the gazette of indiaegazette.nic.in/writereaddata/1997/o-0214-1997-0016-7766.pdfreturn, if such...

REGISTERED NO. D. L.-33001/97

The Gazette Of IndiaPUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 16] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, APRIL 19,1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919

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

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

(Judicial Section)

NOTICE

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 1997

S.O. 1015.—Notice is hereby given by the Competent Autho-rity in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Notaries Act, 1956 thatapplication has been made to the said Authority, under Rule4 of the said Rules, by Shri S. K. Kaushik, Advocate forappointment as a Notary to practise in Sarojini Nagar, N.C.Tof Delhi.

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(69)/97-Judl.]

N, C. JAIN, Competent Authority & Addl. Legal Adviser '

(2117)872 GI/97—1

2118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 22; 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NOTICE

New Delhi, the 26th March, 1997

S.O. 1016.—Notice is hereby given by the Competent Autho-rity in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Notaries Act, 1956 thatapplication has been made to the said Authority, underRule 4 of the said Rules, by Ms. Nirmala Yashwant Ashtekar,Advocate for appointment as a Notary to practise in PimpriChinechwad (Maharashtra).


[No. F. 5(76)/97-Judl.]N. C. JAIN, Competent Authority & Addl. Legal Adviser


S.O. 1017.—Notice is hereby given by the Competent Autho-rity in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Notaries Act. 1956 thatapplication has been made to the said Authority, under Rule4 of the said Rules, by Shri Anand raj. Patil, Advocate forappointment as a Notary to practise in Manmad Chy(Maharashtra).


[No. F. 5(77)/97-Judl.]N . C . JAIN, Competent Authority & Addl. Legal Adviser

NOTICE

New Delhi, the 26th March. 1997

S.O. 1018.—Notice is here given by the Competent Autho-rity in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Notaries Act, 1956 thatapplication has been made to the said Authority. underRule 4 of the said Rules, by Mohd. M. M. Yahya Ansari,Advocate for appointment as a Notary to practise in Maha-rashtra.

2. Any objection to the appointment of the said personas a Notary may be submitted in writing to the undersigned .

within fourteen days of the publication of this notice,

[No. F. 5<78)/97-JudI.l

N. C. JAIN, Competent Authority & Addl, Legal Adviser

2119

NOTICE

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 1997

S.O, 1019.—Notice is hereby given by the Com-petent Authority in pursuance of Rule 6 of theNotaries Act, 1956 that application has been madeto the said Authority, under Rule 4 of the saidRules, by Shri Ranjan Kumar Malakar Advocatefor appointment as Notary to practice in TamlukDistrict Midnapore (West Bengal).

2. Any objection to the appointment of the saidperson as a Notary may be submitted in writing tothe undersigned within fourteen days of the publica-tion of this notice,

[No. F. 5(81)/97-Judl.]

N. C. JAIN, Competent Authority &Addl. Legal Adviser

NOTICE


S.O. 1020.—Notice is hereby given by the Compe-tent Authority in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Nota-ries Act, 1956 that application has been made to thesaid Authority, under Rule 4 of the said Rules, byShri Tarun Kanti Chaudhuri Advocate for appoint-ment as a Notary to practise in Kiran Sankar RoyRoad, Calcutta (West Bengal)

2. Any objection to the appointment of the saidperson as a Notary may be submitted in writing tothe undersigned within fourteen days of the publica-tion of this notice.

[ No. F. 5(82)/97-Judl ]

N. C. JAIN. Competent Authority &Addl Legal Adviser

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIE-VANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel &. Training)

New Delhi, the 7th April, 1997

S.O. 1021.—In exercise of powers conferred bySub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946(Act No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government withthe consent of State Government of Uttar Pradesh,Home (Police-3) Lucknow vide Notification No.172. GI/VI/Police-3/96-97, dated 12th March,1997 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police Establish-ment to the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh for investi-gation of the offences punishable under sections 307Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860) registeredunder case No. 142/96, 25 Arms Act registeredunder Crime No. 143/96, 25 Arms Act registeredunder Crime No. 144/96, 25 Arms Act registeredunder Crime No. 145/96, 25 Anns Act registeredunder Crime No. 146/96 of the Police Station Bhoj-pur, District Ghaziabad (U. P.) and for any otheroffence of attempt, abetment and conspiracy in rela-tion to or in connection with the said offences com-mitted in the course of same transaction or arisingout of the same fact or facts in relation to the afore-said case.

!No 228/18/97-AVD II]HARI SINGH, Under Secy

2120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

(Exchange Control Department)

Mumbai, the 24th February, 1997

S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 8read with sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Foreign Ex-change Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) and in, supersessionof Notification No. FERA. 73/88-RB dated 27th February,1988, the Reserve Bank is pleased to permit any person resi-dent in India to acquire foreign exchange for travel abroadin accordance with the conditions specified from time to time,and retain the unspent foreign exchange brought back by himto India subject to the condition that such unspent foreignexchange shall bo utilised again for travel abroad, within :

(a) a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of hisreturn, it such unspent foreign exchange is in theform of notes and coins ; and

(b) a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of hisreturn, if such unspent foreign exchange is in theform of travellers cheques.

[No, FERA A-172/97-RB]C. HARI KUMAR, Executive Director

Mumbai, 241h February, 1997

S.O. 1023.—In pursuance of subsection (2) of Section 13of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973 (46 of 1973),the Reserve Bank is pleased to order that its Notification No.FERA. 80/89-RB dated 9th August, 1989 as amended upto24th February, 1994, shall stand further amended with im-mediate effect as under :

In the said Notification after clause (v), a new clause shallbe inserted us follows, namely,—

"(iv) to permit any person resident in India to take nutof India, unspent foreign exchange brought backby him to India while! returning from his previousvisit abroad and retained in accordance with theReserve Bank's Notification No. FERA/172/97-RBdated February 24, 1997 :

fa) in the form of notes and coins, within a periodnot exceeding 90 days from the date of his return;

(b) in the form of travellers cheques within a periodnot exceeding 180 days from the1 date of hisreturn.

[No. FERA 173/97-RB]C. HARI KUMAR, Executive Director

2121

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 31st March, 19.97

S.O. 1024.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(a) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, readwith clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationa-lised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions)Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after consultationwith the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri K. R.Chabria, presently General Manager, Union Bank of Indiaas a whole lime Director (designated as the Executive Director)of Punjab National Bank for the period from the date of histaking charge and upto 31st October, 2000.

IF. No. 9/18/96-B.O.I]SUDHIR SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 1st April, 1997

S.O. 1025.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(a) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, readwith sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 5. clause. 6, clause 7and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970,the Central Government, after consultation with the ReserveBank of India, hereby appoints Shri Sharda Singh, presentlyExecutive Director, United Bank of India as Chairman andManaging Director, UCO Bank, for the period from the dateof his taking charge and upto 31st December, 1999.

[F, No, 9/21/96-B.O.I ]SUDHIR SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Secy.


S.O. 1026.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(a) of Section 19 and sub-section (1) of Section 20 of theState Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the CentralGovernment, after consultation with Reserve Bank of India,hereby appoints Shri M, S. Verma, presently Managing Direc-tor, State Bank of India, as the Chairman, State Bank ofIndia, for the period from 1st April, 1997 and upto 30thNovember, 1998.

[F. No. 8/2/97-B.O.I]SUDHIR SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Secy.


S.O. 1027.—In exercise of the power; conferred by clause(a) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, readwith sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 5, clause 6, clause 7and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980,the Central Government, after consultation with the ReserveBank of India, hereby appoints Shri R. S. Hugar, presentlyExecutive Director. Indian Bank as Chairman and ManagingDirector, Corporation Bank for the period from the dateof his taking charge and upto 31st May, 2000.

[F. No. 9/7/97 B.O.I.]

M. DAMODARAN. Jt. Secy.

2122 T H E G A Z E T T E O F I N D I A : A P R I L 19, 1 9 9 7 / C H A I T R A 29, 1919 [ P A R T I I — S E C . 3(II)]


S.O. 1028.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section26 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop ment Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government,

in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby notifiesthat the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment may contribute to the share capital of, or purchaseand sell shares of, or invest in the securities of Agri Deve-lopment Finance (Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Chennai with which itwill be associated as Chief Promoter.

[No. 7(43)/96-AC (TN)]S. K. THAKUR. Under Secy.


S.O. 1029,—In exercise of the powers, convened by Section26 of the National Bank for agriculture and Rural Deve-lopment Act, 1981 (61 of 1931), the Central Governmentin consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby notifiesthat the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment may contribute to the share capital of. or purchaseand sell shares of, or invest in the securities of AGRI BusinessFinance (Andhra Pradesh) Ltd.. Hyderabad with which itwill be associated as Chief Promoter.

[No. 7(43)96-AC (TN)]S K. THAKUR. Under Secy


S.O. 1030.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section2b of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Deve-lopment

Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government,in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby notifiesthat the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment may contribute to the share capital of, or purchaseand sell shares of, or invest in the securities of KarnatakaAgri Development Finance Company Ltd., Bangalore withwhich it will be associated as Chief Promoter.

[No. 7(43)/96-AC (KTK)]S. K. THAKUR, Under Secy.

2123

(Department of Revenue)ORDER

New Delhi, the 2nd April. 1907STAMPS

S.O. 1031.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(b) of sub-section (1) of Section of the Indian Stump Act,1890 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permitsMaharashtra State Financial Corporation. Mumbai to payconsolidated stamp duty of Rupees Seventeen lakhs twenty fivethousand only, chargeable on account of (he Stamp Duty on13 85 per cent MSFC Bonds—2006 (71st Series.) hearing dis-tinctive numbers :

(1) from 1 to 60 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of the aggre-gate value of Rupees Six cores only allotted toLife Insurance Corporation of India ;

(2) from 61 to 80 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of the aggre-gate value of Rupees Two cores only allotted toState Bank of India :

(3) from 81 to 90 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees One core only allottedto Dena Bank ;

(1) from 91 to 100 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees One core only allottedto Bank" of Maharashtra ;

15) from 101 to 150 of Rupees One lakh each of theaggregate value of Rupees Fifty lakhs only allottedto Bank of Baroda ;

(6) from 151 to 160 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees One crone only allottedto State Transport Co-op. Bank Ltd;

(7) from 161 to 165 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of (heaggregate value of Rupees Fifty lakhs only allottedto Shekari Sahakari Bunk ltd. ;

(8) from 166 to 215 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees Five crores only allottedto Bombay Mercantile Co-op, Dank Ltd. ;

(9) from 216 to 225 of Rupees Five lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees Fifty lakhs only allottedto Abhudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd. ;

(10) from 226 to 235 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees One crore only allottedto the Bharat Co-op. Bank Ltd. ;

(ll) from 236 to 250 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees One crore fifty lakhsonly allotted to Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. :

(12) from 251 to 255 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees Fifty lakhs only allottedto the Ahmednagar Sahakari Bank Ltd.:

(13) from 256 to 280 of Rupees Ten lakhs each of theaggregate value of Rupees Two crore fifty lakhsonly allotted to Board of Trustees MaharashtraState Road Transport Corporation Gratuity Fundby the said Corporation.

[No. 5/97-Stamps/F. No. 15/4/17-ST]S.KUMAR, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY(Department of Heavy Industry)New Delhi, the 4lh March. 1997

S.O. 1032.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official 1 languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union)Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the follow-ing office whereof 80 per cent staff have acquired the workingacknowledge of Hindi :—

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,Power Sector—PEM,BIII-I. House. Siri Fort.New Delhi-110049.

[No. F. 11012(1)/92-Hindi ]PANKAJ AGARWAL, Dy. Secy.

2124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHA1TRA 29, 1919 [PART I I — S E C . 3(ii)]


S. O. 1033—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (40 of 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentionedin column (i) of the table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted officers of the Government, to bethe estate officers for the purpose of the aforesaid Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform theduties imposed on the estate officers by or under the aforesaid Act within the local limits of their respective juris-diction in regard to the public premises specified in the corresponding entries in column-(2) of the said table.

TABLE

Designation of officers

1

I. Manager (Security) Burn Standard CompanyLimited 20. 21 & 22 Nityadhan Mukherjee Road,Howrah-711101

Categories of Public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

2

Premises belonging to Burn Standard CompanyLimited situated in the District of Howrah in the stateof West Bengal.

2125

2.

3.

4.

5.

1

Assistant Manager (Civil) Burn, Standard CompanyLimited Refractory & Ceramic Works, Salem-636005,Tamil Nadu,

Engineer (Civil), Class-I Burn Standard CompanyLimited Refractory & Ceramic Works,Jabalpur-482001.

Personnel Officer Burn Standard CompanyLimited Offshore Division, Jelling hamFabrication Yard, Jallingham, District Midnapore,West Bengal.

Manager (Administration) Burn Standard CompanyLimited, 10-C, Hunger ford Street, Calcutta-700017.

2

Premises belonging to Burn Standard CompanyLimited situated in the district of Salem in the

State of Tamil Nadu.

Premises belonging to Burn Standard Company Limitedsituated at Jabalpur and those situated at Niwar,both in the state of Madhya Pradesh

Premises belonging to Burn Standard Company Limitedsituated at Jelling ham under Police Station : Nandi-gram and those at Haldia under Police Station-Hal-dia in the District of Midnapore, West Bengal.

Premises belonging to Burn Standard CompanyLimited situated at Alipore under Police Station

Alipore in Calcutta and those situated in Calcutta,West Bengal.

(Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion)


S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union)Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies CoirBoard, Cochin whose 80 per cent staff have acquired work-ing knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-12012/1/97-Hindi]SMT. PRATIBHA KARAN, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE


S.O. 1035.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Governmenthereby recognises for a further period of three years w.e.f.22-1-97, M/s. Mitra S. K. Pvt. Ltd., 22, West Madhya ChurchRoad, Royapuram, Madras-600013. as an agency for theinspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I) and (Group-II)specified in Schedule annexed to Ministry of Commerce Noti-fication No. S.O. 3975 dated 20-12-1465 and Notification


No, 3978 dated 20-12-1965 respectively prior to export atMadras, subject to live following conditions, namely :—

(i) that M s. Mitra S. K, Pvt. Ltd., Madias shall giveadequate facilities to the officers nominated by theExport Inspection Council in this behalf to examinethe method of inspection followed by them in grant-ing the certificate of .inspection under rule 4 ofExport of Minerals and Ores (Group I) and (GroupII) (Inspection) Rules, 1965 ;

(ii) that M/s. Mitra S, K. Pvt. Ltd., Madras in theperformance of their function under this notifica-tion shall be bound by such directives as the Director(Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writ-ing from time to time.

(File No. 5/.V97-EI&EP]

KUM. SUMA SUBBANNA, Director


S,O. 1036.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section CD of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andinspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Governmenthereby recognises for a further period of three- years w.e.f.29-1-1997, Dr. Sarup's Pest Control (P) Ltd., 46-1-28, Jaga-naickpur, Kakinada-533002 as an agency for the fumigationof (i) De-oiled Rice Bran and (ii) Crushed Bones, Hornsand Hooves prior to their export subject to following condi-tions, namely :—

(i) that Dr. Sarup's Pest Control (P) Ltd., Kakinadashall give adequate facilities to the officers nomi-nated by the Export Inspection Council in thisbehalf to examine the method of fumigation follo-wed by them in granting the certificate of fumigationunder sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of the Export ofDe oiled Rice Bran (Inspection) Rules, 1966 findrule 5 of the Export of Crushed Bones, Horns andHooves (Inspection) Rules, 1977.

(ii) thai Dr. Sarup's Pest Control (P) Ltd., Kakinadain the performance of their function under thisnotification shall be found by such directives as theDirector (Inspection and Quality Control) maygive in writing from time to time.

(iii) that Dr. Sarup's Pest Control (P) Ltd., Kakinadashall be allowed to use only Aluminium Phosphideas fumigate.

|File No. 5/J/97-EI&EP]

KUM. SUMA SUBBANNA, Director


S.O, 1037.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963). the Central Govern-ment hereby recognises for a further period of three yearsw.e.f. 29-1-97, M,s. Italab Pvt. Ltd., located at Mohan Man-sion 1-49, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-600001, asan agency for the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-I)specified in Schedule annexed to Ministry of Commerce Noti-fication, No. S.O. 3975 dated 20-12-l965 prior to export atMadras subject to the following conditions, namely —

(i) that M/s. Italab Pvt. Ltd., shall give adequate faci-lities to the Officers nominated by the ExportInspection Council in this behalf to examine the

2127

method of inspection followed by them in grantingthe certificate of inspection under rule 4 of Exportof Minerals and Ores (Group I) (Inspection)Rules, 1965 ;

(ii) that M/s, Italab Pvt. Ltd., in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be boundby such directives as the Director 'Inspection andQuality Control) may give in writing from timeto time.

[File No, 5/2/97-EI & EP ]KUM. SUMA SUBBANNA, Director


S.O. 1038.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control andInspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Governmenthereby recognises for further period of three years w.e.f.29-1-97, M/s. Italab Pvt. Ltd., located at Mohan Mansion,149, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-600001, as an agencyfor the inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group-II) specifiedin Schedule annexed to Ministry of Commerce NotificationNo. S.O. 3978 dated 20-12-1965 prior to export at Madras,subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) that M/s. Italab Pvt. Ltd., shall give adequate faci-lities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspec-tion Council in this behalf to examine the methodof inspection followed by them in granting thecertificate of inspection under rule 4 of export ofMinerals and Ores (Group-Ill (Inspection) Rules,1965.

(ii) that M/s. Italab Pvt, Ltd., in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be boundby such directives as the Director (Inspection and

Quality Control) may give in writing from time totime.

[File No. 5/2/97-EI&EP]KUM. SUMA SUBBANNA, Director


MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS

AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

New Delhi, the 31st March, 1997

S.O. 1039.—Whereas the Central Government after con-sidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,is satisfied that the Model described in the said report is inconformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weightsand Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periodsof sustained use and to render accurate service under variedconditions ;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate ofapproval of the model of the self indicating non-automaticplatform weighing instrument of type 6-AEP series of class IIIMedium accuracy with brand name "ALEXANDRA" (here-inafter called the model) manufactured by M/s. AlexandraScale Pvt. Ltd., 12/2, Amee Bazar, B/h Jyot. Sangh, Pathar-Kuva, Ahmedabad-380001, and which is aligned the appro-val mark IND/09/96/18 ;

The model (see figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracyclass III) weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of120 kg. and minimum capacity of 400 g. The verification scaleinterval (e) is 20 gram. It has a tare device with a 100per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The load receptor

is of square section of size 600 X 600 millimetres. The LEDdisplay indicates the weighing result. The instrument oper-ates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply ;

(Figure)

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of themodel shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximumcapacity of 60 kg/l0g, 300kg/50g, 600ka/100g, of 3-AEPseries 130 kg/50 g. and S AEP series 1000 kg/200 g and2000 kg/500 g, manufactured by the same manufacturer inaccordance with the same principle, design and with the samematerials with which the approved model has been manu-factured.

[File No. WM 21(6)/94]

RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy.

2129


S.O. 1040.—Whereas the Central Government after con-sidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,(see figure below) is satisfied that the Model described inthe said report is in conformity with the provisions of theStandards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976)and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintainaccuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurateservice under varied conditions:

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate of

2130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

approval of the model of the self-indicating non-automaticplatform weighing instrument of type PSH series of class IIIMedium accuracy with brand name "PENTA" (hereinaftercalled the model) manufactured by M/s. Penta ElectronicSystems, 92, Unique Industrial Estate, Dr. R. P. Road Oppo-site Jawahar Talkies, Mulund, (West Bombay-400080, andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/96/09 ;

The model (see figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracyclass III) weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of100 kg and minimum capacity of 400 g. The verification scaleinterval (e) is 20 gram. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is ofsquare section of size 600X600 millimetres. The LED dis-play indicates the weighing result. The instrument operateson 230 volts 50 Hertz alternative current power supply :

(figure)

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-jection (12) of the said section, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of themodel shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximumcapacity of 50 kg/l0g, 100 kg/20g, 150 kg/50g, 200 kg|50g,300 kg/l00g, 500 kg/l00g, 800 kg/200g, 1000 kg/500g,1500 kg|500g,. 2000 kg/lkg, 3000 kg/lkg and 5000 kg/2kgmanufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance withthe same principle, design and with the same materials withwhich, the approved model has been manufactured.

[File No. WM 21(55)/94]RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy.

2131


S.O. 1041.—Whereas the Central Government after con-sidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,(see figure below) is satisfied that the Model described inthe said report is in conformity with the provisions of theStandards of Weights and Measures Act, 197b (60 of 1976)and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to main-tain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to renderaccurate service under varied conditions;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysubsection (7) and (8) of section 36 of the Said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate ofapproval of the mode! of the self-indicating non-automatictable top weighing instrument of type TLW series of class 111Medium accuracy with brand name "PENTA' (hereinaftercalled the model) manufactured by M/s, Penta ElectronicSystems 92, Unique Industrial Estate, Dr. R. P. Road Opp.Jawahar Talkies, Mulund. (West) Bombay-400080, andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND. 09/96/10 :

The model (see figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracyclass III) weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of10kg and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scaleinterval (e) is 2 gram. It has a tare device with a 100 percent substantive retained true effect. The load receptor isof square section of size 300X300 millimetres. The LEDdisplay indicates the weighing result. The instrument operateson 230 volts. 50 Hertz" alternate current power supply ;

(figure)

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Governmenthereby declines that this certificate of approval of themodel shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximumcapacity of 0.5ke/0.1g. 0.8kg/0.2s, l.8Kg/0.5g. 2kg/lg,5kg/lg( 18kg/5g, 30kg/l0g and 50kg/10g manufactured bythe same manufacturer in accordance with the same princi-ple, design and with the same materials with which, the ap-proved model has been manufactured.

[File No. WM 21(55)/94]

RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, J(. Secy.



S.O. 1042.—Whereas the Central Government after con-sidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,is satisfied that the Model described in the said report is inconformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weightsand Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987

and the said ma id is likely to maintain accuracy over periodsof sustained use and to render accurate service under variedconditions ;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate ofapproval of the model of the self-indicating non-automatictable top weighing instrument of type 6-AFT series ofclass III Medium accuracy with brand name "ALEXANDRA"(hereinafter called the model) manufactured by M/s. Alexan-dra Scale Pvt. Ltd,, 12/2, Amee Bazar, B/h, Jyoti Sangh,Pattharkuva, Ahmedabad 380001. and which is assigned theapproval mark IND/09/96/16 ;

(figure)

The model (see figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracyclass III) weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of3kg and minimum capacity of l0g. The verification scaleinterval (e) is 0,5 gram. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is ofrectangular section of size 345 X 225 millimetres. The LED dis-play indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply ;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of themodel shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximumcapacity of 6kg/lg and 12kg/2g manufactured by the samemanufacturer in accordance with the same principle, designand with the same materials with which, the approved modelhas been manufactured

[File No, WM 21(77)/94]RAJIV SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy.

2133


S.O. 1043.—Whereas the Central Government after con-sidering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (seethe figure given below) is in conformity with the provisionsof the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approvalof Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to main-tain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to renderaccurate service under varied conditions;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, theCentral Government hereby publishes the certificate .ofapproval of the model of the self-indicating non-automaticweighing instrument of type DI-20 series of class III Mediumaccuracy and with brand name "DIG1" (hereinafter referredto as the Model) manufactured by M/s. Essae Ternoka Pri-vate Limited, 27, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-5560027, Karnataka State, and which is assigned the approvalmark IND/09/96/22 ;

The model (see figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracyclass III) weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of6kg and minimum capacity of 20g. The verification scaleinterval (e) is 1 gram. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is ofrectangular section of size 270X330 millimetres. The LEDdisplay indicates the weighing result. The instrument operateson 230 volts. 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;

(figure)

2131 T H E . G A Z E T T E O F I N D I A : A P R I L 1 9 , 1 9 9 7 / C H A I T R A 2 9 , 1 9 1 9 [ P A R T I I - S E C . 3 ( i i ) ]

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of the said section, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of themodel shall also cover the weighing Instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of Name series with maximumcapacity of Dl-20 series 600g/0.1g, .3Kg/0.5Kg, 6Kg/1g and15kg/2g of DI 20P series 6Kg/1g 1 5 k g / 2 g and 30kg/5g, ofDI-2011 series 6kg/1g, 15kg/2g and 30kg/5g, manufacturedby the same manufacturer in accordance with the same prin-ciple, design and with the same materials with which, theapproved model has been manufactured.

[F. WM 21(78)/94]RAJIV SRIVASTAVA Jt, Secy.

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVE-LOPMENT

(Department of Education)


S.O.1044—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule10 of the Official Languages (Use for purposes of theUnion) "Rules, 1976, the Central {Govt. herebynotifies of the following. Kendriya Vidyalayas underthe Ministry of Human Resource Development(Deptt. of Education) more than 80% staff of whichhas working knowledge of Hindi :•—

Kendriya Vidyalaya-Husampur.Distt. Karpoorthala

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya- No. 3Ambala Cantt.

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya.Air Force Centre.Kasouli (H. P.)

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Ballari, Karnataka.

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya.J.T.B.P. Sarahan,Shimla.

6. Kendriya Vidyalaya SangthanRegional Office. Delhi.

[No. 11011-5/97-O. L.U]NISHENDU OJHA, Director (O.L.)

2135

"New Delhi, the 2nd April, 1997

S.0.1045—In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 8 of the Council of Architecture Rules, 1973, theundersigned, as the Returning Officer hereby appoints the date, time and place as specified in column 1, 2 and 3respectively, of the Table given below for the purposes specified in the corresponding entry in column 4 thereof.

The Table

Date

1

(a)

(b)

Friday 02-05-97

Friday 09-05-97

Time

2

3.00 p.m.

3.00 p.m.

Place

3

Office of the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development(Deptt. of Education)'C ' Wing, Room No. 4294th FloorGovernment of IndiaShastri BhawanNew Delhi-110001

Office of the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development(Deptt. of Education)'C ' Wing. Room No. 4294th FloorGovernment of IndiaShastri Bhawan.New Delhi-110001

Purpose

4

For the receipt of nominationpapers, and their scrutiny.

For the despatch of votingpapers to the electors.


Date

1

(c)

(d)

Friday 23-05-97

Friday 23-05-97

Time

2

3.00 p.m.

4.00 p.m.

Place

3

Office of the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development(Dept. of Education)' C Wing, Room No. 4294th FloorGovernment of IndiaShastri Bhawan,New Delhi-110001

Office of the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development(Deptt. of Education)'C Wing, Room No. 4294th.FloorGovernment of IndiaShastri Bhawan,New Delhi-110001

Purpose

4

For the poll.

For the scrutiny and countingof votes.

[No. F. 6-61-TD. III/TS. III/TS. IV]B. K. BHADRI, Education Officer (T) & Returning Officer

2137

MINISTRY OF COAL.

ORDER


S.O. 1046.—Whereas on the publication of the notificationof the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, numberS.O. 2794 dated the 16th September, 1996 in the Gazette ofIndia, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii) , dated the 5thOctober, 1996 issued under sub section ( I ) of Section 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act )the lands and rights in or over the land described in theSchedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter refer-ed to as the said lads) vested absolutely in the central

Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1)of Section 10 of the said Act

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied [hat theEastern Coalfields Limited, Sanatoria. Host Office Disher-garh, District Burdwan (West Bengal) (hereinafter referredto as the Government Company) is wilting to comply withsuch terms and conditions as the Central Government thinksfit to impose in this behalf ;

Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby direct that the said lands and rights inor over the said land so vested shall with effect from 5thOctober, 19% instead of continuing to so vest in the CentralGovernment, shall vest in the Government Company, subjectto the following terms and conditions, namely :—

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to theCentral Government all payments made in respectof compensation, interest, damages and the like,as determined under the provisions of the saidAct.

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose ofdetermining the amount's payable to the CentralGovernment by the Government Company underconditional and all expenditure incurred in con-nection with any such Tribunal and persons appoin-ted to assist the Tribunal shall he borne by theGovernment Company and similarly all expenditureincurred in respect of all legal proceedings likeappeals etc., for or , in connection with the lights inor over the said lands, so vesting, shall also be borneby the Government Company.

3. The Government Company shall indemnify theCentra] Government of its officials against any otherexpenditure that may be necessary in connection withany proceedings by or .again the Central Govern-ment or its officials, regarding the rights in or overthe said lands so vesting.

4. For the Government company shall have no power totransfer the said lands to any other persons withoutthe previous approval of! the Central Government.

5. The Government company shall abide by such direc-tion and conditions as may be given or imposed bythe Central Government for particular areas of thesaid lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 17/93-LSW]

MRS. P. L. SAINI, Under Secy.

2138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL J9, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER


S.O. 1047.—Whereas on the publication of the notificationof the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal numberS.O. 1404, dated the 24th April, 1996 in the Gazette of India,Part II. Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 11th May,1996 issued under sub-section (1 ) of Section 9 of the CoalBearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act. 1957(20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), thelands and rights in or over the lands described in the Scheduleappended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to asthe said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Governmentfree from all encumbrances under subsection (1) of Section10 of the said Act.

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that theSouth Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh)(hereinafter referred to us the said Company), a GovernmentCompany, is willing to comply with such terms and conditionsas the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby directs that the said lands and rightsin or over the said lands so vested shall, with effect from11th May. 1996, instead of continuing to so vest in theCentral Government, vest in the .and Company, subject to thefollowing terms and conditions, namely :—-

1. The said company shall reimburse the CentralGovernment all payments mads in respect of com-pensation, interest, damage and the like, as deter-mined under the provisions of the said Act,

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose ofdetermining the amounts payable to the CentralGovernment by the said company under condition(1), and all expenditure incurred in connection withany such Tribunal and persons unpointed to assistthe Tribunal shall be borne by the said Companyand similarly, all expenditure incurred inspect ofall legal proceedings like appeals, etc for or inconnection with the rights in or over the said lands,so vesting shall also be borne by the said Company;

3. The said company shall indemnify the CentralGovernment or its officials against any other expen-diture that may be necessary in connection with anyproceedings by or against the Central Governmentor its officials regarding the rights in or over the saidlands so vesting ;

4. The said company shall have no power to transfer(he said lands to any other person without theprevious approval of the Central Government ;and

5. The said company shall abide by such directionsand conditions as may be given or imposed by theCentral Government tor particular areas of thesaid lands, as and when necessary.

|No. 43015/10/94-LSW]MRS. P. L. SAINI. Under Secy.

2139

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 3rd April. 1997

S.O. 1048.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interestthat for the transport of Petroleum and Natural Gas from T.P.S. Paliyad to Ajita Silcham Pvt. Ltd. and Bhavanichemical in Gujarat State pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Ltd.

And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of userin the land described in the schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum andMinerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Governmenthereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein :

Provided that any person interest in the said land may, within 21 days for the date of this notification, objectto the laying of pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Ltd., Baroda.

And every person making such an objection shall also state specifically whether he wishes to be heard in personOf by legal practitioner,

GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.BARODA

SCHEDULE

TPS PALIYAD TO AJITA SIL CHEM, PVT. LTD. AND BHAVANI CHEMICAL

STATE : GUJARAT TAL : KALOL DIST. MAJESAMA

VILLAGE

PALIYAD

Survey No./Block No.

1305KACHHA ROAD

Hectare

—00—00

—00

AREA OF R.O.U.

Are

—09—02

— 12

Certiare

7530

05

[No. L-14016/01/97-GP]

ARDHENDU SEN, Director

2140 THE GAZETTE O F INDIA : A P R I L 19, 1997; CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II — SEC. 3( i i ) ]

MINISTRY OH HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

( Department of Health)


S.O. 1049,—Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 (102 of 1956) vend with sub-section (4) of section 7of the said Act, Dr. A. K, Barooah, Principal, Gauhati Medi-cal College, Guwahati-781032 has been elected by the Courtof the Gauhati University to be a member of Medical Councilof India in place of Dr. A. C. Patowary for the remainingperiod of his term i.e. with effect from 28th December, 1996upto 6th January, 1999.

Now therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1 ) of section3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes thefollowing further amendment in the notification of the Gov-ernment of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Health numberS.O. 138. dated the 9lh January, 1960, namely : —

In the said notification under the heading "Elected underclause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3", for serial num-

ber 15 and the entries relating; thereto, the following serialnumber and entries shall be substituted, namely :—

15. Dr. A. K, BarooahPrincipal GauhatiGauhati Medical College University"Gauhnli-781032.

[No. V. 11013/2,97-ME(UG)]S. K. MISHRA, Desk Officer

Note—The Principal notification was published in theGazette of India vide notification number S.O. 138 datedthe 9th January, 1968.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR


S.O. 1050.—In pursuance of Section 11 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 114 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-1997.

[No. L-12012/27/83-D.IV (A)]P. J. MICHAEL. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAT CALCUTTA

Reference No. 7 of 1984

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of FederalBank Limited

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justiice K C. Jagadeb Roy. Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of Management—Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Ad-vocate.

On behalf of Workman-Mr. A. K. Banerjee. GeneralSecretary of the Bengal Provincial Bank EmployeesAssociation.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Banking

2141

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/27/83-D.IV (A) dated 8th March,1984 the Central Government in exercise of its powers underSection 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referredthe following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of the FederalBank Limited, Head Office, Alwaye in relation totheir Branch Calcutta Clive Row in terminatingthe services of Shri Hari Bhajan Roy, Bankman-cum-Durwan from 25-7-1979 is justified ? If not,to what relief is the workman concerned entitled 1"

2. Both the workman and the management filed theirwritten statement, followed by rejoinders from both theparties.

3. The case of the workman as per his pleading is thathe is an Ex-serviceman who appeared at the interview forthe post of "Armed Guard" of the Federal Bank, his namehaving been sponsored by the Directorate of Re-settlement,Eastern Zone, Ministry of Defence, Fort William, Calcutta,He was selected at the interview and his name alongwithsome others were recommended by the Calcutta managementof the Bank to the Head Office for his appointment as ArmedGuard for office and/or Cash Van and his name was placedin position No. 4 in the list. In support of his contentionhe has filed the document dated 24-1-1979 before the Tri-bunal addressed to the Officiating Director. Directorate ofRe-settlement. Eastern Zone, Calcutta. Which letter hasnot been marked exhibit-as it was objected to by the manage-ment at the time of hearing. It is the admitted positionthat the workman had been selected and was issued withthe letter of appointment dated 27 February 1979, pursuantto which he joined the Bank's service on the very same day.This is marked Ext. W-1 in the case. As the letter ofappointment would show, the workman was appointed asBankman cum Durwan, fixing his wage at Rs. 10 per work-ing day and it was mentioned in the said letter that hisposting was at Calcutta Clive Row Branch for the timebeing. The interview which was conducted admittedly torthe post of Armed Guard to which the workman was calledas is evident from Ext. W-2 dated 24-10-1978. Nevertheless,the management had given this appointments as "temporaryBankman-cum-Durwan" as per Ext. W-1. The workmanhowever was served with a letter dated 25 July 1979 markedExt W-1 indicating therein that the training facility allowedto the workman as temporary Bankman at Chive Roy Branchof Calcutta, was terminated with immediate effect. It isthe further case of the workman that his appointment tothe Said post namely the post of Bankman was not casualand was against a permanent vacancy and challenged thisorder by writting letter to the Manager Federal Bank Limit-ed at 11, Clive Roy. Calcutta. indicating that thisabrupt termination was fully unjustified and illegal. Hefurther indicated in the said letter that other four personswho were appointed alongwith him also as temporary em-ployees have been posted as probationers but he has been

through out of his job illegally for no fault of his and reques-

ted for withdrawing that order of termination.

The management did not give any consideration of hisrequest in withdrawing the said letter and asking him to work,on the other hand, issued a letter on 12-4-1980 markedExt. W-5 offering him a sum of Rs. 1,500 in full and finalsettlement of this workman's claim which the Bank finalisedus per the settlement with the Federal Bank Employees Union.The workman intimated by letter dated 8 August, 1979marked Ext. W-6 from the Management of the Bank intimat-ing that since the training facility which was given to himwas terminated as per the order No. 1053/19 by the GeneralManager, his representation dated 30 7-1979 was being sentto the General Manager which letter has already been refer-red, to and marked Ext. W-4, The workman also relied onthe letter of one Shri P. M. Joseph Area Manager addressedto the General Manager. Head Office, Alwaye dated 3rdNovember, 1979 intimating therein that there are certainadverse remark against the employee. such us. he wasreaching the office late .and was leaving without completinghis work and was slow in doing his work. Nevertheless heintimated in the said letter that Shri Hari Bhajan Roy wasprimarily taken as Durwan but he was not tested in thatpost and Shri Hari Bhajan Roy the workman had assuredthat another opportunity being given to him. he wouldperform the duty to the best satisfaction of the Bank

872 GI/97—4

Shri Joseph advised the General Manager for allowing himanother chance, even suggesting that a report if of his service,would be forwarded after 30 days on the basis of whicha final decision be taken. But nothing turned out of it andthe termination of the workman continued The workmanaccordingly urges that the entire treatment meted againstamounted to unfair labour practice and the order of termi-nation should be declared illegal and he should be deemedto be continuing in service with all his back wages.

Replying to the settlement arrived at between the FederalBank Employees Union End the management on 3rd April,1980 at Madras Ext. M-4, pursuant to which the manage-ment decided to offer him Rs. 1,500 in his full and finalsatisfaction of his claims, was not binding; on him as hewas never a member of the Federal Bank Employees Uniona any time, nor given them the authority to make seetle-ment of his claim with the management.

According to him his termination of service was alsocontrary to Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 as people junior to him in service in the said cadreare returned while his job has been terminated for no caiquebeing shown.

4. The management in their pleadings have asserted thatthis workman had no right to the post since he was appointed

only as a temporary Bankman and that too or daily wagesThough in paragraph 15 of the written statement the manage-ment denied that the allegation of the workman that Sections25-G and 25-H was violated was correct, they never stiltedspecifically if any junior appointed to the post SUBSEQUENTto the workman, had not been retained while the workmanwas terminated In paragraph 16 of the writtern statement,the management denied the fact that the workman was inanyway working under probation and relied on the BipartiteSettlement between the management and the Federal BankEmployees Union marked Ext. M-4 whereas the settlementarrived at between them accepting the offer of the manage-ment a sum of Rs. 1.500 as the full and final settlement forthe termination of service of Shri Hari Bhajan Roy theworkmen, which admittedly the workman has not vet accen-ted Apart from that, a point had also been taken by themanagement that when the settlement was in operation, thereference in incompetent,

5 I have already indicated the exhibits filed by the work-man while with the pleadings of the workman.Coming first to the settlement as per Ext. M-4 the oral evi-

dence of the workman before the Tribunal is very specificthat he had not authorised the said union to settle his casewith the Bank. nor he sent any letter to the said union askingthe union to enter into settlement on his behalf, which (heworkman stated in his cross-examination on 19-10-1989.He has also stated in his chief that he was never a memberof any union when his service, was terminated and was nota member of the Federal Bank Employees Union at anypoint of time. at even did not know if such a settlementhad been arrived at at fixing the sum of Rs. 1500 until heuntil he received letter from the management dated 12-4-1980Ext. W-5 asking him to accept the amount as his final settle-rnent. which he refused .He had also intimated to theBank by letter dated 26th April 1980 marked Ext. W-7stating settlement arrived at on the dispute he hadpaid was not acceptable to hi mand refused to acceptthat offer.

The management however in their written statement inparagraph 20 stated that it is the workman himself whohad asked and/or consented to the union taking tin themutter of his termination in a conciliation proceeding initia-ted by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras.The assertion of the management has not been proved byany evidence before the Tribunal. On the face of thefart that the workman had denied the membership of thisunion at any time. The Chief Manager of the InspectionDetriment of the Federal Bank examined as MW-2 alsostated that he had no idea if the workman was a memberof the union. Whether the union had any legal right totake up the case of the workman, has not been canvassedor argued before this Tribunal. nor any material has beenshown that the union had any legal right to do the same.

6. This being the position, not only the settlement wasnot binding on the particular workman, particularly in rela-tion to the amount the management agreed to pay to this


workman in satisfaction of this grievance in lieu of his rein-statement, the operation of this settlement, if any will nothe a bar to the maintainability of this reference before thisTribunal.

7. Coming to the next point namely if the order terminat-ing the workman with immediate effect as per Ext. W-ldated 27 February 1979 is justified, this Order No. 1058/78dated 25 July 1979 of the Bank merely indicated that thetraining facility allowed to the workman as a Bankman atClive Row Branch of Calcutta was terminated with immediateeffect. By a plain reading of this order it does not saythat the work of the workman had been terminated withimmediate effect because of this order. If the training faci-lity given to the workman had been discontinued or stoppedor in other word terminated, it itself did not mean thatthe job of the workman had been terminated with imme-diate effect. Nevertheless, the workman considered thisto be termination of his job and challenged this terminationby this letter dated 30-7-1979 marked Ext. W-4 and themanagement has treated this actually termination of his jobas per the Clause 15 of the settlement marked Ext. M-4because the settlement says that in lieu of reinstatement, themanagement was agreeable to pay that amount of R«. 1,500(o the workman in satisfaction of his demand.

8. Coming to the next question if the workman wasretrenched while his juniors are kept in the service of theBank, the allegation has been refuted by the managementas already been discussed by me earlier. In such view ofthe matter, it is the duty of the workman to lead evidenceto substantiate this allegation saying (hat people who wererecruited latter as temporary employees were retained whilehis job was terminated without any cause. In his evidence,he has mentioned no name or even description of the personswho are so retained. Therefore, there is nothing much inthis contention of the workman for which no evidence hasbeen led.

9. But apart from the fact that there is no proper letterof termination was issued to him and Ext. W-6 which isthe same as Ext. M-l, the termination is only in respectof the training facility which mean that the training facilityhad been discontinued with immediate effect. In the result,there is no proper order passed by the management termi-nating the service of the workman, even till now. Butthe workman on the basis of this has not reported to hiswork but only mentioned in his letter dated 26 April. 1980marked Ext, W-7 and prayed for reconsideration of hisrein statement. This would mean even though the Job of theworkman had not properly terminated, there was lapse onhis part to treat Ext. W-7 as letter of termination of hisjob and did not report to work. In any event, if this letterto he treated as letter of termination of his service, whichboth the parties considered it to be, the question is theletter of appointment in which he was appointed temporarilyto the post, never mentioned if the service was terminablewithout any notice or with a notice of certain period. Theworkman has asserted in paragraphs 6 and 9 of this writtenstatement that the First Bipartite Settlement in paragraph 20.7provided that a temporary appointment cannot be made foron indefinite period and prohibits temporary appointment tofill-up a permanent vacancy not beyond the period of 3months. Though the management has stated in the writtenstatement that the workman was not being appointed againsta permanent vacancy. management has not put forwardagainst which particular vacancy this workman wasappointed.

From the evidence adduced by the management, if jsfound that the real basis for which the job of theworkman was being terminated, was the performance ofthis workman which was not good as is available fromExt. M-2 dated 29-5-1979 and the nature of lack of

good performance is indicated in Ext. W-8 that hewas reporting to the office late and was going away

without completing work and he was very slow inhis work .It was also the case of the Area manager

from that letter Ext. W-8 the workman was actuallyfound difficult in work in a post for which he was notappointed and if a chance is given he would probably improve.Therefore if the management considered that his job was

not satisfactory and he was still in probation which standof the management is borne out from Ext. M-2 then the

efficiency in the probation cannot he determined in a post

to which a person was not appointed. As already statedthe workman was appointed as a Bankman-cum-Durwan buthe was asked to serve in a different post. The managementalso cannot resile away from the stand that he was simplytaken us a casual labour on day-to-day basis and not tempo-rary one while he was being tested as a probationer beforeconformation. If this was not the case, there was nonecessity to maintain in the Staff Department the Ext. M-2.The period of probation is not indicated in evidence from theside of the management, whereas the workman has slatedit is for a period of three months. Admittedly the work-man was appointed on 27th February 1979 and the threemonths period lapses on 27th May 1979. If he was allowed tocontinue thereafter, there is no basis why the managementhad not considered his efficiency earlier and allowed himto continue. Therefore, it cannot be accented that he wasjust a casual worker taken for a very brief period on dailybasis and since the management has not led any evidenceto show that the post against which he was appointed hadbeen ceased to exist, the termination of the workman can-not be held to be justified.

10. In the result, I answer the reference holding thatthe action of the management of Federal Bank Ltd.. HeadOffice Alwaye, in relation to the Clive Roy Branch,Calcutta in terminating the services of Shri Hari Bhajan Roy,Bankman-cum-Durwan with effect from 25 July, 1979 wasnot justified.

11. Coming to the other question if the workman is entitledto any relief because of this Award, the workman shouldhave ordinarily been entitled to full back wages from thedate of his termination till his reinstatement. The work-man has mentioned in his evidence in chief that even thoughthe letter of termination is dated 25 July, 1979, his jobwas actually terminated with effect from 30 July, 1979. Healso stated in his evidence that after the termination of|his service by the Bank, he has not been employed any-

where and he was only living on his pension as Ex-service-man which is only Rs. 484 per month including the reliefon the date of his deposition.

12. The workman was employed on daily-rate basis andhad no monthly salary. No evidence is led if he is entitledto any amount of holidays as a matter of right. Takinginto consideration that his job was terminated since 30 July1979, justice shall be met if a consolidated amount is givento the workman in lieu of the total back wages which isdifficult to calculate not knowing the actual days he couldhave worked during this period, sum of Rs. 35,000(Thirty-five thousand) only be paid to the workman in lieuof the back wages.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated, Calcutta,

The 28th February, 1997

K. C. JAGADEB ROY, Presiding Officer

2143


SO. 1051.—In pursuance of Section II of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 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 Adhayaksha Pratapgarh Kshetriya Gramin BankPratapgarh and their workman, which was received by theCentral Government on 12-3-97.

[No. L-12012/21/92-IR (B-III)]

P. J. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM LABOUR COURT, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 73 of 1992

In the matter of dispute between :

Kamlesh Kumar Sharma,Village Parasrampur,Post Jabalpur,District Pratapgarh.

AND

Adhyaksh Pratapgarh, Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Civil Lines Pratapgarh.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,vide its notification No. L-12012/21/92/I.R. B-3 dated20-5-92, has referred the following dispute for adjudicationto this Tribunal;

Whether the action of the management of PratapgarhKshetriya Gramin Bank, Pratapgarh in terminatingthe services of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, son ofSri Lai Bahadur Sharma, daily wage workman atMohanganj Branch of the bank w.e.f. 16-8-84 waslegal and justified ? If not, to what relief the work-man is entitled ?

2. The concerned workman Kamlesh Kumar Sharma in hisclaim statement has alleged that he was appointed in thesubordinate cadre at Garhwala Branch of the opposite partyon 29-12-81 on daily wages. Thereafter w.e.f. 20-2-82 he wasdeputed at Bhopiamau Branch. He worked there upto 6-12-82,when his services were brought to an end. Thereafter he wasagain taken in service on 23-5-83, and was deputed at Dhig-was branch where he worked upto 10-7-83. Thereafter hewas sent to Mohanganj Branch where he worked upto 15-4-84.It is alleged that one S. I. Singh, Manager accounts of thebank in order to give employment to his relation RamDayal Singh removed the concerned workman from servicewhich is bad in breach of section 25F, G and H of ID, Act.

3. The opposite party bank has filed reply in which It wasalleged that concerned workman had worked for 212 daysin one year preceding the date of alleged termination. Hencehis case is not that of retrenchment. Further it is allegedthat he was a daily-rated worker. It was further alleged thathe was not engaged on a regular basis, instead employmentwas given to him to meet casual occasional and intermittentwork which varies from time to time. Such a person ip notentitled for benefit of section 25F, G and H of I.D. Act.

4. In the rejoinder nothing new was said.

5. In the written statement it was admitted by the Manage-ment that the concerned workman had worked for 212 day3in a year preceding the date of their termination. BrijeshPratap Singh an officer of the bank had conceded that thisworking days are exclusive of Sundays and other holidays.Taking into consideration the number of working days, I aminclined to accept the statement of the concerned workmanon oath, that he used to do work of permanent nature. Assuch not providing work on Sundays and other Holidays wasdone in order deprive him the benefit of Section 25F of I.D.Act. It was unfair labour practice. Hence these Sundays

and Holidays are to be included. By doing so the numberof days would go much beyond 240 days. As such theconcerned workman will be deemed to have worked formore than 240 days in a year. Admittedly no retrenchmentcompensation and notice pay was given, hence the termina-tion order is bad in law.

6. Issue regarding breach of section 25G and H of I.D.Act, is decided against the concerned workman for want ofproof. It has been held that the termination of the concernedworkman was bad in law. Still there is a delay for about a10 years in seeking remedy. Further as he was a daily-ratedworker when the principle of no work no pay applies. Thereis no explanation for delay in seeking reference. Taking into;consideration these factors, 1 am of the view that the con-cerned workman will not be entitled for reinstatement inservice and back wages.

7. Accordingly my award is that although the terminationof concerned workman is bad in law. He is not entitled forany relief.

B. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer


S,O. 1952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal,Tamil Nadu, Madras as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of State Bank of India and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-1997.

[No. L-12012/257/90-IR (B-III)]P. J. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADUMADRAS

Wednesday, the 4th day of December, 1996

PRESENT :

Thiru S. Thangaraj, B.Sc, L.L.B., Industrial Tribunal.


(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between theWorkmen and the Management of State Bank of India,Madras).

BETWEEN

Miss S. Saroja,No. 243/A, Pannnnthope Railway Colony,Ayanabaram, Madras-600023.

AND

The Regional Manager,Region III,State Bank of India, P.B. No. 5025,No. 43, Moore Street,Madras-600001.


REFERENCE :

Order No. L-12012/257/90-1R (B-III), Ministry ofLabour, dated 8-3-91, Government of India, NewDelhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Friday, the11th day of November, 1996, upon, perusing the claim,counter statement and all other material papers on record,and upon hearing the arguments of Tvl. k, S. Janakiramanand K. M. Ramesh, Advocates appearing for petitioner andof Tvl. R. Sreekrishnan and S. Krisunamurthy and S, Ramesh,Advocates appealing for the management, and this disputehaving stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunalmade the following

AWARD

Government of India, vide their Order No. L-12012, 290-1R (B-III), Ministry 01 Labour, dated,8-3-91 have refer-red this dispute to this Tribunal tor adjudication of theFollowing issue :

"Whether the management of State Bank of India, isjustified in dismissing without notice Miss S. Saroja,Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from 8-12-1989 ?If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. After service of notices, both the petitioner and therespondent filed their claim and counter statement respec-

3. The main averments found in the claim petition areas follows :

The petitioner joined the service of the respondent StateBank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier during the year198l and she had put in 7 years of service. Theconcerned authority of the bank served on thepetitioner a charge memo dated 3-12-88 allegingthat the petitioner had visited the Park Town branchof the bank on 3-11-88 and withdrew from theteller a sum of Rs. 3,000 and another sum of Rs.3,000 from the Savings Bank Account of one Mr.Kuppuswamy on the same day by producing savingbank. withdrawal slips containing forged signatureof the said Kuppuswamy and thereby the petitionerhad misappropriated the total sum of Rs. 6,000.On 5-11-88. the petitioner paid the amount ofRs. 6,000 to the authorities of the bank. She deniedallegations made against her in the charge memo.On the day in question she went to the Park Townbranch where she worked earlier in connection withthe deposit made by her and at that time she hadintroduced to the staff members of the bank a manwhom she had seen earlier to draw cash of Rs. 3,000each from Teller and the Savings Bank Account.On the next day two staff members Mr. Rajkumarand another Officer came to her residence and com-pelled her to compensate the amount of Rs. 6,000and also to sign the reverse of the withdrawal slipto make it appear as if she had received the amountand handed over the same to the old man. Though,she was not willing, to sign, she was forced andcompelled to part with the money and sign thewithdrawal slip under threat and coercion. Peti-tioner's brother who is also employed in anothernationalised hank pledged his wife's jewels and paidRs, 6,000. The petitioner has not done anythingthan to pay in a word to introduce an old man whowas having relevant pass book and withdrawal slipand she was not aware of the further transactionin the matter. She did not misappropriate theamount. For the said incident, the managementinitiated disciplinary action against her and sheappeared in the domestic enquiry. Sufficient oppor-tunity was not granted in the domestic enquiry, putforth her case. On the findings of the EnquiryOfficer, the respondent bank passed the order ofdismissal without notice against her. The dismissalis illegal and contrary to the principles of naturaljustice. The charges levelled against her are falseand they have not been established in a fair andproper enquiry. The charges have been fabricatedand the petitioner has been falsely implicated bythe conspiracy of certain officers and employees of

the Park Town branch in order to cover up theirown liabilities. It is a clear case of victimisationand unfair labour practice. She had to pay a suraof Rs. 6,000 under threat, intimation, coercion, andsuch action of the management is one of unfairlabour practice. The copy of finding was not givento her before imposing the punishment. The find-ings is a clear infraction of the rule of naturaljustice and the provisions of Sastry Award. Againstthe dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Autho-rity, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to theAppellant Authority. The order of the AppellateAuthority is without any application of mind andthe Appellate Authority failed to discharge hisduties and in contravention of the rules providedfor consideration of appeals. The imposition ofextreme punishment of dismissal without notice isextremely harsh, severe and out of all proportionsto the charge levelled against her. The punishmentof dismissal is liable to be interfered with set aside,altered, modified under the Provisions under Section11-A of the I. D. Act. Award may be passed settingaside the dismissal order, and order for reinstate-ment, continuity of service and back wages.

4. The main averments found in the counter filed of therespondent are as follows :

On 3-11-88 the petitioner who was working in HVF,Avadi branch of the respondent bank at Avadi wentto Park Town branch of the same bank where shewas working earlier and withdrew Rs. 6,000 fromthe Savings bank. Account of Mr. S. Kuppuswamy,a deceased Railway pensioner and the repaid theamount on 5-11-88 when the misappropriation com-mitted by the petitioner was discovered, the actsof the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct underPara 321(4)(j) of the Sastry Award read with Para18 and 28 of Desai Award. Disciplinary action wastaken against her and finally on the basis of thefindings given by the Enquiry Officer the DisciplinaryAuthority passed an order of dismissal without noticeagainst her. Appeal filed by her was also dis-missed, The petitioner knowing fully well about thenature of the Savings Bank Account of the deceasedKuppuswamy hud withdrawn Rs. 6,000 under twowithdrawal slips and had misappropriated theamount. When it was discovered she repaid theamount. The various allegations made by her inthe claim statement are not true to the knowledgeof the petitioner. The punishment of dismissal with-out notice was passed in terms of para 521.10(a) ofthe Sastry Award. The Appellate Authority re-assessed the evidence1 and relevant materials andalso called the petition on 20-2-91 for a personalhearing and thereafter applying his mind, the Appel-late Authority continued the order of dismissal.The respondent bank has considered all the aspectsof the matter and awarded the punishment in accor-dance with the provisions of the award/agreementafter taking into consideration the gravity of thecharges proved against the petitioner. The punish-ment awarded to the petitioner was appropriate andcommensurate with the gravity of the misconductcommitted by her. There is no valid ground warran-ing any inference with the decision arrived at bythe Disciplinary Authority Award may be passedupholding the punishment imposed on the petitionerby dismissal the industrial dispute.

5. The petitioner was examined as a witness on her sideand Exs. W-l to W-8 have been marked on her side. Twowitnesses have been examined on the side of the managementand Exs. M-l to M-24 have been marked

6. The Point for our consideration is : Whether theManagement of State Bank of India, is justified in dismissingwithout notice Miss S. Saroja, Clerk cum Cashier with effectfrom 8-12-1989 " If not, to what relief the workman isentitled to ?"

7. The Point.—The petitioner Miss Saroja joined the serviceof State Bank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier during the year1981 and she had put in 7 years of service in the bank. Shewas working in Park Town branch of the bank and subse-quently transferred to Heavy Vehicles Factory branch Avadiand was working there during the relevant period. On

2145

3-11-88, she went to Park Town brunch of the bank andwithdrew Rs. 3,000 from the teller anil another Rs. 3,000from the Savings Bank Account of one Mr. Kuppuswamywho was no more at that time. The petitioner tola the staffmembers who were closely known to her as if Kuppuswamywas sitting there and she had come to them to help theold man. She also helped the employees of the bank inposting the ledger and also passing the two withdrawal slips.However, it was found that Kuppuswamy's account was notoperated for some lime and it was kept as "dormant" account,bank officials visited the house of the petitioner on 5-11-88ana she repaid the sum of Rs. 6,000 with the help of herbrother who pledged jewels and gave the amount to her.The bank under Ex. M-3 framed charges against her.

{i) On 3-11-88 you went to park Town branch whereyou have previously Worked for a number of yearsand fraudulently withdrew from teller counter Rs.3,000 and from the Savings Bank Account No. PEN149 of Shri M. S. Kuppuswamy a deceased railwaypensioner by using the withdrawal slip containinga. forged signature both obverse and on the reverse.

(.ii) Again on the same day, you have produced anothersavings bank withdrawal slip containing a forgedsignature drawn on the same amount mentionedabove to the Savings Bank counter and fraudulentlywithdrew another sum of Rs, 3,000 through thepayment cashier.

(iii) You have misappropriated the total sum of Rs. 6,000withdrawn as above and made good the amount onlyon 5-11-88 when the incident came to light."

Charge Nos. (i) and (ii) were framed for the same transac-tion for drawing Rs. 3,000 each from two different slips,one through teller system and another through withdrawalslip, Ex. M-8 is the enquiry proceedings. MW-1 and MW-3speak about the passing of the withdrawal slip through tellersystem, MW-1 Govindarajan, Cashier, who was working inthe teller account on 3-11-88 has clearly stated that the peti-tioner Saroja presented three vouchers and among them onewas for payment of Rs. 3,000 through teller system and hepaid Rs. 3,000 to Miss Saroja as the party cannot be seenby him as there was crowd/queue. He further added thatho though that the petitioner Saroja was assisting the pen-sioner for the first voucher. MW-3 Kumaravel, the P. B.Accountant of the said bank has stated that when ho triedto refer the specimen signature of the parly the petitioner soldhim that she knew him very well and he is having a verygood deposit, that the same can be verified from the passbook. The petitioner did not cross-examine MW-3 Fromthe evidence of MW-1 and MW-3, it is clear that but forthe request of the petitioner, they would not have paid theamount without proper verification regarding the identity ofthe person who presented the withdrawal slip. The petitionerSaroja had worked in that branch for number of years andMW-1 and 3 who were colleagues while she was workingin that branch had no doubt in their mind to suspect thetransaction. Regarding charge No. (ii) MW-2, Minuddin,Cashier has clearly stated that he paid the cash of Rs. 3,000to the petitioner Saroja and further added that he asked forthe party and the petitioner Saroja told him that the partywas siting there and showed the direction and that becauseSaroja said that the party was sitting there, he though shewas helping the pensioner to get money and so, he paid thecash to petitioner Saroja. MW-4, Rangasaai, Clerk-cum-Cashier has stated that Saroja told him that she knew theparty and asked him to post the voucher. By believing thepetitioner, he posted the voucher in the ledger. MW-5, whilenoticing the voucher found th& noting "CARE—DORMANTACCOUNT", Therefore, ho folded the vouchers and repor-ted the matter to the Branch Manager on 4-11-88 morning.Ex. M-20 the copy of the ledger shows that the words "Dor-mant care No drawings'' has been written across the pagein bold letters. MWs-1 to 4 had passed the two withdrawalslips on the representation made by the petitioner Saroja andbut for her representation they would not have passed thosevouchers without following the procedure. It was contendedon the side of the petitioner that she was innocent and thecharges have been framed against her in Ex, M-l which wasalready marked as P-4 in the departmental enquiry whereinshe has stated :

"As soon as I entered the bank an old man by nameMr. Kuppuswamy (pensioner) approached me to

encash his withdrawal slips alongwith the Pass Book,He told me that he was in a hurry regarding hisdaughter's wedding and to get him the cash as earlyas possible. Since he was on old man and as 1 hadseen him earlier in the bank, I helped him to getthe cash,"

in Ex. M-4 explanation submitted ay her, to the chargesframed against her she had stated, an old man came withfilled up withdrawal slips signed on both sides alongwith thepass books and requested her to help the encashment sincethere was large crowd that he wanted to get the moneyurgently due to his daughter's marriage, She believed himand she only put a word to the concerned ledger keeper towhom the old man presented pass book and withdrawal slips.But none of the witnesses examined on the side of the res-pondent-bank had stated that they had seen the old man whopresented the withdrawal slips. MW-1 to MW-4 have clearlystated that the old man was not found alongwith petitionerSaroja but she told them that he was sitting there showingthe direction,

8. Now it is case of the petitioner that an old man whomshe had seen earlier came there for her help on that dayand she helped him to get themoney from his deposit. Jtis the case or the respondent-bank that Kuppuswamy whowas a railway pensioner died earlier to 3-11-88 and Ex. M-17shows that in the ledger it has been written as "dormant"and in Ex, M-4 explanation the petitioner has admitted thatthe only put a word to concerned ledger keeper to whomthe old man presented the pass book and withdrawal slips.It is clear from the admission of the petitioner that only onher recommendation, MW-3 even without looking into theledger had passed the withdrawal slip. It was argued onthe side of the petitioner that there is no proof to show thatM. S. Kuppuswamy, the account holder was no more evenearlier to the said date and the death certificate filed by therespondent-bank has not been obtained from a competentauthority. It is clear from the accounts that it was not inoperation for few years. However, the railways as per theprevious instructions she has been making credit of thepension to his account. The petitioner who was workingin that bank has made use of trie circumstances with a viewto make two withdrawals, of Rs. 3,000 each. It was thedefinite case of the petitioner that the person was known toher earlier and he was available on that date. On such cir-cumstances, she could have examined that person on her side.It should not be mistaken that thereby it means the delinquentshould prove her innocence. But however, when the delin-quent employee had a definite case that M. S. Kuppuswamywas alive and physically present on 3-11-83, it was for herto examine him. Further, if the explanation of the petitionerwas true, she could have given a complaint to the authoritiesconcerned saying that by believing the words of an old manshe had helped him to withdraw the sum of Rs, 6,000 withoutverifying the real facts. She had not given any such com-plaint to any one of the competent authorities. It was con-tended by the petitioner that the entire staff members in thePark Town branch office are chemically disposed towardsher and she had written to the Enquiry Officer for changeof venue of enquiry from Park Town branch to some otherplaces. But, however it was turned down. She has notstated any specific reasons for such enmity or ill feelingnurtured against her by one or more employees in the saidbranch. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that on3-11-88 she had gone to Park Town branch to set right theaccrued interest in her security deposit and other mattersand she has admitted that she wanted to meet Mr, Rajkumarwho has been examined as MW-5 in the enquiry in respectof the same, Further, she has admitted in her explanationsEx, M-l and M-4 that she approached the staff members topass the withdrawal slip of M. S. Kuppuswamy. If any oneof the member had any such enmity she would not haveapproached any one of them for the purpose of passing thewithdrawal slip. The way in which she had given her ex-planations and also the way in which the witness examinedin the enquiry deposed would go to show that there was nosuch enmity as alleged by her and it is nothing but a reasonassigned by her to discredit the cogent and convincing evidenceadduced by the witness examined in the enquiry. Consideringall these facts, it is clear that there is ample evidence onrecord to prove charges (i) and (ii). This Tribunal earlierhad also come to the conclusion in the preliminary enquirythat the domestic enquiry was conducted in fair and propermanner. The contention of the petitioner that she had not

2146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—-SEC. 3(ii)]

signed the withdrawal slips marked as Ex. M-16 and M-17has been confirmed by the evidence of MWs-1 and 2therefore she had not received the amount cannot be acceptedfor the reason that though they had not clearly stated abouther signature in Exs. M-16 and M-17, they had confirmedthe receipt of the money by her, saying that the customerM. S. Kuppuswamy was sitting nearby. Therefore, the pay-ment was made to her is not in doubt. "More important inthe circumstances is the receipt of money by the petitionerand not whether she had signed Exs. M-16 and M-17. Evenif her signature was obtained later in her house by thestaff members, the payment of Rs, 6,000 was made to hercannot be doubted.

9. Charge No. (iii) is for the misappropriation of sum ofRs, 6,000 withdrawn by her on 3-11-88 and made good on5-11-88. The charge Nos. (i) and (ii) clearly prove thatshe had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the account ofthe deceased M. S .Kuppuswamy. In Ex, M-1, she has clearlystated that she has repaid the amount with the help of herbrother who pledged his wife's jewel and paid the saidamount. Therefore, the subsequent payment of the amounton 5-11-88 has been admitted by the petitioner. The con-tention of the petitioner that due to threat, compulsion andcoercion she had paid the amount cannot be taken as validdefence in the circumstances of the case, The fact of with-drawing Rs. 6,000 has been proved. The subsequent paymentwas admitted by her. How she paid the amount, under whichcircumstances, she was made to pay the amount are all notfactors very more relevant for our consideration. The factremains that she repaid the amount of Rs. 6,000. The entirecircumstances of the case clearly shows that she paid theamount because she had withdrawn the sum on 3-11-88 fromthe Savings Bank A/c. of deceased M. S. Kuppuswamy. MW-5Rajkumar has clearly slated that she paid the amount ofRs. 6,000. In fact MW-5 found out the fraud committedin the withdrawal by looking into the ledger which had thecould "CARE-DORMANT ACCOUNT1. As already statedif she was innocent, she would have protested payment ofRs. 6,000 and immediately she would have given complaintagainst the old man who alleged to have been cheated her.She not moved her little finger in that direction. Therefore,the contention of the petitioner that she was compelled tomoke payment under threat, and coercion cannot be accepted.There is ample evidence to prove charge No. (in) againsther.

10. The petitioner has drawn my attention to a decisionregarding the evidence which has to be found necessaryin domestic enquiries. In Nandh Kishore Prasad Vs. State ofBihar (1978 II LLJ P. 84) at page 87 and 88, Apex Courtheld :

"Before dealing with the contention canvassed, we mayremind ourselves of the principles in point, crystal-lised by judicial decisions. The first of these prin-ciples is that disciplinary proceedings before anddomestic Tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character,therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules ofnatural justice is that the Tribunal should arrive atits conclusion on the basis of some evidence i.e.evidential material which with some degree of defi-niteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in res-pect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannotbe allowed, to take the place of proof even indomestic enquiries."

In Rocho (P. B.) Vs. Union of India (1984 II ULN P. 841 )at page 844, the Kerala High Court held ;

"Although in Civil cases a preponderance of probabilitysuffices, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt,the degree of probability must be such as to satisfythe Court. But as Lord Scarman ask,"If a Court has to be satisfied, how can it at thesame time entertain a reasonable doubt ?"The distinction between the standard of proof ofcriminal and civil proceedings is more a matter ofwords and "not one of any great moment". LordScarman, Ibid. It can indeed become too nice tobe discernible, dependant upon what is at stake,This principle holds good with equal force in dis-ciplinary proceedings before departmental authoritieswhere, although the rules of evidence and proce-dure of Civil Court are not strictly applicable, incases involving serious charges with consequences

as grave as dismissal, the standard of fairness andreasonableness, as interpreted and adopted by theCivil Court will apply to meet the ends of Justice."

In the instant case, there is ample evidence on record toprove charges (i) to (iii) framed against the petitioner.Even in the preliminary enquiry this Tribunal has held thatdomestic enquiry was just and fair. In these circumstances,even by applying these decisions it cannot be said is nosufficient evidence on record to prove the charges levelledagainst the petitioner.

11. The respondent-management has invited my attentionto a catena of decisions to show that the Tribunal has nojurisdiction to sit in judgement over the decision of theemployer provided there was ample evidence to prove thecharges and charges have been levelled against the employeesmalafide in East India Hotels Vs, Workmen (1971 I LLJP. 282) the Supreme Court held ;

"When a proper enquiry has been held by an employerand the finding of misconduct has support from theevidence adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunalhas no jurisdiction to sit in judgement over thedecision of the employer as an appellate body.The interference with the decision of the employerwill be justified only when the enquiry is unfairor the findings arrived at in the enquiry are per-verse or have no basis in evidence or the manage-ment is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour prac-tice, or malafide or the punishment is harsh andoppressive.''

In Workmen of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian OverseasBank (1973 I LLJ P. 316), the Delhi High Court held :

"The Tribunal does not sit as a Court of appeal overthe findings of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunalis not called upon to consider the propriety or ade-quacy of the punishment unless it come to the con-clusion that the punishment is shockingly to dis-proportionate that no reasonable employer wouldimpose such a punishment."

Further the respondent has also cited certain decisions toshow that for committing misconduct like misappropriationof funds belonging to the employer, the workman has to bedealt with severe punishment. To substantiate this contention,the respondent has cited a decision in Bank of India Vs. D,Padmanabhadu and Anr. (1975 I LLJ P. 233) KarnatakaHigh Court held ;

"The bank is the custodian of the money of the custo-mers and cashier is a person who deals with themoney and he must be more diligent and honestand justify the trust reported in him by the bankand by the customers. If once the customers losethe confidence in the dealings, the entire organisa-tion suffers, and confidence of the customersthe basis on which the entire edifice of the bankingsystem is built. The learned judge has assigned thereason that the money misappropriated by the firstrespondent has been paid back to the customers andit is the amount of the customers and not of thebank. The learned judge has lost sight of the prin-ciple that the intentional temporary retention ofthe money which does not belong to a person is alsoa misappropriation. Money repayment will notabsolve the liability or misconduct committed by thefirst respondent."

In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar Vs.Kailash Chand Sharma (1995 I LLJ P. 268) Rajasthan HighCourt held ;

"Persons like the second respondent workman are publicservants. If by their actions they commit breachof trust or commit theft or misappropriation thereis absolutely no justification for showing any com-passion or leniency with such employees in thematter of punishment. A. public servant who isfound guilty of misappropriation, corruption, dis-honesty, fraud or theft has no right whatsoeverto serve the public and the public who is the realmatter and who is represented by the employer hasa right to see the ouster of such an employee bydue process of law."

2147

From the above decisions also it is clear that the Tribunalcannot interfere with the findings without valid grounds andfurther it is clear that for an offence like misappropriationthe punishment of dismissal is not improper. Consideringall reasons, the punishment imposed by the respondent-management on the petitioner cannot be interfered withThe petitioner being employee of the bank had exceeded thelimits of normal employee by withdrawing cash from theSavings Bank Account of a deceased person. Therefore,the punishment of dismissal imposed on her is just andproper.

From the foregoing discussions, it has to be held that thepetitioner is not entitled for any relief.

In the result, award is passed holding that the manage-ment of State Bank of India is justified in dismissing withoutnotice Miss. S. Saroja, Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from8-12-89. No costs.

Dated, this the 4th day of December, 1996.

S. THANGARAJ, Industrial Tribunal

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Workman :WW-1—Smt. S. Saroja.

WITNESSES EXAMINEDFor Management :

MW-1—Thiru P. V. Pandiyan.MW-2—Thiru P. V. Pandiyan.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Ex. W-l/9-1-89—Letter from Petitioner-workman to theDisciplinary Authority of the Respondent-bank.

Ex. W-2/13-2-89—Letter from Deputy General Managerof the Respondent-bank to the Petitioner-workman(Xerox copy).

Ex. W-3/18-3-89—Letter from Petitioner-workman tothe Enquiry Officer (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-4/23-1-90—Letter from Petitioner to the Dy.General Manager of the Respondent-bank.

Ex. W-5/16-8-90—Letter from Petitioner to the Asst.Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras-6 (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. W-6/20-11-90—Conciliation Failure Report (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. W-7/1-11-88—Letter from the Petitioner-workmanto the Management of State Bank of India, ParkTown branch requesting to Cancel the demand draftfor Rs. 40 (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-8/2-11-88—Banker's cheque drawn in favour ofPetitioner-workman (Xerox copy).

For Management :

Ex. M-1/5-11-88—Letter from Petitioner-workman to theRespondent-bank (Xerox copy).

Ex, M-2/12-11-88—Suspension order issued to the peti-tioner-workman (copy).

M-3/3-12-88—Charge sheet issued to the petitioner-work-man.

Ex. M-4/9-12-88—Explanation by the Petitioner-work-man to Ex. M-3 (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-5/24-1-89—Letter from Respondent-bank to thepetitioner-workman (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-6/3-2-89—Letter from Enquiry Officer to (hePetitioner-workman (copy).

Ex, M-7/7-2-89—Letter from Petitioner-workman to theRespondent-bank (Xerox copy).

Ex, M-8/14-2-89—Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer(copy).

Ex. M-9/21-2-89—Reply from Enquiry Officer to thepetitioner-workman (copy).

Ex. M-10/ —Findings of the Enquiry Officer(copy).

Ex. M-l1/15-11-89—Letter from Disciplinary authorityto petitioner-workman (copy).

Ex. M-12/8-12-89—Dismissal Order (copy).

Ex. M-l3/20-2-90—Proceedings of the Personal hearinggiven to the pet toner-workman by the Appellateauthority (copy).

Ex. M-14. 17-3-90—Order of the Appellate Authority.

Ex. M-15/18-6-90—Letter from the Asst. Labour Com-missioner (Central), Madras to the petitioner-work-man and management informing the date of con-ciliation proceedings and the 2-A petition (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. M-16/3-11-88—Withdrawal slip for Rs. 3,000 (Xeroxcopy).

Ex, M-17/3-11-88- Withdrawal slip for Rs. 3,000 (Xeroxcopy),

Ex. M-18/5-11-88—Pay-in-slip for Rs. 6,000 signed bypetitioner-workman (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-19/3-8-81—Account Opening form of Thiru M. S.Kuppuswamy (Xerox copy).

Ex, M-20/ —Statement of Account relating to theS. B. Account of the deceased Kuppuswamy.

Ex. M-21/17-11-87 —Charge sheet issued by the Disci-plinary Authority to the petitioner-workman (copy),

Ex. M-22/3 11-87—Letter from the Petitioner-workmanto the Respondent-bank (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-23/8-1-88—Order of the Disciplinary Authority(copy).

Ex. M-24/20-11-87—Letter from the Petitioner-workmanto the Respondent-bank.


S.O. 1953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the. Award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Adhyaksh Prathma bank, Moradabad andtheir workman, which was received by the Central Governmenton the 13-3-1997.

[No. L-120l2/2/93JR(B-I)]P. J, MICHAEL, Desk Officer

2148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC-3.(II)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA. PRESIDING OFFICER.CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR


In the matter of dispute :

BETWEEN

Sri Beharj Lai,S/o Hiralal,Gram Dakka Hazinagur Post Moth,District Rampur, U.P.

AND

Adhyaksh Prathma Bank,Prathma Bhawan,Nainital Road,Moradabad.

AWARD

1. Centra] Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,vide its Notification No. L-12012/2/93-I.R.(B-T) dated 7-4-9.),has referred the following dispute for adjudication to thistribunal :

Whether the action of the management of PrathmaBank in terminal ing the services of Sri Bihari Lalw.e.f. 22-4-88 is legal and justified 7 If not. to whatrelief(s) the workman is entitled to ?

2. The concerned workman Bihari Lai in his claim statementhas alleged that initially he was engaged as a part time messen-ger from 1-1-84 at Koila Branch District Rampur of oppositeparly Prathma Bank as a daily rated worker. Although hewas designated as part time messenger work for whole timewas taken and that too of permanent nature. He worked thereupto 4-10-86 when his services were brought to an end.Thereafter, he was again engaged from 23-7-87 and wasdemited to Bilaspur branch. From there he was assigned toAiitpur branch of the bank, where he worked unto 22-4-88.Thus in the second spell from 23-7-87 to 22-4-88 he hadworked for 275 days. When his services were terminated1 noretrenchment compensation and notice pay was given. Besidejunior were retained in service. Thus there had been breachof Section 25G and H of I.D. Act.

3. The opposite party bank has filed reply in which it wasdenied that in between 23-7-87 to 22-4-88, the concernedworkman had worked for 240 days. Any way the number ofdays have not been given at all. It is further alleged that theconcerned workman was appointed for fixed period and hisservices came to an end automatically by efflux of time.

4. In the rejoinder new facts alleged in the claim statementwere denied.

5. In support of his case, the concerned workman BehariLal has examined himself as W.W. 1 besides W-1 to W-11documents were filed. In rebuttal S. K. Chandra M.W. 1 wasexamined, besides Ext. M-l to M-27 documents were filed.

6. At the outset it may be pointed out that period ofworking between 1-1-84 to 4-10-86 at Koila Branch is notrelevant as no case has been founded on this basis.

7. We have to confine our self for the period from 23-7-87—-22-4-88. During this period the concerned workman has andto have worked for 275 days. Bank has not even the numberof days in its written statement. Behari Lid W.W. 1 has statedthat he had worked for 275 days during the above period. Onthe other band S. K Chandra, M.W. 1 has stated that theconcerned workman had worked for 207 days during thisperiod. This fact has been ought to be corroborated frompayment vouches Ext. W. 1 to 15 Further attendance charthave been filed as Ext. M-l6. Even without indulging incontroversy. We accept the management version of 207 work-ing cays In view of ruling i n the case of II. D . S i n g h v e r s u s

Reserve Bank of India Lab I.C. 1986 the Sundays and other

holidays are to be included. This period would go much morethan 240 days working in a calender year. Hence my findingis that the concerned workman will be deemed to have com-pleted for more than 240 days during the period 27-4-87 to22-4-88..

8. Even if the concerned workman was part time workerhe was entitled for notice pay and retrenchment compensationbefore termination which has admittedly not been paid, hencethis retrenchment is bad in Jaw.

9. There is no proof about breach of Section 25G I.D, Act.Further there is no evidence that the concerned workmanwas appointed for fixed period. This could have been provedby filing the engagement letters which has not been done.

10. In the end my award is that retrenchment of the con-cerned workman is bad and he will be entitled for reinstate-ment with back wages from the date of reference. It is madespecifically clear that back wages will be payable at the rateat which he was getting wages for the last time.

B, K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section II of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of. 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, NewDelhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the management ofState Rank of India and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 11-3 97.

[No. L-12012/239/95-I.R. (B)]P. T. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GANPATI SHARMA. PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ,

NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 106/96

In the matter of dispute :

BETWEENShri Birgin Chander PandeyC/o. 464. Sunlight Colony II.Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi-14,

VersusAssistant General Manager,(P) Personnel Dept.,State Bank of India,Local Head Office.11, Sansad Mare, New Delhi.

APPEARANCES:

Workman in person.

Shri D. N. Sethi, Deputy General Manager—for Manage-ment.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour videits Order No. L-12012/239/95-T.R.(B) dated 2-12-96 referred

the following industrial dispute to this Triubnal for ad-judication :

"Whether the action of the management of S.B.I,, LocalHead Office, New Delhi in terminating the servicesof Shri Bipin Chander Pandey w.e.f. 27-8-94 islegal and justified ? If not what relief the con-cerned workman is entitled to ?"

2, Notice was sent to the parties and the workman ap-peared in person. Shri D. N. Sethi Deputy Manager, ap-peared for the management on 14-1-97. Thereafter theworkman did not appear nor filed statement of claim or anydocument. It appears that the workman was not interestedin pursuing the case so no dispute exists between the partiesand a no dispute award is, therefore, given in this caseleaving the parties to bear their own costs.

3rd March, 1997,

GANPATI SHARMA, Presiding Officer

2149


S,O. 1055.—In pursuance of Section II of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Northern Railway, Lucknow andtheir workman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on the 13th March, 1997

[No. L-41012|43195-IR(B-D)]P. J. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR


In the matter of dispute :BETWEEN

Zonal Working PresidentUttar Railway Karamchari Union,96|196 Roshan Bajaj Lane.Ganeshganj,Lucknow.

AND

Senior Divisional Personal Officer,Northern Railway,R. M. Office,

872 Gl/97—5

Hazratganj,Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-41012/43/95-I.R.(B-I) dated 22nd April, 1996, has referredthe following dispute for adjudication to this Tri-bunal :—

Whether it is a fact that the management ofNorthern Railway, Lucknow have pro-moted juniors to Shri Phuman Lal, FitterHighly Skilled Gr. II causing his super-session ? If so, to what what relief Sh.Phuman Lal was entitled to?"

2. It is not necessary to give the details of thecase as the concerned workman has not filed theclaim statement inspite of sufficient service. Hencethe reference is answered against the concernedworkman for want of prosecution and proof andhe is not entitled for any relief.

B. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section II ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),the Central Government hereby publishes theAward of the Central Government IndustrialTribunal, KANPUR as shown in the Annexure,in the industrial dispute between the employersin relation to the management of NorthernRailway, Allahabad and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on the13-3-97.

[No. L-41012147|87-DII(B)]


2150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29,.1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDINGOFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 1989In the matter of dispute:

BETWEEN

D N Tiwari, Divisional Secretary Uttar Rly.Karamchari Union 2 Navin Market, Kanpur,

ANDDivisional Railway ManagerNorthern Railway Allahabad.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi, vide its notification no. L-41012|4787-DII(B) dated nil has referred the followingdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

Whether the action of the Divisional Rail-way Manager Northern Railway Allaha-bad, in not upgrading Sri S. P. Guptain the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 witheffect from 1-8-82 and also deprivinghim of two sets of privilege passes |tickets is justified ? If not to what re-lief the workman concerned is entitled ?

2. It is obvious that this reference comprisesof two parts. The first part is with regard tonot upgrading the concerned workman S. P.Gupta in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 w.e.f.1-8-82 and the second part is about withholdingof two sets of privilege, of passes by way ofpunishment on the basis of domestic enquiry.

3. In the claim statement since the concernedworkman was the senior most he was entitled tobe upgraded in this post w.e.f. 1-8-82. Insteadof doing so Hanuman Prasad Srivastava junior tohim was promoted by order dt. 22-11-83, whichis bad in law.

4. With regard to other claim it is alleged thatdomestic enquiry which had preceded impositionof punishment of stoppage of two sets of passeswas bad in law. Hence punishment is also bad.

5. The opposite party railway in his writtenstatement has not disputed that the two posts ofchief typist in the grade of Rs. 700-900 wereupgraded w.e.f. 1-8-82. It is also not disputedthat Hanuman Prasad Srivastava junior to theconcerned workman was promoted. The caseof the management is that Upgradation in thisscale was to be given in this scale on the basisof seniority cum suitability. The concernedworkman was not upgraded because there wasadverse entries in his service record hence hewas not ungraded,

6. As. regards second limbs- of the referenceit is a l l ied that that the enquiry was proper andfair.

7. In the rejoinder nothing new has been alle-ged.

8. It may be mentioned that a preliminaryissue was framed regarding fairness and proprie-tary of enquiry. Vide finding dated 26-12-96 thisTribunal held that enquiry was not fairly andproperly held. Hence the management was givenopportunity to prove his misconduct on merits.Inspite of repeated opportunity the managementdid not adduce any evidence to prove the chargesof misconduct against the workman hence conse-quent punishment by way of stoppage of twosets of first class passes is bad in law.

9. As regards first part of the reference I amof the opinion that he railway has given satis-factory reasons for not giving promotion to theconcerned workman in the grade of Rs. 700-900(Chief Typists) as he was not found suitable.The action of the management in not finding thesuitability of the concerned workman cannot belooked into by the labour Tribunal as it cannotsit as court of appeal or the decision of themanagement in this regard. Hence, the first partof the reference is to be answered against themanagement.

10. In view of above discussions first part ofthe reference is answered against the concernedworkman and it is held that the action of theopposite party was justified in not upgrading theconcerned workman in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 w.e.f. 1-8-82.

11. The second part of the reference is ans-wered in favour of the workman. The punish-ment by way of stoppage of two sets of privilegepasses is not justified, is accordingly set aside.Consequently the concerned workman will beentitled for its consequential benefits.

B, K. SRIVASTAVA. Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 18th March, 1997S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, Rajasthan as

2151

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the manage-ment of Western Railway, Allahabad and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Gov-ernment on the 18th March, 1997.

[No. L-41011113|94-I.R.(B-l)]


"Whether the action of the Chief ProjectManager, Rly. Electrification, Kota andthe General Manager, Central Organi-sation of Railway Electrification, Ahala-bad in not screening, regularising andabsorbing the workmen S|Shri Raj ,Kumar S|o. Mahesh Chand, HakimS|o. Abdul Hamid, Bhoop Singh S|o.Ramswaroop, Adesh Kumar S|o AmiChand and Dharampal Singh S|o. NathuRam in permanent vacancies in openline is fair and justified ? If not towhat relief the concerned workmen areentitled and from what date ?".


S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha as shownin the Annexure, in the industrial dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management ofDhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur and their work-man, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 18-3-1997.

[No. L-12012[50|94-IR(B-I)]P. J. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(Dated this the 24th day of February, 1997)

PRESENT :

Shri K. Kanakachandran, Industrial Tribunal.I. D. No. 14\95

BETWEEN


The Chairman, Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.,Regional Office, Round West, Trichur.

AND

The workman of the above concern Smt.Lakshmi, Plot No. 62, New HousingColony, Kudumbi Colony, Elamkulam,Cochi-682020.

REPRESENTATIONS:M|s. P. F. Thomas & Sunil Thomas, Advs.,

Cochin.—For Management.

M/s. H. B. Shenoy Associates Advocates,Kochi—For Workman.

AWARD

This dispute was referred by the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour by their order dated20-6-1995. The issue referred for adjudication is

"Whether the action of the management ofM|s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., in re-trenching Smt. Lakshmi, part timesweeper with effect from 23-3-1993 isjustified or not ? If not to what relief sheis entitled ?"

2. The worker concerned in this dispute was asweeper engaged by the management bank in itsShanmugam Road Branch at Ernakulam. It is thecase of the worker that she was continuously underemployment from the year 1978 and her serviceswere illegally terminated on 23-3-1993. The work-ing hours m her case the bank was of 9 hoursa week ana therefore she was entitled to 1 [3 of thescale of wages payable to a subordinate staff withproportionate annual increment. But she was beingpaid only a sum of Rs. 175 per mensum as wages.Though she had made several requests for gettingthe wages at the rate to which she was entitled, it wasnot considered. Saying one reason or other, themanagement was protracting the matter withoutpaying her wages at the enhanced rate. Thereforeshe was compelled to file a petition under Section33-C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court,Ernakulam claiming of arrears of wages and theclaim petition C.P. No. 5|93 she filed is still pendingbefore the Labour Court. According to the worker,in retaliation of the claim petition filed by her inthe Labour Court, the Branch Manager retrenchedher from service on 23-3-1993. Thereafter she wasnot allowed even to enter the branch premises. Atthe time of terminating her service she was neithergiven notice nor wages in lieu of notice. Thereforethe action on the part of the management in re-trenching her from service is against the provisionsof existing Laws, Bank Awards and Bipartite settle-ments. None of the provisions contained in Section25-F of the I.D. Act was also complied with bythe management while retrenching her from service.In fact, during the time when she was working asa sweeper, she was working in a regular vacancy

and the work she was doing was of permanentnature. Therefore the plea of the worker is for adeclaration that the action of the management inretrenching her is illegal and unjust. Prayer is alsomade for a direction to the management to reinstateher in service with full backwages, continuity ofservice and other attendant benefits.

3. The management in their counter statementhas disputed the claims made by her. The claimsregarding the appointment of her in the year 1978and also the termination on 23-3-1993 are disputedby the management. According to them the Bankhad never appointed her as an employee and hername was not borne in the muster rolls of theemployees of the Bank. The conditions of serviceand duration of work are projected by her withthe intention of bringing her as an employee ofthe Bank covered by the provisions of Sastri Awardand settlements particularly the clause 15 of theFifth Bipartite settlement. She filed claim petitionbefore the Labour Court by making a contentionthat she had been working for 15 years in the Bankas a Sweeper and her working time was 9 hours perweek. The computation made by her for gettingmonetary benefits was objected by the manage-ment and that claim petition is still pendingbefore the Labour Court. She had filedanother application for payment of gratuitybefore the Assistant Labour Commissioner claimingas a nominee of her late mother Smt. Goolbai whodied on 12-12-1989. The claim for gratuity waslater withdrawn as it was found untenable. Shewas not a member of any of the unions of the bankemployees and therefore she cannot be treated asa bank employee. The worker was casually employedby the Branch Manager on his personal responsi-bility to clean the bank premises on every workingday before the starting of functioning in the morn-ing. That engagement was purely on casual basisand the Manager did not continue to engage herbecause she was very irregular in attending workand that was mainly due to her physical disability.The Bank Manager used to pay her Rs. 175 permensem which was reimbursed later by the BankManager. The Bank did not supervise or controlher works and in tact there was no special instruc-tion to her to do work in such and such manner.Since there was no employer-employee relation-ship, she is not entitled for any relief as prayed forby her. The engagement of the worker was purelyon the personal responsibility of the BranchManager. There was no oral retrenchment or denialof employment on 23-3-1993.

4. A reply statement was filed by the worker inwhich it is stated that, the gratuity application filedby her as the nominee of her late mother was with-drawn by her because management disputed thenominee status of her. Merely because she was nota member of any union of bank employees, sheis not entitled to get any relief is also disputed byher. As a workman as defined in the Industrial

2153

Dispute Act, she is entitled for all protections asenvisaged in Section 25-F, Section 25-G andSection 25-H of the Act.

5. It is not in dispute that the worker concernedwas engaged as a Sweeper in the Shanmugam Roadbranch of the management bank. It is the specificcase of the worker that she had been under em-ployment for the period from 1978 to 1993. Thecontention of her that she was being paid a sumof Rs. 175 per mensum is not in dispute. The standof the management is that she was employed asa Sweeper purely as a personal engagement madeby the Branch Manager and the payment given toher would be later reimbursed by the Bank to themanager.

6. Before the starting of evidence by the partiesherein, the worker had filed an application forproduction of certain documents by the manage-ment. To substantiate her case, the documents calledfor by her through the petition were:—

"(1) Form ' C Register maintained by manage-ment under the payment of Bonus Rulesin respect of Shanmugam Road branch,Ernakulam for the years 1987-88 to1994-95.

(2) Miscellaneous—Sweeping Allowance paidLedger Account maintained at Erna-kulam Shanmugam Road branch, ofmanagement bank for the period1-1-1987 to 31-12-1993 wherein wagespaid to the workman is debited.

(3) Payment vouchers duly signed by theworkman in respect of the wages paid tothe workman, maintained at ErnakulamShanmugam Road branch of manage-ment bank for the period 1-1-1987 to31-3-1993.

7. Instead of filing the document required to beproduced, the management filed an affidavit statingthat the Shanmugam Road Branch is functioningnow in a different premises on account of renova-tion work and installation of modem equipments.Therefore the records sought for could not belocated despite the search for the same. The oldrecords of the nature required to be produced wereshifted to another place and as and when theycould be found out, the same would be produced.

8. From the averments contained in the affidavitit is clear that the documents required by theworker were regularly maintained by the manage-ment in the branch in which the worker was workingas a Sweeper for some time. The worker whiletendering evidence before this Court has deposedthat whenever she received wages from the bank,she would give receipt. In the cross-examinationshe has admitted that she would not be signing anyregister while receiving wages and only voucherswould be given. For doing sweeping work, she

used to take three hours most of the days. Whenher mother was working as a sweeper, herself wasgetting Rs. 75 per mensum. After the death of hermother she was working as a Sweeper in theShanmugam Road Branch.

9. The Manager who was working in the Shan-mugham Road Branch at the time of alleged termi-nation tendered evidence before this Court as MWI.He has stated in the cross-examination that sweepingcharges will be debited in the account—miscel-aneous expenses. He disputed the contention of the

worker that vouchers were obtained from herwhenever payments were made to her. He hasadmitted that Form C Register relating to mis-cellaneous sweeping charges is maintaining in theBank from 1987 onwards and only because thosedocuments were not traceable, the same could notbe produced. He has further deposed that in theplace of the worker, herein, another part timesweeper is now working.

10. In this case, no doubt, the worker concernedwas doing sweeping work in the Shanmugam RoadBranch of the management Bank after the deathof her mother who was also employed as a sweeperearlier. Though disputed by the management, thealleged retrenchment was after the filing of claimpetition by her before the Labour Court, Erna-kulam for getting arrears of wages at the enhancedrate.

11. Ext. Wl is the representation submitted byher to the Chairman of the Bank making plea forher reinstatement as sweeper. In that Ext. Wl re-presentation which was sent by her on 26-3-1993and received by the management on 30-3-1993,mention was made about the claim petition tiledby her for the arrears of wages at the enhancedrate. This suggestive of the fact that only after thefiling of claim petition before the Labour Court,her services were dispensed with. Therefore theprovocation for the dispensation of the servicemight be the claim petition filed before the LabourCourt. Now it is brought in evidence that in theplace of worker herein another sweeper is employedand the present incumbent is being paid wages asstipulated in the bipartite settlement concerningpart time sweepers.

12. The nature of payment made to the workerwould have been properly known if all theregisters maintaining in that connections wereproduced by the management as requested by theworker. The management does not dispute theexistence of those registers and documents.According to them only because those were nottraceable, the same could not be produced. Thetheory advanced by the Branch Manager that hewas paying sweeping charges from his ownpocket and then getting the reimbursement wouldhave been acceptable if the document required tobe produced by the worker contained particulars


in that manner. The fact that the mother of theworker was employed as a sweeper fairly for along time and only after her death the workerherein was employed in her place is not in dispute.Since she was getting Rs. 175 per mensum andthose payments were duly accounted, then it canonly be concluded that she was doing part timework as a sweeper in the Shanmugam RoadBranch. Doing of work on part tune basis is dulyrecognised in various settlements signed in theBanking sector and for the part time workspecific pay was also fixed. Possible because ofthat the worker had staked claim for higher rateof wages.

13. No doubt, the worker herein had renderedmore than 240 days of service immediately be-fore the date of her termination though on parttime basis. So long as there is no differentiationbetween the employees employed on regularbasis and part time basis for. getting protectionas envisaged in Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, theworker herein is entitled for protection as con-templated therein. It is not in dispute thatbefore the termination of her service, none of theconditions contemplated in Sec. 25-F were com-plied with.

14. The learned counsel for the managementhas submitted that the worker herein was onlya sweeper who had nothing to do with the workin the Branch. According to him, payment forsweeping work was given by the Branch Mana-ger from his pocket and Bank was only givingreimbursement to him. Because of that therewas no employer-employee relationship betweenthe management Bank and the worker herein.Because of that arrangement, the engagement ofsweeper could only be treated as personalarrangement on the part of the Branch Manager.Because of that no liability could be fixed onthe management Bank. In support of his conten-tion the learned counsel for the management hadrelied on the decision of the Supreme Court inPunjab National Bank v. Ghulam Desthaka(1978 AIR 481). That was a case relating to aDriver engaged by the Manager of a Branch ofthe Bank for driving his official car. TheManager was paying from his pocket initiallyand he was getting the reimbursement later fromthe Bank. The Supreme Court while discussingthe details of relationship had observed :

Para 3. There is nothing on record to makeout nexus between Bank and the Dri-ver. There is nothing to record toshow that the control and supervisionof the Driver vested in the Bank. Afterall evidence is to the contrary. In theabsence of materials to make out thatdriver was employed by the Bank, wasunder its direction and control waspaid by him and was paid salary by the

Bank and was otherwise included in theArmy of employees in the establishmentof the Bank, we cannot assume thecrucial point which remain to be pro-ved."

15. The facts narrated in that case are entirelydifferent from this case on hand. Here the swee-per is engaged to clean the Bank and its premises.She was not rendering any personal service tothe Branch Manager. Even before the arrival ofthe Manager to the Bank, the Sweeper wouldcome and complete all the cleaning works. Thework done by her was only for the benefit of theBank. Therefore the payment to her should havebeen from the Bank account and not from theManager's personal expenditure. If the manage-tion in the matter of payment of wages to theworker would have been ascertain able if all thedocuments required by the worker were broughtfor verification at the time of evidence. Theworker's specific case is that all the paymentgiven to her were as wages and such paymentsto her were not at all treated as the BranchManager's personal expenditure. If the manage-ment has got different case from what has beenstated by the worker herein, they could haveproduced the records to dispute the claim. Inthe absence of any other materials, only conclu-sion possible is that the worker was renderingservice for more than one year immediatelypreceding the date of alleged termination of herservice and she was not given notice or compen-sation as contemplated in Sec. 25-F of the I.D.Act. Since she is a worker entitled for protec-tion as envisaged in Sec. 25-F of the Act, anyform of termination of service not after fulfillingthe conditions stipulated therein would be nulland void. Therefore till she is vapidly retren-ched, she would deem to have been continuingin service. As a consequence of that she is en-titled for full back wages till she is vapidlyretrenched.

16. The need for having a sweeper on parttime basis is well admitted by MW1 while tender-ing evidence before this Tribunal. He hasstated that now a regular part time employee isemployed as a sweeper and she is being givenwage benefits in accordance with the bipartitesettlement. On creation of a regular part timepost, normally, the preference should have beenextended to the worker herein because she issatisfying all the conditions for getting re-em-ployment as stipulated in Sec. 25-H of the I.D.Act.

Award is passed accordingly.

K. KANAKACHANDRAN, Industrial Tribunal

2155

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the Management.

MWI. Jayakumar.

Witness examined on the side of the workman.

WW1. Lekshmi.

Exhibits marked 01 the side of the Management.

Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the Workman.

Ext. W-I Postal acknowledgement receiptNo. 2346 dated 29-3-93 and representa-tion of the workman.


S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Art. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal. No, I, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure,in the industrial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Grindlays Bank P I C . and theirworkman which was received by the Central Government on20-3-97.

[No. L-12012/24/93J.R. B-I]P. J. MICHAEL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI i

PRESENT :

Shri Justice R. S. Verma, Presiding OfficerReference No, CGTT-1/15 of 1993

PARTIES :Employers in relation to the management of Grindlays

Bank P.I.C.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management—No appearance.

For the Workmen—Shri P. N. Subramanyan.

Mumbai, dated the 6th day of March, 1997

AWARD

Shri P, N. Subramanyan for union. He has filed an ap-plication to-day to the effect that "since the employer Bankhas retracted shift system of working. For this reason theunion does not wish to proceed with the reference and

pray that order may be passed in the said context the unionis not pressing for adjudication, without prejudice to itsrights to pursue the matter in the event of the employer bankresorting to shift system of working in any of the branches/establishments of the Bank in Mumbai.

In view of thjs application, the union's claim is dismissedas not pressed; however, as and when the Bank resorts toshift system of working in any of the branches/establishmentsof the Bank in Mumbai, the union shall be free to raisesuch dispute and pet it adjudicated1. Claim dismissed asnot pressed.

R. S, VERMA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial TribunalNo. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in rela-tion to the management of M|s. BCCL and theirworkmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 19-3-97.

[No. L-20012|287|93-IR(C-I)]BRAJ MOHAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under Section 10(1)(d)(2-A) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947.


PARTIES :

Employers in relation, to the management ofGadhur Colliery of M|s B.C.C Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, Presiding Officer


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

and Shri S. N. Sinha, Advocate,

For the Workmen—None.

STATE : Bihar INDUSTRY : Coal

Dated, the 11th March, 1997

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012(287)|93-I.R.(Coal-I),dated 28-7-94 the Central Government in theMinistry of Labour has, in exercise of the powersconferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) andsub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputefor adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management ofGodhur Colliery of BCCL in terminatingthe services of Smt. Sumitri Kamin,Wagon Loader, w.e.f. 11-3-77 is justifi-ed ? If not, to what relief the workmanis entitled ?"

2. The order of reference was received in thisTribunal on 9-8-94 and thereafter notices wereissued to the parties to file written statement by theworkman,. Despite several adjournments weregiven to the workman, but no written statementhas been filed on behalf of the workman. It,therefore, appears that neither the sponsoring unionnor the concerned workman is interested to pro-secute the reference case.

3. In such circumstances, I render a 'No Dis-pute' Award in the present reference case.

TARKESHWAR PRASAD, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section '7 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal,Madras its shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the employers in relation to the management ofBank of Baroda and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 20-3-97.

[No. L-12012/468/88-D-II(A)/IR(B-II]BRAJ MOHAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADUMADRAS

Wednesday, the 9th day of December, 1996

PRESENT :

Thiru S. Thangaraj, B.Sc, L.L.B., Industrial TribunalIndustrial Dispute No. 31 of 1990

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Sec-tion 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 betweenthe Workman and the Management of Bank of Baroda,Madras).

BETWEEN :The Workman represented by :

The General Secretary,Bank of Baroda Employees Union,31, Moore Street,Madras-600 001.

ANDThe Regional Manager,Bank of Baroda.1, Club House Road,Mount Road, Madras-600 002.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-12012|468|89,D.1IA, dated 11-4-90, Ministryof Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi,

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Wednesday,the 4th day of December. 1996, upon perusing the claim,counter statement and all other material papers on recordand upon hearing the arguments of Tvl. K. Chandru andD. Bharathy, Advocates appearing for the Petitioner andof Thiru B. Narasimhan, Advocate appearing for the Manage-ment, and this dispute having stood over till this day forconsideration, this Tribunal made the following.

AWARD

Government of India, vide their Order No. L-12012/468/89-D.II A Ministry of Labour, dated 11-4-90. have referredthis dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication of the follow-ing issue :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank ofBaroda in imposing the punishment of stoppage oftwo increments on Sh. S. Sridhar is justified Ifnot, to what relief the workman entitled ?"

2. After services of notices, both petitioner and res-pondent appeared before this Tribunal and filed their claimand counter statement respectively.

3. The main averments found in the claim statement are asfollows :

The workman Sh. Sridhar is a Typist-cum-Clerk em-ployed in the Bank of Baroda w.e.f. 1-7-82. He wasworking in Pondicherry branch of the respondentbank and after his confirmation he submitted amedical bill for Rs. 450 on 5-5-83 together withdoctor certificate for the treatment of his adop-tive mother who is none other than his sister, Asper the Bipartite Settlement the employee of thebank is eligible of medical reimbursement to theextent of Rs. 225 per annum, Being the workmanof respondent-bank the petitioner was also eligiblefor the medical reimbursement. The respondentmanagement issued a charge sheet dated 20-11-86against the petitioner for certain misconducts alieg-ed to have been committed by him as per para19.5 the Bipartite Settlement. Enquiry was heldagainst him and he participated in the enquirycross-examined the witnesses of the management andhe also examined witnesses on his side On thefindings given by the Enquiry Officer the manage-ment imposed a punishment of stoppage of 2 incre-

2157

ments with cumulative effect. The petitioner pre-ferred an appeal and the same was dismissed con-firming the order of disciplinary authority. Theenquiry conducted against the workman was op-posed to the principles of natural justice.If the workman was not eligible tor the medicalreimbursement they could have very well rejectedthe claim and recovered the amount. The issuewas raised in the year 1984 and when the peti-tioner gave an explanation no action was taken:against him immediately. However, the managementreopened the case after 3 years. No reason forthe laches on the part of the management has beenoffered by them. The Enquiry Officer did notconsider the evidence adduced on the side of theworkman in proper perspective. The punishment isshockingly disproportionate to the charge levelledagainst him. Award may be passed for settingaside the punishment and for release of the twoincrements illegally withheld by the respondent.

4. The main averments found in the counter are asfollows :—

The petitioner was appointed as a Typist-cum-Clerk inPondicherry branch of respondent bank on 1-7-82.At the time of his appointment he had given his bio-data wherein he had stated his father's name asSrinivasulu Naidu, Retired TTE from Railways.In his application for transfer to Cuddalore he hadstated that his father was working in Police De-partment. The petitioner had submitted a medicalbill for the! treatment of his mother Mrs. Jayalakshmiand in his letter dated 15-3-84, ho had stated thathe was living with one Mr. Sundarrajulu. The peti-tioner was making contradictory statement to suithis convenience. The workman has examinedMr. Sundararajulu who adopted him as his son.There was no documentary evidence to prove thatthere was valid, legal adoption. In his SSLC bookand also in the Bio data he had stated his father'sname as Srinivasulu Naidu. In the provident fundnomination form, he had stated Sundararajulu ishis uncle. He had given different names in diffe-rent places to suit this convenience. The domesticenquiry was conducted by following the principlesof natural justice, The findings of the EnquiryOffice is based on legal evidence. The action takenby the respondent against the petitioner was withinthe ambit of rules and , regulations followed, in theday to day banking procedure. The punishment ofstoppage of two increments is quite proportionateto the charges levelled against the petitioner ThereIs no merit in the claim statement. Award may hepassed dismissing the industrial dispute..

5. No witness was examined on both sides. Exs. W-lto W-3 have been marked on the side of the petitioner. Exs.M-1 to M-29 have been marked on the side of the manage-ment. :

6. The point for our consideration is :Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda in imposing the punishment of stoppage oftwo Increments on Sh. S Sridhar is justified ? If not,to what relief is the workman entitled ?

7. The Point—The petitioner S. Sridhar joined the res-pondent-bank in Pondicherry branch on 1-7-82 As an em-plovee of the bank he was eligible to the medical reimburse-ment. He had filed a claim for Rs. 410 towards Medicalreimbursement for his and treatment of his mother Smt.Jayalakshmi. It is the case of the petitioner that Smt.Jayalakshmi is his elder sister and they are children of oneSrinivasulu Naidu a retired TTE railways; He was adoptedby his sister Jayalakshmi and her husband Sundararajulu Naiduwho was working in police Department since they had noissues. From his Childhood stages he was living with Sundarra-iulu Naidu and Smt. Jayalakshmi and they have treated him astheir son. During his school days, the internal Assessmentcertificate issued by the High School marked as Ex. M-2shows fathers name as N Sundarriaulu Naidu Ex. M-3the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by St. John'sAmbulance Association also shows his father's name asSundararajulu v. National Cadet Corps Senior division Certi-872 GI/97—6

ficate ' C issued in. the name of the petitioner shows hisfather's name as V. Sundararajulu From these certificates, itis clear that during his school days his father's name wasshown as Sundararajulu. In Ex. M.21, Life Insurance Cor-poration Policy he has shown Smt. Jayalakshmi as hisnominee. It seems he got married on 22-8-85 and hismarriage invitation marked as Ex. M.22 shows his parentsname as Sundararajulu and! Jayalakshmi Sundararajulu, In thebio-data form submitted by him to the Bank of Baroda mark-ed as Ex. M.14, he has stated his father's name asSrinivasulu Naidu. There is no doubt is son of SrinivasuluNaidu. However, later he was adopted by SundararajuluNaidu and his wife Smt. Jayalakshmi Sundararajulu. It seemshe has shown his father's name in Ex. M.14 and not thename of the person who has adopted him. The Enquiryproceedings is marked as Ex. M.28. In the enquiry, he hasexamined his father and Sundararajulu who adopted him ashis son and also Mrs. Jayalakshmi and his mother-in-lawMrs. Sanjeevi Naidu to show that he was adopted by Sundar-rajulu Naidu and his wife Mrs, Jayalakshmi. Whether theadoption was legally valid or not is not a question to bedecided by the Enquiry Officer. However, the Enquiry Offi-cer had gone into the question and disputed the adoption.Such a finding given by the Enquiry Officer cannot be accept-ed. The documents as well as the oral evidence availableon record would so to show that he was adopted by Sundar-rajulu and his wife. Therefore, his claim for medical reim-bursement of Mrs. Jayalakshmi Sundararajulu cannot be treat-ed as a false claim. The findings of the Enquiry Officerthat Mrs. Jayalakshmi is not mother of the petitioner is alsonot based on sufficient reasons. It is seen from the marriageinvitation that Sundararajulu Naidu retired from service. With-out knowing the actual date of retirement, we cannot presumethat even on the date of claim that Mrs. Jayalakshmi wasnot a dependant of the petitioner. The possibility that Mrs,Jayalakshmi could have been defendant 011 the petitionereven on the date of making the claim cannot be over ruledwithout knowing the actual date of retirement of SundararajuluNaidu. When two views can be taken. in any matter, theview in favour of the workman should be taken into accountIn this circumstances. we cannot come to definite conclusionthat the petitioner has made a false claim of Medical Reim-bursement bill of Mrs. Jayalakshmi as if she was his depen-dent on the date of treatment and thereafter, Therefore, tofasten the liability of the workman. there must be some rea-sonible and acceptable. evidence on record. There is noacceptable evidence on record to say that the petitioner hasmade a totally false claim. In these circumstances. it cannotbe said that the charges have been proved against the peti-tioner.

8. From the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the chargeframed against the petitioner that he had made false claimhas not been proved Therefore, be is not liable for thecharges framed against him under Clause 19.5(j) of the Bi-partite Settlement.

In the result, award is passed holding that the action ofthe management of Bank of Baroda in imposing the punish-ment of stoppage of two increments on Shri S. Sridhar isnot justified, No costs.

Dated, this the 9th days of December. 1996.

S. THANGARAJ. Industrial Tribunal

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For both sides : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Workmen/Union :

Ex. W-1/12-11-87—Order of the respondent-managementregarding the Enquiry report (xerox copy}.

W-2 /13-11-87—Letter from Thiru S. Sirdhar to theRespondent-management (xerox copy).

W-3/14-1-88—Appeal filed by Thiru S. Sridhar beforethe Appellate Authority.

For Respondent management:

Ex. M-1/19-8-75—Conv of SSLC Certificate of Thiru S.Sridhar (xerox copy).

2158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART I I—SEC. 3(II)]

M-2 /I9-4-76—Internal Assessment Certificate of ThiruS. Sridhar (xerox copy).

M-3/10-3-78—St. John's Ambulance Association Certifl-cate issued to Thiru S. Sridhar (xerox copy).

M-4/March 80—N. C. C. Certificate 'C issued to Th. S.Sridhar (Xerox copy;.

M-5/7-7-80—Transfer certificate of Th. S. Sridhar (Xeroxcopy).

M-6/11-2-78—B.Sc, statement of marks of Th, S, Sridhar(xerox copy).

M-7/29-7-78— 1dol

M-8/12-2-79— ldo-

M-9/ 8-79-- -do-M-10/1-3-80— -do-M-U/28-7-80— -do-M-12/25-3-81 -do-M-13/15-8-81— -do-

M-14/14-8-82—Application of Th. S. Sridhar (xeroxcopy).

M-15/5-1-83—Medical certificate issued to Th. S. Sirdhar(xerox copy).

M-16710-1-83—Provident Fund Form 'A' of Petitioner -workman (xerox copy).

M-17/11-1-83—Provident Fund Form 'B' of Petitioner--workman (xerox copy).

M-18/6-10-83—Application for transfer of pettioner-workman (xerox copy),

M-l9/29-10-83—Family card of the petitioner-workmen(xerox copy).

M-20/27-2-84—Bank's letter calling for explanation(xerox copy).

M-21/10-10 84— L.I..C. certificate (xerox copy).

M-22/22-8-85—Marriage invitation, of petitioner-work-man (Xerox copy).

M-23/22-2-86—Explanation Riven by petitioner/workmanto respondent-bank's letter dated 31-1-86 (xeroxcopy).

M-24/20-11-86—Charge sheet issued1 to Petitioner-work-man (xerox copy).

M-25/5-2-87-Enqmry Proceedings (xerox copy).

M-26/2-12-87—Final Order xerox copy).

M-27/9-2-88—Order of the Appellate Authority (xerox

copy).

M-28/24-2-87—Minutes of enquiry against Th. S. Sridhar

M-29/ —Enquiry Officer's report (xerox copy).

Now Delhi, the 20th March, 1997

S.O. 1092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/s, E.C. Ltd. and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 18-3-97.

[No. L-19012/4/85-D-IV(B)]B. M, DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURECENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT CALCUTTA


PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Ratibaticolliery of M/s. ECI .

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Mr Justice K, C. Jagadeb Roy, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Management.—Mr. P. Banerjee, Advocate.

On behalf of workmen—Mr. Amalesh Mitra. Counselwith Mr. S. K. Bose, Advocate and Mr. S. Mukher-jee, Advocate,

STATE : West Bengal- INDUSTRY ; Coal.

AWARD

By Order No, L-19012(4)/85-D.IV(B) dated 24-6-1985 theCentral Government in exercise of its powers under section10(l)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 re-ferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica-tion :

"Whether the action of the management of RatibatiColliery under Suteram Area, ECL, P.O. Kalipahari,Distt. Burdwan in not regularising 29 workmen asmentioned in annexure 'K' below from the datethey are working in time rated job with full protec-tion of wages and transferring them from RatibatiColliery to other Collieries/areas during pendency ofconciliation proceedings is justified ? If not towhat relief the workmen concerned are entitledand from what date :"

ANNEXURE. 'K'

SI.No.

1.2

3.A.5.6.7.8.9.10.11,12.13.14.15.

Name of Workman

Shri Solai Chamar" Lalu Chamar

Sripat Chamar" Surat Chamar" Shri Baldeo Tanti" Mishiri Bhuiya" Maksudan Bhuiya" Dhoba Bhuiya" Chandrika Bhuiya" Sukur Bhuiya" Jagadish Bhuiya" Md. Quassam" Ragati Chamar" Ramohai Chamar" Durja Swin

Designation

Machine minorUg. TrammerMachine miner

-do-Machine minerW. Loader

-do--do--do--do--do-

M/ Miner-do--do-

Tyndar

WorkingSince

March' 80April' 79August'79Jan.'80May'79April'80May'79June'79July' 79June'79June'79July'79July' 79May'79June'79

2159

1

16.17.18.19.20.21.22.2i.24.25.26.27.28,29.

Shri Bechan Gope" Sirgoo Chamar" Shyamadeo Jeswara" Sundar Jeswara" Bailors Gope" Bhindeswari Mahato" Ramdugar Roy" Chandrika Bhuiya" Sunderlal Satnami" Balchand Gope" Jagatnath Nunia" Soya Chamai" Ramnarayan Chamar" Ramanarayan Belder

3

Tynndal-do--do--do-

Pump Khalasi-do--do-

Tyndal-do--do--do--do--do--do-

4

June '79July'79July'79June '79June, 1')June '79June,'79June '79June, '79June, 79June, 79June, 79June, 79June, 79

2. The workmen and the management have filed theirwritten statements in the case, followed by a rejoinder orthe workmen. At the conclusion of the hearing and beforethe case was reserved for Award, the management and theunion of workmen have filed their written notes of argu-ment after serving copies on each other

3. It is admitted by the workmen in the written notesof argument filed before the Tribunal on 22 November, 1993stating therein that except the workmen mentioned in theannexure to the schedule of reference bearing SI. Nos. 1 to 14(both inclusive) the union has no further grievance regardingthe other 15 workmen SI. Nos. 15 to 29, The referencewas made in respect of 29 workmen, The Union also men-tioned in paragraph 3 of the written notes submitted underthe signature of their learned counsel Shri Sandip Basilthat the question of transfer of the workmen, the legalityof which is a part of schedule of reference was also notbeing insisted upon by the workmen. The admitted posi-tion as it presently stands and made out in the writ tenstatement of both the parties that all these 29 workmenhave been now regularised as time rated workmen, afterhaving been transferred to the other units of the collieriesunder the common management, though prior to the trans-fer they had been working at Ratibati Colliery as piece-ratedworkmen. The sole point which both the parties want theTribunal to answer is whether these 14 workmen SI. Nos. 1to 14 on their regularisation against time-rated work, willbe so regularised with pay protection retrospectively fromthe dates of their transfer. The transfer orders were issuedon 28-9-1984 as stated in paragraph 6 of the written state-ment of the workmen.

4. Before answering the question, certain facts have tobe stated which are essential for understanding the respectivecases of the parlies. The 29 workmen who are Originallyreferred to in the schedule of reference and mentioned in theannexure thereto were piece rated workers and were pre-viously employed in Ratibati Colliery of Eastern Coalfieldslimited. All the units of the collieries of the Eastern Coal-fields Ltd. were previously in the private sector and werenationalised under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,1973 with effect from 1-5-1973. After the nationalisation.Eastern Coalfields Limited re-grouped the amalgamated smallunits of collieries into larger units for administrative con-venience and economic viability, Ratibati and the other col-liries to which the workmen were transferred belonged tothe district of Burdwan in West Bengal.

The reference order had three parts namely, (i) if themanagement was justified in transferring these 29 workmenfrom Ratibati to other collieries during the pendency of aconciliation proceeding; (ii) whether these 29 workmanconcerned were entitled to be regularised against time-ratedjobs with full protection of wages; and (iii) whether thefull protection of wages be effective retrospectively fromthe date of transfer from Ratibati to other collieries,

5. I have indicated that the workmen have already givenup all their claims except, claiming the pay protection re-trospectively from the date when they were transferred fromRatibati to other collieries. Though the workmen have givenup their claims in the written notes of argument, they havenot filed a joint memo signed by both the parties statingthe same. I, therefore, like to- make my findings in thisregard. After the amalgamation of all the collieries afterthe nationalisation, several small units were grouped underEastern Coalfields Ltd. Transfer is a condition of service

unless there is any rule prohibiting the transfer. The claimof the workmen that the transfer would be vlolative ofSection 33(3)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is nottenable, It is true that Section 33 of the Act prohibits thechange of condition of service of a workman pending anysuch proceeding which includes a proceeding before a conci-liation officer. In the present case thereis no charge incondition of service. Therefore, the transfer was justified.It is to be further stated in this connection that in theevent an amalgamation takes place of different small unitsof collieries by operation of law that would amount to trans-fer of all the units to another authority under this processof transfer. In such an event of Section 25FF of theIndustrial Disputes Act will bo operative. If any of theworkmen who is in continuous service for not less than oneyear in that undertaking immediately before such transfershall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordancewith Section 25F as if he has been retrenched. But suchprovision shall not apply if the three conditions mentionedin Clauses (a;, (b) and (c) to the Section. 25FF were satisfied.In the present case, admittedly, the services of all theworkmen on such transfer have not been interrupted by suchtransfer. The workmen also have not challenged the refusalof the new employer to treat the past period of their servicein Ratibati Colliery to be considered benefit in the event oftheir subsequent retrenchment while working in the trans-ferred colliery. The only question thereafter arises if theterms and condition of such transfer would not be lessfavourable to the workmen than that was applicable to thembefore the transfer.

ft. On the side of the workman no evidence has been ledto show what are the conditions of service that applied tothem on transfer which was less favourable to them com-pared to the conditions available to them prior to transfer,excepting that they have claimed the protection of pay.

7. The workmen in the colliery come into three cate-goric, daily-rated workers, monthly rated workers andpiece-rated workers. The monthly rated workers and dailyrated workers have their regular incremental pay-scalewhereas the piece rated workers are paid according to thevolume of work they have done. Usually they have beengrouped in different groups for the jobs to be performed bythem while their work loads are laid down. Reference tothis are contained in NCWA-II which remained in force-from 1-1-1979 till 31-12-1982 and wage rates and work-loads of different piece-rated workers have also been dis-cussed in the Mazumdar Award. A piece-rated worker ispaid prescribed group wage, if he achieves the prescribedwork-load on a particular day and if he fails to achieve theprescribed work, he is paid only proportionate wage. It isthe case of the management in the written statement thatsince these workmen were found to be surplus and inthe ordinary course of event they should have been retrench-ed, on the persistent request of the union, they deployedthem to other units and regularised them in the time-ratedscale as requested by the union. The management thereforecontends that in the event of their retrenchment, they couldhave gone with the retrenchment benefits, only but havingaccepted to be absorbed in the time-rated scales, they cannotclaim the pay protection, .is mentioned in Ext. W-10. Ac-cording to the management, the management does not alwayshave extra workload and they give extra work-load asarid when it is required, therefore, .1 workman on thepiece-rate basis, if at times, earns more, it cannot be treatedto be, his regular wage to be protected in the new post wherehe has joined.

8. The workmen have relied on several exhibits, Ext. W-lis a letter from the Organising Secretary of the union tothe Agent of the Ratibati Colliery wherein the union wasmaking a grievance that the list of persons mentioned inAnnexure-A find Annexure — B . annexed1 to that letter beingWagon Loaders and M. Miners while working in time-rated jobs were being paid group wages. Accordingly theunion claimed that the workmen mentioned in Annexure Cshould not be paid Rs. 19.62 being wage and shouldbe paid more. The workmen however have not referredto these exhibits at the time of argument. Since personsmentioned in Annexure C are different persons and notthe persons mentioned in the Schedule of reference, thepurpose of referring to these documents was only to showthat the management was giving differential treatment againstcertain workers similarly placed in the time-rated scale but


not being given the benefit of other members of their gradeThe other exhibits Ext. W-2 to W-9 only show that therewas discussion between the management and the workmenfor regularisation of these people and nothing more. ExtW-10 mentioned these 14 persons whose cases are nowbeing canvassed for the purpose of giving them benefit ofprotection of their wages.

9. In the written note submitted by the management, themanagement have admitted in paragraph 10 that the concern-ed workers have already been regularised in daily-ratedposts permanently and vacated the piece-rated posts fromthe date of their transfers from Ratibati Colliery and joinedthe new collieries.

10. In the Ext. W-10 all these 14 persons have mentionedin the last but one column what was their basic wage priorto transfer, which they have mentioned by taking averageof three months wage prior to the transfer. In the lastcolumn they have mentioned the fixation of wage aftertransfer.

11. At this stage a reference may be made to a letter ofthe Deputy Chief Personnel Officer to all the Area GeneralManagers, which has been marked Ext. W-12 is dated20 March 1980 in which the management agreed that inthe interest of work or in the exigency of situation, if themanagement transferred piece-rated workers on time ratedjobs permanently against regular vacancies and they wereretained, they must be given full protection of their earn-ings. In view of this commitment which is not challengedand because of the fact that the management has not led anyevidence to counter any particulars mentioned in EXTW-10 on the transfer of 14 persons concerned as detailedin Ext. W-10, their basic wages as indicated in the last butone column of the said exhibit are to be protected. Themanagement has also not shown any ground why the work-men should be deprived of their earnings when the manage-ment indeed wanted them to go to piece-rated works. in theinterest of work or in the exigency of situation as borneout in Ext. W-12 which also goes contrary to the contentionof the management that it is only at the request of theworkmen and their insistence, the management wasabsorbing them in the time-rated scale instead of gettingreed of them by payment of retrenchment compensation.

12. A point has been raised, if this wage protection ismade on their transfer to the new collieries under the EasternCoalfields Ltd. that would exceed the maximum that ispermissible as wage in the said post. Though this fact hasnot been stated by the management in the written notes ofargument, this fact has not been proved by any evidencefrom the side of the management as the management hasnot examined any witness from their side whatsoeverThe workmen's claim is that in the event such a situationoccurs, it is open to the management to pay to each of theworkmen the maximum that is available in the time-rated postin the scale available and to pay the balance of differentialamount which they are otherwise entitled to because of theirhigher earnings at Ratibati Colliery before their transferwhen they were working as piece-rated workers an personalpay. This prayer of the workmen appears to be reasonable.

13. I accordingly answer this reference by holding thatthese 14 persons mentioned in Ext. W-10 who are alsothe persons mentioned in SI. No. 1 to 14 in the annexureto the schedule of reference, as entitled to their wage protec-tion from the date they were transferred to different unitsof collieries under the Ea°tern Coalfields Ltd. fromRatibati Colliery and their wage protection shall be on thebasis of the basic wage as mentioned in the last but onecolumn of Ext. W-10 and in the event it exceeds themaximum payable to a time-rated workman in the cost eachof the incumbent holds, the differential amount shall bepaid to him as a personal pay.


Dated, Calcutta.

The 26th February, 1997.

K. C. JAGADEB ROY, Presiding Offices

New Delhi, 20th March, 1997

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, in the indu-strial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of N.E.C.. Ltd. and their work-man, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on the 18-3-97.

[No. L-l9012|ll|86-D.IV (B)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA


PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofCoal India Limited, North Eastern Coal-fields, Margherita

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice K. C. Jagadeb Roy. PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of Management—Mr. R. N. Mazu-mder, Advocate with Mr. D. Mukherjee,Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen—Mr, J. C. Consul,Advocate.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Coal

AWARD

BY Order No. L-19012(11)|86-D.IV(B), dated3rd October, 1986, the Central Government inexercise of its powers under section 10(lXd) and(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred

2161

the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi-cation :

'"Whether the action of the Management indismissing -Shri Ram Chandra Yadav,Coal-cutter, Baragolai Colliery w.e.f.13-8-85 by the Management Coal IndiaLimited. North Eastern Coalfields,Margherita is justified ? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Both the workman the management filedtheir written statements.

3. The facts leading to the chargesheeting ofthe concerned workman Shri Ram Chandra Yadavare as follows. On 27 August, 1984 at about6.30 A.M. this workman alongwith some othersincluding one Shri Mukundi Bin Regd. No. 4774illegally assembled at the entrance of the mine ofBaragolai Colliery made abusive statement againstthe officers shouting Bhat Saheb Murdabad, ShaleSaheblog Murdabad and behaved themselves inindecent and disorderly manner. After with thisworkmen with others entered to the office premisesand forcibly tied black badges on the employeesworking in the office. This workman concernedwas issued with a charge sheet dated 27 August,1984 marked Ext., M-l in the case under thesignature of the Manager of Baragolai Collierysince this behaviour of the workman was consider-ed to be misconduct within the meaning of clause10(c)(5) of the Standing Orders, Marked Ext.M-52, applicable to the workman. The saidcharge sheet given the materials on which thecharge was framed.

According to Clause 10(c)(5) of the StandingOrders, drunkenness, fighting, riotous, disorderlyor indecent behaviour amounted to misconduct andthe workman was asked to give reply to the saidcharge. The management has filed in support ofthe incident the letter dated 27-8-1984 the reportof the Manager marked Ext. M-26. The noticeasking the workman to show cause as to why dis-ciplinary acton should not be taken against himfor the above conduct. This notice was howevernot accepted by the workman who refused toaccept. The management tried to issue the noticeto him by a Peon with the peon book but the work-man was also found absent in his quarter, uponwhich it was fixed on the door of the house of theworkman where he ordinarily resides. Theworkman however did not file any reply to thatnor report to duty and went on leave without anyleave application. The registered letter bearingthe endorsement of the postal peon showing the;refusal is also filed in this case. The managementissued a letter to the workman on 3rd September1984 marked Ext. M-2 which was posted undercertificate of posting, the certificate being markedExt. M-3., Another letter was issued again on 10September, 1984 by the Superintendent of Mineto the workman marked Ext. M-4 in which the

workman was informed by the letter dated 3-9-84that he had refused to accept the letter dated27-8-1984 and was remaining absent from workand was required to report to him which was notobeyed by the workman. By the letter dated10-9-1984 referred to above (Ext. M-4) the Super-intendent of Mine had informed the workman thatsince he was persistent in refusing to accept thecharge sheet issued to him dated 27-8-1984, hewas given a further chance to join his duty andreport to the undersigned within 3 days from thereceipt of the letter but inspite of all these, theworkman failed to report to work in obedience tothe order. Subsequently on 2nd December, 1984at about 4.45 P.M. this workman concerned along-with the aforesaid Mukundi Bin and others unlaw-fully stopped the vehicle of Shri R. D. Dewan thethen Manager (Operation) at Baragolai andthreatened him, abused him, showed riotous, dis-orderly behaviour and indecent manner towardshim on the same day again at 5 P.M. This work-man concerned alongwith the aforesaid MukundiBin- and others unlawfully trace passed to the bun-plow occupied by Shri S. N. Bhat the DeputyGeneral Manager and Shri B. Prasad, Superinten-dent of mine at Baragolai and damaged the Com-pany's property by breaking the door, windowglass of the bunglow and damaged the Company'sjeep No. AMK-2905 while behaving in riotousand indecent manner.

This subsequent action of 2nd December, 1984again promoted the management to issue a chargesheet dated 8th December, 1984 against the work-man in the following terms :

(1) "Wilful insubordination or disobedience,whether alone or in combination withanother or others of any lawful or rea-sonable order of a superior"—underClause 10(c)(l) of the Standing Orders.

(2) "Habitual late attendance and habitualabsent without leave or without sufficientcause for more than 10 days"—underClause 10(c)(4) of the Standing Orders.

(3) "Drunkenness, fighting, riotous disorder-ly or indecent behaviour"—under Clause10(c)(5) of the Standing Orders.

The said charge sheet is marked M-l 1 whichgives the basis on which the charge was framed.In the said charge sheet the workman concernedwas asked to submit his written explanation within3 days of the receipt of the notice of allegation inthe charge sheet, showing cause as to why discipli-nary action should not be taken against him. Theworkman concerned however refused to accept thischarge sheet also and did not give any reply to thecharge sheet. Since the workman failed to giveany reply to the charge sheet and avoided receiving


of the chargesheet, the management decided toinitiate a departmental proceeding against theworkman and one Shri N. C. Sur, a Mining Engi-neer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in respectof the chargesheet dated 27 August, 1984.,

Management issued a notice by letter dated17-10-1984 marked Ext. M-5 informing the work-man to present himself at 3 P.M. at I.W. Officeon 31-10-1984 to participate in the enquiry and itwas slated that he should be given full opportunityfor his defence and examine his witnesses andcross-examine the witnesses to be produced by themanagement to sustain the charges and if he didnot present himself, the notice stated that theenquiry should proceed ex parte. This letter wassigned by the Superintendent of Mines, BaragolaiColliery. The workman however did not turnupon that date namely 31-10-1984. The manage-ment thereafter gave a further notice on 1stNovember, 1984 marked Ext. M-6 intimating theworkman, another opportunity to participate in theenquiry fixing the date 20-11-1984 at the officeof the Manager, Baragolai Colliery. It was alsoindicated that if he failed to present himself in theenquiry, the enquiry shall proceed against himex pane. The workman again refused to acceptthe notice dated 1-11-1984. The managementthereafter finding no other way, published a noticein the local daily newspaper "Dainik Janmabhumi"dated 10th November, 1984 marked Ext. M-7.The workman had been informed about the en-quiry and on seeing the notice inserted in thenewspaper wrote a letter on the 12th November,1984 marked Ext. M-10 informing the manage-ment that he would not attend the enquiry whichwas fixed to 20-11-1984 at 3 P.M. He howeverrequested in his letter that since he was ill, a fur-ther date may be given. But when the EnquiryOfficer set there to hold the enquiry on 20-11-84,the workman concerned alongwith others came tothe place of the enquiry and while gharaoed theplace of the domestic enquiry, shouted variousslogans against Shri Sur and the management andthreatened Shri Sur with dire consequence. Themanagement in support of their contention wantedto reply on Ext. M-9 dated 20-11-1984. But I donot give any evidentiary value to the document asthere was a correction made in the document onthe material point and no explanation is given forthat. It is a F.I. R . made before the Officer-in-charge, Margarita Police Station which originallyshowed that during the enquiry against the charge-sheeted employee Mukundi Bin (another workman)the gherao was done by Prabhunath Chowdhuryalongwith some others and the name of MukundiBin had been scrolled through and the name ofRam Chandra Yadav has been written in his place.Therefore this part of the allegation of the mana-gement that during the enquiry of Shri Yadav on20-11-1984, Shri Yadav came with others to dis-turb is not borne out from this exhibit. Therefore,I do not accept the contention that on that day

Shri Sur was gheraoed and threatened against hislife and security. But the fact remains that therewas another proceeding against Shri Bin becauseShri Bin was also participating in disorderly con-duct alongwith Shri Yadav as stated earlier.

i may state here that the officer-in-charge of thePolice Station has not been examined to statedfrom his record if this correction was actually madetut in the original F.I. R .

Since Shri Sur refused to continue as an EnquiryQuiver, the management appointed Shri S.K.. Sarkarthe Manager of the Jaypur Colliery as EnquiryOfficer. Hut in the written note filed by the mana-gement it is stated in paragraph 9 that Shri Sarkarwas appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire intothe charges levelled against the workman concern-ed in the chargesheet dated 8-12-84. The unionhowever in paragraph 9 of the written statementurged that they had no idea about the secondchargesheet until 1-6-1985. It is also the con-tention of the workman that the notice of enquirydid not mention the name of the Enquiry Officer.These have been stated by the workman with aview to say that non-mentioning of the name of theEnquiry Officer did not afford' them completeopportunity to challenge against Shri Sur beingvested with the power of enquiry. The same thingalso apply to the appointment of Shri Sarkar andthere is nothing shown, by the management thatShri Sarkar was entrusted with the enquiry againstthe workman concerned in respect of both thechargesheets dated 8-12-1984 as well as 27-8-84,particularly on the face of their own assertion thatShri Sarkar was entrusted with the enquiry as con-tained in the chargesheet dated 8-12-1984.

4. The management has examined only onewitness Shri S. K. Sarkar who was subsequentlyappointed as Enquiry Officer. He proved all theexhibits filed by the management and he markedthe proceeding of the enquiry as Ext. M-19.According to him Shri Ram Chandra Yadav hadparticipated in the enquiry, It is an admitted factthat the management had informed the Policeabout the incident for taking necessary action, andit is admitted by Ext. M-15 that Shri Yadav hadasked for adjournment, which he allowed and headdressed the letter dated 17-6-1985 Ext. M-16 toShri Yadav asking him to be treated at the CollieryHospital and he fixed the case to 1-6-1985 thenext date, in which Shri Ram Chandra Yadavparticipated but did not participate in the enquiryon the subsequent dates. During the disciplinaryproceeding the Standing Orders were followed andthe pay sheet Ext. M-24 would show that the work-man was paid subsistence allowance during theperiod of his suspension which is 50% of his pay.It is also admitted that by the letter of the work-man dated 7-6-1984 marked Ext. M-25, Sri Yadavrequested the Enquiry Officer that since the casewas reported to the Police Station and the matter

2163

was in the appropriate Court, he would not appearand requested not to proceed with the enquiry.He admitted Ext. M-26 dated 27-8-1984 whereinthe Manager had given a note in this fashion :

"Today on 27-8-1984 at about 6.30 A.M.Shri Ram Chandra Yadav and ShriMukundi Bin employees of BaragolaiColliery and some others are illegallyassembled near the mine entrance ofBaragolai Colliery and abused the offi-cers by shouting "Bhat Sahib Murdabad,Sub Sahib Lug Murdabad" repeatedlybehaving in an incident and disorderlymanner. Thereafter they forcefully en-tered' the office premises and forciblytried to pin-up black badges on the em-ployees working in. the office. Anotherwritten complaint addressed to Suplt.(Mines) had been received from 13 Nos.of employees for forcibly pinning upblack badges.

Such action on the part of Shri Yadav andShri Bin and others accompanied themare subversive of good discipline. It isconsidered that action should be takento stop such indiscipline and riotousattitudes."

5. The Manager, by this note has already cometo the conclusion that Shri Yadav and Shri MukundiBin have forcibly entered the premises and forci-bly tried to pin-up black badges on the employeesand states such action on the part of Shri Yadavand Shri Bin is subversive to good discipline. Thenote does not say that the statement made in Ext.M-26 are the allegations which are to be enquiryinto but gave an indication that the managementwas satisfied about the happening of the misconductand wanted the action to be taken by followingthe procedure.

6. I, therefore, in conclusion come to hold thatthe enquiry is appears to be biased follow-up actionafter the management gave its direction after Ext.M-26. No materials has been shown that ShriSarkar who proceeded with the enquiry was asked;o enquire into both the chargesheets. On theother hand, the note submitted by the managementin paragraph-9 admits that Shri Sarkar was appoin-ted as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge-sheet against the concerned workman dated3-12-1984. Both the chargesheets Ext. M-29and Ext, M-11 do not show who was the EnquiryOfficer appointed and thereby affording no oppor-tunity to the workman to challenge the particulargentleman holding the enquiry for any obviousreasons. The subsequent charge sheet as per Ext.M-11 though has been stated by the workman inthe written statement to have received on 1-6-85,no further adequate opportunity has been given tohim thereafter to properly show cause.

7. That apart, this being the admitted positionthat there was a Police Case against the concernedworkman on the basis of which he had requestedthe Enquiry Officer not to proceed with the disci-plinary proceeding, pending the criminal case,which has not been accepted by the Enquiry Offi-cer, who ignored such request and proceeded withthe enquiry.

Merc allegation that the criminal case is pend-ing against the concerned workman, could notvtiate domestic enquiry or could not prove to bemala fide in not staying the disciplinary proceed-ing, pending disposal of the criminal case againstthe concerned workman. A reference can be madein th:s regard to the case of Tata Oil Mill Co. Ltd.V. Its Workmen, reported in 1964 (II) LLJ atpage 113. In this judgment the Hon'ble SupremeCourt had noticed the earlier decision of the ApexCourt in Delhi Cloth and General Mills V., KushalVan, 1960 (I)LLJ 520. In Delhi Cloth andGeneral Mills case the Court held thus :

". . . .It is desirable that if the incident givingrise to a charge framed against a work-man in, a domestic enquiry is being triedin a criminal Court, the employer shouldstay the domestic enquiry pending thefinal disposal of the criminal case. Itwould be particularly appropriate toadopt such a course where the chargeagainst the workman is of a gravecharacter, because in such a case, itwould be unfair to compel the workmanto disclose the defence which he maytaken before the Court. But to say thatthe domestic enquiries may be stayedpending criminal trial is very differentfrom saying that if an employee proceedswith the domestic enquiry inspite of thefact that the criminal trial is pending,the enquiry for that reason alone is viti-ated and the conclusion reached in suchan enquiry is either bad in law or malafide."

In the Tata Oil Mills Case (Supra) the charge-sheeted employee requested the Enquiry Officer toget two witnesses before him to give evidence onhis side. The enquiry officer though addressed thewitness to come and appear, they refused to giveevidence and sometime to appear by a witness isalso ignored by the Enquiry Officer. The domesticenquiry under this circumstance was held in viola-tion of principle of natural justice. In that casethe domestic enquiry was conducted pending acriminal case against the concerned employee inregard to the same incident and the Apex Courthold that this itself cannot vitiate the domesticenquiry or prove mala fide as already stated.

8. In the present case the workman never statedor moved anything before this Tribunal that hebrought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer thata criminal case was pending against him in regard


to the same incident and that any disclosure ofmaterials before the enquiry would affect his de-fence 'n- the criminal case. Therefore, followingthe decision of the Apex Court in Tata Oil MillsCase (supra), I also come to the finding that merependency of a criminal case itself did not takeawaythe right of the management to proceed against:the workman in a disciplinary proceeding and with-out any materials placed before this Tribunal tosubstantiate that the continuance of the disciplin-ary proceeding pending the criminal case prejudi-ced a party. I do not accept the contention of theworkman that itself vitiated the enquiry.

0. But coming to my other finding, as statedabove, I find that the principle of natural justicehad not been followed in affording adequate oppor-tunity to the workman to defend his case by notdisclosing the name of the Enquiry Officer in thechargesheet and not having a proof that Sri Sarkarwas competent to enquire into the charge sheetdated 8-12-1984 as the management had alreadymade up their mind to proceed because of the Ext.M-26 the note of the Manager.

10, Therefore, I answer this reference by sayingthat no sufficient opportunity had been given tothe workman before the order of dismissal waspassed against him, which is therefore bad andcannot stand and as already directed by my pre-decessor in office allowing the parties to led theirevidence before the Tribunal tagging the prelimi-nary point with the merit and on merits evidencehas been led by only examining one witness MW-1who also in his evidence has not stated anythingto counter any point. I also hold in merit thatthis punishment cannot stand as by the evidenceof MW-1 alone, the allegations are not establishedbefore this Tribunal.

11. In the result, I hold that the dismissal ofShri Ram Chandra Yadav, Coal Cutter, BaragolaiColliery was not justified and the said workman isentitled to be reinstated to his work with all hisback wages.

The reference is answered accordingly.Dated, Calcutta.

The 28th February, 1997.K. C, JAGADEB ROY, Presiding Officer


S.0, 1064.—In pursuance of Section II of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and their work-man, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012/127|93-IR (C.II)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ASANSOL

Reference No. 40/93

PRESENT :

Shri R. S. Mishra; presiding Officer

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofMadhavpur Colliery of M/s. E.C,. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—Sri P. Banerjee, Advo-cate.

For the Workman—None.

INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West Bengal


AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012|487|93-IR (C.II), dated23-8-93.

"Whether the action of the management ofthe Madhavpur Colliery of M|s. E.C.Ltd., in denying the medical examina-tion of Shri Maharaja' Mahato, Under-ground Loader for declaring him unfitfor the purpose of giving employment tohis dependant either under voluntary re-tirement scheme or under clause 9:4:3of NCWA-III is justified ? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2165

2. As reflected by the postal AcknowledgementCard, service of notice on the union was sufficient.But inspite of adequate opportunity the unionneither appears nor takes any step.

3. Hence 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

R. S. MISHRA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section II of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M|s. I..I.S.C.O. Ltd., and theirworkman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-1997.

[No. L-22012|219|93-IR (C.II)]

B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No. 48|93

PRESENT :

Shri R. S. Mishra, Presiding Officer

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofRamnagore Colliery of M|s. IISCO Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—None

For the Workmen—Sri C. D. Dwivedi, Ad-vocate.



AWARD873 GI/97-1

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012!219|93-IR(C.II), dated21-10-93.

"Whether the action of the management ofRamnagore Colliery of M|s. IISCO Ltd.in not allowing to join Shri BibhutiGope, A.R.W. Fitter after sick leavefrom 4-10-90 to 13-1-91 is justified ?If not, to what relief is the concernedWorkman entitled to ?"

2. Even though the reference has been postedfor ex-party hearing, the union does not take anystep. The Advocate (Sri C. D. Dwivedi) who hadbeen appearing for the union physically submitsthat he has returned back the brief to the union.


R. S. MISRA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal,Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dis-pute between the employers in relation to the managementof S.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 19-3-97.

[No. L-22012/236/94-IR(C.H)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I ATHYDERABAD

PRESENT :Sri V. V, Raghavan, B.A., L.L.B., Industrial Tribunal-I,

Dated, 22nd day of February, 1997


BETWEEN

The President, Telengana CoalMines Labour Union (INTUC),Bellampalli, Distt. Adilabad. ..Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,Singareni Collieries Company Limited,Bellampalli, Distt. Adilabad. . .Respondent


APPEARANCES :

Sri G, Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Sri William Hurra, Advocate for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhimade the following reference by its Order No. L-22012(236)/94-IR.C.II dt. 7-10-1994 for adjudication under Sections10(1) (d) and 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, ,1947 :

"Whether the action of the management in not payingCat. IV Wages to Shri V. Parasuram Reddy, Inaya-tulla, Kahab Ramulu, Medaraboina Odelu, ThummaShankar and Madela Papaiah, Conveyor KhalasisShantikhani CSP from the date of their promotionto the post of Conveyor Operator in accordancewith the Term No. 17 of Arbitration Award ofShri K. V. Raghunath Reddy dated 25-3-75 is legaland justified 7 If not, to what relief are these6 workmen entitled to and from what date ?"

2. The President of the Union filed a claims Statementcontending as follows : The workmen connected to this dis-pute (hereinafter called as Petitioners) were initially appoint-ed as General Mazdoors during the years 1974 to 1978. Sub-sequently they were promoted as Conveyor Operators andthe details of which are as follows :

SI.No.

1.2.3.4.5.6.

Name of the Workman

V. Parasuram ReddyInayathullah KhanS. RamuluMedaraboina OdeluThumma ShankarManam Sadaiah

Date ofappointment

13-6-7424-2-7624-2-7826-4-75

5-8-75"10-3-78

Date ofpromotion

15-4-8815-4-8815-4-881-11-87

1-11-871-11-87

Sri K. V. Raghunath Reddy, Arbitrator gave an Award dated17-3-95 pertaining to payment of wages to the various cate-gories of workmen. He declared that the Conveyor Opera-tors should be paid Category TV Wages. Nonetheless, thepetitioners were paid Category III Wages, only. ChinthapuriPas-ham, General Mazdoor was promoted as Conveyor Ope-rator on 16-2-1993. Similarly the General Mazdoors inMandamarri Area and Kothagudem Areas were also promot-ed as Category IV Conveyor Operators and paid as such. Thecontention of the respondent that the petitioner are not entitle-ed to Category IV Wages as they were operating only onebelt, is not correct. The petitioners are entitled to CategoryIV wages from the date of their promotions.

3. The respondent filed a counter contending as follows :t h e term No. 17 of the Arbitration Award of Shri K. V.

' Raghunath Reddy dated 25-3-1975 reads as follows :

"Demand No. 17 : Conveyor/Khalasis : The Unions havedemanded that those workmen who are presentlyplaced in Cat. III should be given a higher categoryin view of the fact that in addition to driving theconveyors, they also remove the fallen coal fromthe belt and keep the place clean. The latter jobis that of a mazdoor and I understand that in theBengal and Bihar Collieries this job is entrusted toa separate Mazdoor while the conveyor Khalasidoes only the driving. I -commend therefore, that theConvenor Khalasis in Singareni he placed in Cate-gory IV. Alternatively the management may con-sider adopting the practice that exists in Bengaland Bihar Collieries of having separate Mazdoorsfor this work."

As per the said Award, the conveyor operators who are en-trusted with driving the convevors and removing the fallencoal from the belt, should be paid Category IV Wages. TheConveyor Khalasis who are operating the conveyor belt onlyand who are given the assistance of General Mazdoor forpicking up the fallen coal should be paid Category III Wagesonly. The petitioners are operating the belt only. They arenot picking up the fallen coal, So they are paid Category IIIWages only. The other workmen referred in the claimsstatement are picking up the fallen coal also in addition to

operating the conveyor belts. So they are paid Category IVWages. They are the seniors than the petitioners. Theyare working in the higher categories, than the petitioners. Thyseniority is mine wise and not area wise. Hence the peti-tioners are not entitled to Category IV Wages.

4. The point for consideration is whether the petitionersare entitled to Category IV Wages from the date of thenpromotion as Conveyor Operators '?

5. POINT..—The decision in this case rests upon the inter-pretation of Award dated 25-3-75 given by Sri K. V.Raghunath Reddy, the then Minister for Labour, CentralGovernment and the actual work done by the petitioners.

6. The relevant portion of the award is extracted above.I agree with the contention of the Management that theConveyor Operator also called as Conveyor Khalasi is paidCategory III wages if he operates the conveyor only. Heis entitled to Category IV Wages if he picks up the fallencoal from the belt and keeps the premises clean. Therespondent-Management gave assistance of general Mazdoorto the Conveyor Operators who are not willing to pick upthe fallen coal from the belt. The said conveyor operatorsarc paid category III Wages only.

7. The petitioners did not mention in their claims state-ment that they have been picking up the fallen coal fromthe belt. If they are picking up the fallen coal from thebelt, they are entitled to Category IV Wages as per theAward of Sri K. V. Raghunath Reddy. Their contentionthat the moment they are promoted as conveyor operatorsthey are entitled to Category IV wages is not correct. Thepetitioner examined W.W. 1 and W.W. 2. They did not statein chief examination that they were picking up the fallen coalfrom the belt, but they have denied the suggestion in cross-examination that they were not picking up the fallen coalfrom the belt. W.W. 2 admits that besides the conveyoroperators, there are picking and lump breakers called P.L.Bs.Though they are not working with them. As against theevidence of the two workmen, we have the evidence ofDy. Personnel Manager in Bellampalli area as M.W. 1 andDivl. Engineer in Shantikhani C.S.P.. as M.W. 2. The peti-tioners are working in Shantikhani C.S.P. Both the witnesseshave stated that the petitioners are not willing to pick upthe Spillage coal and so they have posted the General Maz-doors at places where the petitioners have been workingfor picking up the spillage coal M.W. 2 filed Ex. M 11extract from work distribution register for the months fromJuly to September, 1996. Ex. M10 is a bunch of extractsfrom June to August, 1993. The evidence discloses thatthe petitioners are not willing to pick up the spillage coal.They are given Assistant General Mazdoors. So they arebeing paid Category III Wages only, I have no reasonto disbelieve the evidence of M.Ws. 1 and 2. I hold thatthe petitioners are not doing the work of picking up ofspillage coal and so they are not entitled to Category IVWages.

8. The contention of the petitioners that they are seniorsto the workers who are paid category IV Wages, is notcorrect, in view of the entries in Ex. M5 Statement, whosecorrectness is not disputed. The seniority position is alsospoken to by M.W. 1 is as follows:

"Mr. Chintapali Posham was promoted as Category IVConveyor Operator by Ex. M2 office order dated23-2-1993. He was picking and lump breaker.(PLB), A picking and lump breaker belongs toCategory II, When he works for 10 years in thesame category, he is given Category III under ser-vice linked Upgradation scheme. Mr. Posham wasin Category II before he was promoted to CategoryIV as can be seen from Ex M3 a COPY of actingmuster. Mr. B. Komal and D. Ramulu were inPLB-III where as B. Mallaiah was the general maz-door Category TT by the date: of the promotion toCategory IV. They were Promoted to Category IVon 1-9-90 by Ex. M4 order dated 17-11-1990. Theywere given promotion us they have been officiatingin higher category by them. The petitioners were inCategory I by 1988 when they were promoted toCategory III By then. Mr. R. Komal. B. Mallaiahand Sri D. Ramulu were in Category III CategoryII and Category III respectively, The later 3 areseniors than the petitioner. Mr. Komal,

2167

Mr. Mallaiah and Mr. Ramulu were not given theassistance of the General Mazdoor for picking thespilled coal and keeping the place clean. Mr. K.Satyanarayana and Chandra Mouli who were ingeneral Mazdoors Category I Cadre were promoted'to Conveyor operator Category IV on 30-10-86 andwere confirmed as such with effect from 1-2-87 byEx. W 11 dated 201h June, 1985. By then the peti-tioners workmen were in General Mazdoor Category1. Mr. Satyanarayana and Chandra Mouli areseniors than the Petitioners-workmen."

So the petitioners cannot complain that they arc paid lesswages than their juniors. It depends upon the work doneand not the seniority.

9, In the above, circumstances, I hold that the petitionersare not entitled to Category IV Wages till now. Howeverthey would be entitled to Category - IV Wages, if they offerto pick up the spilled coal also while acting as ConveyorOperator, in writing and so long as they do the said workin future. An Award is passed accordingly. .

Dictated to the Steno — typist, transcribed by him, correctedby me and given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal,

this the 22nd day of February, 1997.V. V. RAGHAVAN, Industrial Tribunal

Appendix of EvidenceWitnesses examined for Witnesses examined for

the petitioner the Respondent

W.W.I : V. Parusurama Reddy.W.W.2 : M. Odelu.

M.W.I : Hasan Abbas,M.W.2 : Kabir Ahmed,Documents marked for the Petitioner :

Ex. Wl—Office Order dated 8-4-88 issued to Sri V.Parusurama Reddy promoting him as Conveyor Ope-rator-Cat. III.

Ex. W2: Office Order dated 10-12-92 issued to V. Para-surama Reddy transferring him to Shantikhani CSPwith same capacity.

Ex. W3: Office Order dated 17-6-88 issued to M. Odeluregarding the promotions were confirmed.

Ex. W4: Office Order dated 11-3-89 issued to V. Para-surama Reddy.

Ex. W5: Promotion Order dated 17-11-90 given to D.Komal, D. Mallaiah and D, Mamulu as ConveyorOperators Cat -IV

Ex, W6: Promotion Order dated 23-2-93 given to Ch.Posham as Conveyor Operator Cat. IV.

Ex. \V7: Representation dated 7-9-93 made to the ALC,Mancherial.

Ex. M8: Minutes of conciliation dated. 24-3-94.Ex. W9: ALC, Mancherial Failure report dated 31-3-94.fix. W10/21-4-90: Xerox copy of office order promoting

N. Venkaty and others to the next higher categoryshown against their names w.e.f. 1-7-89.

Ex. W 11: Office Order dated 20-6-87 confirming thepromoted conveyor operators in Category IV w.e.f.1-2-87.

Ex. W12: Promotion Order dated 31-10-87 given toWW2 and others as Conveyor Operator Category-II.

Ex. W13: Pay Slip of Gutta Rajanna for the month of11 /92,

Ex. W14: Pay Slip of Bommai Raji Reddy for the monthof 6/94.

Ex. W15: Office Order dated 31-9-95 issued to PonnalaOdaiah and 3 others promoting as Conveyor Ope-rator Category IV.

Ex. W16: Office Order dated 22-8-96 issued to PonnalaOdaiah and 2 others conferring them as ConveyorOperator Cat. IV w.e.f. 30-3-96.

Ex. W17: Pay Slip of Basikala Narayana for the month. of 9/96.

Documents marked for the Respondent :

Ex. M l : Copy of Award dated 25-3-75 given by Sri K.V.Raghunath Reddy, the then Union Labour Minister.

Ex M2: Promotion Order dated 23-2-93 issued to Ch.Posham picking and lump breakers promoted asConveyor Operator.

Ex. M3: Copy of Acting Musters of workers,Ex. M4: Order of promotion dated 17-11-90.Ex. M5: List of conveyor operators working in Shanti-

khani CSP.Ex. M6: Information furnished by the Colliery Manager

of Mongan's Pit providing Genl. Mazdoors to SI. 13for cleaning the Spillage Coal.

Ex. -M7: Information sent by the MVK-I Incline Mana-ger regarding providing General Mazdoors to pickup shall (which Is partly coal and partly stone).

Ex, M8: Another information letter with regard to SI.Nos. 19 to 21 providing General Mazdoors to pickup Shall.

Ex. M9: Another letter with regard to SI. No. 22 to24 of Ex. M5 by the Colliery Manager Goleti-1Incline,

Ex, M10: Extract from work distribution register (xeroxcopy).

Ex. M 1l: Extract from work distribution register (xeroxcopy) for the months of July 1996 to September1996.

Ex. M12: Office Order dated 21-4-90 issued to N. Ven-katy and 26 others placing in the next higher cate-gory after completion of 10 years service.

Ex. M13: Office Order dated 17-11-90 issued to B.Mallaiah and 2 others.

Ex, M14: Office Order dated 14-12-92 Issued to JogulaNambiah and another.

Ex. MI5: Office Order dated 23-12-93 issued to ChintapuPosham.

Ex. M16: Bunch of paper showing the persons whoacted as Incharge Conveyor Operator from August1996 to November 1996 of General MazdoorsCategory I.


Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indu-strial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M|s. B.C. Ltd., and theirworkman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012|12[94-IR (C.II)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

2168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAlTRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXUREBEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ASANSOL

Reference No. 12|94

PRESENT :

Shri R. S. Mishra, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES :Employers in relation to the management of

Seetalpur Colliery of M|s. E.C., Ltd.

ANDTheir Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—Sri P, K. Das, AdvocateFor the Workmen—None



AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred on.them by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012(12)|94-IR(C.II), dated24-5-94.

"Whether the action of the management ofSeetalpur Colliery in terminating the ser-vices of Shri Manik Bouri, GeneralMazdoor with effect from 26/27-12-89is legal and justified ? If not. to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitledto?"

2. Notice on the workman, was sufficient, asreflected by the postal Acknowledgement Card.He also appeared. But in spite of sufficient oppor-tunity neither Written Statement is filed nor anystep is taken.

3. Hence 'No Dispute Award ' is passed.



Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indu-strial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and theirworkman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012|93|95-IR (C.H)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No. 52|95

PRESENT :

Shri R. S. Mishra, Presiding Officer.


Dhandadih O.C.P. of M|s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—None.For the Workmen—None.


AWARD


The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012|93|95-IR (CII), dated27-9-95.

"Whether the action of the management infixation of pay of Sh., Kehar Singh,Mechanic Gr. I, DDOCP, Kajora' Areaof M\s. E.C. Ltd., is justified ? If not,what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. Even though the union initially appearedthrough their Advocate, they do not file WrittenStatement and they do not take any other step,in spite of sufficient opportunity.


R.. S. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

2169


S.O. 1069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indus-trial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and theirworkman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-97.

(No. L-22012|325]95-IR (C-II)JB. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No. 10|96

PRESENT :Shri R. S. Mishra, Presiding Officer.


Sangramgarh Colliery, of M/s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :For the Employer—None.For the Workmen—None.


Dated, the 21st February, 1997

AWARDThe Government of India in the Ministry of

Labour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012|325|95-IR (C.II), dated22nd February, 1996.

"Whether the action of the management ofSangramgarh Colliery under Salanpur

Area of E.C. Ltd. in denying employ-ment to the dependent of Lalji Bhuinya,EXOBR under clause 9.4.3 of NCWA.III is legal and justified ? If not, thenwhether the son-in-law or the youngerbrother are entitled for employment asdependent ?"

2. Inspite of service of notice on the union byregistered post, as reflected by the postal Acknow-ledgement Card, the union does not appear ordoes not take any step.

3. 'No Dispute Award' is accordingly passed.

R. S. MISHRA. Presiding Officer


S.O., 1070.--In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indus-trial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and theirworkman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012|326|95-IR (C-II)]


ANNEXURE


Reference No. 9|96

PRESENT :

Shri R.S. Mishra, Presiding Officer.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofSangramgarh Colliery of M/s. E.C. Ltd.


AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :For the Employer—NoneFor the Workmen—None.


Dated, the 21st February, 1997

AWARDThe Government of India in the Ministry of

Labour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012|326|95-IR (C-II), dated22-2-96.

"Whether the action of the management ofSangramgarh Colliery under SalanpurArea of ECL in denying employment tothe dependent of Madhusudan Modi,Ex-Coal Cutter under clause 10.4.3 of-NCWA. II is legal and justified ? If not,then whether the son-in-law or the sonSh. Umesh Modi arc entitled for employ-ment as dependent ?"

2. In spite of service of notice on the union byregistered post, as reflected by the postal Acknow-ledgement Card, the union does not appear ordoes not take any step.

3. 'No Dispute Award' is accordingly passed.

R.S. MISHRA, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indus-trial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and their

workman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012|484!95-IR (C-U)lB. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


PARTIES :Reference No. 40|96

PARTIESPRESENT :

Shri R. S. Mishra, Presiding Officer.Employers in relation to the management of

Lachipur Colliery of M/s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :For the Employer—Sri P., Banerjee, Advocate.For the Workmen—None.,

INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West BengalDated, the 5th March, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-22012/484/95-IR (C-II), dated26-9-96.

"Whether the action of the management ofLachipur Colliery under Kajora Area ofM|s. E.C.L. P.O., Kajoragram, Distt.Burdwan (W.B.) in superannuating Sh.Gunjeswar Prasad, Ex-Register Keeperw.e.f. 1-7-88 is justified ? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled ?"

2.. Even though the union initially appearedthrough their Advocate, they do not file WrittenStatement and they do not take any other step, inspite of sufficient opportunity.

3. Hence 'No Dispute Award is passed.


2171


S.O. 1072,—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M|s. E.C. Ltd. and their work-man, which Was received by the Central Govern-ment on- the 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012[538]95-IR (C.II)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No. 39|96

PRESENT :


PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofLachipur Colliery of M[s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen


INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West BengalDated, the 5th March, 1997

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour m exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry's26-9-96 No. L-22012/538/95-IR (C.II), dated

"Whether the action of the management ofLachipur Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s.ECL in denying the grant of servicelinked increment to $h. Kishun Rabidas

W.E. Operator and 27 others (list en-closed) is justified ? If not, what reliefthe workmen are entitled to ?"

2. Even though the union initially appearedthrough their Advocate, they do not file WrittenStatement and they do not take any other step inspite of sufficient opportunity.




S.O. 1073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M|s. E.C. Ltd., and their work-man, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 18-3-97.

[No. L-22012|570|95-IR(C.II)lB. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No. 27|96

PRESENT :



Kajora Area Colliery of M|s. E.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen


INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West BengalDated the 5th March, 1997


AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour in exercise of the powers conferred onthem by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-putes Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry'sOrder No. L-220l2|570|95-IR (C.II). dated21-8-96.

"Whether the delay in offering employmentto Sh,, Bhavesh Halani son of late Rati-lal Halani, Asstt. Foreman by the mana-gement of Kajora Area of M/s. ECL,P.O. Kajoragram, Distt. Burdwan(W.B.)is justified ? If not, what relief the work-man is entitled to ?"

2. Even though the union initially appearedthrough their Advocate, they do not file WrittenStatement and they do not take any other step,in spite of sufficient opportunity.




S.O. 1074.—In, pursuance; of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Industrial Tribunal, Madras as shown in theAnnexure, in the industrial dispute between theemployers in relation to the management of Pon-kumar Magnesite Mines Salem and their workman,which was received by the Central Government onthe 20-3-1997.

[No. L-27011|O3|84-D-III(B)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMILNADU,

MADRASThursday, the 12th day of September, 1996

PRESENT:

Thiru S. Thangaraj, B.Sc, L.L.B.,

Industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 56/1987

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication underSection 10(1) (d) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 between the workmen and themanagement of Ponkumar Magnesite MineSalem).

BETWEEN

The Workmen represented by,The General Secretary,Salem District Magnesite Labour Union.237, Thirumangalam Road,Old Suramangalam,Salem-636005,Tamil Nadu.

AND

The Proprietor,

Sri Ponkumar Magnesite Mines,Periagollapatty,Salem-636008,Salem Dt. Tamil Nadu.

2. Sh. P. V. Damodaran3. Sh. K. Cinnapaiyan4. Sh. C. Mari5. Sh. K. Lakshmanan6. Sh. C. Pachiannan Contractor,7. Sh. C. Kandan Sri Ponkumar8 .Sh. C. Raman Magnesite Mines.9. Sh. A. Kasipillai Jagir Ammapalayam,

10. Sh. R. Subramani Salem-636302,11. Sh. K. Sivaraj District Salem,12. Sh. N. Mani Tamil Nadu.

13. Sh. A. Murthusamy14. Sh. D. Iyyandurai15. Sh. P. Arumugam16. Sh. Sevi17. Sh. Palanisamy

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-2701l|3|84-D. III(B), dt.6-5-1987, Ministry of Labour, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi.

2173

This dispute coming on for final hearing onThursday the 22nd day of August, 1996 uponperusing the reference, claim and Counter state-ments and all other material papers on record andupon hearing the arguments of Tvl. N.G.R. Prasad,and S. Vaidyanathan, for Tvl. Row & Reddy,Advocates appearing for the workmen and of ThiruH.J.G. Davidar, Advocate appearing for Manage-ment No. 1 and of Tvl. T. S. Gopalan & S. Ravin-dran, Advocates appearing for the Contractors 2,10. 14 and 15 and other contractors being absent,and this dispute having stood over till this day forconsideration this Tribunal made the following :

AWARD

Government of India, by its Order No. L-27011|3|84-D. III(B) dated 6-5-87 and by its Corrigen-dum dated 24-8-87, to the said order has referredthis dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication of thefollowing issue :

"Whether the action of the Contractors ofPonkumar Magnesite Mines, Salem (asper list enclosed) in denying enhancedrates of wages mentioned below, isjustified ? If not, to what relief the work-men are entitled to ?"

Class of workers Rates of wages

Un-skilled Rs. 12.25 per daySemi skilled Rs. 15.25 per daySkilled Rs. 19.00 per dayClerical Rs. 19.00 per day

Fixed Dearness Allowance Rs. 293.80per month- Variable Dearness Allowanceshould be paid (a) Rs. 1.75 per pointover and above 470 points of the AllIndia Cost of Living Index (1960 = 100)

2. On receipt of notices, petitioner and respon-dent numbers 1, 2, 10, 14 and 15 appeared beforethis Tribunal. Respondent number 3, 4. 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 16 were called absent andhave not filed any documents. The petitioners havefiled their claim statement and also additional claimstatement. The respondents have filed their counterstatement. The petitioner-union has filed the replystatement.

3. The main averments found in the claim state-ment filed by the petitioner-union are as follows :

The petitioner-union submitted a demand to theRegional Labour Commissioner (C), Madras on25-1-79 and negotiations were held between theparties and thereafter challenging the decision takenby the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the peti-tioner-union filed Writ Petition No. 840180 beforethe High Court of Madras and on the orders passedby the High Court, the matter was referred to this872 GI/97—8

Tribunal. In the same region similar magnesitemines workers working in different companies weregetting more wages than the workers working underthe respondents. In M[s. Dalmia Magnesite Corpo-ration, M|s. Burn Standard Company and M/s.Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, the wages paid tothe workers are :

(a) Class of workers Rate of wagesUn-skilled Rs. 13.40 per daySemi skilled Rs. 14.90 per daySkilled Rs. 16.60 per day

(b) Fixed D.A. of Rs. 293.80 upto 470points.

(c) Variable Dearness Allowance of Rs. 1.30per point, rise above 470 points. Subse-quently the Variable Dearness allowancewas enhanced as Rs. 1.65 per point riseabove 492 points.

(d) House Rent Allowance of Rs. 19.50 permonth.

An unskilled worker working for 26 days inMay 1987 got Rs. 1012.05 (Onethousand twelve rupees and five paise)as wages (wage, D.A., VDA and HRA)at All India Consumer Price Index—687points.

On the basis of the wages paid by the other mag-nesite companies the workmen of PonkumarMagnesite Mines should be paid as detailed below :

Class of workers Wage

Unskilled Rs. 10.00Semi-skilled Rs. 10.70Skilled Rs. 11.50

Increment Total

25.00 per day 35.0040.00 per day 50.70

52.00 per day 63.50

The increment should be granted for 4 years since1984 and the arrears be paid to the workmen.

4. The main averments found in the additionalclaim statement filed by the petitioner-union are asfollows :

As per corrigendum issued by Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour dated 24-8-87, amendedreference has been made. The workers of othermagnetise mines in the same region are gettingmore Basic wage. Fixed dearness allowance,Variable Dearness allowance etc. The respondentsshould also pay in accordance with the wages andother allowances paid by the similar magnesitemines in the same region.


5. The main averments found in the counterstatement filed by the first respondent arc asfollows :

The fast respondent is a partnership firm andin 1963, if. took on lease 193.64 acres of land andthe lease was initially for a period of 2 years andthereafter the Government of Tamil Nadu granteda fresh lease for a period of 20 years which expiredon 2-9-85. On the expiry of the lease period thisfirst respondent closed the magnesite mines from2-9-85. The present dispute raised by the petitioner-union became infructuous on the closure of themines from 2-9-85. The Government of Tamil Nadurejected the renewal of lease on 4-3-86 and theGovernment of India granted an interim stay of theorder passed by the Government of Tamil Naduand pursuant to that order, the first respondentresumed mining operation from 28-4-86. On17-3-87, the Central Government rejected theapplication of the first respondent and the first res-pondent filed Writ Petition No. 4592|87 andWMP No. 6747/87. An order of injunction waspassed by the High Court, Madras restraining theGovernment of India from interfering with therespondent's possession of the land and the miningoperations. The said order was made absolute on16-12-87. The first respondent had entered intocontracts with respondents 2 to 16 for supply oflabour to carry on mining operation. These con-tractors had taken out licences under the ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition Act). Thepresent dispute has been raised by the workmen ofthe respondents 2 to 16. Hence the first respondentis not liable for the claim. The liabilities of thefirst respondent are limited as per S. 20 and 21of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition')Act and hence the first respondent is not liablefor the increase in wages claimed by the peti-tioner-union. The first respondent is not the em-ployer of the workmen on whose behalf the refe-rence has been made, and they are not the work-men of the first respondent. The reference itselfis bad in law,, For these reasons, the reference maybe rejected.

6. The main averments found in the Counterfiled by respondent number 2 are as follows.—The 2nd respondent had taken out a licence toengage contract labour in Sri Ponkumar MagnesiteMines, The licence was first granted on 26-7-83and renewed on 5-1-87. The respondent usedto employ 50 workmen. Ponkumar MagnesiteLabour Union has been recognised as a sole bar-gaining agent of the workmen employed by thesecond respondent. The contractors and thePonkumar Magnesite Labour Union used to enterinto the settlement and one such settlement wasreached on 20-5-81. Again another settlementwas arrived at on 14-5-84 and as per the Settle-ment a further increase of Rs. 4 per day for thosewho have put in more than two years of service

on 31-12-83 in addition to the existing wages andRs. 3 for those with less than 2 years of serviceas on 31-12-83 and for those who have joinedon 1-1-84 or thereafter the existing wage rate ofRs. 9.75 per day. The settlement also providedfor annual increment ranging from 0.10 paise to0.20 paise per day. On the date of settlement 2ndrespondent had 37 workmen. The petitioner-union has no representative character to representthe workmen of the 2nd respondent and to theknowledge of the 2nd respondent, it's workmenwere neither the members of the petitioner-unionnor they authorised the petitioner-union to placeany demand on their behalf. The settlement dated14-5-84 is binding on all the workmen of the 2ndrespondent and order of reference passed includ-ing the 2nd respondent's workers is invalid. ThePonkumar Magnesite Mines lease was not renew-ed by Government of Tamil Nadu, after 2-9-85,and the mine was closed from 31-8-85. Conse-quent to the closure of mines, the 2nd respondentterminated the services of the workmen and paidcompensation in terms of Sec. 25(fff) of the I.D.Act. Therefore, there is no valid dispute as onthe date of reference. At present the 2nd res-pondent is making payment to these workmen aminimum wage of Rs. 12.25 per day for unskilled,Rs. 15.25 for semiskilled workmen and Rs. 19for skilled workmen. There is no merit in thereference and the same may be dismissed.

7, The main averments found in two separatereply statement to the counter statement filed bythe first and second respondent are as follows.—There was suspension of Mines operation by thefirst respondent and there was no closure. Hencethe dispute does not become infructuous. Thependency of Writ petitioner in W.P. No. 4592/87cannot affect the rights of workmen in an Indus-trial dispute. The workers of the first respondentare paid less than Rs. 18 per day. whereas theworkers in the other mines like Dalmia MagnesiteMines, and Burn Standard Co. Ltd., are gettingRs, 40 to Rs. 45 per day as basic and dearnessallowance. The employer is liable to pay and sothe first respondent is answerable for the claimas per Sec. 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Re-gulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

8, The petitioner has examined six witnesseson its side and marked Exs. W-1 to W-21 and therespondent has examined 3 witnesses and mark-ed Exs. M-l to M-29.

9, The point for consideration is :

"Whether the action of the Contractors ofPonkumar Magnesite Mines, Salem (as

2175

per list enclosed) in denying enhancedrates of wages mentioned below is justi-fied ? If not, to what relief the work-men are entitled to ?"

Class of workers Rate of Wages.Un-skilled Rs. 12.25 per day.Semi-skilled Rs. 15.25 per day.Skilled Rs. 19.00 per day.Clerical Rs. 19.00 per day.

Fixed dearness allowance Rs. 293.80 per month.Variable Dearness allowance should be paid @Rs. 1.75 per point over and above 470 points ofthe All India Cost of living index (1960=100).

10. The Point—Workmen employed underthe 16 contractors of Ponkumar Magnesite Mines,Salem represented by the Salem District MagnesiteLabour Union, Salem have raised this disputefor the revision of rates of wages, fixed dearnessallowance. Respondents 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 12 13and 16 have not filed any counters. The firstrespondent is proprietor of Ponkumar MagnetiteMines and respondents 2 to 17 are the contractorsunder whom the workers are working in themines. Before entering into the question of rateof wages and other allowances, it is better todecide some broad questions raised by the res-pondents.

11. It was contended by the respondents thatthe petitioner-union has no representative capacityto espouse the case of the workmen working inSri Ponkumar Magnesite Mines, Salem. The res-pondents have contended that since majority ofthe workmen have not joined with the petitioner-union in raising the dispute, it is not a validLD. under Sec. 2(k) of the I.D. Act. Ex. W-16shows that the petitioner-union known as theSalem District!Magnesite Labour Union, Salemhave 278 workmen in their membership. It was con-tended that out of 400 workmen employed in thefirst respondent mines, 278 workmen form themajority and they were members of the petitioner-union at the time of raising the dispute. To raisethis dispute the executive committee has passedthe resolution under Ex. W-17. The respondentshave contended that Ex. W-17 resolution has notbeen passed in the General Body Meeting and theresolution passed b y the executive committee res-tricted to certain office bearers was not a valid re-solution to raise a valid industrial dispute. Onthe other hand the petitioner has argued thatsince the executive committee has passed theresolution representing all the members of theunion who were workmen in the first respondentmines, valid resolution to raise a valid industrial dis-pute. It was also argued on the side of the res-pondent that Ex. W-18 reveals that the AssistantCommissioner of Labour, Salem has made spotverification and found that petitioner-union hassubstantial membership. However it was

also shown by the petitioner-union that the claimmade in the dispute is for increase in wages,dearness allowance and by nature it is a collectivedispute and not an individual dispute and there-tore, the petitioner-union has got every rightto raise the dispute on behalf of its memberswho are working in the first respondent mines.The respondents have relied on to a ruling ofour High Court in Murugan TransportVs. ITS WORKESS AND ANOTHER (1960 ILLJ P 349) wherein it has been held ;

"The net position" is that there is no satis-factory, in fact, no proof whatever toshow that the general body authorizedits Secretary or any of its other officersto make this demand on behalf of theseeight individuals on the managements.There was, therefore, no evidence what-ever to show that there was an industrialdispute."

In the case referred to in the decision eight wor-kers were dismissed and the Secretary of theUnion called upon the management for reinstate-ment of 8 dismissed employees and when themanagement refused to comply with the request,the industrial dispute has been raised by the Union.In such circumstances, our High Court has heldthat there was no evidence of proof to show thatthe General Body of the Union authorised theSecretary or any of its office bearers to make thedemand on behalf of eight dismissed employees,and so. Reference under Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act,was invalid. In the instant case, the demand madeby the petitioner-union is one under collectivebargaining and such a demand cannot be raisedby any individual worker. It was argued on theside of the petitioner, the very nature of thedemand regarding rise in wage and allowances canbe raised only collectively and not by individuals,Therefore, passing resolution by the General Bodymeeting would not arise, as every individual hasgot a reasonable cause in the dispute. In TheManagement of. Madura Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Presid-ing Officer, Industrial Tribunal," Madras (1973II LLJ p 341) it has been held by our High Court:

"If the dispute relates to any of the othermatters contemplated by S. 2K, the partiesto the dispute should have a direct ofsubstantial interest. In other words per-sons who seek to support the cause ofthe concerned workmen, must themselvesbe directly or substantially interested."

This decision almost supports the argument advanc-ed by the petitioner-union. In workmen of BrookeBond (I) Ltd., Vs. Industrial Tribunal (1989 IILLN Page 699) it has been held :

"However, it has got to be noted that thestrength of workmen espousing the cause


must lead to a legitimate inference thatthe dispute is one which affects the work-men as a class. The industrial disputecould be taken up, either by the Unionof workmen or by an appropriate numberof workmen of the management. To putit in other words, it must be a collectivedispute and that alone will constitute anindustrial dispute. The concept of a col-lective dispute should not be construedto mean that all the workmen of themanagement or a majority of themshould sponsor and support the dispute.It would be sufficient, if the industrialdispute has the support of a substantialbody of the workmen concerned in themanagement. The industrial disputecould be raised even by a minority unionor by an un-recognised union. The abovepropositions could not be disputed sincethey are those gleaned from the pro-nouncements of the highest Court in theland."

From this decision it is clear than an industrialdispute should have the substantial number of work-men. From Ex. W-16 and W-17 it is clear that asubstantial number of workmen have supported thedispute raised on their behalf by the petitioner-union. For these reasons, it can be said that thedispute has been validly raised by the petitioner-union.

12. The petitioner-union has raised this disputefor enhanced rates of wages for the workmen ofthe 16 contractors who are engaged in the miningoperations of Sri Ponkumar Magnesite Mines,Salem District. The petitioner-union demands thewage on par with the wages paid to the workmenengaged in similar work in Bum Standard Company,Salem, Tamil Nadu Magnesites and Daimia Mag-nesite Corporation. It is the contention of the firstrespondent that those companies are engaged inbigger operations than the first respondent companywhich is doing the mining operation in a smallerscale and the first respondent company is not in aposition to pay the same wages to its workers onpar with the wages paid by three other companies.It was also argued on the side of the firest respon-dent that before passing any award for wage riseit has to be considered as to (i) whether the em-ployer has financial capacity to meet the additionalburden by way of increased wages, (ii) whetherdemand is justified on the principle of region-cum-industries basis (iii) the impact of the demand onthe resources of the employer. However, the firstrespondent has not produced any balance sheet forthe relevant years to show their financial capacityin order to prove that they were unable to meetthe additional burden by way of increased wagesand such increase would have a negative impact

on the resources of the employer. The petitionerunion has drawn my attention to ruling of the ApexCourt in Khateeja Bai Vs. The SuperintendingEngineer & others (1896 II LLJ P 314) at page317, it has been held :

"There was then the usual lament that a largenumber of employees were involved and,therefore the cost will be heavy. We donot understand this argument at all. Doesit mean that beneficent legislation andbeneficent schemes must be confined tosmall establishments employing a fewworkers only ? On the other hand it ismisleading to say that the cost is heavy,The cost is made to appear heavy diver-ced from the size of the establishment.If the establishment is huge and if a largenumber of workmen are employed thetotal wage-bill may appear to be heavy,but is it really so. If is disproportionateto the size of the establishment, its re-sources, its revenues and its other ex-penditure ? Is the individual wage-billalso very high ? To talk of heavy costwithout reference to other circumstancesis to present an entirely unfaithfulpicture. We need make no furthercomment."

From the above decision of our Supreme Court, itis clear that first respondent cannot contend thatby raising the wage of the workers will causefinancial burden on him. However, whether thedemand is justified on the principle of region-cum-industry basis is a matter if necessary has to bedecided after considering all the other groundsraised by both the parties.

13. The first respondent has contended that inview of various settlements entered into between thefirst respondent-management and the worker'sunion, the claim of the petitioner-union should notbe considered. To substantiate this argument, therespondents have shown various settlements ExM. 20 dated 20-5-91 is the settlement u|s. 12(3)of the I.D. Act, which was in operation between1-4-81 to 31-12-83. Ex. M. 23 is a settlemententered into between the management and some ofthe unions on 14-8-81 u/s. 18(1) of the I.D. Actand the same was in operation between 1-1-84 to31-12-86. Ex. W-6 is another settlement enteredinto between the management and the union u|s.12(3) of the Act for the period between 1-7-89 to30-6-92. Ex. M. 18 dated 4-7-91 is another settle-ment entered into between the parties u/s. 12(3)of the I.D. Act. Ex. M. 29 is the settlement dated23-8-85 entered into between the management andthe workers u/s. 12(3) of the I.D. Act which is inoperation from 1-3-95 to 31-3-89. Exs. M. 20,M. 21, W-6 and M. 29 are settlements whereinworkers have agreed not to raise any further de-mands which will have direct or indict financial

2177

implications in any manner. Except M. 21, allother settlements have been entered into betweenthe parties u|s. 12(3) of the I.D. Act. Therefore,the binding nature of the settlements on the work-men as well as the management cannot be consi-dered lightly. Though Ex. M. 18 is the settlemententered into between the parties u/s. 12(3) of theAct, it was after the abolition of the contract laboursystem and the workmen of the contractors weretaken as a fresh entrants in the services of the firstrespondent.

14. It was argued on the side of the respondentsthat Ex. M. 20 was a settlement u|s. 12(3) of theI.D. Act and the said settlement was in operationbetween 1-4-81 and 31-3-83 and no action hasbeen taken either by the petitioner-union or by anyother union to cancel the settlement by a subse-quent notice issued u|s. 19(6) of the I.D. Act.It was further argued that since Ex. M. 20 settle-ment was not cancelled by a subsequent notice, itbinds the parties continuously and the referencemade by the petitioner-union which is against theadmitted conditions of the settlement is invalid inlaw. On the other hand, it was argued on the sideof the petitioner-union that Ex. M. 20 settlementwas in operation till 31-12-83 and it had no ope-ration on the date of reference and therefore, thereference is valid in law. The respondents furthercontend that the dispute was raised by the petitio-ner-union on 25-1-79 and the Conciliation FailureReport was submitted to the Government on28-11-84. Thereafter, the reference has been madeon 6-5-87. Though, Ex. M. 20 was not subsequentlyterminated by the notice u|s. 19(6) of the I.D.Act, subsequent to M. 20 many more settlementscame into operation after the period of reference.One important fact which should be pointed outherein is that between 1-1-87 to 30-6-89 there wasno settlement which was in operation and duringthat period the reference has been made by Gov-ernment on 6-5-87. In Working Journalists ofHindu Vs. Hindu [1961 (1) LLJ p. 289] it hasbeen held by the Apex Court.

"Hence it must held that the jurisdiction ofthe Labour Court to proceed with thematter will depend on whether the Indus-trial dispute referred to it for adjudicationinsisted or was appreciated on the dateof reference and not on any subsequentdate."

From this decision it is clear that this industrialdispute has to be adjudicated in respect of matterspending on the date of reference. When we consi-der that fact, Exs. W-6, M. 18 and M. 29 settle-ments do not come into pay. The operation of Ex.M. 20 and M. 21 beyond the period fixed for theiroperation is a matter which will not make anydifference as the fact remains, between 1-1-87 to30-6-89 there was no settlement between the parties.

15. Another important factor which has to boseen in proper perspective in this dispute is thefluctuations in running the mines and 10 continuethe industry tor further period. Originally as perG.O.Ms. No. 3140 dated 12-6-93, the first res-pondent got a lease of 193.64 acres of land for aperiod of two years and thereafter the lease wasextended for a period of 20 years. On the expiryof lease, on 2-9-85, the mines operation were sus--pended and the first respondent has applied for therenewal of lease. Renewal of lease was rejected bythe Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms. Mo.225 dt. 4-3-96 against the said order, respondentpreferred revision application to the Governmentof India, and upon that application Central Gov-ernment was pleased to grant an interim-stay o{the order passed by the Government of Tamil Naduin G.O.Ms. No. 225 dated 4-3-86 and also per-mitted the first respondent to hold possession ofthe mines and mining operations. Subsequently thefirst respondent resumed the mines operations from28-4-86. On 17-3-87 Central Government rejectedthe application of the first respondent and againstthe said order the first respondent filed Writ Peti-tion No. 4592/87 before the High Court of Madiasand in WMP No. 6747/87 an interim injunctionwas obtained on 5-5-87. The said petition was madeabsolute on 26-7-87. The Writ petition is pendingand therefore, the first respondent is continuingthe mining operations. WW6 has admitted thatwhen the lease came to an end the mines was closedfor 7 months between September 1985 and April1986, and at that time the dues of all workmenwere settled. MW3 the 12th respondent in hisevidence has stated that he settled all thedues of the workmen on 3-8-85. M\V 1has also stated that the mines was closedon 2-9-85, and the work was resumedonly in April 1986. So, it is clear that earlier tothe date of reference the mines was closed and thedues of all workmen were settled. Thereafter themines has been running only on the orders of Court.As per Ex. M. 18, dated 4-7-91, the managementand the workers have entered into the settlementafter the abolition of Contract Labour System andthe workmen were taken as fresh entrants into theservices of the first respondent. It shows that therewas substantial change in the nature of employ-ment. Taking into account all these tilings, thejustification of the demand for wages on par withthe other mines nearby has to be considered. How-ever, this Tribunal has to go according to thereference.

16. The reference reads :

Whether the action of the Contractors ofPonkumar Magnesite Mines, Salem (asper list enclosed) in denying enhancedrates of wages mentioned below is justi-fied ? If not, to what relief the workmenare entitled to ?


Class of workersUn-skilled

Serai-skilled

SkilledClerical

Rate ofRs.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

12.2515.25

19.0019.00

wagesper dayper day

per dayper day

Fixed Dearness Allowance Rs. 293.80 per month.Variable Dearness Allowance should be paid @1.75 per point over and above 470 points of theAll India Cost of Living Index (1960=100).This reference does not say, whether the workersof Ponkumar Magnesite Mines, Salem have to bepaid on par with the wages paid by Dalmia Mag-nesite Corporation, Burn Standard Company andTamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd., Salem. To decide thejustification or otherwise enhancement of wagescertain specific facts have to be looked into. It isthe main contention of the respondents that theworkers are paid more than the minimum wage.However, minimum wages should be paid by eachand every industry and unless it is paid, industrycannot continue its operation. In Workmen ofReptakos Bret & Co. Ltd., Vs. Management (19921 LLJ P. 340) at page 341, our Supreme Court hashas held :— '

"An Employee who cannot pay the minimum wage hasno right to engage labour and no justification torun the industry."

The above decision of the Apex Court clearly shows thatminimum wage has to be paid to the employees. In WilliamSons (India) Private Limited Vs. Its Workmen (1962 1 LLJP. 402) at page 303, it has been held :

"Further in considering the question of comparableconcerns, the Tribunals should bear in mind allthe relevant facts in relation to the problem. Theextent of the business earned by the concerns thecapital invested by there, the profits made by them,the nature of the business carried on by them,their standing, the strength of their labour force,the presence or absence and the extent of reser-ves, the dividends declared by them and theprospects about the future of their business—• theseand all other relevant facts, have to be borne inmind."

In 1967 II LLJ at page 59, Kamani Metal and Alloys LimitedTheir workmen, it has been held ;

"The observations no doubt lay down the principalguidelines but they are intended to operate withthe rigidity of a statutory enactment. The Courthas indicated what lines of inquiry are likely to

be to the discovery of correct data for the fixa-tion or fair wages in the sense explained above.In this task, all the relevant considerations mustenter oat fruitless enquiries into matters of noparticular importance to a case are hardly to beinsisted upon because rather than true of assistancethey might well frustrate the very objective in view.Each case requires to be considered on its ownfacts,"

From the above decisions of the Supreme Court it is clearthat each case has to be considered on its own merits. Inthe instant case, the reference is to decide whether thewages mentioned therein has to be paid or not. There isno reference cither to fix fair wage or to fix a wage onpar with the other industries in the same area. Bearing inmind, the above decisions of the Supreme Court and alsothe direction given under the reference, the facts of theInstant case have to be considered.

17. Collective bargaining is the mean:, to achieve industrialpeace. Adjudication is parallel means to achieve industrialpeace, The settlements entered into between the parties u/s.12(3) of I. D. Act, are the best means to serve the purposeof industrial peace.. Therefore, the Tribunal which adjudi-cates the industrial dispute between the parlies has to givesufficient weight to the voluntary settlement entered intobetween the parties following collective bargaining u/s. 12(3)of the 1. [3. Act. More than one such settlement have beenentered into between the parties and we have already consi-dered Ext. M.20. Ex. W-6 is the memorandum of Settlemententered into between the parties u/s. 12(3) read with 18(3)9 of the I.D. Act, 1947. In that the petitioner-union isone of the parties and its President and Execute Committeemember have signed the settlement on behalf of the peti-tioner union, The petitioner-union and other unions navesubmitted a charter of demands including wage revision etc.and on those demands a tripartite agreement which is Ex.W-6 has been entered into between the parties and in thepresence issued u/s. 19(6) or the I.D, Act, 1947 need notbe given much eight because time to time the parties haveentered into settlements. However, the tact remains thathere was no settlement covering the period between 1-1-87and 30-6-87 and the reference has been made during the saidperiod on 6-5-8'/. Under Ex. M-18 all the workmen weretaken directly as the workmen of the first respondent manage-ment. This was another advantage to the workmen to presstheir demands directly with the first respondent-management.

18, The first respondent management has stated that theyare doing the mining operations in small scale and they shouldnot be compared with the big companies like Daimia MagnesiaCorporation, Burn Standard Company and Tamilnadu Mag-nesite Limited. However, the question of comparison maynot be relevant herein because the reference is not far theenhanced wages on par with the other three magnesite minesThe only reason which has to be seen in proper perspectiveis that the struggle for existence of the first respondent mines.The period of lease was expired on 2-9-85, and thereafter thefirst respondent mine survived because of the orders passedby the High Court and pendency of the Writ Petition. Muchwater has flown after the reference. The guidelines given bythe Apex Court in 1962 I LLJ Page 302 and 1967 II LLJ P. 35would go to show that justifiable view should be taken by theTribunal. Considering the plight of the first respondent andthe insecurity for existence of the first respondent and alsothe subsequent settlements Ex. W-6 and M-l8 entered intobetween the first respondent and the unions, a justifiable viewshould be taken in fixing wages for the workmen. How toapply the ever changing circumstances to the never changinglaw is the problem which generally the Tribunals face. Asalready stated no settlement was in operation between 1-1-87and 30-6-89, and since the reference has been made on 6-5-87and thereafter Ex, W-6 came into operation, succeeded by Ex.M-18 for the period from 1-3-81 to 28-2-95 and Ex, M-29for the period between 1-3-95 to 31-3-99. There was nosettlement for the period between 1-1-87 to 30-6-89. Forthe said period, considering all these facts, we have to decidethe enhanced wages of Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central-II), Madras on 22-6-89. Page 3 of Ex. W-6 showsthat the workers have demanded wages on par with otherindustries namely Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, M/s. BurnStandard Company and M/s. Tamilnadu Magnesite Corpora-tion and finally as per Clause 4 of the said agreement a wagerevision has been given, 1 his agreement was in operationbetween 1-7-89 to 30-6-92. Before the expiry of the period,another settlement Ex. M-18 has been entered into betweenthe management and the workers on 4-7-91 in the presence ofAssistant Labour Commissioner (Central-I) Madras u/s. 12(3)of the T. D. Act. This settlement has been entered intobetween the Salem Mavatta Magnesite Pattali Thozhir Sangam,Salem and the Management in the presence of Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central-I) Madras. Ex, M-18 wasin operation between 1-3-91 to 2S-2-95 and in that settlement,the basic wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilledcategory of workers were fixed at Rs. 23, Rs. 24 and Rs. 25per day respectively. The said wages are much move thanwhat is stated in the reference. So, the workers were not atloss even though the reference was of the year 1987. Asettlement entered into between parties u/s. 12(3) of theI. D. Act, 1947 will bind the workers or unions therein andalso the other workers and unions, In Jhagrakhan Collieries

2179

(P) Ltd., Vs. G. C. Agarwal and Others (1975 I LLJ P. 163)it was held by the Apex Court ;

"Section 18 makes it clear that a settlement arrived atin the course of conciliation proceedings is bindingnot only on the actual parties to the industrial dis-pute but also on the heirs, successors, or assignsof the employer on the one hand, and all workmenin the establishment, present or future on theother,"

The petitioner-union cannot disown the settlement Ex. M-18by saying that they were not party to it. Ex. M-18 bindsthe petitioner-union also. We have already seen that atthe time of reference no settlement was in operation. Theargument of the respondent that Ex. M-20 was in operationcontinuously during that period also, since no notice wasthe workmen. While considering all the relevant facts theenhanced wages shown in the reference is just and equitable.The wage shown in the reference should be paid for theperiod from 6-5-87 to 30-6 89.

In the result, an award is passed for the period from6 5-87 to 30-6-89 fixing the enhanced wages for unskilled atRs 12,25. for semi-skilled at Rs. 15.25 and skilled at Rs.10.00 and Clerical at Rs. 19.00 per day. Fixed nearnessallowance of Rs. 293.80 per month and Variable nearnessallowance of Rs. 1.75 per point over and above 470 pointsof the All India Cost of living Index (1960—100). Nocosts,

Dated, this the 12th day of September, 1996

S. THANGARAJ, Industrial Tribunal

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Workmen :WW-1—Thiru P. Rangaswamy.WW-2—Thiru P. Ariya GoundarWW-3—Thiru R. SingaraveluWW-4—Thiru K. Karunakaran.WW-5—Thiru M. Krishnan.WW-6—Thiru K. Nalesao.

For Management :

MW-1—Thiru A. Jagannathan.MW-2—Thiru R. Subramani.MW-3—Thiru N. Mani.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Workmen :Ex. W-l/17-8-87—Memorandum of Settlement u/s. 12C31

of the L, D. Act, 1947 between M/s. Burn StandardCo. Ltd., Salem, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation,Salem and Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd., Salem and thePetitioner-union and four others (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-2/20-8-87—Memorandum of Settlement u/s. 13(3)of the T. D. Act, 1947 between the petitioner-unionand Mgt. No, 1 (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-3 — Salary slips of WW-1 Thiru P. Ranga-swamy for the month of March 1991.

W-4/ .—Identity card of WW1 (xerox copy).Ex. W-5/ —Wage slip of WW-2 Thiru P. Ariya

Goundar for the month of March 1991 (XeroxCopy).

Ex. W-6/22-6-89—Memorandum of Settlement u/s. 12(3)of the I. D. Act, 1947 between the Contractors ofManagement No, 1 and the petitioner-union andanother (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-7/8-6-89—Letter from the Petitioner-union to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C-II) regardingnon-employment of 41 contract labourers (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. W-8/10 6-89—Letter from Petitioner-union toManagement No. I regarding demonstration for re-instatement of 41 workers (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-9/14-6-89—Strike notice.

Ex. W-10/16-11-89—Letter from Petitioner-union to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C-II), regardinginterpretation of settlement Ex. W-6 (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-11/4-1-90—Reply by the Assistant Labour Com-missioner (Central) Madras to the petitioner-union(Xerox copy).

Ex, W-12/19-10-90—Memorandum of Settlement u/s.12(3) of the I. D. Act, 1947 between the Manage-ment M/s. Burn Standard Co, Ltd., Salem, DalmiaMagnesite Corporation Saleni and Tamilnadu Mag-nesite Limited Salem and the workmen representedby Magnesite workers Union (AITUC) and threeothers (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-13/28-1-91—Letter from Petitioner-union toManagement No. 1 regarding regularisation of cont-ract workers.

Ex. W-14/11-2-91—Letter from Petitioner-union toManagement No. 1 regarding absorption of ContractLabourers as Company Labourers.

Ex. W-15/16-3-91—Letter from Petitioner-union to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C-II) Madras.

Ex. W-16/ —List of members in Petitioner unionfor the year 1983.

Ex, W-17/26-11-83—Executive Committee Meeting ofPetitioner-Union (Xerox copy).

Ex. W-18/28-11-84—Conciliation Failure Report (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. W-19/ —Salary slip of Th. Krishnan for themonths of May 1992.

Ex. W-20 ' —Identity card of Th, Krishnan (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. W-21/10-1-84—Letter from Petitioner-union to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C-II), Madras(Xerox copy).

For Management ;

Ex. M-l/30-8-85—Memo issued by Assistant Director ofGeology and Mines, Salem (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-2/2-9-85—G.O. Ms. No, 4295 of the Departmentof Industries, Labour and Cooperation, Governmentof Madras regarding renewal of Mining lease appliedby Management No. 1 (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-3/4-3-86—Xerox copy of G.O. Ms. No. 224.Industries (D-1) Department, Government of TamilNadu regarding reservation of certain lands in JagirAmmapalayam Village, Salem for state exploitationof minerals (Gazette copy).

Ex. M-4/4-3-86—G.O. Ms, No. 225, Industries (D-1)Department, Government of Tamilnadu regardingrejecting the application for renewal of lease (Xeroxcopy).

EX. M-5/17-3-87—Final order issued by the CentralGovernment rejecting the management 'No.1's revi-sion application (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-6/21-3-86—Telegram from the Central Govern-ment regarding granting interim stay for G.O. Ms.No. 225, Industries (D-l) Department, dated 4-3-86(Xerox copy).

Ex. M-7/5-5-87—High Court's interim injunction orderin WMP No. 6747/87 in W.P. No. -1592/87 (Xeroxcopy).

Ex. M-8/16-12-87—High Court's Order in WMP. No.6747/87 in W.P. No. 4592/87 regarding interim staymade absolute (Xerox copy),

Ex. M-9/12-6-63—G.O. Ms. No. 3140, Department ofIndustries. Labour and Cooperation, Government ofMadras (copy).

Ex. M-10/30-10-71—Registration certificate issued toManagement No. 1 (Xerox copy).


Ex. M-ll/21-9-85—Copy of letter from ManagementNo. I to the workmen regarding termination ofemployment,

Ex. M-12/28-4-87—Letter from Management No. 1 tothe Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)Madras-6 regarding the re-opening of Mines from2S-4-86.

Ex. M-13/22-1-91—Xerox copy of High Court's Judge-ment in W,P. Nos. 12139/85, 1409/85, 1911 to1915/85, 1961 to 1965/85, 1817 to 1821/85, 2181/85, 2233/85, 3493/85 and 6157/85.

Ex. M-14/25-1-91—Notice, from Management No. 1 toContractor Th. C. Raman terminating his contract.

Ex. M-15/25-1-91—Notice from Management No. 1 toContractor Th. K. Chinnapnyan terminating hiscontract.

Ex. M-16/25-1-91—Notice from Management No, 1 toContractor Th. P.. Arumugam terminating hiscontract.

Ex. M-17/25-1-91—Noiice from Management No. 1 toContractor Th. R. Subramani terminating his con-tract.

Ex. M-18/4-7-91 Memorandum of Settlement u/s, 12(3)of the I. D. Act, 1947 between Management No. 1,and the workmen represented by Salem Mavatta Mag-nesite Pattali Thozhir Sangam, Salem before theAsst. Labour Commissioner (Central-I), Madras(copy).

Ex. M-19/ —Tabular statement showing the listof contractors and their engagement at various stages.

Ex. M-20/20-5 81— Memorandum of settlement u/s. 12(31 of the T. D, Act, 1947 between Contractors ofManagement No. 1 and their workmen (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-21 /14-5-84—Memorandum of Settlement u/s18(1) of the T.D. Act. 1947 between the Contrac-tors of Management No. 1 and their workmen(Xerox copy).

Ex. M-22/31-8-85—Circular issued by ManagementNo. 1.

Ex. M-23/21-9-85—Letter from Contractors Thiru C.Raman to the workers (Xerox copy).

Ex. M-24/25-1-91--Notice from the Management No, 1to the Contractor Th. P. Lakshmanan regardingtermination of contract (Xerox copy,).

Ex, M-25/9-12-87—Xerox copy of licence issued to thecontractor Thiru C. Raman.

Ex. M-26/9-12-87—Xerox copy of licence issued to theContractor Thiru K. Chinnappan.

Ex. M-27/14-12-87—Xerox copy of licence issued to theContractor Thiru Arumugam,

Ex. M-28/1-4/81—Copy of agreement between Manage-ment No. 1 and Contractor Thiru C. Raman.

Ex. M-29/23-8-95—Memorandum of Settlement u/s. 12(3) of the I.D.. Act, 19.17 between ManagementNo, 1, and workmen represented by Salem MavattaMagnesite Pat tali Thozhil Sangam (PMK) and theMagnesite Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (LPF)(Xerox copy).

LIST OF CONTRACTORS1. The Proprietors.

Sri Ponkumar Magnesite Mines,Salem. 636008 Distt, Salem Tamilnadu.

2. Shri P. V. Damodharan3. Shri K. C. Chinnapaiyan.4. Sri C. Mari5. Shri K. Lakshmanan6. Shri S. Pachiannan1. Shri C. Kandan8. Shri C. Raman9. Shri A. Kasipillai

10. Shri R. Subramani

11. Shri K. Sivaraj12. Shri N. Mani13. Shri A. Murthusamy

14. Shri D. Iyyandurai

15. Shri P. Arumugam

16. Shri Sevi

17. Shri Palanisamy.

ContractorSri Ponkumar MagnesiteMines, JagirAmmapalayam,Salem-636302District—Salem,Tamil Nadu,


S.O. 1075.—In pursuance of Section II of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of F.C.I, and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on the18-3-1997.

[No. L-42011|6|80-D.II(B)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No, 23 of 1981

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ofFood Corporation of India, Calcutta.

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

Mr, Justice K. C. Jagadeb Roy. . . . Presiding Officer.

2181

APPEARANCE :On behalf of Management: Mr. A. Roy

Mukherjee, Counsel with Mr. A. Roy,Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen : Mr. P. S. Sengupta,Advocate with Mr. M. Sinha, Advocateand Mrs. T. Dasgupta, Advocate.

STATE : West Bengal INDUSTRY : Food Corpn.

AWARD

By Order No. L-420ll(6) /80-D. II(B) dated21 May, 1981 the Central Government in exerciseof its powers under Section 10(1 )(d) of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication ;

"Whether the refusal by the Zonal Manager,Food Corporation of India, 10, MiddletonRow, Calcutla-700071 to pay overtimewages at one and half times the ordinaryrates of wages to the workmen of Cal-cutta Complex depots of the Food Cor-poration of India for work done on Sun-day (i.e. rest day) and festival and natio-nal holidays with effect from 1975 islegal, proper and justified ? If not, towhat relief are the workmen entitled ?"

2. The workmen and the management namelyFood Corporation of India have filed their writtenstatements, followed by rejoinder of the manage-ment as well as by the workmen.

3. The workmen in their written statement havestated that several thousands of handling Mazdoorsarc employed by the Corporation in each of theirdepots. These handling Mazdoors of the CalcuttaComplex depots were departmentalized with effectfrom 15-1-1970 and numbers 3227 at the time offiling the written statement and were paid wagesin terms of the recommendation of the CentralWage Board for Port and Dock Workers andthereafter the Wage Revision Committee for Portand Dock Workers of the major ports which in-cluded the Port of Calcutta as was accepted bythe Port authorities. Because of the said recom-mendation, they were entitled to one and half timeswages for work on holidays, including the workon Sundays (i.e. rest day) and festival and nationalholidays. These workmen were paid this overtimewane for the works done by them on Sundays,festival and national holidays when the manage-ment discontinued the same with effect from 1975arbitrarily, without assigning any reason and inclear contravention of the provisions contained inSection 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.In the present reference, therefore, their grievanceis that they should be entitled to receive overtimewages at one and half times the ordinary rate ofwages for their work done on Sundays (i.e. restday), festival and national holidays as usual andthe refusal of the management to pay the same with872 GI/97—9

effect from 1975 should be declared to be illegal,improper and unjustified.

In paragraph 14 of the said written statementthe workmen have claimed that while giving theaforesaid direction, the Tribunal shall give an awarddirecting the Corporation to pay to the workmenthe overtime wages at one and half times theordinary wage for the work already done on suchdays with effect from 1975 as arrears and pay overand above, the interest at the rate of 15 per centon the amount due to them.

4. The management in their written statementhowever taken a stand that this claim of wage isnot an industrial dispute within the meaning ofSection 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and theTribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over theissue of non-payment of such overtime wage sinceit is recoverable under Section 15 of the WestBengal Shops and Establishments Act and in thealternative under Section 33C(2) of the IndustrialDisputes Act. This point, however given up by themanagement as no argument was advanced by themto substantiate either of these points except raisingit in the written statement.

In paragraph 9 of the written statement. it hasbeen averred by the management, that a settlementhad been arrived between the F.C.I, and its workersdated 15-2-1972 wherein it was agreed in para-graph 17 of the same that the overtime allowanceshall be in accordance with the provisions of WestBengal Shops and Establishments Act, which settle-ment has been annexed as Annexure ' C to thewritten statement, though not marked as exhibit.It is urged by them that according to the prevailingsystem the workers who are not doing 42 hoursof work in a particular week, were getting extrawages at a single rate for working on Sundays andfestival holidays for that particular week and ad-mitted in paragraph 16 that for working on nationalholidays, however, the management has been payingone and half times the ordinary rate of wages asprovided under the West Bengal Shops and Estab-lishment Act. As such, no further adjudication forworking on national holidays is required in thecircumstances.

5. The workmen have filed certain documentsmarked as Exhibits W-l to W4. Ext. W-l is amemorandum of settlement between the manage-ment of FCI and the workmen dated 14-11-1970In paragraph 4 of which the FCI had agreed toextend the benefit of annual leave and holidays tothe departmentalized labourers on the scale pre-valent under the scheme of the Dock Labour Board,Calcutta with effect from 16-1-1970 and agreedin paragraph 5 that other fringe benefits on thepattern prevalent on the Dock Labour Board,Calcutta to be extended to the workmen from thedate to be mutually agreed upon within 15 daysfrom the date of settlement.

2182. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext. VV-2 is the report of the Wage RevisionCommittee for the Port &, Dock Workers of whichparagraph 8.34 reads as follows :

"8.34 (i) Payment for work on a weekly dayof rest or on a festival or national holidayshall be made to all employees at therate of one and half times the daily rateand a compensatory day off shall be givenif it is not feasible to give a compensatoryday off, the rate shall be two and a halftimes the daily rale for employees entitledto a paid weekly day of rest or A paidfestival or national holiday and one anda half times the daily rate for those notso entitled."

Ext, W-3 is a letter of the R.L.C., Calcutta tothe Deputy Manager, Labour. F.C.I, which maynot be very necessary for discussion in this case.

6. The management, from their side have ex-hibited quite a large number of documentsnumbering 37. Most of these documents are circu-lars which have no direct bearing on the point inissue. Ext. M-4 is a circular which wanded tobring a change in payment of the overtime wageand this circular dated 23-2-73 has been the reasonfor agination amongst the workmen which has ledto this reference. Other documents marked exhibitsare correspondences from the union and themanagement and do not hold any bearing on thedecision in this reference.

7. The law is well-settled that the Tribunalcannot go beyond the reference as has been heldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth andGeneral Mills Company Ltd. v. Workmen andOthers reported in AIR 1967 SC 469. In paragraph18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated theiropinion as follows :

" . . . .In our opinion. Tribunal must, in anyevent, took to the pleadings of the partiesto find out the exact nature of the dispute,because in most cases the order ofreference is so criptic that it is impossibleto pull out therefrom the various pointsabout which the parties were at varianceleading to the trouble "

8. In the present case, the reference is not cripticand the pleadings of the parties are also veryspecific which also does not vary with the reportof reference. As I have already indicated, theworkman had asserted in paragraphs 8 and 9 oftheir written statement that the rate of paymentof overtime calculated at the rate of one and halftimes the normal wage for the work on Sundaysfestival and national holidays which was in vogueprior to 1975 was discontinued since 1975 byissuance of the order dated 23-2-1973 by themanagement (now marked Ext. M-4) is mostarbitrary and without assigning any reason and in

contravention of the Section 9A of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947. This assertion of fact has notbeen challenged by the management specifically inthe written statement of the management, thoughparagraph 9 of the rejoinder of the managementstated that the allegation made in paragraph 9 wasdenied. Nothing has been stated what was beingpaid prior to 1975 and by making an wild denialand merely stating that the provision of Section 9Awas not called for and unwarranted, is not correctanswer or reply to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writtenstatement of the workmen. In paragraph 8 of therejoinder of the management also, there is nospecific denial of the positive assertion made bythe workmen.

9. Regarding the hours of work, the evidence ofthe parties are very clear. From the side of theworkmen one Dulal Nath, Assistant Secretary ofthe Food Corporation of India Workers Union wasexamined as WW-1. According to him all theseworkmen numbering about 3227 are members oftheir union. The workmen were paid a guaranteed21 days of wage in a month, whether they weregiven any work or not and were given 4 to 5 weeklyoff day depending on the number of Sundays on thatmonth. For rest of the days of the month, eachone of the workman was permitted to receivedattendance allowance at the rate of half the wages.Except the Sundays, festival and national holidays,the workmen were required to report for duty onevery other day and were allowed sick leave, pri-vilage leave and casual leave by the F.C.I. Theworkmen were paid one and half days wage asovertime wage upto 1975 for their work on Sun-days, festival and national holidays in addition tothe normal wages. From 1975, the FCI has beenpaying one and half days wages for Sundays, festi-val and national holidays provided the workmenwere given work from Monday to Saturday butgive only one day's wage to the workmen for theirwork on Sundays and festival holidays if they werenot given the work for a single day during theperiod Monday to Saturday but as far as thenational holidays are concerned, they are given oneand half days wages. By referring to Ext. W-l thesettlement, he stated that all the benefits were how-ever available because of the agreement dated14-11-1970 to these workmen as was available tothe workmen under the Dock Labour Board.

In the cross-examination, he categorically stated,before. 1975 the employees of every depot used tobe paid one and half days wage as overtime wagefor their work on Sundays, national and festivalholidays. The payment of overtime wage was forthe period of work before 9 A.M. and after 5 P.M.which is governed by the Shops and EstablishmentAct and the payment of overtime wages for workon Sundays and festival and national holidays isgoverned by the settlement of the Calcutta DockLabour Board and by the Award of the Tribunal(when they have marked Ext. W-4).

2183

10. The management had examined Shri Baner-jee the Chief Labour Inspector as MW-I. He alsoagreed in his deposition that there are about 3000workmen working under the Calcutta Complex andat the time of decasualisation which started in 1970and continued till 1971, the workmen who wereworking on Sundays, holidays and national holidayswere given one day's basic wage and one day'sdearness allowance and because of the Ext. M-3the settlement dated 15-2-1972 between the F.C.I.workers and the management it was decided thatthe workmen would receive overtime on the basisof the West Bengal Shops & Establishments Actand he referred to Ext. M-l and M-2 in supportof his contention. He also referred to Ext. M-3which deals with the payment of overtime wagein item No. 19. According to which it was decidedthat the question of payment of overtime wage asper the provisions of the West Bengal Shops &Establishment Act, subject to the approval of theF.C.I. Head Quarters. This witness stated veryspecifically that the ordinary working hours forCalcutta Complex is 7 hours in a day which is notinclusive of rest period and 42 hours of work ina week which is not also inclusive of rest. Accord-ing to this witness therefore, a person cannot beallowed to work more 7 hours a day excluding therest hours and 42 hours in a week namely Mondayto Saturday, which is also not inclusive of the restperiod. He stated in chief again that if a personworks more than 7 hours, he is paid overturn*. Hestated again that if a workman performed dutiesfor 42 hours and then asked to work on Sunday,he would be paid overtime at the rate of Rs. 60per hour. He further stated at the same berth thatif he had not performed 42 hours of work andasked to work on Sunday, he will get one extraday's wage. In the case of festival holidays, accord-ing to him the same rule applied but not so in thecase of national holidays. Again he stated that ifa workman completed 48 hours of work, in a weekand asked to work on Sunday, he is paid at theovertime rate i.e. one and half time the normalwage. In the case of national holidays, the overtimeis paid at one and half times the normal wage.

In the cross-examination he has stated "Sunday"is weekly day of rest in the establishment andSunday is not normal working day and if a personis asked to work on Sunday, his working on theday on which he is not expected to work. He how-ever admitted that it was true that if a person per-form his duties over his normal working hours, heis paid overtime. But if a person is absent on aworking day and perform duties on Sunday, he isnot paid overtime. On his cross-examination on27-6-1994 by referring to the circular of themanagement, he stated that the circular has beensigned by the Deputy Manager, Labour stating thatif a person works for more than 76 hours hewould get overtime. He marked these documentsas Exts M-37, M-3S and M-39.

11. From these depositions it is quite clear thatthe normal working hours of a workman workingin the Calcutta Complex of the F.C.I, is 7 hoursa day and 42 hours a week and if any body doesany amount of work more than this period in aday, he would be entitled to overtime. This is thecategorical assertion of the management witnessin the box and he has stated that for the nationalholidays if a workman is asked to work he is givenone and half times the normal wage as overtimewage.

12. No basis is shown if on a national holidaya workman has been given one and halt times ofthe normal wage as the overtime wage, whyshould that not be made available for festivalholidays or the weekly rest day namely Sundaywhen the workman is not bound to work as muchas he is not required to work on national holi-day.

13. The management's contention since a per-son is to work for 42 hours in a week fromMonday to Saturday, both days inclusive and hasbeen either on leave or has not been providedwith work for the prescribed period of 7 hoursin a day or 42 hours in a week should compensatehis work by working in a Sunday or a festivalholiday by getting only the wage for that workand not treating this to be overtime, stands onno reason.

14. In Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court.Madras, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1034 theHon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 hasstated thus :

" It is open to the employer to pres-cribe working hours for a day or totalnumber of working hours in a week lessthan the ceiling prescribed by the Sta-tute. Section 14 puts an embargo onthe employers right to prescribeworking hours beyond therein pres-cribed, subject to however, to its liabi-lity to pay higher rate of wages for theovertime work done "

The gist of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the saidjudgement has been summarised in platinum 'A'of the said judgement, which reads as follows

"Even though the expression ' o v e r t i m e .not defined in the Act, its connotationis unambiguous. In no uncertain termit means in the context of workinghours. p e r i o d i n excess. o f t h e p r e s -

c r i b e d working h o u r s . T h e p r o v i s o

Section 14(1) makes it abundantlyclear that any work taken in excess ofthe working hours prescribed in themain part of sub-section (1) of Sec-tion 14 would constitute overtimework. 8 hours a day and 48 hours in


a week would constitute normal work-ing hours. Anything in excess of 8hours a day but not exceeding 10 hoursa day and 48 hours a week and notexceeding 54 hours a week will consti-tute overtime work. This becomesclear from the language used in theproviso when it says that the barimposed by sub-section (1) of Section14 may be breached to the extent is"no such person" meaning thereby thatperson, who would be required to work8 hours a day or 48 hours a week, maybe allowed to work in excess of thatlimit subject to the payment of over-time wages."

15. Therefore, there is no basis for the mana-gement to urge that just because the managementfailed to provide sufficient work to keep the work-man engaged for 7 hours a day (excluding therest period) and 42 hours for the week (exclud-ing the rest period), which is no fault of the work-man so as to be compelled by the management towork on a Sunday or a festival holiday or nationalholiday just by receiving a day's wage withoutclaiming the overtime.

16. It is needless to say that this rate of oneand halt times the ordinary rate of wage as over-time is also provided under the West Bengal Shops& Establishment Act, which the managementrelies and is also supported by the report of theWage Revision Committee for the Port and Dockworkers at major ports issued in January 1977marked Ext. W-2 wherein the paragraph 8.43had also stated that overtime rate should be oneand half times the ordinary rate. No evidence isalso led by the management to show that theexisting condition of one and half times of theordinary wage as the overtime wage for workingon Sundays and festival days was changed byfollowing the procedure contained in Section 9Aof the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, thecircular of the Corpn. marked Ext. M-3 chang-ing the condition of service had no legal basisand unlawful.

17. I therefore answer this reference by hold-ing that the workmen of the Calcutta Complex ofthe Food Corporation of India are entitled to theovertime wage at the rate of one and half timesthe ordinary rate of wage for working on Sun-day, festival or national holidays and the refusal topay the same from 1975 onwards by the manage-ment of Food Corporation of India is not justi-fied.

18. In the result, the workmen who have soworked on Sundays, festival holidays and nationalholidays, if not yet been paid their overtime wagesat the rate indicated above, should receive themfrom the management alongwith interest calculate

ted at 10 per cent per annum from the day feltdue till the date of payment.

19. In the meanwhile the West Bengal Shops& Establishments Act has been amended by theWest Bengal Act 23 of 1988, increasing the rateof overtime to twice the ordinary rate of wage.Section 13 of the West Bengal Shops & Establish-ments Act reads as follows :

"13. Wages tor overtime work—When anyperson employed in a shop or an estab-lishment is required or permitted towork overtime in such shop or establish-ment, the wages payable to such personin respect of such overtime work shallbe calculated at twice the ordinary rateof wages payable to him, and such ordi-nary rate of wages shall be calculatedin such manner as may be prescribed :

Provided that this section shall not operate tothe prejudice of any higher rate of overtime wagesgranted under any agreement, award, custom orconvention.

Explanation—For the purpose of this sec-tion "overtime work" shall include anywork done on any day declared by thenotification by the State Governmentto be a National holiday."

Since it is the admitted case of both the par-ties that the rate of overtime shall be governedby the provisions of the West Bengal Shops &Establishment Act, the workmen therefore entitledto the overtime wage at the amended rate fromthe date the amended provision came into force.

The reference is answered accordingly.Dated, Calcutta.The 26th February, 1997.

K. C. JAGADEB ROY, Presiding officer


S.O. 1076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), thecentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, in the indus-

2185

trial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of F.C.I, and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on18-3-1997.

[No. L-42011/11/81 -FC1-DIV(A)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE


Reference No.. 41 of 1981

PARTIES :Employers in relation! to the management of

Food Corporation of India, Calcutta.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :Mr. Justice K. C. Jagadeb Roy,Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE :On behalf of the Management.—Mr. P. P.

Ginwalla, Counsel with Mr. B. N.Bagchi, Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. P. S. Sengupta,Advocate with Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Ad-vocate.

State : West Bengal, Industry : Food Corpn.

AWARD

By Order No. L-42011 | 8 1 - F C I / D . I V ( A )dated 2nd October. 1981 the Central Governmentin exercise of its powers under Section 10( l ) (d )of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred thefollowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica-tion :—

"Whether the action of the management ofFood Corporation of India, Calcutta innot making ex — gratia payment in lieuof bonus on attendance allowance totheir workmen employed in 20 Depots inCalcutta Complex on the plea that thesame does not form part of "salary orWage" as defined in the Payment ofBonus Act, 1965, is justified? If not", towhat relief are the concerned workmenentitled?".

2, Both the workmen and the management filedwritten statements, followed by rejoinders also byboth. Lots of exhibits are also filed by both theparties and both the parties have also led evidence.

3. After going though the pleading and the evi-dence, both documentary and oral, I find that ans-werhig of this reference does not depend such on

the evidence on record as the evidence led onlyshow various status how the workmen were makingtheir claim after the departmentalisation and howthe management reacted to their demands. In thepresent case, the answer mostly depends on the in-terpretation, of word "Wage" and the meaning ofthe expression "Attendance Allowance" to theworkmen employed in the 20 Depots of the Cal-cutta Complex of the Food Corporation of India.

4. The claim of the management has been plac-ed by the learned counsel Mr,, Jinwalla that in an-other case before the Arbitrator, the expressionattendance allowance was considered wherein thelearned Arbitrator had stated that this allowancecannot be regarded as wage. Relying on this find-ing of the learned Arbitrator published in the extra-ordinary Gazette of India dated 2nd February,1974, learned counsel for the management sub-mits that since this is not part of the wage, thereis no question of making any ex gratia payment inlieu of bonus to the workmen on this amount. Healso argues that the Bonus Act has no applicationto the F.C.I, therefore the question of giving bonusor any thing in lieu of bonus does not arise.

5. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel and Mr.Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the workmenopposes this argument of the management on theground that the definition of wage as contained inSection 2(rr) includes attendance allowance,though the Bonus Act has no ampliation to theF.C.I , thereby excluding the operation of the defi-nition contained in the Bonus Act. It is admittedby them that this attendance allowance is paid tothe workmen for 4 to 5 days of the month foxhaving reported to work and not being providedany work in the same manner as being laid-off. Assuch. This attendance allowance which should botreated as laid off wages would be included in thedefinition of wage so as to attract the exgratia thatis being paid to the Port & Dock Workers of themajor ports in India, since the wages of the con-cerned workman of the FCI are fixed and are paidas per the recommendation of the Wages RevisionCommittee for the Port & Dock Workers of theMajor Ports in India and as has been accepted bythe Government of India. According to the work-men as per the said recommendation "Attendanceallowance" which is paid to the Port & Dock Wor-kers for 4 or 5 days in a month, are similarlybeing paid to the concerned workmen of F.C.I.

6. It has been admitted by the managementthrough their witness MW-I who is a DeputyManager of the F.C.I., Zonal Office, Calcutta whohas stated in evidence that there was a paymentsystem followed in connection with the departmen-talised workers including the Depot workers. Theorder regarding this payment system was issuedon 2nd June. 1971 by circular marked Ext. M-5.The wages of the departmentalized workers arebased on 21 days minimum guaranteed shifts wage


plus 4 days weekly off, totalling 25 days in number,for the rest 5 days of the month the workers arcpaid attendance allowance for each of these daysprovided them reported to work but not bookedlor work. The said attendance allowance was ear-lier known as "Disappointment allowance" andthis payment system was, introduced following thepayment system as adopted by the Wage RevisionCommittee for the Major Ports and Dock LabourBoards. There were different circulars issued inthe year 1977 in which the revision of wages andother allowances were made from time to time.The circular dated 1-12-1977 was marked as Ext.M-7 according to which circular the contents forContributory Provident Fund deduction was thebasic wage, D.A., variable D.A. payable for thedays of minimum guarantee, days of booking, week-ly holidays and days of leave. As per the circulardated 7-104971 and 25-10-1970 and 14-5-1973,they received instruction to take into considera-tion the attendance allowance for computing contri-bution of the C.P.F., and payment of exgratia/bonusto the concerned workmen which has been markedExts. M-8, M-9 and M-10 respectively. This pro-vision of exgratia/bonus was introduced since1970|71. Attendance allowance was never takeninto consideration of wages for computing exgratiasince 1970-71, Ext. M-2 is the circular of theF.C.I. dated 25-6-1973 regarding the attendanceallowance given to the union and the FC1 circulardated 3-10-1977 regarding payment of exgratiabonus is, exhibited as M-3 and for the first timethe workmen raised their claim for taking into con-sideration the attendance allowance for paymentof exgratia/bonus in the year 1981 which led tothis dispute. This witness however admitted incross-examination dated 12-9-1988 that the "Atten-dance allowance" is the wage for the workmen butnot for all purposes. As such, exgratia was notcomputed on the basis of the attendance allow-ance., He admitted that attendance allowance isvariable according to the wages as per clause 9of the circular Ext. M-6. According to him thesettlement as per Ext. W-2 dated 14-11-1970 whichis a tripartite settlement between the management,workmen and the A.L.C. did not mention anythingregarding attendance allowance. He however admit-ted that FCI had agreed to give other fringe bene-fits on the pattern prevalent in the Calcutta DockLabour Board. He admitted in cross-examinationdated 18-1-1989 "attendance allowance" and "dis-appointment wages" are the same and referred toparagraph 2 of the circular of the F.C.I. Ext. M-13in support of the contention. What was earlierknown as disappointment wages is now termed asattendance allowance from June 1971 in accord-ance with the Dock Labour Board scheme. Headmitted in his evidence that Dock Labour Boardtook into consideration the attendance allowancein making the exgratia payment. He said evennow, in certain ports the word "disappointment

wage is still used in place of attendance allow-ance.

7. The workmen examined the Assistant Secre-tary of the Union Shri Dulal Nath as their witnessNo. 1. He stated that as is evident from Ext. W-8and Ext. W-9 a memorandum of tripartite settle-ment, the wages, allowances and other fringe bene-fits would be paid to the employees in accordancewith the payments made by the. Dock LabourBeard and referred to the discussion contained inExt. W-6 and to the circular dated 25-6-1973 Ext.W-7 issued by the Zonal Manager, F.C.I. Thiswitness stated that it related to the payment ofbonus (exgratia) to the departmentalized workersof the F.C.I., C.W.C. and S.W.C.,

8. Coming first to the Award of the Arbitratorrelied on by the management in the case betweenthe F.C.I, and its employees referred to earlier andpublished in Extra-ordinary Gazette of India dated2-2-1974, the Issue No,. 5 is relevant for our pur-pose. The learned Arbitrator took this Issue No.5. If' "attendance allowance", disappointment wageand C C A . be added towards the Wages of a work-man for the purpose of C.P.F. deduction. As Ihave already stated, the learned Arbitrator heldthat this attendance allowance was in the natureof compensation for the expenses of travel, to andfrom to the place of work and was not regardedas Wage for any work done and accordingly thatthis could not have been taken into considerationin calculating the C.P.F. deduction.. In this case,as appears in the second paragraph of the discus-son in the issue, the learned Arbitrator observedthat taking attendance allowance, it was agreedthat this allowance was granted to a worker whenhe attends the works of the Corporation fails toprovide him the work and went on to discuss thateven in the claim statement of the union it wasslated that the attendance allowance was the wagepayable when a worker reports for work as per theschedule requirement and is not offered employ-ment but the use of the term "wage" according tothe learned Arbitrator was only inappropriate. Inthat case the attendance allowance was at the rateof Rs. 1.25 per shift for every worker will be ad-missible on the day he reports for work but is notbooked for any of the three shifts of the day. Hetherefore, came to the conclusion that this amountwas given to the worker not as compensation forany work that he does, but solely for the reasonsthat he reported to work in order to discover whe-ther work is available or not and when the time ofthe workman is not taken for any work on behalfof the employer, any allowance that was grantedsolely for the reason that he reported for dutycould not be regarded as wage for any Work done.As such, it was in the nature of compensation forthe expenses of travel to and from to the placeof work.

9. In the present case, the evidence are other-wise. As I have already indicated, the managementwitness stated in the evidence that for the rest ofthe 5 days of the month, excluding the 25 days,

2187

for every day of his presentation for work for whichno work was provided, attendance allowance wasgiven, which way earlier known as disappointmentwage, It is not actually a nominal amount paid forcovering expenses of the journey to and fro. Headmitted that because of the head office circulardated 7-10-1971, 25-10-1971 and 14-10-1973Exts. M-8, M-9 and M-10 even for computingcontribution, to the C.P.F. the attendance allow-ance was taken into consideration. True, that forex gratia and bonus, attendance allowance was notconsidered, for which obviously the demand ismade, refused and the reference is made. He hasadmitted in his cross-examination on 12-9-1988;hat attendance allowance was wage of the work-nan but not for all purposes, stating that exgratiawas not computed on the basis of the same. Healso stated that the attendance allowance is vari-able according to the wage as per circular Ext.M-6, so the amount paid to a workman as atten-dance allowance, it is not just a compensation tothe expenses to and fro to the place of work. Hehas also stated in his deposition on 18-1-1989 thatthe attendance allowance was also known as "dis-appointment wage". Therefore, on the facts ofthat case for which the Arbitrator had passed hisAward in Madras and the one in the present refe-rence are not exactly the same and that Awardcannot be followed literally in this adjudicationand must be considered in its own merit.

10. "Lay-off' has been defined in Section 2(kkk)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which meansfailure refusal or inability of the employer on ac-count of shortage of coal, power or raw materialsor the accumulative of the stocks or break-downof the machinery or the natural calamity or anyother connected reasons to give employment tothe workman whose name is borne out in the masterrolls. What is to be paid to the workmen in thisconnection is mentioned in Section 25C of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is quotedbelow :— '

"25-C. Right of workmen laid off for com-pensation—Whenever a workman otherthan a badli workman or a casual work-man whose name is borne on the musterrolls of an industrial establishment andwho has completed not less than oneyear of continuous service under an em-plover is laid off. whether continuouslyor intermittently, he shall be paid by theemployer for all days during which heis so laid off, except for such weeklyholidays as may intervene, compensationwhich shall be equal to fifty per cent ofthe total of the basic wages and dear-ness allowance that would have beenpayable to him had he not been so laidoff :

No doubt this very section speaks of the right ofthe workman laid off to receive compensation forall days during which he is so laid off. This com-pensation is calculated not on the basis of whatthe workman suffers monetarily for coming to theplace of work and returning back home but theytreat this compensation being equal to 50 per centof the total of the basic wages and dearness allow-ance that would have been payable to him had lienot been laid off.

11. Therefore, even though the language usedis compensation, this is not in the exact characterof compensation as is known in the law of Tortsor law of Contract. It is to compensate the work-men for the loss he sustained for not doing thework and earning the wage for that day. In otherwords, because he does not work physically thoughprepared to work, because of some special con-tengency on the part of the management, he isgiven half of the basic wage which dearness allow-ance to compensate him for the loss of that day'swage and rightly therefore it is treated as lay-offwage as has been done in the case of Port & DockWorkers of the Major Ports in India whose con-dition of receiving he wage etc. is now being fol-lowed by the F . C . I in the same manner to theworkmen working under the F.C.I.

12., It is the admitted position by the manage-ment that the management has taken into conside-ration this attendance allowance even for contribu-tion to the C.P.F. as stated by the MW-1. Whenit is wage for other purposes, there is no reasonwhy the workmen should be deprived of the bene-fit of attendance allowance in calculating exgratia!bonus. '

13. As I have already stated, the workmen weregetting the bonus and exgratia similar to the wor-kers of the Dock Labour Board, which has notbeen contradicted' by cross-examination by themanagement. Eft. W-7 shows that a circular hadbeen issued on 25th June 1973 under the signatureof the Deputy Manager for Zonal Manager of theF.C.I, communicating the decision of the manage-ment of F.C.I, to pay bonus/exgratia at the rate of8.33 per cent for the accounting year 1973-1974to the departmentalized workers at various portsand depots Therefore, if the exgratia is payableand because of the very special] nature of the atten-dance allowance, it should not be treated as purelycompensatory allowance but as a part of the wagesto the workmen.

14, Since Bonus Act is not to be applied to theF C.I.. the definition of wages contained in thatAct cannot be taken for consideration of this atten-dance allowance. Therefore, the only definition thathas to he relied now for consideration of this allow-ance's the definition of wage as contained in Sec-tion 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947


The wage is defined in the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 as follows :—

"2(RR) "Wages" means all remuneration capableof being express, in terras of money.which would, if the terms of employment,expressed or implied, were lulled, bepayable to a workman in respect of hisemployment, or of work done in such,employment, and includes:-—

(i) such allowances (including dearnessallowance) as the workman is forthe time being entitled to ;

(ii) the value of any house accommoda-tion, or of supply of light, water,medical attendance or other amenityor of any service or of any conces-sional supply of foodgrains or otherarticles ;

(iii) any travelling concession ;but does not include —

(a) any bonus ;

(b) any contribution paid or pay-able by the employer to any pensionfund or provident fund or for the bene-fit of the workman under any law forthe time being in force ;

(c) any gratuity payable on thetermination of his service ;

Civ) any commission payable on the pro-motion of sales or business or both,"

Because of clause (i) of Section 2(rr) "wage"includes all allowances (including dearness allow-ance) as the workman is for the time beingentitled to. Therefore, there is no reason whythis attendance allowance .should not be includedin the definition of "wage". While interpretinga beneficial legislation like the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. an interpretation shall be followedwhich should be more beneficial for the workmanfor whose benefit this Act has been made-Accrodingly. the attendance allowance shouldbe treated as part of the "wage".

15, In view of this, it is reasonable to holdthat this attendance allowance cannot be treatedas a simple compensatory allowance and be treatedas part of the wage of the workmen even for thepurpose of calculation of the exgratia that is tobe paid to each one of them.

16. In the result, I hold that the action of themanagement of Food Corporation of India. Cal-cutta in. not making exgratia payment in lieu ofbonus on attendance allowance to their workmenemployed in the 20 Depots in Calcutta Com-plex on the plea that the same did not form partof the "salary" or "wage" as defined in the pay-ment of Wages Act, 1965 is not justified. The

workmen accordingly should be entitled to thisexgratia on this attendance allowance from thedate of their demand from October, 1980 sincethe workmen for the first time raised their de-mand by their letter dated 5-9-1980 as men-tioned in paragraph 10 of their written state-ment.



Dated, Calcutta,

The 28th February, 1997.


S.. O . 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of. theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,Calcutta as shown in the Annexure, in the indus-trial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of F.C.I, and their workman,which was received by the Central Government onthe 18-3-97.

[No. L-42012|33/85-D.V.]


ANNEXURE

CENTRA1 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA


Parties :

Employers in relation to the management ofFood Corporation of India,, Gauhati andtheir workmen.

Present ;

Mr, Justice K. C. Jagadeb Roy, PresidingOfficer.

Appearance :

On behalf of Management—Mr. A. N, Mitra,Advocate.

2189

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. H. Rahman,Advocate.

STATE : Assam INDUSTRY : Food

AWARD

By Order No. L-42012(33|85-D.V. dated 18February. 1987 the Central Government in exer-cise of its power under section 10(l)(d) and (2A)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred thefollowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofFood Corporation of India, G. S. Road,Ulubari, Shillong to stop work Shri GauriRai & 34 other workers given in theannexure with effect from May, 1982 isjustified '? If not, to what relief the work-men arc entitled ?"

ANNEXURE

SI. Name of the Workmen1. Shri Bindu Rai2. Shri Bhukhil Rai1. Shri Jaydev Mahato4. Shri Rajdhani Shab5. Shri Jailal Rai6. Shri Kapil Dev Rai7. Shri Hiralal Sahani8. Shri Mahendra Pandit9. Shri Ramashree Rai

JO. S h r i Ramchandra Rai11. Shri Ramgopal Singh12. Shri Mahendra Rai13. Shri Lakhandeo Rai14. Shri Nandalel Sohanaj15. Shri Madan Rai16. Shri Siranjan Mahato17. Shri Dhora RaiIX. Shri Janakhari Mahato19. Shri Joghi Sahani20. Shri Ramnath Mahato21. Shri Janak Mahato22. Shri Kira Sahani23. Shri Nagina Rao24. Shri Bhola Rai25. Shri Rupnarayan Rai26. Shri Harindra Rai27. Shri Anadi Rai28. Shri Akli Manesha29. Shri Nayalal Sahani30. Shri Sebak Ram31 Shri Chandrika Rai32. Shri Dinesh Sahani33. Shri Bisundeo Mahato34. Shri Janak Ram

872 GI/97—10

2. The workman and the management have filedtheir written statement, followed by a rejoinder bythe workmen.

3. The case of the workmen is that the 35 work-men mentioned in the annexure to the schedule ofreference were engaged by the FC.I. to do thework of loading and unloading at the TinsukiaDepot of the Food Corporation of India. Originallythere were about 73 workmen working at the saidDepot under the F.C.I, who were members of theFood Corporation of India Workers Union, but asthe said union could not look to their benefits, 42workmen out of the same left the said union andjoined the new union in the name and style ofFood Corporation of India Workers and Emp-loyees Union. Earlier one .Suraj Rai was theLabour Sardar who belonged to the earlier unionhad been aggrieved by the formation of the newunion and the departure of the 42 workmen inclu-ding the present 35 members join the newly formedunion. He accordingly with the help of the FCIofficers stopped their engagement with FCI withaffect from May, 1982. The workmen In this refe-rence case urge that this refusal to en-gage them amounted to termination of their emp-loyment which was without any basis and withoutfollowing, any procedure laid down in law. Theirgrievance is therefore, that they need be reinstatedin their jabs with the full back wages and other be-nefits if any.

3. The management denied the entire allegationof the workmen contained in their written state-ment and stated that 35 workmen were never emp-loyees of the F.C.I., there was no master and ser-vant relationship between them. They had not ret-renched or terminated their services and the reliefchimed by them had no foundation in law and bedenied.

4. Both the workmen and the management haveexamined two witnesses each from their sides andthe workmen have made 5 documents as their exhi-bits marked as Ext. W-l to W-5. Of these docu-ments W-l is a letter purported to have been sig-ned by Shri Gauri Rai addressed to theDistrict Manager, F.C.I. Jorhat. requesting pay-ment of the bills for the month of July 1981 andAugust 1981. This document is not signed byGauri Rai and merely a typed copy of the letter,the contents and genuineness of which has alsobeen denied by the Management witness No. 2 whowas the Depot incharge. Ext. W-2 is a letter purpor-ted to have been send by the FCI workers and Em-ployees Union addressed to the Assistant Manager,Pay Office, requesting to stop payment of theirwages and bonus through Suraj Rai of Tinsukia.This letter again was not signed by anybody andthe genuineness of which is also denied by theMW-2. Ext. W-3 is a letter purported to havewritten by the Labour Enforcement Officer (C)Dibrugarh. who is also the conciliation Officer ad-dressed to the Regional Manager, Food Corpora-

2190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART I I - S E C . 3(ii)]

of India, which is also not signed by any authorityand is denied by the witness MW-2 in his cross-exa-mination, who said that he was not aware of anydiscussion referred to in the said exhibit. In thatletter it had been mentioned that there was a dis-un ion held in the office of the Regional Manager,FCI, Ulubari on 4th June, 1983 wherein it wasagreed that as per the list enclosed, the workmenwould be taken back on duty with immediate effectat I.S.D., Tinsukia. A list of 53 persons wereannexed to that letter.

Ext. W-4 is a letter purported to have been writ-ten by the Assistant Manager, Pay, addressed to theLabour Sardar directing the Labour Sardar to dojustice and to absorve the workmen to their workimmediately with intimation to the Regional office.This letter was again not signed by anybody andhas been addressed to two Labour Sardars, DulyRai, of Dibrugarh and Gauri Rai of Tinsukia. Thesaid letter referred to the " u n d e r listed labourers"but that list which was supposed to be given indi-cating the names of the labourers, is not annexedto the Ext, W-4 MW-2 who was the Depot In-charge stated in his evidence that he did not re-ceive any such letter.

Ext. W-5 which is the last exhibit from the sideof the workmen which is a letter stated to havebeen written by Gauri Rai to the Deputy Manager,FCI, Gauhati, stating that he alongwith 34 labou-rers reported to duty to the Depot. Incharge, Tin-sukia, who were refused work until allowed by ShriSuraj Rai, MW-2 however stated in his depositionthat he had no knowledge about such a letter.

Ext. W-4 which was the letter addressed to thelabour Sardars to give the workmen work was ad-dressed to Gauri Rai and Duly Rai. I do not findany reason as to why the person who is canvassingthe case at the 35 persons including himself shouldbe so directed by the letter of the Assistant Mana-ger for providing work to him & other. Thesedocuments exhibited on behalf of the workmentherefore arc of no significance in favour of theworkmen as they are not proved nor have beenconsented to by the management to be exhibitedas evidence in favour of the workmen.

5. The management filed four documents, noneof which has been marked. These documents arethe receipt of payment made to the workers forMarch, 1982, and June 1981 and Main CashVoucher dated 21-6-7 982. None of the documentsmarked Exhibits- therefore cannot be accepted forconsideration.

6 From the pleading of the parties and writtenKites filed by them it reveals that the F.C.I, earlierso the Direct Payment System recruited the labou-rers through the Labour Sardars who used to en-gage his labourers for the work of the H.C.I, and

used to receive the wage money after the end ofthe month and used to distribute amongst the wor-kers. It is the case of the workmen that later onwhen the Direct Payment System was introduced,the workmen were paid directly. There is nomaterials led by the workmen through their uniontelling when these 35 persons started their engage-ments with the F.C.I, and no materials is avail-able in support of the contention that in fact these35 persons in particular were allowed to work withthe F.C.I, either through the Labour Sardar SurajRai or any other. No material is laid to show howlong for they had worked and whether the F.C.I.had any control over their work and if their jobswere terminated after they were made Direct Pay-ment Workers. "The oral evidence of the workmenis half-hazard, the evidence of the workmen ShriGauri Raj who examined himself as WW-l claimsthat the 35 workmen are now members of his union,He has stated that he was working as a workmanunder the F.C.I, and performing the duties of load-ing and unloading and used to get the paymentfrom F.C.I, the bill was paid to the Sardar whoused to distribute the money amongst the emp-loyees. Only because he himself and his otherfriends left the earlier union, the original union towhich other belonged, raised some trouble and theywere not allowed to join their duties and were ret-renched in 1982. They moved the High Court butthe High Court of Gauhati refused to entertain thatand held that it is matter for the Tribunal to decide.The Junior Manager of the F.C.I, asked them notto work. He however stated in his evidence thathe did not have any paper to establish such fact.Though his case in his evidence was that he wasgetting his wages from the Labour Sardar, he hadstated in his cross- examination that he and hisfellow workmen were appointed by the F.C.I, dir-ectly but the payments were made by the F.C.I,through the Sardar and denied to have arty paperswith them in support of his contention.

Another person by name Waned Ali Azad wasexamined as WW-2 who claims to be the GeneralSecretary of the F.C.I. Workers and EmployeesUnion. He said that 35 employees mentioned inthe reference were appointed by the F.C.I. andthere was no such system of issuance of appoint-ment letter at that time. The FCI came into exis-tence in 1975 and people who were working in theRegional Director of Food were taken-over by theFCT. At the time of starting of the FCI some do-cuments were given to the workmen but cither theywere destroyed or they might be with the FCI, Hehad admitted that he had not mentioned the samein the written statement. According to him all the35 persons were retrenched but no retrenchmentnotice was served on them and they have no papersin this regard and all these 35 workmen were mem-bers of the FCT Workers and Employees Union.

7. With these destorted facts it is difficult to holdthat if all the 35 employees or any of the emp-

2191

loyees mentioned in the list annexed to the sche-dule of reference had found mention in the acquit-tance role of the F.C.I, as the existence of a acquit-tance roll is admitted by the management's witnessaccording to whom the acquittance roll would showthat they were the persons engaged by the F.C.I.No attempt has been made by the workmen to pro-duce the same in the case. Without any properevidence in support of the contention that theseworkmen who were working in the Regional Direc-tor of Food earlier to the formation of the F.C.I.,were taken over by the F.C.I, and allowed to con-tinue under the F.C.I, and were stopped to be givenany work at a particular point of time without anyreason, no relief can be given of reinstating themwith back wages.

8. The only materials available is the evidence ofthe Suraj Rai who was examined as MW-1, whohad stated that he was a Labour Sardar and wasso appointed in the year 1986, which was donewith the knowledge of the union and labourers whowere working under him. He had admitted tohave engaged the workmen for the work of theF.C.I, and stated in his cross-examination that thelabourers were engaged by the F.C.I, and not byhim and the labourers were paid through him inpresence of the Depot Incharge and the DirectPayment System was introduced with effect from1985. He admitted not to have maintained any re-gister for the workmen who were working underhim but they have been maintained by the F.C.I.This witness who had been examined on behalf ofthe management, and whose statement, is bindingof the Management gives the impression that theseworkmen had been working since 1985 and wereengaged for the F.C.I, and not totally strangers tothe F.C.I. as the payments were made to workersas per the list submitted by him and in presence ofthe Depot Incharge. The management witness No.MW-2 states in his cross-examination that a des-patch register was being maintained by the F.C.I..At the material time there was Direct Payment Sys-tem and in 1981 Gauri Rat and Suraj Rai used tobe paid in Direct Payment and such payment wasmade by the Dist. Manager, the acquittance role wassent through him to the District Manager, whichmay be available in the office. During his cross-examination on 23-11-1992 he stated that he hadnot brought the Despatch Register as he was notinstructed by the employer even though he hadpromised to produce the same and he said that inthe acquittance role the names of the employeeswould he appearing.

9. If the documents are in possession of the partywhich has a strong bearing in the case and are notproduced, the inference must be against the personwithholding the document. Taking into considera--tion the statement of MW-1 as well as MW-2, thereis basis to hold that these 35 persons would hadbeen working in the F.C.I. Had this acquittance

872 GI/97—11

role and the despatch register been produced bythe management and it could have supported thecase of the worker concerned. This witness saysthat the documents could not be produced becausethe employer did not instruct him to produce thesame. Taking into consideration the fact that the35 persons mentioned in the list of the schedulehad not given work since May 1982 but have beendenied their right to work, while they were avail-able for service for which they were being engaged,I hold that thus, be taken back to the service ofthe FCI as labourers from the date the Awardcomes into operation and be paid a consolidatedamount of Rs. 5000/- as compensations to each ofthem for loss of their wage which they would haveearned had the management not refused to givethem work. The total back wages is denied toeach one of them since no evidence is led by eachof them if he was being engaged for the total per--iod of the month under the F.C.I.



Dated. CalcuttaThe 28th February, 1997.


S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers in rela-tion to the management of Uranium Corporationof India Ltd., and their workman, which was re-ceived by the Central Government on the 25tbMarch, 1997.

[No. L-29012|17|92-IR(Misc.)]B. M. DAVID, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

In the matter of a reference under section 10(1)

(d)(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947



PARTIES :Employers in relation to the management o£

Uranium Corporation of India Ltd.,Jadugodu Mines.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :For the Employers—Shri P. R. Rakhit,

Advocate.

For the Workmen—Shri S. N. Goswami,Advocate.

STATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Uranium.Dated, the 13th March, 1997

AWARD

By Order No. L-29012|17|92-IR(Misc.) dated3rd February, ,1994 the Central Government inthe Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of thepowers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1)and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Indus-trial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the fallowing dis-pute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the order dated 21st September,1992 of the management of the UraniumCorporation of India Ltd., JadugodaMine to dismiss the workman Sh. PurnaChandra Dhar, Drillman 'C Token No.1379 is justified or not ? If not, what re-lief the workman is entitled to and sincewhen."

2. The workman and the sponsoring union ap-peared and filed written statement stating thereinthat the management is engaged in mining andprocessing uranium ore to get uranium out of itand the Standing Order has been duly certifiedunder the Industrial Employment (StandingOrders) Act, 1946. It is further said that the work-man was employed in the mines of the companyaround the year 1969 as Drillman 'C' and sincethen he was performing his duty with unblemishedrecord of service till his dismissal which was im-proper, unjustified and it is said that there was 50groups known as Crew, consisting of one drillmanand 2 helpers in each group and there was nostandard norm for drilling a particular number ofmeters per crew during 8 hours duty in a day. Itis also said that he was doing unblemished recordof service, but all on a sudden he was served witha chargesheet dated 30th April, 1992 alleging thathe had resorted to go slow tactics with effect from18th April, 1992 resulting reducing in production.It was also said that even after pursuance siven bythe management he did not give normal productionand deliberately slowing down the work and dis-obeyed the order and for that chargesheet was is-

sued. He was required to show cause within 48hours and he submitted written explanation deny-ing the allegation. It is also said that his perform-ance was not lower than any other crew/drillmanat that time and issuance of chargesheet was arbi-trary and discriminatory ,

3. It is said that the Manager (Personnel & Ad-ministration) was not the competent authority toissue charge-sheet and the appointment of the En-quiry Officer also suffers from lack of competenceand jurisdiction. Thereafter domestic enquiry washeld which was also not in accordance with princi-ples of natural justice. The workman representativewas not competent like the management represen-tative and he could not defend himself properly.The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and on thebasis of the same dismissal letter dated 21st Sep-tember, 1992 was issued to him.

A. It is further said therein that denial of naturaljustice has been done by the management and copyof the report and finding of the Enquiry Officer wasnot given to the workman prior to dismissal formaking representation against the same and thatdismissal authority was not competent one. It isfurther said that there was arbitrary discriminationfor taking disciplinary action and punishmentwhere all the 50 crews were identically situated inthe matter and in the relevant period. It is also saidthat the Enquiry Officer was bias in favour of themanagement and against the workman. It is in-correct that he was taking leading part in organis-ing or instigating crew to slow down the produc-tion. It is also said that the punishment given to theworkman was highly disproportionate showing vic-timisation and there was unfair labour practiceand victimisation of the workman and in this viewof the matter the action of the management was-malafide. It is finally said that dismissal order wasnot justified and the workman is entitled for rein-statement with full back wages and continuity ofservice it is finally said that an award be passedaccordingly.

5.I find that the management appeared and filedwritten statement stating therein that the referenceis not maintainable either in law or on facts andthe reference was too stale and any relief can't begiven by the Tribunal and the management ofUranium Corporation of India Ltd. is not an 'in-dustry* under Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial DisputesAct. It is also said that the workman was dismissedfrom service for proved misconduct in a regularenquiry held against him where reasonable oppor-tunity was given to him to defend himself and theprinciples of natural justice and fair play wereobserved by the Enquiry Officer and thereafterafter considering and concurring with the report ofthe Enquiry Officer dismissal order was issued tothe workman and the demand of the workman isnot justified at all in the circumstances of the case.

2193

6. It is further said that the workman was work-ing as Drilman ' C during 1991-92 and during theperiod in consideration from 18th March, 1992 to18th April, 1992 the drilling average meterage ofthe workman was upto 21 metres which is muchbelow and alarming in comparison to meteragegiven by the workman which showed that he wasadopting 'go slow tactics' and negligence in dis-charge of duties causing loss and damage to themanagement, despite appeal made by the manage-ment of the Corporation.

7. It is further said that after issuance of charge-sheet reply was given by the workman on 2-5-92which was not found satisfactory and domestic en-quiry was held by the Enquiry Officer in whichthe workman and co-representative were given fullopportunity to defend themselves and to examinethe witness and that the enquiry was quite fairand proper and as per principle of natural justiceand after considering the enquiry report and con-currence with the competent authority dismissalletter dated 21-9-92 was issued to the workmanand the punishment given to the workman was inaccordance with gravity of offence and it didnot require any interference by the Tribunal.It is further said that this holding of domestic en-quiry be decided as preliminary issue. It isfinally said that the action of the management wasquite justified and the workman was not entitledfor any relief or reliefs as prayed and an awardbe passed accordingly.

8. I further find that a rejoinder has been givenby the management to the written statement ofthe workman denying the allegation as not true,incorrect and irrelevant. It is also said that thepunishment given to the workman was not dispro-portionate at all in view of the grave misconductcommitted by the workman was fully establish-ed in the domestic enquiry. Other statementsare said to be absolutely incorrect. It is finallysaid that an award be passed accordingly.

9. 1 further find that a rejoinder has been givenby the workman to the written statement of themanagement denying the allegation para wise andspecifically and the same is said to be incorrectand denied and it was also said devoid of meritand untenable. It is finally said that relief begranted to the workman as prayed. .

10. It may be noted here that holding* of domes-tic enquiry was heard as preliminary issue andvide order dated 26-11-96 the same has beenheld to be fair and proper. '

11. It may be noted here that one witness wasexamined on each side on the point of preliminaryissue and thereafter no further evidence has beenadduced by either side. However some docu-ments were filed by the management, which havebeen exhibited as Exts. M-l to M-7 which are

Report and finding of the Enquiry Officer(Ext. M-l) , dismissal letter dated 21-9-92 (Ext.M-2), Administrative Instruction dt. 4-4-79 (Ext.M-3), Charge-sheet (Ext. M-4), Appointment ofEnquiry Officer (Ext. M-5), Standing Order (Ext.M-6) and Proceeding of the enquiry (Ext. M-7),

J2. Now, the point for consideration in thiscase is—

(a) As to whether any disadvantage|preju-dice was caused to the workman by non-supply of copy of enquiry report priorto awarding the punishment of dis-missal ?

(b) Whether the punishment awarded tohim was too severe considering pastservice record of the workman andcircumstances of the case; and

(c) Whether or not the workman is entitledfor any relief.

13. All these points are inter-linked and assuch are taken together for their consideration.

14. While arguing the case it has been submit-ted on behalf of the workman that the domestic-enquiry held by the management was not fairand proper and no full opportunity was given tothe workman to defend himself and it was notin accordance with the principles of natural justice.However, I find that this point of domestic enquiryhas been heard and decided as preliminary issuewhere it has been held vide order dated 26-11-96that the domestic enquiry was held fairly and pro-perly and no further finding is required to begiven on this point. However, another point hasbeen raised on behalf of the workman that ad-mittedly copy of enquiry report was not givento him prior to passing of dismissal order and.; inabsence of such copy of enquiry report he couldnot make proper representation to the manage-ment for sympathetic consideration and in thisway he was put to disadvantage and was .certainlyprejudiced by this action of the management,Had opportunity, been given to him by servingcopy of the report of the Enquiry officer he mighthave approached to the management with suitablerepresentation for considering his case sympathe-tically and ,if required at all to give lighter punish-ment, but the aforesaid dismissal order (Ext.

M-21 is too severe in the facts and circumstances"at the case that only 4|5 drill men including theworkman were picked,and chose by the manage-ment and were dealt with severely in the formof their dismissal whereas the rest .other drill-men and were dealt with severely in the formmanagement and this action of the managementwas certainly discriminatory and punishment givento him was also disproportionate to the action ofthe workman.


15. In support of this contention some authori-ties have also been referred as 5 SCLJ-3333where it has been held by their Lordships ofHon'ble Supreme Court—"mere participationwould not justify dismissal if distinction couldnot be made between those who participated in"go slow tactics". Similarly, 1988 (57) F.L.R.719 (SC) has also been filed where too it has beenheld by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Courtthat "order of discharges or dismissal from ser-vice found lair and legal, but Labour Court candirect reinstatement with 75 percent of backwages should not be arbitrary." Similarly, 1974(11) LLJ. 339 (Rajasthan) has also been filedwhere it was held by the learned Justice that"under Section 11-A when the Tribunal givescogent reason while punishment is unjustified,arbitrary and excessive, writ judicial court mustbe slow in interference." My attention has alsobeen drawn by the learned lawyer of the workmanto the authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court asreported in the case of Union of India VS. RambanKhan [1991 (I) SCC page 588] and in the cast ofECIL, Hyderabad and others VS. B. Karunakarand others (19y3-Vol-4 SCC, page 727).

16. Perused the authorities and it has beensubmitted on behalf of the workman that theHon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts haveclearly denned the powers of the Tribunal afterintroduction of Sec. l l -A of the I.D. Act and ifdischarge or dismissal of the workman is foundto be unjustified and arbitrary or excessive andnot in conformity with the misconduct as alleged,the Tribunal can interfere and even pass order forreinstatement upto 75 percent of back wages asheld by their Lordships of Apex Court reportedin 1988(57) F.L. R . 719. It is further submittedthat a similar case against a co-drillman in Re-ference No. 89J93 was heard by this very Tribunaland award for reinstatement of the workman waspassed with direction of back wages having libertyto the management to proceed with the enquiryby placing the employee under suspension andcontinue enquiry from the stage of furnishing thecopy of the enquiry report and it is further point-ed out that the present management had gone tothe Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Bench in writpetition No. CWJC-3231|96(R) and the Hon'bleCourt has upheld the award passed by this Tribu-nal and the writ was dismissed with observationthat it is without any merit. It is pointed outthat the case of the present workman is similar andis on the same footing and here also copy ofenquiry report was not given to the workman be-fore passing order of dismissal vide Ext. M-2,although the same has been given to the workmanduring conciliation proceeding as pointed by themanagement while hearing preliminary issue andit is submitted that the workman was certainlyput to disadvantage as in absence of copy of en-quiry report he could not make proper represen-

tation to the management for considering his casesympathetically to award lesser punishment if atall so needed.

17. I find much force in this plea taken on be-half of the workman. It is also submitted thatsome authorities have been referred on behalfof the management while arguing the case onmerit and has been noted down in the writtenargument. But these authorities are of theperiod prior to introduction of provision of Sec.11-A of the I.D. Act which gives the Tribunalor Labour Court vast power to reconsiderthe evidence afresh put forward in the domes-tic enquiry. In this view of the matter it is sub-mitted that the workman is entitled for relief asclaimed and he should be reinstated in serviceor any lesser punishment ought to have beengiven to him. This order of dismissal causingeconomic death of the workman as he is sole breadearn of his family.

18. On the other hand, it has been submittedon behalf of the management that as domesticenquiry has been held to be fair and proper whilehearing as preliminary issue, no fresh evidencecould have been led on record and the workmancould have argued only on the point of severityof punishment. It is also submitted that miscon-duct of the workman of "go slow tactics" andhaving leading role in this "go slow tactics" hewas rightly chargesheeted to which reply was givenby the workman and the same was not found tobe satisfactory and thereafter domestic enquirywas held in which the workman alongwith hisco-represents participated and full opportunity wasgiven to him to cross-examine the management'switnesses, to give his own statement or to examinehis defence witness and nowhere any objectionwas raised by the workman about holding of theenquiry not being fair or against the Enquiry Offi-cer himself and after considering all these pointsthis preliminary issue was decided in favour of themanagement and that it can't be reiterated whilehearing argument on merit of the case. It is alsosubmitted that "go slow tactics" is serious typeof misconduct and as such punishment given to theworkman in the form of dismissal cannot be saidto be excessive and the Tribunal or Labour Courtcan't interfere in the matter of awarding punish-ment by the management. It is also submitted thatthe Tribunal should not interfere in such cases andfor that a number of authorities have been referredas reported in—(i) 1987 LI .C. (Division Bench)page 77, (ii) 1978 L.I.C. 1178 (Motor IndustrialCo.), (in) 1996 (72) F.L. R . 46 (P&H), (iv) 1992LLR—366 (P&H) (Ratan Chand). (v) 1961AIR-860(SC)-1980 LIC 336 (Hindusthan SteelLtd.)—Theft case—not expedient to employ andAIR 1992(SC) 2118.

19. From these authorities and a few more ithas been submitted on behalf of the management

2195

that considering the seriousness of the misconductcommitted by the workman and the charges foundto be proved in the domestic enquiry the manage-ment concurred with the finding of the Enquiryother and order of dismissal was passed and theaction of the management was fully justified andany interference at all is required by the Tribunal.It is also submitted that no prejudice or any hard-ship was caused to the workman by not giving en-quiry report to him prior to passing the dismissalorder as no punishment Was suggested by the En-quiry Officer and in. view of the matter also thereis no improper action on behalf of the manage-ment, to be turned as unfair labourpractice and there is no question of caus-ing any discrimination or arbitrariness with theworkman and the latter is not entitled to any reliefas claimed.

20. However, after going through the case re-cord, I find much force in the plea taken on be-half of the workman that certainly if copy of theenquiry report had been given to him prior to pass-ing of the dismissal order which would have mademuch difference to him as he would have been ina better position to place his case by way of re-presentation before the management to considerthe hardship caused to him also of his unblemish-ed service career as he, was working always for thebenefit of the management and there was no iotaof truth that he has instigated other co-workmento go slow in production and certainly he has beenprejudiced by not giving the copy of the enquiryreport. I further find that recently order of theHon'ble High Court passed in CWJC No. 3231/96(R) dated 8-1-97 has been received in Refe-rence No. 88/93 wherein similar case between co-workman and the same management, order for re-instatement of the workman was passed by thisvery Tribunal vide order dated 26-5-95 with libertyto the management to proceed with the enquiryfrom the stage of giving of the copy of enquiry re-port to the workman and putting the workmanunder suspension if so required. This order waschallenged by the management before the Hon'bleHigh Court in the aforesaid CWJC and the samehas been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and up-held the order of the Tribunal and it was also heldthat there was no merit in the application of theapplicant-management. The case of the presentworkman is quite similar and he also stands on thesame footing as he is one of the five drill men outof 50 drill men who have been dismissed by themanagement on the charge of "go slow tactics".All above noted points are decided accordingly infavour of the workman.

21. Accordingly, I hold that the action of themanagement in dismissing the workman was notjustified and the order of punishment is hereby setaside and the management is directed to reinstatethe workman in service from the date of his dis-missal till the date of his superannuation i.e.January, 1995, as pointed out in the written argu-

ment of the management (page 5) and the concern-ed workman will be entitled for 75 per cent of fullback wages with all other benefits till the date ofsuperannuation. Had the workman more servicethe management would have been at a liberty toproceed with the domestic enquiry from the stageof serving copy of the enquiry report to the work-man and if required after putting him under sus-pension. But as he has already crossed the age ofsuperannuation, in view of the matter, I find thatsuch continuation of domestic enquiry is of nomeaning. As such, the workman would be gettingonly monetary benefit from the date of reinstate-ment till the date of his superannuation in January,1995.

22. Hence, the following award:-—

The action of the management of Uranium Cor-poration of India Ltd. in dismissing Shri PurnaChandra Dhar, Drillman 'C' Token No. 1379 videtheir order dated 21-9-92 is not justified. Themanagement is directed to reinstate the concernedworkman in service from the date of his dismissaland pay him 75 per cent of full back wages withall other benefits till the date of his superannua-tion i.e. January, 1995.

In the circumstances of the case, there will beno order as to cost.

TARKESHWAR PRASAD, Presiding Officer


S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), theCentral Government hereby publishes the Awardof the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad as shown inthe Annexure, in the industrial dispute between theemployers in relation to the management of Post &Telegraph, Mehsana and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on25th March, 1997.

[No. L-40012|91|89-D2(B)]K. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer

2196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19,1997/CHAITRA 29, 1919 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI P. R. DAVE, PRESIDING OFFI-CER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CENTRAL,

AHMEDABAD

Reference (ITC) No. 11 of 1990

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

Assistant Engineer,

Post & Telegraph, Mehsana . . . First party.

AND

The workmen employed under it. . . . Secondparty

In the matter of reinstating Shri Narotam Jeena-bhai Parmar, a casual labour of Asstt. Engg. P&TSatellite Project, Mehsana with full back wages.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. N. Joshi, learned Advocate—for thefirst party.

Kum. Ashaben Gupta, learned Advocate—forthe second party.

AWARD

By an Order No. L-40012|91l89-D-2(B) dated31st January, 1990, the Desk Officer, LabourMinistry, Government of India, New Delhi has re-ferred an industrial dispute as stated in the Sche-dule of above order between the above parties u/s.10(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947, initially to the Indus-trial Tribunal of Shri V. H. Thakore and subse-quently to the Industrial Tribunal of Shri Bhattand finally, it was transferred to this Tribunal byan appropriate order of the Government.

Before this matter can be heard and finally dis-posed of, Shri N. J. Parmar, the concerned work-man has filed a Purshis Ex. stating that the Tele-communication is not an "industry" according toSupreme Court's order dated 2nd February. 1996and, therefore, the second party may be grantedpermission to withdraw the reference with leave toapproach proper forum for his dispute as prayedfor in the interest of justice in View of above, I pass

the following order :—

ORDER

Permission is granted to withdraw the referenceto second party with leave to approach properforum for his dispute as prayed for in the interestof justice and the reference is disposed of accord-ingly with no order as to costs.

Ahmedabad, 27th February, 1997.

P. R. DAVE, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 1997

S.O. 1080.—In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of thePayment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the

Central Government hereby specified the educa-tional institutions in which ten or more personsare employed or were employed on any day pre-ceding 12 months as a class of establishments towhich the said Act shall apply with effect from thedate of publication of this notification :

Provided that nothing contained in this notifica-tion shall affect the operation of the notification ofthe Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 239 dated the 8thJanuary, 1982.

[F. No. S-42013I1I95-SS. II]J. P. SHUKLA, Under Secy.

2197

New Delhi, the 10th April, 1997

S.O. 1081.—Whereas the Central Government hav-ing been satisfied that the public interest so requiredhad, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause(vi) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the IndustrialDispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by theNotification of the Government of India in theMinistry of Labour, S.O. No. 2998, dated 11thOctober, 1996, the Industry engaged in the manu-facture or production of Mineral Oil (Crude Oil),Motor and Aviation, Sprit, Diesel Oil, KeroseneO. Fuel Oil, Diverse Hydrocarbon Oil and theirblends including synthetic fuels, Lubricating Oilsand the tike, to be a public utility service for thepurpose of the said Act. for a period of six monthsfrom the 11 October, 1996 :

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,the Central Government hereby declares the saidindustry to be a public utility service for the pur-poses of the said Act for a period of six months fromthe 11th April, 1997.

[No. S-11017/6/97-IR (PL)]

H. C GUPTA, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Maya Puri, New Delhi-ll0064and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 1997