REGISTERED NO.D. (D.N.)-128/91
The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 45] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate Compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
that application has been made to the said Authority, under rule 4 of the said Rules, by Sh. Ram Singh Shlooja, Advo- cate for appointment as a Notary to practise in Patiala (Punjab).
2, Any objection to the appointment of the said person as a Notary may be submitted in writing to the undersigned within fourteen days of the publication of this Notice.
[No. F. 5(86)/91-Judl.] P. C. KANAN, Competent Authority.
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs) NOTICE New Delhi, the 25th October, 1991 S.O, 2809—Notice is hereby given by the Competent Authority in pursuance of rule 6 of the Notaries, 1956,
(4309) 2821 GI/91-1 4310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS (Department of Personnel & Training) New Delhi, the 17th October, 1991 S.O. 2810,—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 5 rcaJ wifh section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Acl, 1J46 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government, with the consent of the State Government of Karnataki vide Home Secretariat Notification No. HD 320 CLQ 88 dated 5th August, 1991 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kai'nataka for investigation of the following offences, namely :— (a) (1) Offences punishable under Sections 124-A, 20), 204, 211, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 263-A, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467. 468, 47], 472* 473, 474, 475, 476, 477-A, 489-A, 489-B, 489-D, 489-E, 500, 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Centra! Act No. 45 of 1860); (2) Offences punishable under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules framed there- under. (3) Offences punishable under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (Cential Act No. 18 of 1947); (41 Offences punishrinle under the Indiun Post Office Act, 1898 (Ontriil ftct No. 6 of 1898); (5) Offences punishable under (he Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 1 of 1956); (6) Offences punishable under th; Insurance Act,' J9.1S (Central Act No, 4 of 1938); 4311
Offences punishable under the Indian Official Secrets a) Act, 1923 (Central Act No. 19 of 1923); Offences punishable under the Essential Commodi- (&) ties Act, 1955 (Central Act Mo. 10 of 1955); Offences punishable under the Indian Wireless Tele- graphy Act, 1933 (Central Act No. 17 of 1933); (10) Offences punishable under the Telcsraph Wire (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 (Central Act No. 74 of 1950); (11) Offences punishable under tho Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Central Act No. 13 of 1885); (12) Offences punishable under the Railway Stores Unlawful Possession) Act, i955 (Central Act No. 51 of 1955); (13) Offences punishable under the Customs Act 1962 (Act No. 52 of 1962); New Delhi, the 28th October, 1991 (H) Offences punishable under the Indian Passport S.O. 2811.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of (Kntry into India) Rules, I960 r^ad with the Pass- the Official Language (Use for official puiposcs of the Union) port (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (Central Act No. Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the 34 of 1920); following offices under the Staff Selection Commission (De- partment of Personnel and Training), whereof more than (15) Offences punishable under the Registration of Foreig- 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi ;— ners Act, 1939 (Central Act No, 16 of 1939); (1) Regional Office (Central Zone), (16j Offences punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934 Staff Selection Commission, (Central Act No. 22 of 1934) and under any rule 8. Beli Road, made thereunder; Allahabad-211002. (17) Offences punishable tinder the Foregincrs Act, 1946 (2) Sub-Regional Office, (Central Act No. 3\ of 1946); Staff Selection Commission, Nishant Villa "F", (18) Offences, punishable tinder the Opium Act, 1878 (Act Jal Vihar Colony, No. 1 of 1878); • Raipur-492001. [No. U011/12/91-Hindi] (19) Offences punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, A. K. BHATTARAI, Dy. Secy. 1930 (Central Act No, 2 of 1930); (20) Offences punishable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944); (21) Offences punishable under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Central Act No. 43 of 1930); (22) Offences punishable under tho Rcpretsentation of the people Act, 1951 (Central Act No. 43 of 1951); (23) Offices punishable under the Passport Act, 1967 (Central Act No. 15 of 1967); (24) Offences punishable under the Foreign Exchange Re- gulations Act, i973 (Central Act No. 46 of 1973); (25) Offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disrup- tive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 (Central Act No. 28 of 1987) and Rules made thereunder; (26) Offences punishable under tne Unlwaful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Central Act No. 37 of 1967); (b) Attempts, abciments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with any offences mentioned in clauses 1 to 26 -ind any other offences committed in the course of tha some transaction arising out of the same facts.
(No. 228(46|91-AVD-1T> A. C. SHARMA, Under Secy". 4312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE years 1991-92 to 1992-93 subject to the lollowing condi- tions, namely :— (Department of Revenue) (i) the assessee will apply its income, or accmiiulate it New Delhi, the 3rd September, 1991 for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established; (INCOME-TAX; (ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and S.O. 2812.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) clause (v> of clause (23C; of section 10 of the Income-tax for any period during the previous years relevant Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby to the assessment yearn mentioned above otherwise Notifies "Seth Gokul L>as Tcjpal Charities Bombay" for the than in any one or more of the forms or modes purpose of tile said tub-ciause for the assessment years specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; 1990-91 to 1992-93 subject to the following conditions, namely :— (iii) this notification will not apply in relation lo any income, being profits and gains of business, unless (i/ the assessec will apply its income, or accumulate it the business is incidental to the attainment of the for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects objectives of the asstssee and separate books of lor which it is established; accounts are muintoincd in respect of such business. (ii) the assessec will not invest or deposit its funds, (other than voluntary contributions, leceived and [No. 8914/F. No. J97/71/90-1T.A1J maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or "modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; (iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of busintss, unless the business is incklentril to the attainment of Iho objectives of the assessec and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business. [No. 8916/F. iVo. 197/90/9MT-AI]
(INCOME-TAX) S.O. 2814.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies "Sri Kasi KamuJvOteeswnr Mandhir, Vaianasi" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 subject t0 the following conditions luamely :— (i) the assessec will apply its income, or accumulate it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established; (INCOME-TAX; (ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and S.O. 2813.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- maintained rn the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 of ihe Income-tax for any period during the previqus years relevant Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise notifies ''William Carey Study and Research Centre, Calcutta" than in any one or more of the forms or modes for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; 4313
(iii) this notification will noi apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the usscssse nud separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business. [No. 8918/F. No. 197/93/9MT.A1]
(INCOMB-TAXJ S.O. 2816.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (v) of clause (23C) of siction 10 of the Income-tax Acl, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Centr.il Government hereby notifies "Sri Rang-anathaswtuny Devusthtinam, Srirangam, (Tamilnadu)" for the purpose of the said sub-cluise for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1992-93 subject to the follow- ing conditions, namely :— (i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established; (INCOME-TAX) (ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and 1 S.O, 2815.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc. clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 of thi Income-tax for any period during the previous years relevant Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the CentraJ Government hereby to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise notifies "Asthika Samaj, Bombay" for the purpose of the than in any one or more of the forms or modes said sub-clause for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1992-93 specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; subject to the following conditions, namely :— (iii) this notification will not apply in relation to Any income, being profits nnd gains of bufiness, unless (i) the assessee will apply iis income, or accumulate it the business is incidental to the attainment of the for application, wholly and exclesively to the objectives of the assessoe and separate books of objects for which it is established; account are maintained in respect of such business. (ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and [No. 8915/F. No. 197/82/9 MT-AI] maintained in the foim of jewellery, furniture etc-.) for any period -during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; (iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the asjcssee and separate books of account arc maintained,^ in respect of such business, _ ' -
[No, 8919/F. No. 197/108/91-IT.AI] 4314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER Q, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, ihe 11th September, 19lJl objectives of the messte and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such (INCOMti-TAX) business. S.O. 2817.—In exercise of the powers conferred by [No. 8928/F. No. 197/99/91-lT.A.I] sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby S. K. CHATTERJEE, Officer on Special Duty notifies ''Society of the Daughters of Mnry, Trivandrum" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment year* 1988-89 and 1989-90. [No. 8924/R No. J97/3R '89-1T.A1I
New Delhi, The IHh September, 1991 (INCOME-TAX) S.O. 2818.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (v) of clause U3C) of section. 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby kolifics "Missionary EvauKelisrn Society, KoJbttpur, Maha- rashtra" for the put pose of the t>aid bub-clause for the assessment years 1989-90- to 1991-92 subject to the follow- ing conditions, namely ;— (i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established; (ii) the asscss.ee will noT invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary Contributions received and maintained in the form of jowellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of ibe .forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; '•ii') this notification will not apply in relation to any income, being Drolits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to, the attainment of the 4315
equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officers cf (he Government to be estate officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdications specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof, in respect of public premises belonging to the said Hindustan Z'nc Limited.
TABLE
Designation of the Local limits of jurisdiction Officers
1 2
General Manager Zawar Group of Mines Zawar Mines, located in Village Zawar District Udaipur Tidi and Amarpura, Rajasthan Tehsil Girwa and village Bhalaria, Singatwara and Rawatalai, Tehsil Sarada of District Udaipur (Rajasthan) Genera] Manager Zinc Smelter including the Zinc Smelter Debari residential colony buil- ~ P.O. Debari, dings and open area and Dist : Udaipur land and other premises (Rajasthan) under the Zinc Smelter in villages Debari and Bichdi in Tehsil Girwa and village Gudli in Tehsil Mavlim, District Udaipur (Rajasthan). Works Manager Complete Lead Smelter, Lead Smelter Tundoo its various buildings resi- P.O. Tundoo dential colony and Dist. Dhanbad Bihar open land and other pre- mises under the lead smelter in village Tundoo vih-Division Bhagmara, PS Bhagmara of District MINISTRY OF MINES Dhanbad (Bihar). ; New Delh , the 22nd October, 1991 General Manager Entire mining lease area S.Q. 2819.-Fn exercise of the powers con- Rajpura Durba Mines of Rajpura Dariba group ferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction P.O. Dariba cf mines (including lands of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) Dist : Udaipur acquired and buildings und in supersession of the notification of the Govern- Rajasthan. constructed thereon) in ment of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines village Dariba, Rajpura, (Department cf Mines), published in Gazette of Anjana, Mahendriya of India, Part-H Section 3 (ii) as S.O. No. 3921, dated Tehsil Railmagra, District the 11th October, J.985, the Central Government Udaipur and village Cha- hereby appoints the following officers of Hindustan kapriya of Tehsil Zmc Limited, Udaipur, a corporate authority, men- Kapasan, District tioned in column(l) of the Table "below, being officers Chittorgarh (R ajasthan) 4316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KART1KA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
L 1 1 2
Chief Manager Head Office buildings, premises under the (Administration)/ quarters, guest houses and Rampura-Agucha Mines General Manage (P&A) office premises vX the including Banas River Hindustan Zinc Limited Company at Headquarters Bed Well site and Head Officer located in Udaipur City Shahpura Water Pump 6, New Fatehpura, (Rajasthan). House. Udaipur (Rajasthan). General Manager Degana Tungsten Project General Manager Complete Zinc Smelter Hindustan Zinc Limited located 'n Etfrra. Zinc Smelter residential colony and Degana Tungsten village in Nagore district Visakhapatnam, open land and other Project Rajasthan inluding the Andhra Pradesh premises in villages Mindi P.O. Nagore residential colony, buil- and Mulgunda Distt. Degana-341 503 ding and open areas, land Visakhapatnam and other premises cons- (Andhra Pradesh) tructed thereon and Batda Superintendent of Mines Maton Mines located in Project site in Sirohi Maton Mines village Mnton, Kanpur district of Rajasthan. District Udaipur and Lakarvas of Tchsil Rajasthan Girwa, District Udaipur [F. No. 3(5)/91~Mct. l\] (Rajasthan). D.K. TYAGI, Dy. Secy. Superintendent of Entire mining lease areas Mines of Sargipali (including Sargipali Mines lands acquired and building Project constructed thereon) in P.O. Sargipali village Kirisara, Lokdaga, Distt. Sundargarh Nailipalli, Mahikani, Orissa. Badabanga, Bharatpur and Icchanals. Superintendent of Mines Entire mining lease area Agnigundala Lead of Agnigundala located Project in Bandalamottu village P.O. Bandalamottu (including lands acquired Distt. Guntur, and budding constructed Andhra Pradesh thereon). Dy. General Manager/ Chandriya Lead Zinc General Manager Smelter located in village , Chanderiya Lead Zinc Puthauli, Tehsil Gangrar Smelter District Chittorgarh wftch P.O. Puthauli also includes residential Distt. Chlttorgarh colony, buildings and Rajasthan open areas and land & other premises pertaining to Chanderiya Lead Zinc Smelter at Chittorgarh including Gosunda Dam MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT site, P.O. Gosunda, (Department of Women & Child Development) District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARITABLE ENDOW- Chief Project Manager/ Rampura-A.gucha Mines, MENTS ACT, 1890 (6 of 18<>O) General Manager located near village Agucha IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL, CHILDREN'S Rampura-Agucha Mines District Bhilwara (Raj.) FUND, NEW DELHI P.O- Agucha, including the residential New Delhi, the 23rd October. 1991 Dist. Bhilwara colony, buildings and S.O. 2820.—On the application made by and with the Rajasthan. open areas, land & other concurrence of tke Board of Management of the National 4317
Children's Fund, New Delhi, as in exercise cf the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), the Central Government do hereby order that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) matured an 14-10-91 be invested in fixed Deposit schema in the State Bank of Palialu, Shustrl Bhnvan, New Delhi for 46 days w.e.f. 15-10-91 at the ruts of interest 11% p.a.
2, The above account shall vest in the treasurer of chari- table endowments of India to be held by him for being ap- plied in accordance with the scheme for 1ht administration of the National Children's Fund, New Delhi, published with the notifention of the Government of India in the then Dfpfirtm'.-nt of Social Welfare No. SO. 120 (E) dated Ihe 2nd Mnivh. 1979 as amended from time to time. FF. No. 13-7/91-TR-tll M. P. S. SF.THT. Dy. Director (S)
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND CHEMICALS (Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas) New Delhi, the 24th October, 1991 S.O. 2821.—Whereas by Notification of the Govt, of f-dia in the Ministry of Petroleum ard Natural Gas S.O. No. 3202 dated 9-11-90 nud'-r sub-section 1 of prcUnn 3 of the petroleum and Minerals nine lines (AcouHtion of ripht of user in land) Act 1062 (50 of 19*2) the Central Ooverrment declared it's interior to acquire the R;oht of user fn the lands spec'fled in the schedule nppcndrd to that Notification for the purpose of laying Gns pipe line; A"d whereas the Cojnnctent Authority has v^der sub- • i-c^o" (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted v^po-t xc the Government; A^d further whereas the Central Govt. Iras nf'er coi- siJn"»in the ^a'd rpn^r*, dc";'1ed to ^cnnlre the1 R'fht of u^er In the Inrids specified in tbc schedule appended to this Notification; Now. tbrre^nrfv ^ e>^rcipe <^f ^^e n^iT^T^ cotifprre'd bv ^nh-icct:on (1) of 1he section fi of the snf't Act the Oe'trn! OovpfTnii^nt h^r^bv ileclriri"s thnr A»*ri f"rthi"r in eTi*rc''e of po'v^rs co^ffrrfd bv vb-'cc'io1! (A} r>f the pectin^ fi, ibe ffi.tml C!nv>'Ti"ic''t df™*c's *hnt ttr» T?;nti* nf mi-r in he" "n!j 1n"ds '"ha1! Ins^nd of ""M*1-™ r.f ffii'o fipf-J-irnf-'o" in 'br C"iq Aii'hnWtv nf T"d:q. W> Ph'l-Tp r-nn n1t»ce. R. K P"r-tn. Rine Rond New D^lh'-ilO O'^ free from encumbrance. SCHEDULE Village : Salav Tahasil : Murud District : Rfugr( Village Survey NiVTl\b^r Hissa Number Gat No. A rfta H. Ara C. Are Salav 5 2/1 Part — 0 55 20 [No. 14016/63/9 0—GP] 2S21 GI/91—2 4318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)J S.O. 2822.—Whereas it appears to the Central Govern- ment that it is necessary in iJie public interest that for the Transport of Nntural Gas from Boris, Tahasil-Alibagh, Dis- trict Raignd to village Salav, Tah'.sil-Murud Janjira, Diitiict- R'.ugad in the state of Maharusthra, pipe line should be laid through the Agency of Gas Authority of India, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram Road, New Dellii-110066; And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such p:pe lines, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed hereto; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Miierals pipe lines ("Acquisition of Right of user in the land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby declares it's intention to acouire the right of mer in the lanils in- ferred in the schtdule : Provided that any person Interested in the said lands having any objection for laying iho pipe lires through thr said lands may refer any objection within 21 days from tbo date of the Notification, to the Competent Auihorily. OPS Authoriy of Tndin, Prabhn Niwaa, second Floor, Alibag, DIstrict-Raigad, Maharashtra Stnte; And every person maidtig such an objection shall stnte specifically whether he wishes to be heard fn person ^r bv a legal practitioner. SCHEDULE State : Maharashtra District : Raigad Tahasil : Alibag Village Survey Number Hissa No. Gat No. Area Hector Are C. Are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Veshvi 4 OPart — — 07 83 7 1 Part — -- 01 69 7 2 Part — , 02 17 7 3-A Part — ,— 05 71 7 4A 1 }-Part — — 00 42 7 4B 1 4319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Part _ — 04 93 8 5 Part ,— 07 45 15 I Part .—' — 00 40 15 7 Part — 04 28 16 1 Part — — 05 60 17 2-A ') VPart .—, —, 08 35 17 2-B j 181 1 Part .— — 00 07 181 2-B Par t ,— 00 79 181 2-C Part 00 90 [No. 14016/63/90-GPj S.O. 2823.—Whereas it appears to the Central Govern- ment that it is necessary in ths public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas from Boris, Tahusil-Alibag Dis- tricl-Ruigad to village Salav, T;;hasil-Murud Janjira, Dfstrict- Raigad in the state of Maharashtra, pipe line should be laid through the Agency of Gas Authority of India, 16 Bhikaji Cnma Place, R. K. Puram, Ring Road. New Delhi-110 066. Aed whereas, it appears to ilic Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipe lines, it is necessary ta acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed hereto; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 3 of the petroleum and Minerals pipe lines (Acquisition of Right of user in the land) Act 1962, (50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the light of user rn the lands referred in the schedule. Provided that any person interested in the said lands having any objection tor laying tho pipe lines through the said lands may prefer any objections within 21 days from the date of the Notification, to the Cornpetent Authority, Gas Authority of India, Prabhu Niwas, Second Floor, Alibag, DiBtrict-Raignd, Maharashtra Stntc. And every person making such an objection shall state specifically whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner. 43:0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J SCHEDULE Stato : Mihurashtra District : Raigad TabasU : Alibag Village Survey Number Hissa Number Gat No. Area Hector Are C. Are Sahan ~ 120 Part 09 00 ~ 121 Part 08 70 — 170 Part 01 05 — 316 Part 06 80 — 32 7 Part 07 56 — 398 Part 02 95 [No. 14016/63/90—GP] RAJIV MEHRSHI, Dy. Secy. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT! (Works Division) New Delhi, the !lth October, 1991 S.O. 2825.—It is hereby notified that Col. Rao Ram Singh, a Member of the Tenth Lot. Subhn, has been elected us Member of the Ramhat Samadhi Committee in accordance with clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Rejghat Samadhi Act, 1951 (No. 11 of 1951). [No. 25011/7/85-W-3] S. RANGANATHAN, Dy. Secy. MINISTRY Ol- POWER AND NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES (Department of Power) New Delhi, the 29th October, 1991 S.O. 2824.-—In ciercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 29 of rho Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, (54 oi 1948J, the- Central Ciov<;>niiienl hereby decides that with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette, every scheme estimated to involve a capital expenditure excisvliiij rupees twenty five crores only shall be submitted to the Central Electricity Authority for its concurrence. [F. No. 25/12/91-D (SEB)] K. R. BHAGWAN, Dy. Secy. 4321 DELHI DEVELOP.MliN 1 AUTHORITY PUBLIC NOTICE New Delhi, the 29th October, 1991 S.O. 2826.—The following modification which thei Central Government proposes to make to the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan for Delhi, is hereby published for public information. Any person having any objection or suBees>- tion with respect to the: proposed modification may tend the objection or suggestion in writing to the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Vikaa Sudan, I.N.A. "B' block. New Delhi within a period of thirty days from the date ot issue of this notice. The persons making the objection or sugges- tion should also give his name and address. MODIFICATION : ''(The land use of an area measuring about 1 hects. 2.47 acres) falling in Zone G-14 (Tilak Nagar Arwa) bounded by Slum re-housing scheme in the West Nallah and existing road in the North, Gurdwara and Arya Samaj Mamlir in the South and vegetable market C.G.H.S. dispensary and M.C.D. horticul- ture nursery, is proposed to be changed from 'residential' use TO 'local commercial'.'' 2. The plan indicating the proposed modification will be available for inspection at the olfice of the Deputy Director Master Plan Section, Vik<*s Minar, 6 th Floor, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, on all working days within the period referred to above. [No. P. 20d5)/88-MP] MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE RANBIR SINGH, Secy. (Department of Health) New Delhi, tho 17th Otcober, 1991 S.O. 2827.—In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), tne Central Government hereby constitutes the Postgraduate Medical Education Committee consisting of the following members, namely :— NOMINATED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1. Dr. S. R. Mehta, No. 5, Hospital Road, Jafpur-302001. 2. Dr. A. K. Mukherjee, Addl. Directot General of Health Services, Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi, 3. Dr. S. P. Tripathi, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi. 4. Dr. L. H. Hiranandani, FRCS (Eng.), D.L.O. (Lond.), F.R.P.S. (Bombay), 2nd Floor, A-3, Amarhand Mansion, Next to Y.W.C.A., Mad.ime Came Road, Bombay. 5. Dr. (Smt.) Lalitha Kamcswaran, Vice-Chancellor, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Periyar, Building, 52, E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Madras. 6. Dr. S. Z. Ahmed, Director, Sher-I-Ka$hm)r fnstilute of Medical Sciences, Kashmir. 4322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ELECrED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 1. Dr. B. Roy Choiidhury, 220, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. 2. Dr. B. C. Ctahanarwal, Prof, of Paediatrics, M.G.M. Medical College, Indore (M.P.j. 3. Dr. B. B. Tripath/, fRetired Prof, of Mcdicinoj, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack. [No. V-J 1013/18/89-ME(PVME(UG)] S.O. 2829—In pursuance of sub-sectional) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 002 of 1956), the Central Go^ernm:nt hereby make.^ the followingfurther amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the en.s.twhile Ministry of Health, No. S.0.138, dated the 9th January, 1960, namely :— la the aaid i;otUicE.tkm, under the heading 'Nominated under cl&ust;(e) of sub-section(1) of section 3'against SI. No. 3 and the entry relating there to the following serial number and entry shall be substi- tuted ; namely :— "3. Dr, S.P. Tripathi, Indian Council of Medictil Research. An sari Nagar, S.O. 2828—In pursvance of sub-ajction(l) of section 3 of the IndiLi McdioalCourisil Act, 1956 (102 New Delhi of 1956) the C;ntn:l Government iureby makes the [No. V. 11013/18/S9-ME(P)(UG) following further :> muniments ir, the nctifici'ticn cf H.N. YADAV, Dtsk Officer the Govannii-nlonniiiauin thef rstwhile Ministry of H;alth No.S.O.BS dated the 9th January, I960, namely :— 1;, the said nc tificaticn under the hetcling 'tkcta! under c]auso(bl nf sMP-section(l) of section ?" for , Serial Numbeis 33 and 37 and 'he entries relating thereto th. following scrirlnumbers iuid entry sia.ll be respectively b* sub stituttd, T.amfcly :— "33. Dr. B.C. Chhaparwf 1 Indore University Prcf. of Paediatrics, M.G.M. MecicalColleg; Indore ^M.P.) 37. Dr.V.B. Dodiya Saurashtra University C-6 Professor' Quarters M.P. Sha ti Medioal College, Jamnfcgar, [No.V.l 1013/9/90-ME(UG;] 4323 MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi, the- 2Vj October, 1991 New Dilhi, the 10th October, 1991 SO 2830.—In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of J956), SO 2832—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial tht Central Government herob" makes the following further Dispute; /••.;, 1947 (14 of 19-17), the Central Government amendments in the notification of the Government of India hereby rub'ishes the award of tht; Arbitrator, Shri J. Kana- in tbf erstwhile Ministry of Health, No. S.O. 138, dated kiah, "Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) us shown !he 9(h Jnniiary, I960, namely •••- in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S C.C. I td.. Coal Chemical In the said notification under ihe heading Nominated Complex, and their workmen, which was received by tne under clause fn) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 against Central Government on 10 10-1991. Serial Number 16 and the entries relating thereto ihe follow- ing serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely :— ANNIXURB BF.FORB SHRI J. KANAFUIT, DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR "16. Dr. K. 1.. Batrn, COMMISSION PR (CGNTRA1 I. NEW DFLHI, ARBTTRA- Director General, FOR TN THF DISPUTE BFTWEEN THE MANAGFMENT Health Services, OF SINGARSNT COLLIRIES COMPANY, L1MITFD, Government of Hurv'nna, COAT CHKM'CAL COMPLEX. NASPUR AND THEIR Chandigarh Haryana Government." WORKMFN RFPRESENTFD BY THE SECRETARY, fNo. V-11013/2/91-ME fUG) Pt.)] SINGARENI COTLFRTES CLERICAL ASSOCIATION, COAL COMPLEX, NASPUR R. VPAYAKUMARI, Desk Officer PRESENT : On behalf of the management : (1) Shri Ch. Venkateshwnra Rao, Projtc^ Manager, Conl Chemical Complex. (2) Shri D. Satvanaraynnn. Personnel Officer, Coal Che:nic;il Complex. On behalf of (he wor'nKin'Union : (1) Shri K. Rtuna Rao, Secrctr-.ry, Sing'ir'in1 Collcrics, Cleri:;'! Awsociation, Conl Chemi-rni Conivl^x Branch. AWARD The Govfrrinrnt of Tndii. vide Order No. L-22025(6)/9I- IR (C-tl) i1n*cd 18-4-91, referred tho following industrial disputo between tV rrnnaeement of SJnctdrcni Co''cr> • Com- pany Ltd., Coal Chemical Complex, Naipnr and Sinsareni Collierie': Cicrija? A^'jocia(ion, CO-JI Chemical Complex for mv adbitration. The terrns of reference of the industrial MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION AND TOURISM dispute are us under : — (•Department of Civil Aviation) "Withholdins of one increment w.e.f. 1-3-88 of Shri G. Tinwati Rao, Stenographer, by M/s. Singareni New Delhi, the 16th September, 199! Collieries Company Ltd., Coal Chemical Complex". S.O, 2831.—In czcr-i Willie working as Clerk Grade I, the Project Manager, on the revised basic pay fixed at Rs. 1062 w.e.f. 2-7-84 Coal Chtmicul Complex, issued an Office Order No. It was further submitted that the giant -it annual increment EST-3894 dated 30-6-84/3-7-84 rcdesignating Shri was never wihhcld Jnd ii was only at the lequest of Hi© Tirupali Rao as steno typist w.e.f. 2-7-84 (1st July employee, the recovery o£ e*a-M amount paid Lo him was being Sunday) Jn the basis of his application dated slopped and the increments v ere not released. 13-8-82. In riiu'SLiaiKie oi the ubove order, Shri The Union stated that the irM'iacement is HOL at ell justi- Tirupati R;>o joined as sieno typist on 16-7-84. fied in refuing the pay »t Us. J0f.2 w.e.f. 1-7-84, in ^cover- The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, nallampalli, ing the excess amount pad to him and further withholding vide his Order No H. BPA 60'2081 dated 9-8-84 1 toed the pay at Rs. 1152 in the grade ol" Rs, 740- the increment due to him w.'.'- '. 1-3-83. The management, 40-1002-45-1422, after merging Rs. 50, which was on the other hand, elated that the action taken by thcm_ is paid as steno allowance. It was mentioned that his only correcting the mistake committed by them and refuting basic pay ut that time was Rs. 1062 and an incre- the pay is strictly in accordance with the asi cement signed with ment would be due on 1-3-8.1!. From 16-7-83 cn- the majority Union md the employee i" nut emitted to the vvtirds, Shii Tirupiiti Rao has been continuously merger of Rs. 50, the itcno allowance, H3 he was not working working as it^i'ographei- in the aforesaid grade. as stcno-typist prior to 1-7 84. Th.- Union submitted that Upto 1987, he was granted increments duo to him Shri Tirupati Rao was originally appointed as stcno-typist annually. Since the Increment duo on 1-3-88 was and it is only on health grounds ho opted for tho post of not granted, the employee submitted a representa- Clerk. At the request of the management, he worked as tion to the Chief Administrative Officer on 12-1-89 steno-typist and requeued the management to allow him to requesting him to release the increment due to him continue as steno tvpist and ledesignnte as steno-typist as on 1-3-88. Since no reply was received from the early as from 1982 onwards. It is only on 30-6-84 the management, the employee submitted one moiw management issued orders rcdesignatina him as steno-tvp'St representation tc the Director (Welfare and Adminis- w.e.f. 2-7-84. since 1st Julv hannoncii to be Sunday, a holi- tation) on 6-2-89. Another representation was day. Tn view of his unblemished service as steno-typist submitted on 1-6-89 requesting the management since long, the Union requested to treat the orig'nal nav to release the increment due on 1-3-88. Since fixation as correct and allow him to draw the increment no reply was received from the management, from 1-3-88 as per the original pay fixation. the Secretary, Singaienl Collieries Clerical Associa- The main issue referred for arbitration faa s to whother tion raised tin industrial dispute before the Awtt. the management is Justified in withholding increment from Labour Commissioner (Central), Mancharial vide 1-3-88 to Shri O. T'nioati Rao "r not. The management con- leitter dated 71-ll-SR stating the withholding of in- tended that they have not withheld th*" increment due to crement due to Shri Tirupnti Rao w.e.f. 1-3-88 was ShrJ Tirunati Rao tin. alleced bv the Union and it is onlv unjustified. The Union, therefore, demanded that at the rpanpst of the cmniovee. the CXCPSS nmount paid the pnmial increment due to Shri Tirupati Rao shall to h'm. beennce of Jn'tial wrona nav fixation was not be released w.e.f. 1-3-88 onwards. recovrrer} nnd increr"'lrit^ due on revked basic nav. I.e. aft<*r The rcnroscntat'Ves of the management slated that the dfHurtin" R«l. 50. the n*nnn .nHow.'inrc. wi»re n"t 'anctfoned. The TTnion. on thp ot>ier bond. cntimittcri that the bnsic Memorandum of Settlement signed between the Singareni nnv was c™rpctlv fiv"d on rr'i''i:'fTpntIn(? h'm as stcno-cl^rV Collieries Workers Uni.in and the management on 26-6-84, 1 inter alia, nrovided for tho review of vacancies of steno- aff " »1inrnn»»Ti srrot'iiv hv intpriil purlif BnH nftcr ^"f- graphers. Item No. 9 of the settlement reads as under :— cc-tiflcaflnn hv tho Con'r-nilpr of A.'^ii'nts ("Tnternnl And't). Af*rr hi»nrin" the vir^'s of (tip nnri.'^ aT1rl rr>ns!dcr''nff oth*r rp'fTinrit fprtnrv. T TTI n{ tin? rmininn that the mprir"rrt- "It is agreed that tho vacancies of stenocranhers will > 1 % be rov'ewed, identified and filled un within 3 month*. mpTit nnnlit to hnvc 1-p<0!tvi '1 flif i Ti£"ri '"i»ti<«a Hm» to ShH It is further Mrced that trio steno-tynfset Grade II TlninBt; p»/> pnfi rrnntit not in >m.|i ^:t*>Tt(«l(l the annual who are presently working shall be placed In steno- incr^mi-Titn Ai'r to him fT-on, (-1-.SS "nw."lt-(J<;, Tt PIBV h<\ granhers Grade T bv meaning the steno allowance fnii* tTinf th*i rp^n^'^^v of pvfcm pivmntit IT,-OC n^>t pflP*rf**f5 of Rs. 50 per month in their basic and fixing their tn i-nd thf tiiJc rqv moo mi rmriwrt nt thr- rcnneot "f the pay at the ntxt stape nf the scale of Clerical Grade prnniniKiF. '"71,11, rnnrM^r'ncr tW r»n"(»ot of thf ,-rv.r.l^vef. T. In future. there will be no designation or aopo'ni- ttl^ innn^oflrv.»rit nm.l| tn J,n,.» rvipiw? thp Inrrfmrn't ment as sterto-tynist in Grade IT. The soecfal flteMfc- ihif tn li,1™, Tn tTiTo a^fsTit th,» momor^inunt rini-t not fliwoT- gra"hv allowance of Rs. 50 pnr month now belne tn h» i,,ntw.^ Ir, r,nt r^^m )lie ;ncrcfT,eT,ts dne ,n <;hri naid to the steno"nmhm in Clerical Gmde I wfli Ti"i"it» p-.oTO f f 1-T-SK. also be mertnvl in their basic pnv find the;r bflglc pav shall be fixed in the next hieher stage. This Thn main issue which Vd to the di-nutc wns about tho pay fixation on reHpSlBnntiric Shri Tiruptit] Rao as steno- citmw will be implemented with effect from •Fiapher. As retrnrds the facts, thrre 's no dispute It 1.7-1084". was admitted that the order. redfsi"nntin» Shri Tirunati The management submitted that the question of adding Rao as .vtennm-nnher wns pntwH On 10-6-84 nn the basis of *-terto allowance of Rs. 50 as per the above-said settlement h'S rrr,rpDpnt:itinn dnWl 13-R-R2. It VVH, ni^o n furt 'th-t would not arise as Shri Tirupati Rao was redesignated as the prnriOVrr wnrVfd n« vtp«r,.tvT,Kt from 11-9-74 to T?-«-70 steno typist Grade II, working prior to the settlement only, »n* from fi-Q-R2 to 29-4-83. Tf thn Mcr dntrd 30-fi-fi^ should be placed in Stenoijranher Grade I by merging steno hnd bt-m km&l on thr «nmf fate ^hr] T,Vlir)Bti Rao wollTr] allowance of Rs, 50 per month in the basic pay and fie theii h.T'P brvn rnt.ti»^ to the brncfit^ f>f f^-m No 0 of the se'tV- ment ^ 2fi-6-S4. As n,r rhi, cla,w. fhc m^eut pay nt the next stage in the scale of Clerk Grade I. It was is rea.nr.-d to rnrr^ i?,. 50 „<; ,.i n , ce in tho bn*ic bv mistake, Ks. 50 was added and the pay was fixed at Rs. rrw n o van nnv rf the »ienrCr<£hCr« ;,nr( flTth^ r bnsie nav in th^ 1152 as on 2-7-84 in tho ca^e of Shri Tirupati Rao. Since next h^hrr *.„« Th), -t,,^ ; n Tie wns not stcno typist as on ths crucial date I.e. ]-7-84 and nhn nrm (h th t ft wpllM not drawing steno allowance of Rs. 50 as on the day, his my fixation at Rs. 1152 w-is found to be Incorrect and actual- designation or aDDoliitn,«if as stcno-typist in Grade II there- ly ho was entitled to get basic pay of Rs. 1062 only. The after. Tf this term of the settlement is strictly implemented. wrong pay fixation was po'nted out by the Sigareni Collieries r,""^' STM .nOt h^" Pointed Shri Tirunatf Ban Workers Union and thereafter the matter was re-examined ns stcnogrnnher either from 1-1-9,1 or from 16-7-84 the hv the Audit department. Vide* letter dated 10-5-85, the date on which he .ctuaHv report. Obvio"Sly his apnoint A ltd it Department dir-ctert the Projec Manager. Coal Chemi- ment ns stenrmranher weif 2-7.^4 :<, fn violatinn nf ,hl ra! Complex to refk basic pay of Shri Tirupati Rao as Rs. ten. No. 9 of thf settlement o, which V"tl 10^2 w.e.f. 2-7-R4, an 3 grant increment accordingly w.e.f. 3-7-84. Ai per the directions of the Audit Department, the mmwecment decided to r-fix his basic pay and pranr incre- WHS nxeel at Rs. 1152. As thr nrd^r ^^^^^• passed on 30 fi 84 ment'! accordingly and also recover the excess amount paid '.e. nnor to the dnv frOm whf^h cTaiKC 9 nf the set. as they had issued the order, nppointtng Shri Tirupati AWARD Rao as stenographer on 30-549X4 with ,\ view to give the benefit of clause 9 of the set demerit dated 26-6-84. Having By Order No. L-22025(18)/90-IR (C. II) dated 3-9-91 treated him as steuographcr on 3U-0-R4, extended the beiiefit the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the of the above clause, and rch'xeJ Hie pay, the management following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication : on receipt of a complaint from rival union, reviewed il'i decision and holds Unit the tatlki iixauon of pay was ''Whether the action of the management ol Food Cor- erroneous and his pay shall ho lixed at Rs. 1062, i.e. without poration of India, Office of, the Joint Manager (Port adding Rs. 50 as steno allowance. The date of issue «J' Operation), Four Mango Lane, Calcutta-1, in not the order is equally important and in strict compliance of absorbing the 214 workers (list enclosed) working the terms of the settlement, the management could not under Direct Payment System, and not giving them have appointed his as stenographer after 1-7-84. In lhe seniority is justified ? If not, to what relief the circumstnnctN, I am of the opinion that the management workmen entitled to ?"' shall not revise the basic pay as directed !".y Audit department 2. The order dated 3-9-199] passed by the Hon'ble High vide letter dated 10-5-88 and should allow Shri Tirupati Court at Calcutta, duly countersigned by the Court Officer Rao to continue to draw hte pay as fixed bv the Deputy Chief was produced. It appeared that the Hon'ble High Court Personnel Manager, Helbrnpallj, vide his letter No P disposed of the Writ Petition hy striking out the order of BPA. 60 '2081 dntcd 9-8-84. Accordingly, the management reference. is hereby directed to release the increments due to" Shri Tirupati Rao from 1-3-88 onwards us per the basic pnv 3. in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the originally fixed hy the mnnagsinent. proceedings of this Tribunal is no longer permissible. I give my award accordingly. 4. As such, the reference is disposed of. Dated : 3-10-1991. Dated. Calcutta, The 23rd September, 1991. J. KANAKIAH, Dy. Chi-f l.aboui Commissioner (C) MANASH NATH ROY, Presiding Officer and Arbitrator [No. 1-22025/18/90-IR (C. TD] [No. 1.-22025/6/9UR (C. ID] List of 181 group of workmen of Food Corporation of India, Orient Jute Mil! Fond Strage Depot, Budge-Budge (West Bengal) Ref. Item 35. Parikbit Dalai 103. Bidyadhar Mahato 36. Hiralal Mahato 104, Siyarain Mahato 37. Mahendra Pas wan 105. Banamali Patra 38. Ramprit Tati 106. Kanduri Parida 39. Baleswar Majbi 107. Kameswar Yadav 40. Bishu Tati 108. Jogcndra Prasad Rrvy 41. Rambahadur Paswan 109. Debasish Bnnerjec 42. Ram Rajbaiuhi 110. Maniklal Samaddur 43. Haribandhu Rout Ml. Swapan Mallick 44. Gopcsh Mahato 112. Mahcsh Rai 45. Indradeo Paswan 1)3, Gumpadtt Bagn 46. Riimprit Yadav 114. Satipada Bagri 47. Jagdish Mahato 115. Sukiah Choudhury 48. Suresh Mahato 11 fi. Chandraswar MonJal 49. Debendra Ram 117. Gitra Paswan 50. Jitcn Mahalo 118. Aril Mahato 51. Birabar Lenka 119. Pramada Biswul 52. Sachindra Singh 120. Prafulla Nayak 53. Rambahadiir Rai 121. Dhaneswar Lenka 54. Ramdhari Yadnv 122, Bimal Mondal 55. Paduiacharan Sahu 123. Kameswar Paswaii 56. Ham Biswal 124. Kailash Vrasad 57, Chakradhar Saliu 125. Kaakoy 58. Shiba Erasad Mahanty 126. Trinath Sahoo 59. Abhiram MabaiUy 127. Sail. Sukumari Gin 60. Raj Kishore Mahanty 128. Lasmi Dhar 61. Srikanta Mahato 129. Bharat Rai 62. Kapil Ram 130. Sonelul Rai 63. Banawari Mahato 131, Sankar Ram 64. Kesbab Debnath 132. Kari Prasad 65. Knrtick Chandra Dfts 133. Ram Probesh 66. Upendra Kmnar Singh 134. Rani Nath 67. Hari Pada Debnath 135, Kailash Prasad 68. Krishna Pada Burroan 136. Hardco Prosad 69. Sadhan Sarkar 137. Bindcswari 70. Sujlt Bhowralck 138. Chhoten Yada\ 71. Kisnm Sarkar 1"9. Jogcswar Prasad 72. Gunipada Bakra 140. Ram Badan 73. Hari DHS 141. Ram Naresh Sahani 74. Bhuneswar Yadav 142, Uma Sankar 75. Mahadeo Paswau 143. Sntya Narayfln 76. Rambadan Yadav U4. Ram Lai 77. Ramanuj Rum 145. Ramnath 7R. Jabahar Mahato 146. Shib Kumar 79. Tilo Mukhin 147. Sagar SO. Bbaratlal Yadav 148. Amalendu Bern 81. Raraprayag Mahato 149. Shyarniil Dan 82. Ram Chandra Paswan 150. Gontam Sanatl 83. Kali Charan Maharvatra 151. Kamal Nath 84. Kishori Mahato 152, Joyanta Mitra 85. Rainjopa Yadav 153. Swupan D^i 86. Jalibi Shaw 154, Nitya Nanda D;;-, 87. Smt. Sunina DebJ 155. Ashoka Datta 88. Smt, Karedha Dctoi 156, Rama Sagar Pa&wan 89. Srat. Ajigurbola Das 157. Rambilash Mukhiya 90. Smt. Manguli Dobi 158, Abdul Kalam 91. Bhagabat Mukhiya 159. Puma Chandra Pradhaa 92. Karnuna Mahato 160, Giridhari Das 93. Bindeswar Podar 161. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo 94. Ramabatar Mabato 162. Sarat Kumar Parida 95. Shibalak Mahato 163, Kumar Pradhan 96. B09 Bahadur 164. Ram Naresh Mahato 97. Asoke Prosad Singh 165. Harkhlt Ram 98. Bhagban Das Ram 166, Ram Chandra Yadav 99. Manoj Paswan 167. Rajendra Sahoo 100. Bhaeat Paswan 168. Bhagat Sharma 101. Prahallad Mahato 169. Mnntu Mukhiya 102. Sunfl Kumar Malmtt, 170. Laxman Thakur 171. Hiralal Yadav 4327 ANNEXURE 172. Ram Kiifiore Yaaav BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 173. Bujrangi Ram TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD 174. Shyamai Banerjeo 175. Haresh Kumar Bhol In the maltei- of a complaint under Section 33A ol" the 176. Gobinda Mondal Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 177. A;oy Kumur Sahoo 178. Binotla Choudhury (Arising out of Reference No. 4 of 1990) 179. Gopal Bera COMPLAINT NO. 1 OF 1990 ISO. Bharal Prosad PARTIES : 181. Ram Sebak Shri Arvind Singh, S/o Sri lndubhushan Singh, Ag. Ill Dated, the 12th November, \990 (Depot), Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Village' and P.O. P. N. Pur Depot, Kodorma, Haiaribagh. ... Complainant. Budge Budgc-743319 Signature of the 33 workmen. Versus 1. (Sailendra Nath Dhara) The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, Patna. 2. (Samir Ghosh) ...Opp. Party. 3. (Anup Ghosh) 4. (Badal Mondal) APPEARANCES : 5. (Ajit Mondal) On behalf of the complainant— Shri Vijayendra Kumar, 6. (Dheraj Mondal) State Joint Secretary, F.C.I. Executive Staff Union, 7. (Arun Mishra) Patna. 8. (Kanai Manna) On behalf of the: Opp. 1'aity—Shri Ram Jiwan Shan, 9. CChitta Ranjun Das) Deputy Manager (Via. & Sec.). JO. (Uttam Kumar Das) STATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Food. 11. (Rabin Songupta) 12. (Dasarathi Mqndal) Dhanbad, the 23rd September, 1991 13. (Brojen Malick) AWARD 14. fSukdcb Majhi) Thin is an application under Section 33A of the I.D. Act, 15. (Swapan Mondal) 1947 nled by inn Arvind Singh, Asstt. Grade-Ill (Depot) 16. (Luk'hmi Kanta Khara) i-Cl for violation ol Section ii(\) and (3) of the IX). Act, 17. (Paresh Dhara) 1947. 18. (Sukumar Malick) 2. The complainant stated thai the Opp. Party who 's the J9. (Bhabesh Manna) Sr. Regional Manager, I'd Pamu is guilty of contravention 20. (Sukumar Nath) ot provision or Section 33 or the I.D. Act, 1947. It was 21. (Nilmoni Hazra) submitted through trie complaint that there was already kef. 22. (Anup Manna) No. 4/90 regarding promotion, pay fixation and stagnation increment pending before this Tribunal. But the Opp. Party 23. (Shyamai Manna) during the pendency ot the aloresaid reierence passed aw 24. (Arubinda Paul) Order daied 23th May, 1990 suspending the complainant on 25. (Goutam Khara) me same and identical grounds which was the subject matter of tho Reierence No. 4/90. The complainant has further 26. (Sanat Paul) alleged that he is a protected workman being ihe Joint Dis- 27. (Kamal Pakhira) trict Secretary of Trade Union and thus his suspension is 28. (Subir Das) violation of Section 33(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947. 29. (Aran Khara) 3. It was contended that in Ref. 4/90 the point for con- 30. (Subrata Khara) sideration was as to whether the promotion can be withheld 31. (Shambhu Khara) on the ground of conviction dated 7tn October, 1986. Tte 32. (Nimai Mondal) complainant had submitted his explanation but the manage- 33. (Bablu Mondal) ment did not take any steps en tbei basis of the conviction since 7jh October, 1986 and in the meantime he was pro- moted. It was submitted that the presumption would be that the explanation submitted by the complainant had been ac- cepted by the management OP. and the stigma of convic- tion was condoned and that the O.P. management was not justi- fied to suspend the cornplo nant on the basis of aforesaid conviction ufter c.\piry of about 3-1/2 ye^irs. Accordingly it has been prayed to pass an Award ia favour of the com- plainant holding that the action of the O.P. management in passing the suspension order anted 28th May, 1990 during the pendency of the Reference No. 4/90 without obtaining pre- vious permission of the Tribunal is in contravention of Sec- tion 33 of the J.D. At-t. l'J47 and the same is illegal and unjustified. S.O. 2834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial 4. l|le management O.P. filed W.S. assailing the giounds Disputes Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), the Cential Government takon by the coniplarrun.i Arvind Singh and thus praying hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- tho Ihbumil to dismiss the complaint holding that there was dustrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, ;r-: s,hown in the Annexure, no conln:\ciitioi) of prowsion of Section 33 of the ID Act on the complaint iiiui by Him Arvind Singh, S/o Sri Indn Admittedly, thsre wa^ a Reference No. 4/90 for adjudication Bhushan Singh, Ag. Ill (Depot), Food Corporation of India, regarding 3 aspects of the mailer by this Tribunal namely Food Storage Depot, Kodcrma, Hazaribagh against the Sr. promotion of workmen, revision of pay in the revised pay Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Anmachal w.-Je mid sanction of stagnation increments. The schedule Building, Exhibition Road, Patna under Section 53-A of the ol (he reference may be reproduced here a* follows : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was received by the "Whether the action ol' the mmr of " " nn UlO ''til , . • 1 4328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER *, 1WL/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Order No. 479/88 dated 24th November. 1988 in has been held up on the ground of conducted which led tq respect of Sri Arvind Singh (while other workmen his conviction, ft was further submitted on behalf of the facing vigilance and criminal cases were promoted] m.i'./jgunent Lhut regarding grant of stagnation increment the and denying pay fixation in the revised scale ol conceited workman not entitled LO yet it on the ground of pendency ox the criminal proceeding and subsequent convic- pay w.e.f. l.st August, 1983 *tnd stagnation incre- f ment w.e.f. 8/84, is legal ajid justified V it not^ to tion by the compctont Court. Thus it is clear that in he what relief the workmen concerned is entitled ?" W.S. the management bad taken the same ground of pend- ing criminal case and subsequent conviction of the con^plai- 6. The O.P, management stated that the reasons for sus- nant workman by competent authority. While deciding the pension were of 2 folds i.e. conviction of the complainant by main issue the Court appeared to have framed 3 points CB1 Court, Patna and initiation and pendency of depatmen- for decision which were as follows: — tal proceeding on account of an act of fraud committed by the complainant workman, it was submitted that the sub- (U Whether the uctiou of the management of FCI ject matter of dispute under Ret 4/90 and the ground of Patna by not giving eilect to the promotion order suspension are not same ;ind identical as alleged in the com- dated 24th November, ly^S in respcd of the con- plaint petition. cerned workman Shri Arvind Singh facing vigilance and criminal case is lustined 7 7 The O,P. management has also given an account of the series ol litigation. It is stated that the O.P, management (2) Whether the action of the management of FCI consequent upon the criminal charge by CB1 Patna vide case Patna is justified in denying pay fixation to the No. 17/82 (Court case Na 10/82) issued suspension order concerned workman iv the revised scale of pay dated 7th January," 1983. It lias been given detailed account with effect from 1st August, 1983, and as to how a senes of legal litigations were fought right from tne Court of Munsiff to the Apex Court and as a result of (3) Whether the concerned workman is entitled to stag- which suspension order aforesaid could Lot be implemented nation inclement with effect from August, 11*84'! till March, 1990. It i» further submitted that as a follow up action on account of the conviction of the complaina.ni IL may not be out of place to mention that all these issues proposed action on show cause (Ext. M-5) datod 4th August, were answered in tavour ot tJie concerned workman. Thus 1987 also could not be finalised due to the dispute raised it is made clear that the Reference was answered in favour before the ALC(C) Patna. Lastly it was submitted by the of the concerned workman. From the order recorded in the management that the concerned workman was not a pro- alorcsaid Award and the: W.S. of the management as dis- tected workman on the sround that no union representative closcu from the Avvard itself will show th.il. the criminal ever submitted any letter claiming that the complainant wus charge ana subsequent conviction of the concerned workman a protected workman. It was also submitted that the suspen- waii main ground tor wilhnoiding his promotion and stag- sion pending enquiry of criminal trial or after conviction Js nation increment. Even while passing tn© suspension order not a punishment nor change of condition of service. On dated 2Btn May, 1990 Iho conviction ot the complainant these grounds it has been urged that the complaint petition t>y CB.l. Court, Palna and the initiation ot the departmental does not warrant any merit and it be dismissed and that proceeding on account of the Act of fraud were taken into the suspension of the complainant by the O.P. management uccount. in the circumstances I am to hoid that the subject did not contravene any provision of Sec. 33 of the I.D. matter of the dispute on the reference 4/90 and the ground Act. of suspension were the same and identical, 8. In view of the facts stated above the main point tor 12. The complainant Arvind Singh examined himself as consideration is as to whether thei action of the manage- WVV-1 ii: the said complaint and he stated that the manage- ment in issuing suspension order during the pendency of R New Delhi, the 16th October. 1991 S.O. 2836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Asansol, as shown in the Annexurc S.O. 2835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation Disputes Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Central Government to the management of Sripur Area Hospital of M/§. E.C. hercb> publishes the following awaid of the Central Govern- Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central ment Industrial Tribunal, Asansol, as shown in the Annexure Government on 14-10-1991. in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to ihe management of Shankerpur Colliery of M/s. B.C. Ltd. ANNEXURE and their workmen, which was received by the Centra) Government on 14-10-1991. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ASANSOL ANNEXURE Reference No. 54/90 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL PRESENT : TRIBUNAL, ASANSOL Shri N. K. Sana, Presiding Officer. Reference No. 23/91 PARTIES : PARTIES : Employers in rotation to the Management of Sripur Arcn Employers in relation to the Mar.igement of Shankor Hospital under M/s. E.C. Ltd. pur Colliery of M/s. E.C.L. AND AND Their Workman. Their Workman. APPEARANCES : APPEARANCES : For the Employers—Sri P. Banenee, Advocate. For ihe Employers—None. For the Workman—Sri Sanjiv Banerjce, Asstt. Secretary For the Workman—Sri C. D. Dwevedi, Advocate. of the Union. INDUS!RY . C< :\ STATE : West Bengw INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West Bengal Daied, the 3rd October, 1991 Dated, the 16th September, 1991 AWARD AWARD The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in Tho Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on tiicm by clause (d) of ixercisc of the powers conferred on them by Clause (.1) ot sub-sections (1) and (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dis- sub-section (1) and sub-section ,2-A) of Section 10 of the putes Act, 1947, has referred the following dispute to this Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has referred tho following Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry's Order No. L-22012 dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Ministry's Order No. L-22012(189)/90-IR (C. TI) dated tho 30th (475)[90-IR (C. II) dated the 19th April, 1991. November, 1990. SCHEDULE SCHEDULE ''Whether the action of the management of Shankerpnr "Whether the action of the management of Sripur Area Colliery of M/s. ECL, P.O. Ukliru, Dist. Burdwan, Hospital under M/s. E.C. Lt.!., in not regularising in denying service linked increment to Shri Khederu Smt. Ratna Dutta. General Mnzdoor as a Clerk in Ahir, Boiler Fireman w.e.f. 1-1-83 is justified ? If Gr. in w.e.f. 1-12-1982 with consequential benefits not, to what relief is the concerned workman {s unjustified 7 if not to what relief the workman entitled ?" is entitled and from what date V" 4330 THE G/Zt-TTE OF INDIA : NOVl-V-UfcR ^ 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2 The case is called today (16-9-91) for hearing. 3n 3. The Disciplinary Authority, however, did not agree Sanjiv Banerjee, Asslt. Secretary of tbe Union submits that with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found him guilty a talk of compromise is going on between the parties and of charge No. 1 and imposed d penalty of stoppage oi 4 tbe parties are not interested to proceed with the case/ and increments for the year 1985-86, 87-88. This penalty was he has no objection if a no dispute award is passed. further reduced to two increments of H7-88 by the Regional Manager to whom a representation was made by tho work- 3. In the given circumstances 1 find that there is no other man. alternative but to pass a no dispute award and accordingly a no dispute award is passed in this case. 4. The workman thereafter approached the jGcivernment and the present reference- was made by the Government. N. K. SAHA, Presiding Officer 5. The Management in its written statement alleged that [No. L-22012/89/90JR (C. IDJ the action of the management was fully legal and justified A. H. MADANANI, Desk Officer and the workman had committed a fraud which stood proved and instead of giving him swear penalty a lenient -jyiew has been taken in his matter by just stopping his two increjnents. Since the case has been established on charge No. 1 so tb/i punishment awarded to the workman was fully justified. 6. The following issues were framed in this case : 1. Whether tho domestic enquiry held against the work- man is fair and proper ? 2. As in tho term of refeience ? 7. 1 havo heard the representatives for the parties and have gone through the record. My findings on the issues above arc as follows : l&SUE NO. 1 8. The representative for the workman made statement New Delhi, the 10th October, 1991 that he had no objection to the domestic enquiry held in this case by the management. Since Iho enquiry officer had S O. 2837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial given a finding not holding the workman guilty of any charge Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government the said enquiry was treated as correct. The Management hereby publishes the award of the Central Government has also not said even a word about ii and I, therefore, held Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as shown hi the Annexurc, that the enquiry as conducted by tbe management in lhi> in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation case was fair and proper. to the management of State Bank of India and their work- men, which was received by the Central Government on ISSUE NO. 2 10-10-1991. 9. As regards this issue it has been urged by the represen- tative for the management that stoppage of two increments ANNEXURE by the Regional Manager was a very lenient view takin by the management in case of the workman. The workman was BEFORE SHRI GANPATI SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFI- not entitled to any other concession because charge No. 1 CER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- has already been found to be established by the Disciplinary BUNAL, NEW DELHI Authority. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of four "lcrcmeitfs which was reduced to two increments by 1. D. No. 115/88 the Regional Manager on personal hearing of the workman. The workman had committed fraud and as such the penally In the matter of dispute between : imposed upon him being very miner in nature should be Shri R. S. Chauhan through Deputy General Secretary, allowed to stand. State Bank of India Association, 2124/2, Harf Singh Nalwa Street No. 58, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 10. The representartho for the workman on the other hand has urged that the statements of both the handwriting Versus experts produced before the enquiry officer were contradic- tory and at least did not support tho management The Zonal Manager, State1 Bank of India, Region No. IV, Enquiry Officer had given bis very clear finding that no case 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. against the workman was proved. Iho appreciation of the evidence produced before the enquiry officer by the parties APPEARANCES : leads to the conclusion lhat no case against him was esta- Shri P. P. Trikha—for the workman. blished and the Disciplinary Authority should have only accepted the report and no addiEional evidence to arrive at Shri P. K. Gupta—for the Management. the conclusion of holding the workman guilty of charge No. 1 had come on the record making u ground for imposing punish- ment. The very sanctity of an enquiry would stand vitiated AWARD if the findings of the enqu;ry arc not accepted by the manage- The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide ment and the imposition of any punishment by the Discipli- Order No, L-12012/241/88-D.III (A) dated 8-9-88 ha* nary Authority while disagreeing with the enquiry officers referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for report would not be justified. No case against the workman adjudication : was established and the imposition of the penalty of two increments deserves to be set aside, ''Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region No. IV, New Delhi in im- U. On perusal of tbo points urged before me by the posing a penalty of stoppage o* two annual incre- representative for the parties. I am of the definite opinion ments of Shri R. S. Chauhan, Clerk is legal and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this caw was the justified 7 If not, to what jelief is the workman basis of the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The said entitled ?" Enquiry Officers after having conducted detailed enquiry came to the definite opinion that no charge against him 2. The* workman in his statement of cla^m alleged that was proved. He had heard both the paities before coming he was charge sheeted vide charge sheot Ex. W-l on five to th.it conclusion and that conclusion was actual conclusion counts and thereafter an enquirv was initiated against him, on the facts of tho case. The Disciplinary Authority while In the departmental enquiry it was held that no case against disagreeing with thct conclusion Lf the Enquiry Officer ' iim was proved. a of c~ -1331 two increments by the Regional Manager only shows that nil cum-Clerk. State Bank of India Dhulo Branch, the throe officers hud disagreed with each other but were with effect from 9-8-1934 is junified ? If not. to of the definite opinion that no loss to the bank, has been what relief is the workman, concerned entitled to ? caused by any act of the workman and it was the workman who had undir gone mental agony for a period of more than 2 The case of the workman Shri B. N. Thakur as disclosed lv,o years while having remained under suspension. The from the statement of claim (HA. 2) filed by him, in short, grounds on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority has is thus :— oaM_'d its conclusion in my view were not fully justified and He was employed in the scr\ice i'f the State Bank of the report of Ihi Enquiry Officer as such holding him not India in 1977. In 1981 he was working as n guilty of anv charge should have been accepted. Keeping in cashier-cum-clerk tit the Dhule Branch. C-itain view the ciieiimstnnccs of this case the report of the Enquiry allegations were made against him by a customer Officer subsequent orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the by name Ramkishan Ramgopal by his letter dated Regional Manager, the period for which the workmen re- 7-10-1981 addressed t? the Central Regional Mana- mained suspended and above all th'j fact that no loss was ger State Bank of India, Pune t'we—On 14-9-198 r caused to the bank by any act of the wort-man T hold that the said customer had sent the cash amount ot the penally imposed upon the workman by slopping two Rs. 3,980 with his son lo tile Bank tor the1 pay- jncreincrts was 110L justified in this case. J'arlies are, how- ment of two Income Tax Chailans for Rs. 1,230 ever, left to benr their own costs. and Rs, 1,750, totalling' Rs. 2,980, The denomina- tions mentioned on the back side of the Challana Dated ; 24th September, 1991. were 20 currency notes of Rs, 100 each, i.e Rs. 2,000 and 198 notes of Rs. 10 tuch i.e. Rs. 1,980 GANPAT1 SHARMA, Presiding Officer and the total amount being Rs. 3,980. However [No, L-12012/241/88-D.III (A)] while accepting the cash amount, the workman al- tored the ligurc of 20 to read ns 10 in respect of the currency notes of Rs. 100 each, and the fignve. of the amount of Rh. 2,000 was corrected is Rs- 1,000 and it was shown that the total amount received by him was Rs. 2,980 instead of the amount of Rs. 3,980. It was alleged that the said workman did not return the excess amount of Rs. 1,000 received by him to the customer or his son. 111 the evening of that day the customer alognwith his son had conie to the Bunk, but the workman had already left the Bank. Therefore, the customer again came to the Bank en the next day. However, he wns told by the worl;m::n lti;;t no_ excen pay- ment was received by him. 3. Therefore, the Bank management ;\sutd a charge sheet c'i.'tcd 18-11-J981 against the workm.m sieging thus :— New Delhi, the 15th October, 1991 (0 That as per the complaint from Shri Ramkishan R. S,O. 2K38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Khandelwal dated 7-10-1981 JD ever payment of Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government Rs. 1,000 was accepted against Iwo Income Tax hereby publishes the award cf tho Central Government Challans tendered through his ion on 14-9-1981 Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay as shown in the Anne- and the excess payment was not refunded to Shri \urc. in the industrial disputu between the employers in Khandelwal. relation to the management of State Bark of India and their workmen, which was leceived by the Central Govern- fii) The Cash Amount of Rs. 3,980 vvas accepted by tho ment on 15-104991. workman against the chulliins of Rs. 1,230 and Rs. 1,750 and the figiir- 20 appearing on the reverse ANNfiXURE of the challnn was altered to iO. HEFOBR THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL (in) The vwkmun alimgwith his f.itber had appioached TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT BOMBAY the customer at his shop on 29-10-1981 for a. compromise in the. matter, ntid tad requested him Reference Nn. CGIT-2/2 of 1987 to receive the excess amount and to withdraw the complaint looped h.v him with the Bank. PARTIES : 4. Shri S, G. Yardi, the Manager of the Accounts Depart- Employers in relation lo the IVfanapemenf of State Bank ment, was appointed by the Bank as the Inquiry Office- in of India, Aurangabad the euqmiv conducted against him. He gave ample oppor- tunity to the customer to prove, the allegations made by W AND against the workman. However, the customer had failed to m-?ne hv l ""f^?"5' ie- tbe charges made s&dm the work- Their Workmen, man, by leading the necessary and sufficient evidence Even- APPEARANCES : though the enquiry was concluded on 3-4-1982, the Enquiry Officer held a further enquiry on 20-1-1983 i e after a For the Employer—Shri P. K. Rcle and Shri P. M. period of about 9 months, The son of the customer had Palshlkar Advocates. not stated anything in his evidence wh'ch would TOrt the 8 the WOrkmnn tw For tha Workmen—Shri R. B. Jaiswal and Miss. R, M, ouesffo TV I* "*™! " ^ ° «*K fa Oza Advocates, Question or their copies were not produced durinc the enquny proccedinw before the Knquirv O.T.cer. The cmtl INDUSTRY : Bankinp STATE : Maharashtra mers complo,nt wM vague, and the entire evidence on tht record was unbelievable. However, the Fnquiry Officer bv Bombay, the 30th September, 1991 his report dated 24-8-1983 held the Cha^e"No 1 proved agairnt the workman. The charaes Nos, 2 and 3 woreToW AWARD—PARTI not moved bv the Enquiry Officer. The Central Government by their Order No. L-12012/288/ S5-D.IT (A) dated 13-1-1987 have referred the following industrial dispute lo this Tiibunni for adjudication under Section 10fl)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. "Whether the action of the State Bank of India in relation to its Dhuk Branch, Aurangabad in dis- missing from service Shri B. N. Thakur Ca.ihfer- 4332 THE GAZLTTL Q¥ INDIA.. N'UVh.wBhR •;, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PARI 11—SEC. 3(ii)l written complaint was filed by the said customer Aurangabad, who, without giving a personal nearing 10 m» on 7-10-1981. However, an oral complaint was workman, dismissed it by his order dated ;-12-1984. There- made by him on the Jay of the incident itself, ufter ,thc: woiKmun mised an industrial dispute before the i.e. on 14-9-1981. The written complaint was made Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay. As the by the custorncir when he was not able to recover conciliation proceeding ended in failure:, tile Central Govern- the excess amount paid by him to the workman. ment made the present reference, ns above. The findings of the enquiry officer arc quit© just 6. The workman further alleged thus •—' and proper. The workman's explanation regarding the payment of Rs. 1,000 to the said customer and As the charges Nos. 2 a'/id 3 were not held not proved,' lhc manner and the circumstances in which the Lite cliargci No. 1, which was based on the other amount was paid, do not disclose the conduct of two charges, could not also be held proved by an innocent person, If at all the workman desired to the Enquiry Officer, While the incident in ques- make the payment, tlie proper course for him tion had taken place on 14 9-1981, the customer was to make the offer to the Bank, and not to had lodged his complaint with the Bank 23 Joys approach the customer and persuade him to with- thereafter, i.e. on 7-10-1981. In the evening of draw the complaint. The workman is now em- the day of the incident in question, the workman ployed elsewhere, The Bank management there- had not left the Bank earlier, as alleged by the fore, lastly prayed for ihc rejection of the prayer, customer. Ths alleged episode has been made out of the workman, and to uphold the action in against him because of some enmity. The work- question of the Bank management. man was under a great mental tension because of the complaint lodged by the customer against him. 9. The Ismics framed at Ext. 4 are :— Hence, his counsel had advised him to pay the amount of Rs. 1,000 to the customer to avoid (1) Whether the Enquiry Officer came to the wrong further litigation, eventhough he had not received and incorrect conclusion against the workman, on the excess amount of RJ. 1,000, and hence the the basis of the evidence placed before him ? workman's counsel paid the amount of Rs, 1,000 to the customer on 17-4-1982, which was received (2) Whether the action of the State Bank of India in by him. The entire approach of the Enquiry Officer relation to its Dhule B'anch, Aurangabad in dis- towards the evidence on record was wrong and missing from service Shri B. N. Thakur Cashier- Incorrect Therefore, tli;' punishment of dismissal cnrn-CIerk, with effect from 9-8-1984 is justified ? from service imposed upon him by the Bank manage- ment was unjust and illegal. Apart from that, the (3) ff not, what relief is the workman concerned en- punishment of dismissal is too harsh, and dispro- titled to ? portionate to the charges levelled against him. The <41 Wh.it Award ? workman therefore, lastly prayed that this Tribunal should se to avoid the further litigition against him, is not uccepiuoic was heki property, and the rules of natural justice were to me. According to me, is th; workman had received properly followed, the e^ess amount from the customer, he returned it to him. In c.ise he would not have received the excess amount, nc, 13 According to the workman, the conclusions arrived or an/ other ordinary perwn would not havo returned rt nl bv the Enquiry Officer arc wreAig and incorrect. How- nuik u nny customer, It i= trus- that some of the documents ever ' 1 find that his conclusion holding the workman guilty no»v produced before this Tribunal, were not produced h^fore of charge No 1 was quite just, correct, and proper, and was ill.- Ei.quiry Officer, and lha copies of some of the docu- on based u«i the oral and documentary evidence then placed ments v,ere not supplied to I he workman. However, as the befo'e him during the course of the enquiry proceedings, documentary evidence on record before this Tribunal sup- The copies of the enquiry proceedings are at Ex. 7. lno ports the 'aid conclusion or the Inquiry Officer which was lirst charge against the workman was that he had accepted linked on the oral and dix.iiinent.irv evidence then placed an overpayment of Rs, 1,000 from the customer Shn R. R. ,ir,Vc him, !: is being considered were. Khandelwal on 14-9-1981 withput acknowledgement there- for against the two Income Tax Chnilam tendered by the "on il the customer. The original Income Tax Challans 16 Ex, 25 is the letter dated 3-11-1981 by the customer daieii 14-9-1981 are at Kxs. 22 and 23. It will be seen Shri R. R, Khadelwal to the C.'nir.il Regional Managtr or: therefrom that the amounts of Rs. 1,750 and Rs. 1,230 were the 'lank, Poona that the wir!;man S-hri Thakur and his to be deposited in the Bank. The total amount of these' fj-lher had come to their ,hop on 29-10-1981 f :r enmpro- two figures comes to Rs. 2,980. On the reverse of the miso. jnd requested him ANNEXURE which was received by the Cuntral Government on the 10-10-91. IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE (LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) (Friday, the 4th day of October, f*J91) BEFORE SMRI SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, Ihdustiial Dispute No, 4 uf 1990fC) CENTRAL OOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BI-TWEEN : NEW DELHI 'Fhci Chairman, The South Indian Bank Ltd.. Ht;ul I.D. No. 21|8R Office, P.O. Trichur-6fiO 001. In tbe matter of dispute between AND Shri Kisha'n Singh s|o Shri Bhagwat Singh, (hrough the Secretary, Trjia workman of the Bank Shri K, J. JcM-ph, Kultek MiithuiT. Refinery Mazdoor Sa'ngh, Kalll House, P.O. Peechi, District 1 hiichu ^^-Radha Kishan Mandir, Keral;t 680 653. Chatta Bazar, Mathura RFPRESIINT\TIONS ; VERSUS M/s. B. iS. Krishnan & A. A, l).ws, ') he Dy. Manager COperationsX Snlaya Mathura Pipeline Advocates, Ernakulam. ..,l~or MannRC'iitro Project, M'alhura Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Shri P. Jacob Varghesc, Advocate. Ltd., Mathura. Sclman Chambers, Ernakuliun- -For Workman. APPEARANCES : AWARD Shri Man Singh—for the workman. Nont'—for the Management. "Whether tins action o! the Manas 'men; of M/•;. The South Indian Bunk Ltd.. fk'.ul Oilkc THcfiii'-, AWARD Kerala in tei-maiating the services of Shri K. J. losi'ph, trainee F'eon (Gardner) in i.h- Hr.-j,l The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vii'e OJIicc o<' the Bank wit.ii' tflFc;.t from 20-1-1986 :*. its Orrier No. L-30012|T7IR-7-D.imB) dmed 2-3-Rfi has re- justified ? If not, to what relief ihc worl-man fened the following industrial disniite to this Tribunal for concerned is entitled ?" is the issue referred for nrli'.idication :— adjudication to this Court as per Ordji No I.- 12011,'95 /89-TR IRankW, dated 2! March, 1990 "Whether the Dy. Manager (Operations) Salnya Mnthnra f 2. Pursuant to the notice issued from this Court, bath Pipeline Project of Ind'an ^il Corporation Ltd.. parties entered appearance and advanced th'?ii pleadings Mathura was justHied in tcrminatinR the services rf But wh'_*7i the cast wns posted fur evidence it was submitter! Shri Kishan Singh s'o Bhapwat S nj.:h, Casual that the matter was settled out of Court. A memo of Labour w.e.f. 22-7-S5. If not. what relief the compromise was also filed biy the parties after duly signed workman is e'ntitled to ?" by the parties. It in submitted that an award may be passed in terms of compromise find Management agrees to give 2. The workman Kislun Sinph i'n the statement of claim, regular employment as a frct-h recruit to Shri K. 1. Joseph nlle^cd that he worked with the marniqcmeTT from 1-5-5 us a Peon with effect from 21 August, 1991 and workman 5. Tn> Miinugenienl U Us Written statement alleged that the wfirkhinn was never erripioyod by the ^ Clanagemcnt nor ;mV relationship rif master and servant etisfs hctween them. TM-W \»6fci ah Sutri no industrinf dispute rteUvetn the parties. It fins al'-0 been alleged by ihe Wannpemcnt that (tie present reference has been rttntie Wfonj.'1y by the government vinJ foul"! pot he heard. The alleged certificate Issued by Sh. K> F, Senjtupta docs not show that the workman was e'.-Enped as a regular shipli)y(te Of the corporation. He was neither empowered to issue any employment certificate. Tht; certificale was issued 10 him us a chnrocter cert'flcale on '•pprofich by the workman, Th: employment is made in the corporation depending upon 1he vacancies and after poi-it; thrmicrh established recruitment prtv*durc and «alisfyinf various 'norms wrd stntufory ohh'palions. The workman was •p'-ver iiitorvifwcd. T!\e question of IT'S recruitment did nut c New Delhi, the IOth October, 1991 ;'r' e. The Deputy Manager h-as no power to appoint anv t^er^on and this power was vested in the Generni Mfl'ri(i"f"l IndUBlrinI Df-puiy Gi-nernl M?Tir:5er. The worV^ian w.^s howevr, entrusted intermittently with specific eor>trnct»a1 iob of prrrr, Dispmf ActT^irnrof mT°lVL% To : hereby publish* the award <1t the Cenfr 1 £overnracnt cutt ng. clean'rc of bushes, watering of kbas khfis mMs ,1nr;-nrr vummcr and clrWng nf ^pillape of nil on other nccn s'ons, This was ;i purely cas'.uil con*r^chi:i1 *iTip:ip"m'"v't fi"d !r»n-> ?iira amount was paid to him for le-rlerlnc the-" io>-i. ffc issued reeripts to this ehect to the mlarsT(irtle"t, His flatus was that of an Independent CcntrnQtor ar>d was never 4335 employed as a servant of the corporation. Regular em- ing specific jobs and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief ployment cards ate issued to the employees and also Identity under this reference from this court. Parties are, however, caius. No appointment letter or Identity Card or employ- Scfi to bear their own costs. ment card was ever issued to this workman and, therefore, 25th September, 1991 UK question of his becoming an employee of the manage- ment ciicl sot arise at all. GANPATI SH'ARMA, Presiding Officer. 4. In support of their ctse the management examined [No. L-30012 27/87-D.IIKB)] Sim K. P. Sengupta Deputy Manager MW1 while the work- man himself appeared us WWL 1 have heard representative lor the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The Management in its arguments has urged that no relationship of master and servant exists between the parties. He was never employed by the management. He was only Oiii Listed intermittently with specific contractual job of grass cutting cleaning of bashes and watering of khas khas mats etc. ihe jobs were purely casual in nature and no certifi- cate or employment card was ever issued to him and the points slated m the arguments were the same as stated in their written statement by she management. 6. The workman in his arguments, however, submitted thai us per certificate ot the Deputy Manager dated 23-6-84 lie was working for the last one year as a casual labour. Once he had ueen engaged on a casual labour procedure New Delhi, the 15th October, 1991 ;or leitTiiU'dtuig ms services should have been loilowed as laid uown in the Industrial Disputes Act. No Retrench- SO 2841.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial ment compensation was given to him nox one month, pay Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government was given to mm at the time of his termination. hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the In- 7. A perusal of the arguments addressed by the represen- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the tative lor the parties, ieaus me to the conclusion that me management of Indian Airlines, New Delhi and their work- uAaiagcnieiit in this case is a Government of India under- men, 'which was received by the Central Government on the uiKiiig wiiii a regular procedure for recruitment grant of 14-10-91. u-ciements and workiug within the corporation. In the pitscut case tne oniy reliance ot the workman is on a certi- ANNEXURE iicats. issutu oy Sh. K. iJ. Iiengupta Deputy Manager. Shr; JV. if. oengupia Deing Deputy Manager omy is a grade C BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT uiiicei nor competent to appoint any person. Trie power HYDERABAD oi appouitment is with the Chief Operations Manager who Industrial, Dispute No. 28 of. 1988 is a grade iH officer as is clear from the delegation of powers effecuve from 1-4-1980 attached with the written arguments BETWEEN ot tne management. In any case the certificate of K. P. Sei;gupta uoes not in any way prove that the workman was The Workmen of Indian Airlines, New Delhi—Petitioner a regular employee of tne corporation and in that certificate Workman ue has staied time the workman was working for the last oi.e year as a purely casual labour. Receipts which the AND workman has denied having been issued by him though the The Management of Indian Airlines. New Delhi. Res- management has produced the photo copies of these receipts pondent 1 Management. which pertain to the year 1984-85 vide these receipts conso- lidaled amounts were received by the workman for specific APPEARANCES:— jobs done by him. The workman in his cross-examination denied his signatures on these receipts but they were proved Survasri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, P. Damodhar Reddy, us signatures by Sh. K. P. Sengupta who appeared as a V. N. Goud and Ch. Laxminarayana, Advocates for witness on behalf of the management. No appointmeat the Workman. Letter or any other documents showing that the workman ever worked with the management has been produced by Mjs. R. N. Karaujawala, Mrs Manik Karanj'awala, the workman to substantiate his claim and there seems to MS. Meenakshi Arom, Mr. Hardeep Anand, be no reason to disbelieve the receipts produced by the Mr. Jalinder Sethi, Mr. Ajaya K'apur, Ms. Nandioi management which was a Government of India undertaking Gore, Mr. Atul Ch.'tala. Mr. Raven'ler Kumar, M|s. regarding the payments made to him for the specific jobs Binduchhib and Mis. V. S. Rekha for the Manage- done by him. These receipts cleariy show the workman ment. having worked for specific jobs and consolidated amounts v-cie received by him. The workman could have got Dated : 13 th September, 1991 produced any account books of the management to estab- lish the j?ayments made to him if he was a regular or even AWARD a casual labour engaged cm monthly basis or even daily v/.iges. No such demand was made by the workman and This is a reference made bv the Government of India, T do not find any reason to disbelieve his receipts which have Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-11O12|19]87-D.II(B) be CM produced by the management in this case. dated 29-2-1988 for adjudication of industrial dispute between the Management of Indian Airlines, New Delhi and their workmen setting forth the point for adjudication in the 8. Keepl'-g in view all the circumstances and my discus- schedule appended thereto as follows : sion above I am of the definite opinion that the relationship: of employer and the employee does not exist between the "Whether the action of the management of Indian Air- parlies in this case and the qnestion of termination of the lines, New Delhi in terminating Miss. Jhansi Rani, services of the workman, therefore, did not arise at all. 1, Air Hostess from services with effect from 4-3-85 fh-refore. hold lhat there was 'no termination of the services is lega! [justified? If not, to what relief the work- of ihe workman ,vho was woitwig as contractor for perform- man concerned is entitled, and from what date?" 4336 THE G.VZETT12 t)F INDIA : NOVEMBER 9; 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] Tile said reference was rcgisiercd :is l.D. No. 28 of 1988 on restless ooirtinuons labouriotis- work. To work on these Avro me nie ot tins Tribunal. After receiving the notice, both IL is oeyoiid human possibility, what more she is expected umities put in their appearance and the 1-etilioner tiled [he u> -iook-dini, charming and smimij; although the ll.ght while w'aim siatement on 2K-3-198K and an, additional claim state- sue is iurnisned missing bicaidasi, Junch and dinner for the ment on 7-5-1988 and the Respondent riled counter on uay uue to the shortage of time lor udlight seivice of 7o-iStHB and ihe Respondent filed counter ou 7-5-1988 and passengeis. Ihe health and wcllnre oi Uic air hostesses. Oil an additional counter on 1K-6-1988. t.ucn iiijjins is or no-couscqucnee io ihc management 'as we Management contends :nat -"mey are paid for the siog . 2. 1 tic uverments or the claim statement filed by the vVneieas 'a'jet tiigni eabm aticndaiu uoes noL auiiei the Petitioner read as follows :, anove bam taie she is lucky and richer. As in Boeings Ihey have 4 cubin Attenuants ;\nd in Air-bus mere are 8 cabin AUeudaiiis lo attend on Ihc passengers. And naturuiiy the ii is most resptciliuiy subiniut'U thai the PeiiliOiiei work load-is sn'.ireu among moie number of cabin attendants ivn. jnansi is.au! ueionga io me M.neuilit.u liioe community, wan anipie time lor service, ihcy operate only a su gle Ji ght auu-Liuii- ivuy'a. jut v»Js (.ppum LL'U as AJ ±iOSiess ill Uiw pei uay say Madias io Dwtfil via Hyderabad with a single i.iuiun /iiiiinca Dy an oiucr uaiti. b-l-fJ/y. ^ne Was .uosLCd ua'hsiL n'tfh. lnc crew night Jstop at "a Hotel outsiauon and at iviuuios urnse >,jouintiii itigioiij. ..-vii caoin attendants arc lelurn omy We next oay. lh6y also gei jet allowance, plus bivcn a Utuiunji ui 'apjjiOxniiai.eiyJ:-J|2 uiuulhs ai tin; bhLuai ouidLul.on allowance. Ihe operation or Jnghts arc reasonable, ouiij, i^auiu i^icw iiuuniiif scnooi, rsew Deihi uuorc mey suui is' ini; Uieaded c.xpcricVice on an /wio flight icalisiog VIIL i^icuscu on icguiai iiigius nuni me lespeeuve regions or me degree ot lucsomeneiss in practice ihe aulhontics adhere It is submitted that one in the designation of Air Hostess September/ 1980 by AIR India offering her the same post cannot look forwaid to promotions. On improvement ol a few years earlier arc enclosed. Evidences marked under loiiiority unlike other categories of workmen who cun uv S. No. 8. nire to climb the heiraichy through departmental examina APPLICATION FLLHD FOR CIVIL SLIT FOR DAMAGES tion. An Air Hostess retired as an Air Hostess only, no UNDER SHC11ON 499 OF THE I.P.C. matter her seniority, aspirations arid efficiency. The only III. Defamation,—It is most humbly submitted that she step she/he in the T.A.. can dream of climbing is to try and had s'lllcrcd irreparable damages in her career, and normal get into the sister concern Air India for a similar dels urn-* lite both within the Airlines and without, on account of tne tion. Where the salaries incentives and allowances are coin lespdndents labellows irresponsible vindictive statement, made paratlvoly greater. However although Air India is a sistei about her in public. To list a few : She was treated badly concern an interested An Hostess in Indian Airlines may m tin; training school of the October, 1976 batch by one and do so by applying for Air India on a fresh application only (II in the school at the instinct of the Chief Instructress Mrs. She should be given preference at the time of selection due Sahani. She W.IN the only tribal candidate in a batch of 15 to her experience in the similar job provided she succeeds in girls. At the training school all the girls joined a private the written l<»t.> Having been-rejected by the Indian Airlines, hostel at Vasant Vihar Manuger by a friend of the Chief in order to earn a livelihood she was despatately in need of instructress. She stayed out as slip had her people at Delhi. a job In response to an advertisement she had applied loi i his lady used lo visit the girls in tho hostel occasionally the post of Air Hostess in AIR, India in October, 1985. She during her off days, She has discussed liberally, she had was one of the few who got through the written test held at Lfloujfh reasons and evidences 16 believe, as though this was Delhi. She had answered all the questions most appropriately not enough .she was talked oil' in a ('cry uegrading manner in the interview she was (he only one candidate who had a in the class luum, many of times. There was not a single day knowledge of live languages, VJZ. English, Hindi, Trlugu, wh eh pas'sttl without hei insulting her or humiliating hei Urdu and Tamil, with working knowledge of German am) through out her training what was more painful was that an odditionnl asset of her 5 years' experience in the similar 1 uom/'of her batch mates had the guts to resist, most of nature of duty, yet her name tailed to find its way in Ui? them played to her tune foi thei fear of getting into her list of the selected. Most of them selected tjom Assam, Dar- bad b-ioks, These are a few .rut-ra^eious blatant remarks jeling etc.. did not know to speak Hindi they themselves con- the nude at her in the class room 1. ^JT *=ffT W$ f*WT fessed. Her disqualification she is given to think is the five years ot submissive service in the Indian Airlines. In anothci occasion she had applied for the post of the Traffic Assstanl Air India in 19R7 here again she had passed the written test Meaning : You aie such ungrateful sorts that you think held at Delhi on 28th lanuary, 1987 with outstanding marks ot' making holes in the iamc plate thai provided you food. «he was called for the inteiview on 30th March. 1987, A tew 2. •This girl does not seem to understand a s ngle word: days bctorc the interview she approached the Regional Dlrec Ciod knows in vvh,at language I am to teach her (meaning tors of Indian Airlines at administrative office, Janpath toi to say she is thick skulled). Such defaming statements in want of a certificate stating her experience with them. As liic class room not only emlwassed her to shame, with the 5 j ears is 'no. short period in ones life to let go unmentioned. whole class laughing at her but repetition of cracking sucn Moreover she could not have, been asking the interviewers thila fide' instructress at her expense made her loose hei to never mind about what she was doing with herself for self-confidence and till hopes in life. She: shrank to herself 3 years after completion of her graduation. She would sound ;iud was driven r-Ho isolation often she was made to feel absurd if" she had said she did nothing. Therefore it was like an ass, The instructress should have been a responsible necessary lliat she get a certificate of having been with Indian teacher and taken some trouble in reviewing her application Airlines for the 5 yenirs in question, which was a fact. As for the post, whare she had clearly mentioned that she was i,he did not ask for more the Regional Director of Delhi well convergent with five languages English, Hindi, Telugu, concerned to certify to that effect. But just then Captain Tamil ;:nd Urdu. [ am sure none of my batch mates from Narayanan- a retired Operations Manager of the Northern the general list hud a knowledge ot five languages ul that. Region happened to drop in at the Airlines house and rt' I his ludy 30 much went by the community certificate attach- .trained the R.D. from giving any such certificate. He laid ed to her application that, she often wondered at her sadistic down a condition that she takes back, her earlier complaints plcasuie in making feel ashamed. Perhaps she contended that lotigcd against him and the then Chief Hostess. This wan a tribal docs not deserve a civilised like. Even in the class not agreeably to her for obvious reasons. Knowing the man tests her discrimination extended in setting the question papers a^cment thoroughly she had her ^wn doubts about herself too. '(he whole class was asked to answer one kind of cyclo- beinjf tricked into foul play. Consequently she was onco htylcd question paper, while she was asked to sit sOparately agdm not' selected inspite of failing the best (I can even re- and answer a totally diccrent hand written paper with ridicul- call all the question.-, they have risked hear with all of them ous questions cannoling a dig at her. This is evident if a prob*.- answered accurately and appropriately). Here she would also into the nnswer sheets of 197N November/December, Cabin like to mention the acid remark a dark, in the Air India cirw trainees is ordered. LSubseqncntly she was the only Office had made. She had gone to the A.I. Office for ihu person to be detained at Delhi for ,-i couple of weeks at the reimbursement of travail ins expenses to which she is entitled, tra nini; school whili; all others in her batch were deemed a couple of days after the interview on the 30th March, lit to be released on scheduled flights. That she was subject- 1987, at New Delhi. The clerk in the Personal Department ed to utmost humiliation in the school is evident from the bv nanie Gupta had uttered nght in front of tha Personnel form which, each cabin crew trainee is asked to fill on Managers office thei following lines referring to her com- completion of the trnining as a rule. She had written in bold munity "these people cannot even afford trainfares to Delhi c.intfjii letters (hat she disliked the "STRUGGLE FOR EXIS- but shamelessly come from the South for employment in TF.NCE" and 4. The averments of the counter filed by the Respondent RHPLY ON MERITS: fead as follows:—The reference order dt. 27-2-1988 is bad in law in tift much as no reference can be made to this Tri- Save and except what is specifically stated hercunder, each t-ivmal at t-fyderabad since workman concerned was in the and eveiv avennent, submission und/or allegation as con- employment of the Tndiari Airlines Corporation at New tained in the statement of claim under reply is wrong and Delhi at the time of termination of service. No dispute therefore denied. crmH have htfen raised by the workman at Hyderabad, The mere fact that the termination order was served on the Parauisc reply to the statement of claim is as under : worlrmn'n at Hyderabad (the last address intimated') would 1, Regarding para 1 of the' statement of claim it is ad- hot confer jurisdiction on the Central Lubour Commis milted that the workman belongs to Scheduled Tribe and singer fO Hyderabad !o entertnin any dispute raised by 1 was appointed as Air Hostess by the fndian Airlines vide the workman and submits n failure report nn the basis Management's letter dated 8th Jiunmiy, 1979 and was posted whereof the Central Government has made the reference nt Madras after the completion of her training at the Cabin to Ihis Hon'ble Tribunal. If at all the rase merits a refer- I lew Training School, Safdarjuni; Airport, New Delhi. Rest ence, such a reference was to be made before the Central of the contents of this para are totally false1 and baseless and C-ovn-nment Industrial Tribunal at Delhi after the failure art hence vehemently denied. She was selected on her ap- nf the conciliation proceedings p.t Delhi. It is further sub- plication made in response to an advertisement issued by mifted (hot this Hobble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to Indian Airlines, Southern Region which was meant for selec- (.•rffftalii the wrongful claim of the petitioner, as the tion of the candidates for Southern Region only. Thei con- petitioner was at Delhi bnsed st»ff, having given her rrsi- tention of the petitioner that she underwent successful train- ilertint address Ofi record as 82, North Avenue, New Delhi. in.r* at Cabin Crew Training School, Safdarjung Airport is The place of fterVce of the order of termination is im- not denied. After completion of training she was appointed mater'M in order to ;nvoke the iurkdict'on since the material at Madras where she worked from 3rd January, 1979 to 16th March, 1983 and her record of attendance, conduct pbec is from where rho order emnnates. In this case, the and work as evaluated in the Annual Performance Appraisal petit'oner hail not taken permission before leaving station since her appointment was very poor. Normally, transfer on i.e. Delhi. It was only bv her reply to the show cause C07npensationwtc grounds of employees with bad records are notice dated 4th March, 1985 vide her letter dated 20th/ not considered. However, as an e^;eption in the case of the ?lst April, lQRs that she intimated her contact addressed at workman on humanitarian r-rounds and the fact that the Hyderabad. The relief asked for by the petitioner to *et petitioner beloncs to scheduled tribe, a lenient view was n " '•-' b—•(•'* from r>*ti*nrii"o {hr rnam'rv pioceedin^. ; on th,rd occasion reduction in time scale by one stage with p- .. ii,, *n,, pT.qi.irv Officer proceeded pwrtt ?ir>" nvt th" cum,, at.ve effect. Para 4 of the statement of dahn ?s mis- r <••••} ;iv. -\ The rnrmiry OTTl^fr Csrf. R- N. Tandon t*ave conceived, basele* and misleading An Air HosCs \ n- 43+0 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVhMiJi K 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART,II—SEC. 3(ii)] quired to perform 5p hours of flying duty in a month. How- fuct the services of the workman were terminated effective ever, due to exigencies of work, thel duty hours can be ex- 1st May,- "1985 after the issue of the show cause notice giving tended upto j maximum of 80 hours. In such case, e.\tru her' sufficient time to reply. Therefore, the statement of Heti- flying pay beyond 50 hours is given lo an Air Hostess d}> lioner/workman that her services were' terminated w.e.f, the Rs! 7.50 pei- holir as |wr the settlement dated 10th Jantiaiy, same date i.e. (he date of issue of show cause notice is abso- 1972. Tt will he peitinem to mention here that the duty hours lutely false. The contents of para 7 of the statement of of an Air Hostess are ] 1 hours in a duy, out of which maxi- ihntn arc wrong and denied. In fact the services of the mum flight time is H hours only, irrespective of Hie fact th;it workman have buein terminated strictly in accordance with whether she is put on a turbo propeller flight or jet air-craft. the standing, .orders concerning discipline & appeals appli- The workman is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal by cable, in the case of the workman and in accordance with depicting an absolutely false picture of facts relating to the the principles of natural justice. It is denied that there IN matter. Even if an Air Hostetis is put on jet flight she has violation of section 25F or 25A or 2(oo) of the Industrial to be on duty lor 11 hours out of which ahe has to under- Disputes Act which provisions in fact have no applicability take 8 hours of (lying duty on the same day. Therefore lo this case. The contents of para 8 of the statement of claim number iof hours of duty of an Air Hostess on Avro or ul are wrong and denied. It is denied that the punishment Jet Aircraft are the same. Depending on the time of flight, awarded lo the workman as a consequence of the domestic even a jet flight may operate from earjy In the morning enquiry was disproportionate or there was any victimisation and/or till late, in the evenings. The workman has slated as alleged. The misconduct committed by the workman is that the work on Avro [lights is beyond human possibility but so grave that she does not deserve any consideration. The she has totally ignored thci fact that the number of passen- content's of paragraph II of the statement ot claim consist- gers in ^uch flights is much less as compared to the jet flight. ing of sub-paras I to 4 are vague and misconceived. 'Die The passengers also regularly undertake the Avro flights and answering management is not responsible in any way lor have no complaint against the same. The Air Hostessess are iuability on i her p^rt to get a job in Air India ajid cannot deputed on jct/avro flights on rotation basis. The workman secure, the same foi her. The averments made ahout the was never deprived of jet flights during her tenure in Delhi. senior officers aic absolutely false and baseless. Rest of the She' in fact attended to her duties for a period of two months contents need no reply. The suit for damages and criminal only and therefore her allegations about the vindictive atti- complainf u/s 499 IPC arc not maintainable in these pro- tude of the Management docs not hold much water as is ceedings. an,d. is beyond the scope of the teims of reference false and baseless. She has concocted all the allegations dated ?7th February, 1988. the contents of paragraph IN against the management in order to cover up her case of dis- of the statement ot claim consisting of sub-paras (1>, 1 and missal from service on account of long unauthorised absence. 1 afe absolutely false, misconceived and denied in totality. Shei was sanctioned leave w.e.f. 15th May, 1983 to 13th Tile workman has concocted the entire story now to cover June. 19R3 arid not w.e.f, Mth Mav. 1983 to 30th June, un her case of dismissal due to major misconduct committed 1983 as mentioned hv lit". The workman remained absent bv her during the course of her employment with Indian imauthorKcdlv effective Mth lune. 19S3 without nny suffi- Airlines Corporation. The allegations against senior officers cient grounds or proper oi satisfactory explanation which and senior staff and Chief Instructress arc false and miscon- she was obliged to submit within n period nf 3 davs from ceived and are denied. The Indian Airlines Corporation had the dale of termination of hetr sanct'oncd leave and the pro- selected her in Scheduled Tribe quota na per ihi- provision* ITCS rc-ort to her health even/ fortnight as per Clause III of rexccvtition pol'cy for the uplift of the backward and down & VT «f th? circular dated 12th .luiv. 1978. She did not trodden. None of. the- officials had any malice townrds her. <~'tv] anv medical certificate or progress report in support On the contrary they always accommodated her and helped nf her .aliened sickness of orthopaedic nature, if any. at the her to learn nnd show upto the mark. Even her request of later stages also. The letter dat>-d 28th July, 1983 about tiansfer to Delhi wns accepted as an exceptional cast, on I'&r vmderpomi: treatment at Hyderabad was received much |- r cornr>assiona(e grounds bui apnarcntlv the workman herself 'atp n fer the cvpirv of the lonve granted to her. Moreover, WHS not interested in trie job. Hut after 2 months of joining before lei^'ne the station, she was surmosed to inform the at Delhi she took leave for 30 days and after thai she rrmnngenient. Ai n renlv to her above letter dated 28th July, started absenting herself from duties unauthorisedly. In addi- 19R3 she wins si-ni a letter dated 3M February. 1984 bv tion to the above, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal wlvch «.h» wnc a^ked lo produce a medical certificate in sup- has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim of the port nf her illness mid to rcnort for dutv immediately. She nrtitioner as no cause of action has arisen at Hyderabad. was hkfi I'nformed that she was, beini* ideated as absent and 1 The rrlir-f nskeid for by the workman cannot be granted bv was thfrfFore". liwb " for disciplinary action. The letter tinted the 'Hon'ble Tribunal since the Hon'ble Tribunal has no 22nd Fcbninrv. - 1"984 wh'eh was received after six months nower vested in it to set aside the order of the termination was also not' accompanied hv imv medical '"ertificute, or npv lawfully mad? in accordance with the service regulations. infor"i;.fron irfirnit the kind of illness. It will be nertincnt to S'nnd'np Order concern", discipline and appeals of the mentioTi hev that thouch vidf let'er dated 22nd February Tndinn Airlines ,T» applicable to the workman and after con- 19RJ she h;id catcTovicMlv stated thai she ha<1 been advised 1 ducting a domestic enquirv in accordance with the ennci- p cdii-Hl ret for r>bnnt ? months on'v. whereas she d'd not i^iev of p:itunil justice. Tn view of the facts and circumstances vntvf frit duiv cert after the ryrvrv of that period ;ind d'-vcribeH, ,and submissions made aboye. it is prayed that the on 1he rontran-, an unsigned letter dnted-fith Jarmnrv, 198"! claim, of the workman be dismissed w;th costs. sent undc" registered A D accomnanvina a medical corti- Ri-nti- dHted 1st August. 1983 was received by the answering 5. The averme-nts of the additional counter filed by the MaTi'^rmcn'i Moreover, n nenisal of Mercv netition dated ^th MPV. 1985 submitted bv the workman to the Managing Respondent read as follows: rvrpcto- ciearlv cstabl'sh-s the fact lhat she was absent from The additional statement of claim filed by the workman dixies .liic to her father's death and her hro1her'« s'ekness cannot be cniertained since she has not submitted any addi- nniv. Rfpardinr para 5 of the siatr-ment of claim, it is sub- tional ground and in fact it happens to be an amendment mitted that a charjie sheet dated 4th July, 1984 was issued to the statement of claim filed bv .her earlier. Therefore, to the workman for unauthorised absence, which was duly unless leave to amemd the Statement of Claim is granted to received by her. She was informed about the holding of the the workman the amended statement of claim cannot be ennuiry v'de Enquiry Officer's letter dated 9th November, taken on record. The additional statement of claim tiled hy 1984. A full proper and fair enquiry was conducted. The the workman it false and frivolous and is an afterthought. enquiry officer provided sufficient opnortunity to the work- She has now on the 7th May. 1988, denied certain facts man to appear before him as may be seen from the pro- which she had expressed in her statement of claim filed some ceedings of the, onquirv and letters were sent in this regard time in Anril 1988. Tt will be pertinent to mention here at all her available addressed on 23rd November. 1984, 14th that the present additional statement of claim is also in- De-.eTibe-r, 1984 & 28th December. 1984. Though, having re- consistent, contrary lo the statement of c1a.mr dated February/ ceived the letters, the workman faiied/negiecied to participate March. 1987 filed bv her before ibe Conciliation Officer. in the t'niuirv and therefore the enulliry officer had no other Hyderabad. S;nce no objection lo this effort was raised by option left but to conduct the eivmirv cxparte in accordamo her enriicr at any period of time either in correspondence with the principles of natural justice. The contents of para (> P wih the ;in4ering respondent or before ^ Conalwt.on of the statement of claim are admitted us c arrect to the cx- Officer. She is now estopped from r.iKmp such frivolous ob- fent that (he woikman WHS issued show cause notice on 4th irct'ons. that no charge sheet was served iroon her or .hat March, 1985 nnd her anneal was rejected which was com- ihV wa not given anv opportunity to tender fltvv explana- municated to; her vide letter dated 2nd August, 1985. Tn- tion or to plead her case before the Enquiry Officer. The 4341 Ilon'hle Tribunal cannot try and entertain the claim filed by and fair enquiry was conducted. The coDtents of preliminary the workman since she was in tho employment of Indian objections (d) and para 5 of reply on merits of the written Airlines Corporation for which the appropriate Government statement dated 6th May, 1988 are reiterated hero for the is the Central Government. Tt is, therefore, submitted that sake of brevity. It is submitted that in view of the work- only Central Government Industrial Tribunal has powers man's baseless submission and after thoughts, the enquiry an 1 jurisdiction to entertain the pit'acnt claim. Without pre- cannot be vitiated, The contents of para 4 of the statement judice to the contentions of the management that the addi- of claim are wrong and hence denied, Because of the nature tional statement of claim cannot be taken on record the Res- of the proved major misconduct, she was dismissed from pondent deals vvith the additional statement of claim para- services and her dismissal cannot be termed as illegal, unjust wise as under : or contrary to the principles of natural justice. As per the clause 16(6) of the Standing Orders concerning discipline RF.PLY ON MKRTTS : and appeals, applicable to her, the misconduct committed by her falls in the' category of major misconduct. Moreover, The contents of preliminary para of the additional state- before awarding the punishment, the Punishing Authority ment of claim filed by the workman arc wrong and denied. considered her past records also. Therefore, in view of the The workman hail filed her statement of claims after taking major misconduct as well as her past record, the punishment all the legal assistance which is evident from the title as of dismissal was/is an proportionate punishment. Regarding well as mentioning: of legal provisions and technical language the contents of para 6 of the statement of claim, it is sub- used. Moreover, during the Conciliation Proceedings also she mitted that thei workman has not mentioned ai to after bow had taken legal assistance. T( will be pertinent to mention many days did she inform the authorities about her sick- here that her statement of claim dated April 1988 is similar ness or sent medical certificate. Moreover, she had expressly to that filed by her before the Conciliation Officer, Hydera- accepted her guilt vide her mercy petition dated 7th May, bad which was drafted by Sri S. Ravindranalh, Advocate, 1985 and 10th July, 1986. It is submitted that in view of 10-3-283/5 HumnyunRar, Hyderabnd-28. Tn the present the workman's misconduct, the management's action cannot additional statement oi" claim, the petitioner has not at all be termed as arbitrary and discriminatory, Tt is denied that submitted any additional ground and in fact the same hap- the charges were of trivcal nature nnd that the punishment pens to be an amendment to her statement of claim filed awarded is totally unjustified. Rest of the contents of the bv her earlier. The contents of Para 2 of the statement of para are irrelevant and need no reply. In view of the facts c-laim are false and baseless. The charge sheet dated 4th mentioned above, the order of dismissal is valid and proper. Tulv. 1984 v,a-< sent under registered A.D. at the following In reply to para 7 of the statement of claim, it is denied addresses, on record :—• that the workman is unemployed since her dismissal and has not been able to secure an alternative employment. The 1. C/o Mr Tilak, workman is gainfully employed. The dismissal order passed B-4/5 M.C.H. Market, is legal without any mala fide intention and based on the. Chikkappalli. principles of natural justice which were followed during trie TTvdcrabad. course of conducting the Enquiry Proceedings. In view of the (2 times). aforesaid submissions the workman has no right to ask for f h 2. 82. North Avenue, setfin" iisi'i- the Inwful orders o dismissal passer! V 'he New Delhi, answering Respondent and to ask for reinstatement with con- tinuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant 3. C/o B. K. Uadha Bai Anand, benefits, since she has been dismissed from service In vlow Ramu Vcnim I'o't Roi, of the proved major misconduct in the enquiry, I fthadraohallam Road, Kothapudem, 6. M.W. 1 was examined for the pet'tionor and petitioner's side was closed. Ex. Wl was marked for the petitioner. Collieries, M.W. 1 to M.W. 3 were examined by the Respondent and Khomingu District, Respondent's s'de was closed. Exs. Ml to M27, 27Ca) and Andhra Prndesh. 1 27(b) were marked for the Respondent. Out of these three' addresses, the aforesaid charce sheet was received by her at address Nos. 2 4' 3. The Management 7. Tho point for adjudication is whether the action of the relics upon the proof of service in this behalf. Similarly, Management of Indian Airlines. New Delhi in terminating the notices of the enmu'ry dated 9(h November, 1984. 23rd Miss Jhansi Rani, Air Hostess from service w.e.f. 4th March, November. 1984 and 14th December. 1984 were) sent to her 1985 is legal/justified? If not, to what reHef the workman under Registered A.D, at the following addresses : concerned is entitled and from what date ? 1. R2. North Avenue. 8. POINT: The facts in dispute are that the peti- New Delhi. tioner has been working as Air Hostess in the Res- pondent Corporation since January, 1979, that tho 2. C/o B. K. Rudha Bai Anand, Rnmn Verum Post Rao, petitioner was sanctioned privilege leave for the Bhadrachailam Rond, period from 15-5-1983 to 13-6-1983, that she failed Kothacudam, to resume to duty thereafter, that she informed the Collieries, Respondent Corporotion in her letter dated 14-6-83 Khomingu District, : Andhra Pradesh, that she was scTc. and that atrain by her letter dt. 28-7-1983 she informed the Respondent Corporation out of the above addresses, the notices were received by her that she was getting herself treated 'at Hyderabad at fh. 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] stay of saaciioned leave without sufficient grounds July, 1978 that Miss Jhansi Rani -ibsenled from duty or proper explanation was incorporated in the charge without prior permission or leave from 14-6-1983 iheet by the Respondent, the misconduct under Sub following the ending of the privilege leave previously Oause 1 of Clause 16 of the ceiiified Standing sanctioned to her, that she did not produce any medi- Orders of the Respondent Corporation was aKo cal certificate within 3 days after 14-6-1983, that she mentioned there'-n, though no material or allegations continued to be absent from duty unauthorisedly till was mentioned in the Ex. M14 charge sheet with the time of her dismissal, that she did not produce any regard to the charge of the misconduct under Sub- fortnightly report at any time as required by the Clause I of Clause 16 of the certified Standing Order Regulations, that for the first time in 1985, she pro- duced a medical certificate alleging that she was sick ye. wilful insubordiinrttion or disobedience whether or in (he yoar 1983, that when an employee leaves the not in combination with others of any lawful nnd station he or she is expected to take the permission reasonable order of his superior. As seen from the ; of the competent authority, that it is so prescribed enquiry proceed nps in Ex. MS and the enquiry report under the Rules, that the rules prescribed for grant of in Ex. M10 no evidence much less material evidence .sick leave and casual leave are Ex. M21 xerox copy, is produced wirb rerrard to the misconuct under Sub-' (hat the workman in question did not give any written Clause 1 of Clause 16 of the certified Stand m<* Orders or oral intimation before she left the station, that and no discussion was made and no finding WPS after the leave sanctioned was over, she sent a letter given by the Entmirv OFficer about thnt misconduct Ex. Ml 7 asking them to mark her sick from 14th in his report in Ex. M10. Whatever it mav he. cx- instant, onwards, that no medical certificate etc. was narte Domestic enquiry conducted in tfv's case hv the enclosed to Kx. Ml7. that likewise no specific period Resnondent Corporation against thr Petitioner w->s i.e. upto what date she wants leave also was not men- hcJd vitiated bv the Order df. 6-12-1989 of this Tri- tioned in Ex. M17, that if an employee falls sick, as bunal. So the question now that falls for con^dern- per the Rules, he or she is expected to approach the tinn '•! whether the Management has nro-"ed the Doctor of Indian Airlines within 2 days, that if it is misconducf said to have been committed bv the Peti- not possible, he or sho must get a certificate from tioner under Sub-Clause 6 of clause 16 of the certified the Registered Medical Practitioner and get it counter- Standing Orders of the Respondent Cornorat'V.n in signed by the Indian Airlines Doctor and submit it to view of th'i evidence adduced on behalf of the R^s- the Management, that the petitioner did not report to rondent after it was held by this Tribunal that the do- any of these things, that, this Ex. M17 dt. 14-6-1983 mestic enquirv conducted against the petitioner wr1*- was received in their office on 13-6-1983 and it was Wtiated. to substantiate the action of Appendix to Evidence Ex. Ml3)22-2-34 Photostat copy ot tnc repre- sentation dt. 22-2-84 made by Miss Jhansi Witnesses examined for the Rani, to the Operation Manager. LA. Nor- thern Region, Delhi with regard to report Respondent-Management. for duty M.W. 1 Capt. R. N. Tandon Ex. M14[4-7-S4 Photostat copy of the charge (before preliminary point) sheet dt. 4-7-84 sent to the workman vm^er Witnesses examiner! i'< > regd. post and by Operations Manager, the Petitioner-work mnn Ex. Ml 5 Photostat copy of the Regd. A.D. let- W.W.I Jhnnsi R ter posted at Hyderabad addrers of Miss Jhansi Rani, received tack with the remarks (before preliminary point) "Party not found". Documents marked for the Management Ex. Ml6 Photostat copy oi? the Regd. A.D, let- Ex, :[VII |l9-10-84 Photostat copy of the Ope- ter posted at Hyderabad address of Miss ration Manner'1; Order dt, 10-10-84 ap- Jhansi Rani received back with the remarks- pointing Cipt. R. N Tandon a:; Enqiriiy "Party out of station.". Officeras Presiding Officer for holding De- M17| 14-6-83 Photostat copy of the letter partmental enquiry against Miss ]br,i:v Ex. dt. 14-6-84 of Jhansi Rani to the Chief Air Rani. Hostess, Indian Airlines, Northern Region, Ex. M2 9-J1-P4 Photostat copy of the Enquiry Delhi with regard to mark her sick from notico Jt. 9-11-84 issued to bo*h the i-ddies 14th instant onwards since her privilege SL-" of Miss Jhansi Rani bv the Enquiry leave is upto 13-6-1983. Officer. Ex. Ml8|6-1-85 Photostat copy of Ihe un-si^md Ex. M3 Photostat copy of the rickrowledg.-mriV letter dt. 6-1-85 of B.A. Jhansi Rani to" the received from Miss Jhansi Rani. Opeations Manager, Indian Airlines, Nor- thern region. Now Delhi. Ex. M4|23-11-8-1 Photostal copy of the (-Vm'iv Notice rit. ?.3-l 1-84 iss(v::1 to both the ad- Ex. Ml9 Piioiostat copy of the acknowledgement d'-ess of Ms, Jhansi Rani by (he Enquiry card addressed to Jhansi Rani. Officer. Ex. M20| 12-7-78 Photostat copy of the procedure Ex. M5 Photostat copy of the acknowledgement for grant of leave dt. 12-7-78. received from Miss .lhansi Rnni. Ex. M21J11-9-1974 Photostat copy of the staff Mf>'14-12-84 Photostat copy of Ihr F.nqnr Ex. notice dt 11-9-74 with regard to srant of notice dt I4-12-S4 issued to both ihe ad- r !ri sick-privilege leave on grounds- of sickness drosses of Miss- Jliansi R;mi by (V- 7"n rr ' and grant of casunl leave. Officer. Ex. M7 Photostat copy of the acknowledgement Ex. M22 Photostat copy of the standing orders received from Miss Jhnnsi Rani. of Indian Airlines, Corporation, Head- quarters notification. Ex. M8 Photostat copy of the Enquiry Proceed- ings. Ex. M23[ 1-5-85 Photostate copy of the dismis- sal order dt. 1-5-85 sent to Miss. B. A. Ex. M9|23|29-l-S5 Photostat copy of the En- Jhansi Rani by Regd. A. D1, by the Regio- quiry .Officer's letter dt. 23)29-1-85 sen! nal Director, Indian Airlines, Northern Re- to the workmen with regard to, enquiry. gion 124 fanpath, New Delhi, Ex. M1OJ23-1-85 Photnstr.it coov of the Enquiry Ex. M24120[21-4-85 Photostat copy of the repre- report dt. 23-1-85. sentation dt. 20J2I-4-85 made by B. A Jhansi Rani to the Regional Director, Indian T Ex, Mll|28-7-81 Photostat copv of the exten- Airlines 124 Janpalh, Thapar Hour.e NC .V sion leave application of Miss Jhansi Pani, Delhi. addressed to th^ Operations Manpger, Tn- E*;. M15.I7-5-85 Photostat copv of the Mercy dian Airlines, Northern Region, Delhi. Petitpon of B. B. Jhansi Rnni dt. 7-5-1985 addressed to the Managing DTrecfor, IncTfa'iT Ex, M12l3-?-S4 Photostat c"onv of the Oncration Airlines, Norther a Region. Member's letter dt. 3-2-84 nddre-sed +o f^ worVrnan advising her to Produce n Mrdi Ex. M26! 10-7-86 Photostat copy of the rnoiVr cal Certificate in 'supnort of ^ckness and to Mci\; petition it. M)-7-198(5 of B.A. Jhansi report for duty immediately and i^o ^dv's- Rani, addrasvej to th- Operations Mana- ing her that she is being treated as abvn' ger, Northern Region, Indian Airlines New and liable for disciplinary action. Delhi 4348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)] Ex. M27|5-9-79 Phoiostat copy of the confirma- tion report dt. 5-9-89 pertaining to Miss B. A. Jhansi Rani. Ex. M27u'i) PhotJKtat copy of the arrpra^a! form for non-technicians staff-Grade. III to IX apar.iiisiil for the period from 1-7-83 lo 30-6-84 pertaining to Miss B.A. Jhsn-1 MINISTRY OF LABOUR Rani. New Delhi the 17th October, 1991 Ex. M27(b) Photostat copy of tlic appraisil form iiom nor-technicians Staff Grades IT S.O. 2842.—T;i exercise of the powers conferred to IX Appraisal for the period from 1-7-8? by section 5 of the Beedi Workers Welf;ire Fund to 30-6-83 porrai'niniT to Miss B.A. Jhansi Act. 1976 (62 of 1976) read with sub-rule (2) of Rani. rule 3 of the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund RuDes, l'»78. the Central Government hereby appoints the Documents marked for the Petitioner-workman. rnllowiiiTi persons as members of the Advi>~rv Com- mittee for Beedi Workers Welfare Fund for (he Ex. Wl[5-4-83 Xerox copy of the le'ter dt. State of Madhya Pradesh :— 5-4-83 submitted by Miss- Jhansi Rani, Aii 1. Smt. Jayshrce Banerjee, Hostess to the Director of Operation?, ]n- Member of I ee^lative Assembly. dian Airlines, New Delhi. Jabalpur. 2, ShH Gancsh Prasad Koshli, Koshti Mohailla, Kamathward, Gadarwara, District Narsingpur. and for that purpose further amends noHficnt'on or the Govemment of India, in the Ministry of T ab- our No. S.O. 3581 dated the 2O'hl23rd December, 1984. nubiishc-1 at paces 3?.67-32CiR of Hi;- Gn/e'te of India, P'irt II. sect:nri 3, mb-sfction (ii) dated tb- lOMi November. 1984, rs follows:-- In the ^m:d notifiration. for serial numbers 4 aivi f T 7 and thc. cn'ries rc-lntintr thereto, the n11owin'. •jball respectivdy, be substituted, namely:— "4. Smt, lavshree Baneriee, Memher of Legislative Assembly, Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur. —Member 7. Shri Gpnedi Prasad Koshti, Koshti Ma'iaila, Kanmthwfird. Godarwnra, Emnlovees" District Ncrsin.Kpur. Reprcrentative" ]\To. l>loni?i1|R7-*VTT(^V 4349 4. Shri Srichand Kripalani. Member of State M.L.A., —Legislature. Nimbera. (Member). 5, Shri C.S. Jain, Vice-Pre>iidenf, —Member Messcrs Associated Stone —representing Industries, Ramganj Mandi, owners. District Kota. 6. Shri Rakcsh Sharma, Membei Personnel Managar, —representing J.K. Cement Workers, owneis. Nimbehra, (Rajasthan). 7. Shri Cori Shankur Besana,—Member Chief Secretary, —representing Rashtriya Ma?door Sangh, employees. Ramganv Mandi, Kota, (Rajasthan). 8. Shri Muslim Khan, Member President, —representing Sarm Limestone Mazdoor Sangh employees Care R.S.M.D.C., Jaisalmer, (Rajasthan). 9. Smt. Tara Bhandari, Member M.L.A. —representing Sirohi. women. 10. Welfare Administrator, Bhilwara. —Secretary. 2. The headquarters of the said AdivisOTy Com- mittee shall be fit Bhilwara. [No. U-19012|2|89'-W.II(C)l S.O. 2843.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Limestone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972 (62 of 1972) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 3 and rule 18 of the Limestone and Dolumite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Rules 1973, the Central Government hereby constitutes the Advisory Committee for Limestone and Dolomite Mints Labour Welfare Fund for the State of Rajasthan and appoints the following per- sons to the said Commitee, namely:—- 1. Labour Minister, Government of Rajasthan, —Chairman 2. Welfare Commissioner, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, —Vice-Chairman Bhilwara, (ex-officio). 3. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). —Member Ajmer. (ex-officio). 4350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 1991/KART1KA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3fii)l 4351 S.O. 284^.—la excrcis; of the powers conferred by section 6 of ihe Iron Ore Mines, Managanese Ore Mines and Cluome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1976 (61 of 1976) read with sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Iron Ore Mines, Manganese Ore Minus and Chronic Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1978, the Central Government hereby constitutes the Central Advisory Committee consist- ing of the following members, namely:— 1. Deputy Minister for Labour, —Chairman Government of India, New Delhi. Members Representing Government: 2. Additional Secretary, —Vice-Chairman Ministry of Labour, (ex-oflicio) New Delhi. 3. Director General (Labour Welfare;, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. 4. Welfare Commissioner (Headquarters), Ministry of Labour", New Delhi. 5. Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, 555-A 2, New Mumfordganj, Allahabad-211 002. G- Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, 44-A, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 7. Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, 33, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-75] 009. 8. Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, 75, Millers Road, Banaglore-560 052. 9. Welfare Commissioner, Labour1 Welfare Organisation, Block V (Ground Floor) Central Pool Officc Accommodation Com- plex. (Near Government Maternity Hospi- tal), Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-500 195. 4352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 199i/KARIikA 18, 1913 LPART 11—SEC. 3yi)] 10. Welfare Commissioner, 21. Shri V.K. Verma, Labour Welfare Organisation, Senior Manager (IR;, 44, Narrnada Road, Steel Authority ot India Ltd., Jabalpur-482 001. lspat Bhavan, Lodi Road, 11. Welfare Commissioner', New Delhi-110 003. Labour WeU-are Organisation, I'.O. Jhumruelaiya, Shri M.K. Venugopal, District Hazaribagh, Manager (Personnel), Karrua-829137, Managanese Ore (India) LUl, 3, Mount Road Extension, 12. •Welfare Commissioner, Nagpur-440 001. Labour W'cltare Organisation, 5, Central Bazar, Road, 23. Shri O.K. Sarin, Nagpur-440 010. Joint Director (1R), Raw Materials Division, 13. Welfare Commissioner, Steel Authority of India Lta, Labour. Welfare Organisation, lspat Bhavan, 162, Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Road, Lodi Road, Calcutta-700 026. New Delhi-HO 003. Mrmbers Rcpicsenteing Employers: 24. Shri K. S, Sahoo, 14. Shri J.K. Bhaitacharya, Deputy General Manugcr (Adm.;, Cahuinan-cmn-Managing Director, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar-751 001. Bhabancs,war-751 001. 25. Shri C. R. Mohapatra, li. Shri P.R. Merh, General Manager (MPj, Executive Director, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Raw Material Division, Bhubaneswar-751 001. Steel Authority of India Ltd, Member Representing Employees : Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhas Road 20. Shri P. K. Banerjee, 2nd Eloor, C|o Noamundi Mazdoor Union, Cakutta-700 001. At & P.O. Noamundi, District Singnbhuui (Bihar). 16. Shri M. Kumar, Director (Production), 27. Shri B.C. Das, National Mineral Development Corpora- General Secretary, tion Limited, T1SCO SukhJnda Chromite Mine Workers Khanij Bhawan, Union, 10-3-31 ljA Castle Hills, P.O. Kalaringhata, Masab Tank, Via J.K. Road, Hyderabad-500 028. District Cuttack (Orissa). 17. Shri Saligram Singh, 28. Shri N.K. Bhatt, General Manager (Mines), Vice-President, Bolani Ore Mines, Indian National Mineworkers Federation, Bolani. D-32, Tara Apartments, 18. Shji D. K. Sahni, Kalkaji, General Manager (Operation), New Delhi-110 019. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., 3, Mount Road, Extension, 29. Dr. Sudhakar Kulkarni, Nagpur-440 001. Bharatiya Mazdoor Songh, Ram Narcsh Bhavan, 19. Shri Man Mohan Singh, Tilak Gali, Chief Personnel Manager, Paharganj, National Mineral Development Corpora- New Delhi-110 055. tion Ltd., Khanij Bhavan, 30. Shri Ifcbcndra Sahu, 10-3-311|A Castle Hills, Sukinda Upatyaka Mines Workers Union, Masab Tank, P.O. Sukinda, Hyderabad-500 028. District Cuttack, Orissa. 20. Shri A. S. Malhotra, Chief (Human Resources Department), 31. Shri Satya Priya Mahanti, Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Workers & Peasants Hoirsc, 3, Mount Road Extension Rourkela-769 00J, Nagpur-440 001. Orissa. 4353 32. Shri Purnendu Mazuindar, General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines and torest Workers Union (Red Flag), P.O. Chukiudharpur (Bihar). 33. Shri Christoper Fonseca, General Secretary, Goa Mines and Gcncial Workers Union, Velhos Building, 2nd Floor, Near Municipal Gardt,n, P.O. Panjim (Goa). 34. Shri P.K. Patnaik, Rourkeia Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Barsoia Iron Minos, Post Tensa, District Sunderg'aih (Orissa). 35. Shri M-P- Pandey, Secretary, Bastcr Khadan Mazdoor Sangh. 2fi}L New Colony, P.O.' Kirandul-494 556, District Bastar (M.P.). 36. Sliri Indramani Behra, Clo Orissa State Committee of CITU, Plot No. 251, Kharvel Nagar, Unit 3, Bhubaneswar-751 001. 37. Smt. Mayobi Deep, Secretary, Bharatiya Mangnize Mazdoor Sangh. B.M.S. Office, Post Ukwa, District Balaghat (M.P.V 38. Welfare Administrator (Headquarters). Ministry of Labour, . Secrutar> New Delhi. [No. U-2301111|88-W.JIiC)l New Delhi, the 24 October, I 991 S.O. "845. --In exercise of the powus conferred by section 5 of the Be&di Workers Wi;lf;uc Fund ,\ct, 1976 (62 of 1976) read v\ itli sub-rule (2) of rule 3 and rule 16 of the Beedi Workus Welfare Fund RuU-s, 1978, the Central Government hereby consti- tutes the Advisory Committee for Beedi Woktrs Welfare Fund for the State of West Bengal and app- oints the following persons to the said Committee, namely:— . Minisur-in-ehnrgi; of Clminiuin Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. 1 4354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOY'tM'U >< <- 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)J 2. Welfare Commissioner, Vict-Chairman Lab ,ur Welfare Organisation, (tx-ofljcio) Ministry of Labour, Government of lmUa. Calcutta, 3. Additional L-ib.uir Mcmbt"'a pre- O'm.Tiissioiux, senting the G ivenirai.nt ofWt.it Bengal State Gov< ir- ment (tx-officio) 4. Shii Abul Hasur.iit, Member of tin. M.L.A., West Bengal Farakka. State Legisla- ture (Member) 5, Shri An and Paul, Member repre- C/o R.T. Paul, senting owners P.O. A'irangabad, MU'-shidabad. 6. Siiri Anil Kumar Das, MenibU' reprc- b.O. 2846.—In exercise of the powers conferred Managing Director. sontiiij! I-wni. i ^ by section 5 of the Bcedi Workers Welfare Fund M;ssr:, Mrirutlini Bin Act, 1976 (62 of 1976) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 3 ol the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Rules, M ixiufacturing Company iy78, the Central Government hereby makes the (Pvt). Ltd., iollowing amendment in the notification ol the Gov- A'jrangabad, ernment of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. 2070 Distt. Murshidabad. dated the 10th August, 1989' published in the Gazette of India dated the 2nd September, 1989 Part 7. Siiri Janab Huruayun Reza, Member repie- II, section 3, sub-section(ii) at page 2567 namely:— M.L.A., senting General S.cvtary, employees In the said notification, for serial number 4 und Jangipar Mahakuma Biri the entry relating thereto, following shall be substi- Sliramik Union tuted, namely :— (BPNTUC), "4. Shri Dilipsinh Jawansinh Thakor, I 77/B, AJ.C Basu Road, Member of Legislative Assembly, Calcutta-16. At Post Chhipdi, Taluka Kapadvanj, S. Shri Md. Nizajnuddin, Member District Kheda. ... Member.'" CITU, representing Shramik Bhavan, employees [No. U-19O12!3;87W.U(C)| 53, AJ.C, Basu Road, Culcntta-I 6. 9. S:ut. Y\rati Dasgupta, Member Sliramik Bliramik Bhavar, representing 53, AJ.C, women Basu Road, Calcutta-16. 10. Welfare Administrator, Secretary Labour Welfare Organisation, Calcutta. 2. The headquarters of the said Advisory Com- mittee shall be at Calcutta. [No. U-190I2/I3/90-W. II (C,l 4:55 titutes the Advisory Committee for the State vl Kai- nut.'.ka consisting of tlu- following munbtrs, ruiuW: 1. Minister of Labour, Cluiimiiin Govci'11 nii'itt o 1" Kamau.kt1. Welfare Cr-mmissionr. Vice-Ch:'ii man frou Or., Manganese Ore and (eve frieio) Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Organisation, Bangalore. .1. Rational Labour Mtmbi r Commissioner (Central). (tx-oflieii ) Bangalore 4. Director, Memuor Directorate of Mints Safety. (cx-c L cio) Oorgaum Region, P.O. Oorfeaum, (fCarnataka). 5. SJiri M. Shankar Re-ddy. Member M.L.A.. Sirguppa. 6. Shri Kartikeya M. GIiorpr.de,~l General Manager (Mires), | The Sandur Manganese ard hoi, Ores Limited, Ueogiri Post-58?. 112, | Via Sandur, District Bellarv. Employers' 7. Shri S.V. Raghulu, y Representatives Minitif Hngineer and Mines Owner, Hospet. 1 8. S"iri Mur.ccr Ahmed, Mines Owner. K.araUipur Post | Hospet Taluk, I District BelKiry. J Employees' Representatives "j 9. Shri K. Scmappa, [ So TC ary, 1 SM1ORE Workers Union, 1 Dtoftiri Post-583 112. 1 Via Sundur, y District Bfllary. i 10. Shri Gudusab. Ex-M.L-A., 1 Sri Ramulu Nagar, [ Behind Rama Talkies, 1 Hospet, District Bellary. 11. Shri Metj PampapatM, }\t Post Rampanayakanahaili, | Hospet Taluk, 1 District Belhry. J S.O. 2847.—In exercise of the powers 2. Smt. Shanlha. conferred by section 5 of the Iron Ore Mines. Manga- W/o of Shri Mallappa nese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labrur Wel- H:l:tlinavr, Wojiian fare Fund Act, 1976 (61 of 1976), read with sub-ruU- C/c M.H. Halannavr. Representati\i. (2) of rule 3 of the Tron Ore Mines. Manganese Ore Advocate, Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fi nd House Near Old S.B.I.. Riles, 1978, the Central Government hereby cons- Muddebhihal. 4;,ir, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9. 1991/KAR11KA 18, 1913 [PART 1.L—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 w Wdfa-e Administrator, "Whether the action cf th'e management of Lab niv Wslfaiv OrganisaLior., Secretary Moonidih Project of Messrs Bharat Coking Banjul: re. Coal Limited, in not promoting Shri R. p. Singh from clerical Grade-1 to Special Grade from the date when his juniors were promot- 1 2. Ihj Central Govcrrim.nl hereby hxts Benga- ed, is justified ? If not, to what .relief is the lorj lo be the h.'adqviimrs of the Advisory Q m- said workman entitled ?" mittL'C, [No. U-I9O12/10/88-W.II (C)J 2. Tli^ case of the employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project of Mjs. Bharat V.D. NAGAR. Under Secy. Coking Coal Ltd., as disclosed in the written state- ment, details apart, i* as follows : The present refeience is misconceived in as much as R, P. Singh, the workman concerned, was not an employee of Moonidih Project as on the date of reference. Besides the management of Moonidih Pro- ject did not promote any clerk junior to R. P. Singh to the post, of clerical special grade when Sri Singh vas employed in Moonidih Project. Anyway, R. P. Singh was a clerk Grade-11 in Dharmaband Colliery within the jurisdiction of Area III (Govindpur Area) of M|s. B.C.C. Lid- He was holding the same post at time of nationalisation of the colliery on 1-5-72. In December, 1976, he was transferred as crerk New Delhi, the 21st October, 1991 Grade-11 ftromi Dharmaband Colliery to Moonidih - S.O. 2848.—In pursuant of section 17 of the Project which was entirely a different project not con- Industrial Disputes Ad, 1947 (14 of 1947), the nected with Govi-ndnur Area in the normal course as Central Government hereby publishes the award of the employees of Ml?. B.C.C.L W'Te|are transferable the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, among various collierieMestahiishments. Moonidih Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Project does not form a Dart of any area of M[s. dispute between the employers in relation tn Ihe inin- B.C.C. Ltd- The dispute relating to the demand of the agement of Moonidih Project of M|s. B.CC.L. and sponsoring union, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sanch their workmen, which was received by the Central (hereinafter referred as R.C.M.S.) for placing Sri Government on 14-10-91. Sinch in Clerk Grade-T on the ground that he was discharginc the duties of loading supervisor for a long ANNFXURF. time was referred to arbitration of SjSbri G. D. Pandey, Secretary of R.C.M.S. and A. P. Siriha, the BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- then Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (Executive Estab- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD lishment, of Mrs. B.C.C, Ltd. This was not an arbi- In the matter of a reference under Section 10(1) tration under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes fd) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Act. However, the arbitrators, after hearing pariiev trave divergent awards and in the circumstances the Referent No. 30 of 1983 matter should have been referred to an Umpire. But PARTIES : instead r/f nnvintr recourse to n reference of the matter to the umnire. if wis negotiated mutually between the Fmplnyers in relation to the management of mpnac^ment and the union nnd the settlement was Moonidih Project of Mis. B.C.C. Ltd. arrived rit under the Industrial Disputes Act on AND 19-7-81 in tprniic of which it wa* aerced thnt Sri Sinch would be placed in clerk Grade-T with restronective Their workmen effect from 1-1-75 an Sineh. Na+urailv, there- cate. fore h" wn'jir) bnvr tn ^VP his rhnnce for promotion For the workmen . Shri J. D. Lall, Advocate. to the revt biffher erode i.e. snecial prade under the »->rrimntion ni1ec nf thp rnnnnermcnt Tn^i^h wc^ fim- STATE : Bihar INDUSTRY : Coal licprf in Tim/- 1077 in rm-iiwion with thf different Dated, the 30th September, 1991 '•••rincinii tf-irl^ ijninn^ Fiinrtionirff rm the- Central Consultative Co.nmttfec of Mis. B CC r,fd. The union AWARD hv letter dated ^9-4-8? nddreNsed to Asstt. Labour ^ommksioin^r CCental). Dhanhad-TT claimed that. By Order No. L-20O12f147V82-D.TTIfA), dated, 1 the 16thl28tb April, 1983, the Central Government "'K refsons iunior to R. T>. Sinph in clerical Grade-T in the Ministry of Labour, has, in exercise of the wi're earlier nromotcd -ifUif 1-7-75 to clerical Sner;a1 powers conferred by clause (6) of sub-section (1) of GnrJe and h^ "honld be mven nromo^'on from the section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, refer- ^IHP dntc ns h^s iunior". Th" mnnneement exninin- red the •fbilovvin? dispute for ndjudicafion to this Tri- ^ Mie position to the A'.in. Labour Commissioner bunal . (C). Dhnnbad, that 5s far Govindpur Area is con- 4357 cerned those six persons who were promoted, were B.C.C.L. in 1976 in the post of Loading Supervisor all senior to K. i\ bingli. It was CApimned mat no one in which the concerned workman was employed. The was junior to K. t, amgn or wnose date or promotion action of the management of M|s. BCCL is arbitrary to Uie clerical grade-i was laicr man Z1-1Z-/4 was and illegal and the workman has to suffer financial and promoted 10 Clerical Orade special ahcr i-1-19/5. consequential losses for no fault on his part. The It will be evident that in the context ol facia and concerned workman should be allowed the benefit arcumsiances o^ the case Sri Singh has not been of promotion to Olenical Special Grade with effect superseded by any junior employee holding the post from 1-1-1981. in Clerical Grade-1 at Moomdih Project. Jb-romotions 4. In rejoinder to the written statement o1? the at this, level are not on the basis of seniority only as 1 ( per promotion rules of the management but merit is sponsoring union, the mruiogctneuf, hrs sf-c \->t also takun into the account for selection. Six clerks the modalities of preparation of seniority list and the Tine concerned workman is a permanent employee R.C.M.S. raise dispute relating to the demand for of the management in clerical grade in the post of placing the concerned workman in Clerical Grade-I loading supervisor in Moonidih Project and since on the ground that he was discharging the duties 1-1-75 he was paid clerical Grade-I time scale of pay- of Loading Supervisor for long. The dispute was refer- ment and emoluments. In terms of the cadre scheme red to arbitration of S|Shri G. D. Pandtiy, Secretary in BCCL an employee in a particular grade will be of the R.C.M.S. and A. P. Sinha, the then Deputy entitled in a seniority list of the same grade and) the Chief Personnel Manager (Executive Establishment). same seniority list will be revised every year and in the The arbitrators rendered divergent awards over the event of promotions |upgradations the individuals dispute and thereafter negotiation ensuedi between the would be entitled to the lame benefit according to the management and R.C.M.S. and a settlement was seniority list of the clerical cadre. Accordingly, the arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act on concerned workman should be deemed to have been 29-7-1981 in terms ofwhich it was agreed that Shri in clerical gradc-T with effect from 1-1-75 and in the Singh would be placed in Clerical Gradc-T with re- next promotion he should have been given clerical trospective effect from 1-1-75 and hat the dispute Snccial Grade since in M|s. B.C.C Ltd such posts would be deemed to have been resolved fully. (Loading Supervisors') nfc in Clerical Special Grade. Sometime in 1981 the management have promoted 7. At the time when the dispute was settled Sri several Clerical Grade-I employees of 1975 batch to Singh wiis posted in Moonidih Project. The present Clerical Special Grade but the concerned workman reference was made on 3-5-83 when Sri Singh seemed was left O"t for the reasons best known to the man- to have been posted to Putkee Belhari Project of Mis. agement. The workman himself as well as the union B.C.C. Ltd. Tn the con'ext of these facts the manage- on his behalf made several representations before the ment has; contended that he present reference is not management, but to no avail. The management pro- competent since at the time when the dilute was motcdtuDKf&ded several employees from Clerical raised Sri Sineh was no loncei1 employed under Moonl- <3rade-T to Clerical Special Grade who joined M|s. dih Project. In my view, this contention is absolutely 4358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBJ R ) 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II~SEC. 3(ii)J baseless and without any merit. Sri Singh was not transferred to Pu'kec Bolihari Project on his own choice, but at the instance of the management. Hence, the management cannot by any stretch of imagination deny him any benefit which was available to him while he was working in Moom'dih Project. These projects and nreus have come into being for the convenience of the adminiftra'ion of the management and the workmen have rnt no hand in it and they remain the S.O. 2849.^In pursuance of section 17 of the In- employees or Mis. B.C.C. Ltd. working in different dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 oi 1947), the Cenrral areas, projects and collieries. Government hereby publ'shes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. J), Dhanbad as 8. Anyvir.y, the rase of ii is me case or me sponsoring union tnai me con- is an illeterate Adivasi workman and hence it cannot cerned workman fell ill and informed the management be expected of him that he should have as much so- of his illness by letter sent by post on 5-2-83 with a phistication as an ordinary literate man is expected to request for grant of leave on account of his illness have. and that he sent further letters to the management by post on 7-3-91, 11-4-83, 9-5-83, 5-7-83, 22-9-83 It appears that the Enquiry Officer did not disbe- and 10-10-83. It has been asserted by the union that lieve the fact that the concerned workman was ill the concerned workman was served with a chargeshect but since he could not give any explanation regarding in November, 1983 when he reported for duty after his absence from 4-2-83 to 14-3-83 and in the pro- recovery from lhness. The management has denied cess he was absent for more than ten months (al- that the chargesheet was served on him in November, though he sent information on 22-9-82 and 10-10-83), 1983. It appears from the chargesheet that it was he held h'm guilty of the charge levelled against him. dated 20J24J8-83 (Ex. JVl-lj. Trie chargesneet dis- I have already held that the concerned workman did closes "that "since the concerned workman absented not remain absent from duty without any satisfactory from duty from 4-2-83 without authorised leave|per- cause- He also provided information to the manage- mibsion or intonation which amounted to misconduct ment about his illness and prayed for grant of leave of continuous absence without permission or without till his recovery. In the circumstances, I hold that the satisfactory cause for ten days under Clause 17(,i)(n) management is not just'fied in dismissing him from appl.cable to Coal Mines Industry and he was direc- service with effect from 18-1-1984 (und not 16-1-84). ted to explain within 48 hours lrom the date of re- He is entitled to be reinstated in service, but since he ceipt of the chargesheet as to why disciplinary action has failed to inform the management about his illness should not be taken against him (Ext. M-J). Tlicie is in time, he is not entitled to get full back wages. In no evidence on record as to when that chargesheet my view, the ends of justice will be met if he is awar- was served on the concerned workman. It has been ded 40% of his back wages from the date of his dis- asserted by the i^omoring union tuat it was t,erveJ m missal from service till he resumes his duty. November, 1983. Anyway, in reply to the chargesheet thte concerned workman stated that he went to village 11. Accordingly, the follow;ng award is rendered home on casual leave, fell ill there and was admitted the action of the management in dismissing Shri Aklu in the hospital mid sent information to the manage- Kole, underground loader of Chapapur-IJ Colliery of ment by letter dated 17-3-83 sent under registered Nirsa Area of M|s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Dhanbad, post. with effect from 10-1-84 is not justified. The mana- gement is d;rectcd to reinstate him in service within 16. In his reply to the chargesheet the concerned one month from the date of publication of he award workman stated that he was undergoing treatment in and pay him 40% of his back wages from the date hosp.tal, but he produced a certificate from a private of his dismissal from service till he resumes his duty medical practitioner dated 12-11-83- (Ext. M-5). The with continuity of service. certificate bears oui that the concerned workman was suffering from Koch's abdoman since 15-3-83 and In the circumstances of the case, I award no cost. was advised rest. The certificate further discloses that he was fit to resume duty. It bears the L.T.I, of the S. K. MITRA, Presiding OlTker concerned workman. [No. L-2OO12|41|88-D.II1(A)|IR(C.1)1 Shri B. K. Ghosh, authorised representative of the sponsoring union has submitted that the concerned workman is an illeteratc Adivasi workman and he has no sophistication to discern between hospital and the chamber of a private medical practitioner. Shri R .S. Murtby has not disputed that the concerned is an Adivasi workman- It appears that he is an illeterate workman. Considering these facts I am constrained to hold that there is much force in the submission of Shri Ghosh when he has submitted that the concerned workman has not sophisticatien to distinguished bet- ween hospital and the chamber of the private mediacl practitioner. It appears that he sent intimation to the manage- ment about his illness by letters dated 22-9-83 (Ext. M-6) and 10-10-83 (Ext. M-7). In both these letters he prayed for leave with effect from 17-3-83 on the New Delhi, the 23rd October, 1991 ground of illness till his recovery. S.O. 2850.—In pursuance of Section 17 f the In- The medical certificate produced by the concerned dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central workman indicates that he was suffering from Koch's Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- abdomen and the doctor advised him to take com- tral Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad plete rest. This being so, it is clear that he did not as shown in the Anncxure in the industrial dispute absent himself from duty without any satisfactory between the employers in relation to the management cause. Then again, he provided information to the of AngamPthra Colliery of Mis. B.CC.L. and then management about his illness although not as expedi- workmen which was received by the Central Govern- tiously as desired. But it must not be forgetten that he ment on the 14-10-91. 4361 ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) Af DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947. REFERENCE NO. 311 OF 1986 New Delhi, the 22nd October, 1991 S.O. 2851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- PARTIES : dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- Employers in relation to the management of tral Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Bombay Angarpathra Colliery of Mjs. Bharat Coking as shown in the Anncxurc, ir: the industrial dispute Coal Limited. the employers in relation to the management of Tel- AND com Factory, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-10-91 • Their Workmen, ANNEXURE APPEARANCES : BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT On behalf of the workmen : Shri S-N. Goswami, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT BAMBAY (PRESIDING OFFICER : JUSTICE S. N. KHATRI) Advocate. REFERENCE NO. CGIT-45 OF J991 On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advo- cate. PARTIES : h Employers in relation to the Management of STATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Coal. Tclcom Factory, Bombay, Dated, Dhaubad, the 30th September, 1991 AND AWARD Their Workmen. APPEARANCES : The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of he powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) For the Management : Shri P.M. Masurkar, Adv. (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following For the Workman : None present. dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their INDUSTRY : Telecommunication Order No. L-20012(149)|86-D.I11(A), dated, the 20th STATE : . =' 3 Maharashtra. August, 1986. Bombay, dated the 30th September. 1991 SCHEDULE AWARD "Whether the action of the management of The Central Government has referred the following Angarpathra Colliery of M|s. Bharat Coking industrial dispute to this Tribunal under section 10 of Coal Limited, in dismissing from service the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication; their workman Shrimati Dukhiya Bhuini, "Whether the management of Telecom Factory, Wagon Loader from 7-2-1895 was justi- Deonar, Bombay are justified in denying the fied ? If not, to what relief is the said work- incentive payment to 13 workmen promoted man entitled ?" from unskilled to Semi Skilled category (as per the Annsxure) from iie date they were 2- In this case both the parties appeared and filed promoted ? If not, what relief are these their respective W.S. documents. Thereafter the case workmen entitled to ?" proceeding along its course. Subsequently both the parties appeared and submitted before me a petition 2. The All India Post and Telegraphs Industrial For passing 'No dispute' Award on the ground that the Workers Union has not put in appearance on the last concerned workman in the present industrial dispute two dates. They have in fact refused service of notice died during the pendency of the reference and there twice- It appears that they arc not interested in prose- is no genuine dependent to claim any relief on her cuting the reference. Today also they have remained behalf and accordingly the sponsoring union agreed absent. In the circumstances, I dismiss the reference to drop the dispute hi overall settlement. for want of prosecution. No orders as to costs. S. N. KHATRI, Presiding Officer Since the union has agreed to drop the dispute and there is no dispute existing between the employers and [No. L-40011|22|90-TR(RU)(Pt)] the workmen, I am constrained to pass a 'No dispute' Award in the reference. B. RAM, Presiding Officer [No. L-20012| 149|86-D.IIT(A) fIR(C).I)] K. J. DYVA PRASAD, Desk Officer. 4362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVLMBkK 9, 1991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J , S.O. 2852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, iy47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal No. 2 Bombay as shown m tne Anncxurc, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement oi; india Govt Mint, Bombay and tlieir workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 11-10-91. ANNEXURE S.O, 2853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (4 of 1947;, the Cen- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT BOMBAY tral Government hereby publishes the award of the PRESENT : Jndustri-al Tribunal, Madras as shown in the Annc- Shri P,D. Apshankar, Presiding Officer. xure, in the industrial dispute between the employers, Reference No. CGIT-2|28 of 1991 in relation to the management of Biological Labora- tory & Animal House, Madras and their workmen, PARTIES : which was received by the Centrak Government on" The employes in relation L> the Management of 14-10-91. India Government Mint, Bombay. ANNEXURE AND BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL Their Workmen NADU, MADRAS APPEARANCES : Tuesday, the 30th day of July, 1991 For the management : Shri B. M. Masurkar Ad- Present vocate. THIRU M. GOPALASWAMY, B.Sc., B.LL., For the workmen : No appearance. Industrial Tribunal. INDUSTRY : Mini STATE . Maharashtra Bombay, dated the 30th September, 1991 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 17 of 1988 AWARD (In the matter of dispute for adjudication under The Central Government by their order No. section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, L-JoUl l|/jyu-iK(,JL»U) Uuted y-5-199L have reler- 1947 between the workman and the management oi" icd tlie roitowing industrial dispute to this Tribunal Government Medical Stores Deptt, Madras.) ior adjudication under section iU(l)(ti) of the Jn- dustnai Disputes Act, 1947. BETWEEN "Whether the action of ihe management of India Thiru D. Ramesh, Government Mint in differentiating the No. 159, Ashok Nugaf, Ammbakkara near MMDA quantum of the (incentive to the workman Colony, of Examining in the Examining and Un- Madras--600106. current Deptt. for the month of December, 19S?, January, 198S and February 1988 AND and the workmen of Sorting in the Annel- ing and Coining Department for the month The Director, ot December, 1987 and January, 1988. is Biological Laboratory & Animal House, justified ? 11' not, what relief the workmen Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, are entitled to V" Govt. of India, 37, Naval Hospital Road, 2. The notices were issued to both the parties. Accordingly the representative ol the management Pcriiamct, GMSA Campus, Madras. appeared before this Tribunal on 7-6-1991 and on the REFERENCE: Order No. L*42012| U2|87-D.II(Bj, subsequent dates. The notice of the reference was dated 6-3-1988 of Ministry of Labour, duly served upon the President of the Union on Government of India, New Delhi. 17-5-1991. However, he remained absent on 17-6-1991, 17-7-1991, 19-8-1991 and on 6-9-1991, Another notice was also issued to the President of This dispute af'er remand coming on for final hear- Union, and it was duly received by him on 23-S-1991. ing on Tuesday, the 16th day of July, 1991 upon- However, he remained absent as above. pcrusing the reference claim and counter statements 3. The burden was upon the union to prove that and all other material papers on record and upon the action of the management in question was not just hearing the arguments of Thiru T. Fenn Walter and proper. However, the union has remained absent Authorised Representative for the workman and of since the beginning. As such, the present reference Thiru M. Chidambaram fof Thiru P.B. Krishna- stands disposed of. moorlhy. Central Government Pleader for the Management, and this dispute having stood over till P. D. APSHANKAR. Presiding Officer this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the [No. L-160011l790-JR(pU)(Pt:)] following :— 4363 AWARD given any opportunity to face the allegations made against him. It is a case of punishment without This dibpute between the workman and the Manage- following the stipulated procedure. The petitioner ment of Biological Laboratory & Animal House, was appointed by the 2nd Rcsondent, who is superior Ministry of Healih & Family Welfare, Madras arises to 3rd Respondent and the termination by 3rd Res- out of a reference under Section 10(1) (.d) of the pondent is invalid' and inoperative. The Petitioner Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of was undergoing medical treatment at that. time. The India in its Order No. L-12012|112|87-D.II(B), dt. Government Medical Stores Depot is an indutry 16-3-1990 of the Ministry of Labour for adjudica'ion employed 450 employees as defined under section of the following issue ; 2(j) of the Industrial Jjisputes- Act. Th; respondent is engaged in production rind di-tiibuiion of medi- cines and hence the Respondent is engaged in manu- "Whelher the action of Director, Biological facturing processes and it is an industry. The lermi- Laboratory & Animal House, Ministry of nation of service world amount to ict'erchment in Healh nnd Family Welfare, Govt. of Tndia, contravetion of Section 25-F of the Tndus'i'al Dis- Madfas in terminating the services of Shri putes Act. The Respondent failed In if^ue retrench- D. Ramcsh, Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. ment nofice and no retrenchment coiiinerrnt'oo was ]1-4-85 is justified? If not. to what relief offered before tcrniinatigsr him. The Pttirioner was the said workman is entitled to?" draw;ne a salary of Rs. 900!- per nion'h at ihp i'":ne of termination. Hence the claini for reinstatement. 2. The claim Petition averme'jM are as follows : 3. The Respondent in its counter statement states as follows : The Biological Laboratory and The Petitioner entered seivice under the Respon- Animal House, Madras wherein the Petitioner was dent on 23-6-82 as Temporary Lab Attendun. in the employed, is not an industry within the definition of Biological Laboratory, Govi. Medical Stores Depot, industry iii the Industrial Dispues Act. He is gov- Madras as per the Older of appointment dated 9-6-82. erned by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Tlio Petitioner should be on probation for the period constitution. The Laboratory and Airmal House is of six months in the first instance, and it can be ex- an independent organisation under the Directorate tended at the discretion o. the competen authority. Goner?! Health Service, Government of India, New He completed the probation on 22-12-82. There- D'jlhi. The Peti'ioner service is governed by rules after the Petitioner issued an Order dated 28-3-85 framed and notified by t'v Government o< India. As stating that the probation period of wo years was per rules for persons in Group C & D including the extended by one moie year. This order of extending post held by the Petitioner the period nf probation the proba'ion to two years and further beyond is un- is two years. No one is entiled to mod'fy the .said just, improper and illegal. There was some difference rules without the Prior pcrnr'ssion of the Govern- of opinion between the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and ment of Tndia. A cler'cal error has created in the as a result of which there was a strike. The Peti- original order of aonointment issued to the Peti- tioner did not participate in the strike. However, the tioner 3nd he cannot take advantage and claim the Director started ill-treating the Petitioner and l^ore probation is only for six months. The 3rd Respon- grudge against him. The Pe'ition'sr was under the dent has never intimated the Petit'oner that the bona fide impression thtit he had completed his nroba- pcroH n? probation is Six months. The Head Office ticn successfuly on 22-12-82. While so sudden'y he is entitled to extend the period of probation. Thr* received a registered letter da"ed 16-4-85 contninin^ Resnotident submiits that the Petitioner Vmself three letter stating that there was no improvement stated in his letter dated 4-12-84 for confirmation in his performance and the petitioner failed to im- of h;s service after completion of probation of two prove his responsibility, honesty and integrity even years. If no order communicating confirmation is after he was warned several times to be careful in his issued, it must be taken that the probation has not duty and yet he inclined ho will be liable for strict been confirmed. The order extending the probation disciplinary action. The 2nd letter found in cover is is not unjust, improper and illegal. The Petitioner has an office order No. 55 Part II dated 9-4-85 falsely faiiled to give satisfactory performance during his alleging their his letter of explanation dated 8-4-85 period of probation ;n two years. The averments to the memorandum dt. 6-4-1985 was found to be that there is difference of opinion between the 2nd unsatisfactory. Regarding the allegation that certain and 3rd Rscoondents. lis denied. The Petitioner was communication and documents were mVefappd and under the administrative control of 3rd Respondent, tamnered with bv him, is absolutely baseless. Though It is incorrect to state that the Petitioner w?s iJl- his conduct, behaviour integrity was good tVse two treatH by the Director. There is no Justification by letters indicate the various allegations of misconduct the Petitioner to assume that he has been confirmed madrt apainst the Petitioner. Thnse allegations are in service. The 3rd Respondent is the Head of basd'-ss ''nd nrc mnlaftrle fnd the Dw^'or *in«: r^c-'ded Office and the disciplinary au'hority for all urbup to ruin fhe Ex- W-2|9-6-82—-Officer .of temporary appoint- ANNEXURE ment issued to Petitioner-workman for the BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- post of Lab Attendant. DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT BOMBAY. Ex. W-3|9-4-85—Office order No. 57, Part H PRESENT : issued by the Director, Biological Labora- tory and Animal House, Madras. Shri P. D Apshankar, Presiding Officer Reference No. : CGIT-2|27 of 1991. Ex. W-4|9-4-85—Office Order No. 58, Part II —do— PARTIES : The Employers in i elation to the Management Ex. W-5| 11-4-85 Office Order No. , Part "f India Government Mint, Bombay. TI —do— AND Ex W-6|29-3-85—Office Order No. 32, Part II Their Workmen. —do— APPEARANCES :— Ex. W-7|30-4-84—Conduct Certificate issued to For the Employer : Shri B. M. Masurkar Ad- Petitioner-Workman. vocate. Ex. W-8|3O-3-85—Memorandum issued by the For th'j Workmen . No appearance. Directqr, Biological Laboratory & Animal House, Madras-3 to the Petitioner-Work- INDUSTRY . Mint. STATE : Maharashtra man Bombay, dated the 30th September 1991. AWARD For Management: The Gjntiul Government by their order No. Ex. Ml—Confidential report for the vc-ar L~lUn?-"/~i90AR(D\J) data! 9-5-1991 have refer- ending 31-12-83 & 31-12-84 relating' to red dm uu^/wing industrial depute to this Tii^unaJ Petitioncr-vvoikman (xerox copy). for adjudication under icciif-n 10(1 )(d) of ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 19-17, M-2.scries—Unsatisfactory reports relating E\, tm to some of the workers including Peti- \\'\v: her llic -.•e'A'm of tin. management oi tioner-Workman (xerox copy). India Gnvernnic'iH Mint, Bombay, in not '•rornoM'ii(> Mr Aslm'; Vasant Deshpande, Ex. M-3|4-12-84—Letter from Petitioner- Grade I to 'he Po^i of Asst, Mistry w.c t. Workman to the Director, Biological Lab- 1-1-1987, is justified? If not, what relief oratory & Animal House, Mndrus-3 pray- t'ie workman coucejned is entitled to ?" ing to confirm him hi the post of Laborato- ry Attendant, (xerox copy) 2. T'nj JO.:'.;;S jt iliis n-j^rfnce were issued to both the patties. They were duly served on both Ex. M-4—Extract from the Gazette of (he partvs. Thf* rcrri'..^nt"!ivc or t]rj management Tndia, Pait-II Seel ion 3 Sub-Section 6, accordingly ap;">i.\ired iefore this Tribunal on Minrfrv of Health & Family Welfare 7-6-1991, and on the subsequent dates. However, dated 24-2-84 (xerox copy) the General Secretary of the Union, even though he was duly verved the notic-T on 17-5-1991, re- mained absent on 7-6-lc<91, 17-7-1991, 19-8-1901, and on 6-9-1991. Another notice was also issued to the Union, and it was duly served upon <'ie General Secretary on 23-8-1991, Even the nobody from the Union apptared before this Tribunal till today. 3, The burden was unon Ihe Union of 'jrove that the action of the man:nTem'snt in question wai not just and proper. However, the Union hac; re- mained absent since the beg'nning- As such, the pre- sent reference stands disposed off. P. D. APSHANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, he 23th October, 1991 [No. L-16012[7|90-IR(DU)(pt.)] K. V. B. UNNY, Desk Officer SO. 2854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of. the Induslrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal. No . 2, Bombay as .shown in the Annexure, in the indus- trial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of India Govt. Mint, Bombay and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-91- 28"> | GF/iM --8 4366 THE GAZETTE OF VNDIA NOV JLM1JI R 9, J991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. Since the parties before me made copious re- ference to scveial clauses of the said tripartite Settlement, 1 think for convenience, some provisions he quoted as under :— New Delhi, the 25th October, 199J 19.2 By the expression "offence" shall be meant S.O. 2855.—In pursuance of Section 1 7of the any, offence involving moral turpitude for Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (H of 1947), the which an employee is liable to conviction Central Government hereby publishes the award of and sentence under any provision of Jaw. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Calcutta as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial dispute 19.3 (aj When in the opinion of the manage- between the employers in relation to the Mgt. of ment an employee has committed an off- United Commercial Bank and their workmen, ence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, which was received by the Central Government on the bank may tak'e steps to prosecute him the 15-10-91. or get him prosecuted and in such case he may also be stispended. ANNEXCRE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- (b) If lie be convicted, he may be dis- BUNAL AT CALCUTTA missed with effect from the date ot his Reference No. 101 of 1988 conviction oi be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in clause 19.6 PARTIES : below . Employers in relation to the management of (c) It L'e be acquitted, it shall be open United Commercial Bank to the management to proceed against him under the provisions set out below in AND clauses 19.1\ and 19.12 infra relating to Their workmen. discharges. However, in the event ot the management deciding after enquiry not to PRESENT : continue him in service, Ire shall be liable Mr. Justice Manash Nath Roy Presiding only for termination of service wiih three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Officer. And he shall be detuned to have been on APPEARANCES : duty during the period of suspension, it any, and shall be entitled to the Full pay On behalf of management : Mr. H,R. Khan, and allowance^ miaus such svbsi'Ujnce Legal Retainer of the Bank. allowance os he was drjwn and t the offence, the management may then of the debit and credit entries passed through those deal with him as if he had committed an accounts on different dates. It has- also been stated act of "gro88 misconduct" or of "minor that since balancing of various books of the con- misconduct", as defined below; provided cerned branch have not been completed, so the that if the authority which was to start authorities of the Bank were not in a position at prosecution proceedings refuses to do so that stage to confirm whether similar clearing entries or come to the conclusion that there is no made in the said savings bank accounts on earlier case for prosecution it shall be open to dates were also fictitious and it was very likely that the management to proceed against the fraud might have been committed in other accounts employee under the provisions set out below also. It has also been stated that, the books were in clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating being examined and if other frauds or forgeries to discharge, but he shall be deemed to come to light, they will be reported to the Officer have been on duty during the period of Incharge in time. It has also been stated that thus suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to it trinspired that tfie balancing of the books were not to the full wages and allowances and to complete and it has also been stated further that on nil other privileges for such period. In the the basis of the same F.I.R., proceeding is now go- event of the management deciding, after ing on at Special Court before the Metropolitan enquiry, not to continue him in service, Magistrate, Calcutta. he shall be liable only for termination with three month's pay and allowances in 9. It is an admitted fact that the employee con- lieu of notice as provided in clause 19.3 cerned was placed under suspension frocn June, 1981 supra. If within the pendency of the pro- and he was not paid any subsistancc allowance. This ceedings thus instituted he is put on trial has been stated that it was intended to cause harash- such proceedings shall be stayed pending ment to the said employee and to touch him some the completion of the trial, after which lesson economically. It also appears that the emp- the provisions mentioned in clause 19.3 loyee concerned ultimately moved the High Court above shall apply. of Calcutta in its writ jurisdiction, whereupon an order was passed to pay subsistance allowance to 5. [t was alleged that under the above provisions, him and ultimately he received such allowance in if an employee was guilty of committing offence January, 1986. involving moral turpitude, the primary duty of the Bank was to lodge a First Information Report to 10. As indicated earlier the charge-sheet in ttit. Police for ak;ng steps to prosecute him, unless they instant case was issued on 8th October, 1985 con- are followed and complied with, the Bank cannot taining instanced which involved moral turpitude, direcly adopt paragraphs 19.11 and 19.12 Of the but the authorities concerned did not register any Settlement and institute a domestic enquiry, F.I.R, to the Pol'cc like the other one nor they re- ported the same to be in continuation of the previous 6. As alleged the charge-sheet dated 21st October, F.I.R. t985 against the said employee involved moral tur- 11. Mr. P. Sen Eshore, Law Officer of the Bank pitude and the management of the Bank deliberately was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 24th Decem- did not take any steps to prosecute him by lodging ber, 1985 and it hai been alleged that the said en- any First Information Report to Police and as such, quiry was constituted as and by way of"pre-planned such action initiated by the domestic enquiry, without conspiracy to victimise the said employee and the applying; the provisions ofl paragraph 19'.3(a) was whole motive of the Enquiry Officer Was to com- without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to said plete the enquiry in hot-hest and submit his biased settlement and as such, no punishment could be report It was also the allegation that the Enquiry imposed: on the snkl employer and fur'Ti^r-mort en- Officer and the Presenting Officer cormieved in the lire domestic enquiry in the facts and circumstances matter and the action of the Enquiry Officer all of the case should be held to be illegal and without throughout was prejudiced, motivated and biased. jurisdiction. In any event, he did not give the said employee reasonable opportunity to defend his case properly, 7. It would also appear that on or about 18th apart from the fact that natural justice was denied November, 1980, a First Information Report was in his case. lodged by th© Bank to the Officer Incharge of the sai February, 1986- and notice of this enquiry was sent not also considered the medical certmcatei -as produc- through one Manick Mahato. The said empjoyee ed and as admitted by him. It will appear that on has stated that this notice was not received by him consideration of the submission of the Presenting and there was no evidence to show that there was Officer, who denied the fact of the said employee's actual refusal to receive the notice as signatures of illness, the said date was fixed. two persons in terms of para 19.10 of the Bipartite Settlement in case of such refusal, which was it 16. It has been stated that if there was any doubt quired, was not taken. In fact no oher person, about the medical certificate of registered medical excepting the said Shri Mahato has deposed to the practitioner, the Enquiry Oiiiccr could have reien-ed above fact. But the Enquiry Officer, contrary to the matter to the Bank's permanent doctors for their above mentioned paragraph of the said settlement respect or any other doctor of Bank's choice instead failed and neglected to consider the same and thus of acting only on the basis of submissions of the invalidity of the domestic enquiry was provea. Presiding Officer, which again undoubtedly estab- lish prejudice and bias of the Enquiry Officer and 13. The next date of enquiry was fixed on 11th his connievence with the Presenting Officer in victi- March 1986 and notice o*. enquiry of thai daie was mising the said employee. sent to the said employee by registered post, was re- ceived, but the condition of his health was such that 17. Apart from the fact for the admitted position he sent another application on 7th March, 1986 that the Enquiry Officer alongwith the Presenting. asking for one month's time from lltli March, 1986 Officer jointly Visited the house of the said employee on medical ground. This wus accompanied fey to find out the truth or otherwise of his statement, medical certificate! It has been alleged now that there will be no doubt that they were: acting in strange enough, the Enquiry Officer did not try to league with each other for the reasons and purposes verify the validity or otherwise of the said medical as indicated. It has further been stated that under certificate either by a permanent doctor of the Bank, paragraph 19.12(iii) of the Settlement of 1966, a who attend their Head Office everyday or by any chargesheeted employee is entitled to be defended doctor of Bank's choice and he only adjourned the by a lawer with the permission of the Bank, but the case to 18th March, 1986 i.e. for 6 days. The En- Enquiry Officer in ignoring such provisions never in- quiry Officer has also admitted that, this time, the formed the said employee as to whom he should approach for engaging an outside lawyer in the notice in question waa sent to the said employee 1 domestic enquiry and as such, he could have consi- alongwitb the registered letter which was received dered his application dated 17th March, 1986 for by him, but the said employee could not be present" being represented by an outside Lawyer or he could in the enquiry personally in view of his earler incHi- pass any order in regard to his prayer instead that cal certificates and indifferent health, but he sent such order by him was made through inadvertence. a representation through a friend, to the officer con- Jfn fact, it was also been pointed out that there was cerned, praying for allowing him to be defend by no objection recorded in the proceedings by the a lawyer and that too on consideration of the pature Presenting Officer against such representation of the of allegations which were all "offences" under moral said employee by a lawyer and as such the Enquiry turpitude. It has also been alleged that the Enquiry Officer should not have held the proceedings, exparte Officer did not at all consider the request of th.: without passing any order on his application for said employee to be defended by outside lawyer being represented by a lawyer. That being the which was informed by him through the letter dated position, it was claimed that the exparte hearing 28th March, 1986 and fixed 29th March. 1986 a* starting from 29th March 1986 was illegal, arbitrary the next date of hearing. On such, by letter riatwl whioisical and violativ© of natural justice. It was 24th March, 1986, addressed to the Enquiry Officer, stated that in such view of the matter, the said emp1 the said employee explained his reaction on the loyee was not m a position to defend himself duly refusal to be represented by a lawyer and a copy in the enquiry and so the exparte enquiry should be of the said letter was also sent to the disciplinary set aside. authority, but without any effect. 14-Then on 29th March, 1986, the Enquiry 18. From the recorded proceedings it wilj also appear that the Enquiry Officer himself subsequently Officer took the decision to hold the exparte hearing 1 and for that he took necessarv steps. Tn fact said found and relied on a procedure followed by him as exparte hearing was held on 31st March, 1986 and not proper and it was also recorded that although he- few days thereafter. was riven chance to submit reply filed by the Pres^nF- ing Officer on the basis of sich exparte hearing, trie said Enquiry Officer deliberately absented rrWclf _ 15. Tt has been stated that from the above facts on 29th May, 1986 i.e. the date as fixed and ultima- H would be obvious that the said employee ww tely he could not file the written, reply. gjven three dates oniv, by the Enauiiy Officer and that too in contemplation of his nre-planncd con'DJ- 19. Sincte further reference to paragraphs 19.11 rarv tn find 19.12 The procedure in such cases shall be as Discharge in such cases Shall not be-deem- ed to amount to disciplinary action. follows :— (d) If the representative defending the employee (a) An employee against whom disciplinary is an employee of the same Bank at an action is proposed or likely to be taken ; shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting outstation branch with n the same State, forth the circumstances appearing agamst he shall be \\\ic\cd on spec.al leave (on full him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, pay and allowances) to represent the emp- sufficient time being given to him to enable loyee and be paid one return fare. The him to prepare and give his explanation as class of fare to which he will be entitled also to produce any evidence that he may would be the same as while on duty. In wish to tender in his defence. He shall be case of any adjournment at the instance of permitted to appear before the Officer con- the jckinl., he may be asked to resume duty ducting the enquiry, to cross-examine any and if so, will be paid fare for the conse- witness on whose evidence the charge rests quential journey. He shall also be paid 50 and to examine witness and produce other per cent of the halting allowance for the evidence in his defence. He shall also be period he stays at the plncv; of the enquiry permitted to be defended — for defending the employee as also for the (i) (x) by a represen'ative uf a registered trad'c days of the journeys which are undertaken union of bank employees of which he is at the bank s cost. a member on the date first notified for (e) An enquiry need not be held if — commencement of the enquiry; (i) ihc rnir.ctmd'jct is such thai even, if proved the bank docs not intend to award the (y) where the employee is not a member of punishment of discharge or dismissal; any trade union of bank employees on and the aforesaid date, by a representative (ii) the bank has Issued a show cause notice of a registered trade union of employee to the employee advising him of the of the bank in which he is employed; or misconduct and the punishment for which (ii) at the request of the said union by a re- he may be liable for such misconduct; presentatve of the state federation or and all India Organisation to which such (iii) the employee makes1 a voluntary admis- union is affiliated ; or . sion of his guilt in his reply to the afore- (hi) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. said show cause notice. He Shall also be given a hearing as regards the However, if the employee concerned requests nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge a hearing regarding the nature of punish- is established against him. ment, such a hearing shall be given. 19.16 Any notice, order, charge-sheet, communi- (b) Pending such inquiry he may be suspended, cation or intimation which is meant for an indivi- • but if on the conclusion of the enquiry it dual employee, snail be in a language understood by 19 decided to take no action against him the employee Concerned. In the case of an absent he shall be deemed to have been on duty employee notice shall be sent to him by registered and shall be entitled to full wages anil post with acknowledgement due. If an employee allowances and to all other privileges for refuses to accept any notice, order, charge-sheet, the period of suspension; and if some written communication or written intimation in con- punishment other than dismissal is inflict- nection with disciplinary proceedings when It ""is ed the whole or a part of the period of sought to be served upon him, such refusal shall be suspension, may at the discretion of the deemed to be a good service upon him, provided management, be treated as on duty with such refusal takes place in the presence of at least the right to a corresponding portion of two persons ncluding the person who goes to effect the wages, allowances etc. service upon hfcn. Where such notice, order, charge- (c) In awarding punishment by way of discipli- sheet, communication or intimation is sent by regis- nary action the authority concerned shan tered post with acknowledgement due, the same shall take into account 'he gravity of the mis- lit the discretion of the officer of the bank concerned, conduct, the previous record, if any, 6T be deemed to have been duly serve:! upon the • emp- the employee and any other aggravating or loyee, if the same has been refused by the emp- extenuating circumstances, that may loyeo." exist. where sufficiently extenuating circumstances exist the misconduct may be 20. The exparte enquiry was thus claimed to be condoned and in case such misconduct is inconclusive and incomplete. It was also claimed of the "gross" type he may be merely dis- that the Enquiry Officer filed the report with such charged, with or without notice or on character, as such the same was further' claimed payment of a month's pay and allowanced, to be motivated, biased, prejudiced and contrary to m lieu of notice. Such discharge may also the Desai Award and the Bipartite Settlement. Tt be given where the evidence is found to hi was further claimed that there wasr no proof of anv Insufficient to sustain the charge and where fraudulent deal by the said employee an din any event the bank does not, for some reason or the same was not proved beyond any rcasonabfe other, think it expedient to retain the emp- doubt and by any legal evidence. It was claimed loyee in question any longer in service. that the above allegations would also be omDly testified from the recorded evidence of this case. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOVEMBER 9, J991/KARTIKA 18, 1913 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J 21. The said" Bank of course and contended to the contrary and claimed that all necessary and reasonable opportunities werf afforded to the said employee, who elected not to accept them and all his statements as made now are afterthought;,. They denied the allegations of manipulation of the enquiry either by l,he Enquiry Oiiiccr or by him at the ins- tance and connivence of the Presenting Officer. It was maintained that the report of the contravention of wa£ due, proper and made not in contravention of any principles of natural justice and fundamentals oT S.O. 2856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the fairplay. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of 22. It is true that the said employee was to a great the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay extent responsible in having completion of the en- as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute quiry delayed, but that w:-u ncs cxoncra.e the said between the employers in relation to the Mgt. of Bank to rush to the completion of the enquiry, the Bank of India and their workmen, which WHS re- more so when, the reasons as ascribed by the said ceived by the Central Government on 15-10-91. employee could not be tiirown out or brushed aside ANNEXURE in the manner the same has been done or for the; reasons as recorded. It is very difficult to visualise BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT aud agree with the reasons recorded that when sucB INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I AT BOMBAY an ailing employee was in a position to travel 1 K.M. (PRESIDING OFFICER : IUSTICE S. N, to take nis food every day, so how and why he could KHATRI) not attend the enquiry. The capacity to travel 1 REFERENCE NO. CG1T-47 OF 1991 K.M. -n the morning and 1 K.M. in the night for having food and appearing before an enquiry or in PARTIES : face the same cannot be equoted together and placed Employers in relation to the Management nf in the same footing. The Enquiry Officer to :ny mind Bank of India. acted beyond his power and jurisdiction to visit the and said employee's house: alongwith the Presenting Off) Their workmen. cer, if he so wanted, he could have gone Lherc himself alone and not accompanied by the Present- APPEARANCES ing Officer. There was gross viola'ion of the provi- For the Management : Shrl M.M. Shinde, Industrial sions of Bi-partite Settlement in refusing or not Relations Officer- allowing the sa'd employee to be represented by a For the Workmen : None present. lawyer, particularly when he was facing charges of INDUSTRY : Banking STATE : Maharashtra moral uiroi'udc Anv delinquent facing such serious charges may be expected to be loosing his menial Bombay, dated the 30th day of September, 1991 equilibrium and thus such prayer as made in this AWARD casc was not unreasonable and if the same was allow- The Central Government has referred Hie fe'low- ed then there would not have been cause of much Ing industrial dispute Lo this Tribunal under faction delay in completing the enquiry as the same was 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudi- already sufficiently delayer!. Tn anv event, such cation : delay, if any, in a case of the present nature, when "Whether the action of the management of Bunk the said employee should have the feelincr tW of India in relation to it? Pune city branch justice has been duly done iri his case, as not requTf- in withdrawing the stagnation increment ed to be considered. of Shri B.A. Godbole, AELPM operator 23. I feel that the cases cited, not during thi- of Pune city branch in view of clause 14- course of hearing, but In the written argument W stagnation increment of Memo, of settle- the said Bank, will not really help them in the facts ment dated 1-1-36 between Bank of India and Federation of Bank of India staff of the case and more specifically because of the Union is justified. If not, to what relief findings as recorded by me. the workman is entitled to ?" 24. Thus I have no hesitation in answering the 2. The Workman has not cared to put in appea- reference in the affirmative and in favour of the rance on the last two dat;s of hearing and even contentions of the said employee. As a conse- today, although notice has been seived on him quence therefore he should be reinstated in service afresh. Although he ha-i not filed his statement of in accordance with law aM will also be entitled to claim. The Bank have filed their written statement, due legal interest for nil his dues, so long he is rioT submitting that the claim of the Workman has been reinstated. duly satisfied. In the e'reumstances, I dismiss the This is my Award. reference for want of prosecution. There will be no Dated, Calcutta, orders as to costs. The 10th September, 1991. S. N. KHATRI, Presiding Officer MANASH NATH ROY, Presiding Officer [No. L-l 2012|374|90-IR(B 11)1 [No. L-12O12|6|87-D.II(A)] V .K. VENUGOPALAN, Desk Officer Printed by the Mana^r, Govt. or India Frcsti. King Road, New Deihl-H0064 • by •••••'• cf P ] I.I