Subject NOT available

Fnjrineering Workshop or Vishwakarroa Engineering Work- shop at the spot belonging to the two contractors, Bnrhan Miotry and Padum Mistry, the cane and evidence of tlje company that tub* arc repaired and manufactured by those

37. That takes us to another question at to who were. the workmen employed by the two contractors to work in the company's workshop in August, 1980 when this reference was made. On this point there u no reliable evidence adduc- ed on behalf of the workmen. As already stated above none of the 11 workmen named under the heading "Sharma Engi- ne :n"5 Workshop—Barhun Mistry: Contractor" of Anne- xurs A' to the order of reference has come forward to examine himself in the witness box to press hia claim, and out of the 15 workmen named under the heading "Vish- wakarma Engineering Workshop—Padum Mistry : Contrac- tor" only two have been examined, namely, Subhas Mistry 4273

.though they weie once woiking undci the contractor Padum Mistry they ceased to work under him in the year 1980. On the olher hand in the attendance register of the said date the names of the concerned workmen Mohan Mistry, Durga Mistry, Mudan Singh, Ganga Mistry, Kameswar Mistrj, Bajrangi Singh and Sambhu Yadav do not appear. Similar ii the case in respect of attendance register dated 14th July, 1979 in which the names of Dudhnath Singh, Lagan Khalic and Ramtuhal Mistiy appear who arc not the concerned woikmcn and the names pf the concerned workmen Kamesh- wai Mistry and Baijrangi Miilry do not appear. In the cir- cumstances the said attendance register can be of no assist- ance in determining an to who were the workmen working under those contractor in the workshop of the company in the year 1980 when this reference was made. In the absence of Hiiy reliable evidence on this point adduced on behalf of the workmen, there is no other alternative but to go by the admission of the two contractors Barhan Miatry (MW-1) and Padum Mistry (MW-2) examined on behalf of the com- pany. Barhan Mistry (MW-1) has stated that out of the 11 workmen named in Annexure 'A' to the order of reference tinder "Sharma Engineering Workshop—Barhan Mistry— rr-ntractor", only Nago Vishwakarmn, Tulsi Rawani ai]d Pritam are working till now, and of the other* names in the taid list, Chotan Vibhwakarma, SunJra Mistry, Balak MIstty, Anil Kumar and Abdul Mia weie working for sometime but thev hod ceased lo work, and the remaining workmen named in the list never worked under him. Similarly Padnm Mittry (MW-2) has deposed that out of the workmen named in Annexure 'A' to the order of reference under the heading "Vishwakarma Engineering \Morkshop—Padum Mistry— Couti actor" only Situam Mistry, Sudheswar Mistry and Ganesh Miitry are still working and Subhas Mistry, Nandlal ^-?istry, Baban Mistry. Madan Singh, Ganga Mistry and Kameshwar Misery had worked for sometime but they are not working at present, and rest of the workmen named in the said list never worked under him and ho does not know tfi:m. Therefore, the benefit or resularisation of service can be given only to Nago Vishwakanra, Tulsi Rawani. Pritam, Sitaram Misiry, Sudhesw.ir Mistry and Ganesh Mistry who aie still working and not to others who had either worked in the past but h,id left it or who never worked under the contractors in the workshop of the company.

38. But in the absence of any evidence to show as to from what date Nago Vishwakarma, Tulsi Rawani, Prfetam, Sitaram Mistry, Sudheswar Mistry and Ganesh Mistry had commenced working, ends of justice will be mot if they are allowed the benefit of regularisation from the date this award becomes effective.

39. Accordingly, the services of Nago Vishwakarma, Tulsi Rawani, Prittam, Sitaram Mistry. Sudheswar Mi"tiy and Ganesh Mistry are regularised from the date this award becomes effective from which date they would be chtitled to be treated as permanent woikmcn of the company and will be entitled to wages as admissible to them under NCWA-II and their seniority will also count from that date. So far as the othei workmen named in Annexure *A* to the reference are concerned, the reference ii answered in the negative, and it is held that they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

40. The reference is answered accordingly, In the cirtum-

5hn<"es there will be no order for cost.

MANORANJAN FRASAD, Presiding Officer [I.-20012 (150) /80-D.III (A) } A.V.S, SARMA, Desk Officer.

New Delhi, the 25th November. 1982

S.O. 4115.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 rf J947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, No. 2. Bombay, in the indus- trial dispute between tin employers in relation to thr man- agement of Mormugflo pert Trust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 17th November, 1982.

BEFORE THE CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY '

Reference No. CGIT-2/27 of 1982

FARTTTS :

rmpinvers in relation to the management of Mormueao

Port Trust

AND

Their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employeie—Shri A. B. Gadgil, Deputy Secretary.

For the workmen—1. Shri S. K. Shetye, General Secre- tary, A.I.P. 4 D. Workers Federation 2. Shri V. K, Rcdkar, General Secretary Mormugao Port and Dock (Non-Ministerial). Workers' Union.

INDUSTRY : Port & Docks STATE : Goa Daman & Diu

Bombay, the 2nd November, 1982

AWARD

By their order No. 1- 36011/7/81-D. IV (A) dated 3-5-1982 the Central Government have referred the following dispute for adjudition under Section 10 (1) (d) of th# Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:—

Whether the action of the Mormugao Port Trust Admi- nistration in refusing to pay the relieving overtime to the workmen of Mechanical Ore Handling Plant, for the period from 1-8-1981 to 31-8-1981 h justified? If not ,to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

2. The- whole dispute revolves on the interpretation of the settlement arrived at between the Mormugao port 4 Dock (Non-Ministerial) workmen' Union, who is also espousing the cause of the, workmen and the. Management of the Mor- mugao Port Trust whereby it was agreed in clavjse 3 of the settlement as follow*:—

"The authorities of Mormugao Port Trust agree to in- crease tlie Relieving Overtime from 1/2 hour to 1 hour w.e. f. 1210-1980 when working in normal shift to ensure continuous operation without break either for lunch or for shift changing, as prevailing in Madias Port Trust. The arreati payable- in this regard for the period from 12-10-1980 to 26-2-1981 From March, 1981 onwaids the Relieving Overtime will be paid on or before 31-3-1981. From March. 1981 onwards the Relieving Overtime will be paid along with the wages for each Calendar month. Tn view of the abovc the Union agreed not to press . their demand on Reporting Allowance © Rs, 10/- per ship, for the present."

3. Now it so happened that by notice dated 31-7-1981 the Chief Mechanical Engineer notified that on completion of loading of "m.w. Sto\: Transport" the M.O.H.P, that is the Plant where the workmen are working will be shut down for maintenance for a few weeks and detailed programme will bo made by the respective officers since there will be no operation of. the plant, the start posted in the shift were instructed not to wait to be relieved. It v at further notifi- ed that in case, anyone is required to stay on will relieved or in order to continue to work on overtime, instructioai will be issued to individuals concerned. . By another notifi- cation dated 16-9-1981 the- earlier notification was super- seded and the MOHP was to start working from the dates [•tated in the notification. The dispute relates to the period when the plant was notified to be shut down for maintenance. It ii the contention of the Union that since the overtime was agreed to be paid for one hour under the terms of settle- ment, even during the relevant period overtime hn-; to be paid and its denial amounts to wrongful one, aapinst which the cnie of the rrwmfrcment i" that since the working of the plant which is n continuous operation was stepped and since the plant was thut down for the purpose of maintenance riot requiring minute to minute attention of the workmen, the overtime ai acreed to be nnid durinc the operation, wed not be paid and hence the withdrawal for the short period.

4, On the above pleading the following issues arise for

determination and my findings thereon are :—

ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Was it incumbent on the employee*

in the employment ot ivlormugao Fort Trust AdiiuiBiratwn to wail till being relieved by th-ir co-workers at the tune ot sliiit change or rcce"s?

1A. Whether workmen in M.OH. Plant

are entitle tlto overtime wages tor one hour, even when the. plant is not operated? Has it become a condition of service? No

2. Whether the management specifically

iniormed these workmen thai at soon as their duty period ended they were this to go home without waiting for being relieved Yes

3. Was it valid and legal/ Yci

4. If the answer on issue No. 2 is in

the aflirmdtive whether these workmen are entitled to claim overtime wage*

during the yeiiod lrom 1-8-1981 to 31-8-1981? No

5. Whether the. dolm ii justified? No

6. If not are these workmen entitled to

"ny relief? No

REASONS

5. The plain reading of the term* of settlement substan- tiate the case of the management. It is further supported by the evidence of Plant Manager whose evidence is at Ex. 8/M whereby he is pseaking thai when the plant it not in opera- tion constant attention is not necessary. It is really im- material whether tho workmen are permitted to leave the plant premises or not. If their constant attention is not necessary then whether by rotation they take lunch in the canteen or lunch in the plant itself would not make many difference because wh^t shall highlight the case of the work- men is the constant attention and the resutant necessity of waiting near the machine eilhcr till the arrival of the reliever or th- arival of somebody elae for rclievinj; for lunch break. As soon as the factor of constant attention is absent which is evident when the plant is shut down what is stated by Shri Nadkarni and what in also evident from the very clause of settlement itself, the very need of paying built-in-overtime would disappear and in (hat case even the settlement which can be said to have become part of the condition of service is not going to help the case of workmen.

5. It was tried to be urged that at Madras ever, in such closure period overtime is paid. Unfortunately there is nothing on.rtcoid which would justified the comparison and therefore the grant of lclievinii overtime. Had there been nny evidence from uhich such inference was possible the finding would have been different. Furthermore Shri Nad- karoi has stated that the condition at Madras are different than those prevailing at Morrrjugno. In the atvwnce of material contra to what h stated l*y the witness there ii no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

6. The result is that when there ii no constant attention necessary for which notification is issued and for wliich atten- tion of the workmen har. been drawn, In my view, the clause in the settlement, would not rvrmit the workmen to claim what is know as relieving overtime, as such the claim cannot be said to be justified. A.ward accoidingly.

M. A. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

[No. L-36011(7)/81-D.IV(A)T

Dt. 25-11-82

9.O. 4116.—In pursuance of se-tion 17 of tho Industrial Dilutes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebv publishes the Mlowtnjr award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Cacutta, In the Industrial de- pute between the employers in relation to the minagtment of Calcutta Port Trust (Haldia Dock Complex), and their

workmen, which was received by the Central .Government on the 17th November, 1982,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CALCUTTA

Reference No. 88 of 1980

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Port

Trust (Haldia Dock Complex).

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice M. P, Sharma—Pre"iding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employers—Mr, Indranil Mukherjee, Junior

Assistant Manager (IR).

On behalf of Workmen—Mr. Paresh Bose, Aaitt. Secre-~

tary with Mr. K. Banerjee, Aiiiitant Secretary of the Union.

STATE West Bengal INDUSTRY : Port &. Dock

AWARD

By Order No. L-32O11/11/8O-D.IV(A) dated 6 November 1980 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal;

"Whether the management in relation to Calcutta Port Trust (Haldia Dock Complex) are justified in denying the payment of extra 25 per cent consolidated over- time allowance and free provision to the crew attached to launches 'Mahua¹, 'Mandar' and 'Ketaki', and shore crew posted at Haldia from Calcutta, with effect from 26th. February, 1977 ? If not, to what relief arc tho concerned workmen entitled 7"

2. From tho terms of lefcrence it is obvious that the launch crew and tho shore crew have been posted at Haldia from Calcutta establishment of Calcutta Port Truit (brifly, CPT) and they have been denied extra 25 per cent consolidated overtime and fiee provisions. The shore crew comprig© th.o"e who are engaged as shore crew of the Marine Opeiations Division. Haldift Dock Complex. The Launch, crew are these who man the three Haldia based launches, namely, Mahua, Mandar and Kataki. The question is whether the denial by the manage- ment is justified. The management contend* that three launches, namely Mahua, Mandar and Ketaki are" Haldia based (a fact disputed by the workmen) and as per tripartite settlement dated 13 lanuary 1977 arrived at before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta the manage- ment is not bound to pay the Overtime or provide the pro- vision as demanded by the crewi.

3. In my opinion the stand taken by the management U not correct. Overtime U paid or provision ig supplied to man and not to vessel. The launch crew and thore crew in the present case were admittedly transferred in February 1977 from Calcutta and posted at Haldia Dock Complex with lien on their service at Calcutta and hence, I think, they should be treated a" Calcuta based ttafl and, therefore, they would be entitled from the date of transfer onwards to 25 per cent extra consolidated overtime in addition to 55 per cent consolidated overtime allowance (25 plus 55—80 per cent) which they are paid when at Calcutta and they will also be entitled to free provisions or cash allowance (@Rs. 7.50 each per day) in lieu thereof because of their posting at Haldift as per existing practice. The management argues that the settlement dated 13 January 1977 has no relevance to the Launch crew and the shore crew of Hallda, that these crewi have ceased to be Calcutta staff being now under the Manager, Marine Operations, Halida and that the said settlement is applicable only to crews of veweU of Calcutta establishment of CPT required to operate beyond Budge-Budge. It is an admitted fact that the concerned workman had been posted at Haldia with effect from 26 February 1977 with lien on their service at Calcutta. Thii fact hai not been controverted

in the written statement of the management. Their parent post therefore remains at Calcutta because that is the impli- cation of the word lien'. This is a strong circcrastance to indi- cate that they should be treated as Calcutta based staff. Hatida Dock Complex although a separate establishment, it admittedly under the complete control and management ot the C P i. According to ine workman the launch crew and the shore ciew who are concerned in this case are Calcutta based and as per tripartite settlement dated 13 January 1977, which provides that the concerned launch crew and the shore crew transferred from Calcutta to Haldia irom February 1977 will be entitled to 25 per cent additional overtime allow- ance and free provisions or cash value equivalent to fiee provisions from the date of their transfers, they are entitled to the same. The management submits that the concerned crew should be treated as Haldia bused. According to the the management the shore crew of Marindo Operations Divi- sion were the surplus crew of Calcutta establishment and therefore in terms of ihe discussions held on 17 June 1976 between the management and the representatives of C.F.S.U. before the labour Minister of West Bengal (as per request of the Union) it was decided to adjust these surplus men at Haldia and, therefore, there Is no question of their being continued to be treated at Calcutta based. Further more, it is said that prior to physically transferring these persons to Haldia to act under the Manager (MO) of Haldia Dock Complex several discussions were held wih the Union and in consultation with the union the nomenclatures of these crews were changed as to avoid future complications, if any. The management further aavs that the Launch crew of Marine Operations Division of Haldia Dock Complex had also been posted in Haldia through several discussions Vvith the union,

and the Union had agreed to uccept the above system.

4. In my opinion, merely because some of the crews were thought to be surplus and were sent to Haldia is not a sufficient groiaid to hold that they are Haldia based when admittedly they have lien on their service at Calcutta. The management reads the agreement dated 13 January 1977 (Annexure 7 to the written statement of the management) in the following manner

the control of Dircctof of Marine Department under the control of Director of Marine Department and Chief Mechanical Engineer and operating within the port limit when deployed for work beyond Budge-Budge including work at Haldia shall be paid in addition to the consolidated overtime of 55 per cent of gioss wages 25 per cent additional consolidated overtime allowance on Gross Wages or two hours fixed overtime and two hours fixed re- cess per day. The special allowance equal to 25 per cent of gross wages would consist of basic pay, Dearness Allowance, Additional Dearness Allowance and City compenaetory allowance. It was also agreed that payment of special allowance @25 per cent of gross wases would be made on pro-rnta basis for the period of department of crew beyond Budge-Budge including work at Haldia. It was fur- ther agreed that the crew of the vessels and crafts on their deployment beyond the port limit including the work at Haldia would be paid Rs, 5.50 per diem in lieu of supply of free provision including ra- tioned commodities/meat and fish etc."

After considering the -submissions of the parlies I am of the opinion that the concerned crewa should be treated as Cal- cutta based and at such their claim must be held to be genuine. Assuming, however, for the sake of argument that the Issue as to whether they are Calcutta based or Haldia based is not easy to answer, the fact being that they arc posted Haldia. but they have lien at Calcutta, the benefit of doubt snould go to the weather section, namely, the workmen. The contention of the management, therefore, bai no force.

5. Before I part with this case I would like to mention that the parties have filed a number of documents showinR that several disputes arose between the parties earlier also and that there were several discussions between thorn. But in the view which I have expressed above I do not think it necessary to refer or diicuss those documents The only issue in this case i* whether the concerned crew are Maldia based or Calcutta based. T have already discussed this ques- tion. I would not, therefore, discuss any other document in the circumstances of this caie aj they are not necessary for the decision in tho instant c"je.

6. In the result, I hold that the management in relation to the Calcutta Port Trust (Haldia Dock Complex) are not justified in denying the payment of extra 25 per cent con- solidated overtime allowance and free provisions to the crewi attached to launches Hahua, Mandar and Ketaki and shore crew posted at Haldia from Calcutta with effect from 26 February 1977. In my opinion the concerned crews are entitled to the following relief they should be paid extra 2j per cent consolidated overtime allowance and free pro- vision for the period from 26 February 1977 to 31 Maich 1978 and from August 1979 till date and onwards as prayed for.

This is my award.

Dated, Calcutta, The 4th November, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

INo. L-32(K11)/8O-D.IV{A)]

S.O. 4117.—-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 17th November, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA

Reference No, 13 of 1979

PARTIES :

Employer in relation to tht management of Calcutta Port

Trust, Calcutta

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES *

On behalf of Employer!—Mr. D. K. Mukherjee, Industrial

Relations Officer.

On behalf of Workmen—Mr. D, L, Sen Gupta, Vice-Pre-

sident of the Union.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Poi t &• Dock

AWARD

The following dispute was sent to this Tribunal for adjudi- cation by tho Government of India, Ministry of Labour, under Order No. L-32OH(9)/78-D,IV(A) dated 5th March 1979;

"Whether the management in relation to Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta are justified in lefusing the .scale of pay of Motor Driver to Saravashri Abdul Rahim, Dayal Singh, P. Haider, Ram Deo Pd., Garori Pd.. Ram Nath Singh, Abdul Majir and Bakridu, Secu- rity Guards under Vigilance and Security Depart- ment, from 1969 onwards? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled 7"

2. In my opinion the reference has to be answered in the affirmative and if so no relief can be granted to the con- cerned woikmen. Admittedly the concerned workmen were appointed pnd posted fls_ Security Guard* and still they are Security Guards. Security Guards are employed under the Security Establishment under the Vigilance and Security Adviser. This establishment U one of the several establish- ment of the "Secretary's Department'¹ of the Calcutta Port Trust (CPT). The concerned workmen were never appointed or posted ai motor drivers, though they have done the work of motor driving for long. In fact there is no post of motor driver in this establishment. The pay <;cale of the Security Guard in the year 1969 was R". 100-130 which was reviled to Rs. 330-426 with effect from 1-1-1974. This Security

department is quite separate and distinct from the Central Transport Section under the Chief Mechanical Erijjir.ee i (CME) Motor drivers are employed in Central Transport Section under the CME. Vehicle* required in other depart- ment* are supplied from there alonp with drivers. The post of driven are in tho Central Transport section. The pay scale of motor driver in 1969 was- Rs. 150-225 which was also revised to Rs. 425-660 with efcet from 1-1-1974.

3. It seem* that some of the security guards held driving licence and they were allowed-to drive tho motor vehicles under the Security department with Ihe ptimission of the Vigilance- & Security Officer tor siving expenence with the remote pros- pect for being adjusted as motor driven in the Central Transport Section in the department of CME. For this work they got extra pay (in addition to their own pay), the same being the wage difference between the minimum pay of the driver of tho Central Transport Section and the pay of the security guard of the Security department. Some iuch security guard* (Balaram Kundu, Susil Kr. Adak, Mahabir Rajbanshi and Sylvana Kundu) were in fact absorbed as motor drivers in the Central Transport Section under CME after appearing in the test conducted for filling the post of drivers. Out of the concerned workmen of this case Dayal Singh has already beon adjusted nnd Bakridu hus retired from service with effect from 24 April 1978. That method of re- cruitment still continues. There is no question of promotion a" no post of driver exists in the security establishment. There ii, therefore, no promotional channel. It is only a question of adjustment in due course if and when ocassion anses for filling up the vacant post of a driver in the CME department.

4. From the facts of this it is quite clear that only adjust- ment h madfr in the sense that security guards who have been driving motor vehicles as motor driver! are absorbed in the vacancies of drivers in the department of CME. Ac- cording to evidence, oral and documentary which it on re- cord, it is apparent that it is merely a question of adjustment. WW-1 Sri Paresh Botfe himself deposed In-chief thaf he made representations to the management for adjusting the security guards as drivers. He says "I wanted them to be adjusted as drivers and consequently adjustment in the scale of pay of drivers." There are several letters collectively marked Exhibit W-3 which also go to prove that the workmen themselves wanted to be adjured and absorbed as motor drivers Ext, W-3 dated 30 April 1973, another letter dated 14 January 1974, another letter dated 24 April 1974, another letter dated 15 November 1974 and .mother letter dated 10 May 1976 (all collectively marked Ext, W-3) all Indicate that the workmen wanted the creation of regular posts and to be absorbed as motoi driven. It is not the case of the workmen that they were ever appointed or rosfcj an motor driver*. The peculiar feature of the present case is that the concerned security guards want to get the scale of pay with all service benefit! attached thrreto including the annual increment of motor driven as of right without ever being appointed and posted as motor drivets, simply because they have been allowed by the administration to drive motor vehicles in the Security aection for purpose of obtaining training and to acquire ex- perience. This is not permissible in law or equity. Scale of pay is always attached t oa post and it is filed only in res- pect of those persons who held that post. '

5. Sri Sen Gupta, appearing for the Workmen, contended that it is not opeo to the maraRrmcnt to retain the services of the drivers only during the time when they require them and to order them to relinquish their duties as driver and to go back to perform their out-door duties as security guards whenever they desire (evidence of MW-1B. Sen Gupta has been rffjrred to in this connection). In my opinion this con- tention has no mei it. Whenrver there will he want of required number of vehicles in the security department tK? iccurity guards who are licensed drivers will have to be sent back to do the dutie* of security guards because that is their Mibstan- ti\e pont number n* vehicles Their fhance of future adjustment in the vacancies of the post of mo'or drivers in the department of CMF \i not ai .ill affected by the reversion. The facts of this case cleirly show that there cannot be a continuous duty of motor driver* in trif security department ft denenrls upnn the availability of required number of vehicle*. The security guards can Ret only allowance as and when they are required to drive tht vehicles. They cannot claim to be full fledged drivers "a if they have been appointed and potted ai such. The contention thus fnili.

6. Sri Sen Gupta next submitted that the workmen have bceri making a series of representations to the CPT right from the year 1970 demanding redress of their grievances but the management has not given them any relief although, it had assured sympathetic consideration. The management denies that they have ev£r assmed sympathetic consideration. This mgument also is of no assistance to the concerned workmen for the simple reason that th"y have no right to the scale of pay of motor drivers. I have already said that they are not motor vehicles although they drive motor vehicles. I have used the word "motor-driver" here in the senile of having been appointed and posted os such. Making a seriei of re- presentations cannot give them any right to the scale of pay of motor driver.

7. Sri Sen Gupta next argued that the Wage Board had fixed the scale ol pay irrespective of any post ns sanctioned and it cannot very from department to department. He submits that the act of the management in not giving the scale of pay motor drivers, i.e. to the concerned security guard* is not fair. In my opinion the argument is not impressive. Admittedly tho pay scale of security guard is quite different from the pay scale of ihe motor driver and they cannot be eniltled to the same scale of pay. The argument thus has no force.

8. Mr. Mukhcrjee appearing for the management argued that this reference is confined only to the scale of pay and not any other service benefit like deameis nllowance. House rent allowance, City Compensatory allowance, holiday al- lowance, overtime, increment, etc. and that the workmen are not entitled to arctic that they are also entitled to other service benefits. Sri Sen Gupta submits that under Sec. 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Industrial Tribunal can consider incidental matters also. I think that it is wholly un- necessary to enter into a discussion on thft aspect of the matter because of the view which I have expressed above. When the concerned workmen are not entitled to scales of pay of driver, no question arises to give any other benefit.

9. Sri Sen Gupta next urged that this Industrial Tribunal has power to create po^t and in view of the- fact that the concerned workmen have been driving motor vehicles from 196? and 1971 regular posts should be ordered to be created. In my opinion, it can never be proper for the Industrial Tri- bunal to pass such an order. It will create chaos in the administration. The point hns no force.

ft). Before I part with this case I would Jike to mention fTlat it i" not necesiary to refer to other evidence, oral or documentary.

11, In the result, I hold that the management in relation to the Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta are Justified in refusing the scale of pay of motor driver to Sarvashree Abdul Rahim, Dayal Singh, P. Haldar, Ram Deo Pd., Gerori Pd., Ram Nath Singh, Abdul Majid and Bakridu, Security Guards under Vigilence and Security Department' from 1969 onwards. The workmen are therefore not entitled to any relief.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 6th November, 1582.

[No. L-32011(9)/78-D.IV(A)J

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 1982

S.O. 4118.—In pursiitim^ of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1547) , the Central Government hereby pi'Wi shes the fol'owing award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay in the industriid diipirte between the employers in relation to the management of Mormupao Port Trust, Goa and their workmen, which wns received by the Central Government on the 18th Novem- ber, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2. BOMBAY

Reference No CGIT-2/18 of 1981

PARTIES.

Employers in relation to the Management of Mormugao

Port Truit, Go*

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shrl A. B. Gadgil, Dy. Secretary.

For the workmen—I. Shri S. K. Shetye, General Secre- tary, A.LP.&DW Federation, 2. Shri V. K. Redkar, General SocreLary, MP&D (Non-Minitterial) Work- ers* Uniort

INDUSTRY : Port & Docks STATF : Goa Daman & Diu

Bombay, dated the 2nd November, 1982

AWARD

( Dictated in the open Court)

Dy their'order No. I-36011/7/80-D.IV(A) dated 13-8-1981 the Central Govciyment have refeired the following dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ;—

"Whether the management of Monnugao Port Trutt are justified in not granting the scale of pay of Ri. 42S-11-436-EB-13-54O-EB-18-66O of Skilled cate- gory to the Pump Operators working in Mechanical Engineering Depurtment of the Port Trust? If not, to what relief are the concerned woikmen entitled?"

2. To substantiate the demand of the Union who it es- pouaing case of the workmen, the Monnugao Port and Dock (Non-Mirustenal) Workers Union has filed statement of claims at Ex. 2/W whereby it it contended that the Pump Operators on whose behalf the present dispute has been raised work under the supervision of the Electrical Engineer and under the direct control of Chief Mechanical Engineer. Moimugao Port Trusl. It is. contended thai in all 19 Pump seta are fitted at various locations for supplying water to Mormugao Port Trun premise? including Bunglowa, officers' staff colonie* etc, to which supply of water ii drawn from two points, one is from the Government main line and other one from the wells those corning under the jurisdiction of the Port Trust, The Union contend! that the pump operat- ed by the Fitters of Civil Engineering Department and bv the Pump. Operators woiking under the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Mormugao Port Trust whereby out of 19 pump sets 12 pump seta coming under the jurisdiction of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, M.P.T. while- (he remaining 7 fall under the control of the Chief Engineer. Civil Engineering Department.

3. While narrating the duties of the Pump Operator! operation is stated to be all round the shifts of 24 hours. The Union state* that these Pump Operators carry out the regular maintenance, in case of failure of Pump sets due to air-lock, working-out of gland packing, tripping of feedert due to overload; they ar? also require to undertake regular greasing and cleaning of pump sets. It is complained that though the nature cf duties of the Pump Opcratom and those in the Civil Engineering Department i^ one and the same the Pump Operators aic placed in the grade 350—470 namely in the category of semi-skillet whereat the fitters arc placed in the prado of Rs. 42?- 660, skilled jtrade. It is therefore urped that fixation of different wales of pay for the same type of work has resulted in ennmfilv despite similar duties atM responsibilities. The Union further con- tend"; that the promotions of Pimp Operators are from the category of Assistant vVireman which fact itself accordint to the Union focuses the injustice beinR done to them. It in alleged that despite having the matter leferred to the Con- ciliation Oflicsr, since conciliation could not be arrived at ultimatlcy this has resulted in the present order of reference,

4 In reply to this statement of clami we have got tbo wnitcn statement of the management ;iL Ex. 3/M whereby they have denied the demand advanced on oehalf of the Pump Operators, it is all sued that the scale of Rs, 350—470 granted to the Pump Operators wai in accordance with tho recommendations ot ihe Wage Revision Committee as ap- proved by the Ministry of Shipping and Tiansport, Govern- ment of India. Regarding the two different scales for the same type of work it. js the contention, ot the management that the staff operating the sew age plant is required to attend to the maintenance and general repairs of the plant and hence arc included in the skilled category while there is no post equivalent to Pumi> Operators in the Civil Engineering Department, In the said department it is further urged the work of starting and switching of the Pump and regulating supply of water is undettdkon by the KhflKiscea of Civil Engineer Department whose scale of nay it> R3. 325—415 against which scale 'he pump operator* in Power House, Mechanical Fhsineci in? Department is higher in the scale of R<>. 350— -470 The TnEnspement then contends that these posts of pump operators were created for giving promotional opportunities to the unqualified Khalasees with long experi- ence, It is also contended that the requirement of Wiremen's permit i" not applicable in case of promoteei and that the said permits have no sipnific

5. On the strength of these pleadings the following issue*

arise for consideration ictl my findings thereon arc :—

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether the Pump Operators serving

under the Mech. Engineer belong to skilled cateRory 7 No

2, Whether the work, or Pump Operators

under Chief Mech. Engineer and. that performed by the Fitters in Civil EngineerinK Department is identical in nature? No

3, Are the Pump Operators woiking in Mech. Engineering Department¹ entitled to the pcale of wages a* claimed? No

4. If not, aie ttk-y entitled to any

other relivl.' No

REASONS

6. As is evident from the uJepdlngs, jn order to justify tho demand ior higher icale, what the Union i" trying to plead is that the work of the Pump Operator is of the same type as that of the Fitters in Civil Engineering Department and it is therefore urged that since the filters are drawing more salary, anj since similar work is undertaken by the Pump Operators placed in the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Depart- ment, the rule of equal pay for equal work should prevail. Whit is therefore to be seen ia whether the Fitters in the Civil Engineering Department are in fact carrying on the same type of duties is undertaken by the Pump Operators. If this fact it established then merely because the operators are placed In some other department they cannot be depriv- ed of the benefits of the grade enjoyed by the Fitters. Ajtainst this if ihete is no proof on this point, then the case of the Union must fail. To substantiate their version the Union hfis examined Shri .Sheikh Mohamed Ali and Shri Salla Khan Sulemnn Khan the twc witnesses who are working as Pump Operators and therefore who can be said to hate knowledge of the working done by them. Against this there is evidence of Assistant Fnpifleer an^ the Executive Engineer cited by the manaRement in order to establish the difference in duties of fitters in Civil Engineering Department. There h alio a third witness cited bv the Union of Shri V. R. Redkar who if serving in Traffic Department of the Mormucao Port Truv examined to prove the working \n the Bombay Port Tniit

7. The witness namely Sheikh Mohamed Alt in hii evi- dence has narrated [he nature of his duties namely (a) to operate the pump wts, (b) to record meter reading, (o to replace the glaned sacking, (,d) to remove air block, ie) to attend tripping of the feder and (f) to carry out regular greaung and cleaning.

8. Even the second witness Shii Sallakhau Sulemankhan has stated the same thing and it is the contention of these witnesses that similar pump sets are being operated by the Fitters who admittedly arc placed in the skilled category. That these fitters are drawing more salary ii also an admit- ted fact. However, in, the cross-examination of Shri Sheikh Ali the management has brought on record the difference in the work of a Fitter and the pump operator. The first witness admits that it is a fact that filters in the Civil Engi- neering Department lay down pipes and perform other plumb- ing jobs which the pump operators arc not expected to do. The veTy premise therefore on which the case of the Union stands, namely equal pay for equal work Beta a blow or a goby by this admission. Furthermore Shri Salla Khan Sulcmankhan has also admitted In the cross-examination that he was required to put on the fuse, replace the gland packing and grease the motors, bij: if there is any more complication Then the help of a Fitter is asked for. From this admission it is evident¹ that these pump operators were performing simple type of duty and as soon as the work becomes of a compli- cated natures, outside help is called for.

9. The admission of the first Union witness regarding the difference in the nature of duties in the case of pump Opera- tors and Fitters is further strengthened by the evidence of the managements witness Shri Gaunkar who Is serving as an Assistant Engineer in ihe Civil Engineering Department and who says that the Fitters working under him perform the dudes of manitenance of pipe- lines, lyin^ of pipe lines, fixing sanitary wares and repairs to the wuter supply fittings while the work of operating the pump in his department is done by the khalasis for whom there is no qualification specified. In the cross examination it is stated by the witness that if the motor goes out of order or the pumps, the fitters are not expected to carry out the work but merely informs tha Chief Mechanical Engineer who depute somebody to get the reapirs done. It la also stated that air locks in the pipes are removed by the Fitters while the air locks in the pump are removed by the khalasis in the Civil Fngineerinjj Department. The sum and substance of this evidence is that the very theory of the Union in support of their contention that the fitters in Civil Enginee- ring Departmest who are placed in the skilled category are performing similar type of worlc as done by the pump opera- tors stands unsubstantiated. Fitteri in the Civil Engineering Department as evidence goes undertake additional and diffe- rent type of duties than those of the pump Operators and as such the comparison in the two types of work cannot be possible.

10. Having noticed this discrepancy -and lack of sufficient proof the Union decided to examine Shri Rcdkar who is in the service of the Traffic Depaitment of the Morraugao port Trust and also the General Secretary of the Union in question. He "ays that he visited the Bombay Port Trust CME Depart- ment where he noticed that the post of pump Operator is treated as skilled cateRorv and that their work is similar to that of their counterpart in C.M.E. department, Mormugao Port Trust. It is further statea that the pump* at Bombay are of lessor Hone Power than those at Goa. Now reully speak- ing if for equal work equal pay was to be relied upon, what wa9 expected, as a aort of proof, of the Union, somebody from the Bombay Port Trust itself who corrid have> the point which the Union wanted to establish. Had there been any evidence from somebody from the Bombav Port Trust about the facts tried to be st.itfM bv Ehri Redkm-, the in- formation coming from the first hand knowbdf>e would have been authentic. Shr: Redkar hni admitted thnt hji base i,i the talk with the Leading nnd Charpeman arM T-ad admitted that he powested no duty list of the Pump Opera- tors at Bombav and to surest that he is inferestrfl In the present litigation, in ihe cross-examintitlon it h ''dinittM that the difference in working and nay structure in Bombay was not brought durjnp the conciliation procrcdincs, Tt U ther^foie urRed that his evidence ennnot be stud to be of dis-infi-rrsted witness, but annrf from thii when the uorkini* of the Bom- bav Port Trust wns tn br (KtablisVri for ihi* mirno^c of eomriTiton, what was exnected wns the first hand knowledge and since nobortv of the Bombav port Trust w:is cit<"d n v dv Viermise Pbri Redkar says Ihit (be work of uumij onerptori h of similar tvpe, no conclusions c.in be baiTi parficulnrly when in the statement of clnim we do not find any refer- ence to the working, at Bombay and therefore no oppor- Luuiiy to the oilier wile lo rexute the said ailcsulion. In ibe statement oi claim a^s already stated tlie companion wa" made ol trie worjaujf in Civil ^rjgineerinit Department and Uie work ot the Pump Operators in the Mechanical Engi- neering Department and nothing further and wOen the said comparison was found to be not workable because of the adnusiioms of the witnesses in the cross-examination an attempt (>eeins. to have been made to cito Shri Redkar a" a witness. Heic again because he is not working at Bombay but ho is working at Marmugao Port Trust hi* knowledge cannot be said to be authentic so as to note a foldings one way or other.

11. Once it is held that the work of Pump Operators varies* Irom the work of the titters, the only point remains to be determined Is whether the work of the Pump Opera- tors can be said to be ofakilled type so that emoluments of skilled category can bo ordered tD be paid. Now the very nature of the duties narrated by the two Union witnesses in their respective evidence illustrates that the work it of simple type. At clause of affidavit of Shri S. S, Khan he hai stated that they operate the Pump seta thereby meaning that they switch on and switch off the pump sets which docs not require any special knowldege. Clause 3(b) he- has stated they record the meter reading here again rudi- mentary knowledge of the meter can help in rtcording the reading, At clause (c) it is stated that they replace the gland packings, a fact denied by the management witness but assuming that Lbey do undertake thin work what is meant thereby is to remove joint of the pipes to replace the packing and re-join the same. This action I do not think requires any special knowledge but would require only phy- sical strength. In Clans* (d) it is stated that they are do- ing the work of removal of air-lock but it U common know- ledge that for removal of the air from the pipes one has to operate the valve thereby obstruction to flow of liquid or water is removed. In Clause (e) it is stated that they attend to tripping of feeders but here again it is the common knowledge that is by virtue of overload the feeder trips, then to restart the button is to be pushed whereby the pump starts operating. It is stater] in clause (f) that they carry out rcgualr greasing and cleaning. Here again it is com- mon knowledge, it cannot be said to be expertise work but ordinary work of grease puttinR and cleaning with the rags. The word skilled is nowhere defined and therefore we will have to refer to the dictionary nieHnirj? where It means re- quiring skill and experience. I have narrated the work undertaken by the Pump Operators, it h already pointed out requiring no repetition that the work is not such which would expect any iktll, experience and knowledge from these pump operators who of course have risen from the Watchmen category.

12. My attention in this connection has been drawn to the recruitment rules for the post of Pump Operatori which are on record and whsre the educational and other quali- fications required for direct recruitment are stated to be Wircmen Permit of Stale Government or equivalent and about five years experience In operaticn, maintenance of pumpr • It was urged on behalf of the Union that the very fnct that the qualification of Wireman was necessary for holding the post of Pump Operator indicate.! that it is a skilled category and therefore the pay scale of 'Wiremen must be extended to the category of Pumr> Operators, No doubt that the Wlrefnen would be falling in the sldllrd cate- gory but merely because the educational and other qualifi- cations of that category are laid down, would not necessarily go to term the pump operators also of the skilled category particularly when the evidence is something different, when the evidence is that invarinblv the posts of Pump Operators were filled in on promotion and lastly when the duties of the Pump Operators are different than those of Fitters in the Civil Enein-frina Denartment, Cnn^r

Award accordingly. No order fls to costs.

Dated : 10-11-82.

M. A. DP.WPANTW Pr"")r!l"n i">fflr"r rNo. 1^3<5Oll/7/RO|DIVrA)1 T. B. SITARAMAN, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 26th November. 198Z

LS.O. 4119.—In puisuance of section 17 of the Indimtna] Dispute-, Act, J947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hcieby publishes lha 1'ollovjnu awaid of the Central Gov- ernment industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dis- pute between Ihc empicvem in lelulion to the management of Amiitnngar Colheiy of MCNHIS h^siera Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, v\hieh was received bv the Central Government on the 24,h November, 1 $82.

CENTRAL CiOVLKNMENT INDUSTRIE. IRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA

Refeiencc No. IS of 19X0

PARTIES:

Employe™ in relation to the management of Amntnajar

Colliery of haitern Coalfield* limited

4. Sri Sen Gupta appealing for the workmen argued that Ibrahim Mia had l'iled 10 postal receipt* (collectively marked exhibn W-5) out of which six are in respect of application* sent by reyisteied post in between the period 26 Eebiuary, 1972 to 24 Octobci 1974 and four were in respect of appli- cations sent in 1973 and 1974 and these jjo to prove that tht story of illness W.JS tiue. In my opinion these receipts provt nothing. They -an not be connected with any .alleged appli- cation. No application is on recoid, The manjgement iayi that no application was cvci Hied, The woikm,,n hai not filed any copy of any applicaiion. No acknowledccment receipt has been filed cither. So these postal receipts are of no vtlut. In continuation of this submission Sri Sen Guptn said that the Government company had not filed the register of in- coming lcttert and therefore ndveiic inference should be drawn gainst the company under Section 114 of the EvLr dence Act, TIic contention is not eooJ. It is Ibrahim Mia who has put forward b " stoiy of illness. Onus to prcve i" on him. No adverse inference therefore can be drawn against the Government company.

ANTI

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Emplnyci*—Mr. Nikbilesh Dai, Advocate with Mr, S. P. Siiva"t"va, Deputy PerioniiftI Manajer.

On behalf of workmen—Mr. D. L. Sen Gupta, Advo-

cate, with Mr. S Uhattscharya, Advocat*.

STA'iE ; West Benjal INDUSTRY : Coal Mine, AWARD

The following dispute WM referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by Order No. L-19O12(37)/79-D.lV(B) dat;d 26-2-1980 :

"Whether the action ot the management of Amritntfgar Selected Colliery ol Eaitern Coalfields Limited, P.O. Ranicanj, District Burdwan in lelusin^ em- ployment to Shn Ibrahim Mia Undei^ound Louder with effec: from 17th November, 1975 is justified. If not, to what relief it the concerned workman entitled?"

2. 1 think that tlie answer should be "yea". Ibrahim Mia an underground luuder in the Amritnagair Selected Colliery went on 10 days' leave (from 22nd February, 15.72 to 2nd March, 1972 (vide his leave application lixt. W-l) for his house woik but did not turn up for more than three and half yean. He reported at the colliery for the fint time only on 17Lh Novembei, 1975 to ie"umc hi" duties. His cuAi is that he fell ill wblc-h aifected hi* mental balance and that ho remained under medical treatment till he wa" cured in 1975. He has itated in hfs written statement as well at in his evidence before this Tribunal that he wai reporting to the management through several lettcrt about his illnci* but' no replyi wa" sent by the management. He denied that he had leit service on 9th Februaiy, 1972 as recorded In B form register (EJtt. M-J) of the erstwhile company M/s. Srjnivasan, & Sons. He field here two medical certificate* : one dated 2nd Auqust 1975 (Ext. W-3) granted bv Dr. Hari- bar Prasad Mondnl of Patna and the other dated 15th Novem- ber, 1975 (Ext. W-2) K^mted by the Medical Officer. Gobardhan Siniih of State Dispensary Palogori (S.P.) but curiously enough not a sincle chit of paper of the period 1972, 1973 ami 1974 and upto July. 1975 in proof of his illness has btcn filed. No prescription of any doctor and no cash memo of any shop showing purchaNf" of Rnv medicine has been, filed. No doctor has been examined. No member of his family has been examined! The above two medical certificates were obtained in Auuust and November. 1975 and in myi opinion they could easily be obtained. Fxccpt the solitary evidence of Thr.ib.im Mia (\VW-1) there is nothin- during thp lonff period for Ihree and halt years to prove his illness. In them circumstance¹; f am not inclined tn nine fmv reliance on the two medical certificates Exhibits V' and W-2.

5. Sri Sen Gupta next l'fied that entrv No, 289 of the B form register (Ext M-l ) showing that Ibrahim Mia left service on 9th December, 1972 is forged and fabricated. He points out that trii register was in the custody of the Wel- fare Department but no one from that department wa" brought by the management to prove the entry and that there was nothing to (how under what authority, under what initiation and under ''hat material the date 9-12-72 as being the date of termination of icrvice was made. H" mbmits that the said da-.f nay have been put "uhsequently bv lomeone of the Government Company. In other word*, hii contention U th.it '"• entry repardlng the termination of jervice on 9th December 1972 snd word "left" in the re- mark column of that entry arc no* genuine. In my opinion the point has no force. There ii no cnie in the written state- nient-tum-reioinder filed bv the workman that the entry i" forprti or fabricatfd. Mention of B form register was clearly nude m written stntcment of the management hut still the written rtntement of the workmen does not lay (hit the entry vru forped. ThN regi^er belonged to the erstwhile company Mesin Sn'nivaiaB * Soni. MW-1 Himyatjiuka was working as a clerk in the colliery from 1956. He it.now Offioe-Super- intendent, He has deposed that in the remark column the word "left" WM written by Sri S. P. Banerjee the then Welfare Officer. He has further said that the Custodian ap- pointed by the Government of India had put hii iignatuie on each pnee of the register. In cross-examination he "aid that Sri S. P. Banerjee was the head of the Personnel De- partment and had Ihrer ot four clerki under him. I see no ie-ison to disbelieve this witness. Sri Sen GupU- mbmitted that the management- did not give any leply lo the appli- cation of Ibrahim Mia dated 18th September. 1975 (Ext. W-'f). In this application Tbrshim Mia stilled that he was ill ami thoufh he had recovered from illness, under Doctor'* advict he would not be able to "tiit doing duty and that he would join stfler a month or io. Sri Sen Gupta •ubmitted (hut this silence on the part of the mnn.ificment indicated that th" entry in (he B form reriiter regarding abandonment of service WM QOf Pennine. Suffice 1o say that the argument is not impisssive. I do not accept it.

3. WVV-1 says in his written statement that he fell ill on 9-2-72 and took l>vo davi leave and as his illness was of complicated nature ho went home on 10 davi' leave but in the 1CM e application he said that he went to his house for house work, [ do not rely upon this witness.

1018 GI/82 5

6 Sri Sen Gupta bstly contends that when a workman ,"ipliei for extension of sanctioned leave and the employer fii'ls to inform the workman about hii decision, the employer cannot he allowed to tnke id\anlDi"e of his own wronji and mate the workman liable foi his failure lo return to hii duties on the expiry of the original lea^e. lie iclied on Dabur Pvt. ltd. v. State of Weit Beni'ul ,1978 I T.I J 145 at 163. The facts of th.it cue however a.re different. In that caie the workman had applied for extension cf leave. Sufficient lime in ndvJncc givinr; every opportunity to the employer to communicate either the grant o> refusal thereof. Tn the present case the wmUnnn concerned has not been able to prove that he did so It is further arpued that an employee is allowed to ;epoit foi duty even after expiry of leave and to offer explanation for absence without leave and that the enmloyer n bound to consider his explamt'on Reliance i ^ Tc,fVT

x,l ,h , (Bombay) and on Smt. Kwhibii Sachidanand v. M/s Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd., 1975 Lab TC 1558 In mv opinion these cases can be of no assistance to the work- men In the instant case there was never any relationship of employer-employee between the concerned workman and the

Government company. Under Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act. 1973 only a person who was prior to 1st May, 1973, namely, the appointed date, in the employ- ment of the erstwhile company can become an employee of the Government company. In the present case the posses- sion of the coal mine of thc previous owner Messrs Sri- nivasan & Sons was taken by the Government on 31st Janu- ary, 1973 and it was nationalised on 1st May 1973. The concerned workman was unauthorisedly absent from 3rd March, 1972 (his sanctioned leave having expired on 2nd Mnrch. 1972). He left service on 9th December, 1972 as shown in the B form register of the erstwhile com- pany. Thus he was not in the employment of the erstwhile company at thc time of taking over or at the time of nationa- lisation and, therefore, he was cot in the employment of the Government company. Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act has no application. There was thus no service relatjun between him and the Government company. The aforesaid decisions, therefore, are of no help.

7. For the reasons given above my award is that the action of the management of Amritnagnr Selected Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited in refusing employment to Ibra- him M"ia under-ground loader with effect from 17th Novem- ber, 1975 is justified. Hence the concerned workman ii not entitled to any relief.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 9th November, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[No. L-19O12(37)/79-D.IV(B)]

New Delhi, the lit December, 1982

S.O. 4120.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the e-mployeni in relation to the management of Satgram Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post office Devchandnngar, District Burdwan, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 25th Novem- ber, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANBAD

Reference No. 27/82

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Devchandnagar, Dist, Burdwan.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES: For the Employers —Sri R.S. Murthy,

Advocate.

For the Workmen —Sri K. Singh, Chief Organising Secretary.

INDUSTRY : Coal. STATE : West Bengal

Dated, the 17th November, 1982

AWARD

The Govt, of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them U/S 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 has referred the dispute to this Tribu- nal for adjudication under Order No. L-19011(29)/81-D. IV(B) dated the 30th March, 1982.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Satgram Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd,, P.O. Devchand- nagar, Dist. Burdwan in not merging incentive payment with basic wages with effect from 11-5-1980 to the workmen mentioned in Anrrxures 'A' & 'B* is justified? If not, what relief are the workmen entitled?

ANNEXURE-A

List of UG Trammers & Loosemen of New Satgram

Colliery Pit No. 1 and Pit No. 2.

UG Looscman Saharai Mochl

t*

11

n

*l

t>

11 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

if

ft

it 9. 10.

UG Trammer 11. 12.

II

UG Looseman

t" Sew Sankar Dusadh Shyamlal Dusadh Naket Saw Heekem Saw Laljee Bind Bechan Ahir Amar Roy Fulchand Ahir Baleshwar Kahar Shyam Pati Harijan Eliash Mian •Mahabir Dusadh Ragho Mochi

13. 14.

UG Trammer UG Loosemaa

II

II

•i

II

II 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

II

ii

II

Tl

UG Trammer

II

tt

UG Looseman

tt 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32,

n

tt

tt

tt

tt

UG Trammer 33. 34. 35. 36, 37. 38. 39. 40.

Chhangoor Ram Anuradha Nunia Dukhl Dusadh Jangi Bhuinya Ram Bharasha Pasi Raj Deo Mahato Arjun Ahir Raja Ram Ahir Dasarath Koiri Swami Nath Nunia Ram Kishore Ahir Prabhu Hatijan Rasul Mian Puna Bawrl Mantoo Ahir Ismail Mian Ch. Lakshman Dusadh Darogl Dusadh Anik Kahar Gorey Lai Dusadh Ch, Basoo Mondal Faguni Bhuinya Sarju Saw Jai Nath Yadav Narain Mahato Gungu Dusadh Ram Din Prasad

41.

tt

Nakoo Ahir

42.

tt

43,

UG Looseman

tt

tj

tt

ti 44, 45. 46 47, 48 49

. Sroppat Bhar , Bagodan Ahir . Bhukhan Ahir . Bhudao Bhuinya . Habib Mian . Ramjoe Dusadh . Ram Bahadur Dusadh

tt

tt 50 31

, Ram Lagan Ahir . Rewa Singh

tt

Hi 52 53 54

It . Ram Ashraya Koiri . Shiv Jatan Ahir . Jagarnath Nunia . Birinchi Saw

55

tt

Surface Trammer

UG Trammer

56,

4. 5.

,, „ „ ,,

UG Looscman UG Trammer UG Looseman

tt

i>

tT

!"

t*

>"

„

fl

II

(1

It

I

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.' 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

((

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.

,,

UG Trammer

ii

„

1*

it

Surface Looseman

ii

it

UG Looseman

it

UG Looseman

Surface Trammer „ Surface Trammer

it

it

tt

„

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

it

tt 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

UG Trammer

it

it

tt

tt UG Looseman UG Trammer

"t

„ 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

UG Looseman * UG Trammer

ti

*i

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

UG Looseman

UG Trammer

Surface Looseman

tt

UG Looseman UG Trammer

Surface Trammer Surface Looseman Surface Trammer

tt

lt 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

tt

it UG Looseman UG Trammer UG Looseman UG Trammer

M

JJ

tt

M

tt

tt

(>

i)

M

M

40. 41, 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

ti

tt

„

tt

fl

58. 59. 60.

fi

tt

lt

JJ

M

it

Deo Dharl Rajbhar Alakdeo Bhuinya Bharat Kolrl Jethu Singh Munshi Ahir Jagdish Mochi Nathun Mahato Ram Kewer Ahir Baij Nath Seew Ram Nandan Prasad Jankhi Dusadh Hari Kishan Bhuinya Sukhdeo Saw Sahiban Ahir Ram Ratan Mochi Haroo Dhanik Mecrahu Ahir Banath Mochi Suraj Nath Ahir Bal Govind Mahato Rupan Bhuinya Laijee Yadav Mangek Dusadh Ram Harak Ahir Jattan Kahar Dahi-Gopc Lajjee Ahir Gul Badan Kahar Ramadhar Ahir Dukhi Ahir Muslim Mian Shyama Teli Hakhroo Dusadh Gan Pat Gopo Raj Baili Singh Ramjec Ahir Sardha Misir Sunil Haryan Bindeswar Prasad Ram Key Kouhir Sew Nandan Sinsh Sundar Mahato Ramjew Ahir Ram Brich Ahir Kuwar Ahir Jogeshwar Thakur Bindeshwar Saw Salim Mian Raju Ram Kailash Ram Biliti Ram Bhola Ram Kora Suresh Mahato Gopal Bawri Sitaram Mahato Kali Kora Sukhroo Sew Nath Pasi

99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

tf

114. Ram Bisal

„

ANNEXURE 'B¹

Deonath Ahir Bhagwan Das Ahir Narayan Ahir Ragho Gope Chaturi Ahir Muza Ahir Bira Gore Deo Raj Kahar Dhaneshwar Dusadh Jew Nath Ahir Joyati Gopc Bcchan Gope Medini Gope Bhola Ahir Gokeel Bhuinya Rameshwar Gopc Bindha Bhuinja Prasad Dusadh Kashi Koiri Somar Ahir Lai Mohammad No. 1 Jag Mohan Ahir Sankar Ahir Akalu Gope Sew Dutt Ahir Ramasis Ram Kisun Gope Peary Gope Bhado Gope Nathuni MondRl Ghutar Gope Falare Dusadh Olii Mean Sudhiram Ahir Damodar Rain Siboo Gope Nasir Mitn Chandra Ahir Sitaram Ram Akalu Ahir Ram Pati Ahir Lawjce Ahir Basoo Gopo Raja Ahir Si^am Ahir Mohan Ahir B, Chandra Gope Lakoo Ahir Basdeo Ahir Jagoo Ahir Lai Mohammad No. 2 Ch. Parameshwar Dusadh Gamu Bind Sew Nath Ahir Sukhl Bind Shyamlal Ahir Kalpa Nath Ahir Jugal Ram Munna Dusadh Bachha Kora Mathura Dusadh Arjun Kour Ram Govind Rajbhar Krishna Bhuinya Gajal Gope

List of Surface Trammers—Looseman

„

Surface Looseman

1. Sadho Dusadh

„

IT

2. Khaju Mian

61. 62. 63. 64. 65, 66. 67. 68. 69, 70, 71. 72. 73.

, Biswa Nath Ahir Bhadar Bhuinya Ch. Mangal Dusadh Dukharan Yadav Bhegalu Kaur

3. Suraj Nath Ahir

2. On 12-11-82 both the parlies have filed a joint petition of compromise duly signed on their behalf and they pray that an award be pasted in terms of the settlement.

3. I have gone through the settlement which is beneficial

for the workmen.

4. In th" circumstances the award is passed in terms of the

settlement which shall form part of the award,

SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL NO. 3 DHANBAD Is tnt matter of Ref. No. 27 of 1912

PARTIES :

Employee in relation to the management of Sctgram Are* of Eastern Coalfield* Ltd., P.O. Devchandnagar, D t: Burdwan, West Bengal.

AND

Their Workmen

Joint Application of Management and Workmen For Compromise

The above mentioned Employers as well ai the workmen have held joint diicu"sion" and mutually negotiated the dis- pute and as n result they have mutually a"reed to settle the dispute on the following terms and condition! :—

(.1) Agreed that clauses (1) and (2) the' iettlement dated 11-8-1978 (which came into force from 11-8-1978) reached between the Management of Satgram Sub-Area of Eastern Coal- fields Ltd. and their workmeD in reipect of Trammer* and Looeemen of New Saterarn Unit of Satgram Colliery(R) of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (which is anexed hereto ai Annexure-1) •hall ttand substituted respectively by the following clauiet with effect from 10th October, 1980 to IOth October, 1982.

"(1) Production ceiling in tonnes for underground trainmen,

and loosemen for which they will get exitting timerat* scale is 135 loaded tubs per shift, but when the production will exceed 135 loaded tubs per shift, i.e. loaded tubi trammed and brought to the pit bottom these calegoriei of workefi will be paid 8 paisc per head per tub for the particular shift concerned for the production in excess of 135 tuhs provided that the number of underground trammeia and I.oosemen in the ihift concerned does not exceed 16 in that ihift each in Bogra and Satgram Seems.

In the ca"c of surface trammeri, however, the productioa ceiling in tonne¹* for them for which they will get ai prevalent in time rate "cale as in the year 1980 i.e. 120 loaded tubs per ehifts but when the production will exceed 120 tube per cfaift actually trammed, unloaded and biought to the cage in (he surface, these categories of workers will be paid 8 paist per head per tub for the particular shift concerned for the pro- duction in excess of 120 tubs provided that the number of surface trammers and Loosemen in the khilt concerned doce not exceed 22 in thnt shift each in Bogra and Satgram Seemi.

(2) That the incentive rate of 8 paive per head per tub in excess of ceiling fixed per ihift will be con"idered ii ba"i" wage for all purposes.

(II) A s ' "d lhat the jevised clauses (1) and (2) as above will continue to be in operation after 10th October, 1982 except that in the cato of underground Trnmmeri and Looee- nien, the number of trammeri and Looiemen in the ehift con- cerned does not exceed 13 in that ihift each, in Bogra and Satgram Seame and the ceiling beyond which the incentive payment would be payable would be reduced from 135 loaded tubs per shift to 120 loaded tubs per ihift f6 brinp them at' per with the surface Trammers.

(HI) Agreed that with the change in the working conditioni the incentive rate will be subject to both upward and donward revision according to changed situation, subject to mutual ne- gotiations and agreement.

(IV) Agreed that the Management shall pay arrenn to the trammers and Loosemen concerned' which may 'become due to them a$ a result of implementation of clause (T) and (III) above for tfie periods involved and till now. Such arreari will be paid within a period of three months from the date of this applioatioii.

(V) Agreed that thh in an overall settlement in full and final settlemont of all the claims of both the parties arising out of Ref. No. 27 of 1982 at present pending before the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad. •

(VI) That both the parties consider that this settlement/agree- ment is both fair and reasonable for both the parties in- volved in the reference.

In view of the above, both the parties, i.e. Employers and workmen jointly pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to accept tho above agreement/settlement and give an award in terms thereof, by disposing of the reference accordingly.

KESHAW SINGH,

Chief Organising Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Congress, Representing Workmen. Dated 12-11-82.

M, L. SATNALIWALA, Agent,

Satgram Colliery,

Eastern Coalfltlds Limited, P.O; Devchandnagw, Dt. Burdwaa.

Sd/-

Advocate for Employers

Sd/-

Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Representing the Employer ; 1. Sri A.N. Singh, SAM,

Satgram Sub-Area

2. Sri M.L. Satnaliwala, Manager, Satgram(F)

3. Sri S.K. Sanyal, Sr. P.O.,

Satgram S.A.

Representine the workmen: 1. Sri Sunil Sen, Org. Secretary

CMS(AIVUC)

2, gri Keshawa Singh, Chief

Org. Scc)KMC.

Short Recital of the case,

The Trammer! and Loosemen of New Satgram Unit of Satgram Colliery (R) foT long the introductfon of time cum piece rate on the pica that over and above their average for the whole year for more production some piece-rate should be introduced for them as per the spirit of National Coal Wage Agreement.

The Management considered their proposal and a series of discussion took place with the representatives of the work- men and the management. The matter has been resolved on the following terms of settlement.

Terms of Settlement

I. Production ceiling in terms for which worker* will got existing time rate seal? upto 175 tonnes per shift but when the production v,]ll exceed 175 tonnes the workers will get As. 2.10/ tub for u.g. leaders and 1,74 per tub for surface to bo distributed amning 35 to 29 trammers respectively. This works out to Rs. 0.06 parse per tub per trammer. This will be calculated on daily basis.

The piece rate of 2.10 per tub and 1.74 per tub as the case may bo will be included in the calculation of the basic wages of the workers. In addition to that the existing system of car- rying lime, sand bricks etc. in the course of their duty which is also deemed to .have been necessary in the exerciie of their work load should also be taken into consideration separately.

2. That this piec; rale as mentioned in para 1 will he consi-

dered as basn, for ill pni po e

3 That the workers will also continue to gel ovuy >car

their due inclement in then time rate

4 Wilh tlit chingc in the woiking conditions the piece rate will be a subjtet to both upward and downward revision ac- cording to changed situation

This solve* Ihc dispute in full and final and the simo shall

come into force from 11-8-1978

Signed Lmplovci s Workers representatives representative?

1 Sn AN Singh—Sd/- 1 Sri Sunil Sen, Org Secy

2 Sri ML Satnahwdld—Sdy- (AITUC)—Sd'-

3 Sri S K Sanyal—SJ/, 2 Sn Keshwa Singh—Sd/-

cc to 1 A L C Asansol

2, R L. C (C) Asansol

3 C LC Delhi

4 Secy to tuo Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

5 C P O Hd Quarters Sanetona

6 G M Sdtgriitn Aica

Witness —

1. Sri Dhunchhan Singh (—Sd/-)

2 ijhn Nand Kishoie Singh (—Sd/-)

i N SINGH, Presiding Oflicer [No L 190UI29V81 D MB)]

S.O 4121 —In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputei Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern ment Industrial Tribunal, No 3, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employer* m relation to management Of Central Coalfieldi Limited, Darbbanga House, Post Office Ranchi (Bihar) and then workmen which was received by the Cential Government on the 25th Novembei, 1982

BEFORE THh CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRI- BUNAL CUM-LABOUK COURT NO 3, DHANBAD

Reference No 94/80

PRESENT

Shn J N Smsh,

Preiiding Oflicer

PARTIES .

Lrnployerg m rel ition to the management of Ccntial Coalfield* Ltd , Darbhanga House, P O Ranchi (Bikar)

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES •

Foi the Employer!—Shn T P Chowdhury, Advocate

For Ib4 Wtorkmen—Srm M M Saha

INDUSTRY Coal STATE Bihar

Dated, the 17th November, 1982

AWARD

The Govt of India ,n the Ministry of Labour in exercise

o^ T ^) n d l C d t l on Subsequent by Order ol the power? conferred on them U/S 10(1 )(d) of the In dtistml Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 forwarded the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tnbunal-curo Labour No <= n n?14th/17(h November, ad d t

transferred to this Tubunal for

SCHEDULE

Having rcgaid to the understanding reached at the Bilateral discussions held on 22-4-1975, between the erstwhile management of the Coal Mines Authority Ltd , and the Rashtnya Colhtry Mazdoor Sanfib, whether the motor cai drivers/cleaners woiking in the establishments of Central Coalfieldi Ltd at Calcutta are entitled to be detailed for duty only for 42 hours in a week If so to what relief arc the concerned woikmen entitled 7"

2 The case on behalf of the workmen is that in 1956 the

3 It is further stated that the N C D C Ltd , which func- tioned as a subsidiary of C M A Ltd, was virtually in-charge ot Central Division and the management of some of the collieries of N C D C Ltd , which fell in the jurisdiction of Western Coalfields Ltd was transferred to Western Division and till October, 1975 the N C D C functioned as a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority Ltd

4 l\ is Uio stated that in Novembci 75 Coal Mines Autho- nty I td , was dissohcd ind A new holding company viz Coal India Ltd , came into existence and along with this several subsidnry companies viz Western Coalfields Ltd, Eastern Coalfields ltd Central Coalfields Ltd, and Central Mine PI inning At Design lnstiute Ltd , also came into existence The BharV Coking Coal Ltd , (B C C I td) which was formed in 1971 with the nationalisation of coking coal mines also became a subsidiary of the Coal India l td According to the union the N C DC l td which had hitherto been identi- fied wtth the Central Division of Coal Mines Authonty Ltd, viiTunlly lost its separate identity and came to be known a" Central Coalfields Ltd

5 It is next alleged that since its inception the N C DC

I td hid an establishment at Calcutta and several workeis were employed in Pin chase, Sales and Accounts DepurlmenU and after lC-formation ot the Centi.il Coalfields Ltd this estab- lishment has been under the management of Ccntial Coal fields 1 td It is aho stuicd tint Jlisl aftet taking over and nationalisation of non coking coal mines the headquaiter of newly Coal Mines Authonty Ltd , was established in Calcutta arid the different divisions of the Coal Mines Authonty Ltd, as also Bharat Coking Coal Mines Ltd, set up separate establishments in Calcutta for sales and puichase The Cen- tial Diviiiqn of couise did not need an\ sepuac tstabhsh- ment since the old establishment of N C DC Ltd, was enough for the purpose

6 It is alleged that most of the business houses m Cal- cutta have got pievailing piactiee of 5 day work in d week and IL> Coal Minei Authority I td, also folowed the same foi all its emplovccs excepting the Duven, Cleaneis and the Watchman and the idme practice was followed in the estab- lishment of all the Divisions und subsidiaries of Coil Mines \uthoiity l t d, in Calcutta As the said 1 days work in a week was not apphcahle to ihc Duvers and Cleaneis hence in agreement was entered into between the management of Coal Mines Authority Ltd , md then workmen represented by C MS un 7 1 1975 according to which the woiking hours of motor care drivers and cleaners was fixed jt 42 hours in a ueet, and this agreement with legard to working hours of the motor e ir drivr s and cleaners was implemented by all the Divisions of Coal Minc't. Authority Ltd, as uell as Bbirat Coking Coal Ltd, but the Ccntial Division/N C D C did not ac ee to reduce the woiking hours although they ac ceptcd the decision about ^ days work to the Dnvcis only and the woiking houts ot the drivers were notified

7. Accordingly the snonsorinn union raised an in- dustrial dispute and called upon (he management to imple- ment the provisions of the afoiesaid agreement with regard to working hours of the drivels and the cleaners. Several re- presentations were made befoie the management but when it was not settled amicably the union referred the dipsute to the R.L.C. Calcutta in Septembei, 1977 and the conciliation havinK failed the present reference was made. Jt is piayed that the motor car dlivers and cleaners working in the astablishmcnt of Central Coalfields Ltd., at Calcutta should have duty hows Of 42 hours in a week only with effect from 15-5-1975 and that for all the hours worked in excess of 42 hours in a week they should be paid overtime allowance.

8. The management contested the claim of the concerned workmen and it is stated that the present reference is not maintainable. Tt is stated that any comparison of the service conditions of the employees of the Central Coalfields Ltd,, with, thine of the employees of other subsidiaries is irrational. It is stated that Central Coalfields Ltd., (C.C.L.) is the name that was given to N.C.D.S. Ltd., a Government Company which was incoiporated in the year 1956 when the Govt, took over 11 Slate Collieries which were being nauaged by the Central Govt. But the monthly rated employees of the organisation enjoyed pay scales and service conditions as ap- plicable to the Central Govt, employees till 14-8-1967 and subsequently they were brought under the Coal Wage Boaid recommendations.

9. It is further stated that non-coking coal mines were na- tionalised with effect from 1-5-73 when the statf of the office of the concerned companies at Calcutta were also taken over by the Govt. Company vvhich was incorpoiated for the purpose at that time and it was known as Coal Mines Autho- rity Ltd,, Thereafter on re-organisation of the Coal industry the Coal Mines Authority Ltd,, has been renamed aa Coal India Ltd,, as a holding company with effect fiom 1-11-75 and N.C.D.C. Ltd., was also made a subsidiary company along with B.C.C.L., ECL., W.C.L., and the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., whereas N.C.D.C, was renamed as Central Coalfields Ltd. It it submitted that N.C.D.C. had also a Branch Office at Calcutta which is still in existence except that (he name of the Calcutta estab- lishment is now known as the Central Coalfields Establish- ments in Calcutta. The other subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd., viz., B.C.C. Ltd., E.C. Ltd., WC Ltd, have also got their branch offices at Calcutta.

10. According to the management when the cokinfi coal mine* were nationalised in ihe year 1972 the staff of the coking coal mines in their Calcutta Office were taken over by C.M.A.L. According to them the N.C.D.C. Ltd., had its separate entity since long before the nationalisation, and it had nothing to do with the Coal Mines Authority Ltd, and the said N.C.D.C. Ltd., which had also got Head Office at Ranchi had same service conditions for employees of both the places and the employees were transferable fiom one place to another.

11. It is further stated that in the year 1967 thcie WHS a Reference regarding several disputes between the N.C.D.C. and their employees which was referred to for adjudication before lhc Ccutial Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Dhan- badandone oftheteims of reference related to tho working hours of staff car drivers and an award was given in the said Refcrrnce case being Reference Case No. 244/67, The said award is still subsisting. The said award fixed the working hours of the car drivers and it is submitted that as the said award is still subsisting and has not been terminated by any notice on behalf of the union, in face of the said award the present reference is not maintainable.

12. It is however stated that in August, 1973 the N.C.D.C- office at Calcutta started 5 day work in a week and the woik- ing hours of the staff car diiverg and cleaners were fixed according to which the working hours of the staff car driver* came to 48-3/4 hours per week, while for cleaners 48 hours and 20 minutes and this system is slill continuing.

13. The managements case is that the Coal Mines Autho- rity Ltd., at Calcutta had reached an agreement on 7-5-75 in respect of the Head Office of that Company and the offices of Eastern Division (now Eastern Coalfields Ltd) and Western Division (now Wcbtern Coalfields Ltd.) tit Calcutta with thii very union whereby it was agreed that the motor car drivers anti motor car cleaners will have 42 workinjt hours in a week and overtime allowance will be paid to them for working beyond 42 hours and their pay scales were also revised. It is submitted that the above agreement was not applicable to N.C.D.C, Office as N.C.D.C. was entirely a different company fiom Coal Mines Authority Ltd,, and it was only after Coal India Ltd., as establishment with effect from 1-11-1975 that the N.C.D.C, was merged into it under the name of Central Coalfields Ltd. Thus according to the management the agree- ment lefcrred to in the terms of Reference is not applicable to the concerned workmen who were previously employee's under the N.C.D.C. It is submitted that this very union took up with the management of N.C.D.C. the question of extend- ing this very benefit to the staff car drivers and cleaners at Calcutta lint the management did not agwsc to the reduciou of working fioilis of these employees. However their pay scales were revised and they were put at par with the pay scales of other drivers working at Calcutta. One of the terms of the agreement according to tho management however was that the union will not raise the question of leduction of working hours for staff car drivers and it is submitted that after entering into such an agreement the matter cannot be agitated again. Tho management submits that there was never any agreement between the erstwhile N.CD.C. and the spon- soting union on 7-5-75 or on any other date and so the ques- tion of icducing their working hours docs not arise.

14. On the above allegations it is prayed that the Refe-

rence be decided in favour of the management.

15. The point for consideration is as to whether the working hours of the motor car drivers and cleaners working in the establishment of Central Coalfields Ltd., at Calcutta should be fixed at 42 hours in a week having regard to the under- standing reached at the Bilateral discussion* held on 22-4-75 between the earstwhile management of the Coal Mines Autho- lity Ltd., and the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled.

16. Ext. W-3 (Ext. M-3 for the management) is the minutes of tho meeting held on 22-4-75 and 7-5-75 in the Chairman'* Chamber in which the icpreaentativc of the Union as well as the management were present. Shri J. G. Kumaramangalam was present as Chaiiman. The union representatives suggested that the weekly working hours of the drivers and motor car cleaners should be reduced and broirght closer to the other ktaff and their point of view was that there was a special situa- tion at Calcutta as distinct from elsewhere in Coal Mines Authority Limited on account of 5 day working with 37-J/2 hours per week for the office itafE and that there was no point in detaining the driver on duty when all other staff and officers were out qf office They further urged that con- sidering th: traffic condition! of Calcutta roads and additional strain involved in driving besides the risk of accidents, the duties of car drivers at Calcutta were more arduous. These matters were considered and it was agreed that the motor car diivers and cleaners will have 42 working hours in a week and overtime allowance will be paid to them for work beyond 42 hours from 15-5-75. The union has mainly pressed their support on this very agreement. According to the manage- n.etit, however, this agreement was arrived at between the representatives of the union and the management of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., and not with the management of N.C.D.C. According to them the Coal Mines Authority Ltd., was quite distinct from the N.C.D.C. and that the NCDC became a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd, in the year 1979 when the name of Coal Mines Authority was changed to Coal India Ltd., and it became a holding company. The first question, therefore, to be determined is as to whether the N.C.D.C, was- a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., or not. If it is found that the N.C.D.C. was a subsidiary of Coal Mine* Authority Ltd., then the above agreement which was entered intp between the Chairman of Coal Mines Autho- rity and the Union binding on the subsidiary company also. At thi" very stage it may be mentioned that according to the management Sri Kumaramanglam was Chairman both for N.C.D.C. and Coal Mines Authority Ltd.

17. Before discussing this point it will be proper to men- tion here ceitain historical facts. The Central Govt, took over some State and Railway collieries and for management of 'fhose collieries a Company known ns N.C.D.C. Ltd., was formed in the year 1956. Thereafter the coking coal mines in India were taken over by the Government and subsequently

nationalised in the year 1972 and the management was given by constituting a Company known as Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (B.C.C.L.). In 1973 all the non-coking coal mines were taken over by the Government and was subsequently na- tionalised fiom 1-5-73. The Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 would show that all the non-coking coal mines were nationalised by the Govt. According to the management when the non-coking coal mines were nationalised the Government in order to manage them constituted a company known as Coal Mines Authority Ltd,, and It was to have diffeient zones, for their management. It is submitted on their behalf that when Coal Mines Authoiity was formed for taking over of the management of non-coking coal mines, some non-cok- ing coal mines were handeJ ovei to N.C.D.C. for their manage- ment as Agent of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., and the N.C.D.C. remained a sepatate entity having nothing to do with Coal Mines Authority I td, There is no document, how- ever, to show that the N.C.D.C. was made Agent to manage certain non-coking coal mines on behalf of the Coal Mines Authority Lid.

18. The question however remains that all the non-coking coal mines were nationalised and a Company known as Coal Mines Authority Ltd., was constituted. In this connection a book known as Coal Industry In India written by Sri S. Mohan Kumaramangalam who wai there Minister of Steel & Mines is material. He has given full description including the background of the nationalisation of the Coal Industry and at page 67 of this book he has written as follows :

"The vesting of ownership of all coal mines in the Government of India and the: formation of. the Coal Mines Authority Ltd. (CMA) as the public sector organisation to be responsible for the working of these mines arc major landmarks in the history of India's coal mining Industry. The Coal Mines Autho- tory has become the owner of all the non-cokitij; coal mines taken over by the Government and will also hold the shares of the Central Government in Singareni Collieriei Ltd. Thus the entire control of the non-coking coal industry will come directly under the CMA.

Its organisational structure will consist of a Board of Directors, headed by a Chairman and including functional directors in chaige of diffeient areas as well as of particular functions. The coal mining areas of the country will be divided into three main zones; the Eastern Zone covering in the main the Raniganj—Asansol belt "nd also Assam^ the Central Zone which will cover the non-coking conl mines in Bihar (West Bokaro, Karanpura. Hazaribagh) as well as the SingTauli field in Uttar Pradesh and the Tal- cher field in Orissa; and the Western Zone covering the Central India coalfields, (Rcwa, Chirimiri, Korba etc.) Pcnch valley and the Wardha field.

Each of these different zones will be run as virtually autonomous organisations headed by managing direc- tors fn whom will be vested full powers of manage- ment and control, subject to supervision and coordi- nation by the Chairman and Board of the CMA.

The CMA will be responsible for broad policy and plan- ning and development of the mining industry, for organising distribution and sale of coal; for enforcing proper safety regulations; for research and develop- ment in the industry; for laying down broadly uni- form terms and conditions of service for executives, mining engineers, supervisors and workers."

In the above paragraph he has cleatly mentioned that the entire control of non-coking coal industry came dfrectly under me Coal JVImes Authority who was to manage them forming three main zones viz, Eastern Zone, Central Zone and the Western Zone. These three zones were subsequently named as Eastern Coalfield, Western Coalfields and Central Coal- fields. It is not disputed that the N.C.D.C. was subsequently

itTtlt M 5 Cou'fieIds Ltd- The management has S f i e l ds ? fr nnrUnJ,".nd A r t l'?l es °/ A s i ; o c i a t i"" of Central L t T rw ^ •C a9: L t d- .as aIso of CouI Mines Authority Arf.il r S S i? a"? *T- ?.rtlcl>c writtcn by Sri p' K- Ofio*.

Addl. CM.E. and Sn R. G. Mahendru, Diicctor (Coordnl

copy of which has been marled Ext. W-17. In this article it is clearly mentioned that with the coming of N.C.D.C, formed with the then State Railway Collieries, ft new chapter in Indian mining was opened and this organisation took, up ihe di.illenging task o[ opening and developing new lines on modern lines with'emphasis on virgin outlying areas or to develop coal reserves discovered by drilling and prospecting undertaken by different agencies and by N.C.D.C. With years N.C.D.C. flourished and expanded until it got merged with Coal Mines Authority in 1973, the ycai of nationalisa- tion of non-coking coal mines. Ext. W-7 is an award dated 9-2-75 by Sri J. G. Kumaramangalam, Chaiiman on the demand of some woikcrs. The head line would show that the dispute was between the employers in, relation to Coal Mines Authority Ltd., and their workmen and in lire bracket it is mentioned that C.M.A. Ltd., included its subsidiary N.C.D.C. Lid. Shri R. S. Murthy was the Chief Personnel Officer o1 N.C.D.C. He has now retired and is practicing as an Advocate and he has been examined on behalf of the man- agement. He has stated that the N.C.D.C. was never a hubsidiary of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., but it is belled fiom his own document. He himself issued a Memo, dated 20/21-2-1975 as Chief Personnel Officer through his office at Ranchi in which also the N.CD.C. has been thown as a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authoiity Ltd. There is another letter of his dated 22-9-74 (Ext. W-8) in which also the N.C.D.C. has been shown as a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority.

19, There is an article writtcn by Mr, i. G. Kumaraman- galam, Chairman, Coal Mines Authritv Ltd., which was pub- fished in the Statesman dated Friday August 17, 1973, the photostat copy of which has been marked Ext. W-20. In this article Sri Kumaramangalam has written that on 31-1-73 the Govt, pf India took over the management of 464 Non- coking coal mines pending nationalisation and an organisa- tion under'the name and style of Coal Mines Authority Limited, was set up for the management of the taken over mines, The Coal Mines Nationalisation Act came into effect on 1-5-1973 and the Schedule of the Act covers 711 mines and [hat the Coal Mines Authority was registered as a Limited company in June 1973. In this very article he has further stated dint certain coal mines contigu- ous to the mines of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., wcro trans- ferred to them by the Government and since the N.C.D.C. has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Coal Mines Autho- rity the collieries and workshops of N.C.D.C. have also crime under Coal Mines Authority. Thus it is clear that the N.C.D.C. was not a separate entily but it became a wholly owned sub- sidiary of Coal Mines Authority.

20. The learned Advocate for the management has con- tended before me that these documents should not be relied upon as Shri Kumaramangalam or Sri Murthy had no legal knowledge as they were not Lawyers and they have wrongly described N.CD.C. as a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority. With due respect to the learned Advocate I am unable to accept his contention. It is extremely unlikely that an emi- nent person like Mr. Kumaramangalam who was chairman of Coal Mines. Authority and Mr, Murthy who was Chief Personnel Officer and who subsequently became Director (Personnel) had no legal knowledge and did not understand the legal complications.

21, Ext. W-5 is another document which it minutes of the meeting held in the chamber of the Chairman in which it wa^ decided that the existing N.C.D.C. Standing Orders should be leviewed and should be made applicable to all the collieries of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., including the N.C.D.C This alho indicate that the N.CD.C. was a subsi- diary of Coal Mines Authority Ltd. There is another office order dated 6-3-75 which provided that in supersession of'the N.C.D.C. Limited Services Medical Attendance Rules and subsequent amendments the Coal Mines Authority Limited Services Medical Attendance Rules as may be amended from time to time was made applicable to the employees of N.C.D C. with effect from 26-3-74. It was not necessary to make applicable the Medical Attendance Rules of Coal Mines Authority if N C.D.C. would have been a separate entity and not a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority Ltd.

22. All the above documents are prior to the period of agreement relied upon by the management which is of April and May, 1975. The management, hovvever, has relied upon a letter dated 27-9-1975 (Ext. M-14) by which Coal India

Limited a holding company lor the Coal Industry was cons- tituted. 'Ihis provide* that the existing Divisions of CM.A. will be converted into registered companies and will be sub- sidiaries ol' Coal India Ltd, Ihey aic 1.1) Centiul Mine Plan- ning and Design Institute Ltd.. (2) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd,, (3j Eastern Coalfields Ltd., (4) Ceniral Coalfields Limited comprising the Central Division of CM. A,/N.C.D.C. arid (5) Western Coalfield? Ltd. The management submits that since 1-11-75 the N.C.D.C. lost its existence and it became * part of Central Division, but prior to that it had nothing to do with the Central Diviiion and was a separate entity. But ttiii is not supported from the documents already referred to. It has however been admitted that the employees of N.C.D.C. has come under the umbrella of Coal India from 1-11-75 after the iwrae ot this letter.

23. Besides the above document* certain f"cts are admitted. Ii is admitted that all the Divisioni of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., viz. Eastern Division, Western Division and Ihe Bharat Coking Coal Ltd-, have got office hours at Calcutta for 5 days in a week only. The working hours in all these Divisions lor staff car drivers, and cleaned is admittedly 42 hour* in a week. These divisions are now known as Eastern Coalfield, Western Coalfield and Central Coalfield and the game prac- tice is followed thcte. It is in the evidence of WW-2 that there aie about 50 drivers and 5 or 6 cleaners working in different subsidiaries cjf Coal Minei Authority now "known as Coal India Lid. The Coal India Limited has tot a lepaiate office at Calcutta and there also working hour* is 42 for drivers and cleaners. Their pay sc-Met are alto the same and they are all given the same dresn and the can uied in all the different companies arc for the same purpose. Under Central Coalfield* at Calcutta there are only 5 driven "nd we cleanei. The*e six persona only have been debarred the benefit of working of 42 hours in a week. It looki pre- posterous that in all the zones working undci' the same umbrella of Coal India or CM.A. have got 42 hour* work for drivers and cleaners but only these "ix persons have been left out. This, in my opinion, is highly discriminatory and affects industrial peace and relation¹).

24. From the document* already referred to it is clear that the N.C.D.C. was a subsidiary of Coal Mitics Authority and the agreement fixing 42 hours in a week foe drivers and cleaners was airived at between the Chairman of Coal Mines Authority Limited who was also Chairman of so called N.C.D.C, and the representative of the union. There is no reason as to vhy the same working hours should not bo fixed for the U ' uc and cleaner* of rh" Central Coalfield* pre-

• viously known as N.C.D.C. Ltd.

25. The learned Advocate for the management however dtew my attention to a letter dated 25-6-77 (Ett. W-12) writ- ten by Sri S. Dasgupta, General Secretnry of the union to Mr. Wadhcra, Managing Director: Central Coalfields Ltd This relate? to the duty hours of drivers stationed at Calcutta and it was requested that the dispute icgnrding duty hour* of the drivers who arc stationed at Calcutta thould be settled immediately and that it should not he more 1htm 42 hours in a week as per minutes of the meetings held on 22-4-75 and 7-5-75 nt Calcutta between Mr. J. G. Kumura- mangalam, the then Chairman of CM.A. Ltd,, and the repre- sentatives of 1he R.CM.S. It was fuither written that in his opinion an agreement on the name lines should he entered into to cover the drivers and cleaners of Central Coalfields' Calcutta Office. The learned Advocate hm pressed on the above line of the letter In which request has been made that an agreement on the same line should be entered into. He meant to say that if the agreement daled 22-4-75 and 7-5-75 was applicable to the drivers of Central Division or N.C.D.C, then there was no question of arriving nt an agreement on the same line. He clearly meant that the above agreement line. He clearly meant that the above acrctment was only between the Coj] Mines Authoritv Ltd., and the union and that N.C.D.C. was a separate entity. But the letter should be rend as u wholf ami I7om a pmfal of entiic Idler it will appear that stresj was led on the agreement rlated 22-4-75 and 7-5-75 and the words "an agreement on the wine lines" only meant that the same asreement should be implemented with report! to the drivers of Central Coalfield* Ltd Further even prior to this letter the same request hail been made by the union on which fhe union had requested the management

to (W the working houts ,in the basis of afore^u! asu-emc-Tit of 1975. This letter, in my opinion, does not imprce the management's case in any way.

26. It may also be mentioned that the working hours of the office of the N.C.D.C. of Central Coalfids Ltd.. "as iiAcd at par with the other zones of the Coal Industry viz. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd,, and Western Coalfields Ltd

27. Another argument on behalf of the management is [hat iii view of the Awaid passed in ieference Case No. 244/67 (kJttraut of the award Ext. M-1J the union cannot chwe the ifsuc of working hour* of the driver* an the *aid award has not been terminated by any notice U /s 19 of the Induitrail Dispute* Act. That award would ihow that certain woiLing hour* was fbted for the cai driver* and cleaners of the N.C.D.C. But it will appear from the documents of the management themselves that (he same award wa" given a go by "nd a leaser working hour* was fixed for the driver* and clearners by the management ot N.C.D.C. themselves vide their letter dated 28-8-1973 (Ext. M-2). It j educed the working hours of the drivers and cleaners from those fixed by the award. Thu* by implication the award wan terminated by the management themselves by reducing working hours of the drivers "nd cleaners and *o it cannot be'said that the matter cannot be agitated by the union till the said award i" terminated. No form of notice is prescribed tor termination of award and it )s well nettled that even by giving a charter of demands on the same issue it will amount to termination of the award. It will appear that th" union' pressed for reducing the working hours of the drivers since after the date of agreement arrived at in April or May, 1975. Ext. W-13 ii a letter dated 28-10-75 written by the Secretary of the Union to the Managing Director, N.C.D.C. requesting to review the matter and implement the agreement dated 22-4-75 and 7-5-75, Several meeting* were also held as will appear fiom Ext. W-14 and Fxt, W-15 which would show that the management did not agree to the said proposal. But nowhere the management took the plea that the driver* cannot raise the issue of their woiking hours in view of the award. This point was al"o not raited during conciliation

stage belore the R.L.C. .ind it is for the first time this point has been taken up before the Tribunal. The various corres- pondence between the parties as also various meetings clearly go to "f>ow that the management got a notice to the effect that the union had given information regarding the termina- tion of the award in question. In nuch circumstance* it cannot be laid that the issue of working hour* cannot be praMed by the union in view of fhe said award.

28. Much reliance has been placed by the management on the minutes of the meeting held between the parties on 30th September, 1975 (Ett. M-4) and it is stated that by that agreement the pay "cale" of tr-s driven of Central Coalfields working in Calcutta was revised and they were Riven " higher scale anJ in that veiy meeting the union agreed that they v -iij/d not r r'ic the question of reduction of working hour* foi staff car driven or cleaners. Tt is stated that this agree- ment is binding on the panics and th; question cannot be raised pjpvn. It will however anpenr that the pay scales al- lowed to these drivers hy this agreement wrs the same which tvai heine paid to the drivers of Eastern Coalfields and Western Coalfields whose oiUcva were located at Calcutta and so ft cannot be said th;ii any special benefit was given to these drivers. They were only put at par with the drivers of other subsidiaries of Coal Mines Authority or Coal India Ltd. Jt is no doubt true that thev agreed not to iaiic the question of reduction of working hourg but that WBI not for all time to come and by this agreement they cannot be stopped f.om raising the same issue Ext. M-6 is the minutes of an- other meeting held between the parties. These meeting* will only r'n(iirri

29. There is one more point which needs mention at this stage. The Hgreement dated 22nd April, 1975 and 7th May, 1975 would indicate that while fixing fhe working hours of drivers and clciners at 42 hours in a week on; of the" point for consideration was that the traffic conditions in Calcutta roads and the additions! stnri involved in driving besides the risks of accidents were such that the r'uty of drivers at .Calcutta were more ardous. The above point was thus taken into consideration while fixing the working honn of the dri- vers of Coal Mines Authority. Tt cannot be said that the same conditions are not applicable (o the diivers in question who also drives car in Calcutta nnd for them there ii no tliffcient roads in Calcutta and they have no risk of any

accident. If this was the consideration for reducing the work- ing hours of all the subsidiaries of Coal Mines Authority Ltd.. there is no reason as to why the same cortiideiation should not be applicable for the concerned drivers. This dis- parity can on no account be said to be justified or proper and in my opinion the duty hours of the drivers of Central Coalfields Limited should also be 42 hours in a week a;* in the case of drivois working in Calcutta in other subsidiaries of Coal Mines Authority Limited now known :^ Coal India Ltd.

30. It was next urged on behalf of the management that in view of National Coal Wage Agrccmcnt-II this issue cannot be raised before any Tribunal. The said agreement has been marked Ext. M-7 and it was based on the demand Ext. M-8 and the agreement wns sent to different authorities under Rule 58(4) of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules vide Ext. M-9. It is submitted that by this agreement a joint bi-partite committee for the coal industry was constituted which was given the power to examine all cases of anomalies and discriminitive in regard to the job description, categori- sation and principle service conditions of employees brought to its notice. It is submitted that this agreement (NCWA-II) is binding on the present union which was also a party to the said agreement and as per this agreement if the con- cerned workmen or the union had any grievance they should have referred the matter before the said Committee as per above agreement. But it will appear that the dispute had arisen prior to coming into force of NCWA-II and the matter was pending before the authorities. This agreement nowhere says that it will be applicable to pending cases also. Further it nowhere sayg that after this agreement the parties will be debarred from making any grievance before any.Labour Court or Tribunal and that alj the matters will be referred to and decided only by the Joint Bipartite Con- sultative Committee. It has not created any bar for getting the matter decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court, Tf that would have been the intention of the agreement then specific provisions would have been made in the agreement itself and all the Labour Courts and Tribunals should havo been debarred from deciding those issues when, referred to them. Utmost it can be said that the parties were given two options viz. either to bring these facts to the notice of the JBCC Standardisation Committee or to raise industrial dispute and get the matter decided by Reference before a Tribunal. Thus the NCWA-II is not a bar and Ihe present Reference cannot be said to be incompetent on this score.

31. The last argument on behalf of the management is that the present dispute has been made by the Branch Secre- tary of RCMS Calcutta Branch and it has not been raised by the Central Committee and so the Reference is incompe- tent. It will however appear that there are several documents to show that the management held several meetings with the Branch Secretary of the union and also had agreement with them. This RCMS Union is an All India Organisation and has to function through local branches and nuturally it is not possible for the central office to raise all the disputes. Further the constitution of this union would indicate that there is a provision in it to the effect that all the Branch Presidents and Secretaries as well as Regional Presidents and Secretaries shall bo ex-offlcio member of the Central Exe- cutive Committee for the purpose of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules. This clearly indicates that the Branch Secretary had jurisdiction and locus-standi to raise tho pre- ient dispute and the Reference cannot be said to be illegal on thai score.

32. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, T hold that the NCDC was a subsidiary of Coal Mines Authority Limited and in view of the agreement referred to in the reference the duty hour" of the concerned drivers and cleaners should be 42 hours in a week. The drivers/cleaners who are concerned in this dispute are entitled to the same working hours considering the other facts and circumstances of the case.

33. The next question is as to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled. It is submitted on their behalf that after 22nd April, 1975 they are entitled to overtime allow- ance for hours of work they performed beyond 42 hours. It is, however admitted by the management also that the estab- lishment of Central Coalfields Limited at Calcutta became

1018 GI/82—6.

a subsidiary of Coal India Limited with effect from 1st November 1975. Their contention is that prior to that the NCDC was a separate entity Which has not been held so by this Tribunal as mentioned above. The management, in the circumstances, can have no difficulty in giving over- time allowance for excess hours of work beyond 42 houri to these Drivers/Cleaners from 1st November, 1975 and they have no ground to challenge the said relief. In such circum- stances, I think the ends of justice will be met if the con- cerned diivers/cleaners are paid overtime allowance, for excess hours of work beyond 42 hours in a week with effect from 1st November, 1975.

34. At this stage it may also be mentioned that the man- agements contention was that if the duty hours of these djivcrs are rcJuced there would be repercussion and the drivers posted at Ranchi will .ilso make the same demand. But there is no question of any repercussion in this case. The management has fixed lesser hours of work for drivers posted in Calcutta only considering the road conditions at Calcutta and the present award will be applicable to the drivers/cleaners posted at Calcutta only and not drivers post- ed at Ranchi or ehewheic. Further it will appear that even now if a driver from Centrnl Coalfields transferred to Eastern Coalfields or Western Coalfields office at Calcutta their duty hours are reduced to 42 in a week which will appear from Exts. WHO & W-ll and under such circumstances the driven posted at Ranchi cannot take any advantage in any decision given in this award which is applicable only to drivers posted at Calcutta.

35. To sum up, I hold that the motor car drivers/cleaners working in the establishment of Central Coalfields Ltd., at Calcutta are entitled to be detained for duty only for 42 hours in a week and that they are entitled to overtime allowance for working beyond 42 hours with effect from 1st November, 1975.

36. The awnrd is given accordingly.

L N. STNGH, Presiding Officer

fNo. L-19011(10)/78-D.IV(B)]

S. S. MEHTA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 25th November. 1982

S.O. 4122.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec- tion 3 of the-Emigration Act, 1922 (7 of 1922), the Central Government hereby appoints Shrl H. D. Roy, Public Rela- tion Officer, Ministry of External Affairs to be the Protector of Emigrants, Calcutta wi*h effect from the fore-noon of 1st October, 1982.

[No. DGLW. 11017(l)/81-EMIG) R. K. DAS, Under Secy.

(Department of Rehabilitation)

New Delhi, the 29th November, 1982

S.O. 4123.—In exercise of the power conferred by Sub- Section (2) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compen- sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Chief Settlement Commissioner hereby delegates to the Joint Secre- t a ry (Rehabilitation) and Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation), • as the case may be, in the Revenue Department, Government

of Tamil Nadu, the following powers:—

(i) Powers lo hear Appeals under Section 23 of the "aid

Act.

(ii) Power* to hear revisions under Section 24 of the

said Act.

(iii) Powers to transfer cases under Section 28 of the said

Act.

2. This supersedes Notification No. 27(2)/73-SS. II dated the

24th December, 1977.

[No. U19)/Spl. Cell/82-SS. II(B)J

S.O. 4125.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compen- sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Chief Settlement Commissioner hereby delegates to the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation), Government of Gujarat. Revtnuc Department, and exercising the powers of the Deputy Chiof Settlement Commissioner with immediate effect, the powers conferred on the said Chief Settlement Commissioner under following Sections of the said Act, namely:—

(a) wiling a certificate under sub-section (3) of Section 20 in respect of amount of purchase money remain- ing unpaid;

(b) making an order under sub-section (2) of Section 30, in respect of persons, from whom any sum is re- coverable as arrears of land revenue ; and

(c) making complaints as required by sub-section (2) of Sectu'n 35 for enablinjt a Couit to take ciani- zance of an offence punishable under the said Act. 2. This supersedes Notification No 1(3)/Spl. Cell/79-

SS. IKC) dated 8th January, 1982.

[No. l(21)/Spl. Cell/82-SS. Tf(C)}

S.O. 4124.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compen- sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Chief. Settlement Commissioner hereby delegates to the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation), Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department, exercising the powers of Deputy Chief Settle- ment Commissioner, the powers conferred on the said Chief Settlement Commissioner by or under Section 23, 24 and 28 of the said Act with immediate effect for the purpose of past- ing necessary orders under the said sections in respect of Government built properties, acquired evacuee properties, agricultural lands, shops and vacant site^ forming part of the 'Compensation Pool¹ in the State of Gujarat.

2, This Supersedes Notification No. 1(3)/Spl. Cell/79-

SS. tt(B) dated 8th January, 1982.

{No. l(21)/Spl. Ce)l/82-SS. 1KB))

S.O. 4126.—la exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Sectiqn 34 of the Displaced Persons (Compen- sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Chief Settlement Commissioner hereby delegates to the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation), Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department, exercising the powers of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner 'hie powers under rule 87, 88, 90U)(a), 90(l)(b), 90(11), 90(12) and 101, framed under the said Act, with immediate effect for the purpose of disposal of all acquired evacuee properties forming part of compen- sation pool, transferred to the State Government of Gujarat, under administrative and financial arrangements.

2. This supersedes Notification No. 1(3)/Spl. Cell/79-

SS. U(D) dated 8th January, 1982.

[No. I(21)/Spl. Cell/82-SS. II(D)}

S.O. 4127.—In exercise of the powers conferred on me, as Custodian General by Sub-section (3) of Section 55 at the Adminisii ation of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), I, S. K, Baiu, hereby delegate to Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation), Government of Gujarat, Revenue Depart- ment, appointed as Deputy Custodian General vide this De- partment's Notification No. l(21)/SpJ. Cell/82-SS. II, dated the 22nd November, 1982, the following powers of the Custo- dian General with immediate effoct.

(0 Powcis under Sections 24 and 27 of the Act.

(ii) Poweis of approval of transfer of any evacue* pro-

perty under Section 10(2)(O) of the Act.

(iii) Poweis of transfer of cases under Rules 30-A of the

Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules,

ml) £ 1 2 : ^ ° "N o-l ( ³ ) / S p l- Ceii/⁷⁹-ss-

[No, l(21)/Spl. Cell/82-SS. II(F)} S. K. BASU, Custodian General.

(Department of Labour)

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 1982

S.O. 4128.—Whovcas Messrs Chandra Prabha Syntcx (Pri- vate) Limited, B/C Industiial Estate, Agra-Bombay Road, Dewas-1, (MH/3535) ^hereinafter referred to as the "atd establishment) nave applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employee* of the said citabliihment are, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insu- rance which arc more favourable to such employees than the benefits admissible! under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insu- rance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred (o 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 said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commis- sioner, Maharashtra (Bombay), maintain such accounts ana provide 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 of the said Act, within 15 djys from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, sub- mission of returns, payment of insurance premia. transfer ol accounts, payment of inspection charges etc. shall be borne by the employers. '

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of iho rules of the Group Insurance Schemo as approved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alonfiwith 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 the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

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

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

8. No amendment of the provisions, of the Group Insu- rance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra (Bombay) and wher© any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provi- dent Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, givc a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said establishment do not remain covered under the Group In- surance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation or 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 etc. 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 bo cancelled.

11. In case of default, if any made by the employer in payment of premium the responsibility for payment of assu- rance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of deceased members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall he 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 ot the sum assured to the nominee/legal heirs entitled for It and in any case within 7 days of the receipt of the sum assured from the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

[Na S-35O14(328)/82-PF.IU

en di2<> Whereas Nfcsors Hico Products Limited, 771,

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous P ' ° ™ \A*' ^{1 9 52} U9 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the "aicl Act),

AnH whereas the Central Government !•} satisfied that the emtfovecs of thesaid establishment are, without maWng any e pS ontrlSution or payment of premium^ m enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the L^e Insurance Coi-poration of India in the nature of Life Insu ranee which aie more favourable to such employees than the benefits a t o i ^ lc under the Employees Deposit-Lmked Insu- rance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme); •

3. All expenses involved Wthc administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, sub- mission of returns, payment of insurance premia, transfer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc. shall he boine by the employers.

4. The employer shrill display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the Group Insurance Scheme as appioved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, Jilongwith 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 ncces- iary premimum in respect of him to the Life insurance Corporation of India.

6. The employer shalJ arrange to enhance the benefits available to the employee* under ther 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 then the benefit admissible under the said Scheme.

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

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insu- rance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra (Bombay) and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provi- dent Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said establishment do not remain covered under the Group In- surance Scheme of tbc 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 premimum etc. within the dut date, as fixed by the Life Insurance Corporation of Tndia, 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 assu- rance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of deceased . members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for giant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

J2. Upon the death of the member covered under the Scheme the employer in relation to the said establishment iQall 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 (he sum assured from the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

[No. S-35014(327)/82-PF.IT]

S.O. 4130.—Whereas Messrs General Insurance Assurance Building, 4th Floor, Churgate, Bombay-20 (MHy 16050) (here- inafter referred to as the said establishment) have applied for exemption under sub-section (2A) of section 17 or the Em- ployees' 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 (aid establishment are, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insu- rance which arc more favourable to such employees than the benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insu- rance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2A) 6£ 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 said Scheme for a period of three years,

SCHEDULE

1. The employer in relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commis- sioner, Maharashtra (Bombay), maintain such accounts and provide 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 of the said Act, within 15 days from the close of every month.

3. All expenses involved in the administration of the Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenance of accounts, sub- mission of returns, payment of insurance premie, transfer of accounts, payment of inspection charges etc shall b" borne by the employers.

4. The employer shall display on the Notice Board of the cUjblbhrnent, n copy of (he lules of the Group Insurance Scheme as approved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alongwith a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees,

5. 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 us a member of the Group Insurance Scheme and pay neces- s>iy premium in respect of him to the Life Insurance ( orpoi alien of India,

6. The employer shall arrange to enhance the benefits Available to the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme appropriately, if the benefits available to the em- ployees under the said Scheme are enhanced, so that the benefits available under the Group Insurance Scheme arc mine favourable to the employees then the benefits admissible under the said Scheme.

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Group In- smance Scheme, if on the death of an employee the amounL 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 the employee as compensation.

8. No amendment of the provisions of the Group Insu- rance Scheme shall be made without the prior approval of (he Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra (Bombay) and where any amendment is likely to affect adversely the interest of the employees, the Regional Provi- dent Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval, give a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

9. Where, for any reason, the employees of the said establishment do not remain covered under the Group In- surance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation ot 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 premimum etc. within the dut date, as fixed by the Life insurance Corporation of India, and the policy is allowed to lapse, the exemption is liable to be cancelled.

JJ. In case of default, if any made by tho employer in payment of premium the responsibi'ity for payment of assu- rance benefits to the nominees or the legal heirs of deceased members who would have been covered under the said Scheme but for grant of this exemption, shall be that of the employer.

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

[No. S-35014f324)/R2-PF.II1

S.O. 4131-—Whereas Messrs Gheran Engineering Corpora- tion limited, No. 4-A Goods Shed Road. Pollachi-642001. Tamil Nadu State (TN/8505), (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) have applied for exemption under sub- section (2A> of section 17 of the Employees¹ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (herein- after referred to as the said Act);

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the employees of the said establishment arc, without making any separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoyment of benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nahnc of Life Insu- rance which are more favourable to such employees than the benefits admissible' under the Employees Deposit-Linked Insu- rance 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 said Scheme for a period of three years.

SCHEDULE

1. The employer In relation to the said establishment shall submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commis- sioner, Tamil Nadu (Madras), maintain such accounts and provide such facilities for inspection, as the Central Govern- ment may direct from time to time.

2. The employer shall 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 Group Insurance Scheme, including maintenanc* of account¹*, sub- mission of returns, payment of insurance premia, transfer of Recounts, payment .of inspection charges etc shall be borne by the employers

4. TTie employer sh ill display on the Notice Board of the establishment, a copy of Ihe rulaa of the Group Insurance Scheme as appioved by the Central Government and, as and when amended, alongwilh a translation of the salient features thereof, in the language of the majority of the employees.

S.O. 4132—Whereas Messrs Wialchandnagar Industries Limi- ted (Diitillary), Post Office Waichnndnagar, District Pune, M-'harashtra State (MH/1587), (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) have applied for exemption under &

And whereas, the Central Government in satisfied that the employee"; of the said establishment are, without making uny separate contribution or payment of premium, in enjoy- ment of benefits tinder the Group Insurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the nature of Life Insurance whi h are more favourable to such cinployees than ths benefits admissible under the Employees Deposit- F inked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) ;