REGISTERED NO. D. (D.N.)-128

The Gazette of IndiaPUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 9] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910

Separate Paging is 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 thanthe Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES

(Department of Civil Supplies)

New Delhi the 25th January, 1989

S.O. 402.—The Central Government, having considered.in consultation with the Forward Markets Commission, theapplication for renewal of recognition made under section 5of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of1952) by the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Association, Guntur,and being satisfied that it would be in the interest of thetrade and also in the public interest so to do, hereby grants,in exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the saidAct, recognition to the said Association for a further periodof two years from the 7th March, 1989 to the 6th March,1991, (both days inclusive) in respect of forward contractsin cotton.

2. The recognition hereby granted is subject to the con-dition that the said Association shall comply with such, direc-tions, as may, from time to time, be given by the Forward

Markets Commission.

[File No. 12/1/IT

(517)384 GI/88

}1»": THE O&ZferrE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/FHALGUNA 13, m o [PA|LT I I—SEC. ,3(U)1

S. o . 403.—The Central Government, having consideredin consultation with the Forward Markets Commiislon, theapplication for renpwal of recognition made under section5 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of1952) by the Central India Commercial Exchange Limited,Gwalior, and being satisfied that it would be in the in-terest of the trade and also in the public interest so to do,hereby grants, in exercko of the powers conferred by sec-tion 6 of the said Act, recognition to the said Exchange fora further period of two years from the 18th March, 1989to the 17th March, 1991, (botn dnys inclusive) in respect offorward contracts in tjnr.

2. The recognition hereby granted is subject to the con-dition that the said Exchange shall comply with such direc-tions, as may, from time tt> time be given fry the ForwardMarkets Cornmlsslan.

[F. No. 12/2/IT/891

T. N. JAITt.F, Fconomic Adviser

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 30th January 19?9

S.O. 404. -fnpursuance orsub-rulc(b)ofRule7of theButcauof Indian SiandurL'sRuK\19H7 itis.hei tby. notified Ihul the Indian

Stflndnrd, particulars of which Is mentioned in the Schedule given herefter, has been cancelled find stunt's widuli nwn •. -

SCHEDLE

SI. No. & Year ofthe Indian StandardNYt. Cancelled

1. TS : 3310 1965

S.O. No. & Date of the Gazette Notificationin which Establishment of the Tndinn Standurdwas Notified

S.O. 1081 dated 1966-03-25 published in theGazette of India, Part-II, Section-?. Sub-section (ii) dated 1966-04-09.

RemDTk«!

As these diill arc no longer in use,Hence wi<hiJra\\n.

fNo. CMlTi:! • 7)

5J9

S. O. 405.— In pursuance of sub-rale (b) ofRuie 7 of the Bureau of Indian Stanadards Rule, 1987 it is, hereby, noticed thai the[a Han Standards, pnrliculnrs of which flre mentioned in the Schedule given herefter, have been cancelled and stands wiihdra wn :

SCHfcDULl.:

SI. No. & Year of tile Indian Stands rdNo. Cancelled

1

1.

T

J.

TS : 1185- 1957

IS :2225- - l%2

[S : 2273- J%3

S.O. No. & Date of the Gazette Notificationin which Establishment of the Indian Standardwas Notified

3

S.O. 1349 dated 1958-07-01 published in theGazette of India, Part-IT, Section-3, Sub-set-lion (ii) dated 1958-07-12

S.O. 1147 dated 1963-04-10 published in theGazette of India, Part-II, Section-3, Suh-SL-ction (ii) dated 1963-04-20.

S.O. 1421 dated 1963-05-16 published in theGa/ettc of India, Part-It, Sectlon-3, Sub-section (ii) dated 1963-05-7.5.

Remaiks

4

Since tho requivtmcntsoflS :11ti5-1957 arc covered in IS : 57P5(Part I to V). Hence, withdicwn.

As the requircmoms of this standui dhave been covered in IS : 11 SB 1 -1986. Hence, uiiht'n wn.

Ai the requiLtmcnts of this smiubn.1have been covered in JS : 11K81- .1986. Hence, withdrawn.

[No. CMD/1.1 : 7J

520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. J(ii)]

S.O. 406. - -In pursuance of sub-rule (h) of Rule 7 of the flmc^u of Indian Standiu tK Rule,1 987 iL ih, hcreb; notified IIIHI theIndian Standard, particular! of which is iwtiiionwl in the Schedule gi\en hcrciifkv, h;is hi.tiicaiKi.IUc' ,HH' (iinr1-; wiiUritavwi .

SCHEDULE

SI.No

I.

No. & Year of the Indian StandardCancelled

TS : 9023-1978

S.O. No. & Date of the Gazette Notification inwhich Establishment of tho Tndian Standardwas Notified

S.O. 2274 dated 1981-08-12 published in theGazette of India Part-II, Section-?. Sub-section (ii) dated 1981-08-29.

Renwrks

Sincu tho item covered in this specifi-cation tu«s Ki rme ( bsohiU.1.

[No. CMD/1.1 t 7J

52\

S.O- 407—In pursuance of sub-rulc(b) of Rul t 7 of the Bureau of Indian St&ndordsRule, 1987 it is, hereby, notiiied that thefiJinn Sinandardfs), particulars of which (ire mentioned in fhe Schedule gi\cn hcrenfier, hnve bccncincel lul find sti'ic'i willu'rawn :

SCHHDULL

No.

!

.1. [S

:. is

3. IS

N i . it Ycarol the Indian Standin.Cancelled

: 4030 -1973

;433l{l \mJl- 1980

:9731 -i9S0

S.O. No. & Date of the Gi.zettc Notification inwhich Esiablishment of tbc- Indian Standardwas Notiiied

3

S.O. 2557 dalcd 1975-07-18 publiscd in theCla/tettc of India Part, II, Section-3, Sub-section(ii)dateu 1975-08-09

S.O. 324 daLtd 1985-01-07 published m ihc'lGazette of India, Part-2, S'ection-3, Sub- [.section fii) dated 1985-01-26. J-

S.O. 1013 dated 1985-02-07 pubislicd in liic (Oazette of India, Part-2, Section 3, Sub- iSection 0 i) dated 1985-03-09 J

R(.mai-j..s

4

As the requirements of LOW rolUdcarbon stee' titiips have n< v- bwn

covered in IS : 513-19%. l lcnawithdrawn.

Ai theit: ^tafiUiiidh art r,< ; !< lii cirelevant. Hence withdrfiv.n.

[No. CMD/13 : 7]

S- O. 4ii- • -L'i i> u'»u i weot' «nb-mlo(b)oJ: Rule 7 of the Buroiuof Indian Standnrds Rule, 1987irj^, hereby, notified thM <heIndian St.»n l i r l , p irtionfais of which is mentioned in the Schedule given hereufK-r has been cancelled and stands withdrawn .

522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4. 198y/PHALGUKA 13, ltMO [PAJU II—Sue. 3{ii)l

SCMFDUIJ

SI. N<>. yenr of the Indian StuntlarriNo. Cancelled

1. IS : 9747-1981

SO. No.&DaifOfthi: Guzctlc Nutiikmii n

in which tiitabllshmcnl of the Indian. Slunduulwas Notified

S.O. 748 duttd I9S5-0I-30 pubiiilKil in LhcGdzctlc ol" India, Part-lf, S^ciion-?, Sub-section (ii) dated 1985-02-13.

Remarks

As il i;> no moic isiiicd as i h n dI'oriili7ci". Jfciict1, witj'dvnv. r.

[No. CMD/:J : 7J

K..R. PARAMESVAR. Director Gcuerul

s;3

DEPARTMENT OF CtllTURF

(Archaeological Survey of Indin)

New Delhi, i!ie filh Fe-brunry, 19K9

(Arehaeoloftyl

S. 0 . 409.—Whereas the Central Government is of theopinion thet the ancient monument specified in the Scheduleannexed hereto is of national importance ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of (he powers conferred bysub-section (1) of section 4 of the Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958),the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intentionto declare the said ancient monument to he of nationalimportance.

Any objection tthicb may be icceived within a period ofIwo months from the date of i«ue of this notification in theOfficial (jazette fiwn any person interested in the sMil nn-cicnt monument will he fafcen into consideration bv theCentral Government.

THE GAZETTE OP INDIA ; MARCH i, 19«9/'PHALGUNA ». J, 1910 [PARI l i ^ B C . 3 ^ ]

SCHEDULL

UnionTerritory

1

Daman ScDili

Disirici

->

Din

Locality

3

Diu Towr

Name ofMomimcni

4

i Saint Paul'sChurch outskit Forl

Revenue plotnumbers to lieincluded umkiprotection

5

Part of surveyplot No. .13/ITS/90 a s shownon the sile planreproducedlx-low

Area

3175•sq.meters

Bound arits

7

North..—Remainingportion of survey plotnumber 33/PTS/90F.asi.—RoadSouth .—RoadWest.—Survey plot rami-her 10/PTS/11 *>

Owm.T<:h)p

8

Confiariu-tt-nossa Senhoi :i

Do Kowtiii

Remaik

9

SITE PLAN OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH AT DIU

[No." 2/15/84iMj

525

S. O. 410.-—Whereas the Centra] Government is of theopinion that the ancient monument specified in the Scheduleannexed hereto is of national importance;

Now, therefore, in excivisc of the powers conferred bysub-section (I) of section 4 of the Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Re-nains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958),the Central Government nereby gives two months notice of

its intention to declare the said ancient monument to be ofnational importance from, the date of publication of thisnotification in the Official Gazette;

Any objection which may be received from any personinterested in the said ancienl monument within a period oftwo months so specified, will be token into consideration bythe Central Government.

SCHEDULE

UnionTerritory

1

Damanand Din

District

->

13 iu

Tehsil

3

Diu

Locality

4

DiuTown

Name ofmonument

5

Fort togetherwith (heBuildingsinside it.

Revenue plotnumbers to beincluded underprotection

6

Survey plotNo . I /PTS/RR

Area

7

5.673Hectares

Boundaries

8

N o r t h . - Survey plotNo . 5/PTS/R9 andArabian Sen.

Easl.—Arabian Sea.South.- -Survey plotNos. 3/PTS/117and3/PTS/119 andArabian Sea.West . - Survey plotNos.4/PTS/117and34/PTS/90.

Ownership 1

9

Remarks

10

Government Nil

[No. 2/2/84-M]

384 G1/R9—'i

526 THE GAZETTE.OF. INDIA : MARCH 1. 1989/P1IALGUNA 13, l!>10 [FAfcr 11—SBC 3Tif)l

S. O. 411.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section4 of the Ancitnt Monuments and Archaeological Sites andRemains Act, 19:58 (24 of 1958), the Central Governmenthereby rescinds notification of the Government of India inthe Department of Culture (Archaeological Survey of India)S. O. No. 1786, dated the 3rd Muy, 1982 published in theGazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated ihe15th May, 1982 at pHge 1975.

[No. 2I28|87-MJJAGAT PAT1 JOSHI, Director General

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 8th February. 1989

S. O. 412.—Whereas by notification of the Government ofIndia in thei Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S. O. No.2841 dated 7-9-88 under subsection (1) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the CentralGovernment declared it's intention to acquire the right ofuser in lands specified in the schedule appended to thatnotification for the purpose of laying pipeline.

And whereas the Competent Authority ha? under sub-section (J'I of rfce Section 6 of the snitf Act, fuhmitied reportto the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has. afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the risht ofuser in the lands in the schedule appended to this notification;

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferrcr] by siib-^ t l o n (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act the CentralGovernment hereby declares that the right of user in the saidlands specified in the schedule appended to this notificationhereby acquired for laying t'nc pipeline;

in

And further in exercise of powt;r conferred by sub-section(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that theright of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting inCentral Government vests on this date of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission freofrom encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

PIPELINE FROM LANVAGGS IIITO BALOLGGS/CTF.Stitc : Gujarat District & Taluka : Mehsaua

Village

1

Mitha

Survey No,

2

635634641/2641/1641/3Cart track599/2599/1598597591596592/1593Cart track.494/2494/1486487/1487/2478488477/2477/1480476473/J473'2477471470469Cart track4M46243442^/142742842f.

Hectare Are

3

0000000000000000000

0000000000000000000 '00

Ccntiatc

104 "151408040111131021001400190221,070117

070510120501070506080705070110141205141014

5

20200080753080003010105050002000000080

750070002060603070000000802000000060

on0040

[No. O-l 1027/163/88-ONG-D. Ill)

S. O. 413.—Whereas by notification of the Government O£India in the Ministry of Petrowurn & Natural Gas S. O. No.2842 dated 7-9-88 under sub-ssction (J) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the CentralGovernment declared it's intention to acquire the right ofuser in lands specified in fciij schedule appended to thatnotification for the purpose of laying pipeline.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the j;;id Act, submitted reportto the Goveimnv-.it;

And further whereas; the Central Government has, afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the right ofuser in the lands in the schedule appended to this notification;

Now therefore, in exercree ol the power conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby declares that the right of user in the widlands specified in the schedule appended to thin notificationhereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

52R THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1^89/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART I I—SEC. 3(ii)]

And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-section(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that theright of user in the said lands shall Instead of vesting InCentral Government vests on this date of the publication ofthis declaration In the Oil & Natural Gas Commission freefrom encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Unva GGS III to BalolGGS/CTF.

StJte : Gujarat - District &TaIuka : Mchsana

Village Survey No. Hc-d- Are Cer-tarc tiarc

Gamanpuw 616 0 02 00621 0 19 75622 0 19 00639 0 05 75638 0 13 80641/1 0 08 00643 0 06 00644 0 04 00646 0 05 00

648 0 05 00649 0 12 60650 0 11 50654 0 01 50Cu-t track 0 01 20653 0 13 50681 0 12 00682 0 00 50Carl track 0 01 00

[No. O-l 1027/164/88-ONG-D. 11IJ

S,O. 414.—Whereas it appears to the Central Governmentthat it is necessary in the public interest that for the transt-port of petroleum from Cnand Kheda to Reliance Ind. inGujarat State pipeline should be bid by (he Oil & NaturalGas Commission.

And whereas it appears that foi the purpose of laying suchpipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in theland described in the schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, therefore, in exercise uf the powers conferred bysub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the Petroleum ;md Mine-rals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the land)Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government herebydeclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

Provided that uny person interested in the said land may,wilihin 2] days from the dato of this notification, object tothe laying of the Pipeline under the land to the CompeteDtAuthority, Oil & Natural Gus Commission, Construction &Maintenance Division, Makarwa Road, Vadodara,

And every person making such an objection shall alsostate specifically whether he wishes to be heard in person ofby legal Practitioner.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Reliance Gas Line.•iia te : G-ijurat District : Arirrwd.abad Talukfl : Dascroi

Village

Hanspur

Block No.

17182423

Ho -tare

0000

Are

02120805

Cen-tiare

50408040

[Mo. O-l 1027/15/89-ONG-D-1T1]

529

S.O. 415.—Whereus by notification of the Government ofIndia in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S.O. No,2949 dated 1-9-88 under sub-section (1) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the CentralGovernment declared it's intention to acquire the right ofuser in lands specified in l!« schedule appended to thatnotification for the purpose of laying pipeline.

And whereas the Con.pecont Authority has under sub-tcction (It of the Section 6 U the said A:t, uubmittsl repoit10 the Government;

And further wheieas the Central Government has, afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the right ofu^ci in UK1- land^ in the wtiedul? appended lo tnii notification;

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the saidlands specified in the schedule appended to this notificationhereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-seclion(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that theright of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting inCentral Government vests on this date of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission freefrom encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Lanva GGS III to Balol GGS-cum-CTF.State : Gujarat District : Me hsana Talu ka : Chanf sroa

Villa BC

Saduthala

Survey No,

8990/.P90/P97919294/29699Cirt track101100/2100/1

Cart track153155/1156/2156/1151150174/P174/PCirt track183/P183/P188185

Hec-tare

00000000000000

000

0000000000

Are

260316260432IR14220201140602070009

09424506080209162318

Cen-tiare

008090006000900080000090300030758020001000900090909010

[No. .>:llO:7/150/88-ONG-D. Ill]

530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4. 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 IFARI ll—SEC. 3(U)1

S.O. 416.—Wheieas by notification be the Government ofIndia in the \fintstry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S. O. No.2951 dated 1-9-88 under sub-sect ^n (1) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right1

irf User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of !%2), the CentralGovernment declared its intention lo acquire the njrht ofuser in lands specified in the schedule appended :o thatnotification for the purpose of laying pipeline

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section U) of tiie Sudion 6 uf the saiU AL(, mbmilled reportto the Government;

And further whereas the Central Government has, afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the right ofuser in. the lands in the schedule appended to this notification;

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby declares that the right of user in the saidlands specified in the schedule appended to this notification

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-section(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that theright of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting inCentral Government vests on this date of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil •& Natural Gas Commission freefrom encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Lanva GGS 1IJ to Balol GGS/CTF.

Slate : Gujarat District & Taluka : Mihsnna

Village

1

Maguna

Survey No.

2

253249Carl track254258Cart track.260263234231233232261

229227228C u t (rack200Ca rt track145146/1

Carl track150/11 50/2151153152

Hec-tare

3

000000000000000000000000000

Are

4

18000310

20011915

08000014052302070223010706020407120104

Ctn-liarc

605 *500050K0

0060to52756050707080606060602575

so0050.1500

531

1 2

~ " 15410710596/196/2979859

5853/15554

3

000000000000

4

151210141201160715080114

5

808000000060806045103040

[No. O-11027/145/88-ONG. D.-IIt]

S.O. 417.—Whereas by notification of (he Government ofIndia in the Afinistry of Petroici.ni & Natural Gns S. O. No.407 dated 7-1-88 under sub-section (1) of Section ? ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition nf Rightof User in l.and) Act, \-)aZ < <:) <-[ 1962), The CentralGovernment declared it's inLvhon to acquire the right ofuser in Innds specified in (he schedule appended to thatnotification for Ihe purpose of loving pipeline

And whereas the Competent Aulhnnlv li.is under sub-section (1) '.it' th; S-ctiop 6 of il.e saVl Act, submitted rcponto the Government;

And further whereas the Cent ml Government has, afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the Tight ofirer in the lands in the schedule appended to this notification:

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 ot the said Act. the CentralGovernment hereby declares that the right of user in the naldlands specified in the schedule appended to this notificationhereby acquired for Itiyinp the pipeline;

And further in exercis- of power conferred by sub-sectionf4) of the section, the Central Government directs that therinht of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting inCentral Governmenl vests on This dirts of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission freefrom encumbrances.

SCHFDULKPipeline for KNK Phase IT

State : GujaratVillage

1

Valasan

District : Khcda

Survey No.

539/4539/3543546/1546/2

Talula

Hec-tare

3

0

0000

: A rri 'd

Are

4

H

06530808

Cen-tiare

5

00

96700010

532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, lysy/PHALGIJNA 13, l<>10 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 2

560/2561/4561/1562522518/1505/1505/2507489/2488487486474398/1 + 3427428

426/2425/1425/2425/3425/443743543645845^/2

3

00000000000000000

0000000000

4

192016161326

0110122755272206040400

0300OS08011500212907

:•,

K02010900040

2315707070604029761518

36032546221014466062

[Hi. O-U027/37/88-ONG-D. TH1

New Delhi, the 14th February, 1989

S.O. 418.—Whereas by notification of the Government ofIndia in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S. O, No.2834 dated 6-9-88 under sub-section (1") of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightot User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 ot 1962), the CentralGovernmenl declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in lands specified in the schedule appended to thatnotification for the purpose of laying pipeline.

And whereas the Concei.it *".utl.ority Sins i.n ler sub-section <1) >1 the Section 6 ot the said Act, submitted 'epcrtto the Governmi'ii;

And further whereas the Central Government has, afterconsidering the mid report divided to acquire the Tight ofiiier in the lands in the schedule appended to this notification;

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, thc CentralGovernment hereby declares that the riffht of user in the saidlands specified in the schedule appended to this notificationhereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further in exercise of power conferred by sub-section(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that theright of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting inCentral Government vests on this date of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil &, Natural Gas Commission freefrom encumbrances.

SCHEDULEPipsline from Chaiulkheda to Reliance Incl.

State : Gujarat District &Tahika : Gandhinat'ar

Village

Ranasan

Block- No.

IN2 "232217IK19Carl track131128130129125

Kcc-tare

0000000000000

Arc

46407309060021020420181833

Cen-tiarc

00753060403070404172630960

[No. O-ll 027/154/88-ONG-D. Till

53.1

S.O. 419.—Whereas by notification of the Government ofIndia in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas S.O. No.2833 dated 6-9-88 under mb-section (1) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Mineral* Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (--ft -f 1962), the CentralGovernment declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in lands specified in the schedule appended to thatnotification for tlife purpose of laying pipeline.

And wnerer'- It.e ( i.mpet-w Authority has under sub-section (1) Jf ths Section 6 of the said Act, submitted repottto the Government;

And further wherea* the Central Government hns, afterconsidering the said report decided to acquire the right ni'it-er in the lands in t!he schedule appended to this notification;

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred bv -libsection (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act. the CentralGovernment hereby declares that the right of user in the saidlands specified in the schedule appended to this notificationhereby acquired for layins the pipeline:

And further in exercise of power conferred by siib-vrctio.i(4) of the section, the Central Government directs that the.right of user in the wild lands shall instead of \estinj* in?S4 Gil 89—3

Central Government vests nn Li is dale of the publication ofthis declaration in the Oil .<fc NnrtirnI Gas Commission fieefrom encumbrances.

SCIitiDULr:

Pipeline from Chandktudn 1c Peliance Ir.d.SUt-j : Gui irat District & "i'uhika : GamUiirui; nr

Village

I f;ii;spurn

Block No.

I-II 5I 92021

4123

1 ItfC-

t [i re

00

1)00000

Art-

OS34

20\5421009

tiaro

20K000006060'4040

fNo. O-li027/153/88-ONC-D. TH1K. VIVEKANAND, Desk Officer

MINISTRY Or LABOUR

New Delhi, the 24th January, 1980

S.O. 420.—Whereas by notification of the Government ofIndia, Industrial Disputed Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the award of the Central Gov-ernment Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as shown fnthe Annexure in the industrial dispute between the emp-loyers in relation to the F.ast Kaiaras Colliery of Mjs,Uharat Coking Coil Limited und their workman.

ANNEXURE

IEFORE THE CEMTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL, fNO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Reference No. 17S of 19S7

In the matter of nn industrial dispute under section10(1 Kd) of the LD. Act, 1947

PARTIES :

Fmployers in relation to the management of East KatiasColliery of M|s, Bharat Cokinp Coal Limited andtheir workmen,

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workmen : Shri Arjun Sineh, Kecie-tary, Koyala Ispat Mnzinoi-, r.nnchavat.

On behalf of the employers • Shri H. Sinfh. Tiy. Per-sonnel Manager.

STATE : Bihar INDUSTRY • t \»1

Datwl, TMi&nbad, :h» 5th Tunuoiy, 19S9

534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]

, AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exerciseof the powers conferred on them under section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012|319|86-D.IIKA), dated the 2nd July, 1987.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of tho management of East KatrasColliery of Katras Arei M|s. Bharat Coking CoalLimited, Dhanbad, ;rt dismissing Shri Panku Bhula,Dumper Khalasi of East Katras Colliery w.e.f.18-4-1985 is justified ? Tf not, to what relief the•workman is entitled ?"

In this ca»e both the parties filed Their respective W.S.document* etc. But niVeauen% at the staaes of evidencehofi the. nart'Vs arvneared before me and filed a petition ofcoTnrwotn'ce. T heard them on the sold petition of compro-miRe and I drv find thnt the terrm contained therein are fair.proner nnd beneficial to both the parties. Accordingly Iaccent fhe same and pa's an Award in terms of petition ofcompromise which, forms part of (he award as Annexure.

T. N. STNHA. Presiding Officer[No. L-200I2/319/86-D,TTT(Al/m (Coal)]

ANNEXTjRE 'A'

pcT?r*Tjc THfi PPF<5TnTNG OFFTCER CENTRAL GOV-ERNMFNT TNDUSTRTAT TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT

DHANBAD

Reference No. 178187

Employer* fci relation to the management of F_astKatras Colliery

Their Workman

Petition of CoroporomlseThf tii1TnKV tn;t;*:nn OT\ Wiaif nf the parties to the above

reference mo't respectfully sheweth ;—1. Th-it the di lute ^*" been amicably settled between

t*>e »M>rMe« on the following term? :—fl) TUnt the roncemrd workman Sri Pnnkii Bhuia

w'11 be pivrn emn1o"mrnt on his orijrlnnl iota within7 flivs from the dnte he report reports for hisduty.

(2) Ttint the i-on^erntd workman will be rm'd 50^% ofhi" mrmrtiiw waw« for the nenod nf his IdVnfsofrom 1 R-d-R5 on the date he U allowed to resumehh fluty. His enntinuitv of *iervlce wil! be main-tained.

(c) TTi-t tbe ronrern'mfl Workman will not clnirn for ttichninnre amount On nrroiirit of "in^es Tid Otherbrnc^tr for t^e n^rilM of hk Idleness from 18tnATIT'1. 19R5 till the r«ite of hh repumntion of duty.

fd'* TVint If the rnnctrnM wnrVrnim fails to report forTito ftntv within 1ft d™n from the date of this•^ttV-mfnt- hi" will fnrefoit nil thn rlfrhti under thim<v.tMflmrnt nnd it will bs deempii that he Vms accept-ed h;- di^misfal from his sorvicc-i with effect from18-4-85.

fei TTiit the concerned wrfknuwi must nrodncp bisOT'Vi'nni Mentif1^ card nnd i'lc relevant document to"rovp his penunftv "f Jbe ti'nic of renorfinc for hisd^tv for proper veriflr;otir>n of his identitv.

2. That in view nf thi- iettleme-]( lliere remains nothincto be adludicated.

TTnd r the farts nnd c'rcumil'Jlni'ft; stn'c-1 nbovp the Hon'nb'» Ty'h'iimi nrlll be nrarionoiv r>Ie:iced t<> ICCP"' < e settle-ment as fair aid pronert and b* ulen^p i (o n^t the \wnrd interms of the settlement.

SO 421.—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbod as shown in the An-nexure in the industrial dispute between the employers In

relation to the Govlndpur Colliery of M\%. Bharat Coking,Coal Limited and their worlunen.

ANNEXLTRB

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVRRNMFNT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Reference No. 106 of 1987In the matter of an Industrial dispute imder sections

10(1) (d) of thp I.D. Act., 1947.

PARTIES :Fmployers in relation to the management of Govlndpur

Colliery of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Limitedand their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workmen •• Shri G. D. Pandey, VicePresident, R.C.M.S,

On bahalf of the employers . Shri S, P. Singh, Person^nel Manager.

STATE : INDUSTRY : Coal

Dated, the 3rd January. 1989

AWARD

The Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour in exerciseof the powers conferred on them under section 10(l)(d) ofthe I.D. Act. 1947 has referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No, L-20012(266)|86-D.m(A), dated the. ?Oth March 1987.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery MazdoorSangh that the management of Govindpur Collieryof M[s. Bharat Coking Cx»l Limited should regu-larise their workman, Shri Basil Sawai. as PropMazdoor is justified ? If no, to whit relief is theworkman entitled ?"

Tn thisJ case both the parties did not file their respectiveWS. etc. But subsequently both the partle* instead of fillingW.S. filed a petition of comprimise. T heard the parties on thesaid petition of compromise and I do find that the termscontained therein are fair, proper and heneflclnl to both ofthem. Accordingly I accept the same and pas* an Award interm<; of the compromise petition which forms fnrt of theAward as Annexure.

I. N. SINHA, Presiding Officer[No, L-20O12/26'5/86-D.IIJ(A)/nUCoal-P]

535

ANNEXURE 'A'

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV-ERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT

DHANBAD

Reference No. 1O6IU7

Employers in relation to the management or GovindpurColliery;

AND

Tlieir Workmen

Petition of Compromise

The humble petition on behalf of the parties to the abovereference most respectfully sheweth :—

1. I hat the Central Government by notification No. L-20OU(,266)|ts6-D.Ui(A) timed the 2U-J-87 lias been pleasedto rcier tfle present cas« io tic Won bis 'XriDunul ior adjudi-cation on tne issue contained in tiie schedule of rcierenccwiiicn is reproduced below :—

SCHEDULE

"Wheiher tlie demand of lta^atriya Colliery M'azdoorSangh that tlie nuiagemem of Govindpur Colliery ofJVl/s. bnarat CoKing coal Limaed should reguariiethen workmen, £>nri Basu Wai, as Prop. Maz-door is justified ? if so, to wlmt relief is thisworkman entitled 7"

2. Tbtit the parties lo the above reference have amicablyLtui-d tiie dispute on the following terms :—

Terms of Settlement

(.a) Thai the concerned woikniau Shii Basu Swai ha6ibeen regularised as iitona cutter ai GovindpurColliery with effect from 11-9-88 in terms of tnesettlement dated 9-8-88 between the paitiej in ac-cordance with section la of .the I.o. Act, readwith rule H of the Industrial Disputes (Central)Rules.

(b) That in view of the aforesaid settlement and imp-lementation of the same, the concerned workmanJtori Basu Swai does not claim for his regularisa-uon as Prop. Mazdoor ui Category-ll which is lowerthan the stone cutter.

(.c) That the concerned workman docs not claim anyother relief from the management arising out ofthe present dispute.

3. That in view of the above settlement there remainsnothing to be adjudicated.

Under the facts and circumstances stated above the Hon'bioTribunal will be graciously pleased to accept the settlementas fair and proper and be pleased to pass die award in termsof the settlement.

For the EmployerGeneral ManagerGovindpur Area,(S. P. Singh)Personnel ManagerGovindpur Area,Witnesses

I.

2, ————

For the Workmen/Union(G. D. PANDF/Y)

, Vice President„ . _ """«a8iitnyfl"'CoUieTr^Ma7door™Sangii

ANNEXUREFORM 'H'

(See Rule-58(4)

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the manage-ment ot Govindpur Area and the Rashtriya colliery iv*a&-uoor Sangh Union.•i>lanj£ement's Representative :

1. General Manager,

Govindpur Area.

Union Representative ;i. Shri G. D. Panday,

Vkc Presiueut,Rashtriya Colliery Muz

Sanoh.

Short Recital of the caserlhe Union contention is that Shri Bashu Swai, Stone

Cutter, working in tne capacity of Prop Mazdoor was uuns-terred in tne year 1985 from Govindpur Colliery to KuitoreAre» was not justilicd as he was not woriung m tne capa-city ot Stone cutUr. Moreover, ne d'd not report for nis

duty at itustore, Area unco 198J and the case la lying pend-ing before the Honble Prcsidmg Officer, Tribunal No. II,at Dhanbad so ho shall be allowed to resume his duty withimmediate ettect at Govindpur Colliery. After prolonged dia^cussion both the parties agreed to settle the dispute on thefollowing terms and conditions.

Terms and Conditions

(1) Shri Bashu Swai shall be allowed to resume dutywith immediate ciiect at Gavindpur Colliery as aStone cutter,

(2) It lias been mutually agreed that no back wages willbe paid to the workman for the idleness period andthe said period will oe treated as leave without pay.

(3) The workman concerned shall be allowed to resumeduty after proper verification and getting letter fromKustore Area that Shri Bashu Swai has not joinedat Kustore Area.

This is full and final settlement and the union agreed towitadraw the dispute and representation and also will not claimanything beyond the above terms and conditions.

For the Management :General Manager(S. C. GAUR)Personnel Manager

For the Workmen | Union :G. D. PANDEY,

Vice PresidentRashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

Witnesses ;

S.O. 422.—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the C ntral Government In-dustrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhonbad as shown in the Annexurein the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

o36 1HH GAZEYIE Ob INDIA : MARCH 4, iy»9/PHALCiUNA 13, 1910 UJAIU 11—SEC. 3tfi)J

lo the Bastucolla Colliery of M/s. Bh«r..u Coking Coal Limi-ted iind their workmen.

AISNEXURE

IlEl-UKE THE CENTRAL GOVLRNMHMT INDUilRlAlIR1BUNAL CUM LABOUR COUR1 NU, J,

DHANBADhi ihe mullet ol' a ieference under seclon 10(1 Xd) nl

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,Reference No. 123 of 19BS

I'ARllhS :i.mployers in lelation to the management of BLI.IIULOIUColliery of M/s. BCCL.

ANDTheii Workmen

1 or the Employers—Sri G, Prasad, Advocate.1'or Hie workmen—Sri Lai it Burman, Vice 1'ie-sidciit,

United Coal Workers Union.SI AH. : Bihar LNDUSIRY ; Lo;.l.

DhanbiiJ, dated the 30th November, I9B8

AWARD

I he pic-ent leiereinx aused vM ol Order No. L-24012/W5/H1-O-MU), dated the 26th July, 19BS passed by theCeinnU Government in respect of wn industrial dispute bet-ween the pjitie\ mentioned above. The subject matter ofthe dispuie has been specified in the schedule lo the s.ndorder and the said schedule runs as follows: —

'Whether the demand of the United Coal WorkersUnion to iegularise Sri Janki Mistry, l>ump KhalaMas Clerk Crr. Ill in Bastaculla Colliery i>i Baslti-colia Area No. IX of M/o. BCCL is justified?If so, to what relief the workman concerned isentitled 7''

2. The dispute has been settled out of C'oui'i. A memo-Hinduni ol settlement has been filed in Court. 1 have floucthiou{2h the terms of settlement ond I Iind them qune fair.ind reasonable, ihere is no reason why an award shouldnot be made on the basis of terms and conditions laid downin the memorandum of settlement. 1 accept it *md made anaward accordingly. The memorandum of settlement shallt'onn part of the award.

3. Let a copy of this award be sent to the Ministry asrequired under icclion 15 of tho Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

S\ K. MITRA, Presiding Otlicei[No. L-24012/lS5/87-D.lV(B)/lR(Coal-D]

K. J. DYVA PRASAD, Desk Officer

MEMORANDUM Of SETTLEMENT ARRIVKD ATUNDER SECTION 1(3) O>; THE INDUSTRIAL DlS-I'UIES ACT 1947 BE1WEEN THE MANAGEMENT OFUXSTACOIA COLLIERY UNDER AREA NO. IX OFBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, P.O. JHARIA, DT.D H A N B A D AND THEIR WORKMAN REPRESENTEDBY 7HE VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED COAL WORKERSUNION (A1TUC), DHANBAD BEFORE THE ASSISTANTIABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) DHANBAD-iV

ON 6-1-1988

PARUES PRESENT :

Representing Employer(s)—Shii R. N. Sintrh Dy. Per-sonnal Manager Bastaeolla Area No. IX M/s.Bhart Coking Coal Limited P, O. Jhariu Dist.Dhanbad.

Representing workmun—Shri M. N. Upudhyay \ieepresident United Coal Workers Union Dhanbad.

SHORT RKC1TAT. OF THE CASE

1 Co;il Workers Union (AITUO,lustrial dispute urtder h!i letter

,-NO mi uncu lD---o- v.w alleged demand of reKiilartsntton

of Shri Janlti Misiry as C'lerk in Grade-II by the nuuui£e-mem of Bastaeolla Colliery of Area No. ]X, of M/s. BharatCokiny Coiil Limited, P.O. Jharia, Dt. Dhanbad and reques-ted the A.I..C.<C>, Dhanbad-llI to intervene in the matter.The dispute was received/registered in the office of the Asstl.Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-lll who held discussionsi n number of dates and finally on 30-7-87. As the disputecould not be settled and the conciliation ended in failure, andthe POC report was submitted to the Government by thethen A.L.QC), Dhanbad-Ilj vide his letter No. 1/8/87 E.5dated 31-8-87 and the decision of the Government is pendingon this report. Subsequently, both the parties requested theA.L.ClC), Dhanbad-IV vide their letter dated 6-1-88 to takeup the matter in conciliation. Accordingly, the matter wasdi cussed and after persuasion the parties agreed toresolve the dispute miscd bv them vide letter dated 16-2-87amicably on the following terms :

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1) is ujjtecd b> both the parlies :

(ll that the management shall regularise Shri Janki Misliyas CUrk in Clerical Giade-lII as per N.C.W.A-tliw.e.f. 1-1-1987 within one month from to-day.

(2) tliut they shall submit implementation rcpoit to theA.L.C.(C>, phanbad-lV with a copy to the R.L.C(C),Dhanbad within 45 days from the date of vettlemenlfailing which it will be presumed that the settlementin question has been implemented in full.

On behnlf of the inunagemffnt On behalf of the Union.fR. N. SINGH) (M. N. UPADHYAY)

Dy. Personnel Manttcei VICE PRESIDENT

WITNESSES ;(1)

(Junki Misiry)i?,)

A N. MI.HROTRA, AsMl. Labour Commissone^(CENTRAL)

DHANBAC-1V

Dhsnbud. dt. 6-1-88 : par*Purt of the Awiird.

30-11-88.

New Delhi, the 7th February, 1989

S O 4">3 In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1M47), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial lYibunal, Kunpw us shown in the Anne^ure, in theindustrial dispute between tile employer? in relation to themanagement of Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., Dehnidun;-nd their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on the 2nd Wb., 1989.

ANNEXURE

BLFORF SHRI ARJAN Dl V PRESIDING OFFICER,CFNTRM GOVFRNMbNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

KANPUR, LT,P.Industrial Dispute No. 47 of 1988

In the nwtter of dispute betweenShri Nand Kishore PrasiidKv-Mine Mate\PnldotH Mine PPC I unitedDchrndun, U.P,

'AND

537

The General ManagerP.PC. Ltd.1-AB Ravindiu Null, "luiytite Nfarg,Dehradun, U.P.

AWARD

1. I he Central Govcnuneiii, Ministry of Lahuur. vjdi: itsnotihcation No. I.-29012/4/88-O. 11KB) dared 13-4-88 hasicferrcd trie following dispiie foi adjudication to this Tri-b until :

Whether the action oi i'tl<: management oi Pyrites, Phos-phates & Chemicals Ltd., Dehrudun in terminatingthe services' of. Siiri Nand Kishore Prasad. MineMate Blaster Oiadc II w.e.f. 14-7-87, is justified,If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7

2. In this Cd.se the worn>imp has no one to plead on hisbehiiit. The result was Lhai iher. could be no proper claimhtutcment from his side. Since the written statement filed byIfie management was also silent on some of the importanttacts, the management vide order dt. 10-6-8K was directedto file certain documents. Upon the passing of the order (!>«•management tiled six documents on 2/-/-S8. Facts wmcharc borne out trom the u;oid a,re that the workman wasappointed as- Mine Mate vuin blaster Or, Jl in the pay scaleol Rs. 530-B14 by management on probation lor a period ofone year vide letter oi appointment dt. 11-3-86, copy Ext,,M-l. The terms and conditions as contained in the appoint-meat letter provided that ii during the probationaiy periodhis work, was found unsjiiauctory, his services were liableto be terminated. However, it would be open to the manage-ment to extend the period oi probation for such period asthe management might deem tit It was further providedthat the management rose; \;cd the right of terminating theworkman's appointment ailcr giving nun one month's noticeor noiice pay during the probationary period. The Sr. Manager(Personnel & Administration) vide his lettel dl. f>-6-87 copylixt. M-2 extended the peruu of probation oi ihe workmanfor three months w.c.f. 15-4 K7, on the ground that hisperformance had not besn Liund upto the mark and thatin order to give him a larc opportunity his period of pro-bation wus being extended. Later on by means of letter dt.13| 14-7-87 copy Exl. M-3, tiie Sr. Manager (Personnel &.Administration) terminated his services w.ef. afternoonof 14-7-87 and paid him a sum of Rs. 1252|40 paisa asnotice pay in lieu of notice ns> provided by the terms andcondition of appointment letter. Jl is this older of termina-tion which is being challenged in this case. I may state herethat the workman in pursuance of the appointment letterjoined service on 15-4-86.

3. The only question which arises for determination inthis case is whether there was compliance of the provisionsof section 25F I.D. Act by the management. It is settledlaw that even in the case of a probationer if he had ren-dered service for a continuous period of not less than olioyear within the meaning of section 25B I.D. Act. the manage-ment, before terminating ihe services of the workman shouldupheld. It is void abinitio.

4. In the instant case Ironi the statement made by themanagement witness Shri B. I'. Juyal Sr. Manager (Pcrsonnol& Administration) it i* evident that before termination ofhis services, the workman nad put in more than one year ofcontinuous service. From the letter of termination, copyExt. M-3, it is crystal clear ttiut the workman was not paidany retrenchment compensation He was simply paid pay inlieu of notice. Therefore, The order of termination cannot beupheld. It is void abinitio.

5. It has been argued by Shri R. 1_. Gupta, authorisedlepiesentative for the management that since there is nopleadinc from the side on the workman on this point, thetribunal is not entitled to wok into the fact whether or not,management had complied \» ith the provisions of section:25F I.D, Act. He has also argued thut from the referenceorder it is clear that Tribunal is to look into the justifica-tion of the order of termination in accordance with the prin-ciples of natural justice and not to examine it legally. I findno force in both these contentions, c ich principles of naturalH'slice as have been given the effect (o law by means of anyenactment ha"v; io be complied witQ by u party irrespectivoof tho hict whether or noi its broach is pleaded by the

other parly. Moreover, I. D. Act is a piece of beneficialbiaslation, and in a case like th© present one where theworkman has no one who knows law to plead on his behalf,the tribunal cannot forsake its duty to examine the legalitynf the order.

6, The order of termination being void abinitio, it h heldthat the termination of the services of Shri Nand KishorePrasad workman by the management w.e.f. 14-7-87 is un-justified and illegal. The result is that the workman is en-titled to be reinstated in service witn full back wages andcontinuity of service on his furnishing on affidavit to theeffect that after the termination of his services he was notuainfully employed any where else,

7. '1 he icfcience is answered accordingly.ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer

[No. L-29O12|4|8ff-D. UI(B))

SO. 424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), tie Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employee in relation to themanagement of U.P. Slate Mineral Development Corpo-ration, I.ucknow in relation to their Niugha Mine Billi Obra,Distt Mirzajnir (UP) and their workmen, which was re-ceived by the Central Government on the 2nd February,l'J89.

ANNEXURP.

53S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1SUQ [PARI I I ^ S E C . 3(ii)J

New Delhi, the 13th February, 1989

S.O. 425.—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal,Madras as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the management ofMadras Stevedore^ Association, Madriis and their workmen,which was received by the Central Government on the3-2-«9.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU,MADRAS

Friday, the 30th day of December, 1988Industrial Dispute No. 96 of 1987

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication underSection 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 between the workman and the Managementof Madras Stevedores Association, Madras-1 andanother).

BETWEEN

1. Thiru L. Irudhyasamy, Ty. GPM No. 1007,

S/o M. K. Mahuimaimuthu, Ex. Foreman No. 3,No. 2, Old AmaranjipuTum, Royapuram, Madras-600013.

2. The General Secretary, Madras Port &. Duck WorkersCongress, 7, Philips Stieei, Madiwu-fiOOuOl.

AND

1. The Chairman, Mudrai* Stevedores Association,

Dock Labour Board, Building,Rajaji Salai, Madras-600001.

2. the Chairman, Madras Dock Labour Board,Madras Dock Labour Buildings,Rajaji Salai, Madrasi-1.(lmpleaded as per order in Misc. ApplnNo. 84|88, dt. 9-12-88)

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-33012/3/86-D.lV(A), dated 18-8-1987 ofthe Ministry of Labour, uovernnient of India,New Delhi.

lhis dispute coming on this day for final disposal in thepresence,oi Thiruvalargal Row & Reddy, A. Mani and F.Shanlhi Advocates appearing for the workman and of Thiru-tiuiargal T. Arulraj und J. James, Advocates for the Manage-ment upon perusing the reference, claim and counter stalemenu and other connected papers on record and the- Peti-tioner workman and the (Management having liled a jointmemo and recording the same, tliis Tribunal passed thefollowing Awurd. _...

This dispute between the workmen and the Managementof Madras Stevedores Association, Madias-1 and anotherarises out of a refetece under Section l<J(.l\d) of the Indust-rial Dispute Act, 1347 by the Government of India in itsOrder No. L-33O12/3/86-D.IV(A), dated 18-8-1987 of theMinistry of Labour for adjudication of the following issue :

"Whether the action of the Chairman, Madras Stepodo-res Association in dismissing the workman Shri L.Irudhayasamy, Temporary General Purpose Mflz-door No. 1007 w.e.f. 5-8-1985 is justified ? If not,to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. Parties were served with summons. Both parties wererepresented by counsel.

3. Petitioner workman filed his d<tim statement on 7-1-1988putting forth his claim. In repudiation thereof the Manage-ment of Madras Stevcdors Association Madras filed theircounter statement on 28-3-1988.

4. After several adjournments, when the dispute wascalled today, a joint memo was filed by the Petitioner-Workman and tlie Management setting the claim of theworkman. It is recorded.

5. Hence an award is passed as per joint memo. No costs.

Dated, this 30th day of December, 1988.

Sd/-

K. NATARAJAN, Industrie Tribunal

[No. L-33012/3 /86-D.lV(A)/D,lII(B)l

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MADRASl.D. No. 96 of 1987

ltudayaMmiy ...Petitioner

Vs.

Madras Dock. Labour Board ..Respondent.

Joint Memo filed by the Petitioner and Respondent

1. The petitioner categorically undertakes not to claimwages for the period between 5-8-85 and the date of hisreinstatement.

2. The petition*! glvc\ up once and tor ull hk claims forbatfkwftgeii as. apecitiv; lu clauwj 1.

539

3. On the abovc premises the respondents agreed to takethe petitioner into their service as a casual worker afreshwithout continuity of service and other uLtendent benefits.

Dated at Madras this the 30th day ot December, 19RR.Sd/-Coun-cl for 1'etitioner.

Sd/-Petilioner

Sd/-OounicI for Respondent

Sd/-Respondent.

Deputy Chairman,Madras Dock Labour Board.

Su'-K. NATARAJAN.Industrial Tribunal

S.O. 42fi—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madrasas shown in the Annexure, In the industrial dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management of MadiasStevedores Association. Madras and their workmen, whichwas received by (he Central Government on the 3-2-89.

ANNEXUREBEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUBNAL, TAMIL

•KTAniT MAnnASi

Monday, the 9th day of Tanuary, 1989PRESENT :

Thlru K. Natarajan, M.A., B.L.,Industrial Tribunal

Industrial Disputes No. lll]87CTn the matter of the dispute for adjudication imdei

Section IO(l)fd) of the: Industri.il Disputes Act,1947 between the workmen and the Managementof) Madras Stevedores Association, ilvfadras-1 andanother).

BETWEEN

The Workmen represented byThe General Secretary,Madras Fort and Dock Workers Congress,

7. Philips Street. Madras-600001.

AND1. The Chairman.

Madras Stevedores Association.1st Floor, MDLB Building,Rajaji Snlni, Madras-600001.

2. The Chairman,The Madras Dock Labour Board,Madras Dock Labour Board Buildings,Rajaji Salai, Madras-600001.(lmpiearied as per order in Misc. Appln No 8fi/88

dt. 9-12-88).

REFERENCE :

Order No. L. 33O12|7|86-D.TV(A), dt. 10-7-87 of theMinistry of Labour, Government of India NewDelhi.

This dispute after restoration coming on this day for finaldisposal in the presence of Thiru S. Vaidyanathan, Advocateappearing for tho workmen and of Tvl. T. AiulraJ and

I. lames Advocates lor the Management upon persulng the re-ference, claim stutemenls and other connected papers onrecord and both the parties having filed a joint memo ofsettlement and recording the same this Tribunal passed thefollowing :

This, dispute between Ihe workmen nnd die Managementof Madras Stevedores Association Madrid-1 and anotherarises out of a reference under Section 10(1 )(d> of the In-dustrial Dispute Act 1947 by the Government of India in itsOrder No. L-3301217|86-D.IV(A). dated 10-9-1987 ol theMinistry of Labour for adjudication of the Mlovmfr issue :

Whether the action of the Management of Madras Ste-vedores Association Madras in terminal ing the servicesof the workman Shrl C. Chandran, G.P.M. 285with effect from 1R-1-86 on account of alienedmedical unfltness is justified ? If not to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled (o ?

2. Parties were served with summons. Both parties wererepresented by counsel.

3. Petitioner-Union filed its claim statement on 13-6-1988putting forth the claim ot the workman The Mnrincementdid not file their counter statement.

4. After several adjournments when the dispute wascalled today, the counsel for the Respondent-Managementfiled a memo that the Resnondenf-Manapement screes toreinstate the workmen Chandran with continuity of servicebut without bnckwage1.. The. petitioner and his counsel a1coMihsaibed their signatures,

5. Hence an awnrd Is passed directing the Manapemenl toreinstatcmeH the workman Chandran with continuity ofservice but without bnclwagcs ns rwr memo.Dated, this 9th dnv of January, 1980.

Sdl-K. NATARAJANIndustrial Tribunal

fNo. L-33O12!7|86-E>.IVf Al ID IIT(B) IANNEXURE

BFFORE THF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MADRASI.D. No. 111 of 198^

Chandran . . Petitioner.Vs.

Madras Dock Labour Board , .Respondent.Memo filed by the Counsel for Respondent

The twtitioner, Sri Chnndran srieciflcallv agrees that hewill not claim any backwajres and/or arreas of wrnzes forthe period of non-emp]ovment or earlier to that period. Thercsnondent agrees to reinstate the workman Chandran withcontinuity of sevice but without bnckwajres.

Dated at Madras this 6th clay ot January. 1989.SdY-Respondent.Deputy Chairman,Madras Dock Labour Board.S&f-Coiinsel for Respondent.

Sd/-Petih'oner.

Counsel for petitioner.K. NATARAJAN, Industrial Tribunal

540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH ,4.- ! W^HALGUNA 13. 1910 [PATH II—SEC. 3(iftl

New Delhi, the 17ih February, 1989S.O. 427.—-In pursuance oC sectcm 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 f 14 of 1947), the Central Governmentherrhy publisher itic iiwnrd of the Industrial Trihimal Madrasas shown in ihe Annexurc, in the industrial dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management of NeyveliLignite Corporation 1 imiled, Neyveli and their workmen,which was icceived hv (lie Central Government on the1(12-1989.

ANNEXUREDI7FORF TKR INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU

MADRASMomky, the 30th day of January, 1989

Industrial Dispute No. 106 of 1987

fin the matter of the dispute; for adjudication under SectionlOflHd) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 between theworkmen and the Munwewent of Neyveli I lenite CorporationLimited, Neyveli),

BFTWEENThe workmen tepiwmed by

The General Secretary.N I C Amalgamated Labour and Staff Union,P/83. Umbrella Street. Block-3,Neyveli»6n7Pt11.

AKDThe Chnlrnum-citm-Mnnng?ng Director,

Neyveli Iientte Corporation Limited,Neyveli-607R0).

RF'FFRF.NCE :

Order No. T.-29011/6/86-D.ITT (BVD.TII CA) dated3-9-19R7 of ilie Ministry of Labour, Government ofIndia, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on fot final hearing on Thursday, the,elh Jnv of December, 108R unon perusing the reference, claimjind counter statements and nil other material papers on recordand urxin hea'rinr the nrsuments of Thiru G. Balaram, Autho-rised Representative for the workmen and of ThiruvalarealK. R. Thamlthmanl and Sathya Rao, Advocates appearing forthe Management nnd this disoute having stood over till thisdny for consideration, this Trihunnl made the following.

AWARD

This dispute between the workmen nnd the Management ofNcvveli Lignite ComonttJon Limited. Nevveli arisj- out ofa reference under Section lOflXd) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 bv the Government of India in its Order No. L-29011(6)/R6-D.TTT (Bl/D.KI (A) dated 3-9-1987 of the Minis-try of Labour, for adjudication of the following issue :

"Whether the inruiflfrement of Neyveli Lignite CorporationIT iniited. Nevveli f* Justified in denving full wages forthe suspension period exceeding 90 days to ShriM. A. Ppriysnnndan. A. Thangavelu, R, Muttalyananil G. Dnndapnni 9 If not, to whnt relief the saidworkmen are entitled ?"

2. The Petitioner averments in the claim statement are thatthe Union submitted various demands to the Management.Since the Management did not concede the demands, the matterwas inketl lo the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). Asthe Management did not co-operate to settle the issues, thefailure report was •enl. The Petitioner-Union submits therefusal of full wages for the suspension period to the workmenmentioned in the reference is illegal and unjustifiable. Theworkmen were suspended from 7-4-1983 on so me allegedcharges1. The exnloniition were submitted denying the chargesfnd after enquiry the Management passed orders In respect ofench of the workmen.

(i) P.iv has been redmed bv two stews indefinitely (i.e.)reducing the p.iy from their present pay of Rs. 616 toR* 5t>2 n.m. with immediate effect. He will earntheir future increments in the post, after puttingrequisite crrvicc of one year thereafter.

flii He WHS rekn^d from suspension wilh immediate effcel,and the period of suspension from 7-4-83 till herejoins duty will K; treated as leave to which he willbe entitled.

I he workmen are not challenging the punishment as the matterWJS pending before the Government. The Management pays'iibsistame wages lit 50 9i- of the wages for 90 days andthereafter 75% of Ihe wages upto 28-12-1983. In all theywere under suspension for 259 days. As ptr Standing Order47(2) for departmental enquiry, the suspension shall notordinarily exceed a period of 14 days except for good andMifHclent reasons to be recorded in writing by the competentauthority. The four workmen were suspended for 259 dayswithout sufficient reasons being recorded in writing by thecompetent authority. Hence award may be passed directingthe Management to p^v full wage* for the period of >-u<i-pension.

3 Tlie ResponJent-Manngement in its counter statement•itntes ihe Petitioner-Union it one of the craft Unions, formedduring the venr 19R0 under the name find stvlc of NLO TTTTechnicians Union bv fl gronp of disgruntled ITT trainedworkmen who do not find place in any of the trade Unionsin NevveU. The said Union changed its name In 1983 ti«V i r TTT [imi f^neinl Workers Union affiliated to HM1} nndli*fr changed their nnrna In the present NT.C AmaiRHmatedf pboiir nnd Staff Union. The approach Q{ the Petltloner-Um'on from the inception is ajgitatlotial and undemocratic Innnture. The Monapcment since refused to hold discussionwith the Union, the Union started Indulging In threat* and(hirjss bv Illegal methods niikettine. abettinc, instigating otherworkers to tf 'ke work fmm 21-3-I9R3. Tn order to check(he illegal activities and considering the cravitv of the mis-conduct committed, the workmen Involved in the dispute:imnn.. olhcis M'H1 pl'ii1' il it -V1" susnension nnd rharaisshpet*!wc.c issued to them and the Fnquirv Officer was also appoln-tc.) for the cnou'ri' .-'n(1 1\~ submitted a renort. The Re.snon-dsnt states since the M;itinsrment had to conduct and concludecn"'iirics in ri'sncct of -ill <!•>» workmen, who hatl nartlclpatedyni 'batted Ilie MICPHI -.irikc il was noi possible for the Res-nun'lt'n1 t'1 rjiii'.v1iii1i> thf_ f-nnuin, in rc- '^ct nT tliesi> 4 workmenM'lhin 14 dnvs of their suspension. The demand of the Petl-t;on"!-Unioti for navment vl fiitl waaes cannot be sustainedin law. The enquiry was onlv in confirmitv with the StandingOrders The Ttcsnondent dcnleii that the four workmen werer.usneni1ed for 219 divs- without unv sufficient reasons to bercodled in writing hv cnmfictont authority Hence the claimnviv bi' reiected.

4, The noinl for c'ontM:-rrjfion is whether the Managementis justified in denv'niz full w.'igcs for the suspension periodevcerliTit' ^0 'lavs '" Shri N A. Perivanondan, A, Thancfl-veln, R. Muthaiyan nnLl G. Dhandapanl ? If not, to whatirlii'f tbc said v\o'lni'n nrc tntitled ?

5. On behalf of the Management -the Standing Order FT.M-l WHS marked. No documents were marked on the sideof the workmen. No oial evidence was adduced on eitherside.

6 Th.» Authorise! Kcnie^entative for the P<?titioncr-Un;on"wild con'end the In tli's cine Cause 47f2) of the SlundincOrders ici:,Trdin? suspension has been violated and thereforeflit" workcis ore fiititled io full WBPI-S for the fusnensionneriod without ndiii'itinp any period of suspension againstlrii\'e 'it c-ed;t. Cinusc 47f2) rend us follows :

";'.\) V.'licre a d^vinlinarv nrtjeecdincs against a work-man is contnmilated or is pending or where criminalpi-occe'linas •••Kiiinsi him in ic^nect of any offent-e areunder invfstiMjinn or trial and the employer issatisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place theworkman under suspension, he may, by order inwriiine suspend him with effect from such date asnviv he •.iir'-i'i.'ii in the orde1". \ Statement settingout in ilet i'l the lenlins for surh suspension sh'i'l beMinplicd to the workman within a week from thedat^ of "-uspensinn

Prow'.I-M that in the ense of denartmenta] enquirv thesuspension shaM nut ordinarily exceed a period of14 dfivs c.\wpi for food nnd sufficient reasons To hen-ccrjeii in wriiJnp by the comncteiit authority,"

541

The learned authorised representative mainly relied on Provisoto Clause 47(2) of the Standing Orders and contended that itis not opened to the Respondent to extend the enquiry beyond

*14 days except for good and sufficient reasons to be recordedin writing by the competent authority. In other words, provisoto Section 47(2) is mandatory and if the suspension periodis extended beyond 14 days it should be done only on the-basis of good and sufficient reasons to be recorded In writingby the competent authority. Admittedly in this case, theperiod of suspension exceeded 14 days. According to thelearned counsel for the Respondent since the Management hadto conduct and conclude enquiries in respect of all workmenit is not possible to conclude the enquiry in respect of thesefour workmen within 14 days of their suspension. This may

• li» (me, but it is forgotten Clause 47(2) contains provisothat in case the enquiry cannot be completed within 14 days,it should be extended only by giving sufficient reasons to bsrecorded in writing by competent authority. As rightlypointed oiit by flic Aiii'irnised Representative that no rcawnswere recorded in writing K any comnetent authority. Thelearned counsel for the Respondent docs not_ dispute thisnosition, but he would contend on the other band Clause 47(2)is not mandatory and only directory, If his contention isaccepted there is no purpose in keeping such a proviso. Fur-ther the proviso says "shall" and that too by giving sufficientreasons to be recorded in writing by competent authority, Jiim unable to accede 1o the contention of the learned counselfor the Respondent. It is a case wherein the Standing Orderhas been flouted by the Management wtihout furnishingreasons either oral or wri'tcn by a competent authority. Hencethe Management is not justified in denying full wages to thoworkmen roncerned in this dispute to (he period of suspensionbeyond 90 days. This point Is found in favour of the Peti-tioner.

7. Accordingly nn award is passed directing the Manage-ment to pay full wages for the suspension period 7-4-1983 to2X-12-I9K3 deducting suKWance allowance paid al'eady bvthe Management and without adjusting any period of JUS-pen fon against leave at credit or due to the workmen, There"will be nn order as to ccsts.

Dated, this 30th day of laivnary, 1989.

K. NATARAJAN. Industrial Tribunal[No. L-290I1/6/86-D.III (BY|

Witness Fnflmined :For both sides : NoneDocuments markedFor workmen—Nil.For Management :' E\. M-l--Certified Standing Order of the Management.

S.O. 428.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmc-Habncl as shown in the Ai^nnnire, in the industrial disputebetween the employers in relation to the management ofO.N.G.C.. Ankicshwar (Oujarnt) and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on the 8th February,1989.

ANNEXUREBFFORF SHRT C, G. RATHOR. PRESIDING OFFTCEK,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AHMBDABADReference (ITC) No. 11 of 1987

ADJUDICATIONBETWEEN

ONGC Ankleshwar, Gujarat,AND

The workmen employed under it.In the matter whether the management of ONGC Anklesti-

war is justified in terminating the services of Shri384 GI /89^4

DineslKhnrdra Mafatlal Chauhan without followingthe iwovisions of the I. D. Act ? If not, what reliefhe is entitled to ? i

INDUSTRY : Oil and Naturnl Gas Ankleshwar (Gujarat)Shri K. T. Trivedi -for the concerned workman.Shri B B. Vakil—("or the Commission.

AWARD

By «n order Nn. L 30(l12/8/8fi-D.IIT (B) dated 19-11987,(he Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour,•s'ew Delhi in cveici^e of the powers conferred by clause (d)of suli-'cction (1) nnd sub-section (2-A) of section 10 ofthe I D, Act. 1047, has referred the dispute between ONGCAnkleshwar (Gujarat) and its workmen to this Tribunal.'I he dispute leferred to is ;ts under :

"Whether the Management of ONGC, Ankleshwar isjustified in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh-chandra Mafatial Chauhan without following theprovisions of the T. D. Act If not, what reliefhe is entitled to ?"

Originally, (he dispute was leferred to in respect of ShriDineslichandra C. Chnuhan, but it was corrected by a corri-gendum dated l'J-2-K7 vide Ex, 8.

2. The ONGC Labour L!nion (hereinafter referred to asthe Union) luis filed its statement of claim at Ex. 13 andbriefly the Tacts are as under : that Shri D. M. Chauhan, amember of the Union vi>s employed by Dy. General Manager,ONGC, Ankleshwar on 11-7-85 and has worked there onilnles nnil places mentioned as under :

1. 11-7-85 to 30-9-86 PTYS, GGS-H

2. 1-10-85 to 11-12-85 Security Section.Further th-.- case of the Union, is that the Commission havt1invented a novel system of engaging workers on casual basisfar a period of 90 days and then replacing them with newhands so that the wo'kmen do not complete more than 240days in 12 consecutive months and agitate for rights u/s 25-Fof the T. D. Act. It 's further the case of the Union thatinitially the concerned workman worked in PTYS/GGS-IIand then in Security Section; that be worked in SecuritySection upto 11-12-85 nnd abruptly terminated him on12-12-85 without assigning any reasons verbally or in writing.The Commission has encaged a number of casual workersin PTYS Section after 1985 and they have also engagedpersons in Security Section after 11-12-85 Hud that action ofthe Commission was an acl of circumventing the labour lawsfco that the concerned workman would be debarred for beingqualified under the definition of continuous services as en-visaged u/s, 25-R (2) of the I, D. Act. Further the caseof the Union is that the concerned workman was paid wagerates under the Minimum Wages Act, but, in fact, the Mini-mum Wages Act is not applicable to the ONGC as work inONGC is not a vcheJuled employment under Minimum WagesAct; that the concerned workman was performing the dutiesas a regular workman. The Union has then referred to anaward in reference No. L-120127322/83-ITA dated 11-7-84passed by the Presiding Officer, Shri R. B .Srivastava,Central Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur and hag contended thatthe action of the management in employing workmen tem-porarily for a period of 90 days was an unfair labour practiceand. therefore, it is pravtd that the impugned action of theONGC in terminating the services of workman from 12-12-85be declared as illegal, invalid and in-operative and that theconcerned workman be reinstated in service w.e.f, 11-7-85with continuity of tee'vice with full back wages and otherbenefits like increments, wage revision, etc.

3. Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referredto as 'the Commission') has filed its written statement atFt. 15 and contended as under : that the averments madein the statement of claim are not true and are not admitted,that the concerned workman, Shri D. M, Chauhan was forthe first time engaged as a casual workman for cutting grassfit the Production Yard (PTYS) which is situated near Ank-leshwar. The workman wa^ HISO employed w.e.f, July, 1985and he worked for 21 days in June 85. The concerned work-man was continued in employment as a casual workman inAugust, 1985 and he worked for 23 days and further he

542 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was so engaged for 15 dni^ in September, 1985. Thus theworkman has \voiked as a casual labourer/worker as a grasscutter which was pui-ily a casual work for 59 days and evenduring this period the workman was not engaged or employedcontinuously. He was engaged on a day-io-riav basis andwas paid on a daily rate. Further it is staled that the headof production business group was the competent auihorily toappoint workmen for the aforesaid work of grass cutting andaccordingly he was enjeged. Further the vyorkman camo tobe engaged aga;n purely as a casual worker on daily ratedbasis w.e.f. 1-10-N5 in the colony which is situated nearAnkleshwax for the work of driving out the cattle. The saidwork is also of casual na'uTc and is only for some durationduring mnnsoon season. He was thus employed for 27 daysin October, 19B5. It is further contended that the concernedworkman was rot able 1o cope un with the naturc of workbecause of health leasers, and, therefore, he requested thatif a contract is giving in respect of the aforesaid work, itwould bo possible lor him to undertake the same as in thatevent, it will be oncn for him to entrust a part of the workto some of his family members and in view of his request.hc was engaged on contract basis for the aforesaid work ofdriving out the crittle from the colony for 29 days. Further,it is stati'd that after this period, there vas no ne.d to conrnittor to engage anyone on a cnsu-.il basis for the aforesaid work.Thus the services of the concerned workman as a casualworker had come to un end at the end of October. 1985.Further the workman worked on a contract basis in Novem-ber, J985 and the contact was not renewed thereafter forlack of work. Further, it is not correct to sav that theservices of Hie vorknan were terminated directly by theCommission as alleged in tbe. statement of claim as above.It is contended that the Commission has, not. in fact, engagedHnv worker even on CUSUPI basis for undertaking th*. work ofgrass cutting at the Yard immediately at any time duringthe year 1985 and that it hss so far not employed any work-man or nerson in respect nf colony work of driving out thecattle. Tt is conirnded that the workman has worked ascasual worker and his conditions of service were governed bvthe O'lifiWl Standing Orders for contingent employees, TtIs denied that 1he direction not to engage any workman formore than 9(1 davs is given with a view to exploit the labou-rers. On the othrr hand, the direction has been given inorder to control the employment or engagement and to secthat proper nrOL-edurcs nie followed for the engagement ofdifferent kinds of workers, Tt is further contended thatsince the concerned workman was employed on contract basisin 1985 there was no uucstion of terminating his servlcssabruptly on 12-12-85. It is not correct to say that the work-man was paid minimum iva<res as fixed. On the other handthe workman was paid at the rale fixed for casual work bythe Commission, vhich is higher than the minimum wagefixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It is also contendedthe various judgements nf the various Courts are not relevantand 't does not apr>ly to the facts of the case. Tt is deniedthat the services nf tlio workman were terminated by theCommission in violation "f the principles of natural justice.Il is not correct to "<iv that the termination of employmentof the workman would he illegal, invalid nnd void ah-initioand for a11 these morons, it is contended that the concernedworkman is not entitled to any of the reliefs.

4. Tn the present case, the oral and doenmenturv evidencewas led and thereafter T have hear.1 the arguments ofMr. 1C. T. Trivedi for trf concerned workman and Mr, B.B.Vakil for the Commission,

5. Tn the present reference, the concerned workmanSbri D. M. Chnnhnri "tales in his cv;df*ic* vide Ev 28 thatbe hns ivorked for 59 dws Tram H-7--85 tn 30-O-85 inPTYS Section in the ONGC colony, Admittedly, he Nvasappointed ns casual labourer TT? ako rtn(es ibat "he hitvaried in t>» ONCfC miony for tbrfc months from 1-10-85to 11-12-85 in the reruntv ^rt :on. further be admits in hiscross examination and n joint Put h;s is also civen in fbnt rf^n^rt*"'dr Fx 23- thnf h" >>'>s worked for 21 davs ?n Inly, 19Sfi."•3 davs in August 1f)s5 -md for 15 days in Sentember, 1985.T nrin™ thece rtn-vs. IT" h"> x"nrkc^ as o carnal workmin.Thus hc has worked for 59 dnyi from 11-7-85 to 30-9-85.

6 Akubbhai Hncalnbhai VYiVnni, Px. ?4 is workim* astan Executive Engineer in ONGC and ho has also statad in

his evidence that the concerned workman was working underhim in PTYS section. He was employed for cutting grass andthat work is a seasonal work. He hni denied the fact thatthe concerned workman has worked in the Production Deptt.The concerned workman was merely a contingent a casuallabour and according to him, ae has only worked for 59days and thereafter ho has not attended the work. Mr, A.H.Vakani, Ex, 34 further stated that the concerned workmancame to him and be has filled in the form and it was thensubmitted in the Administration Division. The concernedworkman, it appears, has given an application for engage-ment on daily rated casual labour BS per Ex. 45. This appli-cation is dated 3-7-87 and it aopcars that it was thereafterthat he was engaged as daily rated casual worker and workedtor 59 days as above,

7. The concerned workman further slates in his evidenceat F.v. 28 that he has wo iked in the ONGC colony from140-85 to 11-12-S5. In this connection, Shri V. T. Chauhan,vide Fx. 38 states in his evidence thaf the concerned work-man has worked in the ONGC colony as a casual labourfrom 1-10-85 to 31-10-85. Arfnrffediy. he was appointedduring this period in the Security Sect;on for driving outthe cattle. This is also admitted in the joint purshis tit fx.23. However, as stated earner, the concerned workman statesin his evidence that he has also worked in November, 19K5in the ONGC colony, Now so far as this fact is concerned,Mr. V. T. Chauhan, vide Ex. 38 states in his evidence thatthe concerned workman has worked as a casual labourer trom1-10-85 to 31-1O-S5 and thereafter he told him that on ac- •count of illness1, he will not oe able to do the entire workand, therefore, a contract be, given to him to do the worfc,so that v,0 mny ^ o that y/f,^ personally or through someoneelse. He further states that he, therefore, orarlv gave a con-tract. TTe further states that the management had given hima rinht to emplov two persons for driving away the rattleand further to rherV the entry of haivkprs, etr. in the ONGCcolony. Hc further states that accordingly he has preferred abill for tV period for which no Tins worker! I.e. for 29 daysnnd x?rOT copy thereof is at FJC. 37. Tt is true that thereis no date on the voucher, but jo far as the frets are con-cerned, th^re appears no d'smife in ns much as th<i concernedworkman has not been aWe tn show that ho ha<i workedfor more davs. The muster rolls are produced in this cncovide Fxt. 30, 40, 41, 42, 4T & 44 ami it is clear from theKfi™ that the concerned workman seems to have worked as)a causal labourer or as a contingent labourer for the nerfod:n "brvw.'Ti 'r> r x , °,1. As stated mrl'ei-. h» has worked from11-7-pr to 10-0-R^ for 59 flHVs in PTYS Section and furtherhe has worked for 31 davs <'n ONOC coionv in the SecuritvSection from 1-10-R5 to 31-10-85. Thus he has only workedfur °O davs chinnf these period. Now ns stated above, thecase of the Commission is that m November, 1985, tbe con-cerned workman was civen a contract in view of tho factthat he was not keeping good hcaltn. Mr. V. T. Chanhan,Ex. 38 had an authoritv to employ two persons. Mr. K.T.Trivedi, the learned Advocate t'or the concerned workmanhas urged before me that the Commlsriort should not hnvaemployed a person on contract basis. Now Mr. V. T.Chauhan, Sr. Inspector who was on deputation from B.S.F.since 1980 states that he had a right to give such a contractand it appears since the contract was only for a short period,especially in the rainy season for diving out the cattle, etc.,the Officer, it appears, was vithin his rigiit to employ or togive such a contract. In any case evor if it is assumed thathe had no such, authority, at Oest, the concerned workmancould be said to have worked as a casualjcontingent labourerfor 29 days and thus it would be sail that ha has worked mall for 119 days.

8. Tt is necessary to note that the concerned workman liasworked in the PTYS Section only for 59 days and as statedearlier, he has worked in the ONGC colony in the SecurityDeptt. for 31 days. He has worked as a daily rated casuaJlabourer and not in any other capacity and further fts statedearlier, even if we add 29 days for which he has worked inNovember. 1985, the total days woiuH bo only 119, Now intint ca:e nl tn. ihc -.vo'kman is merely a casual workmen andnot even a temporary hand. The certified Standing Ordersfor contingent employees are produced alongwith Vx. 15.The^e certified Standing Orders do not apply to the regular

543

employees of the Commission, The classification 01 workmenis given in ciau-sc-zi and it rebuts as untie r :

"2. (1) ClassitiCjLiUon ot Workmen :—TDe ContingentEmployees 01 ine Commission snail hero aiu:rDp classified as .—

(.a) Temporary, and

(h) Casual.

(n) A workman who has been on the iolls of theCommission and nus put in not lcs> man lbWtluys oi attendance in any period of 12 con-secutive montns shall be a temporary workm&n,provided that a temporary workman who has pu-

in not less than 240 days of attendance in anyperiod of 12 consecutive months and who posss-ses the minimum qualifications prescribed by IDcCommission may bo considered lor conversion asregular employee.

(Hi) A Workman who is neither temporary nor re-gular snail be considered as casual workman."

9. It, therefore, follows from wha1 has been staled asabove that the workmen arc claaaikcd as temporary unitcasual. Now in the instant case las workman has only put in120 days and, therefore, as per Cii>Li',e .1. (n) as above, hecannot even oe termed as a temporal y workman as in thatcase, he must be on the rolls oi the Commission for notless than 119 days in any period of 12 consecutive months.Ciaui>e-2(iu) cleuriy provides that u workman who is neithertemporary non icgul.ii1 ahull bo considered as casual workman.The Standing Orders further provide that it is only in thecase ol temporary workman mat he shall be given atleastseven days notice or in alternative wages lor tne said periodin lieu ot notice. This is what has been stated in Clausc-14of the Standing Orders as .lbo/e. In view of what has beenstated above in the instant case, the concerned workman wasnot entitled to any notice. Again it has also to be notedthat in November, 1985 the concerned workman was grvena contract and as soon as the contract period was over, theconcerned wukman was wA employed of given a contract.According to Mi. V, T. Cruiuhan, Ex. 3tj, there was nonecessity of employing shell a person in toe Security Section;in as much as they nave coatrujtcd wall in the OWGCcolony further the concerned workman was merely employedas casual or contingent workman and, therefore, it is clearthat he was employed tompoianly initially for grass cuttingduring the monsoon season and since there was no work,there was no necessity for the ONGC to give him a fuithcremployment or re-employment.

10. Mr. K. T. Trivedi, the learned Advocate for the con-cerned workman has urged before mo that in this case theprinciples Hpplied in reference (If) No. 61 of 1984 in thecase of Shn Rajesh Kumar Tewari v. The Regional Manager,Region 111, State Bank of India Lucknow would apply. Mowit is necessary to note that in that case, the definition of tem-porary workman was referred to and it vva.j found that theworkman was not a casual one but a temporary workmanand in that case a register was required to be maintained bythe Bank and the service book should also be maintainedand 14 days' notice was required to be served before termi-nation. In the instant case, J have stated earlier, in viewof the Standing Orders of Ills ONGC annexed alongwithwritten statement at E% 15, it is clear thai the concernedworkman has not completed ISO days during ihe period of12 consecutive months and, therefore, he is merely a casualworkman and not a temporary workman and as such theconcerned workman was not entitled to any notice as con-templated under the Standing Orders. If his status was thatof temporary workman, then as staled earlier, seven da'ys'notice would have been necessary. Such is not the case here.

11. Further the provisions of Section 25-F or Section 25-Hwould not be attracted in as much as the Section 25-F isapplicable only in case the workman employed in any indus-try he is in continuous service for not less than one yearFurther the definition of continuous service is given u[s.25(B) and Clause (2> of Sec. 25B so for as is relevant readsas under :—

'"(.2.) When; a workman is not in continuous heivicewithin the meaning ot clause U) tor a period OJ.one year or si A munins, lie wiuii bti deemed lo boin continuous service uncicr an emp.ojtr,-—

(a) for a period ot one year, il the workman, duringa period ot twelve caicnuar months preceding Hiedate with reicieace lo wnic-h calculation is to bemade, has actually worked under the employer

i'oi not less than—

(l) one hundred and ninety day, in iho case of aworkman einpioyeu below giound:, m u mine; anil

(,ii) two hundied and forty cays, in any case,".

in view of this dciinilion, it is wear that the concernedwoi&man niuil nave womsd lar HVJ days m 12 calendarinoiuns p.eceUiug the date witn retei'euce to whicn cmcuia-Uun is lu ue uuuc, hud .n sucn a case only, he may be u ftcicdto tie in continuous ueivicc for a penui or one year.

In the present case, it is clear that he has only worked tor119 days as stated above ana, uidJcioic, it cannot be saidtnat ho has worked tor a period ot on© yeai ana, therefore,me piovisions oi tieuion-o.t' are not attracted.

12. The case of State Bank of India and N. Sundra Mony,l^tio(il), bi~,, iri-K, page i->/ is not applicable m me ln-siunt case ni as mucn as ;n trut ca<c tne intermittent breaksnuiwunsuuiuiug, ins ictai number ol uays of employmentanswered tuc test ol 'decmca' continuous .service wnnin £>ec.2>B(2j of the 1. L). Act, 1947 and, thereiore, that decision

i is not applicable in tne instant cose.

13. Similarly toe decision namely Management of M[s.Wilicox. BucKwell india Ltd. and Ja^a-math & Others, ±9/4(29), iiC, I-.LR, page 173 JS also not applicable. In that case,it was urged tnat the temporary wor&mcn were employeeonly for uoing a particular work and as toon as that workwui finished, it was no longer necessary to give them anyemployment and, therclorc, it was legunnate for the mana-gement to terminate their employment ui terms ol letter ofappointment. However, that contention was not acceptedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court m view of the facts of thesaid case. The Hon'blc Supieme Couit, on the other hand,found in view of the admission maae in tlic written state-ment and tne evidence that there was no suilieient worklor these employees and liut 1-bey had become surplus.Their Lordships, therefore, refe/rcd to the decision in Dig-waddih Colliery v. Their Worlcmca, 1965 (II) F.JL.R., page99 in which a BadJi workman bad worked for more than240 days and, therefore, he was entitled to tne benefit ofthe provisions relating to retienchmcot. It was on that basisthat the cases of the three employees were considered andthe Hon'ble Supreme Court held tnal it was a case of re-trenchment and, therefore, all benents as provided under therelevant provisions of the l.D. Act should have been givenand, therefore, the order of icinst-alenienl was held as valid.In the instant case, as I have stated earlier, the concernedworkmen has merely worked for 119 days and in that viewof the matter, I rind it difficult to heH that he is entitled toany benefit in as nuich as Section 25-F read with Sccciion-25flivieurly piovide thai in nvy case, he must have worked tor1U> days duruu/ ih; pi-iiitf of twelve calendar months piece-ding the date with reference to which calculation is to bemade. If it were so, naturally the concerned workman wouldhave been entitled Lo Hie Knehl u|s. 25-F and in that case,he would also have been entirled ;o re-employment as perSec. 25-H of the l.D. Act.

14. The decision namely Gujarat State Machine ToolsCorporation ).td. and Deepak I. Dcsai, 1987 (55), FLR,page 527 is also referred to by Mr, K. T. Trivedi, thelearned Advocate for the Union, Th; said decision also isnot anplicalilc in as mnrh us in that case the concerned work-man has worked from 12-10-82 to 11-4-83 and he wasdischarged without following tha procedures and it was inthose circumstances that it was held that he was entitled tore-employment uls. 25H of the f D. Act. We do not havesuch facts in the instant case ;is the concerned workmanhas not worked for Sufficient of dtvvs In the circumstances,it appenis to me th.it the iclief of re-employment cannot be

544 THE GAZETTE OF TNDlA -. MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGLJNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

granted to the concernod workman. In view of what hasbeen stated as above, it is clear that the concerned workmanha.s merely worked fit best as contingent or casiml laboureronly foir 119 days and that he was employed only for speci-fied period and for doins the job of cutting grass, etc. andfor driving away the cattle. He vas eniplo)cd in two differentipells and in the circumstances, even assuming that he wasemployed as a casual or contingent labourer in the SecurityDepartment, that does not put his case on any better footingconsidering the number of days for which he hHs workedand, therefore, it appears that he is not entitled to any ofthe reliefs, hence J pass the following order :

ORDERThe reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

C G. RATHOD, Presiding OilicerSd[- (G. J. Dave)SecretaryAhmcdabad, 31sr Jan,, ]98&

[No. L-3OO12[8[8G-D. IlI(B)]

V. K. 6HARMA, Desk Officer

545

New Delhi, the 13lh February, 1989

S.O. 429 —In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (7) ofscction 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(39 of 1972) and in supersession of the Notincatirn of theGovernment of India in Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 1323dated 20th April 1978 and S.O. 1395 dated 22nd March,1982, the Central Government hereby specifks the officersmentioned in column (2) of the Schedule below to be appellateauthority for the area/Jurisdiction as specified in column (3)of th1; slid schedule in relation lo all establishments for whichthe Central Government is the appropriate Governmentunder clause (a) of section 2 of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

SI.No1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

fi.

7.

Officers

2

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Ahmcdabad.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Ajmcr.Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Asansnl.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Bangalore.

Jurisdiction

3

The State of Gujarat, andUnion Territories rf Dadia,Nagar Havcli, Daman andDiu.

The State of Rajasthan,

The Districts of Burdwan,Birbhutn, Bankura andPurulia in the State ofWest Bengal.

The State of Kamataka.

Regional Labour The State of Orissa.Commissioner (Ctntral)Bhuhaneshwar.Regional Labour (i) The State of MaharashtiaCommissioner (Central) excluding the followingBombay. Civil Districts:—

Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola,Amravati, Wardha, Bul-dhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur,Gadchiroli, Nandcd, Par-bhani, Ycotmal, OsmanabadLatur and Bid.

(ii) StatcofGoa.Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Calcutta,

The State of West Bengal(excluding the Civil Districtsof Burdwan, Birbhum,

Bankura and Purulia,Sikklm and the UnionTerritories of Andamanand Nicobar Islands.

1

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

2

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Cochin.

Itegional LabourCommissioner (Central)Chandigarh.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Dhanbad.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Guwahati.

Regional LabourCimmltsioner (Central)Hyderabad.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Jabalpur.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Kanpur.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central).Madras.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central).Nagpur.

Regional LabourCommissioner (Central),New Delhi.

Regional LabourCommissioner (CentralPatna.

3

State of Kerala and UnionTerritory of Lakshadweep.

The States of HimachalPradesh, Haryana, Punjab,and J & K. and the Union

Territory of Chandigarh,

State of Bihar excluding thefollowing Civil Districts:- -

East Champaran, West Cham-piran, Sitamari, Madhubhani,Siharsa, Pumia, Katihar,Dharbhanga, Samastipur,Muzzaifarpur, Gopalganj,Bjgusarai, Vaishali, Saran,Siwan, Bhojpur, Rohtas,Patna, Nalanda, Singhbhum,Ranchi, Palamau, Lohar-daga, Gumla and Auranga-bid.

The State of Assam, Nanaland,Meghalaya, Tripura, Mani-pur, Arunachal Pradesh andMizoram.

The State of Andhra Pradeshand the area of Yanam in

the Union Territory ofPondicherry.

The State of MaUhya Pradeshexcluding the Civil Districtsof Chhindwara, Sconi andMandla.

The State of Uttar Pradesh.

The State of Tamil Naduand the Union Territory ofPondicherry (Except Yanani).

The Civil Districts of Nagpur,Bhandara, Akola, Amravati,Wardha, Buidhana, Jalgaon.0'ivilrapur, Gatichiroli,Nanded Parbhani, Yeotmal,Osmanabad, Latur and Bidof the State of Maharashtraand Civil Districts andChiudwars, Seoni andMandla in the State ofMilhya Pradesh.

Union Territory of Delhi.

Civil Districts of West Cham-paran, East Champaran,Sitamari, Madhubhani,Saharsa, Pumia, Katihar,Dharbhanga, Samastipur,Muzzaffarpur, Gopalganj,Bagusarai, Vaishali. Saran.Siwan, Bhojpur, Rohtas,Patna, Nalanda, Singhbhum.

546 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

1

19

2

. Regional LabourCommissioners (Central)under the Chief LabourCommissioner (Central)at the Head Qurartcr inNew Delhi.

3

Ranchi. Palamau. Lohar-daga. Gumla and Auranga-bad of the State of Bihar.

Whole of tndia.

[ND. S-70025/2/88-SS-II(i)]

547

S.O. 430.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sectk n 3of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 (39 of 1972) and insupersession of the Notification of the Government of Indiain the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 1394 dated the 22ndMarch, 1982. S.O. 4751 dated 13th December, 1984 andS O, 713 dated 24th February, 1987 the Central Governmenthereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of theSchedule below to be the Controlling authorities for theArea/Jurisdiction as specified in column (3) of the said sche-dule in relation to all establishments for which the CentralGovernment is the appropriate Government under clause fa)

of section 2 of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

SI. 1

1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Sfo. Officers

2

Assistant LabourCommissioners (Cenira?).Ajmer, Jaipur and Kota.

Area

3

The State of Rajasthan.

Assistant Labour The districts of BurdwanCommissioners (Central) Birbhum, Bankura andAsansoland Raniganj. Purulia in the State of West

Bengal.Assistant Labour The State of Gujarat andCommissioner ("Central) Union Territories of DadraAhmedabad and Adipur. Nagar Havcli, Daman &

Diu.Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central).Bangalore, Mangalore,Kolar-Gold Field (KGF)and Bcllary.Assistant LabourCommissioner (Central)Bhubaneshwar andRourkeia.

The State of Karnatalca.

The State of Orissa.

Assistant Labour (i) The State of MaharashtraCommissioners (Central) excluding the following CivilBombay, Vasco-Da- Districts:—Gama and Pune. Nagpur, Bhandara, Akoia,

Amravati, Wardha, Bul-dhana, Jaigaon,Chadrapur, Gadchiroli,Nanded, Parbhaui. Yeotmal,Osmanabad, Latur andBid.

(ii) State of Goa.

1

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

2

Assistant LabourComnlssioncrs (Central)Calcutta.

Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central)Ernakulam, CochinandTrivandrum.

Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central)Chandigarh, RohtakandJammu.

3

The State of West Bengal(excluding the Civil districts

of Burdwan, Birbhum,Bankura and Purulia).Sikkim and the Union Terri-tories of Andaman andNicobar Islands.

The State of Kerala andUnion Territory of I.aksVa-dweep.

The State of HimachalPradesh, Haryana, Punjaband Jammu & Kashmir and

the Union Territory ofChandigarh.

Assistant Labour State of Bihar excluding theCjnmission^rs(Central) following Civil Districts:--Dhanbad and Hazaribagh.

East Champaran, West Cham-paran, Sitamarf, Madhu-bhani, Saharsa, Purnia,Katihar, Dharbhanga,Samastipur, Muzzaffarpur,Gopalganj, Begusarai,Vaishali, Saran, Siwan,Bhojpur, Rohtas, Patna,Nalanda, Singhbhum,Ranchi, Palamau, Lohar-daga, Gumla and Auranga-bad.

Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central)Guwahati, Dibrugarhand Silchar.

Assistant LabourCommissioner (Central).Hyderabad, Visakha-patnam, Vjayawada andMancherial.Assistant LabourC jninissioners (Central)Jabalpur, Jagdalpur,Bhopal, Raipur Shahdoland Bilaspur.

The States of Assam,Nagaland, Meghalaya,Tripura, Manipur, ArunachalPradesh and Mizoram.

The States of Andhra Pradeshand the area of Yanam inthe Union Territory ofof Pondichcrry.

The State of Madhya Pradshexcluding the Civil districtsof Chhindwara. Secni andMandlp.

Assistant Labour The State of Uttar Pradesh.Commissioners (Central),Kanpur, Lucknow, Dehra-dun and Allahabad.Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central),Madras.

Assistant LabourCommissioners (CentralNanpur, Chandrapurand Chhindwara.

The State of Tamil Nadu andthe Union Tcrritcry of

Pondichcrry (except Yanam)

The Civil districts of Nagpur,Bhandra, Akola, Amravati,Wardha, Bu1dhan«,

Jalsaor, Chandrapur,Galchiroli, Nanded, Par-

bhani, Yeotmal, Osmanabad,Latur and Bid of the Stateof Maharashtra and CivilDistricts of Chhindwara,Seoni and Mandla in theState of Madhya Pradesh.

548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4. 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART ]1—SEC. 3(ii)l

17

18i

19

. Assistant LabourCommissioners (Central)New Delhi.

. Assistant Labi urCommissioners (Central)

Patna. Chaibasa amiT.LL'lchi.

. Assistant LabourCommissioner1; (Cen(v:il)under Chief LabourCommissic ner(Cmtra1at tho Headquarter in1)New Delhi.

Union Tcrritcry of Dclhi.

The Civil Districts of WestChamparan. Last Cham-paran. Shaman. Madhu-bhani. Saharsa. Purnia.Katihar. Dharbhanea.Samaatipur. Muzzaffarpur.Gopalganj. Begusarai.Vaishali. Saran. Siwan.Bhojpur, Rohlas. Patna.Nalanda. Singhbum.Ranchi. Palamau. Lohar-daga. Gumla and Auranga-bad of the State of Bihar.Whole of tmlia.

[No.S-70025/2/88-SS-I[(ii)]A.K. BHATTARAL Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 13th February, 1989

S.O. 431.—Tn pursuance of the Section 17 of the In-dustrial Disputes Act, 1947j (14 of 1947), the Central Gov-ernment hereby publishes Ihe awiird of the Industrial Tribunal,Bhnbaneshwar as shown in the Annevurc in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to the AllahabadBank and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment.

ANNRXURE

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ORISSA, BHUBANESHWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 39 of 198S(c)

Dated Bhubaneshwar, the 6th January, 1989

BETWEEN

The Management of Allahabad Bank, 15-C, Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneshwar.... First Party-Management.

AND

Their workmen Represented by the General Secretary, AllOrissa Allahabad Bank Employees' Union, 255Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneshwar.—Second Party Work-men.

APPEARANCES :

None—For both parties.

AWARD

1, The Government of India in the Ministry of LabourDepartment in exercise of the powers conferred upon themunder clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred thefollowing dispute vide their Order No. L-12011/4y88-D.ll(A)dated 3rd, October, 1988 for adjudication:—

"Whether the demand of the Union that the employeesof Allahabad Bank, Paradip Branch should beprovided with House Rent subsidy at per with otherlocal nationalised banks is lustified 7 If so, whatshould be the quantum of such subsidy 7"

2. The order of reference wos received from (he Govern-ment of India, Ministrv of Labour on 26th October, 1988.The workmen did not file their statement of chim completewith relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses inthe Tribunal till 18-11-188 inspire of such direction in the saidorder of reference. On 18-11-88 notice was sent to the work-men to file their statement of claim bv special messenger butthe workmen did not file the same till 5-12-1988. This casewas posted to 3-1-1989 for hearing. Inspiie of due serviceof notice on the workmen and the Management by specialmessenger intimately the date of hearing they remained absenton that day without takinp any steps, (n view of the non-anpearance of both the parties and ncn-filing of the statementof claims by the second party-workmen, it can reasonably beinferred that at present, no dispute subsists between Iheparties. Hence a no dispute Award s passed, so far as thisreference is concerned.

S. K. M1SRA, Presiding Officer

[No. L-12011/4/88-D.1KA11

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 19R9

S.O. 432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmentherebv publishes the award of the Central Government Tn-rfustrial Tribunal, No. 1 Bombay as shown ir the Annexurein the industrial dispuie between the employers in relationto the LTnion Bank of Tndia and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on the 7-2-89.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE THF CFNTRAT, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL No. T AT BOMBAY

Reference No. CGIT-30 of 1987.

PARTIES : " " "'"* "'

Employer in relation to the management of Union Bankof India.

AND

Their Workmen.APPEARANCES :

iFor the "Management.—Mr. J. M. Patel, Advocate.

V6r the Workmen.—Mr. Mishra, Advocate.

INDUSTRY : Banking. STATE : Gujarat.Bombay, dated the 8th day of Aujjust, I98R

AWARD

Thr Central Government bv un Order dfied ?fi-fi-1987,issued in exercise of the powers conferred by clause I'd)of cnb-c^btion (1) of section 10 of the TndiiMtri.il DisputesAct, 1947 ha° referred the following rti.inufe for adjudica-tion to this Tribunal :—

549

"Whether the notion of management of Union Bank ofIndia In relation to their Dudheshwar Branch indismissing from service Shri K. G. Shah is justifi-ed ? If not, to what relief Is the workman entitled."

2, The workman Shri K. G. Shah, who wes working asClerk-cum-Casliier during the relevant period has beendismissed from service by an Order dated 28-11-1985, forwilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful andreasonable orders of the superiors, indecent behaviour onthe premises of the Bank during office hours, abusing inu vulgar manner in the presence of others, failure to showproper consideration, courtesy and attention towards Officers,customers and other employees of the Bank and Unseemlyand unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty. The allega-tions on which these charges are founded are containedin paragraphs 1 to 4 of the charge sheet (Ex. M-4) tinted10-1-1585. The allegations are- as follows :—

"It has been reported against Shri K. G. Shah, Clerk-cum-Cashier, as follows :—

1. On 22nd December, 1984, at about 1.15 p.m.Shri K. G. Shah pointed out to S^rl B. S. Amin,Officiating Accountant, the diffeience in thematurity value of a cumulative account. ShriAmin gave him necessary instructions. There-after, Shri K. G. Shah unnecessarily called outloudly to Shri Manoj Shah, OIHciatinji BranchManager and spoke to him in the followingmanner :

2. On 28th December, 1984, Shri Shah refused tocarry out the oral instructions of Shri B. S. Amin,Offlciatins Accountant, for taking balances ofSavings ledger No. 9. Shri Shah did not carryout instructions until he was instructed to doso in writing. Even then, before taking thebalances of the said ledger, he entered intounnecessary [irrelevant arguments with Shri Amin.

3. On 4th January, 1985, at about 1.20 p.m. ShriK. G. Shah, while working in Current Depositledger No. 2 and Cash Credit ledger, removedthe ledgers from the table, relevant vouchers,spike, etc. to the grounj and sat on the groundand started working there. Since, his inchbehaviour was creating undesirable scene duringthe banking hours in the Branch, he was persuad-ed by the Branch Manager to occupy his table.vShfi Shah, however, refused to occupy his tubloin a loud and defiant manner in presence ofcustomers, and continued to work on the groundtill 2.45 p.m. whereafter he got up from theground smd occupied Ins table along with theledgers etc. Further, on that day. Shri K, G.Slmh only partly took jottings of Current Depo-sit ledger No. 2 (He took jottings only of 51Kpages out of total 1300 psses) ami did not takeat all jottings of Cash Credit Ledger which wnshis duty to do on every Friday during hisnormal working hours.

?S4 GI/R9 -5

4. On 8th January, 1985, Sbri K. G. Shah wasrequired to post a cash cheque in Current Depo-sit Ledger No. 1, which he did not do. ShriShah wns, therefore, given written instructions bythe Branch Manager vide memorandum No.DRS|STF: 11J|85 dated 8 1-1985, to pot,t the cashcheque as stated abovi. Shri Shah not onlyrefused to receive the said memorandum fromthe Branch Manager but also did not obey theinstructions given in the said memo.

Further, whenever any work is allotted to him, he Isin the habit of unnecessarily arguing irrelevantlyand excitedly with his superiors and also in thehabit of complaining cons'nntly about the workallotted to him.

Shri Shah is, further, reminded that in the past,on 24th May 19S2, whil; working at ManekChowk Branch, he had disobeyed the instructionsof the Blanch Manager, as a result of whichdisciplinary action was Initiated ^E^ inst him. Tnview of his having voluntarily admitted the mis-conduct and accepted the proposed punishment,Shri. Shah was punished with 'Stoppage of nc\tannual increment for a period of one year1. Ins-pito of this, there has been no improvement inhis conduct which, in fncl, has deteriorated."

2. By the same charge shcet-cum-'how cause notice, thoworkman was informed that pending enquiry into the char-ges he was suspended from service of the Bank with im-mediate effect. The workman submitted his explanation(Ex. M-5J on 16-1-1985, as follows :--<

"I am in receipt of your memorandum No. Z01WZIIDP|293 dated 10th Jan. 1 jive my explanation asunder :—

On 22nd Dec. 1984 I pointed out to Sbri B. S. Aminofficiating Accountant, the difference in the maturityvalue of cumulative account. After three O'clockI had talk Mr. Manoj Shah, acting Biamh Manager,regarding maturity value of tho said account.Mr. Manoj Shah, did not like of my showinghis mistake to Accountant. Moreover I also in-form you that I had never use any bad languagent the time of tails with Mr. Mnnoj Shah.

On 28th December ns a Clerk of,Bills Department,I had to rinish daily routine work and had to take

balance of entire bills department, cumulative ledger,GIC ledger life leng. On that day Mr. B. S. Amin,Officiating Accountant had allotted me to takebalance of the Saving Ledger No. 9, I told accoun-tant that T had to take the jotting of entire billsdepartment ond other ledgers like GIC, Life long,cumulative etc It was not possible for me totake jotting for SB ledger no. 9 he insisted me totab* the balance. Thon i-fler completing the ronrnowork and faking the balance of C. P, Ledger, Ihad take the jotting oE 3» Ledger No. 9.

I admitted that it was my mistake to set down on theground. This incident happened only because I baddrawn thf attention of Mr. Manoj Shah that duoto shnrta.ee of .space 011 the counter, it wns verydifficult to h: iit'lp tvn )».'i,ers i.o. current ledgerand cash cieilit ledger. I demanded to sit anothertable to work efficiently, staff members of ourBranch had piven in writing to allotted separatetable for current and C|C ledgers Hit two monthspassed Mr. Manoj Shah liaJ not take any pain todraw tho attention of higher authority nor he hadprovide mo separate table. Under heavy pressureof work T lo'e my temper and set down on theground for few minutes. I admitted that it wasmy mistake. I should not sat down 'jn the ground.I assure you that such typo of mistake will not borepeated in future.

550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/fHALGUJNA- 13, t&i(V m ^ r I I—SEC. 3(11)1 -

On 8th January, 1985, i had uho posted cash chequein CD ledger No. I, il was wrong allegation thatI had not obeyed the instructions of BranchManager. I have always worked for the instructionand I assure you that I will do my job hones! lyand sincerely.

Thanking you."

4. He submitted further explanation on 21-4-1985, in writ-ing and made personal representation to the Superintendent-(P), who taking into consideration the regret expressed bythe workman for his behaviour and the assurance of pro-per conduct in future given by him vacated the suspensionorder as a special case. The enquiry, however, was notdropped and One Shri R. M, Joshi, Personnel Officer, attach-ed to the Zonal Office at Ahmedabad was appointed disci-plinary authority (or taking disciplinary action against theworkman and was requested to hold enquiry into the char-ges levelled against Shri K. G. Shah. The enquiry officercommenced his enquiry on 25-7-1985, and completed iton 17-8-1985. He recorded his findings on 18-10-1985 andgranted personal hearing to the workman on 30-10-1985in respect of the punishment proposed to be inflicted onthe workman and pased the final order en 28-11-1985.The workman appealed against the order to the DeputyGeneral Manager (P) who gave personal htaring to theworkman and confirmed the order passed by she disciplinaryauthority.

5. The workman 1 as challenged the dismissal order onvarious grounds. According to him, the enquiry officerconducted the enquiry in flagrant violation of elementaryprinciples of Natural Justice and that no opportunity worth(he name was given to him to defend himself. He alsocontended in his statement of claim that the enquiry officer,who conducted the enquiry, was not competent to issue thedismissal order. He also contended that even assumingtrust !>e had committed the alleged mis-conducts and that aproper domestic enquiry was conducted, the penalty im-no ed on him was disproportionately harsh and deserves tobe quashed. According to him, the punitive action wastaken to victimise him because he had brought to lighttemperimr of the ledger and that the charge sheet wasissued with preconceived notion of dismissing him fromservice.

6. In its written statement the Bank explained in detailsthe procedure followed by the enquiry officer during theenquiry and asserted that full and fair opportunity wasgiven to the workman to defend himself at the enquiry,that the workman availed of that opportunity to the fullestextent and that the disciplinary authority-cum enquiry officerpassed the dismissal order after taking into consideration allthe relevant aspects of the matter. The Bank denied thatthe workman had complained about tempering of the ledgerand that the memorandum of charges dated 10-1-1985 wasissued vindictively. The Bank also maintained that havingregard to the gravity of the mis-conduct proved, the pastrecord of the workman and such other factors the orderof dismissal passed against the workman was quite justifiedand that there is no warrant for interference with t^e punish-ment imposed on him. The Bank further maintained thatthe workman has been dismissed from service for provedmis-conduct meriting dismissal and that no extraneous orirrelevant considerations weighed with th? management ininflicting the punishment.

7. At the hearing of the Reference, parties filed a pursis-toting that the workman did not want !o challenge validityof the enquiry and that both the parties did not want in leadany oral evidence on the remaining issues. Thev, however.prayed for liberty to file written arguments, which v>asgranted.

R. Thoush the workman did not challenge the factum andvalidity of 'he enquiry, he contended that the findings re-corded by the enquiry officer especially on the first charge,which !'• the main charge, are perverse. According to him,the oral evidence of three out of four witnesses examinedby the management, as also the entire documentary evidencewas irrelevant and that the evidence of the fourth witnessShri B, S. Amin, about the incident on which the firjsf

charge k based, was disciepent Hiid shuuM IK>! Iwve beenbelieved also because neither Shri Manoj Sk.,h vvliu wasallegedly abused was examined, nor the report made byhim in respect of ibv said incident was placed on the recordof the enquiry.

9. It will be seen from the enquiry papers that themanagement representative proposed to examine the follow-ing four witnesses in support of the allegations :—

" 1 . Shri N. C. Patel, Branch Manager, FllisbridpesBranch.

2. Shri D. J. Pandya. Branch Manaaet DudheshwarRd. Branch.

3. Shri B. S. Amin: Officer Dtidheshwar Ed. Branch.

4. Shri M. B. Shah. Officer, Zonal Audit Office, Ahme-dabad."

He also proposed to substantiate the allegations on thefollowing six documents :—

" 1 . Memorandum No. DRBjSTFi 115^5 dt. 8-1-85 ofDudheshwar Road Branch.

2. Memorandum No. DRB|STF!1135\S4 tit. 28-12-1984of Dudhe.;hwar Road Branch.

3. Annual Confidential Report dated 30-9-1977 of ShriK. G. Shah written by Shri N. C. Patel, BranchManaaer, Vallabha VUlyanaear Branch under coverof his letter No. CO|NCP:1332 dt. 30-9-1977.

4. Memorandum No. DP]WZT!3953 dt. 7-10-1977 ofSuperintendent. Dept. of Personnel. West /one I,Central Office, Bombay.

5. Annual Confidential Report dt. 30-4-1985 of ShriK. O. Shah written by Shri D. J. Pandya. BranchManager, Dudheshwar Road Branch.

6. Memorandum No. 20!\VZI]STF!3464'82 dt. 15-7-1982of Zonal Office, Ahmedabad."

As mentioned above, Shri M. B. Shah (Manoj Shah) wasnot examined nor the report which is said to have made byhim in respect of the incident, which is the basis of firstcharge, was produced to substantiate the said charge. Thefirst two witnesses spoke about the Annual Confidential Re-port dt. 30-9-1977, in respect of the workman and thememorandum served on him on 7-10-1977. The third wit-ness S*rri K. M. Thakkar, (whose name was not mentionedhi the original list) Spoke about the memorandum senedupon the workman on 15-9-1972 by which the workman'sAnnual increment was stopped for a period for One Year.All fhis evidence was irrelevant so far as nrocf of the chargeslevelled an.ainst the workman at the enquiry in Question.•he enquiry officer who was also the disciplinary authoritywas entitled to take into consideration the past record ofthe workman only for the purpose of determining the punish-ment to be inflicted on the workman and not for the pur-niKo of proving the charges levelled ngainst the workmr.n.

JO Shii 15. S. Amin was the omn'btt; witness who spokemout ill the mis-conducts with which the workman wasc i u ed Jt the enquiry in question. It was contended on

!i or the workman that the enquiry officer was wrongin holding the first charge proved when the offker who

is bused did not come forward to support the charge nori1 lipoit made by him was produced on record. It is tinetli t Sh i Manoj Shah was not examinee! though he v,;isL ttd is a witness and the report said to have made by himHI K pect of the incident in question was not produced. As

m ittor oi fact, 'hs management did not even mention thei I ieport as one of the documents on which the manaye-

n it w Tted to rely. But the management led the evidenceof c hn B S. Amin, who witnessed the incident in whiVhV n ^*nn I Shah was abused. His evidence would not be

ideud useless on the ground that Shri Manoj Shah him-^ .wb not examined. Tt is difficult to accept the sub-

' i son that his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.i H> tonluit of the workman in abusing Sbri SI ah, was not

551

only an offence against Shri Shall personally but it was alsoan 'act subversive of discipline. The management was there-ioro competent to prove the said charge by leading evi-dence of other witnesses who were present and heard the;ibuses,

11. It was urged on behalf of the workman that theevidence of Shri B. S. Amin, is so discrepent that it is notworth placing reliance at all. It was pointed out that thiswifhess stated that the workman allegedly flung an insultat Shri Manoj Shah, by questioning him as to who madehim a Bank Officer. This was never the case of the manage-ment and the version of the incident mentioned in thebody of the charge is totally different. True it is thatthis witness was more enthusiastic about the whole affair andexaggerated the matter but he did state that the workmanhurled the abuse "Benthok" ( t Tffft; ) at ShriManoj Shah. That was the only ebjectionab.le part of Ihewhole incident as described in the charge and the evidenceof S»ri Amin substantially corroborated the official versionon that point. Shri Amin, deposed also about the otherthree incidents and there was no reason for Ihe enquiryofficer to discard his testimony. As a matter of fact, asmentioned above the workman had expressed his regretabout the lapses, to the Superintendent who on the basis ofthe assurance given by the workman that he wouldbe have properly in future revoked the suspension pendingenquiry. It is therefore difficult to accept the submissionthat the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse.

12. There is "however great force in the contention thatthe punishment inflicted on the workman was dispropor-tionately harsh and amounted to victimisation. No doubtthe workman hurled an abuse which conveyed very obscene,insulting and bad meaning. But the abuse is so commonplace that many persons use it by force of habit withouteither understanding the meaning thereof or without anyintention to convey the real meaning of the abuse. It isalso pertinent to note that the workman gave that abusewhile expressing his righteous indignation at the mistakein the calculations of maturity amount* which he wantedto point out to Shri Manoj Shah. Admittedly he had calledSliri Manoj Shah for the specific purpose of showing himthe mistakes in the calculations. So far as the secondcharge is concerned it is an admitted position that the work-man did carry out the instructions when the instructionswere given in writing. It is an admitted position that theworkman was asked to do the work which was not a partof his normal duty. His insistence in getting writteninstructions cannot be viewed as a serious disobedience. Thethird charge shows that the management was out to makemountain out of a mole. It is amply proved that the work-man did sit on the floor instead of at the table for writingthe ledgers because he had sustained an injury to his handand was not in a position to lift the ledgers, an exercisewhich he would have been required to carry out for the pur-pose of making entries in the ledgers while sitting at thetable. It is a matter of evidence that he had already requestedthe Branch Manager to change; his table for some davs ashe was experiencing pain in his Band, that in fact, as perhis request, the place of his work was shifted but for somereason he was asked to si* at his usual place. It is, however,duly established that on that day the workman did not com-plete the work of C.C. Ledger. It was certainly a lapse onhis part but it cannot be said that it amounted to mis-conduct.No doubt on 8th January, 1985, the workman ignored theoral instructions of the Branch Manager to post a particularcheque in CD. Ledger No. 1, and he even refused to acceptthe written instructions in that behalf and did not post thatcheque on that day as instruced. Tt is, however, pertinent tonote that before the written instructions were issued the work-man had already posted two such cheques in the C D . Ledger.Shri Amin the star witness for the management has cate-gorically admitted this position in his cross-examination. Itk also an admitted position that the workman was asked•to do the said work because the person working on CD.

LeAg.ee No. 1, was on leave. Shri Amin has admitted thaino message was received from the said person and thatusually the Accountant or the Br. Manager awaits messagefrom the workman till 12.00 to 12.15 p.m. As admitted by ShriAmin the workman had already posted some cheques evenbefore 12,10 p.m. on thai day. This obviously must have beenon ih£ i.-i-r; o{ ihe .yini instructions issued by the Branch

Manager and it is difficult to believe that the workman naarefused to obey the oral instructions and hence it was neces-sary to issue instructions in writing. On this background thelapse on the pert of the workman in not crediting one of thecheques in CD. Ledger No. 1 cannot be viewed seriously.The workman has given an explanation in respect of thisso called lapse. It is clear that the management was out tofind fault with the workman in order t0 build up a caseagainst him imd that with this in mind made much of tri-fles.

3. Though in the written statement the Bank has cate-gorically denied the position that on one previous occasionthis workman had brought on record serious irregularitiesin the accounts of the Bank, in the written submissions madeon behalf of the Bank, it is conceded that the workman haddone so but that was in 1983. It is also pert'nent to notethat in the incident which is the basis of the first chargethe workman J;;nl called the Assistant Manager to his tableto point out the mistake in calculating the maturity valueof deposit?. On ibis background the attitude adopted by themanagement vis-a-vis the workman was certainly vindictive.As observed above (rifling lapses on the part of the workmanwere clubbed together to build up a case against him. There issubstance in the contention urged on behalf of the workmanthat he was victimised because he was diligent enough todetect and place on record mistakes in the accounts of theBank. There could not therefore be worst case of victimisa-tion than this and it certainly does not do credit to themanagement of a public sector undertaking like a nationalis-ed bank. The punishment inflicted on the workman was dis-proportionately harsh even taking into consideration the factthat once in the past he was punished for insubordinationand was given the punishment of stoppage of one increment.There is also substance in Ihe contention that the enquirywas instituted with preconceived notion of dismissing him.This contention is substantiated by the fact that most of theevidences led by the. management for proving the chargesrelated to the past record of the workman. As a matter offact, the management started with this evidence which theenquiry officer should have rejected at that stage.

14. In the result therefore; I hold that the punishment in-flicted on the workman was totally unjustified and that stop-page of one increment for a year or so would have beenadequate punishment. I, therefore, quash the said punishmentof dismissal and direct the management to reinstate the work-man in service forthwith, with full backwages subject to stop-page of one increment for one year. Award accordingly.

M. S. JAMDAR, Presiding Officer

INo. L-12012/308/86-D. II(A)]

N. K. VERMA, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 14th February. 1989

S.O. 433.-—In pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government Tri-bunal, The Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annex-tire in the industrial dispute between the employers in relationto the management Vysya Bank Ltd. Bangalore and theirworkmen, Shri K. S, Patlabhiraman represented by GeneralSecretary Vysya Bank Employees Union Bangalore.

552 THE GAZJBlTJi OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 LPART II—SEC. 3(iiJJ

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THli CENTRAL UOVHRNAJDNl' INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM LABOUK COUK1" AT BANGALORE

DATED 1st July, iy«S

Central Reference No, 40/87

Old Cenlial Reference No. 2/BO

PRESENT :1 FARTV

Sii K. b, jfattabhiramun,Rep. by the General SecretaryVysya Hank Employees UnionNo. 489, Avenue RoadBangalore—5bUUO2.

VS

11 PARTLYThe General ManagerVysya Bunk LimitedNo. 72, St. Mark's RoadBangaIore-560001.

APPEARANCES:

For the 1st Party Sri V. Gopala Gowda, Advocate.For the 2nd Party—Sri B. C. 1'rabhakar, Advocate.

AWARD

By cAcrciiiuB its poweis under Section lU(lXd) of the I.D.Act, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour has made"the presejtt reference on tiie following point of dispute byits order No. L-12012 (8)/H5-D. IV(,AJ dated 16th January1986.

2. By a subsequent general order No. L-11025/A/87-D1V(B) dated KJth February 1987, it has been transferred tothis Tribunal. It is at SI. Mo. 41. I he point of reference isas follows:

POINT OF REl;;<KLNCb

"Whether the management of Vysju Bank Limited,Bangalore, is justified in terminating the services ofShri K. S. Pattnbhjraman with effect from 5-12-1983?If not, to what relief it. the workman entitled to V"

3. The party Union lias CAed its claim statement aridinter alia it is contended as follows, The I party ii a registeredunion recognised by the JI party bank. The workman ShriK, S. Pattabhiraman wus nppoiuicd as n hub-staff with effectfrom 9-10-1972. He wus discharging his duties honestly anddeligcntly. He was served with a. cluugesheet dated 4-5-1976alleging certain acts of misconduct. He was given one morechargeslicct dated 31-1-7H/1-2-7S alleging certain acts ofmisconduct. The charges were vague. He was kept under sus-pension with effect from 21-2-77. He gave his explanation.Shri Satyunarayana Rao, Joint General Manager and Shri P.Krishnamuvthy, Manager (1R) were appointed as the EnquiryOfficers, The domestic enquiries held against him arenot valid' .The Enquiry Ollicer was biased. Tfie findingsare perverse. Their findings .ire not supported by legal evi-dence. A Second show cau^e notice dt. 24-6-1983 was givento him. He sent his reply. Without considring his explana-tion, he hns been dismissed hy an order dt 5-12-83. Hepreferred an appeal, but it was dismissed arbitrarily. Thepunishment of dismissal is highly disproportionate. The ITparty has indulged in unfair labour practice. Its action isViolative of Articles, 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitutionof India. He may be ordered to be reinstated with conse-quentital benefits.

4. The II party management has filed its countcrsliatementand inter alia it hns Iv.en contended as follows.

The IT party is a barring company. The 1 party workman•was appointed as a ilab-stafT, i.e. Peon with effect from9-10-1972. He committed certain acts of misconduct. The

chargesheets were issued to him. His explanations were notsatisfactory. Two enquiries were ordered against faim. Theallegations in paragraphs 3 to 7 of tha claim statement re-garding domestic enquiries are not correct. The enquiries havebeen held in accordance with law and principles of naturaljustice. The Enquiry Officers were not blessed. The allega-tion made in Paras 8, 9 and 10 ure not coirect. The findingsof the Enquiry Officers are supported by valid reasons. Theyhave acted in a fair manner. There is no defect in the charge-sheets. The acts of misconduct shown in Clauses 19.5 and19.7 are enumerative and not exhaustive. The Enquiry Officershave appreciated the evidence properly. They have taken intoaccount the arguments placed before them. After considera-tion of the findings, show causo notice was issued to him.His reply was taken into account and thereafter the order ofdismissal was passed. The acts of misconduct involved mornlturpitude. The punishment is appropriate. No unfair lahourpractice has been committed. There is no violation of any pro-vision of the constitution. He is gainfully employed else-where. The management has lost confidence in him. The re-ference may be rejected.

5. In view of the said pleadings, the following additionalissues have been drawn up.

1. Whether the II party proves that they have conductedthe Domestic Enquiry in accordance with the princi-ples of natural justice and legally sustainable?

2. If the above issue held in negative/affrmative;

(a) Whether the II Party proves the misconduct byleading evidence before this Tribunal?

(b) Whether the I party proves that the findings of theenquiry officer is pervsrso?

3. Whether the 1 party proves that the punishment isshockingly disproportionate and it is in contraventionof Section 11-A of the I,D. Act 7

4. What order?

6. Additional issue No. 1 was taken up as a preliminaryissue,

7. The management examined 2 witnesses and got markedEXH. M-l to M-34.

8. The 1 party has examined the workman himself.

9. The parties were heard.

10. By a considered order dt, 30-11-87, it has been heldthat the domestic enquiries held against the I party workmanare in accordance with the principles of natural justice oflaw.

11. The parlies were then tailed upon to adduce evidence enrest of the issues and on the point of dispute and argue.

12 No evidence has been adduced thereafter. The partieshave been heard end they have been permitted to file theirwritten arguments. They have filed the written argumentsalso. i

13. My findings on the additional issues and point of refe-rence are as follows.

Issue No. 2(a)

The question of leading evidence by the II party does notarise, since it is held that the domestic enquiries are valid.

Isue No. 2(b)

It is not proved that the findings of the Enquiry officers areperverse.

Issue No. 3

NO

Issue No. 4 and Point OL Reference

$Si

The order of dismissal passed by the II party dt. 5-12-K3is valid and the I party workman is not en'itlcd to anyrelief.

REASONS

J.ssuu 2(b)-~Lb.u-ficshcct 01. 4-5-1W6, (Ex. M-l 2/

14. Perversity has 2 tests. The first is whether tlie findingsrecorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on legal evidence.The second test is whether on the basis of the material placedon record any rcasonuble person would be arrived at thefindings complained of. If there is evidenco on record andif it is acceptable and should be relied upon, then theconclusion arrived at cannot bs termed as a perverse. If theconclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is reasonable, theTribunal will not be justified in interfering with such a deci-sion on some obstruct basis, A finding cannot be culled usperverse, because in certain mutters, the line of reasoningadopted by the Enquiiy Odicer is not cogent or logical. Indeciding the question as to whether ii particular conclusion offact is perverse or not, the Tribunal will not be justified inweighing the evidence for itself and determining the questionof perversity contrary to view arrived at by the Enquiry Officerin the light of its own findings on the question of facts. Inthe case of Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd, Vs.Labour Court (1972) (2) T 1...T. (Page 328) it tins been laiddown that in the domestic enquiiy if once n conclusion isdeduced from the evidence, it >s not permissible to assail thatconclusion even though it is possible for some other authorityto arive at a different conclusion on the wrac evidence.

15. Keeping in view the aforesmJ principles, that have beenlaid down by the Hon'blo Supreme Court and Hon'ble HighCourts in a number of CHses, the fuels of the present casetequirc to be analysed and discussed.

16. The I charge sheet issued to him is at Ex. M-12 dt.4-5-1976. Stated briefly, the allegations are that on 3-4-1974nt about 3.30 p,m, one Sri V. Kaimrm, Retired Deputy Superin-tendent of Police residing at Ulsoor, Bangalote had not theManager of Avenue Road Branch wilh a View to invest a sumof Rs. 10,000 in Fixed Deposit and then the Manager calledone Sri B. S. Hanumantha Rao, the concerned Clerk and in-structed him to prepare a challan and take necessary applica-tion from the party and to comply with other formalities. Itis further alleged that accordingly the Clork filled the applica-tion and challan for Us. 10,000 and scut the cheque givenby the parly, which wus a self-bearer cheque drawn on theSyndicate Bank, Ulsoor Branch together with the Fixed Depositchallan to the clearing department for collection through the1 party workman K, S. Pattabhiranwn. Tt is alleged that on9-4-74 when the said Sri Kannan called ;it the bank to collectthe deposit receipt, the Clerk reported lo the manager thathe could not trace any reference for the leulisation of thecheque and the chcillun and on enquiry it was disclosed thaithe- bearer cheque had been presented at .Syndicate Bank,Ulsoor Branch on 4-4-74 by a person who signed as Sundrand the same was encashed. It i\ then alleged (hat the work-man Paftabhiraman stated thn( he had given the chequeand other papers to Sri O. H. Aswalha Seily, but the latterdenied of having received the same. Tt is further allegedthat on account offered or on account of grave negligencethe bant sustained loss of Rs. 10,000 and he was called uponas to why disciplinary action should not be taken apainsthim. There is- no dispute on the point that the workmandenied the charges and thereafter an enquiiy has been held.Since a finding hns been already recorded that both theenquiries have been held in accordance with the low, thefirst point that rccwires to be examined is whether the reportof the Enquiry Officer of the first enquiry E^. M-28 is basedon legal evidence or not.

17. The first enauiry wns held against all the 3 concernedpersons viz., B. S. Hauumantha Rao, G. II, Aswatria Sctty and(he T party K. S, Patlabhirmmn. Durinc the pendency ofthe enquiry Sri Hanumanlha Rao expired. Thereafter tliorecording of evidence has commenced en 21-7-1978. The wit-nesses examined I,]- iha Enquiry Officer arc PW-1 Sri B.Suryannraynnn Rao, PW-2 Sri V. Konunan, PW-1! Sri K. M.

Upadbya and PW-4 Sri T. N. Oopul.i Rao. The documentsrelied upon by the Enquiry Olllcor are lix-.. JVl-l lo M-20. Inthe written arguments of Lhc I paity, meio is no contentionthat the evidence of all these 4 witnesses or any document(.nil of Exs. M-l lo M-20 (.as marked by the Enquiry Orhcci >was no evidence at all or that any part ot the said evidencewas admitted wrongly, U is thus obvious that the first en-quiry cannot be held to be pcrvtrse on the ground that it isbased on no evidence at oil.

18. The next question vvouiu be whether uny reasonableperson coul have arrived at the|iinUing pomplaineti oi onthe basis ol the oial evidence ol trie saio 4 witnesses and thedocuments at hxs. M-l to M-iO. J he evidence of PW-1 ii.Muyanuruyana Ruo is to tic tumid Jrom page 3ti in tiic iileot the first enquiry Ex M-l. Ho wjs Die men Manager of,the Avenue koad branch. His evidence, in brief, is unit on3-4-1974 t>ii V. Kannan ga\c a self bearer cheque ntRs. JO.OUU on Syndicate Bank, Uhoor bianch fur ti,\cd De-posit and then he called HunumarUlui Rao, the concernedclerk and instructed him to t a^e th; challan, application formand cheque and that soon after he lclt he heard HanumanlhaRao calling Pattabhiramau and then Kannan told him thaihe would collect the J'ixed Deposit Receipt some 2 or 3 dayslater raid left the room. His evidence iurther runs that on9-4-74 that at aboul 3.30 p.m. Shri Kannan came to collectthe receipt and then he called Harm maul ha Rao and askedhim to give Shri Kannan I lie receipt and Sliri llanumanthuRao went away and returned within a iew minutes sayinglb.it he did not receive the challan from the clearing de-partment and he was told by ihe clearing olficial that therewas 3io entry in the books of the bank in that connection,Since Shri Aswatha Sctty was on leave on that day, lrappears that Shri Kannan was requested to call on the nextday. However, the evidence of Surymuirayana Rao shows thathe instructed T. N. Gopal Rao who was the next Officer tocontact Syndicate Bank, Ulsoor nnd find out about the fateof the cheque und caution them if necessary. After sometime,it was found that the cheque of Kannan had been encashedon 4th April 1974 in the morning hours and immediately heinformed the matter lo the Chairman. He has also lodgeda complaint on 21-4-74 The complaint is marked as Ex M-l.In the written brief filed by ihe I p^rty workman at L'x-M-26, it was contended that the evidence of Sri K. M.Upadhya und T. N. Gopala Rao was not relevant, The saidcontention is not sustainable, as would be discussed later.

19. The evidence of PW-2 Sri V. Kannan is the same asthat of Suryanarayaua Rao that he hnd gone to the AvenueRoad branch for making a fixed Deposit of Rs. 10,000 amigave a self-bearer cheque and that Hanumantha Rao wascalled and instructed about il and after Hnumantha Rao pre-pared the concerned documents he called the workmanPattarbhiraman and banded over the documents to himto give the same to the clearance department. Regarding thefact that he had gone to the Bank to collect the receipton 9-4-74, his evidence is similar to that of PW-1 Suryanara-yana Rao, The fact that the chiilliio, cheque and the relevantdocuments were given by Hanumantha Rao to the I partyworkman puttabiruman has b«n Ihu" established bv indepen-dent testimony of Sri V. Kamian.

20. PW-3 Sri Upadbya is the Manager who succeeded PW-1Suryanarayana Rao. [iis evidence is on the point lhat thebank had to issue a deposit receipt for Rs. 10,000 for Sri V.Kannan since the cheque had been lost. It cannot be saidthat the evidence of PW-3 Upadbya is not relevat since it isproved the ultimately the bank suffered loss of cheque ofRs. 10,000 since the cheque given by Sri V. Kannan had beenencashed by somebody else.

21. The evidence of Sri T. N. Gopalu Rao is on the point iTiaton 9-4-74, ihe matter came to liqht that the cheque given byKannan was not given to the clearing department and hecontacted the Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Ulsoor givinghim the cheque number and other particulars and he wastold that the cheque had been already encashed on themorning of 4-4-74 itself. The evidence of Copula Rao furthershows that when he questioned Hanumantha Ruo, ho toldthat the cheque received from the depositor was sent by himto the clearing dcpailmem ihroufili Pattabiramrrn. The cvi-dene© of Sii Gopiia Rao is thus pertinent in showing thatIlannmantha Rao had told him at tho carlist point of time

3*) l'HE GAZBirfc OF INDIA : MARCH 4, iyW,i'HALGUNA 1J, 1910 IPARI 11—&EC. i{ii)\

thai he had sent the cheque io Iho cleaiiny department throughthe I p;uly workman l'altabhimmau. J tie evidence .oL SnJ'alta)nr;iui)iu ichortled by ihe (inquiry Office:' is from pu^c123. lu the question whether Haniimantha Rao had ijivenhim the cbaLUm and cheque, PallabhiKiman lias minted thaihe had already stated in his letter dt, JU-4-J'J7-1 about thesaid Jaet and lie admits about the correctness of Ex. M-4,L\, M-4 dt. 10-4-74 given by Ihe J party workman shows thaton 3-4-74 at about 4 p.m. Sri B. i . J{luuimunlhii Rao gavehim a ehuqtic for Rs, l(),00U drawn on Syndicate Bank witha challan and asked him io hand over the same to the deal-ing department. He further states thai he took the same tothe said department and handed over ihe cheque and theehallan to C. H. Aswatha Selty, the ollicer inchargc. On page24, he flintier concedes lliut lie had personally lwnded overthe cheque to Aswatha Setty. Since Sri Hamuiianlha Rao wasno more by that time, the Enquiiy OHiccr has; recorded thestiucmcnt of Sri Aswathu Sctly. His evidence is on page 123.He slates that on 3-4-74, he was an ofiicer in the clearing de-partment, mid adds that the workman Sri Paltabhiraman didnot hand over any cheque of Rs. 10,000 to him on that day.The complaint given by PW-1 to the police on 11-4-197+make1; it very clear that till that time the ver-sions of the 3 persons were that Hunumuuthu Riaohad given the cheque and challan to the Pattabhiramauand Shri Paltabhinaman contended that he had givenI hem to Sri Aawatha Sctty, but Sri Aswalha Setty had deniedabout it. In the usual course of business, if a cheque andchallan arc received by the dealing department, they iindentries in the relevant document. Since the relevant documentsdo not disclose the receipt of cheque or diullan on 3-4-74ut about 4 p.m. I find that the reasoning adopted by the En-quiry Ofllcer in accepting the contention of AswaUia Setty thathe had. not received them is consistent and supported by inde-pendent evidence as r.gainst the contention of the 1 party work-man that he had given the cheque and challan to AswathuSetty then and there itself Ex. M-3 at page 225 shows that on10-4-74 i(Sel[ Awatha Setly gave in writing to the bankthat on 3-4-74 Pallabhiranian did not handover to him thecheque or challan of Rs. 10,001) for tho presentation to theclearing department. Sri Aswalhii Setty has leiterated hiscontention in his explanation to the charge Memo E<. M-12dt, 7-5-1976. On the one hand, there h the evidence of PW-1Stiryanatuyana Rao and PW-2 Sri V. Kannan and the c.vplanation of lute Sri Him>tm:mlli;i Wi.io nnd PW-2 ShriKunnan had given thie cheque ol Rs 10,000 lo thebank along with the Fixed I5eposit application and thatHanurmntha Rao had received all the said 3 documents. It isfurther proved from the explantion of Hnumantha Rno andIhe evidence of PW-2 Kannan flint the cheque and challtinwere given to the workman Paltabhiranwi crowning all thesefacts, there is the admission of Patlnhhiranwn himself atEx.. M-4 fns marked by the Knquiry Officer! that on 3-4-74at 4 p.m. Hannmnntha Rao hjd given t.i him cheque forRs. 10,000 drawn on the Syndicate Bank along with thechallnn. On the other hand, there is the explanation ofAswathn Sctly at Ev M-3 nnd his sink-vncnt made before theEnquiry Officer that on 3-4-74 Sri K. S. Pattabhinaman didnot cive him any cheque or ihillni) of Rs, 10,000. It appearsin the evidence of PW-1 Suraynnarayana Rao that whenShri Kannan approached him on 9-4-74 to receive the F. T).receipt, he called Hanumantha Rao a;id Hanutnantha Rao ondue verification reported (hat the clullan and cheque hadnot been received at the clearance department find sinceAsvvatha Setty was on leave. Sri Suryanarayana Rao, theBranch Manager wailed to know from him whether thecheque had been misplaced in the clearing department itself.On 10-4-1974 when Sri Aswatha Setly had attended theoffice, all the three concerned employees. Viz, Sri AswathaSetty, Sri Hflnumantha Rao and Sri Patlabhii aman were r.skedto give their statements in writing and all of them have giventhe same in writing Aswatha Setty cannot he called upon toprove a neentive thing, that h; did not receive any challanor cheque for Rs. 10,000 whereas Sri Paltabhiraman has theonus of establishinc that he CIW ei"c the chnllnn nnd chequeof Rs. 10.000 to Aswathn Selty, n- contended bv him. Tlieapplication given by Sri Kannan for Fixed Deposit hnd re-mained with Hanun'.intha Rao and it was produc;d it beforethe Manned" on 10-4-74 when he fxve his explanation. Therecord discloses that the cheque o( Rs. 10,000 given byShri V. K.iiin m rind whi.'li hr.s luvn fm.flMicJ at the Sym!i-,Mte FfcinV limncti AI Ukor.r doer, nr>i bfjir Uhy rri.irk tri rtiov.'that it had been given to th? Vysyn TlnnV. Avenue Rond

Branch. The icpii'aeiiritiMi '.'f 4su.,ttu Stity h;,s dn.iiulJiom the cross examination ol l'\Vl Siiiinniviiydii.j Rao tintuntil the present mcu'inl noi e\cn ,t memo has 1-LI.II i\iUiXto Aswnlha Sctly ai1'.! A>.w u'lti Sell} iuid be,:u \u>rf,in£ iji ;iiebank since several years ;,nd b,)d luniLved some pioniotuiasalso. lJrom the evrJj uc ot i'W 1. i; h:is been Uicilcd lh.ilthe iccord of Pctlabhiraman is not good. The learned cotui'olfor the 1 parly referred to iho cas>; oi Uconalh DudhnathMiihivi, Vs. Ihe State ol" Manaias]it),i (AIR 1967, BombayJ'agc (1) and contended that mere status or riches of thewitness have no relevance icgar.hng his credibility. Thelinquiry Officer has accepted ihe evidence of Aswatha Seltym\ the ground that he was ;i scniormost employee of thebank and the II party hud not come across any inadequacyin the performance of his duties and thus he was reliable,Ihe evidence of Aswalha Sctty has noi been accepted onlyon ihe ground that he Wiis a /ich man and or that he washolding the post of an officer in the clearance department,but it is accepted on the gro'jnd thai he hud a clean recordund no inadequacy is found in the pcrioimance of his dutiestill 10-4-74. Since the conicu in which the said principalhai been Jaid down in the atotos'ud authoiity is different, Ido not find that it has nny beai ing for accepting the evidenceof a wiLness on the ground thai the performance of h;sduties were quite imisfactory. It is a valid ground. 1 cannot,bui reiteiijte that it was impossible lor Aswatha Selty toprove :i negative fact that he never leceived any duiiliiii orcheque of R.s. 10,000 on 3-4-74. ll is noi tho case of the Iparty Pattabhiramiin that after A.'.watha Setly received thecheque and challan from him, lie dealt with them in anunusual manner without making relevant entries regardingIhe said document in the relevant records. The fact that thecheque of Rs. 10,000 does not bear any mark that it hadbeen given to the Vysya Bank, Avenue Road Branch rulesout the possibility of the cheque having, ever been receivedby Asvvatha Setly. Thus, the circumstantud evidence is fool-proof lo establish that the I parly workman PaUabhimmunis responsible for missing of the challnn nnd the cheqix.Theic i9 no dispute on ihe point thi-.i the bank tas ]<>siRs N,000 out of the cheque amount of Rs. 10,0(10, Rs. 2,000having been received from the Insumnce Company.

22. The learned counsel for Hie I party has contended inthe written Arguments that there is no evidence to show thatthe workman Patlabhiraman has encashed the cheque atSyndicate Bank, Ulsoor on 4-4-S4 and thus no misconductcan be alleged against him. The point in question is- notwhether he has himself encashed or got it encashed throughsomebody else, but whether lie over cave the cheque andchnlan to Aswalha Setty at about J j..ni. on 3-4-74. The con-tention does not hold water.

23. The learned counsel for the I naity ha s contended inhis written arguments that there is no circumslancial evidencelo show that the I party Pattabliiraman hns himself or ihi'ouph.somebody pot the cheque encashed ut the Syndicate Bank.Ulsoor and therefore the alleged act of misconduct of fraudhas not been established. There is no dispute on the pointthat the cheque of Rs. 10,000 has been encashed at theSyndicate bank, Ulsoor on 4-4-74 by someone who has signedhis name as Sunder. Now, a finding has been recorded iLnlit was Pattabhiraman who has the rcsponsibilty to explainabout the missing of the cheque and the challan since thecontention of Asvvatha Setty that he did not receive thesame has been accepted. The evidence on record docs notlend to nny other inference but to that Paltabhiraman Ivisthe responsibility to explain about the missing of the chequennd the challan, if not for the encashment of the cheque.Even if it is held that he was not responsible for the en-cashment of the same, he cannot escape the consequencethat the cheque was lost and consequently the banjt hassuffered loss of Rs. 8,000 and for ton explanation on hispart about the missing of the cheque and the challan. Thelearned counsel for the I party has placed reliance on thecase of Narayan Mahapatra Vs. General Manager, S.E. Rly.H969' Lab. I.C. (Page B%). The authority is on the pointthat in a domestic enquiry though technical rules of criminnltrial are not applicable, yet more suspicion should not ttvkc(he placo of proof. Then.' cull !v no two opinion-; rcj.!uriiiivrliC' rjrinciplr liud down in Ihe ruuhmiiy. TIM- liter, at liiiii.ishow'thnt not only the bank rpi proved ^gnin^t tho vOTfcmnu

555

Hi.it clicqnc nnd (Jit iJi.illtin inJ hv:n ffvrn to him (or HinguivL-ii to the clearance department, but also there is his ownadmission. The hank has then proved that PattubhiraTian diJliui ghe them to Asuatha Setty as contended by him. Thusit is not .1 case of mere suspicion or surmise-. The authorityi.i m>( helpful (o him.

24 'I he learned counsel for the I party then placed re-liance on the case of Gian Mahtani Vs. State of Maharashtra11071 (2) Supreme Court Cases (Page 611). The authority hasbid down the principle that suspicion cannot take the placeof prool and moral satisfaction of the conscience of thecourt cannot be the bcisis of conviction and that the chainof Ihc circumstantial evidence must lie complete before con-viction enn be recorded. The principles are laid doun withinference to criminal trials. There need not be proof beyondtill reasonable doubt in a case tried, in a domestic enquiry.All the relevant principles have been already brought out onlecoul at the commencement of the award itself. 1. Ihcic-fnrc, find that the authority lias no impact.

25. The learned counsel for tho I party then referred tothe case of Chamn Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh.(AIR 1967 S.C. page 520). The authority is on the samepoint that in a criminal trial the chain Q£ circumstantial evi-dence must be complete and that the proof must be incon-sistent with the innocence of the accused person. I cannorbut repeat that the principles applicable to a criminal trialcannot be invoked by a person in a domestic enquiry.

26. The learned counsel for the I party has cited the caseof Anil Ktimor Vs. Presiding Officer and Others f 1986 (1)T..L.J. IPnge 101). The authority is on the point that theEnquiry Officer should assign reasons for his conclusion andit there are no reasons, the findings cannot be accepted. TheEnquiry Officer, in the present case has given consistent andcogent reasons for holding Ihc T party workman quality. T.therefore, find that the authority has no bearing-

27. The learned counsel for the I party has contended thatthe Enquiry Officer has shifted the burden on the workman1o prove that that he had handed over the cheque to SnAswatha Setty and therefore there is an error of law. It isnot a case where the burden of proof has been, laid or shiftedon T party workman Sri Pattabhiraman, but it Is a casewhere the management having proved rhnt the cheque andchnllan were given to the I party Pattabhiraman end he nowhaving stated that he had given them to Aswatha Setty andthe management having established that Aswatha Selty hadnot received them from Paltabiu'rinnn, ihe question was howfar Pattahhiraman. has explained for the missing of thecheque and the challan. Under such circumstances, I do notfinJ thai the Enquiry Officer hnd put the burden on the Iparty v orkman to pune that he had handded over the chequeand chullun to- Asvtalha Selty. It has heen then contended inthe written arguments that the Enquiry Officer has aken intoaccount the fact that another enquiry was pending againstPattabhirnman and thus the reasoning adopted hy him h notlogical, Since the Enquiry Oflker was called upon to accepl(he version of the workman Pattabhiraman that he hadgiven the cheque and challan to Aswatha Setly on one handor the contention of Si i Aswatha Setty that he had not giventhem to him on ihe other hand he had accepted the expla-nation of Sri Asvatlu 'ieltv are for iii-t pu.';n «e '.'• ha;catliincd about the antecedents of both the persons till, thatdale. However, even if the facts that another charge sheetwas issued and an enquiry was pending apainst Pattabhira-man are ignored, Ihc rc^l of the evidence and material placedou record vvus convincing enough tO' record the said findingsruid I do not find that the findings of the Equiry Officer arcprever.se.

2H. The learned counsel for the I pirty had then con-tended thai the self-scivving statement of Sri Aswatha Settvhas been accepted and thus there is error in the finding oi"the Enquiry Officer. As observed earlier a person cannot becalled to prove a negative thing and Sri Aswatha. Setty had noburden to prove that he had not received ihe cheque art.Iihe chnlbn from Pattabhiraman I do not find that the

Knquin Officer has not applied the piinciples of law properlywhile appreciating the evidence.

29. rihe learned counsel for tlie 1 parly conicr.ded thai if.Ihe incident alleged to have taken place on 4-4-74, thecharge sheet has been issued on 4-5-iy?6 and therefore therei i inordinate delay '"id that the enquiry is vitiated only onaccount of delay itself. He relied upon the case of M.D.Parmar Vs. Y. B. /ala and another <198O) J. L.L..1. (Fage2uO). The authority is on tin: point that taking into account thetacts and circumstances of the cusc, the dcluy of 1-1/2 yearswas fatal and the workman was denied all reasonable opportu-nity to defend himself. The facts of the iepoited case woulddisclose that the allegations against the petitioner PoliceConstable was that he had remained absent for the morningparade and on some other occasion he was not found whenllie roll was taken in the court of 1 month between 15-11-71and 15-12-71 and thoi departmental enquiry was initiatedand charge sheet tit. 18-5-73 was issued. It was aruued thatit would not be possible to dig out from the store of memorythe cause for alleged failure and to expjain the same or iojiMify the failure under such circumstances, it has betn heldthat the issue of charge sheet of 1-1/2 years wasa denial of reasonable oportunity, The facis of thepresent case would disclose that on 1J -4-1974 i(s-elf theManger had given a complaint to the police und the manage-ment had to wait the outcome of the investigation by thepolice. If the management had issued the charge sheet, undersuch circumstances on 4th May 1976, I ih not find (fiat therewas any dtiial of reasonable oppoitnnily. The I party work-man had been told about the malttir on 10-4-76 itself andhe was called upon to givo his statement, It is not as thotiulihe was called upon to dig out from his memory about therelevant fads between 5-4-74 and 4-5-1976. Therefore, I amof the view that the authority cannot be pivs-e.1 inio servicein favour of the I party.

30, The charge memo at F\ . M-12 states that the T partvworkman is guilty of arave n:clii.rence or fraud and onaccount of s-uch misconduct the bank has suffered loss. Clause19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement states that doing any actprejudicial to the interest of Ihe b .nk or gross negligence ornegligence involving or likely to involve the b.ink in °eriousloss is prose misconduct. From ihc evidence placed on record.f find that the Enquiry Officer was justified in holding thatthe f p.irlv workman f i eui'l'.j of the misconduct ns definedin Clause 19.5 fjl

Regarding IT Fnquiry of the Clii'rceshcet dt. 31-1-7S

ii. The Charge sheet regmding the If enquiry is at page 1of Ihc second file. The charge sheet of the second enquiry isdt. .11-1-78/1-2-197R. It is at paae 1 of Ihc second file Theallegations against the 1 party workman, in brief, arc that atdie relevant time he v\tis working as a I'con in the A\enucRoad Branch and that specimen signature cards of the consli-li'cni , i\t ihc hank ::/:.' kept in a box in a place adjacent to'he CIL-UI'IIV-; room and KYMin'i \?urthv. Officer in chargeof (he current account -,cciion w.-is in custody of the key of thesaiil loom. "(h.; practice wns ihit whenever anv 'iiiruliireon any cheques v LK required to he comnaicd. Sri KrishnaMm thy used to hand over the bunch of kevs (<> 0v; wnrk-inan and he used to open the box. tnkc out the relevant cardand produce it ior comparison an-i after comparison rede-poth the same in the box and liana over die key to SriKrii'ma Afurthy. Normally, no other employee had anyaccess to the said box. M,'s\ I'athi Bhaskariah and Bro.,• i fiim which k oni of the account holders of the Bankit eil to pel printed on each leaf of the c''Ct-iie l»oi;k theirname and title for operating ii current account. Thesecheque books are kept alone with Other cheque Kinks- andihc key of tho almirnh used to m the custddv of KrishnaMurtliy mul whcnevet n cheque blok wa, required. heu1-' d (o give the teys to the Aurkmon and the workman usedto open the alimlrah take out the required cheque hiuiks,Nick Ihe same and return the hunch to Krishna Murlhy.\ n other emplovie had access fo (he said almiiah, on18-l(i-7ti. Mis Pnthi Bhnskariah Si Hro. sen I ,i I'-tf r withi(heir repre^cntalivo for is.sue of 5 cheque hooks cruh ofinn leaves from Niv. 222001 to 222500. As ru'r (he nrac-laT Ihc kev u-cN handed o\>cr to flu- wori,m.:n to lirinu the5 chf-cjuo books jnJ ho. brought the .< chi'quc l-not;. ITe

556 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

affixed the counter seal as 2A and look the same to Smt.Shantha N. Rao and sho returned them to the workmanwith the cheque Issue Register to make iclevant entries.The workman then handed over the same to Sri KrishnaMmthy and he put his initials in tho register, hereafterthe cheque books were given to tins representatives of thefirm. On 12-10-76, the workman attended to the officeand then applied for 4 days sick leave from 13-10-76 to16-10-76 and extended the same till 19-10-76. On 16-10-76,henrer cheque No. 222465 for a sum of Rs. 7,500 purportingto have been drawn by Sri P. A. Nanda Kumar one ofthe partners of the said firm in fa\our of one Rangappawas presented by a person at counter 2A and it was honoured.It was noticed that the counter seal 2A was not :here. Whenthe bank statement wns sent to the firm, the firm complainedthat cheque bearing No. 222465 for Rs. 7,500 had not beendrawn by any partner, and that the firm wns using the-cheque from 222101 ending with 222200. Thev furthercomplained that, another cheque leaf bearing 222156 andits counterfoil were missing from the cheque book. Onfindint} that the signature of P. A. Nanda Kumar had beenfon^d. the hunk hurried to examine the card of the speci-men signature, hut it WHS missing. It was alleged 1hattaking iidvaninge rJf his position in the bank, he had re-moved the cheque leaves from Ihe cheque books and hadfoiled cheque No. 222465 and with the connivance of someperson encashed and got Rs. 7,500 and to facilitate hissaid nctivitv he had removed the specimen signature cardof Nanda Kumar and had thus committed acts of miscon-duct of criminal breach of trust, theft or fraud and forg-I1117 a chequo and encashing of the amount nnd also com-mitted acts subversive of discipline. The explanation oftho I party Pnttahhiraman Is at Fx, M-3. He has denied(he charges and has requested the management to revokethe older of suspension. Since the workmen dented thecharges, the Bank ordered Eor an enauiry and subsequentlyfin enquiry lifts been held nguinst him. As observed earlier,this Tribun.il has held that the enquiry held ni?ninst himis valid ami in accordance with Hip law.

.12. The learned counsel for the I party contended thatthe findings of the Enauiry Officer repardins charge sheetFx. M-2 aid perverse. The renort ot the Enquiry Officer Isbetween paces 404 and 439 in the file. It is marked asFx. M-10. Before the Enquiry Officer, the manaecment has•-•xamined as manv is 10 witnesses and about 41 drwumentshave been marked tor the management. For the workman.1 witness has been examined in addition to the workmanhimself, About ?,6 documents have been c^t marked forthe workman.

33. As observed earlier, the test of perversity is two-fold. In (he written arguments, there is no contention thatany one of tho :'™~umenls admitted for tho managementwns inadmissible or Hint it wns wro.igly -ulmir^d :n evi-dence.

34. The main contention of the T party, as could bemmlc nut from the written arguments is (hat the b'.nquiiyOfficer has based hU findinjzs on presumptions and surmisesand 1hn-: it h;is been tried to be made out that on the basisof the mateiial placed on record, no reasonable per on couldhiT'c arrived n't the findings complained of.

31. On pn"i- IR of his rcnort Ex. M-10, the EnquiryOfficer has staled that the evidence of CW-1 Smt. ShantaN. Rno, that of CW-8 Krishna Murthy proves that on8-1(1-76' when tho icqulsition was leceived from (hti PalhiHhfi'iairiah nnd Br.i. fum for (he issue of 5 cVque books,the chi-qnR books were got from, the uhniruh Ihronsh thef n.utv STui Pattibhiraman and the same were given toKrishna Murlhy, nfler the entries v.cre made. On face160 of Ihe tile, in his evidence, the I party Pattahhiramnn

admits that en ihe relevant time he was working in thocurrent uceounf ;erUon and the Office in-cli.irce used toa4; him to brine cheque hooks anil he u-cd to Mnn andirivo them to him. His evidence on uwe 16! discloses thattlie "special cheque books were also be;ng sot Ihroutrh himal'itif; with other cheque books from the almfrah and theofliccr used to ask the sub-stntl" to brine the chc'Tue bonksI'm i^uinf ihem to the riHomrrs. Similar]; in repar.1 M

tho specimen signature cards, he concedes that whenevorthe Officer wanted to verify the specimen signatures, he usedto ask him to ffet the specimen signature card by giving theaccount numbers. The fact »hat th© I parly Shrl Pattabhira-mnn had access to the special cheque books nnd the cards ofspecimen signatures is thus not only proved but also admitt-ed. The Enquiry Officer has further observed that theadmissions made by the workman in his evidence have beenfurther supported by his statement at Exs. C-25 and C-41.C-25 is at pages 325 to 329 if the file. Ex. C-41 is atpago 353. Thus, There are written admissions of the work-man in addition to his statements on the point that he hadaccess to the special cheque books and the specimen signa-luro card. From his written statements, it is obvious helias put the counter seal on the cheque leaves Issued toPnthi Bhaskariah and Bro. The Enquiry Officer has arrivedat a finding that the workman Pattabhlraman had removedthe cheque leaf slnco »it did not bear the counter seal 2A.The fact that tho other cheque leaves bear the counter seal2,\ whereas the cheque of Rs. 7,500 Ex. C-9 did not bearthe counter seal 2A does lead to an inference that Pattabhi-raman who had brought the cheque books has the specialknowledge as to hqw the mid cheque lenf diu not bear thocounter'real, whereas' he has in foct put the said counter*eft1 on other leavss of the 5 cheque books. The chequobooV of leaf Nos. 222142 to 2222C0 exceot the leaf of222156 has been produced at Ex. C-38. Almost all theleaves of the said cheque book bear the counter sea] of 2A.The said finding therefore ennnot be said to be erroneous.

3 ft, Tho evidence of CW-2 Shri K. M. Upadhya. CW-8Sri Krishna Murthy and CW-11 Sri B. Seotharamaiah indi-cates that when the said PathI Bhaskariah & Bro. mad©a complaint. , they searched for th« specimen signature cardof Sri P. A. Nanda Kumar, one of the pertners of thefirm, but it was not found. Since the specimen signaturecard of Nanda Kumar was lost, it is obvious that thopfi'rson who had encashed the cheaue of Rs. 7*500 had oilthe knowledge that it was a forced cheque and he had thefurther knowledge that the specimen signature card was nomniv-i to be found with the bank. The inferences drawn by• he v'nquiry Officer in that connection nrc quite logical andleral.

37. The chemie in question is of No. 227465. It Is forRs. 7,500. There Is no dispute on the point that it hasbeen encashed at the Avenue Road branch on 16-10-76.The Enquiry Officer has discussed on page 21 of Ex. M-10that in regard to its encashment the evidence of CW-3S. Krishna Murthv nnd CW-5 K. Nrrasimha'ah In relevantnnd proves that fact. The evidence of CW-9 P. A. NandaKumar itself proves that the signature on Ex. C-9, thedisputed cheque is not his. His evidence further shows thatwhenever the partners of the lirm u^cd to issue n chequefor nnv sum nbovei Rs. 2,500, they used *f> uuusn.!ly crossIhe cheque. His evidence ha» fMrthor established that theylinvtf no employee by name Ranffnvvpn ami thffre is nodivnute nn the point that the cheque Ex. C-9 beari the'iunnture of one Rflnga]>pa. The Fnc^iiry Officer has thusrnrivel a( a conclusion thul cheque L-x, C-9 was not at all'loccd bv the firm and it did not bear the ripnnture of CW-9P. A. Nanda Kumnr. The finding of tho Fnquiry Officerthat the signature of Nanda Kumar on Fx, C-9 is n forgedone is, thus beyond challenge.

3S. Tlie evidence of CW 10 Sri P. S. Viswanath is to thecITrct that the when he went ifcvouirh the statement ofaccounts received by the bank, he noticed that a sum ofRs, 7.500 had been drawn but when he checked up forflic counterfoil there was nc» connteifoil at nil in the chequebnok anj thus the firm arrived t:t j concfi.shn that thorheauc in question was not is?ued by them. The flndmtt Of(he Fnqnirv Officer that th," cheque Fx. C-9 wns pot ntall isrred hy the Hrm is tin is mjrK'fiilnbH

39. From his discussion From p-fes 22 onwird^ of Fx.M-10. the fnqnirv Officer has con-hidcd tliat the signatureon the cheque Fx. C-9 is not of CW-9 Sri P. A, NandaKumnr and that the body writing of Xhc rheqih- Fx. C-9arc nl-o not of Nanda Kumar. The Euunirv Officer hasrf!icd nnon the evidence of CW 7 Smt C, V l,jva Devi.thi? Inrtd VTifin^ ftpcrf and h>r report Vx. C-33, CW-7

557

Jaya Devi has given her opinion regarding the handwritingof the body of the cheque EY.. C-9 after comparing thehandwritings of CW-2 Upadhya, CW-3 S. Krishna Murthv,CW-4 Sri T. R. Dwaraki Krishna, Sri N. Narasimhuiah,CW-6 Sri T. N. Gupala Rao, CW-8 Sri Krishna Murthy,CW-1) Sri B- Seetfiaramaiah and CW-1 Sml. Shanla N. Rao.She has compared the handwriting ol the I party workmanalso. The handwritings of 'A* scries documents were ad-mittedly of the I party workman. The Enquiry Oflicer ob-serves that the expert has given 22 reasons for arriving attlie conclusion that the body writings and signature in Hx.C-9 have been forced by the I party workmen. He hasaccepted the evidence of CW-2 Upadhya and CW-7 JayaDevi tu bold that tho latter had with her tlic originalcheque of Kx. C-'J and with reference to the original cheque•-he has given her opinion. The I party workman hasexamined before the Enquiry Officer hi* own handwritingexpert DW-1 A. Lingaiah. ihe evidence of DW-1 I.ingaiahis mainly on the point the siijni'tui'e in the disputed chequeand the adm;ttcj cheque arc by chc SOTC person und thatthey arc possessing spurious simil.ir fca;u ei. To put ;n anutshell the evdenje of A. Lingaiuh h on the jxi nt thatthe signature in the dispu'ed cheque Fx, C-9 i=; nude VSri P. A. Nanda Kumar hinrelf. The evi'>nr^ c* fn ex-pert ennnot outweigh the evidence of the concerned witnesshimself. Secondly, the evidence of Sri P. A. Nanda Kumarfinds independent corroboration from CW-10 Sri P. S.Viswanath and t'ic vCry fact that therc is neither the originalcheque nor the conuterfoil in the cheque book 01 Serial Nos.'.12240l to 222500, supports him. Secondly, the evidence

oinls out that the firm of Pathi Bhaskeriah ft Bro. bus atme relevant time using only the cheque r-ook of Noi-222101 to 222200. Tn the face of the said direct evidence.the evidence of tho handwriting expert A- I-ingaiah that thehandwriting and iignaturc in Ex. C-9 wai that of NandnKumar can hardly be believed by any reasonable person.Thv Fnquiry Officer has observe j thct the opinion givenby CW-7 Jaya Devi in her reoort Ex. C-33 is supported bryvalid reasons and 'equircs to be preferred to the opinion^iven by DW-1 fjngaiah. The discussion made by theEnquiry Officer regarding the s <id evidence of the hand-writing expert on pages 24, 25 nnj 26 of Ex. M-IO is con-sistent and cogent.

4ft. Tlie learned counsel for the I parly has producedhelcne me a certified copy of the order passed by thoPrincipal Civil Judge, Bangalore In O. a No. 143-1977 onI.A. No. 5. The said order is dated 16-8-1979. A certifiedcopy of her, CW-7 Jayadevi evidence given in that matteron 5-2-1979 has also been produced before me. The learn-ed Civil Judge has observed in the said order that her evi-ilcnci; discloses that she was not an expert in the field. Thelearned counsel for the I party has also nroduced a photostatwpy of the order made by the Hon'blc High Court otKarnataka in C. R. P. No. 2431|79 on 14-8-19S4. Fromthese document;;, it was contended that CW-7 Joya Devi\N.IS not at all an handwriting expert and her evidence rc-SardiiiK her opinion on E.\. C-9 has been wrongly accepted.CW-7 Jaya Devi iias been examined by the linquirv Officeron 16-6-81 and thereafter wards. Since her evidence givenbefore the Enquiry Officer was long after 5-2-79, the date«>f her evidence yiven before the learned Civil Judge itcannot be the valid basis to make a remark that on thedate of her evidence before the Knquiry Officer, she wasnot a handwriting expert. Nothing prevented the work-man from confronting her about tho said order by thelearned Civil Judge and the orders of the Hon'ble Court ofKarnataka. It is too late in the day to contend that theEnou'ry Officer has wrongly accepted her as the handwrif'ngexpert and her evidence as the evidence of in expert. More-over, as has been observed at tho commencement of theaward itself, this Tribunal ennnot sit -"n judgement as if itis an Appellate court, then arrive at its own findings and'•"• aside tin.- findings of the Enquny Officer in the light ofits own findings. The material question is whether anyn?T-nn:jble person would have nreferred the evidence ofCW-7 Jaya Devi to that of DW-1 Lingaiah or not. Onth"«: point, I find that therc was overhelmin<r independenti-":'Wce for the Enquiry Officer to prefer and accept theeviidence of CW-7 Jaya Devi to that of DW-1 I.ingaiah.

41. Therc is an additional ground put forth by the Ifnflrtv for not accepting the evidence of DW-1 Lmmlah.3H4 GT/89—6.

It was pointed out that much reliance cannot be placedon xerox copies and it is always better to depend upon thophoto copies. The opinion tendered by DW-1 Lingaiah with re-ference to xerox copy cannot therefore prevail. Even ifall thes« matters are explained, there can never be a replyas to why the disputed cheque Ex. C-9 should not bearthe counter seal 2A. The Enquiry Officer has given somemore reasons for not accepting the case of th* I partyworkman and especially the evidence of DW-1 Lingaiah.On page 26 of his report Ex. M-10, he observed that asper the evidence of Accounts Clerk CW-3, Sri S. KrishnaMurthv and the cashier, one person named Shivu hadcome curlier and presented the cheque Ex. C-9. They want-ed attestation for the alteration of the date and the saidperson went away and got it attested and apeared after10 minutes. In that context, the Enquiry Officer has observ-

ed that the fact that the I party workman wes on sick leavobetween 13-10-76 and 19-10-76 is an additional factor to

infer that he was the person behind 'he encashment of theforged c eoue, However. even f the fact that he was onsick leave is eschewed from evidence, there is sufficientmaterial to hold that the Enquiry Qrricei d;d not commit unverror in accepting the evidence of the management. Beforethe Enquiry Officer, the reire ent:tivc for 1he I Mrtyhad raied F>S rn^nv ar Ifi ob-ections. The Enquiry Officer' • dealt with them Independently and has given cogent andconsistent reaon ioi rej,._tinj; the "-amc. From page 3(Jto 36 of the report Ex. M-10, there is a detailed discupsionby the Enquiry Officer in that connection

42. The learned counsel for tlic I party bas contended inllie written arguments that there is inordinate delay in i sv,oof the charge sheet and therefore in view of tlie aforesaidauthority of M. D. Parmar Vs. Y. B. Zala and another, thofindings cannot be sustained. The date of encashment o£the cheque is 16-10-76. The matter came to the light onlywhen the firm of Pathi Bhnikariah & Uro. made ;i com-plaint oil 13-11-76. The bank has been proceeded to . ivea complaint in February 1977 and the charge sheet hasbeen i^ued on 31-1-78, The workman had been kept tindersuspension on 21-1-77 it'clf MKI thus it cannot be saidthat he had no opportunity to know about the allegationsagainst him until it was too lato. Secondly, tho facts oftlic said reported case being entirely different, T do notrind that the princinle laid down with =pedal reference tothe facts and circumstances of that authority can be invok-i-tl for the facts and circumstances of the present case.

43. The learned counsel for tho f party has then contend-ed that the evidence placed on record in regard to issue ofL-heque books and comparison of the specimen signature doesnot in anv way implicate the I party workman. It has beenalready discussed as to how not onlv there is satisfactoryevidence produced by the II party but also adnn's ions onthe part of tho workman himself that hs was do'og theiwork of bringing die cheque book? from tii? nlrn'ra1! andhad handed over them to the concerned officers and as tohow he had access to the specimen signature enrds.

44. It has been contended in the written arguments thatthe workman was on leavo between 13-10-1976 and19-10-1976 and therefore he cannot be made resnnn-;ble

The cheoue in que.-tion has been encashed on 16-10-76 and.the Enquiry Officer has observed that it is one. Jf the croundj;to draw an inference against fte workman. tt ha^ beenremarked by me that even if that c!rctimstBnr"f*s is etchfwedfrom record, therc was amile material to the Enquiry Officerto arrive at the said findings.

45. It has been contended in the written arjfuments thatbecause the cheque was returned for attenstaticm andtsoon thereafter it was presented with necessary attestation,it may be held that the T party Shri K. S. Pathbiraman d'dnot lyrcent the same. It is not the case of the bink t^atShri Pattabhiraman 5*ad presented ft for enca=hment. The>noint m i«suc I ' whether the workman Shn T'attnbh'ramfinh:\d access &n<1 had the opportunity (o have t*ic BR'rt cbenu<^Vnf nnr> whether be has forced it. C)n these 2 points, thereis sati'factoi"v evidence. Tn add'tion. tbe t:ct that tbo•wcimen Mitrmture card of Rhri ^anda Kamar is missingfrom the bank rules out the rtossibil'ry of t'le said flrm. or

55* THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, J910 [PART II—SEC. 30i)j

Nanfla Kumar himself encashing the cheque and now allegriiig thai the film did not issue that cheque. There is nochaUaajje to th© fact that there is no employee by nameRan rap pa in the uaid ftniL Then there- is the positive evi-

f e of CW-7 Smt.. C. V-, Jaya Deyi that fje hanuwritinjjSignature on the cheque tn question are cf the i party,sdid evidence lends sufficient support to the evidence

irf "the expert evidence CVV-7 and I do not find any forcein the contention that the Enquiry Officer has merely drawnpreemptions without any basis. The fact that the personwho had presented the cheque brought it again with an•attestation a decision is no ground m favour of the work-rflan to prove that he had nothing to do with the removalitf the cheque leaF or forging of the cheque leaf.

46. The learned coimsal for the I party his contended,n the written arguments that the ooscrvation of the 9nquiry'• HBccr that there was scope for the I party workman tovmovc the cheque leaf from the cheque book is not basedin lefi^r evidence. Tho circumstances have been discussed,bv mi? Hurl t*>?re f? concrete evidence of CW-7 Smt, JayuDevi which leads to an inference that it w;js the I partywho had removed the cheque leaf of the Ltieque book ; l t

the time when he had handled the same.

47, The learned counsel for the I party has contended inthe written arguments that the Enquiry Officer ought tohave preferred the evidence of DW-1 to that of CW-7 JayaDevi, I have scrutinised the evidence of both the experts.uid I find that tho attending circumstances are such thatthe Enquiry Officer was justified in placing reliance on theevidence of CW-7 Jaya Devi and rcjectinc that of DW-Il.mgaiah. It has boon contended in the written argumentsfh.r ths F=^a:~' Of?.;cr was not justified in hcldinjr tnatThe 1 party Pattabhiraman had removed the leave bearingNo. 222465 from the cheque book issued to Ms. PathiBtos. The evidence of CW-9 Nanda Kumar shows thatthe said leaf is not there in the cheoue book of 2??J01to 2225G0 alonm with its counterfoil. Secondly, it has beendfscusre'd at preat length as to how the leaf bearing No.2?2465 cannot have been used by the firm of Pathi Bros,at all at that tiro©. The reason beina that the said chequehas been ueod to draw an amount of Rs. 7r50O fraudulentlyhy an employee of the bank itself, since the specimensignature c'ard of CW-9 Nanda Kumar is alto misslnn fromthe bnnk. Tlie inference drawn by the- Enquiry Officercannot, therefore, be said to be' illojical or not based on'evidence produced on record.

Issue No. 3 relating to 1st charge sheet dt. 4-5-76.

48. Tt has been contended in the- written arguments thatfhc finding of the Enquiry Officer that Pattabhiraman hadnot the said cheque encashed through en accompliceiv not based on lesal evidence. The charge against thuI party Pattabhiraman. as discussed earlier is of fraud orJrow negligence. If fraud to the extent that ^e has got ilencashed through an accomplice is not established, then \hccharge of gross negligence is squarely established. Therelevant evidence is pointed out to show t'lat the chequeand chaDan jriven to Pattabhlraman did not find place inthe- records of the b»uk and on the other hand the chequehas been got encashed at the Syndicate Bank, Ulsonr branchon the very next day of its delivery at tho Vyaya Bank,Avenue Road Branch and *hu« there is complete link inthe chain that a person who was responsible for the missingof the cheque and thft challan had rll the motive to com-mit the fraud. To rerterato, if there is no link to prove theallegatfon of fraud, the charge of gross nealiBencc byitself stands proved. It is not a case of punishment beinftdisproportionate.

49. The learned counsel for the I party has placed reliancftupon the very same authorities shown above to contend thai.tK-? coarse of Ex. M-12 is not proved. The case of Rajindei'Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration (ATR 19JM Kiirwvm* c™irt(Page 1805) has been relied upon to contend that findingbased on no evidence should be rejected as nerverse. Thofnetc a? discuwpd nbove wo"H show that the charne or" grossJieg'f'wnco nITem*! :n FT *M-12 *nr«i been e^^lished andJtciefore the authority does not help the I party.

50, The case of AP J ' Wn»nar Vs. Presidinj Officer andOthers (AIR 1986 1 L.L.J, (Page !01) has been relied

upon to contend that the. Enquiry Officer shall, have l»give reasons for his finding!., l-rorri trio icjuut of tUoEnquiry Officer Ex. M-10, it is obvious that he has givenreasons, for aU the findings ho has jiven. tie has discussedwt considerable length all the points raised by the I partyworkrnan. It is uot a case wherein the Enquiry, Officer hasnot gtVcn his reasons. The authority has therefore, no bearing.

51. It was further contended from the juthoiitv itNarayan Mahapatra Vs. General Manager, S. E. Railway< 1969 LAB l .C) (Pago 896) that more suspicion cflnnotbe a substitute for proof. It is not a case of more, suspicion.'i ne facts and circumstances of the, case would prove thatI party workman is gul\Uj of gross negligence. The authorityK therefore not helpful to him. The authorities of OianMajilani and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Chortm^inyh Vs, State of U. P. us shown above do not help thef parly workmnn - ;rre the enquiry csinnot ho treated on

r with the: criminal trial.. 2. The learned counsel for the 1 party l>us j'clicd upon.

I lie ense of Mahendra Manual Nanpvati Vs. Sushila,Mahendrai Nanavati (AIT 1965 Supreme Court (Page 364)and it has been contended that since DW-1 I.mBaiah hadlid'nii" quii'i£cation fiian CW-7 Juyn Devi, Iifs cviileocc ou^.litto have been preferred. In the first place, tht? contentionthai CW-7 Jaya Devi was not a qualified expert and a com-petent witness lias not been accepted. Secondly, it boa beenshown as to how the evidence of CW-7 Jaya Devi findsindependent corroboration from the facts and circumstancesplaced on record, whereas the evidence of DW-1 TJngaiah.does not find support from any independent pieces of evi-dence. Under thVe circumstances, it cannot be said thatxv virtue Of the said authority, the evidence of Unpaiuh.should prevail.

Is'sue Nos, 3 and 4.

53. The learned counsel for the 1st parfy contended' thatI he punishment imposed on the workman is higholy dispro-portionate and that it is a fit case to invoke provisions ofSection 11A of the I.D. Act. On facts, il has been heldthat the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officers in boththe enquiries cannot bo called as perverse. Since the findingsshow that he has been guilty of fraud and Hrosst negligencem- only gross negligence and since it Is a banking institutionwhere the credP^iH,, pnd Imaoe of the bank is solely depen-''cnt upon the Integrity of the employees, I am of the vieu'that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be dispro-portionate. It is quite reasonable in my view and that ber, not entitled^ to any relief.

54f In the result, an award is pas-ied to the effect thatManagenient of Vyaya Bank was justified in tcrniinat'ngI!.- w i c e s of Shri K. S. Pattabbiraman wth effect from5-12-1983 and ho is not entitled to any relief.

(Dictated to the Persona] As«i=lant tnkcii down by Jicr,•lot typed and corrected by me,)

B. N. LALOE, Presiding Officer[No. L-12012|8[85-D.IV.A[D.T.B.]

PADMA VENKATACHALAM, Dy. Secy.

;>5i>

New Delhi, the 15th February, 1989

CORRIGENDUM

S. O. 434.—The dates mentioned in the second line ofjpara 5 of the Award forwarded by this Ministry vide Noti-fication No. L-41012/33/K3-D.II (B) dated 26-4-1985 maykindty be amended as follows :

The date 2-12-1972 be read as 10-1-1976 and the date31-12-1973 be iead as 31-8-1977".

[No. L^1012733/83-D.II (B}]

S.O. 435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur, as shown in the Annexuro, in lhtiindustrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, Kanpur andtheir workmen, which was received by the Central Govern-ment on 6-2-89.

ANNKXURE

BEFORI-. SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFF1CEK.CKNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM 1.ABOUR COURT, KANPUR U.P.Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 1988

In the matter of dispute between ;Shri Mahesh Singh

C'|o. The SecretaryBhartiya Dak Tar Karamchari Sangh252|10 Shastri Nugar,Kanpur •U.I*.

AND

The Dhisional Engineer,

Telegraph Coaxial Maintenance,Tax Building CTO Compound,The Mali Kanpur, U.P.

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide itsnotrficaiion No. T-40011131 »6-D<. 1T(B) dated May lySS,4ias referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi-cation :

Whelher [he action of Divisional Engineer, Telegraph.The Mai Kanpur in denyinp increment v.'.e.f.February 1982 and pay scale of Rs. 425-640 v.'.e.f.the date of promotion of first junior workman toShri Mahesh Singh Technician is ju&tified ? If notIn what relief the workman concerned is entitledto ?

2. The industrial dispute on oehalf of workman ShriMahesh Singh has been raised by Bhartiya Dak Tar Karam-chari Sanghthan (hereinafter referred to as Union). TheUnion's case is that the workman remain posted as Tech.at Rae Barell in P&T Test Room l.T.I. Limited withTHTI&T under the direct control of General Manager384 GI/89—7

P&T T&D Circle. Jubalpur upto 11-7-82. Thereafter, ]»e Witransferred to Kanpur in the post of AERE Mlct, KanpurAlthough his date of increment falls on 1st February everyyear, he was not given increment by the management whichwas due in Feb. 1982. The increment wan denied to him onthe ground that his service book had not been sent byGeneral Manager to the Director, Telecom Mtcc, Lucknovv,who is the sanctioning; authority. However, the incrementwas sanctioned in the old scale of pu.y after the conciliationproceedings had ended in failure. Thus the increment in thenew scale of pay in the promotion nost still remains to besanctioned. The Union has then referred to certain factsabout juniors having been promoted bul wet are not concernedwith these facts in the present reference.

3.. Management pleads that the workman was awardedpunishment of withholding of his tivo increments withoutcummiilative effect by the AE Tost Room T&D Jabalpur videhis order dated 10-7-82. So his inclement which was duein February 1982 from the stage of Rs. 420 could not beallowed to him on account of the workmen being at efficiencybar stage. Similarly increment1) due in February 1983 and1984 were not allowed in view of (he order of punishment.However, at the end <>f punishment the workman was allowedhis increment w.e.f. Feb. 1985 at the stijw due i.e. Rs. 4.V>on 1-2-19R5 and Rs. 4«8 on 1-2-86. The orders fur onetime bound promotion on completion of 16 years service wereissutd by General Manager Telecom U.P. Circle Lucknow, fiflerthe D.P.C. hut since the workman was undergoing punishmenthe was not given one time bound promotion Presently the payand allowance of the workman amount to Rs. 2342 per month

Since he is getting more than Rs. 1500 per momli the Tiifcwnalhas no jurisdiction to decide the leterence.

4. In support of ih case (he union has filed (he afFul.ivitof Shri Bhola Nath Agrawal, the Secretary of the Union. Inrebuttal no evidence has been led by the management. Theunion witness has been eexamincd twice. In hia lirst crossexamination he staled that the management prantcd inclementw.c.f. 1st Februurv 19R2 in the nay scale of Rs. 425-ii40. 10the workman in 1985. His statement tluis completely demo-lished the case set up by the Union in support of workman.But subsequently on the oral submission of Shri Bhulj NathAgrawal he vuis recalled. In his! examination in Cliicf. afterhis recall, fie staled that the statement mads by him earlierin his cross examination was wrong. According to him theworkman i, n Technician. The pjv scab of technician isRs, ?fi(M8fl The selection grade of Technician is Rs. 425-540.According to, him the grievance of tne woiktnan k that heshoul'l have been granted the selcctio-i grade w.e.f. Ftbtuary1982.

5. In his second cross examination he almost admitted, tiiec;ise set up by the management 'n the written flatcntent.T-Ic has admitted that vide order dl. 10-7-82 of A.K. TestRoom T&D1 Circle Jabalpur. the workman was awardedpunishment of withholding of two increments with cummula-cive effect. He has further admitted that after the end ofthe punishment period the workman was allowed his in-crement in the pay scale of Rs, 260-4R0 w.e.f. Fcbiuary1985 at the Stage due i.e. Rs, 456 on 1-2-85 and K<. 4fiSon 1-2-86.

d. I fail to understand how the management could havegranted the selection grade to the workman affr?r awrif,! ofpunishment in the disciplinary proceeding. The cnre of thework man would have been different hod Tr* been ,• ".irdrdno such punishment in any disciplinary proceeJinii. Hence.the action of the Divisional Fngineer Teleprmh Kannnr indenyinj increment to the workman w.e.t. Febnmry 1qR2 inthe selection grade is justified. Consequently the workman isentitled to no relief.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer

[No. L-40On|3|86-D, TI(B)1

5<ii) T H E GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART I I — S E C . 3(ii)]

S.O. 436.—la 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 Govt. C^iuni and Alkaloid Works,Gazipur and tb,eir workmen, which was rccslvcd by theOrtru! Govt. on the 3-2-1989.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE SHRI ARJAN DEV PRESIDING OFFICER,CFNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH

Industrial Dispute No. 134 of 1987

Jn the matter of dispute between :Shrl Mukhram

Slo Sh. ManroopBhutaiya TandP.O. ShakilpurGhazipur U.P.

AND

Tlie Manager

Government Opium & Alkaloid Works UndertakingGbazipur, U.P.

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of l.iibour, vide itsnotification No. L-42012|73[86-O. 1I(B) dated 7th September,19K7, has referred the following dispute for adjudication toIhiv Tribunal :

Whether the action of the management of GovernmentOpium and Alkaloid Works Undertakings Chazipurin terminating the services of Sliri Mukhram. s|oSri iWanroop, w.e.f. 26-8-86 is legal and justified 7If not to what relief the workman concerned isentitled 7

2. The admitted facts are that on 8-8-SO the workman wasnirc.ted by the police on the F.T.R. of. the management thathe lad been caught while taking out of the factory 323grams of Marpbin by carrying it under his langote. Theworkman was prosecuted under section 9 of the Opium Actbut was acquitted on 20-2-85 by Chief Judicial Magistrate,Cihiizipur.

3. By means of order dt. 12-8-80 copy Ext. M-l, theworLmun was suspended w.e.f, 8-8-80 (a.m.). He was servedwith a chargesheet dated 31-1O1989 to which the workmanpleaded not guilty. Sliri I. S. Ratra Assistant Chief AccountsOfficer who was appointed Industry Officer by means of orderdt. 8-6-81, copy of Ext. M-4, held inquiry into the chargeHuainst the workman and found him gui'ty. Tho inquiryreport is dt. 28-2-83. Its copy is Ext. M-8. After the acquittalof the workman in the criminal case he WHS dismissed from»?rvii-c w.e.f. 28-6-85 by Manager Government Opium &Alkaloid Works Undertaking Ghazjpur.

4. The workman's cn«e in short is that during the inqiiiryproceeding" ho was not furnished with the copies of documentsnor with the conies of the statements of the witnesses. Thefirst date fWeii in the inquiry by the E.O. was 6-1-82. Thosecond date feed by the inquiry officer wns 11-11-82. ThoEnquiry Officer, with recording the statement of managc-ment\ witness concluded the inquiry. He sot the copy of in-quiry report after about two years of (he conclusion of in-

quiry and he wag served with the order of dismissal suddenlyon 28-6-85. Against the order of dismissal ho filed an appealbefore tile General Manager who Hid not inform him as ti»what he had done of his appeal. He has. therefore, prayedthat by setting aside the order of dismiss.il he be reinstatedwith full back wages.

5. The management on the other hand plead that theworkman was acquitted in the criminal case on technicalgrounds. According to the management the inquiry wasproperly conducted and that a valid order of dismissnl waspassed against the workman.

6. In support of his case the workman filed his ownaffidavit and the management filed the affidavit of ShriHarihar Singh, Works Engineer.

7. Ext. M-2 is the copy of chargesihei:t. Towards the endare mentioned documents to be relied upon and the namesof the witness to be examined at the inquiry in support ofrhe chnrge. The documents are report c.f Assistant Comman-dant, Central Industrial Security Force and the confessionalstatement dt. 8-8-80 of the workman alleged to have beenrecorded at the security gate. There is no evidence from theside of the management to show that at any stage duringthe inquiry the workman was furnished with the copies ofthese two documents.

8. Ext. M-8 J3 the copy of inquiry report dt. 28-2-83,given by the inquiry officer Shri I. S. Ratra From the in-quiry report it will appear that none of the witnesses isnamed in the charcjesheet was examined by the managementat the inquiry. He simply placed reliance on the P.I.R. whichtoo no one came to prove. At page S of the copy of inquiryreport the E.O. has written that with regard to the versionof the prosecution Shri R. P. Gupta stated in writing thatwhatever isi written in, the FIR maJe by Slui I>. C Srivostavnshould be treated as his last statement and that he has nothingmore to add. From the inquiry import it will appear thatthe F. O. simply dealt with the various pleas raised by work-man in his reply to the chargesheet. Thus the finding thatthe workman was guilty of the charge has. been given bythe inquiry officer without any evidence. In fact the presentingofficer on behalf of the management should have got provedthe two documents referred to in the chargesheet and alsothe F.I.R. if he was to rely On it as well. To prove recoveryof morphine he ought to have examined witnesses in whoiepresence tho recover/ was alleged 10 have been made.

4. It further appears that the inquiry was not conductedfairly ami properly. The workman wan not given propeiopportunity to defend himself.

10. Ext. M-5 is the copy of letter dt. 19|21-12-81 fromthe inquiry officer to the workman Informing him that6-1-82 had been fixed ns the date in the inquiry. Ext. M-6is the copy of letter dt. 2-11-8,2 from the Inquiry officer tothe workman informing him that in the Inquiry 11-11-R2had been fixed as the date for hearing. Thereafter, whathiippened is not known. From rhe inquiry report it appearsthat on 11-11-82 both sides were present and that after hearingtheir arguments he gave another change tr. the workman forfurnishing a fresh statement and point which he intended tomention in support of his case. Tt further appears that whereason 11-11-82 Shri R. P. Gupta, Presenting Officer filed F.I.R.ill. 8-8-80, the workman did nothing even thereafter althoughreminded on 26-11-82 in this regard. It further appears thaton 4-12-K2 the workman filed another statement in reply inwhich facts as contained in his earlier statement dt. 25-3-81,were repeated. This was all that was done by the E.O. Asstated by me earlier that the inquiry oliicer in support ofthe charge relied on the F.I.R. and dismissed the variouscontentions raised by the workman in his reply to the charge.

U. Thus from, the above it becomes crystal clear that in theeye of law there had been no proper inquiry an.1 further therehad been no proper finding. Therefore the action of trte ma-nagement of Government Opium and Alkaloid Works Under-taking, Ghflzipur in dismissing Shri Mukhram son of ShriManroop from service w.e.f. 28-8-86 U neither lecal and notjustified.

561

12. Accordingly the workman is held enfilkd to reinstate-monl with full back wages and continuity o£ service.

l i The reference is answered accordingly-

ARJ.VN DEV, Presiding Officer

[No. L-42012|7J|86-D. U(B)]

S.0. 437.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes lh» award of the Industrial Tribunall?hub«ir<e^hwar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrialdispute between the employers in relation to the manage-ment of Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway, KhurdaRoad,, Distt. Puri Orissa and their workmen, which wanJtceived by the Central Government on the 3-2-89.

ANNEXURB

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ORISSA, BHUBANESWARIndustrial Dispute Case No. 59 of 1987 (Central)

Bhubaneshwur, jhe 23rd January, 1989

BETWEEN

'ill.- Management of Divisional Railway Manager, S.E-Railway, Khurda llond, Dist. Pur . „ ,*IJ, ,First Party-Management.

AND

'jn<L'i'r workman Sri Riim Mohun Patlnaik C/o D. K. S.Puhmik, (Retired) Station Master, Narasanapeta-532421, Distt. Srikakulam (A.P.)Second Partyworkman.

APf'T'-^RANCFS :

Staf. M, Ray, Di\ isionul Personnel Officer—for the FirsiPiuty-Muna^i .nerit.

><; Ram Mohan Patonik—The second party-workmanhimself.

AWARD

1. 'i:x Government of India in the Ministry of Labour!">.7>;Hlnient in exercise of the powers conferred upon themby olMise (d) of subjection (1) and sub-section (2-A) ofSsctkm 10 of the Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947)

have referred the following dispute vkl? their Order No. L-4iOI2/«)/8fi-D.lT (B) tinted 2nd September, 1987 for ad-judication :•—

"Whether the termination of Shri Ram Mohan Pattnalkwith elfcct from 25-8-1980 by the Management ofDivisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Rail-

way, Khurda Road, Dist. Puri (OrisscO is legal and/or justified, if not, in what relief and from whutdare, the woikmcn is entitled ?"

2. T liis caie was posted <u H> day for recording settlement.'(hi; Memorandum of ssttlsmciit filed by both parties .in22-12-1988 and a petition seeking disposal of the referenceon settlement ate nutup. The s'CCiurf Pnrty-wo11fcn:-\" 'nd therepresentative of the First Party-Management submitted thatthey have settled the dispute oul of Court in th e interest ofinJwcriul peaco and harmony and prayed to pass an Awardir- tornn of the settlement. Boih the parties admitted thet:iTAf; of the settlement before me. The settlement seems

to be f.'iir. Hence, I pass this award in terms of the Bettle-ment the Memorandum of Settlement to form part of theAivi.rJ.

S. K. M1SRA, Presiding Officer

(No. L-41012|60||86-D.I.I(B)|

1 OkM H

Ml MORANDUW (".!• SLTTLEMENF

Representing Employer—Smt, Manju Ray, DivisionalPersonnel Officer, S.E, Railway, Khurda Road.

Workman—Sri R. M. Patnaik S/o D. K. S, Patnalk,Retired Station Mastei State Bank Street, P.O.Narasannapcta-532421 Dist. Srikakulam (A.P.)

Tlie case of th© workman In nut shell is that he was work-ing as substitute F. C. G. Attendant and he was not givenwork from 25-8-81) onwards though his junior wits continuing.Sri Patnalk prays for re-insUtcmen'. in the same po*t with allback wages.

The Management (i.e. Railway Authorities) contention 5si hat Sri R. M. PstnaJl wit O(4 » tcreened substitute. Hewas being utilised to meet the day to day casualty. Therewas no agreement for employment between Sri Patnaik andManagement. Further, rli'a tn repeated mis-behaviour anddisobedience Sri Patuaik was not given any work from25-8 80. Sri Patnftik has not worked for 240 days in upreceding 12 months.

On lfi-12-88 both the pn'tic; arc agreed to 'settle theissue amicably for which Sri R, M. Patnaik the workmenattended the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.Railway. Khurda Road on 20-12-1988 and both the partiesare agree to abide by the following (erms nnd conditions

1. Sri R. M. Putnaik, will be re-engaged as substitutein Commercial Department or any department of(his railway depending upon the requirement.

2. Sri R. M. Patrmik will he re-engaged within u monthafter this «etller:icni by the Railway authorities.

3. Sri R. M. Patnaik is not entitled for any of his backwa^es as he has not worked.

4. Seniority and regularisKtion Sri patnaik will he given

as per extent llilcs,

Signature of the Parties

(1) Illesible(2) illegible

Witnesses :(1) S. B. Mishru(2) Abdul Hamid(3)(4)

S.O, 438.—In pursuance of Section 17 tf ifc IndustrialDisputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown m the Anncxnre, in

the industrial disputes between me employers in relation tothe management of Northern Railway and their workmen.which was received by the Central Government on the 6thFebruary, 1589.

562 I H E G A Z E T T E O F I N D I A • M A R C H 4 , J 9 8 9 / P H A L G U N A 1 3 , 1 & 1 Q [ P A R T I I — S E C : 3 ( i J ) |

ANNEXURB

BEFORH SHKt AKJAN DEV PRESIDING OFH< ERCFNTRA1. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABCHJR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 80 of 1987

Jn the matter of dispute between :The Divisional President,

Uttar Railway Kanunchari Union,96/196 Roshan Bajaj Lane,Ganesh Ganj, Lucknow.

AND

Sr, Divisional Personnel Officer,Northern Railway,Lucknow, U.P.

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide itsNotification No. L-41012/58/85-D.U (B) dated 22-6-87, hasreferred the following 'dispilfir for adjudication to this Tri-bunal :

Whether the action of the management of DivisionalRailway Manager, Northern Railway. Lucknow interminating the services of Shri Mahmood AhmedSiddiqi w.e.f. 27-5-77 is justified ? If not, to whatrelief :ht workman concerned is entitled to ?

2. The admitted facts ore that Slui Mahmood AhmedSiddiqi wjs appointed as a coolie mate on 2-4-58 and wasconfirmed as coolie mate on 2-4-59, He was allotted provi-deud fund No. 520437.

3. The industrial dispute on behalf of Shri Siddiqi hasbeen Taised hy Uttar Railway Karamchari Union (herein-after referred to ns UKKU). The Union's case is that theworkman worked as collie mate upto 25-5-77 and w.e.L26-5-77, his services were terminated qy the management olNorthern Railway, l,uckno\v without giving him any notice,notice pay und retrenchment compensation. The Unionalleges that his junior .Shri Mumtaz Ali whnseY.F. No. 520438has been retained in service. The Union has therefore,prayed that Shri Mahmood Ahmed Siddiqi should he be rein-stated as coolie mate or in any other semi-skilled identicalpost with full back WRCS and with consequential benefits.

4. The management in defence plead that posts for cooliemate were created for the supervision of the work of liceiwedporters who were appointed on no profit and no loss basis.Since the expenditure on coolie mates was to be met out bythe amounts realised from licensed porters towards cost ofbadges uniforms etc. they were not railway employees andconsequently they were not entitled for these benefits whichare given by the I'UIIWIUN to its employee1!. In fact postsof coolie mates were abolished by the Railway Administra-tion. In order to give Shri Mahmood Ahmed Siddiqi anopportunity Tor absorption in the railways, he was asked toappear before the Screening Test ftnd the Screening Com-mittee declared him successful. The workman offered to joinas running room hearer. Accordingly he was asked to appearbefoie the Station Superintendent Lucknow and give hisjoining report there. The order in this regard was receivedby the workman under his signatures on 23-9-7R. Despitethe said order Shri Siddiqi did not report for duty to the Sta-tion Superintendent Liicknow. The management pave anotheropportunity to Shri Siddiqi and directed him to join duty asrunning room bearer, under Station Superintendent Lucknowon 20-5-82. Shri Siddiqi once again failed to attend duty.Management has then nJeaded that the recorded date of birthof Shri Siddiqi is 1-3-27. As such in the ordinary case heshould have retired on 28-2-1985 (A.N.) on attaining the ageof superannuation. The question of his reinstatementin railway service. Therefore, does not arise. Lastly, themanagement plead that Union had no legal right to raiseindustrial dispute. The Zonal Working President of the

Union has also no legal rijjhl to fl'e any claim statement onbehalf of the wurUmau Shri Siddiqi.

5. In support of its case, the Union lUed the affidavit ofShri Siddiqi and uf Ushri B. D. Tiwari who has filed theclaim statement on behalf uf the Union in his alleged capa-city of Zonal Working President, The Union has also fileda number of documents to support Tts case.

6. The management on the other hand filed the affidavitof Shri Kanhaiya Lai Srivnstava, Sr. Clerk, in the office ofI he DRM Lucknow.

7. In para 7 of his .slaU'mcnt in cross examination ShiiSiddiqi has deposed that he cannot say when the post oicoolie mate was abolished l-y the Northern Railway. But thisis true that alter termination of his services no N*fy hasbeen appointed on the post held by him by the Railway.

8. Taper No. 2(4) of the list of documents dated 14-10-87,is the copy of application dated 9-9-77 from Shri $iddiqito DRM Northern Railway Lucknow. In it he writes thatfrom 27-5-77, he had been sitting idle at his house. He re-quested the DRM to give him some post either in lha woitiri^room Vaianasi or as bearer in the retiring room ni\! thussave him from his difficulties. On the back, of it (here 1, ;icopy of letter in Urdu" to DRM Northern Railway I.ticjtnow.I may state bore that in para 1 of his statement in examina-tion in Chief Shri Siddiqi has stated that he does not knowHindi or English he simply knows Urdu. In it ho wrote thathe had been given duty in the Guard's Running Room, binsince ho was an old man who did not know how to cook,food, he was unable lo work in Guard's Running Room.He requested thai lie should be given duty in some waitingroom,

9. These two letters have been admitted by Shri E. V.Chauhan Authorised Representative for the management, onbehalf of the management. The above documents belie hiscase that after the abolition of the post of coolie tnr.te I-ewas not offered any job by the Railway in alternative. Inpara 12 oC his .statement in cross examination he lias utatMthat when the proceedings were pending before ALC (C)under the ordei of A.L.C. lC), the Railway Administrationoffered him the post of Running Room bearer at VaranasiRailway Station in 1982. According to him the very dayon which he was given the order of appointment the copyof order was taken back from him by the A.P.O. \vhen hustepped out of the office. He admits that with regard toit he never made any complaint lo any higher ;nithoiit;«??. 1am not prepared to bcliove him on this point. Had (he APO >forceably taken away from him any such order of appoini-ment, he wouTd have surely reported the matter io higherauthorities or atleast would have brought it to the notice ofALC (C). There is nothing in this regard on record to shewthat he even brought such a fact in the notice of ALC. CO.

10. There is no doubt about the fact the case from theside of tho management has not been properly fought out insense that the documents which ought to have been filedin support of the management's contention that after theabolition Of the post of coolie mate, Shri Siddiqi was oiTiriedalternative jobs twice have not been iilcd. It is good Inc'cof the management that the workman himself filed the docu-ment1; copy of letter dated 9-9-77 and the copy of letter datednil in Urdu addressed to DRM.

11. Thus the two facts which stand proved tfom theevidence on record are that as a result of abolition of thepost of coolie mate, the services of Shri Siddiqi were termi-nated w.e.f. 27-5-77 and secondly, that after abolition of thesaid post Shri Siddiqi was offered opportunity twice for absorp-tion in Railways for doing duty of a bearer which he failedto utilise. Tn tho affidavit of the management witnessit is clearly stated that the recorded date of birth of ShriSiddiqi is 1-3-27. There has been no cross-examination ofthis witness on this point. It follows, therefore. That hadShri Siddiqi continued in flervice in the ordinary course hewould have retired on 28-2-85 (A.N.) with the abolition ofthe post of coolie mate this post no longer exist. It hasbeen conceded by Shri Tiwari, representing the Union that

563

oven if the- order ,tercuiqatinB hl« 8eryic©« a, held il]eg*l, re-instatement of Shri Siddiqi cannot be ordered under anycircumstance. The question which therefore, arises is whethetSJiri_ Skldiqi is simply entitled to notice pay and retrenchmentcompensation or reinstatement as per Railway rules.

12. This depends on the question whether Shri Siddiqi wasor was not a Railway employee. According to tjia manage-ment coolie mate were not Railway employees.as expenditureon coolie nidles used to be put out of the amounts realisedfrom licensed porters towards the cost of badges uniformsetc.

13. According to Shri Tiwari, the, workman had all theingredients of r. Railway employee. Tt is even admitted tothe management in the written statement that he was appoiji-tiM as a coolie mate on 2-4-58 and tyas. confirmed.as suchon 2-4-59. It is further admitted to the management thatShri Siddiqi was even ailoted P,.F,_ Number, From- the factsalleged in para %(a) of the written statement one thing canbe inferred and it is lhat Shri Siddiqi used to be paid salary/wages by Railway. We are riot concerned as to from whichFimd the Railway used to pay him, his wages|salary.

14. On the other hand it ha* been argued by Shri Chanhin,authorised representative for the management that all this isnot sufficient. He could not Ije treated as a Railway em-ployee. Tn support of it he has placed reliance on twodocuments which arc E\t, M-l ?jid-M-2. Ext. M-l, in thecopy of iTeadquarter's letter dated 9-11-81 to the DRM(P)Northern Railway New Delhi, Alld, Lueknow etc., in whichit is stated that in terms of para 2403 R(H) Licensed, PorterMates are not entitled to ficnsionary benefits. According tothe said para the services must be under the Government thatthe employee must be substantive and permanent; and thatservices must be paid by Government. Ext. M-2, is copyof D,O. dated Sept. Hi from General Manager to the Scctt.Estb. Railway Bonrd New Delhi. The D.O. wan written inconnection with one Lalman coplie mate, who died on13-11-81. Tn the D.O. it was stated that since coolie mateswere not being treated as Railway employees, retirementbenefits could not be glveii to him. The a^ove two docu-ments -limblv refers to the Opinion of the officers qf the man-agement. This Tribunal is not bound by their opinions, TheTribunal htts to see independently whether or not on thebasis of the facts proved in the case a coOHe male could besaid to be LI Railway emnloyee. Shri Chauhan has notreferred to any rule or regulation of the Railway rules layingdown conditions requisite for being held as a Railway em-ployee. In view of the fact that he was engaged/appointedby Railway, in view of the fact that he was confirmed by theRailway, and in view of tho fact that he was paid by Railway.T think it would be difficult to come to any other conclusionexcept the conclusion thnt he was a confirmed Railway em-ployee.

15. Shri Siddiqi cannot have both the benefit", i.e. to saythe benefit of claiming notice pay and retrenchment compen-sation and the benefit of claiming terminal benefits. Since hewas n Railway empIoHe and since his services were termi-nated because of the abolition of the post of coolfe mate, Ithink it would be reasonable to grant him terminal benefit asare admissible to Railway employees of his cadre.

16. It is accordingly held that after thc abolition of thepbst of coolie mate there was no option left with the manage-ment 1o ease him. As observed above, the, workman 'h-.illh? entitled to all the terminal benefits as are admissible toa Railway employee on hfa retirement.

17. The reference is answered accordingly.

ARJAN DF.V, Presiding Offi-er[No. L-41012/58/85-D.TT (B)l

S.O. 439.—In pursuance of sectfqn 17:of. the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award of the Central GovernmentIndustirai Tribunal,, Kanpur as, shown in, the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation, tothe management of Government Opium and Alkaloid WorksGhazipur and their workmen which was received by the- Cen-tral Government on the 3-2-1989.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE StfRI ARJAN DEV, PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 1987

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Biibhar Ram S/o Shri Sita Ram Village HanpurwftP.O. Peer Nagi-r, District Ghazipur.

AND

The \fanagpr, Government Opium and Alkaloid WorksUndertaking Ghazipur, U.P.

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide itsNotification No. L-42012/74'86-D.TI (B) dated 20th August.1987. hat referred the following dispute for adjudication tothis Tribunal ;

Whether the terminutiaonof Shri PabbarRam Unskilledworkman by the management of Government Oplnmand Alkaloid Works Ghazipur is legally, in orderjustified ? Tf not, to what relief and from whatdate, the workman concerned is entitled to ?

2. The admitted facts are that on 20-5-81, the workmanwas served with a chargeshect in which it was alleged thaton 22-10-79 at about 10.10 a.m. he was found in possessionof 80 grams of morphine of which he had committed- theftand which he was taking out of the factory by carrying itunder his laiiROtc. The workman denied the charge. Theworkman was suspended en the date of occurrence and onthe bask of the F.I.R. lodged by the management he wasprosecuted by the Police under section 379 I.P.C, Section .9Opium Act and Seciion 14 Dungerous Drug Apt. However,he was acquitted in the case by the Fourth Additional MunsjfMagistrate, Ghazipur on 7-3-84. Shri I, S. Ratra AssistantChief Accounts Officer who was appointed Enquiry Officerheld the inquiry and found the workman guilty of the charge.Ext. M-l 1 h the copy of inquiry report dated 14-12-82. Onthe basis of inquiry report, by means of order^ dated 21-2-85copy Ext. iM-'2 the management dismissed the workman from•=er\ice.

3. The workman's case is that he was not afforded properonportunity to defend himself by the Enquiry Officer. Theinquiry officer fix?d 10-11-R2 as thc date of heading in theinquiry. Since on that very date he was to appear tjefotetile Court in the criminal case, he requested the EnquiryOfficer tq change the date. The Enquiry Officer,acceediidlo his request and fixed 4^12-82 as the next date for hearingin the inquiry warning him that there would he no adjourn-ment on the next date fixed by him. On 3-12-82 he movedan application before the Enquiry Officer that since in respectof the same subjoct matter Court case was pending,it wtisnot proper on his part to proceed with the inquiry. He alsorequested that in case thr E.O. thought it fil to pfoceed: withthe inquiry, he should then be permitted to take the assistanceof a lawyer :is he was an illiterate persop having no know-ledge of lnw. By nieans of his letter dated, J 6-12*82, theEnquiry Officer infojmed h'm that he wns competent to pro-ceed with thc disciplinary inquiry and that thc pendency of

364 GI/f"» —S.

564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1910 [PART II—SEC. 3tfi)]

th6 criminal case against him was no bar to it. The En-quiry Olhcer, also inluimcd him by means of his said Ie:tcrthat if he wanted he could lake the assistance of some depart-mental employee in the inquiry. The E.O, however,did not inform him about thc next date fixed by himin (he inquiry nor he informed him that thc inquiry hadbeen concluded. Thc workman alleges that under rules dis-ciplinary proceedings could not proceeded alongwith thc crimi-nal case pending against lii<r> He further alleges ihat it wasafter about one year of the order of acquittal passed in thecriminal case that he was served with the order of dismissalof service, dated 21-2-85. It wat then for the first time thathe came to know that Enquiry Officer had erven his reporton 14-12-82. With the order of dismissal was on jefed th"icony of inquiry report. According to him the EnquiryOfficer did not examine any witness of the management norjjme him any opportunity to cross examine the witness.Agninst the order of disrr^sf.l he filed n n appeal heft-re theGeneral Manager who xejected it without homing him on7O-5-S5.

4. The management's case on the other ham1 is that theinquiry was conducted (iin)y and properly by the ErqiiiryOfficer and tint the oidcr ol dismissal does not suffer fromany illegality.

5. In support i;f his case the workman fJlcd his rwnaffidavit and in f.i.|port or their case the management filedthe affidavit of Shri Harihar Singh, Works En;ineer, Boththe sides also relied on a rumber of document?.

6. Ext M-17 is the copy of chargesheet dated 20-5-81.From it, it appears that the management furnished li-'i otdocument'! to be relied upon and the list of witnesses to beexamined in support of the charge. The documents are—

1. Report of Shri B. C. Srivastva, Inspector, CentralIndustrial Security Force ;

2. Statement dated 22-10-79 of the workman and ;

3 Statement of S/Shri Chander and Fauzrlar dnted22-10-79.

The list of witnesses contained the names of 7 workmen.There is nothing in evidence from the side of ihe manage-ment to show that the copies of the above mentioned 3 docu-ments were ever furnished to the workman. The workmanwas thus greatly prejudiced in his defence.

7. Ext. M-8 is the copy cf letter from the Enqnlry Officer,to the workman informing the workman that 10-11-82 hasbeen fixed as the date for hearing. Ext. M-l 5 is copy ofletter dated 5-11-1982 from the workman to tho EnquiryOtiicer, requesting him to change thc date as the same wasthi? date fixed in the criminal case pending against him. Ext.M-16 is the copy of letter dated 25/26-11-82 from the En-quiry Officer to the workman informing him that on hto re-quest the next dale in the inquiry would be 4-12-82. By meansof this letter the Enquiry Officer, called upon the workmanto attend the inquiry positively on tho next date fixed andfurther called him to f.le his independent written statement1-M. M-10 is the copy of letter dated 3-12-82 from the wcuk-man to the Enquiry Oiliccr in which he made the Tequestthat departmental proceedings should be kept pending nil thecriminal case was decided. He further made the request toinform him whether or r.ot he was entitled tp engage a lawverto defend him in the departmental proceedings. With regardto his defence the workman submitted that there was noquestion of it as he had already submitted his statement inthis regard. Ext. M-l is copy of letter dated 16-12-82 fromthe Enqi'iry Officer to the workman informing him that inpursuance of rule 148) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, he couldtake assistance for his dcd.ncc of a departmental employeeor a retired Government servant. This means that the in-quiry had not concluded till 16-12-82. But inquiry reportcopy Ext. M-ll shows that thc Enquiry Officer had concludedthe inquiry proceedings and gnve his report prior to hh aboveletter dated 16-12-82. It cannot therefore, be said that theEnquiry Officer conducted.ihe proceedings fairly and properly,

8. Lastly the inquiry report is based on almost no evidence.I fail to understand how the Enquiry Officer found ihe woik-mnn guilty of the charge. No witness was examined by themanagement before him. He relied upon search memo, seizerreport and F.I.R. without their having been proved by anywitness of the management. Findings of the Enquiry Officertherefore, cannot be uj hrld

9. Since the order of dismissal dated 21-2-S5, copy Bxt.M-l2 is passed on no evidence, it is illegal.

10. Therefore, held that the action of Government Opiumand Alkaloid Works Ghazipur in terminating Shri Pabb&rRam unskilled workman is neither legal nor justified. He isthcrefoie, held entitled for rejnstatemnet with full back wageswith continuity of service on his furnishing a certificate tothe effect that he was not gainfully employed else whereafter his termination.

11. Thc reference is answered accordingly,

ARJAN DEV, Presiding. Officer

• [No. L-42012|74|86-D,II(B)]

New Delhi, the 20th February, 1989

S.O. 440.—Tn pursuance of section 17 of thr IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 C14 of 1M?J, the Central Governmenthereby publishes the nward of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, New Delhi, as shown in th« Annexure. inthc industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of TLSC Division, Beas Project, Patjala andtheir workmen, which was recei/ed by the Central Govern-ment on thc 8-2-89.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI G. S. KALRA. PRESSING OFFICER.CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 19/86

In thc matter of dispute between •

Shri Mansa Ram S/o Shri Rflm Narayan, Vill. & P.O.Mandora, Tehsil Kharkhod;i, District Sonepot

Versiw

Shri H. S. Hans, Executive Engineer, TISC Division.Beas Project, Bhupindra N..£ar. Patiala.

APPEARANCES •

Shri A. S Dhaya for the workman.

Shri Madun Mohan with Shri Satkf, Kumar for theManage ment.

AWARD

Trie Central Government in the Ministrv of Labour videiti Order No. L-42012n6)|85-D,FT,'B) dated 1M-R6 hasreferred the following industrial di lute to the Tribnnal foradjudication :

565

"Whether the action of the Chief £ngiiicer|Eleci. B.I'.(fW) Chandigarh in dismissing tue womman inn

toansa Kam i |o aha Kum Malayan, Work, cuaigeal>nvcr under ine Executive Jbigineer, libC .Divi-sion lieas rrojett, 1-auala working under li5C i»ub-Division, Bhiwani with etlea irom J-B-64 is legaland justified ? If not, to wnat relief is the work-man concerned entitled to and from whai date ?

2. Some oi the undisputed farts are that 'Jie workmanclaimant Jihri itaiansa Kam was appointed as a T. Mate on/-0-/4- anu was men promoted as cleaner and thcreaiter asDrivor on 2-K-82 the Truck No. FUR 2216 driven by theworjunan met witii an accident in which one pcison died

' ana itfvcral others were injured. Too workman was servedwitn snow cause notice dated lU-li-t'2 as to why his ser-vices should not be terminated for causing the said accidentbv i'»sn ana negligent anVinu and causing iosj to t ie depart-ment to We extent oi ks. 4otHX>/-. Tne workman was revert-by rash and negligent driving und causing loss to the depart-the jixecutivc jmginecr, J^atiala. Ihereaiter ttiis Chief nugi-neer, Electrical served another show cause nonce dated11-5-84 calling upon the workman to show cause why hispunishment oi reversion be not enhanced to dismissal underclause HH.A) (\U) 01 Standing Orders oi tne ilia* Const-ruction Hoard Ultimately the services of the, workman wereleimuiaied vide Umer dated 3-8-1984 with immediate effect.

3. The case of the woritjmu is LhaL hho accident tookplace due to no iault on ills pan and that the Managementnad loaded MO bags oi: cement .is against the maximum limitof I3u bags on me truck as a result of which the trucko vet-tunica wnen tie tried io save a cow who sul of a sudaencumc on we ronu, t.vt-n Ulc pohce did not lilc any chailanagainst him and cne police also found him innoi-ent andsent a report accordingly. Even Ifce Management did notserve any cnarge &nect on him nor held any domestic en-quiry nor was ne given any opportunity to defend himselfanil as such his termination is against the principles ofnatural justice. Moreover, he has been awmded doublepunisnment. Earlier the Executive Engineer had awarded mm.J he punisnmtnt of reversion irom anver to cleaner and aftera lapse or aoout two years awarded him punishment of dis-missal from service,

4. The Management has taken preliminary objection thattlie workman had hied a civil suit in Lhc court at Bmwaniwatch had been dismissed. Altnough the remedy of approach-ing the Civil Court or the industrial Tribunal were open iothe workman but once he exercised his option to seekremedy in the civil court he was debarred from raising thedwpute before this Tribunal. On ment, it was submitted thatthe acciucnt took place due to the rash and negligent driv-

ing of the workman which was an act ol m-uacipune withthe result that the management had to incur an expenditureof Rs. 400U>|- by way of repair io the truck, incidentalcharges, and compensation to tile legal heirs of the ueceaseocleaner. It was further stated that the workman had beengiven opportunity to explain nis conduct and the actionagainst him had been taken in accordance with the provi-sions of th© stnanding order, in the end the Managementjustified its action in terminating the services of the woik-man as legal and valid.

5. First of all, tbc preliminarv objection raised by theManagement is taken up. While the legal position stated bythe Management is correct, the facts of the present casearc altogether different. The workmtin had no doubt fileda suit in the Civil Court at Bhiwani but the same was notdecided on merits. It was in fact with drawn by the workmanwith permission to file fresh suit. The title of the suit readsas under :

"Suit for declaration to the orfea that the order is suiti.e. order No. 70 dated 3-2-83 passed by thedefendant No. 2 reverting the plaintiff from thepost of W|C Driver to W|C Cleaner Is illetw

against law and tacts iinU against the principle ofluUuiui justice and equity and the wme is null undvoid ubinitio and not binding and m enecuve onlights of the plttintitT and mat Wo same is honestone and that tne plaintnl be declared still to De theVV|C driver under dtfiendunts and is entitled toget the dilfcrences of total emoluments oel*ecnthe posts of W|C Driver and WjC Cleaner andalso all other benefits deeming him to be the W|<-Drivor, to which the ucltndantu are liable to pay hima> per calculations and further the &how causanoticc|Memo No. y2/^|U;Ji|(jcn|l'-J3y uaied11-5-84 (which is show CHUSC notice|whereby thelevorsionj aiortsaid has been proposed to be con-verted luto uismissul, by the deicnuant No. 1 is alaoillegal, against law and iacts and amounts to doublepunishment and the same is against public poncyand against the principle ol natural justice and equityand is not binding and is in effective on the ng£tsot the piamiiit and is without jurisdiction and isalso honest and that ttte service of the plaintiu, onthe basis of cannot bt terminated and lurmer suitfor permanent mjuncticn restraining tne deiendanwfrom dismissmg the plamtirt from his service underthe deLcudanu* working as WJC Cleaner, on thebasis of evidence both oral and documentary of allsorts".

'Iho order passed by the court reads as under :

ORDER

The plaintiff has moved jn application for withdrawal olthe suit witn permission to file irein suit as ine piamt J.nas not given notice under decnou euo^C in s.ucii case nopermission is required it the suit u discussed, lor wunt otaoiKV. ine pliuiitilt is Hiwuys at iiberiy to ule suit after ter-vice ol noucc unuei section 6u t ^ c . in view of me statementof tho plainuir, there-lore, suit or Uio pia,nuii is dismissedas withdrawn. Parties arc left U> bear tueir own '*>its.l-ile be consigned.

Announced.

Sd/- SJIC Bhiwani

i8-lOa4'

It will be seen that the suit was against Uie order of leveisionand uguin.it me proposed action oi uie munaK0...ent lu dijiinssniui iioin serwLe on Hie basis of Jaow caLme notice daiedli-i-H4. ilov.e\ci, by tlic time tne order was passes, ttie work-man had oeen removed liom service ana, tneieiore, thosua came nuiuciuous and that appears to oe me reason iorrti withdrawal. liowe\er, after tne witndrawaj ol uie i>uit,tlie workman has taken the rumedy by way <jf raising In-dustrial Dispute which is quite valid and with jurisdiction,l i e mere fact of tiling of a suit and that also not against)tlie order of termination which u subject matter of the dis-pute ond whiwfl. turtner was nol. aotiujj on liiCiui, >v,u iiotbur the jurisdiction of the ind_suial mbunal. ; lenco there isno meni m this oojeclicn ol tho Management and it is here-by rejected.

6. It is manifestly clear from the pleadings of the Manage-ment, that simple show cause notice in respect of We pro-posed punishments reversion and termination were serv-ed on the workman but no prope1' charge sheet was servedupon him noV any domestic enquiry was held againsthim nor .any proper opportunity wai given to him to de-fend himself. No doubt the siuiidinj orders of the Manage-ment provide for disciplinary action in clauses ISA and18B and tlie Chief Engineer Electrical has also been giventhe power to enhance the punishment awarded by a subordi-nate authority yet a detailed procedure has been prescribedlor dealing with case of misconduct vide clause 20, In thopresent case the mandatory procedure of clause 20 has notbeen followed and has been clearly by passed which hasresulted in grave prejudice to the workman and a denial ofthe principles of natural justice. Before the punishment ofreversion, or termination of services could be awarded, thedisciplinary authority had to see whether the

566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA i MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1<HO [PART II-TSEC, 3(ii)J

charjjps against the workman were proved. In tho present caseno euort nuj Dsxu niiiuc at ail to prove the ctiwges againstthe woikinun. Iftc woi Kiiiaii lias placed on record a copy ofthe r iK loaE^ii wnu lI»c police ana tne police has lecoitiidin its leport mat there was ilo iault on uic part ot MansaKaui Workman. It tms also been recorded that a cow sudden-ly canic in lium ot Hie truck diivcr by the workman andin his- eiioit to save tho cow trw uuck get over turned. mewoiknian fias siuted tnul the Unlit ot the load of the truckwas 1M) bugs oi cenicnt and we Management nad leudedISO bajjs oi its cement wlucli wits also a cause for the overturnings MW-l Snn t>.K. Uupla X.tn. has ddiniUcd tflat utthe tune ol me accident, therefore 180 bags of cement intne truck and 10 persons were sitting m it. 'I his would bego to show mat Uie Management was itself a contributor tothe accident Which, took plage. 1-herefore, in merits, alsothere ^erC'rio sufficient' grounds to take the disciplinary ac-tion of reversion and dismissal from service, in any case,the entire action of the Management is vitiated for its failureto follow" thi; procedure laid down in the standing orderJand by violating the principles of natural justice.

7. In view of the discussion made above this reference isawarded in favour of the workman and against the Manage-ment and it is hereby diiected that the workman shall bereinstated us a Driver with continuity of service and- withfull back wages. . .,

27th January, 1989.

G. S. KALRA, Presiding Officer

[No. L-42O12|16|85-D.II(B)]

HAM SINGH, Desk Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 198?

S.O. 44 J.—la pursuance of section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act* 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central GovernmentJiereDy1 publishes iiie award of the Central Government Jn-dusiriid' iribunai-cum-i^abour Court; Chlindigarh aj shownin the Annexure, in the industrial' dispute between theemployers iac-relation to the manage'ment of Food Corpora-tion of India, and ihtir workmen, w£ich Was received oy theCentral-.-tioveSamfittt -oft* the 10th February, 1989.'

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI M. S. NAGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER,CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH'

i^jse No. LD. 12188.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Food Corpora-tion- of India, Regional Officer Hiryana.

Their workman.—Satbir Singh.

APPEARANCES

For the workman.—None.

For the management—None.

INDUSTRY : FCI STATE : HARYANA.

AWARD

Dated

Un a Industrial dispute raised by Satbir Singh, CentralGovt. lias pleased to make the following refere^' vide No.L-42012|108|86iD.II<,B) dated'16th Kepruiufy 1987 to thisTribunal :

"Whether there is employer-employee relationship bet-been ttie management pf .Fwxi Corfivifttion.of Indiaanit Shri Saibir Singh ? if yes^ whether the, demand,ot the" worKmftn to/ re-employment, i» justified?if yes, £r6rrj( \vhit date .he Is emitted to nelief.7"

2. None has put up appearanccji on behalf of ijje partiesto persue the ' matter. They' we're rtpi«scn,lv4 pn, .the, last ,dale of hearing by the workman Jtumself ani| mapattem,entthiough Sim R. S. YadaV wBtn the' proceeding' were adWnir.cd from 6-12-1988 to I16-lAit9. Reffir^Lft pmcej{dinflsure therefore, file* for want of prosecution. ' Central OOHU,Le informed accbrdifigly. . . . . • • * *-

Chandigarh.

Dt.—16-1-89.

M. S. NAGRA^ PresidWfc.Ofncfj,

[No. Lwt20J2|-10^86-DJI(B)]

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 1989.

S.O. 442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of th« IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the; award of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Calcutta as shown in the AnneJdiS," ra th*industrial dispute between the employers in relation' io'fhtfmanagement of Cbinakurc Colliery of M;/s. Eastern Coal-field LtcT,;, and their workni^n, which was received by theCentral Government on the 7th February, 1989,

ANNI'XVRE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -AT f?ALCUtTA 1

Reference No. 120 of .1988

PARTIES:

Employer* in relation to the management of Chin«1flliJColliery of M/s. .Eastern Coalfleldf) Ltd.

AND

Their workinepAPPEAJiANCES,:,

On behalf of employers—Mr. ,B. N-.Lala, Advocate.

On behalf of workmen—None.

STATE : West BenBaJ. INDUSTRY, ; Coal ,

AWARD

By Older No. L-19O12M)/87-D. IV(B) dated ?4th August.1987, the Government of India. Ministry of Labbuf, refen'm'the following dispute, to' this; Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the Management of CWnak,uri. CoUiery, otM/s. E.C. Ltd.'waJ justified in not" recording the

56?

year of birth of-Suit. Sadtrir Mejbao, Wagon Load-ing Km\v as J 93 8 as p<jr Identity Can! in *he new-ly constructed Povm B Register ? If not to whatrelief- the workman concerted is entitled 7"

2. When the case is called out today, Mr. B. N. (Lala, Advo-cate appears for the management and files a Joint Petitionof Compromise, duly signed by both parties: He prt^s foran Award jn-terms of the 1oi»t Petitkm -of Compromise1,' Con-sider^ the .said Joint Petition of Compromiic aN

well as tl.e submission of Mr. Lal», The terms of thei JointPetition of Compromise appear to be fair, reasonable and inthe interest of the parties. I, therefore, accept the same andpass tar>,:Av.BFd' in terms of the-.HUd Joint P«titl*n,«£:C<[m-

.piorajse .uliich do. for,m parf-of thia>Award as AnnexOrev'A*.This is my Award..

SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARfY, Presiding Officer

[No. L-19012/4/87-D. IV(B)]

Dated, Calcutta,

The 30th Jnmwy. ^ 8 *

ANNtXURE-'A'

BEFORBiTHE BON'BILE PRESIDING OFFICER.' CBN-THAL, GOVIRNMEMT INDUSTRIAL TRlKtJNAl1,

CALCUTTA

In the matter af Reference No, 120 of .1981*- •

PARTIES.

Employers in relation to the management of ChinfcKnri -Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd

AND

Their workman.

Joint petition cf compromise

The humble petition of both the parties herein eoncMp«dmost respectfully shewed : ;

1. That the above matter is pending before the Hon*ble Tribunal fo;1 adjudication.

2 That the parties herein concerned discussed the ins-tant matter mutually with a view to coming to ami*cable compromise and the parties have settled- theinstant matter on the followina terms:

la) Thar the employers agree that the workman hereinconcerned namely SmL Sadari Mcjhan will begiven the opportunity to appear before the AreaAge Determination Committee constituted in ac-cordance with. the agreed decision of the partiesarrived at the joint Bipartite Committee for theCoal Mining industry for atteStaeht/dettlnatottkSnof her age..

(b) That both the parti** agree that the age x>l theworkman assessed by , the Age- Pctorntinattoa>Committee in terms of paragraph (a) above shallbe binding on both the parties and the record ofage of the concerned workman will be correctedaccordingly in the record.of the Form-B Registerns well «s the identity Card.

(c) That by this seltl«n«nt-the- instant matter and «nymatter arisine out of tt& instant matter -standsfully and finally, resoived and that this •ettlemtot'will be effective as on the date ,tbe Hon*Mo Tri-bundl'accepts the instant settlement

3. That both (he paities pruy that the Hon'bje TrlbUUtalmay be pleased to accept the Instant settknieiit-i*fair and proper and may be furthe* pleased M passan award in terms of the settlement.

And 'fof thi» 'act1'of kindntfst both 'the paiftiei,' «* ln durVhound,'shall ever pray.'

Date* this the' 30th' day of December; 1988."

SdA Sdf-For and on behalt For and on behalfof the workman. of the Employers.

General Secretary,West Bengal KKan Maidoor Sangh

S.O. 443,—In pui-Aia***' of Settlofl 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby^ 'publfthes- the award cf the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Cttleujta as shown; in ftc AnnotSitfin ih«industrial "dispute between'the employers in relation to Ihe"management of Bankola CoJliery of M/s. Ba^tern QwlfleM,Ltd, and their workmen, which was received''by'the CentralGovernment on the 7th February, 19K>.

ANNfikURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAT CALCUTTA

Reference >No. 113 of 1988

PARTIES:

Employers'fn felation'tolhe management of BaaiolaColliery of Eastrrif Coabields Limited.

AND

The* workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of employers—Mr. B. N, Lala, Advdcate.' *

On- behalf-'of worlcmen-^-Norie. *

STATfi•: West'Bengal INBUSTRY : Coal.

AwAfcb1

By Order No. -L-19CM2<34)/87-D. IV(B> dated 18th Mvx%.1987, the Government bf IridiaJ'

vMinIVtiiy of liabduV, referredthe following dispute to thfi THbutlal for adjudication :'

"Whether the action of the Management of, BankolaColliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. P.O. Ukhra,District Burdwan in dismissing Sri ILakhan Paswan,ex-Pit Clerk, from 18th SeptfriMSer," 1985 Is' justlneilfIf not. to what relief the concerned workman1' isentitled ?'"

2. When the case is called out today, Mr. B. N. Lala, Advo^cate nppeat»'for the raanageaient' fthd draws my attention tothe Joint*'PetiWon ot Comprcftirse, duly slgne4 ty both "par-ties and filed on t h January/ I989V He prays for'an Awardin terms of the Joint Petition of Compromise. Considered

568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 1989/PHALGUNA 13, 1^10 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the said Joint Petition of Compromise sw well ai the submis-sion of Mr. Lala. The term* of the Joint Petition of Com-promise appear to be fair, reasonable and in th« interest ofthe parties. I thci-efore, accept the same and put an 'Award'in term? or the $aid Joint Prtitfon of Compromise which doform part of this Award u Annexure-'A'.

This is my Award.

SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, Pre#iding Officer.

[No. L-19012/4/J7-D. IV(B)]

Dated, Calcutta,The 30th January. 1989.

ANNBXURE 'A*

BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, CEN-TRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

CALCUTTA

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

OFFICE OP THE GENERAL MANAGER,, BANKOLAAREA, P.O. UkHRA. DISTRICT BURDWAN

Rcf. No. BA/PD/

Reference No. 113/W

Dated: 7-1-19S9.MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT IN FORM 'H1

Name of the parties .

Representing employer:

(1) Sri Jftirwn Singh, PersonnelManager, Bankola Area.

(2) Sri S. N. S*ig«l. PersonnelManager (IR), BankolaAre*.

Representing workmen:

(1) Sri C £. Baneriee. Genl.Secretary, CMU (INTUO.UUira, Burdwan.

(2) Sri (Lakhan Paswan, Ex. PitClerk.

Short recital of the case

Sri Lakhan Paswan. Ex. Pit Clerk, Bankola colliery whileemployed as Pit Clerk at Bankola colliery WM charge sheetedon 26th November, 1984 and after due enquiry he was dis-missed from the company's service with effect from 16thSeptember, 1985 on proved misconduct. Sri Paswan represent-ed before the management for his re-lnstatement with bockwages to him as the dismissal was not justified. The case w»»examined by the management and after prolong discussionboth the parties agreed for mutual settlement of the caseand the dispute was resolved on the following terms «odcondition,

Terms of settlement

It ifi agr-eed by the parties:

(1) That Sri Lilian Paswan the workman herein con-cerned will be ic-employed as Pit Clerk and will beposted within Bankoln Area except Bankola colliery.

(2) That the workman herein concerned will be appoint-ed M Pit Clerk in Grode-Il (two) with th« Initialbasic of Rf. 678 in the scale of 67t-3O-»18-35-lI90.

(3) That ths workman herein concerned shall have noClaim on any wates. benefit!, allowance* etc. what-soever for the period of his idleness from the dateof dismissal till the date of preceding the date ofhis joining duty on such re-employment,

(4) Thnt Sri Paswan will be on probation for a periodof one year after his re-employment and If hit coo-duct is not found to be satisfactory, bis service willbe terminated without any prior notice.

(5) Since Sri Paswan is idle for a considerable period.it is agreed by the panic* that he will be allowedfor duty within 7 (seven) days from the date offilling tlie settlement before the Central Governmentindustrial Tribunal with a fresh appointment letter.

That the instant matter aching out of dismissal of theconcerned workman and any matter incidental to or arisingout of this instant matter a/e settled in full and final.

That the parties pray that the settlement may kindly b«accepted by the tribunal us fair and proper and the hon*bletribunal may be pleased to past ga award in t»nn* of thesettlement.

Dated : 7lh day of January, 19SP.

For & on behalf of the

employer.

(1) SdA

Illegible

(2) Sd/-

Hlegible

WITNESS.

( l ; Sujit Kumar Ghatak(2) Tapan Chakravorty.

For and on behalf of theworkman

(1) Sd/-

lllegible(2) Lakhan P«swan

New Delhi, the 24th February, 19V9

S.O. 444.—In puriunnce of Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the nward of the Central Government In-dustrial Tribunal, Kanpur as shown in the Anaexure, in theindustrial dispute between the employers iti relation to themanagement of Bhartiya Khudya Nlgam Ltfcknow and thctiworkmen, which was received by the Central Government onthe 6th February, 1989.

569

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AKJAN DEV, PRESIDING OFFICER.CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

KANFUR (U.P.)

ID. No. 95 of 19&8

In the matter or dispute between :

Shri S. N. Singh,C/o President,Rhartiya Khadya Ma2door S'nneh.Abdul Aziz Road.Lucknow.

AND

District Manager,Food Corporation of India.District Ofllce,Lucknow.

AWARD

l, Ilie Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vWe itsnotification No. L-42012/68/87-D. 2(B) dL 22nd July 1988,has referred the following dispute for adjudication to thisTribunal :

Whether the action of the management of BhartiyaKhadya Nigam iLucknow in terminating the terviOMof Shri S. N. Singh w.e.f. lit November, 1W5 ascompounder is legal and Justified ? If not. to whatrelief is the workman concerned, entitled ?

2. In the instant case parties filed settlement on 11th Janu-ary, 1989, the contents of which have been duly verified befor*me. Parties authomed representatives also requested to dectoetlie case in terms of the settlement. The terms of the settle-ment are as follows :

1. That the workman will be engaged on same statuswhich he was having M the time of disengagement.

2. Intervening jx;riod (between date of disengagementand rcengagement) will be counted for continuity ofservice but no wages jhall1 be paid for thU period.

1. This will bt full and final settlement of the dis-pute.

3. Tlie reference is anweied accordingly in terms of |hesettlement

ARJAN DEV, Presiding Officer

fNo. L-42O12/68/87-D. n(B)]R. K. GUPTA. Desk Officer

Printed by the Man»e«r, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-] 100*4and Published bv the Controller of Publications. Delhi-110054. 1 W