No. 51] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, … · REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)-128/91) PUBLISHED BY...

REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)-128/91)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 51] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1991/AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as aseparate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section(ii)

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

NOTICE

New Delhi, the 27th November, 1991

S.O. 3093.—Notice is hereby given by the CompetentAuthority in pursuance of rule 6 of the Notaries, Rules 1956,that application has been made to the said Authority, under

rule 4 of the said Rules, by Shri Chekuri Sripathi RaoAdvocate for appointment as a Notary to practise in Surya-raopet, Vijayavada.

2. Any objection to the appointment of the said personas a Notary may be submitted in writing to the undersignedwithin fourteen days of the publication of this Notice.

[No. F. 5(104)/91-Judl.)P. C. KANAN, Competent Authority.

(4871;3193 GI/91—1

4872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

Ranking Division)


S.O. 3Q94.~Tn exercise of the powers conferred by Sec-lion 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, J949 (10 of 1949),the Central Government on the recommendations of theReserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisionsof sub-sections (1) and (2) «Jf Section 10B of the saidAct, shall not apply to the Sangli Bank Limited, Sa'ngli fora period of three months from 1st December, 1991 to 29thFebruary 1992 or1 till the new Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer takes charge, whichever is earlier.

[No. 15'3/91-B.O. III(i)]

S O. iuy>. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec-tion 54\il' the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),he Central Government on recommendations of the ReserveBunk ot India heieby declares that the provisions of sub-actions W of Section 10B of the said Act, shall not, tothe extenl they preclude the bank from appointing a perstonto carry out the duties of a Chairman beyond a periodsxceeding four months, apply to the Sangli Bank Limited,Sangli from 1st December 1991 Do 29th February 1992 ortill the new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer takes;harge whichever is earlier.

[No. 15, 3/91-B.O.llfii)]

K. K. MAN GAL, Under Secy,

4874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(iiJ]

4876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21. 1991 / A G R A H A Y A N A 30, 19H fPART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4879

3193 GI/91—2

4880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)]

MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES

(Department of Civil Supplies)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 25tb November, 1991

S.O. 3096. - In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)Regulations, 1988, ths Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. CM/L-No.

1. 2268153

2. 2268254

3. 2268355

4. 2268456

5. 2268557

OperativeDate

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-01

91-08-16

91-08-16

Name & Address ofof the Party

Aditya Industries81-Old MarrcdpallySecunderabad-500026

Himalayan Plastics Pvl.Ltd. PO DeonghatDistt. Solan (HP)

PriyaKlay(P)Ltd.,Rohtak-Jind RoadKilia ZafargarhDistt. Jind (Haryana)

Kartar MalleablesVillage GodaipurPO Randhawa MasandanDistt. Talandhar (PB)

Khushal Chand Vohra &Co. (Reg-i.)Subhash NagarSadal Road Ind]. AreaJalandhar City

Article/Process covered b>the licence

Room Air Conditioners

Hope Pipes of Class 2,3,4 ;md5 for Sizes upto and including110MM

Stoneware Pipes, Grade A andGrade AA Straight Pipes ofSizes 100 MM to 300 MM

MCI Pipe Fittings

MCI Pipe Fittings

IS : No./Part

IS 01391 :71

IS 04984 :87

IS 00651 :80

IS 01879 :87

IS 01879: 87

4881

1

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14

15

2

226&65S

226S759

2268860

2268961

2269054

2269155

2269256

. 2269357

. 2269458

:. 2269559

3

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08J6

91-08-01

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-0S-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

4

Ghaziabad Plastics (P) Ltd.E-126, BulandshahrRoad, Indl. AreaSite No. 1 Ghaziatud

M.J.Patcl&Co.C/38, GIDC Estate OdhavAhmedabdd-3824J 5

Narmada Cement Co. Ltd.MagdallaPortSurat-395007

Ajit Cotton GinningPressing D All & Steelrolling MillsMandi Gobindgarh

Swastik Fabrication &Valve MA NufactureGIDC II Plot No. 1203Junagarh

Delta Electric Corpn.110, Punjani Indl. EstateKhopatPokhran Road No. 1Trhane-400601

Sanvijay Re-rolling &Engg. WO RKS Pvt. Ltd.F-16.MIDCHingna RoadNagpur-440016

Biroda Electric MetersLimitedVithal UdyognagarVallabh VidyanagarDistt. Khera(Gujarat>389121

G.V. Engg. Works231, Dada ColonyIndl. AreaJalandhar-144004

Bunty Goods (India)Pvt. Ltd.Plot No. A-66,Anand Nagar Add itionalAmbematbMIDCAmberaathDistt. Thane

5

Hose Pipes of Class L to 5For Sizes upto and including110 MM

Submersible Pumpsets forClear, Cold, Fresh waterof Model APU 65/5(150 >,50)MM

Ordinary Portland Cement43 Grade

Weldablc Structural Stee]GRDE Fe 410 Wa, SectionEqual Angles, Size Rangeupto and includingL75x75 x 6 M M

Sluice valves for water worksPurposes for sizes 50 MM to200 MM, Uasscs PNI andPN1.6

Servo Motor OperatedAutomatic Line VoltageCorrector, 25 K V A 400 V,3 Phase

Structural Steel (StandardQuality)

Single-Phase whole CurrentWatthour Meters, Class 2,240 V Type D, 2.510 AMP And 5-20 AMP

MCI Pipe Fittings, EqualElbow Tee, Socket andUnion sizes 1/2 upto andincluding 2

Biscuits, Variety Glucose,•Parle' Brand only

6

IS 04984 :87

IS 08034 :89

IS 08112 :89

IS 02062 :84

IS 00780 :84

IS 09815 : 89

IS 00226 :75

IS 00722 :77Part : 02

13 01879:87

IS 01011 :&1

4882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

1

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

2

2269660

2269761

2269862

2269963

2270039

2270140

2270241

2270342

2270443

3

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

4

Ansu ElectrotechnicsPvt. Lid.D-57, Flatted FatcoryComplexRani Jhansi RoadDelhi-110055

Krishna ConcreteVillag; Mehra,Tappa-DhaturaNear Indl. AreaGorakhpur RoadDeoria (UP.)

Rajesh Metal Works74/75, Kailash NagarPreet Nagar RoadIndl. Area Jalandhar

A.V. Engg. Works[Prop. A.V. Valves(P)Ltd.J160, Indl. Estate NunbaiAgra-282006

Super Conductors33, Tagrao BhavanPrest ComplexM.P. Nagar Bhopal (MP)

SAMCLb'es; ConductorsVillage Shimla PisterPO Naryanpur(Kichha, Rudrapur)Distt. Nainital (UP)

Unique Telecabs (Pvt) Ltd.Village; TajpurBadarpur BorderNewDeihi-110044

Ambica Re-rolling MillsNear G.D. High SchoolSaypuf BoghaNaroda RoadAhmedabad-382345

Romesh Power ProductsPvt. Ltd.B-123, Road No. 9 (A)VKI Aroa Jaipur

5

Electronic Type FanRegulators 100 watt and 300watt Single Phase 230 V

Concrete pipes of Class NP-2.Sizes 150 MM, 600 MM, andand 900 MM to 1200 MMClass NP3, Sizes 450 MM,600 MM and 900 MM

Copper Alloy Gate Valves,Class I with screwed Ends,screwed in Bonnet, integralBody seat and Solid wedge type

Sluice valves for water workspurposes of size 80 MM PN1.6

Aluminium Conductors,Galvanized Steel Reinforcedfor overhead TransmissionPurposes

PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty)Electric Cables for workingvoltages upto and including1100V Armoured andunarmoured with aluminiumConductors

PVC Insulated cables forworking Voltages uptoand including 1100 V,sheathed and unsheathed witCopper Conductor

Weldable Structural steel,Grade Designation Fe 410WA,Equal angles, sizes upto& including 75 x 75 x 6 MM

PVC Insulated Cables forworking Voltages upto &including 1100V, Sheathed andUjisheathad with copperConductor

6

IS 11017 :84

IS 00458 : 7J

IS : 00778 : 84

IS 00780 :84

IS 00398 :76Part ;02

IS 01554 :88Part ; 01

IS 00694 : 77

IS 02062 :84

IS: 00694 : 77

4883

1

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31

32

33

3

2

2270544

2270645

2270746

2270847

227094S

. 2271041

. 2271142

, 2271243

I. 2271344

\. 2271445

3

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-03-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

4

Atrnu Steels Ltd.C-138-142, Indl. ArealBulandsbahr RoadGhaziabad

Sharda Ispat Ltd.T 1/1, MIDC AreaHingna RoadINagpur-440016

Hindustan Laminators3, Cossipore RoadCalcutta-700002

Sj-iraj.nuilBiijnath1, Riverside RoadSbalimar Howrob

President IndustriesC-l/30/53/54 GIDCPbaso III NarcdaAhmedabad- 382330

PiYsiaent IndustriesC-l/30/53/50, OIDCPbaso III NarodaAhmodabL.d-382330

B.D Pipes A Co.BU.ck A, Incil. AreaDukli MadhubanAgartaIa-799001

5

CR Low carbon Steel Sheetsand strips Grade 'O ' and ' £ 'surface E Finish Bright,surface typa scab free, widthUpto & Including 700 MM

6

IS: 00513 :8

Mild Steel for Metal ARC IS: 0287 : 75welding elactrode core wire,Rimming quality, wire Rods only

Jute Bags for PackingFertilizers, Laminated BagsManufactured from 380GM/M SQ, 68 x 39Tarpaulin Fabric

US StjelBirsforOrad-jFe 415 aDd Ft 500, siz«s 8 MMto 32 MM (Group II)

Mouocp.tdpbos 36%(M/M)SL Formulation only

Organo Mercurial dry So*ddressing 1 % (M/M)Formulation cnly

UPVC Pipos for P'-rtabie waterSupplies for Cl*ss 3, Siz-=s40MMfo 110 mm

Brahmaputra Steels Pvt. Cast Billot Incots for RollingLimited into structural steel (ordinary1119 Km, N.H. 31 Quality) Gseadc 1 and 2AmingaonGuwahati (Assam)-781031

Agarwal Hardware works M.S. for metal ARC WeldingLimited core wire for wire rods only2, Ishwar Chatterjec rimming qualityRoad Sodepur24 Parganas (WB)

Flexoflex Pipas Pvt. Ltd.A1-F5MM A'sIndl. ComplexMaraimalai NagarChenglepur Distt.(TN)-6032l9

IS: 07406 : 86Part : 02

IS: 01786 : 85

IS: 08074 : 90

IS: 03280 : 80

IS: 04985 : 88

IS: 06915 :78

IS: 02879 : 75

UPVC Pipes for Portable water IS : 04985:88Supplies

4884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

2

2271546

2271647

2271748

2271849

2271950

2272043

2272144

2272045

2272346

2272447

2272548

2272649

3

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

9J-08-16

91-08-16

4

Plot No. 49 & 81DISCO Industrial EstateSIPCOT Ranipet-632403

Industries & Ch">mu;alsPlot No. 49 <fe 81Disco Indl. Estate SipcotRanipet-632403

Industries & ChemicalsPlot No. 49 & 81DISCO Indl. EstateSIPCOT Ranipat-632403

Rajaram Stw 1 lads.N-4, M1DC Area Hignapur-440016

Rita Steal Industries251,252, 253 SmallFactory AreaBagadyanj Nagpur-440008

Veunars Engg. pvt. Ltd.B-31,MIDCGhughusChandrapur (MS)

Samsuklia Cables &Conductors Pvt. Ltd.5, Bichu BuildingKhader BazarBolgaum Karnataka-590002

5

Quinalphos 05% (M/M) ECformulation ouly

BHC. (HCH) 1.3% (M/M) DPFormulations only

Endosulfan 35% (M/M) ECFormulation only

Structural Stool StandardQuality)

Woldabe structural stoolgrado Designation Fe 4] 0 WAEqual Anglos - Sizes upto &Including 90 x 90 x 8 MM

Weldable Structural steel gradedesignation Fe 410 WA

Aluminium strandod conductofor overhead TransmissionPurposes

6

IS: 08028: 87

IS: 00561 :78

IS: 04303 : 80

IS 00226 : 75

IS: 02062 : 84

> IS: 02062 : 84

r IS: 00398 : 76Part : 01

Bhopal Wiros Pvt. Ltd. Aluminium Stranded Conductors IS: 00398 r 76Plot No. 7 Sactor 1 for Overhead Transmission Part 0 : 01Industrial Area purposesGovindpura, Bhopa 1-46202 3

Jammu Foods (P) Ltd.Village KainthpurJakh Morn Bari BrahmanaJammu (J&K)

B.K. Cumcnt ProductsPlot No. 646 SecthaKhurd Shahganj KbuthanRoad Jaunpur(LJP)

Konark Jutf Ltd.At/PO DhanniondaiDistt. Cuttack (Orissa)

Skoda (India) Engg.Pvt. Ltd.G-4, G-l 1-4 Indl.,Estate Arakonam-631005

Skim Milk Powder (Spray Dried) IS: 01165 : 86only

Concrete Pipes

Light weight Juto Bags forpacking Cement

Hand-Operatfcd CompressionKnapsack sprayer, non-prerssura retaining type)Tank Capacity 9.12 & 14Litres

IS: 00458 : 71

IS: 12154 :87

IS: 01970 :82Part: 01

4885

1

"177

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53,

54,

55,

56

57

58

22272750

2272851

2272952

2273045

2273146

2273247

, 2273348

. 2273449

. 2273550

. 2273651

. 2273752

;. 2273853

3

91-08-1.6

91-08-!6

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-08-16

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

4Sumex Chemicals Ltd.

POBoxNo. 144LiUipor, ChikhlaStato Highway No. 6Distt. Valsad-396001Shri Ram RayonsShri Ram NagarIrtdl. AreaKota (Raj.) 324004

Monsanto Chemicals ofIndia Ltd.50/51, Lonavala Indl.Estate Post Box No. 1Nagargaon, LonavalaDistt. Punc-410401

K.S. Oils (P) Ltd.(Tin container division)Indl. Area Morena (MP)

Full Power Works364-A, Chkag Delhi,New Delhi-110017Remu Pipes Ltd.Khazipally VillageJinnaram MandelDistt. Medak (AP)Jain Metal Pvt. Ltd.-B-65, Sector 8 NOIDADistt. GbaziabadCUP)-20l301Jam Metal Pvt. Ltd.B-65, Sector -8 NoidaDistt. Ghaziabad(UP)-201301

Datt EnterprisesF-l/36, SultanpuriDelhi-110041

Shri Datta Swami CementLime Products Pvt. Ltd.

Paragaon, Post & TalyedaDistt. Nasik (MS)

Rajaram Steel IndustriesN-4. MIDC AreaHingna RoadNagpur-440016

5

Cvpurmothrin25% (M/M)ECFormuluiion only

Carbon TotrachlorideTechnical Grad* Only

Triallate50%(M/M)ECFormulation only

15 Kg square Tins forvanaspati & Edible Oils

Protective Helmets for scooter'Motor Cycle and MopedRiders

UPVC Pipes for Potable watersupplies, Class 2, sizes 63 MMto 180 MM, Plain Ended

Aluminium Stranded Con-ductors for overhead

Transmission purposes

Aluminium Conductors,Galvanized steel Reinforced

Transmission Purposes

Protective Helmets forscooter. Motorcycle andMoped riders for Type NV.size 570 MM Open Face.Precast Concrete pipes of NP^Class. Size 900 MM(Plain Ended)

H'SD Steel Bars for GradeFe 415 Sizes 8 MM to 20 MM

IS: 12016 :87

IS: 00718 :77

IS : 0935& : 80

IS : 10325 : ?9

IS : 04151 : 82

IS : 049S5 : 88

IS : 00398 : 76Part : 01

IS : 00398 : 76Part : 02

IS : 04151 :S2

» IS ; 00458 : 88

IS : 01786 : 85

Amar Plastics Injection moulded PVC Socket IS : 07834 : 87Amar House, Plot No. 103 Fittings with solvent Cement Part : 03Road No. 12 Maroi, Joints for water suppliesMIDC Andher (E)BomLay-400093

4886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 19J3 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1

59.

60,

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

61.

2

2273954

2274047

2274148

2274249

2274350

2274401

2274552

2274653

2274754

3

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

4

Bhuwalka Steel IndustriesLimitedVillage-MadawaliTaluka-Kalyan,Distt. Thane (MS)

Summerking Electricals(P)Ltd.E-183, Sector 17Kavi Nagar Indl. AreaGhazaioad (UP)

Anil Bnginecring WorksDelhi Bye-PassG.T. Road, KamalHaryana -132001

Andhra Pipes Ltd.173/A.A1A2Bolarara (V)Jinnaram (Mandal)Distt. Medak.Hyderabad PowerUnit No. 108.Sri VentakateswaraCo-op Indl. Society Ltd.Kukatpally, BalanagarHyderabad-500037

P.R. Cements Lid.Vopala MadhavaramVillago MellacheryMandalaroNalgonda Dis't. 50S246

A.K. CastingsVodvyas Chowk, RourkelaDistt. Sundargarh(Orissa>769041

Tamil Nadu Steels TubesLtd.B-1O&3-13,Maraimalai NagarIndl. ComplexMoraimlal nagarChengai Anna Distt.603209

Lutus Deluge SystemsPvt.Ltd.Kalyani GardensAshok NagarBangalore-560050

5

HSD Steel Bars of Grade Fc416 Sizes 8 MM to 16 MM

Pumpsets for Desert Collers

Monoset Pumps for Agricul-tural Purposes, 5 HP/3.7KW, Size lOOx 80 MM andHP/5.5 KW size lOOx 80MM

UPVC pipes for Potable waterSupplies

PVC Insulated Cables forworking Voltages upto &including 1100 V, Sheathedand unsheathed withAluminium conductors

33 Grade Ordinary PortlandCement

Sand Oast Iron spigot &soil & ventilating pipe fittingand accessories

Steels Tubss for Idlers forBelt conveyors, Size uptoand including 165.1 x 5.4

M(o.o&th)Type ERW, Grade Yst 210

Portable fire Extinguishers,Dry Powder (Cartrjtlgo Type)of 5 Kg and 10 Kg

6

IS : O17&6 : 85

IS: 11951 :87

IS : 09079 : 79

IS : 04985 :88

IS : 00694 : 77

IS : 00269 : 89

IS ;01729 :79

IS : 09295 :83

IS : 22171 :85

4887

J

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

2

2274855

2274956

2275049

2275150

2275251

2275352

2275453

2275554

2.775655

2275756

27,75857

3

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-0&-16

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

1-09-01

91-09-0!

91-09-01

91-09-01

i\

Nisha CemsntjDhoni (PO)

Palakkad-678017

Weather MakersBehala Indl. Estate620, Diamond HarbourRoad BehalaCalcutta-700034

United Associates9, Village PitampuraDelhi-110034

Poonam Engineers &Consultants Pvt. Ltd.Plot No. 33, 5 to 57D-III Block, MIDCChinchwad Pune-411019

5

Ordinary Portland Cement33 Grade

6

IS 00269 :89

.loom Air conditioners of IS 01391: 71Capacity 5.2 RW14500 K Cal/n)

Domestic Gas Stoves for Usewith LPG of Cast Iron

Duble Burner

Unreinforced Corrugated ACsheets of length 1750 MM to3000 MM (Excluding FrostResistant Type)

IS 04246: 84

IS 00459 : 70

Anupam Industries Non-Pressure stoves (Multiwick) IS 02980 : 86Khasra No. 894 Type) Painted BodyAlipur Garhi Delhi-110036

Aristo Knitters79, P.N. RoadTirupur-638602

Rathi Cement Co. (P) LtdPlot No. E-345Marudhar Indl. AreaBasni, Phase-IIJodhpur

Shree Wood Products (PiLtd.,391, Phase 10,Udyog Vihar.Gurgaon (Haryana)

S.N. Vij & Co.Sector 27 C. Plot No. 60Faridabad (Harvard)

Vanms Clnmisals,Main Road.Velhmpntti Post.Melur TL; Ink.Madurai 625122

Southern Insecticides &Fertilizers,l-A/2, Indl. Estate,Ambattur,Madras 600098

Plain kjnitted cotton vests,TypeRN&Rns;75to 110CM& Gauge 24 only

[. Ordinary Portland Cement,33 Grade

) Woodsn Fiush door Shutterswith Block board core,type Bn (Non-Decorative)with Face Panel ofCross band and face Veneer

Sand cast iron spigot andSocket Pipes, Size 75 and100 MM only.

Copper Sulphate, Technicalonly

BHC 1.3%(M/M)Isoraer.Dp Only.

IS 04964 :80

IS 00269 :89

IS 02202/83

Part : 01

IS 01729 : 79

IS 00261 : 82

IS 00561 ; 78

3193GI/91— 3

4 R 8 S " - . T H E G A Z F . T T F . OT I N D I A . D E C E M B E R 2 1 , I ° > y ! / A G R A H / W A N A 3 0 . 1 « • » I :< ! P A R T U - ^ S f t f : • 3 . ( f l ) I

79.

80.

si-

82.

S3.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

2275968

2276051

2176152

2276253

227S354

2276455

2276536

2276657

2276758

2276859

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09 01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91 -09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

Van tech Pesticides Ltd..S.N. 180/1 to 180/5Khazipally Village,Jinnaram Mandal.Distl. Medak.

Kates t Bottling (P) Ltd.,Village Kalibati,PO Motta,Distt. Puri (Orissa) 752020

Gujarat Agro ChemicalsMfg Co.,151-153/1,, Naroda fiidt.,Estate Ahmodabad.

Stanzen Links'473-A2, 12th Cross,IV Phase, Powiya Indl.Area,Bangalore 560058

Sri. flalaji industries,8-4-378/2/AHemavathi Nagar,Ashok Marg,Ermgadda,Hyderabad 500018

Modern Tin Products,15-13-78,ManglagiriRoad.Guntur 522002

Modam Tin Products,15-1 3-78," Manglagiri RoadGuntur 522002

Shah, Industries.Diwiln Sons Indl. EstateNo. 5,Gala No. 9.Vasai(E).Distt. Than a 401202

Polyphase Motors,702 GIDCMak&rpumBaroda 390010

H.V. Indl. ElectronicsPvt. Ltd.,B-52/53, Gi.dc ElectronicEstate Sector 25.Gandhinagiir 382023

Monocrotophos. Technical

Brandies.

Malathion 25"O(M/M)WDPC Only.

Thrce-Plv^.T Induction motors2.2 KW and 3.7 KW, 4 P,415 V Duty S 1 with class 'B\

Insulation.

GRP Squatting p;ms ContactMoulded type.

I 5 Kg Square tin^ for Ghye,Vasnapati, Edible Oils andBflkary Shortenings.

18 Litre Square Tins.L

Switches for Domestic andSimitar Purposes, 6A, 240 VAC Single-Polo one way Push

Button Flush Mounting type

Thrjv'-phase Induction Motors.0.75 KW 4-P 415 V. Dyty Siwith class 'B' Insulation.

3 Pin Plugs, 6A, ."50 V,3 Pin Socket outlets 6 & 16 A250 V Flush Mounting.3 Pin Combined Socketouflots 6 & 16 A, 250 V,Flush Momitjng.

IS 08025 : 83

IS 04450 : 88

TS 02569 ; 78

FS 00325 : 78

IS 1124b ; 85

IS 10325 : 89

rS 00916 : 89

IS 03854 : 88

IS 00325 ; 78

IS 01293 : 88

4 ^ ;

J

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

1X*

2276960

, 3377053

2277154

2277255

2277356

2277457

2277558

2277569

3

91-09-01

91-09-0!

91-09-01

41-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

4

RV. [ndl. Electronics,Pvt. Ltd..B/52/53, GJDC KlcclroniEstate Sector 25,Gandhinagar 382023.

Jai. Msruti Gds Cylinder(P) Ltd.,Plot Mo. 122 & 123,[1 Phase,Malanpur Jndl. Area,Gwalior.

Himpsx Pvt. Ltd.,27. Indl. Area,Mehhatpur,Distl. Una (HP) '7 4315

Pith'impur Cortiima Pvt.Ltd.,Plot. No. 68S, S^ lo r3Pithampur,

.Distt. Dhar (MP)

Pithampur ConzimaPvt. Ltd.,Plot No 6S8, Sector 3Pithampu r,Distt. Dhar <MP)

Swathy Cable & Con-ductors Pvt Ltd,,A.P-VI/516 B, IndlDev. Area,Malvila, Kalath<jo<\Thiru vananthapu i-> m(.Kerala) 695583

Blue Crystal CbemieulsPvt. Ltd.Plot No. 26-A.Veerasandra Indl. AreaHosur RondBangalore 56215#

Blue Crystal Chemicals <Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No. 26-AVeerasandra Indl. AreaAnekal TalukHosur Road-Baugalorc-562151*

5

Ceiling Roses, 5A, 250 V.

ic.

s Welded steel dissolvedAcetyline gas Cylinder ofwater Capacity 41.0 Litres.

6

IS 00371 : 79

IS 07 312 : 82

JuLe Bag for packing Fertilizer IS 07406 : 86LaminaU<I Bags Manufactured,

from 380 G/M SQ. 68 x39Tarpi.u, Part : 02Lin Fabric.

Aluminium Stranded Con-ductor for Overhead Trans-mission Purposes.

Aluminium Conductors,Galvanized Steel Reinforcedfor Overhead TransmissionPurposes

Aluminium Stranded Con-ductors for overheadTransmission Purposes.

Copper Oxychloride 50u,,(M/M)Water Dispersiblc PowderConcentrates only.

Copper Oxychloride-Technical.

IS 00398 : 76Part : 01

IS 00398 : 76Part : 02

IS 00398 : 76Part : 01

IS 01507 :77

IS 014&6 : 78

4890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 IPAUT II—SEC. 3<iO J

1

97.

$8.

99.

100.

101,

102.

103.

104.

101

22277760

2277861

2277962

2278055

227S156

2278257

2278358

2273459

2278560

3

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

91-09-01

4

Madras Lamps (P) Ltd.F-58 Sipcotlndl.ComplexGummidipoondi (TK)601201

Shri Tirupati Udyog57-B Mohadi GutShifsoli Road-Jalgaon-425001

K.V. ChemicalsD-I56 TTCArea-Thane-Belapur Road.Distt. Thane (MS)

Manodeep Pumps59 Pudhu ThottamChinnavedampatti POGanapathy (VIA)Coimbatore-641006

Leo Lamp Electrical &Electronic IndustriesD-No. 1-192/1Ragolu.Sreekakulam (Mandal &Dist) AP 532484

Ranka Cables Ltd.IDA Phase IVPatancheruDistt Medak (AP) 502319

Technical AssociatesIndustries LtdFaizabad RoadNear Maruti WorkshopLucknow.

S.N Industries.487/1, Peera Garhi.Delhi-110041

Structural Water ProofingCompound Pvt. Ltd.B-29, Sector 4Noida,Distt. Ghaziab:id (UP)

5

Tubular Fluorescent Lampsfor General Lighting Service-40 W. 6500 Deg K.

Aluminium ConductorsGalvanized Steel Reinforcedfor Overhead Transmissionpurposes.

Foam Concentrate forProducing Mechanical foamfor Fire Fighting AqueousFilm Foi-ming Foam (AFFF)

Thrcc-Phasc Squirrel CageInduction Motors for Cen-trifugal Pumps for Agricul-tural purposes.

Tungsten Filament GeneralService Electric Lamps 60 to1100 Watt 230 V B 22 Coiled

CoiJ.

Aluminium Alloy Stranded;Conductor (Aluminium-Magnesium-silicorc type)

for Overhead-Transmission purposes.

Aluminium ConductorsGalvanized Steel Reinforced

for Overhead Transmissionpurposes.

Bitumen Impregnated fibrePreformed fillers for Expan-sion joints in concreteStructures Pavements(Non-Extruding andResih'ent Type)

Admixures for Concrete.

6

IS 02418 :77Part : 01

IS 00398 : 76Part : 02

IS 04989 : 84Part : 02

IS 07538 : 75

IS 00418 :78

IS 00398 :79

Part :04

IS 00398 : 76Part : 02

IS 01838 : 83Part : 01

IS 09103 ; 79

4891-

1

106.

107.

2 •

2278661

2278762

3

91-09-01

91-09-0J

4

Dhanjal Steels Pvt. Ltd.,.Plot No. 37,lodl. Area,Baddi,Distt. Splan (HP)-174101

B. Hazra & Co ,Shaupur, ShiDtola,Das. Nagar,Howrah 711105

5 b

Steel Butt Hinges-Sizes 75 MM IS 01341, : SIand. 100 MM (Medium Weight)

Sluice Valves for water works IS 02906 : &4Purposes of Size 350 to600 MM, Pno.6

[NoCMD/13: 11]

S SUBBAHMANYA.N. Addl. Director General

Am. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 2l , i W l /AGJUHAYANA 30, J9J3 [£ART i l—Sjq. 3(ii) j

MINIS! RY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 5th December, 1991

S.O. 3096. — Wherca* by the notification of the Govern-ment ot lndi;; in the Ministry of Energy (Department ofcoal) No. S.O. 611, dated the J8tti Febnuuy, 11)91, publishedin the Gazette of India, Part It, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),dated the 2nd March 1991, at pages IOS« to 1091, issuedunder snb-section (1) of section 7 uf the Co;»l Bearing Areas(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), thecentral Government jptvc notice of iU intention lo acquireihe lands described in the Schedule appended to thainotificatiou;

And whereas it hut* been brought to ihc notice of theCentral Government that certain errors of printing naturehave occurred in the publication of tbe >aid notification inthe Official Gazette.

Now, therefore, in exercise oi the powers conferred bysub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby amends the iaid notification us follows:

at page 1089,

in Note 1, in line 6, after the word "or" and before,the word "the11 the ward '"at" shall bo inserted;

at paae 1090,in ihe Schedule, before item no, 1, in column 2, the

word "village" shall be inserted and for tbe words"'village", "Tahsil" and "Distt."' in column 3, 4 and5, the words "Tahsil" "District" and ''Area inacres (approximately)" shall be substituted;

in plot numbers to be acquired in villageNaurhiyu, in line 3, ufter plot no. *'48(P)" andbefore "57UV plot 'no. "56<P/' ^hnll be inserted;

la plot nlHubei'a to be acquired in village RajLhad, inUne 5, for plot no. "104(P,V read "204(Pj";

in plot numbers to be acquired in yiWuge ChaJtuwar,in line 4. after plot no. "265(P)" and before plotno, "272OT, Plot no& "266, 267, 268(P), 269(P);one tin-numbered plot" shall \x inserted;

in Bt>midaiy description, ia A-B, in line 7, for the word"Sighai" read "Sitahi";

at page 1091,

in i-J, in line 1, alter plot number 124 and beforeiht word "village", the word ''•of" shall be inserted;

m O-P, in line 2, .after the words "plot numbeif andbefore the word "'of" the figure "35" shaJl beinserted.

Any person interested in any land in respect of which theiitpvo amendment has* been issued, may within thirty 'daysof the issue" of this notification object to the acquisition ofthe whole or any part of the Miid land, or auy right in or<iv«r such lnnd in termt of subjection (1) of i^ctjon-tl ofthe said Act;

489 V

The Coal ComiWler, 1, Council Hous* Street, Calcuttah\n been appointed by ihe Central Government nsthe Competent Authority under the said Act videnotilkaiion No. 43022/ 12/87-CAiii), dated ttre 5thOctober, 1987 published in ihe Gazette of Indiadated the 17th October, 1987 •« payes 35S7 to 3591.

I'xplanutioa :

In respect of plot numbers being acquired through thisnotification, ihe \aid period of thirty days in terms ofsection 8 of the said Act starts running from he date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

INo. 43015/2»/8lM_SW]

B. D. RAO. Under Secy,

(Department ot Agriculture Kesemvh & I'Jucatirtnl

New Delhi, the 18th Novcmhrr, 1991

S.O. 3099,—The Central Government, Mimstiy of Asrlcul-wre, Department of Agricultural Research * Education herebydeclares the Central Institute for Research on Cotton Techno-logy (1CAR) where more than 80 oer cent of staff haveacquired the working knowledge of Hindi, as notified officein pursuance of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 10 of the official Lunsiuagefuse of official purpose of the union) Rule 1976.

T, C. SLID. Under Secy.

(Department of Rural Development;)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 27lh November. 1991

SO 3100.—In exercise of the owers conferred by Sec-lioa 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (10 of 1955),the Central Government hereby rnak.es the following Oitlerfurther to amend the Gold Storage Order, 1980, namely -.—

1. lU 'fWs wder may be ;allcd the Cold Stort»j!c (Amend-ment) Order, 1991.

(2) It shall come into force un the date of its publica-tion in the Official Gazeltc.

2. hi the Cold Storage Order, 1980, (hereinafter referredto us the said Order), in clause 7,—

(a) in sub-clause fa), for the letter* iind figures"R.N. 1000.00", the letters and figure* "Rs. 50QU.QD"shall be substituted.;

(h) in sub-clause (b), for the letter^ and ftgureK"Rs. 500.00", the letters and figures "Rs. 2500.00*;shall be substituted.;

(c) In sub-clause (c) foi the letters and figure*"Rs 200.00", the letters and figures "Rs. 1000.Wshall be substituted.

3. In clause 11 of the said Order, for the word ""year", the"fifth year from the year" shall be substitrHcd.

•4. In clause 12 of the said Order, in sub-clause (1), forihe wlOrds, letters, brackets and figure "Form *E" and form'Hn (in duplicate) to the Licensing Officer accompanied withthe renewal foe specified )n Clause 7". the word*, letters

4894 .THE GAZF.T1E OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 (PAJOT II - -SEC. 3(ii)]

bracket* «nd figure "Form 'E' (in duplicate) to the licensingOfficer accompanied with the renewal fee specified fn clause7. The form 'H' duly filled in by the licensee shall besubmitted on yearly basis to the licensing Officer before Ihc31it day of October every year" shall be substituted,

5. In clause 20 of the said Order,—

(a) for the vvords "the Licensing Officer shall", thewords "Licensing Officer may"1 -,hall be substituted.

(b) for the words "foodstuffs in the Cold Storage orfor any other service connected, therewith", thewords '"any foodstuff in the Cold Storage or forMiy other service connected therewifli :

Provided that the Licensing Officer may, if he is satis-fied, that certain categories of Cold Storage needexemption from fixation of maximum charges,exempt such Cold Storages by notification in theOfficial Gazette" shall be substituted.

[No. F. 46012'3/90-MI1

SARAI.A GOP ALAN, Jf. Secy.

>JOTE.—Principal Order published vide S.O. No, 2453 dated20-9-1980 Part II, Section-3, Sub-Sectfou (if) ofthe Gazette iotf India.

Subsequent amendments:

1. S.O. No. 2964 dated 23-7-1983

2. S.O, No. 3001 dated 22-9-1984

3. S.O. No. 475 dated 2-2-1985

4. S.O. No. 3506 dated 26-114988.

MINISTRY OF IABOUR


S.O. 3101,—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 pf the Employees' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government herebyappoints the. 1st December, 1991 n*> the date on whicn theprovisions of Chapter IV (except sections 44 and.45 whichhave already beta brought into force) and Chapters V a»ciVI except subjection (1 ) of section (1) of section 76, 77.78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into forceof the said Act shall come into force in the following areasm the State of Andhra Pradesh namely':—

"The -areas within the revenue village of Patighanapurunder Patancheru Revenue Mandal in MedakDistrict."

[No. 15-33013 '40/91-SSI]

J. P. SHUKLA,. Under Secy,


S.O. 3102,-—In ursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal Asanso) as shown in the Annexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Chapui Khas Colliery of M/s. E.C. Ltd. ofiheir workmen, which was received by Ihe Central Govern-ment on the 25-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CKNTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTRIAITRIBUNAL, ASANSOL

Reference No. 49/90

PRESENT •.

Shri N. K. Saha, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES :

Employeis in relation to the Management «f ChuptilKhus Colliery of M/s. R C. Ltd.

AND

Their workman,

APPFARANCES :

For ihe Employers—Sri P. K. Das, Advocate.

For the Workmnn—Sri Bijoy Kumar, Joint Secretary inthe Union.

INDUSTRY : Cowl. STAFF : West Bengal.Dutcd. the 13th November, 1991

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour iwexercise of the powers conferred on them by clause (d) olsub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of tbeIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, has referred the followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder I.^2012fl45)/90-IR(C.IT) dated the 6th November,1990.

SCHEDULE

"Whether m the face of the protest lodged by theworkman in the form contaning important excerptsfrom service record claiming his year of birth as1939 against 4-4-33, the management «.f ChapuiKhas colliery under Satgram Area of ECL, in notgetting the age of Shri Bhola Rajbhar, Ug. Loader,assessed by the Area Ape Assessment Committee asper Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III, was justified ? If not, to *-hat relief the work-mnn is entitled V

2. The case of the union in brief is that Sri Bhola Rajbharthe concerned workman of this case was a permanent emp-loyee of Chnnui Khas Colliery as Underground Loader underFastern Coalfields Ltd., having his Identity Card No. 1623775.His name wns rctffstcred in the statutory 'B' Form Registerin ST. No. 776 nnd he was given C.M.P.F. Account No.B/460990. In 1987 he was served with Service Excerpts andthe authority invited objection if any. In that Service Excerpt"*

4895

his date of birth was shown as 4-4-1933. The workmanraised objection claiming that in 1987 he was aged 48 years;md his year of birlh was 1949. The workman entered inthe service in 1961 when fie was aged 11 years.

The management referred his cusc to a Screening Com-mi dee. After examination of records ami without any medi-ciil tests the Screening Committee confirmed the age asrecorded in ;he "FT Form Register.

3. The union hcing dissatisfied with the action taken byI list management mised dispute with the A.L.C. (C) Asartsoloil J2-6-89. Attempts ot conciliation failed. The matterV-Lis sent to the Ministry of [.about and ultimately thefc;if!wt|;y of labour has referred the dispute to this Tribunalk-\ 'Mtitini&tioTi,

4. The case of the manafie'niefr* In brief is that the dateof birth of the concerned workman wus correctly recordedas 4-4-1933 in the 'B' Form Register as per d««Jaration ofthe workman at the time of his entry m the sefvUw on1

1-7-1961. The concerned workman raised objection agitUM-we enft'y of his age in the 'B' Form Register when he wasserved wilh Semitic Rx<;«rpts. He was referred to an AfieDfclcrmination Committee according to the instruction No. 76of JiB.Q.C.T., and after examination the Committee con-firmed Bit date of birth as recorded in the 'B' Form Register.Stj the workman is not entitled t° Se* »rty relief in this case

, 4. Admittedly Sri Bhola Rajbhar was a permanent work-man or Chapui Khas Colliery. It is also »dntltt*d that his(late of riifirf Was recorded ; s 4-4-1913 in the 'B" Forth fceris-tel: It is not disputed that the workman raised objectionagainst the entry regarding his age in the 'B' Form Register-when he was served with "Service F.xcerpU. VVft find from thematerials on record that he was referred fd a ScreeningCommittee for assessment of his ai:e when he raised objec-tion. The learned Lawyer for the management has utg»dbefore me that after consulting all the documents the Screen-ing Committee has rightly confirmed the date of birth re-corded in the 'B1 Form Register. He h«s torged before methat on the basis of the renorts of the Screening Cfrmrnitteethe workman is not entitled to get any relief and the aCtlotfof the management wns justified,

The learned Lawyer foi- the workmnn has Urged beforeme that the Screening Committee only examined the"1 t>sPers

which were placed before the Committee. Brit the workmanWas not medically examined. The management could notproduce any document to show that the workman was medl-ealfv examined. Ttl n cast! like the pre^-nt one the medicalExamination is a must for determination nf the age of theworkman. But T find1 that the lame WHS not done in theinstant ca;e. In such circivnv.tances T find no substance inthe submission made by the learned Lau-vcr for the manage-ment. V find thai the concerned workmnn must be examinedby Apex Medical Hoard for determination of his age.

6. Tn the result f find that the action of the managementwas not Unified. The workman Sri Bhola Raibhnr must bereferred bv the, management to Apex Medical Board fordetermination of' his age.

(i) If the Medical Board on examination findi that thedste of birth of the workman ii 4-4-1935, then theworkman shall not get any relief in the instantcase.

fii) ff the Medical Bonrd finds that he was born after4-4-1913, then the workman must be Riven PIIservice benefits according 1o the ltport of the Medi-cal Board.

N. K. SAHA. Presiding Officer

[No. l.-22012/I45'90-IR(Cin]

S.O. 3103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Dalmia Colliery, Salanpur Area of "M/s.H. C. Ltd., of their workmen, which was received by theCentral Government on 25-11-1991.

ANNFXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRA I GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIATTRIBUNAL, ASANSOL

Reference No. 27/91

PRESENT :

Sbri N. K. Saha, Presiding Oihcer.

PARTIES:

I-mployers in relation to the Management of Dalmia

Colliery, Salaopur Area of M-'s, E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers—Sri V, T. Pandey, Manager (Person-nel),

For the Workman—Sri Samiran Chakrnvorty, Represen-tative of Union,

INDUSTRY: Coal. STATE; Weal Bengal.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in(SKercrse of the powers conferred on them by clause (d)of sub-section (1) and subsection (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has referred the followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012(88)/91-IR(C.IT) dated the 6th June,J991,

SCHPXnjLZ

"'Whether the management of Dalmm Colliery, SnfanpurAren of M/s. ECL, P.O. Safnnotir, Dist. Burdwanin dismissing Smt. Sundari Bowri- Truck/Wagonloader w.e.f 23-4-1988 was justified? Tf not, towhat relief the workman is entitled and from whatdate 7"

2 The ense of the union in brief is that Smt. Sundari Bourl«'n* a permanent Truck /Waaon Loader of Dalmia Collieryunder FL<s<ern Coalfields Ltd. Tn April/May. 1985 the con-cerned worker fell seriously ill due to miscarriage and deathnf a baby. For Mich circumstances she: could not attend ner,1uty for a considerable period and she hod sent verbal In-formation through co-worker about her absence. Then shetvesmc mentallv disbalanced and sould not recover for;oining duty.

Thnt in the meantime the management issued a char8e-iheet doted 15-7-R7 which was received by the concernedivorVcr at a belated stage and she submitted written reply.in 2-17.-87 She submitted medical certificate aldnc withher repl'v But she did not net any information regardinghntdmg of any enquiry. The alleged enquiry was done behindIhe back of "the worker. No notice wns served upon theworker. Ultimately she was dismissed from service w.e.f.21-4-88.

A dispute woi raised on her behalf by the union. Theattempts of conciliation failed. The matter was sent to theMinistrv of Labour and the Ministry of Labour ultimatelyreferred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3. The case of the management in brief is that the con-

4$96 W E GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECfiMttBR 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)]

cerned worker was absent without intimntion to tho authorityfrom May 19N5 and for that she was served with chargesheeldated 15-7-87 for her continuous absence without permissionand authority. The worker submitted written explanation butthat was not satisfacory. So the management held a domesticenquiry. Sri P. S, Ghosh the then Sr. Peisonnei Officer wasappointed ns F.nquiry Officer. The enquiry was held in. pre-rence of the concerned worker nnd her co-worker. The Work-«r duly purtiripated in the said enquiry. In the enquiry sheVBA found nu'Hty to the ch.»rjte levelled against her. Onthe result of thesaid enquiry she ups nshtlv dismissedfrom thr service. The punishment imposed in this case isquite proooi tionate with the offence commuted by theworker. So she is not entitled to «ret ahv relief in this

4. touring hearing of the case Sri Snmiran Chakra\ortythe learned representative of the worker has submitted thatthe union does not challenge the validity, legality and fair-ows of the domestic enquiry Ivld bv the management inthe instant case. He submits thru the CQ'irf mtist hold thattbe domestic enciuirv was nr'i;ierly and tairlv held and theonion doe; not challenge the same. Considering the submis-sions mnde hv Sri Clinkrflvortv, 1 ilnrt that the domesticenquiry wiw properly and fairlv held. The concerned workerwas riphtly found guilty in the domestic enquiry.

5. Now ihe only question remains tvfive iho Tribunal ifto see whether the punirhnicnt irnnosed iu this case is pro-ooitionav w<tb. the offetvse committed by the concernedworker. Th* cower h"S been conferred to 'he Tribunal bySection 11-A of thr Industrial Disputes vct. 1947.

Adrtiivcc'lv the com:erned woiker was absent from dutvWithout inlimjit'on <\r aDV permission from the authorityfrom Mnv. 1985. The learned renre«ennHive of the un'onhas iuwd before me thnt the worker was severely ill dueto miscarriage nnd for thai nwion she could not attend herdutv. He hns further urwd before me that this Court as aman i>f prudence roust ho7d that for Nome unavoidable cir-cnmitnnces the worker could not attend her dutv be^ne afarnMv "inn. He hus iirirod tvforc me ihnl the nun'shmentImrwvd in this case is verv harsh and is no) proportionateWith the offence coinmittcd by the worker.

On the other hand Sri V. T. Pandev, Manager Personnel.(he lenrned ii-nri-s^ntHtivc of the TCinnaenient his urcedheforr m e 'hut if *nrh unauthorfsftj atwence >s epcourapedh would br verv difficult to maintain discipline in tbe orira-nii)tion and the work <>f the msinnannept will su*Ter andt h ' mnni"cment will I I I H W '"neii.irjblp lost, W'th due res-pr t to h'i cinlention T like- to 'nv thrt »t the nreacnt ti-nedictYii*3*5rtl from w*rvif-e is worse f^Pi i-rtnitî ^Titiiph'PPnt. TheJfrvn'Me Siini-*;t»n. Court ha' hî'l tînt i:;ini<;?l " ini i ' l imrnijlhntl hp iTyitv>$/i/i i\i n rnrn of t fv ^nvi'1st c^sc^. P'"tpoidi-.T-»npnil IYI* forts i i id c'r,"'iirTisfr'nC''-i of 'he 'Tutinf c""1 f find th«t(t Jti not n ense of r i r « " f the rarest f.T'lire. I find thnt in(h^ ini'nnt ";"e thf nun'sbment [mr^scil is iw>t pmnoi"*'Onntewith +h^ offptit-p ômT>itt^(t ^v *h^ urorVr»r. J fi^-^ iba+ inp c11^ 1'^'^ t^n rrc^rni OP*1 ' "r'H h* scivcre ^HTii*:hrnP>it ifi h " f i H t I w k «'a!tw he for"etfd 'ind thnt would meet theends of iust'c-.

fi In tbr- r1-'"'* r Rnd thai the, îovT<nH of Smt. SundnriHrtlli-i U'.p f T^-4-IQfiS WP( n"t i'V«t)*»ff> The i-nncfnicl)U'nrlfp^ shnH ^ nk'r'^fPtrH in cervire within six ^nnnths ^romthp ffn+i" >f mTW'.-pfiAti of th*1 îv.irrj w^h^nt anv h^ck wattesff «:Ti *<: mpd^nV*^ flt to rpfl'lmp hrr ,^nti^*: .91.' "t ^nc bp^nrfyrifpn<l*ri in *ti(* wri*fPn ^fp^cmi-nt th^t for ir^nt^l 'ifabflTRnê«hp rO'|T * ôt ifvri t irr r7n*v Tn t^T* r,n»< the fn'ire hrcVwnn"i "h;'1! ••'•iid foifl^t^d ;>s r>i'n!shment.

Tf i"1*1 mP'i;'*n1 evr"n>n'1f'Pr' 't is foimil that ' m l . Siindnr'flour! '•! still not mrntaliv fit to rr>»MT"p ti^r dl l t" in thateven* i 'h" «hn11 n"t ™et ^nv if l ief in this ca*e.

Thtf is mv award

N K. SAH^' , Prc-Jidinff OfficerTNo, T-720n,'RS"O1-IR{r.n)l

New tklhi, the 28th NoVembpr, 1991

SO 3104—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDi-putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947,), the Central Governmenth-n-by publishes the award of the Ceniral Governmentinduslrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the Aimexure mIhe Industrial Dispute between the employers m relationlo the management of Amki Colliery of Sohagpur Area ofM|s. S.E.C. Ltd., of their workmen, which was received by[tic Central Government on the 28-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORK SHRI C. N. SHUICLA, PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTTIAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (M.P.)

Case No. CGIT|LC(R) (195)|1989

PARTIES :

Employers in rtslation to inauagement of MJs. SECL,Amlai Colliery Sohagpur area, District Shahdol(M.P.).

AND

Their workman, Shri MadaB Singh S|o. Shri JangBahadur Singh. Ex-Casual worker, representedihrough the General Secretary, National OollieryWorkers Federation, Sohagpur Area, Post Dhanpuri,Distt. Shahdol (M.P.).

APPEARANCES :

For Workman.—Shri D. L. Ajjarwal.

for Management.—Shri R. Menon, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Coal Mine. DISTRICT : Shahdol (M.P.).

AWARD

(15-11-91)

This is a reference made by the Central Government,Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L-22O12(69)]89-IR(C-II) dated 27th Sept. 1989, for adjudication of thefollowing dispute :—

"Whether the action of the Management of AmlaiColliery of Sohagpur Aroa of M|s. S.E.C. Ltd., POAmlai, Distt. Shahdol in terminating the servicesttf Sri Madan Singh son of Shri Jang BahadurSingh, Ex-Casual worker w.e.f. 1-11-1982, is legaland justified 7 If not, to what relief the workmanconcerned k entitled ?"

2. Facts leading to this case arc that Shri Madan SinghiS|o. Shri Jang Bahadur Singh, Ex-Casual Worker, wasappointed in the year 1973 and since then he was conti-nuously working in Amlai Colliery. His services wereterminated with effect from 1-11-1982.

3, Workman says that he fell sick and he took treatmentat Amlai Colliery Dispensary from 9-8-82 to 10-8 R2. Ftorbetter treatment he approached the, Doctor, GovernmentHospital and took treatment from Dr. Singhai krf theGovernment Hosp;tal from 11-8-82 to 7-11-82. After hebecame fit he reported for his duties to the Manager, AmlaiColliery on 9-11-82 but he was not allowed to jofn =tPtfn?V1?1! , hol , s c n" 'C K fiave b e e n laminated with effect froiri

4. The workman never received any letter of terminationHe had no knowledge about the same. No exptenation wascalled from him. Ho wag not n . .

mi

minaiJan of his service is neither legal nov ju&tified. Heis entitled to be reinstated with all back wages rmd conse-quential benefits.

5. Management s'ays thut he was a habitual absentee, lieabsjcuicu iiom duty with ellect iiom 1-9-1982 without givingany information to the management. According to Cl. 17(ii)01 me biauiu'ng Oidcis applicable to the workman auyperson wno absent himself without permission for moreihan 30 days his services will come to an end automatically.Accordingly nis seivices tame ta an end on 1st November,1982.

b. Even though the services oi the workman ciime to anem' as back a'.» 1982 he raised ihe dispute tor the first timeoeiuie me A.L.C. on 3-8-1988. Ihe workman has nocase and the reference is liable to be rejected.

7. Similar facts have been reiterated in the rejoinder.

8. Reference was tbc issue in the case.

REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS :

9. 'I he workman has examined himself in support of hiscase and has proved documents Ex.. W|1 to Ex. W|6. MauaEe-inciii nas examined two witnesses viz, S. L\ Sharma (.OnAffidavit) as M.W.I and S. B. Sahai (On affidavit) as M.W.2ana proved documents Ex. Mjl to Ex, M|5.

10. The first Doctor's Certificate appeal. to be dated3-11-82 (?) (Ex. W|l) which is on record, Ex. W|2 isjoining report dated 5-4-85. Then again there is an applica-tion dated 16-1-85 which is Ex. W,3. There is noihh.g onrecord to show as to what the workman did prior1 to 16-1-85.'Ihcre is further nothing on iecord to show that the woik-uran had informed the management about his illness orprior 1)3 16-1-85. The statement of W.W.I does not helphim in any way. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidenceof S. P. Sharma and S. B. Sahai. it is a pure and simplecase of desertion and the dispute raised m the year 1988lacks bona fides. Thus the action taken by the manage-ment cannot be taken to unjustified. Tb? workman is notentitled to any relief whatsoever. Rpfcrecne is accordinglyanswered as follows :—

The action of the Management of Amlai Colliery ofSohagpur Area of M/s." S.E.C. 1 td.. P.O. Amldi,Distt, Shahdol in terminating the services of ShriMadan Singh son of Shri J~ang Bahadur Singh, Ex-Casual worker w.e.f, 1-11-82 is Jpgal aod justified.He is not entitled to ;iny relief. Nto order asto costs.

V. N. SHUJfM, Presiding Officer

[No. L22012(69)/89-[R(C.Tt)l

S.O. 3105.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, labulpur as shown ic the Anmexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management nf Covinda Colliery of M/s S.E.C. Ltd.,of their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on the 28-11-91.

ANNEXURE

KEJ-URL SHRI V. N. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER.CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I.ABOUR COURT, JABALl'UR (M.P.).

Citue No. CGIT|LC(RX68)|19S7

PARTIES :Umployers in relation to Uie rmmageineiit of Govindti

Qodlicry of SEC Ltd,, P. O. Kotma Colliery,Shahdol (M.P.) and their workman Shri DhanvendraS|o. Ram ivumar, Ex. Badli Worker, representedthrough the R.K.K.M.S. (1NTUC), P-O- Shahdol,

District Shahdol (M.P.).

APPbARANCES :

For Workman.—Shii Jwgdish Singh.

For Management.—-Shri R. Mcnon, AdvVxaie.

INDUSTRY : Coal Mining. DISTRICT : Sbahdol (M.P.JL

AWARD

Dated, November, 1,2th 1991

I his is a reitieiice made by Ihe Central Government.Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L-21O12|3O|86-D.IIUri) dated 25th May, 1987, lV-i adjudicationi oi tlufollowing dispute :—

"Whether the termination of Shri Dhanvendra S|o. Ram.Kumar, Ex-Badli Worker of Govinda Colliery ofSEC Ltd.. by the Supdt. (M)|Manager, GovindaColliery, P.O. Kotraa Colliery Disl. Shahdol videletter No. WCL|SUPDT(M)|GOV|ABSENCE|2556dated JO-12-1983 is justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled for 7"'

2. A Badli Worker, Dhanvendra Sjo. Ram Kumar is saidto have been workine since the year 1975 in Govinda Colliery.He was a Badli Tub-lbader. He wi«s charge-sheeted on29-H-83 as follows as per Ex. M|l and was ultimately re-moved from service vide order dated 10-12-1983.

3. Workman says (hat he was iick from 20-7-83 to 8-10-83He joined on 21-10-83. He was charge-sheeted on 29-10-83

CHARGES

"V>»u atfe m the hahit of remaming imauthorised absenc*rrom duty as is evident from the atteTidanre particularsffiven below :—

Jan.Pdi.MatchAprilMayJin -JuljAugiKfSeptOct.Nov.DiC.

1981

07Nil

. 01910

07ifi(14nil(K1

ii2ft

198:

2105

,nJoil

I)niloilnilnilnil

1

1S8S

nilnilOilnilKilnil

0Tnilnilnilnilnil

Tf the above charges are proved it would be consrtutwim::*OTduct under the certified standing order applicable tothe colliery by which yfou are governed. The said siardtasor:fer repds as under :—

16(4) Habitual late attendance and habitual abseoo*without leave or without sufficient cause.

4&89 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii) ]

16(16) Continuous absence without permission andwithout satisfactory cause for more than 10 days-"

4. Again he was taken back on duty on 2-11-83 and con-tinued upto 12-12-83. Badli workers do noi get regularwork. The enquiry was improperly held. As and whenthe woAman was absent ho informed the managementaccordingly. His termination is illegal aiid Sup<Jt|Mauageris not competent to dismiss him.

5. Management says that he was appointed as BadliTub-Loader with ctfect trom 29-ll-iyt>5. He wus habitualabsentee ion which he was given the above charge-sheet.Workman admitted his guilt. After having held an enquirythe services of the workman were terminated. The orderis just and legal and the reference is liable to be rejected,

6. Following issues were framed by my learned predecessorand my findings are recorded as follows :—

ISSUES

1. Whether the domesticjdepjrtmental enquiry isproper and legal 1

2. Whether the punishment awarded is proper andlegal ?

3. Whether the management is entitled to lead evi-tie'nee bejure this Tribunal ?

4. Whether the terniinatioa|uctioii taken against theworkman is justified on the facts of the case ?

5. Relief and costs.

FINDINGS i

6. This Tribunal vide proceedings dated 15-5-91 heldthat the enquiry is proper and legal and the question ofnvanagement to lead evidence in regard tjo misconduct of theworkman does not arise.

7. So fai( the question of remaining issues is concernedvide Ex. M|4 the workman himself has admitted his guilt.In Ex. M|5 also he partly admitted that he was sick, butno dfc)|Cumciit was fiied by the workman to prove thnt hewas sick or he was under treatment and therefore he couldnot attend his duties. Except Ex. W|l and Ex. M|l toEx. Mj5 there is no other evidence on record.

8. Horn the admission of the ^wrokman it could beclearly said that the workman .vas habitual defaulter aspointed out in the charge-sheet. There is nothing contraryto it. It has also not been pointed out as to howthe Supdt.|Manager1 of Mines was not compotent to dismissthe workman concerned.

9. Habitual absenteeism fior such a long time is a seriousmatter. The workman has failed to point out that duringthese days he was not given job because he was a Badliworker. That being sq and looking to the nature of thechange it is not justiciable to interfere in the actiontaken by the management. Punishment awarded is properas also legal and justified on the facts on record. Workmanis not entitled to any relief. Reference is accordingly answer-ed as follows :—

The termination of Shri Dfaanvendra S|o. Ram KumarEx-Badli Worker of Govinda Colliery of SEC Ltd bySupdt. (M)fManagcr, Govinda ,colliery, P.O. Kotma CollieryDist. Shahdol vide letter No. WCL/SUP£>T(M)/GOV;ABSENCE/2556 dated JO-J2-1983 is justified. Workman concorned is not entitled to any relief. No order as to costs.

V. N. SHUKLA, Presiding Office]

fNo. L-21012/30/86-D.riKBX

RAJA LAL, Desk Office


SO 31U6.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 U4 of 1947J, the Ceniml Governmenthereoy publishes the award of the Central oovernmeniIndustrial Iriminul, Kaupur as ••Ujuwn m the Aniiexutv, inthe industrial dispute between me employers m leiatiou totlie management of Govt. of India iJrcss, Aligarh and theirwunkmen, which was received by the Central Governmenton 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV, PRESIDING OFFICER,CEN'IKAL GOVERNMENT INDUS*RIAL lRitJUNAL-

CUM-LAJJUUR COURT, KA.NPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 44 of 1990

In the matter of dispute between 'President,R'ajkiyo Mudralay Karamchari Sangh.Madhupura,Station Road,Aligarh-202001.

ANDManager,

Govt. of India Press,Aligarh-202001.

AWARD

1. The Central G|oiverdment, Ministry of Labour, videits Qotiiication No. L-16OI2|l[89-D.2(B} dt. 15-l-|y90, hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication to this1 ribunal :—

'••Whether the Manager of Govt. of India Press, Aligarh,was justified in reverting Sh. Om Prakash, from thepost of Binder to the post of Binding Asstt, w.e.f,7-10-87 ? If not, what reliof the workman wasentitled to ?"

2. In the instant case the first date for the crbss examina-tion of the workman was 26-6-90, but since then the crossexamination of the workman could not be concluded till6-/2-90. The dates lixed in the case intermittently werehjanned to the workman by notices but despijc that theworkman did not appear for his cross examination on 6-12-90.

3. It therefore, seems that the workman is not interestedin prosecuting its case. Therefor, a roo' claim award ist'iven in his favour.

4. Reference is answered accordingly,

ARJAN DEV. Presiding Officer

[No. L-16012/1 /89l-D.II(B)(Pt)]

ANNEXUREBKFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV, PRESSING OFFICERCENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL IR1BUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANDU N^GAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No, 300 of 1989In the matter of dispute between :The President,Rn.shtriya Chaturtha Shreni Rail Mazdoor ConirressUNTUC) 2-236 Naranair.Agra.

4899

AND

The Divisional Rly. Manager,Central Rly. Jhansi.

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide itsnotification No. L-41012|69[K9 IRlDU) dt. 28-11-89. has re-ferred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Whether the Divisional Rly. Manager Central Rly.Jhansi was justified in terminating the services ofShri Tula Ram Chakroborty w.e.f. 18-1-87 '.' tf not,to what relief the workman was entitled?

2. On 28-10-91 parties representatives S|Shri Sure'ndraSID li Uor the Union and Shri B. N. Bhaltacharya for themanagement were present. Shri Surendra Singh moved anapplication on behalf of the Union praying that since theworkman has been kept in service in persuance of the orderdt. 23-5-^0 passed by the Central Admipistrativc Tribunal,Allahabad, a:, such reference has become infructuous. T doagitee with the prayer made by the authorised representative,tor the Union.

AND3. Jn view of the above the present reference order has

become infructuous and as such it is decided accordingly,4. Reference is answered accordingly.

dated 30-10-91.

Sd/-

ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer


S.O. 3107.—In pursuance ot Section 17 d" the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the awaid ot the Central Government in-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as .shown in the Anncxurc, in theindustrial dirpute between the employer, in relation to tilt;management of SDO (Tclephons) Rishikesh and their work-men, whicn was received by the Central Government on25-11-91.

K. V. B, UNNY, Desk Officer[No. L-40012/105/88-D.V(B)(Pt)

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV, PRESIDING OFFICERCENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR. COURT, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

In the matter of dispute between :

Industrial Dispute No. 149 of 1989Shri Makan Singh, Casual Labour,Telephone Exchange,Rishikesh, Dehradun.

ANDSub Divisional Officer,Telephones,Rishikesh,Distt. Dehradun.

AWARD

. l l T h 5 Ce"t™l Government, Ministry of Labour videits notification No. L-40012|105|88-D-2(B) dt. 26-5-89 hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication to ' this1 nbunal :—

Kya Upmandal Adhikari (Telephones) Rishikesh ka ShriMakan Singh Mazdoor k0 dinank 1-2-88 so jevra

se nihkashit Kama nyayochit nai / Yaili INani tokaramkar kis anuthosh ka adhikari hai '?

2. The case of the workman in brief is that he had work-ed as a daily rated casual labour from 1985 to 31-1-88.However his services were terminated illegally in violationof the provisions of section 25F l.D. Act w.e.f. 1-2-88. Hefurther alleges that he had been paid wages at the rateLt R's. 12.50 paisa per day when he ought to have beenpaid wages at the rate of Rs. 28,25 paiNa per day. He has,thcrelbre, pfayed for his reinstatement with full back wages.

3. The case is contested by the management. The manage-Dicnt plead that the workman was engaged as a DRCL inJuly 1985 and his services were legally terminated w.c.f.1-2-88 after giving him one month's notice dated 21-12-87.On 31-1-KK he way offered 15 days wages by way of retrench-ment compensation but he refused to accept the same.I herefore ton 3-2-88 the said amount was remitted by money

order to the workman who refused to accept it. Accordingto the management the workman was engaged on temporarybasis with the clear understanding that when his servicesv L«uld be no longer required, his services would be ter-minated. The management deny that the workman hadbeen puid wages at the rate of Rs. 12.50 paisa per day.According to the management the workman had been paidRs. 10536 as arrears of wages.

4. In his rejoinder the workman has denied that hewas ever served with any notice dated 21-12-87. He hasalso denied that he way offered retrenchment compensationby the management on 31-1-88. He further denies thathe ever refused to accept the amount remitted to him byv.ay of retrenchment compensation by money order. Acdbrd-ing to him his retrenchment compensation amounted toRs. 1271.25 paisa. Besides he has challenged the order ofhis termination 'on the ground of violation of section 25Nof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. In this case although the workman filed his affidavitin support of his case, a statement was given on his behalfby his authorised representative on 18-3-91 that the work-man docs not want to lead any evidence in support fcrf hiscase and that the date be fixed for the cross examinationof the management witness who has already filed an affidavitj,i suppbrt of the management's case.

6. Ft|om the facts litated by the management in paras1 and 2 of the written statement it is evident that evenaccording to the management the workman had workedfrom July 1985 to 31-1-NH. In his cross examination, themanagement witness Shri Murari Singh SDO(T) has admittedthat the working of the worlma'n during the 'aforesaid periodhad been continuous. It follows therefore, that the work-man had worked continuously for rriore than two yenrs priorto the tertnination of his services.

7. Jn this case the authorised representative for the vjeprk-man has not pressed the plea with regard to voilation ofsection 25N of the Act raised in the rejoinder by the work-rnii.i. He has however, pressed the plea that the order oftermination was passed in violaion of the provisions ofsect;on 25F l.D. Act.

X. From the number of working day found above, theapplication of section 25F l.D. Act stood, attracted. So wehave to find out whether or rJcrt the management beforetcrniinutiTig the services of the \vbrkman gave hi m onemonth's notice or notice pay and whether or 'not before theleimination of his services, the management offered himiretrenchment compensation.

9. With his affidavit the management witness has filedthe copy of notice dated 21-12-87. It is annexurc 2. Thenotice was issued to as many as 7 workmen including thepresent workman. At the foot of the notice there' appearthe signatures of Mich workmen as received the said notice.Amongst them the name of the workman does not appearIt means that primafacic he was not served with this notice!Neither in the written statement nor in the affldavt of themanagement witness it is stated that the workman had re-fused to receive the notice. However in hi* cross examina-tion, the management witness has dew»ed that tint w«rt.

4 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA . DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART Ti_SEC. 3(ii)]

man had refused to receive the notice. According to himhe was told about it by Shri Jaspal Singh, Mustoring Officer.It is admitted by him that Shri Jaspal Singh is still inservice oi" the management. He also states that in this casenothing was given in writing by Shri Taapal Singh. There-fore, in the absence of the evidence of Shri Jaspal Singhino reliance can bo placed on the testimony of the manage-ment witness that the workman had refused to accept thenotice. Hence, 1 hokl that the management has failed toprove service of notice dated 21-12-88 copy a'nncxurc 2 tothe affidavit of the management witness.

10. Even on the point of payment of retrenchment,compensation the evidence adduced by the management isnot worthy ct credence. The case set up by the manage-ment is tnal he was ollered 15 days wages as retrenchmentcompensation on 31-1-88. However, in para 4 of his state-ment in cross examination, the management witness hasdeposed that for the lirst time retrenchment compensationwas sent to the workman by money order on 3-2-88 withhis affidavit the management witness has filed photostat copyof the acknowledgement portion including the senders nameand full address and space for communication of the moneyorder. It shows that Rs. 186,75 paisa were remitted by wayof 15 u'jys wages as retrenchment compensation to theworkman. Firstly it comes out from the evidence that theretrenchment compensation was not paid/not offered upto31-1-88 to the workman. Secondly it comes out thatRs. 18o.75 paisa did not amount to full retrenchment com-pensation to which the workman was entitled on accountof his having put in more than 2 years of continuousservice. Section 2?F(b) lays down that in tnjch a case theworkman has tfc> be paid, at the time of retrenchment, com-pensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average payfor every completed years of continuous service or any partthereof in excess of six months.

11. Thus we find that there was a clear vojlation ofsection 25F I.D. Act by the management at the time ofteilininating the service of the workman. The workman

is therefore, entitled tio his reinstatement in service withfull back wages and all consequential benefits.

12. The workman has also raised the point that he hadbeen paid wages at the rate of Rs. 12.50 paisa per day whenhe ought to have been paid wages at the rate of 28.75 paisaper day. Thi*_plea has not been pressed by the. authorisedrepresentative for the workman, after he has admitted thestatement filed by the management with their writen state-ment regarding payment of arrears of wages amounting toRs. 10536.35 paisa, to the workman.

13. Hence, it is held that the action of the managementin terminating the service of Shri Makan Singhg workmanw.e.f. 1-2-88 was neither legal nor justified. Consequentlythe workman is held entitled t0 his reinstatement with fullback wages atid all consequential benefits subject to hisfiling of an affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfullyemployed any where eke during the period he remained outof service of the management.


Sdj-

ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-4O012/105/88-D.TI(BXPt)]

S.O. 3108.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenlial Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-

dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Cantt, Hoard JVlecru't r.nd their workmen,which wai received by the Central Government on 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFICERCi-'NTRAL GOVFRNMEMT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 15H of 1990

In the matter of dispute between :Shri Joeclish S!o Shri Mangoo C/o Shri Subhfish Chandra

Singhal 24, Tanki Moballa, Meerut Cantt,-250001

AND

Cantonment Board Executive Officer Cantonment BoardMeerut-250001.

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide itsnotification No. L-13012/7/89-D-2(Ji) dated 18-7-90 hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tri-bunal :—

Kya Cantt Board Mcerut ke prabandhtantra dwara ShriJagdif.ii Putra Shri Mangoo jise June 1986 kc sak-shatkar ke baad dainik vetan bhogi safaiwala keroop me karyarat kiya gaya tha jahan usne June87 tak karya, kiya tha yeh kan kar naukari na denaki vah niyukti patra dinak 16-3-87 ke ansuar' medi-cal panjiyan karvakar das din ke andar karya parupasthit nahi hua nyayochit hai 7 Yadi nahi tokaramkar kis anutosh ka adhikurj hai ?

2. On 24-10-91, when the case was taken up for hearingShri B. C. Tondon appeared for the management. Neither1

the workman nor his authorised representative was present.On 24-10-91 the case was fixed for the cross-examination ofthe workman. Prior to it on 4-9-91 also neither the work-man nor his authorised representative was present. Howeverthe case wa3 adjourned to 24-10-91 and it was ordered thata notice be sent to the workman at the address found men-tioned in the reference order about the next date fixed in thecase. Notice was sent on 13-9-91, but despite that theworkman failed to appear in the case.

3. It, therefore, appears that neither the workman norhis authorised representative is interested in prosecuting thecase.

4. Therefore, a no claim award is given in the case.5. Reference is answered accordingly,

Sd/-


[No. L-13O12/7/R9-D.n(BXPt)]

SO 3109 In pursuance or Section 1/ ot me inausiriuDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Cuitral Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in tneindustrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of S.D.O. Telegraph, Mainpun and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on26-11-91.

4901

ANNEXURE

fiEPOHR SHRI AJRJAN DOV PRLSIDING OFFICERCENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALPANDU NAGAR, DEOK! PAL.ACT; ROAD. KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 2S0 of 1990

In (he matter of dispute between :

fehli Shiv Prasad S/o Shri Shiv Sahni r/o 252/10 Shastrffiae-oT, Kahptfr, Pin 20K005.

ANE*

Up Mandnl Adhikuri (Tar) D H I Av.-mi Tar VitoiafrJugjit Nagur, Mainpuri-205001.

AWARD

1. The Central Oovernment. Ministry oe Labnur, vide itsnotification No. L-40012/30/90-lRfDU) dated 20-11-90 hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tri-bunal :—•

Whether the nction of the management of sub-DivisionalOfficer Telegraph, Department of Telegraphs, JfaejitNocar Division, Mnltinwi in terminating the ser-vices of Shri Shiv Prasnd w.e.f. 12-8-87 is justified?If not to what relief the concerned workman iientitled to ?

2. The workman's case <n brief is that he hud been ftlthe employment of the management from J 5-7-83 to 1fi-H-84Snbseaiientlv he wns directed to work m another unit atMainpuri whereupon he worked there from 73-9-86 to11-8-87. After ll-R-87 he was asked to RO back tft hisparent unit but he WHS not taken in service. He haa there-for^ nraved for his reinstatement with back wages.

S. The raw proceeded exnnrte aaainst the manapement.In sunnort of his case, the workman Visis filed hit* affidavitplonywith nhnto copies of s^me documents. On goingthronch the documents produced bv the workman 1 find thathe hna proved his ca?e exp^rtp atmin;;t the management, Hav-inc worked foi> mmi' thrm 240 rlnvs during the period nre-cedinp thr d-itr of hi" 1"°+ workin" h" b»rnnir ^nt'ti^d 1oth" Ttrotwtion of sec. 25F (. D, Act, Tbe workman in hisaffidavit hHS denoted that nt the time of hi': terminntion hewan neither given mv notice nor notice ™v nor vn\<\ ret-rfichiicnt romricT'sntion. The mnniicpir.i'nt havine friied tooomplv with \hf rruindfttorv rrovioiops of i1!-. ?. F T, D. Act,the action if th» '"Hiagrrncnt in '?rrair'tinc Wn services ishr'd as voAl rri'nitio.

A H»iiw it 5K held thnt »V-» aft'On of the -\i"r>"ementfn t-Tminnt-nn; the =rrvipp^ of the ""I'+mim w.p.f 12-8-87 ^

enti^Vd fnr h ' s i-îTîtiitPr^^Tit ™M\\ fiiU hn(]V w ° " c ^ *mbircttr> h;- ftitp" i*< '.ffHuvit to the effect fhat hr was rot eainfuiivemri ivd di11""!" (Vie rrriod he rcriained out of cinploymcntfrom the *ervir» of the mnnniiem>'nt.

5 Reference is nnswered sccordiHR1v.

Sd'-

APTAN DFV, PrcsidlnK Officer

[>TO, L-4OO12 'SO/gn-TRfDTTIfPt^l

SO 311O.-In pursuance of SectSon 17 of the ûs t r l a lDisputes Act, JW H4 rf 1947), the C g d ^ g ^S5 \^J^J?^\^ KV xurc.

in tfie industrial dispute bclwccn the employers in iclatioii tomanagement of S.D.O. (Telephon -sj Rishikcsh .inJ theirW 0 l ! j " ) ? n ' f ,

w h l c h w a s received bv tile Centra) Governmenton 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

, | ^ 5 E SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFICER( ^ ^ L ^ ' ° V E R N M E N T INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT PANDU NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Disputo No. UK of 1989

In the matter of dispute between : ~Shri Bhaskai- Dev Tewari C/o (.11U Kuryalnya Local

J3u» Stand Dehradnn.

AND

Up Mandaf Atlhikuri (.Telephones) Rishikesh DistrictDehradun.

AWARD

The Central Government, Mmi'atry of Labour, vide itsnotification no. L-40012 '106/88-2(3) dt. 26-5-89, )ias rc-fcrrcd the following dispute for adjudi'.'iition to this Tri-bunal—

Kya Upmandal Adbikari (Telephones) Rishikesh kaShri BhaskHr' Dev Tewari Mazdoor ko dinank1-2-88 se aewa se nikalna nyayochit haj ? YadiiNahi to karamkar kLs unutfish ka adhiknrf hai 7

2. The case" of the workman in b»-,cf" js that he had wor-ked as a daily rated casual Uiboi.r X om 1986 to T1-1-88.However his services Were termin^li'tr jllcgaly. in voiiatiowof the provisions of section 25F f.D. Act, w.e.f. 1-2-S3. liefurther alleges that he hod been paid wases at the rate ofRs. 12.50 paisa per day when he ought to have been paidwages at the rate of Rs. 2R.25 paisa per day. He has, there-fore, prayed for his reinstatement wit'1 full back wages.

3. The case is contested by the rmnmg.ment. The man-agement plead that the workman was ennamed as a DRCLin March 1986 and his services wer; legally terminatedw.e.f. 1-2-88 after giving him one monlli1; notice. On31-1-88 he was offered 15 days wage; bv way of retrench-ment compensation but he refused to accept the same.Therefore, on 3-2-88 the said amount wJS remitted bvmoney order to the workman who refused to accept it. Ac-corilins to the management the worknia i vro-i engaged ontemporary bads- with the clear undent; ndim' that when hisservices would be no longer required, his services would beterminated. The management deny tha1 the workman hadbeen paid w;iaes at the rate of Rs. 12.50 raisa per day.According to the management the workman had been paidRs. 1O0O3-75 P. as arrears of vapes.

4. In his rejoinder the workman has denied that he wasever served vith any notice. He has "iso denied that hewas offered retrenchment compensation I'v the managementon 31-1-88. He further denies that >i? ever reFused to ac-cept the amount remitted to him bv way of rerrrnchmentcompensation hy money order. Acrordinrr 1-' him his ret-rpnehment compensation amounted to Rs. 847.50 paisa. Be-sides he has challenged the order of his termination on theground of voiiation of sec. 25N LD. Act.

5, Tn this ciw on 21-2-91 the wivkrrvin moved an appli-cation to the effect that he had not to file imy affidavit insupport of hie case. Marmgemon' however, have reliedupon oral ar/i documentary evidtnes.

6. From the facts stated by the mapêrrwnt in para 1and 2 of the written statement it is evident that even ac-cording tn 1he rMnapemcnt the workman had worked fromMarch" 1986 i-» 31-1-RR. fn his cross fxnînn'ion. themanagement witness Shri Murari Sinrti SHOIT) '-ni admit-ted that the working of the workman .'unnH the pforcsaidperiod had been continuous. Tt follows thereff-e, that theworkman hod worVed corjtinuousiv fir rnoy ihnn n yearprior to the terminaion of his services Bccaiue of it in hiscase, the provisions of section 25F are .ittracted. I maystate here that during the course of his arguments Shri

4902 THH GAZETTE OF INDTA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1QI3 IPART IT—SEC. 3(ii)l

O. P. Mathuir (he authorised represenlativi for the work-man had not pressed the pl»a with regard lo the allegedviolation of section 25N T.D, Act raised in the lejoinder.

7. So we have To find out whether or not the manage-ment before terminating the services of the workman govehim one rnaftth's notice or notice pay and whether or not'before the'Termination of his services the management offe-red JnriKn. retrenchment compensation.

8. The management witness has JileJ with his affidavit thecopy of notice dated 21-12-87. ft is annexnre 2. From thenotice it appears thai the management intended to terminatethe service of 7 workmen including the present workman.Below the names of Ihcse 7 workmen there appear the sig*natures of such workmen is had received the notice.Amongst them the nnme/of the applicant/workman does notappear,

9. It is no where stated in the written statement or inthe affidavit of the management that the workman had re-fused to receive the notice when on behalf of the manage-ment it was tendered to him. For the first time it has beenstated by the management witness in his croin-examinalicn,that the workman hud refused 'o accept it. However, themanagement witness is enable to tell us lo who had goneto serve the notice and when he hao tfone to pcrve themotice cm the workman. Ho admits thnt the workman is'not a possession of nny written proof on the point that the"•workman had refused to receive the notice. Because of ItCannot be held that the workman was served with anynotice.

10. With regard to retrenchment compensation the wit-ness has deposed that he cannot tell when for the first limeretrenchment compensation was offered to the Workman•without looking to the documents. After he was shownannexures 4 & 5 of his affidavit he stated that for the firsttime RH. 186.75 paisa by way of retrenchment compensationwere remitted bv money order to the workman on 3-2-88.Anncxure 4 is the photo copy of the portion of the moneyorder. It shows that Rs. 186.75 prusa towards retrenchmentcompensation, was remitted to the workman, for 15 days.Even if, it be taken that the workman was entitled to thismuch retrenchment compensation, the said amount havingnot been paid to the workman bv 31-1-88 it could notamouil to compliance of section 25F of the I. D. Act.

11. Hence I hold that <he management did not complywith the provisions of section 25F f.D. Act, before termi-nating the services of the workman. The workman is, there-fore, entitled to his reinstatement in service with full backwages and all consequential benefits.

12. The workman has also raised the point that he hadbeen paid wages at the rate of Rs. 12,30 paisa per day whenhe ought to have been paid wages at the rate of 28.75 paisaper day. This nlea has not been messed by the authorisedrepresentative for the workman, after he has admitted thestatement filed by the management with their written state-ment regarding payment of arrears of wages amounting toRs. 1OOO8.75P, paisa to the workman.

13. Hence, it is held that the action of the managementin terminating the services of Shri Bhasjcar Dev Tewariw.e.f. 1-2-88 was neither lecal not justified. Consequent^the workman is held entitled to his reinstatement with fullback wastes and all consequential benefits subject to his filingof an affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully emp-loyed any where else during the period he remained outof service of the management.


Sd/-

30-10-91

\RTAM Dev, Presiding Officer

tNo. I. 40012/106/88-D.U(B)(Pt)]'

S.O, Jill .—In Diirsiitifiee Of Section [j df ,lhe IndustrialDispute!! Afiti 1947 (14 or 1947); the fcehtrul Governmenth#reby publfohte lot award of the Central Government In-dustrial TVifounial, Jahalpur as shown in the Annexnre, inthie industrial dispute between l'ie employers in relation tothe management of Telecom Dihtt. Engineer, Amravati (MS)and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 26-11-91,

ANNF.XURE

BEFORE SHRI V. N. SHUKL\, PKESlDtNU OFFtCF_R,C F . N T R A L G O V E R N M E N T • i N O U S T E t A I , T R I B U N A L ;

CUM-LABOUR COURT* JABU.PUR (M.P.)

CASE NO, CGlI7tr 'R)">1)/i988

PARTIES t

Employers in felatioh to the1 mah.uemciit of TelecbrriDistrict Engineer, Amravjfi (A1S) and Jheif- work-rrtun ;Snn Bharqtrao Btaajgat C/o Sliri V. K. Stile,President, All India ToleiSraph' Engineerihg Emp-loyees Union, Class 3 & 4 Staff, Kelra Tonk Ex-change, Amravati-444 602,

APPEARANCES :

For Workman—Shri V. K. Sule

Fo r Management.—Shri P.V.S.T. Sai

INDUSTRY : Telecom DISTRICT : Amravati (MS)

AWARD

Dated : November 14th 1991

This is a reference made by the Central Government,Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L-40012/46/87-D-2(B) dated 28th July, 1988. for adjudication of thefollowing dispute :—

"Whether the action of Telecom District Engineer interminating the services of Shri Anil flhafotraoBhagat, Casual Labour w.e.f. 18-5-87 is justified?If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to ?'*

2. Facts leading to the case are that Shri Anil BharotraoBhagal was appointed by the management at Telecommuni-cation Department on 1-5-85 having been sponsored throughthe Local Employment Fxehangc and was employed asCasual Mazdoor where he worked upto 7th June 1987.His services came to an end when management served aletter No. E-2/C/137 dated 7-5-87. He was again taken onjob on 15-8-87 and he worked upto 31-12-87. Again hisservices came to an end on 1-1-88.

3. Workman says that he had completed more than 547days of continuous service. Thus he h'.ul continuously wor-ked for more than 240 days in a yenr. He has not beenpaid n ^tice, notice nay or retrenchment compensation asrequire \ under Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act. He should havebeen itgulflrised instead of terminating his services. He is,therefr11", entitled to be rcinsiated with back wages andcontinuity in service and regularisation.

4. Mrnapement says that he was piven one month's ad-vance ro(ic\ On sympathetic pround the workman waspngaseJ -vih effect from 15-8-87 to 31-12 R7. Accordingtn the direction of the CM. Telecom no casual labour wasto bo engt cl after 7-5-85. Reference is liable to be re-lected.

4903

5. Reference wus issued in the case.

REASONS FOR MY 1TNTMNGS :

6. In rcjoindar the workman has pointed out that thealleged letter dated 7-5-87 wa> juceivevl by him on 18-5-87.This finds support from the alleged retrenchment noticeEx. W/3, photocopy of which is Ex. M/2. Obviously, itwas aot a one month's notice.

7. Ext. W/l la Identity Card. Ex. W/2 is his stutementshowing the days of work performed by the workman dur-jng the period which fact Is not disputed. Ex. W/4 i« aletter showing that his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-1-88due to non-availability of work. Ex. M/2 is photo copy ofletter dated 7-5-S7. Ex. M/3 is a copy of instructions fromthe Department of Telephones, This is nil the evidence onrecord. . ^ ^

K. The facts are glaring 10 hold thnt the workman hasserved for more than 240 day; continuously and even therewere breaks if any there is nothing on record to show thatthey were on account of the faul net of the workman con-cerned. Strangely enough the date of termination in theorder of reference is 18-5-R7 which is nobody's cose. Itshould be 7-5-87. It may be a mistake. However, that docsnot affect the merits of the ense.

9. There is obviously violation of the provisiois of Sec.25-F of the I. D, Act inasmuch as neither notice nor noticepay or retrenchment compensation has teen paid to theworkman us provided by Sec. 25-F oC the I. D, Act. Thusthe termination is void ab initio. His being taken on thejob from 15-8-87 to 31-12-87 does not make any differencebut will be treated as a part ot unfair labour practice todefeat just claim of the workman for continuity in service.It is for this reason that 31-12-37 has not been taken or1-1-88 as date of termination und»r the order of reference.The retrenchment c[ the workman is void ab initio. It siliable to be and is hereby set aside. I rely on the followingjudgment1; in this regard :

1. State Bank of Tndia Vs. N. Sundernmony 1976l-LLJ-476".

2. Mohan l.al Vs. Bharnt Electronics Ltd. AIR 1981SC 1253.

3. T,. Robert D'Souza Vs. Ex-Engineer, S. R. 1979I I.TJ 211.

10. T accordingly hold that the order of termination ofservice of the workman is void ab initio and he is entitledto be in continuous service from 3-5-87 onwards with allback wages and consequential benefits arislnj therefrom-The period of tvs work from 15-8-87 to 31-121987 shouldbe> adjusted nnd difference of payment be made for thisperiod, Thp workmen should also be regularised in accor-dance with rules. Rs. 500/- awarded as costs to be paidto the workman by the management. Reference is accor-dingly answered as follows ;—

Action of the Telecom District Engineer in termina-ting (he services of Shri Anil Bharolrao Bhagat, •CasuM T abour is not notified. He ii entitled tothe relief as per direction in para 10 of the award.

V. N. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

[Mo. T'400l2/4S/87-O.n(B)fPt)]

S.O. 3112-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947*, the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal. Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

3193 GII91—5.

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Telecommunication Sagar, (M.P.) andtheir workmen, which was, received by the Central Govern-ment on 26-11-91.

ANNEXURR

BFFORE SHRI V. N. SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I.ABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGnvi,C(RM27)/1989

PARTIES :Employers in relation to the management of P&T De-

partment, Damoh (M.P.) and their workman, ShrlMohammad Yakoob Khan, Pathani Mohalla,Hfndoriya, District Damoh (M.P.).

APPEARANCES ;For Workman.—Shrl S. K. Rao, Advocate.For Management.—Shrl R. K. Gunasta, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : P&T DISTRICT : Damoh (M.P.)

AWARD

Dated, the 12th November, 1991

This is a reference made by the Central Government,Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No, 1.-40012/22/88-D.1KB) Dated nil, for adjudication of the followingdispute :—

"Whether the action oE the management of Telecom-munication, Sagar, M. P. in terminating the ser-vices of Shri Mohammad Yakoob Khan w.e.f.1-8-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief andfrom what date ihe workman concerned is en-titled?"

2. The workman concerned, Shri Mohammad YakoobKhan, was working as a Casual Postman and worked at Tele-communication Sagar (M.P.). His services were terminatedw.e.f. 1-8-1987 without assigninR any reason. The compli-ance of the provisions, of Sec. 25-F of the T.D. Act was notmade.

3. Workman says that after completing 90 days servicesas should have been giv?n regular wage<? and also shouldhave been regularised. He was getting Rs. ?60 per monthwhich was leas than the resular wages. The termination isvoid ab initio and thus liable to be sit (wide with all conse-quential benefit, regularity and corUlrmity hi service and allother benefits with differences of wages.

4. Management says that being Casual Worker he was notentitled to wages of regular Post Man. He was not paidRs. 360 p.m. He was paid Us. 9 per day only. Manage-ment is not an industry. He was daily rated employee ap-pointed through the EiuDloyment Exchange. He was giveniob for specific work. There is no work froni January 1985.Reference is therefore liable fo be rejected,

5. Reference was the issue in the ensc.

6. The workman has filed his own affidavit and proved do-cuments Ex. Wll & Ex. VV[2. It is obviouslv not disputedthat the workman concerned from 24-1-85 to 30th July 1987which follows that he had worked for more than 240days. Tins fact further stands corroborated by the affidavitof the workman and Ex. W|l and Ex. W|3.

7. There are scries of judgments that the Telecommunica-tion Department'Post & Telegraph Department is an industryand the workman concerned is a workman within the defini-tion of Sees. 2(j) & 2(s) of Ihe T.D. Act. That being so,the workman hnd completed 240 cVws continuous service.There should have been compliance of Sec, 25-F of the I.D.Act, for want of which the lermimUion h void ab initio. Notonly this the workman had -.vorlxd for more than 2 yearsand he should have been considered for retrularisation.

8. I therefore hold that (he termination of the services ofthe workman w.e.f. 1-8-1987 is not justified. He is entitledto be reinstated with all back wages and consequential bene-

4904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21.13£l /A' J R A H A Y A N A *A 1913 I FAT T II—SEC 3' ii> 1

fits arising therefrom. Rs, 500 costs awarded to the workman,Reference is accordingly answered us follows :—

The action of the management of TelecommunicationSagar, M.P. in terminating the services of Shri MofiammadYnkoob Khan w.e.f. 1-8-1987 is not justified. He is entitledto be reinstated with all back wages and consequential bene-fits arising therefrom. Management shall further pay Rs. 500as costs to the workman concerned.


[No. L-40012/22/8&-D.II(BXPt.)]

New Delhi, the 5tb December, 1991

S.O. 3113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), tho Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Bangalore PS shown in the Annexure, Jnthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Rail Mail Service, Hubli Division andtheir workmen, which was received by the Central Govern-'ment on 2-12-1991.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated this the 26th day uf November, 1991

PRESENT :

Shri M. B, Vishwanath, B. Sc., B.L., Presiding Officer.

' CENTRAL REFERENCE NO, 2[1991.

I PARTY :

Shri M, Pmkash, S|o Maraknppa Shivwioorker, EDMMCasual Labour, C/o Ramesh Yeigol, Advocate, San-ganieshwarnagar, Oulbrga (PO) Karnataka.

(By Sri K. Appa Rao, Advocate)Va.

II PARTY :

(1) The Superintendent of Rail Mail Service, Hubll Di-vision, HUBII-580028.

(2) The Sub Record Officer, RMS Sub Record Office,

Station area, Gulbarga, Karnataka State.

(By Sri J, M. Rlazuddin, Advocate).

AWARD

1. By Order No, L-40012/103/904R(DU) dated 23/31stJanuary, 1991 the Hon'ble Cent nil Government had referredthis dispute for adjiidicalion undt'r clause (d) of Sub section( l ) and Sub-Section (2 A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1944), to the Tribunal,

2. The point for adjudication as per Schedule to referenceIs as follows :—

"Whether the ation of the management of Deptt. of.••post?. Kail Mail Service, Hubli Division, Hubll interminating the •services of Shri M. Prakash, S!oMarakappa Shivanooiker, Ex. EDMM Casual Lab-our is justified"? If not, what relief the workmanconcerned is entitled t>>'?

3. Notices were issued to both the parties.

4. The first hearing date was 19-2-) 991. On this day nBangalore Advocate has filed power for 1 party. Time wasgranted to him to file the Claim statement. In all a dozenadjournments woro granted to .the I party to file his claimstatement. But neither the counsel for the I party nor the

I party was present on ali the subsequent adjourned dates othearing. The I party has not filed ihe claim statement. TheTribunal issued a notice to (IK- Banagiore advacnle for Iparty lo appear before the Tribunal and file the claim state-ment, la pursuance of this notice, neither ihe advocate forthe 1 party nor the I party appeared,

5. As per the reference ihe 1 party's address is GulbargaAddress. Since the interests of a workman were involved,by way of abundant precaution, notice was Issued to thepersonal address of I party at Gulbnrg und the caw was takenup at Gulbartea, As per the notice the I party was directed tofile his claim statement at Gulbarga. The I party did notappear even at Gulbarga. He has not filed his claim state-ment so far.

6. From what I have narrated above, it is clear that theI party is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence thereference is rejected.

(Dictated to the Secretary, tuken down by him, got typedand corrected by me).

M, B. VISHWANATH, Presiding OfficerTNo. L-40012|103l90-IR(DU)(Pt.)]v

S.O. 3114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act* 1947 (14 of !947), the- Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Anncxure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Luck-now and their workmen, which was received by the CentrnlGovernment on 2-12-1991.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV, PRESIDING OFFICERCENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUlVf LABOUR COURT, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 2fiJ of 1990

In the matter of dispute beiwqen :Federal Councilor, National Federation of Post A

Tele. Employees, 7|1 P&T Colony, Aishbagh, Mal-viya Nagar, Lucknow-22600L

AND

Chief Postmaster General, TJ.P. Circle, M. G. MarR,Lucknow.

AWARD

1. The Central Government. Ministry of Labour, vide itsnotification tin. L-40011 J3|90-I.R. (U.I'.) dt. 24-10-1990, hasreferred the following dispute fur adjudication -to Ibis Tri-bunal :

"Whether tho Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle,Lucknow is justified in not revising the rate of dailywages of 9 casual labour (list enclosed) employed inthe Administrative office? consequent upon the int-roduction of 5 days week w.c.f, 9-8-1985? If not, towhat relief the workman concerned are entitled to?"

2. On 23-9-1991, the present case proceeded exparte and4-11-1991 was fixed tor exparle final hearing. On 4-11-91none appeared either on behalf of the Union to press theclaim. Management's representative too was absent. Till1.00 p.m. none appeared from either side.

3. In thus appears that the union is not interested in pro-semtintt (he case,

4905

4. Therefoie, u no claim award is given in the case againstthe Union|workmen.

5, Reference is answered accordingly.

20-11-W1.ARJAN DFV, Presiding Officer[No. L-4001l|3!90-lR(DU)(Pt.)|

b.O, 3115.—rn pursuance of Section 17 o£ Ihe IndustrialDisputes Act, JiM7 (14 of 1947J, the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, P.unguloic as Miown in the Annexurc, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Rail Mail Service, Hublj Division andtheir workmen, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 2-12-91.

ANN) XURK

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIUUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated the 26th day ol November, J991

PRESENT :Shi i M. B. Vishwamith, B.Sc, K.L.

Presiding OfficerCENTRAL REFERENCE NO, 3/1991

I PARfY ;Shri, Naruaimha, S/o Naravanrao Patil, C/o Remesh

YerjtcJl, Advocate, Siingaineshwarnagar, GUL-BARGA (POJ Knrnaiaka.

(By Sri. K. Appa Rao, Advocate).Vs.

II PARTY :1. The Superintendent flf Rail Mail Service, HUBL1

Division, HUBLl-580 0:K.

2. The Sub-Record Officer, RMS Sub-Recoid Office,Station area, GULBARj iA, Karnatakii.

(By Sri. J. M. Riazuddin, Advocate).

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/l')4<&iMR(])U) dated 23/31-1-1991, the Hon'ble Central Government had referredthis dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, J947 (14 of 1947) to this Tribunal.

2. The point for adjudication as per schedule lo referenceis as follows .:—

"Whether the action on the part of the Deptt. of costs,Rail Mail Services, Hnbli Division, Hubli in ter-minating the services of Shri Narasimha, fix. EDMMis justified ? If not, lo VVIIMI relief the workman isentitled to?"

3 Notice were issued to holh the parties.

4. The first hearing dale wns 19-2-1991. On this day a Ban-Balore advocate has filed cower for T party. Time was gran-ted to him to file the claim statement. In all a dozen ad-journments were granted to the [ party to fib his claimstatement. But neither the couiT-d for the T rjurty nor theI party was present on all the subsequent adjourned datesof hearing. The 1 parly has not filed the claim statement.The Tribunal Issued a notice u> the Bnnaalore ud\ocate forI partv to uppeui befoie tin "1'ii.uunl and file the claimstatement. In pursuant of this t mice, neither the advocatefor the 1 party nor the 1 paity appeared.

5. As per the reference the 1 party's address is Gulbarguaddress. Since the interest of a workman were involved,by way of abundant precaution, notice was issued to thepersonal address of I parly at Gulbarga and the case wastaken up at Gulbarga. As per the notice the I party wasdirected to file his claim statement at Ohilbarga. The I partydid not appear even at Gulb.irga. He has not Hied his claimstatement so for.

6. From what [ have narrated above, it Is clear that theI party h not interested in prosecuting the mutter. Hence thereference is rejeccd.

(Dictated to the Secretary, taken down by him, got typedand corrected by me).

M. B. VTSHWANATH, Presiding OfficerINo. :.-40012/l04/90-IR(Du)(Pl)]

SO 3116.—In pursuance of Section X7 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 194/ (.14 of IJ47), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Indusnial Tribunal, Kollamas shown in the- Annexure, in the industrial dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management of CPWD, Tri-vandrum and RP1-C, Tiivandrum and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 29-11-91.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT 01' THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

KOLLAM

Dated, this the Uth day of November, 1W1PRESENT :

Sri C N. Sasidhanm, Industrial TribunalIN

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 68/83

BETWEEN

(1)

The Executive Engineer, Trivandrum Central Division,C.P.W.D., Trivandrum-4.

(2)

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office otthe Regional Commissioner, Employees ProvidentFunds, Bhavisyanidhi Bhavnn, P. B. No. 1016, Fat-tom Tiivandrum.

(By Sri. V. G. Govindan Nair, Advocate, Trivandrum.

AND

Smt. C Balamma, Kaiiyikkal MacU Kuzhvila VeeduMary Land Studio Road, Nemom P.O., Trrvand-rum-21.

(By Sri. S. Balachandran, Advocate, Trivandrum).

AWARD

The Government of India £.8 per Order No. 1-42012/97/88-DUlB) dated 24-7-1989 have referred this industrial dis-pute for adjudicating Ihe following issue :

-Whether one of the two agencies viz. CPWD authori-ties rep. by the Executive Engineer, TrivandrumCentral Division, Trivandram who engaged her ser-vices as a part-time Sweeper and EPF Organisationrep by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,who utilised her services as a part-timo sweeper waithe netual employer of Smt. Baliimrnn, Part-time

4906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 2J, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, i y i 3 LPAIU 11—Stc. 3^u)J

Sweeper, employed to dean the stair caseand surroundings o£ Employees Provident 1-undyuwters u-l '1 in andiuni curing the period HornOct. li>B4 lo Nov. 1 '>S7 and wfietner the action ontrie part oi the employer, who M ever may be con-sidered her employer, in terminal ing her seivicesw,c.f. Nov. lyK/ is justified ? if not, to what relielthe workman is entitled to V"'

2. Tho workman Smt. Uakimma tins stated in her claimstatement ititit sue belongs lo a poor scheduled caste com-munity. tier case is briefly us below. She was appointed asa pan-time sweeper hy tho Executive Engineer, CFvVD,Tnvundnim, the mst management and joined duty on 23-J-83.She was attached to the stajt quaitcrs of. the Kcgional Pro-viociw Mind Commissioner, Irivandium the second manage-ment as pur instructions from lirst management. Accordinglyshe was attending to the sweeping work at the stiifl: quarterswithout interruption. Though she was appointed only as apart time sweeper her work invoked more hours of workthan a lull time sweeper. After completion of one year pci-iod as pait-tiine sweeper the was entitled to be absorbed tisNMR worker on full ttmc basis. She was receiving herwages irom the first management @ Jii. 275/- PM initiallyand subsequently revised AS KS. 350/-. Her services were beingutilised by second management and while doing so first man-ufomout lermmated her service with effect from 1-12-198/without any reason. The termination according to her is I'UJ-gal, itiegulur and unsustainable, iihe was not given iniLin;before such termination of service and no compensation wf<salso paid. In her pluco another sweeper was appointed undthe sweeping work is still available. The action UL manage-ment is a case of victimisation. Her further case is thather termination oi* service is as a retaliation foir lepicsentingthat she may be absorbed us a lull tinjc sweeper as severalpersons appointed after her date of appointment had beengiven such benefit. First management is the principal emp-loyer and second management is the immediate employerhence any oi these managements is liable to reinstate her inservice. Accoiding to her she is entitled to bo reinstated inservice with all benefits

The case of first management is briefly as below :

Tho fliit management has staged in the reply statementthat he claim of he workman is not maintainable as she isnot a workman as defined undei Industrial Disputes Act. Asper the request of the second management the first manage-ment engaged the workman as part-time sweeper to cleanthe common staircase and surroundings of the quarters otsecond management with effect from 30-8-1984. She was notengaged from the roll of employment Exchange. The main-tenance of campus of second management was taken overby first management on 1984. The workman was receivingallowance @ Rs. 250/-. She was only a part-time sweeper.By letter dated 18-11-1987 the lirst management informedthe second management that the cleaning and sweeping isthe duly to be looked after by the claimant department. Thecleaning and sweeping work was discontinued by the firstmanagement. The first management did not appoint orengage anybody as sweeper lor cleaning the quarters of sec-ond management. The first management is not the employerand this management did not terminate the service of thealleged workman. She has received tho allowance for thework she has done. The first management did not engageanybody in the place of alleged workman, As there is notermination by the first management they arenot liable toreinstate the alleged workman in their service.

4. The case of second management is briefly as below :The workman was engaged by the lirst management and asper instructions of that management she was sweeping thecommon staircase and surroundings of staff quarters or thismanagement. There is no provision for appointment ofNMR workers in the service of second management and thesecond management is not bound to absorb the workman Inservice. The workman was reported to be engaged by thefirst management and payments were made by that manage-ment, II is the duly of (he iirst management to m range theabove work. The first management by leller dated J8-11-87brought to the notice of second in:ur.i£ement that cleaningand sweeping is a duty to he looked after by the claimantdepartment and residents of the campus. It w.~is nho reques-ted ihrit secoiid management had to take necessaiy ariange-rnents to employ a sweeper for dealing und that th» first

management wete going to dispense n*uli the present sweeper.Inis make it cleat that the workman was employed by theln..t management and dispensed with her services. SecondI. anagement hai not employed and not terminated the ser-vice ot Hie workman, this management is not liable to re-instate her m service. As per the general instructions fromtrie Centiul i-'ioviuenl 1-und Commissioner the maintenancewurk of office building and stall quarters of second manage-ment at irnmidium has been entrusted to the first manage-ment as a deposit work. Ihe hr.st management appointed asweeper u> clean the campus and Regional Provident FundMatt Quarters as part of iQia arrangement only. Alter settingthe letter dated 18-11 1'>H7 from mst management the se-cond management recimiwl a j.ei ion through the Employ-ment fcxehangc. According lo uic second management theyaie not in any wj_> liable lo lomsLiie the workman in theirservice or pay any reliefs.

5. The evidence consists oi the deposition of the wotk-mun i..s WWi nnd fcjas. VVI on her sido. The Asst. jbngineerfn ji, it management was examined as MVV1 and Lxts, Mllo JVJS have been marked -_>n the siilc of first management.Jhc Head Clerk, cl .-.eennd management was examined as-IWVV2 and E\ts. M.9 to M16 line also been marked on theirside.

6. Ttic case pleaded by the workrnin i\x per her claimstatement is ihat she was appointed bj the lirst managementand paid by thai management. It is also stated that her ser-vices were terminated try the iirst majmgeipcnt without anyreason. But slie liai deposed a:; VV\V1 before this Tribunalcategorically that .sue was appointed by the second manage-ment and paid Jier wages 0y that munugeoient. She has cute-goricatly denied thi. question put to her by the learned coun-sel for the second manayornent to the cfl'ect that she wasappointed arid paid by the Orst management. This statementof the workman is contraiy to the case pleaded by her intho claim statement. Her deposition before this Tribunal havenot been corrected in her re-examination by her learned coun-sel. The above contraiy statements in the claim statementand deposition before this Tribunal show that the workmanis not having a consistatu jaae. The contrary statements ofthe workman cannot be icted upon. The deposition of theAsstt. t'ngincer of MW1 and Lxrs. AI4, M.1? and Mil) toM12 clearly establish that tne fust management has appoin-ted the workman and paid her wages. But the workman ispleading a contraiy case befoie this Tribunal. The contrurycane pleaded by the workman cannot therefore be acceptedand acted upon and no relief can be granted to her on thebasis ot such inconsistant case, The workman is thereforenot entitled to any reliel from this Tribunal.

7. In view of the above cmiclusKij] 1 hold that Smt.Balamma is not eniitlcd to ^uy relief in this icierence. Thereference is accordingly answered in the negative.

C. N. SASIDHAKAN. Industrial. Tribunal[No. L-420l.vy7/8S-D.mB)(Pt)]

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of tho workmanWWI. Smt. C. BalammaWitness examined on the .side uf the ManagementMW1. Sri R. SivanarayunanMW2. Sri N. Gopinathan NairDocuments marked on the side of the Management

Ext. Ml, Photocopy of letter issued to the first manage-ment from the second management on 26-4-1W.

Ext. M2. Office copy of letter addressed lo the lirst mnn-agement from the Superintending Engineer of first manage-ment on 27-8-1982.

Ext, M3. Leltei issued lo the Asslt. Engineer ol! firstmanagement from second .<r.un rwmtnt on 12-4-1984,

Ext. M4. Letter issued tu the second management fromthe first management on 1R-1 1-I9R7.

J-ixt. M5. Letter issued to 1,'ie" second i nin igement from

the Jirst mnnaKcincnt on 12-'>-ii»S.-l.£.\t. M6. PhutoL-opy or i.age >J ol" t'.TWD Mflnuul.

4907

Ext. M7, Photocopy of letter issued to the Director Gene-ral (Works) CPWD., New Delhi from the first managementon 30-4-19K8.

Ext. M8. Photocopy of letter issued to second managementfrom ihe first management on 29-10-1983.

Hxt. M9. letter issued to Asstt. Engineer of first manage-ment from second management on 12-7-1SS4.

Ext. M10. Photocopy OL Letter issued to second manage-ment irom Asstl. Engineer of lirst management on 12-9-84.

Ext. Mi l . Photocopy of Letter issued to second manage-ment from Asstt, Engineer of lint management on 18-11-87.

Ext. M12. Certificate issued to Sint. Hnlammn from Assll.1 nginccr of the first management,

Ext. M13. Photocopy of appointment Letter issued to oneSri. SKnraman from the second management duted 19-2-88.

Ext. Ml4. Photocopy of lutk-r issued to 'second manage-ment fiom the lirst management on ZS^-^S.1*.

Ilxt. Ml5. Photocopy of letter issued to second manage-ment fiorn Ihe fir.M management on 19-7-1988.

Ext, M16. I'holoeopy of loiter issued to first managementfrom the second rnaivieemc.it on 30-6-1989.

Document marked on the tide of the workman.

Ext. Wl. Certificate issued to Smt, Balumirm from the Asst.Engineer uf first management.

S.O. 3117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-tral Govt. hereby publishes the award of the Cen-tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore asbhown in tlie Anncxure, in the industrial dispute bet-ween the employers in relation to the managementof Rail Mail Service, Hubli Division and their work-men, which was received by the Central 'Governmenton 2-12-91.

BEFORE THE CENIRAL GOVERNMENT IN-DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE.

Dated ths 26th day of November, 1991.

PRESENT :

Slui M. B, Vishwanatli, B.Sc, B.L.Presiding Officer.

Central Reference No. 4|1991.

T PARTY :l-.iri Annarao,S|o Basawanappa AJlur,C|o Ramesh Yergol, Advocate,Sangamcshwarnagar,GULBARGA (POST) Karnataka.(By Shri K. Appa Rao,

Advocate).

Vs.

11 PARTY

1. The Superintendent of Rail Mail Service, HubliDhUon, HUBLI—580 02S.

2. The Sub Record Officer, RMS Sub RecordOffice, Station area,GULBARGA, (Karnataka).(By Sri J. M, Raizuddin, Advocate).

AWARD

J. By order No. L-40012|105|90-IR(DU) dated23J31-1-1991, Hie Hon'ble Central Government hadreferred this depute for adjudcaiton under clause (d)of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of sectionlOof Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947) to thisTribunal,

2. The point for adjudication as per schedule toreference is as follows :—

"Whether the acton on the part of the Depart-ment of posts, Rail Mail Service, HubliDivision, Hubli in terminating the services ofShri Annarao, S|o Basuwanuppa Allur, Ex.EDMM Casual Labour is Justified? Tf no),to what relief the workman is entitled to"?.

3. Notices were issued to both the; parties.

4. The first hearing date was 19-12-1991. On thisday a Bangalore advocate has hied power for 1 party.Time was granted to him to file the claim statement.In all a dozen adjournments were granted to the Iparty to tile his claim statement. But neither thecounsel for the I party nor the I party was presenton all the subsequent adjourned dates of hearing. The1 party has not filed the claim statement. The Tribunalissuedifh. notice to the Bangalore advocate for I partyto appear before the Tribunal and file the claim state-ment. In pursuance of this notice, neither the advo-cate for the I party nor the I parly appeared.

5. As per ,he leferencf the 1 party's address is Gul-barga address. Since the interests of a workman wereinvolved, by way of abundant precaution, notice wasissued to the personal address of I party at Gulbargaand the case was taken up at Gulbarga. As per thenotice the I party was directed to file his claim state-ment at Gulbarga. The I party did not appear evenat Gulbarga. He has not filed his claim statement sofar.

6. From what T have narrated above, it is clearthat the I party is not interested in prosecuting thematter. Hence the reference is rejected.

(Dictated to the Secretary, taken down by him, gottyped and corrected by me).

M. B. V1SHWANATH, Presiding OfficerLNo. L-40012|05|90-IR(DUXPO-

4908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(,iiJ]

S.O. 3118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Cen-tral 'Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2 Bombayas shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the managementof National Smail Industries Corpn. Ltd. Bombay andtheir workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 28-11-91.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN-DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY!

PRESENT

Shri P. D. Apshankar

Presiding Officer

Reference No. : SGIT—2|29 of 1990.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Natio-nal Small Industries Corpn., Ltd., Bombay.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Shri N. B. Jalota, Advocate.

For the Workmen : Shri A. H. Makhija, Gene-ral Secretary, National Small Industries,Corpn. Ltd., Employees' Union.

INDUSTRY : Small Industries

STATE : Maharashtra.

Bombay, dated the 20th November, 1991.

AWARD

The Central Government by their order No.L~42O11|35|9O-IRCDU) dated 17th October 1990,have referred the following industrial dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication under section 10(l)(d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the action of the management of theNational Small Industries Corpn. Ltd.,Bombay, is justified in denying the work-men of the legitimate promotion on the lineof clause 1 (a) of the Memorandum of un-'derstanding reached between them and theirworkmen represented through various tradeunions operating in the Corporation in thecountry dated 21-06-1987 ? If not, whatrelief are the workmen concerned entitledto in accordance with the Memorandum ofsettlement dated 21-6-1987

2. While this reference was at the stage of filingthe statement of claim by the Union, both the par-ties, i.e. the Advocate for the Corporation and theGeneral Secretary of the Union, filed a joint pursjs(Ex. 2) that the dispute in question is already settled,and as such, the reference be disposed off.

3. Thereto!"*1, in "vitfw of the r,aid puTsis of both thepar:ies, the present reference stands disposed of.

4. The parties to bear their own costs of this refe-rence.

P. D. APSHANKAR, Presiding Officer|No. L-4201][35|90-LR(DU) (Pt.)]

K. V. B. UNNY, De&k Oflicer

New Ddhi, the 2/LU November, 1991

S.O. 3liy.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theJndu^rial Disputes Act, ly*/ (14 of 1947J, theCentral Government hereby publishes me Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tnbunal,-euni-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexute,in the industrial dispute between the employers inrelation ti> the management o'i.1 State Bank ot India andtheir workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on the 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. N. SHUKLA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNALS UM-LABOUR COURT,JABALPUR (M.P.)

Case No. CGITjLC(R) (265) 11989PARTIES .

Employers in relation (o the management of StateBank of Indoi'e, Gwalior and their work-man, Shri B. K.. Sharma CTerk|Ca;,hier,Resident, of 6|13 Jt'gdish Ki Gali, GaneshNiketan, Nayapura, Ujjain (M.P.).

APPEARANCES :

For Workman—Workman in person.

For Management—Shri Seemcn, Asstt. LawOfficer.

INDUSTRY : Banking DISTRICT : Gwalior

(M.P.)

AWARD

Da'ed, the 15th November, 1991

SCHEDULE"Whether the action of the management of the

R. M. State Bank oi1 Indore, Gwalior, innot providing employment to Shri B. K.Sham™, (Di'sigmi'ion) ClerkjCashier after12-4-80 (date of taminatton), and whether'his said termination, L justified? If not. towh.it lelief ihe workman is enitfcd foi r

4909

The above matter of dispute was referred to thisTribunal by the Central Government, Ministry ol'Labour, vide i s Nniificalion No. L-12O12|246!89-IR(B-3) dated 12-12-1989, ior adjudication.

2. Worknum, Sliri Bal Krishna Sharon S|o ShriBansi Lai Sharma worked as Clerk|Cashier at KanpurBranch, Gwalior oi State Bank of Indorc from 1-1-80to 12-4-80. His services we-jv terminated with effectfrom 12-4-80.

3. Workman says that he came to this Tribunal inview of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Kanpur1, referred to in para 1 ofthe statement of claim. His services wore terminatedwithout any notice as required under the provisionof I. D. Act. He further says that other persons in-volved in the Award have been given the benefitswhereas no benefit was extended to the workmanconcerned which is discriminatory and violativ© of' thefundamental rights. As per Award he is entitled tothe permanent appointment. After his illegal termina-tion the Branch has appointed other persons. In re-joinder the workman has clarified that one ShriDeshmukh and one lady was allowed to be continued.They were juniors to him. This is violation of Section25-H of the I. D. Act. Action of the management isvoid ab initio. Workman is entitled to all back wagesand consequential benefits.

4- Management says that he worked between15-1-80 to 12-4-60 as follows:—

From 15-1-80 to 25-1-80 11 daysFrom 1-2-80 to 22-3-80 51 daysFrom 31-3-80 to 9-4-80 10 daysFrom 11-4-80 to 12-4-80 2 days

74 days

He was appointed! for a specific period. The saidAward is not applicable to the facts of this case. Thereis no violation of any award whatsoever1. The pro-visions: of Section 25-G & H arc not applicable. Nosuch per .-.oils, us alleged were junior to the workmanor were continued in service. Reference is liable tohe rejected.

5. Reference was the issue in this case.

REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS.

6. The only evidence adduced before this Tribunalwas of G. R. Agarwal (M.W. 1), Branch Manager.Accofdini 'o him the workman was employed for aspecific period of 74 days and thereafter his serviceswere terminated. The wi'ness remained uncrossed.

7. Unfli^Dutedlv he worked foi 74 days only. Thatapart nothing could have been shown that Shri Desh-mukh or' iiny other lady who were junior to him werecontinued. On 'lie other hand, this fact has beendenied in the reioinder. Thus there is no evidence to•=how that ShH Deshmukh or anv lady were junior tohim or thev continued or they got job afl'cr the termi-nation of the workman.

8. The workman has not completed 240 days conti-nuous service. How the alleged Award U" applicableto the facts of this case is not understood.

9. Theie i- no violation f)f the provisions of the1, D. Act. The workman is not entitled to any relief.Onim has been raised aftoj a period of nine years.Reference is accordingly answered as follows ;—

The action of the management of the R. M.State Bank ot Indore. Gwalior. in not pro-viding employment to Shri B. K. Sharma(Designation) ClerkjCashier after 12-4-80(date of' termination), atti his said termi-natkui is justified. He is not entitled to anyrelief Rs. 200 are awarded as costs to themanagement.

V. N. SHUKLA, Presiding Office*

[No. L-l2012|246|89-IR(B-3)]

S.O. 3120.—In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 19^7 (14 of 1947). theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-civm-Labour Court, Jabalpur, a s shown in the Anne-xure, in theindustrial dispute between the employersin relation to fie management of Mahakaushal Kshe-triya Gramin Bank and their workmen, which wasreceived by the Central Government on the 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V, N. SHUKLA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRTBUNTAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,JABALPUR (MP.)

CASE NO CGIl!LC(R)(28i!l9-90

PARTIES •

Employers in relation to the management ofMahaknuslml Kshetriva Gramin Bank,Narsinghpur and their workman, ShriDamodar Prasad Kaurav, Ex-Peon C|oShri U. S. Malviya, Punjab National Bank,N-vpur Road, Madanmahal, Jabalpur-482 001.

APPEARANCES :

For Workman.--Shri U. S. Malviya.For Man lenient.- -Shri R, K. Gupta, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Banking. DISTRICT : Narsinghpur(M.P.).

AWARD

Dated, November 14th, 1991

This! is a reference made by the Central Govern-ment, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No.L-12011|78|89-IR(3) dated 22-1-1991, for adjudica-tion of the following dispute :—

4910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21.-1991 .'AGF..-VHAYAH.4 30. 1313 IFAP.r T T - £ E C . J(ii) I

"Whether the action ni the management ofMahflkausVuU Ksheiiiya Gramin Bank, I w -singhpifr in turmmaUnu the services of ShriDamodar Prarad Kaurav, Ex-Peon, w.e.f.31-7-1939 in violation of Sections 25-Ciand H c[ the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947is justified'.' Fl not, to what relief theworkman concerned is entitled ?"

2. The workman, Shri Daraudar Prasad Kauravalleged to be an Ex-Peon of Mahakaushal KshetriyaGramin Bank, Narsinghpur, imdisputedly workedwith the management from 7-3-1986 to 31-7-1989.Thus he had mnnlet^d 240 days continuous service.

3. According to the management, there was viola-tion of Sec. 25-F of the I D Act which fact has notbeen denied by the management. Managtaient hasonly said that the question of determining the point ofviolation of the provisions of Sec'. 25-F being outof the scope of reference cannot be considered andif this1 aspect of the case is not considered justicecannot be passed and the courts are slow to give anaward which would not impart justice or considerprima-faciely justiciable; claim

4. This Tribunal certainly cannot direct the Gov-ernment to send n fresh reference includinc the viola-tion of Sec, 25-F, but this can be left for considera-tion of the Government. With this observation ifcereference is disposed of. Parties to bear their owncosts-

V. N. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer[No. L-12011;78|89-IR(B-I)]

New Delhi, the 2yth November, J991

S.O. 3121.—In pursuance- of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the uward ofthe Labour Court Ko/Iiikode, as shown in the An-nexure, in iha industrial dispute between the emplo-yers in relation lo the management of State Bank ofIndia and their workmen, which was received by the^Central Governmcn' on the 28-11-91.

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODB.KERALA STATE

Dated this the 7th day of November, 1991PRESENT :

Shri K. G. Oopalokrishuan, B.A., B.L.Presiding Officer.

T.D No. 14!89BETWEEN :

The Deputy General Managcf,State Bank of India, (

Regional Officer.EriisVulam, Kerala Sta'e.

Management

AND

Shri C K. Haridas,23 i 239 Pookayil Bazar,Tirur.

..WorkmanREPRESENTATIONS :

Sri K. Bhaskaran Nair, Advocate, CalicutFor Workman

Sri M. Asokan, Advocate, Calicut. .For Management

AWARD

Tlie dispute between the management of the StateBank of India and one of its workman by name SriC. K. Haridas in connection with the dismissal ofthis workman from service by the said bank as apunishment, was referred lo this court for adjudi-cation by the Central Government under section 10f l ) ( c ) of the Industrial Disputes Act by its order1

No. L-12012|J75|89-IRB.III dated 19th October,1989.

2. On receipt of the teference order in this courtpursuant to the notice issued from this court, boththe management bank and the workman entered ap-pearance and filed statements setting forth theirstand1 in the dispute.

3. The brief averments in the statement filed bythe workman are as follows :—The workman join-ed the service of the management bank as a clerkin 1967 and during 1983 he was working in its TirurBranch as a clerk. While so, by a memo dated19-10-1980 he was suspended from service by thebank alleging certain misconduc's, and later on"18-11-1983 a charge sheet setting up three chargeswas served to this workman. The gist; of thesecharges is that the workman misused his S.B. Ac-court in the Tirur Branch by issuing cheques whenthere was no amount in that account to honour thosecheques and bv discounting those cheques a totallossl of Rs. 435OJ- is caused to the Bank. The othercharge is that this workman has caused disappear-ance of these cheques when these effeques weresent to Tirur Branch for collection by the collect-ing branches, The workmen is really innocent and hehas not committed any such misconducts as alleg-ed in the charge rhee+. Hence the workman gavean explanation plead in r innocence. P<ut however themanagement was not satisfied with this explanation andhence a domestic enquiry war conducted in thismatter bv the management ynd one Mr. Esaw aSenior Officer of t V bfinV w ^ unpointed ,T-; the Fn-quirv Officer, Though notice of fhi\ enquiry was serv-ed to this workman thv? p'-ziuirv was really a forceas the Enquiry Officer vvas biased against fir; work-man. Th^ enquiry was in fact conducted violatingall principles of natural justice and the workman wasnot riven anv opportunity to state his case anddefend himself. Later the FnciuW Office^ gave, arenort to tlr; management bank holding the work-man suiltv of all thesR charees unfl b^in^ on "hatrennr* ctf th? Fnnuiry Officer. ih<- rrpn^ement d?s-wii^&d the workman from ren^ce 3s T>unishrnent.The management bank, first of nil, should not have

4911

looked into the enquiry report since the finding en-tered into by the Bnquiry Officer is perverse and it isno*, based on any legal evidence. Hence the actionof the management dismissing the workman from ser-vice relying on that enquiry report is illegal and un-just especially when this workman in innocent. Hencean award may he passed directing the managementbank to reinstate the workman in service with back-wage^ and continuity of service.

4. The gisL of the averments in I e statement filedby the management bank are as ft Lows:—It is truethat this wurkmau while serving as a cleric in the TirurBranch of the management bank was suspended onJ 9-10-1983 nnd later on 18-11-1983 he was given acharge sheet setting up three charges against him. Itis also true that after the receipt of the explanationfrom the workman the management has conducted adomestic enquiry in this mattei and the work Lan wasdismissed from service. This wortanan was < smissedfrom service since he is found to have ooinmi'ttedgrave irregularities and misconducts misusing his posi-tion as a clerk and misusing his SB. Account. Or ino'.her words by misusing his S.B, Account he has caus-ed wrongful loss to the bank to the tune ofRs. 4350|- on 4 occasions the workman issued forRs. J750|-, 1000|-, 1000|- and 600|- when there wereno money at all in his S.B. Account to honour thesecheques and got these cheques discounted fro Cali-cut and Bcypore Branches of the Bank. Though ontwo occasions viz., 28-2-191 and 27-7-1981 thereWere sufficient amount in his account to honour thosetwo cheques, in the meanwhile he withdraw thatamount knowing fully well that he had issued these1

two cheques. Thus in short by issuing cheques whenthere were no amount in his S.B. Account to honourthese cheques and by getting these cheques discount-ed from other branches of the management bank he1

has caused a total loss; of Rs. 4350]- to the bank. Thesecond charge is that when these cheques and with-drawal slips were sent to Tirur Branch for collectionby Calicut and Beypore Branches, the workmancaused disappearance of these cheques. Even thoughthese misconducts on the part of the workman areserious and grave, still the management did not imposeany punishment to the workman and he was punish-ed by dismissing him from service only after the En-quiry Officer who conducted the. domestic enquiry inthis mat'ey gave a report u> the management holdinghim guilty of all the charges. The averments in thestatement filed by the workman that the enquiry wasfarce and biased and that it was conducted m flag-rant violation of principles of natural justice are allfalse. The enquiry was in fact conducted strictly inaccordance with the principles of natural jusMce andthe workman was given all opportunities to defendhimself. The further averments that the finding of theFnquiry Officer is perverse and hence it should' nothave beep acted upon by trie management banV is altofalse. Prallv there were sufficient and oogenf evidencebefore the Enquirv Officer to hold the workman guiltyof the chartres. All these would reveal clearly that theaction nf the manatrem^nt dismiesim? tne workmanfrom sendee is fulfv Ice.-1! and justifiable. Hence anaward mnv be passed upholding these contentions ofthe management.

5. On these pleadings the following points areformulated for decision :—

(1) Whether the domestic enquiry conductedby the management is legal and valid ?

(2) Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officerholding the workman guilty is ba&ed. onlegal evidence and whether it is sustainablein lav/?

(3) What is the proper punishment if any tobe awarded to the workman'?

(4) Result?

6- The evidence consists of the oral testimony ofMW1 and the documents marked as Exts. Ml to M7,

7. Point No. I.—This point pertaining to thtvalidity of tho domestic enquiry conducted by themanagement was considered as a preliminary pointand it was disposed of by my order dated 19-3-1991holding that the enquiry conducted bv the manage-ment is strictly legal and valid and it does not sufferfrom any legal infirmity.

8- Point No. 2.—Thus the enquiry conducted bythe management k found to be legal and valid, theonly other question now arises for considerationis only whether the finding of the Enquiry Officerholding the workman guilty is based on legal evi-dence and whether it is sustainable in law. As statedearlier, altogether three charges are framed against theworkman. But charges 1 and 2 can be considered toge-ther since they are with respect to one and the semeincident. The misconducts alleged on the part ofthe workman which gave rise to these two chargesis that he1 misused his S.B. Account in Tirur Branchby issuing cheques to third parties in that accountand got these cheques discounted from other branchesof this bank when there were no amount in hisaccount to honour these cheques. According to themanagement on 16-2-1981 he issued a withdrawalslip to one E, Vijayachandran for a sum of Rs. 1750when the actual amount lying in credit of his accountwas only Rs. 2.89. Again on 27-13-1981 he issuedanother cheque for Rs. 1,000 to the very sameVijayachandran for Rs. 1,000 when the amount lyingin credit in his account was only Rs. 3. Likewiseon 28-2-1981 he issued another withdrawal slip forRs. 1,000 to one M. K. Sadasivan and on 27-7-1981yet another withdrawal slip was issued to self forRs. 600. Even thuogh there were sufficient moneyin his account at the time of issuing these two with-drawal slips, before the presentation of these with-drawal slips the balance lying in credit were with-drawn by him with the result when these withdrawalslips were presented there were no money in hisaccount to honour these slips, But even then hegot these slips discounted from other branches andthereby caused a total loss of Rs. 4,350 to the bank.Thus in short the case of the management bank isthat by misusing his S.B. Account b*r issuing; chequeswithout keeping sufficient amount in his accountand by discounting those cheques the workman hascaused loss to the bank.

9. The Enquiry Officer after analysing the oraland documentary evidence produced by the manage-ment before him found the workman guilty of thesatwo charges, for according to the Enquiry Office*

3191 GI/Ol— 6

4912 THE GAZETTE 0F1NT3IA . SECEfrftgR 21, 133.1 /AGRA-HAVA^A 30. 13! 5 FFAST H—SEC 3(ii")l

Ext. P3 S 3 . Account of this workman producedbefore him is more than enough to conclude thatthe workman has misused his S.B. Account byissuing cheques as alleged by the management. 1see no reason to defer from this view of the FnquiryOfficer since Ext. P3 S.B. Account clearly showsthat when a withdrawal slips was issued by theworkman to one Vijayachandran for a sum ofRs. 1750 the balance in his account was only Rs. 2.89.In the same way when a cheque for Rs. 1.000 wasissued to the very fame Viiayachandran on 27-3-1981the balance was only ju»t Rs 3. Likewise this accountfurther shows that even though there were sufficientamount to honour the withdrawal slips issued by himto one M. K. Sadastvnu and the other for self on28-2-1981 and on 27-7-1981 immediately after theissuance of these cheques he withdrew amount fromthis account without keeping sufficient amount inthat accbunt to honour these two cheaues. Thus asrightly observed by the Enquiry Officer a mereperusal of this account book is more than enough tohold the workman is guilty of this dishonest act.This is not seriously disputed by the workman.Moreover it is the admitted fact that when this foulplay was dectected a totat sum of Rs. 4,350 waspaid back by the workman immediately. Thus inshort I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the*finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the workmanguilty of charges 1 and 2. So much so the findingof the Enquirv Officer holdinc the workman guiltyof charges 1 and 2 has only to be upheld.

10. Then comes the third charges. The thirdcharge, as stated earlier is that the workman causeddisappearance of these cheques and withdrawal slipswhen these cheques and withdrawal slips were sentfor callection from Calicut and Bepore Branches toTirur Branch by registered post. Or to put it diffe-rently the charge against him is that he suppressedthese cheques when cheques reached Tirur Branch forcollection. To prove this charsje, the managementhas produced the despatch register and D.D. Pur-chase Register maintained both in the Calicut Branchand in the Bepore Branch from where these chequesand withdrawal slips were sent to Tirur Branch byregistered post for collection. These registers in factshow that these cheques have been duly sent fromthese respective Branches to the Tirur Branch forcollection. But these cheques are not seen dulyaccounted in the Tirur Branch, while the relevantentries show that all other cheque received at thattime were duly accounted. This of course no doubtshows that the workman would have done somethingto suppress these cheques for fear that if thosecheques are duly accounted this will be detected. Butthis can only be a presumption or rather an assump-tion because ihere is no direct evidence to say thatthe workman has wilfully suppressed or caused dis-appearance of these cheques and withdrawal sltDSwhen they reached' Tirur Branch for collection. Orto put it differently the evidence tendered by themanagement on this aspect only probabilses to someextent the case of the bank that the workman wouldhave something to do in the suppression of these che-ques. But probability cannot be taken as a substitutefor evidence. Hence as long as there is no direct evi-dence to hold that the workman has wilfully andpurposely caused disappearance of these cheques, he

cannot be held guilty of charge No. * merely relyingon probabilities. Hence (lift mi'ding of the EnquiryOfficer holding the woikiwan guilty of charge No. 3,in my opinion, cannot he si'slained. This point is thusdecided holding that the finding of the EnquiryOfficer holding the workman guilty of charges i and, 2is sustainable in law while the workman cannot beheld guilty of charge No. 3-.

11. Point No. 3.—Now it is found in answer topoint No. 2 that the workman is guilty of charges 1ftnd 2 only. According to the management thoughcharges 1 and 2 are termed as misuse of S.B.Account, in fact it will amount to misappropriationof bank funds and hence he deserves only the ex-treme penality of dismissal from service. But at theoutset itself I would like to point out that I cannotsubscribe to his view of the management this is mis-appropriation because misappropriation comes in onlywhen somebody utilises for his own purpose moneyor anything which is entrusted to him for somethingelse. Here the only charge proved against the work-man is that he issued cheques knowing fully wellthat there are no funds in his account to honour thesecheques. Although this is nothing but a dishonestact on the part of the workman, it cannot be charac-terised as misappropriation in the strict sense of theterm. Moreover it is the conceded case that as andwhen this is detected, he paid back the entireamount to the bank promptly. This being the posi-tion, I feel that extreme penalty of dismissal fromservice is not at all warranted in this case and as heis out of employment without any salary whatsoeverright from 1983 cutting of his wages for these entireperiod would be a just and adequate punishment.Hence the order of the management dismissing theworkman from service is set aside and he is orderedto be reinstated in service without back wages butwith continuity of service only.

12. Tn the result an award is passed directing themanagement to reinstate the workman in servicewithout backwages but with confinuity of service.

13. This award will come into force 30 days afterits punblication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Confidentail Assistant, transcribedby him, revised, corrected and passed by me on the7th day of November, 1991.

K. G. GOPALAKRISHNAN, Presiding Officer[No. L-l20121175|89-IR(B II)]

APPENDIXWitness examined on the side of the workman:—

WW1—C. K. Hfiridas, S|o P. K. Menon.Documents marked on the side of the workman:—>

NILWitnesses examined on the side of the workman :—

MW1...M. Eso, Slo. Mathai.Ext.Ext.Ext.Ext.Ext.Ext.Ext.

Ml—Domestic Enquiry file.M2—Regisfercd le'tersM3—Registered lettersM4—Registered lettersM5—t>.Ds purchasedM6—D.Ds purchasedM7—D.Ds purchased

despatch Register.despatch Register.despatch Regster.of Register.of Register.of Register.

4913

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 1991SO 3122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cuoi-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in tbt: Anne-xure, in the irdusTinl dispute between the employer.-,in relation to the management of State Bank of Indiaand their workmen, which was received by theCentral Government on 3-12-91.

ANNEXUREBEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-TRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LAB0UR COURT,

PANDU NAGAR, KANPURIndustrial Dispute No. 3 of 1991

In the matter of dispute between -.Shri Ghunasynm. Shamia, through Shri V. N.

Sekhari, 261104, Birhana Road, Kanpur-2O80O!.—Applicant.

ANDThe Regional Manager, State Bank of India,

Rcgion-IIJ, Zonal Office, Kanpur-208001.—Opp. party.

AWARD1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour,

vide its notification No. L-L20]2J219 |S0-1R(B-3)dated 29-1-1991, has referred the following dis-pute for adjudication to this- Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of StateBank of India, Kanpur in tronijiatJBg theservices of Shri Ghanshyam Shame. Ex-Guard w.e.f. 8-3-89 is juMificd ? If not,to what, relief the concerned workman is en-titled to?"

2. In the instant casa dei.pitc- availing of 5 oppor-tunities no claim statement was filed on behalf ofworkman. On 1-10-91 it was specifically oideredthat the case; was bein? adjourned to 13-11-91 eivint;last opportunity to the woikman for filing of theclaim statement. On 1-10-9] the workman waspresent despite that on 13-11-91 neither he appearedin the case vet filed claim statement.

3. Thus from the fact?; staled above ii appears thatthe workman i> not interested in prosecuting the case.Therefore, a no chnm award is given in the caseagainst the workmiui.

4-. Reference is answered accordingly.ARJAN DEV, Prrfildinfi Otficvr

[No. T -12012 2J9l00-IR(B.UD]S. C . SHAN'MA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 28th November, 1991S.O. 3123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Jabalptur (M.P.) as shown in the Acnextre in theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Malankhund Copper Project,H. C. Ltd., 'ind their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-11-1991.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. N. SHUKLA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,JABALPUR (M. P.)

CASE NO. CGlT|LC(R)(19)i87PARTIES •

Employers in relation to the management ofMalanikliund Copper Project, H. C. Ltd.,P.O. Matojithand, District Ualaghal (M.P.)and their workmen SjShri Sam Mnsjh andMaiisiugh Thakre, Tech. Gr. III. Tcprtsent-ed thiough the Bhaitiya Khanij MazdoorSangh (BMS), P.O. Malnnjkhand, DistrictBalaghat (M-P.).

APPEARANCES :

For Workiccn.—bnri S K. Mishra, Advocate.For Management.—Shri R. K. Gupta, Advocute.

INDUSTRY : Conper Project D'ISIRTCT :

Balaghat (M.P)

AWARD

Dated : November 12, 1991This is a reference made by the Central Govern-

ment, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No.L~430ll|3|87-D. IO(B), dated 9-9-1987, for adjudi-cation of the following dispute • —

"Whether the action of the management ofMa'anjkhnnd Copper Proiect of H. C. Ltd..Malanjkhand in terminating tlie service ofSlShri Synt Masih & Mansion Thakre,Tscli. Gr. Ill v ith effect from 7-10-86 isjustified? If not, what relief the concern-ed workman are entitled to ?"'

2. The wor^trwn, Shri Sant Masih was charge-sheeted as follows : - -

CHARGE-SHEET

It has been reported thai you in collusion withShri Man Singh Thakre, Technician Gr III (PayLoader & Fork Lift), Cede No. 1124 have been de-manding and accepting illegal gratification from the

4914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 21, lSWl /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PAKT II—-SEC. 3(ii)]

drivers of the trucks in consideration of loading ofconcentrates in tl-.e trucks in such a manner that thetrucks do not get damaged. You have been collect-ing illegal gratfication to the tune of Rs. 100—300per day for the last 6-7 months. The aforesaidamount collected as illegal gratification were beingdistributed among yourrelf and you also used to payRs. 2.50 per day each to the two supply mazdoors asshare of illegal gratification and fcr assisting you incollection of illegal "ratification from the drivers ofthe trucks.

On 29-6-85 while you were on duty in the Generalshift for loading of concentrates in trucks, you de-manded and accepted Rs. !0|- as illegal gratificationfrom Shri Ram Lal7 driver of truck No. MBK 7179,for loading concentrates in his t iurl . On the sameday you also demanded aid accepted Rs. 10 as ille-gal gratification, through Shri Ismail Khan, supplylabour working in the loading section from ShriHarnans Singh, driver of truck No. PAT 8315. inconsideration of loading the said truck with concen-trates in a manner which does not damage his truck.You also compelled and adopted coercive method' onthe supply labourers and other employees cf the load-ing section working in the Concentrator Phut tocollect illegal gratification and deliver the same toyou and your accomplice Shn M. S. TnakTi\ Youthreatened Shri S- Prasad, Tech Gr. II, Cede No.1421 witih diro consequence1* when he refused to col-lect money froai the drivers of the trucks and incase he extend cooperation to the investigation ugene}.You are. therefore, charged as under .—

1. Fraud, breach of least and dishonestv inconnection with company's business.

2. Co,T.nussion uf an act subversive of discip-line and pood behaviour in the course ofduty.

3. Using threatening and intimidating againstany employee

4. Taking bribe|illegal gratification.

5. Any act whiich is prima facie prejudicialand detrimental to the interest and reputa-tion of the company

The aforesaid acts en you: part amounts to grossmisconduct under clause 30(ii), 30(ix), 30(vii)30(xi) and 30(Li) of the Certified Standing Ordersof this Project and render you liable for strict disci-plinary action ".

3. Workman, Shri Mansingh Thakre, was chargedas follows :—

CHARGE SHEET

It has been reported that you in collusion withShri Sant Singh Masih Technician Gr. I l l (Pay Loader& Fork Lift), Code No. 1111 have been demandingand accepting illegal gratification from the drivers ofthe trucks in consideration of loading of concentratesIn the trucks in such a manner that the trucks do notget damaged. You have been collecting illegal gratifi-cation to the tune of Rs. 100-300|- per dav for thelast 6-7 months. The aforesaid amount collected asillegal gratification was being distributed among your-self and you also used to pay Rs. 2.50 per day each-to the two supply mazdoors as share of illegal gratifi-cation and for assisting you in collection of illegal

gratification from the drivers of the trucks.

You also compelled and adopted coercive methodson the supply labourers and other employee^ of theloading section working in the Concentrator Plant tocollect illegal gratification and deliver the same to youand your accomplice Shri Sant Masih. Further youboth threatened Shri S. Prasad, Technician Grade ]1,Code No. 1421 with dire consequences refused tocollect money from the drivers of the trucks and alsoin case he extends his cooperation to the investigationagency.

You are, therefore, charged as under:—

1. Fraud, breach of trust and dishonesty inconnection with Company's business.

2. Commission of an act subversive o{ disci-pline and good behaviour in the course ofduty.

3. Using threatening and intimidating againstany employee.

4. Taking bribe|illegal gratification.

5. Any act which is prima facie prejudicial anddetrimental to the interest and reputation ofthe company.

The aforesaid acts on your part amount to gross mis-conduct under clause 30(ii), 30(ix), 30(vii), 30(xi)& 30Li) of the Certified Standing Orders of thisProject and render you liable for strict disciplinaryaction "

4. After holding the departmental enquiry theirservices were terminated with effect from 7-10-1986.jThey were working in the Malanjkhand Copper Pro-ject of Hindustan Copper Ltd. as Technician GradeIII.

5. Workman, Shri Sant Masih remained absent andthe case proceeded ex parte against him.

6. The workman, Mansingh Thakre, admitted the-D.E. file and it was marked as Article A. Validity ofthe enquiry was also not challenged by him D.E. asalso its validity has, however, not been admitted byShri Sant Masih. But m view of the above fact Iwill read the entire D.E. record against him. ShriSant Masih having pleased to remain absent it is pa-tently presumed that the validity of the enquiry hasnot been challenged by him as proved by o'her delin-quent.

7. So far the question of perVersity of findingsagainst the workmen concerned, I shall deal with thisaspect of the case only in view of the proceedingsdated 25-4-1991.

8. From the D.E. record it can be well seen thatthere is substantial evidence against both these work-men in relation to their misconduct which can begathered from the documents on record as ^lso fromthe testimony of Witness No. I N. P. Tiwari, WitnessNo. 2 T. S. Nejri, Witness No. 3, S. Prasad. WitnessNo. 4, S. S. Sinha and Witness No. 5. M. Kaul. The1

patent error which has been committed in the D.E.is that the statements of Harnans Singh, Rami Lai,Ismail Khan and another Ram Lai who were starWincsses & directly involved in bribinc 'lie delin-quents workmen have uot been examined in the de-

4915

partmental enquiry and their evidence in the preli-minary enquiry has been road as evidence in the de-partmental enquiry and as such neither they were ex-amined in the departmental enquiry nor the delin-quent workmen had an opportunity to crosls-exammethem. Thus this part of the misconduct cannot beheld to be proved.

9. So far the other, part of misconduct is concern-ed, there is sufficient evidence that the delinquentshad threatened Shri S. Prusad, Technician Gr. II fordire consequences when he refused to collect moneyfrom the drivers of the trucks and extend cooperationto the investigation agency. With the circumstancesof this case the evidence stands well established!.

10. In the end I must point out that this Tribunalshall not go by the strict rules of procedure andtakes the departmental enquiry and its validity as es-tablished against Shri Sant Masih who pleased to re-main absent deliberutely.

11. The action taken by the management is pDopcrin the entire circums'ances of this case and theworkmen are not entitled to any relief.

12. Reference is accordingly answered as follows:

The action of the management of Malanjk-hand Copper Project of H.C. Ltd. Malanj-khand in terminating the services of S|ShriSant Masih & Mansingh Thakre, Tech. Gr.Ill with effect from 7-10-86 is justified.Workmen are not entitled to any relief.No order as to costs.


[No. L-43011|3|87-D. Ill (B)]

S.O, 3124.—In pursuance of section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Cent-ral Government Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur asshown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the employers in relation to the managementof Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Bombayand their workmen, which was received by the Cent-ral Government on the 27-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. N, SHUKLA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIALCTRIBTJNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR (M.P.)

CASE NO. CGIT|LaR) (99)|1988.

PARITIES:Employers in r$atlon to th* management of

JJkidimaii Petroleum Corpcrtnttro Ltd.,

Bombay and their workman. Shni B. C.Majumdar S|o Late Shri K. C. Majumdar,,Rjo 1376|2, Napier Town, Jabelpur.

APPEARANCES:For Workman.—Shri A. K. Shasi Advocate.For Management.—Shii B. P. Gupta, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Petroleum DISTRICT : Jabalpur(M.P.)

AWARD

Dated : November, 15th 1991

This is a reference made by the Central Govern-ment, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No.No. L.-30O12[7|85-D.lII(B) Dated 13-9-1988, for ad-judication by this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limitediin relation to their Depot at Jabalpur in re-tiring Shri B. C. Majumdar, Ex. Fitter fromservice w.ef. 31-10-84 is justified. If not,what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. Shri B. C Majumdar, Ex-Fitter is said to be arefugee from East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh). Firsthe joined the Caltex India Ltd. and later he joinedM|s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation where he re-tired on 31-10-84 on attaining the age of superan-nuation treating his date of birth as 15-10-1926. Itis also not in question that the workman had shownhis date of birth as 16-10-1931. By his representa-tions as per his service record and Identity Card hisdate of birth was 16-10-1930.

3. Workman says that documents relating to hisbirth record were destroyed in Bangladesh. Since1971 he is representing that this date of birth is16-10-1930. Same was corrected by the.Company inits record.

4. That apart, the Corporation was bound to givestatutory notice of six months prior to retiring theworkman. This was not done. His case of correctingthe age as accepted by the Company to be 16-10-1931haying not been challenged subsequently the Corpo-ration is stopped from questioning the same.

5. The workman has, however, prayed that his cor-rect date of birth is 16-10-1930 and not 15-10-1926.The order of his superannuation is liable to be setaside and he would be deemed to be in continuousservice with all consequential benefits.

6. Same facts have been reiterated in the rejoinderby the workman.

7. Management says that by the fraudulent mis-representation he got the entry to be 16-10-1930 inthe service record and Identity Card which is ao*binding on the Company. He has personally filled indeclaration showing his age to be 15-10-1926. Hecannot take the advantage of has own fraud. His caseis bogus and is liable to bo rejected.

8. Refwttflce was the Issue in tb« owe.

4^16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SBC. 3(ii) ]

FINDINGS WITH REASONS:

9. Workman has filed documents Ex. W|l to Ex.W|3. Management has filed three documents markedEx. M[l to Ex. M|3. All these documents have beenproved by W.W. 1, B. CMajumdar, workman con-cerned.

10. Undisputedly Ex. M|l iis the application foremployment. Ex. M|2 is another application and;nomination form. Ex. M|3 is the declaration andnomination form. All relating to employees ProvidentFund Scheme 1952. All these documents were filled inwhen the workman got employment with the CaltexIndia Ltd. at the initial stage of his appointment andthey have been admitted by the workman in para 15of his corss-examination. He admits that all thesethree documents had been filled in by his own handsand he had by mistake given his date of birth as15-10-1926.

11. Undisputedly the document Ex. W|l to Ex.W|3 relate to the present management. Ex. W|I is theemployee personal data in which his date of birth hasbeen shown as 16-10-1931. While in employees re-cord Ex. W|2 his date of birth has been shown to be16-10-1930. In Ex. W|3 his year of birth is writtento be 1930.

12. There ,is obvious inconsistency in the docu-ments Ex. W|l and Ex. W|2. While according to Ex.W 1 his date of birth is 16th October, 1931, in Ex.W2 his date of birth is 16-10-1930. How this diffe-rence Of one year. Ex. W|l was issued on the decla-ration of workman and relied on by the workman.Obviously the declarations made by the workman onwhich basis Ex. W|l to Ex. W|3 were prepared arcfalse to his knowledge and this fact can be well rea-soned from the particulars given in Ex. Mjl. Accoid-ing to Ex. M|l the workman had joined primaryschool in the year 1932 and took course upto theyear 1936. If he was born in the year 1930 or 1931how could he join the primary school at the age of oneor two years. Thus the case of the workman is patent-ly false and he cannot take the advantage of his ownfraud committed on the management. He should thankhimself that he has not been prosecuted. Reference isaccordingly liable to be rejected. The superannuationis proper. Reference is accordingly answered asfollows:—

The action of the management of Hindustan Petro-leum Corporation Limited in relation to their Depotat Jabalpur in retiring Shri B. C Majumdar, Ex. fillerfrom service w.e.f. 31-10-1984 is justified. He is notentitled to any relief. No, order as to costs.

V. N. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer[No. L-30012,!7[85-D.lII(B)]

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 1991S.O. 3125.—In pursuance of section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Cent-ral Government Industrial Tribunal No. I. Dhan-bad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dis-pute between the employers in relation to the manage-ment of Noamundi Iron Ore Mines of M|s!. TISCO,Noamundi and their workmen, which was receivedby the Centra] Government on the 28-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN-DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I. DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.

Reference No. 39 of 1989.PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofNoamundi Iron Mine of M|S. TISCO Ltd.,Noamundi. Dist. Singhbhum (Bihar),

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :Shri S. K. Mitm,Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers.—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

For the Workmen.—Shri K, K. Siuha, GeneralSecretary N.M.D.C. Mines Workers' Union.

STTATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Iron Ore.Dated, the 19th November, 1991.

AWARD

By Order No. L-26O12|2|89-I.R. (Mine), dated,the 7th April, 1989, the Central Government in theMinistry of Labour, has, in exercise of the powersconferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi-cation to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Noa-mundi Iron Mine of M|s. TISCO Ltd.,Noamundi, Distt. Singhbhum in dismissingShri Sukram Balmuchu, Sepoy from servicewith effect from 1-8-87 is justified. If not,what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The case of the management of Noamundi IronOre Mine of M|s. TISCO; as disclosed in the writtenstatement, details apart, is as follows:

Sukram Baimuchu, the concerned workman, wasappointed as Sepoy temporarily on 20-12-1971 atNoamundi Iron Ore Mine of Mis. TISCO. He waslater absorbed in the service with effect from 15-7-72in the same designation an Sephoy. He was dismissedfrom service with effect from 1-R-87 for proved Mis-conducts of riotous, disorderly and indecent behavi-our, threatening the staff of the company as well asrhyaieally assaulting an emplovee of the company.Tata Steel Rural Development Society (hereinafter

,4917

retcned as TSRD» For fctcvity) i& n Society registeredunder tht Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is a So-ciety having the principal aim arid objective to under-take, cam out, promote, sponsor, assist or aid directly'or iii any" other manner, any activity for the promo-tion and growth of rural economy and rural welfareor other programme. The principal promoter of theSociety is M|s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited.;rhe aforesaid Society has been undertaking variousdevelopment activities around Noamundi with the ob-jectives as aforesaid. TSRDS has been undertakingactivities, such as, construction of-village roads, wells,renovation of school buildings and the scheme involv-:(\g self-employment in such villages and rural areasaround Noamundi. Many employees Of Noamundi IronOre Mine carnc from such villages, especially from Pa-dapahar which is nearby Noamundi Iron Ore Mine, Onthe request of such employees|local villagers and as agesture of goodwill the management decided to con-strict road connecting Padapahar village and the roadwas constructed with the help of TSRDS unit ofNoamundi. The villagers requested the managementto arrage for inauguration ceremony of constructionof road connected Padapahar village on H-3-87 asit was auspicious for such villager, the date being'MAGHE PARAB, in those tribal areas. Accordingly,the management decided to organise a suitable func-tion for the inauguration of the road on that day. Theconcerned workman is a permanent resident of Pada-pahar village. On 14-3-87 a function was held by themanagement for the inauguration of the said villageroad in which many dignitaries of the managementand distinguished persons from different fields werepresent. After the inaugural function was held by themanagement, as arranged by the local villagers ofPadapahar, a community lunch was also organised byTSRDS. While the community lunch was going on at12 noon on 14-3-87, the concerned workman startedabusing the dignitories in filthy language and startedassaulting physicallv the crowds there and tried toassault the dignitaries of the management and otherstaff of the company who were present on the functionand in the community lunch as well. Manv local vil-lagers tried to persuade the concerned workman notto disturb the programme and denigrate the reputa-tion of the village, but he was beyond control. Whileone sepoy, Rajcsh Das, who was deputed there by Ihemanagement, tried to pacify him, the concerned work-man abused him in filthy language and thereafter as-saulted him by rfieans of lathi and during the scuffle,the lathi hit the hand of Rajesb Das as a result ShriDas suffered fracture injury in his right wrist, RajeshDas was unfit for duty and continued treatment till hewas declared fit only on 16-6-87. The discharge re-port and the prescription issued in favour of RajeshDas formed part of the enquiry proceeding. An F.I.R.was lodged in the local village P. S. by Shri V. K.Sinha, the then Security Officer, on the same day re-gQ.rdmn, the incident. /The concerned workman wasissued with a chareesheet on 31-3-87 by the Agent ofNoamundi Iron Ore Mine. The concerned workmansubmitted explanation to the chargesheet on 26-6-87.H*s exolanation that he was not there at the functionaround 12 noon and so he was not aware of the hap-pening. He went to his nephew's house at around 12noon and took tiffin and bath there and returned tohis house. After receipt of the above explanation to theChargeshcct, the management appointed Presenting

Officer -3ml Euquiay Oflicer. The enquiry was held inconformance to the principles of natural justice. Hewas found guilty in the domestic enquiry- The reportof the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the DivisionalManager (Mine). In view of the seriousness of themisconduct, the Divisional Manager (Mine) decidedto inflict punishment of dismissal of the concernedworkman from service. Accordingly, he was dismissedfrom service with effect from 1-8-87. He representedbefore the Divisional Manager (Mine). He was advis-ed to prefer an appeal as per provision mentioned inClause XXX(c) of the Memorandum of Agreementdated 2-1-84. rftie concerned workman, however, didnot prefer any appeal and raised the present industrialdispute wh;ch is not competent,

3. The case of the concerned workman as appear-ing in the W.S. submitted on his behalf by theGeneral Secretary, N.M.D.C. Mines Workers' Union,Jhinkpani, Singhbhum, details opart, is also follows :

M\S. TISCO a company registered under the pro-visions of the Companies Act, 1956 own one of itsIron Ore Mines, commonly known as NoamundiIron Ore Mine at Noamundi in Kolhan Tribal Areaof Chaibasa Sadar Sub-division, Police StationNoamundi, The service condition of workmen ofNoamundi Iron Ore Mine are governed by the existingCertified Standing Orders of the Company, On14-12-1971 the concerned workman was appointedas Sepoy temporarily. He was absorbed in thepresent permanent post as Sepoy on 15-7-72. TSRDSis' said to he Society for development of villagersaround Noamundi Iron Ore Mine. The Society didnot undertake any development work for the villagersof Noamundi during its 80 years of existence. Theconcerned workman is a resident of village Padapaharlocated at a. distance of about 10 KMs fromNoamundi Police Station. On 11-3-87 the TSRDSmet the concerned workman and directed to arrangesome 'HANDTYA' » fomented rice drink frequentlyused by the Scheduled Tribe people of HO or 'KOL'communities for serving the same to the participatelabourers in a function when some outside dignitarieswould be visiting the village to participate the func-tion. On 13(14-3-87 while he was on his shift dutyat the Power House of Noamundi Iron Ore Mine inthe 3rd Shift commencing from 11 P.M. of 13-3-87to S A.M. of 14-3-87, Shri V. K. Sinha, SecurityOfficer of Noamundi Iron Ore Mine informed himabout 6 AM. that he should be present at the func-tion going to be held in his village on that day. Theconcerned workman told the Security Officer that14-3-87 was the next day of MAGHE tribal festivaland everybody of the villagers would be drunk andit wilt be very difficult lo confrol them. Anyway on31-3-87 a chareesheet was issued by MIS. TISCOJamshedpur Mine Division to him for alleged mis-conduct under clause 34. The charpeshcet disclosesthat on 14-3-87 at around 12 noon when communitylunch was'ooimn; on at Padapahar. he indulged in abus-inj: in flHJiv language tn the dignitaries who were pre-sent in the lunch. I* was further alleird that he triedto aswauTt (he dipniravies as well as stoff of the company,who were present in the function and when RajeshUas fried to pacify him he (concerned w6rkman) as-saul'cd him as a resul- of which Shri Das Sustainedfracture in his right hand. It was further alleged that

491 f: THEGAZETTEOF IXDIA . DECE2I&EK. 21, Ipl /AGRAHAYAMA *0. !3!3 ITARI I M E C . 3(U)J

he threatened to kill the dignitaries present duringthe occurrence. Ou 2O6-87 be submitted his replystating that there was no function at around 12 Noonon 14-3-87 and at 12 noon he had visited the/houseof his nephew and after taking Snacks, he took hisbath. At about 1.15 P.M. he readied the functionwhere hue and cry was going on from before. On

reaching there he met Singha Saheb and BaligaSaheb. When the hue and cry intensified he wentnear the car of Baliga Saheb but the gate was jammedarid with grtat difficulty the jam was removed andBaliga Saheb could go away in his car. Anyway,departmental enquiry was held during which no co-worker who could brave to defend him. The enquiryproceedings were not translated to him in Hindi. Hewas admonished by the Presenting Officer while put-ting question to the management's witnesses. Anywayhe was dismissed from service by the Divisional

Mariager (Mine) of M|s. TISCO, Jamadoba witheffect from 1-8-87.

4. In rejoinder to the written statement of t heunion, the management, as asserted the facts asstated in its written statement.

5. In rejoinder to the written statement of themanagement, the union has denied and disputedeach and every fact impinching on the conduct ofthe concerned Workman.

6. At the instance of the management fairness andproperty of the domestic enquiry was considered aspreliminary issue.

7. The authorised representative of the union andthe concerned workmen were absent when the preli-minary issue was heard.

Any way, the management examined MW-1 P.K.Panda, Enquiry Officer and laid in evidence the entiredomestic enquiry proceedings including chargesheetand reply to tht chargesheet which have been markedExts. M-l to M-18. It was held that the domesticenquiry was held fairly and properly. Thereafter thematter was heard on merit.

8. Admittedly Noamundi Iron Ore Mine situatein KOlhan Tribal Area of Chaibasa Sadar Sub-Division in the district of .Singhbhum (Bihar) is acaptive mine of M|s. TISCO, There is also no dis-pute that the service conditions of workmen ofNoamundi Ifon Ore are governed by the existingCertified Standing Orders certified by the RegionalLabour Commissioner (C)-Cum-Certifying Officer(Q,Dhanbad under the provisions of Industrial Employ-ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

Sukram Balmuchu was appointed as Sepoy on20-12-71 at Noamundi Iron Ore Mine of MfS. TISCOand he was absorbed in the service with effect from15-7-72 in the same designation.

9. It is the irrefragable position that the concernedworkman was visited with chargesheet for commissionof misconduct on 14-3-87 at around 12 noon whencommunity lunch organised by TSRDS Was going onat Padapahaf village. The pleading of the partiesdisclose that Padapahar village is at a distance ofatjeasf 7 K:Ms. from Noamundi Iron Ore Mint. Any-

way, the following chargesheet dated 31-3-87(Ext. M-l) was issued to the concerned workmen

''You are hereby asked to show cause why dis-ciplinary action should not be taken againstyou for the following act which amounts tomisconduct within the meaning of StandingOrder No. 34 for which you are liable tobe punished under Section 35 of the Stand-Orders.

On 14th March, 1987 at around 12 noonwhen community lunch organised byTSRQS, was going on at Padapaharvillage, you started abusing in filthylanguage to the dignitaries who were presentin the community lunch. While abusingand shouting, you also tried to assault thedignitaries as well as the staff of the com-pany, who were present in the function.One of our Sepoy, E Sri Rajesh Das, P.No. 95261, who was! trying to pacify yousustained fracture in his right hand as youphysically assaulted him with lathi. Youalso threatened to kill the dignitaries, whowere present during the incident. Theabove act of yours amounts to riotous,disorderly and indecent behaviour, threa-

tening to the staff of the company as well asphysically assaulting an employee of the Co.You are allowed 96 hours from the dateof receipt thereof to give your explanation.Any representation that you make in thisconnection will be taken into considerationbefore passing orders '*

In his reply the concerned workman denied thecharges asserting that he Was not present at the timewhen the alleged occurrence took place (Ext. 1 M2).

10. Shri K.K. Sinha, authorised representative ofthe union, has contended that the management ofNoamundi Iron Ore Mine and no authority to issuechargesheet against the concerned workman for analleged occurrence held outside the premises ofNoamundi Iron Ore Mine. He has further statedthat the alleged occurrence took place on 14-3-87 ataround 12 noon when community lunch organisedby TSRDS was going on at Padapahar village andso the management has no right to issue chargesheetagainst the concerned workman for an alleged occur-itnce of misoonduct committed beyond the estab-lishment and that too organised by a Society whichIs distinct and separate from the management—com-pany.

Shri B. Joshi, learned Advocate for the manage-ment has contended that the management was orga-niser of the function held for inaugural function ofconstruction of village road on behalf of TSRDS. Hehas further submitted that the concern workman wasdeputed to duty at Padapahar village on 14-3-87 ataround 12 noon. But the chargesheet discloses that thecommunity lunch was organised by TSRDS and thatthe said lunch was held at Padapahar village which,as per the pleading of the parties, is distanced from!Noamundi Iron Ore Mine by atleast 7 K.Ms. All thewitnesses for the management in domestic enquiryhave stated that the community lunch was organisedby TSRDS.

4919

U. The pleadings of the management disclosesthat the villagers requested the management toarrange for an inauguration function of the construc-tion of road on 14-3-87, but this is not supported byany evidence. Again, the contention of the manage-ment is that it decided to organise a suitable functionwhich is not supported by evidence at all. This beingthe position, the fact boils down to this is that the com-munity lunch was being held by TSRDS on 14-3-87at Padapahar village which is at a distance of about7 K.Ms, from Noamundi Iron Ore Mine. There is noevidence on record that the concerned workman wasdeployed for duty at Padapahar village on that date.The chargesheet also does not spell out that the con-cerned workmen was deployed for duty at Padapa-har on 14-3-87. This being the position, the con-tention of Shri Joshi that the management was theorganiser of the function or thnt the concerned work-man was deployed for duty is unsustainable.

12. Now, the question that comes up for consi-deration is whether the management can issue achargesheet to its employee for commission of mis-conduct beyond its establishment and that too whilehe was not on duty. This question came up for con-sideration before. Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'blcSupreme Court, by decision reported in 1983 Lab.1.C.-J909 (M|S. Glaxo Laboratories (J) Ltd. VS. Pre-siding Officer, Labour Court, Mcerut and others) hasheld that even where a disorderly or riotous beha-viour without the premises of the factory constitutesmisconduct, every such behaviour unconnected withemployment would not constitute misconduct withinrelevant Standing Orders. Therefore, even wherethe Standing Order is couched in a language whichseeks to extend its operation far beyond the establish-ment, it would nonetheless be necessary to establishcasual connection between the m'sennduct and theemployment. In order to avoid any ambiguity beingraised in future and controvertial interpretationquestioned being raised, we must make it abundantlyclear and incontrovertible that the casual connectionin order to prov'de linkage between alleged act ofmisconduct and employment must be real and subs-tantial, immediate and proximate and not remote ortenuous. In the present case the management hasfailed to provide the real and substantial, immediateand proximate linkage between the alleged act ofmisconduct of the concerned workman and his emp-loyment. Tliat being so, exercise of the managementin issuing the chargesheet to the concerned workmanfor1 coiYimis-.io'n of irisconduci arising out of an occur-rence held beyond its; establishment and outsidethe duty hours of the concerned workman and findinghim guilty on that score must founder on the ground.Hence, the order of dismissal of the concerned work-nan from service must be set aside and he should bereinstated in service v':th full back wages and conr-luity of service.

13. Accordingly, the following award is renderedhe iiction of the management of Noamundiron Ore Mine of M S Tata Iron & Steel Company

Ltd,. Nc-Mnundi, District Singhhhum, in dismissingShri Su!:ram BaUtmuchu, Sepoy from service witheffect from 1-8-1987 is not justified. The monage-msnt is directed to reinstate him in service within one

month from the date of publication of the award andto pay him full back wages with effect from 1-8-1987and give him continuity of service.

In the circumstances of the case, ] award no jefost.

S. K. MFTRA, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-26012l2;89-IK(Misc.)]

B. M. DAVTD Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 1991

S.O 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-tral Government hereby publishes the award of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1),Dhunbad as shown >n (he Annexure in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Akashkinaree Colliery of Mjs. BCCLand their workmen which was received by the Cen-tral Government on the 28-11-9J.

BRFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under section 10(1 )(d)of tfhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 76 of 1984

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofAkashkinarce Colliery of MJs. B.CC. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT ; Shri S. K. Mitra. Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers.—Shri R. S. Murthy, Advo-cate.

For the Workmen.—Shri D. Mukherjee, Secre-tary, Bihur Colliery Kamgar Union.

STATE : Bihar. Industry : Coal.

Dated, the 20th November, 1991

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012' 14H K4-D.1IKA), datedthe 25th September. lc>84, the Central Governmentin the Ministry of Labour, has. in exercise of thepower.; conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes, 1947, referredthe following dispute for adjudication to this Tribu-nal :

'Whether the action of the munagemc.it ofAkashkinaree Colliery of M'S. Bharat Cok-injr Coal I uni'cj in removing from the

3193 GI/91— 7

4 9 :0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 21. J r^l /AORAHAYANA 30. 1913 [PAPT II—SKI:. J(ii)]

muster rolljthe name5; of fh^ workmenlisted in fhe Amuxure below, without tak-ing disciplinary act'on again-:', them orcomply n g with the provisions of Section25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,was justified ? Tf not. to what relief arethese workmen entitled and from v\hatdate ?"

Nnmrs

1.->1,

4.5.fi.-7

8.Q

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.

21.

22.

: 3 .

24.

25.

26.

21.

2&.

29.

30.

31.

33.

34,

35.

3d,

37.

3".

31.

40

41.

44

45

•*(•

47.

4B.

Sutcur KoleBin.va BhuiyRnrjinwa BViiyanBarmbl MnnjhiCharku R iTh-iri KoleKhiru Koli;Mangar ManihiS.ihadev (Cole.roRcshvvar KoleMankam Dewali1 adhua KoleBhols KoVDuktial KinurSashi D^swnriBabii BhuiyanSashi DeswaliKliirdhar Bhi-'jcjnBabll BhiiyanVighan Kole

Cliafru Bauri"Dharu Mnnihi

Kola BhuiyaRtawari KoleGanpat Kola

Upnn Rai

Ramdharni BhuiyanJhuni Singh

Somri ChiiiniRampatia RajwarinKimi Rhurni

Ramlcrria KL vninSanjoti Kamin

, Somri Kamin

T. Mo-Jin

. Banw Modin

Barki KaT.in. Parhotia C!iatcj i

Piuiltnari Dcswali. '.uminia Kn'iiM

. tihadia Deswali

. Rampal" i Kar.i :i

. Baiidhani K.am;n

. Phulmani Ocswali, C ourj Kjf.i Rnj i!-.

. K;:TTn; Kami.i

. Jirid KaminBawnti Kamin

Llcsi«nalioi

Miner-do--do--do--d'i-

-dn--d'>--,1o-

-tln-

-Cln-

-do--do--rto--d<>-

-d.i-

-do--Jo--do--do--do-

-do-

-do-

-do-

-dn-

-do-

Tin^ber V'a'dooi-

Tr,/ly LoaderWatton border-dn--dn-

-d.>-

,do-

-do-

-dd-

-do-- I i .

-Jo--;lo-

-do-

-do-- J . i -

-do--do--do-

-do--do-

2. The order of reference was received in theoffc- i'f 'Ills Tribunal on 25-7-1^8-1. The prt-sent:nuu-'.'ii:'.l dispute has been sponsored by the Secre-tarv Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad. Theiin'on Mibmittcd its '.tatcment of claim way back onjD-10-K-i. The union has stated in its written state-nient-cum-statcment of claim that the concernedworkmen are poor Adivasj and ITarijan workmen andthat the management had removed their names ondifferent dates frnm the roll of the colliery withouttaking any disciplinary action and without affordingIhem anv opportunity. The management, it appears,slept ever the matter for almost three years and sub-mitted its written statcment-cum-rejoinder, as late ason 9-7-1987. The management has stated in itswritten statement that some of1 the concerned work-men never worked under the management at any timeand as such, there was no relationship of employerand employee between the management and thesepersons. According to the management one of theworkmen was dismissed from service for misconductof long absence from duty after being found guilty ina domestic enquiry. It is the further case of themanagement that some workmen left their employ-ment long ago.

3. The dispute is p prrHv old and 'n con^'derationof submission of the learned Advocate forv- themanagement and authorised representative of theunion several adjournments where given to arriveat a settlement in the matter Finally on 9-10-91'Shri R. S. IVfurfhv learned Advocate or the manage-ment, filed a petition signed by both the parties thatnegotiation for amicable settlement was proceedingin the matter. Shri D. MirkherKC authorised repre-sentative of the sponsoring nn;on. suggested that thecase be disposed of with a direction to the r>arties tosettle the matter amicably. Shri Murthv raised noobjection against the submission of Shri Muherjce.This being so, I hereby direct both the parties toresolve the dispute amicably by mutual settlement.Accordingly, the reference case v- disposed of.

This is my award.

S. K. MTTRA, Presiding Officer

[No. L-20O\2U41'^~DW(.A)[LK(Ccra]-D]

K. J. IXYVA PRASAD, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 4th December, 1991

S.O. 3127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Aa , 1947 (14 of 1947). theCentra] Govt. hereby publish^ the award' of theCenfril Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur asshown in the Anne.uuv in tl.e Industrial dispute bet-ween 'he employers in ri^ation to th'e Management ofPun'ob A Sind Bsnk ?nd thcii workmen, which wasreceived by ihe Central Government, on the 26-11-91.

49.1

BEFORE SHRI AKJAN DHV, PRESIDINGOFFICER. CLNTRAL GOVERNMENT. 1NDUS-

1RIAL IR1BUNAL-CLM-LABOUR COIJRI,PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

industrial Oispu'y Nc, 145 of 1987

In mo nutter cf dispuic belwecn • —Sliri Vijay Kumar Bhuiiu,C|o Shri Har Manga] Prasad,36; 1, Kailash Mandir,

Kanpur.AND

\*\\<i Manager,Punjab & Sind Bank,Latouch Road,Kur.pur.

AWARD

1. The Ceniial Government, Ministry of Labour,vide its nolifka:ion No. L-l2012il20j86-D.lV(A) dt.2 h t September, 1987 has referred the following dis-pute for adjudication this tribunal.—

Whether the action <>f tin; management of Punjabik. Sind Bdnk in terminating [he services ofShri Vijay Kumar H'iatia Ex-Deposit Col-kcior and clerk w.c.f- 31-12-85 and notconsidering him foi further employmentwhile iccmi ing fresh hands under See. 25H•of the I.D. Act k justified 7 If not, to whutrelief the workman concerned is entitled?

2- The present industrial dispute has been ruinedby Shri Vijay Kumar Bhaii.i. The ease oi; Shri VijayKumar Bhatia ihereinufer rcfured to as Shri Uhutkifor the sake of brevity) is '.hat wrth a view todeprive the workman Irom the benefits ci" themodified Bank Award and nrûWisation e 'c . ihe bankstarted a practice to i;ppo.'nr temporary hand's vordoing the vvcrk of a regu'ar nut lire. Such 'emporaryemployees were retrenched and frojih workers appoin-ted to avoid their continuation absorption, in tcinisof the bank's instruc i-ons, which was unfair labourpractice beside, being illcf>rt| ;md unjustified. ShriBhatia further alleges thai, hp was appointed by 'diebank as' a Deposit Collector at the Bank's La'ouchRoad Branch. Kanmir on 13-10-81 and thru1" heworked as such vpto ? ;-ir:-V5. Oes-Jes worîn;?, asDeposit Collector. ji0 was rf.juircd to work as a clerkas wel] as he performed 'hi regular clerical dutiesfor (he periods H-JO-Sl to 20-4-8? 10-6-8? to2-8-83 and 30-12-85 to 1C-4-S6 bu! he WHS not paidany wages for the clerical work performed by h;m b-.the bank in an unjustified and Hlegal manner. Hefurther pleads that (Iic. dutks discharged by him us aDeposit Coilertor'Convtti'-Mnn A°*:nt wrre simibr tothe duties and function of ;. cash clerk He furtheralleys that the bank I'nncintecJ fresh hand» withoutgiving any opportunity of employment to him when hewas not 'he ii.nior most. The bank voilated the man-datory provision1; of Sec 25G and 25H of the Actread wi'n Sec. 2SJ of the Act and I.D (CentralRules. The provisions of the modified Sastrv Awardinchidinp pnnv5 493. 495. 507. 516, 519. 5^2 and

524 lead with paras 20.7 & 20.b or Ui© bipartite seme-nienl. wac uLo \uilaicd Shii Bhaia has,, tuer^fore.prayed thai lie be reinstated in service witli full baui.wages and all other cousi_quciUiaI trcnefUs.

J, The ca;>e is cou.ebicd by the management. Themanagement plead that Shri LluiJa was appointed bythe bank as a Commission Agent ipeciiically fort.'HHOTl BACHAT SCI-D^ViE of the bank videbunk's letter No. 1971 datea 17-ll-iO. 1: is wrong toallege that Shn Bhatia was wording as a. regular clerkof the bank or Lhat he was performing die functionsof a regular clerk. Hi* appoiritmen' was. not for thaipurpose and his duties did no: include the job of aclerk. It i1- also wrong that the applicant was everappointed to perform the du'it-'s of a clerk-cum-cashicrin the bank. The management further plead that it isabsolutely wrong to allege that the duties dischargedby the applicant in his" capacity as' a commission agentwere similar Lo the duties and functions' of a CashClerk. However, it is admi ted that the services of theapplicant were terminated w.e.f 31-12-85. Althoughthe case of Shri Iihatia did not at'ract the provisionsof letrenchmcnt yet the bank paid three month'saverage commission and three months rc t ivrh-ment compensation to Shri Bhatia. The Bankfurther plead that in view of the non-satisfactoryfunctioning uf the Scheme tin1 bank decided to slopIhe scheme known as CITHOTf BACUAT SCHEMEw.e.f. 31-12-535. As a mailer of fact the services ofall the Commission Agents were terminated with effee'from 31-12-85 as a result of s'oprace|drecontinuanceof the CHHOT1 BACHAT SCHEME for whichspecific purpose Shri B1i:Vo was apoointcd. Themanagement denv that the bank hz& violated anvprovisions of Sasrry Award or die Bipartite Se'tlementor any Rules framed under the Industrial Disputes(Central} Rules, 1Q57- At present there is no schemeof the bank to appoint Commission Agents and assuch the petitioner* is no' entitled to be absxirbed ona permanent baîs nor is he entitled to be re-emplovedwith the bank. The present dispute raised by ShriBha'ia is not maintainable u>vVr Law.

A. \n support of his c«sc. Shri Bha'ia has examinedhimself and has also re'ied upon a few documents.On the other hand, ih^ nianaizement have examinedSardar Surjit Smah Jhass, Seniot Hrancli manager insitip]!'jrt of their case and has also re-iec!' upon a fewdocuments filed by them.

5. Shri Bhatia in para 2 of his cross examina:ionhas admitted that CHHOTi BACHAT SCTTEMEcame to end w.e.f. Tl-12-85. He ûrthtr admits tbatthe Airenrv of S|Shri Vijay Gro^Tr, Rani Agrawaland Shri Ts". R. Ahuia vere tpnni-na'cd by the' bankw.e f. 31-12-85 alonewilh him. He admits that henever got aprointment Teller for the post of clcrk-cum-cashitT by :hc bank, He ennnot tcl! as to what arethe duties of the clfrk cum cashier in the bank. Healso admit' tât durinp ihc ter'ure of his aG\"ncy hedid not work on rny other ledger except +he VdêrorCHHOTf BACHAT SCHFMF. Shri Bhatia furtheradmits that ir is correct t'l t 'h* Hpri1.: h?.d not ap-points! anv a»t?nt af-':r 1-1-19% tfnd the bank paidh'm Rs. 307'j.77 pnisa throu<-b Bank Draf whilett*rrriiir.itm? YM iipency-

(•• Tlius from ihe above stntement of Shri Bhnti?n comes out that he was no* riven any appointment

4922 IHH GAZtTTE Of INDIA: DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART 11—SBC. 3(ii)]

letter voi ihe post oi clerk LUIII cashier and he wassimply ullOiVii iiu Agency untier (ue CHi'lUllJJALrlAl bLrihivlb oi tiie uunk under certain .ermsand cojidition; tnai he never performed die regularwork of regularly appointed citik cum casnier JU tncbauk; thai ChLHOli liAClJA'i iiCtibAlb came mend w.c.l'. 3I-12-S;i; mid ilia, the bank while termina-ting his Agency paid him Rs. 307b.77 paisa throughbank draft.

;. 'I;;*- management wiin ineir IIJL ui Uvicuinciilduivii ml liuve njt-d tiie pmno copy or '-he lower uai.cUi/- l i-oU. j (ii.i document is maiki-u a Exi. M. I. meuuiriorjsiu icpiesuiiaiive oi bnn i>liai>u too naa modtins document, viue lis. of document at. lo-3-yu. b \ l .M. 1 J!> lettei uate-d < /-11-rfU addressed to Shn VijayKumar JiliaUa Jroni me Area Office ot the Bank, njtr Mgned by the Aiea ;viaii<.get. Iriorn n K appearsthat Lhc bank management uirolted Shri Bnacia usan Agent lor Cniiuii bacliul S>cueme on Commission(aj 3 per cent on die coJlecions made by him (ShnJihatia). J his wouid mean trial Sinn Bhuuu was neverappointed as a clerk cum cashier by ilie bank.

8. txl.. i\l. 2 is the cutting oi' Nsws Paper of' DainikJagttran da.ed 29-12-S3, wlrerein the managementbank had informed u> all concerned that the bankhad slopped the CHHOTi B/YC'HAT YOJANA w.e.f.31-12-SS. Shri Bhatia has also admitted iliis fact inpara 2 of his cross examination. Thus from the aboveit appears that at present there is no such scheme withthe management bank.

y. 1 may .slate here lhat the cases ol; Deposit Col-lectors have been considered by me in IndustrialDispute No. 96J1989 between Th0 Assistant GeneralSecretary, U.P. Bank Employees Congress and TheAssistant General Manager, Benaras Saite Bank Ltd.,and the .same was answeitd against the workmen. Inthis case also ii appears that Shri Bhatia is trying toseek back door entry. Such a back door entry is notadmissible in view of Article 14 of the Constitutionof India which lays down lhat the Stale shall notdeny to any person equality before the law or 'he equalprotection of Jaws vvnhin the territory of India. Therecruitment ;o the clerical cadre in the banking indus-try is done by Banking S'ervia1 Recruitment Board onthe basis of vacancies notified by the various bauk'sto Banking Service Recruitment Board. *

10. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on re-cord I find lh.it there never existed the relationship ofMaster & Servant between Shri Bhalia and the bankmanagement, The bank had no: an effective controlover the work of Shri Bhatia. Shri Bhatia was fre© toattend the bank at his own convenience, meaningthereby that he was nor bound to attend the bankregularly, during the business hours i.e. 10.00 a.m. to5.00 p in. He never sinied the attendance register ofthe bank. He never performed tin- work of regularlyappointed clrrk-; in the bank during the bunkinghours. His job was sitnr>1y to collect the deposits fromthe members of th-.- Ohhoti Rachat Scheme and fodeposit, tht- same with the bank under the said scheme.It was for Shri Phafia to find on* the customers forthe said scheme, and to drpo-il the amount realisedfrom them with the bank ft rn\" own convenience. Thebank had *o do nothing with the work of Shri Bhafia

except to pay commission at the agreed rate on thedeposits made b> Sun Bhatu. Thus riom the aboveit is clear thai iliere never existed relationship ofmaster and servant between the management ot thebank and Shri Bhatia.

11. In para 17 of my award in Industrial DisputeNo. 19jS6 daied 29-1-W, L observed as follows :•—

Tata J / of 1. D. Wo. 19|cSo

The liltli and S*\th Award;- are oi' my learnedpredecessor bhri R. B. Srivasiava, one inj . D. Case No. 215{b4 and the other in 1- D.No. 33 of 1%4. In the second case the caseof deposit collector was considered, in para24 oi the Award it was held by my learnedpredecessor thai taking over all picture ofthe work performed by the applicant^ simplybecause Jie made cuiain entries in tiie ban*,leager would not make him the whole timebank employe*1 but he would remain a.sagent and his .services were rightly termi-nated under the terms of the agreement.

Again iu para 30 of the same award 1 observedas follows .—

;Thus from the above discussions of facts, circum-stances and law, 1 find that Home DepositCollectors rcfencd to in the reference miadeby ihe Central Government, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi, are not workmen withinthe meaning of Sec. 2 (a) ID. Act. If thecontention of Shri Dhawan the authorisedrepresentative for the workmen, is acceptedthen the Agent employed by Life InsuranceCorporation of India, and Agerus employedby thu Directorate of National SavingsCertificate, to promote the Sales of NSCwould also claim to be the employees oftheir respective employers and consequentlylay claim to bonus under1 the Paymcn* ofBonus Act. 1 urthcr it will open a Buck DoorEntry for service in the clerical cadre even'hough fiie Home Deposit Collectors mightnot be fulfilling the basic requirements as toage, 'educational qualificulions etc., whichcannot be the intention of any statute.

Again in para 21 of my ;.v,ard dated 30-8-88 inI. D. 1(6(87, I observed as follows:—

It is important to note that with the inceptionof Banking Service Recruitment Board, allrecruitment in Public Sector Banks in cle-rical cadre are to be made through BankingService Recruitment Board for which Writ-ten test and interview are held. So far asHome Deposit Collectors are concerned nosuch test or interview appears to have beenprescribed. Even no age limit seems tohave been prescribed nor any special edu-"cational qualification for appointment assuch. The basis for selection seems to beintegrity, honesty & local influence in thelocality in which they are to perform theirjob. Further they should be possessing onlysuch qualifications as are sufficient for work-ing and making entries in the deposit cards

4923

and for submissions of accounts with re-gard to collections made by them in thebank to which they are attached. One can-not circumvent the rales of recruitment toclerical cadre. Any appointment made con-trary to special rules of the recrutment tothe clerical cadre will be invalid and ille-<gal. The whole structure will be demolish-ed if back door entries are permitted i.e.to say if without compliance of the proce-dure laid down for recruitment u HomeDeposit Collector is allowed entry to cleri-cal cadiv.

The cases of Mini Deposit Collectors!Home De-posit Collectors were considered in the above twonoted T.D. cases and also in T.D. No. 116187, andafter examining the facts and circumstances the lawon the point and the views of various Central Gov-ernment Industrial Tribunals cum Labour Courts, itwas held by me that they arc not workmen withinthe meaning of sec. 2(s) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947.

12. Shu O. P. Mathur authorised representativefor Shri Bhatia har relied upon the ruling Manage-ment of Indian Bank, Madras Versus The PresidingOfficer industrial Tribunal (Central) Madras andanother, 1991 Lab. 1C 557 of the Hon'ble MadrasHigh Court. T may make it clear that this ruling hasbeen considerel by me in para 17 of my Award givenin Industrial Dispute No. 96 of 1989, which readsas under:—

Para 17 of T.D. No. 96]89 (Award dt. 6-2-91).

No doubt there is the judgment of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Madras supporting the pointurged by Shri Gupta but this Tribunal can-not lose sight of the fact that the Awardgiven by* this Tribunal in l.D. No. 116(87was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court ofAllahabad. In l.D. No. I16|87 the refe-rence which was made by the Central Gov-ernment, Ministry of Labour, was—-

Whether the demand of the workman Shri C- B.Tewari for regularisation of his services bythe Central Bank of Tndia Nakhas Branchw.e.f. October, 19R2 is justified? If so towhat relief the workman concerned is en-titled ?

Shri Tewari's appointment was admittedly as anAuthorised Collection Agent. As stated byme above, it was held by me that he wasnot a workman within the meaning of Sec-tion 2(s) l.D. Act, and consequently washeld as not entitled to the relief claimed.Shri Tewari filed Writ Petition No. 7755of 1989 against the said award hut the samewas dismissed on 23-8-89 by the Hon'blcHigh Court of Allahabad. The Judgmentwas given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice BriieshKumar. Jn view of it the Tribunal cannotgo against it.

13. From the above it is clear Lhat Shri Bhatia toocannot be held as a workman u!s 2(3) of the l.D.Act. In para 3 of cross examination the management

witness has deposed that the general work of thebanking business including preparation of scroll, mak-ing of entries in ledgers and preparation of vouchersJS done by the regular banking stall' but in the caseof collecting agents under the Laghu Bachat Yoiana,collecting agents in respect of collection made bythem prepares vouchers and make entries in the passbooks of the account holders and also in ledgers ofChhoti Bachat Scheme. Some times even in the led-gers of Chhoti Bachat Scheme clerical staff utcd tomake entries. Thus by making certain entries in theledgers of Chhoti Bachat Scheme, Shri Bhatia cannotbe equivated with the regular employees of the bank,and as such cannot be held as workman under sec.2(s) of the l.D. Act.

14. Shri O. S\ Mathur, the authorised representa-tive for Shri Bhatia, has placed much reliance onthe joint inspection. I have gone through the jointinspection report and am of the opinion that it can-not be of much help to Shri Bhatid, because what-ever enterics are found to have been mentioned inthe hand writing of Shri Bhatia they are in respect ofChhoti Bachat Scheme and as h>ueh Shri Bhatia cannot take any advantage of it. In other words ShriBhatia cannot be deemed to have peiformed the re-gular work of the bank, by making such entries inthe ledger o£ Chhoti Bachat Scheme.

15. Thus from the above discussions of facts andcircumstances, 1 find that Shri Bhctia was never ap-pointed as clerk by the bank and what there neverexisted the relationship of Master & Servant betweenthe bank & Shri Bhatia. 1 further find that the man-agement bank never terminated the services of ShriBhatia, but has terminated the Agency. Therefore,the action of the management cannot be said to beunjustified and illegal,

Hence, it is held that Shri Bhatia is entitled to norelief.

Reference is answered accordingly.

ARJAN DIZV, Presiding Officer[No. L-12012l120!86-DIV(A)]

S.O. 3128.—In pursuance of Sect;on 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent-Ira] Government hereby publishes thv award oi theCentral Government lixlu-triul Tribunal, KVmpur asshown in the Annevure in the TnchislricU dispute bet-ween the employers in relation to Hie Mgt. of Alla-habad Hani: and their workmen, which was uxviwdby ;he Central Government on the 26-11-91.

4924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21. 199J /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART TI—SEC. 3 ( U ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORF SHRI ARJAN DfcV PRESIDING OFFI-CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-Cl'M-LAHOUR COURT, PA1SDUNAGAR, KANPUR

.Industrial Dispute No 136 of 1987

In the mailer of dispute

BETWEEN

The Depuly Sccre ary U P Bank AllahabadCongress, 2f.,H-A, Palkapur, Kanpur.

AND

The Assistant General Manager Allahabad BankZonal Office, 1I3I5M Swarup Nagar, Kan-15U1-.

APPEARANCE .

Shri M. K. Verma, l.LR, for the Management.Sliri B. P. Saxena Auth., Representative for Union.

AWARD

1. The Cen'ral Government, Ministry of Labour',vide its n<v;iiaition no. L-12O12l2S7i86-D.HA dated7th September, 1987, has referred the following dis-pute for adjudication ;o this Tribunal :—

Whether the action of the management of Allaha-bad Bank, Kanpur in not making permanentShri Vinay Khanna clerk w.c.f. 3-8-66 thedate of his first appointment is justified ?If not, to what relief' the workman concern-ed is entitled?

2. The industrial dispute on behalf tf workman ShriVinay Khanna has been raised by U P Bank Alla-habad Congress (hereinafter referred to as the Union).The case of the Union is that the workman was ap-pointed on 3-8-1966 and designated as clerk by thebank. During the period between 3-8-1966 and2-S-67 he worked for over 298 days. According tothe Union the workman performed the clerical dutiesof a permanent nature and as such he was not atemporary employee. In any case he was entitled tobe confirmed under para 20,10 of the first bipartitesettlement. On his repeated requests the bank ab-sorbed him in permanent employment w.e.f. 21-4-69instead of 3-8-66. His breaks in service after 21-4-69were treated ns leave without pay. The Union alle-ges that the termination of service of the workmanafter 2-8-1967 when he had completed 240 days ofservice during the period of 12 months, was voidabinitio and as such he was legally entitled to betreated as in continuous service w.e.f. 3-8-66. Thusthe termination of his service was in violation of themandatory provisions ofsection 25F of the J.D. Act.It is furthc1- alleged by the Union that the workmanwas not in a nos;£;on to bargain with the managementwho rejecla! his re«ulai-isation in service from a la*erdate PS he would have CberwKe lost his iob. Theac'ion of the management is not considering theperiod of his ;emporarv service w.e.f. 3-8-66 as aprr' of "rohaiionnrv neri;U is unjustified rnvl iliecrril.The Union hns Iherefbrc, piayed th.it the action of

(he management JU this regard be declared as unjus-tified and illegal and he management be directed iotreat the workman as permanent clerk w.e.f, 3-8-66,with all consequen ial benefits such as increments,leave .seniority etc.

3. The case is, contested by the management. Themanagement plead tha: the rderence order is badin law on the ground of principle of Res judicata. Theissue referred to t>y the Central Government had al-ready been taken and deckiea by the ALC(C)Nagpur wherein the management had agreed to allowonly increment from ISth Sep'ember each year tothe workman. The said case was decided in 1975.

Jl he management deny any violation of any provisi-ons of the first bipartite ss'Uement and stcion 25FLD. Act. According to the management these pro-visions have no relevance fur >hc purposes of decid-ing the issue. Then there jj a simple denial of otherfacts by the: management. The management havenot taken the double of controverting the facts asto working of the workman, jact with regard to hishaving been confirmed from 21-4-1969 etc. Al-though the written sturemen has been signed by thethen Regional Manager of the Bank, h© had taken noUoublc to nice; the ease of the Union specifically onthe above points The said officer cannot be said tohave ac'ed with sense of responsibility considering hishigh position.

4. ]n the same way the Union has acted withoutany sense of responsibility while dealing with thefacts pleaded by the management in para (1) oftheir written statement. All that has been allegedis that the contents of para (1) of the written state-ment have no application in law, Tlrs was notsufficient. The Union should have stated clearlywhether or not any issue of the kind referred to inthe said para of the written statement was heardand decided by ALC(C) Nagpur, in 1975.

5. In support of its case, the Union has -\xaminedthe workman and has relied upon documentary evi-dence. (The management have also filed a numberof document in this case. The cross examinationof the workman was concluded on 27-2-90. There-after, the management sought several opportunitiesfor filing the affidavit evidence and filed the affidavitof Shri Anil Kumar an officer posted in the esta-blishment department of the Regional Manager'sOfficer Kanpur on 15-1-91 i.e. after 11 months.Despite the fact that the management took such aJong time for filing the affidavit of Hie said officerthe management failed to examine the said officerdespite the fact that after the filing of his affidavit8-3-91. 29-4-91 and 21-6-91 were'fixed as datesfor his cross examination. On 21-6-91, the evidenceof the management was closed and 2-8-91 wasfor arguments. On 2-8-91, the Presiding Officerbeing on leave, the case was adjourned to 6-9-91for hearing nreuments. The order sheet shows thatboth on 2-8-91 and 6-9-91, none appealed for themanagement. T have detailed these facts only witha view to emphasize as to how the case has beendealt with casually from the side of the management.It is a different nutter that on a careful scrutiny ofihc evVfeiice I find that the Union hrr no case atall.

49 > 5

6. After suing through the evidence of the work-man I find that temporary working of the workmanduring the period 3-8-66 to 2-8-67 for over 290days has no relevancy in this case for deciding theI cference.

7. Ext. M. 1 is the photostat copy of tine letterof workman's permanent appointment as clerk dated27-10-69. The document has been admitted bythe workman in his cross examination. From thisletter of his appointment it appears that his appoint-ment was on n probationary period of six months andthat on the expiry of the said probationary period thequestion of h's confirmation to (lie permanent esta-blishment of the hank was to be considered.

8. In para 4 of his statement in cross examinationthe workman has admitted that there had been asettlement between the Union and the Managementof the Bank in 1978. with regard to predating', In1980. on the basis of the said settlement his ap-pointment as clerk was predated w.c.f, 21-4-69.

9. In para 3 of Ms statement in cross examina-tion, the workman has admitted that accordinc tothe paid settlement predating would be allowed ifthe break in service would be of less than 15 daysand that it would not be allowed if it was of \Sdays or more. With his affidavit the workman hasfiled a s'a'cment annexure A showing the number ofdays he had worked between 27-4-66 and 30-S-69.From this statement it is evident that he hadworked at Citv Office Kanpur from 25-3-1969 to28-3-69 for 4 davs and at Katra Allahabad from21-4-69 to 30-4-69 for 10 days. Thus between28-3-69 and 21-4-69 there was ' a gap of 23 day*.After 30-4-69 the gaps in service have been ofperiods less than 15 days. So according to his ownstatement as furnished by him with his affidavit itstands proved that under the settlement ho couTdhave been allowed predating w.e.f. 21-4-69 andnot from any back date,

10. W'th his affidavit the management witness hasfiled the copy of staff circular no, 18I23'1O91 dated8-5-78 annexure 2. (t is on the subject of predatingof appo;ntment of permanent award staff. Para f l )which is relevant read.- as under—

Tine permanent members of the Award Staff,who worked for a continuous period apa-inst temporarv vacancies with intermittentbreaks, will be considered for havintr theirappointments predated iGnorinp the breaksin Service not exceeding 15 days at atime. The appointment may be predatedto such late wherefmm there wa-, no breaki" service not exceeding 15 days -M a timetill the concerned employee had been ab-sorbed in permanent vacancies.

(The document has admitted by the authorisedrepresentative fo*- the Union.

11. Thus from the above discussions of ev;-icnroand circiimstinrcs T hold that the* notion of *h~rmmacemenf of Allahabad BanV m rot mnHn^workman permanent w.c.f. 3-8-66 is neither unjusti-

fied nor illegal. On piedating his services wererightly regularised w.e.f. 21-4-69.

12. 'The reference is answered accordingly,ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer

[No. L - I 2 0 1 2 I 2 ! > 7 ^ ( " I - D . M ( A ) ]

S.O. 3129.—In pursuance u<' Section 17 ot the ln-dustr'al Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes Hie award ofthe Cen nil Government Industrial Tribunal.Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrialdispute between the ei.yloycrs in rela'ion io the mgt.of Bank of India and their workmen, which was re-ceived by lhi- Central Government on the 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORP SHR1 ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OPF1-CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT lNrHJS !Rf V ,

TRIBUNAL. PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 154 of 1987

In the matter of dispute between:Shri Kamlesh Kumar,C|o Shri V. N. Sckhari,26'104 Birhana Road.Kanpur.

ANDThe Regional Manager,Bank of India,Regional Office,Kanpur Region-Virendra Smriti Complex,13 P No. 500 Civil Lines.Kanpur-288001.

AWARD1, The Central Government, Ministry of Labour,

vide its notification No. L-l 2012 243'87-D. I | (AKdated 16-10-87 has referred the following dispute foradjudication to this tribunal:—

Whether1 the action of the management of Bankof India in terminating the services of ShriKamlesh Kumar w.e.f. 1-1-1982 is justified 9

Tf not to what relief the concerned work-man entitled ?

2. The. workman's case in brief is that with a viewto deprive the workmen from the benefits of modi-fied Sastry Award, Bipartite Settlement, the bankstarted the practice of appointing temporary hands fordo;nir the work of regular nature. Such temporaryemployees were recruited and fresh workers appoint-ed to avoid their continuation I absorption in Ihe bank's'<;rvice. Thus the bank adopted an unfair labour pn>c-licc in this reeard. The workman alleees that his mimewas sponsored h v the Employment Exchange and hewas duly selected out of many candidates and his

49.6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA , DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

name was placed at serial no. 3 of tho selection list ofapproved panel of the sub-staff for regular service.However pending appointment on permanent basis,the selected persons including him were given tempo-rary employment. According to him he hud workedfur 26.1 days at I'nnao Bianch of the Bnnk. Imme-diately after statin? [his lue has alleged Uiat he wasemployed for over 228 days between 24-5-79 and30-12-81. He was retrenched without anv ryhme orreason w.e.f. 1-1-1982 when persons whose namesappeared at serkil Nos. I, 2, 4, and 5 in the approvedpanel were taken in regular service.

3. Thus he was discriminated despite the fact thatin the approved panel tin's name appeared at serialno. 3. According to him he was not the junior mostat the time of his retrenchment- The bank even ap-pointed frc^h hand; after termination of his serviceswithout giving him any opportunity of re-employment.Thus the bank violated the provisions of sections 25F25G and 25H. of the T.D. Act, and provisions i>f mo-dified Sastry Award such as paras 493, 495, 507,516, 519, 522 and 524 read with paras 20.7 and 20,8of the first Bipartite Settlement. Besides the bank con-travened the provision of articles 14. 16 and 21 of theCon.ifi'ution oP India. He has. therefore, prayed thatthe action of the management in terminating his ser-vices be declared as unjustifed and illegal. He hnsclaimed the relief of reinstatement as a regular peonw.e.f. 1-1-1982 with full back wages and all conse-quential benefits.

4. The ease is contested by the management of thebank. The management pleaded that the managementnever adopted any unfair labour practice referred toby the workman in his claim statement, The manage-ment further deny that the workman was sponsoredby the employment exchanec and that he was dulyselected out of manv candidates and his name wasplaced at serial no. 3 of the selection list.

5. The fact is that the workman was intermittantlyappointed as ;j temporary hand in sub-staff categoryto meet the exigencies arising out of absence of per-manent sub-stafl on leave or otherwise. In 1979 heworked for 45 davs, in 1980 he worked for 80 days,in 19S1 he worked for 103 days, in 1982 and 1983he did not work at all and in 1984 he had worked for37 days. In para 4 of the written statement the man-agement have given month wise working davs of theworkman in these years. The management deny thattheir action in ferminatine the services or the Work-man is in anv way illepal or unjustified. According tothe management in persuance of the instructions issuedbv the Government of Tndia. the bank has to encasetemnora'-y hands to work as Badii Sepoys through theemployment exchange for temporary requirement. Thecand'dnTes ^ n ' Y ^ r j jbyj the employment exchangeare interviewed bv a committee comprising of seniorofficers of the bank. After the terminationof his ser-vices, in order to coT-ider *he workman for empanel-nient of sepovs. the bank a-ted the workman to ap-near in the written test. According the workman ap-peared ;n the n-^ncn test on 26-2-84 for selection inthe panel of badii senoys but he could not nullify inthe written test. Hence he has no case at nil.

5 In his reioin<W 'ho additional fact alleged hv theworkman is fruit S'Shri Devi Deen and D. S. Pandrv

viio were junior to him in the panel were regularisedwhile he was kept as a temporary hand. He admittedthat he as allowed to work in the months of April andMay 1984, much after the holding of written test inFebruary 1984. He has also alleged that S|Shri RakeshKumar, Jagat Pal and Vijay Kumar who were em-ployed after him, were allowed to work while his ser-vices were terminated.

6. In support of his case, the workman has filed.his affidavit and some documents. On the other hand,the management have examined, in support of theircase Shri B. N. Srivastava an officer of the Bank, Themanagement have filed some of the documents sum-moned by the workman,

7, Let us first sec for how many days the workmanh'id worked after his appointment till 31-12-81. Tnpara 8 of his claim statement, in this regard, he givestvvo types of statement which are contradictory to eachother. At first he says that he had worked for 263days and in the next breath he has stated that he hadworked for over 228 days from 24-5-79 to 30-12-81.

S. With his list of document dated 17-2-88, theworkman has filed the photostat copv of bank's certi-ficate dated 2,3-10-84 and letter dated 2-8-83. He hasproved both these documents bv his affidavit. Eventhe genuineness of these two documents has not beenchallenged by the management as will be evident fromthe facts oleadcd by the manaeement in para (I) oftheir application dated 28-9-88.

9. From the certificate dated 23-10-84 it comes outthat he had worked for 45 days in 1979, for 80 daysin 1980 for 103 days in 1981 and for 23 days in 1984.

10. It means that from 1979 to 1984 he hadworked for 251 days and from 1979 to 198! he hadworked for only 228 days. (The letter dated 2-8-83gives month-wise working of the workman during they.Mrs 1979, 1980 and 1981. This corroborate theplea of worldne davs of the workman as given in thecertificate dated 23-10-84.

11. The above two documents thus corroborate themonth-wise working of the workman durinc the years1979 to 1984 as given in para 4 of the written state-ment. The above documentary evidence thus provebeyond doubt that the workman did not work conti-nuously. He simply worked intcrmittantlv. Tt can befurther inferred that it could not have been a case ofreeulr.r appointment of workman. Even ;n para 8 ofhis claim statement the workman himself has statedth?t he was given temporary employment. He havinenot put in continuous service of one year in any ofthese years within the meaning of section 25R l.D.Ac!, the provisions of Sec. 25G read with Rule 77 andprovisions of section 25H read with rule 78 would notapply to his case, His case was one of random appoint-ment uyamst leave vacancies of permanent staff.

12. Although this is sufficient to dispose op the pre-sent r^fen-ncp <--|--n T would like tn consider the caseset nn by the workman that his appointment on">4-5-79 was in Dcrstifipce of h;s mine apn^ring atserial no. 3 in the approved pnnei of siih-sfaff for re-»u1/jr service. In para 7 of the claim statement it hasb°en alleged bv the workman that his nirnn W;K upon-••wed by the employment exchange and lie was duly

4927

selected out of many candidates and his name wasplaced at serial no. 3 in the approved panel of thesub staff for regular service, Now let us sec what hehas deposed in his cross examination.

13. In para 2 of his statement in cross examinationho has deposed that he came to know that a post ofpeon was vacant at Unnao Branch of the Bank. Uponthat he put in an application for his appointment as apeon. He admits that the said post was not advertisedby the bank. He further admits that at the time ofmaking application his name was not registered in theEmployment Exchange Unnao or any other employ-ment exchange. His name came to be registered forthe first time in t980, and it was only in 1981, forthe first time the Employment Exchange Unnao for-warded his name to the bank.

14. In para 3 of his statement in cross examinationhe has deposed that he was interviewed on 23-11-82.He was, selected and that amongst the selected candi-dates his name appeared at serial no. 3. He has deniedthe suggestion that he was not selected.

15. Thus the facts deposed to him go to show thatthe facts slated by him in para 7 of the claim state-ment, are not corfec'. They donot refer to the timewhen he was engaged in the bank in 1979. Even hiscase that in the interview held on 23-11-82. he wasselected does not appear to be true. In his furthercross examination he has deposed that it is correct thatsuch candidates as were not selected in the interviewheld on 23-11-82 were given an opportunity to appearin the wril'en test in 1984 and in the said written testof 1984 he also appeared. Had he been selected hewould not have appeared in the written test, held in1984"

17. With their application dated 28-9-81, the man-agement filed the copv of panel of Badli Sepoys. Ttwas in the form OF objection against the workman'sapplication dt. 12-7-88 for summoning of documents.This copy of panel of Badli Sepoys was also filed bythe management witness wi'h bis affidavit. It iscmnexure 1 to his affidavit. Tn the panel of BadliSepoys the name of the workman no where appears.

18 Thus we find that the workman has no case atall. Hence, it is held that the action of the manage-ment in terminating the services of the workmanwc.f. 1-1-84 is neither illegal nor tinnjstified. Conse-quently the workman is held entitled to no relief.



[No. 120121243187 D TTf ATI

S.O. 3130.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Cen-tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute bet-ween the employers in relation to the Mgt. of PunjabNational Bank and their workmen, which was recciv-rd by the Central Government on the 26-11-91.

BEFORE SHRT ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFI-CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT PANDU

NAGAR KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. I D . No. 51 of 1988

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri O. P. Sharma C|o Shri R. K. Pandey,57(99 Lai Kuan Lucknow.Shri Ramendra Kumar MishraC|o Shri V. N. Sekhari26|104 Birhana Road,Kanpur.AND

The Zonal ManagerPunjab National BankAshok MargLucknow.

AWARD:

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour,vide its notification No. L-12012(408|87-D.II(A) dt.25-4-88 has referred the following dispute for adju-dication to this Tribunal :—

Whether the action of the management of Hin-dus+an Commercial Bank Ltd. now amalga-mated with Punjab National Bank in termi-nating the services of S|Shri Om Prakashand Ramendra Kumar Mishra w.e.f. 15thMarch 1985 and 6th June 1985 respective-ly is justified? Tf not, to what relief are theworkman entitled ?

On 12-8-Q] despite issue of notice none appearedfrom the side of the workman. Tre case was fixedFor filing of affidavit evidence on behalf of the work-men. Shri K. N. Soni appeared in respect of ShriR. K. M'shra workman but did not file his authority.He however moved an aoplication for adjournment.However the case was adjourned to 30-9-91 with thedirection that a fresh notice be issued to the work-men. Notices were issued from the office of this Tri-bunal on 19-8-91 but despite that none turned upon 30-9-91. Tt thus appears that the workmen arenot interested in prosecuting their case.

2, Therefore, a no claim award is given in thecase, in view of facts and circumstances stated above.

3. Reference is answered accordingly.

ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer[No. L-12012|408|87-DII(A)]

3193 OI/91—8

49:8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHA YANA 30, 1913 [PARI 11—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O 3131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Kanpuras shown in the Annexurc in the Induetrial disputebttween the employers in relation to the Mgt. ofPunjab National Hank and their workmen, whichwrs received by the Central Government on the26-11-91.

BEFORJi SHR1 AR..TAN DEV PRESIDING OFFI-CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT PANDU

NAGAR KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 1989In the matter of dispute between :

The PresidentFNB Employees Union134 Sadnr Ba/arT.ucknow.

AND

The Zonal Manager

Punjab National Bank

A^iok Marp Lurtnow.

AWARD1. The Central Government, Ministry of T abour,

vide iU notraca'inn No. I.-1?0l2l354l88-D.2fA) dt.l£-2-R°, has referred the following dispute for ad-ii'flicution to this Tribunal :—-

"Whether the action of the management ofPunjab National Bank in retiring Shri RamAsrav Bill Collector w.e.f. 30-6-87 andnot tnTcinr into account his date of birthas 1-12-1929 is justified? Tf not to whatrelvf '"s the workman entitled?

2. The Industrial Dispute on behalf of the work-man Shri P. am Asrav has been raised bv PuniabNational Rink Fmployees Union (hereinafter refer-red to as Union).

3. The ease set up bv the Union in brief is thatthe workman was aPnointed ns neon in the erst-wh'le Hinjjicfan Commercial Bank Thereinafterreferred to ?s HCB for the sake of brevity) on4-9-49. The said bank merged with Punjab Na-tional Bank vide Government Notification dated18-12-86. At the time of joining of service by theworkman, the management of the HCB did notmention snecific cHtc of birth of workman in thecolumn relating to date of birth in his service rrcord.On 27-2-58. the management of FTCB vide letterronv nnn-xnrf 4 called nnon the workman to r>ro-cf"r» rroof of Ire dare of birth to the satisfaction ofthe T\TIV Tn rcrilv the workman with his letterrf;ifed 07-R-s;s conv annexure, sent to the pianaf1-mon* nf the bank bi« horoscone, conv annexnr^ 5Rprf ri(irun.f*nt<: nf LIC of India admitting his dateo* birth as 1-17-29. cony annexure 6 and 7.

3. The U"ion alleges that on the basis of thedoe-unr'titc nrodue'd bv th*3 workman the rrnna<ic-ment of HCB rectified the date of birth of workman;mrl note^ down the correct date of birth asM2-1979 Pt +he top of his service record, copy an-

nexure I. His said date of birth was also recordedin the Itave register, copy annexure 9, According tothe Union had the management of HCB taken hisdate of birth on the basis of age mentioned in thebeginning in his service record, the managementwould have retired him in 1985 on his attaining theage of superannuation i.e. 60 years. However,after amalgmation, the management of the PunjabNational Bank (hereinafter referred to as PNB) re-tired him from service pramaturely on 30-6-87 ins-tead of 1-12-1989. The Union has, therefore,craved that the workman be treated as having conti-nued in service till 1-12-1989, and be awarded allfinancial benefits, such as; wages, increments bonus,Providend Fund and Gratuity of the period 1-7-87to 1-12-89.

4. The case is contested by the management ofPNB. The management, admit that erstwhile HCBwas amalgamated with the PNB vide Government ofIndia Notification dated 18-12-1986. Conseauentlyupon merger, the employees on the role of theerstwhile HCB became the employees of the PNB.Such cmnlovees were issued letters of appointmentand clause (4) of the letter of appointment issuedto the workman clearly stirjiulated that he would begoverned bv the terms and conditions as applicableto the workman of the PNB. The PNB also laiddown rules reP'ird'mir admission of date birth ofemniovce;: in the b'inV vide Staff Department Cir-cuinr No. 86 of 25-5-54, cony annciue, 1. Eventhe Indian Banks Association vide its, circular No.Pnf76[2l182 dt. 17-6-83 sent to all the membersnf the Association laid down puidc lines regardingadmission of date of birth of employees includ'neuwnrd staff and officers. Annexure 2 is the copyof the raid circular of Tndian Banks' Association.Tn terms of these two circulars the horoscone ofthe employee in support of his ap'c cannot be tre-ated as authenticated rmd acceptable. Further thentjc b"cp admitted at the time of appointment bvthe workman cannot be altered at a later stace bvthe emp]ovee ;»s r>er hnnkV rule So far as the work-mari is rnncerned he iomed the service of erstwhileHCB n a Godrwn Guard on 4-9-49 at bank'sVitirVi W,i7"r;it Gatii Lucknow. At the time of ioin-iptT the h.inW service the emr>loveec veiv. Tpfm;rcjto e^^cute a m^mos of particulars in HCB, As ner(Jprltrritinv nf the worVman in the memo of pi^rti-rninfi; in eolumn of dntf of birth the foliowrnffWnnJs— "AGF AHOUT ^4 YEARS", menninst^rrgbv that hit- voar OP birth war, 1925 are written.^h^ conv of memo of particulars is annrxur^ 3.Farther for the snVp nf arfrimrnt1; thonph M'ithoutnfTniittinrr M1 the time nf 'intVyintr for the member-rh'n o^ Emnio^'eee P.F. 9rhemc. in the erstwhileT-Tr*n in Arwi] 1951. the workman declared his aec•i" 'ibont i.i. iTopri- meanirKJ therebv that he washnrn in the vppr 19^7 Th? ronv of the <nd annh'-fiffrii it; fifinexure 4 Jf pnnears tbit subs^mierttdemand bv the bank from the workman reoardinirh's r>rre rr'vpr, ip tfi.., v«'"- 19<9 hn< been pqni'aiicedbv the workman vrith a view to manirwiiate h'« a(v>f^ the bp^t of Tiie ndvnntinp TTornccnno nn'1 T TOCorf,f\rntP nr,^ ot accentabie domtriPnts to the b-i^l^.T'T> TT-ilon hie (riven nnd"f crnnVi 'it: on lmanthri-r-.r.,-.fl rPrnrj^ .y^p mnnapfment ^e'terafes that hcnrti^n of the hank '"n retiring the workman on

4929

30-6-S7 is in accordance with the provisions of lawas well as in conformity with the provisions of Bip-artite Settlement. The fact that in the leave registerthe workman's date of birth nas been mentioned as1-12-29 has no relevance as the same has also notbeen authenticated by the bank. A mere mention ofsuch a date on such a document does not make itas an acceptable document. The management didnut commit any illegality in retiring the workman on30-6-87. Thus the Union has no case fox the work-man.

5. In its rejoinder it is alleged by the Union thatso far as the workman is concerned circular no.'66 dated 25-i-54 of the PNB has no relevance. Inthe rejoinder a few additional pleas have also beenraised by the Union. The Union alleges thaterstwhile HCB introduced a linked group insuranceScheme in the year 1986. The workman was alsoa member of the said scheme. The premium withrespect to it used to be deducted from the salary olthe workman every month. The workman filled upthe requisite form in connection with the saidscheme and it was duly certified by the managementof the bank. Annexure 2 is the copy of the form. Fur-ther it is alleged by the Union that the management ofPNB prepared a history sheet for the workman inFebruary 1987 in which his date of birth was men-tioned as 1-12-29.

6. In support of their respective cases both thesides have relied upon oral as well as documentaryevidence. Whereas the Union has examined theworkman, the management have examined ShriMohd. Mobin Manager PNB Mayfair branchLucknow.

7. In this case there is no dispute about the factthat the workman joined the service of HCB on4-9-49. Ext. M. 2(,An. 3 to the W. S.) is the photo-stat copy of memo of particulars to be submited tohead ofnee in respect of employees at the time oftheir appointment in the bank's service of HCB HOKanpur. It is in respect of the workman. Againstthe column of date of birth the following wordsappear—

Age about 24 years.

It means that at the time of joining the servicethe workman was deemed as born in 1925. Ext. M.3(An. 4 to the W.) is the photocopy of applicationgiven by the workman for Employees P.F. It is dt.25-5-51. In it against the column of date of birththe following words appear:—

Age about 24 years

It means that the workman was born in 1927.Annoxurc RW- 1 to the affidavit of the workman isthe photostat copy of letter dt. 27-2-85 from theAgent HCB (place nowhere appears in the photo-stat copiy) to the workman for furnishing proof inrespect of his date of birth. In para 5 of his affi-davit the workman has deposed that in reply toquerry made by the management of erptwhil.- rnnkin proof of his date of birth, he submitted his horos-cope and documents of Life Insurance Corporationof India adnvffing his age in respect of the policvtaken by him us i-12-1929. Annexure EW.2 to his

affidavit is the photostat copy of the horoscope andannexuie £vV.j & EW.4 to his affidavit are the docu-ments regarding admission of his age by the LlC ofmdia. Document no. EW.4 is the pJunccopy OLleLter dt. 2-7-195S from the Divisional Manager inrespect of his L I C Policy. The Divisional Managerinformed the \vorkiaan about the receipt of his hoios-cope in proof of hiy age in respect of his Life Insu-rance policy. He further informed him that he wassending to him usual age admission certificate whichis nothing other Uiau document £W.3. In the lettercopy EW.4 the Divisional Manager verilied work-man s date of birth as l-12-ly29.

8. The case ol the Union is that on tiie furnishm*;of the auuve uocumuiU, the workman's date of birthWus recUiied by the management of iiCG and noteddown in the ser\iee record, copy anrexure 1 to theclabi statement at the top. L juav stale hcie thatUiere is no dispute about the [act between the partiesliiat had the date of birth of theworkman been1-J 2-1929, he would have retired from the bank's-service on 30-11-1989.

9. Now ict us examine document no, annixure 1,to tlie claim statement. It purports to be the photo-copy of the service record of the workman as pre-paied by the HCS3 On examination of this docu-ment I lind iUat a note hi red ink: has been mad©at the top of the photo copy to the effect that thecorrect date of birth as 1-12-1929 was rectified attiie spot of the record as visible clearly in the originalrecord. This noting ia the red ink does not appearto be worthy of credence entries in the statementaunexure I to the claim statement appear upto iy«j6.Had his date a birth as furnished in reply beenaccepted by (lie management of H.C.B., entry regard-ing his date of birih as 1-12-1929 would haveappeared in the service record and also in the photo-copy and there would have been no need for theunion to have mads an entry to the above effect inred ink at the top of document annexurc I. 1 maystate here that n para 10 of his affidavit the manage-ment witness ha3 deposed that the service record ofthe workman is not available with the managementof PNB.

10. Tn para 6 of his statement ir cross examina-tion the workman has deposed thai he did not obtainthe copy of his service record annexure 1 to the claimstatement from the bank- According to him the.same had been obtained by the Union and it werethe Union which had Jiled it in the case. He is un-able to tell as to how it was obtained by Ihe Union.To explain ihcse fact: ro office bearer has comeforward to say how and when it was obtained.Another important fa*.'t to be noted is that in para 5of his statement in cross examination the workmanhas deposed that the management of HCB richerinformed him in writing that the date of his birth asfurnished has been accepted. According to him hesimply learnt about it from the officials of the bank.The Union has not examined any such official tocorroborate its cV,e on the point.

11. Annexure 9 to the claim statement is thephotostat copy of the register of leave, in respect ofthe v t.'!;rnan. In tht; heading portion at two placesthe following bond wriiten woids appesr—-

Date of biith 1-12-1929,

4930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 21, 1991/AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 J P A R T 1 1 - S E C . 3(iijj

The document has beeii admitted by the autho-rised representative for lhe management and it hasbeen marked E.tr. W-3. However Shri Cbateijee,the authorised representative for the bauk on bchallof the management has submitted thai no leliuncecan be placed on the date of birth given in thisregister. Firstly, there is no column of date of birthany where in the regislc-r.

12. The first date of birrh as 1-12-1929 is foundwritten below the word Chhuti Ka Register and thesecond entry in this* regard appear against Father'sname. He also submits that there is no practice ofwriting date of birth in the leave register It appearto me that the same office bearer of the Union hassurruptitiously made such an entry in it in order tostrengthen the case of the woikinan. Besides thisregisteu of leave, from the format, appears to havebeen maintained under U.P. Shops & CommercialEstablishments Act, 1963. There is a column fornoting down Die date of employment. Had therebeen any requirement with regard to noting lownthe date of birth then, must have appeared the columnrelatink to it. I havs heard tJit authorised repre-sentative for the Union also. According to himwhen date of birth is found noted in the above docu-ments it should be. taken notice of and reliel uponfor the purposes of determining the dale of birth ofthe workman.

13. After hearing the two s-ides I find a lot offorce in the sub^nis-nori made bv Shri Chatcrjce andfind absolutely no force in the submissions made byShri Dhawuu. There was no sense of notinc clownthe date of birth in this register at two places whenthere was no such requirement. Ir appears thatsome how or 'he other the Union was r.ble to layits hands upon this document nnd in order tostrengthen the case of the workman made [pot madeentries regarding date of birth at two places

14. Annexurc EW,5 to the affidavit of the work-man is the photostat copy of the nomination formof the workman regarding his LTC deposit LinkedGroup Insurance Scheme. In it the following handwritten words appear above the certificate given bythe Branch Manager.

Date of birth 1st Vfccrmbr-.r 1929

Shri DhavV.in has argued tint premium towardsGIC was beisg deducted froj/. the salary of the work-man. So the management very well knew that theworkman's dats o: birth was 1-12-1929. The argu-ment does not appear to me convincing. There isno column for giving dale of bhth in the printedform. Cokmv.s are with regard to place, witness,designation with the address. Moreover, the certi-ficate given by the branch manager fa simply to theeffect that declaration dated 16-4-19F6 recordingnomisation of his \v:fe by the wurVnian was si»miby fhe workman before him. There is nn certificateto the effect rhyr the dare of birth or r,ny other parti-cular given in the: application for nomination arecorrect.

15. Now i come to the diairnstanres of tl-e careon the point it issue Ext. M 1 (Anni'Nurc ? to lli<*written statemrm") is the photo w i y of fnvntf -yConfidential Le'rer No P D 7fi'7Jilfi? dated17-6-1983 from the Assistant Personnel Ad\Kor ofIndian Bank's Association to all members' of the

usMJciaLion regarding guiue >mc'j U l Dt-- OU^IVUQ iuiLtic purposes u£ daie of birUi of tne employee- Therelevant portion ot the letter reaus as iojlows—

I'hei babks may in luture require the employeelo iiJinish tne iuliowing uocwnt.rUs as prootof his age at the uine ui joining service- -

(a) liw matricidutior or school leaving certi-Ucate granted by the Board c.t iku^uaryeducation or similar educational au'lio-tity, or

(,bj A ixrtitiat copy of his date of birth aslecoiued in the registers ol u mirnicipilitylegal authority or Panthuyat or Registerot births,

(z) Jn the absence of. eitlier «i! the aforesaid•wo categories ol ecltiikates the bask•.nay require the workman to supply aeeiuheaie from a Uoverninent MttnealOUieer not below thfc lank oi an Assis-tant Surgeoii or by the Busks authoriseduieli-al ollicer indicating ihe provableage ot ihc workman provided the costot outaiain^ such ceruiiuue i*> borne bytile bask.

JtSo'ie.—VVlnice exact date ot birth k not avail-able and the year ot birth is only esiubiishedthen me 1st July of the said year shall betaken as the date of birth.

There is no doubt that it is for future applicationbut the guide Imes given in my view wers even rele-vant at tht; (inie oi entry into the service ot HCBoi the workman. We have seen that at the lime ofentry his age was given, is the service record as 24years meaning thereby thai he was born in 1925.In the copy of service lecoid Ann. 1 to the claimstatement workman s Educational Qualification writtenas upto: Hindi. Class VI. 1 may state here thatentry regarding educational qualification of the work-men has no where bee>i challenged by the Union init pleadings or by the workman in his auidavit.However, for the first time in his cross examinationthe workman has come imt with the case that hehad not takn cducalion in any school. He has alsosaid that he had not appL-avj;l in sry examinationof any class even privately. This statement of hiycannot be believed at all in view of the tacts, statedabove. Had he not taken any education up'o classVj no such cjitrv would have appeared in his servicerecord. Further the Union would have surelychallenged this entry also It is nothink but an afierthought. The best evidence for the Union, therefore,would have been to produce the School LeavingCertificate of ihc workmar. in proof of the date ofbirth of the workman. In the alternative the Unioncould have isked th? workman to obtain the copyof Kutumb Register from the PancKivat of his Village.I may sfafe here t'jar in the scivier: record, copyannexure I, his permanent address is given as VillageHafizpur District Barabanki

16. Much ivlimcc even cannot be placed on thecopv of horo,cope annexure EW.2 to workman'saffidavit. Pn\tlv it could have been procured vl anyI'rme, fn his crossexamination the workman statesHiat hf cannot «iv when it was prncurrd Accoriinp;«o him he $it it from his paternal ;>unt (Bua) before1957. He admits that -before 19.1>7 lie was not

4931

aware of i*. Jf tne year of his birth is taken as1929, he was 23 years old in 1957 arid if it is takena, 1925, he was 32 years eld in 1957. It is unbeliev-able that he would not have known the existenceor 'the horoscope till 1957. Moreover, in the ordi-nary course the horoscope would have been with hisfamily and not with his Bua.

17. Next I come to the LIC Documents on whichthe Union has placed relaince. The admission ofdate of birth of the workman fay Life InsuranceCorporation of India has no Di.idinp effect on themanagement nf erstwhile HCB. The workman hadraken Life Insurance Policy and Life InsuranceCorporation nl Ind'a had accepted the date of birthus furnished by him, (o the Life Insurance Corpora-tion of India. So it was simply a contract betweenthe workman and Lile Tnsuiance Corporation ofIndia and not bi (ween the workman and the mmuge-ment of erstwhile H.C.B.

18. From the above discussions of evidence andcircumstances I conic tc the conclusion that theworkman's date of biith as 1-12-1929 w?.s neveraccepted by the management nf erstwhile HCB.Further I conic to ihc conclusion that there is noreliable evidence on record to show that the work-man's data of birth is 1-12-1929. The workmanshould thanks his stars if he was retired by themanagement of PNB on 30-6-19S7, otherwise hewould have retired on 30-6-1985 on the basis of theage mentioned in his service record. We shouldnot forget that in 1986 HCB was under amaipmationand it was amalgmateG with the Pimjab NationalBank vn December, 1986. NatuiaJly the manage-ment of the PNB would have t?Vcn a considerabletime to situdy the ca'-'ca of the employees of ihc erst-while HCB.

19. Hence, it is held that the action of the PunjabNational Bank iu retirirr the v.orkman w.e f. 30-6-87is fully justified. The Uuii>n|wnrkmap. is held en'itlcdto no relief.


ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer.

[No. L-12012|35<ll88-D-ITiA)l

S.O. 3132.—In pursuance of Secion 17 of he in-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Cen-tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shownin Hie Aunexure in the Industrial dispute between theemployers in relation to the Mgt of Allahabad Bankand their workmen, which was received by the Cen-tral Government on the 26-11-91.

BEFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFI-CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 183 of 1988In the matter of dispute between :

Shri K. B. Maurya,C|o Dr. P. C. Bajpai990 Block Y Kidwai Nagar,Kanpui.

AND

The Assistant General Manager,Allahabad Bank,Hazaratganj,Lucknow.

APPEARANCE :

Shri M. K, Verma, Advocate, LIR, or the Man-agement & Shri K. N. Soni, for the Work-man,

AWARD:

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour,vide its notification No. L-12012|70|88.D.II(A) dated5-12-88, has referred the following dispute for ad-judication to this Tribunal :—

Whether the action of the management of Alla-habad Bank in terminating the services ofShri Kunv/ar Bahadur Maurya and not con-sidering him for further employment whilerecruiting fresli hands under sec. 2511 ofthe I.D. Act is justified? If not, to what re-lief are the concerned workman entitled ?

2. The workman's case in short is that with a view*to avoid appointment of permanent hands and regu-larisation of services of employers appointed to per-form the duties of a regular nature, the bank adoptedunfair labour practice of appointing temporary ordaily rated employees. In the same manner he wasalso appointed as a peon-cum-farrash at bank'sTarabganj Branch District Gonda on 18-7-83. Afterhe had worked for 188 days upto 15-4-84, his servi-ces were terminated by the management w.e.f.16-4-84 without any ryhme or reason. In fact he wasappointed against a permanent vacancy and hehad worked as a regular peon. At the time of termi-nation of his services he was not the junior mostworkman. Besides after the termination of his servi-ces fres hands were appointed without giving him anyopportunity of re-employment, Thus the bank voiiat-ed the provisions of Sections 25 and 25Hread with section 25J I.D. Act. The bank also voilat-ed the various provisions of Sastry Award and Bi-partite Settlement besides voilating Articles 14, 16& 21 of the Constitution of India and secions 9 10,12, 18 and 21 of U.P. Shops & Commercial Estab-lishment Act, Their workman has therefore prliyedthat the action of the management of the bank interminating his services be declared as unjustified andvoid and similarly the action of the bank in not con-sidering him for further employment while recruitingfresh hands u|s 25H of the I.D. Act be declared as

4932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unjustified and void. Lastly, he has prayed that themanagement be directed to reinstate him with retros-pective effect with full back wages and all consequen-tial benefits.

3. The case is contested by the management otAllahabad Bank. Tlic management plead that thereference order is bad in law as the subject matter ofthe dispute does not com within the perview of I.D.Act. According to the management the workman wasnever appointed as peon cum larrush against, a per-manent vacancy. He was deployed against vacanciesof casual nature by an officer having no competenceor power to appoint such person in the bank. Theappointing authority for peon cum farrash as petstanding rules of the bank is Regional manager andno officer below the rank of Regional Manager isvested with the power to appoint any person againstthis post. Besides there is specific procedure for theappointment in the service of the bank. According toli the name of the person to be appointed shouldsponsored by the Employment Exchange andsuch person should possess the prescribed qualifica-tion. The name of the workman was never sponsordby the Employment Exchange. I am constrained toremark that the management have not taken the trou-ble of stating specifically as to for how many days theworkman had worked and during what period.

4. In his rejoinder it has been alleged by theworkman that the reference order is not bad in law.He denies that he was a casual worker. According tohim the procedure to appoint only through employ-ment exchange is not valid in law.

5. In support o their respective casts both sideshave led oral as well as documentary evidence.

6. In the claim statement the workman has comeout with the case that he had worked for 188 daysfrom 18-7-83 to 15-4-84 as Peon cum Farrash atTarabganj Branch of the Bank. But from documentno. 4 of the list of his documents dated 25-7-89'proved by the workman by his affidavit it appearsthat he had worked only for 183 days during thesaid period. Document no. 4 purports to be the pho-tostat copy of his statement dated nil issued by theManager Tarabganj Branch showing dates of vou-chers days for which wages were paid and the amountpaid through each voucher.

7. Although the management have not set up anyspecific defence with regard to number of workingdays of the workman in the written statement, in evi-dence the management have chollenged the state-ment with regard to number of days claimed by theworkman on a few points. These are :—

(1) That he had worked till 15-3-84 ;

(2) That he was not paid any wages for 20 dayson 14-3-84 ; and

(3) That by means o voucher dated 15-10-83he was paid wages for 3 days and not for4 days as shown in the statement documentno. 4 of workman's list of documents dated25-7-89).

8. The above facts, the management, have tried toestablish from the evidence of M.W. Sarabdeen Dubey

Jn his affidavit Shri Sarabdeen Dubcy has deposecthat lie was manager Tarabganj Branch in 1983-84.In hit; cross examination he has deposed ibat it washe who had engaged the workman for the first timeon 18-7-83. These Tacts have not been controvertedby the workman or his authorised representative,About the rest of the facts this witness has stated notonly in his affidavit but has also deposed about themm his cross examination. It follows therefore thataccording to the management the workman had work-ed for 162 days only from 18-7-83 to 15-3-84. Al-though it is not stated in the claim statement as wellas in the rejoinder filial the workman was not paidfor Sundays & Holidays for the first time it was stat-ed by him in his affidavit that he was uot paid forSundays and Holidays. The position in this regard isnot disputed by the management. The managementwitness has deposed in his cross examination that theworkman was not kept on Sundays &. Holidays norhe was pad for these days.

9, Thubthe dspute centres round the fact whetherhe had worked for 183 or 162 days excluding Sun-days and Holidays. After going trough the evidencoon record 1 find that the management's evidence isfar more reliable than the evidence of the workman.

10. Now let us have a look at the statement ofworking days as given in document no. 4, it showsthat on 5-10-83 he was paid Rs. 40|- towards wagesfor 4 days. This is belied by the copy of paymentvoucher dated 5-10-83 filed by the management wit-ness with his affidavit. It shows that actually by meansof voucher dated 5-10-83 he was paid Rs. 30 aswages for 3 days. The last three entries of the abovestatement filed by the workman are important. Theseentries read as under :—

Date No. of days Amount.28-2-84 2 20|- ;25-3-84 13 130|-14-3-84 20 200|-.

A bare look makes entry dated 14-3-84 very dou-btful. If he had been paid Rs. 20]- on 28-2-84 andKs. 130|- on 15-3-84, there does not arise the ques-tion of payment oF Rs. 200|- as wages to him 14-3-84.No attempt was made by the workman in his affi-davit or in his exminatkm in chief to explain it. Eventhe workman made no attempt to produce the mana-ger who purported to have signed the statement. Evenno attempt was made by the workman to summonthe relevant records from the ban of explain the cor-rect facts. Lastly, the statement no wheie bears anydt)ti_\ I therefore believe the management's evidenceand hold that the workman had worked only for 162days intermittently during the period 18-7-83, to15-3-84. He had not worked till 15-4-83 as has beenaleged by him.

11. The next question which arises in this regard is asto of how many Sundays and Holidays, the workmancan be given benefit. 1 have counted the number ofSundays falling between 18-7-83 and 15-3-84. Theycome to 34. From 18-7-83 to 15-3-84 the number ofdays comes to 241. Thus we seet at during the periodof'241 days the workman hud worked only for 162days. If we consider the matter proportinoatcly

4933

in tins regard lie can he given Deiient ot only 2,5 bun-days. Section 9 of U.P. Shops & Commercial Estab-IMiment Act lays down Lhat every employee shall beallowed by the employer a holiday on every close daywinch is a public holiday, and whole day in each weekprovided his total period of employment in a weekincluding any day spent on leave or holiday is notless than six days. In repect of bank holiday he canbe jiven benefit at the most of 7 days. It will rendertl.e total number of working days of the workmanduring the period of 12 months preceding the date ofh's term'nntion as 192 days only. This being so hecannot be said to ha> e worked only for one yearwithin the meaning of section 25B of the I.D, Act.From the side of the workman reliance was placedon the Division Bench Ruling in the Case of Kapur-thala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Versus Presid-ing Officer Labour Court, Jullundhar 1984, Lab TE97-4 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). In this case theworkman was found to have put in 230 days of ser-vice during the period of one year preceding the dateof termination of his services. It was held by theirLordships that termination of service of an employeeon the verge of his completing 240 days service am-ounts to unfair labour practice. Their Lordships there-fore ordered reinsiafcni'ent of the emp'oyee. This isnot the ra^e over here. In the present case, theworkman is falling short of 48 days of working.Therefore, in his case the provisions of section 25FI.D. Act are not applicable.

12. Since the workman has not put in one year ofcontinuous service before the termination of his ser-vices. ;n his case even the provisions of section 25Gread with Rule 77 and lection 25H read wth Rule 78FIT not attracted.

13. Now let m examine ihe case of the workmanfrom another r^nple. In para R of his claim statementhe hns set up the case that he was appointed as peoncum farrash against a permanent vacancies meaningthereby as if he was given permanent appointment. Inhis cross examination he admitted that his name wasnot sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Themanager has Vent him of hand. He was not issuednny appointment letter. Had he been appointed aga-inst a permanent vacancy the prescribed procedurefor recruitment would have been gone into by themanagement of the bank. Besides he would not havebeen made to work intermittently.

14. Tn his cross examination he has also statedthat at the time of his engagement Shri Suresh Kumarwas working as a peon. Towards the end of 1983Shri Surcsh Kumar was transferred and in his placeShri Shiv Charan was posted as peon. In his cross ex-amination, the management witness has deposed thatShri Shiv Charan was not engaged by him but hecame on transfer. He was a permanent peon, it is arg-nrd by the authorised representative for the manage-ment that Tarabgani Branch is a rural branch andInokinp to the strength of staff only one peon wassufficV-nt. Ar pleaded by the management in the writ-Mi statement the workman had been engatrd of andon fnr doing work of a casual nature and that tooon a daily wage of Rs. 10. In case of his permanentappointment he would have got a salary of a regularpenn, At no time the workman raised any objection

that he should be paid the salary of a regular peon.These facts and circumstances thus go to show thathe had been engaged of and on only for doing casualnature of work.

15. These facts and circumstances thus go to show*that lit had been engaged of and on only for doingcasual nature of work. From the side of the workmanit has not been disputed by his authorised represen-tative that Tarabganj Branch is a rural branch. Look-ing to the facts and circumstances I find force in thecontention of the authorised representative for themanagement.

16. Lastly it has been pleaded by the managementin the written statement that the appointing autho-rity in respect of peon cum farrash as per StandingRules of the Bank is the Regional Manager. Althoughthe relevant rules have not been filed the fact hasbeen corroborated by the management witness bymeans of his affidavit (para 8). There has been nochallenge to this fact from the -ide of the workman.Even if it is taken that he was given appointment bythe manager the same being illegal it could not haveconferred on him any right as peon.

17. Thus from the above discussions of facts andcircumstances and the legal position I hold that theaction of the Allahabad Rank in terminating the ser-vices of the workman and in not considering him forfurther employment is justified anil legal. The work-man is held entitled to no relief.


Sd|—

ARJAN DEV, Presiding OfficerNo. L'12012]70|8'8-D.iI(A)TJ

V. K. VTZNUGOPALAN. Desk Officer

4934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 21, 1991 /AGRAHAYANA 30, 1913 [PART I I—SEC. 3(3)]

New D'ellu, the 6th December, 1991

S.O. 3133,—Whereas the Central Government hav-ing been satisfied that the public interest so requiredhad in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause(vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Dis-putes Acl, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by theNotification of the Government India in the Minis-try of Labour S.O. No. 1752 dated the 31st May,1991 the iron ore mining industry to be a publicutility service for the purposes of the said Act, fora period six months from the 8th June, 1991;

And, whereas, the Central Government is of opi-nion that public interest requires the extension ofthe said (period by a further period of six months;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confer-red by the proviso to sub-clause (Vi) of clause (n)of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947\ the Central Government hereby dec-lares the said industry to be public utility servicefor the purposes of the said Act, for a further periodof six months from he 8th December, 1991.

[No. S-llO17|12|85-D.IfA>]S. S. PRASHER, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 27th November, 1991S.O. 3134,—In pursuance of Section 17 of ths

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Kan-pur as shown in the Anncxure, in the industrial,dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Central Railway Jhansi and theirworkmen, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 26-11-91.

ANNEXURE

BEFORK SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFJ-C\iK CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT PANDU

NAGAR KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No 3(10 of 1989

In the mater of dispute between :

The President Rash'riya Chaturtha Shrcni RailMazdoor Congress (!ntuc) 2-236 Namn-air Agra.

AND

The Divisional Rly. Manager Central Riy. Jhansi.

AWARD

1, The Central Government, Ministry of Labour,vide its notification no. L-41012|69|89 1R(DU) dt.28-11-89, has referred the loJlowing dispute for ad-judication to this Tribunal :—

Whether the Divisional Rly Manager CentralRly Jhansi was ju.'tificd in terminating theservices of Shri Tula Ram Chakrobortyw.ef 18-1-87? If not , what, relief theworkman was entitled?

2. On 28-10-91 parties representatives S|ShriSurcndra Singh for tire Union and Shri B N Bhatta-charya for the management were present, ShriSurendra Singh moved an application on behalf ofihe Union praying that •since the workman has beemkept in service in pursuance of the order dt. 23-5-90passed by the Central Adminis'rative Tribunal,Allahabad, as such reference has become infructuousI do agree with the pravcr made by the authorisedrepresentative, for the Union.

3. In view of the above the present referenceorder has become infructuous and as such "it isdecided accordingly.


ARJAN DEV, Presiding OfficerINo L-14012|69"[R9-TR(DU)(Pt:.)l

K, V. B, UNNY, Desk Officer

Printed by the Manager, C,c\i. of inJia Piess. Ring Rond, New DelhT-110064and Published bv the Controller of Publications. Deihi-110054. 1992

No. 51] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, … · REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)-128/91) PUBLISHED BY...

Documents

Transcript of No. 51] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, … · REGISTERED No. D. (D.N.)-128/91) PUBLISHED BY...