Subject NOT available

Schedule

Chun Extension Block

(North Karanpnr.i CoalfielJ)

Drawing Number, Rcv/42/82

Dated—27-3-1982

(Showing lands to tii acquired) All Rights

District

Thana Than* Number

Serial Number.

Villige

Area

Remarks

1(5

Ranchi

Bur mil

Part 1. Chun

1000.00 acres

Total area P-or

1000.00 404,68

acres (approximately) hectares (approximately)

Plot minibeu to be acquired in village clnin.

1 (Par0,2,3(Part),4,16(VfttO, 29(Pari), 30 to 5?., • (Parrt, 33. (Pait) 70(Part), 8S(Pftrt), 99(Part), 100 U> 114, 115(Part),fll6(Part),

117,18 (Part), 137(Part), 138(lVt)) 139 to 143, 144(Part), 145(Pari), l46(Part), l^3(Part). l55(Pdrt), 156 to lr'<), 160{Part) 161(Parfl. 162'to 166 J67(Parl),21HPari).2l2(Part\ 1304,131S, \316amll317.

Boundary description: -

A-B line pascos through pli.l number 712, 211 and 167 in village C hun (which form parL common bnuudai) With Manki Colliery

and meets nt point 'R'.

H-C-]

D lines pa^thi.-ugh)i!ot numbo's 167,118, 137, 13S, 144, US, 146, 153, 15S,il60, 161,'60, 167, IIS 116, 113 in village Churi (which form part common boundary with Churi Colliery! and meets at point 'D'.

D-E line passes alone trie part Central line of Saihi Na^i (which H alt i p.irt c immon bo.i i lary with villagai C i.;n \,v\ R.iy a id Churi and Bachr.i) and meets ;it point 'E'

line passes through plot numbois 99, S5, 29, 70, S3, 29, 16, 3 ;uii 1 in ^jUiigi C mn (which fi>rm. part cd n n M b u a lary with Ray L-F

Colliery) and meets at poiut 'F'.

F-A line passes along tho part Central lino of River Dconod (which is also the part of district boundary oT Hftzaribagh and Ranchi and meets at starting point 'A'.

I Mo, 19/54/82-C]

New Delhi, (he l^t D5i_eti!->er-1982

S.O.4327—.In tho notification of ihc Government of India, in the Ministry of Energy (Depaitmcnt of Coal), No. S.p. 339b dated tho 10th November 19ft 1, published in the Gazette of India, Part II section 3 subjection (ii), d-ited the 19th Uccember, 1981, at page 3R74 in column II,

(i) in lines 11 aud 16, "for 29.to 43, 44 (part), 4J, 46 & 49(pan) Read" 29 to 41, 44 (part), 45,46 W (part) ancd

306".

(ii) in line 33, for "acquired u/s (1) of the Coul Act".

read "acq"ir?J u's 1(11 of the Coil A

I .-To. 19/15/8 I-CI]

Sw '.ran Sitig'! Undt r Sc /.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR A REHABILITATION

(Department of Labour)

New Delhi, the 6th December, 1982

S.O. 4328.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute* Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of ihe Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in the indus- trial dispute between the employers in relation to tho man- agement of Messrs Bharat Coking Cool Limited, at Karmik Bhavan, Post Office Saraidhela, District Dhanbad. and their workmen, which wa" received by the Central Government on the 2nd December, 1962.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 'IR1BUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri I. P. Singh, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 22 of 1981

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

of the- I.D. Act, 1947

PARTIES:

Employer* in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., at Karmik Bhawan, P.O. Sarai- dhetia, Dist, Dhanbad and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the employers —Sliri R. S. Murthy, Advo-

cate.

On bchaif of the workman—Shri S. Bo^c. Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad.

STATE : Bihar.

INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dhanbad. 23rd November, 1982

AWARD

This is a refeicnce under S 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Central Government by ita older No. 1^20012(263)/80-D. Ill (A) dated 15-1 1981 has referred thU dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication on the following ternn :—•

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Commercial Directorate of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.. Dhanbad in terminating the service of Shri Debnath Ptasad Daftry with effect from 18th January, 1976 is justified? (f not, to wh.it relief is the said work- man entitled •*"

2. The concerned workman Shn Debnath Prasad was em- ployed a" a daftry in tne Commercial Directorate of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited with effect from December, 1974. His case is that lie continued as such till 17-1-1976. He was paid by vouchers at the rate of Rs. 7 50 per day paid monthly op. the number of days worked. His furthvi case i" that besides him there were two other daftriei in the same office who joined this Commercial Directorate after amalgamation of Coal Board with BCCL. The services of the concerned workman was terminated by the BCCL on the plea that a permanent daftry was transferred from some other office of BCCI-

3. The management has taken the plea that the concerned workman wai appointed as a casual daftry at the rate of Ra. 7.50 per day in December, 1974, but his services were no longer required and therefore in Tuly, 1975 his services wtre tymlnated the reason for the termination was that 2 permanent daftrics were posted in the Commercial Directo- rate because the Coal Bond where they used to work wa* amalgamated with BCCL. The further case of the manage- ment is that the concerned workman used to Nvork In the office of the Commercial Directorate which Is not a mine

1056 GI/82—4

and therefore the Central Government i" not the appropriate Government for making this reference.

4. The plea that the Central Government is not an appro- priate Government has been taken very often in this court. The considered view of Ihis court has been that such of the offices of the BCCL as are directed toward^ the production of coal come within the Central Government notification de- claring coal industry to be a 'contiolled industry¹ with refer- ence to the provisions of Industries (Development of Indus- tries) Act, 1951. The role of the Commercial Directorate has not been exactly defined to an to exclude it from the above notification. It is therefore not possible to hold that Central Government has no juiKdiction as appropriate Goicrn- ment to make thi& reference to this Tribunal. The next point taken is that the concerned workman wa" paid throufih vou- cher* for a, period of seven months from January, 1975 to July, 1975. The entry in support of the same are Exts. Ml to M7. The payment was made through vouchers and the documents in this connection are Exts. MS to M13. The caw; of the management is that in all the concerned workman worked for 146 Jays, It will appear that the concerned worked till July, 1975 and not till January. 1976. The industrial dispute raised by the union shows that his case was that his services were terminated in July, 1975. So the plea of the workman in this court that he worked till January, 1976 cannot be correct.

5. The next plea taken bv the manfiBement is that the claim Js stale because this rcfeience waB made on 15-4-81 when ftnallv hii pmver for giving employment wa" turned down on 18 1-76, The petition of Rastriya Colliery Mnz- door Sangh addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (O, Dhinbad is dated 17-8-78. Prior to that the union had approached the management to consider the case of the con- cerned workman. The noaitive case of the workman is that be approached the authorities for giving him emplovment. His evidence is that be wn" propiised employment in the Press which was newlv started and he had to wait for a sympathetic response from the management of BCCL. This claim therefore cannot be said to be ^*ale.

6. With regard to the contention of the management (hat the conwnwd workman was a casual employee, the plea taken by the workman i& that his service* could not be said to be cartial became be was working on temporary basis against permanent position. It is an admitted position that two posts of daftries were created in the Cornmticial Direc- torate and ho woiked on temporary basis against a per- manent vacancy^ Shri S. Bose appearing on behalf of the concerned workman has tried to make a distinction between a casual worker and a temporary employee. What he meant to say is that casual labour force has to bo kept on the roll for meeting exigencies of work either in the undcigorund mine or on the surface. According to him there is no ques- tion of keeping a casual daf'ry in office. The documents filed on behalf of the concerned workman are Exts. Wl to W.4. Document Ext. W.4 show that the wort load had increased considerably. So Shri Debnath Prasad was en- Raged. The sanction order for pavment to him is dated 10-4-1975. Another order dated 1-5-75 would show that two posts of daftrics were requiied to ba sanctioned to cope up with the workload. The case of the concerned workman is that two posts of daftries were sanctioned, but later on filted up from transfer and hi* case wa" ignored. Now the position is that if the employment of the concerned work- man is treated to be casual then he should have continuous ntt-ndence of 240 days for making him entitled to he a permanent employee. But according to the Standing Order of the colliery a temporary worker has to be made perma- nent bv virtue of hw .service for a period of she month*. The contention of Shri Rose is that the concerned workman can- not be treated as casual in the sen^e as it is understood in the collieries. According to him in the office there are tem- uniprv workmen and oermancnt workmen. His further con- tention is thBt if a list of casual workers is maintained by the Directorate of Commerce trie same should hav") been produced to show the status of the concerned workman. I think that there f"i a rood deal of sense in what Shri Bose •ayi. It n unthinkable that an office would keep a caiual workmpn on a ttost of dnftry. He could at beet be treated ns temporary hand for the period he worked.

7. Shri Bose has contended that the concerned workman should have been employed in the Comm'rcial Directorate

and if not, he should have been provided with a job of daftry in any of the office of the BCCL. In ordinary course the concerned workman should have been mad: permanent in completion of six months, and the sama was not done

8. In view of the above I hold that the management of Commerci.il Directorate of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad in terminating the services of Shri Debnpth Pi\isad daftly with effect from 18th January, 1976 Is not justified. Consequently, he should be put into employment within one month of passing of this award. Ho will not be entitl-d to any back wages.

This is my award.

J. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

[L-20012/263 /80-D.III(A)]

S.O, 4329.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), -iho Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in the indua- trinl dispute bevween the employers in relation to the man- ngsment of East Bhaggatdih Colliery of Messrs Bhnrat Cok- ing Coal Limited, Post Office Jharia, District Dhanbad, and their workmen which was received by the Central Govern- ment on the 2nd December, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri J. P. Singh, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 33 of 1981

In r,hc matter of an industrial dispute under S. 1O(IX<1) of the I,D. Act, 1947

APPEARANCES:

Employers in relation to the management of East Bhog- gatdih Colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Iharia, District Dhnnbad.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the employers—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

On behalf of tho workmen—Shri S. P. Singh, General

Secretary Khan Mazdoor Congrew, Dhanbad.

STATE : Bihar.

INDUSTRY • Coal.

Dhinbad, the 24th November, 1982

AWARD

Th's fa a reference under S. 10 of the I.D. Act 1947. The Central Government by its order No. L-20012(16)/81- D I1KA) dated 2nd June, 1981 has referred this dispute to thto Tribunal for -adjudication on the following terms:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the workmen of East Bhaggat- dih Colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Post Office JhtHa, District Dhanbad that the date of appointment of Shri L. N. Rajwar, Attendence clerk should be regarded as the 1st September. 1944 and not the 2nd February, 1972, is justified If so, to what relief is the saiJ workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman. Shri L. N, Rajwar r th;it he entered into the service of M/s. Central Dohari Colliery on 1st January, 1944 as rejgi"ter keeper under too ' Indian Mines Act, 1923 and Indian Mines Regulation, 1926. SVi; then he his been in regular arid continuous service and W"me n member of Coal Mines Provident Fund with No C'11267 fiom 12th May, 1947 i.e. eversince the introduction of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme in the coal industry The- colliery was taken over by the Central Government on 17th October, 1971 and the service of the concerned workman was retained by the piesent management of' M/s. Hharat Coking Coal Limited. According to him his old CMPF num- ber is continuing. His case is that after the take over Form B register was prepared in which his date of appointment was ihown to be 2nd February, 1972 instead of 1st September, 194*1. This .according to the concerned workman was arbitrary because his service nas been continuous right from 1944. Ho had represented verbally against his wrong entry of the date of appointment and when his grievance was not redressed he raised an industrial dispute in older to correct his date of appointment. Oil failure of conciliation this reference has been m.ide,

3. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that the management of Centr,U Dobari Colliery was taken over by the Central Government on 31st January, 1973 and not from 17th January, 1971, It was admitted that the concerned work-* man waa retained in the service on the same terms and condi- tions of service ai -existed on the date of take over. Accord- ing to the management his date of employment was 2nd February, 1972 on the colliery record. With regard to the Form B register the case of the management is tint BCCL prepared Form B¹ register on the basis of old Form B register p.nd other records maintained by the erstwhile- employer. . Furthermore, it was stated that each and every worker was allowed to verify the correctness of the entry made in tho new Form B register and the identity card register and to put his signature or LTI on tho jinie. The icncirned wo.L- man put his signature after going throvfgh the entry as made in the Form S register and identity c rd rcMs'er in to'xn of acceptance of the correctness of the cntri;'! made therein. He was issued Identity r.ard bearing all the particulars where- in the date of his appcintjnent was shown to be 2nd February, 1972. The- management's further contention is that there may have been break of service of the concerned workman and the erstwhile employer may have pgr\in taken him into the job afresh. But ao far an the BCCL management is concerned hi? service could not be said tp be continuous for the pur- pose of oth:r service benefit*.

4. Both the- parties adduced evidence in support of their respective coses. On behalf of the workmen four documents havc been filed and admitted into evidence. Ext, W. 1 is an appointment letter in the name, of Laxmi Narayan Rajwar as register keeper. The appointment was under the Indian Mines Act flnd Indian Mines Regulation. It has been signed by the manager. The date of appointment shows 1st September, 1944, Ext. W. 2 is an account of Coal Mines Provident Fund for 1952 in the name of Laxmi Narayan Rajwar. Exl W. 2/1 in imotlier account slip. Ext. W. 2/2 ii an account of 1951. Ext, W. 3 is a representation of Shri L. N, Rajwar attendence clerk dated 31st July, 1980. In this letter the concerned work- mnn alleged that he was appoiiite.1 on 1st September, 1944 in Central Dobari Colliery and he became a merrTher of Coal Mines Provident Fund with the number C/11267 which is still continuing. According to him the vear of his service was wrctiRlv mentioned as 2nd February, 1972 after the nationali- sation of the coal mine ir. 1971. His prnycr was that he find already completed 16 yearn of service and according to tho policy decision of M/s. BCCL was entitled for the employment of one of his dependent in the establishment. In fact on this ground he wanted his son to be employed. Ext. W, 4 is dated 27th September, 1977 addressed to the General Manager, Area No. VIII. In this petition Shri Lnxmi Narayan Rajwar on the aforesaid ground wanted his seniority to be calculated from 1st September, 1944.

5. The minapemcnt hns alto filed a number of document* Fxt. M. 1 is P.F. contribution as per 'V statement in respect of StH T_. N. Rniv/er. The r.on'ribuHcn 13 rho^n from the VOT 1967 to 1977. This statement shows that in 1971 flnd 19S2 (here was no deduction of P.F. nt all. In all the other years deductions were made. Ext. M 2 is an extract from the identity card register concerning Shri L. N. Rajwnr. He is !^own to be attentdance clerk and his date of cmnloyment is ?nd February. 1972. His CMPF No. is stated to be C/11267. Ext. M. 3 is a transfer order of L, N. Rajwar and others from South Jhti-ia colliery to East Ehp^Dtdlh colliery. The lnst my cirtificjite Ext. M. 4 shows his P.F. No. to be C/11267 and Form B No. 333, His date of appointment is shown to be 2nd February. 1972.

6. MW-1 Shri R. P. Singh is Sr. Personnel Officer in Emit Bhnggatdih colliery. He haa been handling this case on behalf

4-435

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

Reference No. 4 of 1982

PRESENT :

of the management, and he has proved the documents Ext". Ml to M4. His evidence is tbat from, the records maintained by the private owners of the colliery hi service commenced in the quarter ending March, 1967. In his cross-examination he has said that he was not able to say why P.F. contribution should not be realised from the concerned workman from 2nd February, 1971 to March, 1972.

Shri I. P. Singh, Presiding Officer,

In the matter of an indu;trial dispute under S. 10(1 Ud) of thel.D. Act. 1947

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Barora Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coul Limited Post office Nowegarh, District Dhanbad and their work- men.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the employers—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

On behalf of th© workmen—Shri D. Mukherjee Secre- tary, Bihar Colliery Kamgarh Union, Dhanbad.

STATE :-Bihar.

INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dhanbad, the 29th November, .1982

AWARD

This is an industrial dispute under S. 10 of the Industrial Dispute* Act, 1947. The Central Government by its order No. L-20O12(308)/81-D.m(A) dated 21st January, 1982 has referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication on the following term* :

SCHEDULE

7. The concerned Shri Laxmi Narayan Rajwar (WW.l) hai proved all the documents produced by him. In hi" cios"- cxamination he has said that in the Form B register and hi" identity card the date of hie appointment is §hown to be 2nd February, 1972. He has also admitted that in course of his duty he used to write Form B register al"o. He hud no papers with him to show that any deduction wa" made towards provident fund in the year 1971 and 1972. He hag further admitted that in 1971 he had filed a case before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) against the private owner. The R.L.C.(C) Dhanbad had told him¹ orally that the management would take htm into the job. He haa said that the RLC(C) hud given instruction to the owner p take him bark in the job at the time of Kali Puja of 1971. The RLC(C) had told him that he would talk to the officer of the manage- nient on phone. Four months thereafter he was given the job. His further evidence that at that time Form B register was written over which he put bis signature. The witness WW.l has clarified further that the private owner had termi- nated his job in 1970 and the BCCL gave him new employ- ment from 2nd February. 1972, After 2nd February, 1972 there had been regular deduction of Provident fund from hu pay. Furthermore he has admitted that he never complained before the BCCL after 2nd February, 1972 that the date of hia service mentioned as 2nd February, 1972 was wrong. He has also admitted that he does not have any paper to show his continuous ,>ervice at Dobari Colliery excepj the document Ext. W. 1.

8. It -will appear from the> evidence of WW 1 that he had

"Whether the demand of SShri Montu Dom, Ratan Goswami, Krishna Roy, Gangadhar Goswami Su- dama Roy, Hulas,h Goswami, Sankar Mahato, Pan- chanan Mondal, Panchu Mondal and Rwshu Dhoba for re-employment by the management of Barora colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Nowagarh, District Dhanbad is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned en- titled?"

accepted the case of the management that from 2nd February, 1972 his appointment was made afresh. It further appears that the private owner had terminated his service and he wa" taken back. According to the concerned workman the tako over of the colliery by the Central Government took place on 17th October, 1971. The contention of the managtment is that the Central Doburi Colliery was taken over w.e.f. 31st January. 1973 and not from 17th October, 1971. On behalf of the workman no document has been filed to show that the colliery was takiin in en 17th October 1971. It appears there- fore lhat the private owner of the colliery had terminated 1he service of the concerned workman sometime in the year 1970 rcsultinc a break in his service. This explains the reason why from 2nd February. 1972 fresh date of appointment vyas shown in Form B register. On 2nrl February, 1972 the private owner were still there because the nationalisation took place in 1973. The management of BCCL were bound to treat the concerned workman as an employee with the date of his appointment as 2nd February, 1972. This is reflected In all the papers filed by the management. The evidence therfore leaves no doubt thut there was break in hi$ service and he was ap- pointed afresh. His tervice therefore cannot be said to be continuous for the purpose of gratuity and other benefits.

9. In view of my above discussions, I hold that the demand of the workmen of East Bhaggatdih colliery of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Post office Jharia, District Dhanbad that the date of appointment of Shri L. N. Rajwar, Attendence Clerk should be recorded as the 1st Septemb"t.1944 and not 2nd February, 1972 is not justified. Consequently, the con- cerned workman is not entitled to any rthef.

This is my award.

J. P. SINGH. Presiding Officer [No. L-20O!2(16)/81-D. 1IUA)I

New Delhi, the 8lh December, 1982

2. The case of the concerned workmen Shri Montu Dome and others is that Ihey are alt workmen of Mondal Kend- wadih colliery who had put in continuous service in the colliery for a number of years prior to suspension of mining work of the said colliery sometim; in November, 1971. Mondal Kendwadlh collhry 'stopped functioning due to non- clearance of electricity bills by the then employer because- the electriicty connection had been cui off. The mininR . operation remained suspended from November, 1971. Due to suspension of mining operation the workmen were stopped from work. The coliery management somehow- cleajed the electricity dues in Inly, 1972 when the electricity connection were restored and the management started takinn steps to prepare the mine for mininj; operation. The case of the workmen is that these concerned workmen alonm with others approached the management in July, 1972 to allow them to resume their duties, but the management assured the workmen that all the workmen of the colliery would be allowed to join duties as and when mining operation started picking Up. The operation however, could not be started imm^diateiv at the colliery was flooded due to heavy rain in November/December, 1972. The erstwhile emplover started recmploving few workmen for essential work i.e. for working the mine, etc. The said Mondal Kendwadih COIHTV was taken over bv tjie Central Government w.e.f. 30-1-73. The concerned Workmen n^riR with ofh*r workmen annronch- ed the management asiain for allowing them to resume their duties as they were old ?.nd permanent workrrrn >t that tlm© the concerned workmen were figured bv th~ rnt>Tinee- ment for re-employment nrndtialy as soon t,q the minmit ope- ration resumed. The colliery wa"i nationalised on 1-5-72 and handed over to M/s. Bharat Coking Co$ Limited. The con- cerned workmen aoain al'jne with others armroarhM the management throunh their union viz. Bihar Collierv Karoparh Union to allow these concerned workmen to resume fhefr duties, and pfrfln the collierv mnnairement asiiirrd the union that all the old workemn of the colilerv wouM be taken bir,k after v^rifvine old records of the coiHerv. The case nf tbe concerned workmen is that yhen the mfnfmr operation in 1971 had bean stopped thew concerned workmen wv, neither retrenched nor discharged and a$ such thov continnt 8.O. 4331V.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U of 1-947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in the indus- trial dispute between the emplovers in relation to the man- Bftement of Baroja Colliery of Messrs Bharat CokiriR Coal Limited, Port Office Nawajjarh, District Dhanbad, and their workmen, which waa received by the Central Government on the 7th December, 1982.

to be in the employment ox the said colliery and were en- titled to be re-cinploytd in the collieiy by ihe no>v manage- ment. The new manago/neat however, employed a larjre number ol new h.uids & the colliery by ignoring the claim of the concerned uorhme/i. Ihc case ot the concerned work- men is that iincc they were in the roll of the company prior to Nationalisation Act, lhe concerned worloncn would ba deemed to be in the roll ol the colJieiy i.e. on the appropriate day. The union raised an iniustriai dispute in the name of 93 woikmon in which tkc names of the toncerned workmen could not be included due to inadvertence. Ihc demand of the 93 workmen of Aiunjjl Kendwadih colliery was leferred to Central Government Industrial Tiibunal (No.l) Dhanbad which wui registered as Relerenct* No.22/77. The award was, passed in that reference n favour of the workmen along with their demand tor rc-imtatement with full wages. The concerned workmen apnrouched the management during the pendency of the reference No.22/77 and were atsurcd byi the management that after the award wont in favour of the workmen and if their names appear in the Form B register filed in connection with the above case, they would b© reinstated with full back wages. But after the pronounce- ment of the award they were refused rcemployment although all the workmen ot Reference No. 22/77 were re-employed. The name of the concerned workmen appeared in the Form B register which wa-i taken into evidence on admission of the management in Reference No. 22/77. These concerned work- men were therefore compelled to raise mi industrial dispute through their union vi?. Bihar Colliery Karasarh Union which has resulted in this reference. Tlicir prayer is that they should be rc-omployed w.c.f. November/December, 1972 when the colliery restarted mining operation. They ha\e also claimed full back wages and other cmolumcntR from M/s, Bharat Coking Coal Limited from 1st May, 1973.

3. The case of the management i" lhat these concerned workmen wore never employee, of Mondal Kendwadib colliery prior to take over and nationalisation. Their further case is that atter nationalisation on 1-5-72 Mondal Kcnd- wadih colliery was merged with Barora colliery. All the workmen who were on ihe roll of tho colliery were given employment and some workmen re-employed after opening of the mine pn the basis of settlement and award. So there is surplus workmen in Barora colliery. The demand of the workmen for ro^employinent U &ald to be vague, mis-leading and suffers from delay and latche?. It has been further said that the erstwhile management employed casual and tem- porary workers H and when required and used to terminate their services when their services wero not required. It was therefoic difficult for the lmnnfiement to say if the concern- ed workman at all woiked during the time of tho private owner. The concerned woikmen however are said to be not permanent workmen of Mondal Kcndwadih colliery and at sutfh they could not have any claim whatsoever for employ- ment. The demand of the workmen is said to be illegal, un- reasonable and justified. The management has tried to stress that these concerned workmen h.ive been set up an Interest- ed persons to get into employment by adopting illegal and unfair means. On the above grounds the prayer of the management is to reject the demand.

5. A certiiied copy oi the award of the Central Govern- iiKut iiiduMiiul Inounjl (No, 1) Dhanbad is on the record of this taie. Dinar colliery Kamgarh Union had rcpiesented the caw; of 9J workmen on the same fuels as appear in thin Lzia. Ihc basis ot their claim waj this. Form B register, Ext. W. 1. There was, some contcit about the genuineneis of this document bciore- Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in that caie which waa negative by the Tribunal in the award, it Vidt, also held that due to ihe closure of the pit en account oi disconnection of clectiicity the workers weie stopped from work. There was no lock-ojit, lay oil or strike and to the stoppage of their work ,va$ not undor the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. A point was also raised that the claim mi belated and because it \\as itale no relief could bo granted to the workmen. Tub WUB also negatived with the finding thut it was the responsibility of BCCL to provide them with work in the colliery as they were on the rojl of the colliery at the time of take over and nationalisation of the colliery. None ot these points have been taken in this case by the management either in the written statement or in evidence. The learned Advocate for tho management Shri B. Joshi wisely refrained from using matters which had been earlier decided by the Tribunal No. 1 in a similar case. He ha* admitted that as consequent upon the award of the Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad the workmen concerned in Reference No. 22/77 were given employment. Before me, however, Shri Joshi has tried to show that this document Ext. W. 1 la not genuine. The case putforth by tho management is that since the take over took place the custodian Shri R. P. Pai menac- ed to take hold the documents available in the colliery. There was no Form B register available. From the award of Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad it appears that some bonus registers and some attendance register* were a\ailablo which contained the name* of 10 out of 93 workers of that caso. On consideration of the mnttem placed before the Tribunal it was clearly mentioned in the award that the bonus register and the attendence registers have their evidentiary use for limited purpose only, and on then* basis the question as to whether these 93 wqrkmen were workmei of the colliery or not could not be decided. The Form B register being statu- , tory register were nmple proof of the workers on the roll of tho colliery and so, Ext. W. 1 which is before this Tribunal was accepted as a correct document for coming to a con- clusion. What led the Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to accept it as genuine Wf" the fact that the management admitted be- fore the Tribunal that the Form B register (Ex. W. 1} had been filed before the Conciliation Officer (C) from its own custody. In this caM the management has tired to make OL* a case that this Form B register, Ext. W. 1 was presented before the management after the take over by the union and not by the cx-owner. In this connection management placed one document Ext. M5 nnd another document Ext. M6 a true copy of a letter dated 13-2-73 addressed to Mr. Duttn. colliery manager. The writer of this letter is Shri S. K. Upadhyaya, Receiver. We do not get details, but it appears that at the time of take over the colliery was in possession of Shri S. K, Upadhyayn, Receiver, appointed by the Civil Court. Shri Dutta appears to hava txked for document* with regard to Mondal Kendwadih colliery. Shri S. K. Upadh- yaya, Receiver informed him that the court fa to be opened on 16-2-73 after it was closed on 8-2-73. He anked Mr. Dutta to see him in tho afternoon of 16-2-73 in his office, and to take from him all the relevant papers. Through Ext M5 dated 14-2-73 Shri Dutta informed the custodian. Group II, Area No. that the relevant papers would be available on 16-2-73. We do not know what happened, but we can get some Idea, from the letter, Ext. M7 which is dated 4-5-73 written by Shri B. P. Pal. custodian to Sfiri S. K. Upadhvnya, Advocate Dhnnbad Court. The subfect matter is—"Labour strength of Mondal Kendwadih colliery under your Receivership" Thia Is the direct request by the custo- dian to the Receiver to send the name* of all workers work- ins in Mondal Kendwadih coIHerv prior to the take ever along with other document* showing the names and wane* paid. We do not know what happened thereafter. The management In this case has produced a list of staff nnd workers. Ext. Ml and al*o ano'ner Ha: nf staff. Fxt. M3 urcpared by BCCL after nrtionalisation. Ext. M2, is t>ag" No. 7 nnd 8 of the above Man power lirt and custodian's report, F^xt. M4 is a statement of Shri Mnnrwan Omni. This document have been filed to ahow that the custodian nnd the BCCL prepared Man pow^r !'"• on the basis of wch of the documents a* were> available in the absence of tb© Form B register not produced bv the manBgernent of the private colliery. In none of theso document* the workmen 4. In this reference tho only point for consideration is as to whether these concerned workmen were employee! of Mondal Kcndwadih colliery at the time when work had been restored in the colliery. This matter is not in dispute that at the time of take over by the Central Government the colliery was not doing any mining operation. The colliery actually started functioning after nationalisation when BCCL took over as owner of the colliery. The simple cose of the concerned workmen is that 91 workmen had been re-employ- ed by the management of BCCL by virtue of an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbod in Refprenra caso No. 22/77. The award was passed on the bails of Form B register which showed the names of 93 workmen. Before Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal (No. 1) Dhanbad Form B register was pro- duced by the management showing the names of those 93 workmen and the name became the basis of the award. These workmen claimed that their names appear in this very Form B register It was called for from tho circtodvi of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad where it was Iving after the disposal of Reference No, 22/77 of Centrfil Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1) Dhanbad. This document bas been proved and marked Ext. W. 1 A certi- fied copy of the award hat been filed on behalf of tho workmen.

of Ref. 22/77 and the workmen of this case are mentioned and for this reason it is stud that Ext, W. 1 contains their names cannot be accepted. Now let us see if this argu- ment can stand.

6. It is no doubt truo th.it tile custodian and the BCCL relied on Ejd. Ml and luvt. J\I2 anj Ext. M3 for assessing the number of worteis oi 'Mo-ndul Kendwadih colliery. Shri Manpuran Goswami is a witness in this case and is WW. 1. In fact hei is the onl> witness in this case He was attendance clerk in Mondal Kenuv.adih colJicjy since 1957. He has deposed about the history of this case resultinji in Reference* No. 2277. His evidence is thut ihc dispute was re- ferred by the Central Government to Cential Government Industrial Tribunal 1; employment. The idea it to show that the list given in his statement Ext, M4 and the list of workeis as mentioned in E*t. W. 1 do not tally, and therefor* Ext. W. 1 must lie rejected as not genuine. This is a far fetched argument, because we do not know under what cirunnRtanecs the statement Ext. M4 was taken by th" tnanasernent of the cclliery. Moreover, the attention of Shri Mnnpuran Gosw.uni, WW. I was not drawn to the statement, Ext. M4. It v/ill appear that the docu- ments, Fx. Ml to M7 were all filed on 24-11-82 and much before that the evidence of WW. 1 had been concluded, Tn fact with regard to these documents the contention on be- half of the workmen is that they could not be admitted into evidence, MW. 1 Shii S. P. Singh was examined and cross- examined on 7-10-82 and he was recalled on 24-11-82 to prove thesr documents. Shii D. Mhukhcjjco, Advocate on behalf of the workmen has vehemently urged in course of his argument that these documents have been prepared and fabricated to defect the case of the workmen According to him if this documents were genuine they should have been filed earlier in this caso and should also have been filed Krore the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No, 1), Dhanbad in Reference cjse No. 22/77. Th?ie is a pood deal of seme in this argument. Moreover, if L'xf. W.I is not a penuine document there ".boTild have been some other Form B register rg maintained by the private owner. We have already seen that prior u take over the colliery was under th? manapetnent of the court Through a Receiver and the custodian demanded doctimentt of the coljierv which wai In custody of the court. In tlas case wr do not know what papers had been received by the custodian from the Re- ceiver. But this appeai<) to be an admitted position that at the time of conciliation, Ext. W.I had been filed by the management of BCCL.

7. Now let us sro jf there i^ any truth in the evidence of MW. 1 Shri S. P. Sinnh. In his cxamination-in-chief MW 1. Shri S. P. Singh "has stated that this register, Ext. W. 1 remained in the custody of the management and at the time of conciliation the Conciliation Officer demanded from the management th.it lcgister which was filed before him. He said that accordingly the management filed this register. Shri S. P. SinRh hims-a'f WHS handling the conci- lation proceeding on behalf of the management. Now in view of this admission in examinuti<"n-in-chief he cannot be heiud to lay that thii Ponn B iepisfer wj" produced by the union before the management. Sufficient it to say that the management had this register in their custody but did not rely on this document for the purrose L>I preparation the Man Power fist and tflkinu th? woikmen into employment. This had led to the earlier reference No. 22/77 Bnd the present reference.

8. With regard to ths rtlsn of the workmen that they had approached th? management for employment, WW-1 has proved Fxt. W. 3 winch is a representation. The receiving clerk Ehri AyKot made the endorsement for receipt of the representation. Ext W 3 Stiri Toshi hnc not tnkrr. the plea of belfted claim beforn me. But the very case of the work- men sui^eit that they wer* pnsured thut if the result in Ref. case No. 22/77 ended ir favour of the workmen, they would bo similarly employsd because their caw also was based upon same facts. It is clear that tho management of BCCL should have put 'hem in employment in the same manner as the workmen of Rcf. case No. 22/77 ot Tribunal No. I, Dhanbdd were put into employment. Since this was not done the conduct of the rn'magement cannot be sujd to bo justified.

8. Thus having considered all aspects of the case I hold that the demand of S/Shri Mantu Dom, Ratan Goswami, Krishna Roy, Gangadhar ©oswarai, Sudama Roy, Hulush Goswami, Sankar Mahato, PRiichanan Mondal, Penchu Mon- dal and Rashu Dhoba for re-employment bv the manao:- ment of Barora colliory of Me<;srs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Nowaparh, District Dhanbad is justified Consequently, the workmen are entitled to be re-employed in the colliery with effect from 1st Mav, 1973. They are also entitled to back wages and other emoluments with effec* from 1-5-1973.

This is myi award.

J. P. SINGH. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tiibunal

(No. 2), Dhanbad. INo. L-20O12(3O8)/81-D.in(A)} A. V. S. SARMA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 8th December, 1982

SO. 4331,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal No, 2, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the State Bank of India, Nagpur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 1st December, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

PRESENT:

Shri M. A. Deshpande, Presiding Officer.

Refeience No, CGIT-2/31 of 1982

PARTIES:

Employer in relation to the Management of State Bank

of India,

AND

Their Workman.

APPEARANCES :

R>r the Employer—Shri G. G. Modak, Advocate. For tho Workman—Shri B. N. Deshmukh, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Banking. STATE : Maharashtra.

Bombay, the 6th November, 1982

AWARD

By their order No, L-12O12(246)/81-D.II(A) dated 15th lune, 1982 the Central Government have referred the fol- lowing dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :—

"Whether tlie action of the management of State Bank of India, Kingsway, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri A. R. Gaikwad, ex-Watcrman-cum- sweeper or Bori Arab Branch Taluka Dw,*r\vah. Distiict Yeotmal with effect from the 27th Novem- ber 1979 i" justified 7 If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. It in a dispute between She Bank namely the State Bank of India, Bori Arab Branch, Taluka Dwarwah, District Yeotmal and part time employee namely Shri A. R. Gaikwad

5. On the sircrsth of the pleadings, the following issue*

miie for dcteijninjtion and my findings thereon are:—

FINDINGS

ISSUES

1.

Yes

Whether ihe Bank proves that Shri A. R. Gaikwad was guilty of the misconduct o" alleged.

2.

Ye"

If yes is not the order of dismissal valid and proper ?

3.

Does not arise.

If the finding on issue No. 1 goes against the Bank to what velief the workman would be 'entitled ?.

At per award.

4. What award?

REASONS

6. Now it is true that the order of termination ns "uch' Wnterman-'rum-Sweepcr serving in the said branch whoso (services. were ultimately terminated, by letter of termination dated 27th Novembci, 1979. The contention of tlie work- man ns is seen from the claim statement Ex. 2/W is that the said termination in without any cause and without any rhyme and reason and that the chaige levelled against him namely tho theft committed of Rs. 1000 frorn the Branch was concocted and false one. It was alleged that there was a deficit of Kb. 1000 in the Bank notice on 31st July, 1979 and the contention of tlw Bank was that Shri Gtiikwad was responsible for the aatnc. It is alleged thut gross negligence on the pait of the Manager and the Cashier is tried to be iaddl:d on the uoikinan who it is further alleged wus pres- surised by tlic Bank authorities to ailmit the commission of th^ft of Rs. 100O and out of fear and respect he admitted the said fdct. It is alleged that to seciute admission he win man-handled by the permanent Messenger of the Bank and thtit he was compelled to Rive in writing admitting the re- moval of the money. It is alleged that on 21st December, 1979 all of a sudden the workman wis called to the Bank and was piid Rs. 70O and at the same 'rime was told that ho way completely innocent and that the amount was detected in the strong room of fh" Bank in the other side of the cupboard. It is alleged that there wps never any enquiry against the workrmn and lh"t when he had not committed 'flie theft and was not. guihy of the removal of Bank money. the action of the State Bank of India in terminating his service can never be s-id to have been justified and aa such the workman deserved to be reinstated wiih all requisite reliefi.

does not speak of any discharge or dismissal on the Bround of mincorduct but the Bank has now taken a stand that though tho order is innocuously worded rendering it to be a termination simplicitor on the ground of loss of confidence, it was m fa;t on account of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the. workman concerned namely the theft of Rs. 1000 from the strong room when the cash WHS con- veyed there by the Branch Manager, and that the action J" valid. There vvas an attempt to suggest that the enquiry was tried to be conducted but because there was no participation or non-cooperation on the part of the workjman the attempt to conduct the enquiry failed but there is no evidence to this effect.

3. By their written statement Ex. 3/M the Bank has plead- ed that 'die reason for the termination of Shn Caikwnd's services is that Ihey having been found the shortage of cash and the workman on being questioned having voluntarily admitted to hive removed tho amount, and by addressing a letter dated 3Ut July, 1979 requested the Bifinch Manager to deduct a sum of Rs. 100 p-er month from his salary and allowance, the Bank had no other alternative but terminate the setvices. It is alleged that on 31st July, 1979 after the close of the ijanivctioii, the Casbier-cum-Clerk Shri Ghodesh- wnr entrusted the rash balance of Rs. 6498.65 to the Branch Manager who counted the cash personally and verified the correctness and kmt it locked in the Drawer of his table. It is alleged that at about 3.45 p.m. wiih the help of Shri Gaikwad. the Branch Manager conveyed the cash and cash register to the Strong room and deposited the money in the We. The next day happened to be a holiday and therefore non-wnrkina day. On 2nd August, 1979 it is alleged that (he; Cashier d.'d not feel it necessary to count the cash at Ihe time of cornmf"nccm°nrl of work but when at the close of tho day he verified the cash, he found out shortage of Rs. 1000 whereupon tha matter was immediately reported to the Br.'nch Mrnag-er arid the Branch Manager made enquiries with all mscibers of staff but nothiuc turned out from the said enquiry.

7. Norrnpliy it ii the workman who complains that the order of termination though innocuously worded is frought wi\h punitive consequences and consequently is required to establish tie same. In the instance case however the tables nre slightly turned. It ig the Bank who issued the order of termination now has turned round and .tried to contend that it was not \x simple tc. mination though the order is worded accordingly but as u result of misconduct. When the work- men is pleading accordingly, the chance is required to be given to him to establish the said fact. Therefore merely becmiss such a plea is not coming forward from the work- man but from the Bank itself, nothing prevents or prohibits this Tribunal from finding out that is the real nature of the order. In Staii Transport Controller Vs. Industrial Tribunal. Orissa, 1966(11), LLJ, 376 it has been held that even if the termination of services i% a case of discharge pure and simple, it would not stand in the way of general Courts to go be- hind (he form of the order and to find out its real nature. Therefor:; when the Bank is pleading the misconduct who passed the final order, the said fact'will have to be invistigat- td into and since no enquiry was held, it would be for the Bank to establish the plea of misconduct and the resultant consequences. The Lordships of the Supreme Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. d India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. their workmen reported in ,1973(1), LLJ, page 278 have held that iF no enquiry has been held by the employer, or if the ennurry is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order hss to give opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It was further added that It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time^ justifying his action and it is open to tho employee to adduce evidence contra. The fact that there was no enquiry held before the order in question, cannot in any way hamper the case of the employer and if they can ndduce cogent evi- dence to prove the misconduct, evidence for the first time before the Tribunal, that evidence will have to bo considered' and finding rioted thereon.

would not be a case of retrenchment but a case of punuh- 'rnent, thereby relieving the Bank, from following the provi- sions of Section 25F etc. Against this if the proof of mis- conduct is not sufficient, then it would be a retrenchment, and if it amounts to retrenchment and compliance of Section 25F is expected without which the order would not be sus- tainable In this case it seems after the reference some amount was remitted to the woikman but as seen frojn the wording of Section 25F, the payment of retrenchment com- pensation, notice pay etc. is to be simultaneous with the action in question and having not so done, the subsequent payment tried to be made afterwards would never come to the rescue of the employer.

9. -Everything therefore depends upon (he proof or other- wise of the guilt of theft of Rs. 1000. In this connection Shri D. S. Gokhalo the then Branch Manager. Bori Arab Branch of State Bank of India has stated that on 31st July, 1979 as usual at about 2.45 after the transactions were closed, the Cashier Shri Ghodeshwar counted (he cfish 1(nd entrusted it to him. According to the witness the practice was to hand over the cosh and the Cash Balance botA to the Branch Manager. Shri Gokhalo says that he verified the cash and found it to be correct but instead of removing the same to the Strong rooim, since he was busy ho kept the cash book and the currency notes in the drawer of the desk which was locked by h;m. It is further stated that about 3.15 P.M. h" called the Waterman-cum-sweeper who was then cleaning the utensils & handed over the cash balance book containing the currency notes and asked him to accompany him to the strong room which is at a distance of 8 ft. from (he place where Shri Gokhale was working. It is alleged that the cash register with its consents wai deposited in the safe which was locked and then both of them left the strong room.

and to cairy the Cash register book with the cash or other- wise can never be acceptable.

11. It is true truu the Bianch Mmuger should have been n,ore careful and he should not have taken the help of Watcrman-cuno-Swcepcr for the said purpose but should have relied upon other mcmbtis of the staff at least a peon posted in the Bank. But this docs not mean that Shu Gokhale's action in requisitioning \he service of the Water- man-cum-Swcepcr for the sji'd purpose there w anything dis- bshevcablc in the said assertion, f havr fione through the evi- dence of Shri Gokkdi and 1 find that he was not a peison who would concoct any evidence on 'ihe contiary fiom the demenour which I ntihec, the witness was found to be simple minded officer in my view ii is beyond his capacity to con- coct anything falsely and implicate a member of sub-staff serving under him.

12. It '3 not that there is the oral evidence of Shri Gokhalo flone but there is clear proof in the evidence of Ex. MW-2 which fully vindicates the stand of the Branch Manager. No doubt thcie are discrepancies in the evidence of the Branch Manager and the Cashier and it is just possible that Vx. 10/M v.hich was executed by the workman on the same day, due to lapse of time or something Plui Ghqdcswar is not support- ing that statement but the effect remains the same as ad- mittedly Ex. 10/M bears his signature and even if its con- tents arc not in his hand ihe fact th"t the signature appeals below the wrning shows that it must have been acceptable to him. and only inference possible is that on the date the writing wns executed the fact of commission of theft stood admitted. Tho writing Ex. 10/M docs not bear the date but \he fact it bears the s'fen^ture of the workman when read with the fact thit 1 that any workman would admit to have removed Rs 1000/- fiom the balance of the Bank unless the fact was true or unlesS there are reason to believe that trie admission w..s procii'ed by coercion which for the Te iions stated is ab°ent in the present cane. In the cross- examination of Sbri Ghodesw.tr thorijjh it was not neceisary it was brought on record that in the part Shri Gaikwad wit involved m similar type of mischief and had made cood tho loss. Having regard to ths evidence of the Branch Manager and having-regard to the writing Ex. 10/M and hiving re- gard to the circmnstnnices as stated by the two Bank witnes- s?<;, I urn convinced that talcing opportunity of the fact that help of the workman water rhan-cum-sweeper wns taken and noticing the cash bnlnnce of the day, the workman succeeded in hoodwinked '.he Branch Manager and removed ths sum of Rs. 1000/-.

13. The fact tint the workman wss guilty of this conduct h corroborated bv the deposit of the money on various (l^^_ tot il lyirg to Rs. 1000 Vsutviniz that ^. 10/W was obtained by cocrnion we would ha^c noti:cd the reaction on the p s r t of the employee. He vould have complained to the surer'or o^iccrs aiicjifnp against OFI the writing in Ex. 10/M thf only conclusion possible h th^it th^re wns rr-p-ivirent bscnuso there was remove of the cash from the Cash book

14, Shn Nagituire h?s been examined to render carrobn- l.T'ion to th- eviHcnns of the Brnnch Mwnnper, He says that when h" c.:;rre to kmw that Shri Gaikv/ad incurred heavy losses in gambling, he conveyed the some information to (be Br nrh Mnmper who stprted mnkintr enquirie-i and iMt'mateh' Irrl TO fhr nllc^cd confe-sion nf the woiman and thr -ewrfnt ^-deposit of money. Tt is true that *hp ev,dence of shri N:?fnmirc Js n-1 d'"rc-t evHcnc^ bi'f then what w.'s Virnt bv him voi convevrd tn th" Branch MsTrig-r, a s*tit?mcnt BiiTinoitcti by thp E*nnch Man:iger bimM-lf. Really sne^'ing neither Shri Goih"!!- nor Shri' Ghode?hwar nor ^hri Niffpnri^ hnd vn\ renson to fitn^e f?ils-]y r"nin^t the

w r i - m s n. ^ T •v b e . t h at S h ri G -;M " t i ll i" - .. < - O T ^C m o n ey

tn the ^hon K-cper but it would not mean thit he would b- 'O nnrt'.-"i ", to d.Tvrse falsely rgiinst the wmtmnn which torment to his knowledge may result in loss of service.

10. The CHse of the employer is that on 2-8-1979 which was the working <; in <*vMrr"e tint the vorking hours nf the B"nk were from 10.30 P M. It is therefore not poss'W" to believe the plea that serving of t*a take place at 11.10 A.M. thit is in the midst of the working of fbe Bank. I can undertake ser'ing tei before (he work begins but it enn never be during the working hours which by serving tea "h°re m likelihnM of 3 break fnr .-> few irinu'es, When Shri Goithaic says that the workman was preparing fi after 7.30 P.M. wid for that purpose he v f>s re-nttendintr Ihe Birk and he WJS pa;d Rs. 50 for doing the part time work, having regard to the c'-curmtanccq rs 'fated and having regard tn 'he nmof of the pivment of R 4440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 25, 1982/PAUSA 4, 1904 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

defenw. Similarly, hesays that the Branch Manager returned Rs, 700/- hack to him but had there been any such re- payment, which is denied by the Branch Manager himself, s/jinc soit of voucher or receipt was expected since to the knowledge of the wotkman the deposit of money by him in the Bank WJS likely to lead to adverse inference.

15. The result is that the fact Shri Gaikwad removed Rs. 1000/- without the knowledge of Shri Gokhdle from the C;it>h Balance from the possession if the Bank is clearly es- tablished and it cannot be anything else but theft of Bank money amounting to misconduct. It was a sum of Rs. 1000/- which is not an insignificant sum and secondly even in the past Shri Gaikwad indulged in similar practice and if therefore the Bank decided to part with the company of such a. workman no fault can be found for such action. On the contrary in my view it was the only action plausible in the instant case. The conclusion therefore is that vhe action of the State Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri Gaikwad is fully justified, The reference therefore fails.

Award accordingly. No order as to costs.

M. A. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Dt. 19-11-82

|No. L-12O12(240)/81-D.IKA)] N. K. VERMA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the Gin. December, 1982

S.O. 4332.—In puisuancc of section 17 of the Industiial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Indus'.iial Tiibunal No. 1, Bombay, in the industrial dispute betwoen the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan T alneth Colliery of Messrs Western Coalfields Limited, Chandrapur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government an Ihe 27th November, 1982.

BEFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL {TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT BOMBAY

PRESENT:—

Justice M. D. Kambli E?qr., Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2 of 197B

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery

of Western Coalfields Limited.

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

For the employer—Mr. L. S. Sin"h, Advocate. Mr. S. N.

S'hukla, Senior Personnel Officer.

For Wardha Vollev Collieries Workers' Union—Mr

S. P. Singh, Genl. Secretary.

2. The workman, N. P. Rajir was appointed in the Hindus- tan Lidpcth Coluciy on 10-10-1974. At the relevant time he wus woiking as a Pipe Mazdoor. The Colliery has under- ground working and there is u road/passagc/incline for jjoing undergiound lor the woiknun employed in the mine. It is the case of the employer that ihiiie are specific instructions that all the workmen have necesarily to go underground thioush the particular passage/road. There is another haulage road over-bridge lad for CMiiyins loaded and unloaded stubs. The coal mined undeijzround is brought to the surface; through mine-cars over the rails by the haulage ro;.d and the empties are taken back through the same road. It is the case of the employer that inine-cais tuvjl at high ipeed and there arc very often derailments. It is also their case that protective roof or this haulage roa dis not as safe as other roads. Other roads ore frequently inspected and safety is set at a very high level. The haulage road roof does not receive so much attention because this ii only used for carrying mine- tais Under Rule 38(3Hb) no person shall except for some justifiable pvu-poso, go into any part of the mine other than that part in which he works or travels to or from his working place by any road-way othsr than the proper travelling roatt way. Accidents'causcd in the mines, according to the employer, are viewed scrioiidly and the management is liable for prose- cution, fmc andimprisonment under the provisions of Coal- Mines Act and all provisions regarding safety measures arc required to be complied with very strictly.

3. It is the case of the employer that on 10-9-1976 the workman was lound travelling thiough the haulage road at 3L/main dip junction, at about 12.15 P.M. The cat,e of t ne employer is that he was going to workshop to bring the rubber insertion sheet for pipe joining as desired by the filters. Instead of goinK by the travelling road he went by the haulage road atjd thus violaged the rules and reculatfons and departmental instructions. The employer therefore, issued him a charge-sheet on 10-9-1976 charging him with the contra- vention of relevant rcfjulaliona and instructions According to tne employer, the workman submitted a reply on 11-9-1976 and admitted his guilt. No inquiry was, therefore netessary. However, to give one more charge to the workman the departmental inquiry was held. Mr. H. K Bajaj, Assistant Manager of the Colliery conducted the inquiry in the presence 01 me workman. At his inquiry afiain th; workman uncondi- tionally admitted his guilt as mentioned in the charae-shceL inc Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted a leport holding the workman pally of the misconduct alleeed anainst him. On me bans of tho findings of tlio Inquiry Officer the employer terminated the services of thc woikrrnn,

nf ih wt hJ l⁸ twe,m C nt °,[ c l,a im m cd hy t hc General Secretary of the Wardha Valley Collieries Workers' Union .hereinafter rl

sa ln t ho service depended on the report T

S h T M ^ f t v¹¹ theicfore *? &eivicc Qf one mto- ?lfl o ' B 1 ial ?h u n aya 'v c rc ut'lj8ed. The case of the

S""1i" ¹⁰ "" V"on, te wa, calledI by tte InSuiri am£

what^r¹/¹⁰^¹¹-¹¹-⁷⁶ j? WtLnn-£Ho

puipoac i.e. for taking drinking water after completion of his meal, It was denied that he had gone by that road to biinc the rubber ins.£rti'.m sheet lor pipe joining as desired by the fitters. No water facilities were provided by the emp- loyer of the mine for the workmen working in 3L. 6L, and ut 7L/9 dip pumps of mine No. 1. A water tub wad supplied t0 the coal fillers only on the late hours from the suiface. The proper arrangement for drinkirg water as required under Section 19 ot tho Mines Act, 1952, were not made. The facility of supplying water bottles to the woikman w^ pro- vided for from 3rd December, 1976, just afLer three rtlonths of this incident. It was further pleaded that assuming that the delinquent workman was going to the workshop to bring the rubber insertion for the pipe joininu, it was also a justi- fiable purpose. It was asserted that the 'workman can use any shortest way for fulfilling his duty. It was lastly pleaded that the action was taken Jgainst the workman during the emergency. It was alle^od that the Manager in order to show that he was very efficient in hie work., started a number of false inquiries against the employee;,. J1 w;">, therefore, prayed that the workman ahouM be reinstated with back wages end continuity of service.

6. The employer by their written statement and the re- joinder to the statument of claim pleaded that full water faci- lities tire provided by the management of the mines for ths workmen working in 3L, 6L, and 7L dip pumps of mine No. 1. It was asserted that there was no justifiable reason for the workman to (jo by the haulage road. With regard to the domestic inquiry it was pleaded that it was legal and proper and that there was no violation of Ihe piindples of natural justice. It was denied that (he iaterpieter, Mr. Ehimaya was not present throughout the inquiry proceedings. It was assert- ed that bo was competent to iwt as interpreter and he acted aa interpreter. It was prayed that if (his Tribunal held that th; inquiry was not proper the employer be allowed to Lad evidence.

wages or compensation amounting to R". 2 00O, The employer (•talcs that the workman should not make any claim to any more amount on any account for thi period from the date of dismissal to this date. The Union agrees to this. The Union insists that the workman should in the first instance be re- instated in service at the place from where he w-as dismissed. The Union insists that the pay and allowances of the work- man on reinstatement should be fixed on the basis that he was in continuous service. The management agiees. The employer aRrees to pay the above amount to tho workman wiihin a couple of months. The employer states that is should he permissible for them to transfer the workman at any place within the area of Wardha Valley. The Union states that it should have right to protest against this and raise a dispute if the punishment ineted out by way of such transfer is not in keeping with the Rules and Regulations.

Nagpur, dated the l?ih ilav of October, 1982.

Sd/- Sd/-

(S. P. SINGH), (S. N. SHUKLA), General Secretary, Wardha Valley Sr. Personnel Officer Collieries Workers' Union. Sub-Area No. III.

[No. L-18012f4)/77.D.IViB)]

New Delhi, the 8lh December, 1982

S.O. 4333.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hcrtby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, lab.llpur, ir. the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nj&jan Colliery of Messrs Western Coalfields Limited, Kantian Area, District Chhitklwarn, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 7th Decem- ber, 1932.

UEFORF HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. R. VYAS (RETD), PRESIDING OFFICrR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

IABALPUR (M.P).

Case Mo. CGIT/LC (R) (15) of 19S2

PARTIES :

rm.pl°l¹ers in relation to the management of Nandan Colliery of Mjssrs Western Coalfields Limited, Kantian Area, District Chhindwara (M. P.) and thdr workmen, >"hri Tilak Dhari ropre^entcd through the Bru'itiva Knyla Kliudan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), P. O. Chandjnictta, Distt. Chhindwara (M. P.).

APPEARANCES :

as directed by the Civil .Engineer from lime to time. Though other workers viz. S/Shri Awadhcsh Singh and Harish Chandra and others, who were employed in Category IV as loading mates and who were doing similar work were re- gularised in 1978 in Category 1I>, but he was not so regula- rised by tfoe management. Th.5 workman is, therefore, entitled to not only rcgularisation as Category II workman but all the benefits of wages etc. from April 1974.

3. The management has opposed the claim of the workman firstly on the ground that the dispute now referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was not raised either by the work- man or his Union with tho management; that presently the workman Is employed in the Nandan Project on transfer from Darnua Colliery from 13-2-1977; that Nandan Colliery is not at all concerned cither for promotion or regularlsation of the workman on the pnst demanded by him; that in tho Newton Chickli Colliery the workman was employed as a loading mat* in Cat. IV; that from there he was transferred to Damua Colliery and then tn Nandan Colliery in the same capacity; that he never worked ns a Work Supervisor; that he did not possess tho necessary qualification either for work- Ing or for being appointed as a Works Supervisor; that the Nandan Colliery where the workman is presently employed h a separata administrative unit and is not concerned with the claims of the worknnn against the other two collieries whTo ho was employed and that on no justifiable basis the claim made by the workman can bo accepted,

4. Rofomdrr was fi1ad only by the management in which it is ntnted that the case of the other workmen referred to Tn the statement are entirely different and fhat thev were promoted after they had cleared bv thi Departmental Pro- motion Committee.

5. No reloinder was filed bv the workman. On these pleadings of the parties the following Issues were framed :—

ISSUES

1. Whether the claim mad; by the workman for regulari- sation from 4-4-1974 is maintainable against ihe management of the Nandan Colllcrv If not, what is its effect on the present reference 7

2. Whether the workman, Shri Tilak Dbnrl. i3 entitled to be regularised at ft Works Supervisor in Clerical Gr. IT with effect from 4-4-1974. If so, on which establishment ?

3. To what relief are the parties entitled to ?

6. My findings on these issues arc as under :—

Iisue No. 1.—The claim made bv the workman agafns.t Nandan Colliery where he ia presently employed for re- gularlsation from 4-4-1974 is not maintainable either on fact* or in law.

Issue No. 2.—As per findings on Issue No. 1 above.

Issue No. 3.—The workmen is not entitled to any relief.

7. Oral evidence has been given by both the parties. Docu-

mentary evidence has been given only by the workman.

Reasons for the aforesaid findings :—

8. Issue NO3. 1 & 2.—As both the issues are with regard

to same subject matter they are being considered together.

9. In his statement the workman, Tilak Dhari (W.W.I) has stated that vide Ex. W/l he wai appointed a* a Works Supervisor in the Damua Colliery. Ex. W/2, Ex. W/3 and Ex. W/4 are the other oiden passed by tho Civil Engineer with regard to his work ns Works Sunervisor. He also says that he is educated only upto the VIII Standard.

10. In hi

11. It would thus ba clear thr.t so far as his oral evi- dence is concerned, he joined the present management in February 1977 as a Mate only and not a Woiks Supervisor. He does not have the experience either for pieparirg esti- mates of works or to draw a map or to take the measure- meets. He has not been considered and cleared for promo- tion by the D.P.C. Tho question, thercfoie, is as to whether on the basis of tho documentary evidence he is justified in claiming promotion in the present management pot only from the date when he joincc! in Febuiary 1977 but also from a previous dats when he was appointed and worked in two other collieries,

12. Ex, W/l i" an office order bv the Civil Engineer to tho Darnua Group Collieries in which the workman has been described as a Sup-iw^r Mate in his Civil Engineer- ing Section. The office Oidcr gives direction to the workman and some others also Hoarding the works allotted to them. This oider dated 19-7-74 cunnot be construed as an order appointing him as a Works Supervisor because It is addressed to Supeivisor Mates aad not U Works Supervisors.

13. Ex. W/2 is another office order by tho Civil Engineer Dainua Group in which the order though the namo of Tilak Dhari appears at no place it] ink showing him as Work* Supervisor but who has uritk-n this name and his designation as Works Supervisor Is not cle,ir. The order in endorsed to all the o/e'secrs and Work Sii] c-vhois by name working in th* Civil Engineering Depaitment. Such a casual address does not amount to an order appointing the workman M Works Supervisor.

14. Ex. W/3 is a copy of the GuiJa Lines for the Work Supervisors, At the bottom the name? of Tilakdhari, Awndcsh Singh and KartJi Chandra appear and they arc shown as Road Supervisors. This document also does not amount io an appointment of the workman as a Works Supervisor.

15. Ex. W/4 is an of ice order addressed to the Super- visory Stall and the wJrknwn i? one nf the persons to whom this office order is addressed. Jt only shows that the workman is a member of th? Supervisory Staff but it does not specify his designation. Accordingly, in my opinion, the documentary evidence reliid by the workman does not show that in the present manat^me-nt he ha? either wo4ed as Works Supervisor or at any tjuia appointed by the management on the post of Works Supervisor.

16. The workman has claimed reguiarisation by way cf promotion from 1974. He admittedly joined the present management in Fcbruaiy 1977. His clajm, if any, should have been against the previous management also where he worked from 1974. Accordingly so far as the nrcsent management lj concerned his claim for promotion Is not at all maintainable.

17. The workman also examined W.W. 2 Harish Chandra and W.W. 3 Virendia Kumar. WAV. 1 Hurish Chandra has oniy stated that in tho Danurg Colliery as alto in the Nandan Colliery the workman worked according to the instructions of tho Civil Enginoer. He does not say on what pjiticular post the woikman worked and what duties were being per- formed by him. In his ci oss-cxamlnation ho admits that his case was cleared by the D.P.C. bcfoic ho was promoted. He was Improved upon hi; statement in the cross-examina- tion by sta'.ins that the workman Tilak Dhari i<, twsently Winking as Works Suppivisor in the Nandan Colliery. If that bad been so. tho workrain should have summoned the official records of the Nrindsn Colliery which show as to what particular duties are hein? performed by him. Any Cfsual statement mads by this witness in the cross-examina- tion dors not improve the case of the workman. The next witness W.W. 3. Vnvndra Kum?r, supnorts the workman by saving that he is working a* Weil" Supervisor. But in his cross-examination he admits that Tilek Dhari used to main- tain record of the buildinft material received and supplied for the construction work. His statement alco does not prove the claim made by the workman.

18. As against this evidence I find that the evidence siven by the officers of the management is more worthy of reliance.

19. M.W.I, Manobar Vithai Nikaljj, states that fiom September 1975 to December 1979 the workman worked as a Mate in Category IV; that the- duties of Works Super- visors arc (1) to lay out the drawing (2) to take and assist measurements according to drawing (3) to supervise the build- ing material med according to works specification (4) to sign the indent for material and prepare the- estimates. He also says that the dutits cf a Mate are to supervise the wurks of the labourers only and (hut since ho wai not educated there was no occasion to take the work as Works Supervi- sor from him. There is nothing in his cross-examination even to give an indication that the workman is either fit and quali- fied for working as a Works Supervisor or that he actually worked in that capacity under him.

20. M.W. 2, Shri P. N. Srivastava, is another witness who has stated that the workman works under him in the Nandan Colliery as a Mate only and that he has never taken work of a Works Supervisor from him because that is a job of pkill- ed workman arid not of an unskilled workman as Tilak Dharl is.

21.. It would thus be clear from tho aforesaid manage- ment's evidence that the workman, Tilak Dhari, is neither qualified to perform the duties of a Works Supervisor nor at any time worked in that capacity. As stated by the management's witnesses the duties of a Work Supervisor involve application of skill and education which the work- man does not possess. The management's witnesses were not confronted with the documents relied upon bv the work- man to show that either he was appointrj or worked a" a Works Supervisor. Comequeritlv neither on facts nor in law the workman can claim promotion bv wav of regularisa- tion on tho post of Category IT (Clerical Grade) from April 1974. In my opinion, fssiio No. 1 and Ismc No. 2 deserve to be and are hereby answered against the workman.

22, Issue No. 3.—Tn view ol the findings recorded above on Issue Nos. 1 & 2 the. workman is not entitled to any relief.

AWARD

For the reasons plven above, It h held that the demand of the Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mnzdoor Sangh (BMS), Chandamelta for regubrisation of Shri Tilak Dhari as a Works Supervisor in Clsrical Grade II with effect from 4.4.74 is not justified and that the workman is not entitled to any relief. In the circumstances of this ense, both the parties ftro directed to bear their own costs js inenrred.

[No. L-22O12(13)/81.D.IV(B)]

S. R. VYAS, Presiding Officer

S.O. 4334.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in the industrial dispute between the employer!* in relations to the management of Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 7th December, 1982.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL: CALCUTTA.

Reference No. 18 of 1981

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Central

CbaHIelds Limited, Ranchi.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Present :

Mr. Justice M. P. Singh.—Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employers.—Mr. M. N. Kar, Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. D. N. Chakraborty, President of the Union, Shri M. D. Scruff & him- self.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Coal

AWARD

By Order No. L-190l2(59)/79-D. 1V(B) dated 3rd April 1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of the Coal India Limited, Calcutta, and the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi in refusing to allow Shri M. D. Saraff Clerk, Accounts OHlce, CCL Calcutta, the privilege of carrying over the 30 days of accumulat- ed leave in the subsequent year to be eDJoyed at any time thereafter and encashing it at the option of the Company enjoyed by him under his erstwhile employers namely Messrs Coal Products 'Private) Limited, and in deducting Rs. 150.30 P being 6 days waget from his pay for the month of Octo- ber, 1975 on th© ground that ho was not entitled to the said privilege claimed by him, is Jegal, proper and justified in the circumstances ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

2. The fact) in brief are this. The concerned workman M. D. Saraff is a clerk in the Accounts office of the CCL, Calcutta. He was a clerk in the accounts office of the Coal Products (Private) Limited, Victoria Colliery, G. L. Groups, lie joined his service there in the year 1971. After the take over of the colliery in 1973 under the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 he became an employee of Coal India Limited. He took 36 days privilege leave in the year 1975 due to his serious illness. The management gave him the benefit of only 30 dp.ys leave and deducted the salary of 6 days amounting Rs. 150.30 P on the plea that he was entitled to only 30 days leave. The case of Sri Saraff is that under the existing terms and conditions of service of the erstwhile companv which are protected under Section 14(1) of the Coal Mines Nationalisation. Act, 1973 he was entitled to carry forward his accumulated unenjoyed leave and that he had taken 36 days privilege leave out of the accumulated leave of 90 days. Ho stated in hh written statement that he had only one day leave in 1973 and 20 days in 1974 and the 39 unsnjnyed leave was carried for- ward in subsequent years and therefor^ after adjustment of the 6 days leave ho was still entitled tr> further 33 davs leave. The management denies that ho was no entitled. Thev contend that there was no rule for the carrying for- ward anv accumulated leave and henw leave taken beyond 30 days in 1975 was treated as leave without pay.

3. Tho concerned workman has filed a number of ppners hut h? has not filed any mV in nmrort of his contention. Only one of the papers filed by him is relevant for 1he nurtiose of his casp and that is a letter dated Mprch 12, 1977 sent bv the Director of the critwhile 'companv to the Administrative Officer .Staff. Cunl Tndin Limited -which ts to the effect that Calcutta <-ta(T wwre entitled to 30 davo TVM- lere leave in a vrar n"d that this 1eav was carried to iiibv- Qiifnt yarn and could be enlov^d bv thr rmrlnve" tbircnffc¹ ?nd that thii lefvr was pl*o MicaMnMe ft the ontinn of the comnanv. The conccrnrrl workman who bp* preyed hi< enw himself ftnn Union beine pbwntl h"" reliM n*nn tW enfltMitJnn. On th* ot^er Jinn/1 tt>i" mnrmrtmm-Tit nrirr'Brl f""t ttii" ^'H'•r cf 1077 nb'Pi'n'ri pffeT ff"lir "pflTi! of 'b~ tnV" rv"r /•of'Tint h' p subatituto for the rules In my opinion the mannRement is

right. It was, I think, necessary for the concerned workman or for the union to produce the relevant rules under which he claimed right to carry forward the. unenjoyed privilege laave. The terms and conditions of service not having been produced it must be held that the concerned workman has not b;en able to substantiate his case. Sri Saraff admitted before this Tribunal that there was no such rule. He how- ever argued that though ther* was no rule for carryins over unenjoyed privilege leave, but there was such practice and according to the prevailing practice the workman used to pet cash money in lieu of accumulated leave. Suffice to say that no such practice has been proved in the present case. The Director's letter dated 12 March 1977 cannot establish any practice.

4. For the reasons given above, my award is that the action of the management of Coal India Limited, Calcutta ahd the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi in icfusinR to allow Sri M. D. Saraff, Clerk, Accounts office, CCL, Cal- cutta the privilege of carrying over the 30 days accumulated leave in the subsequent year and encash it at the option of the company and in deducting Rs. 150.30 P bring 6 days wages from his pay for the month of. October 1975 on the ground that ho was not entitled to the said privilege is legal, prop?r and justified. It follows that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 19th November, 1982.

M. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-19012(59)/79-D.IV

S.O. 4335.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, No. 3, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Chitra Colliery of Mewr3 Eastern Coalfields Ltd.. Post Office Santhal Pwgana, Bihar, and their workmen, which wag received by the Central Government on the 7th December, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3 DHANBAD.

Reference No. 51/80

PRESENT :

Shri J. N. Singh, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Chitra Colliery, P. O. Chitra, Dlst. Santhal Pargana, Bihar, of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers.—Shri D. P. Chowdhury, Advocate.

For the Workman. —Shri D. Nersingh, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : CoaJ STATO : Bihar dated the 1st December, 19S2

AWARD

The Govt, of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of tha powers, conferred on them Under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under Order No. L- 19012(44)/80-D. IV(B) dated ths 22nd August, 1980.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the actioD of the management of Chitra Col- liery, P. O. Chitru, Dirt. Santhal Pargana, BUIHT of M/s, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., in dismissing Shri Shasanka Sakhar Btiokta, Clerk from their service with effect from 19th May, 1979 was justified 7 If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date 7"

2. It appears that the concerned workman Sri Shananka Sekhar Bhokta was dismissed by the management with effect from 19-5-1979 after holding a domestic enquiry against him. The allegation against him was that he assaulated Sri P. Jha, Personnel Manager ot th; area on 22-12-1978. The case of the workman is th:it he has been dismissed illegally and that the inquiry aganibt him was not fair and proper.

3. Tt, however, appear) that during the pendency of the present reference the concerned workman was reinstated by the management^ but without any back waccs. The learned Advocate for the management submitted before me und also filed a petition stating Jhat as the concerned woikman has been reinstated after negotiation with the local union with- out back wages, the award be passed in terms thereof.

4. On behalf of the workman., however, it was contended that the very reinstatement would indicate that the charge against the concerned workman was not true and BO the concerned workman is entitled to back wages also.

5. In the circumstances an the learned Advocate for the workman pressed his case and wanted that tho matter be decided pa. merits, the parties were directed to come ready for hearing on the preliminary issue as to whother the en- quiry was fair and proper or not mvl thereafter the matter was to be decided on merits.

6. On 19-10-82 the learned Advocate for the workman submitted that he did not challenge the fairness of the en- quiry and there is no necessity to examine the Enquiry Officer and that the case be> decided on merits only. The parties, however, agreed that no evidence ig necessary and the only point now involved te as to whether the concerned work- man is entitled to back wages or not.

7. Accordingly the parties were heard only on the point as to whether tile concerned workman was entitled to back wages or .not as he had alroaJy gat reinstatement.

8. ExU M-l is a letter dated 29-1-R2 issued by the Dy. Personnel Manager to the concerned workman informing him that on approval of tho competent authority he was reinstated on his .post on the terms that no back wages will be paid for the idle period and that the period of absence will be treated as leave without pay. Thus two conditions were attached to the proposed reinstatement of the concern- ed workman. It was submitted on behalf of the management that as the concerned workman was a staff of leader type and cettaln unions of the locality approached the management for reinstatement and hence after considering all the cli^um- stances and to maintain industrial peace even though the charge against the concerned workman win very serious still he was given reinstatement with continuity of service and the only thing which was not allowed to the concerned workman wan his back wages. Thi^ letter was served on tho concerned workman by peon book and on the basis of the said letter the concerned workman joined his duty by his petition Ext. M-2. In the petition he nowhere stated he was Joining hU dutv with any reservation or that he will claim back wages also. Rather he joined the duty

unconditionally which clearly meant that he had ogreed to terms which the management had imposed on the reinstate- ment of the concerned workman.

9. Jt will now highly improper if the concerned workman after having joined the duty unconditionally claim back wages also. It cannot be denied that Iho charge against him was very serious and the enquiry held against him was also fair and proper, but inspite of it the management took a lenient view in the matter and in order to maintain industrial peace they gave reinstatement to the concerned worVman epparent- ly on the approach made by the local unions as also by the concerned workman.

10. In such circumstances when the concerned woikman hai already been reinstated witii continuity of service he ii not entitled to claim any back wages at this stags.

The award in given accordingly.

J. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer. [No. I9O12(44)/8O-DJV(B)]

New Delhi, the 13 th December, 1982

S.O. 4336.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tri- bunal, Hyderabad, in the induetrinl dispute between the em- ployers in relation to th" management of Singareni Collieriet Co. Ltd., Bellampalli Diviiion-II, Adilabad Distt. and their ' workmen, which wa^ received by the Central Government on

30-11-82.

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) AT HYDERABAD

Industrial Diicute No. 31 of 1981

BETWEEN

The Workman of Singaroni Collieries Company Limited,

Bellampalli Division-II. Adlibad District.

AND

The Management of Sineareni Collieries Company Limi-

ted, Bellampalli Diviaion-II. Adilabad District.

APPEARANCES :

None represented on behalf of workmen n$ well as Man-

agement

AWARD

The following industrial dispute existing between the em- ployers In relation to the Management of Sjnoarenl Collieries Company Limited, Bellarnpalli Division-II and their Work- man was referred for adjudication to this Industrial Tribunal under Sections 7A and 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Central Government as per Order No. L- 21012(8)/81-D.IV(B), dated 26-11-81/1-12-1981.

"Whether the management of S.C. Co Ltd., " justified in not promoting Shri Abdul Khanim as Tub-Re- pairing Fitter? If not, to what relief la the work" man entitled?"

2.After the above industrial dispute was registered and taken on life in I.D. No. 31 of 1981, Notices were issued to the parties. The President, Tandur Coal Mines Labour Union, namely, S. Nagaiah: Reddy, representing the Work- men sent the claims statement dated 27-1-1982 through post to this Tribunal. Thereafter the Management took several adjournments for filing U'eir counter. On 27-8-1982 the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of the company, namely. P. Krishnaji, representing the Management, filed a compro- mise petition signed by both the parties. He also admitted the execution and terms of the compromise read over io him. However on that day there was no representation for the Workmen. The said conroromise petition was taken on file in Miscellaneous Pttitirm No. 108 of 1982. The said petition was adjourned from lime to time for the presenc© of ^Work- men's representative. Though seven adjournments were prant- ed m the petition for the presence of the Workmen, neither the aggrieved workman, namely Abdul Khasim nor the Pre- sident of the Labour Union namely, S. Nagaiah Reddy twrn- ed up.

3. In view of the above circumstances, I have to take the compromise as admitted byi the Management's Officer as true and.genuine. Otherwise there must have been some repre- sentation on behalf of the Workmen. Therefore, today I re- corded the compromise filed in M.P. No. 108 of 1982 On a perusal of the above compromise, I feel that it is just and fair to tho aggrieved workman and also to the Manapemnt. Hence I hereby pass an award in terms ef the compromise A copy of the compromise shall be appended to this award.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and cor- rected by me arid given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal, this the 10th day of November, 1982.

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) HYDERABAD

Industrial Dispute No. 31/81

Workmen of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Belampalli

Division-II, Adilabad Dist. A.P.

Versus

The Management cf Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,

Belampalli Division-II. Adilabad Dist. A.P.

COMPROMISE PETITION

It is hereby submitted by the Management of Singarenl Collieries Company Limited, Betlampalli, and their workman represented by the President, Tandur Coal Mine* Labour Union, Belampalli, that :—

1. Regarding the I.D., in respect of Shri Mohd. Khasim, Tub Repairing Mazdoor, Somagudem NQ. 1 Incline, demanding promotion as Tub Repairing Maistry, Category-iy, the Management and the Represen- tative of the Union held joint discussions on 13-8-1982 to iiavo an amicable settlement of tbto issue.

2. Accordingly, a Settlement was arrived at under Rule* 58(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947, between the Manage- ment and their workman represented by the Presi- dent, T.C.M.L. Union, Belampalli, on 13th August, 1982, a copy of which is enclosed herewith for your information and ready reference..

3. That in view of the settlement quoted above, it is prayed by the Management and tho President, T.C.M.L. Union, Belamapalli, (representing the work- man), that the Honourable Tribunal may pass Award accordingly.

For Management : For Workmen :

Sd/-

Sd/-

(S. Nagaiah Reddy)

President, (S. S. R. Sastryi), General Manager, S.C. Co. Ltd., T.C.M.L. Union,

Bcla-npalli-504251, Adilabad Dist. A.P. Belampalli-504i51,

Belampalli, Dated : 21-8-1982.

Memorandum of Settlement nrrived at under Rule 53(4) of the I.D. Act, 1957, on 13-8-1982. between the Management of the Sinrareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen represented by the Tandur Coal Mines Labour Union, Belam- palli, regarding alleged non-confirmation promotion of Shri Mohmad Khasim, Tub-Repairing Mazdoor as Tub-Repairer, Som&£udem No. 1 incline, which has now been registered as T.D, No. 31 of 1981 before tho Industrial Tribunal (Central Hyderabad.

PARTIES PRESENT

Representing the Manajjcment :

1 Shri SS.R, Sastry, General Manager, Sjngarcni Colli- eries Co. Lid., BelainpnIIi-504251. Adilabnd Diat. A.P.

2. p. Kaishnaji, Dy. Chkl Personnel Manager, Sinit&reni Collioric3 Co. Ltd., BelampalH-504 251, Adilubad Dist A.P.

Representing the Workmen

1. Shri S. Nagaiah Reddy, President, T.C.M.L. Union,

Belampallu

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

4. The Union agreed that Shri Mohmad Khasim on pro- motion can be transferred to any order Mine /Workshop of the Belampalli Area according to the requirements of the Manaettnvmt.

3. Both the parties agreed to file the settlement before ttur Industrial Tribunal (Central) Hyderabad, as ft compromiso petition, in respect of the T.D. No. 31 of 1981 and to re- quest thellon'ble Chairman, Industrial Tribunal (Central), to pass an Award and to treat this Dispute as closed,

SIGNATURES

Representing the Management. Representing the Workmen

1. Sd/-

si/.

The Tandur Coal Mines Labour Union,.Belampalli, rained an Industrial Dispute stating tbut the Mnnagemont of Singa- reni Collieries Co Ltd., Belampalli, has not confirmed/ap- pointed Shri Mohd. Khiwm as Tub Repnirinfi Maistry in Otegary-lV, although he hty been wprking as Tub Repairinu Mais'ry in Calcgory-IV for the last 1-1/2 years. The Union, alleged the action Qf tnc Management as quite illegal and unjust. The Union therefore-, demanded the promotion o( Sbri Mohmad Khasim to the. post of Tub Repairer with retrospective effect.

The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, had final conciliation proceeding! in the above dispute, on 24-7-1981.

During the conciliation pioceedings, the Management states ed that Shri Mohmad Khasim, Tub Repairing Mazdoor, Sing. 1 Incline, was intermittedcntly officiating as Tub Repairing maistry from February, 1980, in the leave, sick ana absenteeism vacancy of a permanent Tub Repairer and that he has uut-Ln less number of officiating musters compared witli that of Shri Abdul Quddus, another Tub Repairing Mazdoor work- ing at the same mine and who was promoted as Tub Re- pairing/Tub Malting Maioti'y, Category-TV.

The Management, therefore denied the allegations of the Union and contended [hat their action in not promoting Shri Mohmad Khasim is nithcr illegal nor unjustified.

Sine* both the parties held divergent views, no settlement

could be arrived at during the conciliation proceedings.

This dispute was referred to by the Government of India, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Hydera- bad and It was registered aa I D. No. 31 of 1981. The Union has filed it's claim statement teforc the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad.

However, discussions were again held by the Management with the President, Tandur Coal Mines Labour Union, on 13-8-1982, with a view to settle this issue amicably in the interest of betteV industrial relations. After prolonged dis- cussions, both the parties havc agreed to settle, tht dispute with the following terms of settlement :—

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1. The Management has agreed to direct Shri Mohmad Khasim, Tub'RepairinR Mazdoor, Somagudem No. 1 Incline, for a trade test, to find om hia suitability for promotion to the post of a Tub Repairing Maistry/Tub Making Maistry Category-IV.

2. It waa alio agreed r-y the Management that (he trade test will be held within a month from the date of settlement of the Dispute.

3 It was agreed by the Management that subject to hit (Sbri Mohd. Khasim Qualifying In the trade test, he will be promoted as Tub Repairing ^Making Maistry on Category-W wages with effect from 1st April, 1932.

(S. S. R. Sastry), (s Nagaiah Reddy), General Manager, S.C. Co. Ltd., President, T.C.M.L. Union, Belampalli-504 2.y BelampaJli.

2- Sd/-

2. Sd/-

(P. Krishnaji), penonnel Manager, Dy. C.P.M.. SC Co. Ltd.. S.C Co. Ltd., BelampalU. Belompalli. Witn"sses :— Sd/- (K. T. Ravi Vaima) Personnel Manager, .S.C. Co., Ltd., Bclaaipalli-504 251 c.c.

S. V. RAMAN REDDY, Presiding Officer

INo. L-21O12(8)/81-D.1V(B)I

S.O, 4337.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby published the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management -of CMD's Office, Messrs Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office, Dishorgaih (Burdwno) and their workmen, which. was received by the Central Government on 9-12-p2.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 3, DHANBAD Reference No. 44/81

PRESENT:

Shri J. N. Singh,—Presiding Officer.

PARTIES:

Emloye/s in relation to the management of C.M.D'" Office of M/a. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.. Sanctoria, P.O. Bishergarh, Dist. Burdwen,

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers.—Sri R. S. Murthy, Advocate. For -the Workman.—Sri S. K. Acharyya.

INDUSTRY : Coal. STATE : West Bengal

Dated, the 2nd December, 1982.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry• of Ubour In exercise of the powers conferred on them U /S lOUXd) ot

the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947 has referred the dispute to this Tnbun.d for adjudication umlcr Order No. L-19O12(14)/81-D.IV(BJ dated the 17th September, 1981.

SCHEDULE

3. Both the parties pray that the, Hbnblo' Tribunal may

be paciotisly r^'*'⁵⁶^ t⁰ i/asa - an Av/anl in terms of the sutiemenL

And for this net of kindness both the pailies r\s in duty

bound shall every pray.

sd/-

"Whether the management of CMD's, Office of M/s. ECL Sanctoria, P. O. Di>-herearh, Dist. Burdwan was justified in not jeeularising Shri Sew Cowata, Peon in Technical Gr. 'II' w.e f. 1-2-76 with full pay protection al^ng with diiference of wagon. If not, to what relief the wolcmnn ii entitled to ?"

2. On 30-11-1982 both the partiei hive flbd p joint peti- tion of compromise duly signed oa their behalf nud they pray that an award be passed in terms of the settlement.

3. I have sons through the *ettl;ment whk'i is beneficial

for the wdrkman.

4. In the circiim*tances the award is passed in termi of

the settlement whkh shall form part of the award.

J. N. SfNGH, Presiding Officer

Enc: Settlement

BEFORE THE HONBLE' PRFSTDTNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRITON AL NO. 3 AT PHANBAD.

Reference No 44 of 19S1

PARTIES :

Employer! in relation to the management of Chainrnn Cum-Mannging Director's OfTi;e of FaGtern Coal- fields Limited

AND

Their Workmen

Joint Petition of Compromise .

Both the parties above-n-imed most reipoctfully beg to

submit ao follows :

(1) Th.it "the above matter is pending the Honble Tribunal and the matter has not been heard.

(2) That bath the parties have, in the meantime, nego- tiated the presort matter and 'lavo come- to u soltlc- ment on the following terms :

(a) ^iyithout prejudice to the contentions of Hie parties made in their reipc-ctive written state- ments, it is pcreed that tho basic pay of the concerned worVir.an will bo railed to Rs. 512 par month in Grade-H with effect from 1-3-13E2.

(b) All an ear payments arising out of this reference in respect of the period upto 2S-2-G2 LIICLII be deemed to be fully and finally F.ctiVlod en p"v- m^nt of the consoliJa'cd sura of Rs 4C00i (Kupees Four Thousand only).

(c) The afcirsaiil sum. st'tled in the foregoing sub- paragraph will be paid to the workman con- ceited in six consecutive monthly instalments starting from the month following th^ month when this -fttleitient becomes effective.

(d) This gettli'Tient w>'1l become effective on the date the Honble¹ Tribunal accepts the settlement nnd passes an order to give art Awaid in. terms of the settlement.

(e) The Union and the workman herein concerned

agree thnt by

For and on behalf of tho

Employers.

Dated this the 26th day of November, 1982.

Sd/-

1. For and on behalf of the workman.

Sd/-

2. Signature of the workman concerned.

J. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer [No. L-19O12d4)/81-D.IV(B)} S. S. MEHTA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 7th December, 19S2

S.O. 4338.—^In exercise *of ths powers conferred by nub- section (2) of section J3C of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), and in supersession of the notification No. S.O. 1973 dated the 2fiih May, 1977 of the- Goverrmcrat of India, in the then Ministry of 1 abour, the Central Govern- ment hereby specifies the I^ib>3ur Courts set up by the Gov- ernments of Uttar Pradesh, Harynna, Punjab, Himachal Pra- desh, Jnmmu and Kashmir, Rajasthun and Ihe Union Terri- tory of Chandigarh as the Labour Coutlp which sliall deter- mine; the amount at which any benefit rcfcired to in that sub-section would bo computed in teens of nwinev in rela- tion to workmen employed in any industry in the Suites of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, .lammu an I Kashmir, Rajasthan and the Union Territory of Chandi- gi"h in respect of which the Central Government is tho appropriate Government.

[No S-11020/10/R1-DR1 L, K NARAYANAN, Undei S^cy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 17th September, 1982

LS.O. 4339.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the emplo- yers in relation to the management of TuLicorin Port Trust, Tuticorin and their workmen in respect of the matters spe- cified in. the Schedule hereto annexed ;

And, wheieas, the Central Government considers it desir-

able to refer the said dispute for adjudication ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A, and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribu- nal of which Shn T. Avulraj ehull be the Pres'ding Officer, with hsadquarters at Madras, and refers the spid dispute for adjudication to the said Tiibunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tuticorin Port Tru

[No. I-44012/l/8,2-D.IVfA)] T. B. SITARAMAN, Desk Officer

ORDER

New Dc'hi, Ihe 13th December, 1982

5.0. 4340.—Whcie.'s an irdiutM.il disprte exists bcv.een the employers in relaiitn to the management of Calcutta Dock Labour Roard and Ihcir wgrkmen represented by (!) Cnlcmta Port f- \\>ck Workers' Union, (2) Calcutta Po^k Workers' Uninn, (3) Dock Shramik M'otiatiun, Cnlcmta, 14) i\, tiop 1 Union of Waterfiunl Work'is, (5) West Bengal Dock M"uzdi>or Union ;

And whereas the 'aid employers anil their workmen have by a written agreement uni'cr subjection (1) of Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). agreed to refer the said dispute to arbitration and have foi warded to the Central Govcinmrnt a copy of the -^"'d nrbilrdtion agreement;

Now therefore., in pursuance of flub-section (3) of section 10A of the 6aid Act, the CentrLil Government hereby pub- lish™ tho said agiecmeut.

AGREEMENT

(Under S.ction 10A of tho Indusiria] Disputes Act, 1947)

BETWEEN

Name of the Parties :

Representing employer!/Administrative Body.—Slui A. \. Patnaik,—Administrative Body, Cnlcuttn Dock Labour Board.

Representing workmen /workman :

(1) Calcutta Port SL TXick Workers' Unif-H.

(2) Calcutta Dock Workers' Union.

(3) Dock Shrnmik Aa<;ociatlon, Calciittn.

(4) Nrtionnl Union of Waterfront Woikers.

(5) West Bengal Dock Mazrioor Union.

It it hereby acrrcd bt-twen the paities to refer the follow inp dispute to tho arbitration of Shri S. C. Mazumdai, Joint Mnmqer (Poit rspcialii-n). Food GMporation of India, 4, Mango T anc, Calcutti'-l.

(i) Specific matters in dispute :

Termn of reference for the Arbitrator :

(a) Wtie'hcr in Ihw context of the '.ecomtneti'lntiotr of tlic W.ige Revision Commit'tc the cu'stirf rinily bftiis wi-jioq as on 1-1-74 (Pie-WJiC) of thu rc- gis 4450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 25, 1982/PAUSA 4, 1904 [PART TI—SEC 3(ii)l

CIenc.il & Supeivisory, Workers, 'A', 'B', and 'BB' categories of Shipping & Painting workers should be multiplied 'by 30 as proposed by the worker* for the pupose of their national monthly b;isic wage required for fllmcnt into W.R.C. scales of pay and whether, after fitment, the monthly basic pay shall be divided by 26 for determination of their revised daily basic wages.

(b) Whether any relief, if awarded, on the above issue would be from retrospective date i.e. from 1-1-74 or prospectivcly.

(ii) Details of the parties to the dispute including the name and address of the establishment or under- taking involved :

(a) Administrative Body, Calcutta Dock Labour Board, 20, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta-700 069.

(b) Calcutta Port & Pock Workers* Union, 27-B, Circular Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-700 023. — a registered and lecognised union.

(e) Calcutta Dock Workers' Union, 27-B, Circular

Garden Reach Road, Calcutta—700 023. —a registered and recognised union. ,

(d) Dock Shramik Association, Calcutta, 4, Ramkamal

Street, Calcutta—700 023. — a registered and recognised union.

(e) National Union of Waterfrctnt Workers, 15, Coal

Dock Road, Calcutta—700 045. — a registered and recognised union.

(f) West Rental Dock Mazdcor Union, 33, Hcm-

chnndra Street, Calcutta—700 023. — a registered and recognised union,

Calcutta Dock Laour Hoard, 20, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta—700 069.—Ettablishment.

(iii) Name of the workman in case ho himself is

involved in the dispute or the name of the Union, if any, representing the work- men or workman in question:

(a) Calcutta Port & Dock Workers' Union ") (b) Calcutta Dock Workers' Union I Unions (c) Dock Shr?mik Aasociatio n, Calcutta ^-Involved (d) National Union of Waterfront Worker* | (c) West Bengal Dock Mazdoor Union J

(iv) Total number of workmen employed in 88H as on the undertaking affected: 1-7-82

(v) Estimated numb er of workmen affected or

likely to be affected by the dispute: 2679

We further agree that the decision of the Arbitrator be bind- ing on vs. Ho shiH make his awird within a period of three months or within such period ii is extended by mutual agree- ment between us in writing,

Signature of the parties

Sd/-15-10-82 Sd/- 15-10-82 (A.K. Patoaik) • (Safiruddin Ahmed) Representing employers/ Joint General Secretary, Administrative Body, Calcutta Port & Dock Workers' Calcutta D°ck Labour Board. Union.

27-B, Circular Garden Reach

Road, Cilcutta-700023.

Sd/ 15-10-82 (W.A. Az-'d)

Joint Secretary,

F"r & on behalf of Calcutta

Dock Workers' Union,

Sd/- 15-10-82 (Robin Mizumlar)

President,

Dock Shramik Association,

Calcutta,

Sd/- 15-10-82 (jLinaki Mukhcrjce)

General Secretary,

National Union of Waterfront

Workers'

Sd/- 1 S-10-8'2

(Sudhiv MHra)

Joint Secretary

West Bengal Dock Miidoor

Union.

Dated, Calcutta, trie 15-10-1982.

Witnesses:

(1) Sd/- A.K. Chatterjcc, Industrial Relation* Offtrer,

15-10-82

(2) Sd/- N.K. Ghosh, Administrative O flfcer,

15-10-82

With reference to your letter No, S-G/4(n)/Pt. III/3268

dated 12th June, 1982 and also in terms Of Resolution No. 16 of 26-5-H2,1, Shri S.C Majumdar, Joint Manager (Port Opera- tion), Cnlcutta do hereby give my consent to act agau Arbitra- tor on the arbitration issue.

Sd/-

(S.C. Majumdar)

Joint Manager (Port Operation) [No. L-32013(l)/82-D. JV(A)]

New Delhi, the 17th December, 1982

S.O. 4341.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Bombay Port Trust, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 29th November, 1982.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

PRESENT :

Shri M. A. Deshpandft, Presiding Officer.

, Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 1W2

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Management of Bombay

Port Trust, Bombay.

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers—Shri M. N. Bhatkal; Advocate

For the Employers—Shri M. N. Bhatkal, Advocate. INDUSTRY : Ports and Docks. STATE : Maharashtra.

Bombay, the 4th November, 1982

AWARD

By their order No. L-31O12/13481-X>IV(A) dated nil the Central Government have referred the following dispute for adjudication under Section 10(lXd) of the Industrial Disputei Act, 1947 :—

"WheLher the action of the management of Bombay Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri Rabha Bhaoo Temgirc, on the 1st July, 1975 reckoning his date of birth as 1st July, 1917 is justified 7 If not, to what relief is the workman entitled 7"

2. From the wording of the reference itself it is evident that the disptue has arisen because of the alleged attempt to terminate the service of Shri Baba B'ahoo Temgire on 1-7-1975 treating the dale of birth as 1-7-1917 when cal- culated accordingly he having reached the age of superannua- tion as per rules.

3. The contention of the Union who has espoused the cause of the workman aa seen from the statement of claim Is that initially he secured employment as a labourer and than at Morpa under a contractor but in the year 1948 the contract system having been abolished his services were transferred to the Bombay Port Trust, from which date he was continuously in the service of the said body. It seems that his date of birth as recorded in the records of the Bombav Pott Trust was July, 1917. Subsequently in the year 1952 though a circular was issued by the Port Trust authorities calling upon the employees to correct the date of birth if there be any mistake within a period of three months,' admittedly no action was taken by the workman and his dHtc of birth continued to be as 1st July, 1917. The Union then contends that on or about 2nd December, 1957 on production of the extract of birth register there was an attempt made to get his date of birth corrected ai 3-10-1924 but this request on th" part of the workman was turned down by the Port Trudt authorities. The Union -then says that on enquiries the workman came to know that his biith date w;is 11-9-1925, which was the date of birth entered in the school leaving certificate, the workman having attended the school at Mancher for some day*. Having lenrat accordingly and on having secured a copy of the School Leaving Certificate, again an attempt was made for getting the correct date of birth entered in the Port Trust recoids- but on this occasion also the said attempt failed as a result of which the workman was retired on 1-7-1975. The Union contends that when in the case of other employees the. Port Trust authorities have accepted such proof the only exception was made in the case of the workman concerned which it is alleged, is discrimina- te y and therefore in the light of the correct date of birth being 11-9-1926 the attempt of tho Port Trust to make him retire on 1-7-1975 must fall and suitable relief therefore should be awarded.

4. By their written statement the Port Trait authorities have refuted all these contentions. They even contended that the employees is" not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it in further pleaded that the employee having failed Misc. Peti- tion No. 720 of 1975 on 30-6-1975 before the Hon"ble High Court of Bombay seeking substantial similar reliefs and he having failed in the said attempt and also appeals, the present reference is barred by the principles of res- judicata and therefore not sustainable. There are also grounds or contentions pleaded in the written statement but since the plead of res-judicata is being heard aa preli- minary plea, no reference need be made to these conten- tions. •

5. The issue which arises for consideration at the present stage is issue No. 1-A namely ; Finding

1A. Whether the present reference is barred by the principles analogous to the principles of res-judi- cata because of the deciaion in Misc. Petition No. 720 of 1975 ? Yei

REASONS

6. Since it is an issue which rests on ,-ecord as well as law point, the parties chose not to lead any evidence and addiessed their arguments in detail. Now the records speak* that when the services of the workman concerned namely Shri lemgire was transferred to the Port Trust initially the date of hi* birth was noted as 1-7-1913 which was subse- quently changed to 1-7-1917 as soon from anncxuie *C of the statement of claim at the instance of [he Union. It is therefore not that the Port Trust authorities had anything againvt the workman concerned. Subsequently an attempt was made on behalf of the workman to plead that the correct date of birth was 3-10-1924 for which purpose he relied upon the extiact of the birth register but being not convinced ot the veracity of the iccoid the said request failed and WUB turned down. Here again no bias can be attributed nor any inference can be drawn from the fact that relying on the extinct of the birth register in the case of other workmen the records was duly corrected. After all it was for the Bombay Port Tru&t authoiities to decide whether a particular icpresentation was correct or not and if they were not satis- fied about the veracity of the particular record, no fault can be lound with those authorities.

7. The events show that even according¹ to the workman concerned the date of birth 3-10-1924 could not be a correct date because subsequently an attempt was made to plead that the correct date pf birth was 11-9-1926, for this pur- poses the extract of school leaving certificate was produced but might be because of various different representations made on behalf of the same woiknnan, the Port Trust authoii- ties weie not prepared to place reliance on this proof and therefore they turned down the request on this occasion also.

8. Had the matter rested here and had the workman or the Union who espoused the caso of the workman approa- ched the conciliation officer or the Government ai-d sought a reference under Section lOUXd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there would not have any complication as the workman or the Union is now facing and the matter would have been simply a question of fact namely what was the correct date of birth namely 1-7-1917 or 3-10-1924 or 11-9-1926 and the consequences would have followed on the strength of lhfc finding one way or other in the light of reterence. The Union who had various remedies before it atleast two remedies either to approach the High Court invoking article 2"26 of the Constitution or go for a reference under Section 10(l)(dl of the Jndustiial Disputes Act, opted for the first remedy and though was unsuccessful in the High Court pursued till the ' highest Tribunal of the Country where also it failed in its attempt. Now therefore the question which poses for deter- mination is whether once having opted for legal remedy and having agitated the matter before the Hon'ble High Court, whether the same party despite the adverse finding noted after hearing the parties can turn round and can seek any reference, The contention of the Port Trust authorities is that they cannot because the said attempt is barred by principles analogous to res-judicata.

9. That Civil Piocedurc Code or to that extent of provi- sions of Indian Evidence Act arc not applicable to the pio- ccedings under the Industrial Disputes Act stands admitted. At the same time it does not mean that the p;inciples analo- gous to rcs-judicatd cannot be invoked in the pioceedings Otitfer Seetion 10(1 )(d) of the Act particularly when it be- comes a public policy. After all the reference is entertained in oidci to sec that there remains no dispute so as to result in breach at peace in a particular industry. If therefore tho party has opted for a relief and pursued the matter till ita and, the same party if allowed to re-agitate the same matter and covering the game ground again fop the purpose of adjudication, is likely to be frustrated.

10. What was conlendcd on behalf of the workman is to overcome the difficulty cieated by himself that the decision given by the Bombay High Court was not on merits in the sense no proof was allowed to be adduced to substantiate the contention that 11-9-1926 w:is the correct date of birlh. It is nrijed on behalf of the Union that since the School lenvirg Certificate was not proved and therefore was not considered, the matter cannot be held to have been decided on merit. The Union knew that they were rclyins? upon the certificate and therefore must be deemed to be conscious of their duty to adduce sufficient proof in thy shape of affidavit of Head

4 4 52 T HE G A Z b l TE OF I N D IA : D E C E M B ER 2 5, 1 9 8 2 / P A U SA 4, 1 9 04

Uj.lti ui me vstno^j, v\imJiT ibe umui. fjiitu to Uo. rih..t> voie mcteiv tiCi-ju-v, wie ccit.nt.uLt was, UUI pruved, ii uiiino. ue said lhat tlie umuu hau no oppui.tur.ay iO piove and m u,.swivmg cii^t. iht n gn t u u ii mitm. n.iv.. gijiitul Jietn jjtiiuissiou aud as Sudi iiic pl~-* Hid.c the ueus.on ut Hie iiun tut; iiigh i-onu VIUJ nut on meiit ib not sustainable, OJ uic (.iifluui^ iidVJiig icuiscd lo giant lelicf, it means luai uie p.ca ucout IIU-O^ISCC uate OL until appealing On the leco.u-j oi ine HOiUbuy Foit 'liusi. stood njecU-d and

J I. r\o\v the qutsuoa wheitur tile la-'it'cr w^s d^cm-d on liiLiits ui ad ib UIJL iiiii^u viitrt me oppoicmuiy (o luiu ihe evwen-c oi not, in dm couuuciiun in uuKibth-uiU enuolalal I i u, u; "s. jl.i.o en <.jujucul, /UK, ii-6J, £".*.. i i - 'J the j.uiii.siaps ol uie iaptL-r..L c o i l .; uliei l c u i i ng tu the raijicl utio lepouctl HI AiK l~j\>L iL- pj.se 143/ iw\c wddo suncnaiy ut lac jjru.upka invoivcJ in SUCJJ m.iiieis <

(.Ij W it paUion jiadei Art. 22o is woruidcioil on I ho 111*115 Bi it vontehieii IUUUW ami is uiijin'.tn.u, uie i(tk,i"iOJ" would tontiuno i

* V*^ It would not be open tu a p.aiy to ignore the sa.d