REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)73
The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 45] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904
Separate paging is given to t h is Part in outer that it may be filed as a separate compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defence)
VICE-PRESIDENT'S SECRETARIAT
New Delhi, the 20lh October, 1982
S.O. 3731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec- tion 10(3) of the Panjab University Act, 1947, the Chancel- lor of the Panjab University, Chandigarh is pleased to order that Dr. R. C. Paul, Vice-Chancellor, Punjab University will be entitled to the benefit already notified in Notification No. 10-VC/PU/82 dated 10th August, 1982 w.e.f. the date the same has been allowed by the Panjab State Government to its officers.
[No. 10-VC/PU/82] A. D. JOSHI, Private Secy.
to the Vice-President of India and
chancellor, Punjab University.
(3941)
880 GI/82—1
3942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA )5, 1904 [PART 'I -SBC. 3(ii)]MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of F.conomic Affairs)
(Banking Division)
New Delhi, the 16th October. 1')82
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New D"lhi, the 18th October, 1982
S.O. 3733.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act. 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Govern- ment, on the recommendation of the Reserve BanL of India, hereby declares ihat the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act shall not apply to the Cliiplun Urban Coop. Bank Ltd.. Chiphm in so fur as they relaic. to its holding of a non-banking asset viz. Chlplun Municipal House No. 1396-Dyi625 at CMplun Survey No, 215A(1)A for the ricriod from the dale of publication of this notification in the Gazelle of Tndi:i to lit March, 198f
S.O. 3732.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for Official pui poses of the Union). Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs the Staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi : —
fNo. 8-37/82-AC] RAAM BFHRA. Under Secy.
1 Office of Deputy inspcUoi General
(N & W Zone) Ccnual Industrial Security force, Block No. 13, Central Government Office Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-] 10003.
2. Officer-Incharge, C. I. S. F. Unit. Bhiiral Rcfractoiies Ltd., Ranch! Road, P. O. Marar Di"-il Ha/aii Hauh.
3. Commandant.
C. 1. S. F. Unit, R. C. F. Chemhcr, Bombay.
New Delhi, the 19th October, 1482 4. Offlcer-Tnchai ge, C. ]. S. F. Unit, I. T. I. Palghnt, (KF.RAI A)
,V Commandant,
C. I. S. F. Unit, Cochin Poit Trust. Cochin,
6. Assistant Commandant.
S.O. 3734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec- tion 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of subsections (H and (2) of Section 10B of the said Act, shall not apply to Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar for 3 months from 1st October, 1982 to 31st December, 1982 or till the appointment of the next who1."-lime Chairman of that bank, whichever is earlier.
C. I. S. F. Unit, Cochin Shipyard. Cochin.
iNo. 12017/1/R2-llindi| P, M. RAO. Dv Sccv,
INo. hVlK/82-B.O. 1111 K O. HATR \. Under fecv.
3943MINISTRY OJ> COMMERCE
(Department of Commeice)
New Delhi, the 6th November, 1982
S.O, 3735.—In ewMcit>e of the power* (.onferrcd by Sec- tion 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) A.ct, 1963 (22 of 1963) the Central Governmtiit hereby recognises for a period qf one year M/s. J, B. Boda Marine & General Survey Agencies Private Lirnited, Maker Bhawan, 1, Sir Vitoaldas Thackersey Marg, Bombay-400020, os an Agency for the inspection of Minerals and Ores specified in Schedule annexed hereto prioi to export.
SCHEDULE
1. Ferrornimpiiese, including ferrornaocanese ilaj;.
2. Bauxite, including calcined bauxite.
3. Manganese Dioxide
4. Kyanite
5. Sillimanite
6. Zinc Oxen, including line concentrates 7. Majtnesite, including dead "burnt and calciped rna8' ne^itc
8. Bafyle*
9. Red Oxide
10. Veliow Ochre
11. Steatite
12. Feldspar
ORDER
S.O. 3736.—Whereas, the Centiul Oovernnient is of opinion that in exercise of the poweis conferred by wctlon 6 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), it is necesiEuy and expedient to amend the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Com- meixe & Civil Supplies (Department ot Commerce) No. S. O. 2553, dated the 27th September, 1980, Subiectinjt Electric Motois and Generators to quality control and ins- pection prior to their export, in Ihe manner specified hctow, i'or the development, of the e\poil fmde of India;
And whereus the Central Government has formulated th" proposal specified below for the said purpose and has flor-- warded the same to the Expoit Inspection Council as re- quired by sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the Fxport (Quality Control and Inspection^ Rules, 1964;
Now, therefore, in pmsuinco of the vud aub-iule, th" Central Government hereby publishes the (aid prorwtil for tbe information of the public likely tn be affected thertVy
|No. 5(6)/79.El&EPl
3944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II ^SEC. 3(ii)]2. Notice ii hereby given that any -person desiring to forward anyi objection or suggestion with respect to the said proposal may foiward the snmc within foity-llvc days of the date of the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to the Export inspection Coun.il, Pragati Tower, 11th Floor, 26, Rajendra Place, New Delb.i-8.
PROPOSAL
In the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce & Civil Supplies (Department of Commerce) No. S. O. 2533, dated the 27th September, 1980, for para- graph 3, the following paragiaph shall be substituted namely :-
3. In this Order, unless the context otherwise requiies,-—
(a) "Electric Motor" means a machine which is capable of converting electrical energy into marhininl c-nergv, but shall not include Electric Fans and Automobile Starteis;
(b) "generatois" means a machine capable of converting mechanical enoigy into electrical energy, but shall not include Automobile Dynamos and Bicycle Dynamos,
fNo O6)/76EJ &EP] C. B. KLKRETL h Director
MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
INDIAN STANDARDS INSTITUTION
New Delhi, 82-10-13
S.O- 3733 In pursuance of sub-regulati n (4j ct regulation 14 of the I viian Standards Institute n (Cortificaticn MarlM), Regulati ns 1955 as amended from tirnt t" time, the
Indian Standardslnstitutun hereby notifies that Liccnc- No CM/L-1074236 particulars fn which ure given belcw has bec^ Cancelled with effect from 1982-07-16 at the request of the licen- see
SCHEDULE
Licence No and Date Name
(3)
(2)
f1)
CM/L-1074236 82-04-30
M/s. United Bags Ltd, 1/4C, Khagondra Chatterji Road, Calcutta-700002 (WB) having their Office at. 10, Clivo Row, Calcutta-700001 (WB).
Relevant Indian Standards Article?Prccess Covered by the Licensee Cancelled
\5)
(4)
Laminated Jute Bags for Pac- king fertilizers manufactured from 38Og/m2, 68 x 39 Tar- paulin fabric.
IS : 7406 (Part II )- 1980 Specification for Lamira(cd j utc bags for packing ferti- lizers-Part II laminated bags manufactured from 380 g/m2, 68 x 3P Taipaulin fabric
[CM.D/55 : 1074236)
A.P. BANERJI, Additional Directcr Gercrai
DEPARTMENT OF ATOIVJIC ENERGY:
ORDER
Bombay, the 27th September, 1982
S-O. 3738.—In exercise of the powers conferied by sub- rule (2) of rule 9-, clause (bj of |ptwuW C2),of rylo 12 arid,
3945s\ib-rule (1) of rule 24 of ihe Central Civil Services (Classi- fication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby makes the following amendments in the oiders oi the Department of Atomic Energy S.O. 2537, dated 7th July, 1979, published in the Gazette of Indiu on the 21st July 1979 and subsequently amended vide S. O. No. 1040 and publish- ed in the Ga"Ue,of India on 28-3-1981. In the schedule to the said order, the Part I-General Central Services Group 'B' in column 3 & 4 of item (10) and in Part II & III- Gcncral Central Service^ Group 'C and 'D' respectively in
column 6 of item (Lx) relating to posts in Heavy water Projects for thr entries, the following entries shall be substituted :
Chief; Executive, Heavy Wutcr Projects [No. 2/2/82-Vig.T T. SETHUMADHAVAN, Director
3946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBEfc 6, J982/KAkTIKA 15, 19 3947 S948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1&S2/KARTHCA ^ 5. 1904 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 3949880 GI/82—2
-3950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 PAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3951 3952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6,1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
Tohsil ; Nawanshahr District : Jullundur State : Punjab
Name of village Khasra No. Area
H A Sq-
M.
1 2 3 4 5.
Khoja H.No. 284 46/3 Min. 00 08 60
46/4 Min. 00 05 57
46/7 Mln. 00 11 8,9
46/14 Mln. 00 07 34
46/15 Min. 00 01 52
46/16 Min. 00 09 36
46/17 Mln. 00 00 25
46/25 Min. 00 09 36
48/5 Min. 00 10 37
48/6 Min. 00 07 34
48/15 Min. 00 oo 25
49/10 Min. 00 03 29
49/11 Min. 00 10 37
49/20 Mln. 00 10 37
49/21 Min. 00 10 37
58/1 Min. 00 07 34
58/2 Min. 00 03 29
58/9 Min. 00 10 37
58/10 Min. 00 00 25
58/12 Min. 00 10 37
58/19 Min. 00 06 32
MINISTRY OF ENERGY
58/74 Min. 00 01 01
(Department of Petroleum) 58/102 Min. 00 02 02
Now Delhi, the 1 lth October, 1)982 Jhugian H.No. 285 6/10 Min. 00 09 87
6/11 Mln. 00 05 57
S,O. 3739: Whereas by a notification of Government 6/12 Min.
00 03 85
of India in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals and Fertilizer 6/18 Mln.
00 08 10
(Department of Petroleum) S.O. 1321 dated 27-3-1982 under 6/19 Min.
00 06 58
Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
6/23 Min. 00 07 84
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act., 1962
6/24 Mln. 00 06 83
(50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to
7/4 Mln. 00 03 04
acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the schedule
7/5 Min. 00 10 88
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline
7/6 Mln. 00 04 81
11/4 Min. 00 08 60
And Whereas th • Competent Authority has under Sub- 11/5 Min. 00 06 07
section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the 11/6 Mln. 00 09 36
Government. 12/10.Min. 00 05 31
12/11 Min. 00 10 37
And Further the Central Government has after consi-
12/12 Min. 00 08 05
dering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the
12/18 Min. 00 04 04
lands specified jn the schedule appended to this notiflcatlcn.
1,2/19 Min. 00 11 64
12/23 Mil). 00 12 40
Now Therefore : 1 n exerdse of th0 power conferred 12/24 Min.
00 02 28
by Sub-seoflon (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central
16/10 Min. 00 01 01
Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said
16/U Min. 00 13 66
lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification
16/12 Min. 00 00 25
hereby acquired for laying the pipelines.
16/18 Mln. 00 00 25
16/19 Min. 00 13 41
And Further, In excrete of the power conferred by 16/20 Min. 00 01 26
Sub-section (4) of that section the Central Government directs
that the right of user In the said lands shall instead of vesting in 16/22 Min. 00 01 77
the Central Government vest on this date of the publication 16/23 Min. 00 12 65
of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free 17/3 Mln. 00 00 00
from all encumbrances.
3953
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
JhugUn H.No. 285
00 00
01 13
Bugowal
H. No. 289
17/5 Mln. 26 10/17 Min 00 01 77
17/6 Min. 66 10/25/2 Min 00 04 05
17/7 Min. 00 00 25 11/21 Min 00 10 12
17/15 Min. 00 00 76 12/1/1 Min 00 05 31
27/3 Min. 00 03 04 12/1/2 Min 00 00 76
27/4 Min. 00 u 89 12/2 Min 00 08 10
27/6 Min. 00 10 88 12/8 Min 00 05 82
27/7 Mln. 00 03 79 12/9 Min 00 08 10
27/15 Min. 00 04 81 12/13 Min 00 10 12
28/11 Min. 00 09 61 12/14 Min 00 04 05
28/19 Min. 00 03 29 12/17 Min 00 01 77
28/20 Min. 00 06 07 12/52 Min 00 10 12
39 Min. 00 00 76 12/53 Min 00 01 01
12/54 Min 00 01 52
JulahmajraH.No.
12/70 Min 00 00 00
286
12/87 Mln 00 00 76
12/88 Mln 00 00 51
Phambra
H. No. 288
28/25 Min. 00 02 78
29/21 Min. 00 00 76
44/1 Min. 00 13 41
44/2 Min. 00 00 25
44/9 Min. 00 11 13 11/9 Mln 00 01 26
44/10 Min. 00 01 77 11/12 Min 00 08 60
44/12 Min. 00 03 54 11/13 Min 00 05 82
44/13/1 Min. 00 03 29 11/17 Min 00 04 81
44/13/2 Mln 00 06 32 11/18 Min 00 09 87
44/17 Min 00 08 32 11/24 Min 00 11 38
44/18 Min 00 04 05 11/25 Mjn 00 02 02
44/24 Min 00 07 84 13/5 Min 00 12 65
44/25 Min 00 06 55 13/6 Min 00 00 25
45/5 Min 00 00 76 14/1 Min 00 01 26
46/5 Min 00 08 10 14/10 Min 00 13 41
47/1 Min 00 04 30 14/11 Min 00 01 52
47/9 Min 00 02 02 14/12 Min 00 12
90
47/10 Min 00 11 89 14/18 Min 00 11 38
47/11 Min 00 00 00 14/19 Min 00 02 78
47/12 Min 00 13 16
14/23 Min 00 04 81
47/13 Min 00 00 76
14/24 Min 00 09 61
47/18 Min 00 13 41
25/10 Min 00 05 82
47/19 Min 00 00 76
25/11/1 Mb 00 04 55
47/23 Min 00 05 57 25/11/2 Min 00 02 78
47/24 Min 00 09 11 25/12/2 Min 00 04 55
80 Min 00 01 52 25/18 Min 00 02 02
164 Min 00 03 04 25/19 Min 00 12 14
25/22 Min 00 00 00
Kharkuwal 30/16/2 Min 00 06 02
25/23 Min' 00 13 16
H.No. 287 30/17/2 00 06 83
25/24 Min 00 00 76
30/17/1 00 01 77
26/4 Mln 00 08 85
30/24 Min 00 00 00
26/5 Min 00 07 84
30/25 Min 00 10 37 08
26/6 Mln 00 10
00 32/3/3 Min 00 00 76
Bagowal
00 32/4 Min 00 13 16
H. No. 289
00 32/6/1 Min 00 04 05
00 32/6/2 Mln 00 08 10
00 3. /7/1 Min 00 02 02
00 32/15/2 Min 00 04 05
33/11 Min 00 09 61
33/19 Min 00 07 84
33/20 Min 00 06 58
33/22 Min 00 07 84
33/23 Min 00 06 58
41/11 Min 00 01 26
41/19 Min 00 00 25
41/20 Min 00 13 91
3954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2
1
1
5
3
4
5
2
3
4
Phambra
Urapar H. No. 207
61
02 11
53 13
H. No. 288
42/6/2 Min 00 00 04
42/7 Min 00 00 05 95
42/14 Min 00 01 77 00 02 88
42/15 Miu 00 11 13 00 05 95
42/16 Min 00 00 25 00 08 45
66 Min 00 01 01 00 02 30
73 Min 00 01 52 00 0! 30
78 Min 00 01 52 00 04 03
87 Min 00 00 76 00 04 42
216 Min 00 00 76 00 00 00
225 Min 00 00 76 00 01 34
226 Min 00 00 76 00 05 18
1
00 11
Urapar 1722 Min 00 01 54
00 09 79
H. No. 207 1723 Min 00 12 10
00 00 00
00 00 77 00 12 48
00 12 29 00 00 19
00 00 19 00 08 26
00 07 10 00 06 14
00 01 54 00 04 8)
00 05 76 00 09 79
00 00 38 00 03 26
00 05 57 00 11 14
00 09 60 00 00 19
00 00 19 00 10 94
00 08 64 00 01 73
00 00 38 00 00 58
00 11 52 00 06 91
00 05 38 00 05 57
00 04 61 00 06 14
00 00 19 00 01 34
00 01 54 00 01 73
00 00 19 00 00 58
00 06 91 00 05 95
00 10 37 00 09 41
00 01 73 00 07 10
00 01 34 00 07 49
00 01 54 00 05 7b
00 10 37 00 07 10
00 04 03 00 04 22
00 09 02 00- 00 96
00 08 26 00 03 65
00 05 18 00 09 , 22
00 06 14 00 03 65
00 07 10 00 10 94
00 05 95 00 00 00
00 08 45 00 00 38
00 04 22 00 11 90
00 03 07 oc 02 11
00 56 00 01 15
00 54 00 11
00 61 00 00
00 92 00 08
00 10 00 00
00 50 00 11
00 00 02
00 00
00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00
3955 1 3 4 2 5 5 4 2 3 107 10
Uraban H. No. 7.07
00
3618 Min
Rakhlpuv
H. No. 199
02
00 00
Sheikhupur H. No. 182
02 03 11
29 13
00 00 00 00 00
01
78/21 Mln 79/16 Min 79/25/1 Mln 79/25/2 Min
00 00 01
01 51 53 51 07 82
00
00 08
00 12
00 01 08
01 00 02 00 05 06 00 01 10 03 05 05
00 00 00 00 00 00
40 51 52 60 01 53 13 06 07 51
80/5 Min 81/1 Min S1/2/1 Min 81/9/1 Min 81/9/2 Min 81/10/1 Min 81/12/2 Min 81/13/1 Min 81/17 Min 81/18 Min 397 Min
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 02 11 05 06 00
83 82
Bakhlapur H. No. 199
00 00
06 05 04
00
00 1! 08 05 07 06 01 09 02 02
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
7ft 52 12 54 06 8? 51 1 60 06 34 83 01 36 78 02
00
02
81 06 06 63 34 05 30 54
05 05 10 07 04 04 03 09
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
67/2/1 Min 67/3/1 Min 67/3/2 Min 67/7/1 Min 67/7/2 Min 67/8/1 Min 67/8/2 Min 67/8/3 Min 67/14 Min 7/16 Min 67/16/1 Min 67/16/2 Min 67/25/2 Mln 78/2 Min 78/8 Mln 78/9 Mm 78/13 Min 78/14 Min 78/16 Min 78/17 Mia 78/26 Min 113 Mln 118 Min 122 Min 123 Min 148 Min 149 Min 150 Min 158 Min 401 Mln 434 Min 447 Mln
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 01 02 01 03 06 00 0 00
53 52 77 02 77 04 83 51 76 76
00 00 00
Raitainda H.No.19
00 00
01 07 03 02
00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00
00 00 00
on
00 00 00 00
11 00 51 H 01 59 04 02 77 00 26 00 52 79 51 02 13 78 13 12
05 13
00 06 58 32
76 10 78
01 35
01 00 01 00 01 03 00 02 11 02 11 10 04 11 00 05 06 01 00 01 02 08 08 08
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
3956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)i 1 1 2 3 3 5 2 4 5 M 00 RaitalndaH.No.197 Chahalkalan H.No. 19634 84 84 08 84
07 07 07 07 07
00
00 00 00 00 00 00
41 03 69 34 46 96 18 00 94 07 69 71
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
436 Min
437 Mia
442 Min
444 Min
445 Min
937 Min
959 Min
962 Min
963 Min
964 Min
967 Min
968 Min
969 Min
970 Min
971 Min
972 Min
975 Min
991 Min
09 04 02 06 03 00 10 00 10 03 02 11 02 13 02 00 00 00
11 82 30 19 19 96
Mandiali H. No.50
00 00 00 00
07 07 07 07 07 01 04 01 08 09 02 06 01 01 02 02 00 01
63/13 Min
63/17 Min
63/18 Min
63/24 Min
63/25 Min
64/5/1 Min
64/5/2 Min
68/5 Min
69/1 Min
69/9 Min
69/10/1 Min
66/12/1 Min
69/12/3 Min
69/12/4 Min
69/13/1 Min
69/13/2 Mm
69/17 Min
69/18 Min
105 Min
107 Min
448 Min
449 Min
470 Min
474 Min
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
51 08 57 34 84 84 01 30 52 35 00 53 32 26 52 51 02 76 52
Chahalkalan
H.No. 106
02
08
12
02
06
01
05
00 05 01
00 02 01
00 06 06
00 04 07
00 00 00
00 02 00
00 04 13
00 04 00
00 03 00
00 00 00
00 04 13
00 04 01
00 04 01
00 01 00
00 02 03
173 Min
174 Min
180 Min
193 Min
194 Min
195 Min
196 Mb
197 Min
198 Min
199 Min
260 Min
261 Min
262 Min
294 Min
308 Min
95 50 91 03 00 88 80 42 65 77 80 80 42 54 69
31/16/4 Min
31/17 Min
31/25 Min
32/21 Min
43/1/1 Min
43/1/2 Min
43/1/4 Min
43/2/2 Min
43/8 Min
43/9/1 Min
43/9/2 Min
43/10 Min
43/12/1 Min
43/13/1 Min
43/13/2 Min
43/14/1 Min
43/16 Min
43/17 Min
43/18/1 Min
43/24/1 Min
43/24/2 Min
43/25/1 Min
43/25/2 Min
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08
78 60 40 02 58 01 57 52 01 32 34 25 51 16 51 51 25 66 01 01 51 29 35
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
04 05 00 00 04 00 08 05 02 05 07 00 04 06 01 04 08 05 04 01 06 00 00 00 06
44/5/1 Min
46/5 Min
47/1 Min
47/9 Min
47/10/1 Min
47/12/1 Min
47/12/2 Min
47/U3/1 Min
47/13/2 Min
47/17 Min
47/18 Min
47/24/2 Min
47/25 Min
47/27 Min
55/1/1 Min
55/1/2 Min
55/9/1 Min
55/9/2 Min
55/10/1 Min
55/10/2 Min
55/10/4 Min
56/5 Min
73 Min
272 Min
00 00 00 00 00 00
99 38 19 77 80 77 45 18 11 95 68 77 61 72 34 80 64 38 61 34 72 96 00 58 53
309 Min
310 Min
314 Min
315 Min
316 Min
317 Min
319 Min
341 Min
342 Min
343 Min
344 Min
382 Min
383 Min
384iMin
389 Min
403 Min
405 Min
407 Min
410 Min
411 Miu
412 Min
413 Min
414 Min
421 M]n
422 Min
00 02 12 10 02 02 01 00 10 09 04 05 09 00 07 00 02 05 04 01 00 06 01 00
00 28 40 88 28 02 77 25 37 87 55 57 36 25 08 76 78 82 81 01 51 58 26 76
3957 3 4 1 5 5 4 3 1 09 61 00 76 76 00 00 00 00 273 Min 299 Min 05 3100 00
84
00 07
Jandiuli H.No,2
01 06
29 07
54
00 03 04 55
00
00 00 00
07 34
00
00 00
00 00
00 00
04 07 04 03 02
55 34 05 54 28
00
02 07
00 00 51
33/1 M"m 31/2 Min 31/9/1 Mm .13/9/2 Mm 33/8 Min 33/13/1 Min 33/13/2 Min 31/14/2 Mm 33/17/1 Min 33/17/2 Min
78 59 06
00 00 05 02
65
12
13
00 00
01 52
00 00
01
03
02 16 77 26
00 00 01 06
00 00 00
00 00
04 00 76
07 07
00 00
00 00
00 00
76 76
20/11 Mm 20/137 M'm 20/138 M'm 20/269 M'm 20/276 M'm 20/277 M'm 20/286 Min
06 00 00
00 25
00 00 00
89
11
00
Kh'tran H. No. 1
09 04 00
36 30 76
00 00 00
11 03 04
13 54 55
00 00 00 00
06 06
58 83
00 00 76
00 00
87 25
00 01 26
18/14 Min 18/15 Min 18/16/1 Min 18/16/2 Min 18/16/3 Min 17/20/3 Min 17/21/1 Min 17/31/2 Min 17/22': Min 20/2 Min 20/1 Mm 20/7/2 Mm 20/8/1 Min 20/8/2 Mm 20/9 Min 20/13/1 M'm 20/14-1 ..fin 20/14/2 Min 20/15/2 Min 20/16/1 Min 20/16/2 Min 20/17/2 Min 20/25/2 Min
00 25
on
09 00 08 00 12
00 02 53
21/20/2 Mm 21/21/1 Mm
00 00 00 00 00
02 02
85 00 40 02 78
4/11 Min 4/19 Min 4/20 Mm 4/22 Mm 4/23/1 M'm 4/21/2 Min 5/4 Mm 5/5 Min 5/6 Mm 5/7 Min 5/15 Mm
25
00
00
04
11
05
00
00
07 11
55 34 64
08 08
60 60
00 00
28 52
00 00 00 00 00
00 01
01 06
00
31 S3
8/3 M!m 8/4 Min 8/6 Min 8/7 Mm 8/15 Min
52 64
59
07
00
•00 00
10 29
00 00 00 00 00
01 11 00 10 01
00 88 79
00 00
08 03 00 02
51 02
02 02
78 02
00 00
27/1/2 Min 27/2/1 Min 27/2/2 Min 27/ft Mm 27/9 Mm 27/11/1 Mm 27/13/2 Mm 27/14/1 Mm 27/14/2 Mm 27/16/2 Min 27/17 Urn 27/25/1 Min 27/25/2 Mm
00 00
00 05
51 57
9/11/1 M'm 9/19 Mm 9/20/1 Mm 9/20/2 Min 9/20/3 Mm 9/22/1 Min 9/22/2 M'm
09 87
00 00 00 00
04 26/21/1 Mm 26/21/3 Mm
03
00
00 00
02 08
78 35
02 03
28 04
09
00 00 00
00 00
03 02
79 28
11/20 Min 11/21/1 Mm 11/21/2 M'm 11/22/1 M'm 11/22/2 Mm
61 26
01 06 58
12
10
00
00 00 00 00 05
00 64 07 53
00 05 00
51 31 25 57 51
00 00 00 00 00
54
00
00 11 06 02 03 08 10
12/2 M'm U/7/2 Mm 12/8 M'm 12/9 Min 12/13 Mm 12/14/1 Min 12/16/2 M'm
01 07
01 08
00 00 00 00 00 00
85
• 08
00 880 Q1/82—3
3958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II - S EC 3(ii)J 3 5 • 1 2 301 08
26 35
23/8/1 Mm 23/8/2 Min 23/8/3 Min 23/14/1 Min
00 02 14 02
51 78 67 53 26 76 76 76
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 00 00 00
63 Mm 76 Min 77 Min 271 Min 272 Min 291 Min
[Mi. no2o/v*>2-Pw
New Delhi, the 16th Octoticr, 1982
S.O. 3740.—Whereas by notification of the Government of IidiB in the Ministry of Petroleum, ChcmLak & Fertilizer, (Derartmont of Petroleum) S,O. 80 c'atcd 18-12-81 under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum aid Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Userin Land) Act, )962 (50 of 1962), the Cantra 1 Government declared its intention to a cquirt the right of userin the lands speciflcdin the schedule appended to trumjtificationforthe purpose of laying pipeline;
And whereas the C nnpetent Authority has under Sub- Scct'ion (I) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Government;
And furth;r whereas the Central Geiverrmcnt l a s, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of userin thc lands specified in the schedule appended to this noti- fication;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powjr conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Centra Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further in exercise of power conferred by sub- secfion(4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Contra! Government vests on this date of the publication of this declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission free from encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
Pipeline from Jhalora-15 to GGS Jhalora-16
District : Survey No.
Arc
State : Gujarat Village
Mehsana Taluka : Hec- tare
Kadi Cen- tiare
Adraj ,
45 50 25
1476/1 1473 1448 Cart track
0 0 0 0
09 04 05 01
3959 5 1 3 4 2 95 0 0 10 03
1232
1253 75
1225 0 10 75
1224 0 09 00
1221/1 0 09 00
1218/1 0 10 50
1209/1 A 0 01 00
1209/2 0 02 00
1210/2 0 03 50
1210/1 0 14 50
1194/1 0 11 25
1194/2 0 04 65
1198 0 17 55
1199 0 13 50
1179 0 12 30
1187 0 07 50
1186 0 07 5
1185/2 0 13 5°
1182 0 04 50
1184 0 19 05
1113 0 01 00
1112/2 0 12 , 10
1111 0 05 70 New Delhi, the 16th October, H>82
1110 0 06 15 &.O- 3741.—Whereas iI appears to the Central Government
1108/1 0 06 00 that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the transport o
1108/2 0 09 00 petroleum from well N">. AMB to Ahaiedahad-18 in Gujarat
Cart track 0 01 50 State pipeline should he laid by the Oil 8c Natural Gas Com-
Amallyftra . 155 . 0 15 00 mission :
[Ni. 12016/63/81-Prod.I]
And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such ptpoline.itis necessary to acquire the right of user in theland describod in the "schedule annexed hereto :
NJW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipe- lines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its inten- tion to acquire the right of user therein;
Provided that any person interested in the said land may, within 21 days from the date of this notification, object to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Autho- rity, Oil & Natural Gas C )mmlssion, Construction & Main- tenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara (390 009),
And every person making such an objection shall also state
specifically whether he wishes to behcardin perse n or by alegaj practitioner.
SCHEDULE
Pipeline from Well No. AMB to Ahmedabad-18
State : Gujarat District : Ahmedabad Taluka : Dascroi
Village
Survey No.
Are
Hec-
tare
Cen- tlare
Hathijan 0 08
0 00
0 17
0 15
0 04
0
0
3960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KART1KA 15, 1904 ( P A R T U - S E C. 3(..)[
3
4
5
1 2
Association, 1-8-726, Nallakuntak, Hyderabad (A.P.) 500 U44.
...Petitioner
40
OS
0 0 0 0 0 0
23 04 06 03 24
5 7^ 72 00 30 52/2 56/2 56/8 56/12 56/13
[No. 12016/47/82-Prod.] L.M. QOYAL, Director
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE
(Archaeological Survey of India}
New Delhi, the 20ih October, 1982
S.O. 3742.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 oi the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958}, the Central Government hereby rescinds the Government notification, Department or Culture (Archaeological Survey of India) No. S.O. 2676, dated the 8th September, 1981, published in the Guzetto of India, Part 11-Section 3-Sub-aection (ii), dated the 3rd October, 19M at pases 3310-3311.
D. MITRA, Director General and Ex-oflicio Jt. Secy [2/t/Goall 71-M]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION
(Department of Labour)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 19th October, 1982
S.O. 3743.—In the 3id line of the Ministry of Labour Older No, L-12012(2l 1) /81-D. TI(A), dated the 10th August, 1982, for the words "State Bank of India and Jaipur" read "Stale Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur".
[No. L-12012(311)/8I-D. IKA)]
New Delhi, the 20th October, I9S2
S.O. 3744,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Indusrtiul Dispute., Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following1 award of ihc Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunul Hyderabad, in the industtial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Stale Bank of Hyderabad and Iheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on the 15-10-82.
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-ADDITIONAL I ABOUR COURT
Industrial Dispute No. 2 of 78
Sri P. Vishwanathan, Head Clerk State Bank of Hyderabad ' C/o. The General Secretary,
Versus
The General Manuger, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hydciabad.
••• R e s p o n ds
Rcf. •—Lr. No. F. No. L-12012/1 H/77-D. II A, Government of India, Ministry of 1 abour, New Delhi, dated March, 1978,
This Industrial Dispute coming on for final neat ing bctort me on the 15-6-1982 upon perusing the reference, claim statement, counter and other mateiial papers on lecoid and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. K. Jayapriikush Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and M/s, K. Srimvasa Murthy, S. Rjivindra Nath, C. Abraham, Advocates for the respondent and having stood over for consjdeiatioii nil this date, the Tribunal passed the following—
AWARD
This is a reference by the Government -if India in tnt Ministry of Labour "under Section 7-A, read with Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of scclion-JO of the Induitiial Disputes Act, T947 (14 of 1947) of un mdustiiid dispute existing between the employer, viz., the management of State Bank Of Hydciabad and thch workman in respect of the matter us specified in its schedule. The question referred for adjudication is ;—
1'Whether the action of the management of the State Bank, of Hyderabad in denying seniority as Head Clerk from 29-11-69 and consequent promotion as Special Assistant to Shri P. Vishwanathan) Head Clerk, Hyderabad Branch of the Bank is justified? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ?'
2, The case Of the workman ai set out in his claim state- ment liled before this Tribunal is lhat he was appointed on 15-2-1960 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry. Hy- derabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bunk'). On completion of eight years of service and earning good reports and audit credentials the> petitioner was promoted in 1968 .is an Officer Hnd was kept under probation for a period of one ye^r as' per the letter of 1st March, 1968.
3961denied the u.)neclness ot all uvcimcnts oi ihe peli.ioiiei, J he ji.ink staled Ihul the petitioner was validly levelled with etlect Horn i-i-iy/U hum in posa of Juuior Ulliuer in view ol trie unsatistactoiy peilormauee during tlu onginal as well as the extended peiiod., ot piobation, huuher, it is not open lor the peiitionei lo convuss ihe validity oi nhetwisc oi ihe oidct ol revcision from the caUie of Junioi Ulliccr to thai of a clerk as such a claim is outside the scope and purview of the rclerencc. Accoiding ;o the B.uik, the petitioner uas not eti- tiilcd tor any piotection of semoiity in the cadie of a clerk in iciaiion to the peiiod during which he had functioned as a .luiTlor Ofllcci. The Bank, by its letter dutcds30-5-7O had by way of concession, fived the basic pay of the petitionei in the clerical scale at the jluge ol Ks, 297 as on the dale of his rcveision "s u Clerk, and thcic has been no recognition of any seniority ol the petitioner by ihe Hank in Ihe clcircal Cddie taking into account the period of his service as a Junior Officer which is a wholly dilferent ciidic. The Bank further a asserted that the petitioner was offered the appointment as a Head Cleik in Oclobei, 1 'J70 only on the basis thai his service as Junior Officer is not lo be reckoned .is that of a clerk and the petitionei accepted the same and ucioidingly he was appointed as the Head Cleik with effect from 8-5-71. Il is stated that the impoit and contents of the letter dated 24-4-72 have been deliberately misconstrued by the petitioner and by its lettei of the above dale the Bank had not advised the petitioner thut in fixing seniority as Head Cleik his ser- vice us the Junior Officer hud heen taken into account and that his seniority had accoidingly been ii\cd as Head Cleik from a date prior to the date of actual appointment i.e. 8ih January, 1971, ns Head Clerk. 'Ihe Hank further made it clear that his seniority as Head Clerk could nor be considered from any date earlier to his act- ual dute of appointment viz., Nth January, 1971, and. he also repeatedly intoimed that the period of his seivicc as lunior Ollicci could not be lonsidcied in riving the senio- rity foi purposes of piomotion lo the post of Head Clerk and thut his senionty as Head Clerk should be counted in the above cadie and lhal his furlhci cluim for seniority as Head Clerk fiom 29-11-69 wns not tenable, 4. The petitioner thvu submitted u lepiescnution to pio- tcct his .scniorny us a. Head Cleik winch w.^ advised Ihiough letter No, PI-/l"-68-|4420, dated 24-4-/2 having mime neeess.uy collections to protect hi, seniomy in ilie cadie of Ihe flcid Clerk at the fust instance, and neccss-iiy collections were also earned emuiuy w.'i,s signed by die Swpcriniendenl. 'I he petitioner also pointed out that the original piotection of seniority given was withdrawn after ,i lapse of 13 months. The petitioner fwither slated that Ihe UnnL by us communication dated 22-3-1974 gave the reasons and confirmed that he was deemed lo he tin awaid staff member right from 15-2-60 becuibe n ieeogiu-.ed the piotec- tion of seniority in the award cadre which restoied ihe leave i.e. the sick leave on full pay availed as an olhccr by debit to ordinary leave on medical grounds ,ib per the aw aid rules and the li\ation of pay adding two incn_ments. The peti- tioner further pointed out iMa. consequent tipon ihe nrhitiaiy decision of the Bank to icveit him and reducing his emolu- ments by Rs. 150 per month as1 he was ollicei un probation, once again eonhrmed that he w:is enjoying all awiij piolec- tion benefits. Moreover, ihe Bank did not at any time infoim the petitioner that his seivices in the ollicer cadie will not be counted for seniority in the award c.idre. In addition to this, according In the petitioner lii% seivicc i
6. The Bank submitted that the petitioner was revcrcled to the cudre ol Clerk with eflect fiom 2-3-70 Certain mem- bers of the clencaj staff who hdd bv them communicated then acceptance to ihc offei earlier made by the Bank for appointment as Hcud Clerk vvere appointed us such with effect from 16-4-70 Thi; petitioner could nof be included in that list of appointees us Head Cleik ftom 16-4-70 as the petitioner's consent thereof, could not be obtained in time and subsequent to his reversion as Clerk with effect liom 2-3-70. The petitioner wus accoidingly appointed as Head Clerk against his acceptance letter of 14-10-70 along with the next immediate batch of cmploces ,is Head Clerk with, effect fiom fi-1-71. alongwith the other cleiks having seniority equal to that of the petitioner. Subsequent in \icw ol the fact that the petitioner w.ts in the clciic-il cadre as on 2-3-70 itself and lll.it he was not considered tor pio- motion us Head Clerk with ihe batch that was piomoled from 16-4-70 because his consent thcicfor could not be obtained in time, the Bank in respondent to the lcquesfs ol [he petitioner agreed for the petitioner's .cnlorily to be reckoned as Hend Clerk with effect from 16-4-70 being the date of piomotion of others as Head Clerks immediately after the reversion of Ihe ' petitioner to the clerical cadre. The petitioner, accoidinc to Ihe Bank, accepted this fixa- tion of his seniority as Head Clerk with effecl from 16-4-70 and at his request he u:is also paid the an ears of Special Allowance etc., payable to a Head Clerk, foi the period fiom 16-4-70 lo 7-1-71.
5. The Bank in its counter in the Ihst foni paraginphs stated that there is no valid industrial dispute within the meaning of said term under Sectioii-2(k) and thai the claim of thj peti- tioner is not an industrial dispute wirhin the meaning of that Siection and it is only an individual cljim of (he peti- tioner against the Bank. The respondent further avenedlh.it the reference by the Central Government of this dispute is not valid and is not in accordance with luw, as the considerations that pievailed with the Central Government in making the said reference are not germane to the exercise of the, said poser, because there was no existing dispute between the Bank and its workmen and there id no industrial unrest of appre- hension of such unrest in this respondent Bank ,,nd consequently it was pointed out that the claim of the petitioner was not supported or canvassed by any ,iiibstjn;ial number of em- ployees or by the majority of the woikmen or by a union ic- cogniscd by the Bank which is the Stnte Bank c.f Hydeiabad Staff Association and the majority union rf the award employed. The Slate Hank of Hydeiabad Kmployccs Association which sponsored this dispute has only a membership of few hundreds us against the majority union. It is also averred that (fie Central Government in mating ihi-, reference was primarily moved by erroneous considei aliens find a feeling that the Bank is denying the seniority of the petitioner because he happens to be the President of the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees' Association, Ever, otherwise the said consideiations ,\re not nl nil scrmance for the e\eicise of the powers vested in the Government under Sccrion-lOCIKd) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3962 THE GAZETTE 0£ INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)Jsics in relation to such employees. The Bank theiefore prayed th;i( the reference may be dismissed,
"If the dispute was in its inception an individual dispute and continued to be such till the date of the reference by the Government, it could not be con- certed into an industrial dispute by suppoit subse- quent to the reference even of workmen interested in the dispute. Just as subseqeunt withdrawal of the suppoit will not take away the jurisdiction of an industrial Tiibunal, the subsequent support will not convert what was an individual dispute at the time of reference into an industrial dispute," 8. The several contentions and the counter contentions with jeference to the dates and several letters made in the claim statement and the counter lcspectivcjy arc so numerous that they made it very difficult to make out wh.it exactly is the chiim of the petilionei and what is the case of the Bank, Bereft of LIII the references to the tellers anj d.itei and other contentions the simple claim of the petitioner is ihat he was appointed as a clerk and after putting in service of 8 yeais he-was piomoted as a Junior Officer and after putting in ii ser\iec of 2 yeais and 1 day, he was reverted back to his oiiginal post of clerk without assigning any reisons, tnat in ihc meanwhile some ot the cleiks who weic appointed iilongwilh him and who were appointed after him also were promoted as Head Clerks; thnt his rcvcision to the cadiC of clerk is wrong because his seniority in the clerical cadie have been piotected including the period he worked as Junior Officer and he should have been reverted as a Head Clerk giving him that scnionty which he would nave pot had he continued as a Cleik along with otheis. The case of ibe Bank, on the other hand is that the penod for which the petitioner woiked as Junior Officer cannot be counted for purposes of his seniority in the clerical cadre because that would be giving him a double benefit, and secondly the clerks who were appointed as Head Clerk during the peiiod he was acting as Junior Officer were asked to give their acceptance to their promotion as Head Cleiks much oallier to the petitioner and the acceptance of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Head Clerk was obtained on 14-10-70 and he was accordingly given the appointment of Head Clerk in the nc\t immediate batch with effect from 8-1-71 and the Bank very fairly fixed his seniority in the cadre of Head Clerk with effect from 16-4-70 the date of promotion of others to the post of Head Clerk immediately after the reversion of the petitioner to the cleiical cadi6 though he was actually promoted on 8-1-71.
9. It will have to be seen as to which of the contentions is correct and whether the Bank has really denied the seniority which is due to the petitioner.
10. Before dealing with (he several contentions on the merits 1 shall fiist discuss the contentions of Mr. Ravindra- nath, learned Counsel tor the Bank icgarding Ihe maintain- ability of this reference and other legal arguments.
11. It has already been seen that in the counter the Bank raised the plea that the claim of the petitioner is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the term under Scction-2(k) of the I.D. Act, and it is only an indi- vidual claim of the petitioner us* against the Bank. It was also stated that the Central Government have no validity exercised the powers vested in n undci the relative provisions of the I.D. Act. Mr, Ravindranath learned Counsel for the Bank aigued that in this case the dispute was not es- poused by an appreciable number of employees and therefore the individual dispute does not become an industrial dispute. He also argued that unless there is a resolution by the executive committee, the case of an individual workman cannot also be espoused. For this proposition Mr. Ravindra- nalh placed reliance on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of The Bombay Union of Journalists vs. The Hindu(l) The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Shah speaking for the bench observed as follows :—
12. The propositions emerge from the above observations of theii Lordships, (1) that even an individual dispute may bc.omc an industrial dispute if it is taken up by the union oi a numbei of workmen who aie directly interested in the dispute ; (2) if the dispute at its inception was an individual dispute and continued to be so till the date of lefeicnce, it would not be converted into an industtial disptue by the suppoit subsequent to the reference, just ,is a subsequent withdiawal of support will not take away the jurisdiction of the Industiial Tiibunal. Thus, in ascertaining whether an industrial dispute has acquired the chaiactcr of an Industrial Dispute, the test is whether on the date of reference the dispute was1 taken up and supported by the union or workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised. 1 hese proposition of law arc not de- muiied to by Mr. layaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, hut what he (.ontended was that in this case the cause was espoused by one union lo which the petitioner belonged before the Conciliation Officer. Mr. Javaprakash Rao secondly contended that this point about the dispute being only individual disputes has not been raised before the Conciliation Officer and theiefore it cannot be allowed to be taken now. It is true that if a dispute is espoused by the Union before the date of reference, it would be an indus- trial dispute vide Workmen of Indian Fxpress Newspapers Ltd., vs Management.(2) In ascertaining whether an indivi- dual dispute has acquiied the chacter of an industrial dis- pute, the test is whether on the date of reference the dispute was taken up 01 suppoiled by the union of workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised. When the validity of the reference relating to a single workman is challengeablc on the ground that what was lefcrred k only an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute, It is not for the employer to establish that the dispute is not an industrial dispute. On the other hand it is for the workman to show that his cause h-^s been sponsored by a union by a number of workmen of his class. It will have to be seen whether the petitioner has proved that this dispute was espoused by the union before the dale of reference and it continued so until the reference is made. In his evidence the petitioner has staled thnt in the respondent Bank there aie two unions; (1) State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Union and (2) State Bank of Hyderabad Staff Association. He also admitted that at the relevant time the Employees was having a membership of 1,500 members whereas the other association was having membership of 4,500 employees. In his chief examination the petitioner slated that the employees union espoused his cause and he w;is the Presi- dent of the Union at that time. But he however did not produce any resolution to this effect. Nor has he filed into this Court the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer to show that at thai stage his cause was expoused. by the General Secretary of the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Union. In fact in cross examination the petitioner admitted that befoie this Court he has not filed any docu- ment to show that the Employees Association espoused his cause by way of resolution. He also admitted that it was concct that whenever his association espoused the cause of the employee, the managing committee used to pass lesolu- tion to Ihrit effect and that they have bye-laws of their association, but they were not filed into this Court, Before this Couit there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that the cause of the petitioner was espoused by the union of which he was a member, whether it is a minority union or a majority union,
"A dispute between an employer and a .ingle employee cannot per se be an industrial dispute, hut it may become one if it is taken up by the Union oi a number of workmen. The persons whom seek to support the cause of a workman must themselves be directly and substantially interested in th; dispute and this would depend on the facts and ciicumstances of each case. Persons who are not employees of the same employer cannot be regarded as so interes- ted that by their support they may conveit an indi- vidual dispute into an industrial dispute. In each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether at the date of the reference the dispute wai taken up or supported by the Union of the woikmcn of ihc employer against whom the dispute Is laKed by individual woikman or by nn
13. Mr, Ravindranath secondly argued that in the matter of promotion it is purely the discretion of the employer and -at best this Tribunal can only direct a consideration of Ihe case of the petitioner, even in a case wheie it conies to the conclusion that the management was actuated yinnrpcinhiff number of workmen."
3963by malafidcs. No exception can be taken lo the piuposj- tion of law ennunciated by Mr. Ravindianath nor was it demuned to by Mi. Jayaprakash Rao. In the case of Brooke Bond (India) (Private) Ltd. vs. Their woikmen(3) a full bench of five judges picsided over by Sii P. B. G.iiendi.i- gadkai. Chief Justice held that :
"Generally speaking, piomolion is a management func- tions; but. it may be recognised that there may be occasions when a tribunal may have to interfeic with promotion made b\ the management whei? it is ie'J that persons superseded have been so supeiscdcd oh account of mala fides Or victimisation. Fvcn so af er a finding of mala fides or victimisation, it is not the function of various employee? itself and then decide whom to piomote or whom not to.pio- mote. If any industrial Tribunal finds Ihnt piomo- lions have been made which are unjustified on the ground of malafidcs or of victimisation the piopei course for it to take is to set aside the promotions and as^" 'he management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself who 10 promote "
14. In view of my finding that the petitioner has not ptoved by any evidence that his d'Spute w.is espoused by a Union, the reference is bad and could be teiminuted on that point itself. T however, proceed to consider (he case on merits nlso because bolh Ihe learned counsel argued the matter on merits at some length.
seniority .is a Hcnd Clcik bul lm\\c\ci this ivpifwitalinn was neithei filed b> the pctitionei noi hy the Hunk. The Bank by its communication dated 24-4-72 (mniked as Ex. M-ll) stated that with reference to his representation, they have made nccessaiy eoirection to protect his senioiity in the cadre of Head Clerk and advised him accordingly. According to the petitioner, his name in the ,enioiity list at that' time was fixed at SI. No. T*/\. This f'ict is evident by the entry in the seniority list Ex. M-24. But a pemsiil of the other entries in fx. M-24 show* that original the name of the pelilionci was shown at SI. No. It)3 and by lounding off that number his name was introduced between SI. No. 79 and 80 giving this item No. 79/A. But the petitioner once again by his letter dated 1-5-72 (marked as Ex. M-12-B) wanted to be informed the date from which he has been treated as Head Clerk for purposes of seniority and the lewsed number in the seniority list maintained in the Staff Department Theicaflei the petitioner made two more representations one dated 25-5-71 Imarked as Ex. M-12- A) and the other dated 12-10-72 (maiked as Ex, M-12). The Bonk by its communication dated 2-4-73 (matLed ;
(i)vAfter ieversion to the substantive post ol Clerk your seniority was protected m the Award cqdre and you were olfeied Head Clerk's promotion on 14th Octo- ber, 1970 along with other eligible emp'oyecs and posted to city Branch of 8th Januaiy, 1971, You have enjoyed the benefits of Officer during the period of 1st Match, 1968 to 1st March, 1970, os such you cannot be allowed benefits of Head Clerk even for the purpose of the seniority.
fiij There were piomotions to Head Clciks cadre on Ifith April, 1970 on the basis of oilers mad: earlier in 1970 when you could have been piomolcd as Head Clerk had you continued in the clerical cadie.
The Bank also intimated the petitioner by Ex. M-17 that the matter be Ijeated ,is closed. Finally, the Bank by its communication dated 9th August, 1974 (Ex, M-18) com- municated a memo fixing his seniority as Head Clerk. Tt is also nccessaiy to extract the letter in toto because the Bank once again examining the position of seniority, fixed his date HS from 16lh April, 1970 The said communication reads as follows ;
1. The question relating to your seniority as Head Clerk has been examined by us once ugain in de- tailed in the light of >our above leDrescntation.
2. You arc heicby informed that we ; re still of (he opinion that your claim for fixation of your senio- rity with effect from 29th November, 1969 is not tenable, for the leasons already detailed in our ear- lier letter No. Gr, IT/PF/P. 68/11910 dated 22nd M*ch, 1974.
15. The claim of the petitioner in his case i^ (hat he should be Riven his seniority in the Head Clei k posi from 29-11-1969 instead of fiom 16-4-1970 as was fixed bv the Bank. It is necessary to state a fevv facts and dates which tire not disputed in this case. The petitioner was appointed as 'a Clerk in the Bank if 15-2-60, by the letter dated 23-2-68 marked as Fx. M-l. An intimation was given to the petitioner that the executive committee had resolved to promote him to the cadre of Junior Officer with effect from 1st March, 1968 on a probation for on; yenr and asked for his consent, vvhich the petitioner "ave by an endorsement dated 1st March, 19fi8 on Ex. M-l. He was continued as a Junior Officer till 1-3-70, having been reverted to the post of clcik by viituc of a communication dated 24-2-70 marked as Ex. M"-7. The petitioner contended that this reversion was unjustified and arbitiary and that he did not opt for reversion. However, this contention of the petitioner does not seem to be correct. During his tenure as officer the petitioner was twice served with memo, one dated 13-12-6R marked as Ex. M-2 and another dated 20-2-69 marked as Ex. M-4. By the former the petitioner was intimated that there were repoits against him and pointed out as many as live irregularities and he w is aaviscd "in his own interest" to overcome the "hortcomings enumeiatcd in that memo in good time. By the latter memo. fEx. M-41 it was brought to the notice of the petitioner lh.it he wan still advised "in his own interest" to overcome the short- comings mentioned therein. Ultimately. Hy Ex. M-6 dated 19-6-69 the petitioner was intimated that as (he reports on his work and conduct during the period of probation have not been satisfactory, the executive committee resolved that his period of probation be extended by six months from 1st March, 1969. Ultimately by Ex. M-7 the petitioner was reverted to hi* substantive post of clerk as the executive committee decided that his period of probation ni Junior Officer be not extended any futthcr. The petitioner, submit- ted his explanations to these memos. However it will be seen that there were some complaints against the petitioner during his tenure as Junior Officer and his period of proba- tion was also extended and ultimately he was reverted to his substantive post of Clcik. The matter .if his ieversion to the substantive post of cleik is not the subject matter of (his reference and it need not be dealt with any prenter length. To continue the nanalion of facts ind dales, after his reversion to the cadre of clcik on 2-3-70 the petitioner was asked to give his consent to he piomoted as a Head Clerk by a communication dated 14-10-70 CEx\ M-9) and the petitioner accepted (he offer and signified his assent by an endorsement on Ex. M-9 and the petitioner UM appoin- ted as a Head Clerk by undei an office ordei dated 2-1-71 which is marked as Fx. M-10. Thereafter the peti- tioner seems to have made representation to protect his
3. It has, however, been decided to reckon \ou. for the purpose of your seniority as ,1 Head Clerk, along with the batch of promotees of the category of Head Clerks listed in the Bank's Office order No, S-66/518 dated 16th April. 1970, (3) 1966 (1) I.T..J. 402.
3964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTTKA 15, 1904 [PART I I - S E C, 3(ii)]Aftoi the uceipl ol iliii K-IILi IJio pciiimnei I• v hi' I' llci dated 16th August, ll>74 slated tii.it consequent upon injud ing his name along with the bakh o[ p r o m o t er <>l the cadic of Hcud Clerk listed in If it; Bunk C ommiinicaliun dated 16th Apiil, 1974, he is entitled to aneais and ieqi>i-sred ih.it suitable oidcis be given to that elleel, that he m.iy also bo supplied with ;in office oidci undei icfcrcncc loi hi, iccoid. The Bunk by its communication d.ited 27lh Au.misl, 1974,
true tli.)t no if.iscMs weic jiiven In; v-tihdiawm^ lt.\. M - ll but that docs nol seem aibiii.uy, because icasons. wcie given in l-\. M-17. cMiacled above, foi refiving his seniotity as Head Cleik liom I fill) Apiil, 1970, though these reasons were not communicated at the time when Ex. M - ll was withdrawal, it will be also pertinent to sec in this connection that when once his seniority has been t^fixed .vith effect from 161h April, 1970 the petitioner himself accented th it posi- tion and in fact he accepted that piomolion and icceived the payment of aireais fiom J6|h April, 1970 to Nth January, 1971 in Ihe cadre of Head Cletk and he was also paid those ariears and did not uuse the question of seniority eny mote except Hie fuither promotion fiom Head Clerk to the Special Assistant. Promotion to the cadic ol Head is also at the dis- cretion veMed in the Hank, and the Bank considered the claims of the petitioner for promotion as Head Cleik as soon as he was reverted to his substantive post of clerk and he was piomoted to the post of Head Clerk with effect from Klh January, 1971 after obtaining his conscnl on 14th October, 1970 The sense of fair play and justice exhibited by the Bank is evident from the fact that even though the .petitioner was actually piomoted to the post of Head Cleik and he has taken charge from Sth January, 1971, it has ttiven him the seniority in the post of Head Clerk JYom 16lh \ p u l, 1970 in view of the fact that after the icversion of the petitioner to the post of cleik fiom 1st March, 1970 a batch of clerks who were juniois to the petitioner were actually working as Head Cleiks ihoiwh they weic appointed .is Head Cleiks in consequence of Ihe decision taken by the Bank at a time when the petitioner was woiking us a Junior Officer, and the petitionci has also accepted this position dnd has re- ceived the an ears and has only raised this point once again at lhc time of fuilher promotion from Head Clerk to Special Assistant Whatever it may, be when once the rule position viz., that promotion to Head Clerk and ftnther promotion to the post of Special Assistant is a m itter of disci etion of the Bank depending on senioiity cum-mctit 1'it; petitioner has not Jtor any automatic claim for these iosts The Bnnk has also right fixed the date as 16th April, 1970 from which the petitioner is entitled to he given seniority from that date. In this view of the matter r do not find any grounds for inleiferrinp wilh the decisions of the Bank.
17 The reference is therefore rejected and Award passed
uccoidinfilv
D a t e d: 16-6-1982.
Appendix of Evidence
List of Witnesses Examined
f or Workman
Witness
SI.
Particulars
No . Number
1. W.W.-l 1-2-82/. Sri P, Vishwanathan.
8-1-82
Management
For 1 . M-W-l 18-3-82/-
25-1-82
Sri J . V . M. Raju Officer Per- sonnel Deptt.
List of Documents Marked
For Workman
Particulars Representation of the pencr made before the Managing Director, 16 Now, the contention of the petitioner is that while lie was actiny as Junior OITker some of the cleiks who vveie juniots to him aic promoted as Head Clerks and on his rever- sion he should have been given the piomolion of Head Cleik counting his senionlv in the cadre of cleik and should have been put above them, giving him that seniotily. The conten- tion on behalf of the Bank, on the other h;ind is that the petitioner having been in the cadtc of Junior Ofii cr dining that period, he will not he entitled to be posted as Head Clerk because that will amount to giving him doiihlt' benefit. Mr. Ravindianath learned Counsel foi the Hank further con- tended that the Head clcik's post is also a promotional post according to the niles of the Hank and the neiiiinner simnh by his senioiity in the <_adie of cleik vvill not hi entitled to such a promotion and thcreloie he has been II'VCJI the n o- motion aftei icvcrsion as a Cleik. ihat even though lie was actually appointed as a Head Cleik and taken chaise .is such on 8th January, iy7l, he was given the senioiity IP Ihe cadic of Head Cleik fiom 16th Apiil, 1970. alonj; with the batch whose acceptance was obtained prior and -vlio weic pio- moted. I o my mind theic seems to be substance in this argument of Mr. Ravindranalh, learned Counsel lor the Bank. iDuring the period when the petitioner was funclioninc as Junior Offker a batch of cleiks weie promoted us Head Clerks. The petitionci could not be consideicd foi the post of Head Clerk because he was alicady tiding in hitfhei post viz., Junior Officer. Acc-oidinc to the i ules of Ihe BanV candi- dates for promotion us Head Cleiks will he eonsidcud bv a Committee and on Iheii recommendation the piomotions arc affected. It is also evident fiom the lecoid placed before me that consequent upon a decision by such a committee I he acceptance is also obtained from the incumbents and after that he will he fiiven the piomolion. In view of the lact that the petilionei at the relevant liroc w \s aclinc as a Junior Officer his name was not considered and his acceptance was not obiained. In short, he was not a candidate foi pro- motion as Head clerk on that date. In this connection it will be pertinent to note that even by the date of 'us reversion to the post of Clerk some cleiks were alieadv corisidoied for promotion at Head Cleiks and their consent was alicady obtained and they vyere Riven the posting of Head Clcik I mm 16th April. 1970 and even alonn with that b.ilch the peti- tioner's consent could not be obtained because by the da*e when the consent of the olhci candidates was obtained the petitioner was still deling as a Junior Officer. Th.' petitioner lifter his reveision to the post of cleik was also considered for the piomolion nnd he was called upon |o {Hie his consent by a communication dated 14th October. 1970 am| after his consent was obtained he was appoinlcd us a Ik-ad Clerk with effect from 8th Januaiv. 1971. Btil the management denying the fact tha) some clerks who were junioi-i to the petitioner weic ahcadv appointed as Head Cleit s wilh effect from 16th April. 1970 once again revised their decision to given seniority to the petitioner with effect from 8lh January. 1971 the date on which he taken chaise as H c^ Cleik and fixed his senioritv with effect fiom 16th Apiil. 1970 because that batch had taken chaiee as Head Cleiks iftei the date of reversion of the petitioner, Mr. Javaprakash R ;n in his1 con- nection however contended that no reasons were assigned for the withdrawal of Ex. M - ll giving him the on'fiinal seniority and fixing his seniority fiom 16th Aprij, 1970. It is
SPH.
3965 4 i 2 3 3 4 1 2 7-4-72 2. Ex.W-2 13 . Ex.M-l2(a ) 25-5-71Lr. No. MD/F2/496/sent by the Manager to the petitioner.
Representation of the petnr, for leave record.
3.EX.W-3 1-5-78
14 . Ex.M-12(t i) 1-5-72
Requisition letter of the petitioner before Managing Director, S.B.H. for supply of the information mentiontcd therein.
Representation of the petnr. to G.M. asking tho date from which he was treated as a Head Clerk.
4. Ex.W-4 4-5-7K
. Ex.M-13
15
2-4-73
Reply to Ex.W-3 sent by the Personnel Admn. Depot SDH Head Office, Hyderabad to the petitioner.
Memo issued by the Supdt. staff Deptt. to the petnr. fur- nishing his seniority as a Head Clerk.
16, Ex.M-14 9-5-73
For Management
Clarification sought by the petnr- with regard to seniority as a Head Clerk.
Particulars
SI. No
Date of marking
Exhibit '. Number
17. Ex.M-15(a) 11-2-72 True copy of the representation made by the pctnr. to protect
1.
23-2-66
Ex.M-1
seniority.
18 . Ex.M-15 31-3-73
Lr. No. PF/6480 issued by the Deputy General Manager, SBH, Gunfoundry.
2. Ex.M-2 13-12-68
Reply to Ex.M-14 conveyed to the petnr. by the Supdt. staff deptL.
19
12-3-74
. Bx.M-16
Confidential letter No. PF/- 40960 issued by tho Dy. Gen. Manager, SBH, Gunfoundry.
Ex.M-3
3.
Representation of the pctnr. made to the G.M. SBH, seeking protection of seniority.
Various dates
. Bx.M-17
20
22-3-74
Bunch of representation of the workmen and reply to it by the Management.
4.
20--J-69
Ex.M-4
Memo. No. Gr-II/PF/P-68/- 11930 issued by the Supdt. intimating that the matter is closed,
Confidential Lr. No. PF/6600 issued by the Dy, Gon. Manager, SBH, Gunfoundry.
21. Ex.M-18 9-8-74
5. Ex.M-5 18-3-69
Memo. No, Gr. II/PF/30442 with regard to the Fixation of seniority as Head Clerk.
Representation of the pclnr. before the Genl. Manager, SBH, Hyd.
22.: Ex.M-19 16-8-74
6. Ex.M-6 19-6-69
Lr. dt. 16-8-74 requesting copy of the office order in connection with Fixation of seniority as Head Clerk.
Confidential Lr. No, PF/18971 regarding extension cf the probation of the petnr, for a period of six months.
. Ex.M-20 27-8-74
7.
23,
Ex.M-7 24-2.70 Reversion letter No. staff PF/- 15952.
8, Ex.M-8 10-3-70
Memo. Gr. JI/PF/P-68/33262 intimating the petnr. that he is eligible for the payment of consequential arrears for the period from 16-4-70 lo 7-11-71.
7-4-75
24. Ex.M-21
Lr. No. PF/P 68/10734 Issued by the Supdt. Staff Deptt., In I'ospecl of fixing up the salary of tho pctnr, consequent the reversion as Clerk..
Representation of the ptenr. before the M.D-, SBH, Hyd.
9. Ex.M-9 14-10-70
Ex.M-22
25.
17-4-75 Memo No. Gr. 1T/PF/P-68/- 16707 issued by the Asst. Gen. Manager.
Lr. No. PF/P-68 issued by the Supdt. staff Dcpt. calling option of the pctnr. for consideration to the posts of Head Clerk.
Ex.M-23 1-5-81
26.
10. Ex.M-10 2-1-71
Office order issued rcdesignating Head Clerks as spel. Assistants.
Ex.M-24
Office order No. S. 66/1 with regard to the posting of Head Clerks.
27.
11. Ex.M-11 24-4-72
Photostatc extract for the senio- rity list of Head Clerks at Head Office and Branches of State Bank of Hyd.
Ex.M-24(a) —
28.
Lr. No. PF/P-68/14420 issued by Supdt. Staff Depl. with reference to the protection of seniority of the petnr. in the cadre of Head Clerks.
Relevant portion marked in Ex. M-24.
-do- Ex.M-12
Ex.M-24(b) —
1240-72
29.
n.;
-do-
Ex.M-24(c)
30.
K. SUBBA RAO, Chairman
Lr. of tlie petnr. to the G.M. SBH Hyd. requesting to furnish the date from which he has been treated as Head Clerk for tho purpose of seniority and tho I eaVo records after adjustments.
Additional Industrial Tribunal, A,P. Kydttebit. [NO. L-l 2012(114)/77-t)lI(A)].
*80 GI/S2-4
3966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 21st October, 1982
S.O. 3745.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centnl Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in 1he industnai dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on the 12th October, 1982.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT CALCUTTA
Reference No. 86 of 1980
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of State Bank
of India
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice M. P. .Singh, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of Employers—Mr. P. K. Mukhcrjee, Advo-
cate, with Mr. S. K. Datta, Advocate.
On behalf of Workmen—Mr. M. M. Saha, Advocate.
STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.
AWARD
By its Order No. I.-12012/151 /79-D.TT.A dated 23id Octo- ber, 1980, the Government of India, Minist.-y of Labour sent the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Calcutta in retiring Shii B-Hlliuth Rain, Jamadar, Bchala Branch with effect from 10th Sep- tember, 1978 is justified ? ]f not, to what lelief is the workman concerned entitled."
2. From the terms of reference it is clear thi't the man- agement of the Stnte Rink of India, Calcutta got Baijmth Ram, Jamadar retired with effect from 10th September, 1978 and the question is whether the aclion of the Bank is justi- fied. AccouHnR to the Bank, the date of birth of Baiinath Ram is 11th September. 1918 but according to the workman his date of birth is February, 1920. The question to he de- termined is which date of birth is correct. On the evidence on record T have no hesitation in holding that the version of the Bank is correct.
3. Baijnath Ram, the concerned workman, was appointed in the services of the then Imperial Bank of India as a Messenger on 10th March, 1944. At that time he duly filled in (wo forms of decoration, one for Imperial Bank of India Employes Provident Fund Txt. M-2) and the other the Im- perial Bank of Tndia Employees Pension and Guarantee Fund fFxt. M-31 MWcin thr- dite of birth wis dec-bred as 11th September. 1918. These two forms of declaration were signed by the concerned workmin B'tijnnlh RRTI h i m ^f in presence of witnesses of the Imperial Bonk of Tndia. These documents a1on" with other pnpers were sent bv ihe Im- perial Bank of India to Ihc State Bank pf T-dh \jh"n hv the piwiip of the_ SMc Bip\ of Tmila Act, 1?S"5 the undcii.ii.-'ng of the Imnerml Bank of Tndirt was iransfeTcd tn the Sla'c Bank of India constitute^ under th.it Act. The sfivice of existing offivrs a"r1 rmnlovrcs of the Tmpe-ial B''nk of India wa,s tramffrrrd to "if- Stale B';>nk of Tnd-'a urd-i- Sec- tion 7 of the Wd Act. By vHiie thereof Biifnafh Ram be- carne an employee of the State Bank pf India.
4. It is to be noticed that the two declaration forms (Ext. M-2 and M-3> were sirmed by B-iiinath Rnm himself and thev were prepared in October. 1944. The workmen m their written statement have rmt chillenjicd
5. It is not in doubt that the service sheet is not pjepared under any statute or under any Rule framed under any Statute. In my opinion, the service sheet has no statutory foice ^nd in the present case it cannot be preferred to the two old documents when the correctness of the entry in thosj two documents is not challenged. In the circumstances I am not prepared (o accept the service-sheet (Ext. M-l) in picfrrence. to Fxts. M-2 and M-3 1 believe the conectness of Fxts. M-2 and M-3 and hence it must be held that the correct date of birth of Baiinath Rim is 11th September, 1918 as ici.urded in Fxts. M-2 and M-3.
6. T( is submitted on beh,.lf of the workmen thi.t MW-1 S K. Biswas, (he Brunth Manager at Bchala had le.om- mended for extension of seivice of Baijnath Ram. Tha1 is true. But Mi. S. K. Biswas himself has made it (JCHI in his evidence that he haj done no on the basis o[ the sc;vicu sheet, E\(, M<-1 which was then ivaiinbie 'n the Behala branch nf the Stn"e Bank of India. Thereafter the State Bank of India had occ ision to look into the ssrvjee records of Baijnath Rnm rind when it found that the correct date of birth iis IC ovded in Fxts. M-2 and M-3 was 11th September, 1918 it asked the Branch MunaRcr to retire Bniinath Rnm with effect fiom 10th September, 1978. This was done. So, the union cannot Like advantage of the lecomniend.ition Mr. S. K. Biswas who had no occasion to see Exts. M-2 and M-3. It is a'so to be noted that Baiinath Ran> on 5th May, 1980 wrote ii letter to the Chief General Manager for payment of giatuity on the basis of retirement on 10th Sep- tember, 197H. That was paid to him. In my opinion Ihe, is also a circumstance against Baijnath Ram.
7. It was next urged on behalf of the Union thnt 11 In September, 1918 co-Id not be the date of birth. becau\: in th.it case BaijmlTi Ram would be 25 yeais 6 months old, that is s-v, nvcr-\iqed at th<* time of his nilinl appointment which _ piimn fa ie be ind'g;ble for appointment, The nteu- ment is biscd on surmise and conjectutc. Documentary evi- dence. Fxts. M~2 and M' 3, cannot be thrown out on this imaginary contention, It ;s not known whether there was any maximum aue limit for appointment o,f a Masseng<.'i in Impel Inl B.inl: of TmTi.i at that time or whether the appoint- ing authority had powei to condone the over QRc or whether Baiinath Ram wns working on n temporary .msis even plior to his rcguhr appointment on 10th March, 1944, I think that it is not permissible to proceed on conjecture ignoiing 1he material evidence on record.
R. It was next urged that MW-1 Mr. S. K. Biswas had said in his evidence in cross-examination that at the time of appointment " Memorandum of application is wken by the management from the appointee. It is to be noted that he
docs not say that the Imperial Bank of India used to take such memorandum of application. He may be speaking about the State Bank of India. He was not competent to say any- thing about the Imperial Bank of India where he had never worked. The contention thus has no force.
9. Lastly it was argued on behalf of the workmen that in the service-sheet there is Reference to CR 622. It is how- ever clear that this reference relates to the date of confirma- tion of Baijnnth Ram on ,10th September, 1944 and it does not relate to the date of birth. I have already said that the co'umn which requires the source of verification on the date of birth has not been filled UP and is blank. So this con- tention also is without any merit,
10. The Bank has filed neveral other documents. But they tie not material for ascertaining the date of birth and ihere- [ore, it will not be useful to ditcuss them.
11. After considering the evidence on record ^nd the sub- missions raised on behalf of the bank my award h thnt the Ktion of the management of the State Bank of India Talcuttn in retirinR Baijnath Ram, Jamadar, Bchain branch With effect from 10th September, 1978 is justified and, the'e- lore, the concerned workman Baijnath Ram is not entitled K) any relief.
Dated, Calcutta,
The 23 rd September, 1982.
M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer [No. L-12O12(151)/79-D,II(A)l A. K. SAHA MANDAL, Desk Officer
New Delhi, the 21st October, 1982
S.O. 374*.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Messrs Hirachand M. Shah, Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agent, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 11th October, 1982.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY
Reference No. CGIT-2/32 of 1981
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the Management of \#essrs Hirachand M. Shah, Shipping, Clearing and For- warding Agent, Bombay,
AND
Their Workmen.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers ; 1. Shri I. C. Mullaji. Advocate. 2. Shri Deepak
partner.
For the workmen Shri I. S. Sawant,
Asstt. Secretary, Transport &, Dock Workers, Union, Bombay.
INDUSTRY: Ports and Docks. STATE : Maharashtra.
Bombay, the 27th September. 1982
AWARD
(Dictated in the open court)
Bv order No L-31011(121 ffil-D.IV(A) dated 17th De- cember, 1981 under Section 10O)(d) of the Industrial Dii-
88OGI/82—5
3*67
putes Act, 1947 the following dispute haa been referred for rdjudi.ation and it relates to the termination of in all 12 employees who were formerly in the service of a firm called M/s. Hirachand M. Shah doing the business as Shipping, Clearing and forwarding Agent at Bombay. Shri Mullaji oo behalf of one of the employers says that it was a registeted firm under the Indian Partnership Act :—
"Whether the action of the management of Messrs Hha- chand M. Shah, Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Agent, Bombay in teiminating the services of the undermentioned 12 workmen is justified? If not. to what relief arc the workmen concerned entitled:"
Names of the workmen :
1. Shri Ramchnndra T. Gite 2. Shri Venilal D. Doshi. 3. Shri Usmanshah Bawa. 4. Shri Kanak D. Bhatt. 5. Shri Dhyandeo N. Adsul. 6. Shri Kantilal D. Josh!. 7. Shri Bhiku D. Badavate. 8. Shd Narendra C. Shah. 9. Shri Pandurang K. Sangle,
10. Shri Girdhar M. Sisupal. 11. Shri Abdul Gani. 12. Shri Shantilal M. Mota.
2. The Union, which is espousing the cause of the work- men contends that these workmen who were k, the service of the firm ranging from 10 to 25 years, one fine morning received notice of retrenchment dated 30th April. 1980 te-- minatinn their service with effect from 1st May, 1980 wi'h- out following the procedure and without making any pay- ment as required under Section 25F of the Industrial D sp ilea Act. 1947. It is therefore contended that th* noti— of re- trenchment is not valid, that even after 30th April. 1980 the business of the firm is going on in full swing ard iheie- fore the workmen are entitled to the. various reliefs,
3. Today on behalf of the Union it was conceded that since after the retrenchment all these employees are gain- fully employed and accordingly they are no longer interested in seeking re-employment with the firm but would be satis* fled with the various monetary reliefs.
4. From the written statement as well as the say filed by Shii Vinod H, Shah it is evident that the Brothers who were partners of the firm because of inter-se controversy are not seeing eye-to-eye and Shri Deepak H. Shah that is one of the brothers who issued the notice dated 30th April, 1980 for termination of services himself served on Shri Vinod H. Shah a notice of dissolution of the partnership dated 17th June, 1980 and served on the partner brother on 19th June, 1980 and it is alleged that the partnership was at will and the same stood dissolved from ]9th June. 1980. The said. brother also filed a suit in the Citv Civil Court, Suit No. 3931 of 1980 instituted on 16th July. 1980, during the pen- dency of which I am told, a notice of motion for appoint- ment of Receiver was taken out for taking in his possession the assets and business of the firm but Shri Deepak Sh^h could only succeed in getting the order of appointment of Receiver for books of accounts only. In other words the request for appointment of Receiver for taking possession of the busi- ness etc. stood impliedly rejected.
5. Written statement has been filed by Shri Vinod H. Shah who inter-alia contends that the Union is not entMed to raise the present dispute and further contends that the referente is bad for non-ioinder of Shri Deepjk H. Shah, another partner, contention no longer survives because he i" a party to the dispute and filed his say also. Shri Vinod Sh^h further contends that by notice dated 12th September. 1980 all the workmen were called unon to repo-t for wo''k forthwith but non of them was ready Bid willing to ioin the duties accordingly. He has also denied to have so-ved the notice retrenching the services of the workers on 30th April, 1980.
6. The peculiar feature Is that ench brother in Tnnlna hii counterpart of the roilus'oTi and rrm 3968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. It has been contended that the present reference cannot lie because of the Union is not entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen, In the first place this is a icfeience nbout wrongful termination of service and secondly it has been espoused by the Union of whigh the workmen, arc. 1 am told, their members and therefore the contention that The reference is bad cannot survive,
8. The parties including the Union have not adduced any oral evidence but the same is unnecessary in the present case because of the admitted facts. The record speaks that there is no love lost between the two brothers who have ultimately taken the dispute to the City Civil Court for dissolution of partnership etc., But ihe workmen who were in the service of the firm admittedly cannot have concern with the inter-so disputes of the two brothers— partners of the firm and they are interested in getting their rights back and also getting the various reliefs as contem- plated und er Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact that remains is that one of the partner namely Deepak Shah did serve the notice of retrenchment Or termi- nation dated 3O-4-1980 to be effective from 1-5-1980. Shri Vinod Shah the other brother is denying to have played any part in the game but one thing remains that there W.TB a notice of retrenchment against these workmen. Admittedly the workmen were in the service of the firm for the period ranging from 10 to 25 years. Now under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act no workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until one month's notice in writing has been siven or the workmen has peen paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice and the workmen has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every com- pleted year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and the other requirement that notice in ihe prescribe^ manner is served on the approDriate Govern- ment. Even ignoring the requirements of clause (c), it was in- cumbent on the partners of the firm to fulfil the condition laid down under Section 25F (a) and fb), whHi admittedly remained to be fulfilled and consequently the notice of termi- nation or retrenchment is ex-facie invalid t.nd could not have brought about the severance of the relationship of employer-employee.
9. In the given circumstances the workmen would be en- titled to reinstatement with back wages from 1st May, 1980 onwards. However today it was conceded by Shri I. S. Sawant on behalf of the Union who is espousing the cnuse of the workman that since after Ihe termination of service or re- trenchment all the Workmen succeded fn securing the em- ployment. Consequently no relief of reinstatement can be granted. So far as compensation for the period during whfch the workmen remained unemployed, instead of passing any order in the absence of any proof the only direction which can 'be given is that the workmen shall be entitled to com- pensation equal to their emoluments for the period from lit May, 1980 till the date of re-employment.
10. So far as the other reliefs which are contemplated under Section 25F of the Act the workmen shall be entitled to one month's notice pay and compensation of 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous seivice or any part thereof in excess of six months, which compen- sation shall be paid by the firm, or the partners as may be determined by the City Civil Court in the Suit above men- tioned.
11. Besides this the firm or the partners to the extent, as stated shall be liable to pay gratuity and Provident Fund as may be legally due and leave salary if thero be nny leave to their credit.
Award accordingly. No order as to costs.
M. A. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
[No. L-31011/12/81-D.IV(A)l S.O. 374?.—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, Calcutta in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta and their workmen, which wai re.civeu by ihe Genual Government t>u mo isui uauutr,
mz.
CENlkAL GOVERNMENT "INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL..
CALCUTTA
Reference No. 24 of 1981
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Calcutta
Port Trust, Calcutta,
AND
Their Workmen.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of Employers—Mr. D. K. Mukherjee, Indus-
trial Relation Officer.
On behalf of Workmen—Mr. Paresh Eose. Assistant
Secretary of the Union,
STATE: West Bengal, INDUSTRY : Port.
AWARD
By Order No. L-32012(4)/81-p.IV(A) dated 21st May, 1981, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Calcutta Port Trust in showing' Shri Abdul Yasin as junior to Shri Akhil Ranjan Das and reverting him from the post Sorang, S.D, "Churni" to the post of Tindal is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
2. Both the concerned workmen, namely Akhil Ranjan Das and Abdul Yasin work in Dredgers under the Dredger arid Despatch Service section of the Marine Department of the Calcutta Port Trust (briefly, the CPT). They were previously laskars but in course of time Ihey were promoted to the post of tindals, In this case we are not concerned with the period when they were laskars. We are only concerned with the period when they were tindal.s.
3. From the terms of reference this Tribunal has to find out two things, (i) whether Akhil Ranjan Das is senior to Abdul Yasin and (ii) whether Abdul Yasin was justifiably re- verted by the management from the post of Serang in S.D. Churni ? Earlier both of them were tindals as already stated. Mr. Das acted continuously in tho post of tindal from 1st April, 1964 in the Dredger Bhaglrathi and w^s confirmed there on 1st May, 1965, Mr. Yasin acted continuously on the post of tindal from 7th luly, 1964 in Dredaer Churni, i.e. aflef three months of the promotion of Mr. Das to ihat post. He wai confirmed as tindal on 1st May, 1965. Tt is thus clear that tho length of service of Mr. Das as tindal vvas longer than that of Mr. Yasin bv at least three months. Both of ( them were confirmed on the same day, 1st May, 1965 on that post. Clause (Hi) of the Promotion Rules of CPT rum as follows :
"(iii) When two or more men are confirmed in ihe same grade on the same date, or when two or more men have been acting in the same erade but have not been confirmed in grade, the men with ihe loneer service in the grade should be regarded as senior."
Prom the above it is clear that Mr, Das was rightly held to be senior to Mr. Yasin bv the management. It appears that by mistake the management had allowed Mr. Yasin to act as Deck Serang in Dredger Churni from 26th April, 1978 to 28th February, 1981. Thereafter Mr. Yasin was trans- ferred to Dredger Mohana as Deck Serang with effect from 1 March, 1981 as acting Deck Serang where he worked upto 28th April, 1981. He was on earned leave for some time. Later he was transferred to Dredger Bhagfrathi with effect from 16th July, 1981. All this was done because the man- agement thoiifiht by mistake that he was senior to Mr. Das. Later whon the discrepancies were pointed out by the Na- tional Union of Waterfront Workers by their letter dated 27th May, 1980, the management found that Mr. Das was.
3969senior to Mr. Yasin. It may be stated hero that the National Union of Waterfront Workers raised the aforesaid dispute contending! that Mr. Das was senior lo Yasin with the Super- intendent, Dredger &. Despatch Scivice by their letter daled 27th May, 1980 as aforesaid and thereafter they raised the dispute with Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Cal- cutta also before whom the parties concerned agreed to settle the dispute and hence the dispute was treated as closed. The management reverted Mr. Yasin from the post of Serung lo the post of tindal with effect from 16th February, 1981. I have alrc'dy stated that this was done on the discrepancies having been pointed out by the National Union of Water- front Woikers. There is thus nothing wrong in the action of the management. Only the wrong was set right. Clearly Mr. Das was senior to Mr. Yasin. There is no m.ila fide, no unfair pincticc and no victimisation in making the oider which the management passed in respect of seniority of Mr. Das.
4. The Calcutta Port Sramik Union by their letter daled 3rd February. 1981 raised the present industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Cal- cutta alleging that Ynsin was senior and that the scnioiity of Yasin had been properly decided This gave rise to the present reference, From the above it is clear thnt there Is no substance in the contention of the Calcutta Port Shiamik Union. It is1 obvious that the management did the right thing in reverting Mi. Yasin and in declaring Mr. Das senior to him. It will not be out of place to mention here ihnt Mr. Yasin also would not suffer. In fact after 16th February, 1981 when Mi Yasin was reverted to the post of tindal. he was again transfened to Dredger Bhagirnthi from 16th April, 19R1 as De'k Serung. Deck Scrang has no further avenue of promotion. Tberef >rc. there will be no adverse effect on the future caTeei or Mr. Yasin on account of his being placed junior to Mr. Deo.
5. A propos my Award is that the action of the manage- ment of Calcutta Port Trust in showing Sri Abdul Yasin, a junior to Sri Akhil Ranjan Das and reverting him from the post of Serang SD Chunii to the post of tindfll is justified. Sri Abdul Yasin therefore is not entitled to any idicf.
Dated, Calcutta, M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
The 5th October. 1982. [No. L-32012/4/81-D.IV(A)]
.S.O. 3748.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Centr.il Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Messrs M. M. Poonjiaji and Company Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 18th Octo- ber, 1982.
BEFOkE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT BOMBAY Reference No. CGIT-17 of 1978
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to M/s. M. M". Poonjiaji and
Company, Bombay,
AND
Their Workman.
APPEARANCES :
For the employer—Mr. H. H. Madan, Advocate.
For the Transport and Dock Workers' Union, Bombay—
Mr. S. R. Wagh, Advocate.
INDUSTRY : Ports and Docks STATE : Maharashtra
Bombay, the 27th day of September, 1982
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by Order No. L-3-l&12(2)/78.IVCA) dated 24th May, 1978, in exercise of tho powers conferred by clame (d) of lub-*eottoa (O #f section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, have ieterred to this Tribunal for adjudication an industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M'/s. M. M. Poonjiaji and Com- nany, Bombay, and their workman in respect of the matters specified in the schedule mentioned below :—
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Messrs M. M. Foonjiaji and Company, 42, First Marine Stree"t, Bombay-2, in having terminated the services of Shri P. B Bharuche, Dock Clerk, iiorn 2tst Octo- ber. 1977 ia justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
2. In this reference the employer, M/s. M. M. Poonjiaji Bud Company, has raised certain preliminary objections which according to it go to the root of the matter and affect the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear and decide this reference. The company is a partnership firm. It does tho business of manufacturing and selling pickles, chatneys, curry powder, etc. The company exports the said products also. The factory of the company is at 1st Marine Street, Bombay. The office of the company is also at 1st Marine Street, Bombay. It appears that the workman, P. B. Bharucha, was going to the docks in connection with the export of the pickles of the company. As admitted by the workman in his deposition, he used to go to the docks in thiec or four days in a month. He also admitted that he was also soing house to house for selling pickles after finishing the docks wo '<.. The company was giving him commission for that work. According to the employer-company, there was no relationship of master and servant between the company ana the workman nor was there anv contract ^f employment between the parties. The company contended that the work- man was going shipping and carting work of the company on professional basis for which he was paid specified contracted rates as stated in the written statement of the company.
3. The first preliminary objection raised by the company is that the industry or trade of the company is not carried on under the authority of the Central Government. The company is not doing the port work. According to the company, the "appropriate Government" would be ihe Stats Government and not the Central Government, ana. therefore, the reference made to this Tribunal by the Central Government is bad in law.
4. The second preliminary abjection raised by the Company is that there was never an "industrial dispute" between the management and the workman employed under the company. The workman of the company have never jspoused the cause of workman Bharucha. The workman of the company have never been the members of Transport and Dock Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union") which has es- poused the cause of Bharucha. It is contended by the com- pany that the said dispute cannot therefore be said to have acquired the character of an industrial dispute. The Union had nothing to do with the present company. Tt is therefore submitted that the reference is bad on this ground also.
5. One more preliminary objection raised was that the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the order of reference as "Messrs Poonjiaji and Comnany". The name of the company is' Messrs M. M. Poonjiaji and Company. The refeience is bad in law on this count also. The follow- ing issues were, therefore, framed as preliminary issues :—
(i) Whether the "appropriate Government" is foe Central Government or the State Government, and whether the reference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, is maintainable.
(ii) If the Central Government is the "appropriate Go- vernment", whether the Transport and Dock Wor- kers' Union has locus standi to espouBe the cau"c of Bharucha, and whether the reference is legal, valid and proper, on that account.
(iii) If the above issue No, 2 is answered in favour of the Union, whether the reference order is legal, valid, and proper on the grounds that the name of the company mentioned in the order of reference is wrong and Incorrect.
3970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART II—Sue, 3(ii)]6. The first preliminary objection is. that the Central government, in view of the facts of this case ii not the appropriate Government. The reference, thereiore, made by the Central Government to this Tribunal is incomj>-ient and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the activity of the company is not concerning a major port. Jt is urged that the central Governmct would be the appropriate Government in relation to Bn industrial dispute concerning a major poit. Relying upon the decision in continental Costruction (H) Ltd. v. The Government of India (1977 L.I.C. p. 1199), it was submitted that the word "concerninit" appearing in Section 2(a){i), which defines 'appropriate Government' must be cons- trued in a reasonable manner, and as referring to such indus- trial disputes only which have got approximate, intimate and real connection with the corporations or authorities men- tioned in the said definition. It is submitted by way of ana- logy that in an industrial dispute concerning a banking com- pany the Central Government would be the approp.iate Gove.nment. However, if a private company sends its scrvunt to the bank for their Bank wuirk, the dispute Between that private company and the scivant will not tie a dispute con- cerning a bunking company and the Central Government, therelore, will noi be ihe appropriate Gove.nment. It was fu. ihwr submitted that the company is not doing port wo.k and the tomp-ny is noL acting as clearing or shipping agent doi^g .he business, for oiheis. The company only txpoiU "a tt;w pioduUs prepared by it on a few days in A month, i he company d~>es not therefore do the port work. Similarly, .it is submitted that the workman caiinot be said to have done the port work merely by taking the products of the company I
7. Mr. Wagh, the learned counsel for the Union, did not dispute that the company did not do the work of clearing ai.d shipping, tie has, however, submitted that the company exports its own products, and that therefore the nature of the work done by the company is similar to the work BS is done by clearing and shipping agents. It is further submit- ted that the workman is a do^k worker and for that reason also the Central Government will be the appropriate Govern- .ment. Now, before referring to the legal position in this "behalf it would be proper to advert to the factual aspects Oi the case fas disclosed from the material on record. In the hearing of the preliminary objections the Union examined the woikman Bharucha as UW-1. He stated in his deposi- tion that he was working as a dock clerk in Bombjy. He produced a copy of the dock entry permit issued in his favour by the Docks Manager. He also produced an identity card issued by the company. This card authoriied the workman to transact the business in New Custom House/Docks. In his deposition he stated that he use~d to go to the docks in connection with the export of the pickles of me comprny. He was required to go to the docks on three or four days in A month. The company was giving him commission for that work. Initially, the company did not examine anybody on their behalf, I, however, insisted on the company to examine somebody on their behalf so that it would assisi the Tribunal in arriving at the proper conclusions. Accoi- dlngly. Mr. K. D. Poonjiaji was examined as EW-1 on behalf of the company. He was cross-examined on behalf of Ihe workman. Ho is a partner of the company. He slated that they manufacture pickles, condiments, etc, They are made for selling in local market as well as for exports. Exports are by sea. They have no clearing agents. All the work in connection with the export, preparing the documents to the stage of loading the goods on the s_hip is done by the company. He added that all the documents pertaining to the shipments are completed in their office. Then they have to send these documents to the Custom for verification. The work of taking the documents to the Customs is done by him or by his clerk. The workman also did that work some- time. The goods are transferred from their godown to the docks, either by truck or by hand cart, Sample checking of tho goods Is made at the customs to verify whether lhc goods sre the same. After the goods are examined they left the good* at the docks. The work of loading these goods m tfie ihfp is done by the shipping company itself. The workman sometime used to take the documents to the Cus- toms for verification for passing the shipping bills. The workman was to arrange for trucks or handcarts. He stated that his workmen used to load the truck or handcarts. He further stated that unloading was done at (he docks by their workers. According to him, no other wo^k except the work referred to by him in his deposition wag done by lbs workman Bharucha, He stated that the company doe; not do the work of clearing agents. He also stated that the company did not do the work of others in connection with the ship- ment or loading or unloading of the goods in the docks. In hi* cross-examination he stated that if one does not do the work of exporting his goods himself he has to appoint a Customs Clearing Agent for that work. Such clearing agents have to obtain licence from the Customs Authorities for doing that business. Even if one docs the work of export- ing his goods he has to apply to the Customs authorities.
8, On behalf of the Union, one document I.e. a letter written by the Asstt. Collector of Customs on 13th Septembur, 1979, to the Transport and Dock Workers' Union, has been pro- duced. That letter states :—
"M/". M. M. Poonjiaji and Co. are not holding any C-H.A. Licence. However, the company is regis- tered with us for transacting Customs business on self business. No licence number is assigned in such enses and their Customs business is 1'mitcd to that Company's products only."
9. All these material will show that the company does not act as shipping and clearing fgent for others. The com- pany is concerned with it own work of exports only. The workman stated he was required to go to the docks for this work three or four days in a month. The question for consideration is whether the work carried on by the company is a work concerning a major port/ sd- that the appropnat" government will be the Central Government.
10. How, I will refer to some of the decisions having a bearing on the point. In Tulsidas Khimji v. Jecjeebhoy (1961 I L.L.J. 42). A partnership firm was running four departments—(1) clearing and shipping, (2) godown depart- ment, (3) the insurance department, and (4) the cotton super- vising and controlling department. Tho employer retrenched some of the employees in the departments of clearing and shipping and godown department. The Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication. The /atidity of Mich reference was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that lhc Central Government was not the approprate Government. The contention was repelled by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court with the following observation* :—
"Now, in the first place, the contention as is urged before u" was not raised before the industrial tri- bunal. There was a preliminary point as to juris- diction taken before the tribunal, but the conten- tion raised there was that the order of reference included workmen in their employment other than those engaged in the clearing and shipping wo^k at the docks and the Central Government therefore had no jurisdiction and authority to make an order referring the industrial dispute to adjudicatiJn relating to workmen other than those employed at the docks. Mr. Gupta's argument, therefore, that none of the activities of the petitioners concern a major port cannot be allowed to be entertained in this special civil application,"
It was further observed that the notice has been served in respect of the retrenchment by the petitioner on the Central Government, as the appropriate Government nnd that the petitioner themselves had accepted the position that the Central Government was the appropriate Government in relation to (he dispute connected with the retrenchment in that case. It was further found in that case that the partner- ship firm had a godown department and 2 3% of tlie space in the godown was utilised for storing the goods for clearing and shipping. The High Court observed that in view of these circumstances it could not therefore be said that the activity of the godown department had no relation \o major port, U was, therefore, held that the Central Government had ihr authority to make the reference.
U- Tht next decision relied upon by the company is bet- ween Serajuddln and, Company and their workmen (1962 I L.L.J. 450). There the company was engaged in the business of carrying on mining operations in the State of Orissa having a head office at Calcutta. Separate staff was employed at the cite of the mines for supervising the work of min 3971
ment or storage of cargoes, or work in connection with the preparation of ships or other vessels for the receipt or dis- charge of cargoes or leaving port. It is veiy doubtful whether on the facts established, the workman who did the work in connection with taking of the goods of the company in the docks for three or four days in a month CJH be said to be a dock worker. Assuming that he is a dock woiker the question for my consideration is whether the disptue raised in this reference is concerning a major port. As I have said above the dispi'te, in my view, is not concerning a major port.
merit was held to be valid. Strictly speaking, this decision is not applicable to the facts of tnis case. A decision in the case of Continental Construction (P) Ltd. v. The Govern- ment of India (1977 L.I.C. 1199) was also relied upon. There the appellant, a private limited company, had entered into a contract with the Visakapatnam Poit Trust for the construction of Freak-Waters and Jattis, in connection with the construction of the outer harbour at Visakapatnam. A dispute having arisen between the appellant company and its workmen, it was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad, by the Central Government. The contention raised by the company was that the Central Government was not the appropriate Government as defined by clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act. While repelling this contention it wan observed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court :—
15. The next preliminary objection is that the workmen of the company have never been the members of the Trans- port and Dock Workers' Union and the workmen of the •- company have not espoused the cause of Bharucha. It is, therefore, submitted that the so called dispute cannot be said to have acquired the chaiacter of an industrial disptue. Now, the facts that emerge from the material placed on record is that the workman fs a member of the said Union. That fact has been established. The constitution of this Union has been placed on record, One if the objects of this Union is to secure to the members fair conditions of life and service and to try to redress their grievances. Dis- tinguishing the case in Bombay Union if Journalists v. The "Hindu", Bombay (1961 II L.L.J. p. 436 SC) the Supreme Court observed in the case of Workmen of Dhaiainp.il Prem- chand (Saughandhi) v, Dharampal Premchanj (Saughandi) (1965 I L.LJ. 668) :—
3972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KARTIKA 15, 1904 [PART H—SEC. 3(n)]New Delhi, the 22nd October, 1982
S.O, 3749.—In pursuance of section 17 of the InduMrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dis- pute between the employers in relation to the manauem^nt of Parasea Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their •workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 19th October, 1982.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT CALCUTTA
Reference Sfo. II of 1981
PARTIES :
Vmployerb in relation to the management of Parasea
Colliery of pattern Coalfields 1 imitcd.
AND
Their Workmen.
PRESENT :
Mr. Justice M. P. Singh, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of Employers—Mr, N. Das, Advocate.
On behalf of Workmen—Mr. D. L. Sen Gupta, Advo-
cate with Mr. S. Bhaltachurjee, Advocate. STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Coal,
AWARD
Bv Order No, L-19012(62)/80-p.IV(B) dated 27 Febru- ary, 1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi- cation :
"Whether the action of the management of Parasea Collierry of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Office Kajoragram, District Burdwan in super- annuating Shri Sisir Dasgupta, Senior Corrcrmn- der. Parasea Colliery with effect from 15-7-1979 is justified? If not, to what, relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
2. The simple question in this reference is us to whether Sisir Dasgupta, Senlor Compounder in Parasea was justi- fiably superannuated* with effect from 15 July, 1979. I tiimi. that the action of the management in so doing is not justified.
3. He was first retired with effect fiorn 30th June, 1979. The relevant notice for that is dated 14 May, 1979 (Ext. M-l), After receiving this notice he made a representation dated 12 June 1979 (Ext. M-2) slating that nis date of birth was wrongly recorded by the colliery office and that the same be compared with the Coal Mines Ptovident FutiJ record, Asansol (in which his date of birth was- 1st July 1924). The management then took steps to ascertain the age of Sisir DaRRUpta. MW 1 S. B. Srivastava, the then Deputy Personnel Manager along with the Personnel Manager Mr. Shyamal Sen went to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Asansol and both of them looked into the form A declaration (Ext. M4), After looking into the s">me they were satisfied that the date of birth was 1st July, 1924. MW 1 then reported the matter to the General Manager, Khunstoria Area about the same and the General Manager then cancelled his previous order regarding the retirement of Sisir DasRupta and asked him to resume duty. Sisir Dasgupta received this sanction for resumption of duty through letter dated 4th July, 3979 (Ext. M-3) written by the Agent, Parasea Collierv Tn that letter it was stated that the General Manager was pleased to accord his approval to his continuing in service and he should resume his duty immediately. It was alsq stated lhat the General Manager had accepted his date, of birth as 1st July, 1924. Sisir Dasgunta resumed his duty. Thereafter ??.££ ,8"a colliery sent Mr. S. B Srivastava (MW 1) a telephonic call that in the declaration form A there had been tampering and that it should examine closely, MW 1 then against went to the office of the Regional Provi- dent Fund Commissioner. Asansol and rc-oxamuied form A and found it pasted. He further found internolation at two places. He again reported the matter to the General Manager who cancelled his previous order regarding resumption of duly and then Sisir Oasetmta was asked to retire bv letter dated 13th July. 1979 (Ext. M-5J. MW 1 ha" further deposed that in form B register, Ext. M-6, which is maintained by the Colliery under the Mines Act the age of Sisir Dasgupta was recorded as 43 years on his date of appointment 28th October, 1949 and the management had relied upon it when they found that form A had been, interpolated. In my opinion the action of the management Li not Justified. In the first instance the mananement verified the ace of Sisir Dnsgupra from the declaration form A (Ext. M 4) and it found that the date of birth wag 1st Julv. 1924 This date was accented by the General Manager and this acceptance was communi- cated to Sisir Dasjtupta who acting upon that acceptance resumed his dutv, MW 1 has said in his evidence that* in such cases the management sends the matter to lb<> Med'cal Board for determining the noe. That was not done in the present case. Sisir Dusgupta had raised objection to (he correctness of the entry regarding his aqc in Form B recister by filing representation dated 12th June. 1979. In his evi- dence MW I savs that the management is still readv to get his ace determined through Medical Board. Mr. N. Das, Advocate, appearing for the manacement also made such a prayer while opening the case and also by filing a petition to lhat effect before this Tribunal. The petition was rejected than and there. It is now too late for the management to take such a stand after about four vears of the dispute. MW 1 S. B. Sdvasiava says in his evidence that there is interpolation in Form A (Ext. M4) at two places—one is against the column 'Thana' and the other aaaiust the column "date". He how- ever has clearly admitted In his evidence that theie is no interpolation in the date of birth "1st July, 1924". He has further said that he has seen forms like A form many times in his life. I have already stated that he found nothing wrong in the declaration form A (Ext. M 4) when he first examined it. He was fully satisfied that the date of birth of Sisir Dasgupta as recorded in Form A was correct and having saitsfied himself about the same he reported the matter to the General Manager who accepted it. I have looked into ths declaration form A. The cuttings about which Mr. Sri- vastava has spoken in his evidence appear to be minor, Jn these circumstances it has to be held that Sisir Dasgupta was continuing in his service on the basis of a contract of emp- loyment in which, the date of birth was 1st July, 1924" and for the purposes of this case this date of birth has to be accepted,
4, For the foregoing reasons my award is that the ad ion of the management of Parasea Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited in superannuating Sisir Dasgunta as Senior Com- pounder in the Parasea Colliery with rffect from 15th July 1979 is unjustified. Accordingly Sisir Dasgupta is entitled "to be re-instated with back wages and with nil constpurntnl service benefits which may be admissible as per mles of the colliery.
Date, Calcutta,
The 1st October, 1982.
M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.
[No. L-19012(62i/80-.D.lV(B)l
S.O. 3750.—In puTsuan~e of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government here- by publishes 'he following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad, in industrial dispute bfct- ween the employers In relation to the management of Khot- tadih Colliery of Messrs Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Post Office Pandaveshwar, District Burdwan and their workmen, which was received by the Cenral Government on the 20-10-82.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRUUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANBAD
Reference No. 29/81
PRESENT :
Shri J. N. Singh, Presiding Officer.
3973PARTIES-:
Employers ia relation to the management of Kottadih • ^Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P. O. Panda-
vesbwar, Dist. Burdwan.
AND
Their workman.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers—Shri R. N. Tewari, Deputy Per-
sonnel Manager.
For the Workman—Shri Ranjnn Dasgupta, Organising
Secretary.
INDUSTRY : Coal, STATE : West Bengal.
Dated, the 13th October, 1982
AWARD
The Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercis: 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. 19012(74)/ 80-D.IV(B) dated the 11th June, 1981.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management in relation to Khottadih Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Pandavestvwar, Dt. Burdwan in superannuat- ing Shri Bhola Nath Roy, Overman with effect from 1-7-79 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"'
2. The case of the workman is that he Was appointed as Mining Apprentice by the management of Jamuria A & B Pits Colliery in. the year 1939 and he passed the overman- ship Examination in 1959 and was thereafter posted as a Overman. The overmawhip examination is approved by the Chairman of the Board of Mining Examination.
3, It is alleged that in the Overman Certificate there is a aolumn for giving date of birth and the date of birth of the concerned workman as mentioned in the said certificate is 10-4-1921 according to which the concerned workman should have superannuated in the year 1981, but the management issixd a notice dated 29-3-1979 to Ihe con- cerned workman terminating his srvice with effect from 1-7-1979 on the bapis of wrongful maintenance of record regarding the date of birth of Shri Roy the concerned work- maJi in Form B register. It is submitted that on receipt of the said notice the concerned workman protested *hnt his year of birth as noted in the Form 'B* register as 1919 was wrong and that he should retire on the ba&is of the age as recorded in the overmanship certificate, Tbe' management did not agree to the request of the concerned workman and he was stonoed from his duty from 1-7-1979. When no action was taken an industrial disnute was raised and after con- ciliation the present reference has been made. It Is sub- mitted that thf overmpnfihip examination eerrtfit-aie is a rretcrib-d certificate and the date of birth Bg mentioned In it is the correct date on the basi<, of which the concerned workman should have been retired. The concerned work- mnn has challenged hh vear of bfrth as mentioned In Form 'B' register. Ir to tVrrfore, prayd that the concerned work- man mav be alto-wed to resume his norrnnl duies with full rwv wages till the period of his retirement in the year 1981.
7 Th^ tnnnaeemrnt has chnlUni"Y| to m/i.'nrMi^Hrir of w" Reference on two ground* viz, t^at the concerned worlc- miT, i, not a workman P, d-finM ,,m(er ffv. Industrial Dis- pute Art a, hh work fs entVelv of snnervlsi-v ch^"-^r arH he i- diwlpir more than R" 500'- ner month. Secondly it 1" c w H -H tt.at th- s-on-od",? 77ni"n h*i got no exf*- £"c- \r> Khttftrfth C"V"r>r am* f W. w^ no r-"oT.>tf"n of ed " 1919 against St. No. 1345 In Form 'B' register which nl" been dulf signed by U* concerned workman himself. AS there waa no date of birth hence o.i the bas.s of the circular of the management he was retired from 1-7-197!*. According to the said circular when year of birth is known- birt not the exact date, the 1st July should be treated as the date of birth for the purpose of detcrminins trie date on which an employee should be held to have attained the retirement age. It is submitted that the coal industry prei- cribed the age of superannuation at 60 years and on th" bash of the said letter and on the basis of the year of birth recorded in Form 'B' register the concerned workman was retired from 1-7-1979 and there has been no illegality. It is also submitted that the Form 'B' register is a statutory register prepared under the Mines Act and as it was duly signed by the concerned workman it should be deemed to be the correct year of birth. It is also stated that the con- cerned workman never made representation regarding his year of birth before the management till the notice of re- tirement was given to him and if there was any mistake in recording the year of birth the concerned workman should have represented long ago. Regarding the date of birth u" recorded in the overman certificate it is st'tted that the parti- cular date of birth as mentioned in that certificate WHS- never communicated to the management and th; Enid date of birth was supplied by the concerned workman to the Regional Inspector of Mines. Safety when he appeared at the examination and it is a unilateral one at the instance of the concerned workman and hence the management cannot ignore the statutory entries made in Form 'B' icgister and relv on the age as recorded in the said certificate. Accordine to the management the year of birth w,. 1919 la also recorded in the Coal Mines Provident Fund recoid? which was started sometime in the vear 1947 when there could be no qirstjon of any dispute regarding the age.
9. On the above grounds it is submitted that the Reference
be decided in favour of the management.
10. The point for consideration is as lo whether the action of the management in superannuating the concerned work- man with effect from 1-7-1979 is justified. If not, to what relief is the workman entitled.
11. From the pleadings, of the parties it will appear that the whole case depends on the year of date of birth of Shri Roy. The management superannuated him solely on the basis of the date or ycai of birth as recorded in Form 'B' register. MW-1 Sri Rameshwar Pnwad Singh is Personnel Officer in Khottadih Colliery. He has proved SI. No, 1345 of Form 'B' register (Ext. M-l) which mentions the name of Sri Roy the concerned workman and th_- year of birth is 1919. This register also bears hre signature of Sri Bhola Nath Roy. Prior to this register there wag another Form 'B' register and entry No. 95 of that register also benrs the name and signature of Sri Bhola Nath Roy and has been marked Ext. M-l / I. WW-1 is the concerned workman. He has stated in para 4 of his deposition that his date of birth recorded in the first colliery remained the same In all the collierieb to which he was transferred. Thus from the above fact it is clear that the vear of birth from, the very beginning was recorded as 1919 and till the issue of notice for swoerannuation the concerned workman never raised any obii-ction nor made any representation if hi0 vear or date of birth was Incorrectly noted m Form 'B' register which is a statutory register,
12. The concerned workman solely relied cm the overman certificate CFxt. W-2) which was issued to him on 8-10-1959 In this certificate his date of birth is 10-4-1921 and on the basis of this certificate he has claimed that he should retire in the vear 1981. There is another certificate Ext W-l which is undercround Sirdar certificate in whirh hi" nee nas been
la tV kr ^ ^ l " ' " ™; ,9S "ko date of birth a re meort^ed invarfjiblv m Fnrm -B' register on which the sicmstn'-e of the corvz-nvM workman J, tnVcn It does not loo* mt^i-ril
" ^ r; ^Trn^: oi7n;;;; zzr* w^m and
in service from 1939 and that hfe dote of birth ms r e ^- should hnve m n 3974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 6, 1982/KART1KA 15, 1904 [PART II—SJC. 3(ii)]
The workman has further stated in para 7 of bi" deposition that ho had given the age at the time of applying for sitting in Mining Sirdarship Examination and Overmanship Examina- tion but that certificate has not been filed in this case nor any explanation has been given as to why it was not filed. The overmauship examination certificate thus in the cir- cumstances cannot bo held to be an authentic document prov- ing the age of the concerned workman in face of Form 'B' register which is a statutory document.
13. Considering the above evidence, 1 hold that the year of birth as recorded in Form 'B' register is correct and the concerned workman was rightly retired with effect from 1-7-1979.
14. The next question ia as to whether the sponsoring union has any locus-standing to raise the dispute and whether there waa any resolution of the union to take up the cause of the concerned workman. It is also to be seen as to whether he is a member of that union. These preliminary points were taken by the management in the written state- ment itself but no membership certificate or resolution book has been filed in this case to dhow hat the union in question was authorised to raise he dispute of the concerned workman. There is also no evidence to show that the sponsoring union has any existence in that locality. Not a word has been said by the concerned workman about the above facts though the very locus-standing of the union was challenged by the management. In such circumstances, it must also bo beldf that the sponsoring union had no locus standing to raise the present dispute and the Reference is not maintainable on that tcoro also.
15. In view of the above findings it is not necessary to decide whether the concerned workman is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act or not.
16. Under the above circumstances a" also on the evidence on record, it is held that the action of the management in superannuating the concerned workman with effect from 1-7-1979 is fully justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
17. The award is given accordingly.
J. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[No. L-19012(74)/80-D. IV (B)]
S. S. MEHTA, Desk Officer
PRINTED BY THE MANAGER, GOVT. OF INDIA PRESS, RTNG ROAD, NLW DELHI-110064
AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054, 1 9 82
- " and protecting the interests of the Bank. Th« period of probation of (lie petitioner was however extended for six months after a l^pse of one year, i. e. upto 30-9-1969. According to the petitioner this extension in the period of probation was advised in June, 69 Instead before 1st March, 1969 and there wus no further communication about the extension of the probation period from 1-10-69 to 1-3-70, The Bank however reverted the petitioner was however extended for six months after a lapse 24-2-197l> and the reversion was effected from 2-3-70. According to the petitioner, the POM to which he was entitled on that date was Head Clerk but not oi a Clerk. The deci- sion of the Bank for lcversion was arbitrary und the peti- tioner did not opt for such a reversion. The petitioner further stated that the Bank gave him the protection of bis pay by its letter No, PF/P. 68/10734, dtiled 30-3-1970 on the basis that he has not been promoted as an Officer and what he would have drawn a Clerk in thai scale adding two increments to the basic pay he was drawing on the date of his promo- tion as an award staff member. The petitioner further avers that this act of the Bank further confirmed his right to the benefits accrued In his substantive post. The petitioner stated that on leading (he above two letter* it wus clear that the reversion to his substantive post for which protection of payi was given on the basis that there has not been any promotion that would have been drawn in the permanent award clerical scale. When the Bank protected the original seniority in the clerical endre- that protection would continue and the yieti- tioner would continue to pet nil (he benefits alotm with all the other employees appointed alongwilh him and having Ihe same length of sen ice for purpose* of further piomotions in tho permanent cadre. Slute Bnnk of Hyderabad Employees ↩
- , it k ihe CJV of the Bunt Iliui (heie II.N no wronyiiil denial of scni.)iil\ civ He.id Cleik from 2'»-l l-lOf.9 und consequent promotion as Special Assistant. 1 he Hank 7. The counter further denied ,ill the averments mfrdc b\ the peiitionei in the paiagraphs #0, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of his claim statement. The counter ultimately stated Ihpt the claim of the petitioner (hat his service as- C'lcik wilh effect fiom the date of his appointment as Cle. k i.e. 15-2-60 should be taken into account for the pumo,e of fixation of his seniority us Head Clerk together with Ihe peiiod when he functioned as ,\n oflicer was not t.inahle nnd his seniority in the cndie of Head Cleik was fixed with effect ironi 16-4-70 although he wns actually promot-J on fi-1-71 and the peiitionei .iccented this position by and under his letler dated 16-4-74 The B,,nk finally si .d-d lh.,1 ,T ||,<- claim ot the pi-liiionei of his seniniily ,\ acceplcj. il would :ilk'Li the uihei e m p l o ys who were promoted in the noimul cou-se dm inn (lie period when the peiitionei functioned us ii ofhcei nnd jt would lead lo a series of further controvei- ↩
- appearing in S. 2 (l)(ij, which dchnes 'appropriate Government' must be construed in a reasonable manner, and referring to such indus- trial disputes only which have got n proximate, intimate and real connection with the corporations or authorities mentioned in the said definition. An industrial dispute between a contractor engaged by the Vjsakapatnam Port Trust for the construction of Break-waters and Jattis in connection with the outer harbour at Visakapatnam Port ank- man are the members of that Union it can be said that the cause of the workman is- espoused by a substantial number of his ro-workers, through that Union. Such is not the case here. It is established from record that no other employee of the company is a member of this Union. I am, theiefnre, of the view that tho dispute in the present reference cannot be said to have acquired the character of rm industrial dis- pute. However, in view of my decision tnat the Central Government cannot be said to be the appropriate Govern- ment this point need not be decided. 16. One more objection raised on behalf of the company was that the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the order of reference as "Messrs Poonjiaji and Company" The name of the company is "Messrs M\ M. Poonjiaji and Comp.my". This ohjection does not how.:vcr survive in view (if the corripnedum issued by the Central Government by ils older dated 8th September, 1982, which \s on 'l^coid. 13. It would appeur that in order that the appropriate Government would be the Central Government the dispute must be closely or priximatcly connected with the Poit or that the employer should be either the Port authority or some person or company doing the Port work. The question is whether on the facts in this case it can be said that the company is doing the Port work. As h pointed out it is abundantly clear that the company is not doing the work as clearing or shipping agent for others. The company exports its own goods. For that purpose a servant or a peison appointed by it has to go the Port thiee or [our days in a moijth. It is clear from the letter of the Customs raithori- ties referred to above that the company is allowed to do ids own work only. As observed in the decision c'f the Antfhra Pradesh High Court (supra) the word "concerning" appearing in Section 2(aXi) which defines appropriate Government must he construed in a reasonable manner. It must be construed as referring to such industrial dispute only whrh have got a proximate intimate and reil connection wilh the corcpoia- tion or authorities mentioned in the said definition. Having regard to the facts established in this case and the legal position as is seen froru the decisions noticed above, I am inclined to hold that Ihe dispute in the present reference is not an industrial dispute concerning a major port. The Central Government, therefore, in my opinion wat not the appropriate Government and the reference, therefore, made by the Central Government is not competent. 17. In vien of the above discussion, I hold llwl the refe- rence rnade by the Central Government which in my opinion is not the appropriate Government, is not compeient. The leference, therefore, is rejected. No order as to cost-,. Sd/- M. D. KAMBLI, Presiding Officer . [No, L-31012/2/78-D.IVfA)] 14. Mr. Wagh, the learned counsel for the Union, submit- ted that the workmen is a dock worker as defined in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, That Act defines the expression "docfc worker" as meanlna a person employed or to be employed in, or in vicinity of. any port on work in connection with the loading, unloading, move- T. B. SITARAMAN, Desk Officer ↩