Subject NOT available

10 WfifT. friT "nv rp-non th" emninwr fi!1" to n-'r t7j"

pr-mMi-n ntr- iv^thi'n

pmTiinver.

[No. S-350I4(225)/82-PF.m

969QI/82 6

S.O 3944.—Whereas Messrs Choithram Hospital and Re- seatch'Centre, Mamk Bagh Road, Indore-4S:'001. (Ml'-3332) (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) ha\e applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of sc-tion 17 of the Employees' Provident Hinds and Miscellaneous I'lovmns Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hcitJiufui rcfcired to as the said Act):

And wheieas, Ihc Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment me, without n.aUne wiy separate contribution oi payment of peiviiuin, in enjoyment of benefits undei 'hf Or^iD Iiinunn e Scheme of the Life Insurance CorpouUion of Indu in the natui; of Life Insurance which are more favuiirablc to SULII employees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insuiarce Scheme, 1976 I hereinafter refeircd to as the said Scheme);

Now, thcicfore, in exercise of the powers confetied by sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions, of the said Scheme fov a period of three ycais.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in Ielation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regiornl 1'rovidcnt Fund Com- missioner, Madhya Pradesh, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Government may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as tho Central Government ma/, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act,

'within 15 days fiom the clow of everv mouth.

3. All expenses involv;d in the administration of the Group Insuiance Scheme, including maintenances of acet tints, sub mission of returns, payment of insurance premia, tiansfer of accounts, pavment of inspection chaigss etc. shall be born.' by the employer.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice BM<-d of (ho establishment, a copy of the rules of the Cfrnup Insurance Scheme as approved hy the Central Government and us and when amended, alonirwith a translation of the- salient features thereof, in the language of th; majority of the employees

5. Whereas an employee, who is already a member of lhe Emploveos' Provident Fund or the- Provident Fund of !>n establishment exempted under th? ,- sary premium in respect of him to the life Insurance I ' c w- ration of India.

6. The emolover sh-ill arrange to enhance the b-ri'-fiK availably to the employeei under the Gronn I lsur.ince Scheme anpronjnVeiv, if (h* benefits aviilab¹': to ihe enpinvces vndjr the said Scheme arc enhanced so thin th? beriefit*, ov.iiln'il; under the Group Insurance S.-'hem¹¹ are more fiaou'-flhle ti fhr employees than the benefits admi'siblc under the "a;d Scheme.

7. Notwithstrndinp nnythins coirtiinef in the Gioup Insur- ance Scheme, if on Ihe defh of an cnpl^":^

ot the employees, the Reyionsl Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a reasonable oppor- tunity to the employi.es lo explain thcii point of ^iew.

9. Where, for atiy lea'.on, the employees of the said estab- lishment do iiOt i cm am coveiei under the Gioup Insurance Scheme of the Life Insuiance Coiporation of India as already adopted by the said cstabjishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme are leduced in any manner, the exemption shall be liable tj be cancelled.

10. Wheie, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the premium etc. within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insur- BtKe Corporation of Indiu, and the policy Is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled,

11. In disc of default, if any made by the employer in payment of premium the irsponsibilitY for payment of assur- ance benefits to lhe nominees or (ho legal heir3 of deceased members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for giant of this exemption, shall be that of (he employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment shall cnsuio prompt pavment of the sum assured to the- nominee /lc^al heirs entitled for it and in any case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assuied fiom the Lifo Insurance Corpoiation of India.

[No. S-35ni4f226)/a2PF]r]

And whereas, the Central government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment are, without mak- ing any sepaiu.s i.ontnbu£ion or payment of premium, in enjoyment of binefito under the Group Insurance Scheme of the L-fe ^nsiiiance Corpoiatlon of India in the nature of Life IiioiLarcc nhich ate more favourable to such em- rjoy^s ili..n' the btntfits admissible undei the Employees Dtposit-Linkcil Insurance Sihqme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as th: said Scheme);

Now, JuretoiJ, in cxac'bc of th,e powers conferred by sab-stLtior. (2A) of se-tion 17 of the said Act and subject so the conditions* s-pecified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Csnti.iI Government hereby exempts the said establish- ment from the operation of ail the provisions of the said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment . shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, maintain such accounts and provide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Government may u^v^t fiom time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the C entral Government may, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, wilhin 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the <~"rjup Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, submission of returns, payment of insuiance premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection, charges etc. shall be boine by the employers.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur- iii.c S~\heroe as approved by the Central Government and, ?•> and when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees.

3. Where an cmplojee, v,ho is already a member of the Employees' Proudent Fund cr the Provident Fund of an estz,Dlishmei}t exempted under the said Act, is employed in h>s establishment, the e"iplo\er shall immediately enrol him as ,i number Qf the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- sary premium m respect of him to the Life Insurance Cor- poration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, ii the benefits available to the em- ployees inter the said Scheme aie enhanced, so that the benefits awilablt under the Group Insurance Scheme are rriors favourable to the emt3ot /ee& than the benefits admissi- blt under the said Scheme.

7. Not-w^hstendini; ;>nvthing contained in the Group Insur- pnee Schcre, if on the death of an employee the amount payable uader this scheme be less than the amount that would be tjayabV? hid employee beeu covered under" the said Scherie, the employer shall pay the difference to the legal heir/nominee of the emplo>ee as compensation.

8. No rnecdment of the provisions of the Group Insur- rnce Schcre snail be made without the prior approval of trie Region] Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi and vhe-e any amendment is likely to affect adversely the in- terest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Com- miss'oner 'hall before giving his ap.proval, give a reasonable ODPL rtunity to the employees to" explain their point of view.

9. Whe e, for any reason, the employees of the said eatallishmfnt do not remain covered under the Group I.isuiance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as a'ready adonted by the siid establishment, or the beneits to the employees under this Scheme are reduced ir> any mrftner. the exemption shall be liable to be can- ctlled.

SO. 3945.—Whereas Messrs UBS Publishers Distributors Limited, 5, Ansari Road, Post Box No. 7015, New Ddlii- 110002. (DL-1061) ihcreimifte; leferrcd to as Hie t.wl csUib- lishmer.t) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of seVion 17 of ihe Employees' Pjo\itlent Fii'ic's uivl MK- cellaneous Provision's Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as th& said Act);

if' V/iifc'o. to, ;' u . - tr I'IC e.iinl.'jvr f-'ls to pay the P'.uiitirn " I h .i "••" -ac d.'te, ai fixed by the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by rhc employer in •Myment of p emium et . the r spO'sibiHtY for payment of assurance benefits to the nominees or the lejal heirs of dec-cosed members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, siull be that of the employer.

12. Upon the denth of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment sha'l ensure p'ompt payment of (he sum assured in 'he nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

[No. S-3 5014(23 0/82-PF. II]

S.O. 3946.—Whereas Messrs Bharat Aluminium Com- pany Ltd., Punj House, IN Nehru Pla^c, New Dclhi-110019 (hereinafter referred to as llie said establishment) hav. ap- plied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Fum's and Mis ellaneons Pro- visions Aci, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment aie, without ir.ak- ng any separate contribution or payment of piemaim, in enjoyment of benefit under the Group Insurance Siheme of thj Life Insutance Corporation of India in rue naiuie of Life Insurance which are m ce favouiable to luch em- n'oyeei than the benefits admissible under the Employees 13 pos't-LhiUed Insurance- Schtme, 1976 (hereinafter rcrcr;ed to s ihe ^nid Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confe-red by sub-section i2A.) of, se t;on 17 of the said Act tind subject to the conditions specified in the Schrdute ann.^ed he'eto, the Central Government hereby exempts the said establish-

ment irom the operation of all the provisions of the said j^horae for a peuod of Ultee years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment staii suomit such returns to the Regional Provident i-uutl Commissioner, Delhi, maintain such accounts and piovide SULU facilities for inspection, us tlie Central Government may ai.t-.t fiuui time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the Central Government may, liom time to time, diiect under clause (a) of sub-section (.3A) ol section 17 of thj said Act, within 15 days Irom the close of every month.

1. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group insurance Scheme, including maintenance of account*, submission of returns, payment of insurance premia, trans- ler of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc shall oe bo.ne by the employers.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of ihe establishment, a copy of the lules of the Group Insur- ance S heme as approved by the Cenlial Government and, as and when amended, ulungwith a timislation of the saLent matures tnereof, in the language of the maioiity of the employees.

5. Where an employee, who is already a member of liie Employees Provident iJunU or the Piovidcnt bund of an esuDiisfimeni exempted undei the said Act, is employed in his establishment, the employer !,hall immediately enrol him as a number of the Gioup lnsuranco Scheme and pay neces- sary premium in respect of hzm to the Life Insurance Cor- pouition of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the bcneflii available to ihe employees under the Gioup Insurance Scheme appropnately, it the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits available ^nder the Group Insurance Scheme are inoie favourable to the employees thun the benefits admissi- ble under the said Schem*.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the. Group Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount payable under this scheme be lesi thun ihe amount that would be payable h..d employee been covered under ihe said Scheme, thi employer shall pay the difference to the legal heir;'nominee ol the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shall be m:de without the prior approval of the Regional Piovklent Fund Commissioner, Delhi and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the in- terest of the employees, ihe Regional Piovidcnt >*und Com- missions shall befoie giving his approval, give a rcusonab.e opportunity to . the employees to explain their point of view,

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said establishment do not remain coveied under the Group Iflbiirance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the premium within the due date, as fixed by ihe Life Insur- ance Corporation of India, nnd the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer In payment of premium elc. the responsibility for payment of assurance benefiis to the nominees or the legil heiis of deceased members who would have been covered under the snid Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in rc'.ition to the said establishment shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the nominee/leg-1 heirs cnttle.i for it and in any case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

[No. S-350l4(232)/82-PF. II]

S.O. 3947.—Whereas Messrs Hindustan Fertilizer Corpo- ration Ltd. Regd. Office Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place, New Dclhi-110019, (OL/4869) (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds arid Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employee! of the said establishment are, without making cny separaLe contribution or payment of premium, in en- joyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in ihe nature of Life Insurance which ore more favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance' Scheme, 1976 (heielnafter refened to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act find subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government icieby exempts the said establish- ment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Delhi, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shnll pay such inspection charges ai the Central Government may, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act. within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Oioup Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, uioiniision: ot returns, payment ot insurance piemia, tvuns- i-.i oi. ai'touiits, payment of inspection chaiges etc, shall be borne by the employers.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules ol the Group Insur- ance biheinc uj appioved by lhe Ceiuial Government anil, us jnd when amended, along with a transition of lhe salient featmes thereof, in the language of the majority of the cmpioyeea.

5. Whereas an employee, who is a'heady a member of the l-mpiuyees' Provident IJund or the Provident Fund of an establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in h.s establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him ii% a member of the Group Insurance Soheme and pay neces- saiy premium in respect of him to the. Life Insiuance Cor- puKiUon of India.

6. The employer shall anange to enhance the benefits available to the employees under the Group Insurance inheine appropi iately, if the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits availaolo under the Group Insurance Scheme are rr.oie iavour&bL to the employee* than the benefits admissi- ble undiir the iaij Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in th? Gioup Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount payable under this scheme be less th.in the amount that v^ould be payable had employee been coveied under tne s"id Scheme, the employer she'll pay the difl'eienee to lhe legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provision? of the Gioup Insur- ance Scheme shall be made without the prior appjovHl of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a rea- sonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the emp'oyees of the said estab- lishment do not remain coveied under the Gioup Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corpoiation ot India as already ndopied by the said establishment, or the benefits to the fTiploytes under th!s Scheme are reduced :n any manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the •uuai etc. within the due date, as fixed by the Iity Insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed tc laj se, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In casi of default, if any made by the employer in r-iymi.-nt of premium the responsibility tor payment of ussuran' e b.-n^flls to the nominees or the IcgaJ heirs of dts- -*fs:rl rnembeis who would have, been coversd urder the seld Schema but for grant of thls exemption, shall be that of thj employer.

12. Up"n the death of the member covered under the S-fiTie the et iployer in rehllon to the s;uj establishment s i- ' 11 . • n - u rf n I T I W| p r y m e nt of t he s um a r s u r ed to t he

noinirce/'pfi.;! hjirs entitled for it ."nd In any case within 7 drys of ihe re-eint of the sum asadred from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India.

fNo. S-35014(233)/82-PF. II]

S.O. 3948.—Whereas Messrs M. P. Asbestos Cement Pipe Co., 30, Godha Colony, Indore-452004 (M.P.) (MH/2344) (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) hn\e applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi- sions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as tho said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of tho said establishment are, without making i'ny separate contribution or payment of premium, in eii- JLymrnt of benefits under the GroiiD Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature Of Life Insurance which nre more favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confened by BUI' section (2 A) of section 17 of Ihe said Act and subject to ihe conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto. th^ Central Government hereby exempts the said establish- ment from the operation of al] the provisions of tho said S hsnie for a period of three years,

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall sn'imit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Madhj'a Pradesh, maintain such accounts and Pr°- viiV such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such Inspection chaiges as (he Central Government may, from time to time, direct under c'auae (V) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, v'; hin 15 day; from the elope of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Gioup Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, -uVniision .of returns, payment of insUKin'-ie premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc. shall bo borne by the employer.

A. The employer shall display on (he Notice Board of the esl'blishncnt, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur- ance Scheme as approved by the Cent'."¹! Government and, as and when amended, alongwith a translation of the snlient fc.i'ures thereof, in the lai.guago of the majority of tho employee*.

5. Wh^ieas an employee, who is already a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an esiablwhinent exempted undfer the said Act, I U -) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 27, 1982/AGRAHAYANA 6, 1904 [PART II—SEC. 3(iQ]

his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him ns a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- sary premium in respect of him to th^ Life Insurance Cor- poration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employees under (he Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits nvailable 10 the em- ployee* under ths said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissi- ble Under the said Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anythlnji contained in the Oioup Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount p.-yable under this scheme be less than the amount that would be payable had employee been covered under the snici Scheme, The employer sMl pay the difference to 1he legal heir/nominee of IIic employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shall be mode without the prior nr>pT>vnl of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a lea- so*>aWe opportuiity to the employees to explain their point of view.

"*. Where, for any reason, the employees of the snitf estab- lishment do not remain coveied under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the snid establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Whero, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the premium etc. within the due date, as fixed by the I ife insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption Is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in rnyment of premium the responsibility for payment of -s^irance benefits to the nominees or the lspaj heirs of de- ceased members who would have been covered under the s.'fd Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the Srheme the employer In relation to the said establishment shM! ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the nrvninre/legal heirs entitled for it and in any ^ase within 7 rfrvs of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India,

[No. S-3 5014/23 3/82-PF. II]

S.O 3949.—Whereas Messrs Naiduni Prinlery, 60/1, Babu Labhohand. Chhajlnni Marg, Indore-452003 Madhya Pradesh (MP/3635) (hereinafter referred to as the said estab- lishment) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of ihc Employees' Provident Funds and Mis- cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as lhe said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment are, without making huy separate contribution or payment of premium, in en- joyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the natuie of Life Insurance which arc more favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred In us the said Scheme);

Now, therefoie, in exercise of the poweis conferred by sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, lhe Central Government hereby exempts the said establish- ment from the operation of all thfl provisions of the said S heme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment iball submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Madhya Pradesh, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection chaiges aa (he Central Government may. from time to time, dire t under clause (a) of suh-seution (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, 'Emission of returns, payment of insurance premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc. shall be borne by the employer.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur- ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees.

5. Whereas an employee, who is already a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or ibe Provident Fund of on establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him i's a member of the Group Insurance Scheme end pay neces- sary premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance Cor- poration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme arc enhanced, so that the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissi- ble under the said Scheme,

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount payable under th;s scheme be less than the amount that would be payable had employee been dvered under th" said Scheme, the cmployci shall p av the difference to the letfal heir/nominee if the cmployse as compensation,

969 GI/82—8

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shalj be made without the prior approval of ihc Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nftidhya Pradesh and where any amendment Is likely to affect advenely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval^ give a ica- sonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view,

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said estab- lishment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to tht employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, ihe exemption shall be liable tn be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer falls to pay the memium etc. within the doe date, as fixed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the^exemption h liable to be- cancelled.

11. In cuse of default, if any made by the employer In payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assuiance benefits to the nominees or the lega] heirs of de- ceased members who would have been covered under th" said Scheme but for Brant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under lhe Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment •>halj ensure prompt payment of (he sum assured to the nominee /legal heiri entitled for it and in an/ case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assuied from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India.

[No. S-35014(240)/82-PF. Ill

"iO. 3950—Whereas Messrs District Co-openitnc Cen- lial Bank Limned Head Office, Morena (MP/1091) (hoie inufter lefencd to as (he said establishment) have applied for exemption undei subjection (2A) of section 17 of the 1 mployccs' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (19 ot 1952) (hereinafter leterred to as the said Acl),

\ud whereas, the Centra] Goveinment ij satisfied that [lie employees of the said establishment me, without making i ny separate contribution or payment of premium, in en joyment of benefits under the Groujj Insurance Scheme of ihe Life Insuiance Corporation of Jndia in the nature of life Insurance which are more Invouiuble to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the kmployccs Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 (hereinafter referred IO as the said Scheme)

Now, theiefore in exeicise of the powers conferred by sub section (2A) of section 17 of he said Act and subject lu ihe conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government hereby exempts the said ©itjiblish- menl trom the op;ialion of al] the provisions of the said S heme for a period of thiec years

SCHEDUI F

1 The employer in ielation to the said establishment shall

submit such returns to ihe Regional Provident Fund Com missioncr, Madhya Piudesh, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection as the Central Govern menl may direct from time to time

2 The employei shall pay such inspection charges as ihe Cental ^Government may, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month

3 All expenses involved in the administration of the

Ciioup Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts uhmission of leturns, payment of insurance premia, trans- r r of accounts payment of inspection charges etc shall be bmie by the employei

4 The -employer shall display on the Notice Boaid of the

est iblishmcnt \ copy of |he rules of thj Group Insui ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government und, HS mcl when amended, -alongvwth i translation of the Milienl itatuies thereof in the langu igc at llic majority of ihc empluvees

*> Whereas an employee, who is already a member of the

Lmployees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an establishment exempted tindei the said A.U, is employed in his establishment the emnloyer shall immediately enrol him us a member of the Group Insurance S hemc and pay nece>- " i > premium in respeel nf him to the i ife Insurance Co - TL. dlion of India

6 The employei shall arrange to enhance the benefits ivailable to the employees undei the Group Insuiance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits uvuiluhlc to the cm p'oyees undei the said Scheme arc enhanced, to that the benefits avaiKlble under the Group Insurnncc Scheme ,xre more favourable to ihe employees \n n the benefits pdmissi l)'e under ihe saij Scheme

7 Nutuithsiunding anythinj; contained in ih^ Gioup Insui ince Scheme if on the death ot an employee the iimounl payable under this scheme be lc^s Ih in the .lmaunt hdt would he payable had cmplovti b.'rn coveied lindei the sud Scheme the employei shall pay \hi diflerence to the lcual hei /nom n .; if the employ,..; f >. comnt jtnn

K No amendment of tiie pioMsions ol ihc G imp Insm in c Scheme lhnll be made wnhuui the nnoi npp oval ul the Regional Piovident hund Commissionei Madhyi Piade h TnJ where any amendment is likely to affect adveiiely the interest of the emnlovees the Regional Piovidein Fund Co-nmissionei shall before giving his appiovnl give a ica sonable oppoitunity to the employees to i:\phin th"n po nl of view

9 Wheie foi any leason the employees .)1 ihe said es'ab hshment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance Schema of the Life Insurance Coiporation of Tndla as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme aic ieduced in inv manner the exemption shall be liable to be cuncelled

4.133

10. Wheie, for any lcnson, the employer fails to pay the premium within the duo date, as fixed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption ia liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if nny made fry the tmployei in payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assurance benefits to the nominees etc. or the legal heir" of deceased members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but foi Ri;int of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the' member coveicj under the Scheme the omployer in relation to the said establishment shall ensure piompt payment of the sum ossured to the nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in nnv case within 7 Jays of the receipt of the sum as3urtJ from the Life Insur- ance CoiDoration of India.

[No. S-350U(242l/R2-Pr, II]

S.O. 3931.—Whereas Menu* Bangalore Wire Road Mill, BangaIore-560048 (K.N-5390) (hereinafter referred to as the' said establishment) have applied for exemption under sub- section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (here- inafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment ^re, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in en- joyment of benefits under the Groujj Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insurance which are moie favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powevs conferred by sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government heieby exemptj the said establ&tk- merit from the operation of alj the provisions of the said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

I. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall

submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Karnataka, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such Inspection charges as the Central Government may, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 oi the laid Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, submission of returns, payment of Insurance premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc. shall be borne by the employer.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur- ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, ns and when amended, ttlongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the languuge of the majority of the employees.

5. .Whereas an employee, who is already a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him as a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- sary premium in respect of him to th^ Life Insurance Cor- poration of India,

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme arc enhanced, no that the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to the employees than the benefits admissi- ble under the said Scheme,

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amount payable under this scheme be ¹.ess than the amount that would be payable had employee been covered under the said Scheme, the employer nhail pay the difference to the legal heir/nominee of the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give n rea- sonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said estab- lishment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, the exemption shall be, liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any reason, the employer fails to pay the premium within the due date, as fixed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

II. In case of default, if any made by the employer in payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assurance benefits to the nominees etc. or the legal heirs of de- ceased members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India.

[No. S-350I4(243)/82-PF. U]

S.O. 3952.—Whereas Messrs Bharat Bijlee Ltd., Head Office Electric Mansion, 6th Moor, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, P.B. No. 19103. Prabbadevi, Bombay-400025 & its branch i.e. Kalwa Works P.B. 100, Belapur Road, Kalwa, Thane- 400601 (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of sec- tion 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellane- ous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment are, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in en- joyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insurance which are more favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government hereby exempts the said establish- ment from the operation of all the provisions of the laid Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner, Maharashtra, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for Inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charges as the Central Government jnay, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sub-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, submission of returns, payment of insurance premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc, shall be borne bv the employer.

4. The employer gh"ll display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of 'he Group Insur- ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees*.

5. Whereas an employee, who is already a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or the Provident Fund of an establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him as a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- sary premium in respect of him to tha Life Insurance Cor- poration of India.

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employers under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are more favourable to the employees than the benefits adniissi- ble under the said Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Iiuur- ance Scheme, if on the death nf an employee the amount payable under this scheme be. less than the amount that would be payable had employee been covered under the said Scheme, the employer shall pay the difference to the legal heir/nominee of Ihe employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and where any amendment is likely to effect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a rea- sonable oppoitunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees- of the said estab- lishment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled,

10. Where, for any leason, the employer fails to pay the premium etc. within the duo date, as fixed by the Life Insurance Corporation of. India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assurance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of de- ceased members who would have beep covered under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

12. Upon the death of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment shall ensure prompt payment of the sum assured to the nominee/legal heirs entitled for it and in any ease within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India.

[No. S-35014(271)/82-PFi H]

S.O, 3"53.—Whereas Messrs National Insurance Co., 768. Mount Road, Madras (TN/62.01J (hereinafter refer/Qd to as the said establishment) have appHed for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment are, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in en- joyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of th" Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insurance which are more favourable to such em- ployees than the benefits admissible under tho Employ*** Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subjection (2A) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified 'n the Schedule annexed hereto, the Central Government hereby exemptt the said establish' ment from the operation of all the provision* of the said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Com* missioner, Tamil Nadu, maintain such accounts and pro- vide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall pay such inspection charge* as thfr Central Government may, from time to time, direct under clause (a) of sob-section (3A) of section 17 of the said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, submission of returns, payment of insurance premia, trans- fer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc, ihall be borne-by the employer,

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insur- ance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees-.

5. Wh-ereas an employee, who is already a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or th6 Provident Fund of an, establishment exempted under the said Act, is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enrol him an a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- sary premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance Cor- poration of Tndia.

6i The employer shall arrange to enhante the benefits available to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately( if fhe benefits available to the em- ployees under the Said Scheme are enhanced, so tBat the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme are

moic favourable to the employees ihan the benefits admissi- hit, under the saitl Scheme,

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group Insur- ance Scheme, if on the death m .111 employee the amount payable under this scheme be uv. than the amount that would be payable had cnviojLC been covered under the said Scheme, the employci shill pay the difference to the legal heir/nominee of ihe employee a^ compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insur- ance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a rea- sonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Wlieie, lor any reason, the employees of the said estab- lishment do not remain covered under the Group Insurance -Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as already adopted by the said establishment, or the benefits to the employees under this Scheme are reduced in any manner, the exemption shall be liable to be cancelled.

10. Where, for any re.vson, the employer fails to p.iy the piemium etc, within the due date, as fixed by ihe Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the policy. is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assurance benefits to the nominees or the le#al heirs of de- ceased members who would have been covei ;d under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer,

12. Upon the death of the member coveicj under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment shall ensuie prompt payment of the Miin assured to the nominee /legal heirs entitled for it and in any case within 7 days of ihe receipt of the sum assuied from the Life Insur- ance Corporation of India,

[No, S-350J4(27.<)/H2-PF. II]

S.O. 39S4.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government lhat the employer mid the majority of the employees in rela- tion to the establishment known u, Messrs Krishna Metal Works, 355, Dakhindari Road, CaUutta-48, have agreed that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscel- laneous Provisions Act 1952 < 1<> of 1952), should re made applicable to the jaid esUMishment ;

Now, therefore, in cAeicise ot the powc;s conf'.-rieii by sub-section (4) cf Section 1 of the said Act, the Central Government heiebv applies the p oviijons of the said Act to the said cstabh\hrncir.

[No. S-350I7/69/K2-PF.TIJ S;O. 3956.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that the employer and the majority of -the employees in rela- tion to the establishment known as Messrs Swan Marketing (Private; Limited, Shyam Kuuj, 12-B, Lord Sinha Road, Calouita-71, including its Registered Office at Happy Villa- Srikrishua Nagar, Putnu-1, have agreed that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi- sions Act, 1952 (19 of 1)52), should te made applicable to the said establishment;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby applies the provisions of the said Act to the said establishment,

[No. S-35017/74/82-PFJI]

S.O. 3956.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that the employer and the majority of the employees in rela- tion to the establishment known as Messrs Gold Mohar Indus- tries, 4, Snlkia School Road. Howrah-6 including its Registtr- cd Office at 130, Cotton Street, CaIcutta-7 have agreed that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Mis- cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), should be made applicable to the said establishment ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 1 of ihe said Act, the Central Government hereby applies the provisions of the said Act to the said establishment.

[No. S-35017/76/82-PE.ll¹

S.O. 3957.—Whereas It appears to the Central Government that the employer and the majority of the employees in rela- tion to the establishment known as Messrs Atindra (Private) Limited, 14-B, R. N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta-1 have agreed that the provisions of the Employeis' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 19^2), should be made applicable to the said establishment;

, Now, therefore, in exercise of the power, conferred by sub-section (4) of Section l of the said Act, the Central Government hereby applies the provisions oi the said Act to the said establishment.

[No. S-3J017/77/82-PF.II]

A. K. BHATTARAI, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th November, 1982

S.O. 3958.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment' Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in the industrial dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of Golllkdih Project of Messrs Hharat Coking Conl Limited, At and Post Office Jharia, Di-strict Dhanbad and their work- men, which was received hy the Central Government on the 29th October, 1982.

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

PRESENT :

Shri J. P. Singh, Presiding Officer,

Reference No. 5 nf 1981

In the matter of an industrial dispute under S. 10(1 )(d) of

(he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ol Golukdih Project of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, At and Post Office Jharin, 'District Dhnnbad and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the employer : Shri G. Prasad, Advocate.

On behalf of the workmen : Shri S Bose, Secrctaiy, R. C.

M. S. Dhanbad

STATE : Bihar

INDUSTRY : Con!

Dharpbad, 21st October, 1982 AWARD

This is a reference under S. 10 of 'he L.D. Act, 1947, The

Central Government by its order No. L-20012(l94)j80-D.III(A) dated the 30th January, 1981 has leferred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms :

SCHEDULE

'Whether the demand of the workmen of Golukdih Project of M|s. Bharat Coking COBI Limited, At and Post Office Jharia District Dhanbad that Sarva- shii Mahendra Viswakarma, Blacksmith, Sahadeo Ministry, Blucksmith, Ram Nagina. Rao, Hammer- man, Ram Pruyeah Mahato, Hammerman and Rum Samp Ram, Hammerman should continue to be employed as piece rated workmen On the same terms and conditions on which they were employed at Jealgora Colliery before their transfer to Golukdih Project is justified 7 If so, to what relief are the said workmen entitled ?"

There are certain facts which are admitted in this case. These concerned workmen were piece rated workers in Jealgora Colliery of Messrs. Bhaiat Coking Coal Ltd. In the month of January/February, 1979 underground fire broke out in Jealgora Colliery which occurred and spread due to spon- taneous, combustion beyond control of the employers Mining operation had to be suspended for an indefinite period. There was no work for any of the workmen em- ployed in the collieiy and they were rendered surplus and liable to be retrenched. The employers, however, in consultation with the Union of the workmen transferred all the workmen in Jealgora Colliery to other collieries of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. These concerned workmen were trans- ferred to Golllkdih Colliery. These concerned workmen wern offered alternative employment as available in Golukdih Colliery and the same were accepted byNthe workmen. They were accordingly transferred to Golukdih Colliery. In Goluk- dih Colliery there was no piece rated job of the nature which these concerned workmen used to do in Jealgora Colliery.

The case of the concerned vvoikmen is Ihut thev were simply transferred to Golukdih Colliery with a condition that the emoluments which they used to get at Jealgora Colliery should not be diminished According to them they were paid on time rated basis instead of piece rate basis.

Ext. M¹. 1, "M. 2, M. 3, M. 4 and M.5 are originals of last pay certificate of the concerned workmen. The documents were sent to Golukdih Colliery on transfer of the concerned workmen All these documents show that the concerned workmen were piece rated worker^ in Jealgora Collierv. Ext. M, 6 is a transfer Order and Ext. M 7 is the relieving order. Under Ext. M. R these concerned workmen and others were rctransferred to fealgora Colliery where they ere still working on their pevious" job. The simple case of the work- man Is that during the period of their stay at Golukdih colliery on transfer they were being paid on time rated bnsis.

The management examined MW-1 Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Personal Officer, Jealgora Colliery. He has been working in Jealgorn Colliery since 1977 nnd he knows all the concerned workmen. He has spoken about the fire which broke out in Jealgora Colliery on 12-1-79. He has also spoken about that the union requested the management to transfer them to some other colliers. He has said that the workers were liable to be Ktrenched. Ho has clearly stated that ihe concerned workmen were provided with jobs at Golukdih Open Cast Pioject ns niece rated workers with protection of their group wages which they were reccivinir in Jealgora Colliery. This statement is very important because the protection of their group wiges was the necessary condition of service and con- sistent with law, WW-1 Shri Mahendra Vishkamia who is one of the workman has put forth his case.

Shri G. Prasad, Advocate for the management has submit- ted that in respect of piece rated workers the Wage Board Recommendation Irs provided for fall buck wupes which in f.ict is the basic wage. According to him the protection of WVRB is the basic wage and nothing more. Shri Bosc has said that the neccs'ary condition of service carinot be chang- ed without resorting to the provision of Section 1A of the Industrial Disputes Act. What he me^ns to say is th,it lall back wages had to be giv#n under special < ircumstances and the principal of full back w.iges cannot be applied to the instant case. Whnt he means to say is that if there was no

work foi the concerned wo.km.m in lealgora Colliery ihey ueie liable in be letrenchcd But ihe management thoughI it pioper to Iransfci lliem to another collieiv. UnJer law that group wages had to be protected, and this mcunt that there would be no full in the earnings ot ihesc concerned workmen, Accoidinp to him it was wiong lo coniider ihtit the full back wages of pii.ee rated workers could he consider- ed the basic wages. He has further mgued thrtt MW-1 has clearly udmittcd that they veie transfrried *o Cinlirkdih Col- lieiy with specific condition that thev would b; paid tneir group wages. 11 is clear that at Golukdih Colliery the> were not receding iheir group wages hut paid on time latej bas:s. I have to agree with Mi. Dose thai the concerned woikmcn were not paid according to law. It is quite clear lhat the piolection of wanes is the necessary condition [or tr.msfcr of the workmen iiom one colliery to another 01 from one juh lo anothei. In this view of the matter the management could not bo held lo be justified in 1 educing the w.sijes of the concerned workmen.

'I hus having considered the case I have lo hold thai the demand of the workmen of Golukdih Pioject of Messrs •Rim at CokinR Coal 1 Id., at and Post Office Thaiia Districl Dhanbad thu'l lSar\ashii M.'hendra Vishkarma, BlacWniih S/rhodeo Mistiv. Blacksmith. Ram Nayina Rio, H.immcimnn Ram Pravcsh Mahato, Hammerman and Kain Samp Ram, Hammerman should continue to be emnloyed as pie-e uicd workmen on Ihe same terms and conditions on which they were employed at lealgora Colliery before tbeii transfer to Golukdih Project is justified. Consequently the concerned workmen are entitled to he paid their gioup wages. The com- pulation of their claim could be mode under Section 3T(CM2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 if the same was not seltled amicab'v between the union of the concerned workman and the management.

This is nw Award

T. P. SINGH, Piesiding O'licci

[No. L-200I2/J.94/8O-DTIILVI1

New Delhi, the Il.h Novembei. 1982

S.O 3959.— In pursuance of section 17 of ihe Tnclustii.il

Dispnles Act, 1047 (14 of 1947). the Ccnii.il Government hereby publishes Ihe lollowini; awaid of the Central Go\- einment Industrial Tiibiui'il No. 1, Dh.mh;>d in ih? irdiifitnal dispute between Ihe emn'oyers in iclation to the manaoe- ment of Phuiarit and Colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal I id . Post Oflice Khaikharee, District Dh.mhad and thcii woil.men which was received by the Cential Government on the Nth November, I9S2.

BFFORE THF Cl-NTRAL GOVERVIM-ENT INDUS1 KIA-I TRIRUNAI -C UM-1 ABOUR COUkT NO. .1 D1I\NH-\D

Reference No 38/80

PR! SI-NT :

Shri I N Singh, Piesidlng Officer,

PARTIES

Employers in relation lo 'he management of Plnilaril- and Collieiy of "M/s. Hharat Coking Co.il l t d. PO KharUuiee DUtiicI Dhanb id,

AND

1 heii workman

APPEARANCES:

T-'or the Employers—Shri B Joshi, Advocrtc.

1 or [he Workman—None

INDUSTRY : Coal STATF : Bihar

D.iled. ihe 2nd November, ll>82

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of I ;ihout in e\eicise of the powers confeirerd on them U/s infilfd) of

Q^q Gl S?—S

the Jnduslrial Dispulcs Act, 1947 (.H of. 1947) has referred, the dispute .to. this .Tiibun^l for adjudication under Order No. [-200l2/160/7y-D.lIIi.A) dated the 8th May. 1980.

SCHEDUT.F

'VVheie the demand of the workmen of Pluilaritund Collieiy of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P. O, Kharkharee, Disfiict Dhanbad lhat Shi I Nilmani ( houdhuty should be designated as I.oidinp Munshi instead of Looding Chapiasi is justified ? If not, to what iclief is the said workman entitled?"

2 On 19th October, 1982 both the parties have filed a join! petition of compromise duly signed on their behalf and Ihey piay, ,th.il no award be passed in leims of the settle- ment

3. I have gone tliiough the seltlement which is beneficial

for the workman.

4. In the ciicumstanccs the award is pnsscd in terms of

lho settlement which shall foim part of the awaid,

1, N, SINGH. Presiding Officer

BFKORF THF PRESIDING OFFICER. CFNTRAI GOV- ERNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRTIHJN \I. NO III. AT DHANBAD

Reference No. 38 of IQSO

Krnploycrs in relation to the Management of Phularitand

Colliery.

AND

Their woikmen

The humble nctitionc,- on belrilf of the aforesaid parties

most respectfully s-hewth :

That ihe present ref^rfn-c arises out of Ifr¹ claim of the wo'krTKin named Sri Nilnmnni Chnndhiiv fnr (lciit'nnt'm' him as f.oadiiitr Munshi instead of 1 oadinjr Ch^nrasi. The frnis of the inference iis tontjiiii'd in (he schedule to ihe refe'civc is o\lineted below—

THE SCHFDULE

'Whelhr-- ihe dem.mj of the workman of Phti'.i'il"nd iMiheiv of M/s B r r L. P O. Kfnrl.hr i DistiiVt Dhanb;id iM.it S'i Nilam.mi rhandh.iiv Ovnld be desiflnaled a* lo'din<> NTunshi insleand of T.n;ulfne .. ( h inrasi is instill-cl ? Tf so. to vhrtt relief is the

said uoikman entitled ?"

?. Ih'it without nieiudi'e to the lespective conlent'ons, ihe nriities have settled the above dispute in the rol'ow'nc teim"; :—•

TERMS OF SETTIEMENT

(L[| I hat Sri Nilmimi Ch.iudhary shull he designated us 1 oadinc Munshi within 30 days from the ,latc of the acceptance of this .settlement hv thi" Hon'bV "•"nbun-i and he w;ll hi- fixed in lh" L-1-rii^il DrTii^-TTT fiom that date in the scale of Ks'. 460-16-636 with the startins bosic saldrv of Rs, 524 besides all olhcr irsuil benefit? apnlicibie to a Gradc-TTI clerk undei NCWA-1I.

(h) That Sir Nilam.mi Chaudbaniv u'ill not b^ entitled to any other benefit ind hi- will not claim fnr hi" IKiiion in clerical trailp-111 with ronscauent d'tTiTciT'e of wr>TS with effect Tiom nnv earlier date ictrospectively.

3. That in view of the aforesaid settlement it is submitted

lhat adjudication is not necessary.

4 That the leim;, of the settlement are fair mid proper

• 1 1 40 I U L- G A Z b r i i: 01 I N D IA : N O V L M B LR 2 7. 1 9 J C ' A G R A H A Y A NA (\ 1 W4

Under Ihe lads and circumstances slated above il i" humbly prayed that thc'Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to pass the Award-toterms of tie Wttl"n"nt.

FOR T Hr WORKMAN : (NILMANY CHAUDHARY)

THE WORKMAN (BASUDFV SARKAR), Br. Secretary,

Riishtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh FOR THE EMPLOYERS (S. C. GAUR) PERSONNEL MANAGER, BARORA AREA (S. P. SINGH) DY. PERSONNEL MANAGtR BARORA AREA.

VERIFTC ATION

I Shri Niltnam Chaudhary in the present refeienct* have fully understood the terms of the settlement vvnich were read over and explained to me by Shri Bastidev Sarkar our Brunch Secretary of the Union, R.C.M.S. of which 1 am "till con- tinuing as a member, and 1 sign this settlement in token of acceptance of the terms of *he settlement.

[ P A IH II - Si c 3 ( i i )l

the dispute 1MS been specified in the schedule 1o the said ordci and the said schedule runs as follows :

"Whethei the action of the management of Dhan&ar Colliery in Kusunda Aic.i No, VI of Messrs Bharat Cokinp Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbad in dismissing Shi i Ram BriUh Bhniya. Hazrce Muzdoor from service with effect fiom the l5/23rd March. 1980 is justified ? If i.ot, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled '¹"

2. The dispute has been settled out of Court. A memoran dum of settlement dated 4-I0-S2 has been filed in Court. I have gone through the teims of settlement and find them quite fair and reasonable. There is no reason why an award should not be made on fhc terms and conditions laid down in the Memorandum of Settlement. I accept it and make an award accordingly. The memorandum of settlement shall form pnrt of the award,

3. Let a cony of this award be sent to the Ministry u!" required under Section 15 of the Industrial Dispute.s Act, 1947.

MANORANJAN PRASAD, Presiding Officer

BFFORf THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. T, DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF RFFERFNCE NO. 30 OF 1982

(NTLMANI CHAUDHARY)

PARTIES :

J. N, SINGH, Presiding Officer

[No. L-20fll2f.l-iO)/79-n.1ir(A)]

New Delhi, the 12th November, 1982

S.O. 3960.—In pursuance of. section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 f 14 of iy47), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tiibunnl No. I, Dhanbad in the industrial dispute between the employers in Ielation 1o the management of Dhansur Collieiy in Kusunda Area No. VI of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Kusunda. District Dhanbad. ond their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 9th November, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of n refeicnce under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Art. 1947.

Reference No. 3fl of 1982

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Dhansar Colliery in Kusunda. Area No. VI of M/s, Bharut Coking Coal Limited, P. O. Kusiinda, District Dhanbad.

AND

Theii Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Mnnoranfan Prasnd, (Rctd.) Presiding Oflicei.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers-. Shri R, S, Muity, Advocate.

For the Workmen—None.

STATE : Bihar

INDUSTRY : Coul

Dhnnhud. dated, the 2nd November, 1982

AWARD

Management in relation to the management of Dhansar Colliery in Kusiinda Area No. V| of M/s. Bhorflt Coking'Coal I imited, P.O. Kusunda, District Dhanbad.

AND

Their workmen.

The above mentioned parties most lespectfully beg to

submit jointly as follows :—

J. That both the parties have held mutual negotiations

in regard to the aforesaid dispute.

2 That as a result of the mutual negotiations held they have reached an overall settlement in regard to the Industrial Dispute in question, Si\ copies of the settlement is attached.

3. That the parties consider that the terms of settle-

ment are iust fair and reasonable.

In view of the above the parties hereby jointly request the HotVbie Tribunal to give an award in terms of the attached settlement.

Sd.

IG. D. P\NDFY) Secretary,

(S. BOSE) Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdftor Snnfih,

Drranbad

For and on behalf of Workmen

Sd.

Agent. Dhansar Colliery, BOCL

Sd.

(S, N. SIN HA)

Personal Manager Kusunda Area-A No-A VI, BCCI, Kusiinda On behalf of^Tdrnployers.

The present reference arises out of Order No. L-2OOl2(4O3)i 81-D. Ill (A) dated. Now Delhi, the 5th April, 1982 passod rtf (he Central Government in respect of an industrial dispute between the parties mentioned above, The suhjecr matter of MemotanduJt*. of Settlement reached between the manage- ment of Dhansar Colliery, Kusunda Area (Area-VI), BCCI , District Dhanbad and the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. Rajendra Path, Dhanbad on-^ under the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules framed thereunder :

Name of the Parties :

Representing Employers :

1. Sii R. S. Gill, Agent, Dhansar Colliery, BCCL, P.O.

Dhansur, District Dhanbad.

2. Sii S. N. Singha, Personnel Manager, Atea No. VI, Kusunda, BCCL, P.O. Kusunda, District Dhanbad.

Rcpi eventing Woi Linen :

1. Sri Cj. D Pandey, Seeietary, Rastriva Collieiy Maz-

door Sangh, Rajendra Path, Dhanbad,

SHORT RECITAI OF THE CASK

1. An Industrial Dispute with the following terms of refe- rence between the management of Kusundii Area (Aiea-VI) of M[s, Bhaiut Coking Coal Limited and (he woikmen n" lepresented by Rashtriyu Colliery Ma/door Sangh was icferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad lor adjudication US 10(l)(d) of the lndustiial Disputes Act, 1947, by Ihe Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, vide Order No. L-2OOI2(4O3)/81- D-llI(A) dated 5-4-19X2.

"Whether the action of the management of Dhan^ai Colliery in Kusiindu Area No. VI of Messers Bharat Coking Coal Limited Post Office Kusunda, District Dhanbjd in Jnmjssing Sri Ram BriLsh Bhula, Hazrce Mazdoor from service, with effect from the 15/23I'd Maich, 1980 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled '?"

2. Both the parties have mutually negotiated this diipute and have tome to an over all settlement on the following terms on 4-10-82.

TERMS OF *ETT1 EMENT

1. Agreed that Sri Ram Briksh Bhuia, Haztce Mazdooi of Dh.insar Colliery in Kusunda Area (Area No, VI) of BCCL will he reinstated by the manage- ment in the post of Huzri Mazdoor with immediate effect. He should jepoit for duty to the Manager, Uhunsur Collieiy within 7 days of the conclusion of this settlement.

2. Agreed that Sri Ram Briksh Bhuia will be paid back wages as a special case without any precedent to be cited w.c.f. 1-1-82 oi>ly !(nd no compensation or any of the benefits foi the period piior to l-J-82 will be payable to him excepting continuity .is at item 3 hereunder :

3. Aareed that Sii RJHI Biiksh Bhuia will be entitled to continuity of service and the peiiod between 15/23rd Muich, 19S0 when he was dismissed from service upto 31-12-81 will be treated as leave with- out wages for the purpose of continuity of service only for the purpose of gratuity,

4. Agreed that this will he an overfill settlement in connection with dispute relating to the workmen concerned which has been referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for adjudication.

5. -Agreed that the management and the Trade Union will file a joint petition to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, for giving an award in terms of this settlement. Since however the post of the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal is vacant now, the said settlement will be imple- mented pending the award of the Tribunals as indicated above.

Sd.

(G. D. PANDEY)

Scciclary, S. Bo.se Secretary

Rd.shtriya Colliery Miizdooi Sangh, Dhanbad Foi and on behalf of workmen. Sd. i Illegible)

Agent, Dhansar Collieiy, BCCJ.

(S. N. SINHA)

Personal Manager, KWinda Area

•Area No. VI, BCCL, Kusumla.

For and on behalf of Employers. Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th October, 1982 Copy to :—

1. AsUt. labour Commissioner (Cential), Dhimbad per

reed. Post A/D.

2. Regional Labour Commissioner (Dhunbud), Uhanbad

per regd. post \ / D.

3 Chief Labour .Commissioner (Cential), New Delhi.

4. Secretary to the Govt. of India. Ministry of labour,

Mew Delhi.

INo. I-20012(403^/81-D. TUlAJI

A. V. S. SARMA, Desk Ollicei

New Delhi, die loth November. 1982

S.O. 39*1.—-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industnul Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad. in the industrial dispute bctwen the emploers in iclation to the management of Ratibati Colliery of Ratibati Sub-Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Office Kalipahari District Buidwan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 6th November, 1982.

BUFQRE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT NO 3, DHANBAD

REFERENCE NO. 108 80

PRESENT :

Shri J. N. Singh, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Rfttibati Colliery of Ratibati Sub-Area under Eastern Coal- fields¹ Ltd., P O. Kalipahari, Dist. Burdwan.

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shri p.L. Ojha, Senior Personal Officer, for the workman—None.

INDUSTRY ; Coul. STATE • West Benfinl

Dated, the 2nd November, 1982

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministiy of Labour in exercise of the powers confoncd cm them U/S 1 0 d ) ( d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) referred th" dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Calcutta for adjudication. Subsequently by Order No. S-l 1025(4)/80-D. 1V(B) dated 14tli/17th Novem- ber, 1980 the dispute hns been transfened to this Tribunal for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ralibdli Collieiy of Ratibati Sub-Area under Eastern Coal- fields Ltd., P.O. Kalipahari, Dis. Burdwan in termi- nating ihe services of Slul Sutulei Majhi with effect from 17th .lanuary, 1977 is justified. If not, 'to what relief is the concerned workman entitled l'r

2. On 19-10-1982 both the panic; have filed a joint petition of compromise duly signed on their behalf nnd they pniy Lhat an awaid be passed in leims cif ihe settlement.

3. I have gone thiouyh the ietllement whicji is hencheiul

for the workman.

4. In the circumstances the award is passed in teims of ihe

settlement which shall form part of the award.

Ens, : Settlement. J.N. SINCJH, Presiding Urircer

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRESIDING OFf-IOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT JNDUSTRFAL TRIBUNAL NO. 3 DHANHAD

Ref, No. 10" of 1980

PARTIES :

Employers in relating to the Management" of Ratibati Colliery, Satgram Area, FCL, P.O. Kalipahan, Dist. Burdwun, West Bengal.

AND

TJicii Workmen.

The parlies most humbly pray as under :•—

That, the above mentioned icfeiencc case has- been fixed

for hearing OD 19-10-82.

That, tbc parties have discussed the matler and have come to emicablc settlement in favour of disposal of the case on the following terms and conditions,

(a) the incumbent, Sri Sundar Majhi will be icmstated

in his existing capacity.

(b) the period of idleness will be considered as leave

without pay.

(c) the union/the workman shall not claim for bark wages or for any other pavments whatsoever for the

(d) the instant settlement shall have no precedence,

(d) the instant settlemnt shall have no precedence.

(e) Sri Majhi will be posted at Ratibati (R) Colliery.

Under the circumstances aforesaid the parties jointly pray for accepting said terms of settle- ment by the Hon'blc Tribunal and to pass an Award accordingly for disposal of the case. In the meantime Sri Mnjhi is hereby allowed to resume his duties at the aforesaid place of his posting.

For the union representing For the Employers, the workman.

Sd.

Sd.

(Sunil Sen),

(D.R.K. Rou),

Organising Secretary', Personal Manager,

Colliery Mazdoor Sabha (A1TUC). Satgr"im Area, ECL.

Satgrpm Area, J. N. SiNGH, Presiding Oflicci

Dt. 18-10-82.

iNo. L-l%12(13)/79-D.lV. (B)l

New Delhi, the 11th November, 1982

8.O. 3962.—In pursuance of ssction 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tho following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New Majri Colliery, Wardha Valley Area of Messrs "Western Coalfield Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Ccntial Government on ihe 9th November, 19ts2.

UEFORE JTJSTIO SlfRl S R. V"i AS (RETD.) PRESIDING OFHCF.R. CENTRUM, GOV1 RNMHNT INDUSTRIAI TRIBUNAI-CUM-I.ABOtJR COURI, IABALPUR (M.P )

Case No. CGIT-LC(R)(36)/1980

PART I ts :

fcmployei;, m relation to the management ol Wardha

Valley Area, New Majii Colliery, Chandrapiir (M.Sl and their woikman Shii A.P. Niigralc. I'. K Clerk, represented through the Waulha Valley Collieries Workeis Union, C a Qrueshi Building, Bhivpui Ward No. 3, Chandrapui (IVPahaiashtra).

APP1 ARANCES :

hoi workman—islin Gukib Gupta, Advocate

For Mnnagemt:ni~Shji P. S. Nair, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Coal DISTRICT : Chaiidiapm (M.S.)

AWARD

Dated . October U), |y"2

This is a refeienee made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, vido Notification. No. L. 18012(.i)[ 79-D. IV(H) Dated 7th Juty. 19S0, ior the adjudication of the following dispute, bv this Tcbunal .—

'Whether the action of the management of New Majii Colliery of Wardha Valley Aien of Western Coul- iicldy Limited, Chandiapur, m dismissing Shri A. P. Nagrable, P. F. Clerk • with client fiom 27/ 28th Octobci, J97S is ju.,tilied ? If not. to what rcliew is tht concerned workman entitled V

2 Briefly stated the Jacts material for the adjudication of

this dispute aic as under :—

The workman, Shri A. P. Nagralc, beicinjfter referred to as the workman, was an employee of the Western Coalfields Limited in the New Majri Colliery of the Wardha Valley Area, Chandrapur. He was dismissed from the post of a Clerk with effect from 27/28th October, 1978. The justified for this dispute is challenged by the workman in the present pro- ceedings,

3. The case of the workman is as under : --

The woikman is a member of a Woikmen's Union. He was originally employed as a Casual Mazdoor in the Mahakali Colliery. But in fact he joiwd to work av a clerk. Tnercaftei he iais.*d a dispute reminding reguktrisution and by a settle- ment dated 23-3-J976 the management appointed him ai a Grade 111 Clerk from 1-4-1976 bv the General Manager ot (he W.irdha Valley Are i. In the Mahakali Colliery also though designated as a Junior Clerk he was asked to discharge his duties of higher grade Clerk but the management denied his genuine claim. The management eonsidciing the demand made by tho workman and his trade union activities carried on Ijy him transferred bim on 6-4-1977 /rom Mahakali Colliery to the Open ( ast Majri Collicr\ with u view to ele4r the ancars of woik in Ihe Majri Collioy icgutding Proxident Fund Accounts. In the Open Cast Majri Colliery the woikman found considuahle arrears of work left by his piedeccssoi-. nnd he was u

Though the workman was doing his best and looked after the current work of th" Provident Fund the an ears could not be cleaned for eiuMirasiances beyond hrs control. The Provident Fund Cuni/i)iliioner was piessing hard the manage- ment for the ui-rcais in the Provident Fund \cnMUTts and the management without jcalisinp thcii inaction and failure wanted to make the woikm.in liable I'oi thr aii'eurs. The Sub Area Mnnager was rrniveeessaiy unhuppy with (he woikman and issued a note to him charging him with neglect of work, disobedience etc. On 6-4-1978 a charge-sheet was lastly issued to iho, woikman accusing him of inTObordlnatfoti,

disobedient, habitual neglect ot woik. extension ol threats, gising of abuses, ussauning his superiors ami co-workers, i his charge-sheet was ;ephed hy the workman denying ull I ho ch.ii ecs mentioned truiiem. On ar uljeyetl complaint by Shi i D. B. Singh, Scnioi Personnel Officer, tby said charge- sheet was issued and Slui J. K. illegalities weic committed and finally by the impunged order the workman \v,i, dismissed lrom service by the Si.'b- Areti Manager,

4. The management m tlwu reply admitted the iuni.il appointments and the subsequent postings of the workman. Allegations regarding' victimisation of the woikman were denied. The workman, nei-oidinu to the management, was jiiven all facilities to complete 'he ariearN of Provident Fund Accounts but the wokman himself was negligent ami left thr aireais as they were.

5. As regards [he churgesheet, the management contcud- ed (hat on 4-4-1978 the workman went :o Shri D. It. Singh with a letter addressed to him by the Sub-Arc Manager. I his letter was addressed to the woikman regarding his negli- gence, inefficient working etc HeLoie Shri D. U. Singh ihe workman not only mk'iehave.l bui also made undesirable utterances regarding Shri D. H. Singh .inj the co-workers sitting thete. The management, therei'oie, served ;( charge- sheet (L'\. M / l) on him :md asked him to teplj, As ihe workman's reply (l-\. M/2) \va; not found satisfactory Shri J, K. Ghosh (M.VV. I) was appointed the Enquiry Officei. During the enquiry the management examined witnesses in support of the charge—These witnesses were cross-examined bv the woikman. All reasor\ih]o opportunities were j{i\en to the workman in the enqi.iiv proeixlings. When the woik- man was examined as ii v/itnjss he was cro-as-cxamined by the complainant but duiinc the crov>-cxaniinntion before its completion the workman refused U\ parlicipate futlher in these proceedings. The management thereafter considered the icpoil of the Enquiry Ollicei and I'oimd him guilty of neglect of v\oik, disobedience etc. ;md a^.aded liim the punishment of dismissal from seivico. This punishment, according to the management, was quite proportionate to the grau'ty of the charges found proved aguiiist Ihe workman.

7. Initially by LUI Older passed on 19-6-1981 it was decid-

ed that the dispute referred to for adjudication is the only issue for decision and fianting of no other issue is necessary. Subsequently some evidence was i?corde long Iheie it, no finding that the enquiry was M'lialcd evidence on merits of the order of dismissal should not be lecoidcd. Learned Counsel for the workman agreed *.o this objection and further evidence on merits of misconduct was iesei\ed. After parties were heard, the following order was passed on 1-2 19K2 and in accwdance with this order follow • ing issues were framed :—

"In this case evidence wa^ lecoulej with the agreemenf of the paities oh the validity of the domestic en- quiry only. After goin^ through the record of tie case it is found that evidence on all the pleas raised by the parties is necessary. Accordingly both the parties are directed to lead such evidence as they may desiie on all the picas taken bv them. Tn order that parties may havj no difficulty in leadlne evidence issues ;:re separately framed. Case for fiance of both the parties on 22/id February,

ISSUliS

I Whether the domestic enquhv held uguinit Hie \voik-

ltwn was valid ]( ,m vh;it ;s \H eITocf

414.1

2. Whelhei the older ol' dismissal passed by the manage- ment disnimising the workman was JL,ulilie(| both on tacts as well >s in law.'

.1. Io what lehef IUC the pal ties entitled to /

8. 1 hereafter both the parties led additional oral and documentary evidence. J lyive heard the learner Cotmstl for the parties on the al'oiisaid issues, My lindings on the afortsaid issues are as undci :—•

Issue No. 1 : -The domestic enquiry a^aiilM the work- man was valid subject to the decision on certain points re- corded below.

Is.sue No. 2 ;—Ordei uf dismissal of the woikman by the management wot, not justified either on facts or in law or on hoth.

hsue No. 3.— The wo. Linen is entitled io be reinstated with

all benefus of hack wat'e, and allowance^ etc. etc, Findings with Reasons* :—

y. Issue No, 1 :—Fium the chaige-shcet } \, M/l it is clear that the workman was charged under Claiwj IK(iKc), ((I and (rl for wilful insubordination or disobedience cf any lautul authority or any leasonable order of. a supciior, of habimul neglect of woik and or threatening, abusing or ass.iultinji any superior or a co-worker. The l.nquiry OJti- cer \ide his findings I'*. M / I 7\ has found the woikman

tuiilH of neglect ol work and/or threatening, abusing or assaulting any fclipcnoi Or i co-woiker. I will (jrst consider whether [he charge of habitual neglect of work for which the Enquiry Officer has found guilty was at all justielied v\!iether the same has been pioved.

10, rlhc worknmn was. \ide hx. \V/J dated 16-4-1977,

tninrfeiied from Mahak ili (.ollrery to the New Majii Open Cast Mine and the Last Pay Ceilifieaie issue (E\. W/6) when he uus leleased on IX-4-1977. Vide Ex.. W/9. daltd 21 24-11-1977 the Sub-Area Managei parsed an older direct- ing the woikman to woik in the Opiifi Cast Mine and made him responsible for ihe I'rovident Fund Work of both (he mines, This order does not indicate as u> which ^as the second mine for the Provident Fund Woik for which the workman was being made responsible by this Older. E\. M/9A is a lette; lrom ;!ic Pcisonnel (Industrial Relation) Dcpiiitment of the Head Office of the Western Coalflclds 1 Id. addressed to All Genera) Managers of the W.C. Ltd,, hy which they were intimated that the 18 units for the month ji/' December, 1976. 71 units for the month uf January 1977 h.id failed to pay the Provident Tund dues within ihe prcs- ciibed limit, In this- connection u reference may b

11, It cannoi be disputed (hat Provident Fund deductions were and are made from iht Pay-shceta of th" worker? and Postings in ledgers ennnot be made iinlesi all the"e P^y-sheets arc made available, more particularly when Ihe nrrenrs relate to ,i p.isi pariod and n<4 th: current period. The work-

piovoked the same was attributable lo the management and not to the vvoikman,

14. In the bank ground ol these lindings that the.question of validity of the enquiiy lias lo be considered. From tile enquiry proceedings filed in this case it U dear rh.it after' tew adjournments the enquiiy wc;rnmenued in presence of (he woirkman and hii, co-wotker. Management's witnesses weie examined after the vvoikman submitted his leplyi on IN-4-1978. The enquiry cuiiimenccd vide E.\. M/s. on 9-7-1V78 when the management examined three witnesses und while the workman was undei cross-examination by the management's representative he refused to parliu'pute in the enquiry any further. The enquiiy proceedings theiefore show that the enquiiy wns held in piescnce of the workman by the examination of the management's witnesses and he was free to make his own statement and examine witnesses in delencc. If, he of hii own accord did not participate further in the enquiry then ihc management cannot be blamed. Accordingly, in my opinion so far JIS the conduct ol the enquiry is concerned, the workman cannot fiave any grievance,

15. The validity ol ihc enquiiy is also challenged on the ground that the Enquidy Ofliceis. Shi 1 J, K. Ghosh (M.W. 1) was an otficei stiperioi to Shri D. H. Singh, the complainant, wilh whom the wonkman in alleged lo have misbehaved. 1 do not find any substance in this contention,

16. When .1 domestic enquiry is (o be held it is pioper lor the management 10 appointment an Enquiiy Officer who is supetier in rank 10 the aggrieved person. If a subordi- nate is appointed Ihe grievance muy be that being a subordi- nate he will not have the courage to disbelieve his superior. But this is not a case ^>f this nattue. I accordingly find no substance in the contention of the woikman ia this behalf. 17. It was nextly coniended that in a case wheic a domes- lie enquiry is held and if the enquiry is not liable to any challenged on any ground then the Tribunal can only examine the correctness of the findings and the reasoableness of the punishment. There cdn be no dispute with this principle but rhis piinciple is not applicable lo the facts of the present case,

c.ilm ,nul cool .itul was ttoi evened. He aho admit-. UMI in his knowledge on no previous occasion Shi I Na^r.ile behaved in this manner and thai he did mil feel that the uoik.m..n was cither of quarrel-some nulurc or of iinde-.ii able hchu- vioiir. The olher witness udmits in p.u'i 5 thai ui,l of lli ce or ft nil months ;iftci his evidence was iccoiJed in onquiiy he was promoted .is ( H. II Cleik in Ottohci 147K. Fium the evidence given bv these lwo witnesses it ihjiclmc be- comes clear that ;iftcr the incident and comrTK'nLcmcnt ol the enquiiy these ivvo mboidinates nf ilie complainant, Slni D. B. Singh, have earned promotion. They cannot, in these circumstances, be treated as totally independent witnesses. If Shri D. B. Sinph h^t, hcen examined he could luve justi- fied Iheii promotions bin thi.s has nol been done. I, iheie- fore, am not inclined to accept Ihcir evidence as coming from vvhollv independent and reliable source.

•4145

New Delhi, iIK- 13UI November, I*JS2

S.O. 3963 In puisuanc ol section 17 of ih: Industrial Disputes- Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). ilie Ceruial doveinment hi re by publishes the lollowing uwsud of the central Cioverii- ment Induslual Tribunal, t alcuLta, in the industrial dispute between the emplovcis in ielation to the management oL Samla Mondoihoni Colliorv of. Mc-.su, ("astern Coalheids l.imiied, and ihcir woikinin, which was> icceived by the Ccn lial Government on the Ilth November, 19N2.

CEN1RAI. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRJAI TRIBUNAL !

CALCUJ VA Reference No. 53 ar 1978

PARTIES :

l-mployers in relation to the management of Saiiild Mundcrboni Collieiy, Mnndciboni Sub-Areu oi Eastern Coiilfieldi Lid

AND

Their Workmen

PRhSrNT

21. In the liqht of the findings lecorded ibove. I am in- clined and it is hereby held lh.it the charge irf neglect of work i^s also for habitual neglect of work was levied againsi the workman without any basis whatMievei. As icgards the remaining charges, I mi of the view that the management has not aligned any valid reison foi npl cv,n,minin.i the most important witness viz. Shri D. B. Singh, to prove these charges. The evidence given by (he man lament's witnesses S/Shri P. K. Ooswamy anil R. S. Rode cannot be said to be wholly reliable. The plea of Ihc management tint in case the enquiry is found to be validlv conducted the only question which can be decided by the Piibunal is ah'iiu the reason- ableness of punishment cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in this case tbe management has availed of the opportunity of proving misconduct and having failed to do so, it cannot fall liack on the eyidence given during ihc enquiry. Accordingly, my findinp on Issue No. 1 is lhat though the conduct of 'he domestic enquiry held against the workman was o'herwise valid, but neither the evidence recorded nor the findings recorded therein nor the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer can hq considered as the mariHgement as elected to prove 1he misconduct heroic this Tribunal hut has failed to do 'o as indicated above.

2. Issue No. 2 —In (he lij'ht of the findings given on Issue No. 1 it has to be held that th cpunishnient of dis- missal of service awarded by the management against the workman, Shri A. P. Nap ale, cannot be maintained and must be set aside.

21. The order of dismissal was also challenged on Ihc ground that il was named by ilie authority subordinate bv which the workman was appointed This challenge tc, the legality of the dismissal ordei i-i justified. The workman was appointed vide F\. M'lO dated 30-3-1966 as Junior Cleik in Grade HI by Shri Nf. V. Hijaprukar, General Manager of the Wardha Valley Aiea. The dismissal order dated 27/2S-10-I978 (Ex. M/7) has been passed by the Sub-Area Manager, an authority admitted by subordinate to and inferior in lank to the General Manager. Such (in order is prima facie bad in law and cannot be maintained On this ground also the impugned order of dismissal is liable to and is hereby set aside."

24, Issue No. 3.—Tt was uit^d on behalf of Ihe manage, ment that the conduct of the workman has teen such that the management ha" lost confidence in him. He is alleged to have taken pint in strike in respect of which a Restrain' Order had to be obtained from the Civil Court. If the workman has after his dismissal misbenavrd In any tin- deKi'iable manner as aliened by the management on Ihe basis of Ex. M'82, Ev Mj33. Ex. M'14, then the same can- not be taken into account to validate the oidcr of dismi^al If (lie workman is illegally dismissed from service he is entitled to be reinstated. There can 111 us be no auction of loss of confidence in th; circnmsi-inces aliened by the management.

25. In the ligfii of the findings gi-en above, ihc vvoiknwn, Shri \. P. Nagrale. is entitled to be reinstated on Ihe same post from which he was dismissed with al] benefits of back wages and other allowances with ecect from the date of his dis- missal. In the circumstances of the cas;, I make no order as fo costs. Award is given accordingly.

S. R. W A S, PiesidlDB Officer.

Mr. Justice M. P. Singh ..Presiding OfiU.ii

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of tmplojers—Mr. N. Das, Advocate, with

Mr. R. N. Tcwaiy, Dy. Personnel Manager.

On behalf of Workmen—lv>i. Rajdeo Singh, General

Secretary of the Union.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : COHI

AWARD

By Order No. L-19(P2(l?l)/77-p-IV(B) duUd 20th May l'J?K the Government of Jndn, Ministry OF Labour rcfentd ihe tollowjng dispute *o.lhis Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Samla MRII- dorboni Collieiy under Mundoiboni Sub-Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd in stopping Shii Soni Chciiid- hury Irom work wiin c*f^ct irom 27ih Eebrunry. 1973 is justified ? If not to what iclicf is [he con- ceined woikman entitled ?"'

4 1 4 '' D lL O A / I l . r rt U F r N L ) l\ : N O V L M J JI H 17, V>H\ \ . GR Mt \ V AN \ <>, | ' > ,u [ I ' V KI Ff S u. J O O]

went UJ thu extent o( string that. It is aJso peculiai thai this witness claims to know he concerned woikman onl> because, .iccoidinE to himself, the concerned vvoriinun hail gone to him io "seek a job in the year 1974. This is unbelievable. \V\V-2 Ci. P. Gupta, ihe 1 i n ^r Print E\perl, about whom I have already staled. Hiu Report ii E\t. \1-I9 of April 1981. I nslly it will ncit be out of i>lac? io mention here thnt ihe management has not pioduccd a single chit of paper obtained by it from the original company, th; take over being on 3) lanuaiy 1971 under 1'ie Conl Mincr Nationalisation Act.

?. .'/.i N. as for the management contender! that the c-un-

ccrned Soni Choudhury is only i badli worker. So he hat no right to be reinstated. No such case has been made out in the written statement. It is not th; case of either patty. The reference Is also noi rounding his status. On the ma- terials on record I hold that the concerned Soni Choudhury was a Coal Cutting Machine Mazdoor, The contention is therefore rejected.

6. from the above discussions it is clear that the concerned Soni Choudhury named in the reference h.ul ically workeJ in Ihe colliery. Jn conclusion my Award is that the action of the management of Samla Mandorboni Colliery in stop- pinp Sri Soni Choudhury from work with effect from 27 February 1973 is unjustified. Thr concerned workman SJni Choudhury is, therefore, entitled io be reinstated with all back wages which may be admissible to him as per rules.

Dated, Calcutta. The 7th October, 19R2.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer,

|No. I.-l9012(S3)/77-D-TV(B)| PARTlfeS ;

AWARD

By Order No. L-19012 (2)/8()-D. TV(B) dated t6th Inly 1980 the Government of Indh, Ministiy of Labour lefcned 10 this. Tribunal foi udjudiciLiun the following dispute :

"Whether the rruinat^mcnt o£ DishejgJilh Area of Messrs Eastern Coalfields Limited, Eoiaih.ik House, Post Office SiLuampur, District Buulwnn is justifi- ed in.

(i) denying to Shii Stiraanla B.insrjee, the technical Grade \y as telephone opera or and Grade II with effect fiom 7th March, J978 for v.orking .is can- teen manager.

(ii) denying to Shii Gnbardhun Mondal, the Category HI wages with effect fiom 7th March, 197K for •working us Canteen Cook 7 Ii" not, to what lelief the workmen fire entitled to and from vJi.it da'es?" 3. J'hat in view of the emploj/ei¹; action as stated in the foicgoing paiag aph both the connected woik- men have no claim whatsoever for any past period piior to the date stated in the paragraph 2.

4. That both the connected workmen havj no longer any dispute with the employers arising out of the instant order of reference.

PRAYER

Both the connected workmen pray that the Hon'ble Tri- bunal may he pleased to pass a no dispute award in the instant reference.

And for this tret of kindness both the workmen as in duly shall etfer pra^.

Dated 30th October. 1982.

Agreed without prejudice to the agreement made in the written statement filed by tho management.

Personnel Manager (A) SitaTtimpur Area.

For and on beh'ilf of the workman. fSrimnn'a Bnncriec) (fiobordhrin Mondal) Connected workmen.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding? Officer

LNo. L-190l2(2)/80-D. IV(D)]

New Delhi, the I7lh November, 1982

S.O 3965.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

2. Sworn of verbi igc the facts in brief are that Harlprasad Gaurisaria was dn Assistant Loading Cleik under the manage- ment of Paiasm Colliciy. His service wus terminated with effect from 5th November, 1977 by (he Manager of the collieiy. It was intimated to him that he had last lien on his appointment by a letter which is Ext. M-2. The termina- tion of service was on account of continued unauthorised absence for over one year. He was on sanctioned leave from 19th August 1976 to 7th September 1976, i.e., for 20 days. Dining this period ho fell sick. His treatment started from 24 th August 1976 and continued upto 2nd February 1978. He applied Lo the management from time to time for extension of leave. He sent telegrams and letters and also sent medical certificates, at least six in number (two in 1976 and four in 1977) to the jnfcnagcmehr for the purpose of extending his leave on the ground of sickness. He was suffering from T.B. He got medicHl certificate of fitness on 2nd Februaty 1978 but he could not join his duty because his service had already been terminated with effect from 5th November 1977. When his representations mnde to the mannRement were rejected be raised the present industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act by flHrijj a rerjrcscnta'iun before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Calcutta.

3. It is argued on behalf of the workman that the ter- mination of service was illegal and void* because the provi- sions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. The manaeemenl anrued that termi- nation of service was in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders and hence It did not amount to retrench- ment. In my opinion, Iho management is wronR. The Supreme Court in several cases has construed the expres- sion "reticncbment" in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act in the widest possibla term and has adopted a literal construction of the word "retrenchment". In Santc-h Gupta v. State Bank, Patiaia, 1980 II LLJ 82, the Supreme Court held that retrenchment means termination of service for any reason whatsoever and it covers every kind of ter- mination of service except those not expressly included in Section 25F or not expressly provided for by any other pro- visions of the Act such us 25FF and 25FFF. Even prior to that decision the Supreme Court had held in Sta*e Bank of India v. M Sundaramoni, 1976 I LLI 47H : "termination'* for any reason whatsoever are the ket wards. Whatever the reason, every tcrminaiion spells retrenchment. Termina- tion embraces not merely the act of teimination but the fact of termination however produced. The view i> taken in (hose cases was upheld in L. Robert D'Sou/a v Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another. 1982 I LLJ 330. It is thus clear that termination of service for any reason whalsocvpr will amount lo retrenchment. It is now a well settled principle of law that even if there is automatice termina- tion of serviYc on account of unauthorised absence in accor- dance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, the ter- mination would amount to reircnrhtient ynd if 1he provi- sions of Section 25F are not complied with termination will be illegal and void : See the ease of Naresh Chandra Das v Seventh Industrial Tribunal and Others, 1982 II LLJ 64 (Cnlcutta)—1982 Lab. IC 579.

4. Admittedly in the present case Ihe provisions of Sec. 25F were not complied with and hence the termination of service of Hariprasad Gturmnii.-i is illepal and void and 11 is set aridc. He therefore continues in service. T direct the m:innficment to _P:iv to Hnnnrasad Gaurisaria the work- man coucprrrd in this case all back wao;es from 24th January 1977 when IT¹ raised the nrewnt industrial dispute by mnk'n^ a r^niesentri'ion before (he Assistant Lahour Commissioner fCcntial), Caleut'a till c'rt"c. Thr manap^ment however will be free *n tcrniinnte hk- 9T<'iV<" in Hceordance -with law aftrr full considfnHnn of h;s rnsr- and after complying with the provisions of Section 25F if it so likes.

This is my Award.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 3flth October, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

(No. L-I9012(23)/79-D. IV(B1]

S. S. MEHTA, Desk Officer New Delhi, the 10th November, 1982

S.O. 394S6.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 jf 1947), thj Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in the industrial dis- pute between the employers m relation to the management of State Bauk of fndia, Hyderabad, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on the 6th November, 1982.

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAf- CUM-ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri K. Subba Rao, B.A., LL.B., Chairman-

Dated this the 2^th day of August, 1982 Industrial Dispute No. 1/78 (Centra!)

Sri V. Sreciamulu Cashier at Sattenapalli Branch C/o The General Secretary, State Bank of India Sstalf Union, A. P. Peddibhotlavari Srreet Vljayawada.

. . . Petitioner

Versus

The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad.

...Respondent

Ref ;—F. No. L-12012/17/77-D.U.A. Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi dt. 17/22-3-78.

This Industrial Dispute coming on for final hturing before me on 24th August, 1982, upon pemsinjj the reference, claim statement counter and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Narasimham, and Sri. D. S. R. Varma, Advocates for the petitioner and M / E. K. Srinivasamurthy and S. Ravindranuth, Advocates for the respondent and having stood e'er for consideration till this date, the Court passed the following.

AWARD

This reference is made by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) for the adjudication of a dispute existing bet- wern the management of Mate Bank of India and their workman in respect of the following matters viz., "whether tha action of the management of the State T)ank of Tndip in stopnirg one increment due to Sri V. Sreeramulu, Cashier at Snttf-napEille Branch of the Bank on 11-5-76 h justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2, The brief facts of the care as set out in the claim state- ment of the neti'ioner arc : The- petitioner Shri V. Srrernmulu was an officiating Head Cashier of the Saltenapalle Branch of thr rcponient Brink. In Anvil, 1972 there wns a central .imitation by the workmen i.e. the staff of the Bank during thnt rierind. By an order ditrd 29-4-71 the respondent placed Sir Sri"<*rnmu1u iwler suspension pending encmirv in reswet or sofi; nf the nlWcd incident reMrd t,T 11-4-7?. The res- pondent iVuerl ;> chHrcc sheet on 24-10-7? a"kinc the work- "iin to -show rause why droniin-uv action should not be taken acninst hirr>. The allegations in the charge Wieet. Ex. M-l rt'e as follows :—

(i) On the 11th Anril. 1972 in thf mnrninc as usu.il when the Agent of Sattenapnib Prnnrh .'•nd yourself onpned thm sfrnmr room .-'iid tnnic out the- boxes con- taining securifv forms d.ieumeits Me.. \rou rire re- ported to bove obircvd to with dm win e cr>sh on the pjfn that the navinir cutu'pr wni nnt pretext ni\d re- am-tti-d t^e Ancnf to viit 4149

despite persuation by the Agent and other members of the supervising stall. You are also reported to have refused lo iceeipt the challans and vouchers accepted by the cash department staff. When >ou were m'tiueted, in wilting, to operate the currency chest and explain for >our conduct, you aic alleged to have ldused to .eceivc the communication and when the Agctil insliuciird you to either open the strong rooni or to hand over keys to the senior cashier who is billing to act ris Head Cashier, you are alleged U* have -,ot earned ort Iho instructions cillitr. Having -ifiieed to act as Branch Hc&d Cashier, you liad thus caused stoppage of the Branch cash work and conducted yourself in a manner highly piejudicial to the jnteiests of the Bank.

(ii) Your lefusnl to accept the Sattcnappulk' Branch letter S. No, 3 of the 11th Aunl, 1972 addressed to yon calfiny upon you to operate on the currency chest and to submit your explanation for conducting youiself in the manner mduated in item (i) above would amount \o wilful imubotdination.

The workman <>ubrnitted his explanation to the above two chaises and pending enquiiy the workman w;is suspended With effect fiom 1st May, 1972. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted into the allegations between the lS\h October, 1973 and 31st October, 1973, The claim statement contains several allegations with regatd to the irapiopcr conduct of the enquiiy and other irregularities. But it is not nctcsaaiy to advert to those allegations, because, in his case the tnquiiy vw>j held to be valid by a sepaute Older. The Enquiry Gfrkcr found the petitioner guilty uf the chuiges levelled against him and the disciplinary authority accepting Ihe leport of the Enquiiy Officer issued a show ciuse notice to the petitioner as to why he shouJd not be discharged fiom service on payment of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Alter considering the written submission made by the work- man and after healing him in peisun, the disciplinary autho- rity by ils order dated 11-7-75 however modiii' d the piopotcd punishment as one of stoppage of one increment due on 11-5-76 ;mJ lifted the oidci of suspension. Hovicvei, the disciphnaiy authouty fuithci ordeied no pan oi the peiiod or suspension fiom service could be treated as on duty and that the workman will not be eligible for any an ears and wages, allowances etc., for the said period of suspension, over and above what was already paid to him by way of subiislti.ee allowance. The workman prcfciicd an appeal against the ordei of punishment but the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Geneial Mimagei (Operations) by his order dated 1.5-12-75 i ejected the appeal and ccmfiimed the punishment. The Union, by its letter dated 15-7-76 demanded the lespon- dent that the order of punishment be quashed and that the workman be g'ven full wages ond allowances etc. As there w s no n'Spori'e fiom the respondent, the di'sp ite WHS referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at H>d:iabad, But as the conciliation proceedings¹ failed, the matter waj icferred (o this Tribunal for adjudication. The prayer in the claim sta'ement (on whkh there was some riigumcnt) in this c.^e is a5 follows :—

"The Umcm theiefoie prays iii.it the Hon hie Tilbunal he pleased to hold that the punishment is unjustified jnd not maintainable ond pass an Award quashing the same. The petitioner prays that ihc Hon'ble . Tiibunnl be pleased to direct, as natur.il corollary, that the entire period of suspension be treated as "duty" a.id to dite t the respondent to leleaie the withheld wages, allowances, bonus, lea\c prhilcge etc., retrospectively fiom the date of suspension, viz, 2-5-1972 md award all the abovo benefits to Sri Sreeramulu retrospectively."

3. Che icsjiondeiH in a vciy elabomtc counier tunersed all (he feels of the case and also made several averments with rcg-nd to the conduct of the enquiry and other allied ma'teir, and it :<• not newssniy to advert to Ihose aveimerits The da'es and facts wffh regard to the main charges are not in dispute. According to the respondsnt, the punishment ir-;- po^d is neither n!eg">l noi unjustified and en the other hand, ihe ci Hirrs'mres of th* crise warranted deterrant punishment i'f d_;rj-hrrfi" froo- sei"i-e as origin'lly pioposod Hovvevei, in T-PW of Ih; past com'uet and submissions of the workman at the ti nc of n*rsonal hearing, the Bank took a lenient view :nd ii~rosed the punishment of jioppaye of one increment a'ld the said punishment is justified and most iMsonable in ihe cu-cumstunccs of the case. The counter also denied that liniic was no cuiouiaole eJveicise ot itie powei or any victi- itfmuiun ot Uiu WUIKIOLII. inc. ie4lviiJuiL, m ihc end sub- mitted diat tils pi ..jo OJ the petiu^nei iui the entiie pcnod ui suspension to oe tieaied as 'ILuy w. s umtnaDle and it is also beyond tnc SLOpe ol this letciiiiwC, as ihe ^eiiod ot sua- jiLii,iun is nuL me suujecL niuliei ot ihe iel.uenue.

4. Weioio I iltidl wiii. the comenUoas l^ised by both the fruits on die mtuts i sh\ji aea.1 v^ilti two legal aigume.,1* rjised un ueii.ui ol the lesponacnl. Mr. Ravindunmh, learned (.ounscl loi the jcapondi-ni; Bank iiutly aigaed thai me P'ayer in tiie claim siaicmciu is noi m cuiijoiian.c v^ith the ic- fiicn^e aud noi even anywh^c near the subject ot reti-rence Uiid therciort the tenet sought by lJ:c pcuuoner cannot tic given. ACLOiUuig to Mr. Ravjndrjratn the pcuUonei s piayer is ior ihe reieas^ oi die witiinuki w^jes and allowances le- tiosptcuveiy irom the dale oi iiujpension, whereas liie re- le.entc is only with rcgaid lo the bioppjge of one inciement due io the workman, ihw Jigumcni oi ivj'r. RavjmJian,,ili is only painy conecl. Ihe pi^yei oi. the p^iitionci in his claim iUieiacni is quoted iu tdO above, ihe his't pjit oi cbe piayei of the petuionei is lor the quushr.ig oi the uiUer oi pjntshm^nt at. nujustiucd and not luainL.irmmc. Uuu is, the petitioner puiytd thai the punishment of stoppage of increment must be quashed. As a coiouary Ihe petition as tuithci placed tnat the penod of suspension be lieated as duty and lelease of his w-ges and ullowan.es duung the ponod oi suspension, i tie refoi^ncc, however dealt with only the punishment ot stoppage ot one increment. Therefore, the piayer of the pttiuonei with lcgai d to the ieleuse of wages etc. duiiiig the period of suspension is beyond ihc releience made by ihe Government, but the petitioner fljst pinyer in quash the onler of Bloppage ot increiiicnt is in consonnjncp wilh the relerfnce. That apart, the petuioncr, as a follow-up of the lust p.ayer can always request this Tribunal for release of ths wages and allowances etc., if the lnbunal comes to the conclusion that the juin:sli- muit of stoppage of inciement is invalid. Ol couisc, it would have been saluiory if the refeience also is made in that way. Uut the lcfcience is only niade as far as the mam punistinicnt of stoppage of one inclement is concerned. I thciclore th.nk: that ihc reference cannot be icjected on the abuvc giound a] one,

5. Mr. Ravindninath, secondly contended that in this ca^e the enquiry was held invalid and this not being a case of n lemoval or dismissal from service the piovisions of Section 11-A of the l.D. Act are not applicable and cannot be invoked by the petitioner, I think thcie is coasiderable ioice in this, argument. Admittedly, the case is not one of icmoval or dis- missal but is only where a punishment of stoppage of incre- ment is awajded. The language of section 11-A is very ciear and the pjovisions theicof can bo invoked by this Tiibunal unly in ti cast ot removal o: dismissal /rom service. This Tribunal, therefore, under Section 11-A of the l.D. Act can- not be called upon to reappn*e the evidence and quash the oidcr of punishment.

ti. The claim statement Mea on behalf ol Uic workman in Jus. cose to ti large extent de.ilt with the impiopei conduct of the enquiry ctnd the perveisity of the findings of thj Entimry Offi.er, but has n:i where de;ilt *vith victimisation on the part of the management except at the end one sentence is added that the action of the management is colourable and is an act of victimisation in the claim, statement there are no de- tails given as to how the action of the management ie colour- able and was done with a vindicative attitude. As already stat- ed, at the out set this Tribunal by a separate older held that the- enquiry in this case was properly held and that there was no perversity in the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiiy Offi.'er has discussed the evidence on cither tide and came to correct conclusions ou the evidence. Mr. Varma, lcurned Counsel for the petitioner, however argued that in this case the workman who was nlso on strike on the day in question could not have been asked to do any work at all. This aspect of the matter was :,1FO dsalt wilh by the TTnquiiy Officer in his report. The Enquiry Officer at pafle-5 of Ins rtf.0 t dealt wilh the evidence of D. W-4 Sri G. L. Chowda'V, who testified that the acting Head CastLCr has also joined the Hgilation and he has not signed th: voucheis i-nil noi ini- tialled the scioils and the same were sent to the Agent who lad initialled and signed to dispose of the waiting constituents The Enquiry Officer then rcfened (o the cross examination of this witness in whirh he h^d admitted that lie did not re- member to have given any letter lo the Agent as local Secre- taiy of the Hyderabad Circle Union aboin the Pidueuralla suti- offlce overtime issue. This witness was also said tr> have ad- mitted in his cioss examination that ho and the other cashier

oeion^ug 10 his gioup aas already i-esn at ihe counter. Alter UiBCubaiujj inw cviucuve Jie unquuy u mw had given vile icl- iowiag imu^iig on una aspect ui me rnduer.

"it can oe interred mat on 11-4-/2 the Branch aciing nead ^*>iuer came io oaive picpaied to partici- pate in lire so caned stake OJI avoided wiiug oat Casn even uiuugn uw paying cdsiuei &a isasna was aucauy present m tne twice, tie \e*y taeauhy evaded tlu. Agent."

It was also in evidence beioie the Eiuiuny Oiiicer that the Agent maue sevetai •iitemjxs to made tne Jtieact Casnier/ Workman at least band over the keys and oilier things to the seaior Caohier bn Basna who was pxoparcd to operate the chest etc., in fact a wntieu memo bearing SI. ±NO. 3, dated li-4-72 was given io the petitioner and he .had seen and read ihe same. 11 the -workman wauled to jo.n the strike, he could have at least banded over the charge to the senior casujer bm he aid noi do so. I theieloie find no suo^auee ui the aigumeiit oi Air. Vcima.

7. wo other argument it. raised ia this case. In view of my auove imulng i reject thi" rexeience and an Awaid is passed accoicungly.

j$. uictaied to the Ste.iograher, transcribed by him, correct- ed oy me ana given under my hand and the seal ot uus lnounai on tne /4di day ot August, 1982.

K.. SUBBA RAO, Chairman, Addi. Industrial 1 ubuual A. P. Hyderaoad.

Appendix of Evidence List of Witnesses examined

On behalf of the workman—Nil. On behalf of the management—Nil.

List of Documents Marked

For Workman:

1 Ex.. W-2 21-8-82 Explanation dt. 24-9-73 to the chaige

sheet (Ex. M-lj as submitted by the peiiiuner.

For Management:

AWARD

(Dictated in the Open Court)

By their order No. L-120J2/ J71/80-D.II.A dated 30-7-1981 the Cenual Government has lefsrrcd the fcl.owing dispute lor adjudication under Section iui.l)U> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:—

•'Whether the action of ths management of Reset ve Bani of India, Nagpur in imposing the punishment upon Jshii A. a. Jain, uoin/iNOii!, twinmer o r. 11 b> way oi leducuon m nis suovanuve pay by one stage lor a puuod ot one year wun etleci liom 2u-4-iy/y is justaiea .' H not, ro what reiiel is ihe workman concerned entitled."

2. It seems that on the allegation that the concerned Coin/ Noi.cs txartiiner was guuty oi ceitain miseunauct as alleged, a chuigeoneei. was served on aim and enquiry was heid uuung vviii^n cuq.uuy ueeauoe uu nidig^s vvete aduuttcd uy tne loiiccineu woiKiiiaii, me Jziuiauy ufluer touc-iuuJU tnat j u ,i s\. o. Juiu naa Deen negiigeiu in Uie peiioiiiianwc ot hii> uuats alia tlieieiOie neid inat tne< i-ndiye oi n^g.igi.ni-e as sei uut in tue jyiciiioiandaiu was 'duiy wstaoiibiiea, on ihe

JLl^U^cil Ui. .Vli.Cll lUIUlU^ illv LUll.jJL.Ull lllA *il*>J-Hy ai-LCl dUUWPl-

iilg i l l at .lUuiIlg, JJUOSCU U1C JiU>-l ULxi uitf <-UCIb Ul Jua^^C

Vv ul uC iiit-L li ilia &".iUoLrti4LA\e rJ^y iS I^aaC*-U uy iVVO S^"^^& ion o p^iiuu oi one y^M, Wi.n.n o,uu as i;> eviui-iit tu,$ given use HJ oie piesent uiipuie.

j. INOW puteuuy it was an indiviaual uispute and therefore wucas. ai^. ^ciuie is ioujid io nave ot-en cunveiiea miu an

Kiuuoiiidi ai&jJiue ds ut-uiua tixidtt ^.'ctiion Z<,K; oi ine iiiuus-

Uia.1 uispux^a ^\wl, iliC iCliJ*i"lU3 WOUlU Hot be VdlLKi, l Ul me

v ia pui^ose me i-oiueua^n QL ilic uiiion najiely me K c s c ve

wunx iiiiijjiOyvcS j-issoviauuii, JNagpur, WHO nas espuu&ca ih>; caL,j^ ot ule woilvuwn is "iai oy a ivet>oiuuon uats,u il-/-xV/y, ui^- j-^iuiiii^ing woiiij^iiti'v-e ui me jxcoeive xiuiiK iiin^ioyecs

i-iaau^iatiuii ivajA/ca to Jiiove in cue niftier uiiu LU tbpuuse tue u ^ u ik Wiiiui ci^toiUiUgii' v/ao ^jpOLia^u, me aia^uu- oi .ne

wujjviuaa id involving me qu^Attuii ox uueie&t aiti-cuug Uie

„*,•.„->

1 bx M-l 5-7-82 Charge sheet vide Lr. Staff/con 103

dt. 24tb Oct. 1982.

2. Ext. M-2~do—Enquiry Report.

K. SUBBA RAO, Chairman Addl. Industrial Tribunal. A. P. Hyderabad [No. L-I2012(17)/77-D.Il(A)(Pt.)]

S.O. 3967.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194/ (14 of 1947), the Cential Government hereby pubiisnes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in the industiial dispute be iween the employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 8th Novem- ber, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

PRESENT:

Shri M. A. Deshpande, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2/13 of 1981

PARTIES:

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

APPEARANCES:

For tils employers—Shri N. V. Sundarara, Legal Adviser.

2. Shri M. A. Batki, Asstt. Legal Adviser.

Tor the workmen—Shri L K. Paade, President, Reserve

Bank Workers' Organisation, Bombay.

INDUSTRY: Banking STATE : Maharashtra

Bombay, the 16th October, 1982 \voiA.mi_ii as a tiatis ana ui^it-ioic iince Miai Union is xunc- U^iiuig ni aie onice coucciiieu ua(in.iy the Kcse^ve Jbaniv of liiuiu, lNagpui, auu smee Jie woiKman is a uiemDei ol tue tsdiu onxou, oy vi.tue ui ino L'stjoiisjl ot the cause oy the icgu"cica uaue union, ihe uii>ptne LOW has absuu.tu the ctiaidw.ei oi aa niuusniai dispute and tneitloie me rtieience ueujiiits vaJd and legal.

4. fo wtuch the Keseivc Bank lus come out with the i.eieiiv-e Uiui Jw K.e*.eive fciauK taipiojees Asso*;iciuons Nag- pai, m Lut, ius>t pui\& being ail unrecognised Onion and Svxoiimy naviug no bubataiii.dl toitowing oi the said came oi eiiipioyeea, cvtu if the said Assoeoucii nas decided to espouse itte >,auje, because ot tne Xanora alicaay mentioned, tile individual uispute tcii never be saia to ha^c been con- verted UHO iUdiisUial uiapj.e io a> to confer jurisdiction on this inbunai to enieitain the leterence.

5 So far as the question v.'iether it is majority or minority L-n.on or wuethcr it is iecogussed or un-recognised union, that Controversy shall be ue"iuvd to havj been hnally le- soivcd by decision in fiadeep L. W. 1970 (1) LLJ 507, to whica a lelerente would be shortly made and whether the lecognisej or unrecognised, whether majority or minority umen if- the cause is espoused by a trade union the indi- viaual dispu.e would become an industrial dispute , in which case trie question to be determined would be whether such Union mast be held to have a substantial following in the industry in question, '.therefore the objection that the Union is unrecognised or that it does not command majority following need not detain us even far a moment and we can immediately advert to the question whether such Union before it can convert an individual dispute to an industrial dispute by espousal should have a substantial following. IE such incredient is necessary there would be force in the con- tention of the Reserve Bank of India, otherwise not.

6. That the Association ii&s got following in the Reseive Bank of Inc'ia at Nagpur, whether substantial or not sub- stantial would be another question, is not much in dispute. Then there is also affidavit t x. 13/W on record filed by Shri A. S. Jain asserting to be a continuous member of the Association estab'i hing that the Union concerned since he is a mer*ber. commands a right to repiesent him. There is also an affidavit on record Ex. 14)W filed by the Secre- tary of the Association supporting the membership of Shri

A. S. Jain and piovins the resolution dated U-7-ty7y passed Dy ultj IVltllltfaUlg l^OLUilllULe Ui JlL ^YSJOLI.IUOJI UllLllOl lSliig (.tie i e u t i a iy iUiu OUILI oiiiLC-otaitis \o iiuso tno IUJUSLUJJ, UH- pLLLi^ il e o pj of vvillC^i iLSjiUluiL lj aiyo oil 1LLOW at. J-^V, O, At. IM lacis [htn-Uue ate tsiaoiisheu namely ttiv; concerned wuUviiitLii Is a lll^nibvi ui lilc / \- jO^itUloii aim -,t.LuUtliy mat tne iMiiiiuginu (..om^naee UL uie Assiutuuiun has by valid ICJUIULIVJI u^i_ueLi LO Lip. a e itie canoe uiitl aCL.Oiain£,i> me mawer leached fusl me ^SiiaLdUL J^ULJOLIL LoilinliaSiOuci wiiO LSULHIHLICU "!'> laiiuiL' . e^o^i and uiLiuuie uimuaiLiy t-he le- tcjctiLe h js come to bu made.

7. i he only question then 10 be determined it., is it neeL's- saiy ro/ aLkii i niou, a uade Union uuly ret,¹⁵tclet'' i>eloic .1 leieieiiuc Lnii De stiid lo tie vaud anu icjjai, tu csiaijlisli a suusuiim.ii luiiowiij; in tliL- inuusuy Luin-^mea / in Ihi.s cuii¹- neaion )i iuny he nienuoncu ih.it > ithoujjH all along th.s point wtis raised on bchnlt ot die Bant, fiom the time v . n a en SiaiCiiit'ni k,nq IIILU anti a i t h u u g ii .1L v a n u i ia auit.es ot ihe pioceeumgs aacuiiUs vvoie made to get a paitinuar eviueiin: ur i^com lo be OIIJUJJIH oil itxoia ioi one ieasuii, l-l i t li OiULi lnO JILIILLI VVJ-, HDL pUi.SUCd. ilVLll O.I Li It! Ji.St vvcen tlje employcn that is the Reserve Bank on one hand and the woikmcn vvith whose cause the Union associated iht'f jntendin' M convcit it into an industiial dispute bet- i'.ccn (he employers and the workmen. The answer U> the i'sue raised would be reallv dependant upon whether the drpuie ten be said to have assumed the chaiacter of an invlu'tn.i! di'-pute. In other woids whether it is a primarily between thr employers and Iho woikmen and since iinally I 15 a iVpute between the employer and the workmen, it could be said to have been taken up by the woikmen as such 'o is to bung it within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Di'putes Act.

date lhat is on 24-y-lyfcU whm it was nouced dial, ihe Kegis- ttr oi IILII^ unions vvus not piLptu^U to luini.n llie in- loinuuion viz., n.e CLitiu^Lt Ljpy oi the uiouibeislnp of tne Associauon ioi the yeai-, Jy7S io i.'-JAl as can be sten lrom his icply L-.\. lU/vv. i vw-is piepaieu io issue summons to ,he couccini.d ollicei who in die; last tine ot his letter hud slated that tue iiiionna.hL.-n wouiu be pimiuced Utioic trw jnuustiitil 'I IIOUIILII it hv. U JS cillcu upon to do so by summonj but bcLausc tnc icpie eniative ot the buion did not want such sumuons to be issue, no such order could be passed. 1 he rccoid LncwfOie Siiovv, tnat vvnon the Hank v.as ail along raising Ihe objection lhat the conccincd Union namely the .-isiowiaiion lias m.iaiiniwuiit ioiiLnviiiy in me. m uj ny oi in the Bank and when to tile knowledge of tne union suc-ti evidence was a\ailanit and could nave been piouuied tnrough the aid of the l u b u n j l, noi onl> no atttjipt \V,JS inade but v.tien oiler was IMUL by tlie i i w u i ul it v as told n i si.t.h summons need ITL i.'jUQd, j lie iciult is tliai a5 tiic i<-euid stands t h dc is n o j n nn to held as lo what is ilic natuie of the following LommandLd by the U'jion in the Rcseive Bank at Uagpur aixl tfiij Is ditpitL tin objection on bciiali ot ifie Bank that because ti.e iullowng ot the Union is niMBndi- cant tht, individual di pu - ^ iiinLt Iv said to Lave betn validly converted into an industiiul dispute.

number of. rtiCJibeis is> anothu tnng and tiicrtiore vncn a. pauitiudr tcict iiab vctii vUj/i' ng-d <-y ttit. B^in., it KCOJKS iieocaisuy i^< rn.ui. 1U1.0 uie ^ u ua %. ouu nude jy tu liU-Liiuu to issue suniiiion uiia tall IOI i i. it-cuds i u uc \ as dii attempt on befldlt of trie isan¹ to ' ab~$- tl" >• >-*-*- >l!&c 'i ie i t s c u tw nab not osxn pats.u b tfiv ooiiy IA sue .^i-vuia.! but tlis. ivluivg- mg Comantite ot i h. LJiuii tue v, fiv.uija> lvfOiUd m IMMI) I LJ, page J OI v'.fi ie it us e cu held that v ki a dispute is taken ui't oi toyuuivd by " union, it is cot ..eccssary ior them to pio\e th_£ i" m m bi workmen supported the indi- vidual cause b> passing u> ie o.u'nm or by j.iy otter o\er act. It was aiso h.A iLat tlieic must be t. pr.sumpaon that when the ujion Us.es action it is us a iei •ebertano of and wuh the suppjrt oi us membcis and that it i" toi thv em- ployer to p'ove trial the faus are otherwise and that the memocis of the union aie not behird n in iii action No doubt it is a decision U a court having concurient jurisdic- tion but since 1 am oi the wme vit"/, I have quoted tie sam". When theie u tie i evolution or the Managing Com- mittee who commands lepicsentu'nt characiei decidirg to espouse the cause ol t^e woikm'j concerned, members of the Umon shall be dteiaeJ to have associated themselves with the ^aid espousal and t.ierefoie no further pi oof on the part of the Union was necessary.

14. FmJaig .n 'his marner howev.i sti 1 leaves the m an Govciiua-nt ladisi al inuunil l,o. 1, Bombay or other i l l o l) c.oiiiLS n--u i Jt bt, ii-iuiea since what has been laid uu. i* Oj ut ^..p . iv. V-JU . ue^>jiii_j t*i" IOVV ol tile country. iii M. „ „ t." w, v,vjii-j3 Ji i->/5, a lelc.ence decided by "ne *-(."' ^u^t nut.it i, JUati .1 l u l u r a' iSo 1, JBombay .i Lup> o a Jtii /^ bij >i',i on ic.jid hx. 16/VV r.o doubt a J vUv. r^ ea c> . i. j. st t /t!> ^uii^n w<.s held to be an ii jiol ri ui t ie n c u vt ino obssuaiiions of the Lord- ,iiip, oi ti u tx t v. C-iU -i ti-e U)S ai.eaay lt-teir^d wh^ch die binuug OE all vOiUh m .he tount-y appears to have not n, .11 b'v^ ^n i_. . e ut, ±c oi the laounal and therefore tuci'ok ti ij u u . ou is m la\utir of the Union it cannot .oiiie to L . i , ^i^ iioit^a tii-ie waj iiiflicitnt proof to show itai tn- L ixiOii c" i.rjiu;a a signmcant n unber of fol- lo"efs Ihc KJ k i3 ui t si'Ke tne Unior thougn it was e^pt-Ct^^ C- it to b ug si.Piviv.nt material on lecord, failed io do to, 5 Li 'io I n qv ••fon and if so aela the only in- tetc'c. pu i.dle \/c id be uat th^ Unon foiled to establish thai Ji3 AsaOviation n^s s'gPifit,aat number of followers as members n the Ba k at Nigpui and once we arrive at this concur n W i s i of u e tau^e bv a tssolution of ine Man.'gi.ig Committee, ihough it is held that by the General Be tly ur Hi.

Avpid arcoiduif,ly No orde as to pestb

M A DLS'IPANDii, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay So L-12012(171)/80-DII(A)]

NcwJJ.r,i the 1Jih November, 1982

(U ' J I3^S ti - Ijl'c vng award of the Central Gov- p * R I Ds •

507 I > VP " nf hi - ne T j r >e Tit" r s " > 'n of w H f f n r f i al p ' i m * i er ' UP i o ' " ) ,i - t "• . f. ws r eff c r r id £o j h ls T r i b u n al by

n* worV"n"n 1= rffif-i p* to niak" su^h " di^nf". an In^ns- fr'ii rltoniTt-"' ("Tin*. vtO'r? "Hp ino a mfnllBi-c'ip /if ^ ^ * on.

ti-)¹ n""yb"r of "-or! tr>p i" .-P „ ^c}^1, ,^ |)v jv.g-) ft ;„ tf,,,r,. fi— e-, ,M"rt ft, f m"rp e c r, ,lt.^] nf "|,a ro1,".a Jw 3 j.p^;,.^^^ TI"i/¹n ⁵n th- o''"'•-"! of *ncir To-rJIii-i' of tf* Simre^e Tonrt v is r" .r-iPVfV, t b"f v h !t w3= F.i^l.pr e cti*r' v 88 1W t",o TT nion r-iist rf>-irri"d s"bs"arti"i nn-nK*r of viorlc-

2. From the terra J of refcience it is c'ea tint ti.e ques- tion to be dc^^iinc-d in this we is wh_(h " 'ha six Steno- giaphers att. chcl tc the SLKOI Fx^'utives in the rank of Genera! M'anpger and Deputy Gc-er ! M nages of (he United Bank of India in s!"ort, the B >nk are en.itied to special financi'il benefit comnensation. Their rase is that they are entitled to it because they undertake ce'tain a' dit'onal duties involvirg much h:gher /esnon^bi'ifies which are con- fidential in na ure and for which ih'y an to undertake additional stress and s'rain. Those additional duties are not undertaken by the oth-r Stenographers r-osf'-d in the Head- office or the Region'1 offices or Jt the branches. They ate these :

(i) Maintaining strictly confid?-it:al Icters/docurrents,

vouchers and various files thereto ;

(ii) UnrWtpking all the wnonsj'bTrvs nr>d funrt;ons of Person") Ass'st' nts rti?bed to the ton executives;

(iii) Making independent draft • OTesnnndence in the mat- ter of follow yp w;th ths Branch agents and o'her officers at various 'evels FS a'so wi'h fh^ nistomer of the Bank on the lines indicated bv their superior officers ;

(iv) Submission of references as and v/hpn called for by the Senior Rxecutives, day to day firt!e;s, pppo'ni- ments, engigements. etc.

(V) AttpnHjpg to telephone rails recant for concerned

officer.

(vi) Distributing all papers, not;s pnd files after disposal to the diffeient departments keeping prop"r record thereof for further reference.

(vii) Mik;ng nil prr?nge'~>e'>ts cn-e^fed with "the tours

undertaken by (he superior officer.

(viii) U"dpi-t°kin°r public 'elation work w'

\ portrnt and valued custO"ie''s of the bank ;

(ix) Taking dow I all important m^ss^g^ over telephone from branches, Government dep~rttr>en*% Customers and members of the public in the absence of his superior officer.

b'g bn^t, pnd paiticulaily in '.heir important'©fflces 1, n rv b' pr^'p-r -int' disii^ble that the incumbents L su ii oCices should be allowed more than what we have prescribed."

They LISO rely on the Desai iw-.rd, paragraph 5.244 which ruis as under :

"I ?ra corscioi's of the fact that the provisions herein m,"de may not be adequate for Stenographers pos- sessing h'sher degree of speed and accuracy in con- nection with their work. I have provided the mini- r in am"" nts th;- ? separate s ale of pay for Stenographers and demand in this connection herewith is iejected."

(x) Amending to meetirgs as a"d when needed for tek-

ing notes of the proceedings

(xi) Supervision of all office work of the Senior Executi- ves in the rank of Dy. General Managers and Gene- ral Managers.

On a peiusa! of the above, it is apoarent that nei'her of the Awards confers any benefit upon the StenogrPphers more than what they say. They havj left the matter in the dis- curtion of the bink to be exercised in proper cas"s. It is rot therefo-e ns<-e-s"ry to judee the validity of the argument of the Bin¹.- v/h::h is to the effe-t that by c'au^es 5.16, 5.17 cii 5 18 of the Bipartite Settlement d-Ued 19th October, 1966 the recommendatory Provisions of Sastry award in pT-pg-"oh 162 ard of Desai Jward in clauses 5 244 and 5 292 have been supe-seded ard so they are no longer ope- rative. It is howeve-, a frcf that the Sas*ry and Desai pwprds have been mod'fied from time to time by the 1965 r-MOemcnt ani subsequent settlemen's. The workmen say tb't out of the 14 paregnphs of the Desai award dealing T\'ih ",rervl I'iowance only two paiaqraphs have beep supen- scd^d. However, it is not necessary to enter into this aspect of cnit'O- "Tty it ;s to be no^ce 1 that at the time of Desai eward the special allowance payable to the Stenograrher was ]?•; 3*i per month. Now tb.it •imonnt h's been enhanced to Fr. H2 per rpon'h uode' 'he th"il binar;i*e settlement of 1979 PS nenti^ne-' in Schedule IT thereof. These sU rr'ate rnr^st in the industrhl e^^H'sh'-^en*. E"pryor>e of the sten^eraphers who admittedly T -. in 1 " - jp r r r ' ' V r" ( - b c . tf =•:••< h n n H - \ 1. T p ro t o ' d) in ' h is ( h^ < ;f ^ ' 1 O < TI — "i "c • t f r } ] < * r! t<~- * h ~- r' HVC F V I V ' TJ in ' h"

r - n '- o* D e - i . tv n - > n e r "1 ^T- >¹

"T • n <* i l - p 'e a re fi t he T - ' > r !- <•• 1 T "; -• Tn^ ,-T. t i! ni ,' A " : ' i " ! nti on in s e v e r r fl

j~,tprc fiJvtr.^ " f .i •'.if.-i ? r cj *T."?I f i^ o v n te wl in v ifw t h at

., r' • •< • .! 'q J T, - t ; ~n ~->fl ¹= l ^- T ^? " l ! > T io r p i - h ^ -5 c b o ' lH H Ot Qffjrrr's (ripdp that ;n <;nn.; -'har fq-l- , TI-T^PI" M'lhn- b ~d s'irh c ' c i v ^ n p h e 's a'e romD-.nd "1 o bv ^ - " - i t" s ' ^ 's rf i v. "Ot bems an offifpr Tn r^v r " i n i m. tfif s>'\ c t — . n p r i ^ r rs "r? not en- ticed ut'der -nv ^"ftlp^C"!- -ir *\-T 1 snec'-¹ fin-in^ul bene- fit /V-on-m<=n<:-->tinr] fr.- dn'nn: 'ha "f^ •• >:! i 'K B "' I th'nk that the m a n p ^ - m ct "houl 1 cpnsid^r th<"i'- nti> s> m™a'h?*i- c->l¹" in fi't'ire " rd -' - " 'd •"">'"- -r-r-. ,. .-,, •-, ";•.." ^otv, <.O"ip rel'pf if riT;c'! ¹" Th~ wo-''"i"ii r--r-> np 1 rpiy r^n v awpid ^arngr-rh IP? M PII"" 40 n'tii-'i is ;> b-¹-vv :

"It "b<->iiH, h ^v rr. b<" d%tir-'i. nfid •"*--,! - j ,^ w n a( we b i ve p i o \;d c1 ''* oni-' - n -i-nii-i ?nd in rose of b- - c p fd (o s;n • th^ pd-!it;o'""l -J'l'i's i-^-f-^rmed bv 'hern- r, -. r,~*-f r- OI-'T T.-.-- i ,n,i i-o-":n<> d¹¹*'"-' That view mav h, r-'"ht "•• v/.f"--" TH- rnijn f '<• h"w°"pr*tire Set'lement or anywhere else

entitling the six stenographers to claim double allowance. So far as other banks are concerned, it is not known whe- ther in similar situation any ndditionul monetary compen- sation over and above the special allowance is paid. Even if in some other banks the stenographers attached to the Senior Executives are of officer's Rradc, there is no such case for decision befoie this tribunal. The claim of the six stenogra- phers is for sprcial financial benefit and not to mnke them of officer's grade. Thtre is also no case for payment of hichf-r scile. No case has been show.i to 'this tribunal which any award has been passed by any ini-hisfrini c^urt for such a demand as has been made here. Tf they want higher specin] allowance, that may be a matter to be con- sidered in the next Settlement which, I am toTd. may "o''n stnrf to be arrived at between the tiarties concerned, as the third Settlement was to remain in force onlv for four yea's with effect from 1 September, 1978. The wotkmen sub-nit that there will be no use in raising the matter there because as per paragraph 5.292 of the Desai award it is open to any bunk to piy highT special allowance or special scale of pay. Paragraph 5.292 runs as follow¹! •

"The snrfal ,'i11ownnce hereby piovMfd '"re by wnv of Bombay, the 20th October, 1982

AWARD

fly oidcv No. L-12012 (180)/81-D.U (A) dated 19-2-1982 the following dispute has been lefeired for adjudication under SecLion 10(lKd) of the Tnduuri il Dispmcs Act, 1947 :—

"Whether the action of the Bank of Maharashtra, Miichi Bi'zar Bianch, Nugpur in reverting Shii G. L. Kohad, Cashier lnchurge rnd promo ing Shri Cliimole, .in employee junior 1r> him as Cash'cr Incharee, is justified ? IF n it, to what relief Is Shri Kohad entitled ?"

o h r e u il v ' - '! li'^ ,I^^Q was i l l ^ al

da 1 i nv l id • I U L! flf;ai i sl I hc i j i ti I T <' ot

4 "From the evidence on lecord both oiwl und documen- tary it is evident that Shri Koha.t after the tiansfcr of Shri Kashirsagar who left the charge on 5-12-1979 ns ween from Fx, fi/W was the seniormost member of clerical cadre and as such normally could ha\e expected to be posted us C ashier-in-Chargc. It is howevei the contention of the Hank that because of his unwillingness to hold the post of cashiei in the past, he lost [he chance permanently and though initial order came to be passed euoneously when [he fact came to the light on receipt of Shi t Chimote's represen- tation, the mistake earlier committed was rectified and Shi i Kohad was directed to siuiendjr the charge and to hand it over to Shri Chimote. Consequenilv the main question is whether to Shri Chimote. Consequently the main question n 5-8-1974 which has been cited by the management for non- suiting the claim of Shri Kohad; Clause 7 of the said cir- cular Ex. 5/W leads as follows .—

"7. In the event of a post cairyinc allowance falling vecant the next eligible senior person in that cadre shall he asked to do the job in case he refused ihe next eligible senior and so on will be asked to do the job. The order/instructions in this behalf shall be given in writing. In case all the eligible tienioi persons (in order oF kenlority) lefused to do the job (which refusal shall be recorded in writing) eligible senior-most person shall have lo do (he iob and he shall be issued an order in that effect."

5. From the plain i ending of the clause 7 it is evident that it speaks of obtaining ot the consent on every occasion whenever a vacancy occurs. Now had thii circular been in the manner in which the management wants mo [o construe it, when once there is a refusal, on the next occasion there would be no need lo consult such a nnwillinjj clerk W the choice would fall on the next cleik in the serial ordeu However as admitted by Shri Modak M.W. 2 there was a practice of obtaining willingnts* or otherwise on every occasion of a vacancy. If thereftne the practice is as stated, It goes contrary to the meaning tried to be attached to Clause 7 and theicfore the meaning of Clause 7 would be thai theie cannot be any permanent or limited bar but even if there is unwillingness to any posting, when ihe nc^t occasion arises the willingness has to be obtained and it willing, the post will have to be given to the senior-most clerk in tne older. There cannot b.: any other meaning. May be that because of shoit term vacancies the Bank might have found it difficult to post somebody in the place or the clerks might be unwilling to hold the post for a limited period but that difficulty cannot be solved by resorting to clause 7. The Bank will have ;o Uy specific guidlines and impress upon the members of the clerical r.taff that anv unwillingness to hold the charge of a post even for a limited period may affect the light of mich incumbent either per- manently or tcmpoiarily, to covet the post of Cashier- in- Charge which post carries substantial allowance. Unlrss that is done the circular dated 5-8-1974 cannnt be the answer to the relief sought by Shii Kohad

6. Sbti V. V. Joshi who then the Bianvh Manjjer of the Mirchi Bazar had himself offered the post to Shri Kohad as is evident from his letter Ex. 6/W dated 5-12-1979 and this was done by him not oti his own but in pursuance of the instructions from *he Divisional Manager. A particular superioi officer may have no knowledge of the unwilling- ness of a particular employee to woik as second cashier in the past but buch would not be ihe case with the Branch Manager in whose presence such unwillipness must have been noted and therefore if |o ihe knowledge of the Branch Manager, there was such ban arising out of any unwillingnesj in the past, the Bi.mch Managrr atleast would not hav" allowed the fact to go un-icported to the superior office. The explanation tried to be given that the posting wai erroneous made by the Brunch Manajjei in my view, cannot be accepted. Knowing hill well that Shri Kohad had in the ps*t declined to accept the post of second cashier, (he post which fell vacancy on transfer of Shri KshirMgar ^a* offered lo him and was dul> accepted On thi? occasion theie \MS no unwillincness on (he pait of Shii Kohad and if the circular dated 5-8-1974 that not created any such bar Shri Kohad who was the eenioi most member of the clerical staff could not have been drpnved of the said post Whether there existed a ban or not can be also judged from the letter d-Jted 27-5-1980 which was the lettei written by the Aci-ni to the Divisional Manaqer after the representation of Shii Chimote was leceived. In thit letlei also the Ajent 9fi9 G of 1/82 -10

4|55

who had listed the clciks according to the seniority in pjtjjraph 5 hud indicated in the following words :-

"In this respect we have lo inform you that except Shri Chokhi"nd;e and Shn Uajira all havt icfused to work in Cash. This can bs veufied irom copy of our oflice Older already submitted to youi pciusal vide our letter No. AB22/VD/ST780,88l d.iied May 16, 19R0."

Now if Shri Cbimnlc v.,is a'so guilty of the some conduct namely refusal (o accept the C iisbiefs post in the p;i't, anil il the Bank's interpretation of Ihe diculai dated 5-8-1974 is to be accepted, it would mean that Shii Chimote could not also be appointed as Cashier-m-Chargc because of his earlier icfusjl, being guilty of the same conduct for which Shii Kohad is bciny tiicd lo be punished. No exception could have been made in the case oL Phri Chimote and tiie very tact that in spite of lefusal in the past, the Bank- agreed to appoint Shii Chimole as Cashici in-Charge. supports the case mil of the Bank but [hat of the Union and if held accoidinjjly, Shii Kohnd who was 'it serial No. ] must get the said post and the only conclusion possible would be that he has been wiongly iclicvej of the said post though according to the Bank's cucular itself _h,e had a light to continue to holt! the Cnshiei-in-Churge post till he was transferred from (he rnid branch nnd thereby lost the seniority.

7. Once it K held that on l-y-19K0 Shii Koh;vl was en- titled to continue ai Cashiei Jnchargc and thus eligible to diavv (he special allowance of Rs. 102 pe r month, and further oncs it is held ihit ii he was demived of the post wrongly the only relief to which he would he entitled would be to get Ihe Cashier-in-Charge special allowance fiom 1-9-1980 till the und of 1981, in the month o( Jpniuuv, 19S2 he having been piomoled us an officer in ihe offuci cadie whereby he being not eligible to -pcci.il allowaiKe Due* at the rate stated shall be calculated and the Bank shall pay them to the concerned incumbent.

Award accodinfily.

No order as to costs,

M. A. DESHPANDE, Picsiding Officer

I No I -12012 (18(O/K1-D.II (A) J

S.O. 3970.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial'

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1 W ), the Central Government hereby publishes the following awaid of the Ccnltal Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, tabalpur, (M.P.) in the in- dustrial dispute between the employers in ielation to the management of State Bank of India, BhopLil and thc-ii work- men, which was leceived K the Centi.il tio\ei nment on the 9-11-82.

BFFORIi JUSTICF SHRI S. K. VYAS (REGD ) PRESIDING OFFICFR, CENTRA1 GOVFRNMFNT TNDUSTTA1

TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOLR COURT, 1ABALPUR (M.P.)

Case No. C C I I T . I C I R) (241/I0K2

PARTIES:

Employeis in i elation lo the management of Stute Bank of India and ihcir woikman, Shri S. K. Dubey, le- presented through the State Bank of India Union. S. Basundhai.i, S U.T. Colony, Jchnncirahnd. Bhopal (M.P.)

Al'PtARANCTS :

For woikman—Shri D P. Tiwaii. For Management—Shii C, C l.iin. Advocate

INDUSTRY : Bank DISTRICT ; Bhopal (MP.)

AWARD

Dated : October 29, 19K2

This is a leference made by ibe Centr.il Government in the Ministry of Labour for adJLrJicdtion of the following dis-

pute by this Tribunal, vide Notification No. J-12012(245)/ Bl-DJl(A) dated 16th March, 1W2 :—

"Whether the nction of the Management; of the State Rank of India, Civil Lines, Branch Snugor, in ter- minating the scrvies of Shri S. K. Dubey with effect from 5-11-1980 i3 justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

2 The workman, Shri S. K. Dubey, was fin employee of the State- Ednk of India in the Civil Lints Branch Saugor. His services were terminated with effect fiom 5-11-1980. As, according to the workman, tho termination was not Justified he raised a dispute which has resulted in the present reference.

3. After notices of the reference were issued to both the parties the workman filed statement of claim on 8-7-1982 but on tho adjourned date i.e. 24-8 1982 it was reported en behalf of the management Lhat the dispute is likely to be settled amicably. After one adjournment both the parties submitted an application on 20-10-1982 for recording the settlement mentioned in the application. According to the terms of the settlement the workman is to be reinstated on the condition of payment of back wages after the manage- ment ascertains that he was not gjinfirlly employed any- where during the material period The settlement further provides thPt the workman will be allowed to continue in Bank's nervier in temnornry capacity and will have an oppor- tunity to npr'car at the test/interview for permanent absorp- tion in the Bank's services, Lastly, it is settled that if the workman fails to qualify of such a test /interview the ser- vices rnav be terminnted in the mann?r provided by the Industrial Dispute¹! Act.

4, Both the parties were heard on his application and they admitted that such a se'tlement has been arrived at voluntarily and to the satisfaction of boh the paries.

5, The settlement appears to be reasoanble and fair and ninro both the parties have agreed to settle tho dispute on these reasoanblo and fair terms I find no reason as to why the game should not bo accepted and an award fiiven in terms thereof

6, Accordingly as prayed for by both the parties the follow-

ing award is given :—

"Shri S. K. Dubey is to be industrial in the category in which he was working before retrenchment (i.e. as Temporary Part Time Mes^nger-cum-Farrnsri-ciim- waterman on half pay). Further back wages should a ho be pnid to Shri Dubey after nscertafninR that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the th" material period. Shn Dubey may also be nl!owpd to continue in the Bank's service in tem- norary capacity. He may then be given an oppor- tunity to appear i.t tho test/interview for permanent nbiorn'ion in trie Bank. However, if he fails to qualify, his service may be terminated In the man- ner ns nresr-ribfrt under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 under advico to us,"

A-i Pprced to between the parties each party shall bear Its own costs as incurred In (hest proceedings.

S, R. VYAS, Presiding Officer BEFORE JUSTICE SHRI S. R. W AS (RB1D.) i-KUWi*. ING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (M.P.)

CASE NO. Cciir/LO(R)(28)/1982.

PARTIES :

Employers in 1 elation to the management of Kshetriya Grarain Bank, Hoshangabad, Head Office Mangal- wara, Hoshaneabad (M.P.) and their workman Shri Padam Kumar Singhai, Cletk/Cashier re- presented by The General Secretary, Kshetriya Oramin Bank Hoshangsbad Employees Association, Mangalwara, Hoshangabad (M.P.).

APPEARANCES :

For workman.—Shti L. M. Malhotrj, Advocate.

For Bank.—Shri M. K. Joshi, Manager,

INDUSTRY : Bank DISTRICT : Hoshangabad (M.P.)

AWARD

Hoshangabad, the 30th October, 1982

The Government of India vide Labour Ministry's Order No, L-120l2(239)/81-D. U(A), dated 3-4-1982 have re- ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for en adjudica- tion under Clause D of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Indmtrinl Dispute, Act, 1^47 (11 of 1947).

"Whether the acton ol the m nagement of the Kshctriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangnbad in terminating the seivices of Shti Padam Kumar Singhai, Clerk/ Cashier with effect from 15-12-1980 is justified ?" If not, to what relief i$> tho workman concerned entitled ?

2. After the; suid order of reference was received both the parties were noticed to file their statements, rejoindc i and documents. Statemonts have been filed by both tuo pnrtijs. Rejoinder has been filed by the Bank.

3. Tho claim of the workman is as follows :—

The workman was employed as Clerk^Cashier in the Kshctriya Gramin Bank, Hoschaugabad (hereinafter refer- red to as tho Bunk; by an order dated 15-11-1976. The worl man is a member of the Bunk Employees Association. By Ln order passed on 29-9-198t>, the workman was served with a notice. Theieafter he was suspender! by an order dated 23-9-19S0 which was followed by an order dated 17-11-1980 by which punishment wag proposed to him.'Lastly by en order dated 15-12-1930 his services were terminated. The workman represented a#Mn

[No. I.-120I2(245)/81-D.n(A)I

S.O. 3971—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 Jnbalpur (M.P.), in the Industrial Ov-mrta hj-twen the employes in relation to the mann^e- mr-nt cf Kshetriva Gram.n Bank, Hosharmabad, Head Office Mansa'wara. Hoihangabad (M.P.) nd "heir workman, which was received by the Central Government on the 9-H-82 4, Tho aforesaid order of termination is challenged by tho wort man on the grounds that he has been punished tor some acta committed by nnother workman; that the person who was at fault has been prosecute^ in a criminal court; that bctore passing the termination order neither any charge- sheet nor there was any domestic enquiry nqr he was given any opportunity to defend himself nor any evidence was recoidcd against him which could have bew subjected to crosf -examination by him and that the manner in which and the grounds on which the termination order was passed were meg; 1, void and not according to law.

5. The workman Anther alleged that the rules governing the Hank were not at all followed and complied with before the 'aid order of termination was passed. The workman acco.dingly prays that the s aid order or termination should he s-t aside after declares it a, illegal, void and Inopera-

4Jnit7^:^z s i rof cemin docmts""

The Bank in the ^'.aiement of claim has contcded as

under :—

The iefeience is not rnainu.n We .1*, tus dispute has been raised by an uniccQgoiscd union; that the Union of India, the sponsperirut BanK. namely the Central Bank of India and the Reserve Bunk of India should have bren made a parties; that bye-laws of the Bank authoiised the Associations to raise n dispute on behalf of the employee.; that the appeal filed by the wurkman h still pending, consequently no Industilal Dispute subsists, that the workman has filed a civil suit which is still pending unj for this reason the adjudication proceedings should be stayed and that on these legal grpunds the rclcicnci: is not maintainable.

7. On merits the contention of the Bank is ihat due to gross negligence of the woikman there was .1 loss or Rs. 9900; thnt for this lost by theft, the workman has hecn liable; that he has been punished for hi

8. In the lejoinder filed by the Bank the name pleas lwvo