment vests on this date of the publication of

thij declaration in the Oil & Natural GOJ ComnjlMion free

from encumbrances.

1390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; OCTOBER 30, 1932/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)

SCHEDULE

Pipeline fr"m South Sa^flrai HGS t<> NK GGS I

State : Guj-irat

Dis rict : Ahmcdabad

Taluka : Viiar.igam

Village

Bh.-ita.riya

Survey No.

77/1

Cart track

74/5/A

74/4

74/6

73/2

72/2

72/1

H-c-

(ai.ro

A i e

Cen-

tiarc

[NJ. 12016/3/82-Prod.J

L. M. Goyal, Director.

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 14th October, 1982

S.O. 368X.—In exercise of the powers conferred bv Sec-

tion 4 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953) and

in continuation of this Mirmtiy's Notification No. AV. 18013/

2/R2-.U. dined the 17th July. 1982, the Central Government

.hereby nomin.ilrs wiih imroediale effect Sh/i J. R. D. Tata as

a minfOffldal Dnector on the Board of Director of Air

India.

[No. AV. 1RO13/2/82-AC]

C. M. CHATURVEDI, Jt, Secy.

DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS

New Delhi, the 27th September, 1982

S.O. 3682.—In the Notification of Government nf India,

Ministry of fiducaiion mid Cultuie {DcpiiHmcnt of 1 du a-

t'on) S.O. No. 166(E) dtrird the 22nd M.uch. 1982 iegnrd-

ing Nation-il Welfaie Fund for Sportsmen published in the

Ciazctte of Indh (Extmordinary) Part'II Section 3 Sub-Section

(ii), the following modifications may be made ;—

(i) The woids "Ministiy of Education and Culture¹ (De-

partment of Education)" wherever they occur m

the Notification mnv be substituted by (he words

"Department of Spoits".

(ii) In parn 3 (Sotial No. 1) "Minister of State for Edu-

cation and Culture" may be :ubstitntsd by "Minis-

ter of State for Supply and Snorts".

[No. F. 13-1/Sl-Dest-I (Spoitfi)]

S. K. CHATURVEDT, Jt, Secy.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(F&T Board)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 1982

S.O. 3683.—'In pursuance of para (a> of Section III of

Rule 434 of Indian Telegraph Rules. 195], as introduced

by S,O. No. 627 dated 8th Maich, 1960, the Director Gene-

lal. Posts and Telegraphs, hereby specifies lit November,

1982 as the date on which the Measured Bute SyiUrn will

be introduced in Curchorem Telephone Fxchnnge, Maharash-

tra Circle.

[No. 5-9/82-PHB]

New Delhi, the 20th October, 1982

S.O. 3684.—In pursuance of para (a) of Section III of

Rule 434 of Indian Tclegrdch Rules, 1951 as introduced

by S O No. 627 dxied Kih March. I960, the Director Gene-

r0, Posts and Telegraphs, hereby specifies 1st November,

1982 as the date on whrh the Me isured Rate System will be

introduced in RANNI/RANNI-HDAMAN/VECHOOCHIRA

telephone Fxchangcs. Kerala Circle.

[No. 5-10/82-PHB]

R. C, KATARlA, Asstt. Director Genl. (PHB)

3892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA^, 1904^

^JPABrn-SBC^)]

6. ShiiB.M. Saha,

Engineering Manager,

Tata Chemicals Limited,

Mtthnpur-361345

7. ShriBhatatsinhjiC.

Rop.owntalivos

of Lime-

Chudasmrrw, Vice-PL osident

tono and Dolomite Mine

Indian National Ttado

Workers,

Union Congress

Gujarat Branch,

Near Chhaya Octioi Post,

Poi bandar.

8. Shri Vasudovbhal Pandya,

Secret aiy,

Sovali.a Cement Workers'

Union,

Sovalii, District Khairn.

9. Miss Ilaben Bhatt

Women Representative

SEWA

C/O. Te\tilo]hbourA9iociition,

Gaundhi nmjoor sevalaya,

Bhadra Post Box No. 110,

Ahmadabad.

2. The Welfare Administrator of tho I.imtstone end TJolc-

mito Minos Labom Welfare Fund Oiganisation, shall bo the

Secretary of the Advisory Committee.

3. Tn tetms of rule 18 of the Llrnestone and Dolomite Mind

Labour Welfare Fund Rulos 1973, the Central Government

hereby fixes Patun to be the he.idquoitois of the spid Advisoiy

Committee.

[F. No. U-23018/17/80-M.V.J

T.D. SALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th October, 1982

S.O. 3687.—Whereas the industrial dispute specified in the

Schedule hereto annexed is pending before Shri Mool Chund

Bhardwaj, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Farida-

bad;

And whereas the services of Shri Mool Chand Bhardwaj

cannot be utilised for adjudication of a dispute falling in

the Central Sphere for technical reasons;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby withdraws

the

proceedings in relation to the said dispute pending before

the said Shri Mool Chand Bhardwaj, Presiding Officei. In-

dustrial Tribunal, Faridabad and transfers the same to the ,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

New Delhi with the direction that the latter Tribunal shall

proceed with the proceedings and dispose of the same accor-

ding to law.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the closure of the quarries attached to the

Cement Factory of Dulmia Dadrl

Cement

Ltd.,

Charkhi Dadri with effect from 18-3-1980 is justi-

fied If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled 7"

Dadri with, effect from 18-3-1990 is justified.

not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?"

INo. L-29024/1/81-D. 1JJ. B]

R. P, NARULA, Dy. Secy.

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 14th October, 1982

S.O. 3688-—Whereas a vacancy has accurcd in the Office

of the Presiding Officer of (he Labour Court No. 1 at Dhan-

bad constituted by notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 1697 dated the 22nd

May, 1965.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of section

8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ,(14 of 1947), the

Cential

Government

hereby appoints

Shri Manoranjan

Prasad, as the Presiding Officer of the

said Labour Court

with effect from tho 4th October, 1982.

LNo. S-11020(3)/82-D.T.(A)(i)]

3893

S.O. 3689,—Whereas a vacancy has occurred in the Office

of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal No.

at Dhanbad constituted by the notification of the Govern-

ment of India in the Ministry of Labour No, S,O. 103 dated

the 11th January, 1960;

Now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of section

8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government

hereby

appoints Shri

MHnoranjan

Prasad, as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal,

with effect from the 4th October, 1982.

[No. S-ll020(3)/82-D.I(AXii)]

L. K. NARAYANAN, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 14th October, 19«2

S.O. 3690.—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 to the management of North

Tisra Colliery of Messrs Bharot Coking Coal Limited, Post

Office Khas Jeenagora, District Dhanbad and their workmen,

which was, received by the Central Government on the Hth

October, 1982.

BEFORE

THE CENTRAL

GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRI-

BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 3, DHANBAD

Reference No. 4/80

PRESENT:

Shri J. N. Singh, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to

the management of

North

Tisra Colliery of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,

P. O. Khas Jeenagora, Dist. Dhanbad.

AND

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

For the Workman—Shri S. Bose, Secretary, R.C.M.S.

INDUSTRY : Coal

STATE : Bihar

Dated, the 4th October, 1982

AWARD

The Govt. of India in the Ministry of T abour in exercise

of the powers conferred on them U/s 10(l)(d) of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act. 14 of 1947 has referred the dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication under Order No. L-20012]

153|79-D.III(A) dated 15th January' 80.

SCHEDULE

"Keeping in view the

functions performed by

Shri

Mahesh Tiwary,

Attendance CI»rk of North Tisra

Colliery of M|s. BLarut Coking Coal Ltd.,

P. O.

Khas Jeenagora, DLt. Dhanbad whether the de-

mand of tbc workmtn that hj should be placed

in Grade-1 'Clerical) is justified '.' If so, to what

ixlicL is the iuid workmen entitled ?"

2. According to the wuikman he is a peimanent emp-

loyee of the collieiy since 1-1-1946 und was initially work-

ing us an Attendance Clerk buj subsequently he was work-

ing us Suifucc-in-Charijc

whi.h post ho is holding since

the time uf the take ovci i>f the management by the Govt. It

ii stated thai prim to take ovci he was being paid wages

of Clerk Guide II by the pnvtttc owners but lifter nationali-

sation inspite of the fact that he is performing the duties

of Clerical

Grade I, he is being paid the wages of Clerk

Grade II.

3. It is alleged that the concerned workman

represented

his case before the management and he was also ossurred

rectification of his defective fitment in pay scale but nothing

was done.

It is alleged that the Collery Manager in April,

1977 assigned as many as nine additional duties to the con-

cerned workman which ho has been performing and he is

doing the duties of Suiface-i»Ch,irgc and not of an Atten

dance Clerk It is submitted that the concerned Workman has

been denied his propei grade of scale of pay ;md, h suffer-

ring serious financial loss. The concerned workman, having

failed to receive justice m the hands of

the

management

raised an industrial dispute and after failure of conciliation

the present jefeiunce was made.

Tt is submitted

that the

concerned workman should be paid the scale of pay in Cleri-

cal Grade I in view of his performance of duty as Surface-

in- Charge since the date of tnke over and his demand is

justified.

4. According to the management, however, the concerned

workman Sri Mahesh Tiwary was us Attendance Clerk prior

lo take over and he had been coirectly fi\cd in clerical Riadc

II and his demand to be fixed in clerical grade F is not justi-

fied. Tt is stated that considering the output of the collicrv

nnd the miscellanceous surface -works

connected with and

incidental to loading nnd despatch of coal and coke,

one

R.P. Singh has been posted as Supervisor to perform all the

supervisory jobs and he has been placed in Technical Supe-

rvisory Grade 'A' of the Coal Wage Board recommendation.

It is submitted that the concerned workman docs not supervi-

se or control or direct the mannual or clerical workers enga-

ged on surface jobs and so his assertion that he is n Svirfacc-

in-Charge has no merit at till. Tho main function of

the

concerned workman according to the management is

the

clerical jobs of maintenance of records and it is stated that

the concerned workman is performing the various clerical

iobs as a general clerk and that hi? crse for promotion to

clerical frade I will be considered when there will be a san-

ction for such a post on the surface of the colliery. Tt is futther

stated that there does not e.^ist nny post of Purfiw-in-CharRe

tinier tbc Wags Board recommendation and the colliery in

general do not have any person known as Surfato-in-Charg*.

5 On the above grounds it is prayed thpt tht Reference

he decided in favour of the management.

6. The point for consideration is a<- to whether keeping

in view the function performed by Sri

Mahesh

Tewary,

Attendance Clerk whether his demand that he should be

phced in Grade I (Clerical) is justified, If so, to what relief

is the said workman entitled.

7, From

the

reference

its^f

will

appear

(hat

the

gn>d- of

the

concerned

workman

is to

be de-

cided

keepine

view the 1 unction pirform:d by him,

Tt h ndrnitted by the manncement that the concerned work-

mrn wa^r an atlendnncc cl^rk prior to tn^r ovci' ,>nd he was

plrced h Clcik Grade TT It h nut denied th&i the con-

cerned voritman is under employment of the c illiery since

1°4fi an~t since then he is getting the pay scale of ricrk Grade

TT The rrnnagc-ment has also asserted tint Ihere i= no post of

Snrfa<r--n-CTmree under IV Poa¹ Wae? \Teement and so

the claim of the roncemej woikman to be placed in Grade

T is nnj-'i-.tifi' d. This cont-ntirm of the ™nmpem Mil is how-

ever not tenable. It mircht hc that th;rc is no such post

under the Coal Wage Board recommendation

known us

3894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, J982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II-SEC. \n)]

Surfaco-in-Charjzc but the documents of

the

management

would themselves so that tho concerned clerk was dcigr.ated

W Smfaee ln-CharRe. Ext. W'-l is the identity card IS'IU d to

the concerned woikman by the present management Trine

his designation has been shown ns Suifacc-in-Chaige

The

date of appoin'ment is 1-1-1946. Ext, W-2 is a lattc. dat:d

19th/21st Apul, 1977 issued by the

Supctintcndent, Noith

Tisia Colliery to the concerned woikman. This kllei also

shows the designation of the concerned workman .T. Suriac¹-

ln-Charpe. By this letter the concerned woikman was direc-

ed to 'uperviie the jobs us mentioned in tho letter. They are

as follows :

1. Loading of T1SCO Truck.

2. Local scale of S|Coke if any

3. Supervision of manufactuimg soft coke in Quality

and quantity.

4. General Supervision of Magazine and maintaining the

main records of the same.

5 Accounting and receipt of Timber.

6. Maintenance of records of bricks.

7. Supervision of the work of casuals.

8. Maintenance of all records as required by ACM.

9. All other jobs as advised by ACM Inchurge.

It is not denied on behalf of the management that the con-

cerned workman is not peiroiming all the above jobs. J?ii_ni

a persual of the jobs assigned lo tnc woikman it will appear

that he was to make supervision of seveial jobs sui.ii as

Bupeivision ot manuiactunng ot solt coal in quality

and

quantity, general supervision of magazine and maurtunuce

of main records ot the same, supci vision of the woiks of

casuals in addition to the other jobs as mentioned in this

letter including local sale of soft coal, loading oi TiiCO

Trucks etc.

8. The main duty of attendance clerk, however, is to take

attendance only. No attendance register has been hied to

show that in tact the concerned clerk was in charge of the

attendance. The cocnerned workman has examined himself

ag WW-1 and he 1ms stated that he is

Surfacc-m-Chaige

tvon till today and that he does not do the work ot Atten-

dance Clerk.

9. Ext. W.3 is a letter by the management dated 20-3-1979

to the A.L.C., Dhanbad and fiom this letter also it will aopeai

that certain othei jobs aie also performed by the concerned

workman though the management has said thai these

jobs

are like that of general Assistant. 1 do not think a General

Assistant can be called upon to perform

the jobs of supei-

visory nature as is mentioned in Ext W-2. No doubt

the

management has examined MW-1 an Asstt. Coihery Manager

who has stated that the main duty of the concerned woikman

was prepare the raising repoit on the basis of report of Munshi

and that he was also looking after the job of soft coke manu-

facturing and looking after the loading of local sale but ho

has not denied that the jobs assianad to the concerned work-

man in E\t. W-2 are not vtnnrniiid by hm.

MW-1

has

however stated that one Sri R P. Singh 13 workms as loading

Supervisor but this Sri R. P. Singh is thc son of the Ex-owncr

of the colliery. It is not denied that the concerned woikman

is doing many jobs of supervisory nature. Further it will

appear that though the concerned workman is in Ginde II

since 1946 but till today he hat not been aiven p'o'-iution.

Even according to the cadre scheme of (he management the

concerned workman should bv nn.v have

been placed in

Grade I, more so in face of several supervisory jobs being

performed by him.

1ft Thc learned Advocate of the management his drawn

">y attention to the Coal Wajre BoEird recommendation Vol IT

rnn— 54 Aopendix VI in which the pradimt nf rlerical staff

r.".i Their nomenclatures hive been mentionrd and it

ii'bmitted that under Grade 1 only the departmental heds

b-ivc been mentioned and (here ig no name of SiT-fncc-in-

Cli, /'. This Appendix, however, dn not indicate that only

twds of depmtinent have rjcen given uriide I, Fuulivr there

way not t>c any pust of oailaLC-in-Liiargj untlci die Coal

Wage boaid but fioin the documents ol the management it is

cldJi that ihc concerned workman was dcsignmed as iuirace-

iii-i_lijige and- he was asked to perloim several sup>-ivi;.ory

duties in suth ciicumsLuULLs the action of the management in

uot giving ihe pay of Grade 1 clerk to Ihc concerned workman

tjiinot be held to be justified In my opinion, and on the evi

deuce on rccuid and keeping in view the tunctions performed

by thc concerned workman he is entitled to be placed

Grade I Clerical.

11. The next question is a<. to from which date he should

be put in Giadc I. Though the concerned woikman has stated

that he is doing the job ol Suiiace-m-Chaige since prior to

tuke ovei but me claim was made by him in the year 19/8 or

iyyy that is alter a lapse of several ycais. )c su.h circum-

stances, I think the ends of justice will be met if ihe con-

cerned woikman is put m Grade I (Clencal) fiom the date

ol Kefe<eni.e i.e. lMh Januaiv, 1^80 from which date he

will be ei titled to get the pay scale and olhcr benelils of

Urade I Clerk.

12. The awaid is given accordingly,

Sd/-

J. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-20012U53j/7y.D.UI.<A)]

SO. 3631.—In puisuanee of section 17 of tho Indus'rial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government

heieby publishes the following award of the Cential Govern-

ment Industrial Tubunal No. 3, Dbaubad in the industrial

dispute between the employe is in relation to the management

uf Miifjma Aiea of Messrs Eastern Coalfields J.united, Post

OIHLC Mugma, District Dhanbacl, and their workmen, which

was tei_uved by u e Ceritral Goveinment on the 11th October

1982.

BiFORF THfc CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

1RIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANHAD

Refereuce No. 25/80

PRESENT :

S'hn I. N Singh, Presiding Otflcar.

PARTIES :

Employers in relalion to the management

of Mugma

Aiea of M/s eastern Coalfields ltd. P.O Magma

Dm. Dhanbad.

AND

Their workmen

APPEAR\NCE4 .

For the Employers—Jihri R. 5. Murthy, Advocate

For tho Workmen—None,

INDUSTRY : Coal.

STATE : Bihar

Dated, the 4th October, 1982

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

exercise of the powers conferred on them

u/s. lCMXd) of

Lhc Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 has referred

the

d sp'ite tn this Tribunal for adjudication under Order

I 20012 /219/79-D.1II.A, dated the 17th April '80.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the workmen of Mugma Area

of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O Mucma, Dist

Dhanbad that the workmen mentioned in Annt'xurc A

should be regularised a<; normanen: employers of th-

Collicrv and that thev^chould be eiven v/ngca in

accordance with Ihe National Conl WnRe Agreement

with retrospective effect is justified? Tf no, to what

relief are the said workmen entitled ?"

3895

ANMLXURE—A

lO.

Namo

S l ShoJ Sruukft. Pdiidoy

„ Uma Slu.uk;!. P. iUoy

,, HauaaiiLinL.ii Pandoy

„ (jh^nihyai I MHi a

„ JS<iw.i.l Kijhjia Shisl)

,, BJuukl Ojim

,, NivP Vi» iiU

„ dabuaj Ch Ouiwami

„ Su ulditi bmgh

„ RatiiLhauiiia Mish a

DujUjiutiun

Tyiuat

Gua. (1

Gan d

Guaid

Gm d

GLUI d

Us kAcct. Dptt

Wulk Ml3tiy

-do-

Q'wlification

Mati ic

N on-Mat Ac

Mat: ic

N^n-Mat.

B.A.

Non-Mat.

B.A.

HS.S

Non-Mdt.

B.A.

Date of Apptt,

7-4-1976

-do-

20-8-1976

17-8-1976

7-44970

21-8-1976

2-5-1976

3-b-1976

3-11-1976

1-12-1976

Rate pay

per

9.63

7.70

9.63

2. On 20-9-1982 both die parties have filed a joint peti-

tion ol cumpi oimse duly signed on their behalf ana they

piay ih<u an awaid be- parsed in terms of the settlement.

3. I have gone through the settlement which is bcnelkial

tor the workmen.

4. In the c-ncumslances the uwaid is passed in teims of

the settlement which skill toiin ptnt of the award.

hue : Settlement.

J, N. SINGH, Presiding Ufficct

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVl'KNJVlF.Nl INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 3, DdANUAD

In the inattei of reference No. 25 of 198U

PARTIES :

Kmployeis in relation to the Management of Mugma

Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

The above mentioned stnployiMS und the woikmeh jointly

beg to submit as follows :—

(1) Thai, both the paities have jointly negotiated

thii

matter with a vie.v to coming to u mutually agreed

over-all settlement.

(2) That as a result of the said joint negotiations, both

the panics have come to ovei-all agrcemeni for

the settlement of .his matter on the following terms

and conditions :—

Terms & Conditions

(a; Agreed that since one of the 10 workmen concerned

in this dispute, namely Sn Surendia Singh,

hat

wince cxpiied, the workmen will drop his

case

and there will be no claim whatsoever in respect

of the said Sri Surtndia Singh.

(b) Agreed that the remainmg nine workmen hbve

aheady been regularised by the Management with

effect from 1-1-1980 as per details mentioned in

the chart given below and that they are being paid

wages etc. as per NOWA-II as from that date:—

1.2

5".

Nauu

S n S S . P j i i u o y

S 1 N i C . P . V a r . u i

5> I N K. d i i,_-,ii

a i l S u b a a j

U J W . I I

Sri il.c. ivn.li.

b i i A S . R ' l i u O y

j i U . J

P J . i u i ) y .

j r i B 1 u i k i O j h t i

Smco woiking & designation

7-4-76 Typist

3-5-76 Atctts. Clork

7-4-76 Gua d

2-6-76 Woik Supvi.

1-1Z-76

-do-

17-S-76 Gua d

20-8-76 Gua d

7-4-76 Guaid

21-8-76 Gua.d

Rogulansod w.o f 1-1-1S80

in tho post of

Stoonogra pher Claiica.1 Gr-I

Clerks G ade-II

Gua d—Monthly Grndo-G

Wo.k Mjstiy—Monthly Gi-I

-do-

Gua d-Monthly Grade G

-do-

Grtde-G

-do-

Giade-G

-do-

Giade-G

[c) Agreed that the nine workmen rtftni-d to above

!iie not ciLiitied LO -ny tuiinci beneiit loi th<; paiiod

on and ulier l-l-li»8U as they aie gcuing trom

ihdt date the buQelits lmd dj\/n m M W A Ii.

(.d) Ag.ccd that the n>Ui uonuneD rueirjl to nlo\e

will be paid ifis dtfivicme ui wages between wliai.

they acLually ha^

a.iCK'y betn paii and what

is admissible to

Cat-I workers undei

NCWA-I

tor the period between their date of appointment

and 31-12-1978 and between what thtjy have al-

ready been paid anj what is admissible to fat I

workois under NCWA-II for the peiiod 1-1-1979

to 21-8-1979 irrespective of the job/jobs peifomed

by them.

concerned

have been paid wufios as per NCWA-U for the

period 22-S-1979 & 3M2-1979 nccotding ;o the

jobs _ ycnnin ed by them as rjtml

workmen,

nothing more will bo payable to them for this

period.

(f) Agreed that the nine workmen referred to above

will be entitled to earned leave wages as

per

the piovisions of ihe Mines Act and Mines Krles

nnd the rules of Eastern Coalfields I imited appli-

cable to casual employees.

(g) Agreed that the dates of appointment of nil

the

nine workmen conevred shall be icckoncd fr ><«

the date they arc actually wrrking fs fndi ated

under clause (b) above for the purpose of smioi Iv

in service and also fi>r the purpose of gratuity,

(h; Agiecd that the P.W. Case No. 2 of 1980 which

ht.s been ii rd by the Labour Enforcement OffLer

(Central), Chhkunda bufoii

.he Bokaro

Labour

Court and which is pending before that Court, shall

be deemed to have been withdrawn and a copy of

thiN compromise petition will be forwarded jointly

by the paitles to the Regignal Labour Commis-

sioner (Cential), Dhanbad, the Conciliation Officer

A.L.C.(C), Dhanbad and also the Labour Enforcc-

mentment Officer (C), Chlrkunda,

(i) Agreed that capy of thin settlement shall also be

filed jointly by both the parties before the Labour

Court, Bokaro Steel City, praying for disposal of

the case pending before him in terms of this

settlement.

(3) That since the parties consider that this settlement

is fair and leasonable, the same may kindly

nrrrpted and an award may be given in terms

thereof.

Both the parties jointly pray accordingly.

Y. R. MANDLOT, Personnel Manager.

Nirsa Area

Eastern Coalfields Limited,

authorised representative

of employers

for & on behalf of employer!.

Sd/-

3896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PAKT II- SEC. 3(ii)]

For & on behalf of workmen

(1) Sri Balmiki Ojha

(2) Sri Rama Shankar Pandev

(3) Sri Ram Chandra Mishra

(4) Sri Ghanshyam Mishra

(5) Sri Nawal Kishore Singh

(6) Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad Vernift

(7) Sri Subhas Goswami

(8) Sri Uma Shankar Pauday

(9) Sri Sheo Shanknr Pandey

Dated : 20th September, 19S2.

[No. L-20012/219/79-D.lJKAn

A. V. S. SARMA, Desk Officer.

New Delhi, the 16th October, 1982

S.O. 3692.—The following draft of a notification whfch

the Central Government proposes to make in exercise of

tho powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) is hereby published

for the information of all persons likely to be uffected thereby

and notice is hereby given that the jaid drnft will be taken

into consideration on or after the expiry of two months fiom

the date of publication of this notification jri the official

Gazette.

Any objections or suggestions which may be received from

any person in respect of the said drfft, before the expiry of

the said period of two months, will lje considered by the

Central Government.

DRAFT NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2)

of Section 26 of ihe Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of

1948) the Central Government hereby directs that for a

period of five years from the date of publication of this.

Notification in the official Gazette, the provisions of Sec-

tions 12, 13, 14 and 18 of the saij AU shall not npply to

railway servants who are on time scales of pay approved by

the Cential Government and governed by the provisions of

Chapter VIA of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890)

and the Indian Railways Establishment (JoJe and who are

employed in any scheduled employment in Railways.

[No. S. 32014/2/82-WC(MW)l

M. L. MEHTA, Undci Secy.

New Delhi, the 18th October, 1982

S,O. 3693.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the following award of t*ie Central Govern-

ment Indushial Tribunal, Calcutta in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay and their wolkmen,

which was received by the Central Government on (he 12th

October, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

CALCUTTA

Reference No. 93 of 1980

PARTIES:

The Management of New India Assurance Company

Limited, Bombay in i elation to their

Division

Office at Calcutta.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice M, P. Singh, Presiding Officer.-

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of Management—Mr. T. N. Mullick, Advocate,

On behalf of Workmen -Mr. Anil Das Choudhury,

Advocate,

STATE : West Bengal.

INDUSTRY": Insurance.

AWARD

By its Order No. L-17012<H)/8O-D.IV(A) dated 29th

November. 1980 the Government of

India, Ministry of

Labour, referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of New India

Assurance Company Limited,

Mahal ma

Gandhi

Road, Fort, Bombay in terminating the services of

Sri Ashim Kumar Ghosh, Development Inspector,

Calcutta Unit, with effect from the 27th March,

1976 is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief

is the concerned workman entitled 7"

2. The management has raised a preliminary objection

that Sri Ashim Kumar Ghosh was not a workman and hence

there being no industrial dispute this reference is not main-

tainable. In my opinion the contention is sound.

3. Sri Ghosh was employed as a Development Inspector

with function to procure insurance business through Agents.

II is well settled that an employee in an industry to be a

'workman' under the definition of workman under Sec. 2<s)

of the Industrial Dispute Act must be i-mnloyed to do work

of one of the four jobs, (i) skilled or unskilled manual (ii)

supervisory, (iii) technical, and (iv) clerical. It is also a well

•ettled principle of law that for the purpose of finding out

as to in which classification a person would fall, we have to

see that is the main or substantial work which that person

is employed to do and if it is supervisory work it would be

held that the person was employed to do supervisory work

even though he may be doing some technical, clerical or

manual work: See the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage

and Distribution Company of India ltd, and The Burmtih

Shell Management Staff Association and Others, 1970 II

3897

4. Admittedly in the present case Sri Ghosh does not

claim to fall in the classification of technical or manual

work. In the written statement of the workman in paragraph

6 it it. claimed by the workman that the nature of woik

done by Sri Ghosh was

mainly

supervisor-cum-cleriral,

namely, operation of telephone, despatch and feccivinji letters.

Befoie this Tribunal, however. Counsel appearing for the

workman conceded that the main duty of Sri Ghosh was not

clerical. The only question, therefore, s whether the princi-

pal and main duty of Sri Ghosh was supervisory. The icope

of the e\piession "supervisor" came in for consideration

hefore tht: Supreme Court several times. In the Burmah Shell

& Oil Storijte and Distribution Company of India Ltd.,

Madras vs. Their employees, 1954 I LLJ 21, it was held

that the employee musl occupy a position of command and

direction and should be authorised to ^ct without the sanc-

tion of the Manager or other superiors. This view was up-

held in Lloyds Bank vs. Pannalal Gupta, 1961 I LLJ 18

in which the Supreme Court observed, '"In considering the

later aspect of the pioblem industrial adjudication generally

took the M'CW that the supervisor or officer should occupy a

position of ef command or decision and should be authorised

to act in certain matters within the limits of his authority

without the sanction of the manager or other supervisors".

The same view was taken in South Tndian Bank v. Chacko,

1964 I LLJ 80 and also in All India Reseive Bank Employees

Association and Another vs. Reserve Hjnk of India and

Another, 1965 TI LLJ 175. In Government of India and

another and C. A, Balakrishnan and another, 1975 II LLJ

301 it was held by the Supreme Court that essence of the

supervisory uatu.e of work is (he supervision by one person

over (he work of others. Supervision •'.on'errplates direction

and contiol. Ordinary supei vision is not ''iipervi.vory¹ within

the meaning of S. 2(s), If this test as laid down by the Supreme

Court decision is to be applied in relation to the Deve-

lopment Inspector it will be found that the supervision

which he will have over the Agents is not supervisory in the

manner in which workmen in an industry are supervised by

the Supervisors. The management has Wed several docu-

ments (Annexures A to D to their written statement) in

order to how that the main or substantial work of Sri Ghosh

as an Inspector was procurement of insurance business

through Agents. Sii Ghosh has examined himself as WW-1,

He has stated in his evidence in chief, "As an Inspector

my main works were (i) to look after the works of the

agents and sec that they progress in work, (ii) to receive

letters regularly and sometimes I used to do the duty of

telephone Inspector. I never went to the customers for can-

vassing for policy." He has further said that he had no

P"wer to take any action against the agents, Tn his crosF-

.-rtamination he has said thot there was no agent under him

and no agent worked under him Apply the test laid down

by the Supreme Court decision above said, it must be held

that the main work of Sii Ghosh was to procure insurance

business thiough agents and this cannot be called supervisory.

Act-ordinft to his evidence he did not occupy a position of

command and direction and wns not juthoiised to lake in-

dependent decision. Tn this view of the matte- the fact tint

Sri Ghosh was gelling less than Rs, 500 as his salary is im-

material,

5. Counsel appearing for the management has filed a copy

of the decision dated 3rd Febmary, 1978 in tho case of

J. P. Mchta & 26 other;, vs. M/s. New India Assurance

Company, Bombay which was decided by the Presiding Offi-

cer, Central Government Labour Court, Bombay-1 in Older

to thow that a Development Inspector of this management

was held not to be a workman and tint his function wfii

held not to be clericii. The mi-nagemcnt has also filed a

copy of another decision in the case of S. K, Verma vs.

Zonal Manager Life Insurance Corporation of Tndia decided

by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industiial Tri-

bunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi on 23rd October 1979

It is not necess-arv to discuss these two decislu.m because I

have already held on merits that 'the mam or substantial

function of Sn Ghosh wns not supervisory. It follows 1hit

Sn Ghosh must he held not to be a workman.

6. Apropos my decision is that Sri Aihim Kumar Ghosh

h not a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, there is, iher-fore, n0 indu-rtrial

dispute and accordingly this reference ii not maintainable.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 25th September, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[No. L-17012/ll/80-D.rV(A)J

S.O. 3694.—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, Bombay in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to Shri Conceicac

Pereira, Onwer of Launch ' Joseph Anselmo", Goa and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on the 11th October, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

PRESENT:

Shri M. A. Deshpande, Presiding Offlcei.

Reference No. CGIT-2|2» of 1982

PARTIES:

Employer in relation to Shri Conceicae Pereira, Owner

of Launch "Joseph Anselmo".

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers—No appearance.

For the workmen—No appearance.

INDUSTRY : Ports and Docks. STATE : Goa, Daman & Dlu.

Bombay, the 4th October, 1982

AWARD

By their order No. L-36012(l)/82 D.IV(A) dated 21-5-1982

the Central Government referred the following dispute under

Section 10O)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tor

adjudication;—

"Whether the action of Shri Conceicao Pererira, Owner

of launch "Joseph Anselrao" in terminating the ser-

vices of Shri Chudge Krishna Gaonkar, launch ciew,

is justified ? If not, to what relief it the concerned

workmen entitled ?"

2. On receipt of the reference notices wero issued to both

Ihc workman Shri Chudge Krishna Gaonkar. whose services

were alleged to have been wrongfully terminated and the

employer Shri Conceicao Percira, Owner of lanch "Jcseph

Anselmo".

However that repeated notices were iisued and

though the workman was told that he need not come to

Bombay for filing of statement of claim, on receipt of which

the matter will be fixed at Goa as requested, the workman

never cared to file the statement of claim, as a result which

the employer has also not filed his written statement in

reply The r"t result is thnt in the absence of tho statement

of claim supporting the reference, despite repeated chances

given, the matter cannot be proceeded with and has to be

d'sposod of.

Award accordingly.

No order as to costs,

M. A. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer.

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay.

[No. L-36012|l|32-D. IV <A)J

T. B. SLTARAMAN, Desk Officer

3898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delh, the 11th October, 1982

S.O. 3695.—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, Bombay, in the industrial

dispute between the employers In relation to the management

of Union Bank of India, Bombay and (heir workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on the 29-9-82.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

Reference Nos. CGIT-2/10, 11, 12 and 28 of 1981

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Union Bank

of India.

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES:

For the employers—Shri F. D. Damania, Advocate.

For the workmen—Shri M. S. Udeshi, Advocate.

INDUSTRY: Banking.

STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, tho 7th September, 1982

AWARD

(Dictated in the Open Court)

All these references though pertaining to different emp-

loyees involve similar facrs regarding Ihe termination of the

service, against which termination, disputes have been raised

and ultimately referred to this Tiibim.il for adjudication under

Section lOOXd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 bv crrl;i

No. I-12012/221/80-DII.A dated 30-7-19SL, No. L-12012/

219180-D.II.A dated 30-7-1981 No. L-12012/215/SO-D H.A

dated 30-7-1981 and No. L-12012/214/80-D.II.A doled 26th

October, 1981.

2. The matter was initially contested on behalf of the

Respondent namely the Union Bank of India, However now

the parlies have arrived nt settlement whereby ull these emp-

loyees have been reinstated and in fact they joined the duties.

I am told, since yesterday and secondly the Union Bank of

India was good enough to giant continuity of service without

any break and only restriction was that these employees are

to get back wages not from the date of termination but

from 1-4-1981. On going throush the term* of settlement

and also on going through the benefits received by the work-

men T am convince^ that the condition regarding the back

wages is also fair and since (he terms of settlement are

fair, just and proper, the award in terms of settlement in all

the references shall be passed.

No order as to costi.

M. A. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY

Reference CGIT No. 2/10 of 1981

Shri G. S, Nhavi—Workman.

V/B.

Union Bank of India—Employer.

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL

The workman and the Employer have ariived at a settle-

ment in respect of the dispute referred to this Honourable

Tribunal for adjudication.

The said settlement is fair and proper and is acceptable

to both the parties.

The paities, therefore, pray that this Honourable Tribunal

be pleased to take the said Settlement on record und be

ploa cd to make an Award in terms thereof and dispute off

the Reference accordingly.

Dated this 7th day of September, 1982.

(M. S. Udeshi),

(Shri G. S. Nhavi I,

Advocate for Woiknian.

Workman : bove Mined.

(Firoze Darasha Damania),

Advocate for Union Bank of India.

For Union Bank of India

Sdl-

SuperintenuenL

BEFORE THE CETRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL A 1 BOMBAY

Reference C.G.LT. No. 2/10 of 1981

Shri G. S. Nhavi—Workman.

V/s.

Union Bank of India—Employer.

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

With a view to resolve the dispute amicably and as a

gesture of goodwill Union Bank of India (heicin. Her letuied

to as 'the Bank') agice to rcinsLate Srtm G. S. Nhavi (herein-

after refened to as the 'workman') in the Bank's employ-

ment with continuity of service from 10th April, 1974. He

will report to the Superintendent, Department of Personnel,

Mctrolopitan Bombay Zone at Central Office, Bombay for

allotment of duty on 6th September, 1982.

2. By way of all amounts payable to him for the period

fiom 10th Apiil, 1974 to 5th September, 19R2 either by

way of wages/leave wjgcs/bonus/ct-flralij payment or other

allowance, peiquisites and jinvikis;es, the Bank .tgieea to pay

tho workman and the said woikman agices to receive in

full and final settlement thereof the sum of Rs. 13,475 05

being backwages payable fioin 1st April, 1981 till 5th Sept.,

1982 after deducting income tax, if any, and Provident Fund

on the said amount of backwrtges.

3. The workman agrees that the Provident Fund loan out-

standing of Rs 342.00 be dcdirtc 1 fiom the amount of

Rs. 13,475.05 arrived at in Clause 2 above.

4. The workman does hereby give up his claim for back-

wages from 10th Apiil, 1974 to 31st March, 198).

5. The employer agrees tint although the workman will

not be entitled to backw.igcs fiom 10th April, 1974 to 31st

March, 1981 the aforesaid peiiod fiom 10th April, 1974 till

5th September, 1982 shall be computed to bc conjide-cd

for the purpose of gratuity, seniority, promotion, fitment with

the usual annual increments subject to the rules and regula-

tions prevalent in that behalf.

6. As desired by the workman, the employer has paid to

thf workman at the time of fllink the piesent consent terms,

the unflrrmentioned sum payable as airivcd at in Clause 3

above, by nny o'der favouritm thi workman''; Bdvnr- \te on

record in the t>bovf matter viz Shii M. S. Udeshi, bearing

No. 043225 dated 2rul September, 1982 for Rs, 13,133 05

drawn on Bombay Main Office (Naiiman Point).

7. Though for the purpose of making payment, the Ba^k

has agreed to pay and the workman has agreed to receive

woges fiom 1st April, 1981 to 5th SepVrnher, 1982 as

aforesaid and though it is further agreed that the wotkrpan

will rcnort on 6th September, 1982 but for the purpose of

deduction of income-tax, if anv, and the workman's contrl-

bnt'on towards Provident Fund and also for credit of pri-

vilege leswe, rasual leave and sick leave thf Pink ac -e<-

to treat the workman on dntv from 1st April

J9K1 an^

deductions will he made anrl 1eivc credi+cd as !f the wrrk-

man was in employment from the mid date.

It is further

clarified that the workman is deemed to have enjoyed and

exhausted all leave upto 31st March, 1981.

3899

The partie* agree to bear their own cost of the Referenco

Proceedings.

DatLd, At Bombay this 4tb day of September, 1982.

[}l, S. Udeshi),

(Shn G. S. Nhavi),

Ad\ocatv for Workman

Woikman abovenamed.

hot Union Hank of Ind .i

M K. UmJrruihesvwriin,

Supcumendtnt

Firoze Darsha Damanln,

Athoeale for the

Umun Hank of India.

BD OPX 'iHE CENTR \L OOVFRNMTNT [NBUMRIAI-

TRIBUNAL AT" BOMPW

Rtfurcnti' CGET No. 2/11 o° 1981

Shn J S. Watheln—Workra in.

V/s.

Union Bank of Indi.i- Employer

MA"' IT PLFASE THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL

The workman end the Employer have ainved .it a sett's: -

in nt in respect of the disnute referred to this HonouialU

fnbiirnl foi adjiid'cation.

TV -aid settlement is fail and rioper and is acceptable

to both ;Jio parties.

The parties, th:iefoie. p aye that 'hifi Honourable Trihunal

bi pleased To tak? Ihc said SctllcTipnt on record a d t~e

pleased la make an Award in Idrn^ theieof an.1 d' p ^vi off

ih^ U:f-icn^c j co t-^Jiigly

H-'id this, 7*h dav (if Sen|;nl-cr 10S3

fSliri J. S. \\\>phck>).

Woikman abovcrMroed

I M S Udeshi),

'i Ivncpte fo, Woikman.

For Union Bank at India.

SuDciinlcndciK,

([ i ozc Darasha Damania),

Advocate foi Union Bank of Inch i

BLFORE TILE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY

Rif.rcr«.e. C.G.I.T. No. 2|1981

Shu J S Waghela—Workman

Union H.nk of Irul'a—tmployer

Terms of Selt'envnt

With a v.cw lo r.soU; the dispute amicably ind rs a

gestuic of guoduirl I ion llanl; of India (he'einaf er ufe,r;J

to LS 'ihc Uank'j ., i:« lo Kin,'ale Phij J ^. W,ij e J

(iiL'remaflf r icfcr^'d to as 'lh- v.nikman') in thi

Bimk\

i nⁱp!u>ment wilh Lontinuitv of SLIVICC fiom ^lh Nnumb.r

1V76

lie v^ill icoort to Ihe Si'P^iin'tndciu, Dcpaitmeni of

l^Jc soniel, M. K /one at ( entral Office, Bombay foi allot-

ment Di duty on 6th September, 1982.

2. By way of all amounts pa\able to him for the pcrloJ

fiom 5th Nirtembtr, 1976 to 5,h September, 1982 cilher hy

way of wr^cs/Itavc wages/botius/ cx-iiratia pa\ment or other

allowances, prcqiusitcs and privilKgjs, the Dank agrees to pay

the workmen and the said workman ajjree-i (o receive in full

and fmal settlement thereof, tho sum of Rs H671 80 bewe;

b^okvv fr>, n^v-bl? from 1st Ainl, 19S1 till 5th September,'

19' i ?^r - rf-duotins income-tix and provident fond contri-

hntrnn on ihc w'd amount of backwaecs.

850 01/^.2—1

3. Tho workman agrws that tho provident fund amount

of Rs. 4408.20 vide cheque No. 159053 dated 25Ui February,

1977 collected by him be deducted from the amount of

k& 15671.80 arrived at in clause 2 above.

4. The workman does hereby give up his claim for back-

v.agcs lrom 5ih November, 1976 to 31st March, 1981.

5. The employer agrees that although the woikman will

not bo entitled to badewages from 5th November. 1976 to

31st March, 1981 the afoicsaid pcnod from 5th November,

iy/6 till 5Ji Hwsptcmbei, 1982 shall be considered for the

pmpoie of gralu.ty, ienunty, piomotion, iitment with the

u=ual annual incicments sub)cct to ,the rulca and xeculations

prevalent in that behalf.

f> As dcsiicd by the workman, the tmployer has paid to

th^ v,oikman at the time of lilina the present consent terms,

the undei-inentioncd sura pjivaWe as anived at in clause 3

abovL', by pay order tavou.i.ig the woikman's advocate on

tec.ird, in the above martor viz. Shii M S. Udeshi. bearing

]Jo 0432?.6 aatcd 2-9-82 for Rs 11263.60 drawn on Bomabv

K'am Office (Nauman Point).

7. Though for the purpose of making payment, the Bank

his agiced to pay and Ihs woikman has a/jiccd to leceive

wngis from April, 19S1 to 5th September, 19K2 as oforesaid

rnd t'ioiij.^Th it is fuither agrcea that tho workman will report

en 5ih September, 1982 but foi the purpose of deduction of

ireome-tax if any, and the workman's contribution towarc's

P ' vident fund an dalso for credit of piivilcgc leave, casual

1c i\c and tick leave, the Bank agrees to treat the workman

cm c'u^fy fiom 1st April, 1981 and deductions will be made

. n I Ir.ive crjited as if ,'he workman wai in employment

fro^ri th** said dntc. It is fui'her clarified that th" workman

rs d cmed to have eniovcd and exhausted all leave uijto

31st Maich, 1981.

8 The parlies agree lo bear their own cost of Reference

Proceedings.

D ted. (it Bombay this 4lh day of September, 19S2.

M S. Udeshi,

Shri J. S. Waghela,

Advocate for Workman

(Workman abovenamed)

For Uniop Bank of India.

M. K. UMAMAHESHWARAN,

Superintendent.

Firo/c Daisha Damania,

A Ivocatc for the Union Bank of India

BEI-ORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMFNT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAJ AT BOMBAY

R-r^uce CGIT No. 2/12 at 1981

Shii S D Vichare—Woikman.

V/s.

Ljnion Bank of India—Employer.

MA If IT PLEASE THIS HONQUI1ABLE TRIBUNAL

1 he workman and Ihe Employer have arrived at a settle-

nit t in lesft'Ct or th: dispute rofened to this Hon'ble Til-

bunal for adjudication.

The said settlement is fair and proper and is acceptable to

both the paities.

h: parties, therefoic, prayc that this Hon'blo Tribunal

bt pleaded to take the said ticttlemcnt on icoord and b«

pl.j,jd to make an awaid m terms thereof and dispose off

th- Keleience accordingly.

Dat;d thl-. 7Hi d > of September, 1982,

(M. S. Udeshi),

Advocate for Workman.

(Fnoze Daiasha Damania),

Advocate for Union Bank of India.

(Shri S. D. Vichare),

workman abovenamed,

For Union Bank of Ind^;a

Sdl-

Superintendent.

3900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30. 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY

(Reference i C.G.I.T. No. 2|12 of 1981)

Shri S. D. Vichare.—Workman.

Vs.

Union Bank of India.—Employer.

(TERMS OF SETTLEMENT)

With a view to resolve the dispute amicably and as a

gesture of goodwill Union Bank of India (hereinafter re-

ferred to as the Bank') agrees to reinstate Slni S. D. Vichare

(hereinafter referred to as the

workman) in the Bank's

employment with continuity of service from 8th November,

1976.

He will leport to the Superintendent, Department of

Personnel, Metropolitan

Bombay

Zone, Central Office,

Bombay for allotment of duty on 6th September, 1982.

2. By way of all amounts payable to him for the period

from 8th November, 1976 to 5th September, 1982 cither

bv way of wages/leave wages|bonus[ex-gratia payment or

o*her allowances, rerquirites and privileges, the Bank agrees

to pay the workman and the said workman agrees to receive

in full and final settlement, the mm of Re. 13,039.90 being

backwages payable from 1st April, 1981 till 5th September,

1982 after d^Tduc*ing income-tax, if tiny, and Provident Fund

Contribution en the said amount of backwages.

3. The workman agrees that the Provident Fund amount

of Ri. 848 03 vide Cheque No 159017 dated 10th January,

1977 rol'fctpd bv him be deducted

from the amount of

Rs. 13,039.90 arrived at in Clause 2 above.

4. The workman does

hereby

give

up his claim tor

backwages from 8th November, 1976 to- 31st March, 1981.

5. The employer agrees that although the workman will

not he entitled to backwnges from 8th November, 1976 to

31st March, 1981 the aforesaid period from 8th November,

1976 till 5th Seitcmber, 1982 shall

be computed to be

considered for the purpose of gratuity, senioritv. promotion,

fitment with the usual annual inciements

subject to the

rules ^nd regulations prevalent in that behalf.

6. As desired by the wokman. the employer has paid to

the workman at the time of filing the

present consent

'erms, the undermentioned sum payable

as arrived at in

Clause 3 above, by Pay Order favouring

the workman's

advocate on record in the above

matter viz. Shir M. S,

Udeshi, bearing No. 043224 dated 2-9-R2 for Rs. 12,191.87

drawn on Bombay Main Office

(Nariman Point).

7. Though for the purpose of making payment, the Bank

has agreed to pay and the workman has agreed to receive

wages from 1st April, 1981 to 5th September, 1982 as

aforesaid and though it is further agreed that the workman

will report on 6th September, 1982 but for the purpose of

deduction of income-tax, if any, and the workman's con-

tribution towards Provident Fund and also for credit of

privilege leave, casual leave and sick leave, the Bank agrees

to treat the workman on duty from lit April

1981 n«d

dediutioni will be made and leave credited as if the work-

man was in employment from the said date.

It is further

clarified that the workman k deemed to have enjoyed and

exhausted all leave upto 31st March, 1981.

The parties agree to bear their own cost of the Reference

Proceedings

Dated at Bombay, the 4th day of September, 1982

M. S. Udeshi

S. D. Vicbare

Advocate for workman.

(Workman above rnmed)

Firoz Darasha Damania

For Union Bank of India

Advocate for the Union Bank of India.

Superintendent,

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY

(Reference i C.G.I.T. No. 2128 of 1981)

Shri S. K. Kunder.—Workman.

V/s.

Union Bank of India.—Employer.

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL

The workman and the Employer have arrived at a tettle-

ment in respect of the dispute referred to this Honourable

Tribunal for adjudication.

The said settlement is fair and proper end is acceptable

to both the parties.

The parties, therefore, prny that this Honourable Tribunal

be pleased to take the said Settlement on record and be

pleased to make an Award in terms thereof and diipose

off the Reference accordingly.

Dated this 7th day of September, 1982

M. S. Udeshi

Advocate for Workman.

Firozc Dnrasha Damania

Advocate for Union Bank jf India.

Shri S- K. Knnder

Workman above nⁿmed

For Union Tlnnk of India

Sd/- Illegible

Superintendent

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVFRNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY

Reference CGIT No- 2/28 of 1981

Shri S. K. Kunder

...Workman

V/s.

Union Bank of India

... Employer

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

With a view to resolve the dispute amicably and as a

gesture of goodwill ^Jnion Bank of India (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Bank') agrees to reinstate Shri S. K, Kunder (heie-

inafter refcred to ns 'the workman') in the Bank's employ-

ment with continuity of service from 27ih November, 1976.

He will report to the Superintendent, Department of Per-

sonnel, M. B. Zone at Central Office, Bombiy for allotment

of duty on 6th September, 1982.

2. By way of all amounts payable lo him for the period

from 27th November, 1976 to 5th September, 1982 either

by way of wages/leave wrg;s/bonus/ex-grnth payment or

other allowances, piequisitcs and privpeges, the Bank agree*

to pay the workman and the said workrmn agrees to leceive

in full and final settlement, the ^um of Rs. 15.716 90 being

back wattes payable from 1st A">ril, 1981 till 5ih Septem-

ber, 1982 after deducting income t,ix, if any prU provident

fund on the said amount of backwages.

3. The workman agrees that the provident fund amount

of Rs 3907.25 vide checiue No. 150004 doted Ihc 27!h Dccen>

ber, 1976 collected by him be deducted from the amount of

Rs. 15,716.90 arrived at in cl-usc 2 above.

4. The workman does hereby give up ci'iiin for back wage¹;

from 27lh November, 1976 to 31st March. 1981.

5. The employer agiees that although tho workman will

not be entitled to back wages from 27th November, 1976

to 31-st March, 1981 the aforesaid period from 27lh Novem-

ber, 1976 till 5th September. 1982 shall be computed to be

considered for the purpose of'grntii'ty seniority, promo'ion

fitment with the usunl annunl increments subject to the rules

and regulations prevalent in the behalf.

6. As desired by the workman, ihe employer has paid to

the workman at the time of filing the present consent terms,

the undermentioned sum payable as arrived at in clause 3

3901

above, by pay order favouring the workman's advocate on

record in the above matter viz. Shri M. S. Udeshi, bearing

No. 043223 dated 2nd August. 1982 for Rs. 11809.65 drawn

on Bombay Main Office (Nariman Point).

7. Though the purpose of making payment, the Bank lias

agreed to pay and the workman has agreed to receive wages

from April, 1981 to 5th September, 1982 M afoiesaid and

though it is further agreed that the workman will report on

6th September, 1982 for the puiposc of credit of privilege

leave, casual leave and sick leave, the Bank agrees to treat

the workman on duty from 1st April, 1931 and deductions

will be made and leave credited as if the workman WLD in

employment from the said date. It is furMicr clarified th-ot

the wo-kman is deemed to have enjoyed and exhausted all

leave upto 31st Mutch, 1981.

The parties agree to bear their own cost of the Reference

Proceedings.

Dated at Bombay this 4ih day of September, 1982.

(M. S. UDESHI)

Advo ate for Workman

(FIR02E DARASHA DAMANJLA)

Advccatc fot the Union Bank of India.

SHRI S. L. KUNDER

(Workman aboven.imed)

[No. L-12O12(215)/8O-D.1I(A)]

New Delhi, tho 12th October, 1982

S.O. 3696.—In pursuance of section 17 of tne Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 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 management

of Bank of Maharashtra Punc, and their workman which

was received by the Central Government on the 5-10-82.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY CAMP : PUNE

PRESENT :

Shri M. A. Deshpande, PrcsidinR Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2|14 of 1982

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Management of B?nk

Maharashtra.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers—Snn D. J. Bhanage, Bank Officer.

For

thc workmen—Shri R. D. log, President,

Bank

Karmachan Sanah, Pune.

rNDUSTRY : Banking

S T A T E : Maharashtra

Punc, dated the 17th September, 1982

AWARD

(Dictated in the open Counj

hv ^{B v}^\7 ^d' ^{S p}

U^™. e t^ c e n

t b c B a n k

a n d

t h c empiovees

M a

& ? ^{r d e r} No. ^l2012(l29)/31-n.mA) dated 19-2-1982 under

Section JOflXd) of the Industrial Dispute. Act, 1947

the

schedule referred for adjudication ii as follows :—

"Whether the action of the management of the

Bank

of Maharashtra, Punc, In removing Shri S. D, Ws«h

r>°3Vrw^pOit

Of t e!? x °WBtor

with dfect

from

12-9-80 to accommodate Shri Y. R. Kolhatkar

the po&L, is justified '.' If not, to what reliet

anri Wajjh entitled V"

2, iyince all the facu aro aloiosi aamitted and there is no

fact wniLii is in dispute, 1 shall bi reltumn lo tnc vanous

events in chionologiwl older it.' as to imow iifihi on

leai point in controversy, so lar as inu BanK oi ivianaiakhua

is cunusineii Uwe are two jiank oilices in hune n.nii.iy

Uivi^iuiiai uniu: i_uy Division, uiid uiviiiu...ii OJULI; iu.ni

uiv^sion. Ihe leund sixaks tUat bhu i\.ui.iiailvji was. ap-

pointed as a Clerk, in ino Divisional ulli^e KUiul .Division

on iy-1-.U/u wmie inn Wdgh w^s appointed ua a ueit m

the umsion.il Ollice ci.y Division ou ll-i-\))i\.

AvihJnd

tuin out on ihe question ot appointment in a particular tuvj-

iional omw;. so lar as the cnuy in tUe Bank &civices

i«

i-oiiccineu evid-ntly n was, ^nu Kojh.iih.ar who joined tne

Bant seivice lust and Ihen caiiie Mm Wajjli. t>uoscquen.iy i,(i

l-J-19/6 a Zonal oriice was'ciea.etl to wnith OIULC iihii wagti

was tiansteiTcd on the iame day on the creation ot ine ollice

i.e. on 1-3-1976 as a clerk. Sim Kothatkar huwever, JOUICU

the Zonal office on 3-5-iy76, Thsse two dates would be ma-

terial because while inter-se scniouty so tar as the Zonal

olhce was concerned there arc some tfuidelinca pnscubed on

the sttength ot which we •shall have to diueimine wiiLincr m

the Zonal oflice it was Shri Wagh or it was ahu Kcilhatkar

who could claim seniority amongst the two. The f^ct i»

admitted that these transfers to Zonal office horn thi Divi-

sional Office, City Division as well as the .Divisional Olfice,

Rural Divisional Office, Rural Division respectively were not

on their own request but purely on adminisixativa giounu,

3. In the month of May, 1978, test for the post of typist

was held tram amongst the members of tlarical daff

the Zonal ollice when it is allied that Sun Wafih v,as found

to be having typinfi speed of 49 worJs ptr minute ^HJ

S/hri Ko.hatkar's sp;ed ,n typing was 3y words per minuie.

Since there was only one post of typist, on 15-3-1978 iihri

Wafih was posted as a typist ill the Zonal odice in the re-

gular scale with special pay of Rs. 19 plus Dearnew Alluw^n^e

on Rs. 19. In other words on 15-5-1978 Shri W.iflh

ulaitcd

getting something more Aan a Clcik. Since there was ofily

one post of typist that loo held by Shii Wafih hi was fietimjj

something more than Shri Kolh-Ukar was carryind home a;

the end of evciy month.

4. Subsequently in ihe month of Aufiust, 1979 test was

held for the post of Telex Operator. Any member of cleri.al

staff was ehg^le to appear for the test but he must be atta.hcd

to the Zonal office. It wis theiefore not restricted io typisi

but was open to the cntiic clerical cadr^ of Ihe Zonal oilier.

Now the post of Telex Opeiatoi caines with it normal sea c

of Clerical cadre plus Rs. 25 as Special Allowance and Tiear

ness Allowance on the said amount which subsequently hns

been consolidated at Rs. 78. In other words now a Telex

Operator is gettinR his normal clerical scale plus consolidated

special allowance of Rs. 78.

5. It is an admitted fact lh.it in ths past Shri Waph as

well as Shri Kolhatkar were declared successful. However

Shn Wagh was found lo be more proticient as his speed was

78 words per minute and that of Shri Kolhatkuv wag

woids per minute. Naturally Shri Wagh wrs round to be

more proficient and he could secure the post and accoidingly

he was appointed as a Telex Operator cairyng the special

allowance for the post on 20-8-1979, in which post he worked

upto 11-9-1980.

6. All of a sudden by notice stated to be notice itndei

Section 9A bi ihe Industrial Disputes Act dated 20-8-1980 and

also by an office order of even date, placinp reliance

circular dated 5-8-1974 Shri V/aHh wai told that his appoint-

ment wa9 Irregularly made and that it was Shri Kolhatkar

who was really entitled to be appointed as Telex Operator

and therefore from 11-9-1980 which was the date Shri Wagh

was asked to hand over charge of Telex Operator

Nhri Kolhatkar, is adorning that pout,

7. I was given to understand thnt the mnjority Union was

dis-satisfied with the appointment of Shri Wagh and therefore

n~d made representation which it seems Weighed, with the

Bink and therefore Shri Wagh one fine morning was deprived

of his special allowance.

8, On tho strength of these facts and nleadinw the follow-

ing issue arise for determination and the findings on thts;

'-Mr. depended upon th« question as to who was th« wjibr

3902

THE GAZETTE OF INDI\ : OCTOBER St, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II

SEC. 3(ii]

amongst the two who was eligible or better qualified to be

appointed as Telex Operator.—

Issues

Findings

1. Wether the present dispute is

not tenable because it is not

an industrial dispute but an

individual dispute as contended

by the Bank ?

Tenable

2. Whether the seniority in joining

ihe Bank affords <hi test oi whether

the senioriiy at the branch or

regional level would be cnteria for

determining the rights of the parties ?

Ip.n ns

a particular BiancJ

3. Whether the seleetion of Telex

Operator is depending upon the

seniority alone or it also is

depending upon the passing the test ?

On pa-sr g

of the test

4. If passing of the test iv the

criteria, whether the Union estab-

lishes that Shri Wa^h seemed more

number of marks than Shri Kalhatkar

a4 the time of test 7

"»«

5. Whether Shri Wagh. is senior or Shri

Kolhatkar according to the prevailing

agreement, regulations etc.?

Shri Wagh

6. Whether service of notice under Section

9A of the I.D. Act erables the

Bank to take away the special _

allowance which was being paid as

Telex Operator to Shri Wagh ?

7. Whether the action of Bank in removing

Shri Wagh from the post of Telex

Operator was justified?

8. If not, whether he is entitled to any

relief ?

Yes <. s awaided.

9. If the terms of employment read with various circular

would recognize the seniority of Shri Wagh a^d further by

conduct it was gjver/ to understard that the rcsu't of the

test would govern ths passing, then all of a suJden there

cannot be any departure therefiom. The Bank wculd be

bound by its own circular and the conduct which might

have created rn impiession in the rnmd of ihe employee.

10. As the facts stand the solution of the dispute depend-

ed upon the interpretation of the Circular dated 5-8-1974

which is at serial number 10 produced by the Union. Para-

graph 1 of the said circular reads as follows :—

"1. Normally, all allowance pests go by seniority unlcs

there is something adverse agair<.t fsuch as mon!

tuupitude of mLconduct of any sort

for

which

action is taken and punishment awarded) or vronp

with (that is, inherent inefficicnev or phyical dis-

ability) the person concerned, of he is unwilling to

take the post. For this purpos;, senioritv to

considered is seniority

at the branchjdivisional

offlce|central office and any allowance post per-

taining to P cadre is to be allotted to the senior

most person in that cadre, unless, as stated abo\e

there is something adverse again«t|wrong with sfch

person or he is unwilling to tak» the pon. Senio-

rity at the branchlDivisienal 0ffice|O^tial

Office

is to be decided on the ba^is of th" d'lte of ioin-

inq at the branch |Divisioral Office [Central Office,

subject to the following qualification^."

There are subsfqusnt paragraphs which s-r-ak of tranter

on request etc; but since in trip prettni ca*2 admittedly fhe

transfer of Shri Wagh and Kolhatkar vsre on admirKtrative

ground, not the subwjrient paragraphs but paragraph ntrabe'

1 which voulj govern the satire care. Th& ven' opening

word of the paragraph 1 "Normally" indicates that unless

there was any exception created b> tie p.rig.aphs following

ths tionnal rule would

be that thu

eniority

would be

depended upon the seniority in the Rr.m:'\ Pidsicaal Office

o- Cc-.tr 1 Cffi e It ;- ccna'u. '-J h-t->

;ie P'~i cs that

Zonal Office shall be OCE idoie i fs C c : . l O]E;xs and if

this ru'e i applied there should pot be any f>pe of ex; p-

tioa crep'ed

It is Shri Wa~h MIM W , Lan *er ed 'o the

7c"-i' Office cv 1-VI976 \\^uo 'hail ie d e'red t~> b? senior

to Shri Kolhatkar ?,ro was

<-:nfc ed

to Zom' CHice

• n V .

laid down, th' «aij rule end r^c PIISP'IV i v'i;ated trn «eii'c-

rity of Shri Wi>gh in the Zoni,l Ofiicc would tv teyonJ cry

dispute.

11. In the lette) of 20-8-19SO S.i.i W."" h "ns tckl that

*in;e the ciicular dated 5-8-1974 did not rove. t'^re ca'cs of

ndministrative tran fer ?nd in puisuanc c^f thj policy deci-

«-"T ;.I >e *'.ct cf . y, gmcp; of a'lo^Te

c . ry na rost

in the event of two contestants admini't^itivclj

tra^sfenod

3^{f .s,};^{o ;i ]}^r*p;h^{h i-'nrct contiii " r* psno m}^{th^,}^vvirk

as ;; Telex Opeiator. I have arrerdv nfe.red to 'aragranh

1 cf the Bank'" circu'ar ir exten-o requiiina: po se~ord c'*-

rence. A plain reading of t^e circu'ar v hi;h U TZrvk's, cir-

c'lK'i i'seif PO ^hers svpnorfs ihi

;n* • pret-.tion of the

BanX. that this circular i- ret to govern i'l

'cioT ¹, cf t^%?

c!erks trarrfeiTed on admiriistrrti\e irrovrd. On^tfle c^nt

rcry the rules cf^ceniorify lai(j down <;reik t'¹ t fr< se who

step in to a particular office first -hall be senior ^o oi' er

in "lTib"'! v h ' |.i r",l thp r<f, e >",h ."f"entlv

Th.erefo e

thjus'i th^ro L a re^fe,;nce *ⁿ t^!'e po!i:v dec- irn i; is no* to

b-' tin policy d^rcision o^f tb° Eirk bnt it h *be ci ci'pr

v^-M"!i i!' ^-" t^v

's t"> co\cm t'"e ""-r;'s o^f t''e I'<ISJ rrd

viewed rxcorjirj ly it is four^J that ?hri Waijh and no*^chri

Kclhatkar^ca for ?°. fbe ZT.^I Office is a cencerred ".ho can

be treated as senior.

12. The post of Tele's: Opereldr, open^fo a!l CICII'G not

merely depended

en the qnestbrs of seniority but by calling

for a-plicc't^;cn for ths te't, tV Bar.k represented

tri the

e nploye-;s that tho e who v.ou'd pa's the test v^ould be-

come eligible

-> fce appointed az Telex Operrtor and fur-

ther it ircp'Ldiy sug^cted, since the test was laid down,

that who amongst the candidates wcu'd be more "'o^fl-

cVnt^H"ci'Id g t th^ say pfKt \^hich as already

indicated

carrier 'viib it^cpccial alloivance which allowance bei¹¹" in

V-^s of n v ccn*"3rs the ri&h cf pron^ ty. Aftei cic^iiijr

such inpressinn, ths te't wag he'd and a partcula" r:rson

with more proficistffiy wac nppointed, flzre afiin the Bank

would not be fllow^d to deoart from the ru'es i"ip!'e llv

laid devn and *?'*)ri\e a re^ron of t^ho ben^fi's grin-' vib

0:-- vci.

H"we\e", it is not the proⁿe^;?ncy alrne v,hich has

allowed Shii Wagh to ret the po«t but even if the rul° of

seniority is n-p'ied eve* fh-n it r Shri Wach vho must jet

the Pest cf Tele-" Op2ra*or and not Shri Kolhatkar

53. Ths circul sr itcelf

cavs that if a particuk,' person

is found not fit for thv> net th^n alone he should be depiiv-

c 1 of th; 'aid po¹-'. B" dep i\ing the post of Te'e\ Operetor,

r.n impre sicn is liVeiy to be created thonsh

the oHcr does

not sueak as su;h that because of inefficiency and i^crmpc-

tency he lost the said post.

The Bank has *iitd to induct Section: 9A of the Fndu^Hal

Di-putes- Act, 1947 in support of (he change conte-nplat-d.

Serticn 9\

cf the Act never vtcuJd f» attrjctuJ. The^r*<id

ffc'ion would b- anolicable when any chance is to be effect-

ed in the terra- of employment and not for any change to

be effected in the mode of determinafion cf <i»-iio;ity, »s

stated in the circular. Bv re^ortin? to S°ction 9A 'be Bar-k

would nit b? allowed all of a suiden to mpke charges i"t

the case of oie person ^o rost^roTiebr>dv e1^ce an'l deprive

a r-'^ci °f *^h-i lepi'imnt- n'-»ht which the Pnnk ca" ne-.er

be al'oved. Th» cleik <herefo>-e mirt be he'I fo be entitled

to continue to hild that r.« t <"on f-oti 11-9-19P0 If >ht

Bank is nrt a position to five him t^at po^' b-"i>"se the

"i't K aUeadv Irld by scnfboJv d-e, the on'v reliefs which

Shri Wash wculd be entitled is to eet the aHowapce wh-ch

©^henvise he wn-uld have been entitled to as ri TCIOT Ope-

rator whether he worked in that po-t or not It was not his

3903

fault but is was a consequence of the action of the manage-

ment. 'Hence my findings on the issues are ;—

(i) Initially th?re was an attempt on the part of the

Bank to attack the dispute as individual

dispute

but since the di'pute has be.-n espoused by the

Union

registered having

;ignjficant following,

which fact is not disputed, the individual dispute

is conceited inlo ;in miusliial dispute, Hence the

refcjcnce is tenable and legal. Finding on Point

No,

1 i\ accoidingly.

(ii) Issue No. 2.—It is the leniniity in joining the parti-

cular branch in the present case the Zonal Office

•would be the criterion of scnioi ity-lnter-se between

various individuals.

(iii) Point No. 3.—As the fuels indicated that it was

not the icnio;ity alone which was the

ban's for

selection of Telex Operator but it was also depend-

ed on passing of the test and therefore depended

upnn the proficiency displayed by a particular can-

didate.

(iv) Issue No. 4.—It is an admitted fact that in the test

held for the post of Telex Operator it was Shi i

Wagh who succeeded in the test. My finding on

issue No. 4 is accordingly.

(v) If the relevant circular of 1974 is Lhc cri'eria, it is

Slui Wagh who is senior in the Zonal Office. Find-

ing on issue v is accordingly made.

(vi) As 1 have already indicated by resorting to Section

9A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Bank could

not have deprived Shri Wagh ol the post of Telex

Operator. It was not because any change is brought

in but an exception has been created in the cpfe

of Shri Wagh. The Bank is not entitled to give

notice under Section 9A to take away the special

allowance of Telex Operator. My finding on issue

vi is accordingly made.

(vii) In the light of the above discussions the action of

the Bank in removing Shri Wagh from the post of

Telex Operator cannot be said to be justified. The

Bank there/fte, shall re-post Shri Wat;h as a Telex

Operator or for one reason or othir the

Hank

is- not^;n r "'^lr,ition to do so, r'ght f:um 11-9-1980

the Bank 'hall continue to pay the social allow-

ance pail to thnt pest at the rate declared till the

time he i¹ lcjrllj transferred from the sr.id office.

15. Payment of '-— ^cT-iI I'lowanre from 11-9-1980 \<t not

d<"perd-int upon ih¹ te-pcsiinn ol" Shri W;;gh ns Tcl'-x Ope-

rator. Whether lie i reputed or not Shri Waph shrill con-

tinue to dravv the special rJlownnce. On repestinc he shall

Invc t0 work ir¹ the post of Telex Operator to convert the

said post.

Award is made accordingly.

No order as to costs.

vp A. DESHPANDE, Presides Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial

Tribunal No, 2, Bombay.

[No. L-12012(129)|8I-D. IKA)]

SO.

—In pjiMiance of section 17 of the Industrial

DiMMitci Act 10-17 <U of 1947), the reflfr I Government

hereby publishes (he follow w, a w a- d o f lfj0 r>ntr:>l Govern-

ment Tnrhstnni Tribn>i;>1 Midn-s in tne industrial dilute

between the e^nloyi* s in elation to the management of

Mate Rank of In <n, M-Jr, s and their workman, whi h was

received by the Centi.il Government on the 5-10-83

BEFORE THIRU T. SUDARSANAM DANIEL, B.A., B.L.

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Iribnnal, Tamil Nadu, Madras

(.Conttiluted bv the Government of India)

Wednesday, the 29th day of September, 1982

Ii.JiKiiiJl Dispute No. 43 of J974

[!n the matter of the dispulc toi adjudication under Section

10(1 )(d) of the lndus.lri.il Disputes Act, 1947 between the

workman arid the Management ci State

Bank of India,

Mnt'iits.)

BETWEEN

Thini P. Muihukii.shn'n, Ni. 4, Scshach.-iln Mudaly

St.eet, Saidapct, Madras-15.

AND

The Secietmy and TiiMUirer, State Bank of India, Local

Head Office, First Line Beach, Madras..

RLH.-RFNCE :

Order No. 1, 12012/156/73-LR.UI, dated 15tn Novem-

ber, 1974 of the Ministry of Labour, Government

of India, New Delhi.

This dispute after having been remanded hy the High

Couil in W.A. Nos. 524 of 1979 and 680 of 1979, coming

on for final hearing on Monday, the 27th day of September,

1982 upon porusjrifj trie reference, claim and counter state-

ment and all other material papers on recoid and upon

healing the arguments of Thiru A. Ramachandran for Thiru-

valarg'il Row and Reddy, Advocates appearing for the worker

end °f Thiru S.injny M'ohnn for King and Partridge, Advo-

cates : ppearing for the Management and this dispute having

slood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal made

the following.

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute between the workman and

Man 'ficment of State Bank of India, Madras referred to me

un lei Si: tion 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for

adjudication unJsr Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 hy Ihe Government of India in Order No. L-12012/

15f)/73-IR.Ill,-dated 15-11-1974 of the Ministry of Labour,

in lespect of (he following schedule : •

' Whether the action of the management of the SLate

Bank of India, Madras in dischaiging Shri

Muthukrishnan from the sciviccs of the bank with

effect from the 14th April, 1969 is justified ? If

not, to what relief is the employee entitled ?"

(2) Facts leⁿdinjt upto the present dispute are as follows :

The Management is the State Bank of India, Madras lepresert-

ted by the Secretary and Treasurer, State Bank of India,

Loral Head Office, First line Beach, Madras. The reference

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour relates

to (IiL' action of the Management-Bank in disrhaiyinij Thru

P. Mtilhukiishmin from the services of the Bank wi.h effect

from 14-4-1969. Thiru P. Muthukrisiman WJS appointed as

Official-in-chaii?e at Nvmgambakkam Pay Office of ihe Manage-

ment-Bank. vjV, state Bank of India on 1-10-19G6.

23-8-1967, a show cause notice WJS issued to him containing

fo,ir instances of misconduct (Ex. M-l), to which he had sub-

mitted his explanation on 8-9-1967, (Ex. M-2). Apparently

the M'inagement-Bank was not satisfied with the explanation

cffc.cd and therefore four chajges were framed apainst the

workman Thiru P. Mulhukrishnan on 27-9-1967 fl£x M-3).

These had been cxtrated even in the judgement of the Division

Bench of our High Couit dated 16-7-1982. It luns

follows :

"Thf fiist charge related to purchasing of cheques for

large amounts from one V. J, Bhaskir Rao by the

dellquent in his personal capacity while acting as

(he official in-chnrgc of the Nungambakkam Pay

Offl.-e.

There were twenty such purchases during

3904

THE G\ZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBLR 30, 1982/KART1KA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(he years 1966 and 1967, and they were acts of

gross misconduct fulling under I'aiagr ph ?21(4)(j)

and (1) ot the ^hastri Award read in conjunction

with pai giaph it! 28 of the Oesai AwaiJ

The

Second chaige was that Muthukn hnan, in collision

and con^pnacy with V J E iskar Rao, permuted

and enabled Btskar Rao unauthonscdly to tn ash

cheques diawn by him on rus ncount with the

Madras lo:al hcad-oirlce without sufficient balance

in. his . ccount to recover the tii wings at the time

of su h encashments, and in puisuan^e of the said

conspiracy, he deliberately delayed despatch of suueh

cheques with itniitance schedules foi pcnuds rang

ing from two to six days with a VIL.V to aftord tin e

to V. J BasUr Rao to leplem h his account With

sufficient fund

to meet the cheqt cs 1 iter when

iceeivcd at the local head ollicc

Ihe Ihrd charge

related to the encashment of a ca ciuc ior Ks 200

on 9-2-1967 di.wn by motliri

on his personal

on account The fourth chupc was tlut he enc'ished

on his personal account eight cheques fo¹¹ a tot 1 sum

of Rs hOOO drawn by OIK C P Rndh .knshirn and

de'ayed despalh theicof for periods extending tiom

two to foiu days with mlcnuon to affoid unaulho

used person il favour to the sail R~c!h knshnan

* and thus caused wiongful lo <i to the J3 u,k'

An enquiry was held ard eventually the v/oikman was dis-

charged from service by order dated 14 4 1969 holding (hut

he was guilty of ehaiges (1), (2) ^rul (4) and on appeal, it

was confirmed

Aggnevcd by this otdcr, thi woikman ruined

the Industnal Depute whi.h has icsulted in the rcfeieree

being midc by the Government of Indn Ministry of 1 abcur

for adjudication

The reference was taken on the file of

this Tnburnl m ID No 43 of 19/4 and my learnej pie-

decessoi rhi u T PalaniappMi who aft<\ eOiiMc'ermK various

claims and materials pi iced rendered an Awnrd on 20 12 ly75,

wheicby the action of the Man gernent of the Stale Bank of

India, Madns in uischa'ging Thiru P

Muilnikushn n was

he'd to be justified

It was IEO held th it the v-oikman is

not entitled to any relief and the parties were dnc.Ud to

bear their respective costs

(3) Aggrieved by the aforesiid Award, the woikman Thnu

P Muthukushnan filed Wlrit Petition in \VP No 2384 of

1976 to quash the Award WP

No 2384 ot 1976 was

disposed of by the Honourable ML Justice Sathiadev en 30th

M y, 1979

The High Court held th it Ihe ehuges fiaincd

against the woikimn wnuld not come v> (hi i the ambit cf

paragraph 521 (4) (]) of the Sastiy Awird . nd theiefore

remanded the matter to this Tribunal for ihe purpose of

finding out as to under which categaiy of "minur misconduct"

the a t5 committed by Thiru P Muthj^nshnan would fall,

nnd on thit basis to impose app'-op'/a c punishment

Ds-

s-it'sficd with the oidei ot the High Comt ir> W P No 23S4

of 1976, the Manjgement-Bank picl^rred Writ A.ppea] in

W A No 524 of 1979, while the worknnn alFo prcfeircd

Wnt Appeal No 680 of 1979 to auath the Awird ra sea

by this Tribunal altogether The Division Ben^h of

our

High Court compns ni? of the Honourible M' Ii stice GoKula-

knshnan and the Honourable Mi

fusUce P I'nam h.ive

eventually disposed of these Writ Apt eili m

16 7-19&2.

The Division Bench has held that they do rot find a'ly merit

in both the Writ Appeals and accordingly both the Writ

Appeals were dismissed But the D.vi&ion Bench Ins given

the following specific

diiettion to th's Inbi.ml

'The

Tnbuml >s dneeted to expodite the mat^ as speedily as

possible, since the show cause notice issued by the Minage-

ment to the worker Muthuknshnin dntcs back as 23 8 1967

and the reference of the dispute made by the Government to

Ihe Tribunal is 15-11-1974"

(4) In the light of the express duection of the Divi IOM

Bench, as soon as the o der was received by this Tnbunnl,

the worker has also made Miscellaneous Apf'ic HOT NO 121

of 1982 ditcd 31 8-1982 to hear and d ,po e of the mattei

at an earlv date

While the Industinl Dispute was taken up

on 4-9-1982 the rnpliration filed by ihe wjikman, n nely

Miscellaneous Application No

121 of lW

was d ^missfd

rs unnc<:tis"try in view of the Petition filrd by the Manigi-

mcit on th-it div bating that this Tribunal mny be pleased

(O adjourn the above dispute by atlenst two weeks anj render

lustlee

Accoidinpjy tint Petition was allovcd by th's Tn-

bunpl and &"> denied by the Management two week¹, lime

h d been fiianted by this Tribunal. While eo on 18-9-1982,

it- ^ianagement remained aDsent and there was no lepresen-

tauon ior the Management while the counsel fot workninn

Lined thi t he is re.dy and wanted the muter to be taxen

i,p

iloweve , in the absence of the Management 1 pointed

OLIC to the learned counsel for the woi.lc.man to apprise finally

the Muiigemcnt so tnut thj matci can be disposed of at

least o.i me adjuumed date

Accordingly, the matter stood

adjourned to 25-9-1982

On behalf ot the woikman an

uii J mt oi service of the factum of Ihe hcanng on the

Management has also been filed on 25-D lyK2. On the

s i /io day, the Management filed another petition supported

by the affidavit to the effect that the heaung must be ad-

j dined by ajothci fortnight

As this application was stoutly

ICM ted by the woikmui the application in Miscellaneous

Appli atjon No 133 of 198.1 fled by ihe Man ecm^cnt was

dismissed ynj learned counsel for the woikman Thiru A.

KLU i chandi"ii commenced his atgumcntj but in order to

complete hi8 arguments as well rs to hear the aigumeDts of

the \i inngement, the matter was again lmally acljourned to

27 9-l'JB2 at 2 30 P.M rs desired

While so aftci the digu-

m^rLS uf woiknian were concluded, again Management wau-

tcj to Ue jnothci application Miscellaneous Application No.

154 of 1982 supported by an allidavit to adioum the hearing

bv anothei fortnight

As the ajguments of workman v\e;e

concluded the oielcis on tins application weio also reserved

alter heaiing the paities

Ihe facti so fur set out would

speaL loi themselves

This 1 nbunal has beel specifically

uskui to dispose of thft matter as expeditioubiy as possible

in view cf the fact that the show ciuse notice issued to 1he

woikman is dated 23-8 1967 and the refeiance made

the Government of India is 15-11-1974

In the face of the

dncction of the Division Bench there is little foi me to

accede to the request of the Management to grant any fur-

ther time

It is not us though the Management had not

sufficient time to move the Supteme Court

Moreover, even

if any Avvaid is passed by this Tribunal after lemand a^d

the same will be subje t to any ordeis of the Supreme Court

chiPc-ngmg the oiJer of ihe Division Bench dated 16-7-1982.

'hcK-foi*- no riejudice whatsoever is caused to the Manage-

ment

Admitted y, the woikman has been discharged fiom

SCIVICC by oidei dated 14 4 1969 and he was earlier placed

un juspciwion even fiom 27 9 1967—-vide E\ M-27. There-

fore it is obvious that the concerned workmin Is out of job

foi 15 years

The finding of the Single Judge of the High

Couit in W P No. 2384 of 1976 which has been duly con-

firmed by the Division Bench of our High Court in W A.

Nos 524 and 680 of 1979 is th.it the workman has commit-

ted only 'minor misconduct,' under pj ag aph 521(7) of

the Sasln Award, "an employee found §dilty of minor mis-

conduct rray

(,i) be watntd or censured; or (b) have an

adverse lemark cute ed &a inst him, or (c) have hih increment

stopped foi a renod not loiigcr than six months" As a

matter of fa I even the learned counsel for the Manage-

ment Thiru Suijay Moh in fairly concedes that if eventually

the older of the Smg'e Judge of the High Court as confirmed

by the Division Bench is to picvail the Management cannot

discharge the workman fiom service

Further more, in the

./ffidavit in support of Miicell meous Application No. 134 of

1982, it is stated that ,n application his been taken out be-

fore the Division Bench vvhi h disposed off W A No 524

of 1979 sedutiK extension of time gi anted Cor disposal of

the Irdustn '1 Dispute

Significantly, even the copy of 1he

nnpl cition, said lo have been taken nit b.^foie the Division

Bench jnaymn for extent on of time has not been placed

before this Tr.bunal for finding out the circumstances under

which the St id . plication Ins in fact been made

Further

more, f"om the Division Bench Order of the High Court,

there is no time limit whatsoever his been fixed to dispose

of the maft-ji by this Tribunal

The learned Jrrlge only say

th it regard being had to the facts of the case namely that

show ciuse nofke Irs been issued (o the woikman even as

cirly as 21 8-1967 (the oidcr of suspension of the workman

fiom 27 9 1967—vide T\ M-27) hed only direc^fed this Tn>

bunal to expedite th.= matter as speedly as possible

There

fo e theie is no que.rion of CAlension of time to be granted

by the Divi ion BTCII Ihcrelore there I? no merit in Mi^c-

celhneous ADP'I atlon Ni 134 of 1982 and deserves to be

fliim'ssed and is hereby dismissed but without costs

Learned

counsel for Minageraent Thuu Sinjay Mohan statrd that he

is submitting h s arpamrnts on merits without prejudice to

tal ing up the ouW of the Division Bench of Madras High

Court IU appjal to Suptome Court of India

O) ComiriR to the facts of the case, the only duty cast

on this Tribunal an per the Older of lemand by the decistoa

3905

of our High Court is to find out under what category of

misconduct the charge framed would come and on that basis

to impose appropiiate punishment. I have earlier extracted

fiom the Division Bench order the chaiqes that have bf.en

substantiated against the workman.

Therefore it is unneces-

sary for me to reiterate them. On tlie ffcts placed uid

proved it is perfectly clear that the charges framed against

the workman would come only under paragraph 521(6;(O

"neglect of work, negligence in performing duties". There-

fore it must be held that the woikman concerned is guilty

of. "minor misconduct" as envisaged under pin graph 521(6)

18.28 of the Desai Award.

At this stage, learned counsel

for Management Thiru Sanjay Moh.-n po.nis out that ;n as

much as now only a ''minor misconduct" is levelled against

the workmen, the Tribunal cannot go into 'ho question, but

has to send it back to the disciplinary authority to is=ne

the revised charge sheet and follow the rioieuiiie before

arriving at the punishment to be imposed on the woikman

for "minor misconduct". I am urabie to •u.-ept this fo.fi-

tion for two reasons. It is well established th_it when a delin-

quent is charged with a major offence but eventually on the

facts only minor offence is made out, certainly any lawfully

constituted forum would have the right to impose that p^n' h-

ment for the "minor misconduct".

Prob~b!y, there rrvy be

some feme in the submission of the learned counsel for

Management Thiru Sanj?y Mohan, if on the facts disclosed

a gro^s misconduct is made out where as the charge s')> ef

mentioned only "minor misconduct" ihen ce'finly this Tri-

bunal may not have jurisdiction to go into the question b it

on the facts before me I have little hesitation 10 find thst

this Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider the natu-e of the

offence committed by the workman in the light of the specie

order of Single Bench decision of our Hi?h Court as confir-

med by the Division Bench decis'on of our Higli Couit. Inci-

dentally I may also point out thrt at P-'ge 26 of the Order

of the Single Benii

in W. P. No. 2384 of

1976 dated

30-5-1979, the learned Judge has pointed

out "Since the

charges

framed

would

not come

within the

amb't

521(4)(j)

and

(1),

the

matter has vo be remand-

ed to the Tribunal, which on a consideration of the materials

available, nnd which are now on record, shall find out under

what category of 'minor misconduct' the acts comnrtred by

the Petitioner would foil and accordingly dispo=e of the

matter."

Probibly an argument now put forward be^fo^re

rne by the learned counsel for Management Thrru Sanjav

Mohan was already made before the Sing'o Judge of

our

High Court as the sime e n be inferred fmm the orde- of

the learned Judge "Since the acts cornpiitte 1 by him would

come under a lesser category of misconduct flnn wh"t had

been alreadv charged, there is no n;.°d f"^r the Man"gemen^<-

Bank to reoppp f^vr 'vo.vccli'i-.'s sm 1 frame f'esh

charges

s.nd conduct the pi'-'v.'inc- .••!••.•! I;¹ me fresh charges ETid

conduct the p ojw.'ir •>

c^!> no-•••>." Therefore, in

the

•

;

f i : - * i

i s

in this contention cf learned counsel for Management Thiru

Sanjay Mohan.

(6) Finally

learned

counsel

for

Management

Th^;>u

San'ay Morrn also submitted that

Section

11-A of the

Industrial D'sputes Act, 1947 would not come into play in

this ease. Section 11-A reads rs follows :

"11A. Powers of Labour Courts. Tribunals and National

Tribunal to give appropriate re ief in ca^ce of d^:s-

charge or dismiss¹'! of workmen.—Where rn indus-

trial dispute relating to the disch'uge nr d^; m'=?ai

of a workman has been referred to a" T aborr Omr¹.

Tribunal or National Tribunal for adiudirnHon and,

in the course of the adjudication p-oceedsn^r's

the

J-abou- Court,

Tribunal or Na'^:nr>i1 Tribunal, as

the case may be. is satisfied th't the order of di--

chaige or dismissal was not iuslified ir if rrry, by

it' award, set aside the order of d'Vhp-pe

dismissal and direct reinstatement of tb.2 wrrVnvn

on such terms and conditions, if anv. ~s^;f th'nK

fit, or give su^h other relief to the worker, irrl'-'d'ng

the award of ?ny lesser pun-'shment in li?n of dfr-

chirge or dismiss¹¹.! as the circumstances of the cse

may require;

Provided that in any proceeding under this section the

Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as

the case may be, shall rely only on the materials

on recoid and shall not take any fie.h evidence in

relation to the matter."

The reference

is about the dischaige of workman _ oy

Man gerrccnt-Bank.

Moreover from ihe order of the Single

Judge ot the High Court as also the Division Bench, there

is absolutely no doubt that right through reference to Sec-

tion 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 nas Deeu

acnerted to by the workman and also by al the Judges.

In paUieul r, I may refer to the Older of the High Ccurt

at page (28) ths Honourable Mr. Justice Sathiadev has clerly

stated

"As for applying Section 11(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act,

now ihat it has been held that the charges

framed would not come within the

scope of paragraph

521(4)j) and (1) of the Award, the Labour Court (Industrial

Tribunal) to take up ihe matter and to find out under

what

categJiy the misconduct would come, and on that basis,

IT ay irpp-se appropriate

punishment."

The Division

Bench has a *.o extensively dealt with So tion 11-A cf the

Industrial Di-pules Act, 1947.

At page 20, 'his is what

they siy,

"We have already noticed 'hat the Tribunal and

the High Court have ample power to being the offence com-

miticj by Muihukrishnui under the pioper provision of law,

even though he hod been ch.iged for a serious offence. This

rowe, is i!e'i\eJ both f-om Section 11-A of the Industrial

Cl'-pjt.j Act and alro vnder the law as it existed prior to

tho'int oauction of Se lion 11-A into tne Act." Taking all

Ihe facts which constituted misconduct on the part of

the

workman Th'ru P. Muthukrishn-m and the finding that he

has committed o"'y "miro- misconduct" as contemplated

under parEnrrpb 52l'6)(-) o.^r the Sas'ry Award read

"neglect of work, nr/ig-nce in pei forming duties" I have

no hesifai on to find ih t the workman is guilty under para^

graph 521'Ore) of SPSU-J Awa-d.

Pangraph 521(7) of the

S?siry Awed ~° ds rs '"An employee found guilty of minor

misconduct r,v>v : (a) be warned or censured; or (b) have

an adverse -r-,-''ik cn.ered agvnst him., or (c) have

his

increment stoppc! for r period not longer than six months."

On the frets d'Vlossd and in the interest of justice I order

h^;s incremrn* stopped for a period of six months under

paragraph 52i(7ir«) of Sastiy Award.

Jt follows that the

workman Th'ru P. M^th'ikr^hn n must be deemed to be in

service f, 'i"¹' th' dr'e cf suspension ('s is evidence

from

_Ex. M-27) ->n 27-9-1957 with Ml bfck wages with attendant

benefits if "'ny sub^:e'.l to the penalty imposed by this Tri-

bunal, viz.. PX-OT h^;s inrrcment bein<r stepped for a period

of six mv'h-

He must be reinstated forthwith.

I also

dii»»"t the A! ni;'?mert

to piy cost

of Rs.

300 to the

workman.

(7) F-e I cone¹'¹'c, I would like to r>ention thnt after

the o'^er of rcr>ar>d made by the Single P.ench, all the docu-

rrrnts exh-'bifel before this Tribunal except Exs. M-l to

M-13 were me'ved b"ck f-om the High Court, and this Tri-

bunrl has bee*¹ inforrp'r,!; the H;r;h Court »o send the re mim-

ing riocurrvnli;. \Sv,, pAS. A--I-1 to M-13. Meanwhile the Writ

Appeals were also filed nrd when the documents were sent

fro-- fh^;s Tribunal it v,"« -,xho pointed out that Exs. M-l to

M-13 sent bv ihh T^bi-na! to the High Court had not been

received b> \ ^y th^ T'ihn-I.

The H'gh Court in

the

commnnicp'Vn d-^'i 21-7-1980 has a'so informed

this Tri-

bi'nal th?i ' ^F,

f'-l to M '3 in I.D No 431)974 on your

file, submitted f^r -• .f-r—.'- ii W.P. 2384(76, "on the file of

the Hlsh Court, Mrclras, are being searched for and the

simp w'" i" t-an'm't'M as soon PS th=y are rraced m 1h^;s

Registry."'

Af>r the Writ Appeals were disposed of

and

ord-r of -h* r>;..\-on Bor-h wr-s recelve-i bv thk Tribunal,

thi« TribmM h • -,!« V.,-K»ri to ihe H^:ah Co-irt thit Fxs.

M-l to M-13

-r no' 'reived

back.

However, the absence

nf Exs M'-! ^ Af-13 f^e< no! in ?nv way stand m the wny of

hPT'r» of

!H d!\r>i!\- be-aiK-e leirned counsel for work-

T J

•

(

a tvr'o s-' '> Mi ()T")nT>rj*s inr'usive of Exs. M-l to M-13

T i ' ^:V ^ ^d^hr'" '"""'' •' '*"^{1hp Mp}-n^??«"erit represented" by

M's. King S. Pj"tndg2, Advocates.

(S) Tn t^- r^c;,tf -n Awn-' is ra^ed hold'ng that

tlie

Th-n P. Miit^iVn-hn-n fm^ ibe services of the BnnV with

rffe-t from 14-4,1969 is n"in-tifl?d

PR^{d that in as imrh as}

the workrn-n is found enilty of "minor misconduct" under

pangrsph 52!(fi}'c) of the Sastry Award i.nd the punishment

' 3905

THE G VZETTE OF INDIA. : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)]

imposed for such minor misconduct under paragraph 521(7)

Management is directed to reinstate

h -n forthwith.

The

woikman Thiru P. MuthukiMinan ".eiild be entiled to fi'll

back wages with attendant benefits if any from 27-9-1967

subject to the penalty ip^posed under paragraph

521(7:(cJ

stopping his increment for a pc od of s x months. I

also

direct the Management to p^y the cost of Rs. 300 to wo-k-

man.

Dated, this 29th day of September, 1982

PRESIDING OFFICER

T. SUDARSANAM DANIEL, Industrial Tribunal

<!dl-

WITNESS EXAMINED

For both s^;des (Before and after remand) : Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED (Before remand)

For Worker :

Ex. W-l—Circuhi No. 7 of 22-1-1951—G-83 q'ving a

clear pictine of responsibility of the Age-t of a

Bran h Bank. (copy).

Ex. W-2/22-7-70—Order of the Bank to Thiiu K. P.

Ramachandran stopping increment for twi days,

(copy)

Ex. W-3—Enquiry Proceedings dated

18-10-1969. ex-

planation dated 18-10-1969 3nd findings relating to

Thiru K. P. Ramachandran.

Ex. W-4/19-11-75—Staff Circular No. 65 'ssiied by the

Bank.

For Management:

Ex. M-l/23-8-67—Show cause notice issued to Thiru P.

Muthukrishnan. (copy)

Ex. M-2/8-9-67—Explanation of Thiiu P. Muthukrish-

nan to Ex. M-l. (copy)

Ex. M-3—Charge sheet issued to Thiiu P. Muthukrish-

nan. (copy)

Ex. M-4/9-11-67—Letter fiom Thira P. Muthukrishnan

to the Bank submitting that ne has not committed

any acts of misconduct (copy)

Ex. M-5—Statement by the prosecution against Thiru

P. Muthukrishnan. (copy)

Ex. M-6—Statement on behalf of the delinquent in de-

fence, (copy)

E\. M-7—Enquiry Proceedings. (<~opy)

Ex M-8/27-12-68—Letter from the Bank to Thiru P.

Muthuki ishnan

proposing

the

punishment

discharge, (copy)

Ex. M-9/7-3-69—Reply letter from Thiru P. Muthu-

krishnan to the Disciplinary authority, in reply to

Ex. M-8. (copy)

Ex. M-10/14-4-69—Order of dischaige ismed to Thi>u

P. Muthukrishnan. (copy)

Fx. M-lt/28-5-69—Appeal

submitted

Thru P.

Muthukrishnan to the Deputy Se"r-''ai> and T ea-

surer/Appellate Authority, (copy)

Ex. M-12|26-8-69—Order on the appeal Pled bv Thiru

P. Muthukrishnan, dismissing the rppeal. (CODJ)

Fx. M-n/30-1-70—Lette*- from rhiru P. Muthuk,Khfv>n

to the- Se ref~>ry and Trea^irer of the Bank on the

decis^;on of the Appellite Authority (< o~>y)

Ex. M-14—Demand Draft purchase rcister

for the

period from 28-3-64 to 29-6-66. (register)

Ex. M-15—Deroend Draft purchase register for the period

from 1-7-66 to 17-5-67. (Register)

Ex. M-l6—Letters despatched register for the psriod

f-om 28-3-64 to 20-9-67. (Register)

Ex. M-17—Shioffs

Cash book for the period

from

13-5-66 to 3-12-66. (Register)

Ex. M-18—ScroU Payment Book for the period from

5-12-66 to 31-7-67. (Registei)

Ex. M-19—Certified statements of accounts

(Savings

Bank) relating to Thiru V. J. Baskar Pao for the

period froii 23-10-62 to 1-1-68.

Ex. M-20—Ru'es of conduct.

Ex. M-21—Attendance Register for the period

from

2-1-67 to 30-6-67. (Registei)

Ex. M-22—Cheques and Chilians of Third V. J. Bhaskai

Rao.

Ex. M'-23—Dcrrnd Draft put chafed cebit slips relating

to Thiru V. J. Bhaskar Rao.

F\. M-24—Doipnd Draft purchased debit slips relating

to Thh-i'^v. J. BhasLar Rao.

Ex. M-25—Sub-Office

booklet—Accounting

pro;cdure

a"d Get¹:- • 'instructions?

Ex M-26—Or >>>M of Ex. M-7. (Regis'o-)

Ex. M-27/27-9 57—Suspers'on ordei issue j to Thiru P.

Muthjkri;h-ian. ( opy)

Ex. M-28/9-3-74—Circular letter issued about

Thiru

V. S. Snmpa*h, Head Clerk, N;yve!i Branch, (copy)

Ex. M-29/12-1-73—Circubr letter issued

fb'rt Thiru

K V3iJyinath^I>n, Messenger at Locrl Head Office,

Madras, (copy)

Ex. M-30/22-R-67—Circular letter issued

about Thiru

Vaiaigal P. Muthukrishnan and V. J. Blr>kar Rao

(copy)

Ex. M-31/22-8-67—let'er sent to the Chief Accountant

nbout Thirtivalc^rga1 P. Muthukrishnan ard V. J.

Bh"sl-ar Rr.o. (copy)

Ex. M-32/18-8-67—Letter from the Deputy

Secietary

& Treasurer of the Bank to the Agent of State

Bank of India, M^dras-2 asking to c 11 upon Thru

Mi'thnkrishnpn to subnvt h<s written explanation

in respect of inegularit'es. (copy)

Ex. M-33/19-9-67—Letter from she Deputy Sec etary

& Treasurer of the Bank to the Agent of State

Bank of India, Mndras-2 asking to serve charge-

sheet on Thiru P. M'uthukrishnan. (copy)

After remand : Nil.

T. SUDARSANAM DANIEL, Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal

[No. L-12012/156/73-D. II(A)]

A. K. SAHA MANDAL, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 12th October, 1982

S.O. 3698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cental Government

h* eby publ «hes the foilowi'ig .-ward of ihs Central Gove n-

ire.it Indi

a] Tribunal Jr>ba'ppr in the industrial disn¹ •••

r-*'ve»-i th

emrloyers

;T re'ation. to the marngerrent of

Kr'e'-fmar Uvre^ove

M'ne of Bokaro S*eel limitel,

anl

tii"'- wnV's r-rrespnt d th-o.jgh 'he Cho >na M"zdoo- Con-

gress, Shram Dhim, Kymore. District Jabalpur (M.P.) and

'h? i v,o-\ -nen vhich was received by this Ministry on fth

Octobe-. !9S2.

B F ^rO ^{j ? ^}

JUSTICE SHRI S R. VYAS (RFTD.) PRESID-

ING O~FTrFR PFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TP'B'JNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (M.P.)

Crsc No. CGIT/LC(RK24)/1981

P ARTIES :

Employers^;n relation to the Kuteshwar Limestone M'ine

of Bokaro Steel Limited

3907

AND

Their workers represented through the Choona Mazdoor

Congress, Shram Dham, Kymore, District Jabalpur

(M.P.).

APPEARANCES :

For Workmen's Union—Shri J. P. Tiwari.

For Bokaro Sieel Plant—Shri Y. S. Tiwnri.

For Contractors—Shri Rajendra Menon, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Limestone

DISTRICT : Jabalpur (M,P.)

AWARD

Dated. 25 th September, 1982

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-290U/12/78-D. III. (B) dated 16th

July, 1981 hns referred the following dispute to this Tribu-

nal, for adjudication :—

"Whether the rates of wages paid to different categories

of workers of Kutcshwar Lime Stone Mine oi

Bokaro Steel Limited, P.O. Gairtalai need any re-

vision and if so what should be the rates of wages,

dcarness allowance and Variable Dcarncs<i Allow-

ance and fall back wages."

2. After notices of the order of reference were served

on the management of the Limestone Mine, hereinafter re-

ferred to a» the management and the Choona Mazdoor Con-

gress (Workmen's Union) as also on the con erned contrac-

tor^, statements of demand were filed by the management of

the I^okaro Steel Limited and the workmen but no statement

wai filed on behalf of the contractors. Rejoinder was filed

by one of the parties. On the statements and the rejoinder

the following issues were framed :—

ISSUES ;

J. What are the different categories of workmen work-

ing in the Kuteshwar Lime Stone Mine of the Bo-

karo Steel Ltd. ?

2. (a) What are the rates of which the workmen of the

mine are being paid their wages, D,A. V.D.A. and

fall back wages 7

(b) Whether the rates at which the workmen nre paid

their wages, D.A. V.D.A. and fall back wages need

to be revised. If so, to what extent ?

3. To what relief are the parties entitled to 7

3. Before the case could reach the stage of evidence it

was represented that the dispute has been settled between

the parties and time was sought to file the written settlement.

Finally on 24th September, 1982 a settlement along with

an application was filed. Shri Rajendra Menon, Adyocate,

for the management of the Bokaro Steel Ltd., as also for

the Contractors M/s. Jaiswal Bauxite Mines, M/s. Swaitik

Mineral Trading Company and M/s. Indian Stone Suppliers

& Construction Company and Shri

Y. S. Tiwari, Junior

Manager (Personnel) of the Bokaro Steel Plant were present

and heard on the application of settlement. No one for the

workmen was present. It was prayed that the settlement has

been duly signed by the management's representative, the

Contractors and the workers Union Representative and that

the dispute referred to for adjudication to this Tribunal has

been settled on the terms and conditions mentioned in the

settlement.

4. I have gone through the settlement arrived at between

the parties and find that it is fair and reasonable. It settles

the dispute between the parties for which reference was

made to this Tribunal. Accordingly, as prayrd by the parties

the following award is ffiven in terms of the tettlement :—

That the Sizer8 (Semi-skilled) workers of Contrac-

tors (i) M/g. Indian Stone Supply (Construction)

Company, (if) M|s. Singhal Enterprise and (lit) Mis.

Power Uni.ted will be paid on piece rat; ® Rs. 10.75

850 GH 82—6

per Cu. M. of the desired 'vize lime- stone, for •

period of one year. This rate will bs applicable from

22nd August, 1982. The minimum wages prescribed

bv Central Government for Limestone mines will

be paid to all other workers.

That the management of the above establishment*

shall pay bonus, for the year 1981-82 to all the

workmen concerned in lumpsum of Rs. 150 for the

period ending June, 1982.

The parties to the dispute will have no claim re-

garding the dispute referred to

this Tribunal

future. This settlement will be implemented by

30th September, 1982 as agreed to between the

parties.

The settlement alone with the application ihnll form part

of this award. In view of the fact that both the parties have

settled the dispute mutually there will be no order as to costs.

S. R. VYAS, Presiding Officer.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL.CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/24/1981

Employers in relation to Kuteshwar Limestone Quarry

of Bokaro Steel Lted.

Vs.

Their workmen represented by Choona Mazdoor Con-

gress, Kymore.

The parties beg to submit a* under:—

1. That on the basis of a demand raised by the Union, tho

Central Government by their letter, dated 16th July, 1981

was pleased to make the following reference to this Hon'blo

Tribunal:—

"Whether the rates of wages paid to different categoric*

of Workers of Kuteshwar Lime Stone Min« of

Bokaro Steel Ltd. P.O. Gairtalal need any revision

and if so what should be the rates

wages,

Dearness Allowance, Variable Dearness Allowance

and fall back wages".

2. During the pendency of the dispute before this Hon"ble

Tribunal, issue referred to this Honble Tribuna4 along with

yanoug other demands made by the Union, were the sub-

ject matter of repeated discussions with the Union and the

employers represented by the contractors. After prolonged

discussion, a mutual settlement

wai arrived

at on 2 lit

August, 1982.

3. It is submitted that the settlement arrived i»t on

21st August, 1982 fully and finally settles the dispute thit

is pending before this Hon'blc Tribunal,

4. The demand raised in the dispute pending before this

Hon'ble Court was settled on the following terms:—

"(1) The Union had demanded to revise the wiges of

workers of contractors establishment i.e. Establish-

ment of (1) M/s. Indian Stone Supply Construc-

tion) Co. (ii) Ms. Singhal Enterprise and (iii) M|i.

Power United. After detailed discussions

it wn

agreed between the parties that sizers (semi-skilled)

of these establishments will be paid on piece 'ate

® Rs. 10.75 per Cu. M. of the desired size Hme

stone, for a period of one year. This will be appli-

cable from 22nd August, 1982. Tho minimum wagej

prescribed by Central Government for Lime Stone

mines will be paid to all other workers."

"It was pointed out during the discussion that a case

regarding revision of wages,

wage-scales etc. of

workmen of Mis. I.S.S., M|8. S.E. and M[i. JEM,

is pending before the Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur. It was agreed

bv the workmen's representative^ and Managements

of Establishment concerned, who nre parties befor*

3908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. ?(»)]

the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur,

that a copy of this settlement will be filed before

the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court jointly

alongwith a compromise petition on which theii

principal employer will also be requeited to sign

and same would be filed in the above court with a

request to give an award in teims of the sottle-

ment. This settlement settles ill th? outstanding

disputes between (he managements of above estab-

lishment and their workmen and workmen will have

no claim regarding the same in future, This settle-

ment will be implemented

bv 30th September,

1982."

5, The parties have agreed to file a copy of the above

settlement dated 21st Aufiust, 1982.

6, II is submitted that the settlement arrived at on 21st

August, 1982 fully and finally settles the dispute that is

pending before thii Hon'ble Tribunal,

7. The said settlement is lair and rc.iionablc and is in the

interest of justice, incluitn.il peace and vvelfaic of the wo,-

kws.

8. It is in the interest of justice that the Av i 1 bj given

in accordance with the above settlement.

PRAYER

It is theieforc prayed that this Hon'ble Couir be pleased

to give the award in terms of the settlement settling (he

dispute.

MEMORANDUM-

OF SETTLEMENT

ARRIVED AT

BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF 1. M|S. SINGHAL

ENTERPRISES, 2. POWER UNITED.

3. ISS & CO.,

4. J.B.M. 5. SMTC 6. SCC. 7. SKM RAISING CONTRAC-

TORS IN KUTESHWAR LIME STONE MINES OF SAII ,

BOKARO STEEL PLANT AND THEIR WORKMEN RE-

PRESENTED BV CHOONA MA7DUR CONGRESS, NOW

BOKARO STEEL LIME STONE MINING WORKERS

UNION ON 21-R-1982 AT KVTNI

PRESENT :

Representing Management:

Shri Purshotam Agarwal

of M/s. S. E.

Shri Ramcsh. Bhuwalkn

of M/s. P.U.

Shri Samitmal, of

M"/s. ISS Consin. Co.

M/s. Jajswal Bauxite

Mines.

Shri D. H. Godha, SMTC

fi.

Shri Ramesh, S.C.C.

Shri Krishna Mehrotta,

(SKM).

Representing the workmen

Sarva Shri

R. K. Sharing, President,

J. P. Tiwari, Vice Piesidcnt.

Vishnu Dutt Dwivcdi,

Secretary of the Chuna Mazdtir

Congress, now Bokaro Steel Lime Stone Mining

Workers Union.

The above said union had raised some disputes with the

managements of above esfablishmentn. The issues were di-)-

caused on 20th August, 1982 and 21M Au/tmt, 1982 at Katni

in details and following settlements were amved at:

(1) The union had demanded to icvise the wages of

workmen of contractors establishments i e.

rstab-

liihments of 1. M\s.

ISS. ?. M|s. S.N., 3. M|s.

P.U. After detailed discussions, H was agieed be'-

ween the parties that sizeis (semi-skilled) cf the^e

establishments will be paid on piece rate, @ Rs.

10.75 per CLI. M. of the desiicd bize lime stone, for

a period of one year. '1 his will be applicable trom

22nd August, 1982. The minimum wages prescnbed

by Cential Government for I irne Stone mines will

be paid to all other workmen.

(2) The issues lelating to Bonus, Retrenchment Com-

pensation, Leave Salary and Piovidcnt Fund had

been raised by the Union and they were discussed

in detail, During the discussion, both the parties

stated that bonus till the ye:ir J 980-81 has been paid

to all the woikmcn conceincd & thus bonus only

lor the year 1981-82 is to be paid to the workmen.

Regarding nbove issues of Rctrcni hment Compen-

sation etc., it wan stated by both the paitle- that

the woikman working wilfi M/s.

Swastik Mineral

Tiading Corpoiation (SMTC), M/s. Jai,wal Bau-

.xite Mines (IBM) and M'/s. Shii Krishna Mehrotr.j,

Nf/s, SCC who have not been awarded any con-

tract, have been re-employed by the picsent con-

traitors i.e.,

(i) M/s ISS Indian Stones- Supplies (Construction) Co

(ii) M/s. Powers United (PU); and

(iii) M/s. Singhal Enteiprises,

It was alto stated by the Union th.it these v.o,kcis

have not been paid retrenchment compensation b>

the out-ROing contractors ;md so, the present con-

tra-tors, by whom these workmen h .\ c been em-

ployed, should pay their retrenchment compensation,

leave salary, bonus and other dues if any to them.

It vws pointed out by the representatives of the

managements of the above establishments that majo-

rity of these wo'rkirs have not worked requiied No,

of dayi in a year with their previous employer to

entitle them for tetrenchment compensation. But

those workers, who worked for lcquircd No, of dava

with their pievious employer .uid are entlt'ed for

retrenchment compensation would b'; paid by tes-

pective contractors with whom they weie employed

till 30th June, 1!>82. However, it was not ugrecci by

the Union. After dismssion on these issues in detail,

it was felt difficult to arrive at correct figure. It w.is

also felt tint taking into consideration the l.ibour

psychology, it would be proper to devise Fomc

acceptable basis Thcrcfoic, takinjj into consideia-

tion, all the nios and cons, it Wris agiccd between

both the parties that a lump sum ol K-, 150 will

be paid to each and cveiy workmnn -w i \ing with

them on account of Bonus upto June, 1482. It wos

also agreed that cich of the followir.: mtitr.ictori

will pay R>.. 35 on account of ieti^pni.lrrent com-

pensation, leave salaiy & othei- dues and claims

per worker for eaqh year the conttactLi"; t:)nLcined

have worked the contracts as Tien'ioncJ^;n Ann"x. I.

(3) The Union also pointed out that there is no pioper

method of keeping basic record), of attendance by

(he contractors and so difficulty

aiiscs and have

arisen in the past and therefoic, a proper method

should be evolved for this puiposc. It was agreed

between the patties thtit in fulure, conlirctom' man

deputed to record attendance of. vvorkmrn will cive

a token to each workman emoloysd bv ih^rn at the

time of markinc their attendance which the work-

man concerned will deposit in ,i box kept fot rhe

purpose, ?nd only after dcoositinfi the f iken In the

box. the woikman will po to the vvuiK-Mt¹ to repott

for duty. The mun taking attendance of Hi-; work-

men and civinn tokens io them will mark their ittcn-

dance on i sheet in triplicate on th; busis of num-

bfri of tokens iicnosite,l in 'he box -ird lend two

fpuies i.e., 2nd and 3rd copies 11 *h? si(e-,'n-charce.

The "(ite-in-ch.irce in his (urn wll Lross check the

attendance on the basis of actual attendance

who

are not found at the woik-site, in bfHh the iheels

3909

.inJ send the same back to the net ion who took

tile attendance at the first instance. The attendance

lecordiOK man will ietain the second copy with him-

self fo: iccord of the establishment i nd send the

third copy to

ihc

office

of piincipal

employe!

i.e., Man.ijwnimt of kute.shw.n

I ime Stone Mines

of SAIL

Bokaro Steel PLini. which will he final

pi escntec/absentee statement iefiarding workmen and

will setve the purpose of hasic document for the

puipose of Bonus, Retienchment Compensation etc

where attendance figures of workmen rniiy he le-

quiied in future.

It was discussed between the Union and the Management

ol these establishments that loadinK workers will be fiiven

,iltc.nau'-e jobs in the category on un-siuiled workmen if

there i-. no placement ol" wagons on the d ly of thei" being

piesent at woik

It w.u pointed out din inn the discussion that a case regard-

ing icMsion oi wascs, wage-scales etc. of wo.km-n of M/t.

JSS, M/s SMTC it MA JEM is pending befoie the Presid-

ing Olh.'er, Industrial

I lihun.il-cum-Laboui Court, Jabalpur.

11 was agieed l>> the workmen's jepiesenutKes and manage-

ments of establishments concerned, who are parlie, befoie

the. Industrial Tiihunnl-cutn-l ubo'-"r Court, Jabalpui, that a

copy of th's 'ctllement «vill be filed belofo the Jndusiiial Tii-

bunal-CLim-Laboui Com I jointly along with a compromise pe-

tition on which they piincipil employer will also be requested

to slcn and same would be fikd in the above court with a re-

quest to gi\e .in award iti terms of the settlement. This settle-

ment seliLs .ill the outstanding disputes Hetv een the manaj;c-

menh of abo\e establishments :>nd theii workmen and work-

men will have no claim regarding the same in future. This

settlement will be implemented by 30th Septc ihe\ 19R2.

SIGNATURE

Representing Management:

Repiesenting the WojKmen.

• \ J . 1 I * I ^ t ' l

. S

r t .

of M/s. S.E.

(President)

Sd./-

2. Sri Ramcsh Hhuwalka (P.U )

-i. Shri J. P. Tiv/aii

(Vice Piesidem)

Sd/-

i. Sri Samitmal, I.S.S.

.1 Shii V'uhnu Dutt Dwivcdi

(Secretary)

Sd/-

4. J.B M.

Sd/-

5. Si i D, II. Ghodd, SMTC

Sd/-

6. Sn Ramesh, S.C.C.

Sd/-

7. Sri Kriihmi Mehiotia, SKM

Sd/-

WIFNESS:

1. Sd I-

2. Sd/-

ANNEXURE-1

Name ol'contractois

(1) M/s S CC.

(2) M/s S M.TC

(3) M/s. J B M.

(4) M/s. S.K.M.

(5) M/s. I.S.S *

Avoiage No

worko i

Engaged

Z\b

207

145

140

215

No. of

years

woikod

3 years

6 years

b years

I yeai

J years

"'lhoujjh this paity is a continuing contractor still as no

i-ompitte jeeord regarding work is not available with theoi,

they will also pay the above amount ol Rs>. 35 on account

of retrenchment compensation etc, to their woiknien till

June 1982. It will not be out of place lo mention here

that M/s SE.. P.U. and I.S.S. who have employed the

woikmcn of out-going conductors will not be liable lo pay

;'tiy amount to such woikci- on account of Retrenchment,

leave salary mid othci due*, und claims which lire paynbie

to such woiker by out-going contractor.

S. R. VY\S, Presiding Officer

LL-29Oil/12/78-D.lII(B)J

S.O. 3699.—The puisuancc of Section 17 of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1J47), the Central Government

hereby publishes the following awiird of the Central Govern-

ment Industrial Tribunal Bhubaneshwar in the industrial dis-

pute between the

employers in I elation to the

SnndefBwh

Mining Labom Contract Co-operative Society Limitfd, Con-

tractors at Pninanani Limestone & Dolomite Quarry

and

(heir workmen which WHS received bv the Central Government

on 6th October, 1982.

INDUSTRIAI TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

PRESbNT :

Shii J. M. Miihapatra, M.Coin., LI-.H, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Orissii, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 3 OF 1980 (CENTRAL)

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 27th September, 1982.

BblWEEN

The employers in relation to the management of Sunder-

gaj-h Mining Labour Contiact Co-operative Society

Ltd., Contractor at Purnapimi Limestone A. &olo-

mitc Quarry of Rouikela Steel Plant of Steel Autho-

lity of Indm Ltd. Pumapani

—First-party

AND

Their workmen

—Second-party

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. Raman,

Secretary,

*oi Ihc first-party

Sunderfraih Mining Labour

Contiact Co-operative

Society Ltd.

Shri B. S. Pati,

"^e"f.^ra3,^^orei'^ir>^r

«*or me second, party

North Orissa Woikers'

Union, Rourkela.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, H exereife

of the powers conferred by Section 7-A. and eiw»0 (d)of

3910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J]

"Whather tho suspension/iefusal of omploytnent to 189

workers as montloned below of Sundargarh Mining Labour

Contract Co-operative Society Limited without paying any

•ubsbtence allowance with effect from 8-1-72 is justified ? If

not, what rolief they are entitled to ?"

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

List of worke.ii

S i Banudhar Dash

S/o Ma' dgali Dash

Sri Charwa Oram

S/o Champa Orarn

Sri Manin Barla

S/o Birrb-isjBarla

Sri Clement Xess

S/o PaulusXess

Sri Ambnus Lugun

S/o Martin Lugus

Sri Bhagirathi Goala

S/o Budhu Coala

Sri Sombra Tigga

S/o Be go Tigga

Sri Oajendi a Singh

S/o Basti Singh

Sri Phiidus Kujur

S/o Siril Kujur

Smt. Phulta Dash

W/o Boiiudhar Dash

Smt. Sombari

W/o Qajendra Singh

Sri K.R. Haldar

S/o K. Haldar.

Sri Mansasi Kujui

S/o Suloman Kujur

Sri Joseph Munda

S/o Soma Munda

Sri K. Thankapan

S/o Kolan

Smt. Somari

D/o Dokhia Oram

Sri Surondra

S/o Madan

Sri Promsukh

S/o Mangal

Smt. Marriyam

W/o Joeseph

Sri Suklal

S/o Sundorsan

Sri Jomos Minz

S/o Masidas

Smt. Balmoti

D/o Chirnath

Smt. Sambari

D/o Gandra

Smt. Bol amdina

D/o Bhagirathi Gowala

Sri Budhu

S/o Gandra

Sri Modan Lujhar

S/o Bhagirathi Gowala

Sri Sukra

S/o Bhagirathi Gowala

Smt. Nanki

W/o Bhagirathi Gowala

Smt. Somari

D/& Sukhu

Sri Phulslngb-

S/o Soma '

Qry. Supervisor.

Minor

Jack-H Operator

Qry. Supervisor

Minor

Jack H. Helper.

Jack H. Operator

Qiy. Supo visor

Chiof Supei visor

Minor

Miner

Time Keeper

Blasting Supervise

Jack H. Opeiator

Storo-Kooper

T.R.W.

-do-

Miner

Comp Oporator

Miner

-do-

^do-

-do-

T.R.W.

Minor

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

43.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

Sri Jemes

S/o Mogho

Sri Sukra

S/o Lurku

Smt. Mangri

D/o Lu'ku

Sri Junash

S/o Paulush

Smt, Agnesh

D/o Chambra

Smt. Jauri

D/o Sukra

Smt. Saljni

D/o Uarash

Smt. Susani

D/o Rophel.

Smt. Salmi

D/o Barna

Smt. Rahil

D/o Soma

Smt. Julias

D/o Sagu

Smt. Rahil

D/o Danial

Smt. Johani

D/o Nondo

Juakim Barla

S/o Kushal

Sri Lsjhar

S/o Antoni

Sri Junash

S/o Paulush

Sri Suratmashi

S/o Paulush

Smt. Dulari

S/o Budhu

Smt. Silbia

D/o Julius

Smt. Salmi

S/o Agapit

Smt. Fulmani

D/o Masides

Sii Topal

S/o Mashl

Sri Bhimsont

S/o Amrus

Smt. Panlina

D/o Karlush

Smt. Santi

D/o Mogho

Sri Temba

S/o Kinu

Sri Soma

S/o Bhokro

Sri Korma

S/o Mitu

Sri Bukan Lall

S/o Ghasiram

Sri Dhaniram

S/o Sodashlb

Sri Ninush

S/o Patias

Mine-

-do-

~do-

-do-

- d o -

-do-

do-

-do-

-do~

Jack. H. Ope atoi

-do-

Minor

T.R.W.

Miner

-do-

~ao-

T.RW.

-co-

-do-

-do^

-do-

Pump Ope^rator

Qry. Supo.vifor

T.R.W.

Miner

39U

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

Srimati Marriyam

D/o Silash

Smt. Bojonia

D/o Nuas

Smt. Bariyam

D/o Jabris

Smt. Tolani

D/o Budhur

Smt. Allsor

D/o Thomas

Smt. Boronikar

D/o Patras

Smt. Alfas

Nicodin

Sri Thuru

S/o Ganash

Sri Patia'

S/o Somra Tigga

Smt. Fulla

D/o Sukra

Smt. Etwaii

D/o Samu

Smt. Budhuni

D/o Soma

Smt. Philomina

D/o Johan

Smt. Somari

D/o Lodha

Smt. Budhan

D/o Kandra

Smt. Chani

D/o Lodha

Smt. Libdhi

D/o Lodha

Sri Mangra

S/o Langa

Sri Dowa

S/o Etwa

Smt. phulla

W/o Bhosa

Sri Sukra

S/o Birsha

Smt. Chad

D/o Bhtku

Smt. Birshi

D/o Ratia

Smt. Jauni

D/o Dhomo

Kanhu

S/o Ratia

Smt. Chari

D/o Langa

Sri Butu

S/o Langa

Jagdeo

S/o Doonath

Sri Panna

S/o Bhtku

Sri Etwa

S/o Kaila

Srimati Mangri

D/o Joma

Sri Rupnath

S/o Bolga

Smt. Chari

D/o Paulush

Minor

-do-

Hand Role Drillor

Minor

-do-

Jack H. Helper

Minor

-do-

Jack. H. Helper

Miner

-do-

T.R.W.

Minor

-do-

T.R.W.

Hand Holer

T.R.W.

Minor

Jack H. Operator

Miner

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

Ml.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124,

125.

126.

Smt. Jawani

D/o Bhutku

Smt. Sukro

D > S'Jkra

Srrtt.Phulnrni

D/o Charo

Smt. S'lmi

D/o Mcsidas

Smt. Silmi

D/o Gabriel

Smt. Jhano

D/o Etwa

SriBlsnath

S/oH-bil

Sri Swii.

S/o ChPmp i

Smt. Birshi

D/o Laltna

Smt. Jauri

D'J Birshi

Sm^f. Phullo

S/o Jitu

Sri Tihiku

S/o Dhani

Sri 8 mika

S/o Dhani

Smt. Sukro

D/o Budhua

Smt. Mcerry

D/o Benedik

Smt. Birshi

D/o S'Jmw

Smt. Sinnati

D/o Dubraj

Smt. Somari

D/o Etwa

Smt. Sirlrnati

D/o Gopal

Smt.Parbati

D/o Katis^ao

Smt. Jaumi

D/o Mangru

Smt. Silmuni

D/o Kandru

Sm¹. Mangri

D/o Bandhu

Sri Ramdco

D/o Dhadi

Smt. Somiri

D/o Lohari

Smf. Muni

D/o Muna

Smt. Budhuni

W/o Birsha

Sm'.Elisobha

W/o Sodrelt

Sri Somra

S/o Chrwa

, Sri Dhanrnashi

S/o Santosh

Smt. Flora

D/oDhanmashi

Sri Labo

S/o Muru

Minor

-do-

-dfr-

- l o -

-do-

-.lo-

-Jo-

-do-

-io-

-<lo-

-do-

-do~

-do-

-do^

3912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PARF II—SEC. 3(ii)J

127

128

129

130

J31

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144

145.

146.

147.

148-

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

153.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

. Sri Punna

S/oRighu

. Sri duhkua

S/o RTghu

. Smt.Gurbnri

D/o Righu

. Sri Jhirga

S/o Ch"mi\i

. SriV. BiKin

S/o G. Vclcydhen

. Ajimil 'BTlhi

S/o Jhaguriu Bidi

. Sn'Jar Blnj m Singh

Sri GidJdhur S^thi

S/oH'riS;thi

, SriBii'Bihtidoor

SriR.C Pill.ii

Sn K. Ni(!yn>th

SriSmtCh.D'sh

S/o Gmcswjr D"¹*;

Sri Alexis Kujur

J^kru s Jojo

S-iNwl L-il

Muirs Joj J

M. Thank ch 'ad

J ;3jph 3u-Ki

S/o JohanBirla

Kirtik Goud

S/o SriJhai Goud

Sn Sinkir Birik

Sri Bhubiui Achary.i

S/oH'ri A;haiyj

Smt.Belum Mu.ida

Bijoy Muridi

Sri L'-il Singh.

S/o Btiekro

D'lult'

S/o B LSU

Sri Piues

S/o Ishak

Smt. BAIU

W/'' MigVio

Sri Mukhana

S/o Mangn

Sri Lukiih

S/o Joseph

SriD">nicl

S/o S">rru

Sri Hiri

S/o Ledhw

Sri Albish

S/o Birsha

Sri Sukhdcv

S/o Kifid'iyal

Smt.R*il

S/o Diniel

Sri Et iw

S/o B.ilo

Sri Ban I

S/o Lnchh'm'ii

Sri Dasrath

S/o K-ir^mday .1

Smt. Giindi

W/o Knram'liyal

Hand Holer

-do-

T.R.W.

M^|ncr

Bill Clerk

Helper

Driver -cum-

M'lchanu-

Misan

Watchmm

Office Asstt.

Electrician

LDC.

Supervisor

Miner

Cjm. Oporutor

Accountant

Elect. Helper

-do-

Khalasi

Munshi

TR.W.

-Jo-

-do-

-.lo-

H w\ Holer

T.R.W.

-tin-

.-do-

H '-n 1 Holer

T.R.W.

IlandVHoIdor

T.R.W.

Hmd Holer

T.R.W.

-do-

j 6 4 .

165

166

167

165

16¹).

170.

I7|.

172.

J7^!.

174.

175.

176

177.

178.

17V.

ISO.

181.

1H1.

183.

184.

185.

186 .

187.

188.

189.

Sri John a

S/o B.irnadas

Sri S' mra

S/J BudliLin

, Sri AnandmiM

S/o N Lias

Smt. Sitlumg

W/o AiiTidrtu^i

Smt. Diyamdhi

D/o Lodha

Sri Bindhan.-i

S/o MJdho

Sri Bljorjn

S/o Puttalti

Smt. JhiMim

W/oJotto

Sn Jagdev

S/o Divin td

Pnrush

S/o Bciudik

Smt. S.bina

S/o Silnsh

Smt. Jarli

W/o Lichhannn

Sm'.Birshi

W/o SJmi

Sri Jmikii

S/o L ink i

Sn Mifuuiev

S/o Si la

S n R Lghun ilh

S/o Bidu

Smt. Ful Singh

D/o Mol¹ inii

Smt Jirj

D/o R'jpnmh

Sn Molvin

S/oDandKi

Smt. SLIIO

Smt.Budhiini

W/o Sukro

Smt. SLIIO

W/o R itiwm

Smt. G^ndci

W/o Guutidui

Smt. Rimduluri

W/o Gobinda

Sri Albish Kerkatta

Sri Snnus

H.H.

T.R.W.,

C/P

P.R.W.

-dp-

-do-

-Jo-

-tlo-

- do-

ll ind Holer

Miner

-Jo-

- L I O -

W/L

Miner

-lo-

do-

Minei

do-

-do -

-do-

do-

-do-

Ptimp Operator

Minor

AWARD

2. The case of the second-pai ty workmen may be briefly

stated thus :—

The second-party members weie pcunnncnt workmen rnder

the first-party miinugement, which was a contiactor at Punjna-

pani Lime Slonc and Dolomiie Quarry of Rouikeb

Steel

I'lant of ihc Steel Authority of India Limited. It is aveired

hat the Administrator of the Socitty placed the workmen

under suspension with alFect irom 8-1-1972 in his letter dated

23-3-72. 1 hereafter no order wai passed lor vacation of iho

suspension order, nor liny chjiges frame nor any domestic

enquiry conducted against the woikmcn. The management also

did not pay any subsistence allowance to the workmen sus-

pended, It is contended that 'he action of -the fltst-party

management is motivated and illegal. It is prayed that the

workmen me entitled to reinstatement in service with full

back wages.

39U

3..The case- of the first-party management may be briefly

stated thus :— •

The first-party Society was foimed and registered as

Co-operative Society in »he year 1967. Due to thi mismanage-

ment in the affairs of the Society including seiious financial

irregular ties committed b> the then Piesid:nt a-id

V i o

Presidtnt of the Suciety, an enquiry under Section 65 of

the Orfsba Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 was conducted.

As per statutory audit report ther-5 wepj charges of defalcation

and

fulsification

accounts,

against

the

aforesaid

office bearers

and

as such disputes under Section 68 woie

filed agasnst them, decree obtained and exe Lition pioceed'ngs

under Section 103 of th? Act weie pending against them.

The aforesaid two office-bearers of the Society now coming

to be leaders and office-bearers of the North Orissa Waikers"

Union have sponsored the case on behalf of the workmen.

On account of the mismanagement and other causes,

the

management of the Society wis supjrseded under Section 32

of the aforesaid Act and Shri H. M. Padhi, Sub--Vs'stant

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was anpouued as a Admmls-

fiator to run t>e administration of the Society, and ^hri Padhi

assumed chaise on 8-1-1972. On assumption of crr.rgp, the

Administrator issued a general notice intimating all workers

to join woik which was stamped since Ion?. About 6flO

workers joined their work at Purunapini in lespense to the

aforesaid notice. The Administrator never iefused any worker

to join work. The former President and Vice-President

the Society who had command over some of the laboweis

instigated them net to join the woik undc the administration

of Shri Padhi. It is averred that no suspension Older was

>ssu?d to any workman who joined work in response to th:

notice issued by the Administrator on 8-1-1972. It only

appears from the Despatch Register of trie Society that orders

of suspension were issued to as minv as 21 person,

but

only 13 persons out of them received the no'ices of suspen-

sion. These 23 persons ioined bad with (he Fx-President and

Vice-President and deliberately absented from joining their

work. They never presented themselves in th? Sccietv, n~r

wanted to jo?n work. The whereabouts of these persons ueie

never known-to the Society after issue of the aforesaid orders

of suspension. It is also averred that they never worked as

labourers and/or workers of the Society. No rction whatso-

ever was taken against the labjuicrs/worke's. ministerial end

other stiff who voluntarily joined on 8-1-1972 or subsemient-

ly in response to the notice issued "by the Ihcn Adminisf-a-

tor. It is contended that the list of woikers furnished in (he

order of refe-once apnems to be fictitious ?r<\ fAe.

4. Tt is further averred that the Society was constituted by

individuals who only contributed their labour to the Society.

Unless an individual becomes a member and share-holder of

the Society, he is not entitled to employment in the Society

in any canacitv whatsoever. With this object the Society was

constituted and named as the Sundergarh Alining

labour

Contract Co-operative Society

J Id, Punmanani Once

person is removed from membership of the Society

by its

gen-pl horlv. Ihe matter is final rnd the npi-on rprvjvpd

cannot claim employment in the Society. It is aveired that

the persons against whom orders of suspension were passed

had been rernrwi by th* aeneral body of «he Society

their meetint? }Hd on 11-6-1972 and ->s <uch th'v reiw '

to be members of the Society and so, thev were pot entitled

to anv relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The further contention h that it is not clso a case of

suspension /refusal of emrlovment as referred to in the sche-

du'e of reference

It is furthei contended that the dispute in Question is a

dispute between the past members of the Society -md thf

Socie'v within the meaning of Section 68 of the Oti^a

rp-or-mt;-,,p <5Ocipt-?s A<*t tovrhirq (he bi's'n-«. - ci '-n->rc-

ment of th» Sociefv ' ^ ns «nch, the dispute rpfened inter

the provisions of ih» Industrial Disnvrtes

Act is incompetent

and w'tho'-t imisdiction.

In the pddiiionai wiinon-siatcmcrt filed bv th.> 'mnare-

pient it <s ennterded that^fhe siisneisicn 'irfiml <^f pr-irOrn.-

ment bavin? tnken nlace on S-1-1972 :<nd finally on 15-6-72

the peno.1 of Irnilition for t!lP d'onn'e in n"p=tir»- c,™^o~c«r

from B.t 1971 o r a t

t^jjeⁱpte^,f

o p^{^$.c^\qj2}

Th- "~>-;od of

l''rn>'*p'inn r n V S-<~Hon 69 cf th- O-i-si r ^ n m i ' l i " «5o~;,-

«-, Art ;, s,\ ve^,, A , S,, A t h 3 d;qm,,e ;n fh;

cpsfi ;<> clpor^-,v

n<vi-bnrred and ?s si'rh. the P'e'ent referp'ru-p dnted 15-^-1<3SO

it not rraintainable bemg barre-T by limitation

5. Considering the pleadings of the parties contained

thsir written statements the following points arise

for ccn-

sidcration :—

(1) Whether the reference u incompetent and not main-

tainable in view of thj provisions of Section 68 of

the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 ?

(2) Whether the peisons named in the list of workers

appended to the leference v/ere, in fact, wo-krren or

not under the first-paity ?

(3) Whether suspension/refusal of empLjment

had ac-

tually taken place wah effect from 8-1-1972 and

if so, whether ii is justified ?

(4) How many and which of the workmen have been

affected by the order of suspension /refusal ?

(5) To what lelief, if any, are the second-party workmen

entitled ?

I would take up each of the poin's in seriatim.

Point No. 1

6. The contention of " "•

..'iout the maintain-

ability of the reference

•. .

•.•• P; 68 of we Orissa

Co-operative Societies Act, would no: hold good on the facts

of the present case and in view of the Division Bench, .deci-

sion of our own High. Court reported in 1982 C.L.T. Page

279 (Workmen of

Orissa Police Co-operative Syndicate

and State of Orissa and others). It is laid down by their

Lordships that from the spectrum and purposes of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Orissa Co-onerative So-

cieties Act, 1962 it is clejr that an industrial dispute doe*

not come within the purview of the d'spi'te contemplated undu

the Orissa Co-operative. Societies Act and is not capable ef

being resolved by the Registiar of the Co-operative Societies*

On the facts of the present case the contention regarding the

bar and maintainability of the reference does not therefore,

hold good.

Point No. 2

7. According to the terms of the reference the woikmen

are 189 in number. The first witness for the workmen second

party, who is an Inspector (Time), Pi'iunanani Lime Stor;

Quarry of the Rourkala Steel Plant has stated in his evidcr.e

that they are maintaining registers (Form 'B' Register) con-

cerning labourers working in the quarries, includ'ng the quarry

nm by the first-party. He has fuither stated that after the

list of _ workers was given to them by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, they checked up whh referent to Form 'B'

has prepared a list of these workmen 8s per Ext. 2 He has

also proved Form 'B' Registers, Exts. 3, 4 and 5. Apart from

the evidence given by W.W.L no o'her evidence

has been

adduced on behalf of the workmen as to whether the alleged

workmen named in the list of rcfj-ence were really

the

woikmen at the material time.

8. As to the actual number of workmen, both the parties

a'so appear to have relied on the evidence of W.W.I,

the

Inspector (Time), Purunapini Lime

Stone' Quarry of the

Rourkela Steel Plant. ITie only conclusion, therefor-

thpt

can be drawn is that only 81 workmen as ner Ex' 2 were

the workmen from amongst 189 workmen who we „ working

a' the material time.

Point No, 3

9. As to the question of suspension, she rase of the first-

party is that after the Adrnimstnitar (M.W.2) took over the

management, there was dis'nri-'nre in the working of the

mines and as surh it necessitated him m take fffective mea-

«-i ?s tostirt vork in th» -ninps H" »herrfo-e i- i>c! » rr~eral

notic" intimating all workers to ioin th? work which

was

stooped for some ti«ie, whereafter about 60O worker, ioired

tneir_ work, but a few b^nt upon to create di<=turb-nce did

rr>t join. A,s atim'n^!l*^frativp mepsir^s i^d wi'h a V'PW to

n,-tK-te them to ioin the work -K-er,inn r-de-s v ere issued

only to ?3 persons but ns ret- ri^nt'h -ppist'r only H n=r-

'ons had received such orders Tt is sought to be ron'ii-e!

that the first-party never^;,-it»Ty>d to threw these pp sons ont

3914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . OCTOBER 30, 1982|KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

of employment, but it wanted that these person;, should come

forward and ask tbe management to be given work.

disciplinary action was taken against any of these suspended

workmen. The second-party do not, however, slate in their

written-stotement as to how many workmen were susperded

They, however, contend that suspending the workmen wiihout

paying any subsistence rillowjncc is illegal. It is also con-

tended that in the absence of any disciplinaiy action having

been taken againsL them, and without taking ihcm track into

lervice, tie pcrsons/workmen who were suspended are entitled

to be reinstated with back wages. So far an refusal of em-

ployment ii concerned, the second-paity workmen ha\e

not

breathed a word in their wrltten-stalement thai any workman

has been refused employment by the first-parly

management.

The case of the management with regard to the refusal of

employment is that the management has not refused em-

ployment to a single workman who has come forward lo

join work. Now I shall take up whether the action^r)f the

management in suspending some of its workmen was justified.

The management contends-that the suspension orders issued

to 23 workmen were in the nature of threat so ns to enable

the Administrator to restart the work. It also contends that

the orders of suspension were not tcally in Ihe natuie

disciplinary proceeding against the so-called suspended workers

As the suspended woikers never joined their work,

nor

claimed subsistence allowance or reinstatement, the manage-

ment cannot be said to b^ at fault.

Considei ing the facts

and circumstance of the case- and the principles of natural

justice I am however of the view that Ihe orders of sus-

pension cannot be said to be justified as not only no subsis-

tence allowance has been allowed to the workmen but also

no suspension has taken place in contemplation of any dis-

ciplinary action against the workmen. Moreover, no drs;i-

phnary action had, in fact been taken against nny of lh«

workmen. If the suspension orders were passed only with a

view to pressurize the workmen to join work, as contended bv

Iho first-party, 1 am of the view that after the normal situa-

tion prevailed, the management should have canceled

iho

suspension orders and asked tha workmen informing them

to join work. There should have been some order in show

that the suspension orders \*ere recalled or that they were not

meant to be acted upon. I wnuld, therefore, hold that the

action of the management in passing the suspension orders

against some of the workmen is not at all justified.

As there is absolutely i>o averment on the side of

the

necond-parte workmen about the refusal of

employment

any of the workmen, the question of adjudication on the

justifiability or otherwise doijj not arise. The contention of

the management, on the olher hand, should be accepted that

in response to the general notice after the take over by the

AdminijtraTbr quite a largo number of workmen, say nbout

90 per cent, joined work -and none of them

was refused

employment.

Point No. A

10. I shall now take up as to how many individual work-

men and who of them were actually suspended by the order

of the management. According to the management 23 IUS

pension orders were issued, but the orders could be served

only on 13 workmen.

The workmen did not aver anything

in their

written

statement

ag to how many

woikmen

or who of them were suspended. They also did not

lead

any evidence

on the point except through

one wit-

ness CW.W.3) who has proved his own suspension order,

Ext. 6, to lay that he wai suspended from work. In such

ttate of affairs it is not possible to come to a definite finding

as to who were the workmen suspended in this case except

W.W.3. Even the workmen have not stated in their written

statement or by way of additional

written-statement

as to

who were tbe persons suspended in this case. The manage-

ment also does not name the 13 workmen who had received

the suspension order. In such state of affairs relief can be

given only to W.W. 3 Gaiendra Singh (SI. No. 8 of the list

of workers given in the reference),

W.Wi3. 2. 4. 5 and 6 have given evidence to show lhat

though demanded, they were not given any employment bv

the management. There is no documentary evidence like Ext. 6

to prove tout they were actually suspended by the managemen*.

Ft h, therefore, difficult to come to anv conclusion whether

they were actually suspended or refused employment by the

management.

11. Both the parties have filed written note* of Arguments

in support of their respective contentions. The management

first-party in paragraph 5 at page 2 of the written not^ of

argument>i has admitted that 9 workmen a« per SI. Nos. 2, 3,

6. 11. 35, 58, 61, 62 and 64 of Ext. 2 were

wnongst

tho

workmen who were suspended by the management (obviously

by its order dated 23-3-1972). On their own showing, there-

fore, the management has admitted that these 9 workmen,

viz.. Martin Baria, Clement Xcus, VUnmasi Kujur Ismes Mini.

Bhukon Lall, V, Balen, Alexis Kujur, Jakrias Jajo and -Matias

Jojo were suspended. In the liaht of nw discussions that the

suspension orders cannot be sustained in tho eye

law,

ihe aforesaid nine workmen ar: also entitled to reinstatement

in service.

Point No. 5

12. In conclusion, I would hold that W.W.3 Sri Gajendm

Singh and the none workmen Matin , Barle, Clement Xe«q

Manmasi Kujur, James Mini Bhukan Lall. V. Balen. Alexis

Kujur, Jakrias Jojo and Matias Jojo (SI. Nos. 8, 3, 4, 13,

21, 59, 131, 139, 140 and 142 of the list of workers

the schedule of reference) are entitled

to the iclief of ie-

infitatement in service. As. W.W.3 Gajendra Singh according

to his statement, is working under the contractor

R. C,

Sahu, Pumapani since 1973, he is entitled ty full back wa«ei»

from the date of suspension tili his re-employment in the firm

of Shri R. C, Sahu. With re^rd to the remaininu nine work-

men!, viz., Martin Barla, Clement Xess, Manmasi Kujur, James

Minz. Bhuken Lall, V. Balen, Alexis

Kujur,

Jakria§ Jajo

and Matias Jojo there is no evidence before the Tribunal

that they are still unemployed.

They are,

therefore, not

entitled to any back waxes.

13. The Award is passed accordingly.

J. M. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Offlttr.

Industrial Tribunal Orissa, Bhubanetwur.

[L.29Olll28|78-D.inB]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 11th October, 1982

S.O. 3760.—Whereas the Central Government ij of opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between thfr employers

relation to the management of Huttl Gold Mines Company

Limited, Hutti and their workman in respect of the matter

specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

3915

And whcrtu the Cential Government considers it desir-

able to refer the said dispute for adjudication

Nou, therefore, in excruse of the powers conferred by

Section 7A and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Difputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal of which

Shn V. H Upadhyay shall be the Picsiding Officer,

with

headquarters at Bangalore and refers the said dispute for

adjudication to the said Tribunal

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination of the sen ices of Shn Shara-

nappa, Watchman

Security

Department

by the

management of Hutli Gold Mines Company Limited

Hulti with effeU from 1st January, 1981 is justified

If not, to what relief Is the concerned

workmen

entitled?"

[L-43012/5/81-D.IIKB)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 12th October, 1982

S.O 3701 —Whereas the Central Government is of opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in re-

lation to the management of Bharut Gold Mines Limited,

Kolar Gold Field and their workmen in

respect

the

matter specified in the Schedule hereto annexed,

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable

to refer the said dispute for adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

Section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby constitutes an Industrial

Tribunal

which Shn V. H. Upadhyay shall be the Presiding Officer

with headquarters at Bangalore and refers the said dispute

for adjudication to the said Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the casual labour employed by

the management of Bharitf Gold Mines, Kola/ Gold

830 GI/82—7

Fields (I) for absorption in permanent cadre and (nj

fur enhancement of wa^es if justified. If so, to what

reliefs are workmen entitled ?

[No. L43011O)/82D.IH(B)]

KANWAR RAJINDER SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 14th October, 1982

SO 3702.—In pursuance of the section 17 of the Jndustnal

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern-

ment Industrial Tribunal No 3, Dh.inbad, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of Benjemehari Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Lim ted. Post

Office Salanpur, District Burdwan .mil their workmen which

was received by the Central Government on the 11-10-82

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO 3, DHANBAD

Reference No. 17/81

PRESENT :

Shn J N. Singh, Presiding Officer,

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bonjemtbari

Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd, PO

Silanpur,

Dist. Burdwan.

AND

Thslr workman

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers-—Shri A. N Chatterjee, Dy Personnel

Manager

For the Workman—None

INDUSTRY : Coal,

STATE • West Bengal

Dated the 4th October, 1982

AWARD

The Govt of India in the Ministry of Liboiir in exercise

of the powers conferred on them U/s

lOdVd) of the In

dustrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 ha, refeired the diinuti-

to this Tribunal for adwdicntion under Order No L-19012f721/

80-DIV(B) dated the 2nd May. 1981.

SCHEDULE

"Whether thr action of the mampenvnt of TnsWn Co i

fields Ltd , in relation to Bonjorr>ehan Collrry P O

Seetalour, Dist Bnrdwin ir reducing the wnccs o^f

Shrimati Snkodi Mahnlin from

'Voup V In rv»_

Cory I with effect from 18-4-1977 w-i, inMifWI?

If not to what relief is the concerned

workman

entitled?

2 On 27-9 82 both the parties hnvi* filed a Joint nerifJ-n

ot compromise dulv stened on th^ir hchnif nn ' thi*y pray flit

on award bo passed in terms of the Hettiemdct

3 T hive Kone through the settlement which is beneficial

for flic workman

•i.⁴ I",^the

circllrniltancps the award i, nnss'-d in term, of

the settlement which shall form part of the nwnrd

Enc : Settlement

J N SINGH, Presidma Officer

3916

THE GVZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KART1KA 8. 1904

J P A R T II-SEC, ^ujj

BEl'ORF THE HON'BLE PRESIDING

OFFICER, CEN-

1 R \ L CJOVEKNMUNT INDUSTRIAL VKIBUNAL NO 3

DHANBAD

Reference No. 17 of 1981

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to Lhc Management of Benlcmihari

Colliery, Eastern

Coalfields

ltd,,

P.O, Palanpur,

Dist. BwUwan.

AND

Their workmen

Joint petition of compromise :

Both the Parties herein concerned beg most respectfully to

mbmit as under :

1. That the above matter is fij"^ for hearing on 27-9-82

2. That the matter is pending and has not yet been heard

by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. That in the meantime the Parties negotiated

the

matter in dispute mutually and have come to an

.imicable settlement on the following terms :

(J) That the concerned wOiIman Smt. Sukhada Meha

tin will be placed in Cat. II of the National Coal

Wage AgreemenMI on the basic rate of Rs. 19.48

(Rupees nineteen and forty eight paise only) per

day as from 31-3-82.

(b) That 'he concerned workman will be paid

consolidated sum of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand

only) in full and final settlement of all her claim

for aiTear wages.

going paragraph will be made within three months

From the date this settlement is accepted by the

Hon'ble Tribunal.

(d) That by this settlement the instant dispute is fully

and finally resolved and the workman shall have

no claim, whatsoever, arisinu out of the instant

matter.

(e) That th<j forties siiaJl hear their respective costs of

the present proceedings.

4. That both the Parties pray that the Hon'ble Tiibunal

may be pleased to accept this settlement as fair and reason-

able and may be further pleaded to pass an award in terms

of the afoiesaid settlement.

And for this act of kindness the Parties as in duty bound

.shall ever pray.

Dated this* the 27th September, 1982.

For and on behalf

of the workman.

Sd./-

For and on behalf of

the Employer,.

1. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

TNo. L-19012-(72)/80.IV(B)l

S.O. 3703.—In pursuance of the section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes <\ct. 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 management

of Bcniemehari Colliery of Eastern Coalfield., Limited, Post

Office Salanpur, District Burdwan and their workmen, which

was received by the Cential Government nn the 2-10-82.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVfcKNMtNT INDUSTRIAL

TRJBl'NAL-CUM-LABOUK cOi'M NO 3, D1I\NBAD

Reference No. 72/KO

PREStNl :

Shri ) . N. Singh, Presiding Officer,

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bonjemehari

Colliery under Boajemc'iari

Sub-Area of

Ftiatern

Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Sakmpui, Dt. Burdw-in.

AND

Their workman

APPEARANCES ;

For the Employers—Shii B. N. Lain, Advocate.

For the Workman—Shri S. K. Achiuyya.

INDUSTRY : Coal.

STATE • West Bengal.

Dated, the 4th October, 1982

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

exercise of the powers conferred on them U/s. 10il)(dj of

the Industrial Deputes Act, 14 of 1947 has referred

the

dispuTc'to this Tribunal for adjudication under Order No. L-

19012(47)-79-D.IV(B) dated 27th November, 1980

SCHEDULE

"Whether the aetion of (he management of Bonjemehari

Colliery under Boujcmehari Sub-Aica of

Eastern

Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Salanpui. Dist. Buulwan in

not regularising the employment with effect from

7th April, 1975 of Shri Sachhidanand Simjh was

justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workmen entitled ?

2. On 27-9-82 both the parties have filed » joint petition

of compromise duly signed on their behalf and they pray

that an award be passed in terms of the settlement.

3. I have gone Ihiough the letllemxnt which is beneficial

for the workman.

4. In the circumstances the award is passed in lermi of

the settlement which shaft form part of the award

Enc ; Settlement

J. N» SINGH, Presiding Officer

BF.FORE HON'BLE PTiPSIDTNG OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 3.

DHANBAD

Reference No. 72 of 1980

PARTIES :

Employers in relation :o the Management of Ronjcmihari

Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited.

AND

Their workmen

Joint petition erf compromise-

Both the Parties herein-concirn"d beg to submit most res-

pectfully as under :

1. That the above matter is fixed for hearing on 27-9 82.

2. That the Hon'ble Tribunal has not yet' heard the

present matter and the matter i\ pending.

3. That in the meantime, both the parlies mutually ne-

gotiated the fnstant dispute and tho Parties have

come to

amicable

settlement the

following

terms :

3917

la) 'I hut Shii Suchidananda Singh, the concerned work-

man, will be employed as a Di iver in Cat. V nn

the basic iate of Rs. 19.50 pei d.iv as r<-'r Na-

lional Coal Wage Agieemettt-II within a month iioru

dale when he reports foi duly before the Gcne-

ial Mantigci, Sulanpur Aiea and his period

.service will be counted fmm Ihe date ol

hi3

tmpluynienl as said above.

ibJ I hat the con-ciiied woikmiin when h~ icpoils for

duty in teims ui the foiegoing paragraph will

be posted in any of tile collieries under Ihe juns-

diction of Salanpur Area.

his

motor vehicles

driving

licence

(Heavy)

i'i

original to the Employers at Ihc time he upoils

for duty as said above.

<Jj That the woikman .shall have no djim whatsocvci

foi liny back wages for the period from 7th Apiil.

1975 to the dote when he reports for duty us

stated in Paragraph V & 'h' above.

(e) T^urt by this ..cttlenient the instant dupulc

fully and finally resolved and 'he woikman shall

ha\c no claim whosoever aiisinjr out of the

in-

stant matter.

(f) The l^Jmtie>j sh.ill bear theii lespectivc costs of

the present proceedings.

4. Both riie Parties may that the Hon'hle Tiibun.il may be

please to accept this settlement as fair and reasonable and may

be further pleased to pass an awaid in terms of the afoiesaid

settlement.

And for thfs act of kindness the Parties as in duty bound

shall ever pray.

For and on behalf of

Foi and qn behult ol

the workman.

the Employer.

Sd./-

J. N. SINGH, 1'iesidiny Oilicci.

[No. L-190i2(47)/79-D.IV(B)j

S.O, 3704.—In pursiinn^e oi section 17 of the Induslrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), flu- Cenlral Govcrnmenf

hereby publishes the following; award of the Central Govern-

ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute

between (he employers in u-l.ition to ihe management of Rani-

pur Colliery of Ranipur ?ub-\rea of Eastern

Coalfields

Limited, and their workman, which¹ was received by

ihu

Central Government on the 12th October, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNA1 •

CALCUTTA

Reference No. 17 of 1980

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Ranipur

Colliery of. Ranipur Sub-Area

under the Eastern

Coalfields Limited.

AND

'I heir Workmeu

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice M. P. Singh—Pi esidjn3 Offlcei

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employe) s—Mr. B. N. Lala, Advo:ale.

On behalf of Workmen—Mr. S K. Mazumdar, A-Kocme

STATI-. . West Bangui

INDUSTRY

• Codl

AWARD

By its Ordei No. L-19012(40)/79-D.lV(B) dated 21 Feh-

rnnry I9S0 the Government of India Ministry of

labour.

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foi adjudica-

tion :

"Whether the action of the management ol Ranipur

Colliery of Ranipur Sub-Area under the Eastern

Coalfields Limited P.O. Disheigaib, Dislt. Burdwun

in supeiannuating thi woikmen (Names given in

the anneuire) with effect from 1st July, 1979 is

justified 7 If not, to what relief ate ihe concerned

workmen entitled ?

ANNEXURE

1. Shri Ram Chabila Rjy

2. Sihii Indradco Singli

3. Shii Nagina Roy. .

4. Shii Ramdco Yddav

5. Shii Barsati llarijan

2. It is nceessaiy to point out that though five persons wuc

superannuated with effect from 1st July, 1979, as will : ppeui

lrom the above terms of reference itself, none except Riim

I habila Roy iaises any dispute befoje this Tiibuna).

All

the paitics concerned in this case have

made

statement

to this Tiibunal when Ihc case was called out for hearnij;

that the four workmen named in the reference, i.e., Indratko

Singh,

Nagina

Roy, Ramdco Yadav and

Barsati Haiijan

have withdrawn themselves from the dispute possibly having

Itcen re-employed by Lho munagumen;. Hence a "no dispute '

award is passed so far as those four workmen are concerned

3. Now, in Ihc pie.sent case we die concerned only with

Ram Chabila Roy. His dale of birth is to bf ascertained.

'Ihe union raised the dispute regarding his ase by letter dated

2fiLh Apiil 1979 (Ext. Al-1) addressed to the management

.nut demanded his age to be assessed by the Aiea Medlcn¹

Board. That request was accepted by the management and

Ram Chabila Roy (vas examined by the Area Medical Board

also called the 'A«c Detcimination Committee'. Ha

was

found to be aged 60 yeais old on 28th June, 1979

-wd^

12\l. M-17. Ram Chabilu Roy did not appeal against

\hi

decision of the Area Medical Boafd and hence he did not

get himself examined by the Appellate Medical Board of

the Headquatters at Sancton i.i Hospital. In form B register*

(E\ts, M-4 and M-5) which aie maintained under liic .ifiric^

Act, Ram Chabila Roy is shown ttT be born in 1919.

ihc opinion of The" Area Medical Board tally's with that of

Hum B legisters. He was also issued photo identity

cmJs

(E\ts M-3 and W-2) to be letaincd in his possession contain-

ing particular;, including his u^e. Thcro also his yeai of birth

is 1919 that is the same ns recorded in Form B registers.

All these documents cleaily show that his year of birth "wa^

1919. The Union cvumiiud U. M, Tewari as WW-I and he

had deposed thnt Ram Chabila Roy and Naginn. Roy

are

brothers and that Ram Chabila Roy is younger by (hre*

years to his brother Nagina Roy. Ram Chabila Roy.

ha*

examined himself as WW-2 and he also has deposed (hall

he is younger by three years to his brother Nagina

Roy

It appeals that in his petition to the management dt. 14/23

1-chiuaiy 1979 Ram Chabila Hoy has stated he was younger

to his brother by five years. Any way, an argument is built

upon this oral evidence that Ram Chabila Roy should be

held three years younger to hii brother Nagina Roy and if

it be so held he stall continue in service till 1984. Tn my

opinion, the argument Is huilt in the air.

4. The documentary evidence read with the opinion of the

Area Medical Board cannot be thrown out on the basis of

this imaginary contention, Ram Chabila Roy himself admitted

in cross-examination thjt his JIRC had been recorded in the

nationalisation. He also admitted in his evidence in cross-

examination that he had undergone medical examination at

the Aiea office. There is no document in support of tho rno*

of the Union thai Ram Chabila Roy was born in nny other

year than 1919. On behalf of the workman it was .irsued that

the s.iryr year of birth, i,c. 1919 is recorded in the two refiistert

of B foim and also in tlu vrvice cards in th • case of both

thf hroihcis and that this crn,n-r be possible, 'n my opinion

it is not a good ground to throw away all ihe documentary

evidence aforesaid. Ram Chabila Roy entered into contract

of service under the company as well as in the, manflge~^len.^<

3918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART II—SBC. 30I)1

ol Kanipur colliery on the baiig that his year of birth wa»

Ul*. it was on mat basis ana on me basis ul the opinion of

IHL Aiea Meuicai Boaiu thai he was rUited with. eiitLt fium

lit JUiy ly/y. lu tins view oi the matter it cutinot now te

lOLind in riis favour thai lit would continue in SCIVILO upto

I?b4. i rely on the. do^urnems udductd by the management.

1 uccoidingiy hula that the year ot with of Ram chabila Koy

was lyly and that he was <>0 yeais old on 2dth June iy7y

as touiid t>y the vvge Deteimmaiion committee.

5. Aftei consideiing the evidence on leeord and the submis-

sions raised by ihc parties eonceineu, my Award 13 that the

[Ui.on oi the management ot Knuipur Lolliery in supei animat-

ing Kiiui L,haDda Itoy with (.licet from 1st July 1979 is

jtiitined and so he is not entitled to uny relief.

Dated, Calcutta,

The ?7th September, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-19012(40)/79-D.lV(BJ]

S.O. 3705.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Au, 194/ (14 of 1947;, the Cential Government

hcicby publishes the following avvaiii of the Central Govern-

ment industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute

bt-twecu the employers in lelauon to the management ol

ishaim Coking Coal Limited, Calcutta and tJieir

woikmcn,

whi^h was received by ihc Central Government on the 12ih

Uctobei, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL •

CALCUTTA

Reference No. 97 of 1980

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Coking

Coal Limited, Calcutta,

AND

"Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice M. P. Singh—ProMding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employers—Sliri C. L. Ganguly, Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen—Shri P. k. Chatterjee, Advocate.

STATE : West Bengal

INDUSTRY : Coal

AWARD

*™

By ,ts Order No. L-19012(56)/80-D.IV(B) dated 15th, Dccem-

bci, 1980 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, re-

feired Ihc following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of the Bharat

Coking Coal Limited Calcutta in promoting

Shri

Manik Chandra Das, Junior Stenographer

Office

of the Deputy Chief Sales Manager, Bharat Coking

Coal Limited, No. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta

Senior Stenographer, nnd in designating him as Per-

sonal Assistant, vide

Office Orders No BCC'IPA! I

ESTB|5|83|7566|7679,

dated

21/19-11 1979'and

No. BCC|SIM|ESTT|S|83/24M dated 28/29-4-1979

oT the Personnel Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limi-

ted, Dhanbad is legal, proper and justified? If not

to what relief are the other workmon, who were

considered bv the Departmental Promotion Commit-

tee along with Shti Manik Chandra Das, entitled?"

and wa5 designated as "PA" by Order dated 20 April 1980

pasted by the Personnel Manager, BCCL, Dhapbad. His pio-

muuon ana designation has been challenged on the giound

tnat me management in doing so violated the principles and

guide lines contained in its own Promotion Folicy/cad-e

aUieine (hxt. W-2J and has also not followed the tripartite

settlement dated /3rd April 1975 Itii, W-1-M.5J. It is said

that under the said promotion policy senionty-cum-merii was

the ciiierino lor promotion ot Junior btenbtrupher to the post

oi Senior Mcnogiapher. beveial contentions have been raised

on benall ot tne workmen in support of their case.

3. It is first contended that in the Promotion Policy, Ejit

W-2, iheie is no provision roi holding any tiade test toi giving

pioinotion to the Junioi Stcnogiupner to the post ot i-enior

stenographer, but the management illegally arranged a tiado

test in oidei to enable Mr. Das to illegally supctsede two seniot

stenographers B. K, Kundu and C R. Biswas. It is submitted

thai under the atoiesaid promotion policy (hxt. W-2; tlie

criteria lor piomotion was sentonty-cum-merit througri Dc-

paitmental 1'iomotion Committee (bneily, the DPC) and that

all eujjiuie junior stenographers on the basis of then: seniority

weie entitled to be given a ch.iuce and w.ero to be considered

for promotion through DPC which wa3 to assess the mcr.t

of the candidates upon appraisal of their service recoidi in

terms of clause 11.1 oi: the said promotion policy. It is urged

that this procedure was not followed by the management and

even the C. R, files of the peisons concerned wtre not taken

into consideration^ It is pointed out thai even in the trade

test it was Dipak Kumar Sinha who stood first and so he should

have been piomoted to the post oi Senior Stenographer, It id

further said that in any event the post of'Senior Menogi aphcr

should have been filled up by direct recruitment along with

outsiders to sit in t.hc trade test. The management has denied

the validity of these contentions and in my opinion lightly.

Admittedly a trade test in short-hand-stenography was held

in August 1979 on vacancy having occuned in the post of

Senioi Stenogiapher towards the middle of July 1979 in the

Calcutta office of the BCCL and that on the result thereof

thtee Stenographers D. K. Sinha, M. C. Das and B. K. Kundu

became eligible for consideration of the DPC which did con-

sider them trnd found M. C. Das, the most suitable candidate

for filling up the post of Stenographer. The authority con-

cerned accepted the recommendation of the DPC and promoted

M, C. Das to the post of Senior Stenographer as aforesaid

Mr. Chatterjee, teamed Counsel appearing for the workmen

vehemently contended that the management illegally held the

trade test as it was not provided cither in the tripartite settle-

ment of 23rd April 1975 (Ext. W-1J or in the Cadre-Scheme

(Ext. W-2). It is true that the words "trade test" are not men-

tioned m any of these two documents but it cannot be denied

that the promotion was to be made on the basis of Scniority-

cum-ment. The expression "merit" is of wide import. There

are no specific rules in Ihe Cadre-Scheme or anywhere also

regulating the method of judging the merit of the candidate.

Holding of the trade test is not excluded by any provision o(

the agreement or promotion policy even by implication. It

cannot be denied that the holding of trade test had reasonable

nexus with the performance of duty of the Senior Steno-

grapher. It cannot, therefore, be characterised as arbitrary or

unfair or malaflde when nothing prohibits it. As observed by

the

Supreme

Court

Gurnam

Singh

State of Rajasthan (1971) SLR 799, "No doubt the term

merit is not capable of any easy definition, but it can be

safely said that merit is a sum total of vaiious qualities and

attributes of an employee such as his academic qualifications,

his distinction in the University, his character, integrity,

devotion to duty and the manner in which he discharge his

official duties. Allied to this may be various other matters

or factors such as his punctuality in work, the quality and

outturn of work done by him and the manner of his dealings

with his superiors and subordinate officers and the general

public and his rank in the service. We are only indicating

some of the broad aspects that may be takan into account in

assessing the merits of an officer. In this connection it may

be stated that the various particulars in the annual confiden-

tml reports of an officer, if carefully and properly noted,

will also give a very broad and general Indication regarding

the merit of an officer " On a perusal of this observation ft

will appear that 'merit' cannot be confident to one factor. It

includes several factors

Includes confidential

rolls, qualifi-

cation, service record, etc. Although the word "trade test'

I tWnV fhSflw

1^m

e ° b s c r v a t i o n s of ths Supreme Court,

* £ . « « . £

t^aIs°^may *?^a^gooA^factorⁱⁿ *• «^el«ctlon of

Stenographer. It appears that Annexure B to the promotion

SS^.^flT ²*^rT ^{l r}« *'* \ ^{S e n J o r} StenographeTmust

h m

a^proficiencyⁱⁿ^Stenography aa^follows^:^Shorthand

3919

speed—100 w.p.m., Type writing speed—50 w.p.m. I am,

therefore, of the opinion that the result of the tiade test was

a facloi to be considei^d along wnh other fattoi i. It will

not be out of place to menijon hj.e thai th; lesult of the

trade test was nol the only thing to be considncl.

M'eieiy

because D'ptik Kr. Smha stoud lust in the lK.de test cannot

be a good giound tor promoting him to iho post or Senior

Stcnogiaphcr. 'Ihe promotion WIIJ to bo done on a consiiicrri-

lion ol ovciall merit by ihe DPC and nol only by the loai'lt

of the Trade lest.

Mi. Chaiteijee vehemently aigued that

the management had illegally .ird vvilh mulalijc intention

arranged lo hold a trade test. This contention has no ment.

In the tiadc test Dipak Kumar Sinha who was junior to M. C.

Das stood first.

11 the management hid any bad intention

from the very beginning it could have managed for Mr. M. C.

Das (o stand Jirst ill the tiadc test but that was not s i

only indicates that the trade ttst was done Ii'ines.ly. Ho\ ever

the icsiilt of that examination could not be consideicd

isolation.

I therefore see no incut in this c\ mention

is rejected.

Another line of argument in this connection h

that the tiade lest was mciely Uigihlity te,i a¹ d not me n

test and that three candidates weie found eligible for selec-

tion by the DPC.. That mi>y be so but the.e can he no legal

impediment in tailing it piOhciency let an 1 also , iaclor

for considering merit for the purpose of Uct.-iininYijg the

minimum speed Joi beirg selected us Senior 'jlenogiaplie'.

The aigument w rejected.

Jl was also ivyj i Ih .1 Ihc tiade

test was notified on 5-7-1979 but the it-.nlt w,,-, published

on 29-11-79 when the promotion order -if Mi. D is was i-sued.

It is contended that the delay wa^ significant

In my opinion

it is a minor matter.

4. M, Chattel jee next contended that theie was no DPC

for Calcutta office in ieg:ud to Ihe piomotion for the po t of

Stenographer.

My attention wns drawn to clause 6.2 of Ihc

promotion policy and also to the oial evidence adduced tin

behalf of the workmen in suppoit of this contention.

In my

opinion this argument ia without any basis

The written

statement of the workmen itself says t'lat promotion to the

post of Senior Stcnogiapher wus to be mvle on the basis of

seniority-cum-suitability though the Departmental Promotion

Committee vide paragraphs 3 and 5.

In paiayinph 5 of 1he

written statemtnl it is clearly slated, "'Ihe union in their letter

of piotest dated 10 July, 1979 pointed out that the pinmoion

policy and the cadre-scheme

fiamed by then by lssiiirm

from junior stenogiapher to Senioi stenographer should be

made only on the basis of seniouty-cum-meiit through DPC

in the same vvtiy as in the case of pro:no<:on liom Ciiadc 1

to Special Grade will be on the basis of senior iry-ium-suit,.-

bility through D.P.C."

II is thus clear that

ilic workmen

themselves accepted the pos tion that ihi piomotion was lo

be made through DPC.

1 think th .t the aigumenf advanced

before this Tubunal and the oral evidence adduced by Ihe

Union go against their pleadings. Tn tho prc^er.t ca c DPC

was in feet constituted by the management (vide Ext. M-b

the circular constituting the DPC and laying flown promotion

policy dated 20-6-77). In my opinion it w s necessary loi

assessing the merit of the candidates. The point thus h.is

no force.

5. The thiid contention of Sii Cbatterjee is (hat the 1977

Cadre-scheme was meant for Dh."nhjd oifice and it was r.ot

meant for the Calcutta office

He submitted that there was

no Cadrc-s.hcmc for Calcutta offke and that ihe C udn.-

scheme in question it'vt. W-2) wos illegal and was HOL bind

ing on Calcutta officer

In my opinion, this contention is

devoid of any merit

Nowhcic in then written siaLmeni

the union has said that the Cadie-sehenWPronii tn-.n Po'Lv

(Ext. W-2) was illLgal oi that it was not applicable to Oil

cutta office.

On the other hand, 1hc wiiltcn si'rlcmcnt -'cailv

proceeds on the basis lh.it thetc was n dadrc-schemt framed

by the management vvliich was violated bv i¹. In paia^mph

4 of the wiitten stnterronl the Union says th it it is then

positive case that the management had violated their promotion

policy and the cadre-scheme framed bv them bv issuing

Office Ordei dated 5th July 1974 iF\t. P" 1-7) inWiing appli-

cations 'for appeal me in tire trade lest. lp paru.rra.ph

also of the written .statement the Union speaks about Ihe

promotion policy/cadie scheme fiamed bv the management

and says thai it was totally ignored by 'he ni imgement

paragraph 7 of the written 'tatemcnl ih^ union said that if

the management had followed their own piomotson policy/

cadre-scheme Sri B. K. Kundu, the Senior most Junion Steno-

grapher would ha\c been piomoted to the post of Seniot

Sttnogiaphcr.

In paiagiaph 1U of the written statement the

union says thai ihe pioniotion policy/cadre scheme adopted

by the Management Jid not contain .my post of PA. It is

Uius clcai that the validity or applicability ii the cadre

scliemc/piomotinn policy was never

cnalU'iigcd by

ihe

union in their vvutien statement though thej have done so

thiough then oral evidence as well a^ in aijiument, Jl is to

be noticed that the tiipaiue settlement L\i. W-l

dated

^3-4-to/5 (vide clause 4 of Armexure l\ to the settlement)

fiiovijcs ior Juture promotion to be in teirm of cadie scheme

nuts

Ihe management categorically s'ated in its letter

dated 23/2t>tb Februaiy 1979 (Ext. W-6J ihat

the present

tadic scheme would be applicable to Cjlcutla ba-.cd em-

pioyces of DLLL and asked for" suggestion? f.om the Union

which »Ji to be considcud while levising the existing cadre

scheme.

I he union by its letter d.ited 10-7-79 (Ext. W-7)

wanted to discuss lhL m tier loi evolving a norm for promo-

tion but nothing niateiial was done except wntini! to the

KLC or ALC (Central) makinn complaint against thhe action,

of the management (vide E.\ts. W-9, W-10, W-16).

Before

that the Union had made correspondence wilh Ihe Manage-

ment in this icgird (vide fcxts. W-3, W-4 and W-"!) but to

no elfect.

As ulieady pointed out it says in its wiitten siaie-

i.icnt that the cadie SLlieme was violated by the management

in promoting Mi. D.^s lo the post of Senior Stenographer.

A reasonable coiT-tiuction of the pleading of the union leads

me to the conclusion that th: union accepted the cadie scheme

in its wiitten statement fot the purpose of piomotion but

nieiely contended that it had been violated by the manage-

ment. I'uithei more, I do not think-as to why the manage-

ment would not be competent to apply the cadre scheme to

the Calcutta office of BCCL. This

office is a part of the

Head office of the BCCL which u> at Dhanbad. I am of opin-

ion that the management .vas competent to apply the same to

the Calcutta ollicc. It is not in doubt that the cadre scheme

provides in clause 6 2 for promotion of Junior Stenographer

to the post of Senior Slenonrarihsr on the busis of seniority-

cum-mcril.

It also provides for promotion of Senior Steno-

giapher to the post of Seni:r PA.

The contention of the

Union accordingly fails and is rejected.

6, It is next contendcj on behalf of Ihe workmen tljnt there

WLIJ, no post of Senior Stenographer in the Calcutta office of

BCLL. Reference in this connection has been made to Ext.

W-l the Settlement dated 3id April, 1975 and evidence of

WWs-1 and 2. The ajgument is not correct.

Although there

is no mention of Senioi Stenographer in the Settlement, there

is such mention in the Cadre-scheme.

If there was no such

post Mr. Kcndti and other stenographers would not have

iippcmed in the t'-ade test,

In their written statement the

uniun doe, not s.iy Uiat there was no post of Senior Steno-

Kraphei. The written statement rather proceeds on

tho

basis

that

there

was

such

a post. The prayer made

I herein is tli.it Mr. Das may bo down-graded to the post of

Junior Stenographer and thnt Sii B. K. Kundu and D. K.

Sinha may be piomoted/up-grf/ded a-s Senior Stenographer

with effect from the date of original piomotion. The con-

tention thus faiN.

7. It was next urged that there was no po;t of PA lying

vacant in the Calcutta ollicc of BCCL lo which Mr. Das

could be appointed oi posled and that the post of PA which

was cifistinn earlier in this oilicc was abolished from lsl

Tamiiry. 1975 Refeience in this connection was made to the

Tripartite Settlement

dated 3rd

Apiil,

1975 (Ext. W-l).

Coun-cl also points out that the Cadrc-scheme/Promotion

Policy, E\t W-2 did not piovide for any post of PA. The

contention is not valid. The post of PA did exist in the

Cal Titln office of BCCL .is per ngicemcnt dated 23id April,

1975 It is also admitted by the workmen that theie wai

srii h a post. The only contention is that it was abolished.

There is misconception about it. Only the particular scale

of p,,\ and not the post of PA was abolished from 1st Janu-

ai\

1^L>75 and another pay scale was substituted in ,'ts place.

Sec cluisc 7 (if Annexurc IA of the Settlement (Ext. W-l).

The settlement provides

the channel of nromotion from

Tunio

Stenographer to PA and fiom PA to Senior PA.

Mr. Das w,., designated (not promoted) as PA on his prayer

in ttims (if the tripartite settlement dated 23rd April, ]975

vhkh was applicable l0 him atnl this was donr without giv-

mg him nnv monetary benefit or change of scale of pa\.

It seems that the two posts, namely, that of Senior Steno-

grapher find that of PA were treated ai equal Or identical

for the puipose of channel of promotion fiom Junior Steno-

3920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982 KART1KA 8, 1904

[ PART II- SEC. 3(ti)J

Krapher -^ (h^ "r->t higher post vvhkh w.ts ehher

Sexier

.Ye;ir.- ... .

i¹: i' \. i.i terms of ihs C\:ii^re-Schema it is post

;>i' So =io

,..,•••:..,!•..* and in terrrs of isle agreement it is

;ue pu i . ,^:' \. '••!

Cnaiicrjee iias not >lio\vn to this tii-

bunal thai the pay s.jle of PA is hiuhjr m_n that of Senior

oienogrd;;h.r. He has not tshowji tn;*t .h_re w;s tny mor.e-

la-y beneiu or -hane- in th; scale of pay of Mr. Das when

he was i..deslgnateu c.s PA. Mr. Cli-.-icjicc ii"U aigued i'ⁿ:X

ininicciiai-iy aher p!O.i:otjng M:. !3.,s i.s He^ior .Stenugraphci

ins designation uts Ui-'ngea ifuo I'A r.-iil this showed that

the rru.iKigc'.'.icnt wanted io promote Mi. Das to ihe post cf

PA ana ih>s is evkio: e of eiaiaiidc. Suffice So -ay lh..t I do

not liiiJ any raabfu'e on (he part of the nr nagemem in

uoir.g r..i.

8. Next it was contended by Mr. Chatieijee that the cadre-

scherne ohould have bee,; wr'-lcd in consult t.on wlis the

Union iii \iew of the tc-rnis o[ .-eltiement dated 23id April,

1975 which provided that the promotion moeeduie/Cadre

scheme \ill be settle.! .v/l>s.'qu-inly. Jt .ippe-ir-, lo me th'.;t

the ten; s of the settlement do not necessarily lead to the

conclusion that the cadre-'•"cher.ie niir,t be fmrnci m consi- -

tatir.n with the union, "ihc contention is thu.s dispu.scd oi.

9. A'ioihe;" Lor.ten;ion i-i'ianced on b.h !f if ihe vn.,-k-

men is (nui Ext. W-6 which is a letter of ihe management

d tod 23/26h i-ebrnrir\. 1979 io th? effect tha; the p esent

cau:e sch.-rue wor.ij be app'icable to The Ci'lcuita bated

employees oi BCCL is a depar.ure fiom the agreement. Ja

my op'non. the contention is not cornet. 1 have adeury

pointed oul that the" union h.is U-Ken liie srnd in tlieij

written statement that the cr.dre scheme was violated by the

management and not that the cadie scheme was not appli-

cable to the Calcutta office.

10. Lastly il was submitted by Sri Chatterjee that the

office noiiee d .ted 5.h Ju.y. I97v (Lxt. M-7) inerelv men-

tions thut promot'on should be made rrom Junior Steno-

grapher to Senior Stenographer but Mi. Da, \s;<.s fitted in

the post of PA and this was wholly unjusiiJicd. In my opinion

there is no force in this contention bc.-uu-e >!•;. Das wa%

promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer and then he

was merely designated (nor p'onoted) ;>s PA in terms of .he

tripartite settlement daled 23rd April, 1975.

11. Mr, C L. Ganguly, lea.'ecu Counsel appearing on

behalf of ihe in:.niigenieni argued that promotion was a

msnuganai function and that an empjoyee cannot claim to

be promoted as of right an-_I h^nce tfiee is no s:cpe for

any adjudication by this trih.ni. 1. The Lr.mitn.;u :,s ".holv

devoid of merit. It is we!! settled that ihough promotion/

upgrada;ion is the m.M'.i'3cr^;ul function it :imst \n-i bj on the

subjeciive satisfaction of the nirnjge.nenf bui ir:ast be on

some objective criteria. The iiianafsrvnt cannot &ct arbi-

trarily, Ii i/.ust act fairly and reasor.jb'.y even in the matter

of promotion. I f.m cf the opinion th"t the tiibunal is fully

competent to cancel unjisst'fisd promoliocs whenever ;t feels

that the pessons superseded had been so superseded on a -

count of legal malafide or victimisation or unfair ! :bour

practice. However, in the present case I am not inclined to

interfere with the order of promotion for reasons already ex-

pressed.

12. After tuv^a; considered the submissions raised on

behalf of the parties my award is that the action of <he

managerrent of the Bharat Coking Coal I/tnited. Cnicu'ta

in promoting IVfanik Chandra Das Jurior S'enosrapher of

the office of the Deputy Chief Sales Manager, Bharat Cok-

ing Coa) Limited as Ser'or Stencgraph^pr ani in LesiQnj'ii r

him as PA bv Orders dated 29th Novembsr. 1979 and 2*9:h

April, 1980 of the Personnel Manager. Bharat Coking Coal

Limited, Dhanbad is leg-l and justificfl. The other workmen,

therefore, are not entitled to any relief.

M. P. SINGH, Piesiding Officer

[No. L-19012C56)'80-D,IV(B!}

S. S. MEHT \, De^k Officer

Dated : Calcutta, 24th, September, 1982.

New Delhi, the 11th October. 1982

-S.O. 3706.— VVheaas^;t appsais to (lie Central Ciovcinment

that the employer and the majority of the employees in

relation to the establishment known as Messrs liirbal Dass

and Company, 1998, Ga.'i Paratha Wall, Chandni Cbowk,

Dc-ihi-6, have agreed that the provisions of the t'mployees"

I'iovidcnt I-uods and Miscellaneous Provisionj Act, 1952 (19

of 1952\ should be made applicable to (he said establishment.

Now, theti-fore, in cveicise of the poweis confeired by

SLb-seetioD (4) of Section 1 ( f the said Act, the Central

Government hereby applies the provisions of the said Act

to the said establishment.

LNo. S-35019(177)/82-PF.IlJ

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 11th October, 1982

S.O. 3707.—In the notMcatio/i of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 792 dated the 12th

February, 1982 published at pages 925 and 926 of the Gazette

of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 27th

February, 1982, at page 925, line 4, for "Sainwatipur" rend

"Saraswaiipur": line 5. for '"Saiashattkhu' read 'Sata^ankha"'.

[No. S-350J9' 1771/81-T-F-Ill

S.O. 3708.—Whereas ii appears to the Central Government

that the employer and the majority of the employees in

relation to '.he establishment known as Messrs Medical Bureau,

1445, ChanJm Chovvk, Delhi-6, have agreed that'the previsions

of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Pro-

visions Act. 1952 (19 or 1952), should be made applicab'e

to the said.establishment.

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

si'b-section M) of Section 1 of the said Aft. the Central

Government hereby applies the provisions of (he said Ac

to the said establishment.

[No. S-35019.176)/82"PF.HJ

3921

S.O. .5709—\Miareas il jppctrs to the Ccntial G ncrnment

that the emplo>ei and the majonti ot the employes in 1 ela-

tion to the establishment known a> Mesa's \hilhck Interna-

tional (Private) Limited, 205, D.epah 92 Nchiu Plue New

Delhi-l¹), have dgn*ed that the mo is

is of the Lmpioyees'

Prov'deit ! unc's .nd Miscel'jneoi •• Piovisions

V«.t, 1952

(19 of 1952), should be made rpoliviHe to tht sa d ts ab-

lishment

Nt<¥, th^iefoie

in exeiuss ol the poweis uml lrul bj

<Siib-s;ction (4) of Section 1 ot the said Act, th

Central

Government hereby apphes the p r o e m s of the snd ^<-t to

t'ie said establishment

[No S-?'iO19(178)/82-PF;!l

SO 3710.—Whereas it apreais to the Central Government

that the employer and the majority of the emplo>te>- m iela-

non to the establishment known a Afessis N D Pa el, 119

Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad (West), Bomb >y-64, ha\e

agreed that the piovisions of the Employees Piovident Furies

and Miscellaneous Piovjsions A.U. 1952 (19 of 1952) should

be made applicable to the said estab! shme'it

Now, therefore

in exetuse of the powers (.obteutd b\

sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act, the Cential

Government heieby applies the piovisions of the said Act

to the said establishment.

[Ni S 35018/S9/82-PF 111

S.O Sill

-Whereas f ippea

to 'he Ccn'nl Gc < nment

tJ¹ •*• il t u n j k u ^r an' the maj'jiit> "I the emp o' us in

sei lion 'i the tsiabl'shment Kiovn as Messrs Cinsallant

G'oup

11 OKI Post Oth.e Stieet, Calcntta-1, ha\e aqieed

ih u the p^ro\isions of the Enirlo'--b Provident Hinds pnd

Miscellaneous Piovis-ons Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) should be

made apilicib'j to ihj said »sfaoli-»hmtnt

NOA, therefore

IU axstwse ci the powtrs conierred by

subsvtion C4» of Section 1 it the said Act, tht Central

Go\ei nment hereby applies the p'o^v sions of the said Act

to <he s uj establishment

I\o SifO 17/86 82-PFII]

SO 3712—Wneieas it app; irs tc the Cential Government

that the emplojcr and the ma/onty of the employees m

relation to the establishment known as Messii Heibid (India)

(Private) Limited 1/1, Kimber Street, Cakutta-17 including

its Factory at 7/1, Sourm Roy Road, Calcutta-34 and Depot

at 67/B, Jaynuddm Mistiy Lane, Calcutta 27, have agieed

that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) should

oe made applicable to the s?id establishment

Now, therefore, in exeicise o^f the poweis conferred by

sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act, the Central

Goveⁱ"nrp"r>t hereby applies the piovisions of the «d'd Act

to the s ud establishment

[No S-35017/63/82-PFin

SO. 3713.—Whereas it appears to the Cential Government

th .t the employer and 'he majoiity of the employees in

rcation to the establishment known as Messis Gupta Chow-

diiuiy

Ghosh and Company,

8-'B, Chownnghte

Lane,

Colcutta-16, have agreed that the provisions of the Employees'

Piovident Funds and Miscellaneoas Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952), should be made apph-Tible to the said esUbl sh-

ment

Now, therefore

in exer^ibe of the powers conferred by

sub-section (4)

of Section 1 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby applies the piovis'oi's of the said Act

to the said establishment

[No S-35017/61 /82-PF.II]

3923

S.O. 3717.—Whereas Messrs Tamil Nadu Steels, Arakkonam-

6310O4 (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment)

have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of sec-

tion 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellane-

ous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred

to ns "the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government h satis/led Mat

the employees of the said establishment are, without mak-

ing any separate contribution or payment of premium, in

enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme

of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of

Life Insurance which arc more favourable to such employees

that the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-

Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as

the said Scheme);

Now, therefoic, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sLib-scciinn (2\) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to

Ihr rnnMinrt, s"=cifled in the Schedule annexed hereto, Ihe

vii r.il Government hereby exempts the said establishment

fiom the operation qf all the provisions of the said Scheme

for a nenod of three years.

S50 GI/82-- 8

SCHEDULE

I, The employer in relation to the said establishment

shall submit such returns to the Kcfjional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and maintain such accounts rnd

provide for such facilities for inspection, as the Central

Government may direct from lime to time

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the

Central Government may, from time to time, ditect under

clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said

Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the

Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts,

submission or returns, payment of insurance premia, trans-

fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges, etc. shall be

borne by the employer.

4. The employer shall display, on the Notice Board of

the establishment, a copy of the rules of the GIOUD Insur-

ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and,

as and when amended, afongwith a translation of the

salfent featurej thereof, in the language of the majority of

the employees.

5. Where the employee, who is already a member of the

Employees" Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said -\.t, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shnll immediately enrol him

FS a memher of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces-

sary premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance Cor-

poration of India.

6 The employer shall arrange to

enhance the benefits

available to the employees under the

Gioup Insurance

Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em-

ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so (hat the

benefits available under the Group Insuiance Scheme aie

more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissible

under the said Scheme.

7, Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Insur-

ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount

payable under this scheme be less than the amount that

would be payable had the employee been coveted under

the said Scheme, the employer shall pay the d'ffcrence to

the legal heir/nominee of the employco ss compensation.

8, No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme shnll be made without the piior approval of

the Rcfiional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu,

and where any amendment- is likely to affect adversely the

interest of the employees, the Regional

Provident Fund

Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a rea-

sonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point

of view.

9, Where, for any reason, the employees of the estab-

lishment do not remain covered under Ihe Group Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India an al-

ready adopted by- the said establishment, or the benefits to

(he employees under (his Scheme arc reduced in my man-

ner, (he exemp'ion vhall be liable to be cancelled.

JO. Whore, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by ths Life Insuiance

Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed lo lapse,

(he exemption is liable to be cancelled,

11. In case of dcfnult. if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the lcsponsibility for payment of

assurance benefits to the nominees or the Ieg.il heirs of de-

censed memhers who would have been covered under ihe

iaid Scheme but for grant of this exemotion, shall be that

ot the employer,

12. Upon the deith of the member coveicj under the

Scheme, the employer in relation to the slid establishment

shill ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/Iep-ni heirs entitled for if and in any <-.-)«• within

7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insur-

ance Corporation of India.

[No. S-350UO6)/82-PF. II]

•

[

—

(

)

]

SO.

3719.—Wheieas Mcssis H M T

LimlLd. Machine

Tool Division Hjdeiabad 500854 vj.xOinafter referred to as

the said establishment) have applied tor exemption under

sub-section (2A) ol section 17 of the Employes Piovident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)

(hereinafter referred lo as the said Act);

And whcieas, the Central Government is satisfied that the

employees of the said establishment are, without making

any sepaiate contribution

or payment of

premium, in

enjoyment of benefits under the Gioup Insurance Scheme

of the Luc Jnsunmce Corporation of India in the nature of

Life Insurance which are more favourable to such employees

that thd benefits admjssible under the Employees Deposit-

Linked Insurance Scheme, 197^ (.hereinafter referred to a*

the said Scheme),

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject

to the conditions -specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Centtal Government hereby exempts the said establish-

ment fiom the opciation of all the provisions of the said

Scheme for a period of three years,

SCHEDULE

1 The employer in relation to the said establishment

shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund

Commissions, Andhra Pradesh and maintain such accounts

and proudc for such facilities foi inspection, as the Central

Government may dhect fiom time to time.

2 The employer shall pay such inspection charges «s

the Central Government may, from time to time, direct

under clause (a) of sub section (3A) of seUion 17 of the

said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month

All expenses involved m the administration of the

Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts,

submission or icturns, payment of msuionce promia, trans-

fer of accounto, payment of inspection charges etc ihall be

borne by the employer

4 The emploier shall display, on Lhe Notice Board of

the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur-

ance S heme as appioved by the Centnil Government and,

as and when amendod alongwlth. a translation of the salient

features thereof, in the language of the maionlv of the

employees

5. 'Where the employee, who is alteady a member of the

Employee

Provident Fund oi the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him

as a mcii bcr of the Group Insurance

Scheme and pay

c S r o n ' r

r e 5 p e r t of him to the Life insu™

6 The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefit*'

available to the employees under the

Group Insurance

Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em-

ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the

benefit, available under the Group Insurance Scheme are

Z l ^ t T s a i d VcVml^emp'^OyeeS^thm^{the bCnefitS}^adm™^bl*

7 Notwithstanding anything contained

the Group

Insurance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the

amount payable undei this scheme be Ies3 than the amount

that would be payable had the employee been covered under

the said Scheme, the employer shall pay the difference to

the legal hen/nominee of the employee as compensation

8 No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur

ance Scheme shall be made without lhe pnoi approval of

the Regional Provident Fund Commlseioner Andhra Piacteih,

and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the

inteiest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Com-

missioner shall before giving his approval, give .i rcisonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view

9 Where, for any reason, the employees of the establish

ment do not lemain covered under the Group Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India as

already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits

to the employee* under this Scheme are ieduced in an)y

manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled

10 Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay fh*

premium within the due date, a* fixed by the Life Insur-

ance Corporation of India, and thr- policy is allowed to lapse,

the exsmption is liable to be cancelled

H In case of default, if any made by the employer In

payment of premium the

responsibility for payment of

assurance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of de-

ceased members who would have been covered under the

said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that

of the employer

12 Upon the death of the member covered under the

Scheme, the employer in relation to the said establishment

shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/legal heat, entitled for it and in any case within

7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life

Insurance Corporation of India

[No S-35014(47)/82-PF II]

3927

S.O. 3720.—Wheieas Messrs Guest Keen Williams Limited,

Sankcy Pressing Division, Rajaji Natj.ir, BangaIore-560010

(KN/2-90), (hereinafter referred to as the said establish-

ment) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2AJ

of the section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (herein-

after lefcircd to JS Ihc s.iid Act)'

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the

employees of the said establishment ate. without making

any separate contribution

or payment of

premium, in

enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme

of the Lite Insurance Corporation oE India in the nature of

Life Insurance which are more favourable to such employees

that the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-

Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as

the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

subsection (2A) of section 17 of the snid Act and subject

to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Central Government hereby exempts the said establish-

ment from the operation of all the piovisions of the said

Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation \fl the said establishment

shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Karnataka and maintain

such

accounts

and provide for such facilities for inspection, as the Cential

Government may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such

inspection

chaises as

the Central Government may, from time to time, direct

under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the

said Act, within 15 days from the cl.)se of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the

Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts,

submission or returns, payment of insurance premia, trans-

lcr of accounts, payment of inspection charges, etc. shall be

borne by the employer.

4. The employer shall display, on. the Notice Board of

the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insui-

ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and,

as and when amended, alonjjwith a translation pf the salient

features thereof, in the language of ths majority of the

employees.

5. Where the employee, who is already a member of the

Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol- him

as a member of the Group Insurance

Scheme and pay

necessary premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance

Corporation of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits

available to the employees under the

Group Insurance

Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em-

ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the

benefits available under the- Group Insurance Scheme are

rnore favourable to the employees than the benefits admissible

under the said Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained

the Group

Insurance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the

amount payable under this scheme be less than, the amount

that would be payable had (he employee been covered under

the said Scheme, the employer shall pay the difference to

the legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of

the Regional Provident

Fiynd Commissioner,

Karnataka,

and where £ny amendment is likely to affect adversely the

interest of the employees, the Regions] Provident Fund Com-

missioner shall before giving his approval, give a reasonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the establish-

ment do not remain covered under the Group In&urance

Scheme of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India a?

already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits

to the employee* under this Scheme are. reduced in tny

manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Wheie, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Jnsui-

ance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to knse

the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, it any mode by the employer in

payment of premium the

responsibility for payment of

3929

and provide for such facilities for inspection, at the Central

Government may direct from time to time

2 The employer shall pay such ^spection charges as

the Cential Government may, from tune to time, direct

under clause (a) of sub section (3A) of section 17 of the

said Act, within 15 days from the clo^e of c\eiy month

All expenses involved in the administration of the

Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts,

submission of leturns, payment of insurance picmia, trans-

fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc shall be

borne by the employer

4 The employer shall display, on the Notice Board of

the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insui-

ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and,

as and when amended alongwith a translation of the salient

features thereof, m the language of the maiority of the

employees

5 Where the employee, who is already a member of the

Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shall immedi itely enrol him

as a member of the Group Insurance

Scheme and piy

necessary premium in respect of him to the Life Intur ince

Corporation of Tndia

6 The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits

available to the employees under the

Group Insurance

Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em-

ployees, under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the

benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are

more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissible

under the smi St-heme

7 Notwithstanding anything contained

the Group

Insurance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the

amount payable under this scheme be less than the amount

that would be payable had the employee been covered under

the said Scheme, the employei

g^{hall pay the difference to}

the legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation

8 No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approvol of

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Tamil Nadu,

and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the

interest of the employees the Regional Provident Fund Com-

missioner shall befoie giving his approval give a reasonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view

9 Where, for any reason, the employee of the establish-

ment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance

Scheme of the life Insurance

Coiporation of Tndia as

already adopted by the said establishment, or *he benefits

to the employees under this Scheme are redu ed m any

manner the exemption shall be liable io be cancelled

10 Where for any reason, the employei fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insur-

ance Coi poration of India, and the policy is illowed to lapse

the exemption is liable to be cancelled

11 In case of default,

if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the

responsibility for payment of

assurance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of de-

ceased members wfto would have been covered under tht

said Scheme but for gram of this exemption, shall be that

of the employer

12 Upon the death of the member coveied under the

Srneme, the employer in relation to the said establishment

shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within

7 days of the receipt of the sum assured fiom the Life

Insurance Corporation of Tndia

[No S-35O14T73) AR2-PF II}

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

[PART I I - S E C 3(ii)J

S.O. 3722.—Whereas Messrs Shree Rfun Mills Limited,

(M.T.A. Division), Udhna (District Surat) (GJ/449J-A) (here-

inafter referred to as- the said establishment) have applied

for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the

employees of the said establishment are, without making

any separate contribution

or payment of

premium, in

empyment of benefits under the Group insurance Scheme

of the Life Insurance Corpoiation of India in the nature of

Life Insurance which are more favourable to such, employees

that the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-

Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as

the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject

to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Central Government heieby exempts the said establish-

ment from the operation of all the provisions of the said

Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the i'Jd establishment

shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner,

Ahmedabad

maintain

such

accounts

and provide for such facilities for inspection, as the Central

Government may direct from time to time,

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as

the Central Government may, from time to time, direct

under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the

said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the

Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts,

submission or returns, payment of insurance premia, trans-

fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges, etc. shall be

borne by the employer.

4. The employer shall display, on the Notice Board of

the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and,

as and when amended, alongwith a translation pf the salient

features thereof, in the language of the majority of the

employees.

5. Where the employee, who is already a -member of the

Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him

us a membar of the Group Insurance

Scheme and pay

necessary premium in respect Qf him to the Life Insuianco

Corporation of India.

6. The employer shall Hrrange to enhance (he benefits

available to the employees under the

Group Insurance

Scheme appropiiately, if the benefits available to the em-

ployees under the said Scheme are enhanocd, so that the

benefits available under the Group insurance Scheme are

more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissible

under the said Scheme.'

7. Notwithstanding anything contained

the Group

Insurance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the

amount payable under this scheme be less than the amount

that would be payable had the employee been Covered under

the said Scheme, the employer shall pay the difference to

the legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance .Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmadabad,

and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the

interest of the employees, the Rcglona] Provident Fund Com-

missioner shall before giving his approval, give n reasonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of (he establish-

ment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance

Scheme qf the Life Insurance

Corporation of India as

already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits

to the employees under this Scheme arc reduced in any

manner, the exemption shal] be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insur-

ance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse,

the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the

responsibility for payment of

assurance benefit? to the nominees or the legal heirs of de-

ceased members who would have been covered under the

said Scheme but for jrrnnt of this exemption, shnll be that

of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the

Scheme, the employer in relation to the said establishment

shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within

7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life

Insurance Corporation of Tndia.

[No. S-35014(106)/82-PF. II]

3933

S.O. 3724.—Whereas Messrs Pondicbeny Dislilleiics Limited,

Pondichcrry-605001 (PC/26), (hereini'.ftei icfened to as ihc

said establishment) have applied for exemption unJer_ sub-

section (2A) o£ section 17 of the employees Piovidcnt Winds

and Miscellaneous Provision;, Act. 1952 (.19 of 1952) (.here-

inafter referred to as ihe said Act);

And whereas, the Ccniml Govejnrncnt is satisfied that the

employees of the said tVabhstinicnt aic, without milking any

sepaiatc contribution oi rnymctyt ot premium, in tnjuvment

of benefits under the turnip Insurance Scheme of the Life

Insurance Corporation of India in tht naluic of Life Insur-

ance which are more favourable to such employees that ihs

benefits admissible under the Employee;, Deposit-linked Insur-

ance Scheme, 1976 (her;in.ilter reteired to as

the said

Scheme);

Now, theieforc, in exercise of the powers etmfmed by

sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject

to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Central Government hereby exempts the said establishment

from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme

for a period of three years.

SC1IEDULI;

1. The employer in relation to the swid establishment shall

submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com-

missioner, Tamil Nadu, maintain such accounts an^. provide

for such facilities for inspection, as the Central Government

may direct fiom time to time.

2. The emplover shall pay such inspection thaiges as the

Central Government may, fiom time to time, diiect under

clause (a) of sub-section (3A1 of section 17 of the said Act

within 15 days fiom the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the ndministiation of the Gioup

Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, sub-

mission or returns, payment of insurance premia, transfer

of accounts, payment of inspection chaises, etc. shall be borne

by the employer.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Boaid of the

establishment, a copy of the rules of the Gioup Tnsura-icC

Scheme as apptoved by the Central Govcinment and, as anJ

when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features

thereof, in the language of the maioiity of the employees.

5. Where the employee, who U already a member of the

I-mnloyees' Provident I'und or the Piovident Fund of an

establishment exempted undei the said Act, is emplovcd in

his establishment, the employei shall immediately enrol him

as d member of the Gioup Insurance Scheme and pay

necessary premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance

Corporation of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits

available to the employees under the GIOUD Insurance Schema

appropriately, if the benefits avail ible to the employees under

the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits available

under the-Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to

the employees than the benefits admissible under the said

Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Giour Insur-

ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount

payable under this scheme be less than the amount that would

be payable had the employee been covered under the said

Scheme, the employer shall pay the difference to the k-qi.il

hcii /nominee of (he employee as compensation.

S. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the

850 GI/32 -10

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tajn.il Nadu and

where any amendment is likely to affect adveisely the inter-

est of iht; employees, the Regional Piovident Fund Commis-

sioner shall hclore giving his appjcwal, give a reasonable

oppoitunity to the employees to explain their point of vittw.

9. Where, for any icason, the employees of the establish-

ment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance Corpoiation of India as already

adop.cd by the said establishment, or the benefits to the

employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner,

the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the

exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in

payament of piemium the responsibility for payment of

assurance benefits to the uomnees or the legal heirs of deceased

mcmbeis who would have been covered under the said Scheme

but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the

employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the

Scheme, the employer in relation to the said sstablkhment

shall ensure prompt payment of tho sum assured to the

nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within 7

days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insur-

rnce Corporation of India.

[No. S-35014(123l/fi2-PF-II]

3934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O, 372S.—Where;ia Mwssrs Century Cement, P.O. Bai-

kunth-493-116, Railway Station Tilda, Distt. Raipur (Madhya

Pradesh) (MP/2757) (hereinafter referred to as the said estab-

lishment) have applied for exemption undei sub-section (2A)

of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Mis-

cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19

of 1952) (hereinafter

leferred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the

employees of the said establishment are, without making any

separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoyment

of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life

Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insur-

ance which are more favourable to such employees that the

benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insur-

ance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Mow, therefote, in exercise of the powers conferred bv

sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject

to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Central Government hereby exempts the said establishment

from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme

for a peiiod of three years,

SCHEDULh

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall

submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com-

missioner, Madhya Pradesh maintain such accounts and pro-

vide for such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern-

ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the

Central Government may, from time to lime, direct under

clause (a) of subjection (3A) of section 17 of the said Act,

within 15 days from the close of every month,

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group

Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, sub-

mission or returns, payment of insurance premia, transfer of

accounts payment of inspection charges, etc. shall be borne

by the employer,

4. The employer shall display, on the Notice Board of the

establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insurance

Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and

when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features

thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees,

5. Where the employee, who is already a member of the

Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the saW Act, is employed in

his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him

as a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces-

sary premium in respect of him to the Life Tnsumtu'e Corpo-

ration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits avail-

able to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme

appropriately, if the benefits available to the employees under

the said Scheme arc enhanced, so that the benefits available

under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to

the employees than the benefits admissible under the said

Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Insur-

ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount

payable under this scheme be less than the amount that

would be payable had the e.nployee been covered under the

said Scheme, the employer shall pay (he difference to the

legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Gioup Insur-

ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Piadcsh

and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the

interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Com-

missioner shall before giving his approval, giv4 a reasonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the esablish-

ment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already

adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the

employees under this $cheme are reduced in any manner, the

exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fail? to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the

exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assur-

ance benefits to the nominees OT the legal heirs of deceased

members who would have been covered under the said Scheme

but for grant of this exemption shall be that of the employer.

[PART Il-Snc 3(ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

3937

S.O. 3727.—Wheieas Messis New Shairock Mills (Division

or Maftalal Industries Ltd,) Asurwa Road, P.B. No. 2006,

Ahmedabad-380016 (GJ/362) (hereinafter teferred to as the

said establishment), have applied foi exemption under sub-

section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds

and Miscellaneous Provicions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952; (here-

in after referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the

employees of the said establishment are, without making any

separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoyment of

benefiLs under the Group Insurance Scheme ot the Life

Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insur-

ance which are more favourable to such, employees that the

benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insur-

ance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

sub-section (2A) of section. 17 of tho said Ac: and subject

to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto,

the Central Government hereby exempts the said establish-

ment from the operation of all the provisions of the said

Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall

submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commis-

sioner, Ahmedabad maintain such accounts and provide for

such facilities for inspection, as the Central Government may

direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the

Central Government may, from time to time, direct under

clause (a) of sub-section GA) of section 17 of the said Act,

within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the adminislMtlon of the Group

Insuiance Schelne, including maintenance of accounts, sub-

mission or lelurns, payment of insurance prcmia, transfer of

accounts payment of inspection charges, etc. shall be boine

bv the employer.

4. The employer shall display, on the Notice Board of the

establishment, a copy of ihc rules of the Group Insurance

Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and

when amended, ulongwith a translation of the salient features

thereof, in the language of the majority of ihe employees.

5. Where the employee, who is already a member of the

Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an

establishment exempted under the said Act, is cmployd in

his establishment, tha employer shall immediately cmol him

as a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces-

sary

premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance Cor-

poration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits avtiil-

.able to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme

appropriately, if the benefits available to the employees under

the said Scheme arc enhanced, so that the benefits available

under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to

the employees than the benefits admissible

under the said

Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Gioup Insur-

ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount

payable under this scheme be less than the amount that would

be payable had the employee been covered under the said

Scheme, the employer shall puv the difference to the legal

heir/nominee of the, employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur-

ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahirmdabad,

and

where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the inter-

est of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commis-

sioner shall befoie giving his approval, give n reasonable

opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9..Where, for any reason, *ke employees of the eilabli&h-

ment do not remain covered under the Group

Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already

adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits

to the

employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, the

exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the

exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assur-

ance benefits to the nominees or tin legnl heirs of deceased

members who would have been covered under the said Scheme

but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death

of the member covered under th$

Scheme, the employer in relation to the said establishment

shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/legal heirs entitled far it and in any case within 7

days of the receipt of the sum assuied from the Life Insur-

ance Corporation of India,

(No. S-35G14(144)/82-PF.II]

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 30, 1982/KARTIKA 8, 1904

3939

under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to

the employees than the benefits admissible under the said

Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Oioup Insur-

ance Scheme, if oc the death of an employee the

amount

payable under this scheme be less than the amount that would

be payable had the employee been covered under the said

Schme, the employer shal lpay the diffidence to the legal

heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of fhc provisions of the Group Insurance

Scheme shall be made without the prior approval

of the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Delhi, and where

any amendment is likely to ai^rcct davetsely the interest of

the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

shall before giving his approval, give a reasonable opportu-

nity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the establish-

ment

do not remain covered under the Group

Insurance

Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already

adopted by_ (he said establishment, or the benefits to the

the employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner,

the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the

premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the

exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default ,if any made by the employer in

payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assur-

ance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of deceased

members who would have been covered under the said Scheme

but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon th death of the member covered under the

Scheme, the employer in relation to the said establishment

shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the

nominee/legal "heirs entitled for it and in nny case within 7

days of the receipt of rhe sum assured from the Life Insur-

ance Corporation of India.

New DJhi, iL- ] Uh Oc'.ober, 1982

S.O. 3729.—Whereas

the State Government

of Kerala

has, in' pursuance of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec-

tion 10 of [he Employee¹' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of

1948) nominated Dr. P. U. Abubackcr, Director of Insut-

ance Medical Services, Government of Kerala, Trivendrtim

to lepiesent that State on the Medical Benefit Council

place of Dr. loseph ZUUIUIMS ;

Now, therefore, m puisuunce of Sub-section (1) of sec-

tion 10 of the employees State Insurance Acl, 1948 (34 of

1948), the Ccntial Government hereby makes the lollow-

ing amendment in the not.licjtion of the Government

India in the Ministry of Laboui No. S.O. 3329, dated 19th

November, 1981, n&mely ;--

In the said notification, under the headinjt "(Nominated

by the State Governments concerned under clause

(d) of sub-section

(.1) of section 10)"

for

the

entry against item 12, the following entry shall he

substituted, namely :—-

"Dr. p. U. A'mojcVer

Director of Insurance MeiK'il Eervicej,

Government of Kerala,

Trivandrum-14."

[No. U-16012/3/S2-HI]

S.O. 3730.—Whereas

the

State

Government .of Hijiia-

chal Pradesh has, in pursuance of clause (d)

of section 4

of the Employees' State Ituuiance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948)

nominated Sim R. K. Anand, Commissioner-cum-Secretary

to the Government o!' Hni.i.fiii Fultsh >o represent that

St.ite on the Employee*¹ Stale Insurance (. iy potation,

place of Shn 1, K. Sun;

Now, therefore, in purs.i moe of section 4 of the

emp-

loyees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948), the Central

Government hereby nrdkea the foil nving amendment in the

notification of the Government of Ind.j in the Ministry of

Labour No. 850(E), dated the 21st October, 1980, name-

ly :• -

In the said notifica'ion, under the beading "(Nominat-

ed by the Stale Gi vcrnrrcnu uvider clause (d)

of section 4)", for the entry against Serial Num-

ber 13, the folk'ving entry shall he substitu*»d,

rainely ; —

"Shri R. K. ANAND,

Commissioner-cura-Se.'retary

to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,

Labour tmd F/vployruent Depvrraen',

Simla "

ru. 16012/13 /82-H1J

A. K. BHATTARAI, Under Secy.

PRINTED BV THE MANAOER, OOVT. OF INDIA PRESS, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI-110064

AND PUBLISHED

BY THE CONTROLLER

OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054.

1982