Holding

Striking off the appellant’s name was a termination of service amounting to retrenchment in violation of Section 25‑F and constituted an unfair labour practice; the tribunal’s award was set aside and the appellant entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

Summary

H.D. Singh was engaged as a daily‑wage "Tikka Mazdoor" by the Reserve Bank of India in 1974 and worked only sporadically. After passing his matriculation exam in 1975, a confidential RBI circular stipulated that such employees would be removed from the list of workers; consequently his name was struck off in July 1976 and he received no further work or written notice of termination. He claimed that the removal amounted to termination and retrenchment in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the bank’s practice of rotating workers constituted an unfair labour practice. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal held the bank’s action lawful, but the Supreme Court set aside that award, holding that striking off the name was a termination of service amounting to retrenchment prohibited by Section 25‑F and that the bank’s method of employment was an unfair labour practice under Schedule V, Item 10. The Court ordered Singh’s reinstatement as a regular Tikka Mazdoor with back wages and costs.

Issues considered

Whether the dispute falls within Section 2‑A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is therefore an industrial dispute.
Whether striking off the appellant’s name from the list of Tikka Mazdoors constitutes termination of service and retrenchment under Section 2(oo).
Whether such termination violates the mandatory provisions of Section 25‑F (and related compensation provisions).
Whether the bank’s practice of rotating workers and denying regular work amounts to an unfair labour practice under Schedule V, Item 10.
Whether the reference before the tribunal was maintainable despite the absence of trade‑union sponsorship.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25-B(2), s. 25-F, s. 2-A, s. 2(oo), s. Schedule V Item 10

Subjects

retrenchmenttermination of serviceindustrial disputeunfair labour practiceSection 25-FTikka MazdoorReserve Bank of Indiadaily wage workerrotation of work

Judgment

842

A
H.D. SINGH
v.
RESERVE BANK OF llIDIA & ORS,

SEPTEMBER 10, 1985
B
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act 1947, sections 2 (oo), 25 F,
Schedule V, Item 10,

c Reserve Bank of India - Employment of Tikka Mazdoor -
Persons helping examiner of coins and notes - Daily rated workers
- Name of worker struck off the rolls after passing matriculation
examination - Whether amounts to 'retrenchment' - Confidential
circular of Bank instructing officers to give work on rotational
basis - Whether an 'unfair labour practice'.

D The appellant wail a tikka mazdoor-person who helps the
Examiners of Coins and notes in the Reserve Banlt of India, the
1st Respondent. Be was selected in 1974 on daily wages basis and
be bad to report to the bank regularly in the morning to ascer-
tain whether he could get work every-day. On daya when no work
was given be had to wait till noon to be told by the authorities
concerned that no work was available. Thus, he bad work only for
E four days in 1974, and one hundred and fifty four days in 1975,
· and one hundred and five days in 1976. At the time he was selec-
ted for employment, he was not a matriculate; Be passed the
matriculate examination in 1975. His name was struck off the list
of Tikka Mazdoors ali the confidential circular issued by the bank
indicated that persona who passed the matriculation examination
F could not be retained in the list.

As the appellant was not given any work after July 1976
and as there were no written order terminating bia service and as
att1111pta to get bia grievances redressed by correspondence having
failed he 111>ved for conciliation. The Assistant J..abour Colllniss-
G ioner though impressed with the genuineness of the claim of the
appellant, could not persuade the bank. Thereupon, the Central
Govermoent referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal.

The appellant in bis claia statelll!llt before the Tribwlal,
H pleaded that he had presented himself for duty daily but vu not
H.D.SINGll V• R.B.I. 843

offered .1obs on the days when he reported for duty for reasons A
best known to the bank, that he was employed for 4 days in 1974,
154 days in 1975 and 105 days in 1976, that he was not told at
the time when he accepted the job that his name would be struck
off from the rolls if he passed the matriculate examination and
that he had worked continuously for 240 days if the Sundays and
Holidays were taken into. account, and that the action of the bank B
in striking out his name from the list am:iunted to retrenchment.

The claim of the appellant was resisted by the Bank
contending that the reference was bad since the dispute was not
sponsored by any representative trade union, that Section 2-A of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not attracted, and also that c
the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute, that the
appellant failed to inform the bank that he had passed the matri-
culation examination after getting selected and that he had not
worked for 240 days in any year.

The Tribunal held that the action of the Reserve Bank, in D
not giving regular appointment to the appellant was legal and
proper and that his name could be struck off from the list of
approved Tikka Mazdoors in terms of a proper and justifiable
policy followed by the management of the Bank;

Allowing the appeal,
E
BILD: 1. Striking off the name of the appellant is clearly
termination of his service and the dispute squarely comes within
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal
grossly erred in upholding the preliminary objection raised by
the Bank. [852 CJ
F
2. Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the
employer am:iunts to 'termination of service' and such termination
is 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Indus-
trilil Disputes Act, 1947 if effected in violation of the manda-
tory provision contained in Sec. 25-F and in invalid. [850 F,
853 F-G] G

Delhi Cloth & General HU.ls Ltd. v. Slumblm Jllath Kukberjee
& 0ra. [1978] 1 s.c.a. 591., State Bank ot India ..,. Sbr1 111.
Sundara Money, [1976] 3 s.c.a. 160., referred to.

In the instant csse, the pleadings, documents and the H
confidential circular indicate that the Bank was determined to
adopt methods to terminate the services .of employees like the
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP:2 s.c.R.

A appellant. 'Die appellant was not told that he would be struck off
the rolls if he psssed matriculation. He was not given any order
in writing either refusing work or informing him that his name
would be struck off the rolls. 'Die appellant's name had been
struck off the list contrary to the mandate contained in Section
25F • [850 E,G]
B
3. 'Die 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act contains
a list of unfair labour practices as defined in sec. 2(ra), and
to employ workmen as 'badlis casual or temporaries and to
continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen' is one of
them as indicated in Item 10. [ 852 F~)
c 4, 'Die Bsn1t has deliberately indulged in unhealthy labour
practice by rotating employees like the appellant to deny them
benefits under the Industrial Law. It is disturbing to find that
the appellant was denied job because he had become better quali-
fied. [853 JH:]

D
In the instant case, the confidential circular directed the
officers that workmen like the appellant should not be engaged
continuously but should as far possible, be offered work on
rotation basis and the case that the appellant is a 'badli'
worker, have to be characterised as an unfair labour practice•
[852 HJ
E
5. Industrial adjudication in bona fide claims have been
dragged on by employers for· years by raising technical and hyper
technical pleas. It would always be desirable for employers to
meet the case of the employees squarely on merits and get them
adjudicated quickly, It is too late in the day for this Court to
alert the employers that their attempt should be to evolve a con-
F
tended labour. [ 853 D-E J .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6417 of
1983.

From the Award dated the 5th April, 1983 of the Central
G
Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in I.D. No. 54 of 1979.

Q,p; Malhotra, N.S. Das Bahl, Pawan K. Bahl and Miss Indu
Malhotra for the Appellant•

Dr. Y.s. Chitale and H.S. Parihar for the respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court wa,s delivered by
H.D.SINGH v. R.B.I. [KHALID, J.] 845

KHALID, J, The appellant was a Tikka Mazdoor with the first A
respondent, the Reserve Bank of India. A Tikka mazdoor is a
person who helps the Examiners of Coins/notes. He was so selected
on daily wages of Rs. 3 as per appointment letter dated
30/4/1974. As per the appointment order he' used to report to the
bank regularly at 9. 30 A.M •. to asc~rtain whether he could get
work on every-day. On days when no work was given to him he had B
to wait till noon to be told by the authorities conceroed that no
work was available on such d~ys. Thus he was given work only for
four days in 1974, One Hundred and Fifty Four days in 1975 and
One Hundred and Five days in 1976. At the time he was selected
for employment, he was not a matriculate. He passed the matri-
culate examination in 1975. At the time he was selected he was c
not told that his name would be struck off the list of Tikka
Mazdoors if he passed the matriculate examination. On 23/7/1976,
he received a letter from the bank asking him to state within a
week (latest by 29/7 /1976) as to what his educational qualifica-
tion was. He was also informed that his name would be struck off
since he had concealed his educational qualification and that his D
services would be terminated without any notice and compensation
from the bank. It appears that Tikka Mazdoors are placed in List
II maintained by the bank. A confidential circular seems to have
been issued by the bank on 27 /6/1976 to the effect that matri-
culates would not be retained in this list. The appellant sent a
reply stating that he was not a matriculate in 1974 when he was
selected and that he passed the examination only in 1975. He
E
enclosed the "certificate and the marks-sheet to prove that he
passed the examination only subsequent to his selection as Tifu
Mazdoor.

2. The appellant was not given any work after July 1976.
There is no written order terminating his services. The represen-
F
tative of the first respondent admitted, while he was cross-
examined, that no formal order intimating the appellant that his
name was struck off the list was issued; His father was also an
employee of the bank. He knew that the appellant's name had been
removed permanently .from the list of Tikka Mazdoors. Thereupon,
both his father and the appellant made representations to the
G
bank against the action taken. No reply was given to these repre-
sentations. When his attempt to get his grievances redressed by
correspondence failed, he moved for conciliation. The Assistant
Labour Commissioner appeared to be impressed with the genuineness
of his case, but his persuation did not move the bank in his
favour. Thereupon, the Central Goveroment made a referene by
H
Notificati<in dated 19/9/1979, for adjudication of the following
dispute
.
to Central Goveroment Industrial
' .
Tribunal, New Delhi.
~
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A·
''Whether the action of the Management of Resene Bank
of India, Kanpur, in striking off the name of Shri
H.D. Singh from the list of approved Tikka Mazdoors
•
from July, 1976, is justified and legal? If not, to
what relief the workman in question is entitled?"

3. The appellant in his claim statement pleaded as follows:

(i) He had presented himself for duty daily, but was not
offered jobs on the days when he reported for duty for
reasons best known to the bank;

(ii)'. He was employed only for four days in the year 1974,
c 154 days in 1975 and 105 days in 1976;

(iii) He was not told at the time when he accepted the JOb
that his name would be struck off from the rolls if he
passed the matriculate examination.

(iv) He pleaded mala fides, in that persons similarly placed
D
like him wh6 had become matriculates after selection •
had been retained in service and that he alone was
discriminated against;

(v) He stated that acquisition of high qualification should
never have been used against him to deny him his job;
E
(vi) ·He had worked continuously for 240 days if the Sundays
r" and holidays are taken into account;

(vii) The action of the bank in striking out his name from
the list amounted to retrenchment.
F
4. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the bank
raising both preliminary legal objections and factual objections.
It was contended that the reference was bad since the dispute was
not sponsored by any representative trade union, that Section 2-A
was not attracted and also that the dispute in question was not
an industrial dispute. On merits, the claim was resisted with the
G
plea that the appellant failed to inform the bank that he had
passed matriculation examination after getting selected and
secondly that he had not worked for 240 days in any year.

These rival contentions were considered by the Tribunal and
it was held as follows:
H.D.SINGH,v. R.B.I. [KHALID, J.] 847

" ••••••• Tue action of the Reserve Bank of India, A
Kanpur, in not giving regular appointment to Shri
H.D.Singh is held to be legal and proper and his name
could be struck off from the list of approved Tikka
Mazdoors in terms of a proper and justifiable policy
follwed by the ma'18.geinent of the Reserve Bank of India,
Kanpur. Mr. l!.D. Singh is held not entitled to any ll
relief."

It is against this award that the appellant has come up to this
Court by special leave.

5. Before considering the questions involved in this appeal, C
it would be appropriate to extract in full the Memorandum issued
by the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur, ·which lays down the terms
and conditions of service of a Tikka Mazdoor.

MEMORANDUM
ll
No. ·6602 Dated: 30th April, 1974.

From: Reserve Bank of India To: Shri Harindra Dhl.aj
Kanpur. Singh, C/o Shri B.D.
Singh, C/N Examiner
Gr. ll, R.B.I.,
Kanpur. E

With reference to his application dated 31/7 /73, Shri
Harendra Dhwaj Singh is informed that the Bank is prepared to
offer him the post of a Tikka Mazdoor on the following terms and
conditions:
F
i) He should call at the office of the bank by 9.30 A.M.
on every working day to asce~tain whether he would be
offered employment on that day and he should leave only
i f he is advised that he will not be ·offered any
employment on that day.
G
ii) For each day he is employed by the bank, he will be
paid a consolidated daily wage of Rs. 3 and will not be
entitled to any allowance or Other remuneration.

iii; His hours·of duty, if employed, on any day would, for
the present, be from 9.30 A.M. to 5.15 P.M. which hours H
of duty are liable to be altered without notice •

.i
l
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

iv) In case he does not present himself for employment on
A
five consequtive working days without first having
obtained prior permission his appointment will be
liable to be terminated without any notice.

v) His appointment is subject to his being found medically
fit for service in the bank by the bank's medical
officer.

vi) He will be required to comply with and obey all orders
and directions which may from time to time be given to
him by any person or persons under whose jurisdiction,
superintendence or control he may for the time being be
placed.
c
vii) He should maintain the strictest secrecy regarding the
bank's affairs and serve the bank honestly and loyally.

viii) lie should produce at the time of reporting for duty
satisfactory evidence of having obtained a proper
release from his pesent appointment 1 i~ any.
" ix) lie should produce at the time of reporting for duty a
letter of introduction from a respectable person.

x) He should produce at the time of reporting for duty
E sufficient proof of his age and educational qualifica-
tions and also bring with him the original
certificates. Copies of which were attached to his
application.

xi) The appointment will be subject to his furnishing such
F information as the bank may reqtiire from tim~ to time
and subJect to his service being acceptable in the
light of the information furnished.

xii) If any declaration, statement or information given by
him is at any time fowid-to be false o~ incorrect or if
G any material particular is omitted, his appointment
· will be liable to be terminated forthwith without any
notice.

xiii) The present appointment will not confer on him any
right for a temporary post. or permanent post in the
H
bank's service.

1-
H.D.SINGH v. R.B.I. [KHALID, J.] 849

2. If he is agreeable to opt for casual appointment on daily A
wages on the above terms and conditions, he should report to the
Manager's Section on or before the 4th May, 1974.

Sd/- B.N. Rohatgi
P. Manager.
B
A mere reading of this Memorand= shows how rigorous and
one-sided the conditions are for a job that fetches a 'handsome'
s= of Rs. 3 per day. It is useful to note that this Memorand=
does not contain any terms that a Tikka Mazdoor will be struck
off the rolls once he passed the. matriculate examination.
c
6. During the course of the submissions made by the appellant's
Counsel, he referred to a confidential communication· issued by
the Bank.to its officers to deal with Tikka Mazdoor. We think to
it appropriate to extract the relevant portion therefrom, so that
the facts of the case can be understood.in the proper setting.
D
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

CENTRAL OFFICE
Department of Administration & Personnel

Bombay - 400 001. . E

Ref. No. 4953/23H/75-76. 26th June, 1976.

Confidential.

The Manager, F
N.eserve Bank of India,
Ahmedatiad/Bhubaneshwar/Bangalore/
llombay/Vyculla/Bombay-8/Calcutta/
Gauhati/Hyderabad/Jaipur/Kanpur/
Madras/Nagpur/New Delhi/Patna.
G
Dear Sir,

Recruitment-Class IV-Mazdoors and
'fikka Mazdoors.

.........• .. H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] sUPP;2 s.c.R:.

A "5, As regards Tikka Mazdoors other than those referred to in
paragraph 4 above, born on the lapsed list i.e. those who have
not worked at all or who have worked for a lesser period than 240
days during the preceeding 12 calendar months, the
non-matriculates among them only may be considered for inclusion
in List II allowing them appropriate relaxation in age having
B regard to the period of service, if any, rendered by them and
their past record, if their number is not considered adequate to
meet the requirements of your off ice, additional fresh candidates
may be' wait-listed in the usual manner. In order to keep the
candidates so wait-listed outside the scope of Section 2(oo) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, they should not hereafter be engaged
continuously but should, as far as possible, be offered work on a
C rotation basis. The latest position regarding their quali~ication
and when any of them is found to have passed the matriculation or
equivalent examination, his name should be struck off the list•

6. Please let us know in due course the action taken by you in
the matter along with particulars of Tikka Mazdoors wait-listed
in Lists I an~ II,"
D
7. It is clear from the pleadings and from the documents noted
above how the respondent-bank managed to get rid of the
appellant• The disclosures made in the confidential circular make
our task easy in holding that the Bank was determined to adopt
·methods to terminate , the services of the employees like the
E appellant• The appellant was not told that he would be struck off
the tolls if he passed the matriculation. He was not given any
order in writing either refusing work or informl,ng him that his
name would be struck off the rolls. The case of the bank is that
he was orally informed that his name has been struck off,
Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer
F amounts to 'termination of service and such termination is
retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act if
effected in violation of the mandatory provision contained in
'Section 25-F, and is invalid. In this case the facts need only to
be stated to hold that the petitioner's name had been struck off
the list contrary to the mandate contained in Section 25-F. This
G Court has held in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. V• Shambhu
!lath Mukherjee & Ors. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 591, that striking off
the name from the rolls by the management is retrenchment within
the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. While reading Section
25-F, 25-B and Section 2(00), Krishna Iyer, J, in State Bank of
India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, '[1976] 3 s.c.R. 160, has
H observed that the words 'for any reason whatsoever' occurring i.n
H.D.SINGH v. R.B.I. [KHALID, J.] 851

Section 2(oo) are very wide and almost admitting of no exce.ption. A
It was made clear that a comprehensive definition has to be
effectuated tb protect the weak against the strong in construing
the ambit of the words contained in Section 2(00). Pithily he
observed that 'without further ado, we reach the conclusion that
if the workman swims into the harbour of Section 25-F, he cannot
be retrenched without payment, at the time of· retrenchment, B
compensation computed as prescribed therein read with Sec.
25-B(2)."

8. That takes us to the question whether the appellant had
qualified himself to sustain his claim to the benefits of Section
25-F. The appellant, as we will presently see, has given the c
number of days on which he worked, in his claim statement. The
first respondent-bank arranged posting Tikka Mazdoors, like the
appellant, in such a manner that they were denied the benefits of
the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the first respondent-bank
disputed the fact that the appellant had worked for sufficient
number of days to entitle h1in to claim remedies under the Act, D
we think it necessary to refer to the facts as disclosed in the
records. The Advocate who appeared for the appellant before the
Tribunal, Shri R.N. Srivastava, has filed an affidavit in this
Court stating that he had filed written arguments before the
Tribunal explaining the mistake committed by the Bank in the
computation. made by it of the number of working days of the
appellant. From this affidavit, it is seen that the. first
respondent-bank put forward a case that the. attendance register
for the month of July, 1976 had been destroyed and that Sundays
and other holidays were not taken into account in computing the
number of days that the appellant worked. We have also a supple-
mentary affidavit filed by the appellant himself which throws
further light about the number of days that he worked. In this F
affidavit, it is seen that he worked for 4 days inl974, 154 days
from January 1975 to December 1975 and 105 days from January 1976
to July 1976. The appellant was denied work from July 1976. His
affidavit shows that he had· worked for 202 days from July 1975 to
July ·1976. According to him, if we add 52 sundays and 17 holi-
days, the total number of days on which he worked comes to 271 G
days. The appellant charged the Bank with having tampered with
the records. To contradict the appellant's case, the first
respondent bank did not produce its records. The appellant wanted
the relevant records to be filed but they were not produced.
Grounds 18 to 20 of the special leave petition make mention of
this plea of the appellant. These grounds are met by the first H
respondent bank in their counter affidavit filed in this Court by
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A stating that "when the matter was before the Industrial Tribunal,
the registers in question were filed in another case before the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and produced in that Court.
However, I subnit that now the attendance register has been
destroyed· but the payment registers are available with the
respondent-bank as proof of the number of days on which the
B appellant worked." In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, we have necessarily to draw the inference that · the
appellant's case that he had worked for more than 240 days from
July, 1975 to July, 1976, is true.

Striking off the name of the appellant under these circum-·
stances is clearly termination of his service and the dispute in
C this case therefore squarely comes within Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal grossly erred in upholding
the preliminary objection raised by the bank that the dispute did
not come within Section 2-A.

9. Not being sstisfied with the pleas noted above the respon-
dent-bank had also a case that the appellant was only a badli
D workman who could be deemed to have worked only on days when the
permanent workman or probationer was not employed. The bank did
not make available before the Tribunal any documentary evidence
to show as to how the appellant could be treated as a badli
worker and as to whose place he occupied during the days he
worked.
E
The confidential circular directing the officers that
workmen like the appellant should not be engaged continuously but
should as far as possible, be offered work on rotation basis and
the case that the appellant is a badli worker, have to be charac-
terised as unfair labour practice. The 5th Schedule to the Indus-
F trial Disutes Act contains a list of unfair labour practices as
defined in Section 2(ra). Item 10 reads as follows:

"To employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries
and to continue them as such for years, with the object
of depriving them of the status and privileges of
G permanent workmen. "

We have no option but to observe that the bank, in this case, has
indulged in methods .amounting to unfair labour practice. The plea
that the appellant was a badli worker also has to fail.

H 10. We thought it necessary to refer to the factual details in
the case only to show our concern at the manner in which the
H.D.SINGll v. R.B.I. [KllALID, J.] 853

employer in this case, the Reserve Bank of India, who should set. A
a model for other employers being a prestigious institution,
behaved towards its employees. It must have been his helpless
condition and abject poverty that forced the appellant to accept
a job on RS. 3 per day. Still see how he hss been treated. We
will not be far from truth i f we say that the Bank hss deli- B
berately indulged in unhealthy labour practice by rotating
employees like the appellant to deny them benefits under the
Industrial Law. It has disturbed us to find that the appellant
was denied job because he had become better. qualified. Perhaps
the Reserve Bank of India· and its office.rs are not aware of the C
grave unemployment problem facing the youth of this country and
also not aware of the fact that graduates, both boys and girls,
sweep our roads and post-'graduates in hundreds, if not in
thousands, apply for the pasts of peons. It has been our sad
experience to find employers trying to stifle the efforts of
employees in their legitimate claims sei.king benefits under the
Industrial Law by tiring them out in adjudication proceedings D
raising technical and hyper technical pleas. Industrial ad.iudi-
cation in bone fide claims have been dragged on by employers for
years together on such pleas. It would always be desirable for
employers to meet the case of the employees squarely on merits
and get them adjudicated quickly. This would help industrial
peace. It is too late in the day for this Court to alert the
employers that their attempt should be to evolve a contented . E
labour. We do not forget at the same time the fact that it is
necessary for the labour also to reciprocate to prevent indus-
trial unrest. In this case, for example, the Bank should have
treated the appellant as a regular hand in List 11. Instead, the
!lank has, by adopting dubious methods invited from us, remarks
which we would have normally avol.ded.
~ F
11. We hold that the appellant is entitled to succeed. We set
aside the order of the Indus trial Tribunal and hold that the
striking off the name of the appellant from List lI amounted to
retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act and was in violation
of Section. 25-F. We direct the first respondent-bank to enlist
the appellant as a regular employee, as Tikka Mazdoor, to
reinstate him and pay him his back wages up-to-date. The appeal G
is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.